Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-04-01 Council Packet
/Fe3*7l KENAI CITY COUNCIL — REGULAR MEETING APRIL 1, 2009 7:00 P.M. KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS http://www.ci.kenai.ak.us ITEM A: CALL TO ORDER 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Consent Agenda 5. *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. ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (10 minutes) 1. Charles Winegarden -- Application/Establishment of MAPS Special Zone......... 2. Becky Espy/Colleen Ward -- Establishment of MAPS Special Zone .................. ITEM C: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 minutes) ITEM D: REPORTS OF KPB ASSEMBLY LEGISLATORS AND COUNCILS ITEM E: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker.) 1. Ordinance No. 2393-2009 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Approximately 22 Acres Located North of the Kenai Spur Highway From McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek From Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial(LC)............................................. 17 2. Ordinance No. 2394-2009 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $45,501 in the Airport Fund and by $1,820,000 in the Runway Improvement Capital Project Fund for Additional Phases of the Airport Apron Pavement Rehabilitation Project............................................................ 443 3. Ordinance No. 2395-2009 -- Increasing Revenues and Appropriations by $2,415,000 in the Airport Apron Rehabilitation --Stimulus Fund for the Grant Funds Awarded Through the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) StimulusPackage"......................................................................................... 444 4. Resolution No. 2009-08 -- Awarding the Bid to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Dry Sprinkler System Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of$49,574.00.................... ............ ...................................... 445 (Clerk's note: Resolution No. 2009-08 was postponed at the March 18, 2009 council meeting related to request for further explanation of difference between amounts bid.) S. Resolution No. 2009-09 -- Awarding the Bid to World Wide Roofing 8a Construction, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of$94,297.00...................................................................... 448 (Clerk's note: Resolution No. 2009-09 was postponed at the March 18, 2009 council meeting related to protest of bid award submitted on March 18, 2009.) 6. Resolution No. 2009-12 -- Approving a Contract to North Star Paving & Construction, Inc. for the Project Entitled South Ames Road and Basin View Way Paving LID - 2009 for the Total Amount of$223,658.32............................. 450 7. Resolution No. 2009-13 -- Demonstrating Support for and Willingness to Work with the Kenai Watershed Forum on Three Fish Passage Projects Within theCity of Kenai............................................................................................ 452 8. Resolution No. 2009-14 -- Approving a Contract to Alaska Roadbuilders, Inc. for the Project Entitled Kenai Municipal Airport Runway Safety: Taxiways F, G, and H Lighting, Grading, and Drainage - 2009 for the Total Amount of $451,676.00 Which Includes the Basic Bid and Additive Alternate .................... 453 9. *Liquor License Transfer -- From Foodtown Liquor, Inc. d/b/a Kenai Country Liquor to Country Liquor, LLC, d/b/a Country Liquor ...................................... 456 ITEM F: MINUTES 1. *Regular Meeting of March 18, 2009................................................................ 459 2. *March 10, 2009 Kenai City Council Work Session Notes .................................. 478 ITEM G: UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM H: NEW BUSINESS 1. Ratification of Bills......................................................................................... 479 2. Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding$15,000.............................................. 480 3. *Ordinance No. 2396-2009 -- Amending the Kenai Municipal Code with the Addition of Chapter 10.40, Entitled, "Release of Public Records" and "Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections" ......................................... 482 4. Approval -- Assignment of Lease -- Dennis D. Linnell, Eugene C. Chase, Harold R. Smith, and Robert E. Gerdon, Jr., d/b/a DEHR-Joint Venture to Dennis D. Linnell, Dennis R. Linnell and Betty J. Smith, d/b/a DEHR Joint Venture/Lot Seven (7), Etolin Subdivision, Second Addition ................................................. 498 ITEM 1: COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REO- 1. Council on Aging 2. Airport Commission........................................................................................ 509 3. Harbor Commission....................................................................................... 4. Library Commission....................................................................................... 5. Parks & Recreation Commission.................................................................... . 6. Planning & Zoning Commission...................................................................... 512 7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees a. Beautification Committee........................................................................... - b. Alaska Municipal League Report................................................................. -- c. Mini -Grant Steering Committee.................................................................. d. Advisory Cemetery Committee.................................................................... e. Kenai Convention & Visitors Bureau........................................................... -- f. Salmon Task Force..................................................................................... 519 ITEM J: REPORT OF THE MAYOR ........................................................ -- ITEM K: ADMINISTRATION REPORTS 1. City Manager................................................................................................. 2. City Attorney.................................................................................................. 3. City Clerk...................................................................................................... 523 ITEM L: DISCUSSION 1. Citizens (five minutes) 2. Council ITEM M: PENDING LEGISLATION (Items listed below are legislation which will be addressed at a later date as noted and are not action items for this meeting.) Ordinance No. 2362-2008 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Tract A, Papa Joe's Subdivision, Chumley Replat From Rural Residential 1 (RRI) to Limited Commercial (LC). Ordinance No. 2365-200S -- Amending KMC 1.80.010 by Increasing the Mayor's Salary From $900 to $1,000 Per Month and Council Members' Salaries From $400 to $500 Per Month. (Clerk's Note: Ordinance No. 2365-2008 was tabled to the first meeting in July, 2009, to allow for further consideration of a salary increase during the budget FY10 budget process.) Ordinance No. 2347-2008 - Repealing the Existing KMC 1.15.040 and KMC 1.15.050(c) Regarding Preparation, Distribution and Publication of the Agenda and Replacing Them with a New Section KMC 1.15.040 Entitled, Agenda and Packet - Development -Preparation -Distribution -Publication -Late Materials. (Clerk's Note: Ordinance No. 2347-2008, Substitute B was moved for adoption at the January 21, 2009 Council Meeting and subsequently tabled, no time certain. Within 60 days, items from the ordinance are to be incorporated into a suggested policy as well as an ordinance identifying those items to codify.) EXECUTIVE SESSION -- None Scheduled. ITEM N: ADJOURNMENT INFORMATION ITEMS APRIL I, 2009 1. 4/1/2009 Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000 for council review............................................................................................................ 2. 3/11/09 letter from the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development with revised City of Kenai 2008 population (7,134)........ 3. 3/25/09 Public Works Department, Project Status Report ................................. 4. 2/2009 City of Kenai Municipal Airport Enplanements..................................... Page No. 527 528 529 531 The McCollum/Magic, Aliak, Princess, andSpur (MAPS) . _ sensitive • r oRsafety historically residential 4...!..l development. . area is bordered by the Kenai Spur Highway and an Education Zone i major schools with ' !' educational a ' i, zoningimprovements. A special district, which will be called the MAPS Special Zoning District, is necessary . and ,! created !. 1 W 1 1. Preserve safety 2. HonorDeal" 3. Comply with the 2003 i commercial"` i from I Area Defined * f ve nt ^ eight original parcels are � listedon the attached table and bordered by the City Conservation par#04500 9 on «the west }# McCollum Drive ■ 2 2^: east ad from the Kenai Spur Highway on he ouch to the Kenai Peninsula Borough parcel \ ¥501010onthe North. The y y<\bdividin or further subdivid of any or all identified parcel will in 20 way affect any provision of the special zonine district which shall remin full force and effect. / � ©h MAPS Special\o in District is a special zone developed to address this unique hub. » MAPS Specil\■?ng District promotes responsibly sensitive development which b4\\ supports the saet? of all participants of v:eeducational activities and preserves h residential en iro nm »§ #\{ e area The specific intent of the zone is to I 1. Provide for a love density blend of: a. Primarily residential development . Educational and or related uses c. Select love impact commercial development 2.Pro ibit uses which would: a. Violate the residential character b. Generate heavy traffic c. Encourage unauthorized and dangerous highway crossings I s allowed n Land Use Table including the pey:—exceptionslinea e n footnote \\ addressing the following: ■f. Parcel X04501007allows additional "Principle Permitted Uses" .<l z:.a.. Colleges, , +:< Schools, Government #ilding< High Schools, Museums, Parks and Recreation, < Boarding \e»s� �:f�\«». Houses., Parking Lots .Parcel #04506025 allows additional "Principle Permitted Uses" - Professional Offices a. 60% maximum lot coverage b. Consistently comply with surrounding zone requirements c. [maximum structure footprint of 4,500 square feet . Commercial traffic routed through and from Kenai Spur Highway e. Line of site buffering f. Harmonious external design 4.Parcels #04506013, 04506014, and 04506016 allows additional "Principle Permitted Four Family Dwellings Ce 0 CD �, +�► � i i • MAPS Special Zoning District MAPS Special Zoning District $i i ff N cw i 1 u ,P6Ro74#n i E cf X lk S >5 Ff CLYf}Y9 r.i•X € SCHOOL <z a 1 -3ilW a.Iki:Pidt4 .4 =di 4ti:NDRL't ;a 'ix6Es. xf LFH.: N K4 2.010 Land Use Table -'MAPS Special Zoning, District __LAND USS MAMi ":e Qwcdang ,M, - P,,,, Famf� Dwell nl Pii�Oweilin�_. V�HMel C ;.'.,ama�UWCi6ng. N h oqn Fi mji 6weiGnq tr_. _ _ses __ 1`o,To,,gie _ Park T N iryamad nd RESldenaai DeveVn a�neif<� 1_ Aulometive Sales M1 _ Aulo"Awe SenwCc Stations N Banks Bus4ness;Consu, re C"ices k _ Guide Senikes - - _ N_ Hotefa'M_olels� — Professional 6Poces _ = Reslauraivs _ Retaa 8t4in,4Ss .?="- ; .— N WholesaeBusfness T N i haalroslOommarcfal Recreation �% .... Artporis & Reialed Uses �— -.� '� AutomrNwe Report N r'Sc Mensiz !mfn�'S!Qra E .. _—_. MgnUraillLnn[��aL*-`i@bngl Mirn stony. FaCiaY Stofage Yard - N N N V;arela;uscs N N $ MAP$ Charitable institutions N Churdms Pro .. c.Nnics._.__ Fkmen!a�Schonls' �__ Govenoemai Bmikimas tie ��_ Na? Hasg@eIs' Museums ^! Psks & Relearn, s eel 4Nu C _A Animal Boardin ^�_ _ Bed & BreaklieAs - N _ Cabin Rentals --�,N, i r+ -Cemeteries CrematnriesFueer Horocs __-ai D Care Cen1wCenters 7• _ _ Du maa> resJBuanmu HOL15Ee N:x sentiai Services fame! General Ago-ultu're Greenhousutree Nurseres Gunsmittryr� Pnnorrp Taxdtn� , ..-{f"-N__ 'N A5sembhes Grouses, Fa rsf Cralamol Orpan�=ai�any'Privflie '— ,µfnbs4Snl Hans & Un m Hias Nursing. Conralescem qr Rest Names i N� N _ Parkina,Oi. ,Street ° Palo-, P iblic Los Persona! Services Par,tarTV lianslnflt2t51Ca11 $ilCS""_ N Recreational vetele FalkS N ._. ..__...._...�.._—_.. A SuAac4 Exuac!vec`NaNrat Resau€cos Surface ExtrtSCYlon o(NflluCa! Re6arRCkS N N &ccS:V S'V1 :9R2viA 1pvain�d l3sx it 1i ..a>x<Po ;Andabpi S<e t�;2ittenTunuMfnrts rtG h(ITilE.4v= and;ni Seo. Ly i + ,"suin 5 Mad. nnde: CAC -_±. MIDort9: I dppucd as aic �nadary wtexcept on the graund lM:rnR'-><p.ffinfllit bgildSnC Crantir+g ua coltxiw sveetx and mlmMiln-t al,sbieh fal!s+mdei the t s pi.+nrkit, q¢n.. is}Pr nnmsof Kmf I A:. Phil -nit any a-rg mcs in lh Ivd'll g6anc Cam, (q shiglc-Ginik reiidenee Itt parcel, eIIkh is pan of the mall boildhig. 3 Ai1meamaoll,iIcesai to Imilbirg the fo9matp mdlvuE a. The enable Wren per'I.Pl g ur:h'holl Iw Iix sonic w tool eq.bld Ca dweRicp unhp in it, FS av , h. The sn s n e t fir We 111 ttt ollil be xpp n d F: Ito Cdi" tir sstt+r,; e Ylei e,,,.d It a 01, Mr It t'1 r)u'I!ii and otha tit,elc, a, re,j"Mole , hd is 11 t £A.Pe . s for p,;,,t IpSI 4t4<f, m IFR R_it FGrT- d. w"v anl I'lel la.-,ii 'Ibi,11 roc 'bi reya'e,reies of ail xpPi n_hl h :dih cp liel o Thep,»poseddx.-igq..rr nalari:.rte_"Ideml¢lxrtoatestri dcsbebihly.,d"Ibi"`,ill be iq lyrgmn: +iihole efoio,l orl.. mrmr 1 r;gh"ertieo_ In' w9{ nm id�e.v:l, v c i 5 1 of uidlnp pmixrt Ale, i i'Iv hildinv cal4-. wellto,redcuai qx v-: smi tvmxra ssn ¢oxif.uog, 1:4e npnt 1, ittre ' corc_,+m 1 aau.rties g lbele slab Ix Pro, id,,4 sx pan If Ill, popo d A.. pmei i ittl ie ct ai n etrem to serve Iht ,iec i 'fill, imifleipmed pppalat{ol h 1bextlapm vi ,:lntp fi t ahme Ifind' n vs ofA -npxit fill "Wilhtht ac s 'le", a.. A_titud; I- lh folp,,tIditelol ; the pmr" „d.< li 1, Itnap will M Pa N1 "i'll 11 lok ed G See' i Mn+ src1Mn k5 scc'*�toNi tl to 9-sez ro+ P mI eaas ee, l.++alie lhle-to't[6 I ..t n¢ip,midlIo-,, lIly n.>.iltio pekthe FJw. Alhn gn.nmeas Sec' Pl i d In t 9"ie 1 I I-l... , 1 cede (8- Aac e,+. ,� a wN riana u e, pnrvided Thai ne, a Moved tiletion and the cha I rM1l e_ of I✓ti s iR .i nm di n + d',ow ,'+r w,, of tte na�,:ethood. 19 \ilr. star C l xl ua pm d nfht Ituo0 Pp tyl+ie ,t III,x I1 i Iip, ivddRi m,,ofv+6d! -vl tdr r+h—Ihm ITtw xi S n g_,, e 'P}lite III Amend IIooidi una .1, Ct idin nn Pat if to, mli Wilig, I, ertted chic than trmtp (AO) ..n anp ado nrop,ttrt,llit placid lnx u'I prev;ded ronhcr that lhf pr xmi ;,,ovilins d h i illit s ron- lite ,41mmalarse11 afli the i lli deltileprWof lhx Iloc p A tillee, Al> >. aat r rr idlf den tht frin Ili eodi ne lv "PI,,edloal>n of iI sod e n d haa_c ceI the kc .l m mxe s-. li W, the p t, p 4it' ,dc t m 111 l0i ry-k ill,,li 4 ,l, lem Ieoedmp eml.`6 1, d ,pnbi i H µ 'illo xc s It tend .ro, at urt 1101 ioxd Ihsl selbull Willi st ps n"d tole" "" 'b'" pro, ad"Itc ,i x<t e"k _`„n t i + . n9-i Wes M n vie,. _ i, sn Nny t¢ q�trUes T`a �Co1111i'wA 4.11 fx f-Ihri ndrt o lice we}1,% ful-.lilt mqurc ii. Id e111a 'I I eorx! Yo sl a a kild ii'sI, i eeb", of d-t,! la nvdaai fram the "lglor P of m rroare. 15 411a Pr i&d1'-$ 011 oil xmg.matortt, to otc 3 Hack led loitr Inp 1111 w-ihin, ilovi illel shallh ptr id dh, i< PIii Ille . acniini: cta ib. s LIMA %xetnn i, fi .iael i..-Amg rt h u. ShIll be (laud ie preveo ,iffl, bvarkou , Olk ltl �16. Ste c,"Joi d S - tlo - i2 }llIk i 11t<eP a S ¢�f 7u fheiu of It t s: h.e �I&. Coe6 n.{„+nllewri rInvnTic'+Idp,niw.o, No, VII'd m+pcv l,a +ii„,1.. j19- lVellt 1, Cl1. .c 7 NA ih> 2Q. -he a, ,.ert ololed —1 lifl O nnt6r Il - ale au "tip. if -+coda renew I C, Y. 4C 1420 MOW ev-<pt that f, pmtx.,-<. caolu: e. +o..¢a Its r. ..i +i lb"s, i cni r 9 nor, to ¢`.s pe,fq part FAA'III veil az .'!.led in I.k.l f :, ii 1, it,- i td m lh.i I. ,, l2eeli, i F .i i h, Ill I I I I IU AM1 d.ti« !—'I - t .hap.n _tad sei 1xEDn F anll -h e h s of tt_:. Ig M." tto sr m,. itsthe FT', z+nc +c _d .r.,< Ill,' Wfa�i,.i II e e - 4 i w I m ,itct —shot,,pn + ! µ ap ft.hop i 'Pee 11w id Mr_rS m i -.g All 1,li rivers. is+ dr ,..kit, dafxrs i f .,flitt< fib", " me ll t be, 5-U lWitill. 11.1bit" be-gletio, r x fmi r dre ovok, A d , dowm aq41 tii 11, t ru!.,11 Slot cei x s {'unngrafs .,m rc eri s- n ^A wbr,. 'I'd rot 5,. de �ixs ip s.Ioih,TSH zo!Iai,,,p i ae Ii. d+ Hill. t �x- Taxi s*. ace ,u+a1 ....ia swrtpi. ., eunan h�i_cf Inue:_anf tri ,+. nih_p r 14.22,020 General Requirements - MAPS Special Zoning District USIRS MARS 1MI MMUM LOT VrIDTIl _40 _ (feet_-._-- MIMTNILiM LOT SIZEI'T. et) Dili I Side One Stores 15 Daylight Basement/ 15 Split Level } i Two -Story' I5 20— 1 Rear — Maximum Lot Coverage J J 335 b4axanum Hel�t�feet) — � J 35 F oolnotes� 1h lRv.d-bed Olal lh<minimnm€ram seihackomC`Laured fe•m em right+,frv+ur WceeF.a easement tg) c',rk xt`.acks atc det¢rmincd indtpandenlic from the from+ie++ of the etru hue. NO pian.'.Aa hwh ails disc ngt kh smgk a,,l 1,.0smn- o,.ph-.nt ofb.ildiop rc verify s<th3:k t Lii KS &re Me`. c i } titorx t4 hat J JLpn ora �a i h „ineivde i V. _. <hc vpp (a z t mt fl r avd [6c upne xurfuee e(th ti r vs �t, e th. cciting pnc no; c dzfincd Ws s skn) hoeing dit"I ac,ens (om grade letcl without a ll—,U wq A structure hnvinq A loW et xiory sm_ a.ed helo., a. no-su n s, considered a ore.nor tmdure n{s er �reA' T 'o-etr sdef"O4, stcn Plts n•rt9tar eh lf[1 11whclglt nc�l crstan 11 xrtat¢d nbo e gnde ppyiighl hosemenVsplit 1 ri is der.nd a on in - itt, Ic s ibm ne Wfl I ih .e!ghl ofthe Io ver st, it iwwd .1I,,e gad Fnr purpmo Jfthese foile.srs.Lunde Is hto-oasthe 1m.ext pow, fdc,amofibe fnuahed surtsz 6f Uta,r=„n,J ho,,wk tbc b.sding.n I a hve five{S)fxt post if t t. did p _ (A) Favep' tiolf 6<Caeh roc "", two Q) 5t n,,,, Wn+b sF !o and rear y-= shall he rrzvmsed three 3, Ito, hm tl#} fcxt for ., 6 side :azd ord ninerrcc (191 feet toe lkc reargued. I 14.24.010 Minimum Lot Area Requirements 14,24-010 Minimum 1,or Area Requirements - MACS Special Zoning District REQUIREMENTS TAKE Key: N =Not Allowed Footnotes: (1) Listed squafe lootages are the minimum feauued tol ea h z ne '21 Creole, 101 SCOM f clages may be. f aq Zed to Misty Alaska ,rteNr ment rF Env$onmenial CcnseM1annn (ADEC Mere on slle wand supply, andlor sewer is necessary. i p)1,4 o rnarn lot size fnr romesno, ial uses in ED zcfw, is 40,000 square feel. (4) tvi bralm:ot site fa residerstal us s in the C4U zoo: is 7.200 square feet , (Amefx!ed Burin 7.7-99_suppiemant; Otds_10e2_20n0. 2081.2005. 2185.2�6}_ t. 1 � y- aA t L V! -�, 't L.r''(.,.. F �OOUJ6 t N - Suggested by: Administration CITY OF KENAI AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL KENAI ZONING MAP BY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF THE KENAI SPUR HIGHWAY FROM MCCOLLUM DRIVE WEST TO NO -NAME CREEK FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL I (RRI) AND CONSERVATION (C) TO LIMITED COMMERCIAL (LC). WHEREAS, on September 24 and November 12, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a request from the owner of Tract A, Papa Joe's Subdivision Chumley Replat and the Commission's recommendation was forwarded to City Council; and, WHEREAS, City Council held a public hearing on December 3, 2008, and tabled action on the ordinance and requested that administration bring back a more comprehensive plan for rezoning the area; and, WHEREAS, administration's recommendation was to consider the area located north of the Kenai Spur Highway West of McCollum Drive to No -Name Creek; and, WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Rick Koch, Kenai City Manager, to rezone the properties recommended by administration; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2009, received public testimony and voted 3 to 4 against rezoning the parcels; and, WHEREAS, the area to be rezoned is approximately 22 acres and meets the size requirements of KMC 14.20.270; and, WHEREAS, the area to be rezoned includes parcels zoned both Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Conservation (C); and, WHEREAS, increased traffic along the Kenai Spur Highway has limited the residential development in the area to be rezoned; and, WHEREAS, limiting development along the highway to solely residential may result in vacant and run-down homes along the highway; and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan recommends zoning suitable for all land uses and to prepare criteria and standards under which compatible mixed uses are allowed to ensure that the uses are compatible with surrounding uses; and, New Text Underlined; (DELETED TEXT BRACKETEDJ -17- Ordinance No. 2393-2009 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, the Limited Commercial (LC) was developed to provide a transition area between commercial and residential districts, allowing low to medium volume business, mixed residential and other compatible uses and specifies development criteria for separate uses; and, WHEREAS, rezoning these parcels will provide a transition area between the commercial/light industrial districts and the residential districts along the Kenai Spur Highway; and, WHEREAS, rezoning these parcels to Limited Commercial (LC) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA that the official Kenai Zoning Map is amended by rezoning the properties as shown on Attachment "A' and Attachment "B" from Rural Residential 1 (RRI) and Conservation (C)to Limited Commercial (LC). PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this first day of April, 2009. ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk PAT PORTER, MAYOR Introduced: March 18, 2009 Adopted: April 1, 2009 Effective: May 1, 2009 New Text Underlined; DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] i a Ordinance No. 2393-2009 -Attachment B FEES JACRESILEGAL OWNER �___..—.._...__-- ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP ._... ....._._ _._L_ —"'—_____.RIDIAN T 8N R 11 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN I KITTHAT PORTION OF THE W112 SWIM �ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH i 3745 COMMUNITY ANCHORAGE, AK KENAI SPUR HWY 5.51 ISE114 LYING N OF KENAI SPUR ROAD (TRUST AUTHORITY PARK LOOP STE 200 99508 IT SNRiiW SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN !. '.KN PORTIONS OF THE W112 SELM SEV4 & : Et12 SW714 SE114 LYING N OF KENAI SPUR'. i KENAI SPUR HWY 1.371HWY jKENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 144 N BINKLEY ST SOLDOTNA, AK 996E iT 6NR 11 W SEC 33 SEVOARD MERIDIAN CINDT ERELLA S 250UT ,KN GOLOT 40 EZMANAGEMENF LLC 1PO BOX 3293 (KENAI AK 99611 _ IT ON R i1W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN CASTLE ST 1 49 KN GOVT LOT 29 BISSET LOIS £ 309 CASTLE ST MENAL AK 99611 T 6NR iiW SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN I I KN GOVT LOT 28 LYING NORTH OF KENAI S 'KENAI SPUR HWY 1325PUR HWV Blsser MARC i309 CASTLE ST ,KENAI AK 99611 'T6N R 11W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN IKN GOVT LOT 27 LYING NORTH OF KENAI I KENAI SPUR HWY 093SPURHWV LASHOI BILLY JACK IPO BOX 473 jKENAI, AK 99611 1T 6N R 11W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN l 1 �iKN 0830096 IftEETOP ESTATES SUB LOT _ 15088 BEAVER LOOP I KENAI SPUR HWY' 0.5011 . GONZALEZROBERT M'RD 92 _ jKENAI, AK 99611 T BIN 11 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN -- KN 0830096 TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT ,ANCHOR POINT, AK MAGIC AVE 040 2 OUS I IN DENNIS jPO BOX 209 .99556 T ON R i 1 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN IKN D830096 TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT I MAGIC AVE 040E3 RICKMAN STEVEN A 49630 REXS RD SOLDOTNA, AK 996E T 6NR 11 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN i KENAI SPUR HWY KN 0830096 TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT 0444 ANDERSON SCOTTE 'RD BOX 302 6GLDOTNA AK 996E _ _ I T 5N R 1 ON SEC 33 5EWAR0 MERIDIAN _. __ ANAKTUVUK PASS, MAGICAVE 048tKN 0970023 PAPA JOSS SUB LOT 3 GERKE ERICN PO BOX 21077 ,AK 99721 --_ �T 6NR 1 iW SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN FALKENBERG CECIL C & MCCOLLUM DR i 14 KN 2000057 REDFLO SUB LOT 1 PATRICIA !RD BOX 3293 KENAI AK 99611 _s_ _ _ T 6N R 11 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN (KN 2002113 PAPA JOE'S SUB CHUMLEY ) KENAI SPUR HWY 2 97 TRACT A IWORTI IAM FRANK(IN T BOX 1284 jKENAI, AK 99611 _ _REPLAT , —1PO 210 FIDALGO 2 311Ponion of 4501029 CITY OF KENAI AVENUE (KENAI, AK 99611 CITY OF KENAI rep PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ09-06 tHeuyaf REZONE PERMIT KENAI, ALASKA U A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM SSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE KENAI CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUESTED REZONING SUBMITTED BY NAME: Rick Koch City Manager, City of Kenai for Ken Citv Council ADDRESS: 210 Fidal o Avenue LEGAL: See Attached Spreadsheet & Ma PARCEL #: See Attached S readsheet iz Zia l WHEREAS, the Commission finds the folp i g: �I L The subject property is current z le ' IL iral Residential. I & Conservation 2. The present land use plan desfgnati r s Neighborhood Residential & Conservation/Open S ace ' t / 3. The proposed zoning dishq , l Limited Commercial 4. An appropriate pubjZkc ring as required was conducted February 1 I, 2oo9 5. That the following additiol*l facts have been found to exist: d. Applicant must comply dith all Federal, State, and local regulations. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai that the petitioned REZONING of PROPERTIES SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND SPREADSHEET are hereby recommended to the Kenai City Council, PASSED B17 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA,4 FEBRUA.RY II, 2009. i CHAIRPERSON: ATTEST: -21- CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS February 11„ 2009 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Agenda Approval c. Consent Agenda d. *Excused Absences *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non -controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. *January 28, 2009 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT; (10 Minutes) 4. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker.) a. PZ09-04 - A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that KMC 14.20.260 be amended to better provide for enforcement for violations of the Kenai City Code and to provide for appeal of administrative enforcement orders to the Board of Adjustment. b. PZ09-05 - An application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Vocational Center from the property known as Tract A-1A, Cone Tracts A-lA & A-1B (2880 Beaver Loop Road), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Frontier Community Services, 43335 K- Beach Road, Suite 36, Soldotna, Alaska 99669. c. PZ09-06 — An application to rezone properties North of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor from McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek from Rural Residential 1(RRI) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC). Application submitted by Rick Koch, City Manager for Kenai City Council, City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska. 6. NEW BUSINESS: a. PZ09-08 — A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that KMC 14.20.240(c)(6) be amended to allow an extension for the ninety (90) day time Iimit for skirting in mobile homes placed in mobile home parks — Discussion — Set Public Hearing. 7. PENDING ITEMS: -22- a. PZ07-25 — Recommending Council enact KMC 9.10.015 to require dumpsters be screened on at least three sides. 8. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: (3 Minutes) 10. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. 2008 Annual Report— Extraction of Natural Resources b. 2008 Annual Certified Local Government Report C. Reappoinhnent letters Commissioners Rogers, Koester & Twait d. "Zoning Bulletin"-1/10/09 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: -23- CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CHAIR JEFF TWAIT, PRESIDING MINUTES ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER Chair Twait called the meeting to order at approximately 7:01 p.m. 1-a. Roll Call Roll was confirmed as follows: Commissioners present: Staff/Council Liaison present: A quorum was present. 1-b. Agenda Approval S. Remain, R. Wells, J. Twait, P. Bryson, K. Rogers, J. Brookman, K. Koester City Planner M. Kebschull, Planning & Zoning Administrative Assistant N. Carver, Council. Liaison R. Molloy Commissioner Bryson read the following requested changes to the agenda: ADD TO: 5-b. Letter from Mavis Cone Email Correspondence (Winegarden/Graves) y .• Commissioner Brookman MOVED to approve the agenda with the above -mentioned lay downs and Commissioner Romain SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. 1-c. Consent Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Remain MOVED to approve the consent agenda and Commissioner Wells SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. 1-d. *Excused Absences Approved by the consent agenda. -24- *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non- controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. ITEM 2: *APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- January 28, 2009 Approved by the consent agenda. ITEM 3: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -- None ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF PLATS -- None ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5-a. PZ09-04 - A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that KMC 14.20.260 be amended to better provide for enforcement for violations of the Kenai City Code and to provide for appeal of administrative enforcement orders to the Board of Adjustment. Kebschull reviewed the staff report included in the packet. Twait read the rules for public hearing and opened the meeting to public hearing The following people spoke in opposition to the resolution: Debbie Sonberg, 410 Cinderella, Kenai Becky Espy, 903 Magic, Kenai Roy Espy, 403 McCollum, Kenai There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson MOVED to approve PZ09-04 and Commissioner Romain SECONDED the motion. Commissioner comments included: • The Code had been made more specific regarding junk and debris. • Civil fines would be lowered from $1000 to $250 per day. • The process of code enforcement was complaint driven and included a site visit, contacting the individual, following up with a letter, and working with the individual to bring the situation into compliance. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2009 PAGE 2 -25- There was no appeal process currently and once cited, the individual must go to court. In the new resolution, there would be 15 days to appeal to the Board of Adjustment. nos Romain Y_ES Wells YES Twait YES Bryson _ YES Rogers YES Brookman YES Koester YES MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-b. PZ09-05 - An application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Vocational Center from the property known as Tract A-1A, Cone Tracts A-1A & A-1B (2880 Beaver Loop Road), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Frontier Community Services, 43335 K-Beach Road, Suite 36, Soldotna, Alaska 99669. Kebschull reviewed the staff report included in the packet, noting the history of the property and the list of requirements from the building official necessary prior to permitting. Twait opened the meeting to public hearing. The following people spoke in opposition to the application Laura Sievert, 3329 Seaver Loop, Kenai -- concerned with increased traffic and felt the application did not fit into the Comprehensive Plan, Curt Wilcox, 3329 Beaver Loop, Kenai Mark Sehrag, 312 Princess, Kenai Kellie Kelso, 117 Walker Lane, Kenai Debbie Sonberg, 410 Cinderella, Kenai There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Romain MOVED to approve PZ09-05 and Commissioner Wells SECONDED the motion. MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Bryson MOVED to amend the motion to include staff recommendations and Commissioner Romain SECONDED the motion. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2009 PAGE 3 -26- Romain 1 YES Wells YES Twait YES Bryson 1 YES Rogers YES Brookman YES Koester YES r f r, •� '3 VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Romain YES Wells YES I Twait YES Bryson YES Rogers IYES ( Brockman YES Koester YES —� MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Twait explained an appeal of the preceding action may be filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the action taken. 5-e. PZ09-06 — An application to rezone properties North of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor from McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek from Rural Residential I(RRI) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC). Application submitted by Rick Koch, City Manager for Kenai City Council, City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska. Chair Twait passed the gavel to Vice Chair Romain. Vice Chair Romain reported his agreement with the City Attorney's findings regarding the conflict of interest, noting Twait did not have a monetary conflict of interest and neither Twait nor Koester were guilty of prejudgment. MOTION: Commissioner Bryson MOVED to overturn the prejudgment and Commissioner Brockman SECONDED the motion. VOTE: Romain NO Wells NO Twait ABSTAIN Bryson NO Rogers j NO Brookman NO Koester i ABSTAIN _ MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2009 PAGE 4 -27- Commissioner Bryson MOVED to overturn the monetary conflict of interest and attach the February 4, 2009 memo from the City Attorney. Commissioner Brookman SECONDED the motion. VOTE: Romam NO Wells NO TITQ,t —� ABSTAIN Bryson NO Rogers �~ NO Brookman NO Koester NO MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY, Vice Chair Romain returned the gavel to Chair Twait. Kebschull reviewed the staff report included in the packet. Twait opened the meeting to public hearing, Glenn Clifford, Kenai -- Spoke in support of the rezone. Sherri James, 303 Cinderella, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the rezone, noting traffic issues and possible rent increases. Peter Klauder, 40195 Frogberry, Kenai -- Spoke in support of the rezone, believing it to be a positive move for the city. The following people spoke in opposition to the rezone, noting concerns expressed in the packet of information submitted by the MAPS residents and included in the Commission packet: Roy Espy, 403 McCollum, Kenai Chuck Winegarden, 309 Princess, Kenai Dave Spence, former Kenai Central High School Principal Don Wright, 604 McCollum, Kenai Greg Daniels, 426 Rogers Road, Kenai JoAnn Buzzed, 381 Senior Court, #103, Kenai Wally Ward, 708 Magic, Kenai Kellie Kelso, 117 Walker Lane, Kenai John Espy, 403 McCollum, Kenai Ed Steiner, 4192 Beaver Loop, Kenai -- Stated he enjoyed a compact city center allowing for pedestrian traffic. Sylvia Stewart, 401 McCollum, Kenai Justin Wilhusen, 306 Hutto, Kenai Glenda Feeken -- Spoke in support of the rezone. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2009 PAGE 5 IN Additional people who spoke in opposition to the rezone: Jessica Wilhusen, 306 Hutto, Kenai Richard Kelso, 117 Walker Lane, Kenai Kevin Dix, 306 Princess, Kenai Janine Espy, 403 McCollum, Kenai Walt Ward, 70S Magic, Kenai Todd Wortham, 47596 Grant Avenue, Kenai -- Spoke in support of the rezone. Colleen Ward, 708 Magic, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the rezone. Blaine Gilman, 216 Susieanna, Kenai -- Spoke in support of the rezone, noting a mix of low volume businesses and residences was part of the Comprehensive Plan. Patricia Falkenberg, 399 McCollum, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the rezone. BREAK: 9:20 P.M. BACK TO ORDER: 9:35 P.M. Additional people who spoke in opposition to the rezone Debbie Sonberg, 410 Cinderella, Kenai Mark Schrag, 312 Princess, Kenai Becky Espy, 903 Magic, Kenai Kellie Wannamaker, 603 Magic, Kenai Kristine Schmidt, 513 Ash, Kenai Leonora Fraiser, 391 W. Rockwell, Soldotna There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Romain MOVED to approve PZ09-06 and Commissioner Wells SECONDED the motion. Commissioner comments included: • The highway could serve as a buffer. • Thanked all citizens for their input. • Concerned over further strip zoning along the highway. • Need to consider the best interest of all citizens. • Traffic concerns are understood. • Some were not in support of all parts of the Limited Commercial Zone. • The civility of the public was appreciated. VOTE: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2009 PAGE 6 _29_ Remain YES Wells I NO Twait _ YES Bryson - NO �� Roger O Brookman NO Koester YES r;� ITEM 6: NEW BUSINESS 6-a. PZ09-08 — Discussion, Set Public Hearing -- A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that KMC 14.20.240(c)(6) be amended to allow an extension for the ninety (90) day time limit for skirting in mobile homes placed in mobile home parks. Kebschull reviewed the staff report included in the packet, noting a public hearing would be during the February 25, 2009 meeting. ITEM 7: 7-a. PZ07-25 — Recommending Council enact KMC 9.10.015 to require dumpsters be screened on at least three sides. ITEM 8: REPORTS 8-a. City Council -- Council Member Molloy reviewed the action agenda of the February 4, 2009 City Council meeting. 8-b. Borough Planning -- Borough Planning Commissioner Bryson reviewed the agenda of the February 9, 2009 Borough Planning meeting. 8-c. Administration -- Kebschull reviewed the materials listed under Information Items and noted the cell tower ordinance would probably be postponed. ITEM 9: PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED -- None ITEM 10: INFORMATION ITEMS 10-a. 2008 Annual Report — Extraction of Natural Resources 10-b. 2008 Annual Certified Local Government Report 10-c. Reappointment letters Commissioners Rogers, Koester & Twait PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2009 PAGE 7 -30- 10-d. "Zoning Bulletin" - 1/ 10/09 Koester -- None Esookmaao -- None Wells -- Reported the Kenai Historical Society was busy planning the relocation of historical cabins from the Ft. Kenay property. Romain -- None Bryson -- Apologized to Wells for interrupting earlier in the meeting. Rogers -- None ITEM 12: Commissioner Romain MOVED to adjourn and Commissioner Wells SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. S® ORDERED, There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m. Minutes prepared and submitted by: Corene Hall, Deputy City CIerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2009 PAGE 8 -31- Carol Freas From: Bob Molloy [bob@molloyforcouncil.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 11:09 AM To: Carol Frees Cc: Patricia Porter; Charles Winegarden; Rick Koch Subject: Fwd: Rezone Application Hi Carol: Please add this email request as a lay -down, late reed item for addition to the packet for the 3-4-09 CounciI meeting under Information Items, since there is no related agenda item for the 3-04-09 Council meeting. Thank you. Bob Molloy cc: Charles Winegarden Begin forwarded message: From: Winegarden & Walton <wfwlaw@acsalaska.net> Date: March 2, 2009 10:47:09 AM AST To: bob@molloyforcouncil.com Subject: Rezone Application Please delay action on the Application to rezone properties North of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor from McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek from Rural Residential1(RR1) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC) until, at least, after the P & Z work session on April 8, 2009 as that is presently, an application to modify the LC zone to eliminate some of permitted commercial uses. The modification is allegedly based upon public comment and the perceived danger to students in the high school and middle school being enticed to jaywalk across the busy Kenai Spur Highway to partake of the wares offered by the commercial establishments that are proposed to be eliminated. Such modification, if allowed, is an arbitrary use of zoning. It puts restrictions on the area that has already be zoned LC that were not there when originally zoned and, more important, it shows that the conditions set forth in a zone can not be relied upon as they certainly can be changed depending on the political circumstances. Rather than modifying the LC zone, it would be better to develop an new zone which recognizes the unique situation presented in the above defined rezone area. Voting on the application at this point in time is premature. In the alternative, if the council insists on voting on the Application, please remove the Application from the consent agenda so that the public may comment upon it. Charles A. Winegarden Winegarden & Walton 220 Main Steet Loop, Suite B Kenai, Alaska 99511 Phone: (907) 283-5774 Fax: (907) 283-5771 NEW EMAIL: wfwlawCdacsalaska.net -32- Carol Freas From: Patricia Porter [kenaimayorl0@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 5:02 PM To: Winegarden & Walton Cc: Mike Boyle; Hal Smalley; Robert Molloy; Rick Ross; Barry Eldridge; Joe Moore; Carol Freas; Cary Graves; Rick Koch Subject: Re: Rezone Application Mr. Winegarden, I would support removing the rezone ordinance from a consent agenda to allow for two public hearings, however will not support a delay. Pat Porter -- Original Message ---- From: Wineoarden & Walton To: kenaimayor10(L;Dmsn.com Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:45 AM Subject: Rezone Application Please delay action on the Application to rezone properties North of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor from McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek from Rural Residentiall (RR1) and Conservation(C) to Limited Commercial (LC) until, at least, after the P & Z work session on April 8, 2009 as that is presently, an application to modify the LC zone to eliminate some of permitted commercial uses. The modification is allegedly based upon public comment and the perceived danger to students in the high school and middle school being enticed to jaywalk across the busy Kenai Spur Highway to partake of the wares offered by the commercial establishments that are proposed to be eliminated. Such modification, if allowed, is an arbitrary use of zoning. It puts restrictions on the area that has already be zoned LC that were not there when originally zoned and, more important, it shows that the conditions set forth in a zone can not be relied upon as they certainly can be changed depending on the political circumstances. Rather than modifying the LC zone, it would be better to develop an new zone which recognizes the unique situation presented in the above defined rezone area. Voting on the application at this point in time is premature. In the alternative, if the council insists on voting on the Application, please remove the Application from the consent agenda so that the public may comment upon it. Charles A. Winegarden Winegarden & Walton 220 Main Steet Loop, Suite B Kenai, Alaska 99611 Phone: (907) 283-5774 Fax: (907) 283-5771 NEW EMAIL: wfwlaw(cDacsalaske.net THIS MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY -CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVELEDGED INFORMATION. ANY UNAUTHORIZED REVIEW, USE, DICSLOSURE OR DISTRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER BY REPLY E-MAIL, DELETE THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS, AND DESTROY ALL COPIES. -33- Carol Freas From: Joe Moore poem@altrogco.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:15 PM To: 'P. Falkenberg' cc: Carol Frees Subject: RE: Two Requests Pa tri cia, I am not opposed to removing any item from the consent agenda to allow for public input. I am not in favor of postponement of the process any further. I am only one vote of seven. Joe Moore From: P, Falkenberg[mailto:pet_rainbowriayahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:01 PM To: Joe Moore Subject: Two Requests Dear Councilman Moore: I would like to make the following requests: Removal of the rezone application from the consent agenda so that a public hearing is possible. Rezone vote be postponed until after the April 8th work session on the proposed revision of the Limited Commercial Zone. I would appreciate a reply and comments. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Cherish the Day! l f l Patricia Falkenberg WIM Yahoo! Mail - hvsmalley@yahoo.com http://m.f302.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Sliowl etter?Msgid=524_4575968A... Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:22:04 -0800 (PST) From: "Hal Smalley" <hvsmalley@yahoo.com> "-' Add to Address book g Add Mobile _ .....Alert Subject: Re: Two Requests To: @0 "P. Falkenberg" <pet_rainbow@yahoo,eom> Patricia, Under pending legislation ( to be discussed at a time not yet specified, a later date j is Ordinance 2362-2008, the Rezone issue. It is not scheduled on the consent agenda at all. It may be addressed under Item C Unscheduled public comment and again L-1 Citizen comment. I isn't necessary to remove it from the agenda to discuss ft. It can be addressed as I previously mentioned, To my knowledge, the re -zone issue isn't scheduled to return to Council until April. With it being discussed at the P & Z in its April meeting, ft would come to Council after that meeting. I will make sure that I ask our Clerk of this procedure and the Mayor at our meeting.' Hal "P. Falkenberg" cpef rainbow@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Councilman Smalley: I would like to make the following requests: • Removal of the rezone application from the consent agenda so that a public hearing is possible. • Rezone vote be postponed until after the April 8th work session on the proposed revision of the Limited Commercial Zone. I would appreciate a reply and comments. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Cherish the Day!!!! Patricia Falkenberg 1 of 1 -35-3/3/2009 4:37 AM From: Joe Moore floem@altrogco.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:17 AM To: dialaprayer@yahoo.com Cc: Carol Frees Subject: RE: Agenda Change Janine, I am not opposed to removing any item from the consent agenda to allow for public input. I am not in favor of postponement of the process any further. I am only one vote of seven. Joe Moore From: Janine Espy [mailto:dialaprayer@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:04 AM To: cpajoe@altrogco.com Subject: Agenda Change Dear Councilman Moore, As we continue to strive toward a peaceable solution to the zoning issue of properties along the Kenai Spur Highway on the north side from McCollum Drive to the Wal Mart property, I respectfully request that: 1. the introduction of the cities application to rezone these properties from RR1 and Conservation to LC be removed from the March 18, 2009 consent agenda as it is a controversial subject and 2. the public hearing or the Council's vote slated for April 1, 2009 be postponed due to the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission are slated for Work Session on April 8, 2009, to revise the LC zone one week after the scheduled vote by the Council. I realize that the Council is concerned about postponement in light of the approaching building season and the desire of Todd Wortham to break ground for his dental office. Does he have a specific date or "ball park" idea of when that would be in regards to what could be accommodated in the Council's schedule? It doesn't make sense to vote to change zoning that is controversial, then one week later to begin to change the parameters of that controversial zoning. The MAPS neighbors have come up with an idea and would like to have the opportunity to bring it to the table. I would appreciate your thoughts. Sincerely, Janine Espy -36- Carol Freas From: Patricia Porter [kenaimayor10@msn.corn] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:41 AM To: dialaprayer@yahoo. corn Cc: Rick Koch; Cary Graves; Carol Frees; mboyle@alaska.com; hvsmalley@yahoo.com, mollaylaw@ak.net; rossrck@hotmail.com; barry_eldridge@yahoo.com; joemoore@altrog co. com Subject: RE: Agenda Request Janine, Thank you for your email. I do not have a problem with the proposed rezone being removed from the consent agenda. This will allow for two public hearing. I do not support a delay of the council vote on April 1. Pat Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:50:59 -0800 From: dialaprayer5yahoo.com Subject: Agenda Request To: kenaimayorl0(amsn.com Dear Mayor Porter, As we continue to strive toward a peaceable solution to the zoning issue of properties along the Kenai Spur Highway on the north side from McCollum Drive to the Wal Mart property, I respectfully request that: the introduction of the cities application to rezone these properties from RR1 and Conservation to LC be removed from the March 18, 2009 consent agenda as it is a controversial subject and the public hearing or the Council's vote slated for April 1, 2009 be postponed due to the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission are slated for Work Session on April 8, 2009, to revise the LC zone one week after the scheduled vote by the Council. I realize that the Council is concerned about postponement in light of the approaching building season and the desire of Todd Wortham to break ground for his dental office, Does he have a specific date or "ball park" idea of when that would be in regards to what could be accommodated in the Council's schedule? it doesn't make sense to vote to change zoning that is controversial, then one week later to begin to change the parameters of that controversial zoning. The MAPS neighbors have come up with an idea and would like to have the opportunity to bring it to the table. I would appreciate your thoughts. Sincerely, Janine Espy -37- 210 P']DALGO AVE., KENAr, AL.ASKA 996J 1-7794 TELEPHONE: 907-283-7535 FAX 907-283-3014 v v� TO �> Marilyn Kebschull, City Plarmer FROM:(](/ am Cary R. Graves, City Attorney DATE: February 4, 2009 RE: Protest of Charles Winegarden You requested that I review the protest dated January 31, 2009 from Charles Winegarden and make a recommendation regarding it. My analysis follows. The protest requests that Commissioners Twait and Koester be disqualified from participating in the proposed rezone of properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway Corridor from McCollur. Drive west to No -Name Creek ("proposed rezone"). There are actually two different protests in the letter. One alleges Commissioner Twait has a conflict of interest and the second alleges pre- judgment bias. I will analyze each separately. li. The protest alleges Commissioner Twait has a conflict of interest under KMC 1.85,060. As 1 understand it, the letter alleges that Commissioner Twait's daughter is the granddaughter of Glen McCollum, Jr. who owns property in the area of the proposed rezone. The City Planning Department checked the Kenai Peninsula Borough land records via the K.enaiView G1S system and did not find any property within the city limits owned by Glen McCollum, Jr. However, I will assume, for purposes of argument, that Mr. McCollum does own property in the area. The theory is that Commissioner Twait has an indirect financial interest in the issue because his daughter, Miranda, may at some point, in the future inherit all or part of the property.' KMC 1,85.060(d) provides that: No Council or commission member may vote on any question in which he or she has a substantial direct or indirect financial interest. Direct or indirect financial interests shall be disclosed to the presiding officer prior It appears that Miranda's mother, Cora Leigh McCollum, is the ex-wife of Commissioner Twait and the daughter or Glen McCollum, Jr, M Page 2 of 3 to a vote on the question and the presiding officer shall determine whether the financial interest exists and whether the prohibition from voting is applicable. A decision by the presiding officer may be overridden by a unanimous vote of the members present, exclusive, of the member presenting the possible conflict. Whether a person has a substantial direct or indirect financial interest is analyzed under the criteria in K-MC 1.85.060(d)(1). Those criteria are: Whether the direct or indirect financial interest is substantial shall be determined by the presiding officer on a case -by -case basis, with evaluation of these factors! (i) Whether the financial interest is a substantial part of the consideration; (ii) Whether the financial interest directly and substantially varies with the outcome of the official action; (iii) Whether the financial interest is immediate and known or conjectural and dependent on factors beyond the official action; (iv) Whether the financial or private interest is significant monetarily; (v) Other factors deemed appropriate by the presiding officer under the specifics of the disclosure and the nature of the action taken before the council or commission. Since the records do not show Glen McCollum, Jr. owns any property in the area, there does not appear to be any direct or indirect financial interest at issue; Moreover, the alleged indirect financial interest is not immediate and is both conjectural and dependent on factors beyond the official action. The complaint is based on a theory that Commissioner Twait's daughter may at some point in the future inherit all or part of property in the area. alleged to be owned by her grandfather. The alleged indirect financial interest is purely conjectural. It is clear that if Commissioner T'wan owned property in the affected area, .he would have a conflict of interest which would not allow him to participate.Z However, where the alleged conflict of interest is attenuated and speculative, the Alaska Supreme Court has held there is not a substantial financial interests Even if Mr. McCollum owns property in the area, the allegation regarding possible inheritance by Commissioner Twait's daughter is too speculative and attenuated to be a substantial indirect financial interest in this case. Therefore, it is my opinion that Commissioner Twait does not have a conflict of interest under the Kenai Municipal Code. ' Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 R2d21 10155 1D27 (Alaska 1996). ' Griswoldv. City of Homer, 34 P.3d 1280, 1287 (Alaska 2001). 19141 Page 3 of 3 The complaint also alleges that Commissioners Twait and Koester should be disqualified because they have exhibited a pre -judgment bias. The protest alleges bias on behalf of Commissioner Twait because he signed the first rezone application and has written a letter indicating support of the rezone idea. It also alleges Commissioner Koester has indicated bias in a letter to Council supportive of the rezone concept. The letter cites two cases in support of that argument. However, neither of the cases cited involves a zoning amendment. One involved an adjudication of a pipeline rate tariff by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska" and the other involved an adjudication of an unfair trade practices complaint before the Federal Trade Commissions Both cases involved quasi.-jud.icial or adjudicatory proceedings, not legislative proceedings. In Alaska, like most states, a zoning amendment is a legislative function, not an adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function. 6Because zoning is a legislative function, the prohibition against the appearance of pre -judgment bias does not apply.' If the prohibition against pre -judgment bias applied in legislative proceedings, a legislator who sponsored an ordinance or bill would not be allowed to vote on his/her own bill. Obviously, that is not the rule. 'Therefore, it is my opinion that neither Commissioners Twait or Koester should be disqualified from participating on the proposed zoning amendment due to pre -judgment bias. IV. KMC 1.85.060(d) provides that the presiding officer should make the determination of whether a member of the body is prohibited from voting on an issue. The decision of the presiding officer may be overturned by a unanimous vote of the members, exclusive of those presenting the possible conflict. Because the complaint involves Commissioner Twait and he is the presiding officer, he should pass the gave! to Vice -Chair Romair, to rule on the issue. Depending on the ruling by Vice -Chair Romain (and any override attempt), either Commissioner Twait would be allowed to participate as the presiding officer or he would be excused and the Vice -Chair would run that portion of the meeting,. V. I hope this mernorandum answers the questions you had regarding these issues. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these matters. " Amerada Hess Pipeline Corp, v, Regulatory Commission of Alaska, 176 P.3d 667 (Alaska 2008), Cinderella Career & Finishing Sch. v. F.TC., 425 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cin 1970) E Alaska Planning Conznussidn Handbook, p. 31-32 (July 2003). ' Ibld. See also Harris v Hornbaker, 658 P.2d 1219 (Wash. 1983) (Prohib;tion against prejudgment bias does not apply to legislative decisions). s The ruling would also involve Commission Koester, but that part of the ruling would not involve who chairs that portion of the meeting. 51 210 PIDA.GO AVE„ KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794 TELEPHONE 907-283-753 5 J X 907-293-3014 r v r� �;_ t ` , a TO: Marilyn Kebschull, City Planner FROM: i" G' Cary R. Graves, City Attorney DATE: February 4, 2009 I1h: The "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine" You requested that I provide a summary of the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine" (doctrine) and its applicability to zoning in Alaska. My analysis follows. The doctrine was judicially estabiished in Washington State in 1969.1 It was later codified into the statutory law of Washington.2 It was intended to provide courtroom type procedural due process protections for quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) land use decisions.' In Washington, zoning amendments are considered quasi-judicial in nature.4 The doctrine prohibits such things as ex perrte communications and pre judgment bias in quasi-judicial land use proceedings. Planning Commission decisions can be either legislative or quasi-judicial. In Alaska, land use proceedings which are considered quasi-judicial are such things as conditional use permits, variances, plats and Board of Adjustment appeals.6 Unlike Washington., the Alaska Supreme Court has held that zoning decisions, including small scale amendments to the zoning map, are considered legislative rather than quasi-judicial proceedings.7 That is the rulein the majority of States, a `Smith v. SkagitCo, 453 P.2d 832 (Wash. 1969). ' RCW 4236.010-110. a The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine in Washington State, Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, p.I (January 1995). °Fleming v, City of Tacoma, 502 P.2d 327, 331 (Wash. 1972). Oregon and Idaho follow the same rule as Washington. See Neuberger v. City of Portland, 607 P.2d 722 (Or. 19 79) & Cooper v. Board of County Comin'rs, 614 P2d 947 (Idaho 1980). e Alaska Planning Commission Handbook, p. 31 (July 2003). 'Alaska Planning Commission Handbook, p. 32 (July 2003). Cabana v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 21 P.3d 833, 836 (Alaska 2001) (classification of borough land was Icgisiative, not quasi-judicial or adjudicatory); Balough v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 995 P.2d 245, 249 (Alaska. 2000)(rezoning a 75 acre parcel was a legislative decision); Grinvold v. Cily ofHoiner, 925 P.2d 1015, 1019 n. 3 (Alaska 1996)(rezoning 7.5 acre parcel was a legislative enactment), s 1-6 Land Use Law ¢6.26 (Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. 2008), -41- The Alasko Planning Cornnnssion Handbook states: In Alaska, a rezone is legislative. It affects all those with property in the area that is rezoned and the legislative body has the discretion to approve or deny the rezoning. Although there may be statutory rules that. govern legislative proceedings, there are no procedural due process rules that apply to legislative proceedings.9 Since a zoning amendrnent in Alaska is a Legislative act, not a quasi-judicial one, the appearance of fairness doctrine and the prohibitions against ex par-te communications 10 and appearance of pre -judgment bias do not apply. 11 12 Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this memorandum. 'Alaska Planning Commission Handbook, p. 31 (July 2003). 10 Alaska Planning Commission Handbook,, p. 32 (July 2003). Harms v. Hornbaker, 658 P.2d 1219 (Wash. 1983). (Prohibition against pre -judgment bias does not apply to legislative decisions) 12 Rowever, the conflict of interest rules in KMC 1.85.060 apply to both legislative and quasi-judicial acts -42- STAFF REPORT To: Planning &,Zoning Commission Cate: January 27, 2009 Res: PZ09-06 Applicant: Rick Koch, City Manager For Kenai City Council City of Kenai 283-7535 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Requested Action: Rezone Legal Description: See Attached Map & Spreadsheet Street Address: Multiple KPB Parcel No.: See Attached Map & Spreadsheet Existing Zoning: Rural Residential 1 (RR1) & Conservation (C) Current Land Use: Residential & Vacant Land Use Plan: Neighborhood Residential & Conservation/open Space General Information: This is an application to rezone several parcels north of the Kenai Spur Highway from McCollum Drive west to No -Name Creek. This includes 13 parcels and a portion of another parcel; approximately 21.71 acres. The majority of these properties are zoned Rural Residential 1. The portion of the City of Kenai`s property, Kenai Peninsula Borough parcel number 04501029, is zoned Conservation. The City property will require a subdivision plat and is shown for the rezone application on the map and spreadsheet as an approximate area. The actual property will be identified when a plat is processed and this platting will insure that the area rezoned does not encroach on No -Name Creek. KMC 14.20.270 describes amendment procedures. Section 2 states, "Amendments to the Official Zoning Map shall be considered only if the area to be rezoned contains a minimum of one (1) acre (excluding street or alley rights - of -way) unless the amendment enlarges an adjacent district boundary." The -43- PZ09-06 Comments Page 2 area of this rezone meets the requirements for an amendment to the Official Zoning Map, Background Information• In September 2008, an application was submitted by Dr. Wortham to rezone his property, Kenai Peninsula Borough Parcel #04506025. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the application on September 24". The Commission postponed action and held a second hearing on November 12". The Commission voted 2 to 4 against the rezone. That recommendation was forwarded to City Council City Council held a public hearing on December 3, 2008. Council tabled action on the ordinance and requested administration bring back a more comprehensive plan for rezoning the area. At the direction of Council, administration reviewed the area and selected the parcels to be considered for rezone to the Limited Commercial zone. An application was prepared for the Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman's signature. On December 11t", a letter with information on the proposed rezone was sent to the owners of property included in the proposed rezone area. The application was scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission for the January 14, 2009 meeting. Due to a question as to whether the Chairman has the authority to submit an application on behalf of the Commission as provided in KMC 14.20.270, Administration requested the Commission remove the item from the Commission agenda. The item was removed. At their meeting on January 21, 2009, City Council directed City Manager Koch to proceed with an application for the rezone on behalf of the Council. Evaluation of Application• During the creation of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, development concerns along the Kenai Spur Highway corridor were discussed extensively. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the issue of neighborhood concern relating to commercial development near residential areas as conditional uses or through rezones, particularly along the Kenai Spur Highway, However, the Plan provides guidelines to address these concerns (City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan, Page 37). The City of Kenai's Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council recognized the issue of development along the Kenai Spur Highway and created the Limited Commercial zone to provide a transition area between commercial and residential districts and allow a mix of low volume businesses as well as residential use. The Limited Commercial Zone meets the recommendations for Commercial Land Use Development Policies CM1, CM3, and CM4 (City of Kenai PZ09-06 Comments Page 3 Comprehensive Plan, Page 37). KMC 14.20,115 - Limited Commercial Zone (LC Zone) - "Intent: The LC Zone is established to provide transition areas between commercial and residential districts by allowing low to medium volume business, mixed residential and other compatible uses which complement and do not materially detract from the uses allowed with adjacent districts." The Limited Commercial Zone requires that developments meet the requirements in KMC 14.25, Landscaping/Site Plan Regulations. Included in those regulations is the requirement for a buffer separating commercial uses from adjacent residential properties (City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan, Commercial Land Use Development Policy CM4 - Page 37). There are 13 parcels zoned Rural Residential 1 and a portion of a parcel zoned Conservation included in this application. Six of these parcels are undeveloped. Four of the parcels located in the Rural Residential 1 zone are considered non- conforming. These are the Tree Top Estates Subdivision which house four- plexes. The non -conformity would continue under the proposed rezone to Limited Commercial. The remaining lots are in conformance for lot size and use and would continue as conforming under the proposed rezone to the Limited Commercial zone. In 2006, the City of Kenai initiated the first rezone of properties along the Kenai Spur Highway to the Limited Commercial zone. That rezone was the result of an appeal by a property owner who had applied to rezone a residential property to General Commercial zoning. On appeal, the Board of Adjustment remanded the case to the Planning and Zoning Commission and directed the Commission to review whether the area was more conducive to the Limited Commercial zone. In the decision the Board commented the increased traffic along the Kenai Spur Highway has limited residential development along the highway. "The Board is forced to recognize that restricting use of the property to solely residential purposes may simply result in vacant and run down homes along the highway." The Board commented, "The Limited Commercial Zone was specifically designed for this type of zoning problem, allowing limited commercial development while protecting adjoining residential neighborhoods." (In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of A Zoning Change for Jay T. Snow and William A. Snow - Case No. BA-05-3, October 7, 2005.) The rezone before the Commission is a similar situation and the issues identified in this appeal are consistent with development issues for these properties. Building Official: No building code issues. EN PZ09-06 Comments Page 4 The City of Kenai has identified the area along the Kenai Spur Highway as hindered from future development due to traffic along the highway and the residential zoning limitation. There is limited land currently zoned commercial along the highway and the current vacant residential land does not allow for commercial development. The Comprehensive Plan noted that uses should not be allowed through the conditional use process that has been used to allow some development along the highway and recommended zoning suitable for all land uses and to prepare criteria and standards under which compatible mixed uses are allowed to ensure that the uses are compatible with surrounding uses. When the Comprehensive Plan was written, the City did not have a mixed -use zone. Since then, the Limited Commercial zone has been developed to allow mixed uses of residential and commercial. The zone has strict development criteria that limit the size of structures as well as landscaping with separation between uses. The proposed rezone from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial will provide for development along the Kenai Spur Highway while not restricting residential use. Based on the application and review of Kenai Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan, the requested rezone meets the criteria for an amendment to the zoning map. Recommend approval. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Resolution No. PZO9-06 2. Application 3. Drawings CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ09-06 hecityof REZONE PERMIT KlENAI. AMSKA \W A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM SSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE KENAI C� Y COUNCIL OF THE REQUESTED REZONING SUBMITTED EY f ADDRES PARCEL #: WHEREAS, the Commission finds the 1. The subject property is 2. The present land use plan desYgnatb ^Pis Neighborhood Residential & Conseryation/Open Space r Xf'F 3. The proposed zonln distijir� ,!Limited Commercial 4. An appropriate publ"ic&\ie)h*ing'a' s required was conducted February 11, 2009 5. That the following additioh;l facts have been found to exist: 6. Applicant must comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations. NOW, THEREFORE BE,IT RESOLVED, by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai that the petitioned REZONING of PROPERTIES SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND SPREADS41EET are hereby recommended to the Kenai City Council. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKAy F'EBRUARY II, 2009. CHAIRPERSON: ATTEST: -47- I " PZ09-06 PARCELH ADDRESS !ACRES 'LEGAL OWNER ADDRESS CITYST ATE ZIP LAND IMPROVEMENT ASSESSED TAXABLE OWNTYPE T 6N R 11 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN' THAT OF THE IOAD V4 SEil4 ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH �T 3745 COMMUNITY AK 4501005 9744 KENAI SPUR HWY 5.51 LYING NOOFIKENAI SPUR RON US AUTHORITY STE 0 PARK LOOP20 _ j99580RAGE. $32,900 ._.___. $o _ $32,900 $O STATE T 6N R IIW SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KNi PORTIONS OF THE W112 SEIM SE114 d E112 - 4511001 9616 KENAI SPUR HWY 1.37 SW 114 SEIM LYING N OF KENAI SPUR HWY T 6N R 11 W SEE 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 144 N BINKLEY ST }�SOLDOtNA, AK 996691 $16,600 _ $C' r $16,600 $p BOROUGH 45( 111 305 CINDERELLA ST 2.50 GOVT LOT 40 .. E Z MANAGEMENT LLG PO BOX 3293 I KENAI, AS 99611 $33,OWi $104,800 $137,800 11137,800 PRIVATE 4506004 �_____ 309 CASTLE ST 'IA9 T ON P. 11 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN ICN GOUT LOT 29 BISSET LOISE 1 ...�_ _ 309 CASTLE ST __.___.__.� KENAI. AK 99611 i $26,OOU 17 $9,R00 $29 5,800 PRIVATE I T 6N R IIW SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN _�. ___... _$i8.i,800 45(mm I9392 KENAI SPUR HWY _�— t 32 G 30VT LOT 28 LYING NORTH OF KENAI SPUR HWY AN XMI SEC27 BISSET MARL 309 CASTLE ST - — KENAI, AY 99611 i 29 300 I $01 ---� $24, —_ $24,300 _..___ _— PRIVATE —.._ 4506007 19328 KENAI SPUR HWY 0.93 GOVTOT LYING NORTH FKENAII SPUR HWY I SHOT BILCi JACK 1PO BOX&]3 KENAI, — t _ AK 99611 $20,100 i $D� $ $203� tOOj $20._i_00 _ �.. PRIVATE _...__ . 4506013 9464 KENAI SPUR HWY OSO T 614Ri1W SEC 93 SEWARD MERIDIAN KNi OR30096 TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT 1_jGON7ALEZ ROBERT M 5088 BEAVER LOOP RD42 _ KENAI, AK99611 !$14,600 $182.2w $t96_800 $196.8WPRIVATE 4506014 .__ — 808 MAGIC AVE _.__._ _. _.__.— 0,40 T 6N R it W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KNj 0830096 TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT 2 .. __. __._._.._ DUSTIN DENNIS PO BOX 209 ANCHOR POINT, AK 99556 $13.700 $186,3001 I $200.000 $180.000 PRIVATE 1810 T 6N R I I W SEC 33 SEWARD, MERIDIAN KN 4506015 MAGIC AVE _ 0,40 0830096 TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT 3 RICKMAN STEVEN A 496M REXS RD _ jSOLDOTNA, AK 99659 $13 700 $172,7W $196400 $188 400 PRIVATE T 6N R 11W SEC 33SEWARD MERIDIAN KN (ANDERSON 45060t6 19444 KENAI SPUR HWY --__ 0440830096 TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT 4 TOM SCOTT E ,PO BOX 302 SOLOOTNA,AK99669 — $14,100 SIT4.900 -' $199A00 S199.000 PRIVATE..,_ RtiW E 33 SEWARD ME I i SEC R D AN KN I AK VK PASS, �- 4506p19 804 MAGIC AVE �.46 097p023-PAPA JOE'$ SUB LOT 3 W SEC MERIDIAN KN SERKE ERIC N PATRICIAERG CECILC& V�PO ,PO BOX 21077 AK 99721 99721 $14,400 $12,400 $26.800 $26,800 PRIVATE_ 4506024 399 MCCOLLUM DR �ii�200571REDF03SUB LORD BOX 3293 _ KENAI, AK 99611 $21,900 $204,000 $225.90U' $O PRIVATE_ i 8N R 11 W SEC 338EWARD MERIDIAN KN 2002113 PAPA JOE'S SUB CHUMLEY 4508025 9520 KENAI SPUR. HWY 2ST REPI.AT TRACT A WORTHAM FRANKLIN T PO BOX 1284 'KENAI, AK 99611 $36,300 I $pj $36,300 $36,300iPRIVAIE_ 231 POrti010145pW29 OF KENAI 210 FlDAL O AVENUE IKENAI, i AK 99611 _4501029 _ ,CITY $0 .$Ol $0 $O MUNICIPAL Total Acreage 21.71 Total AsseSsetl Value: $i,t93,300 PZ09-06 21 -1- z U ALIAK DR � � A -- - MAGIC AV[ _ a —� — 1 �ses isaee: o� asoea+v i asasoz !f �, H i 4 and esoaaa k ascsoos � t 6/` I _ _ V iii F ¢50301 W i - 5 � asn:mt j J W cc c thecc'�uf KENA�LLAALLA&KA „�iflarye with a Past C# wA a Fatare>� 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: 907-283-7535 / FAX: 907-283-3014 1992 APPROVED BY CCUNOL PETITIONER Rick Koch, City Manager ADDRESS City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, AK 99611 PHONE 907-283-8222 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attachments PRESENT ZONE i Rural Residential I /Conservation PROPOSED ZONE Limited Commercial Intended Use and/or Reason for Rezoning: To rezone properties along the Kenai Spur Hi2hway corridor consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and to provide development Options for those pmwrties. Section 14.20270 Amendment Procedures governs any amendment to the Kenai Zoning Code and Official Map, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING, COMPLETE THE BLANKS AND INITIAL THE SPACE AFTER THE ITEM NUMBER TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THESE CONDITIONS. Amendments to the Kenai Zoning Code and Official Map may be initiated by: Kenai City Council; Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission; Submission of a petition by a majority of the property owners in the area to be rezoned; or, a petition bearing the signatures of fifty (50) registered voters within the City of Kenai to amend the ordinance text; or, pdsubmission of a petition as provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City of Kenai. JAN 2 3 2009 -51- Rezoning Application Page 2 2. _�i Amendments to the Official Zoning Map shall be considered only if the area to be rezoned contains a minimum of one (1) acre (excluding street or alley right-of-way) unless the amendment enlarges an adjacent district boundary. 3. A Public Notification and Hearing is required before the issuance of this permit. A $100.00 (plus sales tax) non-refundable deposit/advertising and administrative services fee is required to cover these notification costs. Depending on the rezone location, an Affidavit of Posting may also be required. 4.'f A proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which is substantially the same as any other proposed amendment submitted within the previous nine (9) months and which was not approved shall not be considered. U: ) etttionar's Signature REZONING CHECKLIST: f a. MAP _A,ja_ b. SIGNATURES _L- c. DEPOSIT/ADVERTISIN'G FEE ($100 + sales tax) ✓ d. APPLICATION FORM OR LETTER d�A-_ e. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING -52- Cat W I PROPOSED REZONE 0 U ALM DR A — MAGIC AVE —_ OF seso�g vao� tQiVVVt 45aawr " AS.M h p d o�dBBB gy .__ U - 4505011 g - 4 asowm _ J 01 ,a w CH dsoia�sr � cc — PARCEL# ADDRESS AORES LEGAL OWNER ADDRESS (CITY STATE ZIP LlANO IMPROVEMENT hSSESSED _.. TAXABLE 30WN1YPE I _ IT `THAT _ 6NR 11VN SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN PORTION OF THE VNI12 SW 114 SEI14 ALASKA MCN[AL HEALTH 3745 COMMUNITY )99508 ANCHORAGE, AK $32,904� $0 STATE 4501W5 _f 9744 KENAI SPUR HWY �... ___—___ _._ 5 51 _..__ LYING N OF KENAI SPUR ROAD TRUST AUTHORITY PARK LOOP STE 2 - $32SW ._� $0� -- I 1906 1 T RN R I IW SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN PORTIONS OF THE W1/2 SEIM SE114 8 Et/2 j l 450t07 KENAI SPUR HWY 1.37 V SW1/4 SFIA LYING N OF KENAI SPUR HWY KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 14d N BINKLEY ST SOLDOTNA. AK 99669 $16,600 $0 $16,600 _ $0 BOROUGH 4505011 305 CINDERELLA ST 2.50 T 6N R 11 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN GOUT LOT 40 T 6N R W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN E Z MANAGEMENT LLC APO BOX 3293 KENAI, AK 99611 $33,0� $104_800i $137,800 $137,800 PRIVATE 4506004 309 CASTLE ST i 49 O GOVT LOT 29 BISSET LOIS E I309 CASTLE SF KENAI, AK 99fii t 326.00 $179.BW $205.80 8185,800 PRIVATE j T 64 R IIW SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN I ' 450505 �9392 KENAI SPUR HWY 1.32 GOVT LOT 28 LYING NORTH OF KC14Ai SPUR 11W1 BISSET MARC 309 CASTLE ST KENAI, AK 99611 $24 300I b0 j24,300 $24,300 PRIVATE I 4506007 ' I 9328 KENAI SPUR HWY 0.93 T 6N R 11W SEC 33 SFWARDMERIDIAN ICN GOVI LOT 27 LYING NORTH OF KENAI SPUR HWY LASHOT BILLY JACK PO BOX 473 KENAI_AK 99611 $20.10�,$0 $20.1W $20,1W PRIVATE_ 4506013 9464 KENAI SPUR HWY 0,50D830096 T 6N R i 1 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT I, GONZALEZ R08ERT 10 5088 BEAVER LOOP RO#2 _ KENAI, AK 99611 $14,60D _ $182,200 i 5196.00I $196.800I PRIVATE 450014 808 MAGIC AVE ( 0,40 T 6N R 11 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN 083096 TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT 2 DUSTIN DENNIS PO BOX 209 ANCHOR POINT, AK 99556 I j $13,700 $186,30 $200,000�. $NKLON, PRIVATE 4506015 810 MAGIC AVE 9444 KENAI SPUR HWY 804 MAGIC AVE i 0,40 0 44 OAK T 6N R 11W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN 0830096 TREE NOR ESTATES SUB LOT 3 T 6N R 11 W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN 0830096 TREETOP ESTATES SUB LOT 4 T 6N P. 11W SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN 0970023 PAPA JOE'S SUB LOT 3 RICKMAN STEVEN A _ ANDERSON SCOTT E GERKE ERIC N 49630 REXS RD PO BOX 302 In D BOX 21077 SOLDOTNA, AK 99669j1 SOI DOTNA_AK W669I ANAKTUVVK PASS AK 99721 $13,700� II $14,W0, I $14,400I $172,]0 $104,900 $12.4W 8186 40 $199 000 $26, BDO 8186400 $19900 $26,800 PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE 4506016 4S08019 45OW24 399 MCCOLLUM OR ( 1 11 t T 6N R I PN SEC 33 SEWARD MERIDIAN KN 2^ 0057 REDF_LO SUB LOT 1 T 6N R 11 W SEC 33 S WARD MERIDIAN KN FALKENBERG CECIL C 8 PATRICIA �RD BOX 3293 KENAI, AK 99611 _ $21 900 $2.0.4.00_ .. $225 900 _ $0 PRIVATE 4506025 4501020 9520 KENAI SPUR HWY 297REPLAT 2002113 PAPAJOE'S SUB CHUMLEY TRACT A b o/ 4601➢29 _ —__...— _ i7l WORTHAM FRANKLINT CITY OF KENAI ... _. j �PO BOX t284 210 FIDALGO AVENUE _--..._..._..I KENAI AK 99611 KENAI AK 99611 j 836,3WI _$0 jTol l Assessed $0 .. $0 Value'. $36,30i $0� j $36,300 $0 � $1,193.300j PRIVATE MUNICIPAL iotai 2 Acreage 9�M , 4R January 26, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission 210 F idelgo Ave. Kenai, AK 99611 Re: The issue of the contemplated rezone of properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway Corridor from McCollum Drive West to No -flame Creek Dear Councii: My wife, do, and I moved from Kodiak to 5oldotna in February, 1997 due to .let's health and opened my law practice at 100 Trading Bay Drive, Kenai, We did not bay a home until December, 1999 because we were looking for just the right combination of factors. We wanted to be close to the law office since l often have to meet with clients at odd hours on short notice, close to a commercial center for shopping but yet in a quiet neighborhood. In December, 1999, we found our house at 309 princess which met all of our requirements and we have lived there since that time. Our horse is t % mites to my office, approximately the same to the Dena'ina I aeaith Clinic and a lesser distance to the area grocery stores and home supply stores. When the 2003 Comprehensive flan, hereinafter referred to as the "Plan" was adopted, we did not comment because the Plan requirements recognized the needs m the City of Kenai and insured that our neighborhood would remain essentially as it is now and has been since we moved here in 1999. We were in full support of the flan. We do not beGieve that the contemplated rezone is in conformance with the plan. It appears that the rezone is nothing more than a pretense to legitimize spot zoning. When the rezone was proposed there had been no study done. There had been no planning. It was proposed because a developer wanted to build commercial buildings on a lot that he had purchased. In order to facilitate that developer and avoid are illegal spot zoning, this rezone was proposed. The hasty illegal application submitted by the Planning and Zoning chairman, which had to be withdrawn, supports that conclusion and gives the public the appearance that the rezoning is going to be done regardless. As stated above, the rezone does not comply with the flan for the reasons set fo€ ch below -56- Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 2 Several goals of the Plan are listed but the first two of the goals of the Plan are: Create an attractive, vital, city center, with a mix of private and public facilities and activities to benefit residents and visitors. Protect and rejuvenate the livability of residential neighborhoods See page 2 of the Plan. These goals will be discussed in the order presented above. It was recognized in the Plan that: The city's dominant spatial pattern — linear growth aiong the Kenai Spur Highway spine — suitss local ground conditions. But it fosters a weak, poorly defined city center. It also channels most local and through traffic onto the Kenai Spar Highway, whose roadside is Kenai's front }card. The community has cited development of an identifiable, diverse, prosperous city center and a more attractive Kenai Spur Highway corridor as important planning goals. Bolding added. See page 25 of the.Plan. The Plan goes on to state: A common theme at the public planning oorkshops was that Kenai lacked a well-defined city® center. The old business district did not project a well defined city center. The old business district did not project a positive identity of a thriving Kenai. Instead, it was losing vitality and looking faded. Citizens generally agree that creating a strong, attractive, busy city center is a highly desirable planning goal. Kenai does have the potential to develop a more distinctive, attractive, successful city center. But it will take a joint public -private focus on the economics, appearance, and convenience of the city center in order to make it an attractive venue for residents and visitors. Some of the policies to foster that goal are set out below. A long-term strategy for development of Millennium Square, a remarkable community asset, is a key element for the future emergence of a city center. -57- Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 3 My law office serves clients who reside throughout the Kenai Peninsula. The office was intentionally located in the city center so that clients who visit my office can accomplish other tasks in the city when snaking the trip. lip practice benefits from this versatility offered the clients and the city benefits from the business that my clients bring to the city. I support the concept of a strong city center and I believe the 2003 Comprehensive (Plan correctly identified such need. Land Use Plan, Map 9 t on page 28 of the Plan (attached) shows the concept of the strong city center clearly. The addition of Lowe's and Wall mart fit into the concept and strengthen the city center. I supported the addition of those two businesses as they will enhance my clients ability to accomplish other tasks white in the city. An inspection of Map 11 will show that the location of the two businesses also complies with the Plan as it enhances a strong city center. Unfortunately, Lowes and WalMart will Increase the traffic coming from the east past (Princess Street which will effect the safety of my family attempting to egress Princess. This is especially true in the winter when the snow berms along the highway block the view of oncoming traffic from the east. The traffic from the north and west substantially stops at the city center, Lowes and WallMart and will not increase the traffic past Princess from those directions. The proposed rezone of the Kenai Spur Highway does not comply with the Plan in that it fosters a weak, poorly designed city center which was specifically warned against in the Plan. It will draw professionals and other businesses away from the city center. It will increase traffic flow past Princess in both directions from clients and customers going to and from the rezone. Since Walllilart is not finished, it is impossible to predict what the traffic pattern will be past Princess other than to say for same that traffic will Increase significantly and that the rezone will add to that traffic flow. In that respect alone, the rezone is premature as the addition of Lowe's and Wall Mart may stress the traffic flow on the Kenai Spur Highway, increased commercial use in the rezone would hamper individuals entering the city center and would then adversely impact the city center. Further, the rezone does not meet the second goal of protecting and rejuvenating the residential neighborhoods. An examination of Maps 90 and I t shows the entire area of the rezone colored ®range which identifies the rezone area as Neighborhood residential. There is absolutely no Neighborhood Commercial shown in that area. Neighborhood residential is defined as: The Neighborhood residential district consists of single- family and multifamily residential areas that are urban or no Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 4 suburban in character. Typically, public eater and sewer services are in place or planned for installation. This land use district may include bath single-family and multi -family dwellings subject to reasonable density transitions and/or design compatibility. Format public outdoor spaces (parks) are a critical feature in this district. Small home -based businesses may be accommodated within certain design guidelines. Neighborhood Institutional eases such as churches, schools, and day care facilities may be intermixed if they comply with neighborhood design guidelines. See Plan, page 29. There is nothing in that description that would imply commercial activity on any scale. On the west side of the city center, there are areas shown as Neighborhood Commercial which is defined as: The Neighborhood Commerciat district applies to areas along the arterial road system that are suitable for small scale neighborhood -serving retail service, and office uses. It appears that the Limited Commercial Zone, tCMC 14.20.115, was developed to foster the Neighborhood Commercial areas along the Kenai Spur highway on the west side of the city center. The LC zone is described as: (a) Intent: The LC Zone is established to provide transition areas between commercial and residential district& by allowing low to rnediursn volume business, mixed residential and other compatible uses which complement and do not materially detract from the uses allowed with adjacent districts. The principal permitted uses shown in the attached Land Use Table are: single, two and three family dwellings, churches, clinics, government buildings, day care centers, dormitories/boarding houses, essential services, green houses/ tree nurseries, professional offices, restaurants, gunsmithing, printing, taxidermy, off-street parking and personal services. Personal services are defined in Note 25 to the Land Use Table (attached) as art studios, barbers, beauticians, dressmakers, dry cleaners and self service laundries, fitness centers, photographic studios, tailors, tanning studios and massage therapists. There is no statutory definition of an "essential service" which is allowed. Since medicine and other health supplies are essential to some individuals, it could include a drug store. -59- Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 5 All of the foregoing will encourage businesses to locate away from the city center and degrade the buffer zone of the neighborhood. The users of the rezone will be transient users with no connection to the neighborhood. I was asked during nay testimony in front of the City Council if I considered churches and schools as commercial entities. I answered that l did not but did not get a chance to explain my answer. Church members are usually from the neighborhood but, even if not, the members are seeking good moral values and are self-disciplined, church activities are monitored and controlled and such activities most often take place within the building and are not conducted every day or night of the week. School activities are always well monitored and controlled. Where is very little interaction between the schools and the neighborhood. Any "bad" interaction is usually addressed by school officials quickly. Whereas those individuals using commercial facilities are not monitored and are not corning to the area seeking a good moral end. The commercial entity wants satisfied customers. For example, It is not going to attempt to control a customer's actions outside the business. The goal of the Plan is to protect and rejuvenate the livability of residential neighborhoods. The rezone under application does not protect the livability of my neighborhood. As stated above, it subjects the neighborhood to transitory unknown visitors'. The impetus of the rezone was based upon an application to place 5 commercial buildings on a lot in the zone. The proposal was that the buildings would be professional buildings. As far as I am concerned, as a professional, I want to be in the city center. ter. Carlson of the MediCenter built in the city center possibly for the same reasons that I have broached. I have not seen any explanation addressing how this rezone is going to make my neighborhood more livable or how it is going to rejuvenate the neighborhood. I would appreciate such explanation. When Investment is high and the need to bring in revenue to support a mortgage, any renter that will not violate the zone limitations will be welcome by the developer, Even the developer can not say who will inhabit those buildings in the long term future. It can be said for sure that the character of the neighborhood wid change. The neighborhood can no longer be titled "Neighborhood Residential" and Map 11 will not be an accurate representation of the area. It can be said for sure that traffic flow will be affected. As a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, you must, recognize that this rezone is merely an attempt to satisfy one developer and that the selection of land area was done in haste without even consideration of Maps 10 and 11 of the flan. Recommending the rezone will be an arbitrary use of power of the Planning and Zoning 1 Most visitors in a residential neighborhood are invitees or people such as repairmen who are there for a purpose. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 6 Commision as it is merely an illegal spot rezoning. The Alaska Supreme Court in Gdswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 1015, 1020 (Alaska 1996) stated: Spot zoning "is the very antithesis of planned zoning." Courts have developed numerous variations of this definition. These variations have but minor differences and describe any zoning amendment which "reclassifies a small parcel in a manner inconsistent with existing zoning patterns, for the benefit of the owner and to the detriment of the community, or without any substantial public purpose." Anderson, supra, § 5.12, at 362. Professor Ziegler states: Faced with an allegation of spot zoning, courts determine first whether the rezoning is compatible with the comprehensive plan or, where no plan exists, with surrounding uses. Courts then examine the degree of public benefit gained and the characteristics of land, including parcel size and other factors indicating that any reclassification should have embraced a larger area containing the subject parcel rather than that parcel alone. No one particular characteristic associated with spot zoning, except a failure to comply with at least the spirit of a comprehensive plan, is necessarily fatal to the amendment. Spot zoning analysis depends primarily on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Therefore the criteria are flexible and provide guidelines for judicial balancing of interests. 3 Edward H. Ziegler Jr., laathkoph's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 28.01, at 28-3 (4th ed. 1995). In accord with the guidance offered by Professor Ziegler, in determining whether Ordinance 92-18 constitutes spot zoning, we will consider (1) the consistence of the amendment with the comprehensive plan; (2) the benefit and detriments of the amendment to the owners, adjacent landowners, and community, and (3) the size of the area BOrezoned." in our case the rezone is not consistent with the Plan. There has been much testimony by owners, adjacent landowners and a few members of the community of the detriment that they believe they will experience. The effective area of the rezone is not -61- Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 7 as large as proposes in that some of the area can not be developed and some is already developed. Other landowners who are more familiar with the total area have addressed the effective area of the rezone. I urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the application. At the least, it is premature. No one knows how WalMart will affect the community or the traffic flog on the Kenai Spur highway. At the worst, it is inconsistent with the Plan and will unalterably change the character of my neighborhood. Regardless of what the developer represents neither he nor you can predict the type of business that will operate within the rezone in the future. The permitted eases of the 1_C zone is extensive. I thank you for your time. Sincerely, Charles Winegarden, Es , 309 Princess Kenai, AK 99611 283-5774 M � =�\��\ : �d� , py� }\� �� � � � � 14.20.115 Limited Commercial Zone (LC Zone). (a) Intent: The LC Zone is established to provide transition areas between commercial and residential districts by allowing low to medium volume business, mixed residential and other compatible uses which complement and do not materially detract from the uses allowed with adjacent districts. (b) Principal Permitted Uses: As allowed in Land Use Table as long as the footprint of the building does not exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet. (c) Conditional Uses: As allowed in Land Use Table. (d) Accessory Uses: As defined (see definitions section). (e) Home Occupations: Lases as allowed by this chapter. (f) Development Requirement: As described in this chapter. (g) Parking Requirements: As required by this chapter. (h) Outside storage is allowed for display purposes only unless the storage is in an area enclosed by a sight -obscuring fence. (i) Landscaping/Site plans: As required in KMC 14.25. (Ords. 2081-2005, 2148-2006) -65- ....b.......b .. Title, 14 PLANNING ` /+14J LONING Chapter 14.22 OND USE TABLE 14.22.010 Land use taint, KEY: P= Principal Permitted Use - C = Conditional Use S = Secondary Use N = Not Permitted LAND USE TABLE NOTE: Reference footnotes on following pages for additional restrictions ZONING DISTRICTS RL+S17lPL+NTIIAL LA" USES C RR RRS. RS RSl RS2 RE CC CG IL M ED R 'TSH LC CKU One Family Dwelling CIE P P P P P P p21 S7 S2 S2 C22 P P P S1/C21 Two/Phree Family Dwelling Cis P P P p P P P21 SI C C C2 P P P Si/C2I Four Family Dwelling C18 P C3 P N N p p21 SI C C C22 N P C SI/C21 Five/Six Family Dwelling Cis C3 N P N N P p21 Si C C N N P C SI/C21 Seven or More Family Dwelling CIE C3 N C3 N N P P21 S 1 C C N N P C 1 2t S (C Townhouses° CIS C C C C C C C C C C C22 C C C C Mobile Home pmlcs6 N C C C C C C C C C C N C N C C Planned Unit Residential Developmant3 CIE C C C C C C C C C C N C C C C COMMERCIAL BLAND, USES C � RR #U11 RS RSI RS2 RU CC CG: RL M E➢A R TSH LC CMU Automotive Sales N C C N N N C P P p p N N N N P Automotive Service Stations N C C N N N C P p p p N C N N P Banks N C C C N N C P P p C N C C C P Business/Consumer Services N C C C N N C p p P C N C C C P Guide Service N C C C N N C P P p P N P P C P Hotels/Motels N C C C N N C P P P C N C P C P Lodge N C C C N N C P p P C N P p C p professional Offices N C C C N N P P P p P N C P P P Restaurants N C C C N N C P P P C N C C P P Retail Business N26 C C C N N C P P P P S24 S24 C C P Wholesale Business N C C C N N C C P p P N s24 C C N Theaters/Commercial Recreation. N C C C N N I C I P P C C N P C C P http://urvuur.gcode.us/codes/kenai/view.php?topic _1664_22-14_22_0IO&frames=on 1/24/2009 rage / Ul D LAND USE TABLE KEY; P - Principal Permitted Use C = Conditional Use S = Secondary Use N=Not Permitted NOTE .Reference footnotes on following pages for additional restrictions ZONING DISTRICTS INDUSTRIAL ',.. LAND USES C RR RRI IRS RS1. RS2 R€J CC CG IL IR EffiD R TEN LC CMU Airports and Related uses P20 C C C N N C P P P P N C N N C Automotive Repair N C C C N N C P P P P N N N N P Gas Maimiacturer/Storage N N C C 114 N N N N C9 C9 N N N N N Manufacturing/Tabncating/ Assembly N C C C N N C C P P P N C C N C Mini -Storage Facility N C C C N N I C C P P P N N N C C Storage Yard N C C C N N C C P P P N N 'N N C ,Warehouses N C C C N N C N P P P N C N N N PUBLIC/ INSTITUTIONAL LAND USES C RE, RRI RS RSI RS2 RU CC C. M M EflD R TS11 LC: CMU Charitable Institutions C C C C C C P P P P P P C P C p Churches" C Plo Pic Plo PID Plo 1,10 Pis Flu C C P Poo p P P Clinics C C C C C P P P C C C C P P Colleges- C C C C C P P C C P C C C P Elementary Schools* C C C C C +CC P P C C P C C C P Governmental Building's C C C C C P P P C P C C P P ]sigh Schools* C C C C C P P C C P C C C P Hospitals- C C C C C C C P P P C C C C C P Libraries* C C C C C C C12 P P P C P C P C P Musemns C C C C C C C P P P I C I P C P C P Parks and Recreation P C C C C C C P P P P P P P C P Assisted Living C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C MISCELLANEOUS LAND USES C RR RRE. RS RSA RS2 RV CC CG IL M E➢D R TSH LC CMU Animal Boarding13 C C C C C N N C C C C N C N C C Bed and Breakfasts C C C C C C C C C C C N C C C P Cabin Rentals C C C C N N N P P P C N P P C P Cemeteries C C C C N N I N I N C C C N C C N N Crematori"Noneml Homes N C N C N 'N C C C C C 'N C C C C Day Care Centers12 C C C C C C C P- P P C C C C P i p Domritoinu/Boarding Houses C C C C C C P pat S C P P23 C C P P Essential Services P P P P P P P P P P P P p P P P Farming/General Agriculture*'+* P P N N N N N N N N P N P N N N I Greenhouses/Tree Nurseries19 C C I C I C C C C P P P C N C C P P http://www.gcode.us/codes/kenaih>iew.php?topic=-6vl4_22-14_22_010&frames=on 1/24/2009 LAND USE TABLE ICFY', P =Principal Permitted Use C _ Conditional Use S=F Secondary Use N = Not Permitted NOTE: Reference footnotes on following pages for additional restrictions ZONING DISTRICTS MISCELLANEOUS LAND USES C RR RRI 'RS RSl 162 RU CC CC M 111 FD R TSH LC CMU ULnnmithirrg, Printing, N C C C C C C P P P P N C P P P Taxidermy Assemblies) 5(Large . C C C C C C C P15 P15 P15 P15 Ply C P N P15 Circuses, Pairs, Etc.) Fraternal Organizations/ N C C C C C C P P P C N C P C P Private Clubs/Social Halls and Union Malls Nursing, Convalescent or N C C C C C C P P C C C C C C P Rest Humes Parking Off-street P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parking, Public Lotsr2 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Personal SMiens 25 C C C C C C C P P P P C C P P p Rad o/('V Transmitters/Cell P P C C C C C P P p P P C C C P Sifesx° Recreational Vehicle Parl® C C C C N N C C C C C N C C N C Subsurface Extraction of C C C C C C C C C C C N C N N N Natural Resourcesl6 Surface Fxbaction of C C C C N N C N C C C N C N N N Natural Resourees17 ° See 42 USCA Sec. 200000 (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000) *" See 42 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Sec. 704(a) See, however, the limitations imposed under KMC 3.I0.070 }Footnotes: I. Allowed as a secondary use except on the ground floor of the part of the building froming on collector streets and major highways. Commercialor industrial which falls under the landscaoinglsite plans requirements of KMC 14.25 shall include any secondary uses in the landscaping and site plans. 2. One (1) single-family residence per parcel, which is part of the main building. 3. Allowed as a conditional use, subject to satisfying the following conditions: a, The usable area per dwelling unit shall be the same as that required for dwelling units in the RS zone; b. The site square footage in area must be approved by the Commission; C. Yards around the site, off-street parking, and other development requirements shall be the same as for principal uses in the RR ZAne; d. Water and sewer facilities shall meet the requirements of all applicable health regulations; e. The proposed dwelling group will constitute a residential area of sustained desirability and stability; will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding property values; f. The buildings shall be used only for residential purposes and customary accessory uses, such as garages, storage spaces, and recreational and community activities; g. There shall be provided, as part of the proposed development, adequate recreation areas to serve the needs of the anticipated population; IL The development shall not produce a volume of traffic in excess of the capacity for which the access streets are designed; i. The property adjacent to the proposed dwelling group will not be adversely affected. 4. See "Townhouses" section. 5. See "Mobile Homes" section. http://www.gcc)d.c.us/codes/kenai!viem,.i)hp?topicL�08.4 22-14 22 010&frames=on 1/24/2009 a .+,ems.. , v.r 6. Allowed as a conditional rise, subject to "Mobile homes" section and provided that any mobile home park meets the minimum Federal Housing Authority requirements. 7. See "Planned Unit Residential Development" section. &. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that the proposed location and the characteristics of the site will not destroy the residential character of the neighborhood. 9. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that all applicable safety and fire regulations are met. 10. Provided that no part of any building is located nearer than thirty (30) feet to any adjoining street or property line. 11. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that no part of any building is located nearer than thirty (30) feet to any adjoining street or property line and provided further that the proposed location and characteristics of the use will not adversely affect the commercial development of the zone. 12. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that the following conditions are met: a. The proposed location of the use and the size and characteristic of the site will maximize its benefit to the public; b. Exits and entrances and off-street parking for the use are locatedto prevent traffic hazards on public streets. 13. Allowed as a. conditional use, provided that setbacks, buffer strips, andother provisions are adequate to assure that the use will not be a nuisance to surrounding properties. The Commission shall specify the conditions necessary to fulfill this requirement 14. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that no indication of said use is evident from the exterior of the mortuary. 15. Allowed, provided that the following conditions are met: a An uncleared buffer strip of at least thirty (30) feet shall be provided between said use and any adjoining property in a residential zone. b. Exits and entrances and off-street parking for the use shall be located to prevent traffic hazards on the public streets. 16. See "Conditional Uses" section. 17. See "Conditional Use Permit for Surface Extraction of Natural Resources" section. 18. Conditional Use allowed only on privately held property. Not allowed on government lands. 19. Deleted by Ordinance 2144.2006. 20. The airport related uses allowed under this entry are aircraft approach zones per KMC 14.20.070(a), except that for properties contained inside the airport perimeter fence or having access to aircraft movement areas, ramps, taxiways or parking aprons, FAA authorized uses we allowed. 21, Developments for use shall be the same as those listed in the "Development Requirements Table" for the RU/TSH zones. 22. Allowed as a conditional use in conjunction with a permitted use in the ED zone. For example, housing for teachers or students for a. school in the zone. 23. Allowed as an accessory use in conjunction with a permitted use in the ED zone. For example, a dormitory used to house students for a school or educational facility. 24. Retail businesses allowed as a secondary use in conjunction with the primary use (e. g., a gift shop or coffee shop within another 25. .Art studios, barbers, beauticians, dressmakers, dry cleaners and self-service laundries, fatness centers, photographic studios, tailors, tanning salons and massage therapists. 26. Food services are allowed on a temporary or seasonal basis of not more than four (4) months (Amended during 7-7-99 supplement; Ord. 1962-2000; amended during 12-1-00 supplement; Ords. 1911-2001, 1938-2001, 1956-2002, 1962-2002, 1990-2003, 1994-2003, 2053-2004, 2081-2005, 2112-2005, 2113-2005, 2144-2006, 2152-2006, 2185-2006, 2195-2006, 2246-2007, 2272-2007) http://www.gcode.us/codes/kenai/view.plip?topio_=6O-14„ 22-14_,22__010&frames=on 1/24/2009 FrR s 2Dr7S January 31, 2009 Kenai City Council Planning and Zoning Commission Rick Koch, City Manager 210 Fidefgo Ave. Kenai, AK 99611 Re: The issue of the contemplated rezone of properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway Corridor from McCollum Drive tritest to Pao -Flame Creek Dear Council: 1 am lodging a protest concerning Jeff Twait and Karen Koester participating in any further voting on the above rezone. They should either recluse themselves of be disqualified for the following reasons: eff T ad The City of Kenai Municipal Code 1.85,060 Conflicts of interest prohibited states: (d) No Council or commission member may vote on any question in which he or she has a substantial direct or indirect financial interest. Direct or indirect financial interests shall be disclosed to the presiding officer prior to a vote on the question and the presiding officer shall determine whether the financial interest exists and whether the Prohibition from voting is applicable, A decision by the presiding officer may be overridden by a unanimous vote of the members present, exclusive, of the member presenting the possible conflict, Mr. Twaif and Core Leigh McCollum have a daughter Miranda Twaif, Miranda Twalt is the daughter of Glenn idciolium Jr, whn ig an etee ns .,. ... p..oparty in the proposed rezone area. Miranda wiff have an heir to that property. Mr. Twaft has an indirect financial interest by way of his daughter, Further, Mr. Twait illegally filed the rezone application and has provided a letter to the City Council supporting the rezone. The Letter is attached. In AME, Ness Pipe Corp. v. REG, COM., 176 P.3d 667 (Alaska 2006), the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed -70- Kenai City Council Planning $ Zoning Commission Rick Koch, City Manager January 31, 2009 the decision in Cinderella Career & Finishing Sch, v. F. T C , 425 F.2d 583 (D.C. Gin 1970) and approved the finding in thatcase. In Cinderella, Paul Rand Dixon, who was the chairman of the Commission spoke at the Government Relations Workshop of the National newspaper Association in which he made several derogatory statements concerning deceptive advertising and charm schools which substantially implied that he had prejudged the issue which was being brought before the Commission. The Cinderella court expressed its strong disapproval by stating: This does not give individual Cornmiseionem license to prejudge cases or to make speeches which give the appearance that the case has been prejudged. Conduct such as this may have the effect of entrenching a Commissioner in a position which he has publicly stated, making It d'ofiiculi, If not impossible, for him to reach a different conclusion in the event he deems it necessary to do so after consideration of the record. There is a marked difference between the issuance of a press release which states that the Conunlasion has tiled a complaint because it has "reason to believe" that thers have been violations, and statements by a Commissioner after an appeal has been riled which give the appearance that he has already prejudged the case and that the ultimate determination of the merite will move in predestined grooves. While these two situations — Commission press releases and a Commissioners pre -decision public statements — are similar In appearance, they are obviously of a different order of merit. Id. @ 5g0. The Alaska Supreme Court in AUE. Mess Pipe Corp. cited above added this comment In the light of prior warnings to him in other cases, the court scarcely concealed its disgust for his ethical laxity. Cla esaiaa most squarely stands for the proposition that Intemperate public remarks by a decision maker create a consttutonally impermissible appearance of outcome -determinative prejudgment. 176 P.3d @ 67C In the case of the rezone, based upon Mr. Twaif's illegal filing to the application to rezone and his public remarks to the City Council, I and many others have no -71- Kenai City Council Planning & Zoning Commission Rick Koch, City Manager January 31, 2009 confidence that Mr. Twait will fairly and impartially consider the issue of the rezoning. He should recuse himself or, if he refuses to do so, Mr. Twait should not be allowed to participate in discussions or vote on the issue. Karen Koesea Ms. Koester also provided a letter to the City Council in support of the rezone. The letter is attached. The above cited cases also apply to Ms. Koester. Her remarks in the letter certainly indicate that she will vote for the rezone regardless of what additional testimony will be presented at the hearing. Ms. Koester has certainly created an "appearance of outcome-determinadva prejudgment", She should recuse herself, or, it she refuses to do so, Ms. Koester should not be allowed to participate in discussions or vote on the issue. Sincerely, Q . Ck, W Charles Winegarden, Est'. 309 Princess Kenai, AK 99611 283-5774 IN Ja&oy M. Twait 18M Julie Anna Drive Kenai, Ak. 99611 December 8, 2008 _. Marilyn, I wanted to write a brief letter in light of the rumblings I've beard over the past week regarding the re•zona of Tract A, Papa Joe's Subdivision Chumley Rapist from RRi to Lc. As you are aware, I was out of town for both of the meetings in which testimony was given regarding this. I have read the minutes from the first meeting in September and have aifted through the C imprehene{ve Plan and the Zoning Code. Having spent a great deal of time with fallow commissioners and yourself in developing a Limited Commercial Zone it is my opinion that this is the boat Zorm for the above mentioned property. I know that neighbors in the area are reluctant for change and it is our job as a Planning and Zoning Commission to weigh all the factors and allow responsible development and growth in our community as long as it is in harmony with the guidelines that we must use to make such decisions. I feel that Dr. Wortham has taken the proper steps and hired the proper profassionals to assure the community that his fir"atment in this property will not only improve the aesthetics as we all drive by but also be an asset to the entire area. That being said,. bad I been available at the last meeting it would have been my vote to vote in favor of the rezone. Planes forward this on to the proper body for consideration if you feel it appropriate. Sincerely y rw'it_� �F Planning and Zoning Chair {iecaNad OIC 3 2tl8� it �annfn �, r -73- .Jc+.d+rswatrle.N. _ ar . ♦ � Ix,In♦ N' - '.!. I,.,.}:. r.L 14, 1.1-1 :. :: ems. Ia. ;... aw. Options assarmots and.puts fifin in m avwkwwd and umusomable posium'.im realistic; low imppzt and it \., into consideration a "rmsidentie look to his proposed btjldjcg� ncia� the — A Y. A- i.f...areere �I:Ynw. N or. i ! fa u'dwm as .e 5 :.. I:., .... I f'. ♦-s r..im. t, h YN Hb . l w P: IrP Y e 1 �.Y . M } r♦ . ♦ t . e ) e emv ....Y r [ D' }. " 1'Y.tit l.(lo .:i: -♦.: ! e -74- -75- Mariliv a Kelbschull( From: Carol Freas Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 932 PM To: mboyle@alaska.com; barry_eldridge@yahoo.com; molloylaw@ak.net; cpajoe@altrogco.com; kenaimayor10@msn.com; rossrck@hotmail.com; hvsmalley@yahoo.com Cc: Cary Graves; Rick Koch; Marilyn Kebschull Subject; Gloria Wilk email comments FYI �... ,..m n Fr®¢¢a: Gloria Wilk[mailto:gwik@alaska.net]Oe� -�� vat Sent. Mon 2/2/2009 10:58 AM F4 To: Carol Freas �ZDpg Cc: Colleen Ward D Subject< Rezone ' Hi Carol I would like to make it known that I am against the purposed rezoning between No Name Creek and McCollum Drive in Kenai. Although my residency here has been very short comparatively speaking I have lived here long enough to come to enjoy the quiet neighborhood and country living. I fear this neighborhood would change dramatically if RR1 was changed to Limited Commercial with the increase in traffic alone. As I understand it back in 1985 the neighborhood did help pay for water and sewer installation so they would be able to have a say as to how development occurred. What happened to that agreement? We have come together as neighbors to voice our concern and opposition to this and it seems to be failing on deaf ears. Gloria Wik 707 Magic <enai -76- Marilyn KebschuH From: Carol Frees Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:34 PM To: mboyle@alaska.com; barry_eldridge@yahoo.com; molloylaw@ak.net; cpajoe@altrogco.com; kenaimayor10@msn.com; rossrck@hotmaii.com; hvsmalley@yahoo.com Cc: Cary Graves; Rick Koch; Marilyn Kebschull Subject: Bissett rezone comments FYI From: covops specops (maiIm:specforces@mail.com] Sent: Mon 2/2/2009 9:15 AM To. Carol Frees Subject, To whom it may concern, I am very concerned about the way this council is treating this in a socialist manner. Rezoning this neighborhood would be a detrarient to all residents in the area. My wife and I moved to AK almost 7 years ago and took six months to locate the perfect neighborhood to fit our needs. We picked this particular place because of its location and the zoning as we intended to live out our lives here. We bought the tract of land next door to us so our kids could build right next door. We were going to pick up more land in the area for the same purpose and for our children children. Over the past 6 years there has been increasingly more traffic in the area which has made it more difficult for my children to cross the highway and to play without fear of traffic hazzards. If this is rezoned and this proposed proffessional "mall' comes in, the street that was once safe behind our house would be too dangerous and the increase of trespassers on my personal drive would be unforgivable. As it is 1: have problems with people trying to take shortcuts through my drive which is dangerous for my family. Not to mention. I am the one that pays for the upkeep of this drive. As it is I have had the police out a few times. I would be calling the police constantly to report trespassers and demand some form of protection. I would also have to seek legal action for any damage committed by such encroachments. I ant not ignorant that I would believe there would be no more traffic on Magic street nor through my drive. They would have to use it to get in and out of this proposed proffessional plant because the traffic on the spur is too dangerous to get in and out effectively. To put in another light would only increase the congestion and create more problems of another kind. My kids and I like to ride bikes in this area and injustice would be too great a risk. I have too much invested in this area not to be heard. I have made renovations to my house, spent thousands updating it and maintaining it. I planned to do many more improvements but have haulted my efforts because of this unjustifiable act of preferring money over the wellbeing of the people. There is no reason for this to be be a transitional zone because there is no transition. There is a distinct seperation between the industrial and this residential area created by nature alone. If you propose to do this you are creating many environmental and social issues that are not sound policy no matter what your agenda is. There must be sound reasonings and a definitive propose behind this rezone other than someone has spent money on some land. This cannot be done because someone thinks it would be a nice gesture. This is a demoralizing unethical act that would be unforgivable if persuxed any farther. Too rezone would be to exact more taxes on my family wich already have enough hardships as it is with this current economy and the socialist regime that is now in office on the national level. We have need of every dime we have left over to live on. Why sould you impose an unconstitutional act upon the people when this area already has an agreement with this city zoning commission restricting any such action? It makes me suspect motives and leadership abilities. Let alone your concern for the people. Government is supposed to be of the people; by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE not for big money, the respecting of persons, or big government. I admonish you strongly to please fore -go these efforts to create -77- further hardships upon this residential area and its occupants. With great expectancy of your compassion, wisdom, and reconsideration on this matter. Thanks, Marc and Lois Bisset and family Be Yourself @ mail.eom! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail,.com! February 1, 2009 Dear Kenai Planning and Zoning Commissioners, I have lived at 403 McCollum Drive since November 4, 1988. It was our first home and we were''very excited to be moving in. We had house hunted all over Kenai and in Nikiski. We could have chosen a larger home in Woodland or other Kenai neighborhoods but fell in love with this home the first time we pulled in the driveway. The Rural atmosphere of the neighborhood, the church across the street, having an acre to ourselves, and living close to the schools and grocery stores were all part of the appeal that helped us make our decision. Just as we were preparing to close on the house, a report came in that the private water well was not adequate. The seller quickly brought in equipment to hook our home up to Kenai city water and sewer. We were glad for that but a little disheartened. The heavy equipment and the process of digging water and sewer lines drastically changed the look of our lot as they took out the trees on the front of our lot that had provided a lot of privacy. You could now see our house from the road. We had an opportunity to back out of the deal but losing the trees was not a deal breaker for us. We knew we could replant trees and put in grass and create a beautiful yard with a little bit of work. That is exactly what we did; making planting trees a special family project. The trees were the same height as our two little boys and they took great pride in planting them and watching them grow. Those trees are as tall as the house now and the boys take their children out to show them the trees they planted when they themselves were small. The trees now provide a nice natural barrier and privacy for our home. We are glad to have them as we lost many of the older trees on our property from beetles. I have heard many reasons why the Papa Jo property should be rezoned to Limited Commercial with the primary reason I keep hearing being because all the trees were cut down. I agree the piece is an eye sore as it stands now but there are many ways to fix that problem. Rezoning for commercial entitles is not the only solution. Just as rezoning the whole corridor now to LC is not the only solution and only prevents an arbitrary spot zoning condition, creating a strip zoning situation. Nine years ago our neighborhood formed a "Lighthouse of Prayer" gathering in my living room on a weekly basis to pray for our neighbors and our city. Sometimes some of us went on prayer walks praying through the neighborhood. Red McCollum was one of the members who came regularly and prayed with us for the neighborhood. He also would pray for his children. He said, "Someday I won't be here to continue praying and I ask that you continue to pray for them for me." He taught us how to pray for them and entrusted the neighborhood and his children to us. January 5, is a special anniversary for those of us in this Rural Residential neighborhood. Debbie Sonberg had gone to the house of Red McCollum on this day seven years ago because he was not answering his phone and she felt the need to check in on him. That is what neighbors do. She entered the home of our beloved friend and found that he had passed away sitting in a chair in his living room. She picked up the phone and dialed 911. From 2 houses over, we heard and saw an ambulance arrive at the residence. My husband, Roy, barely took the time to slip on his shoes as he went running over to see if he could assist. I hopped in the car and drove over as I was expecting to accompany the ambulance to the hospital. On arrival, the Kenai ambulance crew met us outside the living room saying they were sorry, but there was nothing they could do. Red was gone I called Colleen Ward so that she could begin to contact Red's family members. She came and we all hugged and cried as neighbors, and the family was called, wo On January 1, 2002, many of us had gathered at my home to celebrate the New Year together. It was the last time I saw this man and the memory of that day is very vivid in my mind as I recall how happy and content he was mostly just watching us and chuckling to himself. With his passing we resolved to never forget the man of whom part of the neighborhood was named after and to honor his request to pray for it and his children. On January 11, 2002, we alongside his family buried Red. We will not stand by now and just let his property where his daughter, our friend, now lives be rezoned to anything commercial. We are a neighborhood of people who are neighborly. Around 600 B.C.E., the prophet Jeremiah sent a letter from Jerusalem to the exiled community of people in Babylon. In the letter, Jeremiah relayed a message to the people! 'Build houses and settle down, plant gardens and eat what they produce.... Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." Today we are still called to care about the community in which we live. Get involved; get serious about where you live become a part of the community. Becoming a part of the community can mean three things. Caring about the peace of the community -- making sure that the community is a safe place for all to live; connecting with the people of the community -- working together with others in the community to serve the community; and committing the community, its people and its needs to prayer -- coming together to pray for its peace and prosperity. My husband and I graduated from KCHS 29 years ago and have enjoyed the 20 years we have lived here in this home, in Kenai raising five children. We were creating a legacy for our family, planting berries, raising flowers, cultivating an apple orchard. Our son even married "the little girl down the street'. They bought the home directly behind us so the kids could grow up walking a path through the woods to grandmas. We put in another path creating a "secret garden" for them. When they come, the first thing they ask, "Can we go to the secret garden grandma?" They believe this will never end, that there will always be a treasure chest of sweets waiting for them. I have devoted a length of this time to serving the community, helping neighbors to help other neighbors and teaching my children to do the same. Now, because of the fighting we have to do to maintain what we have, my husband and I have begun house hunting in Nikiski. I told him when we moved here that 1 would never move again. We planned to dive here. I cannot begin to describe my agony. I urge you to vote "no" on recommending this rezone on the grounds that it will 1. Drastically affect the surrounding neighborhood residents as well as the majority of the residents being rezoned, 2. Create a strip zoning situation, 3. Does not comply with the Kenai City Code that states "the purpose of the LC zone is to create a transition from commercial to residential, and 4. No one in this neighborhood asked for this rezone, it was the sole desire of four members of the City Council Please protect the current zoning our neighborhood enjoys as well as have trusted to be protected. Sincerely, Janine Espy 403 McCollum Drive Mariivn KebachuH From: Debbie Sonberg [debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:11 AM To: Carol Freas; Marilyn Kebschull Cc: Colleen Ward; Debbie & Russell Sonberg Subject: Opposed to any rezone of RR1 & Conservation to Commercial Please include my statement in the packet that i am OPPOSED to any rezone of RR or conservation as described on the petition. I fully support the neighborhood report that is (or soon will be) submitted for inclusion in the P&Z packet for the February I meeting. 1 will let the petition and neighborhood report reflect my position in greater detail. This email is to simply, officially register my opposition to this and any similar rezone to the RRI N4APS neighborhood. Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 907-283-5880 M Pj rn4 'T F r/� Kristine A. Schmidt a 2011,s 513 Ash Avenue Kenai, Alaska 99611 ` (907) 283-7102 f�a° February 4, 2009 My husband and I moved to the Kenai-Soldotna area in the early 1980s, and we lived in both Kenai and Soldotna. In 1985, we chose to buy a home in Kenai, rather than Soldotna, where we Loth worked at that time. We chose Kenai (and the daily commute to Soldotna for many years) because Kenai had a compact city center, and was not a sprawlscape like Soldotna. We also believed that Kenai government, at that time, was more protective of the quality of life for Kenai residents, than in Soldotna. I am opposed to the proposed rezone, PZ09-06, for the following reasons. A. DOES NOT C'ONF01 M1 TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I personally participated in the Kenai comprehensive plan community workshops in (I believe it was) spring of 2002. The most memorable feature of those meetings to me: the great majority of people attending the workshops felt very strongly that they did not want Spu llntvav . ustiness sfrsgr develogrmeett. They wanted business development to be in and around a core City Center, with strong residential neighborhoods around the city center, This is reflected. several times in the Comprehensive Plan (see below): (1) Page 25: "The Chy's dominant spatial pattern -- linear growth along the Kenai Spar Highway...fosters a weak, poorly defined city center. It also channels most local and through traffic onto the Kenai Spur Highway, whose roadside is KENAPS VISUAL FRONT YARD." (2) Page 25: "The community has cited development of an identifiable, diverse, prosperous city center and a more attractive Kenai Spur Highway corrider as IMPORTANT PLANNING GOALS." (3) Page 26: "The Proposed Land Use PIan (Maps 10 and i I) are to be used with the development policies to guide growth. The Proposed Land Use Plan is a generalized vision of a desirable pattern of land uses toward which the City has chosen to evolve, The zoning map and. regulations are meant to implement the proposed plan." NOTE: Map 10, Proposed Land .Use Plan, shows the highway strip along the proposed rezone to be NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENIIAL, (4) Page 26: "A common theme at the public planning workshops was that Kenai lacked a well-defined city center... Citizens generally agree that creating a strong, attractive, busy city center is a highly desirable planning goal." (5) Pages 30-34: Create a city center, discourage "highway -oriented, low -density, free- standing commercial buildings or land uses." '. (6) Page 36: "Some residents complain about commercial 'strip development' along the Kenai Spur Highway." "On analysis, these concerns seemed aimed mainly at the appearance -- lack of landscaping, unattractive signage -- and poor access of some businesses and, to a lesser extent, the dispersed character of development." (7) Page 37: "Another issue of neighborhood concern is commercial development near residential areas as conditional uses or THROUGH REZONES, particularly along the. Kenai Spur Highway. One of the goals of zoning is to achieve stable, livable residential neighborhoods by fiFiPARATiNC: thorn frnm inrmm�ati hla ne e" 1110M This rezone proposal does NOT conform to the Kenai Comprehensive Plan (CP) f. Comprehensive Plan - Ml an 10. CP Map 10 is the "Proposed Land Use Plan" for the City of Kenai. This map shows the "desirable pattern of land use" for the City. See CP 26. The proposed rezone area is currently zoned rural residential, consistent with Map 10. This proposed rezone to limited commercial is right in the muddle of one of these large "neighborhood residential" areas. Commercial development is not "desirable" for this area, according to Map 10. Map 10 was amended this last May 2008, but the proposed land use plan for the proposed rezone area remained the same — neighborhood residen ial. 2. Allows and Encourages Commercial Strap Development. This proposal opens up a large residential zone to highway business strip development, with no protection for "Kenai's visual front yard." See CP 25. The landscaping ordinance is cited by City staff, but that ordinance is extremely weak, and the City does not enforce it. See the strip mall next to Safeway as an example, It had a required landscaping plan, but the City allowed the developer to remove every single bit of vegetation, and replace it with a building and asphalt -- and no enforcement of the landscaping plan. In this strip mall development we see the future of this proposed rezone. 3. Weakens Cii ry Center, This proposal allows business development far away from the city center, which weakens the city center. This proposal encourages "highway oriented, low -density, free-standing commercial buildings" -- which the CP says should be discouraged. 4. Allows and Encourages Incompatible Commercial Development. This proposal would allow incompatible commercial development in the middle of a large residential zone, through rezoning. Nearby residences are not protected from potentially incompatible commercial development, because commercial development is specifically allowed in the Limited Commercial Zone, regardless of whether it is incompatible with nearby residential areas or not, and the adjacent residential property owners have no recourse. This rezone is exactly the type of rezone that the CP 37 says should not happen. R. COMPRE+I3I?;10SWE PLAN, -.MAJOR REWRITE RITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT. This proposal is a major rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, with no community involvement allowed -- unlike with the Plan itself. This proposal has been singled out for the fast track, with no work sessions, just to accommodate the developer of one lot -- Tract A, Papa Joe's Subdivision Replat (Tract A). This Commission turned down a rezone application for that lot recently. C. PROP®SED REZONE - NO PUBLIC BENEFIT. The proposed rezone of this area -- both the pending rezone of Tract A, and this new rezone proposal -- has no benefit for the general public, but is exclusively for the benefit of the private owner of Tract A. I have not heard one single reason expressed for this rezone, that establishes a public benefit. I have only heard people voice their personal opinions that the lot as developed is ugly, and would be better off being developed according to the Tract A developer's -2- IN proposed plan for a professional services "mall." however, these opinions don't express any PUBLIC benefit, just a private one, for the benefit of the developer. There are also many good arguments the opposite; for example: (1) rezoning to "fix" the ugly existing development sets a bad policy, that rewards bad actors; (2) Tract A could also be developed for attractive single or multiple family housing; or for many other purposes already allowed in the existing zones. No affected property owner applied for a rezone of this proposed area. This proposal is not related to any plan or design in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed lots are not mixed use -- the supposed rationale for rezoning the Thompson Park highway frontage from general commercial to limited commercial. There is no reason for this proposal EXCEPT to benefit the one Tract A developer. This new multi -lot proposal, which includes Tract A, appears to be a ploy to "cure" the spot zoning of Tract A through duplicating the prior proposed rezone of that parcel, and, just adding a few more parcels to get around the spot zoning problem. Call this what you will -- it's still spot zoning. D. REZONE PROCESS - ARBITRARY. UNFAIR, NOT COMPLIANT Here are other reasons the two rezoning proposals for this area are arbitrary and unfair I. No Rezone Standards. The Kenai Zoning Code contains virtually no substantive standards or criteria for a rezone --just a one acre lot minimum: A persoD who opposes the rezone has no way of knowing what facts to present or arguments to make against the rezone, because the final decision can be based on any reason, or no reason -- it can be completely arbitrary. Regardless of whether the Kenai Zoning Code contains standards, the Alaska Supreme Court developed a test in Griswold v, Ci1y of Homer for whether zoning amendments are constitutional. The rezone must: (1) be consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) provide a benefit to the public, rather than primarily abenefit to a private owner; and (3) not be a small parcel (or small multi -parcel area) singled out for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area. This proposed rezone fails all three tests. At a minimum, the desires ofthe people within the rezone or adjacent to the property to be rezoned should be given the same consideration or more than the applicant. There is only one lot owner (LaShot) in the proposed rezone that is on the record as consenting to the rezone -- the others in the proposed rezone, or those adjacent to it, either oppose the rezone on the record, or non -object, or have not responded on the public record (not counting the City's lot; see below). It's wrong and bad public policy to force a rezone down the throats of the affected property owners: in the proposed zone and adjacent to it. 1 No Pair Hearing' The Planning and Zoning Comrnik'sion hearing process itself can be unfair. There is no time for interested persons to submit comments into the Commission packet before the hearing. The general public has no idea what will be on the P&Z Commission agenda until. AFTER the agenda and/or packet have been published, when it is too late to get a statement into the packet -- unless a person has inside information, or has personally received a notice of the rezone because of residing within 300 feet of the proposed rezoned area. For example, the Feb. 11, 2009 P&Z Commission meeting agenda was just published in today's (Feb. 4) morning newpaper, and the packet deadline is today at noon; leaving no time for the general public (not "in the know") to submit a comment for the packet. 3 SIM Commissioners and Planning staff make statements after the public hearing is closed that cannot be addressed by people opposed to the rezoning. Often, the applicant has an unlimited. time to speak and answer questions, but the people opposed to the rezone are not given the same opportunities: I saw this happen with the prior Tract A rezone proposal. Planning staff advocate for the rezone, and the Commnissioners give their testimony more weight than anyone else's (more on this below). People testifying are interrupted (losing their time), or their testimony is stopped before their time is up. Favored testifiers (including the applicant) are allowed to go past the time limit, while unfavored testifiers are held strictly to the time limits. The City Manager has submitted a chart (dated 1/9/09) which contains hearsay and misinformation. For example, the chart states that Eric Gerke supported the rezone, while Eric Gerke submitted a statement in the record opposing the rezone. The chart states that the Borough supports the rezone, while the Borough letter in the record states only non -objection, with conditions. The chart claims that the City "supports" the rezone, but the City Council. (which decides these policy matters under the City Charter) has not taken a position on this rezone yet, The Commission should not accept any claim of a property owner's support (or opposition) on this chart, where the property owner has not submitted a written statement for the public record. 4. Unfair Advocacy. I am very concerned about the level of advocacy and lobbying by Planning staff on some rezone applications, such as the Tract A proposal, and this proposal. This advocacy biases the whole process from the beginning, because the Commission and the City Council give more weight to the staff report and testimony, which is evident from comments I have heard from Commissioners at Commission meetings, and the City Council members at Council meeting. In addition, City staff has an unlimited time to advocate for the rezone, including after the public hearing, while the public is limited to 3 minutes each, and cannot address comments made by staff after the public hearing -- another unfair process. 5. ADDearance of Bins. I am also concerned that two P&Z commissioners who testified (by letter and in person, or both) in favor of the Tract A. rezone before the City Council on 12/3/08, might be voting on PZ09-06. These commissioneer sshould recuse themselves from voting tonight, or be barred from voting, for conflict of interest -- because the Tract A rezone is included in PZ09-06. A public official cannot be both an advocate for one side, and a decision maker. It is obvious that these two commissioners have prejudged this issue, Even though this type of conflict of interest does not appear to be covered by the City code, it is one well recognized in Alaska law (called "appearance of bias"). 6. Failure to Follow Zoning, Code. As of yesterday, February 3, 2009, the property in the proposed rezone had not been posted for the 10 day period, as required by KMC 14.20.280(d). According to KMC 14.20.280(d), "Failure to liroperly post notices shall be grounds for deferral or denial of the application." Therefore, this rezone applicant should be denied or deferred. Also, one can't legally post the property within the proposed rezone without the consent of the property owner -- without consent, posting is trespassing. The very fact that the Zoning Code requires posting on the property within the proposed rezone means that rezoning carmot occur without the consent of all property owners within the proposed rezone. M No Thank you for your consideration of these comments. -s- From: Carol Frees Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:17 PM To: Marilyn Kebschull Subject: FW: Opposed to any rezone of RRi & Conservation to Commercial Don't think you got this one. Corey Fro= Debbie & Russell Sonberg [mailto:sonberg@alaska.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:23 AM 6o, Carol Frees Cc: xcel@alaska.com Subjecte Re: Opposed to any rezone of RRl & Conservation to Commercial TO CITY OF KENAI I am OPPOSED to any rezone of RR.1 or conservation as described on the petition. I fully support the neighborhood report that is (or soon will be) submitted for inclusion in the P&Z packet for the February 11 meeting. I will let the petition and neighborhood report reflect my position in greater detail. This email is to simply, officially register my opposition to this and any similar rezone to the RR.1 N4APS neighborhood. Russell Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 907-283-5880 February 4 2009 rM z . iJ .C>G!2r2 G`-G\lll«'d3»% ■6 2? «2x*<t y»x« ¢229 ©®® m 'The City manager stated in a letter to the Council dated September 11, 2008, "if it's not broke why fix it." The Kenai Spur Highway corridor east of Kenai's commercial district beginning at Walker Lane on the south side of the highway and beginning at No -Name creek on the north side of the highway is not broke and is not in need of fixing. On the contrary, it is working exceptionally well. It is this significant hub of residential and educational life intentionally segregated from commercial activity that contributes to the character and distinction of Kenai. This highway corridor just east of the commercial center is characterized by residential and educational life — children go to school, play sports, conduct concerts and plays; families run and walk their pets, ride bikes and roller blade on the walkways; the young and old play tennis and walk the track; club and school teams practice and play hockey games; children and adults alike come from the local area and around the state to orbit through the galaxies at the phenomenal and integral Challenger Center. This hub is a recognizable attribute that helps define the quality of life that attracts families and citizens to Kenai and distinguishes Kenai fiom Soidotna, Wasilla and the Muldoon and. Spenard. communities of Anchorage. This residential and educational hubs without commercial sprawl is an intended and recognizable attribute that has successfully developed Kenai as an idyllic place to live and raise a family. This hub of residential and educational life is not what is wrong with Kenai, it is what is right with Kenai. It is not ]broke, so don't tad to fix it. In this report the residents of the McCollum/Magic, Aliak, Princess and, Spur (MAPS) area. will address the proposed strip rezone in die following manner: ® dispel widely propagated, but incorrect paradigms; ® provide compelling legal roadblocks; ® demonstrate clear conflicts with the Kenai Comprehensive Plan; * outline violation of the Kenai Municipal Code; and ® discuss improprieties and probable illegalities surrounding the proposed rezone process. M1 ;r. ;,.;.� � _ � ..,. �'. P ('�., S `ti� � 1 ' ;:.' p7� F_. � 4. e � t'. aia .... f ; ra '. �`• , � � �,� -' � �.. An overwhelming majority of the property owners located in the adjoining parcels and within the proposed rezone area itself strongiy omAaosas approyai of the application being prepared by City Manager Rick Koch for the Kenai City Council to strip rezone a portion of the MAPS area from Rural Residential 1 (RRI) and Conservation to Limited Commercial (LC). We urge the elected and appointed officials of the City of Kenai to hear the voice of the people and to open-mindedly consider the following presentation. Before we can provide an analysis of this proposed rezone in light of the Kenai Comprehensive Plan, the Kenai Municipal Code, and the applicable legal precedent related to the rezone application, we must first clarify prime paradigms being widely propagated by city officials. To do justice to this process we must recognize these paradigms for what they are - perceptions of reality. Perceptions of reality and reality can be, and often are, two completely different and contradictory things. False paradigms, when left uncorrected, result in prejudice. Recisions based on false paradigms are arbitrary. The decision regarding this rezone must be based on the actual reakities, not on false paradigms or perceptions of pertinent reality. No Faise Paradigm 1, What e6se are you going to do with this prop"? No one would want to live along the highway. The reality is that people want to and do live along the highway. In the specific area targeted for rezone the Sherry James family (Parcel 450501.1) has rented her duplex fronting the Kenai Spur Highway for the past 16 years. As a renter she could easily up and move if she so chose. She does not choose to do so. She likes living along the Kenai Spur Highway. Her neighbor, Glen Smith (Parcel 4505011) also has the option to rent elsewhere, but he too, chooses to live along the Kenai Spur Highway. Homeowners Petiia Falkenberg (Parcel 4506024) and Marcus and Lois Bisset (Parcel 4506004) also choose to live on the highway in the proposed rezoned area. The Bissets have plans to build a house with their son on a second parcel (Parcel 4506005) they purchased along the highway so he too can live in this area with his family. The tenants in the Scott Anderson (Parcel 4506016) and the Robert Gonzalez (Parcel 4506013) apartments could just as easily rent elsewhere, but they choose to live along the highway. It may be the preference of the city officials to not live along the highway. This preference should in no way be projected on the populace as a whole. See Exhibit P. Faise Paradigm #2: No liouses have been built along this corridor of the highway for a long time. It is a deteriorating area. The reality is that of the eight road frontage, privately owned properties being considered in this rezone, five have already been developed with residential housing. The Bissets home was built in the early 2000s. They purchased it shortly thereafter. They have since purchased the lot beside them and plan to blind another house on this lot. In spite of the neighbor's offer to purchase the properties for residential uses, the Franklin T. & Kristie Worthain lot, formerly owned by Hugh Chuinley, was unavailable for purchase for residential use at any semblance of market value pricing for over a decade. MAPS owners have also made the Worthams aware of their desire to purchase lots from them. for residential uses. The only other remaining vacant lot is now owned by former city employee, Jack Lashot Prom the inception of a new community through its development, the properties along the road systems feeding that new community are quite naturally the first place homes are built. The most obvious reason includes convenient access to the rest of the community. Therefore, the Kenai Spur Highway corridor being targeted for rezone is one of the older and more maturely developed residential neighborhoods in the community, The slowing of new growth along *his condor is an indicator of maturity and avaiianitity, not undesira`vllity. One has only to drive through the adjoining and surrounding neighborhood to recognize that this is not a deteriorating area. Several new homes have been built in recent years and in many cases these homes have been built as second homes by current residents of the neighborhood,. It would not be a stretch to assume that people would be eager to vacate a deteriorating neighborhood. Instead of vacating, multiple owners have built second homes in this same neighborhood. Also demonstrated in this development is the care of the neighbors to preserve the "intent" of the zone and "the residential atmosphere" of an open, un-crowded, low density neighborhood. Residents are often choosing to place their single family dwellings on properties that could actually accommodate multiple dwellings. Faise Paradigm #3: it is an eye sore and therefore we must develop it commercially to make it more appealing. Prior to this property being clear cut this paradigms was non-existent. The reality may actually be that it is an eye sore to some, however there are many viable options to change that reality that do not include rezoning. The most obvious is re -forestation. A thorough listing of other viable and compliant alternatives is provided in Exhibit A on both page 4 and Attachment C. M False Paradigm 94: There is no commercial property available Eve Kenai so additional property needs to be rezoned for commercial use. In reality, one IVIAi'S owner discovered on a quick drive around Kenai, five undeveloped commercial properties For sale and observed numerous unoccupied developed properties, some of which he knows has been vacant for years. In further research, focusing only on undeveloped commercial properties, he learned the following: "A quick search on www.alaskarealestate.com reveals 1.4 undeveloped commercial properties in the Kenai area, nine of which are in Kenai or on the Spur I- Iighway.('Listing 4:07-824; Listing 4:07-16226; Listing #:08-4053; Listing #:08-66 77; Listing 4:07-12816; Listing #:08-10819; Listing 0:08-14452; Listing'#:04-310558; Listing #:08-14359) Most striking is that "three (3) parcels of land are Iocated near the Kenai Airport right in the heart of a rapidly growing retail area of the city. Neighboring development includes: Home Depot, Carrs Safeway, 3-Bears, and the Stardey Chrysler." (Listing: 08-14359) These lots are strategically located in the fastest growing commercial area in Kenai." "The City of Kenai is also considering rezoning nearly 1,080 acres of airport reserve lands surrounding the airport from conservation to light industrial use at this same time, a significant amount of land for future commercial development" (PHIL HERMANEK: Peninsula Clarion, February 22, 2008) Another resident, with little effort located the multiple parcels represented in ExMblt a. Some of these parcels are raw land, others contain vacant buildings. Of the approximate 1500 linear feet of private property that .is under threat of being rezoned only two are undeveloped lots that have not already been or have plans to be developed residentially. The assertion that these two lots are somehow going to mitigate a nonexistent shortage of commercial property is an unabashed distortion of reality. Perhaps this is not about availability, but about pricing. Or perhaps this is not about availability, but about directionality and the underlying, but unstated false paradigm, that in order for Kenai to progress it must develop easterly. False Paradigm 5: A required landscape buffer wi l provide the separation needed to protect the residential ¢nWghbors from the commercial developments. If this were true, and the codified buffer provided a protective level of separation, then it would also be true that such a buffer could provide the sarne protective ser? ation between the highway and the highway frontage residential development. City officials claim the frontage properties, although zoned RRI, are not suitable for residential development. They also claim the codified landscape requirements sufficiently buffer the non - compatible commercial development from the residential development. If the City had successfully codified landscape requirements that provided such an effective buffer it would be more sensible to apply the landscape requirement to RRI highway frontage then it would be to destabilize the entire neighborhood through rezone. A simple landscape buffer code could then mitigate the concern, albeit false, that no one wants to live along the highway. Unfortunately, the reality is that the landscape buffer prescribed in the landscape code (IKIIU4C 14.25.040) does not provide protective separation. It does not contain. any required line of sight protection, or separation. It doe: not contain any buffer requirements to minimize noise. It can be as ineffective as a ten foot wide perimeter of grass or gravel. Commercial enterprises that locate along a highway generally face the front of their buildings towards the highway for exposure- This leaves the far less attractive backside of the buildings, and often their respective dumpsters, facing the neighborhood with essentially no requirement of effective buffering. The City Planner may recommend a fence with trees as a buffer, but if this property is rezoned, that recommendation has no enforcement power. The City does not have the authority to impose this expense on an owner when it is not a zoning requirement. Line of sight and noise minimizing buffers are not a zoning requirement for the LC zone. -91- False Paradigm 6: Everyone would much rather see Limited Corrronrmerdiai development than six triplexes, The reality is that MAPS is a residential neighborhood consisting of a blend of family owned and occupied residences and rentals. The homeowners have co -existed with both landlords and tenants for numerous years. Many owners value the contribution of the tenants to the neighborhood. The MAPS neighborhood is bordered on one side by two schools that house approximately 1000 kids, a kid -oriented hockey rink and the Challenger Center, The MAPS area is about family and about residential community and living. Many of the BAPS residents would, without hesitation, choose the six triplexes over the commercial development. The discriminatory references regarding this type of development (six triplexes) demonstrates a misplaced bias on the part of the city officials. The attempt of PZ07-06 to remedy the practice of making decisions "with conflict being resolved in favor of business" is apparently at risk. See Exhibit C (Ordinance PZ07-06) This paradigm is further exasperated by officials' assumption that "the type of construction most conducive to this cleared rural residential lot is probably multiple apartments ..: up to 6 triplexes could be built on this lot ... Lowe's and walmart are here and with them, a need for more apartments to accommodate employee's receptive wages..." (Commissioner Koester, 12/3/08, Council Meeting, Exhibit D) The insinuation that the maximum number of triplexes allowed is the likely alternative to a rezone, or that the triplexes built would need to be Iow- end quality confirms preconceived false paradigms. in step with existing development, it would be reasonable to assume that an owner may choose to put less than the maximum allotted number of structures on this property as has been done throughout the entire neighborhood. In addition, Exhibit E illustrates potential higher -end, quality- triplex developments that would both enhance and be compatible with the existing zone and neighborhood.. False Paradigm P7: if the neighbors would last tWork with the city this could all be worked out kn owner asked the city officials at the 1/5/09, public meetuzg for clarification on process; "If the neighbors and original applicant worked together to prepare a Conditional Use Permit that met all parties needs and all parties agreed on, would the city work with us?" The City Planner responded by, "It is not something that I do." The reality is that the neighbors and the original applicant did meet and discuss alternatives on various occasions. in the course of tie proceedings the neighbors discovered that the City officials were openly and erroneously counseling the applicant by: a) telling him a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is too restrictive when the reality is that a CUP can be written as liberally as the applicant would have required, b) asserting that the CUP would be tenuous and awkward to maintain and transfer if ever it became necessary to sell the properties, and c) leading him to believe rezoning his property would be a relatively quick, non -controversial and easy process. The evidence seems to suggest that City officials are exploiting the original application, for an illegal spot zone, to drive their own agenda. in so doing, the original applicant, whether willing or unwillingly, is caught in the cross fire. Furthermore, the City's actions make it much less likely there will ever be a collaborative solution between the neighbors and the original applicant and greatly escalate the risk of an extended and costly process. False Paradigm 48: "Highest and best rase" of this deteriorating highway corridor is commercial development. The reality is that the "highest and best use" is not a codified standard for planning and zoning and can. be a dangerous target when applied in the sensitive arena of public land management. This nomenclature is typically used by appraisers, assessors and developers and relies heavily on potential monetary values. The complexity f determining the "highest and best use" intensifies in the political arena of planning and zoning and requires 4 _92_ officials to focus on an expanded array of criteria which encompasses suitability of zoning, compatibility with surrounding eases, conformity with the prevailing comprehensive plan, greater public safety and welfare and legal precedents, among others. False Paradigm 9: The MAPS residents coo net have a clear understanding of what the LC zone provides. The reality is that the MAPS residents clearly understand that the LC zone provides twenty three additional "Principal Permitted Uses" consisting of: professional offices, restaurants, clinics, governmental buildings, day care centers, dormitories, boarding houses, greenhouses, tree nurseries, gunsrnithing, printing, taxidermy, art studios, barbers, beauticians, dressmakers, dry cleaners, self service laundries, fitness centers, photographic studios, tailors, tanning salons and massage therapists. Furthermore, LC permits a decrease in lot size from RRl to LC for various uses ranging from 62.5% for all "Principal Permitted Uses' and a decrease to 55.81% for a "Conditional Use Permit" creating greater density of development. The LC minimum lot width, setbacks and maximum coverage and height are the same as RR1 and the building footprint is not to exceed three thousand square feet unless a variance is sought and granted. Landscaping requirements do exist, but offer no guarantee of line of'sight or substantive noise buffering quality. Once the property is rezoned any of the twenty-three "Principal Permitted Uses' is permitted, and may be developed to the most minimum density requirements. Finally the residents of MAPS clearly understand that according to Kenai Municipal Code the "LC zone is established to provide transition areas between commercial and residential districts." The reality is that the MAPS residents clearly understand that if the proposed rezone is approved the following scenario could compliantly occur. Surrounded by residential and educational development the Wortham- Chumley 2.97 acre parcel of land alone could become the location of approximately nine enterprises that could include, among other things: A restaurant. and A gunsmither, and A barber or beautician, and A tanning salon, and A self-service laundry, and A massage therapist, and A dry cleaners, and All additional. traffic created by such. Fa8se Paradigm #f ®: A professional dental office is a good fit for Ws neighborhood so it should be rezoned LC. The reality is that if a professional dental office was a good fit for this neighborhood it should be conditionally permitted because the above stated scenario is not a good fit for this neighborhood. The application for the proposed rezone is not about a dentist office, it is not about a professional building, and it is not about five professional buildings — all scenarios discussed by the original applicant. The application before the City officials to rezone this critically sensitive area of the Kenai Spur Highway is an application for restaurants, gimssnithing, fitness centers, laundromats, tanning salons and any other of the additional twenty-three principally permitted uses. Once. the rezone is approved Comnussioners and Councilors have no authority whereby they can pick and choose. A rezone blows the door wide open to any one of these uses and a compliant "buffer" could be as minimal as a strip of grass ten feet wide along the perimeter. The full spectrum of these uses must be factored into responsible decision malting. -93- In our current scenario where City officials are both the applicant for rezone and the governing body that will determine if the rezone is approved, the bar must be extremely high in terms of carrying the burden of proof to justify what is obviously an acutely challenged, very controversial and high impact decision. Nonetheless, the City has failed to sarsovide adeguate sustification for their positions and recommendations presented in staff reports as found throughout the record and provided in public meetings. Due to City imposed deadlines, at the time of this writing, the City Administration has provided two documents available to the public. First, in defense of their recommendation to approve the proposed spot rezone, there is a staff report to Planning and Zoning dated 9/1.0/08. Second, in defense of their recommendation to approve the subsequent proposed strip rezone, we have the staff report to Planning and. Zoning dated. 12/22/08. Additionally Planning and Zoning Chair, Jeff Twait and Commissioner Karen Koester provided personal statements to the Kenai City Council on 12/3/08, which are now part of the public record. The officials entrusted with the City's welfare are encouraged by the MAPS residents to open mindedly and comprehensively evaluate all pertinent facts. A thorough and objective analysis of the pertinent guiding policies, regulations, and legal precedents will provide ample and compelling cause to reject the proposed rezone. The undeniable history of the MAPS area is a reality that neither the Council nor citizenry of Kenai has the prerogative to ignore. The 1985 assessment and rezone did occur. The 1998 Chumley Conditional Use Permit application and subsequent reiteration of the record did occur. It was crystal clear in 1985, it was indisputably clear in 1998, and, today, it is still a fact of record that the City of Kenai did and said something that induced an expectation of the owners of the MAPS properties. The owners of these properties and new buyers reasonably relied on this expectation to invest in upgrades and additions to their homes and, in multiple instances, build new homes. The City's inconsistent and unconscionable rezone will cause detriment to the MAPS owners. The City of Kenai will be estopped from granting a rezone from the RRI to the LC zone. In general, estoppel protects a party who would suffer detriment if each following tests is met: ® A second party has done or said something to induce an expectation in the first party ® The first party relied (reasonably) on the expectation... * ...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were not met. (Wikipedia) First test 66A second panes has done or said somethinnLr to induce an 2nectation" A review of the history of this neighborhood and its interaction with both the Kenai City Council and Planning Commission will show a highly collaborative effort of the majority of property owners cooperating or working with the City to preserve and maintain the low density residential character of the neighborhood. In 1985, the citizens of the MAPS neighborhood petitioned the City offering to pay 20% assessments for sewer and water improvements and to have a say in future development of the neighborhood contingent upon the city rezoning the defined area from RR to RRI. Furthermore, the City's record of the event revealed that the understanding of the resident's was clear that they would "have a say in how the neighborhood is developed in the fixture" with particular upfront understanding that the intent of the residents was to avoid a "patch work type )f development, almost a Spenard-like type of development..." (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-56) A Significant to the history is the fact that due to the prosperity of the state the City, prior to this period, had provided the same service without assessing adjacent landowners " (See Exhibit F) The owners ultimately paid 25% assessment for the installation of sewer and water and the City rezoned the area from RR to RRI. During the 1998 Chumley Conditional Use Kermit application process this agreement was revisited and the records regarding the "1985 Beal" were again reviewed. Exhibit G provides a page form the 1985 petition, served as the catalyst to the assessments and rezone, and states, "This petition shall be valid only upon the prior ding with the appropriate administrative official for the City of Kenai of a valid. petition, containing sufficient signatures, for the rezoning of substantially the area described above, from RR to RRI." Exhibit H provides a letter from former City Finance Director, Charles A. Brown, which states "...as with the first petition we, received on February 5, 1985, it is contingent upon the validity of a rezoning petition:" and later states, "The petition appears to be valid, pending the validity of the rezoning petition." It is a matter of record that the owners offered, with condition, to pay and did ultimately pay the assessments and that the City did subsequently rezone the identified properties. These exhibits inextricably lime the payment of the assessment with the rezone to RRI. Not only did the City do or say something that built the expectation of the land owners, but the City records prove the City's actions were and are "based on full knowledge of the facts" of the "1985 Deal."This his presentation of the facts and the records of the City are sufficient evidence. If there is dispute of these issues affidavits can be taken from the people involved in the 1985 Deal. It is irrelevant whether the current Council members agree or disagree with the actions of their predecessors. History can not be re -written. The record is clear. The Citv induced an expectation. Second test: "The first r nKL relied dreas®naliM on the expectration..." It was reasonable for the owners to rely on the ¢tneetation created in the 1985 Beal.. The owners negotiated a deal when they made an offer to pay assessments, have their properties rezoned and a have a say in the future development of the MAPS properties. The City accepted the owners' money and rezoned the MAPS properties as requested to the more restrictive RRI zone. The reasonability of the expectation initially created in 1985,.was again reiterated in the 1998 Chumley Conditional Use Permit application process. "It is clear that the city understood the connection between the assessment arid the rezone (from RR to RRI) as indicated in a letter from former Finance Directory, Charlie Brown. (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA -fib, page 4) Inherent in due process is the right of the residents to be heard. Burden of proof for exceptional uses rests with the applicant and has not been met. Exceptional uses should be evaluated against rigorous and restrictive standards. The neighbors have supported their chosen direction for the city with well documented, rational "proof' that is not even their obligation to provide. There is no logical reason for allowing the "1985 Deal" issue to escalate beyond this level at potential expense and liability to all taxpayers of this city." (Appeal of PZ98-12 Commission Decision, 48) The reliance on the expectation of RRI zoning has been remeateslly demonstrated through the immense level of investment owners have made in upgrades and additions to their current homes, building new homes, and in multiple incidences, the same owner building a second house in the MAPS area. Examples include: -95- 1. The Becks remodeled the floors, kitchen and bathroom inside their house and installed a porch and fencing. 2. The Bissets bought and have conducted two remodels to their home on a lot they have now been. "notified" is a newly proposed rezone property. 3. The Bissets bought a second Iot to build a house for and with their son on a parcel that they have now been "notified" is newly proposed rezone property. 4. The Dixes purchased two larger parcels and built their dream homes adjoining the newly proposed strip rezone properties. 5. The Daniels purchased one of the large parcels from the Dix and built their three bedroom, two and one half bathroom, house with three car garage adjoining the proposed rezone properties. 6. The Espy's son married the Sonberg's daughter and purchased a home in the neighborhood based on the multigenerational expectation regarding the MAPS area. They have made weatherization and professional painting improvements over the last three years. 7. Steve Gille built two new homes and sold them as single family dwellings a block away from the newly proposed rezone properties, &. The McCollums added an entry way to the home they owned for approximately the last fifty years on a lot they have now been "notified" is a newly proposed rezone property. 9. The Piatts built an addition doubling the size of their house and subdivided out a lot which they sold to a daughter who wanted to locate in the neighborhood, 10. The Sehrags purchased, the vacant lot next to them and approximately one block from the proposed rezone parcels. 11. The Sonbergs added a two story addition to the home they currently occupy, 12. The Sonbergs are also building a second house right next to their current home less than. a block away from the newly proposed rezone properties. 13, The Wards built a two-story addition to their current home which is located less than a block away from the proposed rezone. 14, The Wilshusens (Platt's daughter) are currently building a new two story, two bedrooms, three and one half bathroom house with two car garage, from the lot they purchased from Platt's in 2007 and on a lot adjoining the proposed rezone. 15. The Wiks built an oversized two call, detached garage less than a block from the proposed rezone. 16. The Winegardens built a greenhouse, two storagee sheds, added a chain link fence along the front and back, paved fl.eir d ive away, installed underground area lighting and power outlets and 'landscaped, 17, The Wrights currently Iive in a house on McCollum Drive they have owned since 1953, and are building a second and planned ultimate, dream home adjacent to the newly proposed rezone properties. l & Others invested tens of thousands of dollars in upgrades and additions within a block or two of the newly proposed strip rezone properties. Third test: and would suffer detriment if that expectation were not met." The past, current and long term expectation of the overwhelming majority of MAPS residents is to dwell in a low density, residential community. The MAPS residents have relied on this expectation and made substantial investments and significant Iife decisions based on this expectation. The approval of the proposed rezone will inescapably cause unconscionable detriment. The detriment will take many foams including, but not limited to: a variety of sources of financial, hardship, ® increased traffic negatively impacting road conditions and potentially resulting in new assessments to owners to further upgrade roads to address this negative impact, We ® causing further danger to exceptionally vulnerable pedestrian (students) and road traffic (new, first time drivers), ® landlords' loss of current and long term tenants, • line of sight degradation imposed by commercial activity, ® destabilization of the residential character of the neighborhood spiraling into decreased quality of life, ® open invitation and subsequent introduction of undesired human traffic frequenting any variety of "personal use" businesses permitted in the LC zone (e.g.: fast food restaurants, laundromats, hair salons, gunsmith, coffee stands, massage therapist, fitness centers, etc.), ® intrusion of a non -compatible commercial wedge imposed between fully compatible uses of educational and recreational with residential uses, ® unknowable and unpredictable development environment regarding house investment, property improvements and neighborhood enhancement projects; and ® extreme anxiety and other health issues directly caused by all the other previously listed detriments. The financial hardship, albeit inevitable, is further exasperated by its unpredictable nature. If the commercial developments that might ultimately spring up are tastefully developed and quality establishments, those living next to or near the property will likely experience increased assessed value creating an increased property tax burden. If the commercial developments that might ultimately spring up are poorly developed and law -grade establishments, the property values may substantially decrease. In both scenarios the obvious sale -ability of the property is likely to decrease. For those whose properties are rezoned against their will, the detriment is undeniably unconscionable. The increased assessments and subsequent tax burden will make it difficult, if not impossible, for some residents to be able to afford to stay in their homes. It likely will cause a loss of both long and short term residential tenants, loss of desirability to replacement tenants and prevent some owners of rental properties from even being able to break even. Therefore, the necessary elements of estoppel are present. In addition to the necessary elements, there are other considerations relevant to this legal doctrine. Additional consideration reRating to estoppel and guasi-estoaB2le Additional considerations also show that the City would be estopped or quasi-estopped preventing the City from continuing to force this rezone on the neighborhood. Three Alaska cases in particular provide a strong basis for these considerations. They include Dressed v, Weeks, Jamison v. Consolidated Md., Inc, and the Municipality QrfAnchoraage v. Schneider. We learn that quasi -estoppel "precludes a party from taking positions inconsistent with one he or she has previously taken where circumstances render assertion of second position unconscionable." Jamison v. Consolidated U'til., Inc., 576,Ir.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 1978) "In essence, the doctrine protects the integrity of the judicial process by preventing litigants from "blowing both hot and cold" where the assertion of inconsistent positions would be unconscionable." (Alaska Law Review: Michael D. Moberly and Laura L. Farley, Mowing I -lot and Cold On The Frozen'Fundra:..." I) The "unconscionable" standard is generally defined as grossly unfair, unjust, inequitable, oppressive, or unduly harsh. (Alaska Law Review: Michael D. Moberly and Laura L. Farley, Blowing Hot and Cold On The Frozen Tundra:..." 1) The act of rezoning the RRI properties along this small stretch of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor unquestionably meets this standard. Increased tax burdens and/or decreased market values, degradation of quality of life and the potential taking of property as a result of this rezone is oppressive and unduly harsh. The City has plenty of just and fair options available to them. The City of Kenai has over _97_ 1.10,000 feet of Kenai Spur Highway frontage. Of that total, only approximately 3000 linear feet of the Kenai Spur Highway frontage is RRI, Of the 3000 linear feet of RRI, approximately 1500 feet are owned by the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District and the Alaska Mental Health Land Trust, Of the remaining 1500 feet of privately owned. RRI frontage, only two lots have not been developed or have plans to be developed residentially. That leaves only two undeveloped privately owned lots along the Kenai Spur Highway in any RRI zone that is not currently developed. The detriment caused by this proposed rezone to the many other owners in the area who oppose the rezone and have approximately a collective $4.1 million in assessed value to benefit a couple of speculative owners who have approximately a collective $56 400 in assessed value is grossly unfair, unjust, inequitable. According to the Kenai Zoning Code (14.20.080 & 14,20.150) and Development Requirements Tables (14.24.010), RRI and LC zones are in conflict with each other and are necessariRy inconsistent, ® RR 1 provides low density residential development while LC allows lot sizes to decrease to 62.5% for the same permitted purposes and 5 5.8 1 % for a conditional use. According to statements made by the City manager at the 115108, informational meeting, the original applicant has already indicated he will seek variances to increase the sizes of his buildings from the maximum allowed in the LC zone. Placing larger commercial buildings on smaller lots is inconsistent with Iow density residential development. ® RRI creates stable and attractive residential environment and prohibits violation of the residential character of the environment while LC permits twenty-three additional commercial uses both violating and destabilizing the residential environment. • RRI prohibits heavy traffic. The Code claims LC allows "low to medium" traffic as defined by the code, but in reality a fitness center in the winter, a tree nursery or greenhouse in the summer months, a coffee stand and fast food restaurant year around are all examples of businesses that comparatively can generate high volumes of traffic. • RRI separates residential structures and preserves the rural, open quality of the environment while LC has twenty-three more additional, commercial, permitted uses than the RRI that can be more densely populated and thwarts the open quality of the environment. The "Alaska Supreme Court also has concluded that the (estoppel) doctrine may aunty in administrative and other quasi-judicial 2L2Seedanas..." (Alaska Law Review: P✓fichael D. Moberly and Laura L. Farley Mowing Hot and Cold Can The Frozen Tundra:..." Ill) Municipality of Anchorage v. Schneider demonstrates this reality, The City of Kenai is not exempt from the application of this legal doctrine. Summary of IEsto2Rel. The estoppel of the proposed rezone can be summarized using the pertinent issues identified in "Ja iison v. C.'onsolidated Utilities, Inc. " I. An advantage had been gained or a disadvantage Produced -- the MIAPS residence will be greatly disadvantaged by the rezone to LC. 2. The magnitude of the iaconsistencY -- in light of the 1985 Deal and the reiteration of the resident's understanding and continued desire to remain RRI in 1998, a rezone to LC is inconsistent with RRI and a rezone to LC is inconsistent with allowing the owners to "have a say in how the neighborhood is developed in the fature." 3. Whether the changed circanistances tended to justify the iacensistency — destabilizing one of only two RRI neighborhoods in the entire City of Kenai is unjustifiable, as is defying the good faith agreement with the citizenry conveyed through the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 10 Whether the inconsistency was relied upon -- the expectation created was reasonably relied upon and substantial investments and, significant life decisions were made based upon that reliance. Whether the first assertion was trade with full knowledge of the facts -the records of the City, the 1998 Appeal of PZ98-12 (see Exhlbta t), the document submitted by NEAPS at the 12/3/08, Council meeting and this document demonstrate both parties have full knowledge of the facts. In light of a fair an honest evaluation of the 1985.Deal., it would be an egregious betrayal of trust for the officials of the City to approve this rezone. The very real and, present likelihood of "inverse corder anation" should this rezone be approved must: be considered. Obviously the NEAPS resident are not the ones that will make this determination, but serveral indicators give cause for pause. Basically stated from a layperson's perspective inverse condemnation is a legal term that describes a situation in which a government body "takes" private proeprty, but fails to pay the just compensation required by the Constitution. A taking can be physical, or reglatory by nature. Some types of government action are categorically treated as takings. Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) provides an example wherein the Court declared that regulation, such as the zoning ordinance challenged in that case, "effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests ... or denies an owner economically viable use of his land" in which case just compensation must be given. Due to the "ripeness" standard clarified in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985), which requires that "the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue" (p. 186), it is premature to make this judgment. The MAPS residents do submit to the public record their concern regarding inverse condemnation and believe that approval of the rezone will deprive landowners of "all economically beneficial use of the landowner's property or defeated the landowner's reasonable investment - backed expectations" (Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 2001, p. 618). Regulatory taping is an additional legal aspect of the proposed rezone. The fifth amendment of the United States Constitution states, among other things, that "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." By destabilizing the livability of the MAPS residential neighborhood the City may be creating a scenario wherein residents may no longer find it suitable to remain in their homes. By going too far the City deprives the landowner of the value of his land "When government regulation of private property "goes too far" and deprives the Iandowner of the value of his land through enactment of a statute, promulgation of a regulation; refusal to issue a permit, or declaration of land as a wetland, as endangered species habitat or as unsuitable for mining, such a taking also may be compensable. This is known as a REGULATORY TAKING or IN17E BSlE CONDEMNATION." ION." Source: http://www.reegWatorytaking.com/pages/l/index.litm II mo Mofl -all IF The significance of the Kenai Comprehensive Plan (PLAN) was fully addressed in the "Response Regarding Application to Rezone Ordinance No. 2362-2008." The principles presented therein still apply. We have submitted to public record the complete document and again ask the City officials to review Exhibetl A for an in-depth analysis of this rezone in light of the PLAN. Furthermore, Exhibit J is a letter dated 1/26/09, and submitted to the City by MAPS resident and attorney Chuck Winegarden wherein he addresses the inconsistency of the proposed rezone to the PLAN. In summary the Alaska Statutes requires that the City: "...adopt a comprehensive plan AS 29.40.030(b). A comprehensive plan is a "compilation Of policy statements, goals, standards and neaps for guiding the physical, social and economic development of the city" (AS 29.40.030(a). It serves as a long-range policy guide for development of a city as a whole. City land use regulations are to be "in accordance" with the comprehensive plan AS29.40.040(a). Requiring zoning decisions to be in accord with the comprehensive plan "helps to `guard against prejudice, arbitrary decision -malting, and improper motives' by providing substantive standards against which to measure individual zoning decisions." (Quoting South Anchorage Concerned Coalition, Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 174 (Alaska 1993) Price v. Dab] (3/15/96), 912 P 2d 541(touehiigo.com/sp/htmi/sp-4326.htm) Furthermore, the Alaska Planning Commission Handbook requires City policy to be guided by the PLAN. The MAPS owners maintain and the facts set forth herein show that this rezone is in direct violation of the PLAN. In the staff report dated 12/22/08, staff correctly asserted in their "Evaluation of Application" that: "During the creation of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, development concerns along the Kenai Spur Highway corridor were discussed extensively. The Comprehensive. Plan recognizes the issue of the neighborhood concern relating to commercial development near residential areas as conditional uses or throughrezones; particularly along the Kenai Spur Highway, However, the Plan provides guidelines to address these concerns (Page 37)" At this point in the staff evaluation, other than to simply state with no further explanation, that the LC "meets the recommendations of...CM1, CM3 and CM4," staff, in essence, disregards the PLANT and launches into their defense of the "Limited Conunercial Zone." It is imperative that an objective evaluation of the PLAN be factored into the examination and decision making process. The following points summarize the relevant issues of the PLAN. Number One Goal( of time PLAN The number one goal of the PLAN is to "create an attractive vitat city center" (Page 2) which the PLAN declares currently has "ample inventory of privately owned vacant land" (Page 25) and "the gross supply of privately owned, developable, appropriately zoned sites appears more than adequate for future development needs." (Page 1.4) "Kenai cannot afford an abandoned business area." (Page 36) Approval of this rezone "fosters a weak, poorly designed city center." (Page XN) The PLAN is incontestably clear on this point. The City has failed to substantiate or provide any level of proof regarding the need to abandon the city center and propagate easterly development away from the city center. The unfounded claim by City officials that "there is 12 m no commercial property available in the city center" is simply not true as is illustrated in Exhibit B. The PLAN very plainly communicates that something is broke with Kenai, and it is the struggling city center. The PLAN clearly promotes addressing this problem as the number one goal of the City. Although the MAPS area is not broke and is not in need of fixing, the city center is broke and needs fnxina. Approving this rezone would be a breech in the policy outlined in the PLAN. Approving this rezone would also be an arbitrary action that will serve only to exacerbate the City center deterioration. Finally, approving this rezone alters the private sector dynamic of supply and demand through capricious governmental intervention and unwarranted discrimination that provides no economic benefit to the citizenry merely to benefit one, possibly two, landowners. Number Two Goal of the PLAIN The number two goal of the PLAN is to "protect and rejuvenate the livablii�Z of residential neighborhoods," (Page 2) Of particular concern to the citizens is the "strip development" along the Kenai Spur highway including both the appearance and the dispersity of character. (Pages 36, 37) It is not a stretchto conclude "dispersity"-would be mixing commercial with residential. It is unconscionable that in an evaluation of the application as it relates to this very strip rezone, city officials would fail to convey in full the most pointedly relative statement in the entire PLAN: "Another issue of neighborhood concern is commercial development swear residential areas as conditional use permits or through rezones, particularly along the Kenai Srsrar Hagh way. One of the gegL of zoning is to achieve stable, livable residential neighborhoods separating these: Crane incompatible uses. This is best achieved by zonings sufficient suitably located land for all expected eases, them adhering to the zoning plan." (Page 37) [emphasis added) The PLAN has already established supply Of "sufficient suitably located land for all expected uses" and directs the City specifically in this scenario to adhere to the existing zone. The City has failed to provide any justification for doing otherwise. Furthermore, they have failed to demonstrate how LC can mitigate the issues of incompatibility and destabilization. The PLAN states "The community has cited development of an identifiable, diverse prosperous city center and a more attractive Kenai Sour Highway corridor as important goals." The City's interpretation implies that this is a mandate for "diverse" commercial development alb the "Kenai Spur highway." This guidance from the City is an obvious misinterpretation of the PLAN and an unmistakable disregard for the policy it has established. Furthermore, the City should "promote an orderly overall pattern of land that ... maintains the quality of IIAEtiRg development." (Page 15) (PLAN page 25) The Land Use Plan Map 10 The PLAN contains Maps 10 and 11 - "Land Use Plan," City of Kenai, 2008. See Exhibit w page 5, paragraph 1, for a detailed discussion of the MAPS. At the 1/5/09, information meeting, the City Planner told attendees that the Land Use Plan maps were not really planning maps at all, but rather maps that reflect what currently exists. The City Planner admittedly does not view the PLAN's "Land Use Plan" maps as a plan to guide growth. Consequently, the Planner is capriciously recommending a rezone that is in direct nonconformity 1.3 -101- with the "Land Use Plasm" maps. The maps that reflect what currently exists are in the PLAN — the are called "Existing Land Use" (Map 4) and "Existing Zoning" (Map 6). In reality, the "hand Use Plan" maps are aamxacnn cnw u. en 'ane n nanx as su =UlKu"u,a - ng -Abkuio toga &AHIL n n- naVV ¢ eta- n a snore ew;. • To other citizens who participated in the comprehensive planning process, o To the general citizenry of Kenai who recognize that a "plan" by any other name is still a "plan," • According to Alaska Statutes 29.40.030(a) which states, "The comprehensive plan is a composition of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps for ui , the physical, social and economic development...", and o According to the City PLAN itself in which it states, "The Proposed Land Use Plan (Maps 1.0 and 11) are to used with the development policies to guide growth. The Proposed Land Use Plan. is a generalized vision of a desirable pattern of land uses toward which the City has chosen to evolve. The zoning map and regulations are means to implement the proposed plan.." (Page 26) Consmerciafl Land Use Development Policies of the PLAN Contrary to the staff report, the proposed strip rezone does not meet the recommendations of the Commercial Land Use Development Policies (CM) found in the PLAN (Page 37). The staff report doesn't provide even so much as a pretense of trying to meet the -most minimal burden of proof. The report succinctly and without foundation states, "The I..(" zone meets the recommendations for Commercial Land Use Development Policies CMI, C.M3, and CM4 (City of Kenai. Comprehensive Plan, Page 37)," The error of the a_naysis is that it essentialiy focuses on how the newly developed LC zorr coauplies with the PLAN. Frank, it is totally irrelevant whether or not the LC zone, itself, meets the Commercial Land Use Development Policies outlined in policy. The analysis must focus on whether or not the proposed rezone meets the criteria outlined in the PLAN. A cursory review of CMI demonstrates its complete irrelevancy, to the gMR2aeel rezone. The policy states, "Promote adaptive reuse of vacant commercial buildings in the city center and along the Kenai Spur Highway." This policy addresses vacant commercial buildings, of which there are none in the proposed rezone area. Stating the "Limited Commercial Zone meets the recommendation for ...CMI" may or may not be true, but it is definitely arbitrary to claim the proposed rezone meets the CMI policy. Similarly, CMI states, "Update existing guidelines for commercial development." The LC zone may be an attempt to respond to this policy, but a comprehensive analysis of the PLAN renders this policy inapplicable to the proposed rezone area which is currently, and according to the PLAN must remain, residentially developed. CM4 provides a list of factors that must be considered "In designating (zoning) areas for commercial uses" including "The use has adequate access to a collector or arterial level street" and "Potential conflicts with adjacent non-commercial uses have been minimized through site design, landscaping or other appropriate measures." To date the City Administration, Commission and City Council have altogether failed to address "the access factor' and, other than a deficient mention of landscape buffers, the "potential conflicts with adjacent non-commercial uses." The City has negligently shed their rightful burden of proof as it relates to this proposed rezone in light of CM4 and instead has made the woefully inadequate statement that "the LC zone -meets this recommendation " 14 am Predictable Setting For Future Investment Promoted By The PLAN The City manager asserted at the 1 /5/09, information meeting that "zoning is a very dynamic animal. Not only do zones change but zoning requirements change." He further stated, "'The whole code book with the exception of the charter is pretty much fair game... and are always open for discussion and change." The PLAN states that "the city's land use plan and zoning code and map should promote orderly overall pattern of land that... creates a stable, predictable setting for future investment." (Page 15) Albeit true that city government does have the authority to make zoning changes, those changes must adhere to a 2ny standards and intense serufty including conformance with the PLAN. the Kenai Munieinal Code and leeal uecedent. The MAPS residents who invested in their properties did so because these elements all existed and gave surety of a predictable and stable future for residential development. The recommendation by the City Planner to approve the rezone is arbitrary. Approval of a proposed rezone by the Commission or Council would be also arbitrary. The City officials have failed to meet even a minimal standard of proof and have misrepresented the proposed rezones as being in conformance with the PLAN when it is clearly nonconforming. In conclusion, to legitimately adopt the proposed rezone would require a substantive rewrite of the PLAN. Adoption of the rezone would, in essence, be a rewriting of the PLAN which would bypass the required public process. Neither the Commission, the Council nor the Administration have the statutory authority to conduct a rewrite without broader citizen hearing and input. The elected and appointed officials of the City are, by law, entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the PLANT regardless of their personal persuasions and opinions. In light of a fair an honest evaluation of the PLAN and the 1985 Deal it would be an egregious betrayal of trust for the officials of the City to approve this rezone. oqdheee to fAe l g ANALYSISCITY OF KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE (CODE) The Kenai Municipal Code (CODE) provides land management regulation for the City of Kenai. It is a binding document that legislates how applications are to be evaluated, such as the one initially presented by Dr. Todd nd Krnsntie Wortharn, secondly attempted to be presented by Jeff T. wait; Chairman, City of Kenai planning and. Zoning Commission, and thirdly is to be presented by the Kenai City Council. The relevance of the CODE, was initially addressed in the "Response regarding Application to ..Rezone Ordinance No. 2362-2008." The principles presented therein still apply. Please review Exhibit A, pages I - 4 for an in-depth analysis of this rezone in light of the CODE. LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONE: Transition Area Between In relation to the code the staff report dated 12/22/08, claims, "The City of Kenai's Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council recognized the issue of development along the Kenai Spur Highway and created the LC zone to provide a transition area between commercial and residential districts and allow a mix of low volume businesses as well as residential use." A critical distinction exists between this summary and the actual code. On various occasions the City ?Tanner has verbally attempted to explain that "transition" does not really mean transition from residential to commercial or transition in the conventional sense of the word. The Planner claimed at the 1/5/09, 15 -103- informational meeting, "it infers that transition already exists, but that was not the intent." She suggests if attendees at this sheeting had participated in the development of the original language they would know "it was to provide an area of limited commercial and residential use" or "the mixed use in the intent of the zone." Clearly the wording of the code does not support this interpretation. The code actasaily reads, "The LC zone is established to provide transition areas between commercial and residential districts y allowing low to medium volume businesses, mixed residential and Duller compatible uses which complement and do not materially detract from the uses allowed with adjacent district." The word "by" is in the code to convey "the means by which" the mixed zone will be allowed and the transition will occur. The ward "and" implies the potentially unrelated existence of mixed zones "and" transitions from commercial to residential. Furthermore, the CODE is crystal clear in stating the "transition area" is to be "between" con mercial and residential. The point being made in the accurate language of the CODE is that in order to comply with the CODE this proposed strip rezone must provide transitioning from residential to commercial. It does not. Rattier it imposes commercial within residential while butting up to Rural Residential on one end, Conservation on the other and Rural residential l and; Education on the sides. By changing this single word the City Planner has inaccurately represented the CODE and presented arbitrary reasoning for snaking her recommendation. Buffer The 12/22/08, staff report states, "Included in those regulations is a requirement for a buffer separating commercial uses from adjacent residential properties." Closer scrutiny of the code reveals that the minimum requirements of the Landscaping plan —performance criteria (KMC 14.25.040) rea wire no aetu2f "line of sight" separations or "noise buffering" separations. Virtually it provides no substantive separation. The allowed ten feet wide perimeter of gravel, grass or flowers does not serve as a sufficient border, yet alone an effective separation intended to buffer low density residential from incompatible commercial establislunents, The capability of the City to enforce what minimal landscaping standards do exist, are untested and offer no convincing assurance of effective initial or ongoing separation. Initial LC Rezone Modell Although the intent of the City Planner and IVtanager seem to be to apply the initial eastern Kenai LC rezone rationale to all the lots along the highway as conveyed in the staff report of 9/10/08, such application would be misdirected. The first rezone to a LC zone was fundamentally dissimilar than what is being proposed in the current rezone. The first rezone along the Kenai Spur ITdghway started with over 50 acres that was originally mixed zones of General Commercial and Rural Residential. Several lots were involved and there was a lengthy public process with a great deal of public notice. Conversely in the proposed rezone of the MAPS property only some owners within 300 feet were provided notice of the initially proposed rezone and, then only for the Commission meeting, not the Council meeting. As the controversy of the proposed rezone became more evident a lengthy public process did ensue, however adeguate notification did not occur and openn dialaaa remained thwarted and consisted of three minute limitations of public hearing testimony and a 1 /5/09, information meeting proposed for the purpose of the Administration to "sell" the LC zone to the MAPS attendees as suggested by Councilor Joe Moore in an email sent 12/1.7/ 8. See Exhibit K. 16 This proposed rezone stands furthermore in stark contrast to the initial LC rezone in both its size and constitution. In the staff evaluation of the Twait's application it is noted that "There are I parcels zoned Rural Residential I and a potion of a parcel zoned Conservation included on the application. Six of these parcels are undeveloped." A more thorough breakdown is quite telling and should be factored into decision making. Of the proposed rezone parcels: (See Exhibit L — Color Coded Map) * 3 vacant parcels are nA�ll owned — (red) 0 1 currently zoned RRI. can only be developed for "public educational site purposes only," o I currently zoned Conservation is an un-subdivided partial of a much larger city owned parcel and is configured as a narrow rectangle and in such a way that development is highly questionable due to setback requirements, and 0 1 currently zoned RRI is owned by the Alaska Mental Health `crust Authority who have not requested or offered their support for this rezone; * 8 parcels are Rrivaafely owned with existing residential development; (yellow) * I vacant parcel is privately owned with owner intending to builld a single-family residence; (gold) and. * 2 vacant parcels are privately owned - c 1 owned by original applicant Dr. Todd & Kristie Wortham (blue) o I owned by former city employee Jack Lashot quitclaimed to Lashot during his employ with the City (grey). This proposed rezone encompasses approximately 21.7 acres according to the 12/22/08, staff report and fronts a neighborhood that is about four blocks long and one to three blocks deep at the widest point, Destabilization of the neighborhood is inevitable if the proposed rezone is approved. The rezone area is only approximately 3000 linear feet long, whereas the City has an estimated 110,000 feet of Kenai Spur Highway frontage. Of the 3000 linear feet of Kenai Spur Highway frontage, approximately 1500 feet is owned publicly. Of the remaining 1500 feet of privately owned RRI frontage, only two lots have not already been or have plans to be developed residentially. The initial LC rezone rationale does not fit the currently proposed rezone and is conversely different in many ways. First, the 'initial rezone area and the current proposed MAPS rezone areas are dissimilar in size, configuration and original zone constitution. Second, the initial rezone response was not as overwhelming opposed by owners in and around the rezone properties. See Exhibits M, N & 0. Of the eight privately owned parcels, five parcels have owners who staunchly oppose the rezone, and only one owner has requested a rezone, but not the currently proposed rezone. Third, whereas the first rezone contained a mix of commercial and residential properties, the NAPS rezone proposes to rezone thirteen RRI parcels, the most restrictive residential zoning available, and one city -owned Conservation parcel, to the far less restrictive LC zone. Whatever successes the initial LC rezone may or may not have experienced, the model does not fat nor will the successes transfer to the dissimilar MAPS area. LC zone InaaiDurouria to for Parcels Responsible rezoning would consist of ensuring zone changes consistently reflected land usage or usage potential. It is nonsensical to convert a Kenai Peninsula Borough waareel that can only be used for educational purposes to a LC zone when the City has a truly applicable Education zone. If this property is to be rezoned at all, it should only be appropriately rezoned to Education. The Council's attempt to rezone this parcel to LC further demonstrates capricious and arbitrary decision making. The City owned parcel being presented for rezone in the City Council's application is currently zoned Conservation. The portion designated for rezone is actually a partial of a much larger and unsubdivided 17 NFIA Conservation parcel. The City's patter of rezoning Conservation, and in particular this parcel, is troublesome for many reasons. The first reason being the very grounds for which the Conservation Zone exists. It is "intended to apply to areas which should be preserved primarily as open areas and as watersheds and wildlife reserves" YMC 14.20.07. Relative to watersheds, the City's mitigation with Wal-Mart has already resulted in a net loss of watershed. Sensitive watershed, including an Alaska Departnnent of Dish &Fume identified salmon stream (see Exhibit Q), is found on the City Conservation parcel. Environmentally it would be wholly inappropriate to subdivide the parcel with No Name Creek and rezone a portion wherein development would obstruct the openness surrounding No Name Creek. It is appropriately zoned. Conservation. The second reason also stems from the provision of the code wherein it states that the Conservation, Zone is `'intended to apply to areas which should be preserved Erimarfly as omen areas." No- Name Creek provides a natural barrier on the north side of the Kenai Spur Highway whereby residents intuitively understand that the residential and education hub ends and the commercial activity begins. Natural barriers provide rational and justifiable parameters for city planning and zoning. Although the Code has no provision for a "green. belt," many residents of Kenai value the green belt that currently exists east of No -Name creek on the north side of the highway and east of Walker Lane on the south side of the highway. They provide appealing open areas between the residential and educational hub and the commercial zone and contribute greatly to the attractiveness and uniqueness of Kenai. Third, the City's proposal to subdivide off a relatively small, oblong portion of the Kenai Spur Highway frontage land is illogical. Because the parcel has not yet been subdivided and the property dimensions, right away, easements and applicable set backs are therefore unknown, it is premature to determine, but guestionahle i9 this narrow portion of land can even be dMSloped for commercial purposes. If the City intended to sell the parcel for private use, RRI would be the logical, consistent and most compatible zone. If the land actually is undevelopable, the appropriate and responsible zoning designation is without question Conservation. One might also argue that even it the land could be developed, the appropriate and responsible zoning designation is still Conservation. Due to the usage Question, the cnvironmental consrdera'on and the "open area" intent, the proposal to rezone and then subdivide out the designated portion is arbitrary and appears to be nothing more than a pretext to provide the original, requested spot zone. The current and forward -thinking Conservation zone is an effective strength of Kenai's land management strategy safeguarding critical parcels for generations to come. � s i SI;MlVdlsRY OF ADDITIONAL CODE INFRACTIONS. The proposed rezone to LC will substantially destabilize the neighborhood, in the following manner: 1. Converts low density to high density by decreasing required lots sizes from 20,000 square feet to I2, 500 square feet. 2. Encompasses approximately half of the MAPS neighborhood depth essentially changing the very fabric of its character and endangering the residential element that rightfully exists. ?. Introduces incompatible uses of commercial within a residential and education hub. 4. Erodes safety and road quality by introducing increased traffic (see Traffic section below). 5. Expands permitted uses by twenty-three additional and undesirable allotments. 18 6. It is undeniably apparent that a conflict exists between the proposed rezone and chapter 14 of the CODE which addresses "Planning and Zoning." The CODE describes how such conflict should be resolved - "Whenever there is a conflict between this chapter and other ordinances pertaining to the regulation of property within the City, the most restrictive regulation shall a2Rly." KPC 14.20.020. It would be in direct violation of the CODE to apply the Iess restrictive LC rezone to the most restrictive RRI zone. The elected and appointed officials of the City are, by law, entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the CODE regardless of their personal persuasions and opinions. In light of a fair an honest evaluation of the CODE, the PLAN and the 1955 Deal it would be an egregious betrayal of trust for the officials of the City to approve this rezone. The legal challenges that trouble this rezone are not limited to Estoppel, Inverse Condemnation and Regulatory Taking. At the close of the 12/10/08, Planning and Zoning Commission work session, a MAPS resident heard a Commissioner ask the City Planner why the rezone issue had come back to the Commission. The Planner responded that they "want to prevent this from being a spot zone." Improper motive and arbitrarily proposing a non -compliant strip rezone as a subterfuge for an illegal spot rezone does not exonerate the City from the illegality of their action. Essentially the City has taken a bad idea, the Chumley-Wortham spot zone, and made it worse by proposing a non -compliant strip rezone as Pretext for the original spot zone. Moreover, standards developed and contained in legal precedent from the Alaska Supreme Court's 1996.Griswold v. City of Homer (GRISWOLD) case apply to the most recent application for the proposed rezone sponsored by the City Council. The relevance of GRISWOLD was initially addressed in the "Response Regarding Application to Rezone Ordinance No. 2362-2008." The principles presented therein still apply. Please review Exhibit A, pages 9 - 11 for an in-depth analysis of this rezone in light of the spot zoning legal precedent. As stated in this exhibit it is appropriate to again reiterate that the citizen taxpayers of the City of Kenai have elected the Council to protect the best interest of our community. The legal imElications of the newest application are substantial and important variables to factor into both the Commission's and Council's consideration. The nature or the rezone, combined with the Council's history of repeatedly attempting code contrary and plan prohibited usages along the arterial strip of the Kenai Spur Highway and in multiple neighborhoods, (see Exhibit R) truly constitute a "public Interest" scenario. In summary, the lessons learned from Griswold v. City of Homer teach us the following about the rezone. l . The action the Council takes regarding this proposed rezone is legislative. 2. Spot zoning is per se illegal. Should a favorable rezone decision be deemed spot zoning by the Superior or Supreme Courts of Alaska, the Council would have taken illegal action. 3. the Supreme Court invalidates zoning decisions which are result of prejudice, arbitrary decision making, or improper motives. 4. The court considers consistency of amendment with comprehensive plann, benefit and detriments to owners, adjacent landowners, and community and size of area rezoned. 5. Consistency with the comprehensive plan is one indication that zoning action has a rational basis and is not an arbitrary exercise of city's zoning power. 6. Tilling in vacant places, and increasing tax base and employment of community are not automatically legitimate zoning goals for the purposes of deciding whether particular zoning actions constitutes improper spot zoning. 19 -107- 7. Small -parcel zoning designed merely to benefit one owner constitutes unwarranted discrimination and arbitrary decision -making, unless the ordinance amendment is designed to achieve statutory objectives. 8. An affected parcel cannot be 'coo large per se to preclude finding of spot zoning, nor can it be so small that it mandates funding of spot zoning. 9, Similarly, a legislative body's zoning decision violates substantive due process if it has no reasonable relationship to a legitimate government purpose. If the City believes it has a legitimate purpose for this rezone it has failed to convey it to the public. 10. The party challenging city ordinance bears burden of proving its invalidity. The applicant of the proposed rezone, most recently the City Council is the party responsible to bear the burden of proof. .,1, S y1.§. i'.. ail By approving this rezone the City essentially revokes their right to prevent any and all of the newly proposed twenty-three permitted commercial establishments. The entire strip zone runs parallel and encompasses both pedestrian acid road traffic from two major schools with combined student bodies close to 1.000 students. Since the City is the applicant in this action, the burden of proof rests with the City. Traffic considerations are addressed five times in the Alaska 'Planning Commission. Handbook and are essential criteria to sound planning decisions. The City must prepare for the scenario in which a single or all of the additional twenty-three permitted uses being proposed actually develop along this strip. The City would be negligent to approve such a. change without first collaborating with the Department of Transportation to determine appropriate ingress and egress options and to further study traffic patterns, impact and risks. The traffic implications of this proposed rezone evoke legitimate concerns regarding first and foremost the safety of the children who routinely enter and exit the Kenai middle and high schools located across the highway from the proposed rezone. The City awareness of the already existing traffic problems for the Kenai Spur Highway was made evident at the 12J15106, Kenai City Council work session with state legislators, The minutes from this session state: "The Kenai Spur Highway between Soldotna and Kenai has become an increasingly more dangerous roadway. The conflict between through traffic traveling at higher rates of speed, and traffic attempting to exit the roadway into focal busmcsses and residential subdivisions has created an unsafe condition. At present, there is not a project on the Statewide Transportation improvement Plan. The City of Kenai requests legislative assistance in having A,DOT/PF provide some preliminary engineering data produced showing costs for having the Kenai Spur Highway upgraded to a three -lane configuration, with overhead street lighting in appropriate areas. The City of Kenai will work with the City of Soldotna, and the Kenai ,Peninsula Borough to submit a project nomination to ADOT/PF." The MAPS residents addressed traffic concerns in their response to the 1998 Chumley Conditional Use Permit proceedings. Mxhlb®t 3 contains the excerpt regarding "Traffic Patterns" wherein the residents recorded traffic volumes at peak times during the day school day. Studies conducted by the Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT) at the Tinker — Kenai Spur Highway intersection in October of 1996 can also be found in Exhort a. MAPS residents recently conducted another survey and the results are demonstrated below. These counts are not intended to imply an "apple to apple" comparison. These counts do, however, provide conclusive evidence that traffic volumes in this particularly sensitive hub of Kenai are increasing. Obviously it doesn't take a traffic study to anticipate that the addition of Lowes and 20 the incoming Wal-Mart alone will increase traffic volume in the proposed rezone area. The City is obligated to address the implications of LC traffic changes prior to determining the fate of the rezone. 1996 — DOT 1998 — MAPS 20U9 — MAPS Time of, Day Tinker &. Kenai Spur KCHS Entrance + Exits Tinker & Kenai Spur Vehicle Tetai = Vehicle Total Vehicle Total 7:00 — 7:15 a.m. 112 165 + 79 = 244 (7:07 a.m. start time) 877 7:15 — 7:30 a.m. 142 7:30 — 7:45 a.m. 127 7:45 — 8:00 a.m. 143 886 8:00 — 8:15 a.m. 194 Children in the MAPS area on Princess have to walk over a thud of a mile front Princess to McCollum in order to cross the five -lane highway at a traffic light, then almost that far back to get to the high school. From Cinderella, students have to walk a quarter of a mile to a traffic light to cross the highway. In the winter the bike paths often are not cleared after a snow fall. Testimony provided by Janine Espy at the 4/15198 Board of Adjustment ITearing additionally addressed the issue of children safety and is included in Exhibit & Scott Thomas of the ADOT spoke to a Kenai resident on approximately 1/29/09, and indicated that ADOT does not plan to approve more Kenai Spur Highway access for any development, commercial or otherwise, along this highway corridor. Therefore, all new ingress and egress for any and all commercial enterprises that may locate in the area, with the exception of one already approved highway access, will be through the MAPS streets of Princess, Cinderella, McCollum and Pelagic. The commercial traffic will add considerable stress to the neighborhood road infrastructure, decrease safety and turn the quiet, low -density MAPS neighborhood where our children walk to and from school, ride their bikes, and walk. their dogs into a commercial access passageway. The intersections of Princess, Cinderella and McCollum with the Kenai Spur Idighway will undoubtedly experience increased traffic volume. All in all the safety, stability and very nature of the MAPS area will irreparably be changed. Many MAPS residents are convinced that, in its haste to push this strip rezone through the public process, several improprieties or other procedural missteps have occurred. These possible improprieties include, among other things, conflicts of interest and violations of the ®pen Meetings Act. Should the Commissioners consider approving the pending application in spite of the many objection raised by the MAPS residents, we strongly urge that, before taking such action., you look into these improprieties. If, instead, the proposed rezone continues to proceed apace, and reaches the Council for a final vote, the MAPS residents will, regrettably, have no choice but to present to the Council, before any such vote, information and evidence documenting these likely improprieties. The interested residents of Kenai encourage the Commissioners to recognize this proposed rezone for it is -- a noncompliant violation of the PLAN and CODE, an illegal act and a very, very bad idea. Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission is encouraged to kill the proposal at the Conunission level, for once and fhm all. 21 -109- Thank you for your consideration of the facts, issues, and positions presented herein. The residents of MAPS have trusted and invested in the regulatory (CODE) mid policy (PLAN) direction they collaboratively developed with the City of Kenai, as well as sound legal precedent established in this state. We strongly urge you to honor and uphold the public trust placed in you and reject the proposed rezone. 22 -110- COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES KOESTER STATEMENT, +,. 1 0 8 TRIPLEX PLANS LETTER, L �� �r ''' �' D �'? i�� R , � _ I G 1986 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PETITION i LES A. BROWN LETTER, 3/25/85 ,. . r � OF PZ98-12 COMMISSION DECISION -,-.EN LETTER, PROPOSED REZONE COLORED SALMON STREAM, aD _. , N PENINSULA CLARION ARICTLES SUMMARIES 0 TRAFFIC ( {n (r P RIi OD ZAG {« Nam: .J'. v LETTER, i iri ill LETTERS OPPOSING PROPOSED OPO P D REZONE OPPOSITION PETITION -ORDINANCE 2362- }ri 008 OPPOSITION PETITION - PROPOSED REZONE Kenai City Counts; MR .Ill,a: : ,7za7»:z a14 CITY OF KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE (KMCI The Kenai Municipal Code (KMC) provides land management regulation for the City of Kenai. It is a binding document that legislates how applications, such as the one presented by Franklin T. & Kristie L. Wortham (the applicant) are to be evaluated. Based on the KMC we take objection to the "Analysis" and "Recommendations" presented in the September 10, 2008, Staff Report, the erroneous "whereas" statements made as fact in the. Ordinance No. 2362-2008 and the Planning Administrators Memo to the City Manager dated November 14, 2008, due to the following reasons. 1. These staff -generated documents failed to consider OR wpip icab➢e codes in drawing their conclusion. The report focused fully on. the Limited Commercial Zone language of the code to justify the recommendation and did not include undeniably pertinent and non -supportive language from the Rural Residential Zone language of the code which is the existing, prevailing zone for this parcel. 2. The Limited Commercial Zone (LC Zone) language of the code does not, in fact, provide the support for this application that is acclaimed in both the staff report and the ordinance. a. KMC 14.20.115 LC Zone states "Intent: The LC Zone is established to provide transition areas between commercial and residential districts by allowing low to medium volume business, mixed residential and other compatible uses which, complement and do not materially detract form the uses allowed with adjacent districts." The parcel in question is bordered on three sides by Rural Residential 1 (RRl) developed properties and on one side by Education Zone. There are no nearby commercial properties to which it is transitioning. Therefore, it is capricious and nvsleading to claim it as a "transition" area. b. The staff report states that "The proposed development will improve the property providing for limited commercial development. The landscaping requirements will (elPsure commercial use is separated from the adjacent residential properties." Staff hereby suggests that KMC 14.25 "➢.andsegRing/Site Flan Regulations" in some manner solves the incompatibility of spot zoning a commercial parcel in the middle of an education and residential parcels by offering a buffer of trees or shnabs. Verbal testimony implied this would be an additional level of protection afforded the neighbors should the parcel be rezoned. i. First, this statement is meaningless. Any degree of development technically "improves", a property, including single- and multifamily homes and churches. However, if one was to interpret improvement qualitatively, this statement is inherently bias in that it claims the property will "improve" by placing an incompatible and non -harmonious commercial structure or structures smack-dab in the center of a residential and educational zone. ii. Second, according to the KMC mauy types of development with the exception of single family, duplexes and churches would be reguired to submit for approval a landscape/site niau, anyway. (KMC 14.25.020; 14.20.020; 14.20.320) The implication, that by rezoning this property, the neighborhood would enjoy an extra level of controlled development otherwise unrealized is inaccurate for many of the potential, uses other than LC Zone. -115- iii. Third, the Dandscamint code does not "insure" or "ensure" separation. of commercial from adjacent residential properties. It only requires a plan that has very minimal requirements in which "buffer" is not defined. The buffer therefore could conceivably be very narrow. There are no visual requirements of the buffer that would keep neighbors from actually seeing the development. 'Typically, the types of "buffers49 allowed by the City are just grass ®r rock strs�+S+S with a tree or two along the street. They are actually more like setback areas than a real buffer purposefully designed to impair line of site as trees or bushes. c. Unfortunately even if the incompatibility of commercial properties could be hidden by trees and foliage, there is still a huge issue of increased non -neighborhood traffic such an enterprise would generate. i. The conceptual plan of the applicant conveys two additional avenues of ingress and egress to Cinderella Street. The increase of commercial traffic on Cinderella Street would be _ uantitatively increased and quafitative&v unknown, I The code itself acknowledges that traffic generated by clinics, such as the one being proposed in the application for a dental practice, reaanaires �2.5®/a nn®re unarki spaces flan a similar sized professional building would require. It seems logical to deduce based on this requirement that clinics generate a much likher volume of traffic than professional offices — both of which are substantially higher than routine residential traffic. iii. This increased traffic flow and congestion is a particularly troublesome detail in light of the Anr®ximity of this parcel to two Manor schools with combined student body populations of 916 students. These issues are not new to this Council relative to the foot traffic generated by these schools. The timeline provided by the Council does not allow the neighborhood totally develop its defense and conduct a traffic study as was done in the 1998 Appeal, but a review of the MAN 1998 Appeal PZ98-12 document demonstrates the vulnerability of this pedestrian and traffic hub. Please see Attachment « A. These pedestrians are particularly vulnerable due to their young age and the hazardous five -lane street crossing corridors in which there are not enough crossings, they are not within reasonable proximity of the students. the timing allowed for crossing is inadequate and the intense concentration of both pedestrian and vehicle traffic occurs at special events and at two peak times a day — the start and close of each school day. Although it may not be obvious to the Council, the exit to the high school is directly across from this parcel and the entrance a few seconds' drive away. Due to the youthful nature of drivers at the high school, a higher number of inexperienced drivers use this entrance and exit more than any other single driveway system in the City of Kenai and do so at a time when pedestrian traffic is at its highest. Undoubtedly the best interest of the entire community was being considered when this parcel was zoned the most restrictive available zone — RRI. The safety risk a commercial spot zone would afford is absolutely unconscionable. One more accident would be one too many. d. The first rezone to a LC Zone was fundamentally dissimilar than what is being proposed in the current rezone application. The first rezone along the Kenai Spur Highway started with over 50 acres that was originally mixed zones of General Commercial and Rural .Residential. Several lots were involved and there was a lengthy public process with lots of public notice. Although the intent of the City Planner and Manager seem to be to apply this filmier rezone rationale to all the lots along the highway as conveyed in the staff report of 9/10/08, only people within 300 feet were pro-'rided notice of this rezone application and, then only for the Coramission meeting, not the Council meeting. -116- Conversely this application it to rezone a single parcel from the most restrictive residential zoning to the far less restrictive LC zone. 3. Furthermore, the ➢ ura➢ Residential LIM language of the code does not provide the support for this application that is acclaimed in both the staff report and the ordinance. Rural Residential 1 (RRI) is the current and applicable zone that applies to this property and the regulation found in this section of the code should be factored into any decision regarding this application. a. The unique history of this neighborhood is a matter of record. Its interaction with both the Kenai City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission demonstrates a highly collaborative effort of the majority of property owners to preserve and maintain the low density residential character of this neighborhood. See Attachment - 0 The RRI desaanation came at a cost to the residence based on their proactive stance twenty-three years so - the "1985 Deal" between the neighbors of "MA➢es" (McCollum, A➢ia➢r, Princess) and the Cite of Kenai. The proponents of the I485 good faith agreement with the City off Kenai nrnade their intentions c➢ear from the beginnings "For the price of the assessment we want to have a gay in how it is developed in the future. At the present time its RR in character has 2 potentials. If we do not rezone it then I see a patchwork type of development, almost a Spenard-like type of development with people who want nice residential lots being slowly squeezed out or chased away ... I understand the City Comprehensive Plan calls for such an area [low density residential] in the City. One with larger lots so that people can actually live close in to town without having to live on smaller lots. (Board of Adjugmaent Packet, BA-56, Dick Baldwin) "The 1985 Deal" as it has come to be called and our approximate $300,000 utilities assessment investment (not factored into real or current dollar values) was an agreement of good faith whereby the city agreed to consider the input of the current land owners when making decisions of impact and the owners agreed to pay to the city what was then a substantial assessment for improvements as well as making individual improvements and upgrades to their own properties. U. 711`Ae RR Zone is intended "to provide for low density residential development in outlying and rural areas in a form which creates a stable and attractive residential environment" Spot zoning commercial parcels in the middle of residential neighborhoods does not stabilize the residential environment of the area and in fact would create an"endangered neighborhood." a The RR Zone is "to prohibit uses which would: a) violate the residential character of the environment; b) generate heavy traffic in predominately residential areas." Principal presented uses for this parcel according to the KMC Land Use Tables are: 1) One Family Dwelling; 2)Two/'Three Family Dwelling; 3)Churches; 4)Essential Services; and 5) Off Street Parking. The common characteristics of these principal permitted uses include: principal activities occurring at each of these uses is non-commercial, the vehicular and pedestrian traffic is often known or knowable to the principal occupants, generated traffic in and out of permitted use areas is generally low density with the exception of Churches at strategic non -imposing times of the week and day, and the character of the neighborhood, is enhanced by the familiarity factor as neighbors watch out for and help each other out. Commercial enterprises, such as professional offices, do not share any of these common characteristics. Their principal activity is commercial, the vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and out of the businesses will be primarily unknown to the principal occupants, generated traffic in and out will likely be of a far higher density, and the character of the neighborhood will be eroded as an -117- unfamiliar public files in and out of the area. Professional offices are not similar to those principal uses permitted in 'PMI zone. Therefore,, a LC rezone would both violate the residential character of the environment and generate heavy traffic in predominately residential areas. d. The argument neighborhood residents have repeatedly heard from both staff and Council members that "nothing else can be done" with this particular parcel is absolutely false and further indicates a preconceived bias on the part of these officials. Not surprisingly this is a bias that has been propagated by the former owner in his endeavor to convert a residential investment into a commercial windfall profit. Here is a list of higl& viable a8ternative uses: i. Single-family dwellings. The Kenai Comprehensive Flan (KCP) explains the city's homebuyers prefer larger residential lots. (KCP Page 34) To claim that no one would want to live along the Kenai Spur Highway is ludicrous. One only has to drive from Princess to Swires to see this is not true. Furthermore, proximity to the schools makes this a very desirable location for families with children. Attachment - C roughly illustrates a potential site plan and layouts for single farnily development. The original plat of the former owner was at one time platted for seven RRI lots. ii. Duplexes and/or triplexes. We are a neighborhood that values both our rental properties and our renters. The home owners and renters have successfully co -existed in this neighborhood for several decades. This property is bordered by townhouses on one side, duplexes on another, a single family on the one side with a triplex one block away. RL A church. We currently have two churches in our neighborhood and would welcome another. iv. Essential Services v. Sell a portion or all the land to the neighbors. The neighbors don't need this additional land. The collective investment of the first 42 owners to sign the petition alone is already assessed at over 4.1 million dollars. However, residents are willing to make an investment to maintain the integrity of the residential character. vi..If the city is intent on providing the applicant's dental office a place to operate, they could do a land swap to one of their commercially zoned parcels. The debated property could then be sold at RRI market values, converted to a city park or perhaps explore assisted living home options. e. To fairly evaluate the requested rezone the entire code must be reviewed. In considering the entire code, the guideline provided in KMC 14.20.020 [e] states "Whenever there is a conflict between this chapter and other ordinances pertaining to the regulation of property within the City, the most restrictive regulation shall apply." In adherence to the code the ranost restaietive rennlat6oua ¢Hoist be anplied lied to the assessment of this rezone application leading to its rejection. This parcel is zoned the more restricted RR1, and as outlined in the KvIC and the Kenai Comprehensive Flan should remain such. -118- b N K" Just as the KMC provides for the regulatory basis of land management, the Kenai Comprehensive Plan (KCP) provides for the policy basis of land management. Although not law per se, "Kenai's land use plan and related development policies are a decision -making tool that provides a "blueprint" for growth and change in the community —The comprehensive plan does provide the public policy basis for defining the zoning districts and related development standards that guide what happens on the land.." (KCP, Page 26) The Alaska Statute (AS 29,40.030) and the Alaska. Planning Commission Handbook further mandate and support this function of comprehensive plans. The handbook states "Planning can protect property and property values by separating a potentially harmful. or disagreeable land use from surrounding residential and commercial uses and by helping to protect stable neighborhoods." (Handbook, page 7) Based on the KCP we take objection to the staff -prepared documents referenced above and included in the Council's packet. 1. The Proposed Land Use Plan and subsequent MMs 10 and 11 complement the written policy and are to be used with the development policies to guide growth. The Maps were updated in June of 2008. As the maps illustrate Kenai has a well defined, long-term plan for future growth. The terms used for the Land Use Map are different than the terms for the actual zones. Map 10 shows the areas where "_Neighborhood Residential" and "Neighborhood Commmercial" are planned. See Attachment D. The section of the arterial road system being reviewed for rezone is not planned "Neighborhood Commercial," nor should it be. The Maps Mustrate that the applicant's parcel clearly is planned for "Neighborhood Residentaal99 and not for "Neighborhood ConsnnerciELI' while in fact other areas of the arterial road system are planned for "Neighborhood Commercial." 2. "The broad nurnose of ghe land use plan is to ensure an adequate supply of land that is: ® suitable for development; min appropriate ownership status; appropriately zoned; with needed utilities and services; for future private Wild public uses; and at desirable locations." (Page 9) a. According to the KCP "the �raass u & of privately owned developable, appropriately zoned sites appears more than adequate for future development needs ...Comparison of estimated demand for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses to the existing zoning status of vacant land suggests that Kenai has an adequate supply of appropriately zoned parcels for future demands." (KCP Page 14 including Table 5) b. The plan establishes a standard of suitabi9ity for development. Rezoning a residential parcel to commercial when it is surrounded on three sides by residential development and on the fourth side by education in an arterial corridor that is designated the most restrictive zone defies the definition of suitability. Expanding the scope of review to the entire highway frontage from the Walmart to Swires Road, on both sides of the highway, is some form of residential zone, except for one small commercial lot (not near this proposal) and the two educational parcels (KCHS, KMS). The proposed rezone is a commercial spot zone, plunked down into the middle of a large residential zoning district. -119- c. The appropriateness of the oavnersisies staters is demonstrated by the number of owners who have purchased more than one parcel in this area. At least three current owners and one former have built and/or lived in two separate dwellings within this neighborhood. private homeowners and landlords appear to be the predominant ownership group. d. The plan establishes appropriate zoning as a standard. According to the KCP "the gross supply of privately owned developable, aeararopriately zoned sites angears more than adequate for future development needs. (KCP rage 1.4) It further states that "One of the goals of zoning is to achieve stable, livable residential neighborhoods by separating them from incompatible uses." (rage 37) Rezoning this Iot will cut into our neighborhood by 50% of the land mass from north to south. It will cut us in half east to west. That is a huge dent -- significant enough to have destabilizing iaanmact on the continuing life of the entire ERI zone; hence, the "endangered neighborhood." e, the plan establishes desirable locations as a standard for development. It is entirely desirable for residential development to be located in the vicinity of other residences and schools. It is entirely desirable for a dental clinic to be located in the city center near other health care providers. It is not desirable to open up aresidential community to those potential eases this LC rezoneewould merman including restaurants, art studios, barbers and beauticians, dry cleaners, fitness centers, photographic studios, tanning salons, massage therapists, professional offices, to name a few. 3. Section ICI of the KC:' defines the "Framework for the Future" of Kenai. The first planning topic revolves around the city center and millennium square. (Page 26) "Citizens generally agree that creating a strong, attractive, busy city center is a highly desirable plarrraing goal." a The city leadership serves as guardian of our community's best interest and caretaker of the greater public purpose and good. Policy decisions that influence market variables are a form of rnarket intervention and government control. It is commonly understood that supply and demand are the variables that dictate market direction. To increase the "saamaaiy" of commercial properties in the marketplace that already has an adequate supply of land to accommodate new commercial development is unwarranted government intervention. Obviously, increasing the supply impacts the supply and demand relationship. In this instance approving a rezone will intervene with the marketplace to pull businesses away from the city center and result in "sprawl," Sprawl is not good for a vital city center. Such a move would be in direct opposition to the Il-CI'. By not approving this rezone the city avoids tampering with these market variables and the natural course of supply and demand will concentrate commercial enterprises in the city center. We already see this occurring with our health care services accomplishing the goals of the plan. SM �N e� 'Cs f7,.. .. d.. ..7i, ��Sd�p+' -tx. ..{C.1 �J. (, _1,6 p. 1(til�( p•{.: 'o nu?..f.�. �d✓. b. Another impact of this rezone would be that one land owner would benefit at a cost to all other property owners who have previously invested to build this community. No greater public interest would be served by granting this rezone. The granting of the rezone would further influence the supply and demand by providing a single property owner advantages that are not available to other existing owners. The KCP states, "This [to permit uses that otherwise aright not fit within the intent of the underlying zoning] approach may address the immediate need of individual applicants. However, over time, it can compromise the basic purpose of zoning and public confidence in zoning." (Page 15) c. The g2al as described in the KCP is to revitalize 6ty center by promoting residential and connnercial development in this area, not by promoting commercial development in residential area outside of the ci ty center. 'To rezone this parcel undermines both the goals of revitalizing the city center and the goals of protecting the harmony and character of residential environments in Rill, and promotes commercial sprawl. 4. Another planning topic addressed in the "Framework for the Future" of Kenai focuses on Residential Neighborhood Development Policies (R). (Page 35) a. The KCP states the city is to "Promote the siting and design of land uses that are in harmony and scale with surrounding uses." Specifically to "EAforce existing code requirements and address zoning violations." (Page 35) Again, the point is being made that the Council should not change the code in order to place commercial. development in a residential area, but rather that you enforce the existing code. b. The KCP further states that the city is to "Encourage a variety of neighborhoods within the city that offer a choice of urban, suburban, and semi -rural lifestyles." Specifically to "Establish standards in the land use regulation code for various housing types and hoersing densities." (Page 15) From the zoning map it appears that there are only two RRl neighborhoods in Kenai.. A rezone would essentially change the character of this residential neighborhood from the most restrictive zone to a more liberal zone and thereby endanger one of the only two RR I neighborhoods, thus diminishing the variety the city is committed to encourage, c. Rezoning this parcel would contradict the Residential Neighborhood Development policies outlined in the KCP and would result in the following detriments to the community. i. If a single spot zone is approved, residential districts will never again be stable and safe from the impact of adjacent commercial or industrial uses. ii. The City would essentially be, changing the policy- direction of the KCP without adequate public notice and disregarding the 2003 KCP rewrite, annual reviews and the 2008 Maps 10 and 11 updates. iii. Finally, establishing this dangerous precedent would create an unstoppable domino effect. -121- 5. The "Framework for the future" of Kenai also addresses Commercial Land Use fDevelonment ]Policies (CK. (Page 36) a. The KCP states, "Some residents complain about commercial "stri➢s development" along the Kenai Spier flliglnway. On analysis, these concerns seem aimed mainly at the appearance . -. And to a lesser extent, the dispersed character of development." (rage 36, 37) First, to address the issue of appearance, the staff recommends approving the application and implies that dressing up LC Zones through Iandscaping and building placement is the method that makes spot zoning acceptable. As a side bar, it should be noted that the applicant's conceptual plan, which consists of five buildings, each exceed the maximum footprint allowed for Limited Commercial zoning. b. The other issue of concern expressed in the KC' (Pages 37) is the "dispersed character of deve8opnnMC along the Kenai Spur Highway. This rezone plainly proliferates the problem instead of controlling and/or reducing the problem, c. The plan suggests, in the very next sentence that "These deficiencies (appearance and dispersed character along the highway] can largely be addressed through development and design standards that reflect the coarsmuniji consensus, and by provision of adequate, suitably located commercial sites." (Page 37) We proactively demonstrated community consensus in 1985. We overwhelmingly demonstrated community consensus in 1998. Again, on the ten year anniversary of the Appeal of PZ98-12, we still have community consensus. As of December 3, 2005, at 3 p.m., 42 of the 43 residents surveyed oppose this ordinance to rezone. To ignore this ➢riston, and clarity of consensw in combination with the fact that there is adequate and suitably zoned land for the desired usage available through the year 2020, (Page 14) would be a capricious break from the KCP community consensus policy standard. d. The most conclusive paragraph in the plan that pertains to the consideration of this rezone states: "Another issue of neighborhood concern is commercial development near residential areas as conditional uses or through rezones, particularly along the Kenai Spur Highway, One of the goats of zoning is to achieve stable, livable, residential neighborhoods by separating them from incompatible uses. This is best achieved by aordng sufficient guitaib➢v located land for all expected uses, then.adhering to the zoning p&an." (Page 37) This fundamental KCP policy is crucially and glaringly pertinent as it describes exactly the scenario being considered. The unreasonable choice of the staff to arbitrarily ignore this policy in their eagerness to lobby in favor of the rezone on the applicant's behalf demonstrates total disregard for a fair and unprejudiced due process: Furthermore, staff has assumed the burden of proof that is rightfully assigned to the applicant which places the neighbors in the undesirable position of bearing a burden of defense in an unreasonable time frame. The staff documents have not provided the Commissioners and Council members a comprehensive and objective, unbiased rendering of the issue at hand. -122- The 1996 Supreme Court of Alaska case of Griswold v. City of Homer establish legal precedent :for "spot zoning" and subsequently contain valuable criteria that Council members must consider to apply legally sound decision making. The citizen taxpayers of the City of Kenai have elected the Council to protect the best interest of our community. The legal implications of the application and the subsequent litigation that would result from a favorable vote; are substantive and judicious variables to factor into the Councils' consideration. The nature of the case, combined with the Councils' history of repeatedly attempting code contrary and plan prohibited usages along the arterial strip of the Kenai Spur Highway in multiple neighborhoods, truly constitute a "public interest" scenario in which it is highly likely that legal fees will be charged to the City at the expense of all taxpayers and to the detriment of other valuable potential uses. The lessons teamed from Griswold. v. City of Homer teach us that a "SPOT" by any other name is still a "spot" and the following factors must be weighed with the utmost intention. 1. First, we would like to remind and ensure that the Council understands that the action thev take regarding this application is legislative, and the legal consequences of their decision constitutes a very real and potentially present danger to the citizens of Kenai. (Cabena v Kenai Peninsula Borough [4/27/011 "Because small-scale rezonings are treated as legislative decisions wider Alaska law..,") 2. The second lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "Not all. small -parcel zoning is illegal, but sroot zoning is Der se illegal; "spot zone" is zoning decision which affects small parcel of land and which is found to be arbitrary exercise of legislative power." (Page 5, Section [7]) Although the neighbors of this area. are not lawyers, from a layperson's perspective an analysis of the criteria outlined in Griswold v. City of Homer makes it quite evident that approval of this application would comprise a classic spot zone scenario. It further stands to reason that should this decision be deemed spot zoning by the superior court of Alaska, the Council would have made an illegal decision. 3. The third lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that the "Supreme Court revalidates zo_^-ng decisions which are result of Enreludice. arbitr—gad decW,)n making, or imp -o,,er motives." (Page 4, Section. [5]) The staff documentation surrounding this application clearly expresses a foundational prejudice and displays an arbitrary decision making process when measured by the City of Kenai regulatory document, the VNIC and by the City of Kenai policy document, the KCP. Although motives are more difficult to prove in a court of law, there appears to be reasonable evidence that the staff of Kenai has assumed both the burden of proof for the applicant, and a lobbying role in favor of the application for unknown reasons that appear to have a foundation in the misled notion of staff and Council alike that "there is nothing else that can be done with this property." The neighbors have successfully countered this fallacy elsewhere in this document. 4. The fourth lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "In determining whether amendment to zoning ordinance constitutes spot zoning, court considers consistency of amendment with comprehensive plan, benefit and detriments to owners, adaacennt landowners, and community and size of area rezoned." (Page 5, Section [8]) This document provides, at the very least, a minimum gauge of reasonable doubt regarding consistency with all four of these criteria. 5. The fifth lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "Consistency with comprehensive Diana is one indication that zoning action challenges as "spot zoning" has rational basis -123- and is not arbitrary exercise of city's zoning power." (Page 6, Section [101) The KCP is a critical tool to be fully utilized in the process of maldng this decision. In so doing this Council must conclude that sound policy dictates the rezone be rejected. 6. The sixth lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Flower case is that "pilling in vacant places, and increasing tax base and employment of community are not automatically legitimate zoning oaRs. for the purposes of deciding whether particular zoning actions constitutes improper spot zoning." (Page 7, Section [11 ]) The notion that "there is nothing else that can be done with this property" and that this parcel is now a "dust bowF' are irrelevant criteria on which to base Counci,l's decision. it may be wise to take heed to this legal precedent that vacant land is a perfectly legitimate and sound alternative to illegal "spot zoning." . The seventh lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Horner case is that "Small -parcel zoning designed mereiv to benefit one owner constitutes unwarranted discrimination and arbitrary decisions -making, unless ordinance amendment is designed to achieve statutory objectives of city's own zoning scheme, even if purpose of change is to bring nonconforming use into conformance or allow it to expand,." (Page. 7, Section 12) The specialized consideration given to this particular owner (the applicant) through. a favorable vote, and the outcome it would incite, are contrary to both the regulation of the KMC and the policy direction of the KCP to revitalize Kenai's city center, preserve and stabilize Kenai's residential sectors and promote commercial development in suitably zoned areas in adherence to the KCP. Arbitrarily rendering a favorable vote for: this one particular applicant would be discriminatory and therefore illegal. 8. With intent to provide full disclosure to the Council the eel lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "Affected parcel cannot be too large per se to preclude finding of spot zoning, nor car. it be so small that it mandates finding of spot zoning." (Page 8, Section [141) The applicant's parcel is less than three acres. However, before one considers this a ray of light favoring the rezone, it is critical the Council review the discussion relative to this point. "We believe that the relationship between the size of reclassification acid a finding of spot zoning is properly seen as symptomatic rather than casual and thus that the size of the area rezoned should not be considered more significant than other factors in determining whether spot zoning has occurred, A parcel cannot be too large per se to preclude a finding of spot zoning, nor can;' be so small that it mandates a finding of spot zoning. Although Anderson notes that reclassifications of parcels sunder three acres are nearly always found invalid, while reclassifications of parcels over thirteen acres are nearly always found valid. Id., as Zieler notes, the relative size of the parcel is invariably considered by courts ..." (Page 20, 3. Size of "rezoned" area [13] [141) 'b?r'a ?etAcn A&IE - a f lk 04 MeA&neAt to tie V. e. Onaltutlon 4. The ninth lesson extracted from the Griswold v. City of Homer case is that "Similarly, a legislative body's zoning decision violates substantive dace inrocess if it has no reasonable relationship to a legitimate government purpose" (Page 15, Section [5] [6]) Although the burden of demonstrating violated substantive due process is a heavy one, a decision to approve this rezone would seem quite arbitrary and capricious. It would require discounting the Planning Commission's advisory opposition vote, it would be 10 6IE in transparent contradiction to the regulatory mandates of the KMC and the policy direction of the KCP and the one-sided documentation of the staff documents would be a factor. Therefore, if the rezone would. be approved there exists convincing argument regarding substantive due process. Frustrating procedural, due process experiences the residents have had regarding this application include the denial for postponement to allow more time to prepare a response, the denial of city officials to allow inclusion of documentation from the neighbors in the Council meeting packet on a holiday week when conventional deadlines to submit documentation were skewed, the placement of this highly controversial issue on the consent agenda for its first reading. Additionally, it is the understanding of the neighbors that an reasonable time frame and suitable format for a fair hearing or an opportunity to be heard and defend, against the proposed action will not occur during the December 3, 2008, Kenai City Council meeting. See page 33 of the Alaska Planning Commission Handbook for due process guidelines. 10. Although many more lessons can be extracted from this precedent -establishing case, the final lesson we bring to the attention of this Council is that the 'Tarty challenging cats ordinance bears burden of anroving its invalidity." (Page 1.1, Section [241) No property owner has a "right" to rezone; in fact, the opposite is true —the property owner has the burden of proving that the rezone meets the appropriate criteria. It is our finding that not only did the applicant not bear the burden of proof, the applicant appears to have been misinformed by city officials as to what could be anticipated in his pursuit of this rezone and the city assumed the burden of proof as demonstrated in the "Analysis" and "Recommendations" presented in the September 10, 2008, Staff Report, the erroneously interpreted "whereas" statements made as fact in the Ordinance No. 2362-2009 and the memo dated November 19, 2008, from the Planning Administrator to the City Ivfanager. 11 -125- CLOSING REMARKS Details have and are being discussed throughout this process as justification for this particular spot zone that are truly irrelevant to the decision and legitimately must be discounted from the decision making process. Please review Attachment m E. "It is role of elected representatives rather than courts to decide whether particular statute or ordinance is wise." (Griswold Page 2, Section [2]) Based on the lessons learned from Griswold v. City of Homer, we admonish the Council to wisely reject the application and avoid an insidious precedent that would fundamentally undermine the regulatory and policy directives of the City. Zoning is a matter of public trust. It is intended to "create a stable, predictable setting for future investment " ('KCP, Page 15). The Kenai Comprehensive Plan should provide reliable information about the City of Kenai and its development plans and policies that potential buyers will factor into their decisions regarding their land. purchases. It can provide the assurance current owners factor into their decisions regarding property improvements. The residents of this neighborhood have trusted and invested in the regulatory and policy direction they collaboratively developed with the City of Kenai.. Spot zoning this parcel would be an egregious breech of the public trust that each member of the Council is elected to uphold. 12 -126- No �W p43�1:53 T (Source; Appeal of PZ98-12 ® Commission Decision) 7 YRRFFOC HTTERNS 7.1. Valid Planning Issue During the February 4, i 998, Board of Adjustment Hearing the applicanfs representative stated, "_. we feel a traffic problem, if it exists, is a traffic problem and not a property development problem and we think we would like to respectfully suggest that 'traffic problems be addressed with traffic control items." (Board of Adjustment Hearing, Churnley/Chumley Appeal, February 4, 1998, Page 6) The residents of the neighboring lots respectfully disagree. The Planning Commissioner's Handbook (June 1993, State of Alaska) validates traffic as a sound planning and zoning concern in the following statement: The effects on traffic congestion are also mentioned some in the condidonal use section of a zoning ordinance. A permit granted or denied under this standard has a better chance of surviving judicial review if it is based on a credible traffic study which quantifies the effects of the proposed use. (68) 7.2 Traffic Study and Pertinent Statistical Data Residents of the neighborhood conducted counts of three main areas: (1) children in the neighborhood and at local schools (2) number of cars entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway, and (3) a count of clientele entering & exiting other professional offices to represent a possible traffic sampling for the proposed professional offices traffic. These counts were conducted by neighborhood residents around such priorities as family, school, jobs, and neighborhood issues in an all too shot allowable time frame. Although they may not be an official traffic study, they do show that there is a traffic impact on the neighborhood and surrounding area that must be considered. 7.2.1 The number of children potentially affected by traffic concerns who live on the north side of the Spur Highway and who must cross a five lane highway to get to their respective schools is currently at 70 and will climb to 71 in approximately three months. The ages of these children range and the number is relative to change. See attachment 9. 7 for recorded tally of survey. The number of children enrolled in the area school are: 475 at Kenai Central High School, 455 at Kerai Middle School and 409 at tMountain View' Elementary. These statistics establish the fact that many children will feel the impact of the council's decision concerning this CUp now and for years to come. 7.2.2 The number of cars entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway were" allied at three different counts. Number of vehicles going in to the high school: * first count 1:55 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. 66 * second counts 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 83 third count 7:07 a.m.'to 7:45, a.m. 165 (as many as 47 in a 15 minute period) (as many as 10 in a one minute period) * fourth count7:00 a.m. to 10!30 a.m. 191 Number of vehicles exiting the high school (offset exit from Cinderella St.): *' first count. 7:00 a.m, to 10:30 ant 90 * second countl L45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 78 * third count 7:07 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. 79 (as many as 18 in a 9 minute period) (as many as 12 in a one minute period) * fourth count7:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 50 -127- Increases in traffic flows at heal: hours due to the Kenai Middle School traffic flow have not been included in these counts. 7.2.3 professional Offices clientele traffic (information obtained by phone calls to the businesses): (1) A Dental Clinic (2) A Medical Walk-in Facility (3) A Medical Specialist (4) Tanning Salon (5) A Bair Salon (6) A Chiropractic Clinic (7) An Insurance Agent 7.3 Conclusions 25+ vehicles per day plus 5.6 employees 20 on a slow day plus 3-4 employees 60 on a heavy day plus added employees 40 on office days (non -surgical days) 30 on off-season days plus 2 employees 90 on in -season days 30 to 50 in the winter plus 4-S employees (doubled in the summer) 50 per day plus 4 employees 50 per day plus 3 to 4 employees 7.3.1 Traffic Related Safety Issues Exists. The Chumleys' application is for two professional office buildings. The number of stories or businesses in each is still undisclosed or unknown. Assuming that each building held only one professional office, based on the above clientele counts for two Professional offices, in and out traffic, the clientele numbers above would have to be quadrupled to account for the traffic, Each of the two offices would have in and out traffic for each client served. It is entirely. feasible that each building, even if single story, could house two or more professional offices_ Each building could be two stories high (or higher), and double the traffic possibilities. Considering the traffic from the high school, added to the traffic from a minimum of two professional offices, congestion could become unmanageable around the high school exit and Cinderella Street without further traffic assistance (such as a traffic light at an already unaligned intersection -- just planning the traffic light might be a nightmare). Due to the general nature of the drivers at the high school, a higher number of inexperienced drivers use its entrance and exit than any other single driveway system in the. City of Kenai..- Not one map Presented by the Churri has shown the location of the high school exit in relation to their proposed site plan. 7.3.2 One Accident is One Too Manny. Unfortunately the peak traffic congestion times are also the times children are walking to and from school. It. is obvious from the data collected that safety risks, particularly to our children, will escalate, if this CUP is approved. This is of utmost concern to the neighbors and rightfully should carry tremendous weight in making the decision to approve or decline the CUP. -128- ,fSo Appeal of _9 -' Commission tmi -.io Decision) The history of this neighborhood and Its interaction with both the Kenai City Council and Commission demonstrates a highly collaborative effort of the majority of property owners to preserve and maintain the low density residential character of this neighborhood 8.4 historical Data In 1985 the citizens of this neighborhood petitioned the City offering to pay 20% assessments for sewer and water improvements contingent upon the city rezoning the defined area from RR to RRI. We ultimately paid 25% assessment. City of Kenai Assessment Roll records show total amounts paid were Ms, 181 or $287,869 excluding government properties. Many residents paid these assessments over a ten year period at a 10% interest rate. The residents of this neighborhood confidently invested in the City of Kenai. We agreed to pay and we di& 8,2 Linkage or the 1985 Assessments Levied on Residents and the RR1 Rezone In return for the approximate $300,000 investment made, the residents received a rezone to RR-1 and at very least reinforcea our right to "havve a say in how the neighborhood is developed in the future" with particular upfront understanding that our intent was to avoid a "patch work type of development, almost a Spenard-like type of development..." (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-56) To breach this good faith agreement is a detriment to the overall community. It erodes confidence in the city leadership's ability to plan and zone in a responsible, progressive and consistent fashion. It deteriorates the motive for future investment in our city and ultimately deters future growth and economic vitality. These points are further supported in the Planning Commissioners Handbook. The determination as to the legally binding implication (i.e. assessment reimbursements) should not have to be established in a court of law. It is clear that the city understood the connection between the assessment and the rezone as indicated in a letter from former Finance Director, Charlie Brown. (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-61s, page 4) Inherent in due process is the right of the residents to be heard_, Burden Of Proof for ere ttlona4 uses rests with the zprulicOnt and has not been met. Exceptional uses should be evaluated against rigorous_ and restrictive standards. The neighbors have supported their chosen direction for the city with well documented, rational "proof" that Is not even their obligation to provide. There is no logical reason for allowing the " 198S Deal" issue to escalate beyond this level at potential expense and liability to all taxpayers of this city. Now ever the legal implications are interpreted by individual council members, what occurred in 1 985 must be caiven due consideration in mating the decision to accent or reject Chumleys CUP. -129- 0 -130- P I re I — rv" x. iV •� �'' ems'=.,. a � �- r r 1 / � p t' ]i X -131- 60V I LOT 20 1 60V i LOT 21 ¢. MA61G AVE 66' 4/W --- 8 LOT i $ 5 09`iB ie'E _ i o. 8a Ili noa°wu �I' LOT 4 w.l. LOT 5 iuNp x LOT 9 a.Ps u LOT 7 ,.»0 GGV'i LOT 22 � I I I$ : „� LLtm YPY xEt9VGtEp erx�x. lxap»s . s/e- xLe.x aEcav6P<o it IE x ovaeto. a tl.w' ' a �/' � PG4M/Ra=1M LM I� ( t xecnw e..A t exos-ae 1 s l a r 6 N w 1 i t•.t>�K ,�, ram=, a GERTIMCATE OF OWNEK5HIF AND DMOAT1ON We h... iy —tit' that ire the axn a of iM .ed vravrty _ hY aFaan and deautbatl hareen wd tbot wer h>-apY adopt Wa nY frao ipiE.Of`dt 9:rM'Qap ploa of eWairiaion and av co- anf dadcafa aY r{ghta-of-way vhr. nl Y. n to Dubec me a a ryuntnm eay.ment> to the rA9ZN J6a ehowR fg W. farther Larnly thet th. Deed of iruxt Iffi.dm, tbip jx., %�a^ t0dar"'p�-�N propmfy don rwf contoin reskicliona Which vaWd tlria x�kem au6Nrbi.n ar rngire ai9noWe aM pppevW of bem<ficiory. Y — 0 daa E (Yumley (� Hays(b A.,O W a.. Bav JS] - Stertn9, AK 996JP A �mr4 LOT I > 'Ara (6 4.r 1t a56 a]of cK p RecoR1- 9 � ti - j OFu ao- KAKPN9i, _ wix ♦ L ✓,. tm! !f ykz -AYy Qy�+r� pew NOTE" c no pe. ear >< a...tromea a. Pm .ama tj at ent IWO, tePWJ interint +M tht ability .f aeutilily to an ry'e PoY 4 � i /V / No occese to Sfas muinlu:n.d right<-of-aoy Dermittea uNms J cDproxPJ aY SIat6 0l Alaaku °iV�lmPpl at Trunapol lotion. WASTEWATER .lP,, LL: Plapa !ar u. — I.t<f t t,,. Thai me<1 «9dulmy reyeiurnsela m'a an a of the No alrucWrea parmittea din[o PePhmJlc Portion of ilol IPl ,C,4,. ow d<.aov�•,a go.eraea eY K«m W.icryA Coda. NOTA"'t, AGKROWlED6Eh9ENT xd SWecrlbPd ma warn belw< me thin_ ✓__-_ Jay at W -- N¢ Np[vy Ppb6c for AlavkY NY Convnlasi.n Fxpirea. �V _.�� Nh Pl18VG FLAT APPROVAL TN. Plai yva apVr.ved by the Nanai PenineWe BorougM1 wamMB commi,.:aa at the m..wB m dd8b#d.Y,1497 HENhI PENBiSULA BORWCN Au xed Otficitl PAPA JOE5 5Ll6DIVI510N A aubJi.ie:on of CPv'1 Lo[< 31 h ]] 5cc. 33. i6N, Ri1W, SM. Located W.in lM NE 1/a SE 1/1 S< S] t t'ne CIl, .l x—i Po Eox 4B52 - s°Loaix A, AK BBadP (BOi) 280-B6B2 SutYEt,Y )/9) 1 N co t No IES IF t foble.f to 11,, OR, e! Hene s xM n9 q f 2) wnstFY�yI _E^1. i11}eJSeE PI 91Y 111111, e pm-y..11,.t 1port E g n y ou oP pro t t0 N t o 6 p rtf or t- 3) R. "rol, .""A5 I p", - P.-ke0 "Toll 'y Ne Slate or alolo Department ar teanxperlalmo 4) Em,t 10 N of rle lo:d'eq selhaN aNa—1 to ei4hia-of-�pv iz W<e oru.anl emnn.n No "I'mnl 5t— o- snml be ao —Ilo, o-76 xlmlo u 'DrI, msemeoi nrecb .Dore T<cle.efe(m Ile .bud, or o 00S, le ua me eosemeo+ 5) this Is o papar D.t NO NOR SNRU+E WAS PCRPGSAM At data U povo, unless oMertlse .Dial vps obtained floor pro Pvpa doe'a lZrIsbn. Plel A ➢T-23 NRD. L5' es Lf—C—LUD— z-1/i Alvm Cop Moevmml of RlCwE- / Stole of Alzskp. ILIA e 5/6' Rwoe o1 Rmord Lot tie VO 0 Uti tY pavement —pl d Pris Rot APp'e d EY ^9 Co. k.' I / 2/02 29 Now L S R,,o, ppm ,tl by 9 9 Co -- 11/13/92 R dot Poi bas SbdWrwl LEA f o1 23 H- D ffi k 3333' 1 F E7 d U _. ....__.. Magic ---------------- US Duo, 5^III ON E SM1.:nt YE 1 i I I I fG Aven" — Ede�+ �' "s V�{h b•j f0 J\Aye %'S+ SAS O0 K'{•`J t (6� "+ S C r�1? cl No. m5m° n0 •4 H 95of geopo- „etr — __ _ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I nveq TA-UH, Rot. I ➢ pMr .9 f n d i d !o pn I i d YA'9 N Stoll AtopEo, \M1 p 1 IAe me Y db Sy y y en dl �. W mi non IS t", d Ix —It I" stmdmdx of.pm<t _e and v , lo .M Slate of Nozko D.I. ti-De at za 2T 36 "I It 6 ,Doll I(EHAI • Tu15i kenoZ 36 N S5 oy i6iA—N T51,, Vtk1AP 1A eo . wit I ;° CERTIFICATE of OWNERSH.LP End DEDICATION V. HEREBY CERP4-1 THAT NT I' I' OrRURMS) OF THE REAL PROP[RI SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON AND MAT H£ HEREBY ADOPT PULL PLAN CE SIPCINSI^N AND 9" MR iRVT. CONSENT DIDCATE AL1 P!, TS-Op- .AT AND PURUC ARRAS 10 PUBLIC USE AND GRANT ALL EASEMENTS TO P```+E��'� USE S P"D n O Bo, 753 SUrpop. AIOSYo 99672 NOTARY'S ACKNOWLEDGMFNT SMBSCINDED AND SWCMI REPORT ME VIR y� d DAY Of zoos ru' NYY11w�R.0 T � d Gp�u�� 'ICASNn PRPM HART AIT flMM1SSION EI'IRE510'1F O{� '1'N RODFU9UC PLAT A PROVAL THIS REAL WAS APPROYDD 8T THE NEON PENMSMA gi OU!:N PLANNING 0W4ISSCAY AT ENE MrMG IrRN 9ENV",", &'(Rn!a�t ptill I �1< � S 58938'DN E 132062' sA o>-AtyIt' RECORDED AC ENA 1r npj $�+/ ^ n o /) L{y n t'D REC.G4Ci DATE 17 20 THE ES:, LM SeQti fA�/ R/d�1c r 1'i AY' RSy 1gtE51ED 6Y M'ES 6 gp IDP SprIt YENAI, µASNA 996:1 EH SOR l ALA DA 9 Papa, Joe's Subd. Chumley Replat A rcplol of tole 1. 2, 4-1 Pope Jews Olyd. Plot A 97-23 1-.`C:4114o lle NE1/a SO/N Secllon 33_ TAN R11W. Do, Oil or Keno" Xmol Record,,, Dowd. Kenai Pentnw, V—,1, Nosko <�Aalegti4f �r>ncds' 605 S�oez D ene' A O 996 -eS3 =oR.rmRz x -( a za -. olpfi 1 Imo Y9 H0 }Ty jo,eRo l5N—', 2. Cfi Z;1.m 1v. I 111N, r - ea .r 3 Land Use Plan, City of Kenai, 2008 r,� -134- w . The urice awrrlicant rraid for the land is irrelevant. Whether applicant paid 10 percent of or 10 times more than market value is not only irrelevant; it pales by comparison when you look at the collective financial investment made by the many neighbors who have laved in this neighborhood for the last several years to a few decades. Add to that the relational and quality of life investment these individuals have made. Multiple owners own or have owned more than one parcel and/or lived on more than one lot. Two owners are currently constructing new homes on second lots in this same neighborhood. When we moved, we didn't go far. We have even seen our children grow to adulthood in this neighborhood, some have married each other and some second generation residence, as adults, are choosing to locate in this very same neighborhood. The relevancy of pricing becomes an issue when land management decisions arbitrarily made negatively impacts property values, particularly in cases where due process has been thwarted. Relative to this concept of "takings" the constitution is clear, 'No person shall. .be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law...." (Fifth. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), I The tree -less, "dust bowl" phenomenon perpetuated by the former owner. The trees area non -issue in making this decision. Practically speaking the cleared trees would allow the new owner(s) to tastefully landscape their lot without the added step of removing unwanted and/or unsightly trees. The picture in the meeting packet is based on an old satellite photo and inaccurately shows forestation that does not exist. Currently this parcel has only a sparse scattering of trees along its perimeter. 3, What the applicant knew or did not know prior to the purchase of this property is no one's responsibility other thantheapplicant's and is irrelevant to the decision of rezoning. Nor does the city have responsibility to remedy any misunderstanding to which the applicant adheres by voting in favor of or "through this vote." The "Buyer Beware" principal applies to us all, 4. The applicant's concern for the future of his family should something happen to him is an irrelevant criteria. With all due respect the applicant is rightfully concerned for his ffamilv's future. The applicant is not suggesting his family's benefit be given precedence over the neighbors in this area. It would be highly inappropriate for the best interest of the applicant's fancily to take precedent over the future well being of an entire well established, well populated neighborhood. The former owner's intent to utilize this property for purposes other residential is irrelevant to this decision. The fact that the former owner basically held this property hostage for about a decade requiring a commercial price for a residential parcel should not impact, nor does it provide justification to convert this parcel to commercial. The former owner had every right to get whatever price he could get, and the current owner had every right to pay whatever he paid. Neither fact has any bearing on the decision this Council must make. This parcel was, is and should remain RRI . -137- Photos: Property 6kail Report - Commercial _ ....... City! Y.enai Photos: Area: 305 - Kenai — City: Kenai (�y Zip Code: 99511 .,: Area: 305 - Kenai Address: 105 Trading Ba Zip Code: 9%11 , IW MLS Number: 00-14191 Address: 255 5 N'ilfero - �NA.3 � � Number: 08-4911 %.k^..ee e � } n , arr...� � &, -:.- �. �, e i[r (-i ,C 3 r 'ee - -- M pm P ropeeYy Detail Report - Comme.rcia€ Photos: tocierty Detail Report - Commercial hones: Property Detail Report - Commercial Photor. Clty: Kenai Area: 305 - Kenai Zap Code: 9%11 Address: 11823 Kasai Spur MILS Number: 04-313157 Use tko ® L) on h -,- , m ASzL �. 1r, tom.. C ty: Kenai Area: 305 - Kenn Zip Code: 99611 Address: 135 N Wilk: ML5 Number: 08-12544 City: Kenai Area: 305 - Kenai Zip Cade: 99511 Address: 405 Overland MLS Number: 07-11479 Lhe t,12..-' ;. fug die F..- .A Lh —woo -- ep _ perty Detail tteport -Commercial Detal Report - Commercial Phoios: CSty: Kenai Area: 305 -Kenai City: Kenai 2%p Cade: Area: 305 - Kenai - Address: 11568 Kenai Sp€ - - 11561 Zip Code: 99611 r h MLS Number 08 10479 Address: 135 N w8ow St r a rid t o e t MLS Number: 08 12544 % i1816 W9 cr-� (i) 3g on ; it ixt dr� Idle ma .� xai � r,r t3breZ < iF},�.tix�,x�v'�','�nx?�ri. �x �" •a,a¢� Detail Report - Commercial Property Detail Report - Commercial phetoS ,de "J'y K2na Sr,Ur Y.c.0 -FatzrPa :xd r. city: Kenai Area: 305 - Kenai Zip Code: 99611 Address: 10419 Kenai Spur Hwy MLS Number; 08-14192 J r52 OwTp SaI3 tji8 1a'.n^3`, 1'i f3? ^i:^ H to °eiyex,.'.iia', City: Kenai Area: 305 - Kenai Zip Code: 0%11 Address: 10224 Kenai Sp, MLS Plumber: 08-9589 Ike qm. �+) Ou Aim,,-w, ..-3.fir•: Kona,-Sp"j4"I - �j � � t � P •��' � " I " 1 z i ... 49912 Elder Or Clas098 Mown: Kenai v1- r,t fonora9 hoPorma9ion 3 T' t, Lax sg Ea.c 51401 _ zoning: uNN Building let conveniedly located dose to Kenai & SoWna. Zoned for Sngle FemAy, Mulli & commercial. K-Beach road pass Bridge Access road, Torn Left on Eider past beaver pond. Look for real estate School: Kenai Central Ja Nigh: Kenai Elemewlane: Sears7Mt. View Land I Amer..: r .m nmii'A'd P.nnd Frmn Kenai Spur Highway going north, two left on Main Street, follow to Riverview Drive on left, lots at end of street. C Li' 14031 Kenai Spur Hwy Closest Toww.. Kenai General Information Lot SO. FA.: 6825g Land type: ReSldantlal, COmmeYC151 I Land Features: Fire Service Area Road Service Area Highway Frordage Driveway l Topography: Level iv 103 OIRCH Or Closest Town: Kenai General Informatin" Let Sq. FL: 54450 - el eager:, 1.25 ' zoning: CG Business In Kenai in Growing_. Commercial lot centrally located in Kenai just off Spur highway - Zoned General Commercial..blu8;rle uses allowed for development. City water and sewer available and easy access. Only $33,680. Move Fast! MOMMMUM Kenai Spur. Right on Birch. Corner of Birch and First Avenue IM High School: Not Coded Jr High: Not Coded Flerneeriar%n Not Coded Land Type: Commarcial _ Land Features: Southern Fxnnerse Shm Cur _ Weier SI,Ah nrr _ Pwor Wit Airport Way - - Closest Town: Kenai .___. General Inhumation Lo£ Sq. Fi.:101$93 247 Lcrearro: Zoning: CO _ These three (3) Cereals of land are Iocaled near the Kenai Airport rigid in the heart of a rapidly growing rated area of the cdy. Neighboring development includes: Home Depot, Safeway grocery store, 3-Bears, sort the Kenai Chrysler Center. Curientiy Under construdhn is a new Lowe's HW (abutting the sulated property to the north) and a Wal-Mart planned to the east across Marathon F,d. From Kenai Spur Highway turn "OFF Airport Way (towards the Airport) and property is on the right beyond Kenai Chrysler Center. ' a n High Schoot: Not Coded it High: Not Coded Elementary: Not Coded _Land Type: Commercial Waterfront; No Waterfront Access:pev sed Mairrtained •s�T7a 49957 Eider Far C&asset Town: Kenai General Information '.:: _ Lot Sq. Ft.: 9T045 Acreage: 1.08 �` Zonin9rUMC IVY ' Building id conveniently located close to Kenai & Soldotna. Zoned for Single Family, Multi a commercial e r K-Beach road pass Bridge Access road, Turn Lett on Eider past beaver pond, Look for real estate signs n n r High Sthool. Kenai Central A High: Kenal Eleertertaey: Saars,Aai View Land Type: Residential, Commercial Land Features: Coverop s, Wgrway Frontage, Multi -Family 0,K Topography: Level Suggested by: Administration CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ07-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL THAT KMC 14.20.125(a) BL AMENDED BY 9HTM R,106 THE REQUIREMENT THAT G IMF WQTS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS USES IN THE CENTRAL MIXED USE ZONE, WILLY'BE s- WHEREAS, KMC 14.20,125 established the Central Mixed Use Zone (CMU zone); and, WHEREAS, KMC 14.20.125(a) provides that conflicts between residential and business use in the CMU zone shall be resolved in favor of business; and, WHEREAS, conflicts between residential and business uses in the CMU zone should be resolved. according to the best interest of the city according to the principals set forth in the Kenai Zoning Code rather than automatically in favor of business; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Kenai to amended K.MC 14.20.125(a) by removing the requirement than conflicts between residential and business uses will be resolved in favor of business. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COTV MISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDS THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMEND KMC 14.20.125(a) as follows: (a) Intent; The CMU Zone is established to provide a centrally located area in the City for general retail shopping, personal and professional services, entertainment establishments, restaurants and related businesses. The district is also intended to accommodate a mixture of residential and commercial uses [WITH CONFLICT BEING RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF BUSINESSES). The CMU.Zone shall be designed to encourage pedestrian movement throughout the area, Building and other structures within the district should be compatible with one another and the surrounding area. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMI41SSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 11 thth day of July 2007. 151 -143- Cn Nzmeniber IZ 2009 ft Tram A, PtPa loes Sdb&yiston —Cry k*at re -Rest for -rezone came .before the airy of Kmai.Planniun& Zoning Conanission ofwbi jamam, r r, Ch aT be for a second timc When thiss issuefirst came up, I vmtftdto hear bands sides of the argument tore condog to any Conclusion. Initially, flaz 4acent irciewrs- L-96fYing War- not achy opposed to Dr.Worffients offic:e proposal but 10 the Te-zcm,' hOWDUef by November, these same, individuals, opposed the building plan and wzmt. After such thought, I had planned to vote fbr the re=ne, but in the end, what swayed me to vote againm it at the last minute was Whon a neighbor stated that they didn't cam if 6 tril � plexes, vathout any landsesping- Plans or City:oVersite ware built on that let. I voted against drs remm Mare losay"fino; it s whk you really -wear, but also because I knew it would 9-- before the c0uncil fi)r a final so it was a way for uke to ym;enia Out in the fiec of their opposition. That, ms nOt ft covert for me to cast a vote, ,c 'rkat being said, I really do apu plaud & nderstand the Aa-ent neighbors conoems and PwWwrao regar� ding possible impacts latheir neighborhood,, however, I Most my I doe+ agree with their analysis, Dr, Warthawns property is cnnVqt.lyatM.less, hi -way fmntage eye - gore and he has no plans to build his horse them. Even iflie way="t the ovmer, I don't believe, fbis lot is conducive to any ovurner building areside-nce there. lbure are a fzw residential hoults thatE=t the iopur Hwy, but I,=, uet,amyv-Of zMy'ap_w home Constrac'd I W along thhcaeridar. Options for Dr Waraiam don't igic[udeleaving it as it is, as lic obviouslywants to jecoup his investment A conditional use perrnit sitplily doesn't pravide D r. WonAtun any longterm assumaceg and puts hint in an awkmwd and nable POMfton as it mlases t0i his investment & plans fits this lDt. d 0 W an, W the city to have socne l and oversiteregarding lrisphm& As proposed, his plan isviable, realisticlow impact and it taices into consideraui on a "residcrniaT look to, ks proposed buiddin. Should the rezaaa fail, in my opinion, fixt type of' orinenvedon most oondecive IM Ad& elessed rural residential lot is probably multipie apartments Win0h will not enhance !he city and I think the neighbors would eventually d-plom them, BUT, Dr Wortliam could get his money out of thr, Pro PCr-tY. 'k-hr der tbt Rural keRid0ohal 7m e,,lp to 6,&-1 piexeseould b-- built on -thia lotamd neither tho neighbors nor the city would have a say as to theit, design, lazriscape or buffer, Lowe's and Walmart, are here and with thera, a noed, 16-or mu� apartments to accommodate employee's respective wages, Md VAh dris lGes ClOse Plexwmty to stores azd schools, apart as are a vkbie option for WY Owner In Pu=Witliout the ha rode of a rezone. That swBarits, iou'tvneaft as a scaro-tactic, Dry Wanham or MyMe else to attempt to recover their Investment, and if:Dr. Wortham Can't Wid his office d=e w MOP09ed, fil= be Or SOMMIC else MA'st look atthe location, curmit condition, Toning & the rwrcqt economic okcurngtmOss to &date Wfim VAIII provide fmancial recovery. Marilyn X--P%Chuus reprxt WR�Mxs that tits,.Mpowd Mzfts faa Pl�zl aW cone- This hiebway corridOr is noted in the COMPiehoUsivC Plan along -with discussion of low impact tranditions between. residential and oommetmall T�U% proposed plan and rezone request, aPPeurs to be a good example of why the: city added Limi" Cematemial as a Mearts of Mnsitioning Properties and Limited Cowln-crOW d I Irke Zone show o ok , , MMA N "I, pI`e Dr. WGrtha=PMPMd'Wcr" plan is conoeptao, &mqLrytabtffld his Mmsingle office bil4m& While Kenai is getting Lowes &:Wsh=4 dmnnis.==Momk realiq, it days t a=assion —andAw may Ease histoncad eXPansioll plans An additional pmftmotial offices for years to come. IIMOR'andl do ZPPF=iate that YOU W419b Msidaols Ali =MeWy- I camfiffy considered the validity and aesthetics of the proposed plan as well as irnapacts of naffic, noim', figmng, crientela, houm of operation —any cOnc--ivAble mPdvz finpadlo the, mighbortmod that I could, think of bur I'cwft really find my. rye adjwent neighbots seem willing to defed an overzeen, bbotn, & in my opkion, acs(hetically pleasing plan, for whawtmrothbr arcs p ibffitica allavved under Rund Residenfml zit wh let ossi iz),g ich 3h he should taix. T& cooncil is charged with con qgiance to &_ zo& and comprehernive Phul"to Mv low the, -valEdAY and IMPaPts Of APOPOWS, hat also to have llsc cities best hum S t tcv Con cider asa-Whole. his my opinion that the cnrmnt pmposed plan rnects the criteritto re7one and tiat it will ultimately impmve the look of the Z4 for all residents and iiisitors alika the dxive through LOVMt€i SIMP & c*Y WhgMeCitr OTUnai has to afi,T. While I vonkl like to sumott 4=nt residents, I feel the cos ncill must consider passage of this. rezonercVmst as Otlwr opfions M simply not desirable for DT Worffim, forthe City of Kcnsiand in wyhmble opinion, the adjazent neighbors. -145- Here are your Saved Favorites cos ivee Plan uaiumnson LIOT-TLZ Tripleat 21ana from favorites y� e Bedrooms: 6 Levels: 1 r ,rw > .�, fore Gv th75 des'gney °"t Bathrooms: 5 Width: 82'0 p �,, .....v-CS" Depth: 62'0 Square Feet: 2818 view details Designer Notes; GREENRIDGE 3 Houses Plain adurnbGC� 'V617-,e 2, r Delete from €avoritgg FtB: Bedrooms:6 Levels: I �f y MpYe bV this eeS10nEY ' d Bathrooms: 3.3 Width: 70'0 m� r '¢ ,lam F xqr sf;. Cal -Stalls: S Depth: 65'0 i er. y Square Feet: 2802 view deedh Designer Motesa DANVELLE- Triplex ffU®mean IfPBDSN a�4&rkN50rzPn torsD'o �:DT DeLte from favorites < --;, Bedrooms:6 Levels: 1 Bathrooms: 6 Width: 68'8 v)_iore by this desioner Car Stalls: 1 Depth; 69T - Square Feet: 3030 ....' view details Designer Notes: GREENRIDGE 5- Triplex ffouse Pion p3nnm facn 61091-0 , w z Bedrooms: 6 Levels: 2 Delete Frorn favorites t - o e py this des aner Bathrooms: 33 Width: 74'10 Car Stalls: i Depth: 40'C Square Feet: 3528;.i vlewdetails Designer Notes! TRIPOLY- Triplex Monte F'&ans Number: ID27GO4 TOPEGX Delete from favg it(_es_ x,,ma ,fir bedrooms-8 _ Levels: 2 y "" • `� `� - More bv_�his desioner 41 of yam Bathrooms: 2.5 Width: 6T 8 " ':t = Car Stalls: 0 Depth: 47' 0 �'�x"�• Square Feet: 4145 ',,' view details Designer Notes; "HAMDEN" This is a tri-plex with 3BR/3bath. Unit "A" Measurements Unit mg -re » i1nassa plain, iiNFsbcrF N2i6MGGOal 7HIpiex Bedrooms: 2 Levels: 1 Bathrooms: 2 Width: 122' 2" http://ww,A,.aiiiazingplans.com/'catalog.php?action=807 -146- t2e'ete from `avorigs- Moretr this deslorer 1/2/2004 Car Stalls: 1 Depth: 55' 10" Square Feet: 4194 ..) view details Designee Notes: Each Unit: 1398 sq/ft Tri-plex A Traditional Neighborhood Design triplex more » Bedrooms: 2 Levels: 1 delete from favarltes More by this des_ net Bathrooms: 2 Width: 123' 2" Car Stalls: i Depth: 53' 10" Square Peet: 3540 view deta9s Designer Nkhtes; Each Unit: 1180 sq/ft Trl-Plex Traditional Neighborhood design in mufti -family nRore ?7 E7¢¢asC; Cspauw C3nnvattawn a Gu3:5M�On .. T'vFpaBule Bedrooms: 4 Bathrooms: 1 Car Stalls: 0 Levels: 2 Width: 72' - 0" Depth: 50' - 0" Delete rrom faVortea, More by this gesig_ner p "7 Square Feet: 4397 i view details yy 9�i . � . Designer Notes: w,xm. e Apt #1 1st levetr Foyer with coat closet, kitchen with island 1 h�n �i""` lunch counter, more » av BOOKMARK in }jpmePlan Res9�gs - tntgrjQr bg�gr. ati,�o - Ii�tY�e DE�Oratnq & Dec6r Haire %ildino Plans 0rienta13ug5 & Area Ruc1s HUCrlgaOe utaM - Cghting Lamo;,,Ceifing_Fans - St Johns CountviSt Augustine - S44,cy1' Ji4sLSe p i Stop for Discount' efln6l€ a g°Cj dow -,ttmdes! = D'scourt Wood elindg w Cheao Fauu Wood din _Home Bui7dlnG Forutps = Discount VsrClcal Blinds i c nt inl Blinds plscount Cell f Shaded m Pis-Ount Window Sha es Home Bu'id1no e Dagonemo�hderizontal Wndow Shadins esources Detoryg ea boo Sli in Panels n Pleated Shades House Plans Glossary View o r c me p_jdns Definitions Thee ancollec on Home euiltling &House Plans Link Pfogram 4''Ot Ztt:Fs mn i aaoi ova>as -9 Ali iPlant C.,ay,;l a q) t t . IC r* F" Llt4ir n e!:$a,5 t .itw: Ute.^f. . :: ti dCir.biCn ❑ zb -iiar P _!�>lf { I .tYp?[CiR ,. ;5. UL4i Cr fln5 t. a r i,.-stftc "?ttlei a wu:;r P%e,.Scr. Afi hill planI'il)Q<C u"k F!iJ1'Gf; pia:! 110 n'tt0 PCn,e., i. nl Ir 'tvti2 t(- 'fferss ry {yG i of Nit r in n d 1A le 4( d t f r )Ii lr� 7 (c Al4C Jt 1C;L v� J4'fi t. 1 C , Pi avuen fit�{Eigio rt ti t.ut n nc' r`fllrsntl,_p( niCni,, r�Irn li.-_ i; t, Lly -t i.. ni<ir tl ^t.aaicl ui :.._ the 'Idvcnuadiamet no �Garrorim. %4ih'rL*I-IldEw'i yid a tetFl!IL i ui. ". r'ioi o. etCu corn ie., of R'i rniS e9 ir. .,: i ri i. hr teiic huu c(_i o , v i r, -.S Li r tit oi,at : slcd t.,, xi. t 'ii.:hitca, .-. h,n..: aiiidei c..a. courn } hlttp://ww�v.ai3=ingplans.coin/catalog.php'taction=807 1/2/2009 -147- M Te�cpiroNc 907 - 283-7189 May 31, 1984 Mr. Charles A. Brown Finarice Director 210 Fidalgo Kenai, Alaska 99611 Re: Your letter of. May 24, 1984 Assessment Districts for Princess and Magic Streets Dear Mr. Browny This matter has gotten completely blown out of proportion. The people that live over in the area of Princess and Magic Streets were under the impression that they were going to have considerable street improvements without putting underground water and sewer in first, in other words getting the cart before the horse. They went to the City Council with their request that the City put in sewer and water before doing anything else. During the 'course of the meeting one of the City Councilmen inquired if the people in the area would be willing to pick up part of the cost i.e., 20 or 25%. Pursuant to that request and inquiry, the parties of the original petition were recontacted, t and one refused - fc were out of o: a is f to a3 anything and dhe others agreed to pay a portion of the costs of the installation. Now I find the whole thing has gotten completely out of context to the extent that it is ridiculous, I am going into the second paragraph on the second page, "in general, the City has requested that: the petitioners waive the 25% limitation on assessments" that is not true. Councilman Wise inquired whether these people would be willing to pick of 25% of the cost of water and sewer. They agreed, they waived nothing. Based upon your letter of May 24, Councilman Wises' inquiry -was an exercise in futility and a jousting at windmills for my clients to answer the question. It apparently is not possible to do this. I am going to advise my clients that they should seek to get these improvements put in at no cost to them on the basis of the fact that the City has and. in the past and regularly put in streets, sidewalks, gutters, sewer, water, and storm sewers without any assessments whatsoever to the adjacent landowners and for them not to do so would be a discriminatory act on behalf of the.City.If they decide they want to pursue that matter it nrnc�)eaa U SPE_"T Aj' AG ES SaPNT P=0 we, the undersigned property owners, desire the to establish an assessment district in the area described ir, Exhibit 1 which is attached to this .petition. Requested improvements in:ludea 1) Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply Systems 2) Assessments for the improvements shall be limited to twenty percent (20M of the actual costs of the improvements. 3.) This rstition s:al.? be <Falid GF'iiy upon the prior filinc with the appropriate. adrni.nisfi.rativofficial for the Ci.L-Y If eaai of a Valid petition' cor"V..ninilg sufficient signatures, for the rerena_ng of: suhatantially the area described above, from RR to RP 1„ Property Proper tv Jaga1 Description Borough CaMer's O'4ner �s of hS 11Y 2==7 ' BLS' Gi� (Print) Lap cq 5sc '_ _ >l ziuv C--15 1 �S1.A 4��aSrir, C �5�� Sr:,.z. .. �3 (�9S c�s'U.-a'.� I�sc(�C .S�"�:�.h�i ig� I ..:'-Y✓'a��. ...1.._ uvd ✓.. (L'%' -1lb"K epee i/.'env J CITY OF KENAI 210FIDALGO KENALALASKA 99641 TELEPHONE M - 753.1 �E�MO TO: Kenai City Council i'ROM: Charles A. Brown, Finance Director DATE: Hatch 25, 1985 3U3JECT: Assessment District - Aliak/McC011Um On March 19, 1985, the City received a revised petition for a water and sewer assessment district in the Aliak/McCollum area. The petition asked for the assessments to be limited to 20% of actual costs. In addition, as .with the._ first nct jEcanting! ,t ,V,LUU L I Layc.4 i1.1 V The scope of the water and sewer improvements requested by the petition :_s smaller than the, planned by the City. The beneHbted lots, as requested by the petition, number 72. Therefore, 36 valid signatures are reabired. I believe that we have at !cast 39 valid signatures. T_b g petition be valid Lp�nding_ljhe yali_d� of Appears to _tL, the rezoning _oecl 11 ion You can review the map that is enclosed marked "Planned by City" and see ciie diFference from that "Requested by Petition." The lots the,, are benefited by the water and sewer improvements, as planned by the the City, number 89. They are listed in detail on the two enclosed printouts. One pr;ncouc shows legal descriptions, names, and addresses of benef-tted property owners. The other printout serves as a preliminary assessment A review of the preliminary assessment tell shows that the City expects total costs of the . water and sewer improvement to be about $1,352,000 (excluding design). The City expects to assess 50% of that cost, or about l S676,000. Note that this is not what was requested by the petitioners; cney requested an assessment -;*—f20% of cost. III properly owners will be given instructions on how to protest. 5"1 Commission Decision CITY OF KENfil +1 m m .F +, me I COMMISSION MEETING OF MRRCH 25, 1990 in the march 5, 1998 issue of the PeninsulaClarion, reporter Dave Lucas explains how Kenai Mayor John Williams describes the role and relationship of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Kenai City Council. "The planning and zoning commission is second in its authority only to the council, added Williams. Commissioners have to register with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, file conflict -of -interest statements and meet numerous other bureaucratic requirements, despite being appointed, rather than elected. Williams said they put a great deal of time and effort into their duties and it isn't the place of the council to second-guess their decision." Mayor Williams is directly quoted as saying, "The city council puts a great deal of credence in what the commission does." We are pleased our Commission and Council work so well together. However, regarding the Hugh and Joe Chumley's Condtional Use Permit (CUP) we strongly urge the Council to carefully review, as we have, what occurred at the commission level regarding this permit and exercise independent thinking on this matter. City Attorney Graves reminds council members they ".... may consider the recommendation of City officials but may not substitiute that judgement for theirs." (Board of Adjustment Packet BA-1, p. 2) 1 A COMMISSION HANDBOOK REGARDING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES The commissioner's handbook clearly states, "The commission should not act on controversial, complicated, or difficult issues with more than one member absent." (Planning Commission Handbook, State of Alaska, June 1993, p.58) Two commissioners were absent from the March 25, meeting. Yet, inspite of both verbal and written requests from the public, and a motion from Commissioner Werner-Quade, the commission voted against delaying the vote. Unless the commissioners do not view this CUP as controversial, the vote that )ccurred on March 25, should not have occured at that time. 1.2 DECISION COMMISSION MADE WAS BASED ON ERRONEOUS INFORMATION The commission's decision to allow the CUP was based on erroneous information as demonstrated in both the meeting record and the Finding of Facts. First a dose look at the meeting record and supporting documentation reveals misleading and incorrect information presented by Mr. Hugh Chumley, 1.2.1 Map Chumley presented a map in which he claimed 53 families dwelled, 15 who were opposed to his CUP, 38 who were non -opposed. Chumley took the liberty to represent anyone who did not testify or sign a petition in opposition as being "non -opposed" Chumley also represented families as non -opposed where families did not dwell, and have not dwelled for months. Furthermore, he deleted an entire segment of the neighborhood from his map that has been actively involved with the development and shaping of this neighborhood for years. We have expanded the map and conducted a door to door survey to determine who is "opposed", who for reasons of their own choose to be represented as "no voice" and who is favorable to the Chumpley CUP. An additional category was created for those we were notable to contact. We have classified them as "unknown." See Attachment #1. This Map is based on actual family dwellings with the exception of the Tree Top Townhouses. We have represented the land lords preference due to the simple logistics of contacting each family and the imposed time constraints of the Board of Adjustments. Attachment # 2 is a map of land owner and demonstrates those land owners opposed to the CUP and the parcel the possess. -152- -4 1.2.2 Majority/Minority Statistics Chumley states his CUP "is opposed by a MINORITY of the family households within the neighborhood." In reality a majority of the neighborhood has in the past and currently opposes the granting of this CUP for commercial professional offices. According to our door to door survey 43 families oppose the CUP, 3 have no voice (including 2 churches), 7 are unknown and 1 (Chumley), is in favor. The erroneous information presented at the commission meeting claimed that only 15 (not the actual 43) households out of 53 total were opposed. Chumley's number of 53 includes 16 fourpiex households, six of which were vacant at the time of the commission meeting. Futhermore it excludes important areas "within the subject area." Our total number of 54 includes two churches and, due to logistical constraints, only provides 4 counts for the fourplexes compared to Chumleys 16 count. For further accurate representation of the MAPS area please see attachment 1. 1.2.3 Position of Surrounding Schools Chumley states that his CUP "is no longer opposed by KCHS and the school PTA groups, based on `Professional Offices' category. Attachment 3 contains letters from the Kenai Middle School PTSA and Site Based Councils and the Kenai Central High School PTSA stating their concerns and opposition to the approval of Chumleys CUP. Petition signatures including the Kenai Middles School principal, Paul Sorenson and public testimony also reflect related opposition. The schools still have legitimate concerns that must be factored into the decision regarding Chumleys CUP. 1.2.4 Claims Compliance with Land Use. Table Chumley claims his CUP complies with the Land Use Table requirements. This topic will be discussed in detail throughout this presentation and document. 1.2.5 Buy Out Offer From Neighbors Chumley relays the offer of residents to purchase his land for what he had in it. He claims, "I didn't think that was too bad ah ... ideal under one condition, that those opposed would sell us their property for what they had it in. But they didn't want to do that and I don't blame them." Unfortunately important details were omitted from this explanation and the end result in another case of comparing, figuratively speaking, apples and oranges. The offer to Chumley was for raw land. The residents making the offer had improved lands with homes, landscaping and in some cases paved driveways and walkways, therefore equity values could not be rightfully compared with raw land. Chumlev's land purchase occurred within the last few years. Those offering to buy Chumle `s land had purchased their properties ranging from approximately twenty to forty years prior. Therefore "actual dollars" would need to be converted into "real dollars" accounting for inflation and the difference in purchasing power of a dollar from 1959 to 1995 to 199E to provide a fair comparison. 1.2.6 Surrounding Property Value Impact Chumeyy claims, "it's been proven or been stated by professionals that there is no devalue of property upon the current development plan." First of all the "professionals" proved nothing, they simply shared an opinion. Second, the commission and the council should consider the increase in a realtor's commission if they sell developed commercial property in an exclusively residential neighborhood verses selling residential property. Was there potential benefit to the "professionals" for sharing their opinions? Third, because no one (including Chumley) knows what kind of businesses are going into these "professional offices" it seems more than a bit premature to be making claims of property value impact. Fourth, the most straightforward test of impact on surrounding property is to consider the implications for the landlord with properties closest to the land in question. Will the tenents of these duplexes continue to reside in the homes they have been in for 1 5 years and 3 years if a business moves into their front yard? What impact does that have on the landlord if he can not find tenants who want to live beside a commercial business? -153- ,H J 1.3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAM The very premises the commission decision was founded'on as outlined in the "Findings" document are at best questionable and at worst insidious. Furthermore, the commission seems to have taken on themselves the "burden of proof' that rightfully rests with the applicant (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-1, page 2) by developing favorable arguements on issue the applicant did not.address or themselves develop. 1.3.1 Desirability of Property for Residential Us-e Findings state, "the property is no longer desirable as residential property" and "the only practical use would be for multi-famlly use". In an attempt to justify this conjecture the Findings explain that no new single family dwellings have been built bordering the Kenai Spur Highway in eleven years. This explanation is invalid as justification for declaring such properties undesirable for residential use for the following reasons. 1 .3. 1. 1 From the inception of a new community through its development the properties along the road systems are quite naturally the first place homes are built. The most obivous reason includes convenient access to the rest of the community. Therefore the Kenai Spur Highway corridor being referred to in the Findings is one of the older and more maturely developed residential neighborhoods in the community. The lack of new growth at this stage is an indicator of maturity, not undesirability. 1.3. 1.2 The absence of new construction serves to further support the "intent" of the zoning and the desires of the residents to "perserve the residential atmosphere" of an open and uncrowded, low density neighborhood. It is very typical in this neighborhood for property owners to place their single family dwelling on a property that could actually accommodate 2 to 4 residents. 1.3. 1 .3 In a recent survey conducted of home owners who live along the highway 12 out of14 stated they considered their homes to be suitable for residential usage. The first gentlemen who felt his home no longer was suitable explained the widening of the highway brought the road far too close to his front door. This is a variable Chumley can control. The other women who didn't feel it was suitable residential also did not believe commercial development should be allowed. As this survey was conducted, a number of the esidents stated their objections to commercial development. As one home owner stated, "I could put in a twelve-plex if I wanted to, but I wouldn't do that to my neighbors." 1.3. 1 .4 Based on this reasoning, to be consistent, the City of Kenai would need to proclaim all maturely developed neighborhoods to be undesirable for residential development. Such logic is a formula for planning and zoning disaster. 1 , 3. 1 . 5 Another inrfirn, or of suitability is the single family dwelling in close proximity to the highway that recently sold that had only been on the market a matter of a few months. 1.3. 1.6 The Findings state, "Because of close proximity to the highway, the proeerty is no longer desirable as residential property ..... The only practical residential use would be for multi-famiiy use (duplexes and triplexes are allowed in the RR-1 zone)." The opponents of this CUP would like to know what justification and proof is given for this judgement of desirability. Furthermore, how and why is land suitable for multi -family dwelling if it is not suitable for single family dwelling. 1.3.2 "The 1985 Deal" Findings state, "the proponents of this arguement would have us believe the city could never rezone the property, grant a conditional use permit, or a variance in the MAPS area. Thus, under that arguement, fifty years from now if all the property owners requested a zoning change or a conditional use permit be granted, it could not be done." 1.3.2. 1 This dire oversight on the part of the commissioners who voted in favor of this permit is somewhat confusing in light of the sign variance (PZ98-097) passed earlier during the very same Planning and Zoning Meeting in which some of the same neighbors spoke in support. 1 .3, 2.2 Such extreme deduction infers a preconceived bias that taints the objective course of due process. The proponents of the 1985 good faith agreement with the City of Kenai made their intentions clear from the beginining. "For the price of the assessment we want to have a say in how it is eveloped in the future. At the present time its RR in character has 2 potentials. If we do not rezone it then I -154- see a patchwork type of development, almost a Spenard-like type of development with people who want nice residential lots being slowly squeezed out or chased. away .....I understand that the City Comprehensive Plan calls for such an area in the City. One with larger lots so that people can actually live close in to town without having to live on smaller lots." (Board of Adustment Packet, BA-56, Rick Baldwin) "The 1985 Deal" as it has come to be called and our approximate $300,000 investment, should at very least ensure an untainted due process. 1.3.3 Less Restrictive Standard of Fxceptionall Land Use Applied Findings state, "We adopt a definintion of similar as "having characteristics in common" rather than more restrictive as in "strictly comparable" because the latter definition would make the new land use table and KMC14.20.150 irreconciable. _ 1.3.3.1 The Kenai Comprehensive Plan establishes, as policy, the requirement that commission and council members "Follow consistent, enforceable policies in administering the Zoning Code, pursuant to Title 29, Alaska Statutes. The City should:.... (d) Review the Conditional Use Section of the code (1 4.20-150) to ensure that rigorous standards are applied for approval of exceptional uses..." (P. 69) 1.3.3.2 The latter would not render KMC14.20.1 50 irreconciable. It would simply require planning and zoning decisions to be be made from a full spectrum of considerations and "take zoning actions which are "in accordance with" or in conformance to the adopted comprehensive plan (AS29.40.040 1 .3.3.3 Findings state, "Does a professional office have characteristics in common with a triplex in terms of its effect on the neighborhood? We find it does. We do so because the proposal is for a professional office with a buffer of 30 feet behind and on the sides of the property. That combined with the limited traffic a professional office requires means the neighborhood impact is no greater than the two three- plexes with access on Cinderella which could be built without a conditional use permit." A very relaxed interpretation has been offered by the signing commissioners based on a 30 foot buffer zone and a parallel between residential and professional office traffic. Objective thinking might lead one to ask some obvious questions. Why is a 30 foot buffer zone acceptable to insulate residents from businesses when an approximately 100 foot tree buffer zone (currently available to applicant according to maps submitted with CUP application) is not acceptable to buffer residential development from the Spur Highway? On what bases is the traffic flow comparison founded? How many triplexes require a 14 space parking lot and is this any indication of expected traffic flows? Section 7 of this document futher discusses Traffic Patterns and provides some factual basis of comparison. Section 7 does not support this Findings Claim. 1.3.4 Incorrect "Facts" in the Findings The Findings states the assessement rate was 20% when it actually was 2 5%. 1.3.5 Omission of Facts Points of pertinent interest to these proceedings were left out of the Findings record in a manner that provides a biased representation of the facts. 1 .3. S.1 The Findings state, "Ten people spoke at the public hearing, including one of the applicants Hugh Chumley and eight residents of the MAPS area." The record should also reflect the stand- in liaison from the city council requested, was granted and did step down and addressed the committee speaking in unquestionable favor of the CUP application. 1 .3.5. 2 The Findings state, "... one must recognize that the land use table in effect now is different than that in effect during the last application by the Chumleys for the property." Chumleys last application was submitted on December 12. The new Land Use Table was introduced on December 17 and adopted on January 7. Chumleys application was addressed at the commission level on January 15, and again at the council level on February 4. The new Land Use Table was effective February 7. The Findings statement leads the reader to assume the Land Use Table rules have changed since the previous application was addressed. In reality the commission and the council both were aware that the CUP was being evaluated in light of the new Land Use Table. -155- 1.4 CC MMiSSIONERS VOTE 1 .4.1 We understand that Mike Christian will address the council this evening and he is opposed to the CUP. 1 .4.2 Karen Mahurin regretted not being able to attend the commission meeting due to a family medical emergency. She is opposed to the granting of this CUP for reasons outlined in her letter seen in attachment 4, 1.5 C6JECTIVOTY CE COUNClL MEMBER The process outlined in the Planning Commission Handbook (1993) for "Due Process" requires certain behaviors and actions from the elected and appointed officials of any Alaskan city. "The commission has a responsibility to assure that its decisions are fair, impartial and objective, unbiased by even the appearance of having been privately influenced .... °.... the hearing must be conducted as to be free from bias and prejudice; .it must not only be open-minded and fair, but must have the appearance of being so....." Smith v. Skagit County (1969) ..... .. Members of commissions with the role of conducting fair and impartial fact-finding hearings must, as far as practicable, be open-minded, objective, impartial and free of entangling influences and capable of hearing the weak voices as well as the strong." Buell v. City of Bellingham (1972). (p.45) -156- FAMMN ,,A ��.. �( JS7 ti.n ii f , 8 xi( The Kenai Comprehensive Plan (KCP) is designed to do more than fill a legal requirment. It is designed to represent our community's vision for the future and serve as a guide for decision -making and a blueprint for growth. It potentially can serve as the standard by which the legal system measures actions and decisions of the city leaders. The following extracts, outline the reasons why the Chumley CUP must be denied. 2.1 City of Neighborhoods -- the KCP recognizes and supports the uniqueness of neighborhoods. Kenai is characterized by dispersed pockets of development separated by drainage ravines, bogs, and the Kenai River floodplain. (P. 17) These separate developable areas have tended to create a city of identifiable neighborhoods, each with a somewhat different character. When asked, Kenai residents say they live in such neighborhoods as Woodland, Beaver Loop or Valhalla [or MAPS] -- not just "Kenai". (P. 17) italic own 2.2 Separate Lower Density Housing from High Density and Commercial Uses — the KCP acknowledges the need for separation. Small highway commercial uses may be found in close proximity to single family houses, duplexes, and an occasional apartment building. While such diversity is well established and accepted in the original townsite,,it may be obiected to in some other neighborhoods where residents which to maintain larger groupings of louder density housing separate from higher density and commercial uses. (P. 19) (emphasis added) The City should strive to maintain physically separate neighborhoods in Kenai, and strengthen the "identity" of each neighborhood by encouraging development of public and private facilities... (P.22) Strengthen residential neighborhoods by better control over the development of different densities of housing in neighborhoods. (P. 22) 2.3 Restrict Commercial Uses to Commercial Zones — the zone of Papa Joe's subdivision is RRi, not commercial. Support development of neighborhood -serving commercial uses .... in commercial zones. (P. 22) 2.4 Restrict Commercial Uses Which Do Not Serve the Neighbors -- their is no —reed to permit this conditional use. Discourage highway commercial uses in residential neighborhoods which have no direct service relationship to the needs of residents or the neighborhood. (P.22) Neighborhoods along the Spur Highway such as Wildwood, East Kenai, and Thompson Park/ Valhalla have small commercial districts, each with a variety of automobile services, liquor stores or small businesses, which do not necessarily serve the needs of the immediate neighborhood. The zoning for these commercial areas is General Commercial, the same zone as the dowtown area, but the residential neighborhood setting is quite different than downtown. Land use regulations should better reflect the differences between downtown commercial rases serving the region and smaller commercial sites in neighborhoods along the Spur Highway. (P.24) (emphasis added) -157- 2.5 Availability of General Commercial Land is Generous -- there is no need to make an iception and provide a CUP. There is a generous amount of land in the central business district to accommodate new commercial development, most of which is zoned General Commercial. (P.24) 2.6 Consistent Procedures Regardless of Changing Membership -- The rezone/assessment of 1985 at very least established this neighborhood's desire to be afforded due process and be treated fairly and without bias on all future decisions impacting our neighborhood regardless of the personal agenda of individual and changing council and commission members. The City Council stands as a Board of Adjustments on appeals from decisions by the Planning and Zoning Commission. An appeal from a decision of the Council to the Superior Court shall be heard solely on the record established by the hearing officer, Council or other body (AS 29.40.969(b)). This means that Planning and Zoning Commissions and Councils must take pains to follow consistent procedures to insure fair and unbiased decision, regardless of changing memberships. (P. 69) (emphasis added) 2.7 Zoning Map and Code Required to Conform to KCP -- The KCP provides a more valid criteria of decision making than a controversial Land Use Table footnote. The Planning and Zoning Commission is responsible for amending the Zoning Code and official map. This will be required to make the zoning map and code conform to the adopted comprehensive plan. (emphasis added) Normally the code should not be updated on a piecemeal basis, because provisions of various zoning districts tend to be adapted to others [setting trends], significantly weakening important distinctions. A clear, well -written code is important not only for administrative simplicity, but also to stand any appeals or legal challenges... (P. 69) 2.8 Rigorous, Simplified Conformance Standards -- The KCP requires rigorous standards to be applied to exceptional use applications. It does not design interpretation and decision making to weaken and lessen the significance of residential uniqueness of neighborhoods for the sake of applying a more flexible application of land uses, particularly commercial. Follow consistent, enforceable policies in administering the Zoning Code, pursuant to Title 29, Alaska Statutes. The City should: (a) Maintain careful records... in support of judicial review of appeals. (b) Take zoning actions which are "in accordance with" or in conformance to the adopted comprehensive plan (emphasis added) (AS 29.40.040(a))... (d) Review the Conditional Use Section of the code (14.20-150) to ensure that Ljgofous standards are applied for approval of exceptional uses... (e) Simplify residential zoning district classifications by amending the Zoning Code and enact new zones. (P. 69,70) (emphasis added) Contrary to the KCP, the new Land Use Table weakens rather than strengthens neighborhoods by making provision for less restrictive, more flexible development in our neighborhood. -158- in reviewing an application for a conditional use the City of Kenai Zoning Code, also called the Kenai Municipal Code (KMC) needs to be reviewed. 3.1 Conditions of Conditional Use Permits 14.20.1 50 ConditionaE Uses: (a) Intent: There are some uses which may be compatible (emphasis added) with principal uses in some zones if certain conditions are met. The Commission shall permit this type of use if the conditions and requirements listed in this chapter are met. Before a conditional use permit may be granted, the procedures specified in this chapter must be followed. (Ord. 1 504-92) (b) Conditional Used in All Zones: (1 ) Uses not specifically permitted in the zone concerned may be permitted provided that the following conditions are met: [i] Such uses must be similar to principal uses permitted in the zone; [ii] Such uses must be in harmony with the intent of the zone. In order to grant the permit the council must find that the applied for uses are similar to the principal uses permitted in the zone and that the applied for uses are in harmony with the intent of the zone. "if an applicant seeks the allowance by the zoning board of a variance or exception, he has the burden of proving facts entitling him to it; i.e., he has the burden of setting before the zoning board the evidence necessary for exercise of its seasoned discretion." (Board of Adjustment Packet BA-1) The applicant fails to delineate any similarities between the principal uses permitted in the zone and their applied usage. Furthermore the applicant fails to prove the applied for uses are in harmony with the intent of the zone. Principal permitted uses are: 1)One family dwelling; 2)Two/three family dwelling; 3)Churches; 4)Essential Services; 5)Farming/Gardening/General Agricultural; and 6)Off Street Parking. The common characteristics of these principle permitted uses include: principal activities occurring at each of these uses is non- commercial, the vehicular and pedestrian traffic is often known or knowable to the principal occupants, generated traffic in grid out of permitted use areas is generally low density with the exception of Churches at strategic non -imposing times of the week and day, and the character of the neighborhood is enhanced by the familiarity factor as neighbors watch out for and help each other out. Commercial enterprises, such as professional offices, do not share any of these common characteristics. Their principal activity is most often commercial, the vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and out of the business will be primarily unknown to the principal occupants, generated traffic in and out will likely be high density (See section 7 Traffic Patterns), and the character of the neighborhood will be eroded as an unfamiliar public files in and out of the neighborhood. Thus professional offices are not similar to those principal uses permitted in this zone. Professional offices are not in harmony with the intent of the zone. The statutory intent of the RR-1 zone is contained in KMC 14.20.D80. The intent stated in KMC 14.20MO for the RR zones is to provide for low density residential development in a way that creates a stable and attractive residential environment and to preserve the rural and open quality of the environment. The RR zones are also designed to prohibit uses that would violate the residential character of the environment. It is also clear that the intent of the residents who petitioned the City for an RR-1 zone in 1985 was to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. (Board of Adjustment- Case No. BA-98-1, Decision, p.5) MAPS comprises 75% of all RR1 in the City of Kenai and Maps comprises 100% of RR1 along the Spur Highway. For these reasons, the development is not consistent with the intent of RR-1. -159- 3.2 Most Restrictive Regulations Shall Apply When Conflict -- the KMC requires the "most estrictive" regulation in conformance with the KCP rigorous standard for exceptional uses. 14.20.020 (f) Whenever there is a conflict between this chapter and other ordinances pertaining to the regulation of property within the City, the most restrictive regulation shall apply. (Ords. 925, 990) (The Commission seems to be the most liberal, rather than the most restrictive interpretation of regulations.) Wei A basic premise the supportive commissioners stated in advocating this application is the unsuitability or undesirability of this property for residential development. Section 1.3.1 of this document states 6 reasons why this premise is invalid. This section offers more explanations. 4.1 Manipulation of Suitability/Desirability Factor Desirability and suitable of land use can often be manipulated by the configuration and directional bias of the plat layout. If a parcel of land along a five lane highway is layed out so the two lots bordering the highway have frontages exposed to the highway (i.e. no tree buffer zone), the facilities located on the lots face the five lane highway, and access is confined to entrance and exit to and from the five lane highway, then the residential suitability is.nat diminished. See attachment #5 On the other hand if the parcel of land is laved out so the two lots bordering the highway have maximum allowable tree buffer with optional fence between the home and the highway, the homes are set back as far away from the highway as practical for lot size, the homes face the opposite direction of the highway and the homes have access channeled through residential side streets, then residential suitability is maximized. See attachment #6. 4.2 Burdens or Hardship "The Board should not consider .... burdens or hardships arising not from zoning laws, but from plat or deed restrictions, since these are not relevant to proper grounds for relief from zoning restrictions. (Board of Adjustment, April 15, 1998 Packet, BA-1) The applicant has a variety of configurations and layouts available to them which provide suitable and desirable residential land usage. As presented, the applicants layout provides self-induced restrictions that may produce unnecessary burdens or hardships for which the city can not assume responsibility. -161- The citizen taxpayers of the City of Kenai have elected the City Council to protect the best interest of our community. As the council responds to this appeal it is imperative that the legal implications of this appeal decision be considered. The 1996 Supreme Court of Alaska case of Griswold v. City of Homer and West's Pacific Digest contain valuable criteria that council members are encouraged to apply to legally sound decision rnaking. 5.1 Conditional Land Use Permit as Viewed by the Law In reviewing a zoning and planning issue the legal system focuses on the actual purpose for which the land will be used, not on the semantics of the exception. 'The City (Homer) states that 'this is not a case of 'spot zoning' at all, because the area in question remained BCD (commercial business district). However, treatise discussions of spot zoning appear to make no distinction between cases where a zoning district has been reclassified and those where a new use w_iihout district reclassification is at issue. [Griswold v. City of Homer 925 P.2d 1015) The exception being allowed is the issue, not what the exception is being called. Certain Commission and Council members have emphasized the distinction between a "rezone" and a "conditional use". The court system will focus on the "new use" regardless of semantical reclassification or lack thereof. 5.2 Spot Zoning Defined It is our position that if the City Council grants the CUP the Council will be illegally spot zoning and the Council's approval will be struck down in a court of law. In Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 1015, 1020 (Alaska 1996), the Alaska Supreme Court held that it would invalidate zoning decisions which are the result of prejudice, arbitrary decision making, or improper motives, and t.hat zoning decisions :vhich have no :reasonable relationship to legitimate government purpose will be struck down as violative of substantive due process. The Court in that case held that spot zoning is per se illegal. The Court described the spot zoning situation as one in which a property owner seeks to establish a use prohibited by existing regulations. The Court discussed spot zoning as: "the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of the other owners", and "the very antithesis of planned zoning." The court settled on the following definition of spot zoning for Alaska: "any zoning amendment which reclassifies a small parcel in a manner inconsistent with existing zoning patterns, for the benefit of the owner and to the detriment of the community, or without any substantial public purpose." 5.3 Jurisdiction Criteria In the Griswold case, the Court states that it would look at the following factor in deciding whether the action of the City of Homer was arbitrary spot zoning: (1) the consistency of the amendment with the comprehensive plan; (2) the benefits and the detriments of the amendment to the owners, adjacent landowners, and community; and (3) the size of the area rezoned. Other cases include an additional factor. character of the adjacent land. -1 6Z- p rkr ry 5.4 Comprehensive Plan In Griswold, the Court stated that consistency with the comprehensive plan is one indication that the zoning action in question had a rational basis and was not arbitrary. In this case, the current zoning is residential, and the applicant is seeking a CUP for a currently prohibited, noncomforming commercial use; therefore, it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. l his discussion if expanded in Section 2 of this document. 5.5 Effect of Small -Parcel Zoning on Owner and Community In Griswold, the Court stated that the most important factor in determining whether a small parcel zoning amendment such as this one would be upheld was whether the amendment provided a benefit to the public rather than primarily a benefit to the private owner. The Court consideredpublic interests such as preservation of the neighborhood character, traffic safety and aesthetics to be legitimate and substantial concerns: and stated that proposals to change land uses that would negatively impact these interests were "tangible harms." Clearly in this case the only person that would benefit from granting the CUP is the private property owner. An overwhelming majority of neighboring residents are against this application. Further discussion of this point are in the following section of this document. 5.6 Size of Rezoned Area In Griswold, the Alaska Supreme Court stated that the size of a parcel proposed to be spot zoned is relative; that is, just because a parcel is a certain size does not mean that the zoning amendment will be either spot zoning or not per se. Nor can reclassification of surrounding parcels into a similar use as the proposed amendment be used to avoid a charge of spot zoning. This parcel is a small parcel rezoning in that the property is only 3-4 acres. It cannot be argued that this parcel is too large to qualify as spot zoning. 5.7 Character of Adjacent Property Other courts have also examined the character of the adjacent property in making a determination whether a zoning amendment is illegal spot zoning. The more a proposed new use differs from the character and uses of the adjacent property, the more likely it is to be illegal spot zoning merely to the benefit of the owner. In this case, the surrounding character of the adjacent property is primarily residential. The property under consideration can be developed as residential property, such as single family, duplexes or triplexes. Thus, thr City has no justification for approving the amendment on this ground. Sections 2 and 3 of this document further establishes the character of adjacent properties. The Alaska Supreme Court set out the rules that the City must follow in making its determination, as discussed above. Under those rules, the City must uphold the appeal and deny the CUP, for the reasons discussed above. 5.8 Burden of Proof Finally, the City Council is required to follow the rules of due process in cases such as these. No property owner has a "right" to a conditional use permit; in fact, the opposite is true -- the property owner has the burden of proving that the CUP meets the criteria set out above: consistent with the comprehensive land use -163- plan, benefits the community and not just the private owner, is not "small parcel" zoning , and is consistent •ith the character of the adjacent parcels. The Planning and Zoning Commission acted improperly in ,proving this permit, because the applicant did not meet his burden of proof in the Commission hearing; yet the Commission still granted the CUP. The Commission seemed to be placing the burden on the community -- it appears from the Commission's decision that the Commission will always grant an application for a CUP unless Kenai residents provide overwhelming evidence under some impossibly high standard known only to the Commission. This is not the correct analysis, The applicant simply cannot and has not met his burden of proof and the permit must be denied. IM 6.1 Fret Market any£ Government Control In the decision passed down by the council regarding Chumleys' previous application the decision document states, "The free market, not the Board of Adjustment, will decide which commercial properties will be used and which will remain vacant." (P.6) In reality the Board of Adjustment and consequently the council and commission are not absolved of responsibility in this area. The market economy has been highly successful in most industrial countries, especially the United States. Even here, however, a perfect market economy does not exist because of the influence of three factors: large corporations, labor unions, and the government..... Government policies continue to shape the U.S. economy Government intervention can be regarded in two ways; actual government ownership of means of production and government influence in economic decision making. Ownership is easy to quantify statistically, but since influence is a matter of policy and custom, it is difficult to measure precisely. (International Business by John D. Daniels and Lee H. Radebaugh, Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 6th ed., ©1992, pages 53,54) 6.2 Commercial Vacancies are Community Good Issues The city leadership serves as guardian of our communities best interest and caretaker of the greater public purpose and good. Policy decisions that influence market variables is a form of intervention and government control. It is commonly understood that supply and demand are the variables that dictate market direction. To advocate the increase in "supply" of commercial properties to a marketplace that has "a generous amount of land in the central business district to accommodate new commercial development" is intervention. Increasing the supply impacts the supply and demand relationship. The impact is that one land owner benefits at the cost of decreased demand to all other current commercial property owners. Furthermore the granting of the Chumley permit would further influence supply and demand by providing a single property owner an advantage that is not available to existing owners - purchasing at residential prices and selling at commercial prices. "Without the exception (Chumley CUP) or the exceptions (commercialized Spur Highway corridor) of conditional uses, the free market, would in fact, force development back to the centralized commercial zone. it is a mere fact of supply and demand. Such movement is for the good of the city because it allows the natural course of economic checks and balances to infuse life back into a sluggish commercial sector. Intervention on the otherhand, contributes to rendering a sluggish sector into a slum and creating a liability for the City of Kenai. The city leadership is not exonerated when they tamper with free market variables through policy influences. 6.3 Precedent Setting Action With Long Term Community Good Ramifications The proposed conditional use issue transcends the applicant, the surrounding residents, and the commission and council. It impacts the good of the community. This is a precedent setting decision that will serve as a measure of accountability for years to come. What basis will future councils have for saying "no" to other CUP applicants if they say "yes" to the Chumley's. The proposed conditional use will be harmful to the community, not beneficial. The public has made it crystal clear to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the City Council that they are against this application and against opening up the Kenai Spur Highway outside the City center to strip development as proposed by the applicant. Their reasons correlate with those the Alaska Supreme Court deemed legitimate and substantial in Griswold v. City of Homer (925 P. 2D 1012,1020 (Alaska 1996)), The proposed development will destroy -165- the primarily residential character of the neighborhood, and permanently alter the lot itself -- once a commercial building is built, the lot will not be used for residential purposes again. There will be increased raffic caused by the businesses in the building, with increased noise, fumes and traffic hazards causing harm co the adjacent landowner's residential lots. The proposed development will interfere with the flow of traffic on the highway. The proposed development will contribute to unsightly strip development along the Kenai Spur Highway. -166- 7.1 Valid Planning Issue During the February 4, 1998, Board of Adjustment Hearing the applicant's representative stated, "... we feel a traffic problem, if it exists, is a traffic problem and not a property development problem and we think we would like to respectfully suggest that traffic problems be addressed with traffic control items." (Board of Adjustment Hearing, Chumley/Chuni Appeal, February 4, 1998, Page 6) The residents of the neighboring lots respectfully disagree. The Planning Commissioner's Handbook (June 1993, State of Alaska) validates traffic as a sound planning and zoning concern in the following statement: The effects on traffic congestion are also mentioned some in the conditional use section of a zoning ordinance. A permit granted or denied under this standard has a better chance of surviving judicial review if it is based on a credible traffic study which quantifies the effects of the proposed use. (68) 7.2 Traffic Study and Pertinent Statistical Data Residents of the neighborhood conducted counts of three main areas: (1) children in the neighborhood and at local schools (2) number of cars entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway, and (3) a count of clientele entering & exiting other professional offices to represent a possible traffic sampling for the proposed professional offices traffic. These counts were conducted by neighborhood residents around such priorities as family, school, jobs, and neighborhood issues in an all too short allowable time frame. Although they may not be an official traffic study, they do show that there is a traffic impact on the neighborhood and surrounding area that must be considered. 7.2. 1 The number of children potentially affected by traffic concerns who live on the north side of the Spur Highway and who must cross a five lane highway to get to their respective schools is currently at 70 and will climb to 71 in approximately three months. The ages of these children range and the number is relative to change. See attachment # 7 for recorded tally of survey. The number of children enrolled in the area school are: 475 at Kenai Central High School, 455 at Kenai Middle School and 409 at Mountain View Elementary. These statistics establish the fact that many children will feel the impact of the council's decision concerning this CUP now and for years to come. 7.2.2 The number of cars entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway were tallied at three different counts. Number of vehicles going in to the high school: * first count 1:55 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. 66 *second countl 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 83 * third count 7:07 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. 165 * fourth count7:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 191 (as many as 47 in a 15 minute period) (as many as 10 in a one minute period) Number of vehicles exiting the high school (offset exit from Cinderella St.): * first count 7:00 a.m_ to 10:30 a.m. 90 * second countl 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 78 * third count 7:07 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. 79 (as many as 18 in a 9 minute period) (as many as 12 in a one minute period) * fourth count7:00 a.m. to 1030 a.m. 50 -167- Increases in traffic flows at peak hours due to the Kenai Middle School traffic flow have not been included in these counts. 7.2.3 Professional Offices clientele traffic (information obtained by phone calls to the businesses): (1) A Dental Clinic (2) A Medical Walk-in Facility (3) A Medical Specialist (4) Tanning Salon (5) A Hair Salon (6) A Chiropractic Clinic (7) An Insurance Agent 7.3 Conclusions 25+ vehicles per day plus 5-6 employees 20 on a slow day plus 3-4 employees 60 on a heavy day plus added employees 40 on office days (non -surgical days) 30 on off-season days plus 2 employees 90 on in -season days 30 to 50 in the winter plus 4-5 employees (doubled in the summer) 50 per day plus 4 employees 50 per day plus 3 to 4 employees 7.3. t Traffic Related Safety Issues Exists. The Chumleys' application is for two professional office buildings. The number of stories or businesses in each is still undisclosed or unknown. Assuming that each building held only one professional office, based on the above clientele counts for two professional offices, in and out traffic, the clientele numbers above would have to be quadrupled to account for the traffic. Each of the two offices would have in and out traffic for each client served. It is entirely feasible that each building, even if single story, could house two or more professional offices. Each building could be two stories high (or higher), and double the traffic possibilities. -Considering the traffic from the high school, added to the traffic from a minimum of two professional offices, congestion could become unmanageable around the high school exit and Cinderella Street without further traffic assistance (such as a traffic light at an already unaligned intersection -- just planning the traffic light might be a nightmare). Due to the general nature of the drivers at the high school, a higher number of inexperienced drivers use its entrance and exit than any other single driveway system in the City of Kenai. Not one map presented by the Chumleys has shown the location of the hi rr school exit in relation to their osed site plan. 7.3.2 One Accident is One Too Many. Unfortunately the peak traffic congestion times are also the times children are walking to and from school. It is obvious from the data collected that safety risks, particularly to our children, will escalate if this CUP is approved. This is of utmost concern to the neighbors and rightfully should carry tremendous weight in making the decision to approve or decline the CUP. -168- I ,t `''4. y� r�1 y ti� The history of this neighborhood and its interaction with both the Kenai City Council and Commission demonstrates a highly collaborative effort of the majority of property owners to preserve and maintain the loud density residential character of this neighborhood. 8.1 Historical Data In 1985 the citizens of this neighborhood petitioned the City offering to pay 20% assessments for sewer and water improvements contingent upon the city rezoning the defined area from RR to RR1. We ultimately paid 25% assessment. City of Kenai Assessment Roll records show total amounts paid were $328,181 or $287,869 excluding government properties. Many residents paid these assessments over a ten year period at a I0°/a interest rate. The residents of this neighborhood confidently invested in the City of Kenai. We agreed to pay and we di& 8.2 Linkage of the 1985 Assessments Levied on Residents and the RR1 Rezone In return for the approximate $300,000 investment made, the residents received a rezone to RR-1 and at very least reinforced our right to "have a say in how the neighborhood is developed in the future" with particular upfront understanding that our intent was to avoid a "patch work type of development, almost a Spenard-like type of development..." (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-56) To breach this good faith agreement is a detriment to the overall community. It erodes confidence in the city leadership's ability to plan and zone in a responsible, progressive and consistent fashion. It deteriorates the motive for future investment in our city and ultimately deters future growth and economic vitality. These points are further supported in the Planning Commissioners Handbook. The determination as to the legally binding implication (i.e. assessment reimbursements) should not have to be established in a court of law. It is dear that the city understood the connection between the assessment and the rezone as indicated in a letter from former Finance Director, Charlie Brown. (Board of Adjustment Packet, BA-6b, page 4) Inherent in due process is the right of the residents to be heard Burden of proof for exceptional uses eats with the applicant and leas not been met. Exceptional uses should be c"'i7aiiiated ri^^rou5 and restrictive standards. The neighbors have sllppoiied theli Chosen direction for aga.ns y the city with well documented, rational "proof" that is not even their obligation to provide. There is no logical reason for allowing the "1985 Deal" issue to escalate beyond this level at potential expense and liability to all taxpayers of this city. How ever the legal implications are interpreted by individual council members, what occurred in 1 985 must be given due consideration in making the decision to accept or reject Chumleys CUP. m 9 CLOSING REMRRKS See attachment #8 for the lists of community members that are opposed to the City of Kenai granting this CUP. Due to the collaborative nature of signature collection there may be duplicate signatures. We request permission to offer written rebuttal to applicants closing comments to be forwarded to council members to be used in decision making. We request that the permanent record of this Board of Adjustment include past commission and council Proceedings related to Chumley's applications for rezoning and conditional use permits, as well as the records of the 1985 rezoning proceedings. We also request that the permanent record reflect the number of all present who have not testified and who are opposed and willing to indicate so by a raised hand. In closing, deny the Chumley CUP. ATTACHMSOOT -171- \TR, C 1 �q*l taos� 1 :aa3c 0 /� IAWTON DR. -172- DR_ (EAST -iLiAK DR,) 7o' ACCESS ES' T i ii' I _v ;0' ACCESS kSL 50' ACCESS r "roz roc 1 >oe 000 alz -'-- soz we (D 1 S 15 14 1.3 LJ (- 2 10 w 2PORT- GOV'T.y LOT 9 C) � TR. A��� 1 g O ¢ Q < � 4 1 20 21 22 23 2 ® �e 2(,0 503 6C3 w7 609 6Ll 703 7R) a 901 995 9D7 813 9D1 903 W3 907 909 9l3 MAGIC AVE. COLS ES 'T. _ u E' F' 3' ACCES ESM'T. - 604 606 609 6Ui n >a, 704 YJI M4 k902 904 9"4Ob fH s 2 MAER 2 a ww za2i 26 6,TR. . B F�APA J E'S 29 w * 9 L;3-ACCQSS AENC ESTD38 40a2•i 2tdiTA LESS '7. � C" 33' ACCESS ESM�7. 9716 LA b L � / l [o-�^�d, i T i NIOU) i,m-lo M'HU'laz-1 �l 110 c 1 ) -- not ioai [2 IR LET *lad Rai \ 2 a I\all Dal Cut cill "I toll cc I clot not 6001 1 UGI TOO 0 tj cf) G;T as SSC pip m V2 $112C ;ize ri < z T eal TV1 L VN toll got( "it lQT 7. TRI Gail koo , R) E:) ci as ;t ibV - vesoot 17L9 1-M-2p r 1 2C -R �AV 'e8 rZ 53 s 52 wD f ^� �° S3 U In ! �t• AT.TA1<' i�Rti -— 1 c�° t L M ES UB 2 3 5 Qq t b 9 SQ 51 1 JJI � i izia ! taut TTA C HM, eyJ T -176- g I o' UX AVE h Ph y p.0. m0 R ui UN h0 90 N CJ O a O O q Q - ti N Uh ° 4'° oq I AL1AK DR. i --.�----�_.. y Al. T AK ilR a ... .. ., .. 0 0. � o f V R 4 _4 -og N J 00 o O O 0o O V lCp p0 • W � Jai° CO a ; �8 a a m -178- mls I lr0 11; li VVVV ■ y y i x r1 ♦ 1 �, � ♦ 1Y� '4� f�.J f � i 'k � l''� 1 v ill ' � As the executive board of the Kenai Middle School PTA, we would like to assure you that we continue in our opposition to the conditional use permit for Lots 6 & 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, Kenai Spur Highway. We believe that even under a professional office designation the effects on the traffic as well as to the atmosphere of the neighborhood will be negative ones for the school community. In addition, we are distressed as citizens of the city to be involved in this continued attempt to change the zone in this area against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of those residing in that neighborhood. l We respectfully request thatyou reverse ruling of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the conditional use permit. Sincerely, Marjorie Campbell, PTA President ,Dames Montgomery, PTA Vice-president Tisha Schwemley, PTA Secretary Kelly Hicks, PTA Treasurer i �'SGrV�� CcPy lIV MEC7iN6 i2E«Rp -179- ,-L;.. '. � Apr 06 98 01:01p Adams2837630 F,1 Kenai Central High School 9538 Kenai Spur H,vvy. Kenai, AK 99611 City Council City of Kenai 210 Pidalgo, Suite 200 Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 April 6, 1998 Regarding: !appeal of approval of application for Conditional Use Permit for Professional office building for the Property described as Lots 6&7, Papa loe's Subdivision, 9520 and/or 9488 Kenai Spur 1-Tighway. Members of the City Cotmcil, Ladies and Geutlemen, The Kenai High School PTSA is concerned that development of this particular area with businesses would farther complicate an already complicated traffic pattern.. The area in question lies in a particularly bad location to be adding furtfier egresses onto Kenai Spnr. It is already complicated because Cinderella is slightly staggered from the KC.H.S. exit. We are concerned that this added congestion would be an accident waiting to happen. Please look carefully at tl e traffic pattern in this location before voting on this appeal. 'r. We are grateful to the Chumley's for the way that they have tried to appease all of our concerns. We do, however, want to urge caution when addin 1.4h school's local. g to the traffic pattern in the Respectfully submitted, Deborah Adams KC.FiS. PTSA President. -180- Apr--15-98 12:46P Oenaina Health Cl ini 907 2.83 2289 p.O2_ April 15, 1998 City of Kenai 210 Pidalga Kenai, AK 99611 RE: Papa Joe's Subdivision Lots d & 7 Dear Mayor Williams and City Council Members; I am spiting to represent the Site Base Committee and the staff of Kenai Middle School. We are again before you to speak about the issue of the above mentioned piece of property. As a group of parents and educators our first and foremost priority is the well being of the child-ren.. We feel that any commercial endeavor in the area of the schools has the potential to cadre problems. There will be an increase in traffic into this area. Also, there may be the further temptation that once a commercial facility is present, that in the future there would be a chance for further development along the Spar, l would like to ask the Kenai City Council to consider the wishes of those who live in this area as well as those who are concerned aboui comirlercial dev lopsnent in this area to reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter of concern. Harry L. Campbell, PA-C President, KMS Site Base Committee am Mm A 1TA C 4 FA EAT Comm 1351 onlalrS )mz4oJeer -3I 1,996 3 : 416A11 FROM Karen J. Mahurin P. 0- Box 1073 Kenai, Alaska 99611 April 13, 1998 Mayor John Williams and Members of Kenai City Council Re: Chumley Board of Adjusters Hearing Dear John and Council Members: As I am not able to attend the council meeting tonight, please accept my letter as the testimony I would have presented at the public hearing on this matter. Due to a family medical crisis in (Montana, I was unable to be back in Kenai when this conditional Use permit came back before Planning & Zoning on March 25, Had I been in attendance I would have once again voted "no". Conditional uses, in my opinion, mean that a property owner wants to do something different with his property than is allowed under the zoning ordinance. Public testimony is what helps me as a commissioner decide how I will vote. Public testimony on this issue has been overwhelming against the permit, time and time again. I realize that many council member support a central Spur Highway commercial corridor - as you know, I do not, especially in this area. Residents of this particular area have worked for years to protect the integrity of their neighbor by rezoning and fighting to keep the zoning as is and I urge all of you to recognize that. Yes, Kenai is made up of business and residential - that is what community is. And, yes, we need business to make jobs and thus have a community. However, a community is also people. And, the people in this area say NO to this permit. I am also very concerned about additional traffic in this school zone - no matter what is said, offices bring traffic and traffic pose hazards to students going to and from school: Please, please listen to the public testimony and also I remind you that Mr. Churnley was well aware of the zoning of this property when it purchased it. For once and for all let's end this controversy and deny the conditional use permit. . hank you for your time in reading my letter. Sincerely, Karen Mahurin CC: Colleen Ward AtrA c H 04 EPT 5 Chuley 5`ae Plan -184- L� ° x o- r 1 C+ Sob q�F,A55 ����` �•�. \ '"--''� :�" /L� i 4 j VII r A`.`67ARMG-n7 TJ APPLiCATf01v (� NiC-N�Sat cuuv�r,' ter: - 85-Q T � sm \� ■ }� 41 am SKIM Statement to be Presented to be Kenai City Council Board of Adjustment 17 This is a survey being concering P . -12- Conditional Land Use Permitt (Professional OffticLs)-Lots 6 and 7, Papa's .roes Subdivison, 9520 &,Jor 9488 Kenai, Alaska. We, are tring to see how many families, with school age children, live in the sunrroundding area from Linwood lane to Princess. That will be affected by .doe Elugh Chumley Building Permit. Address Children i r� —189df — Statement to be Presented to be Kenai City Council Board of Adjustment This is a survey being concering ky�9$-�2- Conditional Land Use P'ermift (Professional Offices) -Lots 6 and 7, Papa's goes Subdivison, 9520 &/or 9488 Kenai, Alaska. We, are tying to see how maan families, with school age children, live in the surroundding area. from Linwood Lane to Princess. That will be affected by ,Foe Hugh Chumley Building Permit. Address -190- Children U c� _0 4 5 81 Statement to be Presented to be Kenai City Council Board of adjustment This is a survey being concering FM - Conditional )Land Use Permitt (Professional Offices) -Lots 6 and i, Papa's Joes Subdivison, 9520 &tor 9488 Kenai, Alaska. We, are tring to see how many families, with school age children, live in the surroundding area from Linwood ]Lane to Princess. That will be affected by ,foe Hugh Chuffi9ey Building Permit. Address C, Children r' itfO I�I,r4K)I-U-� r0n A1,'ge Ale �s 6 Statement to be Presented to be Kenai City Council Board of Adjustment This is a survey being concering I!Z2$-12Conditional Land Use Permitt (Professional Offices) -Lots & and 7, Papa's .hoes Subdivison, 9520 /or 9488 Kenai, Alaska, We, are tring to see how many families, with school age children, live in the surroundding area from Linwood Lane to Princess. That will be affected by .toe Hugh Chumley Building Permit. Address r C) Children ��o 9 (�,'n�(,P,,IL7, CD U 4 -192- f qj 4Lle s� 1,J 5ia€savant to he Presented to be Kenai City Council Bard of Adjustment This is a survey being cmncering ZZ,,91-12- Conditiona€ Land Use Permitt (Professional Offices) -dots 6 and 7, Papa's foes Subdivison, 9520 &/or 9488 Kenai, Alaska. We, are tring to see how many ffamilies, with school age children, live in the surr®unddimg area from Linwood Lane to Princess, That will be affected by Joe Hugh Chumbley wilding Permit. Address Children 6),5 Arta ai C)2l -193- Statement to be Presented to be Kenai City Council Board of Adjustment This is a survey being concering M,U--C'onditional Land Use Permitt (Professional Offices) -Lots 6 and 7, Papa's Joes Subdivison, 9520 &lor 9488 Kenai, Alaska, We, are tr°ing to sec how many families, with school age children, live in the surroundding area from Linwood Lane to Princess. That will be affected by oboe Hugh Chumley Building Permit, Address �� n r P t1S in C=e 0 -194- Children I ,mow eNV�' L S"" ,,I -195 Statement to be Presented to the Kenai City Council Board of ydjustment We, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to PZ98-1 - Conditional Land Use Permit Pr .raft Offices) - Lots 6 and 7, Papa _o Subdivision, 9520 Vori enw Spur Highway, jai Alaska,application submitted t"^�(d I�, ii';A it ;d Joe Chu P.O.+mSterling,`Alaska. 4 ature Name Address Phone Number s6c>-W IM n �W taternent to be Presented t® the VIA 1 l�/eJ Kenai CRY Council Board of fidjustment ,,e undersigned, ARE OPPy . r,. 8Conditionald , se Permit (Professional Offices) - Lots 6 and 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 9520 Wor 9488 Kenai Spur Highway,Alaska,application s ^, d b Hughd Joe P.O. s Alaska. Signature Name Andress / Phone Number 1--�/IA A711ti � >7 K " Y3 7a- ; , -197- Statement to b9 Presented to the Kemal CRU Council Bard of Rdjustr ent e, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to PZ98-12 - Conditional Land Use Permit (Professional Offices) - Lots 5 and 7, Papa Joe`s Subdivision, 9520 Wor 9485 Kenai Spur Highway, penal, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh Ctaumley and Joe C6 um� ey, P.O, Box 753, Sterling, Alaska. ,Signature Name Add eSS1�te l� Phone dumber _� .� ">� _ 1 1 �ir n - t, ..,-.. � i V � n n 1 l�'Z In f�✓.v� ���//1 G; D -JY2 - (_���nR 4-) _ g, o4.q,� li: 4. r 3C > ;{ 46(, C"(lu -198- 0 i 09 L'C��ie Sc�ucl 4S5 V Statement t0 be Presented t® the Kenai City Council Board ®t Rdjustment We, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to PZ93-12 - Conditional hand Use Permit (Professional Offices) - Lots 6 and 7, Papa Joe's SubdMs;ion, 9520 Wor 9433 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh Chumley and ,doe Churnley, P.O. Box 753, Steriong, Aiaska. Signature Name Address Phone lumber �"'11���3 i �`'i,^�.,��,J.. � ,J,_. �,�. _� ,�, �,1_5 "L� r-_•r�.:..i _�: S`r�ld,"i�,�� .2�.�-!..l c �� L/ � �iT�'� .� `�L.. �,vi; �,�✓//�.i::' 1 r:�,y .l. /l!�r /I _,l_ � �J�i� A r .f Al- ?q 3-7? 5 j ej -199- Statement to be Presented to the Kenai CRU Council Board of itdjustment We, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to PZ9E-1 - Conditional Lanni Use Permit (Professional Offices) - Lots 6 and y, Papa Joe's ,Subdivisi®n, 9520 a3 or 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh Citu miey and Joe Chumr ey, P.O: Box 753, Sterling, Alaska. gnature�Name Address Phone Number _�LtiY¢'i4 fAyi1.LCim�d �. Qn o��J /9��'iUYI"� /\mac U �UJ lS� J✓�M_ ��, y, .��` 3 j�''` ter_%/Aih'Ci_r c t„fit-CIG 1 n (N/LL 0 f F C Fj >7 -200- l.zl-� statement to be presented to the Kenai City Council. Bard of ttdJustrnent February 4, 199$ AVD MAnc zs,/99s We, the undersigned, are opposed to the approval of Joe and Hugh Chumley's Conditional hand Use Permit application. We support the preservation of the low density, residential character of our neighborhood as prescribed by our assigned zoning - Rural Residential I. ,,A j T W lt)AlV1FG. PiR rl AVE 3 U t7 �cv mil{ a '1G f ;`Ljt 1Z c, - -201- X h"J'4 ! 2�'3 - 1� a� Y ,2 'kt' S 4 15 statement to be presented to the Kenai cite Council Board of Rdiustment February 4, 1998 we, the undersigned, are opposed to the approval of Joe and Hugh Churnfey's Conditional Land Use Permit application. We support the preservation of the low density, residential character of our neighborhood as prescribed by our assigned zoning - Rural Residentiali. rum enrr� ESP 4IZ3 /VCCO&4� De ,> na Pr-rifFSon 30 C` ! ��I i Lv � G f. - IIVS ALtA),- J�14A) IC3UZ Z LL N�,��-• ,�cl�.�� I���ey S��ru� Da �®ffib ' f �uSSC ���r ��G.2�__EC=G{i12Z..5'✓�, �tY�. f1I, � c ui/�? 12�rri -202- J--?,5-L 1'41t 1 j)o3 A Z' i .31� ��n ceSS 410 L4/0 'v.c, '0e"2et'A .Sl—, 4{05 F7C-CONDO Dr G v!; nor A Y 9i j'z iG C Statement t® he Presented t® the Kenai city Council Board of fldjustment e, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to PZ98-12 - Conditional Land Use Permit (Professional Offices) e Lots 6 and 7, Napa doe's Subdivision, 9529 Wor 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh CInumley and ,doe Churnley, P.O. Box 753, Sterling, Alaska. Slgnature+ Tm erne Address Phone Number [_C1I'+Ir67`I�d`�i' IrCC.IA zxecs w 76 0 f'G� X 4 10 =-'�_ � 64C �'7 lm,..- 7 ,.�.�� .�, _ '� _5 Z 1:�ict LIQ- 97 -1u3- During the larch 25, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the following property owners were represented as not opoosino the Hugh and Joe Chumley. Conditional Land Use Permit Application. However, these property owners were never contacted about the permit application by the Chumleys. As indicated by their signatures they wish two on record with the City of Kenai Council and Planning and Zoning Commission as opposing the Churnley Conditional Land Use Permit. M April 1, 1998 l IF �1, a Statement to be presented to tie G% , Kenai Clt9 Council Board of Fidjustment _ the undersigned, are opposed to the approval of Joe and Hugh Chumley's Conditional Land Use Permit say !Osupport preservation of the low density, +' assignedas prescribed by our zoning - Rural Residential 1. 1041111111 YJJ!...,r fiCiCtc}i C; Lli._ 1 �3ne �A L. Mt3o_re. 3''o.cA �-/'6dRE— c_. 33 t -205- YJJ!...,r fiCiCtc}i C; Lli._ 1 �3ne �A L. Mt3o_re. 3''o.cA �-/'6dRE— c_. 33 t -205- Statement t® the Presented t® the Kenai City Council Bard Of tidjustment We, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to PZ98-12 - C®nditionai Land Use Permit (Professional Offices) - Lots 6 and i, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 9528 Wor 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kena4 Alaska, an appiicaticn submitted by Hugh Chumley and ,ice Chumley, P.O. Box 753, Sterling, Alaska. �i�rvsttare 6�acrue Address Phone Number L.k.���l�c�b2J (- �G' -20613411 - is (Vli�,Clvi> /<� �I �..J Statemento be Presented to the Kenai tit' Council Board of Rdjustment We, the undersigned, ARE OPP s .. 1. - Conditional Land Use Permit (Professionai M`f.ces) - Lots 6 and Subdivision, 9520 Wor 9488 9Kenai Spur'Highway, Kenai, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh Churnley and Joe P.O.Box t' g Alaska. Signature Name Address Phone Number � VIA LI &tua.6i 4 Avs u 111C Nn7s q,1 n s 5ac660 ,r//f r 3-7� s _3 �3���, -207A N 010 - Statement to he Presented to the Kenai City Council Board Of Rdiustment We, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to PZ98-12 . Conditional Land Use Permit (Professional Offices) - Lots 8 and 7, Papa doe's Subdivision, 9520 &/Or 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska, an application: submitted by Hugh Churney and Joe ChumleY, P,O. Box 753, Sterling, Maska, Signature Na rase Address Phone Number Al IM Statement to be Presented to the Ve / li Kenai City Council Board of 11djustment We, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to PZ98-12 - Conditioriai Lard Use Permit (Professional Offices) - Lots 6 and 7, Papa Joe's Subdivision, 9520 Wor 9488 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh Chumley and Joe Ghumley, P.O. Sox 753, Sterling, Alaska, Signature j Name Address Phone Plumber /. C �.,'R ✓�"` AOI .�U.� /'(<:GO II S/'�I r�•:i iJ 1 I 1 iC�J' ii l�. 'iL'!l• c�'P C� %l'� �ii ��r �S%,� .i �1 � ,b�nli�� �.��Gi�)C � J � � `i cf_' ' b'J J4z-).� e: -209- Statement to be Presented to the Kenai C!tV Council Board of Rdjustment We, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSES to PZ98.12 Conditional Land Use Permit (Professional Offices) - Lots E and 7, Papa Doe's SubdIvision, 9920 Woo 9438 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska, an application submitted by Hugh Chumley and Joe Chump ey, P.O. fox 753, Sterling, Alaska. Z ature Name Address Phone Number 9FgRLfv C 34Vo 9`��' ✓= /i / � �brfai� 4 .5 cU7� /✓`(O �rwaroG'�Ic �lC�u'�� .� �r7Gd0' -�"� )�' LrH rn/��srra d �r f y � av 1«tvAI `� i6 C�3 f�. r�2 !'. 7&ss' -210- 10- Statement to be Presented to the Kenai City Council Board of Rdjustment We, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to PZ98-12 - Conditional Land Use Permit (Professionalit ;1 Lots d Pope Joi- Subdivision, 9520 Wo 48 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska, an apptication submitted by Hugh Chumley and Joe 1P.O.Box 1 n g.1 i m Address PhoneNumber 7 -211- statement to be Presented to the Kenai City Council Beard of Rdiustment J -212- -2g3-)3)2 j -- G January 26, 2009 - 0M rn TSS �o In Planning end Zoning 210 Fidelgo Ave. Kenai, AK 99511 Per T he issue of the contemplated rezone of properties north of the Kenai Spur Kighway Cavridor from M-X�oflur, DTtva'Weatto Mo-Name, Creel. D62' COLMdt: Mr e wife, Jo, and i moved from Kodiak ta Soldotne, in Fsbruary, 1997 du s to Me health and opened my lavv# practice at 100 Trading Bell Drive, Kanal, We did not buy a home until December, 1999 because we, were looking for just the right combination of factors. We wanted to be close to the law office since f ofte" have to meat with clients at odd nouns or short notice, close to a commercial center for shopping but yet in a quiet neighborhood. In December, 1999, tree found our house at 309 Princess which rnet sit of our requirements; and we have lived there since that Urge. Our horns is 1 V2 milas to my office, approximately llra same to ths0e—nalna Health Clinic and a lesser distance to the area grocary stores and home sari, y stores. When the 2003 ComprahensKm Plan, hereinafter referred to asthe "Pisn"was adopted, we did scot comment because. the Plan requirements recognized the needs of the Cif of Kenai and insured 'that our neighborhood would remain essentially as it is now and ties been since we rnovpd hers in 1999. We vvere in fuli support of the Plan. WE,, do not believe that the contemplated rezone is in conformance with the Plan. It appears that the rezone is noftng more than a pretense to legitimize spot zonktg. When the rezone was, proposed there had been no study done. There had been no planning. It was proposed because a developer wanted ' to build commercial buildings on a lot that he had purchased. in order io facilitate that developer and avoid wi Illegal spot zoning, this re7orrs was proposed. The hasty ifie-'al application submitted by the Planning and Zoning chairman, which had to be with6awn, supportsthat. condusiun and gives the public the appearance that the rezoning is going to be done mgardless. As stated above, the rezone does not comply withthe Plan for the reasons set fo rth beimAf. -213- Planning and Zoning Comrnissicvn January I S, 2009 Page rllb. 2 Several goals oftre Plan an-, asted but the first two of the goals of the pk6 c are: Create an attractive, vital, city center, with s. mix of private and public facHities and activities to benefit residents arid, visitors. Protect and re,Cutienatc the livability of rtssidebicW ncighbortwoods See page 2 of the Plan. These goals will bas discussed in th& an da" paressented above. It was "ecoan ized in the Plan that: The city's dorainant spatial pattern - linear grovdh along the Kenai Spur Highway spine - suits local ground canditioris. pbd it foster a weak, poorly defined city centaw, it also channels most local and through traffic onto the Kenai Spur Highway, whose roadside is Kenal's front rad. The cornmunity has cited 6ev,Llcprr�ent of an identifiable, diverse, prosperous city centev and a more aftactKe Kenai Spur Highway corridor as impoCart planning pals. Boding added. See page 25 w the Plan. Fho Man goes onto state A ccMm an theme at the public plannivig workshops was that Kenai 'asked a well-defined Idly center, The old business districts did not project a well defined cRy center. The old business district did not project a positive identity of a thriving Kenai. lFistead, it was losing vitally and looldnq faded. Citizens generally agree that creating a strong, attractive, busy city ca-9ter is a highly desirable planning goal. ranai does have the potential to develop a more distinctive, attractive, auc;cessf-W city center. But it will take a joint pubfic-private'vocus on the economics, appearance, and oonvenience of the city center in order to make it an aftrsctive venue fob, residents and visitors. Some of the policies to roster that goal are set out balow. A, long-tPrin strategy for developrnary't of Milleirblum Square, s, remarkable cornmugity asset, is a kzey elernant for the future emergence of a city center. -214- Planning and Zoning 'CommISSI'M J8nUary 119, 2009 Page No. 3 The office was intentiona0y, located in the city center so that dients- who visit my office can accomplish other tasks in the city when making the trip. My praGfice benefits from this versatility offered the clients and the city benefits front the business ttlatmy clients bring to the city. @ support the concapt, of a strong city center and P believe the 2003 Comprehensive Plan corracUy identified such need, Land Use Plan, Map 14 on page 25 Gf the Plan (afteched) shows the concept of the strong city center clearly. The addition ors Lowas and Wall Ithalt fit into the Concept and strengthen the city center. I supponed the addition of those M* businesses as they All enhance my c1lients, aNlity to accornplish ether tasks while, in the city. An inSPeCti0il of 11flap 11 well ShM That tie location of the two bm;!'nessss also compliss vyfth the Ptar, as it en[-,anoes a strong citle cantor. Unfortunst sly, Lowas End WsWartnpiil increase 6"ho traffic coming from the --a,%,' past Princess Sbeetwhidi vjifl effect the safety of rhyfanjily aftempfingto egress Princess. This is --specialirtrue in the winter when the snow berms along the highway btock the vlaw of oncoming traffic from the east. The traffic frorn, the north and West qubstanidaliy slope at the city center, Lowas and WallMart and vAl not increase, tier traffic past Princess from those directions. The pvcpossu'rezone of the Kenai S ' pur 'Highvvay does not cornpE,j vvith the Rari m- in that it fostoa waak� poorfy clasIgmW c;ltr aant--r which was speciflcalliyvvarnad against in the Plan, lt kWHI dravy professionals and other businesses away frorn the ciN canter. It will incraase'irpfflc flow past Princess in both directions from clients and customers going to and frornt:he rezone. Since WalMart is not finished, it is impossible to predict what the traffic pattern will he past Princess other than to say for sure that caffic v,41 increase signM"canfly and that , the rezone Mif add to 'Uhat traffic flow. 11, that respect alone, 'the rezone is premature as Me addition of Lovve's and Wall Mart may stress the, traffic flow on the Kena4,SpuF Highway. tna�asac ea sus e€c4ae use in the rezone would hamper individuals entering the cltV canter and would ;hen adversely impact the r.lty center. Further, the rezone roes not ffmet the ssc*nd goal of protecting and reluvertAng tow residential neighborhoods. An examination of Moaps 10 and I I s1hows the entire area of the rezone colored Orange which identifies his rezone area as Neighborhood Residential. There is absolutely no Neighborhood Commarcief shown in that area. Neighborhood residential is defined as: The Neighborhood Residential district consisiss of single- family and muttliarnily residential areas that are urban or -215- Planning and Zoning commission January 19, 2009 d✓'wa No. 4 _. suburban in eharactan Typica}?yr, public water and awver services are in place or planned for ius aiiafSaxr€_'shiis Sand use district may include both single-family slid multi -family dwellings subject to reasonable density transitions andtor design compa4ibi8ty. Fomnal public outdoor spaces (parks) are a critical fe lure in this cifsbicl. Small horrre-based usincsses may Fie accorrFmodated wfihin certain design auidellvnes. Neighborhood institutional uses such as churches, schools, and day care marl€ides rnayr be intermixed if they onmp!yF with neighborhood design guidelines_ See Plan, page 29. There is nothing i:n that description that' would impkj cornmerx;ia@ ac:iviny on any scsIs, On tine vest side of the city canter, there are areas ehown as kioighbc;rhood Cor memiaf which is defined as: The Neighborhood Commercial district, applies to areas along die arterial load system that are suitable for small scale naighbvrhood-serving rats it service, and office uses. K appears than', the Urnited CorrGmeralaf ,'one, wG!'V'G 14.20,115, Euas developed to er sier the Neighborhood Coinnmroercial areas along file Kenai Spur Highway on the wesE side cY the Oty center, 'The LC zone is described as: (a) Intent: The LC Yo,ne is estabOished to Provide tvansigoan areas between srnmmerraW and nesiidsnLM diOt'icts by silOtWing l0vv 4c mrnadium volume business, mixed residential and other compatible uses which complen c ent and do not materially detiact from the uses allowed with adjacent districts. The prikncipal permittad uses shown in tine attached Land Use Fable are: single, two and three, family dwellings, churches, clinics, governma nt buildings, day care centers, dbs¢nitosieslb®critic houses, essential services, green houses/ tree nurseries, more iona€ Officr_g restaurants, quosp h nil- taxidermy, off-streetv . '.Ill. lr:g, p„2 y, paazi¢rrg and personal sanrices. Personal services are defined in Note 25 to the Land Use Table (attached) as art studios, barbers, beauticians, dressmakers, dryr cleaners and self service laundries, fitness renters, Photographic studios, tailors, tanning studios and message therapists. There is no stafutoryr definition of an "essential service' which is allowed. Since medicine and other health supplies are essential to sorns individuals. it cuuld include a drug store. W Planning and Zoning Coi iTtIssion January 19, 2009 Page No. 5 All of the foregoing will encourage businesses to locate away from the city center and degrade the buffer zone of the neighborhood. The users of the rezone will be transient users with no connection to the neighborhood. I was asked during map testimony in front of the City Council if I considered. churches and sc hools as commercial ent'sdes. € answered that l did not but did not get a chance to explain my answer. Church members are usually from the neighborhood but, even if not, the members ate seeking good moral values and are self-discipffned, church activities are monitored and controlled and such activities most, often take place within the building and are not conducted ever, day or night of the week. School activities are always wail monitored and controlled. There is very little interaction between the schools and the neighborhood. Any bad" interaction is usually addressed by school officials quickly. Whereas those individuals using cornmarcial facilities are not monitored and are not coming to the area seeking a good moral end. The commercial entity wants satisfied customers. For example, It is not going to attempt to cok ttrof a custosrners actions outside the business. The goal of 'the Harr is to protect and rejuvenate the livability of residential neighborhoods, .the rezone under application does not protect the livability of my neighborhood. As stated above, it subjects the neighborhood to transitory unknown visitors'. The impetus of the rezone was based upon are application to place 5 commercial buildings an a lot in the zor te. The proposal was that the buildings would, be professlons's buildings. As far as I am concerned, as a professional, I want to be, in the cull center. Dr. Carlson or the kkadt-enter built in the city center {aossibty for the same reasons that I have broached. I have not seen any explanation addressing how this rezone is going to make my neighborhood more livable- or how It is going to rejuvenate the neighborhood. I would apprecEate such explanation. When, investment is high and the need to bring in revenue to support a mortgage, any renter that frill not violate the zone limitations will be welcome by the developer. Ever the developer can not say who wifl inhibit those buildings it) the long term future. it can be sand for sure that the character of the neighborhood will change. The neighborhood can no 6ongier be titled "Neighborhood Residents;" and Map I I vnif riot be an accurate representation of the area. it can be said for sure that traffic flow will be affec'ed. As a member of the Planning and Zuning C0e7emiss on, You must recognize 'that this rezone ismerely ereiy an attempt to satisfy one developer and lhat the selection of [and area was done in haste wi?hoist even consideration; of laps 10 and 11. of the Plait. Recommending the rezone wifl be an arbitrary use of pcnver of the Planning and Zoning Most viskors In a residentlht ne+gftba ,rood are inviteas ar people such as Wairnen Who are there for a purpose. -217- Planning and Zoning Corrandssiovi January 19, 20M Page No. Cornmi5ion as it is merely an Mega! spot razoning. The A!asi<& Supreme -Cou�t in Griswold v. Cry of Homer, 925 P2d 101 5, 1020 (Alasl<a 1996) stated: Spot zoning "is the very ant'thasis of planned zoning." Courts have developed numerous variations of this definition. These variations have but minor differences, and describe any zoning amendment which "reclassifies, F entall parcel in a manner inconsistent with existing zoning patterns, for the benefit of the owner and to the detriment of the community, or without any 8uhstandial public purpose." Anderson, supra, � 5.12. ai 3S2. P ralessor DE-glar states: ced with an aliagaton of spot zoninc i; a g roun,,,, deterni flat whather the rezoning ie compatib.'s with the comprehensive plar, or, where no plan exists, witty surrounding uses. Courts then ekamine, the deggrea, of publ"C; benefit gained and the characteristics of land, including parcel size and other factors indicating that any reciassMication should have embraced a larger area containing the subject parcel rather than that parcel alone.. No one particular chisiacieratio spot zoning, except a fa lure to comply Vilth at least the Spirit crf a comprohermive plan, is necessarily fatal to the amendment. Spot zoning analysis- depends primarily on the facts and r1rourristences of the particular case. Tharaforatraa cn'ana Pre flexible and provide gaidleffnes ferjulirial balancing of interests. 3 Edward H. Ziegler Jr., Raff-ptfophs The I at4,, oF2oningg and PIRM767: § 28.01, at 28-3 (,P,'Lh ad. 19951-1)r In accord vAh the guidance ofiered by Professor Ziegler, in delan"nining whether Ordinance 92-18 constitutes spot zoning, we will, consider (1) the consilstency of the amendment Mth the comprehensive plan; (2) the banefffm Qnd delTiments of the amendment to the Gurners, adjacent landoieniars, and co.mmunny, and (3B the Mn of the ara:,s in our case 'the rezone is not consistent with the Plan. There hats been much iestirnony by owners, adjacent landovinnam and P few membere, of ilia community of, the detriment that they believe they will exiaerlence-. The effecihfc area of the rezone is not Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2009 Page No. 7 as large as proposes in that sorne of the w-ea can not be developed and some is already developed. Other landowners who are more, farailiar with the total area have addressed the effective area of Vie razone, t urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the application. At nle least, It is prarnature. No one kncws how Wall'Aart Will af-tsol, the community or the trade flow on the Kenai Spur Highway. At the worst, it is inconsistent with the Plan and will unalterably change the character of my neighborhood. Regardless of what the developer represents neither he nor you Can Predle the type of business that, WHI operate vvithin the rezone in the future. T he perm [dad uses of the LC zone is sytcisiva, � thank You for Your time. since-rety, Charles Vvinegardent E , Sq. 309 Princess Fcnai, AK 996", 1 283-5774 -219- 0 N N O e E4.M 115 Lim tsd Corarriercial Zane (LC; Zonc). (a) Fntemt The LC '',Otte it established so provide transition areas bevicen. commercinj and residential districts 6y allowing low to Medium volume business, mixed residemial me, other compatible uses which complement and do not materially detract from the uses allowed with adjacent districts. (15) Principal Permitted Uses: As allowed in I and Use Table as long as the footprint of the building does not exceed ttuee thousand (3,000) square feet. (a) Conditional Uses: As allowed in Land Use `!`able. (d) Accessory Uses: As defined (see defnitious section). (e) I -lame -occupations: Uses as allowed by this rlvapzer. (1' fleveiopmant Requirement. As described in this chapter (1) ParkitrgR squireraerhs: As required by etas chaptcn. (h) Outside storage is al.loewed for display purposes ordy unless the sfloragc is i, an area eex¢iosed by a sight -obscuring fence. (1) =andseaPingtu ite alms: As rearmed in KMC f 4.25. (Ords. 2091-200,::148-2006) -222- Title, � 4, I'V+.jVMrI�G_ANl.],ZUNirlG Chapter 1p.22,LAND USE. TABLE LANE USE TABLE 1'CEY: P=t4inuipil Puxuiivd U9n C=Conditioncl iisn s= secPna:pY Ose N=Nbt ?omW.d NOTE1 GefErmrr:uef W. on fulkawing .'p, J , ClidillOnLl rE^.triGlfCnS FA"vA U41G5 • -- C Rpi fJtE ZGISIXG RS TSuSTRICTS 25L NE,J d;C 74i iY m ! £t) of PgN LC QhkY' one rEmayo Iking C;e P r' r r P i P, t>al I a S_ cz P r P �s4c't �'Fwufiit xe Pam;lY Dwulht e�Cln ' Pow Famlly Dw05, iCe I P i P P P P Y IQ pP N P Pu F yt Ct C� C � C .Ci Czx N � 1 ? P I911£21 t+loNSlx Pynily Dwtllins: 4etcn or Nhore FanikY C,a Cta C3 £3 N Ca _•^N P Cd N N N N P P pzt� Pn Iill S' Sa C C C C F N N At P C P C S1,21 S4C2L hAobpE Home PazsC � PlunrtcM Unit Fcsidenrial N Cte C I CC C G C'. C C G tl' l C � C � C C I£ rC C C� `C� Cxz N 1G C C C C C} I N�C C C{ C J C UrvElapmunl� i i C®Rh2¢4iERCIAL 1 LAND USES i C RR RVI R5 ES1 RIM RE ££ cr _ m m i Fb R 'rsm LC CI { Pmromaiee Sakes A.W.,411le Sc li. Stations Rules BusinssdConeumc \ N N N c C C C C c C C N N C C tv' N DI � N N !Q .. N N C C c C P P i` P� P P P P P P P P P P C C N N N I .N )'I C} C C N IN NJ N C G C �c P_ P P F GWMeSeim iYtlIs19MOWIS N N C C C C c C N N Ni' y C C P P P—y IMP P P c N N P C 1' C 1,; c P P Lodge Pm[nssionol offirs !N N C C C u C C C N N N T N c P P P t P P P f c P� tN ti P C C P �I' P I &ctta,wnm Releil Qns ncss Whotook B.Snim N I Nxu N C C —{- -{—F— C f C C C i C C I N �N N N N i N CS, C' C —I- P i P} P P P P P girt N gLt Sz< C t�P C C N [Thew /c. n... Eal RE croatbu_ N C C I� N�—N C P P C C N bttp:(/wwv. goode:asfccscies/:<enairview.php?topic,=14-I4_22-i4_22_0 I O&L-anzes=-on 1124/20€9 -223- LAND USE 'i'ARLP MEY: P-, Rlnoipal Fmnlvedv,NOTE; ReAmuco Coume!esou Fntlrwn+g Vu3oa Pm C=Coudldonxt Uso midirionul eesttiariens S=SC40ntI6rV iYR NN=No Pcnninei -- �,carr:Na; mcsr�➢ens -- �'I EC(DU59'3Z➢AP1 - � _ LAND tlfiPiS C P.P.➢iR! [t� PES! P1 gP [#& CC cc IL P,6 &dl &'H'Sf'� X.f CNdii Abpmtrand Reluud Uso Aulomotrvc Pal N C C. C C N N C i�P P P P N C N N C Rcpuh C. M000fiomnrzfSrorpgo N C N C C N 14 N N N P C, P 9 IJ N N N N N AI N P N [AenuhwurinpR'aBcity;tn;3/ msmbly N C C C NN FI CC C P P p YG c C N MIn4S!umpe.Facilfq Swaps 1'ord lYertLocses N! N li' 0 C (: C C C I C Cl K� ''J N C N (. q C i C I C N P P 1 P J P ? P I P 1' N N I N O N N C �c IJ _C. { c PUBLIC i ➢rV5 [➢'F➢JT'84iP➢faL ' N �AMIL, .ANtl121S-5 Chrawb!e levumxfom' C C Rft! C asl.SX C C C"s 1 ttll C' I D cc P Cf I' ei. � 'iz P CEt L' R j G� ,_.-.-J_�� S'SC£ D LC C P Churches° C1(nFcs �� C' C P! C pm C tgo C P!n C pro ,to C_ C "to �- I, PTO P 1 C 1'' -C C P C � Pt" C P C P P P P C P P C P L" C C P Elcmanury Sd.W Gcvernnrnnml Grtildinn t C I C C C C Cc J P ..�i.__ P P P C —T_� P C C P P C C C P Hig63dmois' Aospihls"�—-C Librnics" -`^ Mascunss C C C C C^�t U C C C a C C c C C C C C C C- C f C P P P p C P F C L C P P C F C P C � c P p P Pmk6 w,d Reac hiq!! F C C C C C C P P P 2 P 1' P C P j .Auic(al Livlvg C C C c { C C C C C C C C C c C C :vtsei P�A rEF➢.15 S.A.ND PWs �.Ahiaoi Ciourdingr3 C RE C c ' tM C Pos C its, C !ll92 6JLIJ N N CC c CN C 6L C Mrd C IR N C S5?5� N CC C' CI@EI C I$ed wd &rouhfzxrs Cali Rti tuts Censeru'es C c C C C C C C C C G L N11y N C C N N N, v C p N C P C c ry C f, C C N A 190 C P C C P c C j C I'l P N O.,,itoom.j ito, s DaY Cam Centers -' N C C L C C �] ��-----��j C �C I F I� N P C C N C I C E C C 1 G P C P Dormisodcsll3aardm- Howes _� C C I �P C c cI C P P2t S C P Pss C C F P Gssaotid Savu.ro P P _P P P P P P P N P P P{ P L Pnrming/Gaoornl Agricullvn."""' P P _ f ri i. N td N N —P N N P P R N N I I I Chm!honseslCroe I �N.roo,t3 C C � C C 7 C{ O C P P —�.— C M C C � P n http://wwve.gcode.us/cod`slkc iia3lview.plip?topic=14-14_22-14_22,010&aamesn 1/24/2009 -224- o I AN4D ME T F PLE KEY_ P aP... idphl W-raided U. n'(YPC', lod.a. Anco) ms m nU."ing Poi., to, C -Cenditiaaol ikc sdd ao,! soil unoto S =.Secondary Usa 1J<Nat i'eonimsd KISCF.LLANE'aus I LkNhD USIES Uurnrnlfl6n8.'riniog, T-adermp C 14 IZz C' suLk C Its C that C ! Us C Ru C cc P Cc P n P aw P Ern N It C' _ P P Ul F Asacnhllars(.Fuc.) Ctircusas. Fsiri. FxJ Fraveraal(hp.nicin.s/ Nrivfll'c Clulra/Social Halle and Unimr Hags C N 'N ' G C ! _ � C C I C C (� 0 C C p1� I' P13PC ( P o P 1 Pis C pia IN C C Ia P C( N C C p:3 P j Nursing, Convalescoa ur Par'in;..Off-Simet � P.kial,,Pahlm Lo,si3 -1I.-�_._.._._ PJ_ If C i C I C ( G � PPP C C( C C C!-C C: � l p P r ., r> J� C` � p C C p C v G C' � Y 1 Yp P r 1 Pcoonnl Servtccc`5 2:dioRV honmutNrx/C'ati C III P! C [' ^_ C 1 C _C C C C C C C C ---�. l„ _G ! P P -C� P t+ i+ P I+ P( j�C P C C P C - C r Recrcatiooai V.,an,, Parks Sedwrfam Gmrsor.n. of C. C C C- C J C C C IJ C N C C: C C: C C C C C C N N C C C N f N' N C n tuna,61 Resoins,06 1 I ( I i Sarl'aca Exir..cuen of Nawnl Rma.to si' C I C i C C N N C' b! C C C hl IJ - IJ S.042 USCA S. 2000cn (R o gMus L.aad Use and le,of iOninh.d i'+ousma Aof or2p00) i See 42 Toicumnnusimboo.c Ae: of ) vrub, S.c 704(e) ^' Ses,batrev¢r, to, limitauore l;:.pmra!ander "KING 3.10.090 reamems: 7. Midwest as n sccondmy use except on the ground Flour of the pW'I ufihebui[ding fronting on no lector sabers and major lunhways. Comical cal or indionoid mhich fells under for, tandscdpirgLitie plans rcyuiremoncs of'(NvIC 14. i shall inciedc any - !. secondary uses in the landscaping and sit. plans. 2. One (1) ongle-family residence per be, which iF part of die union building. Allowed as acondiraonel use, subject to sahis mg t'hc felluol ng conditions: a. The asablo area per dwelling unit shun be his name as 0tar re ioited Lbr dwelling urbo in On, RS none; b. The sit sensie fomuge in in no must be approved by the :on nu isslna; a Yard, around the site, oti-sneer parking, and oil,, devaopment roopmcmeras shall be the samr, as for principal uses is the RP.. ,,one; d. Woes, and sewer facilities shall most the moo iram.nts of all appktdalo heuf6h regulations; e. ran araoosed dwel ling ear, wth conmarm a residen'al area n F sma o.6dsimbiltry eno smilitp Yti I... in hamtony v+ini if" tlhar6cuu-of the sun oundmir neighborhood, and "M not a¢ ars ry Il e osurrounding, pPopony vfdacs t. The buildings shall b used only for residential purposes and cusvrim aounsory uses, such as gwagcs vmr.ge spaces, and reonsudional and comne ity activities g Thum shall be pm ided, as part of flee proposed dmmlopm.ng adegnam rccmadon comes in scrvc the needs of tha anric ipiaux! E 1paAufautou h. 71ro dcvolonuinu shall as produce a volumv, CC na.We u) coccus of tiro capacity for which un, access Suczeua ar,- designed; i. Tho propeny adjacent In the prop.,d dwell ing group will not be adversely affeeaed_ k. Scc"To W,haHomes.cRon.-- S $C0 "MObtIC i+iOn1C5`Sect}OIL Yrtio:/{wcavd.poode.vs/codes2<enu/visa+.pho7topic=!4-f 4. 22-i4 22 010&fumes=on 1/24/2009 -225- G. Alkwned as acandi lonal us, a,WME to "iviobile,Homeri' accrlu, to provided inat auy mohile hmnc per@ nectsfheninimum Pecci'ti igausing Autnor5ry regairsonots. 7. See "Planned Unit Residential Development" section, 8. Allowed no conditional us., provided n1te the proposed Intention and the e7tuaeter atics ofthe site will not destroy the rsida.•ntial ateresmr arts, neighbre0ood, 9. Allmund as e. conditional use, provided That all applicebl isinety snot ire regulations in Clint. 10, Provided that no for of my building is located ne:un than Thirty(3M nou to any adjoining hook, ur pruputy lint, 1 I Allowed as a conditional use, provided that no pare ofany building is located neater than thirty (30) feel to any adjoining street ar property line and provided further that the proposed Inaction and use will not adversely affect the commercial development of the zone. l3. Allowed as a conditional use, provided that the fohowing condition, cc met w. The proposed location of the use and the size and characteristic ofmc site will mnzimize ite benefit to rite public, It Fees and onuancea and offiameo, parking for she use we lausued to proven defi'ic ihanwds on nubile, an'adds. 13, Allowed as a outitioxial use, provided thwt ScHmois, buffer strips, and ether provisions atv ndeF{unta to "anion idea the use will not be a nuisance m surrounding properties. The Commssion sited specify the cand Rican necessary to fulfill this zegulrourei Id- Allowed as a conditional use, provided that no indicrflon of said use is evldnn n-un the crueler ofzhu mornay. 15. Allowed, provided drat the fallowing conditions arc met a. An amclosred huller ship of at iaithat,, (30) feet shall be provided'oacwecc said uac and any sdioini ag property In a resulnucel b. Gaits said entranccs and off--s'reet parking for d:e aso shall be locate%at pre:ven: traffm hnzarc(s ae the public s rau". 16. See"Cis,'khnal Uses"socnion. 17. Seo "Condoind Unto Permit for Surface Pacad',nn o"Naterwi Resparoes` sonnet. III. Condinneal Use allowed only on pn veedy held property. Not alloyed an government lands. 19. {belated by Ordicarwe 21V,.2006. N. The nirpon. rdated uses allowed under this ono-; we aircraft approach zones nor It'MC 14.20.070(aJ, axcept Heat Yor pmperte. :ontamediaslde the airport pernuets fence nr h2ving access to aimra'i met avane arras, ramps-Vud, mjs or parking aprons, FALA authorized uses ere. allowed. 21. Devoiopmem lot use shell he the ouna as those listed mthc"Developmetn'Requltin+,rome Table' Act the RUfr!eH zmus. 22. Adfowed as a conditionai unto In eatjunciion vital a neraniVed uea 1n the ED -met. For example, hearing fur teacher.. or students for a. se6nol in the zone. 23. Allrnwd as an accessary urn in carnjvnetion with a retrained use 1n ere HD zone. For cha nelo, a darmttnp• used to house amdi So a Nation! or educa[ionul Patin ^. 24. Retal businesses showed a re ascem(uae,• is, ire oon}uuotimt v:i£h the lintnzry uot(r_g., a gist ulmp or coffee oncip within arorhe, 25. Ara aaadlos, barbers, boautedirm, dressualcers, dry oneness and delp,crvicc iaundl'ies, fion s etnmrs, pbomgraphic strdios, ¢ailom, tanning salons and massage onar apists. 26, Food serniees mac allowed on a temporary on seasonal busts of rot more than tour (4) moriCts per you'. (Amended during 7-77-99 suppieme nt; Ord. 1 F962-2000, amended during 12-1-0(l supplement: Osds. 191l -2001, 1938-2001,1956-2002,1962-2002,1990=2003,I.9r)4.2003, 2053-2004, 2081-2005; 2 112 -00S. 2113,12005, 2144-2006, 2 i 52>-2006, 21.95-2006, 2 i 95-2006, 2246-2007. 2272-2007) w uw.gcode:us/codes kesalview_php7tofJi.c 1d-Iu 22-14221.010&frenziesi I/24/2A09 Mel V, ErOM' Joe Moore [mailto:joem@altrogco,com] Seats Wednesday, December 17, 2008 8:36 AM TG¢ 'Patricia Porter'; barry_eldridge@yahoo.com; hvsrnalley@yal)oo.com; cpajoe.@aihvgco.com; absoluteprincessSoi@yahoo.com; mboyie@alaska.com; rossrck@hotmail.com; molloylaw@ak.net; 'Carol Freas' Ccs 'Marilyn Kebschull'; 'Nancy Carver; Rick Koch Subject; RE: Rezone -- Rural Residential 1 to Limited Commercial I liked the information as well. I would like to see the administration hold an informative work session, for the public, prior to the P and Z meeting on the 14". Subject would be the "Limited commercial zone" what is it? We have some materials that were drawn up by an airport planner several years ago when we created the zone. Those materials should be available at the work session. I believe the work session will allow a more informal dialogue between the administration, the public and council. The work session would avoid any specific rezoning issues and could be limited to an hour. My hope is to diffuse some of the misconceptions and maybe "sell" the zone to more of the public. The administration and public worked very hard on this zone when it was created. We probably gave it the wrong name. Maybe "limited development" would have been better. I feel this outreach to the public will be well received and perhaps the public hearing on the 14`" of January will be more productive. Thanks Joe -227- PROPOSED REZONE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kevin Dix PO Box 1719 306 Princess St. Kenai, AK 99611 January 19, 2009 Kenai City Council Kevin and Robin Dix [kevinandrobin@acsalaska.net] Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9 05 PM Carol Freas kevinandrobin@acsalaska.net PZ09-01, Letter in opposition RE: PZ09-01 — An application to rezone properties North of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor from McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek from Rural Residential I (RRI) and Conservation (c) to Limited Commercial (LC) Dear Kenai City Council Members, I am "Titing this letter in opposition to PZ09-01. Six years ago my family and I began searching for property to build our new home. We wanted to remain in Kenai, but wanted more space and privacy. We looked at many properties before finding what we wanted. When we found our property on Princess St, it was not listed. We contacted the owners and negotiated a deal over the next couple months. We also bought an adjacent 2.5 acre parcel because we were worried someone might subdivide it. We did this even though the additional cost delayed construction of our new home. We eventually sold this parcel to a family who built a single family residence on it. My point in telling you this is so you understand the effort we put into finding just the right location for our new home. The location and surroundings were primary considerations for us. We went to significant trouble and expense to secure just the right site. We built our home on land which is separated from the highway by a parcel zoned RRI. A parcel zoned with the intent to "create a stable and attractive residential environment", and "Preserve the rural, open quality of the environment", and which prohibits uses that would "Violate the residential character of the environment', or "Gencrate heavy traffic in predominantly residential areas". We had a certain expectation of what might eventually be built on that, residential property. PZ09-01 would rezone this parcel to Limited Commercial. A zone whose intent is to "provide transition between commercial and residential districts". This does not provide the same protection to the existing residential environment as RRI . This re-zonine would have substantial adverse impact to the desirability of my property. -229- PZ09-0 i might increase the value of some property on the highway, but at the expense of others. If PZ09-01 is to be considered further, I believe the City is obligated to consider the impact on nearby properties. If this rezoning can not be done without adversely impacting the neighbors who have built their homes under the protection of the existing zoning, then it should not be done. Thank you for considering my view. Sincerely, Kevin Dix 2 -230- Co69een Ward From: Jessica Platt (essipiatt@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:04 PM To: xcel@alaslca.com Subject; Wilshusen Letter To Whom It May Concern: I have lived down Hutto Street for 22 years out of my 24 years of life. I love this area I grew up on. My husband and I wanted to have a home in this neighborhood where our family could grow and we would have a large yard for our two sons near their grandparents and town. We had owned a previous home in Kenai that was near commercial Sand and the high way. When i got pregnant with our first son we had thought of what we really wanted for our family so we sold our home and decided to build down Hutto Street. We dove being so close to town in this central location but the feeling of seclusion. We are against the proposed rezoning. Our property backs to the proposed rezoning and makes us very worried about what will happen in the future if this is approved. We feel as if this is the last subdivision in Kenai with the feeling of seclusion and the small town warm neighborhood feeling. I love that there is possibly of growth to our neighborhood but small and homier then most. I would like to see Kenai grow to a point but not to the determent of this neighborhood or any other neighborhood. The schools are walking distance from our home and with our two sons going to be attending these schools in the future it saddens us that if this rezoning is approved there is a a unknown to our future here. We love Kenai, but are opposed of these proposed changes. We had also purchased our land here down Hutto Street and are building on it due to the fact that it was residential and that there would be no large changes such as this. Thank you for you time. Jessica Wiishusen Windows Liver'": E-mail. Chat, Share. Get more ways to connect. See how it works. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://Www.avg,com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1928 - Release Date: 2/2/2009 7:51 AM 2/2/2009 -231- To the City Council, I'in opposed to the rezone of properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor f,on) McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creel, Eon-, Rural Residential 1 ("RRI) to I invited Corrrniercial. This purposed rezone is destructive to the continuit-,, of the present ,^.eighborhood arid represents a threat to the nature of this part of the community. I also; perceive it as a punitive measure from the City of Kenai tvhh its timing followingso closely to the neighborhoods opposition to the rezoning of Papa. 3oe's Subdivision in December. The proposed rezone does not comply rviith the Kenai Consprebensi.ve Plan. Alaska statute and legal precedent establish the Kenai Comprehensive Plan as the Rolicr directive to be used in decision making. The Kenai Comprehensive Plan was developed by a broad based committee of citizens and the City of Kenai and ratified by the City Council and is Periodically updated. Additionally, the proposed rezone does not adhere to the Kenai Zoning Code. Alaska statute establishes the Kenai Zoning Code as the regulatory directive to be used in decision. malting. The proposed rezone parcels are as follows: 0 3 vacant parcels publicly owned, 1 of which can only be developed for education o S parcels privately owned with existing residential development 0 1 vacant parcel privately owned with owner intending to build a single-family residence 0 2 vacant parcels privately owned Spot zones per se are illegal. A strip zone does not cure a spot zone. The neighborhood opposed that original proposed rezone, among other things, for the illegality of "spot zoning". `line reality of the current proposed rezone is that it essentially benefits two parcels, Dr. Wortlaam's and one other lot to the detriment of the surrounding parcels. It is self evident that the expansion from Dr. Wortham's property in this second rezone is to cover up the initially intended spot zoning. Commercial traffic will likely be heavier through. a .residential neighborhood. The proposed rezone does not make any allowances for the commercial traffic and the surviving residential area. A neighbor has contacted the State of Alaska D.O.T. and they are resistant to additional driveways onto the Spur Highway. That means all additional traffic will be funneled onto Magic, Princess, McCollum and Cinderella drives. This issue is not about "Landscaping", or if the "corridor is not conducive to residential" in the opinion of the City, it's about our homes and families. The truth is people live there so it is conducive. it's also about public trust, and zoning is public trust. A rezone will violate that trust. In "The 1985 Deal" the neighbors agreed to pay assessments to help pay for sewer and water installation in exchange for a rezone to the most restrictive RRI and the chance to have a say on how the neighborhood developed in the future, The City would be breaking their part of the deal by rezoning. The City is stretching its credibility with rezoning people's private homes along with bits of other properties to create what appears on a map as a unified block. of property. There is no -232- justification to rezone as there is numerous commercial lots in Kenai, 'including several that are truly "deteriorating". Noting against this rezone will not impede the economic growth of Kenai. Surrounding propeny owners do not want this rezone. No occupants have requested this rezone or support it. The purpose of a Limited Commercial Zone as stated in the Kenai Code is to "provide a tr-aasWon between Commercial and Residential". The proposed rezone butts up to ConSel-Vdfi6t on one end andRurai Residential on the other. No transition occurs. To the contrary there is a buffer between the neighborhood with a church on one end and another church and natural barrier on the other end. When we as a neighborhood came to the Cit} Council about a cell phone tower, we were a neighborhood worth prescrving. What has changed? Y B p VIc lum i?rive. -233- c0fleen Wards From: Gloria Wik [gwik@alaska.net] Sent Monday, February 02, 2009 10:58 AM To: cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us Cc: Colleen Ward Subject: Rezone HI Carol [ would like to make it known that I am against the purposed rezoning between No Name Creek and McCollum Drive in Kenai. Although my residency here has been very short comparatively speaking I have lived here long enough to come to enjoy the quiet neighborhood and country living. I fear this neighborhood would change dramatically if RR1 was changed to Limited Commercial with the increase in traffic alone. As I understand it back in 1985 the neighborhood did help pay for water and sewer installation so they would be able to have a say as to how development occurred. What happened to that agreement? We have come together as neighbors to voice our concern and opposition to this and it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Gloria Wik 707 Magic Kenai No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - httpJ/wNw,avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1928 - Release Date: 2/2/2009 7:51 AM 2/2/ 2009 -234- February 1, 2009 Dear Kenai Planning and Zoning Commissioners, I have lived at 403 McCollum Drive since November 4, 1988, it was our first home and we were very excited to be moving in. We had house hunted all over Kenai and in Nikiski. We could have chosen a larger home in Woodland or other Kenai neighborhoods but fell in love with this home the first time we pulled in the driveway. The Rural atmosphere of the neighborhood, the church across the street, having an acre to ourselves, and living close to the schools and grocery stores were all part of the appeal that helped us make our decision. Just as we were preparing to close on the house, a report came in that the private water well was not adequate. The seller quickly brought in equipment to hook our home up to Kenai city water and sewer, We were glad for that but a little disheartened. The heavy equipment and the process of digging wafer and sewer lines drastically changed the look of our lot as they took out the trees on the front of our lot that had provided a lot of privacy, You could now see our house from the road, We had an opportunity to back out of the deal but losing the trees was not a deal breaker for us. We knew we could replant trees and put in grass and create a beautiful yard with a little bit of work, - That is exactly what we did: making planting trees a special family project. The trees were the same height as our two little boys and they took great pride in planting them and watching them grow. Those trees are as tail as the house now and the boys take their children out to show them the trees they planted when they themselves were small. The trees now provide a nice natural barrier and privacy for our home. We are glad to have them as we lost many of the older trees on our property from beetles. I have heard many reasons why the Papa Jo property should be rezoned to Limited Commercial with the primary reason I keep hearing being because all the trees were cut down, I agree the piece is an eye sore as it stands now but there are many ways to fix that problem. Rezoning for commercial entities is not the only solution. Just as rezoning the whole corridor now to LC is not the only solution and only prevents an arbitrary spot zoning condition, creating a strip zoning situation. Nine years ago our neighborhood formed a "Lighthouse of Prayer' gathering in my living room on a weekly basis to pray for our neighbors and our city. Sometimes some of us went on prayer walks praying through the neighborhood, Red McCollum was one of the members who came regularly and prayed with us for the neighborhood. He also would pray for his children. He said, "Someday I won't be here to continue praying and I ask that you continue to pray for them for me." He taught us how to pray for them and entrusted the neighborhood and his children to us. January 5, is a special anniversary for those of us in this Rural Residential neighborhood. Debbie Sonberg had gone to the house of Red McCollum on this day seven years ago because he was not answering his phone and she felt the need to check in on him. That is what neighbors do. She entered the home of our beloved friend and found that he had passed away sitting in a chair in his living room, She picked up the phone and dialed 911. From 2 houses over, we heard and saw an ambulance arrive at the residence. My husband, Roy, barely took the time to slip on his shoes as he went running over to see if he could assist. I hopped in the car and drove over as I was expecting to accompany the ambulance to the hospital. On arrival, the Kenai ambulance crew met us outside the living room saying they were sorry, but there was nothing they could do. Red was gone. I called Colleen Ward so that she could begin to contact Red's family members. She came and we all hugged and cried as neighbors, and the family was called -235- OP.January 1, 2002, many of us had gathered at my home to celebrate the New Year together. It was the last tip I :saw this man and the memory of that day is very vivid in my mind as I recall how happy and content he was i9s,4y just watching us and chuckling to himself. With his passing we resolved to never forget the man of whom part 9f the neighborhood was named after and to honor his request to pray for it and his children. On January 11, 20k, i*,Vtirigside his family buried Red. We will not stand by now and just let his property where his daughter, our frieMAIM lives be rezoned to anything commercial. We are a neighborhood of people who are neighborly. Ahound'600 B'.CrE., the prophet Jeremiah sent a letter from Jerusalem to the exiled community of people in .Babylon. In the letter, Jeremiah relayed a message to the people: "Build houses and settle down, plant gardens and eat what they pe`oduce.... Increase in number there; do not decrease: Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because If it prospers, you too will prosper" Today we are still called to care about the community in which we live. Get involved; get serious about where you live become a part of the community. Becoming a part of the community can mean three things. Caring about the peace of the community -- making sure that the community is a safe place for all to live; connecting with the people of the community -- working together with others in the community to serve the community, and ;committing the community, its people and its needs to prayer -- coming together to pray for its peace and - prosperity. My husband and I graduated from KCHS 29 years ago and have enjoyed the 20 years we have livedej $his home, in Kenai raising five children. We were creating a legacy for our family, planting berries, raising flowers, cultivating an apple orchard. Our son even married "the little girl down the street". They bought the home directly behind us so the kids could grow up walking a path through the woods to grandmas. We put in another path creating a "secret garden" for them. When they come, the first thing they ask, "Can we go to the secret garden grandma?" They betteve this will never end, that there will always be a treasure chest of sweets waiting for them. P have devoted a length of this time to serving the community, helping neighbors to help other neighbors and teaching my children to do the same. Now, because of the fighting we have to do to maintain what we have, my husband and i ? iaVe tYegUai i�uu5e � Dui iili iG in iL �n�sn�. I told him, when ✓:e ,moved ticrE ThatI would never move again. We planned to die here. I cannot begin to describe my agony, I urge you to vote "no" on recommending this rezone on the grounds that it will 1. prastically affect the surrounding neighborhood residents as well as the majority of the residents being rezoned, 2. Create a strip zonino situation, 3. Does not comply with the Kenai City Code that states "the purpose Of the LC zMe is to create a transition from commercial to residential, and 4. No one in this neighborhood asked for this rezone, it was the sole desire of four members of the_City Council. Please protect the current zoning ourneighborhood enjoys as well as have trusted to be protected. Sin Lrely, Janine Espy �4t� 403 McCollum Drive -236- -----Original Message ---- From, covops specops [mailto:specforces@mail.com] Seft Monday, February 02, 2009 9:38 AM To: Colleen Ward Subject: Re: letters for the Packet To whom it may concern, I am very concerned about the way this council is treating this in a socialist manner. Rezoning this neighborhood would be a detrament to all residents in the area. My wife and I moved to AK almost 7 years ago and took six months to locate the perfect neighborhood to fit our needs. We picked this particular place because of its location and the zoning as we intended to live out our lives here. We bought the tract of land next door to us so our kids could build right next door. We were going to pick up more land in the area for the same purpose and for our childrens children. Over the past 6 years there has been increasingly more traffic in the area which has made it more difficult for my children to cross the highway and to play without fear of traffic hazzards. If this is rezoned and this proposed proffessional "mall" comes in., the street that was once safe behind our house would be too dangerous and the increase of trespassers on my personal drive would be unforgivable. As it is I have problems with people trying to take shortcuts through my drive which is dangerous for my family. Not to mention I am the one that pays for the upkeep of this drive. As it is I have had the police out a few times. I would be calling the police constantly to report trespassers and demand some form of protection. I would also have to seek legal action for any damage committed by such encroachments. I am not ignorant that I would believe there would be no more traffic on Magic street nor through my drive. They would have to use it to get in and out of this proposed proffessional plant because the traffic on the spur is too dangerous to get in and. out effectively. To put in another light would only increase the congestion and create more problems of another kind. My kids and I like to ride bikes in this area and injustice would be too great a risk. I have too much invested in this area not to be heard. I have made renovations to my house, spent thousands updating it and maintaining it. I planned to do many more improvements but have haulted my efforts because of this unjustifiable act of preferring money over the wellbeing of the people. There is no reason for this to be be a transitional zone because there is no transition. There is a distinct seperation between the industrial and this residential area created by nature alone. If you propose to do this you are creating many environmental and social issues that are not sound policy no matter what your agenda is. 'There must be sound reasonings and a definitive purpose behind this rezone other than someone has spent money on some land. This cannot be done because someone tbinkC it. wolild be a nine aechire. `?"I�iS rs a demoralrrn** "TkAtllEeal a:;t iliac ",^" 'I'�. be unforgivable if persued any farther. Too rezone would be to exact more taxes on my family wick already have enough hardships as it is with this current economy and the socialist regime that is now in office on the national level. We have need of every dime we have left over to live on. Why would you impose an unconstitutional act upon the people when this area already has an agreement with this city zoning commission restricting any such action? It makes me. suspect motives and leadership abilities.. Let alone your concern for the people. Cioverurnent is supposed to be of the people, by the people, FOR TkiE PEOPLE not for big money, the respecting of persons, or big government. I admonish you. strongly to please fore -go these efforts to create farther hardships upon this residential area and its occupants. With great expectancy of your compassion, wisdom, and reconsideration on this matter. Thanks, Marc and Lois Bisset and family -237- coften Ward From: Ken Seavey [kenseavey@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 8:02 PM To: cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us Cc: xcel@alaska.com Subject: Rezone of the Kenai Spur Highway strip (Cinderella Street & Kenai Spur Hwy) To whom it may concern: As a property owner in the Cinderella Street area, I an writing this e-mail to express my opposition towards the rezoning of the Kenai Spur Highway strip: (Kenai Spur Ilwy & Cinderella St). Thank you., Ken ,Seavey 704 Aliak give Kenai, AK 99611 kenseavey,gyahoo.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270,10.6/1888 - Release Date: 1112/2009 7:04 Am 2/4/2009 -238- Cofisen Ward From: Debbie & Russell Sonberg [sonberg@alaska.net] Sent:. Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:23 AM To- cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us Cc: xcel@alaska.com Subject: Re: Opposed to any rezone of RR1 & Conservation to Commercial TO CITY OF KENAI I am OPPOSED to any rezone of RRI or conservation as described on the petition. T fully support the neighborhood report that is (or soon will be) submitted for inclusion in the P&2packet for the February I meeting. I will let the petition and neighborhood report reflect my position in greater detail, This email is to simply, officially register my opposition to this and any similar rezone to the RRl. MAPS neighborhood. Russell Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, Aid 99611 907-283-5880 February 4 2009 ff No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 6.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1934 - Release Date: 02/04/09 08:24*00 2/4/2009 -239- CoUsen Ward From: Debbie Sonberg idebble_sonberg@yahoo com) Sent: Wednesday; February 04, 2009 8:11 AM Tot cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us; mkebschull@ci.kenai.ak.us Cc: Colleen Ward; Debbie & Russell Sonberg Subject: Opposed to any rezone of RR1 & Conservation to Commercial Please include my statement in the packet that I am C PPOSED to any rezone of RRI. or conservation as described on the petition- I fully support the neighborhood report that is (or soon will be) submitted for inclusion in the P&Z packet for the February 11 meeting. I will let the petition and neighborhood report reflect my position in greater detail. This email is to simply, officially register my opposition to this and any similar rezone to the R I MAPS neighborhood. Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 907-2003-5880 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.2331 Virus Database: 270.10.17/1934 - Release Date: 02/04/09 08:24:00 2/4/2009 -240- 3 PETITIONO: STOP A ZONING CHANGE , OUR COMMUNITY VVe, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to the City of Kenai Ordinance 2362-2008 � AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY REZONING TRACTPAPA . O SUBDIVISION,REPLAT FROM RURAL '.,f RESIDENTIAL(RR O LIMITED COMMERCIAL Printed Name signature Phvsicnl.4ddress &hone## Bate signed �.k i �l 6 n 4a .a �.Y �, r. is . n i .x. rain s n Afti' e sit" &.-.� r ?•. .L �'��8"4T "6L:d .¢�� �? . f) ,s.r1''o� €!E,., ?.V<,,c.. -241- Printed Name Signature + %`<'_,..�✓ A• CJ\�1^ l:l./k _ G:..i �4` Phvsieal .Addrecg J�'Y, I �'e Phone 69 �N/ / Date signed Q ¢'} //,off ,rr}} (�f /j_• Jam) y } ¢5 //� !/�� c n1'!D 4 0' .n�9/" %O`ri KjE 6 fd-Z•aCR ' ��V�yya�i �iaUA ti �t1a 708 Mcgtr Ave a�3 �l7�rb l a �oc1� LAot ifiCC.nl�UtY} r a\r,9 ,wg tj -242- Rio i I I Printed Name Signature Pbysirai Address 15 -243- 1�6 v ' - 1 PETITION TO STOP A ZONING CHANGE TO OUR COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, ARE OPPOSED to the City of Kenai Ordinance 2362-2008 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY REZONING TRACT A, PAPA JOE'S SUBDIVISION, GIIUMLEY REPEAT FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL I (RRI) TO LIMITED COMMERCIAL (LQ. MaA CSC Printed Name Sip—natum Phvsieai Address Phone # date sine 'f`! t�..l em�J.:r%G� �-. +"`f�"f1.1P46/f, 4+C't,.n°rug-t�d��._��7,F'Z,.L6.�..-Y„-G, �`df ..✓a _.�tP.�Sr ,. f��5'.f �.�"f CaG'" e7lf� '3� . /' 13119 7 MR _ PETIT [ON OPPOSING A ZQNITIk, CHAAGE WITMN OUR CONIMUNM We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel (vest of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential l and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone, MAPS Frinted Name w I El Number of Children �i�uature Plnvsical address Phone €R Date signed Under 19 vrs, ._ `f03 vtIcft(� . t<c e / ta03 � f�UZ. �yut i35 5 - 10� � 30(p pri jcicss We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Mural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties North of the Kenai Spur highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsealuent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or In part, from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children aes printed Name nature' Pfiysical address Phone # IDate signed Under 19 yrs. �i ✓iVi1 j�t�ffFr".�G:.ti 't G; I ! -e i S V Iv �'y5�t. 5!r!f}2•ZG L tl ■so �n �� i'G� i 11W 4ri i?�iJ� n y� Grlt�k�7�1( �J�-�-G��,�✓� � Rio �',h.g2zlid� �T 2E33•-S�iU ;�-t-��J c7 n EE11TION OPPOSING A Z®NaN aaANGE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Mural Residential 1 and Conservation to limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur highway included in the frontage strip extending front McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to limited Commercial Zone. Dumber of Children M trs Pranted Fam-^e Signature , Phsiea➢ address Phone 9 Date signed tluder 19 drse @I �t��c A CA4 1G�4aa�a c 3Ci`A�t`� 2�4 i� u on�i ®' ,6,1d / i tl t/tl z� no'-eY 15, in '16)/ )IC Z�lVu� OY3-�-2-/-3 LAo\ 2-S3 4"74- 1�ebl Moog Or 1°�t�333 d G; I Ln(e4 Cti�o c�S �C. asK3 %3,;�, Ire 0 /mot wod 5 pu - 2 &` s- 3 z 3 2- =���. A1c -)-g 3 — We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from ]McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children MAPS Printed Dame Si ahere , Physical Address Phone # Date signed _Under lqyrs. =/1,61(r hl�1 5 � � � ilw- Z -z � M IN] r'A'-C a 41 ----1 192 7 (♦ a 52 jf%Y Z-Z L rJ We, the undersigned, are OPPOSFD to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number mars Printed Name denature nxaieal Address Phone # of Children dlate si ned tinder 19 vrs. N ❑ o ❑ El El El I? 1�� -vl�>96 PE' I ION OPPOSING A ZONING CHANGE, WITMIN OUR CQMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children tvta.Ps Panted Name Si I tui e Ehysical Address Phone # Plate ssaneal -Under 19 vrs. 1_.1 i,:��'✓LVh ,� 4 -x. �iJlbY_•�If ❑ El 770: PLANNING AND, ZONING BOARD AND SUBJECT- RE-ZGNING PROPOSAL FOR SECTION OF KENAI SPUR HWY. It has come to airyattention via the newspaper, that there is a petition io re; -zone sonic of the Kenai Spur Hwy. properties somewhere around candlelight drive or so. 1 five~ on the Kenai Spear Highway at 8480, and any spouse and f have owned the property as OUr principal residetice since 1996, Nly resifEenuc is c'boul a ini le or less fronn the Proposed re-zonim'. 'fli© reason -wc bought this house -was motivated by the fact that it was on the highway and in close proximity to the ckmetntary. middle, and high school. 'Fhere ,, as very little commercial of retail and mostly nice residences and lots of churches and residential property on the highways and was zoned as residential. VVS e:ntisav € ur residence on the hi E�, wE, �ry e'en, r nuch. The Men of an€v other thin residential ww Hl acid more on/off traffic stress acou nd the schools, churches, and all the other residences. € ver the last fL-w years there have been numerous severe and life ending crashes an this section of'the highway and as a swatter of fact there was one killing accident right next €loser to gene. Last week there were several and one upside-dwwan vchicte right it, front of the high school. Check with the police de", rtment and, you will certainly find togas of accidents along this strip. We really like eiwicn}i on the EsiaTmwwac with its access and quick snow rerno%,at, but putting other than residences vin a re -Toning only would not he wise. We Seel there is plennt7y of room for other than r esidontiae zoning in other Kenai Rreza and aure Strongly against this Movement to re -zone, We, lie not want to see any lnd4are driveways to the highway used by other than for residential purposLs and surely do not want this section of the highway to look like the resideantialJcoaaumereial and deveEopmeunt mess as we see on this high -way north of Kemal. Sincerely, Raymond zaagor f 8480 Kenai Spur Highway Kenai, AK 99611 (997) 283-4337 i&'r t, ci.net cc. Mrs. Debbie Soanberg -252- co LO N March 2, 2006 - Kenai loses court appeal Management decision on rec center costs city in fees "The city had appealed Kenai Superior Court Judge Harold Brown's ruling that the city should pay "reasonable attorney's fees" to the public interest group known as Friends of the Recreation Center Inc., which claimed Kenai violated its own municipal code by giving a management contract to Boys and Girls Clubs, The contract was awarded in 2003 without being put out for bid, as required by Kenai statute." An Anchorage attorney, John Havelock, said, "The court went out of its way to affirm Judge Brown's ruling that the city had misinterpreted its own ordinance," httra://tNww.peninsulaclarion.corn{storiesl030206/netus 0302newO0e.shtrnI April 19, 2007 - reader: Are we no longer welcome in Cold down? Kathryn Tomrdle wrote about concerns if her neighborhood was rezoned to Commercial Mixed Use since many of the residents had lived there more than 30 years. "What this means is that there can be no alterations to homes, apartments or property unless a variance is granted from planning and zoning." h�p�fdwv�e,ttan€nsu€acEariorr_c©In/stories/0419OT/letters 2CiO7O4.7,9tiO3 shkr^P October 17, 2007-Junk reel Center, buffers on. docket "After a dozen residents from the Sprucewood Glen Subdivision protested the removal of trees in a strip of city -owned land along Walker Lane at the last city council meeting, city administration is proposing two options for establishing the strip as a buffer between the residential neighborhood and commercial development to the west." Homer Electric Association wanted a 20 foot easement to bring power to the Aspen building. "A plat in the 1970s had noted the land as a buffer strip, but a subsequent plat in the 1980s did not include the annotation." The final decision, "After some discussion, the city council agreed to give HEA a 20- foot wide utility easement behind the hotel now, in exchange for a 60-foot easement coursing through the middle of the strip." ht_rJ: Wo-now.unentartsaa(ac€arir.�.e¢rrelsfcsries�170Jnev�s 4272s4ztnr4 February 22, 200E — Airport Reserve to be rezoned? Kenai Gty Council considers light industrial development "The first stone was tossed into the rezone pond Wednesday night as the Kenai City Council took up a recommendation to change all airport reserve lands surrounding the airport from conservation to light industrial use. The suggestion to rezone nearly 1,080 acres away from the relatively pristine classification to one allowing for some development came to the council by way of a motion of the city's Airport Commission." bU://vvwwyD--nin,,uiaclarion.corn/stor€es/022206/nevvs 3E90.shtrrii September 18, 20O8—Time spent voicing opinions was wasted Glenn Fore, along with about a dozen residents, spoke at a Kenai Planning and Zoning meeting. They were against a permit allowing a business to operate in their residential neighborhood. Mr. Fore expressed that all of the residents who spoke were against the permit, yet the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission approved it. "One of the comments from the commission was that the neighborhood would not be 'significantly impaired_" To the resirientc of our neighborhood, any impairment is ssgnlfica- http:/ e vanr.oendnstaiacPar`son.co n/stases 097.E £i Pet 2E42257Ja.aLtnni Public commented on the proposed rezone for the Papa Joe's Subdivision Kenai Ordinance 2362-2008, "A longtime resident, Patricia Falkenberg, said she petitioned the neighborhood and received 43 signatures out of 44 people opposing the rezone." Residents and high school students read from a 12 page document about the opposition for the rezone. The paper cited a 1996 Homer court case ruling against spot zoning. http`llvvwtAipc-P.insu€actarion co-n/stories/120706/nevd 3648000 , shtril January 4, 2009 - Rezoning on Kenai docket: Meetings slated to discuss Limited Commercial label "Kenai officials have scheduled two public meetings in hopes of quelling controversy surrounding the potential rezoning of rural residential property along the Kenai Spur Highway across from the high school... The lot, which fronts on the highway, has residential properties on the other three sides. More than a dozen residents protested the proposed rezone during the Dec. 3 Kenai City Council meeting saying they want their neighborhood to remain residential... The Limited Commercial zone was created in April 2005 to provide transition areas between commercial and residential districts in Kenai by allowing smaller businesses, mixed residential and other compatible uses that complement and do not detract from adjacent districts." http://vvkNw.lp_enlnsulaclarlora.corn/stor'ses1Q10409JneW 2F36a9SE?6<shon[ & :E Monday, February 7, 2000 - Kenai Gun Shop Gets Turned mown A gun shop was proposed in a residential neighborhood was voted down by Planning and Zoning. Neighbors and other Kenai residents opposed the permit. http://v�w;v.oen€nsulad rion.c m/stories/o2OZOO/new DZ.07 te4n+oC 1 htn l June 13, 2000 - Proposed Business Upsets Neighbors "The possibility of a construction business next door to a rural residential neighborhood has got some people in the area up in arms. A conditional -use permit request will come before the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday night that, if approved, will allow the project to go forward." A neighbor was upset over the time frame given in order for him to prepare a statement for the commission. He did not want planning and zoning to delay and wanted them to vote no. htpcOt nv° u oei'44nsulac ti n.con s"todes/QSa3t7t new 0613f C 03,shtml Friday, October 26, 2001- Kemal planning session worthy of residents' time An opportunity for residents to give opinions during the work session regarding updating the comprehensive plan was posted in the Kenai Peninsula Clarion. i't p1 "Je 11,oeri6etsulaclaricnn.cool/sto_iey1 26fi�lilel:7 G 6t7lec(Ptoei f.s€ tail Friday, December 7, 2ooi - Kenai Plan Coining Together "After an Oct. 27 public meeting, where attendees were turned into participants, scores of ideas were distilled into five pages of recommendations by the consulting firm Kevin Waring Associates of Anchorage." Goals listed were: 1. Create an attractive, vital, cultural center in downtown, with a mix of private and public facilities and activities to benefit residents and visitors. 2, Protect and enhance the livability of residential neighborhoods. 3. Meet the needs of Kenai`s growing senior population. 4. Limit residential and commercial sprawl 5. Provide appropriate city facilities and levels of service. 6. Protect the city's natural areas and scenic views. 7. Develop a local system of trails and public access. 8. Ensure that Kenai is a safe place to live. 9. Improve educational services for all age groups. 10. Expand or provide public facilities that increase the quality of life for Kenai's citizens and visitors. I"kt�1i:/f�_iP[1�'tfi,.;;<=.ki4'#SE6iaiGartfan.C^r1uSISECI'4e� 2w1 Pt;1/new 1,2070 i.u'0r:.5-sh'T 1 July 10, 2oo2 - Council OKs New "school zone' "Many schools in Kenai, like Sears and Mountain View Elementary schools, Kenai Central High School and Kenai Middle School, are in areas that are zoned residential, so the schools have to conform to the rules of that zone. The problem is that schools aren't designed as homes and aren't used the same way homes are. In fact, they function more Pike commercial buildings than homes, said Marilyn Kebschull, city planner for Kenai." The article stated in the past, the schools had to request a conditional use permit to do things such as landscaping and signage. h .4Uwww.peninsulaclarion.c raj is ories/o71002/never D7!002QQQS.2htrnl July 22, 2002 -Council Hears Zoning Plight "The council held a Board of Adjustments hearing in council chambers regarding a piece of property in the Anglers Acres Subdivision. The lot is zoned rural -residential and has an existing conditional -use permit to allow a fishing guide business with no more than three guides to operate off the property. The owner of the lot, Gary Foster, applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission to modify the permit to allow him to build up to five rental cabins on the property." The amendment was approved and a neighbors were unhappy, so the decision was appealed by a neighbor. htt Jtnaevn.n©nEnsu@aclarion.con/ i:orles 072202/new 072202€001.shtmi -255- July 24, 2003 — Kenai officials miss point about rec center decision Carol Brenckle wrote, "Instead of trying to work with the Friends and the Parks and Recreation Commission to open the rec center, the Kenai city manager and members of the city council continue to work "behind closed doors" independently of public opinion. The mayor denied a request by the Parks and Recreation Commission to schedule an emergency.meeting to discuss reopening the rec center under a plan submitted by former city employees to operate the rec center pending a final resolution of this case." httu: w�ry ero6nsuiac:{arion.con s pries/0:2403 Set 072T 403iet00100I.shtm! September 21, 2003 - Kenai Woman Caught on Fence In September 2002, Nancy Henricksen of Groomingdales appealed Planning and Zoning's decision about a permit to operate her business from her home to the city council which acted as a board of adjustment. The board decided to award her the permit, on the condition she put up a sight -obscuring fence in her backyard. Henricksen explained her financial situation in not being able to afford a new fence. She finally put tarps over her fence to make it sight - obscuring. € y //tncnw.oe:y6a sudackarion.eonilstories S2.L031rr 0921Q3new004001 shtmP January 6, 2005 - RV park planners a no show Washington based developers wanted to put an RV park near VIP Estates. After being turned down, they filled out an appeal but did not receive a notice in the mail until after the hearing had passed. "Karen Koester, a VIP Estates resident, testified in strong aversion to an RV park. She said her neighborhood is important to Kenai, and that transient visitors would not be good for the area. She called upon the board to preserve and protect the neighborhood from the appealed request." ¢dam wwvvp eninsulaclaYdooa �o¢rf stociesl€t1QiCz051naws 1LnewW,2001„sk3 May lo, 2oos-Green grass or green cash? Kenai to decide whether to allow development of Lawton Acres "The Kenai City Council on Wednesday agreed to allow the city's planning and zoning commission to address the issue of rezoning the strip of city -owned land, known as Lawton Acres. The land sits between the Kenai Spur Highway to the north and Lawton Drive to the south. It currently is zoned for conservation purposes, meaning it must be left untouched," he : wnn enistsula ar€on.eomfstox es(052?05/news 0510newo03001.shtrn€ March 4, 2oo5 —Kenai OKs New Zone The Limited Commercial Zone was created for areas where residential and commercial uses are close together. "The idea of creating the zone came about last year, when small business owners Nate and Gina Kiel came before the council asking that a strip of land known as Lawton Acres be opened to business development. The land is at the eastern edge of the city`s business district along the Kenai Spur Highway. Currently, the land serves as a strip of undeveloped land between the highway and a residential neighborhood." Nate Keil was in support of a new zone. "Another Lawton resident, Roy Wells, however, cautioned the city to move slowly when it comes to zoning areas that could impact residential areas." h�:llwww.y�enlnsulaelarioar.corn/stories/03C14051riews 0304new002sdn?a June 7, 2oo5 - Kenai faces growth spurt City will decide Whether to open land to building Lawton Acrrs was considered for a Limited Commercial Zone. The area was considered changing from Conservation to Limited Commercial http://www.peninsulacParion.corn/st.ories/0607051newrs 0607ncw002001.shtdTii Jane 12, 2005 -Staying in bounds... wrtat otlyers say "The decision by the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission not to rezone Lawton Acres for limited business development makes sense." A reason being, "Recent efforts by the Kenai Economic Development Strategy (KEDS) group have highlighted the need to develop a more defined town center. Opening up more land along the Kenai Spur Highway would only thwart these efforts, further adding to Kenai's reputation as a sprawling, disconnected city." hag://www.oeninsulaciarion.c m stories/06r205/osDed 0612ooe06300t shtm9 Im 7.1 Valid Planning Issue During the February 4, 1998, Board of Adjustment Hearing the applicant's representative stated, ".., we feel a Traffic problem, if it exists, is a traffic problem and not�a property development problem and we think we would like to respectfully suggest that traffic problems be addressed with traffic control items." (Board of Adjustment Hearing, Chumley/Chumley Appeal, February 4, 1998, Page 6) The residents of the neighboring lots respectfully disagree. The Planning Commissioner's Handbook (June 1993, State of Alaska) validates traffic as a sound planning and zoning concern in the following statement: The effects on traffic congestion are also mentioned some in the conditional use section of a zoning ordinance. A permit granted or denied under this standard has a better chance of surviving judicial review if it is based on a credible traffic study which quantifies the effects of the proposed use. (68) 7.2 Traffic Study and Pertinent Statistical Data Residents of the neighborhood conducted counts of.three main areas: (1) children in the neighborhood and at local schools (2) number of cars entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway, and (3) a count of clientele entering & exiting other professional offices to represent a possible traffic sampling for the proposed professional offices traffic. These counts were conducted by neighborhood residents around such priorities as family, school, jobs, and neighborhood issues in an all too short allowable time frame. Although they may not be an official traffic study, they do show that there is a traffic impact on the neighborhood and surrounding area that must be considered. 7.2. 1 The number of children potentially affected by traffic concerns who live on the north side of the Spur Highway and who must cross a five lane highway to get to their respective schools is currently at 70 and will climb to 71 in approximately three months. The ages of these children range and the number is relative to change. See attachment # 7 for recorded tally of survey. The number of children enrolled in the area school are: 475 at Kenai Central High School, 455 at Kenai Middle School and 409 at Mountain View Elementary. -1 hese statistics establish the fact that many children will feel the impact of the council's decision concerning This CUP now and for years to come. 7.2. 2 The number of cars entering & exiting the Kenai Central High School from the Spur Highway were tallied at three different counts. Number of vehicles going in to the high school: *first count 1:55 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. 66 *second count12:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 83 * third count 7:07 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. 165 (as many as 47 in a 15 minute period) (as many as 10 in a one minute period) * fourth count7:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 191 Number of vehicles exiting the high school (offset exit from Cinderella St.): * first count 7:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 90 * second count12:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 78 * third count 7:07 a.m. to'7:45 a.m. 79 (as many as 18 in a 9 minute period) (as many as 12 in a one minute period) * fourth count7:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 50 -257- increases in traffic flows at peak hours due to the Kenai Muddle School traffic flow have not been included in these counts. 7. 2, 3 Professional Offices clientele traffic (information obtained by phone calls to the businesses): (1) A Dental Clinic (2) A Medical Walk-in Facility (3) A Medical Specialist (4) Tanning Salon (5) A Hair Salon (6) A Chiropractic Clinic (7) An Insurance Agent 7.3 Conclusions 25+ vehicles per day plus 5-6 employees 20 on a slow day plus 3-4 employees 60 on a heavy day plus added employees 40 on office days (non -surgical days) 30 on off-season days plus 2 employees 90 on in -season days 30 to 50 in the winter plus 4-5 employees (doubled in the summer) 50 per day plus 4 employees 50 per day plus 3 to 4 employees 7.3.1 Traffic Related Safety issues Exists. The Chumleys' application is for two professional office buildings, The number of stories or businesses in each is still undisclosed or unknown. Assuming that each building held only one professional office, based on the above clientele counts for two professional offices, in and out traffic, the clientele numbers above would have to be quadrupled to account for the traffic. Each of the two offices would have in and out traffic for each client served. it is entirely feasible that each building, even if single story, could house two or more professional offices. Each building could be two stories high (or higher), and double the traffic possibilities. onsidering the traffic from the high school, added to the traffic from a minimum of two professional offices, congestion could become unmanageable around the high school exit and Cinderella Street without further traffic assistance (such as a traffic light at an already unaligned intersection -- just planning the traffic light might be a nightmare). due to the general nature of the drivers at the high school, a higher number of inexperienced drivers use its entrance and exit than any other single driveway system in the City of Kenai. Not one map presente,.'� by the Chumlevs has shown the location of the high School exit in relation to their proposed site plan. , 7.3.2 One Accident is One Too Many. Unfortunately the peak traffic congestion times are also the times children are walking to and from school. It is obvious from the data collected that safety risks, particularly to our children, will escalate if this CUP is approved. This is of utmost concern to the neighbors and rightfully should carry tremendous weight in making the decision to approve or decline the CUP. -258- ALASI(A DEPAGTI4CNT OF TRANSPORTATION 96ce Code ; 33333/33 PAGE: 1 N-S Street: Tinker FILE; tinkerap %W Street: Kenai Spur GCP ; 0.99 ZQ Ik ems' Heather : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sold Movements ov: Privary DATE: 10124196 Time Pros South ..,. Prom West .... From North ..., Prot But .... Vehicle peas tiepin ------------ peels ----------- RT MEN LT peels RT TNRU LT reds RT TNRU LT pods RT THRU 6T Total Total 0:00 dM i+ - 0 --------------..---------------- 1 0 2 21 0 --------------- 0 --------------------------------------------- 0 0 0 0 38 V 62 0 6:15 0 1 0 1 0 1 23 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 39 0 69 0 6;30 0 2 0 0 0 4 24 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 48 1 82 D 6; 45 0 0 0 0 D i 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 - i01 0 HR TOTAL 0 3 0 2 0 8 92 1 0 ' 0 0 0 C 199 2 319 4 ":00 AN 0 1 0 0 3 24 i P D 0 0 0 0 63 ;2 105 0 15 1 1 0 9 0 10 30 0 D 0 0 0 D 0 50 1 112 1 30 0 i4 4 10 0 T 31 2 B 0 2 U 31 60 92 0 :9G 0 8 0 2 0 5 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 56 2 127 0 HR TOTAL I 30 9 17 0 35 139 0 0 2 2 2C6 5 M 1 8;00 hN 0 i 0 3 46 2 0 0 0 0 i3 65 0 143 0 8:16 4 0 i0) a 14 2 3 0 0); 0 94 4 194 0 :30 4 J :3 u 5 1$3 0 i 0 0 0 09 9 234 0 8:45 D 4 U 16 0 i01 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 112 6 249 0 31, TOTAL 0 ;7 1 46 0 i5 31.4 4 O 4 0 i D 19 380 19 820 0 9:00 AM 0 6 0 6 0 6 101 i 0 0 0 0 0 2 67 2 190 0 9:15 0 D 0 i0 0 3 :8 1 0 3 9 - 0 h0 3 128 0 9 : 3 0 0 4 0 3 D 9 63 0 U 0 0 0 0 66 2 140 0 ?:45 0 0 0 1 ) 1 73 3 0 0 u i 0 60 0 139 0 12 TOTAL D 1D 0 20 0 t9 295 4 0 3 0 2 D 2 243 005 0 i0:00 AM 0 5 0 i il 1 69 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 1 151 0 iD:15 0 0 J Q 0 70 0 0 6 C G 0 69 1 143 0 3:30 0 71 168 2 TOTAL !i 2 85 ) 0 1sC3 62q ?, :O9 h9 0 5 0 2 D $ 65 29 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 ID D a:15 1 2 U 2 9 3 89 3 J 0 U 0 0 5 56 3 163 1 21:30 0 2 0 7 0 6 107 3 G 2 0 0 0 2 §9 4 227 0 ;45 0 0 2 0 2 10$ 0 0 } 0 0 i18 6 239 0 HR-TOTAL 1 31 0 13 0 15 369 1, 0 9 0 0 0 7 338 i9 812 1 ":00 RI 0 3 0 i 0 3 72 0 D 0 D 0 0 i 93 4 183 0 2a5 0 3 0 1 0 5 123 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 84 3 223 0 2:30 0 2 0 0 3 72 2 0 C G 0 U iO3 3 193 0 2:45 C 6 0 is D 6 il6 2 0 1 0 0 D 0 101 1 245 D R TOTAL 0 0 30 0 19 383 9 0 5 6. 0 0 1 381 11 894 0 1:00 PM 0 i i i0 0 4 130 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 93 _ 2 244 0 1:15 0 3 0 2 0 1 119 < D 1 0 0 0 0 49 3 236 0 1:3D 0 7 0 4 0 5 144 5 0 0 2 0 1 104 2 2115 0 i:45 0 1 0 3 0 6 l26 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 89 3 230 0 HR TOTAL 0 12 1 19 0 22 019 10 0 3 0 2 0 2 385 10 985 0 5=03 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING APPEAL OF LEIGH/BUZZELL APRIL 15, 1998 PAGE 45 Espy- To the best of knowledge; yes. And I don't Imow that this is a closing statement, but I am here to try to make this personal to you people because this is very personal to me. I am a wife, a mother, a community member, a neighbor in this area, and someone,who's activedn,Kenai.and I have.a:big,concern for Kenai. I graduated from Kenai Central High School and so I feel I can try to make this personal to you people so that's what I'm going to attempt to do. I don't know whether you want to consider this as a closing comment or not. My husband and I purchased our home on McCollum Drive because we fell in love with it the first that we pulled into the driveway tucked into this quiet little neighborhood. We moved in with our two small sons on November fifth, 1988, the same day George Bush was elected as president of the United States. We soon began attending church'right there-isi-this neighborhood; In 1991, we felt really good about bringing our two new adopted daughters, age eight and nine, from Portland, Oregon to Kenai, Alaska to complete our family. We had so much to offer them. Two parents to love them. Two brothers to torment them and a cosy little log cabin on McCollum Drive in the beautiful city of Kenai. There was Laura Sue and Kaleen next door and Becky just around the corner. Our children grew. One by one they have moved from school to school here. First Patrick onto Kenai Middle School. Then Stacy. I71 never forget the terror I had when I learned about the trouble she had coming from school one day from that school. I thought everything was perfect. I foolishly thought she could safely cross the Spur Highway frown the MLiddle School to her home. it was so short of a distance. .We were so blessed that day that she didn't get hurt. She began to crass the Spar and got half way when she slipped and fell. She had enough time to pick herself up and run back to the side she started from before the car going 55 miles per hour descended on her. That's when I knew we had to do something about the safety of ail our children on this highway. I drove my kids back and forth until the expansion project brought the stop light. At the P&Z meeting on March 25t°, itwas stated that the speed limit on this section of the highway was lowered frorra.55,miles per hour.to 45 miles per hour for the purpose of accommodating more traffic. I remember it differently. I believe the speed limit was lowered to 45 miles per hour when it was determined that many children cross this section of highway to travel to and from school. It was for the safety of the children. I deduct this from a conversation I had on the telephone with Mr. Hom before the highway expansion project began, who was and still is the head of the State's DOT -260- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,HEARINGr APPEAL OF LEIGFI/BIIZZELL APRIL IS, 1998 PAGE 46 and I apologize, I don't have the date for that conversation that he and I had. And I remember trying to lower iota-35 milesTer.houet 4 t still� thinkthat it should be 35 miles per hour here in this area. I fought long and hard for safety measures to be made for our children who have to cross this section of the,highway every day while attending school. The Borough does not pay for busing for our neighborhood, Kenai Middle School and Kenai Central High School students. The city council agree that there was a safety issue and that some sort of plan needed to :be made to accommodate the children. Finally the state gave in and agreed to put in, the :stopilight�witl:L�pedestrian..crossing.., ... Please remember this issue when you make your decision. Please remember why you supported that effort. Please don't make the decision to add more traffic for my children to contend. with. We moved here to offer our children what we have now and we hope to be able, to offer my grandchildren the same thing. I never dreamed I would have to be dealing, with the possibility that our neighborhood would or could be issued this kind of permit. Please don't take our residential neighborhood away from US. Neighbors are important to me. Two gentlemen stand to gain financially from this. Numerous people stand to lose. I would welcome these two men into our neighborhood if they wanted to live there with us. The only danger that I pose to them is that I make some pretty cookies that I like to share with our neighbors. Outslde of being a'w f6, a mC3uy and a ncigaibvl here, i do"v6te the rest of my time t0 helping Kenai be a better place for everyone to lave. I help neighbors to help neighbors. I'm asking you to think of rny.family and all of pay neighbors tonight when you make your .decision that a✓ill affect.us very, ,very personally. Thank you. Wffifams. Thank you very much. All right. I think we've taken probably all of the testimony that's pertinent to the bearing this evening.. I want to thank both sides. You've both been very eloquent in your presentations. There are some lingering questions, I'm sure, that members of the council may have and most definitely myself. Well be doing a lot of thinking and examination of the.materials that we have and will be working very closely with the administration in developing our decision. As you know, when we develop the decision from the past record, we will vote one way or the other, there'll be room for each person to personally identify their feeling on the particular issue. Ah, we do have 30 days in which to complete the appeal process. During that time, excuse me; again all of the material will be examined very closely and we will be able to present what the council feels to be a justified decision. M Marilyn Kebschull From: Winegarden, Florence & Walton [wfwlaw@acsalaska.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:26 PM To: Marilyn Kebschull Subject: Re: Rezone from McCollum Drive to No Name Creek This is your verification. Thanks Charles A. Winegarden Winegarden, Florence & Walton 220 Main Steet Loop, Suite B Kenai, Alaska 99611 Phone: (907) 283-5774 Fah: (907) 283-5771 NEW EMAIL: wfvxlaw@,aesalaska.net THIS MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY -CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVELEDGED INFORMATION. ANY UNAUTHORIZED REVIEW, USE, DICSLOSURE OR DISTRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER BY REPLY E-MAIL, DELETE THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS, AND DESTROY ALL COPIES. To: Cary Graves ; Winegarden & Walton Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:22 PM Subject: RE: Rezone from McCollum Drive to No Name Creek Mc Winegarden, Please verify if you are requesting the emails between you and Mr. Graves are to be included as a lay down tonight. Thank you. Marilyn K. Kebschull, AICP Planning Administration City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 907-283-8235 From: Cary Graves Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:09 PM To: Winegarden & Walton Cc: Marilyn Kebschull Subject: RE: Rezone from McCollum Drive to No Name Creek 'Mr. Winegarden: NOW Thank you for the information. Mr. McCollum's ownership of 25%of EZ Management does not change my opinion regarding whether Mr. Twait has a conflict of interest. In my opinion, the alleged conflict remains too attenuated and speculative to be a substantial indirect financial interest. Again, thank you for the information . Cary R. Graves City Attorney From: Winegarden & Walton [mailto:wfwlaw@acsalaska.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:59 PM To: Cary Graves Cc: Marilyn Kebschull Subject: Re: Rezone from McCallum Drive to No Name Creek 1 do not mind if the February 10th emails are included. Also, as far as Glen McCollum Jr. is concerned, he is a 25% owner of EZ Management, LLC who owns Lot 40. The deed and biennial statement are attached. To: Winegarden, Florence Cc: Marilyn Kebschull Sent: Wednesday, Februai Subject: RE: Rezone from Dear Mr. Winegarden: 11, 2009 10:55 Aivi icCollum Drive to No Name Creek The reason I refer to page 249 in the citation of the Balough case is because that is how the Alaska Supreme Court cited it in Cabana v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 21 PS' 833, 835 n. 9 (Alaska 2001). That footnote reads: "9( See Balough v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 995 P.2d 245, 249 (Alaska 2000)(holding the rezoning of 75 acres on the north side of a single rural road to be a legislative decision); Griswold v. Homer, 925 P.2d 1015, 1019 n.3 (Alaska 1996)(describing City Council's ordinance amending the zoning of a 7.5 acre parcel of land in Homer's 400-acre Central Business District as legislative enactment)". (Emphasis added). I think the better reference in Balough would be to page 267, but I defer to the supreme court. On page 267 of Balough the court stated: First, the Borough Assembly sat as a legislative body when it enacted both the grandfather rights ordinance and the ordinance that resulted in the rezoning of the seventy-five acre parcel. In Griswold we stated that "we have repeatedly held that it is the role of elected representatives rather than the courts to decide whether a particular statute or ordinance is a wise one." The Borough Assembly, therefore, was acting in its proper legislative capacity when it enacted FNBSCO 18.56.020, and when it rezoned the seventy -acre parcel within the FNSB as RR. (Footnotes omitted). Thus, in Balough the court refers to rezoning the parcel as a legislative act. The Alaska Planning Commission Handbook on page 31 states: In Alaska, a rezone is legislative. It affects all those with property in the area that is rezoned and the legislative body has the discretion to approve or deny the rezoning. Although there may be statutory rules that govern legislative proceedings, there are no procedural due process rules that apply to legislative proceedings. Courts are hesitantto -263- invade the procedural realm of the legislative branch. The handbook, I believe, reflects that law in Alaska. Moreover, the Coffey case was a quasi-judicial proceeding rather than a rezone. The reference to it in Griswold is not about a pre -judgment issue, but rather on the question of improper spot zoning. I also wanted to ask if you wanted the e-mails from February 10"' and my responses to be given to the Planning and Zoning Commission as a "lay -down". The City Planner indicated to me that she would provide them as a 'lay -down" if you wished, otherwise they will not be included. Thank you for your input. Cary R. Graves City Attorney From: Winegarden, Florence & Walton [mailto:wfwlaw@acsalaska.net] Gent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:47 PM To: Cary Graves; Carol Freas; Rick Koch Cc: Marilyn Kebschuil Subject: Re: Rezone from McCollum Drive to No Name Creek You are correct. I must agree from the plain wording of Cabana v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 21 P.3d 833, 836 (Alaska 2001) that rezoning is a legislative process. I could not find any reference to the issue in Balough v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 995 P.2d 245, 249 (Alaska 2000) on page 249 or anyplace else. However, none of those cases addressed the basis for my protest and I do not agree that the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of prejudgment or appearance of fairness, in fact, in Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P. 2d 1015, 1019 n.3 (Alaska 1996), the Griswold court stated: However, we will invalidate zoning decisions which are the result of prejudice, arbitrary decision -making, or improper motives. See South Anchorage Concerned Coalition v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 174 (Alaska 1993) ("In reviewing zoning decisions, courts generally try to guard against prejudice, arbitrary decision -making, and improper motives.") (citing 3 Edward H. Ziegler Jr., Rathkoph's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 41.06, at 41-29, § 41.14(3)(b), at 41-93 (1992)). Thank you for your response. I greatly appreciate it. Zoning is not in my area of practice nor is municipal law. Charles A. Winegarden Winegarden, Florence & Walton 220 Main Steer Loop, Suite B Kenai, Alaska 99611 Phone: (907) 283-5774 Fax:(907) 283-5771 NEW EMAIL: wfwlaw(n)acsalaska.net THIS MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY -CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVELEDGED INFORMATION. ANY UNAUTHORIZED REVIEW, USE, DICSLOSURE OR DISTRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER BY • ai REPLY E-MAIL, DELETE THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS, AND DESTROY ALL COPIES. To: Carol Freas; Rick Koch Cc: Marilvn Kebschull ; wfwlaw(a)acsalaska.net Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:04 AM Subject: RE: Rezone from McCallum Drive to No Name Creek Carol, Thank you for forwarding Mr. Winegarden's e-mail, Mr. Winegarden asserts that the Alaska Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of whether zoning is a legislative act in Alaska. That is not correct. There are in fact three Alaska Supreme Court decisions stating very clearly that zoning is a legislative act in Alaska. See Cabana v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 21 P.3d 833, 836 (Alaska 2001); Borough v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 995 P.2d 245, 249 (Alaska 2000) and Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P. 2d 1015, 1019 n.3 (Alaska 1996), Cary R. Graves City Attorney From: Carol Freas Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:41 AM To: Cary Graves; Rick Koch Cc: Marilyn Kebschull Subject: FW: Rezone from McCollum Drive to No Name Creek FYI From: Winegarden, Florence & Walton [mailto:wfwlaw@acsalaska.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:06 AM To: Carol Freas Subject: Rezone from McCollum Drive to No name Creek I would have replied earlier if I had known of the City Attorney's opinion but I did not see it until the Agenda was published. In response to the City Attorney's opinion concerning the two commissioners, the Alaska Supreme Court had not ruled on the subject of whether or not a rezoning question is a legislative function. In fact, a number of states have treated rezoning as adiudicatory. Kentucky is one of those states and the following case is pertinent and should be brought to the attention of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Hilltop Basic Res. v. Boone City, 2002-CA-001081-MR (Ky.App. 10-10-2003) In December 1999, Hilltop submitted to the Boone County Planning Commission an application for a zoning map amendment. At issue was a 534-acre area currently zoned for agricultural use which is located north of 1-275 along the southern bank of the Ohio River in Boone County. Hilltop proposed that this tract be rezoned in order to accommodate its limestone mining operation. The proposal met with considerable public opposition. Following a public hearing in January 2000, the zone change committee of the planning commission held five meetings to review the details of Hilltop's application in relation to Boone County's zoning regulations and comprehensive plan. The committee concluded that the proposed use of the property was in compliance with the requirements of the zoning regulations and that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The zoning decision was appealed because: Hilltop claims that it was denied a fair hearing before the fiscal court since two of its members had pre- judged the issue of whether the zone map amendment application should be approved. It points to allegedly prejudicial statements, both written and oral, made by County Commissioners Cathy Flaig and Robert Hay prior to the argument -style hearing conducted by the fiscal court in mid -August 2000. Two zoning commissioners had made the following statements: Commissioner Hay on July 30, 2000, and a series of messages sent to Peggy Taylor, an opponent of Hilltop's application, on August 29, 2000. Hilltop contends that in these messages and publicly at the hearing on August 29, Hay openly expressed his hostility to the permitting of subsurface mining anywhere in the county Flaig told a Boone County property owner that regardless of how Hilltop's proposed mining activity might benefit the county, "she would never vote for a mine in this area of Boone County," adding that "[t]he people in Boone County just don't want it." In overturning the zoning decisison, the court stated: Zoning decisions are particularly vulnerable to charges of bias and conflicts of interest because they inevitably involve the intermingling of the adjudicative, legislative, and political roles of a local legislative body on sensitive or inflammatory issues of public interest. Marris v. City of Cedarburg, 498 N.W.2d 842 (Wis. 1993). Local legislative bodies are composed of "elected officials who represent the community and will be subjected from time to time to contact from constituents concerning issues, upon which they must ultimately decide." Mougham v. Lexington -Fayette Urban County Gov., Ky,App., 29 S.W.3d 370 (1999). Despite such pressures, an unbiased decision -maker is the critical component of fundamental fairness, the "'sine qua non" of due process.ffn3l The very perception that a decision -maker may have prematurely judged the issues taints the proceedings and erodes public confidence. Id. Common sense and reality dictate that a member of a fiscal court is likely to have an opinion or at least an impression with respect to local land use planning issues. Consequently, a cormnissioner's general opinions on land use and development would not disqualify him from hearing a zoning matter. See Marris, supra. In contrast, however, blatant revelations of personal bias indicating prejudgment of an issue in a pending case are wholly repugnant to the guarantee of fundamental fairness. ThE court I I'd-d by stating: Our decision is not based on any allegedly "improper ex parte contact" between the officials and their constituents. We reverse based upon the unavoidable perception that the commissioners' comments revealed an improper bias. Taken together, the statements create a clear appearance of impropriety in derogation of the presumption that the proceedings were undertaken in conformity with the fairness and integrity integral to due process. I Without an opinion from the Alaska Supreme Court, the rezoning issue can not be classified as "legislative". We, IE affected property owners, have a right to expect a fair and impartial hearing on the issue. I certainly do not have any confidence that such imparitiality will be present. Charles A. Winegarden Winegarden, Florence & Walton 220 Main Steet Loop, Suite B Kenai, Alaska 99611 Phone: (907) 283-5774 Fax: (907) 283.5771 ( NEW EMAIL: wfwlaw(aacsalaska.net -266- B®Q3—iDY5169—m A 12 102 AP":Id 2, 6 A I INR !61 FE.FD FOR PXCOSD AT RJ.QtiRST OF: pMae4amom Ob OJAluhi W1 w"CORDW Rra"TO Name �2MANARiR4IItRT J.LG Addvaa wRox 32m Cry,staleft Mmw. m8t1 Remoa•Nao6sr 4"D QUIT CLAIM DEED T C,,WMII TwTRliih FAB.tOtNBBRc,Trwtme oP QDALINIED R:ARYTA8.TR91RYOP F9g4UPUR A. McCOFbf1M e#oro tmgiop Lmenee W r,O. Roa 228J, K." AX Mt, fora li an oriimeuou efTW DOU ARB AND OYHNR OOW AND VAWARM WNS' MATION a^m'r0+tad quit cLim N 6 Ei+A.WAG'�IT,ELC tlm Wbu'udd^em'6ed nxI uaa. aknoted mWo Rewdios DkWitt dKmd,Sam ofAkeia, mtahar w4h u➢ etba aegobad tilt of da pemoRa) tlentla rARCIMI: Lotm. Rink ®,omm�sgxlke Fht dROL'�%ORD SOs94!7SJON, Sled �mdar Pke?aoN a M@t Rwmb ddm Y6wN AemNvg i5 WAet, TRivd Jati'eiJ Diamim, Srom d Nuim. BARGES. Dz Inm3 ao96, a taditR atbe pMdROrRRSORD1VL9fON, Pdsdv�Ci PlkNao4r X-14gg, ]teeorhdds Keeud RecmdmE Dtwim, iTW LNkul Dietrkl, Sbaot Aluiim. FARM 111: - Trecllhl, aaaNiogaftnplebdMAD DATT'ERRRPWT, 6ledmfda FietNaobu M-72, Feemdadthe ReoN RwonSmR Dau'mt, Tbkd gdieisl DimiG. sate oCALelm. BAi2CRL N: v'Oe+�vcatlaa46eod N,dSecdm33, Teoa�f NaW, ReoFf tt Waat, 8uaetd Afaldim, Rem:W dtha Rmael RamNw,S D4biG, Tb4d Jdieiil DimdaJ. 6aa dA W 2a. Dead )ej &FdQmo1amr', 2M Thik inavum®nt to boing ronordad A dcon TRIG of AlaakF ae �R^4c7COLLS1M1rt ratMtlaFtl§mbors. Teveaa i by Femt me an eanommodoifon oMy, it hae net Oeee osamined so to aw ettoct It ony, on iM IRe d me aaiem momin. Im Y Quitcwlm Deed MnimITt aMeum A.McColl pw 7v SCA760PALA=A ) 'Pmxd3udftld l)le¢Ict ) TIS4XMCMTiP?tl .9,6 ,y, q1p.. pgl9 iLb110. fRB Sw$ OfA 4,014 ARfi(yw� MyCb®Beaa Yee: poi^Rl, PUB VP .1'rl- ZI 1 Y�Y.O4H I __•i .... <m .v , "V v .a ra amic ar MA WAPPl4tl}'f[Lft „_,_�eo4 ened0u4ama WLne: © TbnLLNitl t]�01t7Cp•WvtlbmrrydbY @oa�6� N The Nadm66ta>addt7Cpepery YgrpdyltevwupP. HI to WT 405 3w------a n9 as AKEntityM T120 ps FIMe: 04a5a6G792A6AM S1Ma of Alestu l#poHmxVP W kE N tee' A LekStL94 b 1 i j<6'wp,;, kvC 996Pt T+ MdUMA40— CAW.2t p ®a $ ,� LK¢aeeefm %,cx J%XE 0 1 as 9461! '! o f3 .-r La • 1 �.. as a �nt$N McCoL6.uv�^L zab � � `14Vi1 � n tot.l_,uwo241S Eut-Li S�*RfTY off a5 /'.aPA4 6eY R[fOVa BOeeY aIDYYYY@ YlV:ilm mam r'®W RmeRgfllle P4P,Y�p@NOY(♦g W WV Y80tl8t9mfYyNNiM1. V/ Amonaf Due. 137.30for 2005 fttemkd'R&Nri - $137.50for 2007111mial AepoH 13•i• SO 13l 56 e 137.J0 far Re:„ taa. ,wu Fee . e/ • �— O 5412- d Total Daa for Roluctatemaut ""'" Forte 00•507 fth oo SIM M Mde of AJmke eWvtlLL Rpm. LLC. a LW 5 Ppp(o) T77if SA61 OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO 2393-2009 INTRODUCTION The area surrounding the Kenai Spur Highway corridor east of No Name Creek' is a unique blend of residential and educational use that is unparalleled in Alaska. On the south of the corridor, beginning at No Name Creek and proceeding in an easterly direction, is first located a quiet residential neighborhood which transitions to an educational use via the Challenger Leaming Center to the Kenai High School with an enrollment of 534 students and ending at Tinker Lane (across from McCollum Drive) with the Kenai Middle School with an enrollment of 368 students. On the north side of the corridor beginning at No Name Creek and proceeding in an easterly direction the area is, substantially, a low density residential neighborhood. This neighborhood is naturally segregated from the: commercial development by an area along No Name Creek that is properly designated as a Conservation area'. It was intentionally segregated from commercial development in 9985 when the area residents and the City agreed that the area would be zoned RR3 and the residents would have a strong voice in future zoning in return for the residents agreeing to contribute substantially to the installation of water and sewage systems. The influence of the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District also overflows into the north side of the corridor as the second lot east of Princess Street is owned by KPB and is reserved for educational purposes. When the lots in the rezone strip that are already being used for residential purposes are subtracted, there are only 4 lots which may be candidates for commercial ' No Name Creek may be renamed Shk'ituk'tnu Creek. Since all documents refer to No Name Creek, the MAPS residents will use No Name Creek here. ' For some unknown reason, a portion of this lot has been placed in the rezone area. If this portion is actually rezoned, the rezoned portion must be subdivided before it could be sold. However, due to the size and shape of that portion of the lot, it may no be able to be used for any commercial development due to requited set offs. OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2393.2= • Page No. f -270- development Of those 4 lots, only one has requested to be allowed to develop a lot for commercial use. The CHAPS neighborhood objects to the rezoning to a Limited Commercial Zone as the rezone is not only inconsistent with the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, but is inconsistent with the uses of the existing MAPS neighborhood. It is a detriment to MAPS and only may benefit one to four lot owners. OPPOSITION Residents of the MAPS' have previously submitted statements to the Planning and Zoning Commission which were included in the Kenai City Council March 18, 2009 Agenda Packet The following are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below: ,lanuafv26. 2009 Letter from C. A. Winegarden comprising pages 114 through 127 of the Agenda packet; February 4. 2200 Protest of Kristine A. Schmidt comprising pages 140 through 144 of the Agenda packet: and, Febru� 4. 2009 Response Regarding Application to Rezone McCollum to No -Name CreekfKenai Spur Highway comprising pages 146 through 329 of the Agenda packet. The Alaska Supreme Court in Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 1015. 1022 (Alaska 1996) stated: However, consistency with a comprehensive plan is one indication that the zoning action in question has a rational basis and is not an arbitrary exercise of the City's zoning power. Under 14.05.010(a)(3), the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to review the 2003 Comprehensive Plan annually and told, at least, one public hearing during the annual review. The results of the annual review are required to be forwarded 3 MAPS is the acronym for Magic, Alak Princess, and Spur they. OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2393-20M - Page No. 2 -271- to the City Council. Since the City must comply with its own ordinances, the public can be sure that the 2003 Comprehensive Plan is up to date and, more important, the public can be sure that the City Council is aware that the Comprehensive Plan is up to date. In the 6 years since the adoption of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, the classification of the MAPS area on Map 10, page 27, and Map 11. page 26, has not changed. Both of those maps clearly identify the MAPS area as Neighborhood Residential which, on page 29, Is defined as : The Neighborhood Residential district consists of single-family and multifamily residential areas that am urban or suburban in character. Typically, public water and sewer services are in place or planned for installation. This land use district may include both single-family and multi -family dwellings subject to reasonable density transitions and/or design compatibility. Formal public outdoor spaces (parks) are a critical feature in this district. Small homs-based businesses may be accommodated within certain design guidelines. Neighborhood institutional uses such as churches, schools, and day care facilities may be intermixed if they comply with neighborhood design guidelines. THE MAPS AREA. In support of its recommendation to rezone, the City Administration stated: During the creation of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, development concerns along the Kenai Spur Highway corridor were discussed extensively. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the issue of neighborhood concern relating to commercial development near residential areas as conditional uses or through rezones, partioulariy along the Kenai Spur Highway. However, the Plan provides guidelines to address these concerns (City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan, page 37). Bolding added. Contrary to the assertions of the Administration concerning page 37, page 37 of OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2383-2008. Page No. 3 -272- the Comprehensive Plan Does Not support the rezone as claimed. Starting on page 36, commercial land use is discussed: • ,3[�3TTi=7 1FfTIMS a. Opportunities and Challenges Kenai is the trade and services center for an extended urban and rural trade area. This boosts local investment and employment generates local sales tax revenue, and benefits local ccrosumers. Several historic factors have kept Kenai from developing a well-defined, traditional central business district KenaPs main business and public office center Is separate from the historic townssite. Kenai Spur Highway is the dominant roadway, but lacks a dominant intersection. Much of the market base lives outside Kenai, and much business development is dispersed along the Kenai Spur Highway. The net result is that Kenai lacks a strong, compact central business district. Some of Kenai's older business areas are showing signs of economic obsolescence. Retail marketing trends — parficularty the trend toward freestanding, big roof, big parking lot retail stores — have weakened established businesses. There are numerous highly visible vacant or undemsed commercial malls and buildings In town and along Kenai Spur Highway. This trend poses challenges to the success of Kenai's business sector, the useful life of existing private and public investment, the oity's tax base, and the community's appearance. Kenai cannot afford an abandoned business area. Reversal of this trend is a major stated goal of community residents. Fortunately, there are some promising policies that the City can follow to revitalize its city center. With construction of the Bridge Recess Road, the Kenai Spur Highway/Bridge Access Road intersection has strengthened the locational advantages of that vicinity. This enhances the long-term potential of Millennium Square as well as vacant or underused properties in the area. With zoning and development policies that focus private and public investment in the city center, and improve its appearance and convenience, Kenai can, with time and perseverance, develop the sort of busy; prosperous, chs center for which residence have expressed a desira Some residents complain about commercial "strip development" along the Kenai Spur Highway. On analysis, these concerns seem aimed mainly at the appearance — lack of landscaping, unattractive signage — and poor access of some businesses and, to a lesser extent, the dispersed character of development. These deficiencies can largely be addressed through development and design standards that reflect the community OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2393.2009 -Pap No. 4 -273- consensus, and by provision of adequate, suitably located commercial sites. Another issue of neighborhood concern is commercial development near residential areas as conditional uses or through rezones, particularly along the Kenai Spur Highway. One of the goals of zoning is to achieve stable, livable residential neighborhoods by separating them from incompatible uses. This is best achieved by zoning sufficient suitably located land for all expected uses, then adhering to the zoning plan. The foregoing discussion substantially focuses on a strong city center, Nothing in that discussion supports a rezone of the MAPS area. Prior to the development of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, MAPS was zoned RR1. Throughout the development of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan and in the intervening years, no zoning changes were recommended for the MAPS area. THE MAPS AREA WAS NOT ALTERED IN EITHER MAP 10 OR MAP 11. The Plan is dear and unchanged. The MAPS area is neighborhood residential. The City Council should follow the Comprehensive Plan's admonition to "adhere to the zoning piano' and refuse to rezone the MAPS area. The City Administration specifically states that the rezone compiles with CM1. CM3 and CM4 found on page 37. The caption for CM1 reads: CM1 Promote adaptive reuse of vacant commercial buildings In the city canter and along the Kenai Spur Highway. To say that CM1 supports the rezone is merely hoping that no one will actually check the CM1 description. It can not be refuted that there are no VACANT COMMERCIAL. BUILDINGS IN THE MAPS AREA If CM3 DOES NOT address zoning and DOES NOT support a rezone of any area. it merely addresses adopting various standards for commercial use where ever much use occurs: CM3 Update existing guidelines for commercial development 4 Page $7, 2003 Comprehensive Plan. OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2393.2009 - Page No. 5 -274- Adopt landscaping and buffering/screening standards for city center commercial, Ohl Kenai, and for highway -oriented commercial Setbacks, building height, and parking should be updated to address denser development, mixed -use development, and highway -oriented uses. CM4 also DOES NOT support the rezone. it merely presents factors which must be considered when zoning an area for commercial use. CM4 In designating (zoning) areas for commercial uses, the following factors shah be considered. The use has adequate access to a collector or arterial level street. The use has access to city services. Potential conflicts with adjacent non-commercial uses have been minimized through site design, landscaping or other appropriate measures. It is important to note here that although the Administration noted CM4 in its recommendation, it did not present or discuss the above mandated CM4 factors as they apply to the MAPS area. Since those factors must be considered and were not, the Administration's recommendation is flawed. The State of Alaska Department of Transportation regulations require that if a development adds traffic of 25 cars per hour, a Traffic Impact Analysis must be conducted. It is likely that the commercially developed lots in the rezone will generate at least 25 cars per hour. Without a Traffic Impact Analysis, the Administration can not say that the rezone lots will have adequate access or, for that matter, will even be granted access by DOT. The rezone does not conform with the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, PER GRISWOLD, THE FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THE 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS PROOF THAT THE REZONE OF THE MAPS AREA IS AN ARBITRARY USE OF THE CITY'S ZONING POWER. 093ECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2393-2W9 - Page No. 6 -275- 3. The rezone presentailin "attractive nuisanoa" and its adoption will be an arhttrary use of the zoning powar as the "attractive nuisance,, was not considered. This matter came before the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 29, 2008 and November 12, 2008. Residents of the MAPS area spoke against the rezone of the one lot which Dr. Wortham wanted to develop. As a result, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend the rezone. In December, 2008, the City Council without a detailed study directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the entire t lot strip from No Name Creek to McCollum Drive on the north side of the Kenai Spur Highway to be rezoned Limited Commercial. The Limited Commercial Zone allows commercial entities such as, but not limited to, restaurants, barbers, beauticians, dressmakers, fitness centers, photographic studios, and tanning studios. These uses are the type of uses that high school students and middle school students will find attractive. The only stop light in the area is at the junction of McCuliom Drive, Kenai Spur Highway and Tinker Drive. Since the only land actually available to develop commercially is directly across from the high school, high school students especially will find it more convenient to attempt to jaywalk" the high traffic Kenai Spur highway than to go out of their way to the light at Tinker Drive. By rezoning the MAPS area, the City Council will create an attractive nuisanite' which s The doctrine of an °aftraohve nuisance was set forth in Taylor v. Alaska Rivers Navigation Co., 391 P.2d 15, 17 (Alaska 1964) which states: "'A possessor of land or a chatee is subject to Ilabilry for physical harm to children trespassing thereon, caused by a condition of the land or chattel, if a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and "' (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know, and which he realizes or s„ouM realize will involve an unreasonable risk of tle¢:h or serious bodily hrsm to auo.", cd:Eldra."., and ". (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the conditions or realize the risk involved In Inter - meddling in It or in coming within the area made dangerous by It, and"' (d) the uft of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are sight as compared with ft risk to children involved, and "' (a) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable rare to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children." Although the City will be this entity creating the nuisance, It will not be liable if a child is kdlled or seriously injured. OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2393 2009 - Page No. 7 50 an could cause a student to be killed or seriously injured attempting to cross the Kenai Spur Highways. IT CAN NOT BE REFUTED THAT THE CREATION OF THE LC ZONE WILL ALLOW COMMERCIAL ENTITIES THAT STUDENTS WILL FREQUENT, WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC AND WILL INCREASE THE DANGER TO STUDENTS WHO "JAYWALK". The stoplight on the Kenai Spur Highway at Tinker and McCollum was added in 1994 when the City Council passed Ordinance 94-16 introduced by Councilperson Momfor. The City Council then recognized the danger that the Kenai Spur Highway traffic posed to student If the City Council approves the rezone, R may be sending a message to the public that it is more concerned about commercial development than the safety of the students. 4. The adoption of an LC Zone which has unsuitable and dangerous criteria white obanoes to fie criffiHa are being considered by the Planning and Zonina Commission is an arbitrary use of the zoning aowar. The danger to the Kenai High School and MHdlee School students was broached by the MAPS residents and the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District representative, Dave Spence, at the public hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Administration, no doubt with much chagrin, began modifying the LC Zone to eliminate some of the commercial uses which may create an "attractive nuisance" the LC Zone would allow. THE SUGGESTED CHANGES BY THE ADMINISTRATION IS AN IMPLICIT RECOGNITION BY THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THE MAPS AREA IS A UNIQUE AREA WHICH NEEDS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION. However, changing the LC zone criteria is in itself an arbitrary' use of the City's zoning power. The unique characteristic blend of highway, educational use and c The Image of West High School and Minnesota Drive immediately comes to mind with the shaded traffic and constant police presence. A high school girt was killed crossing Minnesota. It also does not comply with the admonition to the 2W3 Comprehensive Plan to adhere to the zoning plan as It indicates, rightfuhy, that there is no zoning plan. OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2393-=9 - Page No. B -277- residential use found in the MAPS area is not found anywhere else in Kenai. A modified LC Zone meeting the needs of the unique MAPS area will be too restrictive for other areas of the City which have been classified as Neighborhood Commercial in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. In fact, an area in the western part of the City has already been zoned LC. A change in the LC zone criteria wiq cause uncertainty in the individuals who have acted in that area in reliance on the criteria allowed in the present LC zone. Further, if the City Council votes to rezone the MAPS area to an LC zone, it will do so under the existing LC criteria and not the Administration's modified LC criteria or any criteria proposed by the MAPS residents. Whether the changed criteria will actually effect property owners in either LC area N adopted at a later date is an unanswered legal question that may lead to an expensive court resolution. Further, such action may very well send a message to the residents of the City that nothing can be relied upon unless you are a commercial developer. TO VOTE FOR A REZONE AT THIS STAGE IS PREMATURE. A DELAY UNTIL THE ZONING CRITERIA IS RESOLVED IS A PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION. Due to the long winter, construction will not start early this year. Courts have always given deference to various commissions which deal in a particular area and have recognized the expertise of those commissions. to this case, the Planning and Zoning Commission has twice rejected a rezone in the MAPS area. The Planning and Zoning Commission recognized that the LC zone was not the correct zoning due to the unique character of the MAPS area. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD NOT IGNORE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. R The rozons fa _.»_!y atartse to avoid .. zG^�a"spot � ay... ' of the Property located at 0620 Komi Spur Highway. "Spot Zone" allegations were made by the MAPS area property owners when the property located at 9520 Kenai Spur Highway was first presented for rezoning. The OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 23934M. Page No. 9 -278- City then, without a detailed review, expanded the rezone to include the properties discussed below. a) City of Kenai property. This lot is zoned conservation with only a portion of the lot along the highway being rezoned to LC. The lot has to be subdivided before it could be transferred. It is doubtful that commercial development could occur due to the shape and size of the lot. The lot does not have highway access and it is doubtful that DOT will grant access. This portion of the lot was perhaps included to provide the essential fink to the western commercial development starting with Walmart so that it could be alleged that there was a need for a'trans Lion" between residential and commercial b) 97" Kenai Spur Highway property. This property is owned by the Mental Health Trust. The management of this property is governed by specific statutory provisions. The land can be traded for other State land but It does not appear that it can be sold. It does not appear that it can be easily developed for commercial use. c) 9616 Kenai Spur Highway property. This property is owned by the Kenai Peninsula Borough and is set aside for educational uses. Regardless of its zoning, it will not be developed commercially. d) 305 Cinderella property. A duplex is located on this property which is owned by EZ Management. it is not going to be developed commercially. a) 9520 Kenai Spur Highway property. This property is owned by Todd Wortham and Is the sole actual reason for the rezone. f) 9484 and 9444 Kenai Spur Highway properties and 808 and 610 Magic Avenue properifes. Four plexes are located on these properties which will not be developed commercially. g) 804 Magic property. This properly is owned by Ede Gerke who has a small no,,,e is under construction. This Iw wilt not be developedcommercially. h) 309 Castle St, property. This lot is owned by the Bissets on which their home is located. No commercial development will take place on this property. 1) 9392 Kenai Spur Highway property. Marc Bisset owns this property and is OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2393-2009 - Page NO. tb -279- planning on building a home for his son there. No commercial development will take place. j) 9328 Kenai Spur Highway property. This properly is owned by Jack Lashot who was working for the City when this property was put up for bid. He was the successful bidder. Mr. Lashot is in favor of the rezone as would be expected. k) 399 McCollum Drive property. This property is owned by the Falkenbergs on which their home has been located for the last 50 years. The property will not be developed commercially. Only the Mental Health Trust property and the Todd Wortham property could be commercially developed under the LC zone. The Jack Lashot property may be to small to be economically developed under the LC criteria. The City of Kenai property has to be subdivided and the portion subdivided may also be to small. All of the other property owners oppose the rezone and do not have any desire to commercially develop their property. REZONING THIS MAPS AREA IS A MERE PRETENSE TO SPOT ZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9520 KENAI SPUR HIGHWAY. Dated this 25th day of March, 2009. (2 . Ct. I -),I 14 r= A Charles Winegarden fo6MAPS Residents OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2393-2009 - Page No. 11 Improprieties Submitted by Becky Espy Introduction 3 Ma3 iic. Ave.n ue_ V-er�aA W�[[ There have been many improprieties made by the City of Kenai during the potential E area and areas of MAPS. Some of the improprieties are illegal or unfair actions by the Kenai, The following is a brief synopsis of the documented improprieties. Limited Commercial Meeting The 1-5-2009 Limited Commercial work session was not scheduled in a legal manner. It was a Pfanning and Zoning work session that was not scheduled or conducted according to city of Kenai meeting policies (Attachment 2), the Kenai Municipal Code (KMC) (Attachment 6), or Alaska Statutes (AS) Titles 29 or 44 (Attachment 11). 1. The scheduling of the meeting by council was conducted in a manner that doesn't appear to have adhered to the Open Meetings Act or the Kenai Municipal Code. a. Council members appear to have discussed elements of the meeting through emails outside of the public eye. (see Attachment 5a — email to all council members by Councilman Joe Moore) This email was not provided to the public as a "lay down." Councilman Moore referred to his email a few times. Debbie Sonberg requested a copy from him, but he referred her to the City Clerk for a copy. b. Councilman Joe Moore's stated purpose was to "sell" the LC zone to the public. (Attachment Sal That declaration was not shared with the public, which puts into question the "real" intent of the meeting, notthe "stated" intent. c. The discussion regarding the purpose of and scheduling of the January 5 meeting was not conducted according to KMC rules of order (see Attachment 7, transcript; and Attachment 6, KMC 1.15.100 Rules of Order — Speaking). As a result, confusion ensued throughout the discussion, including summing up and agreeing upon what was decided. d. There was never a motion to conduct the January 5, 2009 meeting, only to postpone the public hearing. 2. The city claims it was an "administrative" meeting and, therefore, doesn't have to comply with the city meeting policies (Attachment 2a, meeting policy) or the open meetings act (see city letter, Attachment 10c). W 0 3. It is the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission to "promote public interest and understanding of ... zoning ... and other issues relating to community planning and development" KMC 14.05.010 (a)(4). (see Attachment 1a) — not the responsibility of "administration." a. when council discussed scheduling this meeting, it was frequently referred to as a P&Z work session. (see Dec 17 Council meeting transcript — Attachment 7) b. It was advertized as a Planning & Zoning function by the Planning Department (see Attachments 3a, Special Notices; and 8b email from city clerk) c. It was not on the regular city calendar (see Attachment 4a) d. It was not properly authorized by the city clerk as an "other than —a regularly scheduled meeting" (see Attachment 2b) and city clerk's email (Attachment 8b) The city often claims as a home rule city, it doesn't not have to meet the criteria of various parts of the Open Meetings Act or other Alaska Statutes. Attachment 11 shows a clear connection between home rule cities and open meetings act. The city was not working in the best interest of the "people's business" (AS 44.62.312 (a)(1)) in its conduct of the January 5, 2009 meeting. Obtaining Information There was a bias in giving requested information to MAPS residents beginning on or about 1-5-2009 (see attachment 12) where it had previously been the City's practice to forward information from the employee who received the request directly to the person requesting it. Examples were when the Parks and Recreation director was able to respond to Debbie Sonberg's emails (Attachments 13 and 14) but the city began only allowing requests through the City Clerk. It was difficult for the MAPS residents to obtain information to collaboratively write a report in our defense opposing the rezone. Although several times the City of Kenai staff was able to respond to requests quickly, there was a vast amount of information withheld from the residents which was requested through the City Clerk per instructions of the City of Kenai. Twc appeals were filed (one to the City Mayor and one to the City Manager) in accordance with the Public Information Act requiring information requests to be filled within ten working days. The first MAPS request for information requiring an appeal, the request was made on 12-29-2008. See attachment 15). Debbie Sonberg appealed the request to Mayor Porter on 1-10-2009. Mayor Porter emailed on 1-11-2009 that she was not the correct position to appeal to for information. The appeal process is outlined in the Freedom of Information Act and the Alaska Open Meetings Act. The request for information dated 1-26-2009 (Attachment 16) was not compiled for weeks. The information was not made available for MAPS to use while presenting or preparing reports Im at the 2-11-2009 Planning and Zoning meeting. An inaccurate bill was written and emailed to Debbie Sonberg on 2-11-2009 (Attachment 17) after she appealed to the City Manager on 2-9-2009 (Attachment 18). Mayor Porter previously stated she was not the correct person to receive an appeal. Based on the Alaska Public Records Act each requestor was entitled to up to five free hours of staff time per month in order to process requests under AS 40.25.110 Public Records Open to Inspection and Copying; Fees. Becky Espy sent an email on 2-12-2009 (Attachment 19) to restate the law to the City of Kenai in attempt to obtain the information which was acknowledged by the City Clerk on 2-13-09. On 2-17-2008 Patricia Falkenberg went into the city office to give them the MAPS request divided among the MAPS members to accommodate how the city wanted the items requested. The City Clerk refused the paper Patricia was giving her. On 2-18-2009, the City Clerk sent an email/letter to Becky Espy (Attachment 20) and sent an email to Debbie Sonberg (Attachment 21). The email to Becky Espy stated the City would not waive fees and gave her a chart to show the percentage of waiver allowed based on her family size and income. On the same day, Debbie Sonberg received an email stating the city would allow her to break the request up into groups so the neighborhood could obtain the information without being charged. The emaiis were sent around 3 PM on 2-18-2009 which did not allow the neighbors time to discuss and collaborate the emails prior to the council meeting in the evening on the same day. Not knowing the request would be honored, Becky Espy approached the City Council to see if they would assist the MAPS group in having the City provide the requested information. Discussions occurred and it appeared the city would work with several MAPS neighbors individually to accommodate the request but would not do so as a group. Public Hearing Process Public hearing processes changed once the MAPS residents recently became involved in the City Council and Planning and Zoning Meetings. Scheduled public comment had been allowed previously on public hearing topics. When Becky Espy and Debbie Sonberg both spoke on 1-14-2009, Marilyn Kebschuil emailed Becky to notify her of the "rules" in not speaking about public hearing topics (Attachment 22) during scheduled public comment. Jeff Twait emailed Debbie to advise her speakers could not talk about public hearing topics during scheduled public comment. Mr. Twait started in the email, "I don't want to have to interrupt you in the middle of it." (See Attachment 23.) Mr. Twait asked Debbie to forward the email to Becky. Planning and Zoning had not previously verified rules with scheduled speakers prior to the MAPS rezone issue. In May and June 2008, public comment was limited to five minutes per speaker. The agendas from 5-14.2008 and 6-25-2008 (Attachments 24 and 25) did not list the allowed timeframe. The P&Z agendas now list the allowed timeframe of three minutes per speaker. When the MAPS rezone arose, public comment was listed to three minutes per speaker. MAPS residents had the three or five minute rule strictly enforced, but others had been allowed more time than the allotted time. Alaska Digitel was given over ten minutes to speak on 6-25-2008 (and possibly 5-14-2008). -283- Janine Espy was told by Mayor Porter there was no way to allow the neighborhood to present a group -related public testimony for the 12-3-2008 Council meeting. We not only had been allowed to do so in the past, we had been encouraged by the mayor and council member to do so. it had been common practice in the past by the City of Kenai. The practice is listed in several land use guidebooks. We were not given a specific reason why we could not present collaboratively as a group in lieu of individual three minute reports. This resulted in a broken up testimony on behalf of the MAPS residents. On 11-12-2008, Commissioner Bryson discouraged public hearing on the rezone application submitted by Dr. Wortham. Dr. Wortham had additional information in the P&Z packet which entitled the public to speak regarding the rezone but we were discouraged from doing so. The City provided inaccurate and conflicting deadlines for MAPS to submit documents for the packet for Council. Nancy Carver emailed Becky Espy, "We will need to know what your speaking about as well as any information you may have for the packet no later than December 24, 2008." When Mark Schrag attended the 12-17-2008 council meeting, much discussion occurred regarding the scheduled dates for public hearing, and the council came to a conclusion the 12-24-2008 deadline was incorrect. (Attachment 7) On the public hearing at the City Council meeting for Dr. Wortham's rezone, Mayor Porter stopped someone from testifying pubiically because she had sent in an email the City Clerk read into the record. This "rule" had never been applied previously. The City Attorney and Councilman Smalley suggested letting her speak anyway which Mayor Porter allowed. Rules were not previously this restrictive prior to the possibility of a MAPS rezone. Planning and Zoning pointed out the hearing before them was "just an advisory vote" which gave the impression our testimony did not matter and discounted the public process. This was disheartening to the public. Many of those who spoke felt like why bother if it is not taken seriously. Jeff Twait began to tell Becky Espy she could not ask a question during her three minutes at the end of the 1-14-09 P&Z meeting prior to adjournment. She approached him after the meeting, and he told her that was the time for questions and comments. If this were the case, any questions and comments would not be on the record. In the Lawton Acers proposed rezone, the public hearing process and vote ended after the P&Z hearing and did not move forward to the City Council. The proposed rezone areas within MAPS have been required to go from P&Z to city council which is inconsistent treatment. The City's Timeline A memo from Marilyn Kebschuil stated, "This item was postponed on October 8 and October 22, 2008 at the request of the applicant to allow time to prepare a conceptual development plan for the property." The memo was referring to Dr. Wortham as the applicant, Attachment 26. The MAPS residents asked numerous times for additional time to review the situation and plan as well as asking for a work session between the neighbors, Dr. Wortham, and the City of Kenai. The City took no regard to the MAPS residents needing to plan and strategize during the holidays with no regard to the emotional pain, physical pain, and stress caused by the situation. Mark Schrag asked for more time on 12-17-2008, and the Council did not honor his request stating it did not fit the developer's timeline. We had to plan during Thanksgiving, Christmas, Chanukah, New Years as well as other celebrations. On 11-12-2008 P&Z meeting, Dr. Wortham stated he could wait for a three month process. In a meeting held outside of City Hall with MAPS neighbors and Dr. Wortham, Dr. Wortham stated his landlord was less rigid with the timeframe for his office to end the lease. In email correspondence between Marilyn Kebschull and Debbie Sonberg, Marilyn states, "I do not have the authority to recommending moving the public hearing on the proposed rezone." Marilyn was the City Planner and could have asked or requested this to any council member. The MAPS residents felt it was heartless to allow the process to go on through the major holidays of American life knowing Dr. Wortham was not in a rush. Unfairness On 1-21-2009 Councilman Berry Eldridge stated he thought the residents did not understand the Limited Commercial Zone. During the unscheduled public comment, Debbie Sonberg spoke and said MAPS did understand the LC Zone, she was tired of hearing this message spoke about MAPS. Mayor Porter tried to interrupt Mrs. Sonberg by stating she was making a personal attack. It was not a personal attack and was factual based on what had been said by the Councilman. The City Manager, Rick Koch submitted a memo titled "Janine Espy Citizen Report from January 5, 2009 Meeting." See Attachment 27. It showed a bias how the City Manager could make a personal attack on a MAPS resident; however, the Mayor tried to stop Mrs. Sonberg from speaking when she was not attacking anyone. MAPS residents requested numerous times to be part of the planning process with the City to make a plan to accommodate everyone. Mark Schrag asked for a "more collaborative process" an 12-17-2008. Colleen Ward asked for more time for the neighbors to use collaborative efforts, and for the City to not bring a rezone forward. Janine Espy asked for a work session on 2-18-2009. The City refused to schedule work sessions among the residents but honored the request of the "anti smoking ban" group. After numerous refusals by the City, Councilman Rick Ross discussed with another citizen how the City planned to "tweak" the Limited Commercial zone in order to please MAPS without discussing it with MAPS (see Attachment 28). On 2-11-2009, the most of the Planning and Zoning members read from prepared speeches as to why they voted the way they did. The prepared speeches were written prior to listening to the public hearing. -285- Inaccurate Information Given by City of Kenai Attachment 29 was a spreadsheet created by City Manager, Rick Koch, listing the property owners of the proposed rezone. There were 14 parcels listed, Mr. Koch listed six of the parcels as in support of the rezone when there were only three parcel owners in favor of the rezone who owned developable land. The City was unable to provide documentation that the conservation piece of property could be developed commercially (portion of parcel 4501029). Since the time the spreadsheet was created, Eric Gerke wrote to the City and stated his opposition to the rezone. The Kenai Peninsula Borough was listed as supporting the rezone, but they were opposed. Dave Spence from the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District testified during the public hearing on 2-11-2009 being opposed to the rezone. Scott Anderson who owns a duplex in the proposed rezone was listed as "no contact" but stated to MAPS he did not feel Limited Commercial would be the best use for the land. Patricia Falkenberg received a phone message from Nancy Carver, Planning and Zoning Assistant, stating her "No Rezone" sign (Attachment 30) was out of compliant with Kenai Municipal Code. This violates her freedom of speech rights. KMC states political signs must be taken down two weeks after the election 14.20.220 section k. The City of Kenai allowed political signs to be posted on another parcel of someone who supported the rezone (Attachment 31) at the last election. Public Notice Signage was not made available to the public on the proposed rezone. KMC code 14.20.280 states the timeframe signs should be posted for public hearing notices. For the February 11 P&Z meeting, Marilyn Kebschull stated the City "went above and beyond" the requirement in making notice available to the public; however, the City did not post signs on any of the proposed properties. The excuse was given that the City could not post signs along the proposed rezoned area of private property owners; however, the City of Kenai owns Parcel 4501029 but neglected to post a sign on their own property. The City of Kenai did not seek permission from the other property owners to post signs on other pieces of property. Alaska State Statue, Title 29 requires whichever method of public notice used should be consistent. in the rezone issue on Lawton Acers property in 2005, the City posted appropriate notice for the public (Attachment 32), where the No -Name Creek to McCollum Drive did not have signage. Conflicts of Interest/Bias Councilman Moore wrote an email on 12-17-08 prior to a council meeting regarding a work session to "sell" the limited Commercial zone to the public. This email shows his bias and inability to make a fair decision on this zoning. Although the email stated, "The work session would avoid any specific rezoning issues," the purpose of suggesting the work session was to "sell' the zone to the public in light of the recent zoning issue in the MAPS area. ORN Charles Winegarden addressed concerns about Commissioners Twait and Koester. Jeff Twait's daughter is related to property owners in the proposed rezone area (See Attachment 33). Karen Koester gave a public statement at a council meeting on 12-3-08 following the P&Z meeting on 11-12-09. This showed "an appearance of outcome -determinative prejudgment (see Attachment 34). Please see attachment 35 regarding Charles Winegarden's protest. Although it was not recommended for Commissioner Twait to recluse himself from the vote, Councilmember Hai Smalley was told by the City Attorney to recluse himself regarding a vote to donate land from the City to Habitat for Humanity. Although Councilman Smalley was involved with Habitat for Humanity, he and his family had no personal gain with the exchange of the land. Mr. Twait's family could have personal gain from a rezone in the MAPS area. A situation with less conflictive interests was given more restrictive boundaries. In addition to Commissioner Twait's conflict of interest, he also violated due process by testifying and writing a letter as the Chair of the Commission stating how he would have voted if present at the P&Z meeting he did not attend (Attachment 36), Mr. Twait did not listen to the public testimony nor did he listen to the audio recording of the testimony (see Attachment 37). Mayor Porter taught a high school class during her substitute position about the need for the rezone from No -Name Creek to McCollum Drive. The teaching was not done in an objective manner and used her powers as a teacher to influence the high school students. Inconsistencies The City Planner stated several times, Conditional Use Permits were not recommended for Dr. Wortham because they do not always transfer to another owner in the future. Conditional Use Permits are to be granted if they meet the criteria. Mrs. Kebschull told Council CUPS are too restrictive. A Conditional Use Permit was recommended by the City Planner and voted on by P&Z for Frontier Community Services in a residential neighborhood. The CUP did not serve the same purpose as previous owners who owned the property in the past, but the permit was still granted. Mrs. Kebschull also told Council there was not available commercial property in the city center on 12-3-09. Violation of KMC or Violation of City of Kenai rules or policy Dr. Wortham's application was dated and signed on 9-4-2008 which violated the length of time required for public hearing to be scheduled. The application did not give 21 days between the date of the application and the date public hearing was set. The application was signed 20 days prior to the public hearing not 21 days. KMC 14.20.270 does not allow the same rezone within a nine month time period. "A proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which is substantially the same as any other proposed amendment submitted within the previous nine (9) months and which was not approved shall not be considered. Planning and Zoning as well as the Council and City Administration worked OQ032 on behalf Dr. Wortham by bringing forth two separate rezone applications after Dr. Wortham's initial rezone application. The first application from No -Name Creek to McCollum Drive was brought forth by the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Jeff Twait. The application was invalid since it was not voted on by the P&Z Commission, yet public hearing was scheduled for the rezone application. The application was also not dated; therefore, MAPS was unable to determine the length of time from the submitted application to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The second application violated KMC 14.20.270 because Jeff Twait, P&Z Commission Chair, brought a rezone forward without consent or discussion from the P&Z Commission. See Attachment 40 when the PU chose to remove the rezone from the agenda. The third application from No -Name Creek to McCollum Drive was date stamped on 1-23-2009 which was signed by Rich Koch, and the public hearing was scheduled 2-11-2009. Again, the application did not give 21 days between the date the application was received and the date public hearing was set. The application was signed 20 days prior to the public hearing not 21 days (Attachment 39). The limited Commercial work session conducted on 1-5-2009 was not recorded. The City of Kenai has an unwritten practice of always recording work sessions but refused to do so at the request of several citizens. The City of Kenai should not currently be rezoning any parcels since it has not complied with KMC 14.05.101. The comprehensive plan has not been reviewed; see Attachment 41. An annual review is required. Also, a traffic study has not been completed recently to see if a rezone could be possible for this area. DOT was asked to make "construction considerations" in 1994; see Attachment 42. No considerations have been .made since 1994. Attachments: 1. KMC 14.05.010 Planning & Zoning Commission — Duties & Powers 2. City of Kenai Policy for Meetings & Work Sessions 3. Public Notice posted by Planning & Zoning and the Planning Department 4. City of Kenai Calendar of Events 5. Councilman lee Moore's "Sell' the LC zone email 6. KMC 1.15,100 Agencies, Officers, and Employees —Rules of Order — Speaking 7. Transcript of December 17, 2009 Council (confusing) discussion on the January 5, 2009 meeting 8. Email from Debbie Sonberg requesting cancellation of January 5, 2009 meeting 9. Email from city manager declaring "administration" as host of the January 5, 2009 meeting 10, Letter from city clerk declaring that this meeting is exempt from the City of Kenai Meeting Policy & the Open Meetings Act. U Trail of Alaska Statutes from Home Rule Cities to the Open Meetings Act a. AS 29.10.200 Limitation of Home Rule Powers, linking to b. AS 29.20.020 Meetings Public, linking to c. AS 44.62.310 Government Meetings Public, linking to d. AS 44.62.312 State Policy Regarding Meetings which refers back to AS 44.62.310 (c) and (d) clarifying that these "shall be construed narrowly in order to effectuate the policy stated in (a) of this section and to avoid exemption$ "m open meetings requirements... 12. Email from Joe Moore to Debbie Sonberg 13. Email from Bob Fmtes to Debbie Sonberg 14. Email from Bob Prates to Debbie Sonberg 15. Emails requesting KEDS information/Appeal #1 I& MAPS requestfor information on 1-26-2009 17. Estimation of Costs I& Appeal regarding 1-26-2009 request 19. Becky Espy's email regarding 1-26-2009 request 20. Response to Becky Espy's 2-12-2009 email 21. Response to Debbie Sonberg's email 22. Email from Marilyn Kebschuli to Becky Espy 23, Email from Jeff Twait to Debbie Sonberg and Becky Espy regarding public testimony 24. Agenda 5-14-2008 P&Z 25, Agenda 6-25-2008 Council 2& Memo to delay on behalf of Dr. Wortham 27, Memo from Rich Koch regarding Janine Espy 28. Rick Ross's note to Kenai Citizen regarding LC Zoning 29. Rich Koch's spreadsheet of proposed parcels 30, Picture of "NO REZONE" signage 31. Picture of political signage 32, Lawton Acers public notice signage 33. EZ Management ownership verification 34. Karen Koestees statement 35. Protest by Charles Winegarden 36. Letter by Jeff Twait, Chair of P&Z 37. Email from Jeff Twalt 38, Memo regarding possible removal of item on agenda 39, Comprehensive Plan Reviews 40. 1994 Construction and Consideration for Spur Highway 41. KMC 14.20.270 42. P&Z Application Wi 14.05.010 Duties and powers. Page 1 of 1 ,,� >(_, , h 14.05.010 Duties and_powers� �} 7LV _f __ iL_ Y1 n t vt4 c t (a) The Commission shall be required to perform the following duties: �Od ri Ci) SS (1) Review and act upon requests for variance permits, conditional use permits, planned unit residential development permits, and other matters requiring consideration under the Kenai Zoning Code. (2) Interpret the provisions of the Kenai Zoning code and make determinations when requested by the Administrative Official. (3) Review the City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis and conduct a minimum of one (1) public hearing. Said recommendations shall be forwarded to the Council for consi Prat R interest and (5) Proposed plans for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of any area or district within the City. (6) Perform historic preservation reviews and duties as set froth in KMC 14.20.105. G n 11l1t2 ii OmnniSvt , I —t � s �s 7 ��t� cQ rev t ?�j i e I 't r 8 —290— htto://www.ccode.us/codes/kenai/view.Dhn?tonic=14-14 05-14 05 010&frames=on 2/14/2009 0 COUNCILKENAI CITY y O: COMMISSION, BOARD ANDrUON AGING MEETINGS r WORK -SESSIONS Commission Committee Hoard Reappointment: If, after a term (or consecutive term) of appointment has been completed, a commission, committee or board member would Iike to be reappointed for an additional term, an application must be submitted to council for consideration and approval. Formation of Subcommittees of Commissions, Committees or Hoards: A subcommittee of a commission, committee or board may be formed for a specific function if upon review by administration, it is indicated the subcommittee would be a governmental body and a subcommittee of a public entity and if the formation is approved by Council. If a subcommittee is approved by Council, the meetings of the subcommittee must be open to the public; meeting notices shall be posted on the Official City Bulletin Board in Kenai City Hall and on the city website at least five (5) days prior to the meeting, and the meetings may be electronically recorded and the recordings (the official record) stored in the City Clerk's Office, Meeting Schedules: Until further notice, the commission/committee meeting schedule is as follows: Commission/Committee/Hoard Meeting Schedule Scheduled Meetiag Days Planning & Zoning Commission Twice monthly January through December, Second & Fourth Wednesda s Library Commission Monthly First Tuesday of the month. Council on Aging Monthly Second Thursday of the month. Beautification Committee Meetings held March, '. May July &September Second Tuesday of the month. ' Parks & Recreation Commission Meetings held January, Aril, July & October First Thursday of the month. A' ort Commission Monthly Second Thursday of the month. Harbor Commissian.T Monthly First Monday after first council meeting of the month, Advisory Cemetery Committee Monthly Third Thursdav of the month. 1. Commission, committees and boards, including Library; Parks & Recreation and Airport Commissions and Beautification Committee, shall meet as listed above. 2. CounciI on Aging shall meet monthly at the Kenai Senior Center. 3. Planning & Zoning Commission and the Personnel Arbitration Board is exempted from this meeting directive. 4. Commissions, committees, boards and the Council on Aging may, with the City Clerk's approval and notification of Council and City Manager, hold special meetings (fora . specific purpose) on an as -needed basis. 5. Commission, committee and board meetings may be cancelled by the City Clerk, with notification of Council and City Manager, if cancellation is warranted, i.e, lack of agenda items, pre -knowledge of lack of quorum, etc. 6. All commission, committee and board meetings (except Council on Aging) will be held at Kenai City Hall and begin at 7:00 p.m. Council on Aging meetings will be held at the Set3tember, Exceptions for subcommittee meetings may be made with advance notice to and approval by the City Clerk. -291- KENAI CITY COUNCIL POLICY FOR COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, BOARD AND COUNCIL ON AGING MEETINGS AND WORK SESSIONS PAGE 2 7. Any additional commissions, committees, or boards formed will be set and incorporated into the following meeting schedule by the City Council, Minutes/Meeting Recording: S. Excepting the Planning & Zoning Commission and Personnel Arbitration Board, responsibility of taking notes and electronically recording the commission, committee, board meetings, fails to the department liaison (staff member) to the specific meeting group. 9. Summary minutes will be produced by the City Clerk from the department liaison notes and provided to the City Council as official records of the meetings. 10. Electronic recordings of the meeting group, except the Planning & Zoning Commission, shall be kept for two years. 11, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting recordings shall continue to be kept for six years. Work Sessions: 12, Commission, committees and boards shall or at a a 7:00 p.m. meeting. p.m. of the 14. During work sessions, only items on thework session agenda may be disc and no formal actions may be taken. 15. All commission, committee and board meetings must be given appropriate public notice. EFFECTWE: This directive shall take effect on [OCTOBER 4, 2007] November 20 2008 and remain in effect until modified by the Kenai City Council. Approved by the Kenai City Council on the 19th day of November, 2008. ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk cIf Revised 11/19/08 RICHARD A. ROSS, VICE MAYOR -292- Ads and Special Notices 3C� Page 1 of 2 F111r.1131111211 42 LAND SALES, CITY AUCTION DATES, AND OTHER INFORMATION The Kenai City Council work session with area legislators, scheduled for Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers to discuss city capital projects and other concerns HAS BEEN CANCELLED. Contact the Kenai City Clerk's office at 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, 283-7535, extension 231 with questions. Posted: December 31, 2008 1 T I The City of Kenai will hold a meeting to provide information regarding a proposed rezone of properties located north of the Kenai Spur Highway from McCollum Drive to the Wal- Mart property from the Rural Residential 1 and Conservation zones to the Limited Commercial zone. The purpose of the meeting is to provide citizens information and answer questions on development options and restrictions available within the Limited Commercial zone. The meeting will commence at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, January 5, 2009 in Council Chambers, downstairs in Kenai City Hall, 210 Fidaigo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska. More ' obtained at the City of Kenai i web page www.ci.kenai.ak.us, click on _epts/Planning & Zoning by contacting th�e'>olanning Departme t 907-283-8235. Posted: December 19, 2008 PUBLICNOTICE Due to the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission's November 26th and December 24th meetings have been cancelled. Questions? Contact Kenai City Clerk at 283-7535, extension 231. INS11 httn://wvnu.ci.lcenai.ak.us/snecialnotices.htm 2/14/'>009 Ads and Special Notices -54 Page 2 of 2 CZQMIUNI S-IONS AND € -MMIT " POSITIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON • • • COMMITTEES.• INTERESTED SHOULD CONTACT s- COMMISSION(COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE NOTES AIRPORT COMMISSION SECOND THURSDAY, 7:00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL ON AGING FIRST THURSDAY 7:00 P.M., SENIOR CENTER BEAUTIFICATION SECOND TUESDAY, 7:00 Meeting Schedule: March, COMMITTEE P.M., COUNCIL May, July, September CHAMBERS HARBOR COMMISSION FIRST MONDAY FOLLOWING FIRST COUNCIL OF THE MONTH, :00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS LIBRARY COMMISSION FIRST TUESDAY, 7:00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS. PARKS & RECREATION FIRST THURSDAY, 7:00 Meeting Schedule: COMMISSION P.M., COUNCIL February, April, June, HAMBERS August, October, December PERSONNEL ARBITRA T ION S NEEDED BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SECOND AND FOURTH COMMISSION WEDNESDAYS, 7:00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS (requires yearly submission of APOC Public Official Financial Disclosure Statement upon appointment). CALL CAROL AT 283-7535, EXT. 231 OFF STOP BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FOR AN APPLICATION AND FURTHER INFORMATION. You can download a currant Drinking Water Quality Report in PDF format by ali&KipS_h@re. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this file. If you do not have Acrobat Reader on your computer, you can download It free by clicking_her_e. -294- htti)://www.ci.kenai.ak.us/sr)ecialnotices.htm 2/14/2009 �► rw .jam.. � "� r1 rl�:� � M!HOLIDAY/CITY J7 OFFICES �140111'111041 MM ni* ' ICJ. , IN:#L MEETING CHAMBERS� i�llo i!I iiu, { .-a i 1 {SeniorH. �Harbor Commission PLANNING'� ...0 0 COUNCIL U;COMMISSIOCHAMBERS� III ■ Parks Recreationi Commission III I : p.m., ## Council Chambers MIKENAT CITY COUNCIL • EETING ( CHAMBERS ".... I� PLANNINGIiIi I n & ZONING 0� II'! P.M., � ,,��.. 11A �1 �! t1 R 4Y fe ,R... MIKENAT CITY COUNCIL00 MEETING OUNC.j P.M COUNCIL CHAMBERS wuwi COMMISSION I � COUNCIL iCHAMBERS • HOLIDAY/CITYI p �II OFFICES CLOSED ,w - ,COUNCIL MEET ING PLANNING & ZONING i P.M., COUNCIL -4uz)- httn://%,ww.ci.kenai.alc.us/calenday.htm 2/14/2009 DATE 4 b Page 2 of 2 http://www.ci.kenai.ak.us/calendar.htm -296 2/14/2009 From: Joe Moore [mailto:+oem@altrogco.comj nt: f�1e'dnesday�December 1 200 To: 'Patricia Porter'; barryeldridge@yahoo.com; hvsmalley@yahoo.com; cpajoe@altrogco.com; absoluteprincessl0l@yahoo.com; mboyle@alaska.com; rossrck@hotmail.com; molloylaw@ak.net; 'Caro[ Freas' Cc: 'Marilyn Kebschull`; 'Nancy Carver; Rick Koch Subject; RE: Rezone -- Rural Residential 1 to Limited Commercial I liked the information as well. I would like to see the administration hold an informative work session, for the public, prior to the P and 2 meeting on the 10, Subject would be the "Limited commercial zone" what is it? We have some materials that were drawn up by an airport planner several years ago when we created the zone. Those materials should be available at the work session, i believe the work session will allow a more informal dialogue between the administration, the public and council. The work session would avoid and ecific rezoning issues and could be limited to an hour. My hope is to diffuse some of the misconceptions and mayb . "sell" the zone to more of the public. The administration and public worked very hard on this zone when it was created. We probably gave it the wrong name. Maybe "limited development" would have been better. I feel 'his outreach to the public will be well received and perhaps the public hearing on the 14`r of January will be more productive. Thanks Joe -297- 1.15.100 Speaking. ,r a� Page 1 of 1 Kenai Municipal Code Up Previous Next, Main Search print No Frames Title AGCNCIES, OFFICERS, AND. EMPLOYEES Chapt�,I 1 15 RULESOF ORDER �2( �C (ddJY -e—,- ) 1.15.100 SpeakinS_.____-,.____�C11�...._.__.....__._._..._...._—.----__m...._.,_....:__,_.__._.__.._.._._..__..._..._.._.. (a) A member about to speak shall respectfully address the Chair, and shall not commence to speak until recognized by the presiding officer. When two (2) or more members request to speak at the same time, the presiding officer shall determine which one is recognized. (b) Every member while speaking shall confine himself to the subject under debate, shall refrain from personalities, and shall not refer to any other metmber of the Council except in a respectful manner. (c) Unless a member who has the floor yields for that purpose, no member shall interrupt another while speaking, except to propound a parliamentary inquiry or make a point of order. (d) No member shalt speak more than twice or for more than ten (10) minutes continuously to any one question, except that one or more additional periods of ten (10) minutes may he granted by unanimous consent. The reading of papers desired by any member shall be read by himself or herself or by the City Clerk within the member's time limitation unless permission for the Clerk to read such paper outside the time limitation is unanimously granted. (KC 1-17) t v7 G z C: G t" C)+y` C.. 4 C0Y� A e'b All �� Pv/' l c, �u+' 4 r Ct5 �1tC"� 5Gcy, / y (/� f � /y littp://www.gcode.us/codes/kenai/view.php?topic=l-1295 —15-100&frames=on 2/14/2009 December 17, 2008 Unscheduled public comments: Mark Schrag, 312 Princess Street (Note: Transcriber is Debbie Sonberg. This is not a verbatim, but is extremely close. Comments in braces and in red font are my own. I was not at this meeting.) Discusses the new MAPS rezone proposal. Process is very important. Asks for more collaborative process with the neighborhood. Request P&Z public hearing be postponed. Were told documents needed to be in before Christmas. Suggested mediation experts. Disconnect with views of comprehensive plan. Schrag: You can relax, I'm alone. I've talked to many of you individually, but tonight I want to address you collectively and on the record. Those I've talked to know I am, or was upset about how the last meeting played out. I'm referring here to the MAPS rezone proposal. In a sense, that is water under the bridge, and yet to use a water analogy, this is more like a lake, and anything that muddies the water doesn't just go away. Emotions become elevated, and clarity on the core issue or issues is harder to find. Process is very important. So I'm here tonight to advocate for a more collaborative process of doing business with the neighborhoods. Hopefully this can be a teachable moment, and at some point take a look at how this issue could have been handled differently, even for future reference, or anything, because we are all in the lake or whatever analogy you want to use together, and I believe we can do better. On the immediate issue of the Spur Highway rezone, I would request that you — I don't know how it has to work, but instruct city administration to postpone the public hearing before P&Z set for January 14 by maybe one session, at least. So the neighborhood... at this point they have to — so they don't have to spent valuable pre -Christmas time getting documents submitted. (comment added by Debbie -- a neighbor called city hall specifically to ask when materials had to be submitted for the January 14 meeting and was told "December 24".j Because that what we've heard — it has to be submitted before that, before Christmas. In more general terms, I guess I'd just like to see some mediation experts possibly consulted on how things can be done more collaboratively, particularly on issues like this that we know are going to be controversial. We knew that this was a pretty hot issue. Both sides claim to be working from the comprehensive plan, so somewhere there's a disconnect here. And I guess i would like to see that. And having a judge decide that disconnect is not in the best interest of any of us. So, just a quote here, if it really applies or not, "If you need something from somebody, always give that person a way to hand it to you." So, anyway, it just has to do with more, working together more collaboratively; I guess. Porter: Are there any questions for Mr. Schrag? Moore (1): Mark, what date did you say you had to have your information submitted by for the January 14 meeting? Schrag: We were told before Christmas [the fact that this information was given is confirmed in an email from adrninistrationj Moore: is that the case? Porter: Who said that? M602 ��s Koch: Carol what's a day or the deadline for the 14'h P&Z meeting? Nancy's not here and Marilyn is out of town. I like the 71' or g`h, right? ... Anything that was turned in on the 6`h or 7i6 would be included in that packet. Schrag: O.K. so yea, I'm not sure where the disconnection is here then. Porter: So that's another disconnect. Schrag: I guess that helps. I'm not sure where they are on their stuff, but still another week or two wouldn't hurt. And I'll let them know that it doesn't have to be before Christmas. Boyle (1): 1 would like to suggest that we do postpone that issue until the meeting in February, the planning and zoning and if l need a motion to do that, 9 so move. Confusion between 9th meeting date set and 141". Mayor asked city attorney if that would be possible. Says I don't think we have the right to do that — it's a planning and zoning issue. Referred to city attorney. Graves: Agenda for P&Z hasn't been set yet, so items could still be changed. Council does have the right to submit the material at a later date. Council directed "by a date certain." (continued to discuss confusion between the January 9Instructions and the actual date of January 14) Smalley (1): do you see any problem with postponing this public hearing? Koch: (someone else's voice in the background interrupted and said it is time sensitive) Rick continued This issue would be resolved so that Dr. Wortham had time to prepare for this construction season. (Various developer re.iated time comments) That was the consideration that I thought drove the Council's direction. I can't remember who said that. Maybe it was Councilman Moore... Moore (2): The purpose of my date was to accommodate the developer, Mr. Wortham. That date would still work Into his construction plans. Molloy (1): 1 think you made some good points. What I would like to see happen is that there would be a work session at the January 14 meeting. Where I think Councilman Moore had a good idea about —that it might be productive to have a work session, not specifically on the proposed rezone, but on the LC zone in general -- to have more of a dialog between the public & P&Z commission, and then the proposed rezone, specifically could be taken up at the next meeting, and that would give the neighborhood more time to prepare their position, as well as the developer... And we don't have to impinge on people's holidays. My impression of what council did [directed at the last meeting] was a little bit different (from how it is now moving]. What I thought happened was that the administration was directed to bring back a more comprehensive plan for rezoning of the ares in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan by January 9 [meaning January 14], not that there was suppose to be a specific plan to be voted on immediately. [someone interrupting softly saying "we couldn't deal with it down here) I recall a discussion with the developer where Council member Ross talked about a three-month time period, and he had said that that was not a problem for him. So I don't want to be a — like a dictator, you know, _. so that why I would support giving more time. —300— Porter (1): Council, if you look at the January 2009 calendar, their first meeting is scheduled for the 141h, maybe that might be a good time to have a work session at that time and come back with a plan before P&Z on the 28th. That gives you a whole month out. Does council pretty much agree with that? Moore (3): 1 don't. I was planning on discussing this a little later in the meeting, but since it has come up, proposal of a work session was going to be on the 5" or 6" of January, and the reason for that was because our planner would be in town that week, and there is a chance that the planner will not be in town for the meeting on the 10. Our planner is key to this work session that I proposed in the email. So without her presence, I think that that wouldn't go over too well. Not for me, anyway. isome discussion on the planners absences —gone 4-5 days from the 13"IJ Boyle (2): 1 would favor the work session on the 10and maybe if something has to come before us on the 28", or rather before planning and zoning, that they have to make a decision at that time. I think it's Important that all sides be allowed to have the time necessary. I would have no trouble pushing it back a month from the 14cn but in the interest of serving the parties, I think that the neighborhood would like this time, and I don't think it is unreasonable to give it to them. And I think indeed, it's our responsibility to make sure that all parties have time they need to prepare for this and not have to rush through it. Schrag: 1 would say think a work session sooner is fine. Well, I guess I'm not sure what everybody sees as a work session, but I just see it as a way for people to get together outside of this format where there can be more give and take and a little bit more understanding, hopefully can be reached at this point. It's worth a try. It's worth a try. So an earlier work session I think would be fine, and then if we could also move the public hearing thing back two weeks [to the 28`"] Porter (2): So you're fine with a work session on the 5" or 6`h? ... A work session is not a place you make your decision at. A work session Is merely a dialog.... Then bring it back for a action in one way or the other on the 2S`h? Does that work for council? Moore (4): 1 am II for the work session on the 5" & 6th, but I want to hold firm to the January 14" public hearing for the rezone. Eldridge (1): 1 wonder about the 7°has well, which would be prior to a council meeting on a Wednesday night, if we did it earlier. If we did it later in the evening, then the 5`h and 6t' would probably work . 1, too, think it would be better to hold to the 10 as of right now. There may be other delays built in when it gets to P&Z to take a look at, and I don't think we ought to build in any more delays at this level. Porter (3): Planning & Zoning, Council, has the opportunity to postpone something to another meeting. They don't have to just vote something up, down, or whatever on the 10. They can do just like we do — if you think you need a little more time you can postpone it until the next meeting. Am I correct in that? Unidentified voice (Graves?): That's correct. Molloy: I would prefer that the work session not be on a Council meeting night. The reason that — it may be longer than an hour. There may be a lot of people that attend and there may need to be a dialog. I'll be the one -301- -7d that is at the meeting, because I am the liaison, but I would —but I don't mind going two nights. I think it would better serve the public if it was on a separate night. Porter: Councilman Smalley, just before you do that, though, it appears that, Mark, I don't' know if you are speaking for the neighborhood, but [answered "no'], it appears as if the 5th or 6th is probably going to be fine. And then maybe having it come before on the 14" like originally planned, and if it needed to be postponed, and/or something else, then it could come back on the 281h. That's a whole month away. Schrag: Yea, but we've got a couple of weeks that's pretty hectic. It not a normal two weeks, or whatever. That helps a little bit, maybe. Porter: that's three weeks [w't considering that the public tearing is stiff on the 24"' — we hove to be prepared for the 14" — we cannot be assured in any way that we wili have three weeks— we must be fully prepared by the 14'1, w Deubie's added thoughts] Schrag: Yea, but I mean the next couple of weeks... Smalley (2): 1 would strongly favor an early meeting in that 5tb through the 9`h week as far as us meeting with the planner, because the planner will be here. The thing with waiting until the 10 before a meeting is, again, the city planner won't be here for that meeting. I think it is important that that person be here, so she'll be here for the meeting of the 5" through the 9th, whatever day it's going to be, and then planning and zoning can do what it needs to do on the 142' as well. I will not be available on the 5`hor the 6"... Imy thoughts — why is this work session so important for the planner to beat, but the rezone public hearing is riot? I see the public hearing and the planner carrying the burden, of proof for P8Z as the applicant-- actually administration; is a co -applicant because administration recommended including city property in this rezone-mto be at that meeting to present. This line of reasoning of the importance of the planner's presence at the work session and not the public hearing, itself, is ludicrous.] ......... Porter: O.K. Council, as it stands now, we will still have the work session on the 5th and the 62h. O.K.? Moore (5): Just to clarify, on the 5'h and the 6`h? Porter: Well, either/or, which ever works... Moore: Because I just wanted to clarify, I had just sent an email to the rest of the council and the administration suggesting a work session to discuss the — not to discuss the issue of rezoning, but what the Limited Commercial zone is — an information meeting only. I don't anticipate a huge debate at any work session about rezoning, but it's an information meeting to, where anyone who wants to come will learn what this zone is. And so, I guess, if I could ask administration if what we are talking about fits in to what maybe "they" had in mind. Koch: (obviously confused in Initial comments) Based on the email I saw, and based on the information I got, I thought we were talking about a public meeting that the administration would have that would noticed the 7cf residents in the area that... Was it a ... and maybe I was mistaken in what your desire was. I wasn't thinking about a work session with council, but it doesn't matter. Moore: And I agree. My use of the word "work session" was simply to indicate there would be no decisions made. It would —it was an easier dialog for the general public and the council and the planning and zoning commission just to talk with the administration and the public. Porter: lust a question and answer period. (some inaudible comments going on—) Molloy: What I envision would be a planning and zoning work session, so I guess it would be a special meeting of the commission, but it is a work session with administration, planning and zoning, and the public Porter: A work session in not mandatory, so. So has everybody kind of figured out what we are doing? Several said "No." Koch: Administration just needs some direction ... so is it just going to be the public meeting that the administration is going to hold, if it's going to be a work session or a special meeting of the planning and zoning. We need -- I just need some direction from you as to what it's going to be. Porter: I just think it should be a public— my personal opinion — I think it should be public meeting. I think the planning and zoning commissioners invited, if they choose to be —and all the neighbors. Moore (6): Absolutely, Mayor Porter, I agree. I don't foresee this as a session where the council or the planning and zoning commission discusses the limited commercial zone. I foresee this as an informational meeting to the public about what the limited commercial zone is. Certainly, council and commissioners are invited to attend, but really it's for the public. It's not for the council, it's not for the commission,. We should know what the limited commercial zone Is. Porter: O.K. Schrag: With all due respect, if that's all it's about, then ... I think we know. I think the neighborhood pretty much knows. I'm not sure what new information, you know... Porter (5): It's an opportunity to communicate with one another. Maybe there are some people who live in the neighborhood who really don't understand the limited. I understand you probably really do, but there are some people who live further back in the neighborhood that don't ever come to these meetings. They may sign a petition, but they may not understand what it truly means. So it's an opportunity to explain that should they have questions. [my comment, — eve don't learn this stuff at the meetings — we have to research It ourselves hecause we can't depend on a consistent representation of these things from council, commissioners, or adrninl5trators.j Boyle (3): Are we talking about two different things now? Are we talking about a meeting to explain what a certain zone is? And then we're talking about a work session with the neighborhood about the neighborhood? —303— _7-:1 ...or have I just... I thought we started on one topic and then we moved to another one [good point! —this was Mark Schrag's public comment time and it did start out asking for a more collaborative work session. It ended up with .toe Moore taking over and shifting the whole conversation to his memo related to an LC !nstructionai-only work session.) Porter (6): Well, we may have. As I am interpreting that, ... it appears as if the Sth and 6'fi ,depending on what is available for the planner, to have an open forum question and answer: "What is limited commercial?" "What is Rural Residential 1?" and how do the two compare together. And if anyone in the audience has questions... any council person can go, any planning and zoning, anyone from the general public can actually come if they are interested in that. That's what my interpretation of this meeting would be. And then the matter would still come forward on the 14'h Smalley: And that's kind of what I thought I heard, in other words, if Mark and or any of his neighborhood could come over and instead of posing an opinion, they could oppose a question in relationship to RR1 and the limited commercial. Is that correct? Would that work for you? Schrag: i guess. I envisioned a work session as being something broader based ... just about this whole issue of how we do a bigger thing, of how we do development on the corridor, on the Spur corridor. It's a whole new issue; it's not just about this lot anymore. I don't know if you guys have seen the packet? Porter: Yep. Smalley: Yea. Schrag: I mean there's a whole new rezone thing. Smalley (3): And, and see, and that's what I see being discussed there, but that also is going to be at, I think, a work session probably by P&Z on the 14`h `. Is that correct? Porter (and others): No, not a work session. Eldridge: It's going to be on the agenda. Smalley: O.K. Porter: Alright Council, we can sit here and belabor this ... we need to make a decision on when we are having this public information meeting and whether or not this is coming before planning and zoning the le - that's the question. More than anything, it's the question: is it coming before P&Z on the le like we gave instructions to administration. Eldridge (2): Well, my feeling is that we should let it continue to come forward before P&Z on the 14" and the work session on the LCL for that. I will be opposing any changes to that. Schrag: Can I ask one quick question? (recognized and allowed by Mayor Porter) Joe, Barry, why stuck on the 14" -304- Eldridge (3): Because it is certain time restraints that are coming up, and always when issues come before P&Z, there is a time frame that they take a look at it before something comes back to council.... As you're looking at — as the weeks go by, then all of a sudden you're well into spring. When it comes to us, we need to have it on the introductory consent agenda before we can vote on it a couple weeks later. You know, you start piling on extra weeks get way into the spring, so i think we need to take a good look it on the 14'h Boyle: What we have is an issue of two different groups and one represents a large body, and I don't see any reason why we have to rush at those two weeks. Porter: Councilman Boyle, you have an opportunity to make a motion on the floor if you would like to have us address it mote that earker, he already made a motion, but it wasrlt recognized or acted on]. Boyle: ... I would love to do that, and then I would move that we postpone we have administration submit this action to P&Z so that they will be heard on the 28u'. Porter: Asked if there was any discussion. (motion failed) Boyle, Molloy, Smalley voted in favor of the postponement. Student representative advisory vote was in favor of the motion. Moore, Eldridge, and Porter voted against the postponement (Ross was absent) [Isn't a motion supposed to be read in full before a vote? There was already a motion on the floor within the first couple of rrrinutes after Mr. Srhrage spoke, but it was not recognized; it was not seconded; but, discussion ensued. With as much confusion as there was over this whole issue, I'm not sure that what was being voted on was clear, in the same way, in all of their minds, and certainty not in my mind. There were two motions on the floor at the same time, adding to the listeners' and readers' confusion. The public was not asked if they wanted to comment on the nnotion.. Would a public comment of a motion have been appropriate? i thought the public could comment on any motion. I think the invitation should have been made. Isn't that a point that Mayor Porter made when she called in to Sound Off the other day?) At the end of the meeting, when council makes comments around the table, Councilman Moore stated that he was disappointed in the public testimony we had with respect to the idea of a public information work session, whatever you want to call it. I think that it's a great idea. I'm not discouraged by one member of the community's displeasure or not thinking that it was a good idea. I think it's a great idea and I'm glad the city is moving forward with it. 9411A Authorization for January 5 LC Work Session - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 3 Y... .".' fi AJ L. "" Authorization for January 5 LC Work Session Sunday, January 4, 2009 8:13 PM From: "Debbie Sonberg" <debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com> To: "Carol Freas" <cfreas@ci.kenai,ak.us>, egraves@ci.kenai.ak.us, rkochiJci.kenai.ak,us, kenalmayorl0@msn.com, cpajoe@altregco.com, rossrcic hotriaii.com, mboyle@alaska.com, bob@molioyforcouncll.com, hvsmalley@yahoo.com, barry_eidrfdge@yahoo.com, '., jtwait@alaska..net, scott@redoubtrealty.com, korkev@yahoo.com, rawelis@wradvisors.com, pbryson@wcbalaska,com, brookman@alaska.net, kkoester@yahoo.com, mkeoschu1l@cl.kena1.ak.us Cc: philllp.hermanekq)peninsulaclarlon.com Bcc: "Colleen Ward" <xcel@alaska.com>, "Janine Espy" <dialaprayer@yahoo.com>, "Becky Espy" <beckyespy@hotmail,com>, "Mark & Nancy" <nmschrag@hotma0.ccm>, "P. Falkenberg" <pet _rain bow@ya hoo. con> December 17 Mark Schrag public comments & council discussian.doc (55KB) Dear Carol, Rick, Attorney Graves, Council members, andP&Z Commissioners, The November 19 Council epacket 23 contains a document entitled "Kenai City Council Policy for Commission, Committee, Board and Council on Aging Meetings and Work Sessions." The section on Work Sessions, items 12 & 13 indicate to me that City,_Cl,erk approval is needed prior to scheduling a work session that is not on a regularly scheduled meeting day. 12. Commission, committees, and boards shall receive the City Clerk's approval to hold work sessions to be held on a date other than that of a regularly scheduled meeting or at a time immediately prior to a regularly scheduled meeting... 13. Work sessions may not be held without the approval of the City Clerk unless they ocur on the night of and at the time of a regularly -scheduled meeting. 14. During work sessions, only isms on the work session agenda may be discussed and no formal actions may betaken, I don't believe this policy was followed. In additie+v, this won session never made it on to the city calendar of events and meetings http;[Iwww cl„kenaj ak us/cater) ar him. it is also not listed on the special meetings page through the council link h.Itp:i/www.ci.kenai.ak-.us,/sp�p.cialnotices.html. AS 44.62.310 requires that all "he notice shall be posted at the principal office of the public entity or, if the public entity has no principal office, at a place designated by the governmental body. The governmental body shall provide notice in a consistent fashion for ail_ts meetings." Work sessions can only cover the topic(s) specifically listed in the official posting, which in this case is: The City of Kenai will hold a meeting to provide information regarding a proposed rezone of properties located north of the Kenai Spur Highway from McCollum Drive to the Wal-Mart property from the Rural Residential 1 and Conservation zones to ....... _................ the Limited Commercial zone. The purpose of the meeting is to pr o.vide citizerss information stlons_op dev io arnant. options and restrictions ava0atrle wilit iln the Limited Commercial zone. (from http://www_.c ke_na ak.us/s�lecialnotices,htm). I have a typed seven -page transcript of the council meeting session (December 1 T, 2008) when Mark Schrag spoke to the council about scheduling some collaborative work sessions. The entire conversation shows a lot of confusion by all council members as to what was being discussed and what was being scheduled, what type of work session(s), what purpose, etc. httpJ/us.mc624.mail.yalioo. com/me/sbowMessage?fi� Seent&sort=to&order=up&startMid=O&.ra... 2/14/2009 Authorization for January 5 LC Work Session - Yahoo! Mail gjib Page 2of3 I respectfully request that the January 5, 2009 meeting be cancelled so that planning and zoning may be allowed to more fully consider collaborative work sessions that will be inclusive of the LC zone and RR1 zone options with purposes that are clearly understood by all parties. Since much council discussion has centered around the developer's schedule, I would like to clarify that the developer stated, on record at the November 12 P&Z meeting, that a three month process would be fine -- and -- that he wouldn't be breaking ground in three months anyway. It is important to follow procedures in order to prevent future delays. Other procedures_,in__his current rezone process may also Ide in question, As Councilman Smalley said, "it is better to be right than to be popular" This includes following the KMC code, city policies, and many other valuable guiding city and state legal documents. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, Alaska 99611 907-283-5880 --- On Fri, 112/09, Carol Freas <cfreas@ci.kena1.ak.us> wrote: From: Carol Freas <cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us> Subject: RE: Audio CDs of meetings To: dabbie_sonberg@yahoo.com Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 8:04 AM Good morning Debbie, I'm not sure what you mean by the 'authorization' for the Janua meetine were published throueh therTlannine & Zonin,i3-epartn you acquire the information you're looking Carol L. Freas, City Clerk City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Phone: (907) 283-7535, extension 231 Fax: (907)283-5068 5 informational meeting.' A.ny ads for the ? Please clarify and I'll do what I can to IkD3�`1�C9✓ % From: Debbie Sonberg [mailto:debbie_sonberg@yahoo coml Sent. Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:32 PM � C0)'-, _5 i C To: Carol Freas � Subject: RE: Audio CDs of meetings 1�l �� � 4 11 7 k�� � 7-0Y`4�t .� 1 Hi Carol, ✓✓ I'm sorry you were experiencing the technical difficulties. I will be in on Friday morning at 10, or shortly after, to pick the CDs up. I would also like a copy of your authorization for the January 5 informational meeting. httpJ/us.mc624.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?FiN= t&sort=to&order=np&startMid=O&.ra... 2/14/2009 Authorization for January 5 LC Work Session - Yahoo! Mail Page 3 of 3 Y Thank you, lamai - -- On Wed, 12131108, Carol Freas ¢cfreas@ci.kerraLak.us> wrote: From: Carol Freas <cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us> Subject: RE: Audio CDs of meetings To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 4:50 PIA Hi Debbie, Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. There were some technical difficulties and the CD's will be ready for you to pick up an Friday morning by 10:00 a.m. Carol L. Freas, City Clerk City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Phone: (907) 283-7535, extension 231 Fax: (907)283-5068 From: Debbie Sonberg[mailto:debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:21 PM To: Carol Freas Subject, Audio CDs of meetings Hi Carol, Could you give me an idea of when ,you expect to be able to get to this project (Nov & Dec P&2 & Council reetings, workshops; and training sessions)? Debbie http://usanc624.mail. yahoo.corn/mc/showMessage?fi�=Rt&sort=to&order=uh&startMid=O&.ra... 2/14/2009 RE: January 5, 2009 Informational :Meeting - Yahoo! Mail qc: Page 1 of 1 RE: January 5, 2009 Informational Meeting From: "Rick Koch" erkocli@cl.kena Lak.us> To: debbfe_sonberg@yahoo.mm Ca: "Marilyn Kebschull" <mkebschul;@ci.kenai.ak,us> Ms. Sonberg, Monday, December 22, 2008 1:47 PM Neither, the informational/discussion meeting is being hosted by the. administration. Thanks, I look fonmard to seeing you there. Rick R. Koch City Manager City of Kenai 210 Ficia€go Ave. Kenai, AK 99611 (907)283-8222 (907)398-0190 From: Debbie Sonberg[mailto:debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 12:24 PM To: Rick Koch Subject: January 5, 2009 Informational Meeting Who is hosting the January 5, 2009 Limited Commercial informational meeting? Is it City Council or Planning & Zoning? Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, Alaska 99611 http://us.mc624.mail,yahoo.com/me/showMessage?fi? 9nfiox&sort=date&ordez--down&TstartMid... 2/14/2009 I00 \\ Me sdy Of 1✓`/ KENQV S January 5, 2009 Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 "V illay , wA a Past, C /y witk a 4i are fP 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 / Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.ci. kenaLak.us 5 27t RE: AUTHORIZATION FOR JANUARY 5 LC WORK SESSION We are in receipt of your email transmission of January 4, 2009 in which you assert the public informational meeting scheduled to be held January 5, 2009 in council chambers was scheduled and advertised improperly. Kenai City Council policy for Commission Committee Board and Council on Ae°in� Pvieetings and Work Sessions -- This policy refers to boards, commissions, committees, etc. It does not refer to the city manager. The meeting scheduled for January 5, 2009 is a meeting being held by the city manager with members of the public to provide information and answer questions on development options and restrictions available within the Limited Commercial Zone. This meeting is not a work session of council, a commission, committee, or board and is not a "meeting" covered under the above - referenced Council Policy or the Open Meetings Act. Meeting Authorization -- During the December 17, 2008 council meeting, discussion took place with regard to scheduling the meeting. Through council and administration's discussion, council was notified of administration's intention to hold an informational meeting with regard to the Limited Commercial Zone. Council stated no objections to the scheduling of the meeting. The Clerk is supervised by the Kenai City Council, Their acquiescence to scheduling the informational meeting in effect, directed the Clerk (and the City Manager in this instance) the meeting could be held. During that discussion, the meeting was identified as one of administration and not a council or commission work session or meeting. -310- 106 Debbie Sonberg January 5, 2009 Page 2 Meeting AdvertisemeYit -- The informational meeting was advertised through separate mailings to 300 property owners and in the newspaper. In addition, an article related to the informational meeting was in the January 4, 2009 edition of the Peninsula Clarion. Informational Meeting Cancellation Request -- The informational meeting scheduled for Monday, January 5, 2009 will not be cancelled. The meeting 'xdil take place in the council chambers at Kenai City Hall, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai and will begin at 6:00 p.m. CITY OF I ENAI Carol L. Freas City Clerk -311- ! D C- 210 Fidaigo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 / Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us \� ' Me ciE of /% KEN � K January 5, 2009 Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 RE: AUTHORIZATION FOR JANUARY 5 LC WORD SESSION We are in receipt of your email transmission of January 4, 2009 in which you assert the public informational meeting scheduled to be held January 5, 2009 in council i chambers was scheduled and advertised improperly. --0 4— L L fA I Kenai City Council Policy for Commission, Committee Board. and Council on A iging Meetings and ��%orli Sessions -- is: policy refers to o0er—S, CO1nmrS52Cn.S, Commlt.eeS, � } '' ctc. It does not refer to the city manager. The meeting scheduled for January 5, 2009 is a. meeting being held by the city manager with members of the public to provide C' (r . information and answer questions on development options and restrictions available (7 f within the Limited Commercial Zone. This meeting is not a work session of council, a commission, committee, or board ands not a "meet n" covered___u_n_ der the above- (�_ referenced Council Policy or the Open Meetings Act, ( �_ Meeting Authorization -- During the December 1.7, 2008 council meeting, discussion �1 took place with regard to scheduling the meeting. Through council and inarra administration's discussion, council was notified of administration's intention to hold jy 4-,e ,LL an informational meeting witb regard to the Limited Commercial Zone. Council stated 0('d no objections to the scheduling of the meeting. The Clerk is supervised by the Kenai 'City Council. Their acquiescence to scheduling the informational meeting in effect directed the Clerk (and the City Manager in this instance) the meeting could be held.exre ._ During that discussion, the meeting was identified as one of administration and not a council or commission work session or meeting. reou4 4t�5 is -312- f 0 C Debbie Sonberg January 5, 2009 Page 2 Meeting Advertisement -- The informational meeting was advertised through separate mailings to owners of property within 300 feet of the affected properties of the proposed rezone in addition to those who signed the petition submitted by Ms. Faikenberg at the December 3, 2008 council meeting and in the newspaper. In addition, an article related to the informational meeting was in the January 4, 2009 edition of the Peninsula Clarion. c-�oulxX� � & I Informational Meeting Cancellation Request -- The informational meeting scheduled for Monday, January 5, 2009 will not be cancelled. The meeting will take place in the council chambers at Kenai City Hall, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai and will begin at 6:00 n.rn. CITY OF KENAI Caroi L. Freas City Clerk -313- Alaska Statutes: AS 29.10.200. Limitation of Home Rule Powers. � f � Page 1 of 3 C.isa law Statutes, Rules & Cnnstitutions Misceltan�rius 5eerch Rei, ulanons Advertising with us can place you in front of thousands of visitors a day. Learn morel s `ate sales Pax Rate shop for htunicipai eonds Allw,,ate YUuc Stitt, G Ube iW" DlVerse, T. IH'ea HondS. L'5C With rmzl'a x. Demo Now! 1@f4 for 7nAlvfduzi Cnvmscor'o wvw,.A,Mara:ora wwwSt� verGl.�u..com Alas_ki Stai.utes. Side„2% Municipal Government Cam. Iber 70. Home Rule Municipalities Section 200, Limitation of Home Rule Powers. previous; SeGtLQn 1,00, Charter Amendment. next: Chaptu-13.. Home Rule Municipalities 2008 Government Grants Buy Muni sonds online eialoe5 or undwmed pavennnent Top `'election of Muni Fonda & Orants evarwAp'. Claim Your$ Yields, lax Fraa fn Your Stlol Cove, nmerttGraut'ror<009.com rM5twnds.rom Only the following provisions of this title apply to home rule municipalities as prohibitions on acting otherwise than as provided. These provisions supersede existing and prohibit future home rule enactments that provide otherwise; (1) AS ,2S_,06_$..4. (transition); (2) AS 29,06.010 (change of municipal name); (3) AS 29.06,040, - 28_,,96�0(0, (annexation and detachment); (4) AS 25_06 a4 - 24.00,.,Z7D (merger and consolidation); (5) AS 2.20�,100 - U,06.420. (unification of municipalities); (6) ASQ. (dissolution); (7) AS 1-.._.10,1:.00 (charter amendment); (8) AS 29 2,,Q.Q ,R (conflict of interest); 9) AS Z0.020 (meetings public);"` (10) AS 29 20,050 (legislative power); (11) AS 29 26 0.60 - 2,Q ;ZO„1.2.0, (assembly composition and apportionment); (12) AS 29. 2.p,,140 (qualifications of members of governing bodies); (13) AS 29,,,2,9„).,S..P., (term of office); (14) AS 292.U,Z2p (executive power); (15) AS 25.20 270 (a) (ordinance veto by mayor); (16) AS 22._ZaS30 (prohibited discrimination); (17) AS 25,Z0, 640. (reports); - ca. yr of w J ex em- i sl7n C'C ( tri �D U http://www.touchngo.com/Iglcntr/akstats/Statutes/T'itl`ee— /tapterl0/Section200.htm 21I4/2009 Alaska Statutes: AS 29.20.020. Meetings Public. I 1 � Page 1 of 1 Gas. Law stziut.s, Rules & Constitutions Mlsco6anesus Search R.9utauo.. Advertising with us can place you in front of thousands of visitors a day, Lga,mmorg! Moak. Governor Board of Qirectors 2009 Chevrolets in Alaska Ask A Lawyer Onfine Now limp',av, Galin Rebuild The GOP. Cirec ars 6 aowds Magav,re: Fee Local Alaska New 2009 Ohevrolels 14 lawyers, C'Aperts Are Onlmei Donate Todey, directm'S c arlenng selling under deal.' inZlce cost. Ask a Question, Get an Answer Sar.nPAC.com vmw.direcemsaaddeards.mm A1aska.Lnca1CarPrices.n1 ASAP LawJll5tAn5wfY.Com Al a aka_5tatutoa .T.Itle.29.. Municipal Government Chapter 20. Municipal Officers and Employees Section 20. Meetings Public. previous:.gGXsn_,1Q. Conflict of Interest. next: 5gStyog,,5Q. Legislative Power. S 29.20.020. Meetings Public. (a) Meetings of all municipal bodies shall be public as provided in .4.9_�Z,,,,..7„Q. he governing body shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at regular and special meetings. { (b) This section applies to home rule and general law municipalities. Article 02. GOVERNING BODIES An content 9) 2008 by Note to HTML Version: This version of the Alaska Statutes is current through December, 2007. The Alaska Statutes were automatically converted to HTML from a plain text format. Ever' effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, but this can not be guaranteed. If It is critical that the precise terms of the Alaska Statutes be known, it is recommended that more formal sources be consulted. For statutes adopted after the effective date of these statutes, see, If any errors are found, please e-mail Touch N' Go systems at E_rpoll. We hope you find this information useful. This page has been updated: 01/05/2009 16:04:45 2/14/2009 Alaska Statutes: AS 44.62.310. Government Meetings Public. 1 � G Page 1 of 3 Alaska' at"Yes Alaska AAminiakra We Code OPEN Government Act k5eeting Planning • Me RecCapture "FOI your team shack far Get& improve Records On Anyone lain Co rt Re Record -Cannel Call & Notes Call Download CO;; <heCkr�st 340 Download raewitRight ow! T 0- Meeting slaw Menapel Free Trial Right Now! Takes O-n-F-y 2 Room Manager. . T eTodMeeting instantly. Try it Free her". here, mwwlarzk5lmpllNty.cam SB:5. IW' '" esO www.Cogi.mm(Business V/WIV.prIYd50(f.00m Ctlml(Idi-Sn:a.CD:T%Cail(irY2C01'd5 Aia.ska_SkaS.�ee�. 'Fide 44. State Government 2hpppgr 62. Administrative Procedure Act Section 310. Government Meetings Public. previous: $.g_ctip�QS_. Judicial Relief in Administrative Matters. next: "Aection 312. State Policy Regarding Meetings. AS 44.62.310. Government Meetings Public, (a) All meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another provision of law. Attendance and participation at meetings by members of the public or by members of a governmental body may be by teleconferencing. Agency materials that are to be considered at the meeting shall be made available at teleconference locations if practicable. Except when voice votes are authorized, the vote shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote, The vote at a meeting held by teleconference shall be taken by roll call. This section does not apply to any votes required to be taken to organize a governmental body described In this subsection, (b) If permitted subjects are to be discussed at a meeting In executive session, the meeting must first be convened as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session to discuss matters that are listed In (c) of this section shall be determined by a majority vote.of the governmental body. The motion to convene in executive session must clearly and with specificity describe the subject of the proposed executive session without defeating the purpose of addressing the subject in private. Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those mentioned In the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main question. Action may net be taken at an executive session, except to give direction to an attorney or labornegotiator regarding the handling of a specific legal matter or pending labor negotiations. (c) The following subjects may be considered in an executive session, (1) matters, the Immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity; (2) subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion; (3) matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential; (4) matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure. (d) This section does not apply to (1) a governmental body performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function when holding a meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudicatory proceeding; (2) juries; (3) parole or pardon boards; (4) meetings of a hospital medical staff; (s) meetings of the governmental body or any committee of a hospital when holding a meeting solely to act upon matters of professional qualifications, privileges or discipline; (6) staff meetings or other gatherings of the employees of a public entity, including meetings of an employee group established by -316- http://www.touchngo.comllglentr/alcstats/Statutes/Title44/Chapter62/Section310.htm 2/14/2009 AIaska Statutes: AS 44.62.310. Government Meetings Public. Ii � (. Page 2 of 3 policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska or held while acting in an advisory capacity to the Board of Regents; or (7) meetings held for the purpose of participating in or attending a gathering of a national, state, or regional organization of which the public entity, governmental body, or member of the governmental body is a member, but only If no action is taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings. (a) Reasonable public notice shall be given for all meetings required to be open under this section. The notice must include the date, time, and place of the meeting and if, the meeting is by teleconference, the location of any teleconferencing facilities that will be used. Subject to posting notice of a meeting on the Alaska Online Public Notice System as required by AS 44.,52,�.75. (a), the notice may be given using print or broadcast media. The notice shall be posted at the principal office of the public entity or, If the public entity has no principal office, at a place designated by the governmental body. The governmental body shall provide notice in a consistent fashion for all Its meetings. (f) Action taken contrary to this section is voidable. A lawsuit to void an action taken in violation of this section must be filed in superlor court within 180 days after the date of the action. A member of a governmental body may not be named in an action to enforce this section in the member's personal capacity. A governmental body that violates or is alleged to have violated this section may cure the violation or alleged violation by holding another meeting in compliance with notice and other requirements of this section and conducting a substantial and public reconsideration of the matters considered at the original meeting. If the court finds that an action is void, the governmentalbody may discuss and act on the matter at another meeting held in compliance with this section. A court may hold that an action taken at a meeting held in violation of this section is void only if the court finds that, considering all of the circumstances, the public interest in compliance with this section outweighs the harm that would be caused to the public interest and to the public entity by voiding the action. In making this determination, the court shad consider at least the following: (1) the expense that may be incurred by the public entity, other governmental bodies, and Individuals if the action is voided; (2) the disruption that may be caused to the affairs of the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided; (3) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals may be exposed to additional litigation if the action is voided; (4) the extent to which the governing body, in meetings held in compliance with this section, has previously considered the subject; (5) the amount of time that has passed since the action was taken; (6) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, or individuals have come to rely on the action; (7) whether and to what extent the governmental body has, before or after the lawsuit was filed to void the action, engaged in or attempted to engage in the public reconsideration of matters originally considered in violation of this section; (8) the degree to which violations of this section were wilful, flagrant, or obvious; (9) the degree to which the governing body failed to adhere to the policy under AS 44 62 312 (a). (g) Subsection (fj of this section does not apply to a governmental body that 'as only authority to advise or make recommendations to a " uublic entity and has no authority to establish policies or make decisionss for the public entity. (h) In this section, (1) "governmental body" means an assembly, council, board, commission, committee, or other similar body of a public entity with fire authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity or with the authority to advise or make recommendations to the public entity; "governmental body" includes the members of a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body If the subordinate unit consists of two or more members; (2) "meeting" means a gathering of members of a governmental body when (A) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members collectively, and the governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity; or (B) the gathering Is prearranged for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the governmental body Is empowered to act and the governmental body has only authority to advise or make recommendations for a public entity but has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity; (3) "public entity" means an entity of the state or of a political subdivision of the state Including an agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a public authority or corporation, a municipality, a school district, and other governmental units of the state or a political subdivision of the state; It does not include the court system or the legislative branch of state government. All content © 2008 by Touch N' Go/Bright Solutions. Irtc. ....'Note to HTML Version: This version of the Alaska Statutes is current through December, 2007. The Alaska Statutes were automatically converted to HTML from a -317- http://www.touchngo.com/lvlcntr/akstats/Statutes,Title44/Chapter62/Section310.htm 2/14/2009 Alaska Statutes: AS 44.62.310. Government Meetings Public. I t e Page 3 of 3 plain text format. Every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, but this cannot be guaranteed. It It is critical that the precise terms of the Alaska Statutes be known, it is recommended that more formal sources be consulted. For statutes adopted after the effective date of these statutes, see, A10.Ska-..EkAk.&.6e is �t �r If any errors are found, please e-mail Touch M' Go systems at E_rpa1, We hope you find this information useful. This page has been updated: 01/05/2009 16:12:20 -318- http://ww",.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title44/Chapter62/Section310.htm 2/14/2009 Alaska Statutes: AS 44.62.342 State Policy Regarding Meetings. r Page I of I I case law statutes, Rules 6 ConeHtutFon� Miscatlaneous 9eareM Kogulat,.nS OPEN Government Act Landlord Tenant Laws 2009 Government Grants Get youPGIA Mom ready for ian,f.. Check landlord and tenant law 1a any of 51111ons of uslaimed povemment grenn OOVTAead me d,.0 s6 hh.e, the 50 9tata5, avallabl E. Cialm YffiVCI WWw,nrivaSoft.wM VJ1Nw.aGv3!iCa$jetfOaY!t.COfn G01VnrnentGra11tSF0r2009.00M AIASIta,,,Statutes. _ Title 44. State Government Ghap_ter_S2. Administrative Procedure Act Section 312. State Policy Regarding Meetings. previous: $.eC.tOrL_110. Government Meetings Public. next: Section 320, Submittal for Legislative Review, AS 44.62.312. State Policy Regarding Meetings. (a) It is the policy of the state that (1) the governmental units mentioned in AS 41,52,,310 (a) exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business; (2) it is the intent of the law that actions of those units be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly; (3) the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them; (4) the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know; M (5) the people's right to remain informed shall be protected so that they may retain control over the Instruments they have created'; (6) the use of teleconferencing under this chapter is for the convenience of the parties, the public, and the governmental units conducting the meetings. (b) AS g4,62 3 9. (c) and (d) shall be construed narrowly in order to effectuate the policy stated in (a) of this section and to avoid exemptions from open meeting requirements and unnecessary executive sessions. Article 07, LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF RULES All content © 2008 by ToughJJ,'_Gq/riyhs_S4.t4tLg45.,..3(.I.C,. Note to HTML Version: This version of the Alaska Statutes Is current through December, 2007. The Alaska Statutes were automatically converted to HTML from a plain text format. Every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, but this can not be guaranteed. If it is critical that the precise terms of the Alaska Statutes be known, it is recommended that more formal sources be consulted. For statutes adopted after the effective date of these statutes, see, giaska..S,k@tr?, L,gg(glaturg If any errors are found, please a-mai{ Touch N' Go systems at .d..Mpih We hope you find this information useful. This page has been updated! 01/05/2009 16:12:20 -319- httT)://warw.touchnvo.com/lalentr/alcstats/Statutes/Title44/C,hanter62/Section3l2.hfm 2/14/2009 Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page I of I --- On Mon, 115d09. Joe Moore <joem@adtrogco.com> wrote: From: Joe Moore <joem@aftrogco.com> Subject: RE: email regarding work session recommendations To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com Cc: "Caro! Frees" <cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us>, "Cary Graves" <cgraves@ci.kenai.ak.us>, "Rick Koch" < rkoch @ ci .ke n a i. a k u s> Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:01 AM Hi Debbie. I have been out of the office until today. You should make your request through the derkas office for a copy of my email. Ism sure she will be able to accommodate your request. Thanks and stay warml Joe From. Debbie Sonberg[mailto:debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:04 PM To: cpajoeCgualtrogco.com Subject: email regarding work session recommendations Hello Councilman Moore, (Joe) Ijust listened to the first half hour of the last council meeting. In it, you mention an email that you send to administration and council members. Since that is not in any epacket yet, would you please forward me a copy of that email? Thanks, Debbie -320- htto://colIIw.colIILinail.live. Cotnlmai"rintShell..Fn3z?tvne=meesauP, n..nirlc—fl1 zatn4r_i� �rcar7nna Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 2 f� -- On Fr'r, 2/13/09, Bob Frates <bftafes@ci.kena%ak.us> wrote: From: Bob Frates <bfrates@ci.kenai.ak.us> Subject: Re: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor To: debbie-sorvberg@yahoo.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 11:51 AM -.. The idea for special mtg just came about this past Wednesday so Carol is working toward getting Council approval. Once approved, she will advertise as she does with other meetings. Bob Frates -- Original Message --- From: Debbie Sonberg To: Bob Frates Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:13 AM Subject: Re: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor Is this special meeting being advertized anywhere or posted on the city Web page anywhere? I haven't been able to find anything on it yet. Debbie --- On Fri, 2/13/09, Bob Frates <barates@cUcena€.ak.us> wrote From: Bob Frates <bfrates@ci.kenai.ak.us> Subject: Re: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor To: debbie_ sonberg@y*=-com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 8:43 AM That's correct. Parks & Recreation will, however, hold a special mtg. on February 24th for a discussion about re -naming of a creek, community gardens, and gazebo location. Bob Frates, Director Kenai Parks & Recreation --- Original Message --- From: Debbie Sonberg To: bfrates@ci.kenai.ak.us Sent: Thursday, February 12, 200911:50 PM Subject: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor Would you please confirm that these are the next meeting dates for Parks & Recs & Harbor? Parks & Recs meeting first Thursday of April. April 2. Harbor meets first Monday after the first council meeting. March 9. Thanks, -321- httn-//onlIIwnnllt1mnillivPrnm/maiI1PrintCinPliotva;pf_ 115n.foMq Windows Live Hotmail Print Message — Cin Fri, /13jW�p €tobFrates <bPrates@ctkenn®,ak.us,swrote: From: Bob Frates <bfrates@c€ kenaLak.us7 Subject: Re: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor To: debbie_sonbergo@yahoo.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 8:43 AM That's correct. Parks & Recreation will; however, hold a special mtg. on February 24th for a discussion about re -naming of a creek, community gardens, and gazebo location. Bob Frates, Director Kenai Parks & Recreation --- Original Message -- From: Debbie Sonberg To: bfrates@ci.kenai.ak.us Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:50 PM Subject: Greek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor Hello Bob, Would you please confirm that these are the next meeting dates for Parks & Rees & Harbor? Parks & Pecs meeting first Thursday of April. April 2. Harbor meets first Monday after the first council meeting, March 9. Thanks, i1P�age I of I VL -322- http://co I I I w.coll It, mail.live.corn/mail/PrintShelLasDx?tvoe=messaee&-coids=eef8e03e-... 3/22/2009 DATE F 1 + Page 2 of 2 -323- http://www.ei.Icenai.ak.us/calendar.htrn 2/14/2009 From: loe Moore [mailtn:'oem@altrogw.com] nt• nes ay December 17,200 • To: 'Patricia Porter'; bany_eidridge@yahoo.com; hvsmalley@yahoo.com; cpajoe@altrogco.com; absoluteprincess101@yahoo.com; mboyle@aiaskacom; rossrck@hotmail.com; molloylaw@ak.net; 'Carol Freas' Cc, 'Marilyn Kebschull; 'Nancy Carver; Rick Koch Subject: RE: Rezone -- Rural Residential l to Limited Commercial 1 liked the information as well. I would like to seethe administration hold an informative work session, for the public, prior to the P and Z meeting on the 14" Subject would be the "Limited commercial zone" what is it? We have some materials that were drawn up by an airport planner several years ago when we created the zone. Those materials should be available at the work session. I believe the work session will allow a more informal dialogue between the administration, the public and council. The work session would avoid an ed iic rezoning issues and could be limited to an hour. My hope is to diffuse some of the misconceptions and mayb . "sell" he zone to more of the public. The administration and public worked very hard on this zone when it was created. e probably gave it the wrong name. Maybe "limited development" would have been better. I feel this outreach to the public will be well received and perhaps the public hearing on the 14`h of January will be more productive. Thanks Joe -324- 1.15.100 Speaking. ! Page 1 of l Kenai Municipal Cote Ct7 Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames Tilde P AGEt 5-RU QFr F.-O. S, AND EMpLQYE $ ��C- q_uy� n 6 + � Chap�r �„�,� RULJ~5 OF Qf2BER Gi `r- 1 i (a) A member about to speak shall respectfully address the Chair, and shall not commence to speak until recognized by the presiding officer. When two (2) or more members request to speak at the same time, the presiding officer shall determine which one is recognized. (b) Every member while speaking shall confine himself to the subject under debate, shall refrain from personalities, and shall not. refer to any other member of the Council except in a respectful manner. (c) Unless a member who has the floor yields for that propose, no member shall interrupt another while speaking, except to propound a parliamentary inquiry or make a point of order. (d) No member shall speak more than twice or for more than ten (10) minutes continuously to anyone question, except that one or more additional periods of ten (10) minutes may be granted by unanimous consent. The reading of papers desired by any member shall be read by himself or herself or by the City Clerk within the member's time limitation unless permission for the Clerk to read such paper outside the time limitation is unanimously granted. (KC 1-17) n_ C15Gt S'tU a 5c -325- http://www.gcode.us/codes/k-enai/view.php?topic=l-1 15-1 15 1008,frames=on 2/14/2009 -762�, December 17, 2008 Unscheduled public comments: Mark Schrag, 312 Princess Street (Note: Transcriber is Debbie Sonberg. This is not a verbatim, but is extremely close. Comments in braces and in red font are my own. I was not at this meeting.) Discusses the new MAPS rezone proposal. Process is very important. Asks for more collaborative process with the neighborhood. Request P&Z public hearing be postponed. Were told documents needed to be in before Christmas. Suggested mediation experts. Disconnect with views of comprehensive plan. Schrag: You can relax, I'm alone. I've talked to many of you individually, but tonight I want to address you collectively and on the record. Those I've talked to know I am, or was upset about how the last meeting played out. I'm referring here to the MAPS rezone proposal. in a sense, that is water under the bridge, and yet to use a water analogy, this is more like a lake, and anything that muddies the water doesn't just go away. Emotions become elevated, and clarity on the core issue or issues is harder to find. Process is very important. So I'm here tonight to advocate for a more collaborative process of doing business with the neighborhoods. Hopefully this can be a teachable moment, and at some point take a look at how this issue could have been handled differently, even for future reference, or anything, because we are all in the lake or whatever analogy you want to use together, and I believe we can do better. On the immediate issue of the Spur Highway rezone, I would request that you — I don't know how it has to work, but instruct city administration to postpone the public hearing before P&Z set forJanuary 14 by maybe one session, at least. So the neighborhood... at this point they have to — so they don't have to spent valuable pre -Christmas time getting documents submitted, (comment added by Debbie -- a neighbor called city hall specifically to ask when materials had to be submitted for the January 14 meeting and was told "December 24".] Because that what we've heard — it has to be submitted before that, before Christmas. In more general terms, I guess I'd just like to see some mediation experts possibly consulted on how things can be done more collaboratively, particularly on issues like this that we know are going to be controversial. We knew that this was a pretty hot issue. Both sides claim to be working from the comprehensive plan, so somewhere there's a disconnect here. And I guess I would like to see that. And having a judge decide that disconnect is not in the best interest of any of us. So, just a quote here, if it really applies or not, "If you need something from somebody, always give that person a way to hand it to you." So, anyway, it just has to do with more, working together more collaboratively, I guess. Porter: Are there any questions for Mr. Schrag? Moore (1): Mark, what date did you say you had to have your information submitted by for the January 14 meeting? Schrag: We were told before Christmas [the fact that this information was given is confirmed in an email from administration] Moore: Is that the case? Porter: Who said that? -326- Koch: Carol what's a day or the deadline for the 14th P&Z meeting? Nancy's not here and Marilyn is out of town. I like the 7th or 8", right? ... Anything that was turned in on the 6" or r' would be included in that packet. Schrag: O.K. so yea, I'm not sure where the disconnection is here then. Porter: So that's another disconnect. Schrag: I guess that helps. I'm not sure where they are on their stuff, but still another week or two wouldn't hurt. And I'll let them know that it doesn't have to be before Christmas. Boyle (1): 1 would like to suggest that we do postpone that issue until the meeting in February, the planning and zoning and if 1 need a motion to do that, l so move. Confusion between 9t" meeting date set and 14"". Mayor asked city attorney if that would be possible. Says I don't think we have the right to do that— it's a planning and zoning issue. Referred to city attorney. Graves: Agenda for P&Z hasn't been set yet, so items could still be changed. Council does have the right to submit the material at a later date. Council directed "by a date certain." [continued to discuss confusion between the January 9 instructions and the actual date of January 14j Smalley (1): do you see any problem with postponing this public hearing? Koch: (someone else's voice in the background interrupted and said it is time sensitive) Rick continued This issue would be resolved so that Dr. Wortham had time to prepare for this construction season. (Various developer related time comments) That was the consideration that I thought drove the Council's direction. I can't remember who said that. Maybe it was Councilman Moore... Moore (2): The purpose of my date was to accommodate the developer, Mr. Wortham. That date would still work into his construction plans. Molloy (1): 1 think you made some good points. What I would like to see happen is that there would be a work session at the January 14 meeting. Where I think Councilman Moore had a good idea about — that it might be productive to have a work session, not specifically on the proposed rezone, but on the LC zone in general -- to ; have more of a dialog between the public & P&Z commission, and then the proposed rezone, specifically could, be taken up at the next meeting, and that would give the neighborhood more time to prepare their position, as well as the developer... And we don't have to impinge on people's holidays. My impression of what council did [directed at the last meeting] was a little bit different ;from how it is now moving). What I thought happened was that the administration was directed to bring back a more comprehensive plan for rezoning of the ares in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan by January 9 [meaning January 141, not that there was suppose to be a specific plan to be voted on immediately. [someone interrupting softly saying "we couldn't deal with it down here] I recall a discussion with the developer where Council member Ross talked about a three-month time period, and he had said that that was not a problem for him. So I don't want to be a — like a dictator, you know, ... so that why I would support giving more time. -327- Porter (1): Council, if you look at the January 2009 calendar, their first meeting is scheduled for the 141h, maybe that might be a good time to have a work session at that time and come back with a plan before P&Zon the 2etn That gives you a whole month out. Does council pretty much agree with that? Moore (3): 1 don't. I was planning on discussing this a little later in the meeting, but since it has come up, proposal of a work session was going to be on the 5a' or 6" of January, and the reason for that was because our planner would be in town that week, and there is a chance that the planner will not be in town for the meeting on the 14". Our planner is key to this work session that I proposed in the email. So without her presence, I think that that wouldn't go over too well. Not for me, anyway. {some discussion on the planners absences --gone 4-5 days from the 1.P] Boyle (2): 1 would favor the work session on the 14`"and maybe if something has to come before us on the 28`h, or rather before planning and zoning, that they have to make a decision at that time. I think it's Important that all sides be allowed to have the time necessary. I would have no trouble pushing it back a month from the 10, but in the interest of serving the parties, I think that the neighborhood would like this time, and I don't think it is unreasonable to give it to them. And I think indeed, it's our responsibility to make sure that all parties have time they need to prepare for this and not have to rush through it. Schrag: I would say think a work session sooner is fine. Well, I guess I'm not sure what everybody sees as a work session, but I just see it as a way for people to get together outside of this format where there can be more give and take and a little bit more understanding, hopefully can be reached at this point. It's worth a try. It's worth a try. So an earlier work session I think would be fine, and then if we could also move the public hearing thing back two weeks [to the 2g`h]. Porter (2): So you're fine with a work session on the S'h or 6"? ... A work session is not a place you make your decision at. A work session Is merely a dialog.... Then bring it back for a action in one way or the other on the '<`dt"? Does that work for council? Moore (4): lam II for the work session on the 5" & 61h, but I want to hold firm to the January 14`h public hearing for the rezone. Eldridge (1): 1 wonder about the 7`fi as well, which would be prior to a council meeting on a Wednesday night, if, we did it earlier. If we did it later in the evening, then the 5" and Ch would probably work. 1, too, think it would be better to hold to the 14tb as of right now. There may be other delays built in when it gets to P&Z to take a look at, and I don't think we ought to build in any more delays at this level. Porter (3): Planning & Zoning, Council, has the opportunity to postpone something to another meeting. They don't have to just vote something up, down, or whatever on the 14". They can do just like we do — if you think you need a little more time you can postpone it until the next meeting. Am I correct in that? Unidentified voice (Graves?): That's correct. Molloy: I would prefer that the work session not be on a Council meeting night. The reason that — it may be longer than an hour. There may be a lot of people that attend and there may need to be a dialog. I'll be the one Im M that is at the meeting, because I am the liaison, but I would — but I don't mind going two nights. I think it would better serve the public if it was on a separate night. Porter: Councilman Smalley, just before you do that, though, it appears that, Mork, I don't' know if you are speaking for the neighborhood, but [answered "no"], it appears as if the 5`h or 6`h is probably going to be fine. And then maybe having it come before on the 140 like originally planned, and if it needed to be postponed, and/or something else, then it could come back on the 281h. That's a whole month away. Schrag: Yea, but we've got a couple of weeks that's pretty hectic. It not a normal two weeks, or whatever. That helps a little bit, maybe, Porter: that's three weeks (isn't considering that the public hearing is still on the 14"' — we have to be prepared for the 14Ph — we cannot be assured in any way that we will have three weeks — we must be fully prepared by the 14"' Debbie's added thoughts) Schrag: Yea, but I mean the next couple of weeks... Smalley (2): 1 would strongly favor an early meeting in that 5`h through the 91h week as far as us meeting with the planner, because the planner will be here. The thing with waiting until the 14`h before a meeting is, again, the city planner won't be here for that meeting. I think It is important that that person be here, so she'll be here for the meeting of the St' through the 9`h, whatever day ifs going to be, and then planning and zoning can do what it needs to do on the 14`h as well. I will not be available on the 5`hor the 6°h... [my thoughts — why is this work session so important for the planner to be at, but the rezone public hearing is not? ! see the public hearing and the planner carrying the burden of proof for P&Zas the applicant — actually administration is a co -applicant because administration recommended including city praperty in this rezone —to be at that meeting to present. This line of reasoning of the importance of the planner's presence at the work session and not the public hearing, ltself is ludicrous.] ... — ... Porter: O.K. Council, as it stands now, we will still have the work session on the 5th and the 6`h. O.K.? Moore (5): lust to clarify, on the 5a' and the 6`ha Porter: Well, either/or, which ever works — Moore: Because I just wanted to clarify, I had just sent an email to the rest of the council and the administration suggesting a work session to discuss the — not to discuss the issue of rezoning, but what the limited Commercial zone is —an information meeting only. I don't anticipate a huge debate at any work session about rezoning, but it's an information meeting to, where anyone who wants to come will learn what this zone is. And so, I guess, if I could ask administration if what we are talking about fits in to what maybe "they" had in mind. Koch: (obviously confused in initial comments) Based on the email I saw, and based on the information I got, I thought we were talking about a public meeting that the administration would have that would noticed the -329- %e, residents in the area that... Was it a ... and maybe I was mistaken in what your desire was. I wasn't thinking about a work session with council, but it doesn't matter. Moore: And I agree. My use of the word "work session" was simply to indicate there would be no decisions made. It would —it was an easier dialog for the general public and the council and the planning and zoning commission just to talk with the administration and the public. Porter: Just a question and answer period. (some inaudible comments going on...) Molloy: What I envision would be a planning and zoning work session, so I guess it would be a special meeting of the commission, but it is a work session with administration, planning and zoning, and the public Porter: A work session in not mandatory, so. So has everybody kind of figured out what we are doing? Several said "No." Koch: Administration just needs some direction... so is it lust going to be the public meeting that the administration is going to hold, if it's going to be a work session or a special meeting of the planning and zoning. We need -- I just need some direction from you as to what it's going to be. Porter: I just think it should be a public — my personal opinion — I think it should be public meeting. I think the planning and zoning commissioners invited, if they choose to be —and all the neighbors. Moore (6): Absolutely, Mayor Porter, I agree. I don't foresee this as a session where the council or the planning and zoning commission discusses the limited commercial zone. I foresee this as an informational meeting to the public about what the limited commercial zone is. Certainly, council and commissioners are invited to attend, but really it's for the public. It's not for the council, it's not for the commission. We should know what the limited commercial zone is, Porter: O.K. Schrag: With all due respect, if that's all it's about, then ... I think we know. I think the neighborhood pretty much knows. I'm not sure what new information, you know... Porter (5): It's an opportunity to communicate with one another. Maybe there are some people who live in the neighborhood who really don't understand the limited. I understand you probably really do, but there are some people who live further back in the neighborhood that don't ever come to these meetings. They may sign a petition, but they may not understand what it truly means. So it's an opportunity to explain that should they have questions. [my comment — we don't learn this stuff at the meetings — we have to research it ourselves because we can't depend on a consistent representation of these things from council, commissioners, or administrators.] Boyle (3): Are we talking about two different things now? Are we talking about a meeting to explain what a certain zone is? And then we're talking about a work session with the neighborhood about the neighborhood? -330- 7 -F ...or have I just... I thought we started on one topic and then we moved to another one [good point! — this was Mark Schrag's public comment time and it did start out asking for a more collaborative work session. It ended up with Joe Moore taking over and shifting the whole conversation to his memo related to an LC instructional -only work session.] Porter (6): Well, we may have. As I am interpreting that,... it appears as if the 5'h and 6th,depending on what is available for the planner, to have an open forum question and answer: "What is limited commercial?" "What is Rural Residential 1?" and how do the two compare together. And if anyone in the audience has questions... any council person can go, any planning and zoning, anyone from the general public can actually come if they are interested in that. That's what my interpretation of this meeting would be. And then the matter would still come forward on the 14�. Smalley: And that's kind of what I thought I heard. In other words, if Mark and or any of his neighborhood could come over and instead of posing an opinion, they could oppose a question in relationship to RRl and the limited commercial. Is that correct? Would that work for you? Schrag: I guess. I envisioned a work session as being something broader based ... just about this whole issue of how we do a bigger thing, of how we do development on the corridor, on the Spur corridor. It's a whole new issue; it's not just about this lot anymore. I don't know if you guys have seen the packet? Porter: Yep Smalley: Yea. Schrag: I mean there's a whole new rezone thing. Smalley (3): And, and see, and that's what I see being discussed there, but that also is going to be at, I think, a work session probably by P&Z on the 11" °. ;s that correct? Porter (and others): No, not a work session. Eldridge: It's going to be on the agenda. Smalley: O.K. Porter: Alright Council, we can sit here and belabor this... we need to make a decision on when we are having this public information meeting and whether or not this is coming before planning and zoning the 14Sh — that's the question. More than anything, it's the question: Is it coming before P&Z on the 14th like we gave instructions to administration. Eldridge (2): Well, my feeling is that we should let it continue to come forward before P&Z on the 14th and the work session on the LCL for that. I will be opposing any changes to that. Schrag: Can I ask one quick question? (recognized and allowed by Mayor Porter) Joe, Barry, why stuck on the 14th -331- Eldridge (3): Because it is certain time restraints that are coming up, and always when issues come before P&Z, there is a time frame that they take a look at it before something comes back to council.... As you're looking at — as the weeks go by, then all of a sudden you're well into spring. When it comes to us, we need to have it on the introductory consent agenda before we can vote on it a couple weeks later. You know, you start piling on extra weeks get way into the spring, so I think we need to take a good look it on the 14°h Boyle: What we have is an issue of two different groups and one represents a large body, and I don't see any reason why we have to rush at those two weeks. Porter: Councilman Boyle, you have an opportunity to make a motion on the floor if you would like to have us address it [note that earlier, he already made a motion, but it wasn't recognized or acted onj. Boyle: ... I would love to do that, and then I would move that we postpone we have administration submit this action to P&Z so that they will be heard on the 28tn Porter: Asked if there was any discussion. (motion failed) Boyle, Molloy, Smalley voted in favor of the postponement. Student representative advisory vote was in favor of the motion. Moore, Eldridge, and Porter voted against the postponement. (Ross was absent) [Isn't a motion supposed to be read in full before a vote? There was already a motion on the floor within the first couple of minutes after fir. Schrage spoke, but it was not recognized; it was not seconded; but, discussion ensued. With as much confusion as there was over this whole issue, I'm not sure that what was being voted or, ._ was clear, in the same way, in all of their minds, and certainly not in my mind. There were two motions on the a floor at the same time, adding to the listeners' and readers' confusion. The public was not asked if they...anted to comment on the motion., Would a public comment of a motion have been appropriate? I thought the public could comment on any motion. I think the invitation should have been made. Isn't that a point that Mayor Porter made when she called in to Sound off the other day?l At the end of the meeting, when council makes comments around the table, Councilman Moore stated that he was disappointed in the public testimony we had with respect to the idea of a public information work session, whatever you want to call it. I think that it's a great idea. I'm not discouraged by one member of the community's displeasure or not thinking that it was a good idea. I think it's a great idea and I'm glad the city is moving forward with it. -332- Authorization for January 5 LC Work Session - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 3 MAIL Ons914 Authorization for January 5 LC work Session From. "Debbie Sonberg" <debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com> Tot "Carol Freas" <cfreas@ei.kenai.ak.us>, cgraves@ci.kenai.ak.us, rkoch@el.kenal.ak.us, kenalmayorl0@msn.com, cpajoe@altrogco.com, rossrcic@hotmail.com, mboyle@alaska.com, bob@molloyforcouncil.com, hvsmalley@yahoo.com, barry_eldridge@yahoo.com, jtwait@alaska.net, scott@redoubtrealty.com, korkev@yahoo.com, rawells@wradvisors.com, pbryson@wcbalaska.com, brookman@alaska.net, kkoester@yahoo.com, mkebschu 11@c(. kenai,ak.us Cot phillip.hermanek@peninsulaclarlon.com Beet "Colleen Ward" <xcel@alaska.com>, "Janine espy" <dialaprayer@yahoo.com>, "Becky Espy" <beckyespy@hotmall.com>, "Mark & Nancy" <nmschrag@hotmaN.com>, "P, Falkenberg" <pet_ral nbow@yahoo.com> December 17 Mark Schrag public comments & council discussion.doc (551ka) Dear Carol, Rick, Attorney Graves, Council members, and P&Z Commissioners, Sunday, January 4, 2009 8:13 PM The November 19 Council epacket 23 contains a document entitled "Kenai City Council Policy for Commission, Committee, Board and Council on Aging Meetings and Work Sessions." The section on Work Sessions, items 12 & 13 indicate to me that C ty_Clerk approval is needed prior to scheduling a work session teat is not on a regularly scheduled meeting day. 12. Commission, committees, and boards shall receive the City Clerk's approval to hold work sessions to be held on a date other than that of a regularly scheduled meeting or at a time immediately prior to a regularly scheduled meeting... 13. Work sessions may not be held without the approval of the City Clerk unless they ocur on the night of and at the time of a regularly -scheduled meeting. 14. During work sessions, only O ms on the work session agenda may be discussed and no formal actions may,`aV�Q be taken. / �r Ai fNi t, o,s tz_ P 66 Ja-e. Mc.,) r-e trJ 1 L4�k u / I don't believe this policy was followed. in additio-4, this work session never made it or, to the city calendar of events and meetings http.:_llwy w cl kenaiak us/galendar,htm. It is also not listed on the special meetings page through the council Zink http;!lwww,cl kenatak.uslspegalnotices_,h#ml. AS 44.62.310 requires that all "he notice shall be posted at the principal office of the public entity or, if the public entity has no principal office, at a place designated by the governmental body. The governmental body shall provide- noticiein a consistenY.,tash o..n_for alI_Its_rneeJiL Work sessions can only cover the topic(s) specifically listed in the official posting, which in this case is: The City of Kenai will hold a meeting to provide information regarding a proposed rezone of properties located north of the Kenai Spur Highway from McCollum Drive to the Wal-Mart property from the Rural Residential 1 and Conservation zones to ... _................... the Limited Commercial zone. The purpose of the meeting is to providecitizens information_ and answer..questlons--on develcolTtenf_o bons end res_frictions available within the Limited Commercial zone. (from http //wwyv cl kenai_@k uslspeg alnotices him) I have a typed seven -page transcript of the council meeting session (December 17, 2008) when Mark Schrag spoke to the council about scheduling some collaborative work sessions. The entire conversation shows a lot of confusion by all council members as to what was being discussed and what was being scheduled, what type of work session(s), what purpose, etc. 2/14/2009 Authorization for January 5 LC Work Session - Yahoo! Mail F � Page 2 of 3 1 respectfully request that the January 5, 2009 meeting be cancelled so that planning and zoning may be allowed to more fully consider collaborative work sessions that will be inclusive of the LC zone and RR1 zone options with purposes that are clearly understood by all parties. Since much council discussion has centered around the developer's schedule, I would like to clarify that the developer stated, on record at the November 12 P&Z meeting, that a three month process would be fine -- and -- that he wouldn't be breaking ground in three months anyway. It is important to follow procedures in order to prevent future delays. Other procedures in this current rezone process maya_Is_o,be_in,,,q_u.estion, As Councilman Smalley said, "it is better to be right than to be popular." This includes following the KMC code, city policies, and many other valuable guiding city and state legal documents. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Debbie Sonberg -410 Cinderella Street Kenai, Alaska 99611 907-283-5880 --- On Fri, 112t09, Carol Freas <cfreas@cf.kenar.ak.us> wrote: From: Carol Freas <cfreas@ci.kena1.ak.us> Subject: RE: Audio CDs of meetings To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 8:04 AM Good morning Debbie, I'm not sure what you mean by the 'authorization' for the meeting m= published through the;, larr� 2onine3 you acquire the information you're lookiing Carol L. Freas, City Clerk City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Phone: (907) 283-7535, extension 231 Fax: (907) 283-5068 5 informational meeting.' Any ads for the i? Please clarify and I'll do what I can to W� jam, �r�f�tL 11,6 yl , L j Q, `-y a n d V\CJ r--`� 1 J From: Debbie Sonberg[maiito:debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com]h Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:32 PM To: Carol Freas Subject: RE: Audio CDs of meetings 1 eta r n � C�J Hi Carol, I'm sorry you were experiencing the technical difficulties. I will be in on Friday morning at 10, or shortly after, to pick the CDs up. I would also like a copy of your authorization for the January 5 informational meeting. -334- htto://us.mc624.mail.vahoo.com/mc/showMessaae?fid=Sent&sort=to&order=un&startMid=O&..ra_ 2/14/2009 Authorization for January 5 LC Work Session - Yahoo! Mail Page 3 of 3 Thank you, Debbie -- On Wed, 12131/08, Carol Freas <cfreas@cl.kenai.ak.us> wrote: From: Carol Freas <cfreas@ci.kenai.ak.us> Subject: RE: Audio CDs of meetings To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 4:50 PIA Hi Debbie, Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. There were some technical difficulties and the CD's will be ready for you to pick up on Friday morning by 10:00 a.m. Carol L. Freas, City Clerk City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Phone: (907) 283-7535, extension 231 Fax: (907) 283-5068 From. Debbie Sonberg[mailto:debbie—sonberg@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:21 PM To: Carol Freas Subject: Audio CDs of meetings Hi Carol, Could you give me an Idea of When you expect to be able to net to this prnjant M vi R r P 7 R Council y p _ _ -- n De.. &_ _ __u meetings, workshops, and training sessions)? Debbie -335- http://us-mc624.inail. yahoo.com/mc%shoWMessape?fid=Sent&sort=to&ordei=u-o&startMid=O&.ra... 2/14/2009 RE: January 5, 2009 Informational Meeting - Yahoo! Mail f0 0�, Page I of I �MAt L CSummit RE: January 5, 2009 Informational Meeting From: 'Rick Koch" <rkoch@ci.kena1.ak.us> To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com Cc: "Marilyn Kebschull° <mkebschu04)c1.kemn.a1k.us> Ms. Sonberg, Monday, December 22, 2008 1:47 PM Neither, the informational/discussion meeting is being hosted by the administration. Thanks, I look foRnrard to seeing you there, Rick R. Koch City Manager -City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Ave. Kenai, AK 99611 (907)283-8222 (907}398-0190 From: Debbie Sonberg[mailto:debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 12:24 PM To: Rick Koch Subject: January 5, 2009 Informational Meeting Who is hosting the January 5, 2009 Limited Commercial informational meeting? Is it City Council or Planning & Zoning? Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, Alaska 99611 -336- littu://us.mc624.mail.vahoo.com/me/showMessaae?fid=lnbox&sort=date&order =down&,RtartMid... 2/14 /2009 �0o, January 5, 2009 Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai., AK 99611 114114ye with a Pa5f, C# wigs a Fug are>` 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 / Fax: (907) 283-3014 www,ci.kenai.ak.us f1 �v R �CpSS� C� EMAIL TRANSMfSSrON OP JANUARY 4, 2009 We are in receipt of your email transmission of January 4, 2009 in which you assert the public informational meeting scheduled to be held January 5, 2009 in council chambers was scheduled and advertised improperly. Kenai..Cit", Cou-cL Folic- F .. C-otn7nission. Coinmittee. =0ar(7 and Council oil Aaina Meetings and Work Sessions -- This policy refers to boards, commissions, committees, etc. It does not refer to the city manager. The meeting scheduled for January 5, 2009 is a meeting being held by the city manager with members of the public to provide information and answer questions on development options and restrictions available within the Limited Commercial Zone. This meeting is not a work session of council, a commission, committee, or board and is not a "meeting" covered under the above - referenced Council Policy or the Open Meetings Act. Meeting Authorization -- During the December 17, 2008 council meeting, discussion took place with regard to scheduluzg the meeting. Through council and administration's discussion, council was noted of administration's intention to hold an informational meeting with regard to the Limited Commercial Zone. Council stated no objections to the scheduling of the meeting, The Clerk is supervised by the Kenai City Council, Their acquiescence to scheduling the informational meeting in effect, directed the Clerk (and the City Manager in this instance) the meeting could be held. During that discussion, the meeting was identified as one of administration and not a council or commission work session or meeting. -337- Debbie Sonberg January 5, 2009 Page 2 Meeting Advertisement -- The informational meeting was advertised through separate mailings to 300 property owners and in the newspaper. In addition, an article related to the informational meeting was in the January 4, 2009 edition of the Peninsula Clcuion, Informational Meeting Cancellation Request -- The informational meeting scheduled for Monday, January 5, 2009 will not be cancelled. The meeting will take place in the council chambers at Kenai City Hall, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai and will begin at 6:00 p.m. CITY OF KENAi Carol L, Freas City Clerk -338- IDS L.. rrWlage wick a Past C# with a Fightre rr 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 / Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us eke city W January 5, 2009 Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 RE: AUTHORIZATION FOR JANUARY 6 LC WORK SESSION EXAM TRANSMISSION OF dANUARY 4, 2009 We are in receipt of your email transmission of January 4, 2009 in which you assert the public informational meeting scheduled to be held January 5, 2009 in council chambers was scheduled and advertised improperly. Meetings and Work Sessions -- This policy refers to boards, commissions, committees, etc. It does not refer to the city manager. The meeting scheduled for January 5, 2009 is a meeting being held by the city manager with members of the public to provide information and answer questions on development options and restrictions available within the Limited Commercial Zone. This meeting is not a work session of council, a commission, committee, or board and is not a "meeting" covered under the above - referenced Council Policy or the Open Meetings Act. Meeting Authorization -- During the December 17, 2008 council meeting, discussion took place with regard to scheduling the meeting, Through council and administration's discussion, council was notified of administration's intention to hold an informational meeting with regard to the Limited Commercial Zone. Council state no objections to the scheduling of the meeting. The Clerk is supervised by the Kenai City Council. Their acquiescence to scheduling the informational meeting in effect t the Clerk (and an the City Mager in this instance) the meeting could be held_ that discussion, the meeting was identified as one of administration and not a or co son work session or meeting. I t zz d kyv� � n� �rVt,-E cvu^a i t OC) Debbie Sonberg January 5, 2009 Page 2 Meeting Advertisement -- The informational meeting was advertised through separate mailings to owners of property within 300 feet of the affected properties of the proposed rezone in addition to those who signed the petition submitted by Ms. Falkenberg at the December 3, 2008 council meeting and in the newspaper. In addition, an article related to the informational meeting was in the January 4, 2009 edition of the Peninsula Clarion.,b . _,L Informational Meeting Cancellation Reouest -- The informational meeting scheduled for Monday„ January 5, 2009 will not be cancelled. The meeting will take place in the council chambers at Kenai City Hall, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai and will begin at 6:00 p.m. CITY aF KENAI Carol L. Freas City Clerk -340- Alaska Statutes: AS 29.10.200. Limitation of Home Rule Powers. 1 1 0�, Page 1 of 3 Case Caw statutes, Rules a CansNiutions Miscallaneovs Soarcfi Regulations Advertising with us can place you in front of thousands of visitors a day. Learn more,' ______.-,_____..._.--__._..—___.._.._.._.__..__.._...-.____�o—._._.-.�_.._.—.._._._^_.__. State Sates Tax Rate Sho p Por Municipal Bonds 2tl09 6ovornment Grants Buy Muni Bonds Online 4naWin nate TZ4Y. atYNI �Indwae9 den(1G LA. Wneldl.(Il U 5, wlfh NOW! AvaTax.4r rr.o o ' Y$ed fUY SatlfVldUill [nVe9E0['S b grans a or Yours! tlYankS available. L aim VO4[9! YIQItlS. TdX F[t;Q n YOU[ S'Ctllf Ylei Tatl F, a in YourSlat .Awaax. can, www.Avalare.mm Needs. Gnvernment6rentsFor20pS.com FhlSbonde.Com www. GtoeverGinss.cmn 81a.ska_Stakutas• TIMP_2.2. Municipal Government CLiapteLl0. Home Rule Municipalities Section 200. Limitation of Home Rule Powers. previous: 9,g,Cjigp„),Og,. Charter Amendment. next: Chapt_gL.13.. Home Rule Municipalities Only the following provisions of this title apply to home rule municipalities as prohibitions an acting otherwise than as provided, These provisions supersede existing and prohibit future home rule enactments that provide otherwise: (1) AS 29„95, 140 (transition); (2) AS 21A4,010 (change of municipal name); (3) AS 29.06.040 - 29.06.060 (annexation and detachment); (4) AS Za.06.o90 - 29.9t1ZP- (merger and consolidation); (5) AS 29,D_6„.14.Q - 29,Oq„ 42P. (unification of municipalities); (6) AS 22,.X4,5Q - 24,2iz,S,35! (dissolution); (7) AS 2Q,iQ -OQ (charter amendment); (8) AS 24.,.20,.4.1:.R (conflict of interest); 9) AS 29.2Q.020 (meetings (10) AS 24 29_950 (legislative power); ,--4s -)gI lac ff) S t9��c rzU1 1 X .,,(per d B�JJ e' ti (11) AS 29,,2Q,06Q - 29 2Q,124_ (assembly composition and apportionment); (12) AS ,Za—,Z,Q,?,4... (qualifications of members of governing bodies); (13) AS 29 —U_1S4. (term of office); (14) AS 29,2.0y2.2Q (executive. power); (15) AS Z9,ZO 27Q (e) (ordinance veto by mayor); (16) AS 29,Z0..639 (prohibited discrimination); - (17) AS 292Q._�49, (reports); -341- htto:/lwww.touchnuo.com/lelentr/akstats/Statutes/Title29/Chanterl0(Section200-htm 9/14/2009 Alaska Statues: AS 29.20,020. Meetings Public. I I b Page I of 1 k5V,A i._ Case Law nataPutbs, Rules u ConwCiCutiona kiiece(:alreous &earch Rgptd3NFpn5 Advertising with us can place you in front of thousands of visitors a day. Learn morel Alaska Governor boar 2(1e9 Chevrolets :n A3 ask, Aek A Caw Rr Now 3ov, r-efn RmbuGd the (iOP. cls V, BecCors L`ir=_c'Cm'Y. Px 6oanls R9aya'cme: I"rey Locrr4 Alnaan 4ew grp9 Ghevrnl¢tr 14 L4rrayll5i tix0ertm hrq Onikiet ".Pelt, A Dm IDonRpC'Tndey. utlwfts's e-Brlellw Solting unvmr dealer nvoim; ost. Ask a Cyuestlan, Ge& an Answer SamhFAG.lbtr w� w.Gimatan,-ondhoarus'mm tde5ka.t.aoaiC„srPdq,:•..ron: ASAP t,aw.,IDatAnsv,er.corn Alaska_Stdtut_e-s. Title.,2.9, Municipal Government CIjVter 2g. Municipal Officers and Employees Section 20. Meetings Public. previous:. 5ectLQg_iQ., Conflict of Interest, next: $aCtjpc_S ,, Legislative Power. AS 29.20.020. Meetings Public. (a) Meetings of alt municipal bodies shall be public as provided in 44.62.210. he governing body shall. provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at regular and special meetings. (b) This section applies to home rule and general law municipalities. Article 02. GOVERNING BODIES All content @ 2008 by TguCh,N' Gg/(3rlo[t 4,gI!,lClg,ny,__n,C, Nate to HTML Version: This version of the Alaska Statutes is current through December, 2007, The Alaska Statutes were automatically converted to HTML from a plain text format. Every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, but this can not be guaranteed, If it is critical that the precise terms of the Alaska Statutes be known, it is recommended that more formal sources be consulted. For statutes adopted after the effective date of these statutes, see, gl,dSlid_StdteJ...eg lSi?SItYe. If any errors are found, please e-mail Touch N' Go systems at E _mail. We hope you find this information useful This page has been updated: 0110512009 16:04:45 tlttp://www.touclnngo.com/lglcntri'akstatsIStatutesITitle2I�hapter2OlSection020.htm 2114i2009 Alaska Statutes: AS 44.62.310. Government Meetings Public. Page 1 of 3 �5OUR.Ct CUNTC Alasks .'Rahites IAINYiW N(9 nill, tr LM! OPEN Government Act Meetilig Plil.mdq a F.r-e-e court Recoldia "" Record •Ieotinsu, 6M.t wdr K)TA tl3am rasatly for Improve OPf ce CPo'alknry v:ith 011ahn courU as, 01.011 On An/cc}e Capture}. the cal! a Me'tIng Notes 'tent. Pownlcnd iten cBeckgsu s''lung Rea" Ma i9er. F— T. tight NmY- fake O-n.: y 7 "IlTf R1, Try t F,,,c Fotluy! 1'2YC. YIW+i.NCLS1:Mp�IC�[y.: (}T� .a4.G 6.�r'^ vYt4W _Ln�l.('URl/rlUii(1855 wmw}.prlrauoftcom G'Ynllnal-A}±'o.comlCnurlSs_�nrds A!aslca_5tatutes. jitte 4a, State Government Chapl er, 62. Administrative Procedure Act Section 310. Government Meetings Public, previous: S_ectipn 3q,z. Judicial Relief in Administrative Matters. next: $_action _3aZ, State Policy Regarding Meetings. (a) All meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another provision of law. Attendance and participation at meetings by members of the public or by members of a governmental body may be by teleconferencing. Agency materials that are to be considered at the meeting shall be made available at teleconference locations If practicable. Except when voice votes are authorized, the vote shall be conducted In such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote. The vote at a meeting held by teleconference shall be taken by roll call. This section does not apply to any votes required to be taken to organize a governmental body described in this subsection. (b) If permitted subjects are to be discussed at a meeting In executive session, the meeting must first be convened as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session to discuss matters that are listed in (c) of this section shall be determined by a majority vote of the governmental body. The motion to convene in executive session must clearly and with specificity describe the subject of the proposed executive session without defeating the purpose of addressing the subject In private. Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those mentioned In the motion calling for the executive session !-less auxiliary to the main question. Action may not be, taken at an executive session, except to give direction to an attorney or labor negotiator regarding the handling of a specific legal matter or pending labor negotiations. (c) The following subjects may be considered in an executive session: (1) matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity; (2) subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion; (3) matters whoh by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential; (4) matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure. (d) This section does not apply to (1) a governmental body performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function when holding a meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudeatory proceeding; (2) juries; (3) parole or pardon boards; (4) meetings of a hospital medical staff; (5) meetings of the governmental body or any committee of a hospital when holding a meeting solely to act upon matters of professional qualifications, privileges or discipline; (6) staff meetings or other gatherings of the employees of a public entity, including meetings of an employee group established by http://w", touchngo.eom/lglentr/akstatsIStatutesITitl34i�-hapter62ISection3I0.htn1 2/14/2009 Alaska Statutes: AS 44,62.310. Government Meetings Public. � `GAS Page 2 of 3 policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska or held while acting in an advisory capacity to the Board of Regents; or (7) meetings held for the purpose of participating in or attending a gathering of a national, state, or regional organization of which the public entity, governmental body, or member of the governmental body is a member, but only If no action is taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings. (e) Reasonable public notice shall be given for all meetings required to be open under this section. The notice must Include the date, time, and place of the meeting and If, the meeting is by teleconference, the location of any teleconferencing facilities that will be used. Subject to posting notice of a meeting on the Alaska Online Public Notice System as required by AS 4J.,2_17.`v (a), the notice may be given using print or broadcast media. The notice shall be posted at the principal office of the public entity or, If the public entity has no principal office, at a piece designated by the governmental body. The governmental body shall provide notice in a consistent fashion for all its meetings. J) Action taken contrary to this section is voidable. A lawsuit to void an action taken in violation of this section must be filed in superior :ourt within 180 days after the date of the action. A member of a governmental body may not be named in an action to enforce this section n the member's personal capacity. A governmental body that violates or is alleged to have violated this section may cure the violation or 3Ileged violation by holding another meeting in compliance with notice and other requirements of this section and conducting a substantial and public reconsideration of the matters considered at the original meeting. If the court finds that an action is void, the governmental body nay discuss and act on the matter at another meeting held in compliance with this section. A court may hold that an action taken at a meeting held in violation of this section is void only if the court finds that, considering ail of the circumstances, the public interest in :ompliance with this section outweighs the harm that would be caused to the public interest and to the public entity by voiding the action. In making this determination, the court shall consider at least the following: (1) the expense that may be incurred by the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided; (2) the disruption that may be caused to the affairs of the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals If the action Is voided; (3) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals may be exposed to additional litigation if the action is voided; (4) the extent to which the governing body, in meetings held in compliance with this section, has previously considered the subject; (5) the amount of time that has passed since the action was taken; (6) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, or individuals have come to rely on the action; (7) whether and to what extent the governmental body has, before or after the lawsuit was filed to void the action, engaged in or attempted to engage in the public reconsideration of matters originally considered in violation of this section; (8) the degree to which violations of this section were wilful, flagrant, or obvious; (9) the degree to which the governing body failed to adhere to the policy under AS 49_62.g12 (a). (g) Subsection (f) of this section does not apply to a governmental body that has only authority to advise or make recommendations to a public entity and has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity. (h) In this section, (1) "governmental body" means an assembly, council, board, commission, committee, or other similar body of a public entity with the authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity or with the authority to advise or make recommendations to the public entity; "governmental body" includes the members of a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body if the subordinate unit consists of two or more members; (2) "meeting" means a gathering of members of a governmental body when (A) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members collectively, and the governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity; or (B) the gathering is prearranged for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act and the governmental body has only authority to advise or make recommendations for a public entity but has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity; (3) "public entity" means an entity of the state or of a political subdivision of the state including an agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a public authority or corporation, a municipality, a school district, and other governmental units of the state or a political subdivision of the state; it does not include the court system or the legislative branch of state government. All content © 2008 by Tou4h N', Gg(Bright Solutionl Inc,, Note to HTML Version: This version of the Alaska Statutes is current through December, 2007. The Alaska Statutes were automatically converted to HTML from a http://wv w.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Titl34ii7bapter62/Section3lO.hn 214/2009 Alaska Statutes: AS 44.62.310. Government Meetings Public. � g Page 3 of 3 plain text format. Every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, but this cannot be guaranteed. If it is critical that the precise terms of the Alaska Statutes be known, it is recommended that more formal sources be consulted. For statutes adopted after the effective date of these statutes, see, gl_as_kp_statg., t,,eglslat4re If any errors are found, please a -mail Touch N' Go systems at E-rltdil, We hope you find this information useful. This page has been updated: 01/05/2009 16:12:20 -34 13ttp:/lwww.touchngo.rom/lglentr/akstats/Statutes/Title44PC hapter62/Sectioii3l O,htm 211412009 Alaska Statutes: AS 44.62.312. State Policy Regarding Meetings. i Page 1 of 1 ( _cash Law SYatetes, Rvles & C¢nstibxfl¢ns I Mfsce[lnmeous Sexrch Req¢txiti¢ns OPEN Government At Landlord Tenant Laws 2009 Government Grants GeCycU, fJU WIM rivdy to, ]dm.l.. Check IO1,if1U C: and tempt aW In Miy uP 9,:lions of U¢CFtlI ail govam.... gr�itt9 no,,Moad ure hi ,e. tl'It Ell stHtm. 13VdIlAb J". chim Y00[41 www.ixrlvasofl'.mm wvow.advmrtl:�go[enai8.[om Gn¢ cmmertGisatsFornC9.cnm his AI a skcr_.S t a turps . Titl�44, State Government Chapter_62. Administrative Procedure Act Section 312. State Policy Regarding Meetings previous: MecUon-_1kG. Government Meetings Public. next: Section 320. Submittal for Legislative Review. AS 44.62.312. State Policy Regarding Meetings. (a) It is the policy of the state that (1) the governmental units mentioned in AS 44,62. 1p (a) exist to aid In the conduct of the people's business; (2) It is the intent of the law that actions of those units be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly; (3) the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them; (4) the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what Is not good for them to know; (S) the people's right to remain informed shall be protected sothat they may retain control over the instruments they have created; (6) the use of teleconferencing under this chapter is for the convenience of the parties, the public, and the governmental units conducting the meetings. (b) AS 44_62_3_lq (c) and (d) shall be construed narrowly in order to effectuate the policy stated in (a) of this section and to avoid exemptions from open meeting requirements and unnecessary executive sessions. Article 07. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF RULES All content © 2008 by.T.4u.CC-.CP_C�41$rigtit._S_4.Iut1.4n5.,,,.I0G,, Note to HTML Version: This version of the Alaska Statutes Is current through December, 2007, The Alaska Statutes were automatically converted to HTML from a plain text format. Every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, but this can not be guaranteed. If it is critical that the precise terms of the Alaska Statutes be known, it is recommended that more formal sources be consulted, For statutes adopted after the effective date of these statutes, see, Aka Stare„_Legsiatura If any errors are found, please a -mall Touch N' Go systems at E.-n1ai1. We hope you find this information useful. This page has been updated: 01/05/2009 16:12:20 http://www.touchnao.com/lglcntrlakstats/Statutes/TiT]e44i�hapter62/Sectioii312.htm 2/14/2009 Windows Live Hobnail Print Message 12— Page I of I --- 4n mots, 1/5/EI9, Jere Moore <poetn@asftrogco.com> wrote: From: Joe Moore <joem@altrogco.com> Subject: RE: email regarding work session recommendations To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com Cc: "Carol Freas" <cfreas@cf.kenai.ak.us>, "Cary Graves" <cgraves@ci.kenal.ak.us>, "Rick Koch" <rkoch@ci.kenai.ak.uS> Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:01 AM K Debbie. I have been out of the office until today. You should make your request through the clerkns office for a copy of my email. Urn sure she will be able to accommodate your request. Thanks and stay warml Joe Prorm Debbie Sonbe€vg(maitto:debUe_sonberg@yahoo.comJ Seta. Friday, January 02, 2009 9!04 PM Tcsa cpajoe@altrogco.com Su4jec,^t: email regarding work session recommendations Hello Coundirnan Moore, (Joe) Ijust listened to the first half hour of the last council meeting. In it, you mention an email that you send to administration and council members. Since that is not in any epacket yet, would you please forward me a copy of that email? Thanks, Debbie -347- http://coI I Iw.colt I Ltnail, live, comh3iail,/PrintShell.aspz?type--message&cpids=018alc9c-b... 2/9/2009 Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page I of 2 --- On Pei, 2/13/09,flab Frates <bfrotes@cLkenaLak.u-,5 wrote: From: Bob Frates <bfrates@c;.kenai.ak.us> Subject: Pe: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor To: d--bbie-sonberq@yatioo.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009,11:51. AM Debbie, The idea for special mig just came about this past Wednesday so Carol is working toward getting Council approval, Once approved, she will advertise as she does with other meetings. Bob Frates Original Message -- From: Debbie 'Sonberg To: Bob Frates Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 913 AM Subject: Re: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor Is this special meeting being advertized anywhere or posted on the city Web page anywhere? I haven't been able to find anything on it yet. Debbie ---On Fri, 2113/09, Bob Frates <bfrates@cLkenaLak.us> wrote: From: Bob Frates Subject: Re.: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor To: debbie-.sonberq@yahoo.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 8:43 AM 11 Recreation will, however, hold a special m1k.4. c b on ir e- ruary 24tl I fo-F a discussion about re -naming of a creek, community gardens, and gazebo location.. Bob Frates, Director Kenai Parks & Recreation -- Original Message From: Debbie Sonberg lo: bfrates@6kenai.ak us Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:50 PM Subject: Creek discussion for Park, & Race & Harbor Hello Bob, Wouid you please confirm that lhese. are the next meeting dates for Parks & Recs & Harbor? Parks & Pecs meeting first Thursday of April. April 2. Harbor meets first Mlonday after the first council meeting. March 9, Thanks, -348- hitp://colIlw,collII.mafl,live.com/maiUPrintShell.aspx?type=message&cpids=l9lea39f-... 2/14/2009 Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of I 1.1 6n- Fri, 2/8;a/09, Bob gates Chfhates@c,kenai ak.usa, :wrote: Front: Bob Frates <bfrates@d.kenai.ak.us> Subject. Pe: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo.corn Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 8:43 AM That's correct. Parks & Recreation will, however, hold a special mtg, on February 24th for a discussion about re -naming of a creek, comrnuri ty gardens, and gazebo location. Bob Frates, Director Kenai Parks & Recreation ---- Original Message --- FrCsrn: Debbie Sonberg To: E fira',9s@ci.kenaCak.us Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:50 PM Subject: Creek discussion for Park & Recs & Harbor Hello Bob, Would you please confirm that these are the next meeting dates for Parks & Recs &. Harbor? Parks & Recs meeting first: Thursday of April. April 2. Harbor meets first Monday after the first council meeting. March 9. Thanks, http://col,1 Iw.col111.mail. live.com/mail/Printshi�aasppx?type=message&cpids=eef8e03e-... 3/22/2009 Windows Live Hotmail Print Message --- On Sat:, 1/17/09, Patrioia Potter <kenaimayor189Dmsn.eom> wrote: From: Patricia Porter <kenaimayorI0@msn.corn> Subject: Re: RE; RE: KEDS Web site and links To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com Cc: "Robert Molloy" <bob@molloyforcouncii.com>, "Mike Boyle" <mboyle@alaska.com>, "Hal Smalley" <hvsmalley@yahoo.com>, "Robert Molloy" <mof oy€aw@ak.net>, "Rick Ross" <rossrck@hotmall,com>, "Barry Eldridge" <barry_eldridge@yahoo.com>, "Joe Moore" <joemoore@ altrogco.com> Date: Saturday, January 17, 2009, 11:15 AM Page 1 of 5 9 5eL Dear Ms. Sonberg, I am responding to your email so that you will know that I am in receipt of it. I have forwarded it to Cary Graves, city attorney, he will respond Within the next few days. Pat Porter ---- Original Message ----- From: Debbie Sonberg To: Patricia Porter Cc: Robert Molloy; Mike Boyle,; Hal Smalley; Robert Molloy , Rick Ross; Barmy Eldridge; Joe Moore Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 9:38 PM Subject: Re: RE: RE: KEDS Web site and links Hear Mayor Porter, From my understanding of the Freedom _of_Inforrm,atlon-Ac,t and the Alaska Open Meetings Act, if a public citizen doesn't receive a response for pubic information from the city within 10 days, it is considered a denial of public records. My request was issuer! on December 8. A second request was given on December 28. I did receive the information die day after appealing to you (January 12). Thank you for your part in that Also, from my understanding of the Freedom of Information Act and the Alaska Open Meetings Act, the maryoris considered the chief agent or chief exectutive for the agency (the city and ,;by, ;YluyOr) for purposes of apt:.:=`i, and is the legislated si...p irt the -Pp'-aloPp'-al ,-..cer,-ut:ded for public citizen to acquire public records. The following step would bean appeal to the governor. I may not understand the appeal process, but I had emalled you because I thought that you, as Mayor, were the next step. I hope I will not have 'to use this appeal process again; however, it you would not be the correct person, please let me know who would be. Perhaps city Attorney Graves could help interpret the proper steps in the FOI appeal process. Thank you again for any action on your part in my FOI request. Debbie Sonberg -- On Sun, 1 /13/09, Patricia Parker <kenaernagrcoer.P0rEamsn.com> wrote: From; Patricia Porter <kena[rrrayori0@msn.com> Subject: Re: RE: RE-: KEDS Web site and links To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com Cc: "Robert Molloy" <bob@mofloyforco andl.com>, "Mike Boyle" <mboyle@alaska.com>, "Hal Smalley" <hvsmalfey@yahoo.com>, "Robert !Molloy" <mol€oyiaw@ak.net>, "Rick Ross" <rossrck+@hotmail.com>, "Barry Eldridge" <barry_eldridge@yahoo.corn>, "Jon Moore" <joemooreCa altrogco.com> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 7:14 PM htip://col l lw.coll l l .mail.live.com/mail/PrintShel..as®?t}�pe=message&cpids--f5c9465c-... 3/22/2009 Windows Live Hoftnail Print Message Page 2 of 5 b First, let me assure you that 1 am not the - Ch - ief - Administ - rativ - e - Officer for the ity - Rick C �t L I � _pf.Kenai! That person is our city manage Koch. I am the Mayor and my duties are explained/outlined well in the city charter. The KED's committee operated outside of the city jurisdiction therefore you would riot find any minutes filed at city hall. 71-lie president of the KED's committee is Jason Carroli. He can be reached at First National Bank. The committee has not been active for nearly a year. Their main focus was to work towards economic development within the city. I will contact Jason tomorrow (Monday) and let him know that you might contact him for information. 29 ----- Original Message. From: Debbie Sonberg To: kenainiavorlO@nisn.com Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 T23 PM Subject: FwI RE. RE. KEDS Ifieb site and links Dear Mayor Porter, 1 am appealing fo you with regard to inflnrm fine that i requestedt -r� 8, 2008 --ato-n , Dece � mber that I have not yet received. You can see what I requested, what 1 was sent, and what the city manager sard he would send to me by reading through the "trail" of emails below. I still have not received information regarding the formation of KEDS and its purpose. City Manager Koch said that the city cleric had found a resolution regarding Its formation and was looking for the related minutes, that the city clerk would forward the information to film, then he would forward that information to me. I have not received that information yet. I ftught that KEDS would be quite relevant to development issues in the city and had hoped to be able to review documents related to the KEDS formation in a timely manner. I believe this information would help me make a better informed citizen decision and public testimony. I asked for this information before, the current January 14 public hearing was scheduled, and now that the public hearing is only three days away, I still have not received that information. Based on what I learn from these documents, additional documents may be requested; however, I have not yet been given the opportunity to see these formational KEDS documents, Again, i am appealing to you as the chief administrator of the City of Kenai to provide me with this previously requested information. j,1351 - http://colllw.coll.1l.mail.live.com/mail/PrintSh i.as�x?type--message&cpids�--f5c9465c-... 3/22/2009 Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 3 of 5 Sincerely, Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, --- On Mon, 12/29/08, Frick Koch <r9zrach@cs.keeaeafak;us> wrote: From: Rick Koch <rkoch@d.kenai.ak.us> Subject: RE: RE: KEDS Web site and links To: debbie_sonberg@yahoo,com Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 9:25 AM Ms. Sonberg, See the city website under Departments — Economic. Development - Kenai Economic Development Strategy. Also, the City Clerk found a resolution and is researching for minutes that she'll provide to me, and I will forward them to you. i apologize for not responding sooner, I mistakenly thought the information you had requested had been transmitted to you. Rick R, Koch City Manager City of Kenai 210 ridaigo Ave. Kenai, AK 99511 (907)283-8222 (907)398-0190 Eromt Debbie Sonberg[mailto:debbie,_sonberg@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 5:58 PM To. Rick Koch Cc: Kim Howard SuhjecU Fw: RE: KEDS Web site and links Hello Rick, i haven't heard anything back from you on the formation of KEDS or its current status. Kim Howard had forwarded my request for information on the 8th of December, i hope you will be able to provide that information to me within the next 5c, http://col.l lw.coll l l.ine.live.com/mail/PrintShell aspx?type=Tnessage&cpids=f5c9465c-,,. 3/22/2009 Windows Live Hotinail Print Message couple of days. Thanks, Debbie --- On Mon, e, 12/8/08, grata Howard <k'kowabditl kenzi aik,cas.> wrote: From: Kim Hord <khowardCwcl.kenai.ak.usy Subject: RE: KEDS Web site and links To: debbie_sonberg cr yahoo.com Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 5:00 PM Hi Debbie W I'm sorry you weren't able to access these from the web. I have attached them. They need to be updated. I forwarded your request for information on to the City Manager. Jason Carroll (First National Bank) is the chairman for KEDS. Kim Howard ssistant to the City Manager From: Debbie Sonberg[mailto.debbie_sonberg@yahoo.com] Sent. Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:38 PM To: Kim Howard Subject. KEDS Web site and links not an to —s' of+he . a re.« ....n . vrnr U. . al'n n e a..t n`p' .. Imat�"eS or IIEl Oe'i th.,, Oty Gi Cv, , KEDS even site. Please email the three PDF documents fisted on htip:I/www a kenai.ak us/economic_ developmant,htm(J 1. Key.parc-els of land near_downtow_n_._Kenai, avail ble for deyelopment opportunities.,. 2. Key parcels of land with exist6ng water and sewer fines„ 3, Millennium Square, a 21.4 acreparcei oyerlaoking t:be. Kenai Rlyer, has excellent potential for development.. Also please send me information on the formation of KIDS and its current status. Thank you, Page 4 of 5 175c http://co l l lw.coll l 1.mail.live.com/mail/PrintShell"aspx?type-message&cpids=f5c9465c-... 3/22/2009 Windows Live H8hmail Print Message Page lof6 (PO_ --CmANmn, 1'2$/09^Debbie Smmbergx cam >vv,ote: From Debbie Sonberg /debhie~sanbe/g@yahoozorn/ Subject: Requests for Public Information Tn�cfieas@d.k*noiakus Date: Monday, January 26,2009.7I5'P&i Dear Carol, | want toexpress mysincere gratitudetuyou, toMarilyn, and toKim for all cdthe information that you have provided to me for the neighbor. over the past couple of months. My follow up requests forAen to pick information up was only because I didn't know what unormal time frame was (\couldn't Find policy arguidelines toread omYine[ and | didn't know if|should expect tmstop byinacouple ofdays uracouple ofweeks. The only timing glitches inany information irequested from the three ofyou were /1\ occasionally needing toask for more clarification onresponses, (I)the delay iuthe audio CDs, which wouldWt have been a problem without the city's insistence on keeping the rezone issue moving at an unnecessarily rapid pace, and through all of the winter holidays (that along with the technical issues you had in copying those flies prevented me from receiving those until the afternoon of the informational meeting on January 5); and (3) the item forwarded by Kim to City Manager Rick Koch to provide me with KEDS information, which I had to appeal to the City Mayor in order to get information on that from him. | have been asked t*submit myrequests for any information only through you,Carol, and it has been suggested that | submit questions inagroup rather than the sin,p!eone mrtwo line specific -question, single -topic emails that I had been using. I hope these guidelines that the city is requiring me (and supposedly all other citizens) to follow don't make this process more confusing for all ofVs—thepublic citizens nfKenai, and for you and the rest of the staff � | believe that City Attorney Grave/secoa8tarneregarding all my communications strongly implies that | had multiple appeals nrcomplaints about rnyrequests for information, |only had one appeal for information, and that was not for any information that | had requested from you or Marilyn, but rather only for information that i had requested from, or rather had been forwarded tothe city manager for his response, We, neighbors, understand that there are personnel tirne and supplies involved in providing information to the public. We already know and understand 'the charges for the audio CDs and arnwilling tupay those charges. %Vedon't know ifthere will beany additional research «tiuoe''charges for our neighborhood requests. Please let usknow what the official city feesstructure is for these requests for information processes, what charges the city may expect the neighbors topay, etc. /fany ufthe answers tOour questions are available online, a link to those answers is sufficient. A adfifile attached to anemail i»also sufficient. The following is a list of new information that the neighbors would like to receive. Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 2 of 6 ItP Request for Audio Information on CI7s: (please consider this email an official written request for meeting recordings) L October 22, 2008 Planning & Zoning Audio 2. January 5, 2009 Informational Meetirig Audio (I realize this was not recorded, but I can't see any reason why recording it did not fit Kenai City policy or practice, and I want it on the record that I requested it.) 3. January 7, 2009 City Council Audio 4. January 24, 2009 Planning and Zoning Audio 6. Audios on 2008 meetings or work sessions related to reviewing the comprehensive plan and updating the Land Use Planning Maps 20 & 31, pages 27 & 2& 1 think that happened in April of 2008 and became effective in June of 2009, I'm not sure of the exact dates. Request for City Policy information: 2. Fee structure (other than for audio CD copies) for researching; and providing public: information. 2. Official codified or official policy (or in the absence of either one, typical city practices) for documentation and requirements of persons scheduled to speak at planning and zoning meetings and at city council meetings. I requested this from P&Z Commission Chair Jeff Twait when he emailed me and asked me for additional inforrrsation (see email trail pasted below). I asked him specific clarification questions regarding what he had asked me. I don't believe I should have to seek out other city sources for nay answers, but since he has been instructed not to answer my questions, I am including my questions to him here. (Apparently I am allowed to answer his questions to me without going through you, but he has been instructed not to answer mine without going through you.) I also emailed him to ask if his practice was to ask these questions of all persons scheduled to speak, or if he just applied this policy to me and Becky. RE: Planning and Zoning Meeting Saturday, January 17, 2009 ib13 PM From; "Jeff Twait" <jtwait@alaska_net>Add sender to Contacts To: debbie_canberg@yahoo.comCc: "AiRncy Carver <ncarvei@cl.kenai.ak.us>, "'Marilyn &ebschuli"' amkebschull@ci.kenalahuvDebible, I wanted to get back with you regarding the questions you asked below. I emailed the city to get the Info and have been instructed to have you contact the City Clerk to get any information. With the situation as it is, we all want to make sure that all Parties are free of any ex-parte communications. I'm sure they can give the answers you are looking for though. Thanks, -355- http_/Ico l l 1 w. col l l I . mail.live. com/inail/PrintShell. aspx?type=message&epids=76cef.gf7-2... 2/9/2009 Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 3 of 6 ILL Jeff From: Debbie 5onberg[maiIto ,delboe_sunberg@Vahou.com) Sent; Wedrvodup, .January 14, 2009 8:02 MIA To: Jeff Twait subject: 8e: Planning and Zoning filleting W oufd you oeasc provide the city booty on persons scheduled to speak. I would also like any city code KMC or Alaska Statutes that Itmit what a per,on is allowed is, speak nn. Debbie On Wed, 1/14/09, Jeff Pwait <jtwait@aIaska.net> wrote: From: Jeff Twait <jtwalt@alaska.net> Subject: Planning and Zoning Meeting To: debate_ sonberg@yahoo.mm Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 8:58 AM Debbie, I just wanted to take a second of your Erne before the meeting tonight. I didn't sae a Copy of your prejoamd taremen, In my packet far tonight so I wanted to rnake sure that you are aware that the 10 minutes aBotted can mat be to talkabout the rpaone. I think Marilyn went over that but I wanted to fallow up with you. a don't want to have to impahmpt you in the middle of it. 1 don't have an ema71 for Becky so can you pass that on to her if needed. (enrpGasfs Gy OeGG:e $anBergf Thanks and I'll see you tonight. Jeff Cornertstone Custom Homes and Designs 907-398.4624 voice / 907-283-3919 fax 3. For the record, I did ask Councilman Jae (Moore for a copy of his email that he referred to in the December 21 council meeting. For some reason (car because of City directives?) tie could not forward me his own email. I did receive that one from you. Are council members riot allowed to communicate with the public on their own communications without going through the city cleric? http://eo I I. lw. col I I I.mail. live. coin/mail/PrintShell..aspx?type=message&epids=76ecf8f7-2... 2/9/2009 Windows Live Hotn18i|Print Message Page 4 of 6 4. When written testimony or other documents are provided at the time of a meeting that were not included inanepacket,how are those lay downs made available tnthe public, online (?)/after that meeting? | thought they would beincluded inthe next epacket aspart nf 'the past meeting's official documents, but t haven't found that tobeoccurring consistently. The neighborhood report that was read into the record onDecember 3was included, but the written documents provided byP&ZCommission Chair Jeff Tm/aitand P&Z Commissioner Karen Koester at the same meeting council meeting were not. Aren't items like this routinely included in electronic packets at the next council meeting? I have received copies ofthese documents, but ! thought they would both have been included a» official documents for the next council and P&Zepackets. �. What is the city policy regarding audio recording meetings and worksessions for P&Z and Council? My understanding of the policy provided by council at the November 17 meeting was that the standing and continuing policy was and is tmtape all mfthese meetings and work sessions. If that is the case, why were these two meetings not recorded? ° 6� What bthe city policy regarding documentation and audio recordings of meetings conducted by administration outside the bounds of council & P&Z? 7. What is the city policy on providing verbatim testimony in. minutes for public hearings for P&Z and Council? When that isn't provided, when are the appropriate times to request that it be provided, and how do I do that? I have read in state statutes, the open meetings i ) act, and various commissioner and council handbooks provided by DCRA, which seem to indicate that public hearing portions of meetings are not to be just a summary of statements, but rather averbatim record. { know not all of -these statutes and documents apply to every city meeting, but I still can't tell just "what is what" in some of this, 8. ienno|ledParks&RecsDi/ectorBob H-atesab::tinformation onn^nrnora|Park benches (specifically: Do you have locations available for rneryicirial park benches? Can you provide me with a list of locations? Are there ways to suggest new locations?). Is this an item, that according toCity Attorney Grave/snew policy should have gone through you? | did receive overy timely and informative answer from Bob Frates,but would like clarification pnthe city atturney'sintent. Requests for other information: 1. | would like acopy of the colored G15-typemap image of the rezone area with the red lines around the properties that Mayor Porter, Duane Bannock, and Becky Espywere reviewing after the January 21 meeting. I would like an exal-I copy of that sheet (in color), not a new one taken off ofthe GIS system. The black and white copies in the packet do not allow me to see the red lines that Mayor Porter and Duane Bannock were looking at and asking Becky for clarification on. You nnayneed tocheck with Mayor Porter tofind out which one they were looking at She rnmdes^rnemarks onher copy onthe one townhouse lot that has currently favored the rezone, so it should be easy for her to identify, 2. The last P&Z meeting contained a list of dates of when various types of documents and Windows Live Hobnail Print Message Page 5 of 6 16Q P petitions are due to the planning administrator for inclusion in agendas and public hearings for the year 2009. 1 would like a copy of the same document for 2008. 1 would email this request directly to Marilyn, but I don't believe that the city attorney wants me to communicate with anyone but you. I really think his policy will add to everyone's workload in filling these requests. I hope that the extra work load for this will not be added to the fees that the neighbors will be expected to pay for these documents. 3. A list of the dates of the annual reviews (required by KMC) and annual public hearings (required by KMC) since the 2003 Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The code does require its annual review with at least one public hearing per year. I couldn't find any evidence of that occurring when I read through the 2007 epackets. I don't have access to earlier epackets to read through them myself. 1"m sure Marilyn would have a list of dates when these annual reviews and public hearings occurred, but the City Attorney doesn't want me to contact anyone but you. Again, 1 hope the additional steps that the city attorney is requiring for me to acquiring information for the neighbors will be factored into lowering the fees that we might otherwise be charged. 4. A printed (or pdf) copy of the "rules for public hearing"that were read at the October P'3 Z rezone public hearing. I have listened through all of the November and December public hearing audios, and those rules were not read to other groups who spoke at other public hearings. I know the rules are different for P&Z than Council, and have confirmed that verbally in a phone conversation with Mayor Porter. I am surprised that those rules are not read consistently at P&Z and that 1 couldn't get that information from the audios that i had already requested and paid for. l listened to them specifically to type those rules out, verbatim, but they were not read in any subsequent public hearings. S. I would like clarification as to the time table the postponing the resubmitting of the rezone application will be. When will it be introduced at P&Z; when will it be public hearing at R&,7 (same riaYe?1 when igliiE it be introduced at council; and srtr..an �... it be scheduled for public hearing at council. I believe that with the rezone not corning back to council until the second meeting it March, it will not need to be introduced at P&Z on February 11, as reported in the Clarion. 6. Copy or list of all building permits issues in this RR1 zone since 1985, with dates issued. 7. Copy or list of all building permits issued in Kenai, since 1985, locations, dates issued. 8. A copy of all auction bids received for parcel #4506007, complete with the city's "date received" stamp, journal list, or any other bidding information collected or collated by the city for that parcel. When was "KMC 1.85.060 Conflicts of interest prohibited" last updated? Please also provide a copy of ordinances 359 & 2319-22008. 10. We would like a list of the answers that City Manager Rick Koch said at the December 7 council meeting he would provide to the P&Z by their next meeting regarding the neighborhood questions and concerns submitted by Janine Espy. Rick Koch didn't provide -358- http://col l l w.col l l 1.mail.live.com/'mail/PrintSholl,aspx?type=message&cpids=76eef8f7-2... 2/9,12009 Windows Live Hotmail. Print Message Page 6 of 6 (le that list of answers to P&Z by that meeting, but only provided his characterization of the neighborhood requests. lie staged in the December 7 meeting that he would provide those answers to the commissioners, and we are requesting a copy of those answer's (not his characterization of our questions). I'm sure that by now (20 days later), he should have had time to prepare and provide real answers. I won't list those questions here, as they have already been provided to council twice and P&Z once. I don't think any further repeats are necessary. We would like responses to each of these items as they are available. We don't arrant to waist for all of there to be compiled into one pnket for response. if that is not possible, vain resubmit each of these items as individual, single -tropic mails. Respectfully submitted by Debbie Sonberg on behalf of the MAPS neighbors. Debbie Sonberg 4:1.0 Cinderella Street Kenai, Alaska 99611 907-283-5880 (These items were discussed by several neighbors, and thoroughly reviewed by three neighbors. Please consider this a group request, not just an individual request from ma.) http://co'lII,w.eollll..mail.live.com/mail/PrintShell,aspx?type—message&cpids=76cef8fT 2/9/2004 17 "Villaye with a Paso C# witA a Future 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 / Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us February 10, 2009 Debbie Son berg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 996.11 RE: JANUARY 26, 2009 E.M&M TRANSAUSSZON -- REQUEST FOR IN70R.b1ATION Estimation of Costs This letter is in response to your January 26, 2009 email requesting 24 items of information or explanation of policy and/or procedures. AS 40.25.110(c) allows the City to charge its personnel costs if the request will require more than five hours of employee time in a month. The City may require those costs to be paid in advance, An estimate of the time it will take to comply with your request to produce those items requested is approximately nine (91 hours, plus costs for audio recordings of meetings and tax, or $425,00 Personnel costs 30.00 Audio recordings $455,00 Subtotal 27.30 Sales Tax $192.30 TOTAL As allowed by Alaska law, prior to commencing the search, the City will require advance payment of the amount, If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will assume you have withdrawn your request. CITY OF KENAl Carol L. Freas City Clerk Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page I of 1 --- On Man, 219/09, Debbie Sonbeiv <debbig._sonbergL&y,�thoocorn> wrote: From: Debbie Soriberg <debbie-sonberg@yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Requests for Public Information To: rkoch@ci.kenai.ak,us Cc: kenalmayor10@msn,com, korkev@yahoo,com, brookmanL&alaska,net, rawefts@wradvisors.com, pbrysan@wcba(aska,fom, srott0dredoubtrealty,com, jtwait0o alaska.net, bob@moiloyforcouridl.com, rr'aoyie@alaska.com, hvsmalley 9cyahoo,com, rossrckoe hotmall.com, cpajoeCdaltrogr-o,com, barrv-eldridge.@yahoo.com, mkebschull@ci.Venai.ak.us, cfreas9ci.kenai,ak,us, Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:23 PM Dear Kenai City Manager, Koch, I am appealing to you for the information that the MAPS neighborhood requested on January 26, 2009. It has been 10 full working days since our request was submitted. 1 received an acknowledgement of receipt on the 27th, but nothing else, I am disappointed that they city doesn't consider this request that was made prior to the scheduling of the current MAPS rezone public hearing to be important enough for, the MAPS neighborhood to have provided by now at least some part of the information requested. The city is driving the, rezone process -- The city is setting the dates for the public hearings -- The -city is in control of nearly all of the public information that should have been available to us prior to the submission of our packet. If the city has planned on taking more than the 10 working days suggested it i the Freedom of Information Act, the common courtesy would have been to respond with some kind of time frame to the public for the expectation of delivery of this information. Another common courtesy, since the city controls access to this requested public information AND the setting of the public hearing dates, would have been to not schedule the public hearing until the information was made available to the public. I simply don't believe that not even one piece of this information couldn't have been made avaliabile during the vast 10 working days, 1 expect at least a courtesy response indicating when this information might be available. The public hearing is less than two days away. I find this total silence on the city's part completely unacceptable. If YOU have no intention of providing this information for die neighborhood, please let me know immediately, If you do have a plan for the delivery of this information, please let me know what that plan is. Sincerely, Debbie Sonber g MAPS Neighborhood 410 Cinderella Kenai, AK 99611 -361- hftp:/Jcolllw.collil-mail.live.com/maii/PrintShell.aspx?type=message&cpids�-2ee26Ob6-,.. 3/22/2009 Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page I of 2 iq From: beckyespy@hotrnaii.com To: cfreasctlici.kenai.ak.us CC: ombudsman@ leg Is.state.ak.us; debbie--so¢iberg@yahoo.com, rkoch@cUenai.ak.us; cgraves@ci.kenai.ak.us Subject: FW: Requests for Public Inform ation/Estirn ate of Costs Date. Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:40:47 -0900 Carol Freas: Cc- Debbie Sonberg Cc- Ombudsman's Office Cc- City manager Cc- City Attorney - Denise Duff, Intake Officer Please honor the request dated January 26, 2009 which was sent by Debbie Sonberg via email on behalf of the MAPS neighborhood. The document prepared as an "Estimation of Costs" stated it would require approximately nine hours of staff time to prepare the requested information. The Alaska Statue quoted in the letter refers to the Public Records Open Act which allows five hours of staff time per requester. I would like the city to either honor the request under section (d) of the statue as a group request and waive the fee, or the city could honor the request under section (c), and i will have other neighbors provide their names to suffice the request should additional hours be needed. Please note, at this time additional hours are not needed since the request does not exceed 20 hours (see below). Since Debbie Sonberg and I both requested this information beginning in January, and we are now in February, both Debbie and I should receive rive hours each per month. We are together entitled 20 hours for this time period (January and February). Twenty hours surpasses the hours in the estimated quote. Please call me so 1 can pick up the public records requested as we have waisted 14 regular business days and have not received the information. Of our 20 available hours, 1 will assume we used nine of the available hours leaving us a total of 11 hours available for the remaining days in February. Should those hours be used, another neighbor will request the needed information. If there will be any further delay past the already allowed ten days, please notify the neighborhood immediately. I feet this courtesy should be extended to the residents of Kenal or anyone needing city information. (c) If the production of records for one requester in a calendar month exceeds five person - hours, the public agency shall require the requester to pay the personnel costs required during the month to complete the search and copying tasks. The personnel costs may not exceed the actual salary and benefit costs for the personnel time required to perform the search and copying tasks. The requester shall pay the fee before the records are disclosed, and the public agency may require payment in advance of the search. (d) A public agency may reduce or waive a fee when the public agency determines that the reduction or waiver is in the public interest. Fee reductions and waivers shall be uniformly applied among persons who are sianilarly situated. A public agency may waive a fee of $5 or less if the fee is less than the cost to the public agency to arrange for payment. Thank you for your assistance. Becky espy as http://coIIIw.col 111,mail. live.cam/maiI/PrintSheu. aspxttype message&cpids=29c57dec-... 3/22/2009 2 0,,x; a "'Village wifh 4 Past, C# with a Fature" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 ( Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.cl.kenai.ak.us February 18, 2009 Becky Espy 903 Magic Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 RE: FEBRTSARY 12, 2009 EN4AX INQYTIRY We are in receipt of your February 12, 2009 email transmission related to requests for public information and estimate of costs. Requests: 1. The city to either honor the request under Section (d) of the statute as a group request and waive the fee; or, 2. The city honor the request under Section (c), and "other neighbors would provide their names to suffice the request should additional hours be needed." 3. To notify the neighborhood immediately if there will be "any further delay past the already allowed ten days." 4. Please call you so you "can pick up the public records requested as we have waited 14 regular business days and have not received the information." Answers: 1 and 2. We are assuming the statute to which you refer is AS 40.25, Alaska Public Records Act (APRA). We believe the requestt to which you refer is the one made January 26, 2009 and submitted by Debbie Sonberg. Ms. Sonberg's request is being handled as a single request for 24 items of information. We currently have no provision to waive the estimated fees. AS 40.25.110(d) states, "A public agency may reduce or waive a fee when the public agency determines the reduction or waiver is in the public interest. Fee reductions and -363- Becky Espy February 18,2009 Page 2 waivers shall be uniformly applied among persons who are similarly situated." To uniformly apply fee reductions and waivers, the following Health and Human Services (H.HS) Poverty Guidelines for Alaska would be applied. A copy of the 1/23/09 Federal Register related to the Department of Health and Human Services/Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines is attached. i Annual income as a Percent of current Health jand Human Services (HHS) Poverty Guidelines for Alaska Percent of fee reduced 1 -- 100% 100% Waiver 101 - 149% 75% Waiver 150-174% 50% Waiver 175-199% —�-- 25% Waiver 200% plus No Waiver 3. The State of Alaska has adopted regulations controlling the processing of public record requests, and. with some exceptions, requires public records to be available to the public "under reasonable rules." [AS 40.25.110(a)j However, application of the state regulations is limited to "public agencies in the executive branch of the state." [See 2 AAC 96.900(7) and AS 40.25.220(2)j While the City of Kenai is a "public agency," it is not in the executive branch of the state and therefore, the provisions of the state regulations (e.g. ten-day response period) are not applicable to the City. The statute does not refer to collection of hours spread between months, sharing hours between several separate requests or requestors, etc. 4. Upon receipt of the estimated cost of $482.30 identified in our February 9, 2009 letter, the research/collection process of the information requested will begin. When the information is compiled, the requestor, Ms. Sonberg, will be notified when the information is available for her to pick up the records. If less time is needed for the research/compilation of the requested information, a refund will be applied accordingly. If additional time is required for research/compilation of the requested information, additional costs will be applied accordingly. CITY OF KENAI Carol L. Freas City Cleric cif cc: Debbie Sonberg Attachment -364- 20C Federal Register/Vot, 74, No. 14/Friday, January 23, 20091Notices 4199 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 at seg.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become. a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies ownedby the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well. as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nunbanking company complies withthe standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies maybe obtained from the National Information Center webslte at WNN.IIIL'C'.gUV/ltic/. Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 17, 2009. A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579: 1. Franklin Resources, Inc., San Mateo, California, to acquire up to 5.9 percent of the voting shares of CIT Group, Inc., New York, New York, and. thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of CIT Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah. Board of Governors of the, Federal Reserve System, January 1.6, 2009. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Hoard. JFR Doc, E9-1377 Filed i-22-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. TIME AND DATE: 12:00 p.m., Monday, January 26, 2009. PLACE: Mariner S. Eccles Federal. Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. STATUS: Closed, MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 2. Any items carriedforward from a previously announced meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m, two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting;, or you may contact the Board's Web site at hftp:// www.federalreserve.Eov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January I G, 2009. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Sec, e ary of 64e Board. DIR Doc, E9-1513 Filed 1-.21-09; 8A5 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-$ FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Employee Thrift Advisory Council TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m. (EST) February 4, 2009. PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. STATUS: Open. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED; 1. Approval of the minutes of the June 30, 2008 ETAC meeting. 2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director. 3. Potential Legislative items: a. Automatic enrollment. b. L Fund default. c. Roth feature. It, Mutual fund window, e. Immediate employer contributions. -365- I. Surviving spouse accounts. g. Administrative subpoena authority. 4. RMD suspension for 2009. 5. 2008 TSP Participant. Survey results. 6. Agency review of the tales[ REIT industry proposal. 7, L Fund allocations. 8. New Business. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas K. Emswiler, Committee Management Officer, (202) 942-1660, Dated: January 16, 2009. Thomas K. Emswiler, General Counsel, Federal Rekirement Thrift Investment Board, IFR Doc. E9-1557 Filed 1-21-09; 4:15 pm) BILLING CODE 6760-D1-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice provides an update of the HHS poverty guidelines to account for last calendar ,year's increase in prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index, DATES: Effective Date: Date of publication, unless an office administering a program using the guiAihms specifies a different effective date for thatparticular program. ADDRESSES: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Washington, DC 20201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about how the guidelines are used or how income is defined in a particular program, contact. the Federal, state, or Local office that is responsible .for that program. Contact information for two frequently requested programs is given below: For information about the Hill -Burton Uncompensated Services Program (free or reduced fee health care services at certain hospitals and other facilities for persons meeting eligibility criteria involving the poverty guidelines), contact the Office of the Director, Division of Facilities Compliance and Recovery, Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS, Roan 10-105, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville,. Maryland 4200 Federal Register/Vol, 74, No. 14/Friday, January 23, 2009/Notices 20857. To speak to a staff member, please call (301) 443-5656. To receive a Hill -Burton information package, call 1- 800-638-0742 (for callers outside Maryland) or 1-800-492-0359 (for callers in Maryland.). You also may visit http://mrww.hrsu.b,ovlh111buiionl defou/t.hhn.'Fire Division of Facilities Compliance and Recovery notes that as set by 42 CPR 124.505(b), the effective date of this update of the poverty guidelines for facilities obligated under the Hilt -Burton Uncompensated Services Program is sixty days from the date of this publication. For information about the percentage multiple of the poverty guidelines to be used on immigration forms such as USCIS Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, contact U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at 1-800-375- 5283. For information about the number of people in poverty or about the Census Bureau poverty thresholds, visit the Poverty section of the CensusBureau's Web site at ht'm.,11www.census.gov1 hheslw�lpovertylpovertyhtini or contact the Census Bureau's Demographic Call Center Staff at (301) 763-2422 or 1-866-758-1060 (toll -free), For general questions about the poverty guidelines themselves, contact. Gordon Fisher, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201.— telephone: (202) 690-7507—or visit h ttp://Qspe.hhs,govlpovertyl, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to update, at least annually, the poverty guidelines, which shall be used as an eligibility criterion for the Community Services Block Grant program. The poverty guidelines also are used as an eligibility criterion by a number of other Federal programs. The poverty guidelines issued here are a simplified version of the poverty thresholds that the Census Bureau uses to prepare its estimates of the number of individuals and families in poverty. As required by law, this update is accomplished by increasing the latest published Census Bureau poverty thresholds by the relevant percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (GPI-U). The guidelines in this 2009 notice reflect the 3.8 percentprice increase between calendar years 2007 and 2008, After this inflation adjustment, the guidelines are rounded and adjusted to standardize the differences between family sizes. The same calculation procedure was used this you as in previous years. (Note that these 2009 guidelines are roughly equal to the poverty thresholds for calendar year 2008 which. the Census Bureau expects to publish in final form in August 2009.) The guideline figures shown represent annual income. 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Persons in family Poverty guideline 1_.............................................. $10,830 2................................................ i 14,570 3................................................ 18, 4 .......................... ...................... 22, 053100 5................................................ 25,790 6 .. _.................. ....... ................... 29 53 0 7 .. _.............. _............................ 3 3, 270 B.................... 37,010 For families with more than 6 persons, add $3.740 for each additional person. 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR ALASKA Persons In family Poverty guideline 1........_.............._.........._....._... $13,530 2................................................ 18,210 3........... .... ....... 0.... - ... ....... .. _..... 22, B90 4 ................. _............................. 27,570 5...............- ...... .... I ... ......... ___ j 32.250 6................................................ 36,930 7.-............................................. 41,610 8................................................ 46,290 For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,680 for each additional person. 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR HAWAII Persons In family I Poverty guideline 1................................................ $12,460 2 ................ _................ _............ 16,760 3................................................ 21,060 4.......-................................ ....... 25,360 5 ................. I ............ .............. .... 29,660 6 ............. ...... - ........................... 33,960 7................................................ 38,260 8................................................ 42,560 For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,300 for each additional person. Separate poverty guideline figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in. the 1966-1970 period. (Note that the Census Bureau poverty thresholds —the version of the poverty measure used for statistical purposes —have never had separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii.) The m poverty guidelines are notdefined for Puerto Rico or other outlying jurisdictions. In cases in which a Federal program using the poverty guidelines serves any of those jurisdictions, the Federal office that administers the program is generally responsible for deciding whether to use the contiguous -stakes -and -DC guidelines for those jurisdictions or to follow some other procedure. Due to confusing legislative language dating back to 1972, Inc. poverty, guidelines have sometimes been mistakenly referred to as the "OMB" (Office of Management and Budget) poverty guidelines or poverty line. In fact, OMB has never issued the guidelines; the guidelines sre issued each year by the Department: of Health and Human Services. The poverty guidelines may be formallyreferenced as `the poverty guidelines updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 C .&C. 9902(2)." Some programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines (for example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines), as noted in relevant authorizing legislation or program regulations. Non -Federal organizations that use the poverty guidelines under their own authority in rion-Federally- funded activities can choose to use a percentage multiple of the guidelines such as 125 percent. or 185 percent. The poverty guidelines do not make a distinction between farm and non -farm families, or between aged and non -aged units. (Only the Census Burden poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non -aged one -person and two - person units.) Note that this notice does not provide definitions of such terms as "income" or "family." This is because there is considerable variation in how different programs that use the guidelines define these terms, traceable to the different laws and regulations that govern the various programs. Therefore, questions about how a particular program applies the poverty guidelines (for example, Is income before or after taxes? Should a particular type of income be counted? Should a particular person be counted in the family or household unit?) should be directed to the organization that administers the program; that organization has the responsibility for making decisions about definitions of such terms as "income" or "family" the the extent that the definition is not. already contained in legislation or regulations). 2 rrV.lfa e wi a � asa ll C �/ SIC a hatureu t 210 Fidaigo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-75351 Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.ci,kenai.ak.us tlacrityaf KENUMMU February 18, 2009 Debbie Sonberg 410 Cinderella Street Kenai, AK 99611 This Letter is written in response to your February 17, 2009 email transmission to City Manager Koch related to your January 26, 2009 request for information.. Your transmission noted the following: 1. Separate requests of neighbors were written and "should qualify for all of the estimated labor to be provided for free." 2. You requested a breakdown of the hours charged to the items requested. 3. Requested the information be "provided in an expedited time. frame..." 4. "Someone else will be requesting the CDs, but 1 soil want all file rest of the items in the original request." S. Request the fees be waived and the information provided quickly. Although fees cannot be waived or group rates offered, we do encourage you to review your list of requests and separate them into groups that would take less than five hours for researching/compiling the information. Assign each group of requests to one person to request that specific information. The requests must be made in writing and be specific to the request, Following is a breakdown of hours submitted by our departments related to the items of information requested: 2004 Foreclosure Sale Information = One hour Manning & Zoning records = Two to four hours Explanation of policies, audio recordings, policy explanations, transmission letter, etc. = Two to three hours Debbie Sonberg February 18, 2009 Page 2 of 2 The intent of a Freedom of Information Act request is to provide information. We are willing to work with you in a manner, if practical, to not generate fees. Again, in order to do that, the requests must be submitted in writing and be specific. Our response will be to each individual making the request. Your cooperation in this effort will be appreciated. CITY OF KENAI Carol L. Freas City Clerk cif Windows Live HotmaiiPrint Message Page lofl E/+ Subject: ]anuary14thP&ZMeeting Date: Tu�,Z3[}sc2U8813�Sb:38^8900 � � From: nokebychu|/@ci.keoai.ak.us Iwanted tofollow-up nnyour request Uobe placed onthe P&ZAgenda for the January 101 meeting under scheduled public cornment. I have not received any information from you relating to your topic but wanted to insure you understood the limitations Of Your scheduled comment. The Commission has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed Limited Commercial rezone along the Kenai Spur Highway from McCollum Drive to NO -Name Creek. Because of the public hearing, you cannot address the Commission in reference to this rezone. (Under Schedule Public Comments - Comments concerning the rezone must be included under the public hearing portion of the meeting.) Any comments must be general in nature as it may relate tnrezones ingeneral, etc. Ifyou would like tndiscuss this for clarification, don't hesitate to contact me. As a reminder, any information you would like the Commission to review must bereceived before noon onJanuary 7~ for inclusion intheir packet. Happy Holidays! Marilyn K. Kzbschull, AICP / | Planning Administration City of Kenai Kenai. AK 99611 907`283^8235 Windows Live Hotmail Print Message From: Jeff Twait ejtwait@alasf a.net> Subject: Planning and Zoning Meeting To: debde_sonberg@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 8:58 NM Debbie, f just wanted to take a second of your time before the meeting tonight. I didn"It see a copy of your prepared statement in my packet for tonight so f wanted to make sure that you are aware that the 10 minutes allotted can not be to talk about the rezone. I think Marilyn went over that but I wanted to follow up with you. f donLt warm to have to interrupt you in the middle of it. I done It have an small for Becky so can you pass that on to her if needed. Thanks and icil see you 'tonight. Jeff GomatWono Custom Homes and Uuv pns 9073984624 voice/ 907-26.3-39 N Iex Page 1. of I Oki http://col 11 w.coll l ].mail,] ive.com/mail/PrintShi�Z93 ?type=message&cpids— 9f59fc81-... 3/23/2409 lL NO" UIRRAWWKIM, AGENDA COUNCILCITY CHAMBERS S May Il 11 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Agenda Approval c. Consent Agenda d. *Excused Absences *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non -controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. *April 23, 2008 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: (.10 Minutes) 4. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: a. PZ08-23 — Highland Subdivision — Highland Pride Park — A replat of Lots 10-18, Block I and Lots 11-15, Block 3 Highlands Subdivision. Plat submitted by Integrity Surveys, 8195 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska. b. PZ08-24 — Fidaigo Commercial — Municipal Centre Replat — A replat of Lots 3-13, Block 1, Fidalgo l 0 11A2itG[ lA l enter. rldt $l b raitte d by I ate gl lty JL1I VeyJ, 6175 11e11a1 apu Highway, Kenai, Alaska. c. PZ08-25 — Redoubt Terrace — Everson Replat — A replat of Lots 18 and 19, Block Five, Redoubt Terrace Subdivision No. 4. Plat submitted by Integrity Surveys, 8195 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, Alaska d. PZ08-27 — FBO Subdivision— Fed Ex Addition — A replat of Lots 7 & 8, Block I, FRO Subdivision. Plat submitted by Terry Eastham, RLS, P.O. Box 2891, Soldotna, Alaska, 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ08-26 — An application for a Variance from height restrictions for a 120-foot cell tower for the property known. as Lot 1-A, Grace Brethren Replat #2 (406 McCollum Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Alaska Digitel, 3127 Commercial Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 6. OLD BUSINESS: -371- �qJ Agenda May 14, 2008 Page 2 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. PZ08-21 (PZ02-61) — A request to transfer Conditional Use Permit for Townhouses (condominium development) from Shawn Anderson to John Laasch & Robert Favretto for the property described as Block 3, Five Iron Heights Subdivision (1.700 Lawton Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by John Laasch & Robert Favretto, 18506 Osprey Circle, Anchorage, Alaska. b. PZ08-22 (PZ08-21) — A request to amend the legal description for Conditional Use Permit PZ08-21 to reflect the recorded legal description for the property. The property is described as Block 3, Five Iron Heights Subdivision (1700 Lawton Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Request submitted by John Laasch & Robert Favretto, 18506 Osprey Circle, Anchorage, Alaska. c. Approval —Addition to existing structure located on Lots 7 & 8, Block 1, FBO Subdivision (427 North Willow Street), Kenai, Alaska as required in lease. Requested by Rockwell G. Smith, Managing Partner, LOROC, LLC, P.O. Box 951, Kenai, Alaska. 9. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: (3 Minutes) 11. I'?FORMATION ITEMS: a. First Quarter Reports — Building Permits/Zoning Permits/Code Violations b. Kenai River Center Permit Application — Wild Pacific Salmon, Inc. c. Kenai. River Center Permit Application -- City of Kenai d. Kenai. River Center Permit Application — Widemeyer & Lowe e. Zoning Bulletin (4/10109 & 4/25/08) f. Commissioner Brookman notice of absence 1.2. COMMISSION COMMENTS &(QUESTIONS: 13. ADJOURNMENT: Work Session immediately following regular meeting: Proposed code amendment - KMC 9.10.015 Screening of Dumpsters -372- AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS June 25, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: a. Roll Call b. Agenda Approval c. Consent Agenda d. *Excused Absences A Kurt Rogers *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non -controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item wdp be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. *June 11, 2008 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: (1.0 Minutes) a. Roy Espy — Planning for Future Cell Towers a. PZ08-34 — An application to rezone properties known as Lot 4, FBO Subdivision No. 7 & Lot 5, FBO Subdivision No. 8 (525 & 535 North. Willow Street) from Conservation to Light Industrial. Application submitted by Rick Koch, City Manager, City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska. b. PZ08-35 — An application to rezone properties known as Tract A, Gusty Subdivision No. 3, Tract B, Gusty Subdivision No. 6, and Tract C-1, Gusty Subdivision No. 7 (410, 420 & 400 Coral Street) from Conservation to Light Industrial. Application submitted by Rick Koch, City Manager, City of Kenai, 210 Fidaigo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska, c. PZ08-36 — An application for a Variance from height restrictions for an 80-foot cell tower for the property known as Lot 1-A, Grace Brethren Replat #2 (406 McCollum Drive), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Alaska Digitel, 3127 Commercial Drive, Anchorage, Alaska. d. PZ08-38 — An application to rezone properties known as Buffalo Run Subdivision Phase 1, Tract 1 and Tract A Swires Subdivision Amended Excluding Buffalo Run Subdivision Phase l(Tract I Buffalo Run Replat Preliminary Plat), 314 Swires Road from Suburban Residential to Rural Residential. Application submitted by Bill E. Zubeck, 41.4 Swires Road, Kenai, Alaska. -373- 2r, Agenda June 25, 2008 6. OLD BUSINESS: Page 2 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. Lease Application — James H. Doyle, d/b!a Weaver Brothers, Inc. — Tract B, Gusty Subdivision No. 6 — Discussion. b. Amendment to KMC 14,20.200 (a) — Discussion— Set public hearing. 8. PENDING ITEMS: a. PZ07-25 —Recommending Council enact KMC 9.10.01.5 to require dumpsters be screened on at least three sides. 9. REPORTS: a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: (3 Minutes) 11. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. PZ08-37 — Landscape/Site Plan — A.F. S. S. Building — 470 N. Willow Street b. Request for excused absence — Commissioner Rogers c. Planning & Zoning Commission Roster d. Zoning Bulletin — June 10, 2008 -374- `Villa e witk a Pas $/# wdk a Futgre JJ 210 Fidaigo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 [ Telephone: 907-283-75351 FAX: 907-283-3014 issz tke city of d� TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administration DATE: October 27, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ08-52 -- Tract A, Papa Joe's Subdivision — Chumley Replat — Rezone Application This item was postponed on October 8 and October 22, 2008 at the request of the applicant to allow time to prepare a conceptual development plan for the property, Attached is a copy of the conceptual plan prepared by Klauder & Company Architects. A color copy will be available at the meeting. Also attached is an excerpt of the minutes from the October Bch public hearing. Attachments "Villaye r. itk a Fast C# wA a Upt 'e„ 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611.7794 Telephone: 907-283-7535 / FAX: 907-283.3014 199Y TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Rick Koch DATE: January 8, 2009 SUBJECT; Janine Espy Citizen Report from January 5, 2009 Meeting The, purpose of this correspondence is to provide as an informational item. my comments regarding Ms. Espy's above referenced document. I may be traveling to Fairbanks during your Planning & Zoning meeting so I am providing this written communication. Marilyn KebschuIl has provided a response to the technical questions and matters raised in Ms. Espy's letter, so I do not feel it is necessary to restate the administration's responses. What I do want to address is the overall tone and accuracy of the document submitted to you by leis. Espy. As to unanswered questions, all of {e gnesuom asked were answered. In fact some of the questions were asked and answered several times but the administrations answers were clearly deemed unacceptable by the questioner, Additionally, the administration was unable to answer questions relating to specifics of the Kenai Peninsula Borough's property assessment methodologies, other than in a general sense, as the City is not participatory in the KPB property assessment process. Ms. Espy identifies eight questions that were answered but alarming. In her document her questions have been re -phrased and in some instances do not accurately communicate the question that was asked. While in most instances the administration's responses were comprehensive Ms. Espy's document truncates the administrations response to a single word, again not communicating the administration's response to a question in a fair and accurate manner. -376- 2- 7,b i understand and appreciate the discussion of the proposed re -zone is an emotional issue for leis. Espy and others, but her report is a biased and inaccurate representation of the public meeting held on January 5, 2009. £ have spoken with a number of the property owners within the, proposed re -zone, and have attached a record of the position of those fourteen property owners. Tbank you for your attention in this matter. attachment -377- L C,Pr� 4� V 41 4 t �t r,�,Z2°c,,ti.�Q -378- AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL Elementary Schools Conditional Use Conditional Use Governmental Buildings Conditional Use Permitted High Schools Conditional Use Conditional Use Hospitals Conditional Use Conditional Use Libraries Conditional Use Conditional Use Museums Conditional Use Conditional Use Parks & Recreation Conditional Use Conditional Use ssisted Living Conditional Use Conditional Use Miscellaneous Rural Residential 1(RR9) Limited Commercial Animal Boarding Conditional Use Conditional use Bed & Breakfasts Conditional Use Conditional Use Cabin Rentals Conditional Use Conditional Use Cemeteries Conditional Use Not Permitted Crematories/Funeral Homes Not Permitted Conditional Use Day Care Centers Conditional Use Permitted Dormitories/Boarding Houses Conditional Use Permitted Essential Services Permitted Permitted Farming/General Agriculture Not Permitted Not Permitted Greenhouses/Tree Nurseries Conditional Use Permitted Gunsmithing, Printing, Taxidermy Conditional Use Permitted Assemblies (Large Circuses, Fairs, Etc.) Conditional Use Not Permitted Fraternal Organizations/Private Clubs/Social Halls and Union Halls Conditional Use e Conditional Use Nursing, Convalescent or Rest Homes Conditional Use Conditional Use Parking, Off Street Permitted Permitted Parking, Public Lots Conditional Use Conditional Use Personal Services Conditional Use Permitted Rad loM Transmitters/Cell Sites Conditional Use Conditional Use Recreational Vehicle Parks Conditional use Not Permitted Subsurface Extraction of Natural Resources Conditional Use Not Permitted Surface Extraction of Natural Resources Conditional Use Not Permitted Page 2 of 2 -379- COMPARISON OF LAND USE BETWEEN RURAL RE IDENT AL 1 (11111) AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL (LC) I.t�NU V.YG� Residential Rural Residential 1(RRi) Limited Commercial One Family Dwelling Permitted Permitted Two/Three Family Dwelling Permitted Permitted Four Family Dwelling Conditional Use Conditional Use Five/Six Family Dwelling Not Permitted Conditional Use Seven or More Family Dwellingl Not Permitted Conditional Use Townhouses Conditional Use Conditional Use Mobile Home Parks Conditional Use Conditional Use Planned Unit Residential Development Conditional Use Conditional Use Commercial Automotive Sales Rural Residential 1(RR1} Conditional Use Limited Commercial Not Permitted Automotive Service Stations Conditional Use Not Permitted Banks Conditional Use Conditional Use Business/Consumer Services Conditional Use Conditional Use Guide Service Conditional Use Conditional Use Hotels/Motels Conditional Use Conditional Use Lodge Conditional Use Conditional Use Professional Offices Conditional Use Permitted Restuarants Conditional Use Permitted Retail Business Conditional Use Conditional Use Wholesale Business Conditional Use Conditional Use IThPeters/Commercial lRecreation 1 j Conditional Use I i Conditional Use Industrial Rural Residential 1(RRi) Limited Commercial Airports & Related Uses Conditional Use Not Permitted Automotive Repair Conditional Use Not Permitted Gas Manufacturer/Storage Conditional Use Not Permitted Manufacturing/Fabricating/Ass embly Conditional Use Not Permitted Mini -Storage Facility Conditional Use Conditional Use Storage Yard Conditional Use Not Permitted Warehouses Conditional Use Not permitted Public/Institutional Rural Residential 1(RR1) Limited Commercial Charitable Institutions Conditional Use Conditional Use Churches Permitted Permitted Clinics Conditional Use Permitted Colleges Conditional Use Conditional Use W Page I of 2 3 56o -71 ft '? f -380- A az� i W 00 1/9/20a9 property Ownetjsj Name Property Address Phone # Phone # Notes/Comments Support Oppose Neutrar No Contact Left Message 1/6/09,1:15Prv1, Previous Conversation 12 State of Alaska, Mental Health Trust, months ago favored commercial 1 _Maid Menafee 9744 Kenai Spur Hwy 269-8658 development X 2 Kenai Peninsula Boruugh, max Best '�—__ 9616 Kenai Spur Hwy 714d201 Message 1j6/09, T20PM X _ --Left Left Message 1,16/09, 1:25PM, EZ Management, LLC, Patricia has expressed opposition in the 3 Falkenberg 305 Cinderella St- 283-7858 past X 4 _ Franklin T. Wottham 9520 Kenai Spur Hwy 335-0363� Contact 1/7/09 X 5 Eric Gerke _ 804 Magic Ave. 661-7629 776-7075 Left Message 1/6109, 1.15 PM X 6 Dustin Dennis 808 Magic Ave. No Listed Phone Number _X 7 Steven Rickman 810 Magic Ave- 262.1601 Contact 1/6/09 X 8 Robert M. Gonzalez 9464 Kenai Spur Hwy__ No Usted Phone Number X 9 Scott E. Anderson 9444 Kenai Spur Hwy No Listed Phone Number - X Contact 119109, Mr. Bisset _ opposed any increased development that would 10 Lois E- Bisset 304 Castle St. 283-0987 lincrease traffic. X _ Contact 1/9j09, Mr. Bisset opposed any increased development that would 11 Marc Bisset 9392 Kenai Spur Hwy 283-0987 increase traffic. X 12 Billy tack LaShot 9328 Kenai Spur Hwy 283-7866 Contact 1/6109 X _ _ Left Message 116109, 1:25PM, - - - �- has expressed opposition in the 13 Cecil & Patricia ralkenberg 399 McCollum Dr. 283-7858 past X 14 City of Kenai (Administration] 210 Fidalgo Ave. 283-7S3S X -382- 61, Mr-rom sMorii sm 2003-01.516 —0 4 12ta= 10 A* PtlQu:1 of 2, �fC6 Flta'sD F08ll5iCOFD AT ftBQU&Y[' OF:. Asefw' $mmoa Ca Ot A}meka. Mid N8 W1tDHI) BEPOItN TO Kum, g2MANAf`.umw. LLC Addseo MmxU" Cmy.Sam4 8ET(�hP �A& 994u 8saaw Nwnlem 0.4413 QUIT CLAIM DEED STDb ®CtANTOR YATRYCCA YAF,id6iPdYKWG.TsnadeeofpdtAA,7YCxll: T081&T Uffi YLOCfi8Y6 R. BAaLiC4YSXlA@ wG mo ssa g widen, im Y.O.Bes:tM.KeuLAK 4mfi61 6xaod iamvc4lcailma4TEND0[.LAAS AND(YI3648 OOOYY AFU} VAiUABLe NNGmC'diAT80R maaeys ma4quvi retest WE ZW MA.GXMM LW Uw 0rgaw1n8MeabUxdrmlmMo-,aJmeRd'vrmoltmsgCag Dba(t+of �ea4.fimmo€Almkg, mg.NWv eWS W sine ea4eLad tldosPdmgma0x(a) tlrcrmn: 9AAOBLCt iatR,81xk3.eaud4ugwdm Pfa MR90kPtliER8U983YYPNO%, 9a1aSwdneF3n6N�mdnr79.g5r Raaadn a4dm #md8esordmy DtaaisLT'Wle8le31elai Dxmid. Srae eiA3ec4a �JA-TMARM, (ua S wd6,ecsmdfvgmtlmpLro4ADF1E6 $Ylp[LLYd9COM, 8W umler Fbt Nombei'Kd4®c, lN,aide ePtlw CCeaN RsrordiagDktriM, T61nd 9vdi[iai Aitlrb:y Bleb rrPAtuka. PACCG9U, m: Thar 8C , auaxd®B m do F1a,r1'R9AD ffiATTBCtB�PiAi ; 6kd mdcr Mvt Nurdw' leD1.YY, ReemdsatBY.1lpmt &emxdrnBDiatn^J.Tblyd iadicmil MmiG: Sam afNe� F'ADCB&N: y2wvanawa d.mm 10 aed6S. efSadwiA Towm68}6NaW, 8sege 21 Wev43mcmW A<reWrsry.Reaietir sP6m&tasWRtamatingDbakL T6b� fudioid OiYnai, SinmofAbah. CMbd 19 dmya4di ,m Thin instrument is being recorded by Ftrsi A"Oun, Tugs of Am"em es OUALBYbEDMAMAL TMM¢V HANABNSA an asaommotlp4mn mey.6 hae net 11 Lae: ___mmad a s !it Welt i1 'W"aw, IA(esfiha �inM tFns'no, c -385- .,, ,d � �, •6d we=!c na atreae tm taa kIWWlttft FAX R 007 486 3W —--�s------ M Daq PlMi2812WJ 92m9 AM , Stpq Of Alpstq • ! DP.pMrtplApltdC&nmetco- t .. IMM dfAlaft P ' cwpwgwm swum ntlaeA8micenatd0'mmmB(4taFLtosACBt® Nr4 ltattim AC MMO ieGN*jt Al. u,� old 3°t� Mc Cx3L➢.a+mw Ctrai 4dy�9n1 PL•i� �1L "i�4d$ demo o tobr bNww ❑ 76stALlpltq•C•egwryie ig;tz Ewe. � 46eP2m�6L8�lllycbaspar{p3e brrlw Amount Dow $X.37.S0* 8005 Rk mafal'a rm � 13i• S� ffiP37.SP�ba ZPPiF9f¢rw3al Rm,�uert 131.5� v$137.SP�+ar ReYmetatemms6 Faa / i1175'a %4 '3'aE35maawes�€dtadc�.m9:e Pww9 0&6Bi t+w�fnMEkdy o14t 8WO OfAinke 8WWA Nepw!-4LC, & LLP 9 Ptgge) (AY99 t✓� MM b tea_ OF ALMA __. \ 4 =5%\ - . y offiGIGIM ova n �7 Se� QOAQ�i Nf- 91 January 31, 2009 Kenai City Council Planning and Zoning Commission Kick Koch, City Manager 210 Fidetgo Ave. Kenai, AK 99611 Re: The issue of the contemplated rezone of properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway Corridor from McCollum Drive West to NoName Creek Dear Council: I am Bodging a protest concerning Jeff Twak and Karen Koester participating in any further voting on the above rezone. They should either recluse themselves or be disquali%d for the following reasons: Jeff Twa The City of Kenai Municipal Code 1.85.060 Conflicts of interest prohibited states: (d) No Council or commission member may vote on any question in which he or she has a substantial direct or Indirect financial interest. Direct or indirect financial interests shall be disclosed to the presiding officer prior to a vote on the question and the presiding officer shall determine whether the financial interest exists and whether the prohibition from voting is applicable A decision by the presiding officer may be overridden by a unanimous vote of the members present, exclusive, of the member presenting the possible conflict. Mr. Twait and Core Leigh McCollum have a daughter Miranda Twait Miranda Tw.mit is the daughter of Glen McCollum Jr. who is an owner of property in the proposed rezone area. Miranda will have an heir to that property. Mr. Twak has an indirect financial interest by way of his daughter. Further. Air, Twait Blegaiiy filed the rezone application and has provided a letter to the City Council supporting the rezone. The letter is attached. in AUE. Hass pipe Corp. v. REG, COM., 176 p.3d 667 (Alaska 2008), the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed r'; Kenai City Council Planning & Zoning Commission Ride Koch, City Manager January 31, 2009 the decision in Cinderella Career & Finishing Sch, v. F.7.C„ 425 F.2d 563 (D.C. Cir. 1970) and approved the finding in that case. in Cindererfta, Paul Rand Dixon, who was the chairman of the Commission spoke at the Government Relations Workshop of the National Newspaper Association in which he made several derogatory statements concerning deceptive advertising and charm schools which substantially implied that he had pre -judged the Issue which was being brought before the Commission, The Cinderella court expressed its strong disapproval by stating: This does not give individual Commissioners license to prejudge cases or to make apeochas which give the appearance that trio case has been prejudged. Conduct such as this may have the effect of entrenching a Commissioner in a position which he has p ubitcly stated, making it difficult, If not impassible, for him to roach a different conclusion, in the event he deems it necessary to do so air consideration of the record. These is a marked difference between the issuance of a press release which states that the Commission has filed a complaint because it has "'reason to believe that there have been violations, and statements by a Commissioner aftr an appeal has been filed which give the appearance that he has already prejudged tie case and that the updmate detor minadon of the merits wiii move to predestned groom. While these two situations —Commission press releases and a Cornmisslonces pea-decialon public statements —are sinker in appearance, they ass obviously of a different order of imofit id. @ 590, The Alaska Supreme Court in ,AWE. Ness Pipe Corp. cited above added this comment, In the light of prior warnings to him in other cases, the court scarcely concealed its disgust for his ethical laxity, Cindeealea u—t apuar®l; s.:nms for the proposi ®o;, eaVat Intemperate a public remarks by a decision maker crests a conedtudonaliy Impermissible appearance of outcomO-debirmrnatrve prejudgment. 176 P.3d @ 674. in the case of the rezone, based upon Mr, Twaii's illegal filing to the application to rezone and his public remarks to the City Council, I and many others have no Cf3 Kenai City Council planning & Zoning Commission Rick Koch, City Manager January 31, 2Wg confidence that Mr. Twait vrlll fairly and impartially consider the issue of the rezoning. He should recuse himself or, if he refuses to do so, Mr. Twrait should not be allowed to participate In discussions or vote on the Issue. Karen KoaeW WKoester also provided a letter to the City Council in support of the razone. The letter is attached. The above o ted cases also apply to Ms. Koester. Her remarks in the letter certainly indicate that she will vote for the rezone regardless of what additional testimony will be presented at the heating. Pills, Koester has certainly created an "appearance of outcome-etetarminalve prejesdgmanr, She should recuse herself, or, if she refuses to do so, Ms. Koester should not be slowed to participate in discussions or vote on the issue. Q - C . w Charles Winegarden, Fx4. 399 princess Kenai, AK 99511 283-5774 M Jsffioy M. Twait ism Julls Amen Drive Kenai, A&. W I I I wasted to write a brief letter in light of the rtunhlinge ISre heard over the peat weak regarding the re•zono of Tract A, papa Joes Subdiriaion Chamley Replat from RRI to M As you an auras, I was out of town for both of the moodup in whi& testimony was given regarding this. I have read themmut" from the first meeting imm September and have aftd, through the Comprobondve Plan and the Zoning 4ode. Hawing spent a great deal of Lino with. Mew commiasionero and yourself in devoloping a Limited Commem al Zone it is my opinion that tide is the beat tone for the above mentioned property. I know that neighbors in flee area ors roluctant for change and it in our job as a planning and Zoning Commisaion to weigh all the fedo" and allow responaibla development and growth m our aomm unity as bmg os it is in harmany with the guidelines that we must uee W make auab da6dona. I fear that Dr. Wortham has tshan the proper Steps and hired the proper proiaeaionals to awum the community that his investment in this property will not only improve the aesthetico as we all drive by but siao he an and to the entire area. That being said, had I been available at the Laat meeting it would have bean my Vote to vote in fever ufthe Mena. Plesss forward this on to the proper body for consideration if you feel it approprsats. Sincerely y Zb sit 6 Planning and Zoning Chair tiecaivod Oic 1 T9� 1 r rir Windows Live Hotmail Print Messe Page 1 of 1 �5� --- On Pat, 12/19108, Jeff Yana€t <atwralt@adaska.net> wrote: From: Jeff Twait <jtwaitean alaska.net> Subject: RE: P&Z Wortham Rezone To: debbie_sonbrrg@yahoo.com Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 9:14 AM Debbie, I havenLt heard the audio tape from that meeting. Is there something you feel is relevant to the upcoming meeting on the rezone?? I will stop by and talk to Marilyn this morning and see if she has it or if it will have anything to do with the new public hearing for January. Thanks, Jeff From, Debbie Sonbercg[€nallto:debbie_sonberg@yalloo.comj Searle: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:21 PMi To: ltwaitCaalaska-met Subject: P&Z Wortha€r Rezone Have you had a chance to listen to the audio of the Public testimony frorn the 12 & 26 P&Z meetings? Debbie Sonberg 4£0 Cinderella Street Kenai , AK 99611 907-283-5880 http://colllw.colill.mail.live.coin/mail/PrintSheliassp ?type=message&cpids=66dib6f9-9... 2/9/2009 ,i�ul,'`�Y9n�lh "Villaye with a Past C y loath a Fidure„ 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 tog Telephone: 907-283-7535 ( FAX: 907-283-3014 t11[1'r r((safz TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Adi Item 5.a. on the agenda is the public hearing on Resolution PZ 09-01. The resolution deals with an application to rezone properties North of the Kenai Spur Highway corridor from McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC). The rezoning application was signed by Jeff Twa(i, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission. See Page 16 of the packet. KrvIC 14.20.270(b)(1) provides that one of the ways a rezone may be initiated Is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I have been informed that Commissioner Bryson Intends to object to the Rezoning Application because Chairman Twalt submitted the application without authorization from the Commission, As the Commission knows, this rezone issue has created considerable controversy. The administration feels the debate should be on the substantive Issues of the rezoning rather than procedural concerns. It is counterproductive to have the future debate focus on the application form rather than the merits of any proposal; especially if there is a legal challenge should a zoning change be approved. In order to eliminate that issue the administration requests the resolution be removed from the Agenda during the Agenda Approval portion of the meeting (Item 1.b.). The administration wlll,be bringing a new application along with a new resolution forward. It is expected that the rezoning issue will be brought back to the Commission for the meeting of February 11, 2009. 11 °llaye tviM a Past C# with a F aye" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 1 Fax: (907) 283-3014 wvw.cl.kenaLak.us March 6, 2009 Janine '`spy 403 McCollum Drive Kenai, AK 99611. In your February 1.9, 2009 email transmission, you requested the following information: "I know that the Comprehensive Plan was last modified in the year 2003. Reading through it I find that there were a few modifications to that in the last year, affective (sic) June 2008. Can you give me the history of reviews of the Comprehensive Plan between 2003-2008?" Our response Comprehensive Plan, Modifications -- 2008: 1. At the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of April 9, 2008, the Plan was reviewed. The Commission held a public hearing on its Resolution PZ08-15, recommending adoption of the updated zoning and land use maps (Maps 10 and 11, pages 27 and 28) for the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Kenai by the Kenai City Council. Resolution PZ08-15 was passed unanimously. 2. Kenai City Council Ordinance No. 2302-2008, adapting updated zoning and land use maps for the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Kenai was introduced on April 16, 2008 and a public hearing held on May 7, 2008. Ordinance No. 2302- 2008 was passed unanimously. Comprehensive Plan Modifications Between 2003-2008: 1. The Planning & Zoning Commission reviews the Comprehensive Plan each time it processes requests for rezones, conditional use permits, and airport land -396- :'39'b Janine Espy March 6, 2009 Page 2 of 2 leases. It has also been reviewed when establishing new zones, such as the Central Mixed Use Zone and the Limited Commercial Zone. All of 'These activities, excepting airport land leases, require public hearings. 2. The Planning & Zoning Commission meeting minutes, staff reports, and agenda packet would contain records of each of the actions considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission. 3. No modifications were made to the Comprehensive Plan from 2003, until 2008 when Ordinance No. 2302-2008 updated zoning and land use maps. CITY OF KENAI IIf % "�'a/ Carol L. F'reas City Cleric clf -397- /q o Suggested by: Councilwoman Monfor CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 94-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, REQUESTING THAT THE STATE OF ALASKA, DOT/PF, MAKE SPECIAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL STUDENTS THAT WILL BE CROSSING THE NEW FIVE LANE KENAI SPUR HIGHWAY. WHEREAS, the Alaska DOT/PF will be upgrading the Kenai Spur Highway from mile post 7.4 to 10.6 to a five (5) lane highway, and WHEREAS, 43 students who live on the north side of the highway and walk to or from the Kenai Middle School, grades 6 - 8, and Kenai Central High School, grades 9 - 12, will have to cross this five lane highway, and WHEREAS, suggestions of a pedestrian overpass, or at least a signal stop light(s) and pedestrian cross walks be used, and WHEREAS, such considerations for the safety of school student pedestrians should be part of project costs and funded by the Federal and State government, and WHEREAS, the safety of these students are of the utmost importance to our City and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that we request the State of Alaska, DOT/PF, make special design and construction considerations for the school students that will be crossing the new five lane Kenai Spur Highway. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, this 6th day of April, 1994. ATTEST: %H7. WILLIAMS, MAYOR car (///�'/ Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Written By Public Works: /kw/3/28/94 Ll `Nlla e with a Mast C# with a Fidare p� 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 1IF y ` Telephone: 907-283-7535 / FAX: 907-283-3014 11 a992the d4y KEN`KENAI MUNICIPALOD t REZONE 14.20.270 Amendment procedures — (a) Intent. This section shall govern any amendment to the Kenai Zoning Code and Official (b) Initiation of Zoning Code and Official Map Amendments. (1) Amendments to the Kenai Zoning Code and Official Map may be. initiated by: (A) Kenai City Council; (13) Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission; (C) Submission of a petition by a majority of the property owners in the area to be rezoned; (D) Submission of a petition bearing the signatures of fifty (50) registered voters within the City of Kenai to amend the ordinance text; (E) Submission of a petition as provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City of Kenai. (2) Amendments to the Official Zoning Map shall be considered only if the area to be rezoned contains a minimum of one (1) acre (excluding street or alley rights - of -way) unless the amendment enlarges an adjacent district boundary. (3) A proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which is substantially the same as any other proposed amendment submitted within the previous nine (9) months and which was not approved shall not be considered. (4) The zoning amendment request shall include the manes and addresses of the applicant, a map showing the area. involved, the present and proposed zoning, a non-refundable deposit/advertising fee one hundred dollars (V 00.00) and any other pertinent information requested by the City. (c) Amendment Procedure: (1) A completed application, as described in this section, shall be submitted to the administrative official. The administrative official shall schedule a public hearing and make notification arrangements. (2) The Commission shall hold a public (tearing in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. 7/23/2008 -399- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7, "Vill4ye with a Pose;C# with a Future" i..) Z.a; 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 W11 ~ Telephone: 907-283-7535 / FAX: 907-283-3014 _ t99T PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION Natne of Applicant Business Name _ Mailing Address Telephone Email Legal Description Property Address _ City of Kenai Zoning KPB Parcel No Date 8. Application applying for (mark permit being applied for): ❑ Bed &e Breakfast ❑ Conditional Use ❑ CUP —Transfer ❑ Encroachment ❑ Gravel Extraction ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Townsite Historic Development ❑ Variance c1717mit your application. until It contains all rer aired information. (Check each box that applies and attached file necessary information to process this application.) ❑ I am the legal owner of the property. ❑ I am not the legal owner of the property; however, I have attached verification by the owner of the property that I have permission to apply for the permit. ❑ i have paid the required fee ($100 plus sales tax). Attach a detailed description of the proposed use. Review the applicable section of the Kenai Municipal Code and include all information required by code for the type of application. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. I certify that the information provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant Date _ -- m PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS REQURiNG PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTIFICATIONS The permit you have applied for may require Public Hearing and Notification tinder KMC 14.20.280. The Planning and Zoning Commission meets the 2°d and 41h Wednesday of each month. To meet notice requirements, the Planning Department must receive your completed application 22 days prior to the meeting when the Public Hearing is scheduled. • Applications requiring Public Hearings must be filed no later than noon on the date of the deadline. • Home Occupations and Landscape/Site Plans do not require a Public Hearing. • Allow up to 4 weeks for the permitting process. • If required: a The Fire Inspection Report must be received gdgr to processing the application. o The Affidavit of Posting must be received 2 M eeks prior to the hearing date in order to schedule a public hearing. o Resolutions cannot be issued until expiration of the I5-day appeal period. o Resolutions cannot be issued until documentation is received that the certificate of compliance is met. 1 1t -401- March 25, 2009 RECEIVED MAR 2 5 2009 Carol Freas 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, Alaska 99611 RE. Council Package for April 1, 2009 Dear Carol: i am enclosing this letter with this list of Petitioners who are against the re -zone ordinance 2393 2009 to be heard on April 1, 2009. 1 do have a spread sheet but am having difficulty my Excel Program. I will email that to you later this afternoon to clarify the areas surveyed and separation of petitioners: It is based on numbers and property Values for the year 2008. With this year's tax increase the numbers would be considerably higher. It is done by Maps community and we will continue to add names before the next council meeting. The balance of names will be presented that evening and I will make copies for each council member, Thank you for your help this morning, 1 will value your input into this whole process. Petria Faikenberg9 For Maps Co ounity /pf -402- O W PARCEL#i OV6fNER ADDRESSSi CITY STATEZIP _ ACRESI rQMVNE01 -LOTADDRESS 1 090 22 Jap nskr Dr Steve Ja onsb Dr P Kenai AK 99611 0 29, $11600 i045 605 nski Dr ,Anderson !Anderson, Steve & Loretta 601 nski Dr Kenai, AK 99611 $12 3 045 090-35 507 Ja onski Dr Anderson, Steve & Loretta 601 Ja onski Dr Kenai, AK 99611 -_- Q 26A 700 $1Q,700 4 045 050 01308Prncess St Beck Mary _ j30 Princess SR 'iKena� AK 99611 0.281 $11 300 , 045 060-04 309 Castle St 1-- -- Bisset Lois E - 1309 Castle St _'Kenai AK 99611 _ ' 1.491 26 000 .5 6 045 060 059392 Kenai Spur H , Bisset, Marc 1309 Castle St Kenai, AK 99611 1.321 $24,300 045 020-04 Burger, Bill & ltathryn L. �i2814 Brtian Dr. 4 Anchorage, Ak 99504 250[ $11,000 -- - 7 ;045-050-02LPrincess St 1Carlson, Ronald 310 Princess St --- Kenai, AK 99611 — - 0.28� $11,300 - - - 8 i045 230 131410 Magic Ave 9 045 230 12 311 Princess St --- Coates, Lisa _ Deano Ben &Janet 31 - 410 Magic Ave PO Box 1855 Kenai, AK 99611 Kenai AK 99611 _ ' 0 65; -0.46 $17,300 $14 400 -11 -- Princess St - I Dix Kevin & Robin -- PO Box 1719 Kenai AK 99611 0 95 $20,300 10 045 050.19 366 111045 040 08 903 Magic Ave i Espy Rory&'Rebecca 903 Magic Ave enai,AK99611 _ _ 2.501 $31,800 12 045-040-14!403 McCollum Dr IEsp , Roy H & Janine ;403 McCollum Dr Kenai, AK 99611 1.131 $22,200 13 045-030-08403 Cinderella St EZ Management LLC 403 Cinderella St !Kenai, AK 99611 2-501 $33,000 14 045 050 111303 & 305 CinderellaiEZ Management LLC PO Box 3293 (Kenai AK 99611 2.501 $33,000 _-- _ 15 045 050 24.1309 Cinderelia St _ EZ Management LLC 309 Cinderella St _._ Kenai AK 99611 AK 99611 1 81 1 11 i $21,900 900 16 045 060 24 3 9 McCollum Dr Faikenberg, Cecil C & Patricia IPO Box 3293 _]Kenai �21 045 200 15' 1905 Al ak _ 17 045 200 15 1903 Aliak Dr Gustkey Michael &Marsha Gustke� Michael & Marsha�1903 1903 Aliak Dr Aliak Dr Kenai, AK 99611 Kena, AK 99611 0,28 625 $13 700 $13 100 - - — _— 18 045 030 120 4101 Cmderei a Dru g Hunt, Etrett 44989 Eddy Hill Dr i411 Cinderella St Soldotna, AK 99669 0 29 ;Kenai AK 99611 0 22, $11 600 $$10 100 — - -- - - 19.045 050-16 610 Magic Ave -- Kinney, Norma K 610 Magic Ave yena AK 99611 _ 0.30 $11,700 20j045-110-2611010 Aliak Dr Leqng, John_ 1010 Aliak Dr ' Kenai AK 99611 , 0,28 $11 300 21 045 110 2 1: 1008 Aliak Dr Marqu s Glen &Christine 1008 Aliak Dr Kenai AK 99611 029 $11,600 22}045 110 22j410 Chmitna PI jMarquis Glen & Chrstine 1008 Aliak Dr Kenai AK 99611 0.31 $6,000 - - 23 i045 110 231408 Chmitna PI — 24:045 030 16�1 Magic Ave Marquis Glen & Christine - Moore Shawn & Dawn — 11008 Aliak br 611 Magic Ave Kenai AK 99611 - Kenai AK 99611 -0 32 - 0.30 $6 100 $11 400 605 - Moret 605 Magic Ave Kenai AK 99611 i 0 46 $14 400 25 045 030 19 Magic Ave Sandra 26 045 030 14703 Magic Ave (Patterson, Bobby &_Carolyn -- _ ,Box _ KenaLj AK 99611 ..._. 125 $23 600 „ 271045-050-25 306 Hutto St Piatt, Daniel & Adrian 30306 Hutto St ; Keno AK 99611 1 1.13 i $22,200 28 045 090--13508 Japonski Dr _ Paul 506 Japonski Dr ! Kenai, AK 99611 ' 0.261 1 0 28 $11 300 29.045 090�-14 506 Japonski Dr ' _IQuade, _ iQuade, Paul_ 506 Japonski Dr Kenai, AK 99611 $11 300 200 04504010 ;808 Aliak Dr - - - 30 045 040-04 407 McCollum— Dr - ;Rogers Karen - _ ' Rhodes, -Chris & Mezel,- P — - Box 3308 ! PO Box 526 !Kenai, AK 99611 -- _ !Cooper Landing, AK LO6 995 1.88j $14 $28,200 31 045 050-12!312 Princess St_ _ISchrag, Mark & Nancy 1312 Princess St Kenai AK 9961i 028 �,-.__ $11,300 — 32 045 030-03 704 Aliak Dr _, _ -- 1 Seavey, Kenneth - -- PO Box 2792 _— _ ._- ;Kenai RK 99611 -- - 'Kenai, — 2.50; -$22,000 33.045-040-12 412-Cinderella St 6- i Sonber ,Russell &Debbie i410 Cinderella St AK 99811 0.95 $20300 j TOTAL !CHILDREN IMPI4OVEINIENTi ASSESSED UNDER 19 $146,200 $157 800} - $107,400 $119,4001 - $23,800 $34,5001 - $50,9002 $62,2001 $179,800, 800i $0I -$205 $24,300 2 _ $0 $11 000 - $77,1001 $88400 $285,600 $303 200 $157,900 $172,30 $349,900j $370,200{ 1__...__ --$222,100; $253,900 $106,100 _-_2--- $128 300 1 $78,900_ $111 900 1 - $104,800, $1378001_ - $120,2001 $-148,100! 1 $204,000 $225,900[ --- $0 $13 000 $142,300 $155400 $164,200 $175 800 1 $156,1001 $166,200! 0 ---_-- $89,200 $100,900_ --- $74,800 $86 100j---- 1 $136,900, $148,500! 1 - - - - - _-$01 $6,000' $95,300 $106 7004 1- $166,4001 - $170 800 $23,600 $47,100 $228,100 $250,300 1 14 $1,100r� -- - $125--,4001 $170,000 $181,300 1 $113,700 $127 900 $82,9001 $111 100' 1 $167,1001 _.- - $178,40011 $67,200 $89,2001 - $151,700! $1720001 - 34 045 040-13j410 Cinderella St Son berg, Russell & Debbie 410 Cinderella StIKenai, AK 99611 i— 0.96' $20,300 351046-020 10 707 Aliak Dr Stromber , Richard J & Carol 21 Chandler St Tomahawk, 54487-15 0.96 $13,500 37:045 090 25I1110 Ali klOm Dr y y Szabo Balni e& S Ivia 401 McCollum Or Kenai AK 99611 _i I 1105 Aliak Dr Kenai AK 99611 _ 0.90 $20,000 1.0_0 $20,do0 38 045 030 20i603 Magic Ave Wannamaker, Kellie Box 1848 Kenai AK 99611 0.46 $14,400 391045 050 14 309 Crystal St Ward, Colleen & Wait T ' 708 Magic Ave Kenai, AK 99611 j 0.281_$111_300 40I045 050 231708 Magic Ave Ward Walter T & Colleen C _ 708 Magic Ave Kenai AK_99611 1 2,2 $31 100 41 045 030 13L7 Magic Ave Wik Gloria PO Box 244.4. Kenai, AK 99611 1 26� $23,600 42 r045 050 26 304 Hutto St -- 43 045 230 06i309 Princess St — — -- -- WUshusen, Justin &Jessica 306 Hutto St ;Kenai AK 99611 - - - rWinegarden, Charles & Jo Caro 309 Princess St !Kenai AK 99611 - -- 1,69 $20,500 -- 0.76 $18,800 44-045 040 16;406 Cinderella St Wright bon` 604 McCollum Dr #A j Kenai AK 99611 1.03 $20,900 45i045 090 26;602 McCollum Dr Wright, Don 1604 McCollum Dr#A [Kenai, AK 99611 1 0.31, $12,000 46 04b 090-27,604 McCollum Dr Wright, Don & Robin i604 McCollum Dr#A !Kenai AK99611 0.31' $12,000 - ,pT_01 PETITION SIGNERS RESIDING IN MAPS NEIGHBORHOOD —' IGhase Branca 403 Cinderella St ' Kenai AK 99611 - — --- Cook Jason 610 Magic Ave Kenai AK 99611 ; Gluth Ryan_ 251 Princess St Kenai AK 99611 l IGluth Heather 251 Princess St Kenai AK 99611 J_ --- - Lheureux,BBarb —_ ---_ 309 Hutto St Kenai AK99611 — - ,James Banielle 303 Cinderella St [Kenai AK 99611 J — ;James Sherri 303 Cinderella St ;Kenai, AK 99611 _ I Price Anita E 409 McCollum Dr Kenai AK 99611 Sohmit Daniel (Smith 403 Cinderella St Kenai, AK 99611 _ Glen 1305 Cinderella St ;Kenai, AK 99611 j StuartKaylee 401 McCollum Dr !Kenai, AK 99611 ;Von Haden, Martie 309 Cinderella Dr. JKenai, AKK 89611 --- OTHER PETITION SIGNERS RESIDING IN KENAI NEIGHBORHOODS �Borgen Kelley 507 Frontage Rd AK 99611 _-- _!Kenai uz2ell B Jo An 381 Senior Court Kenai, AK-99611 _— Alexander, Virginia435 Phillips_ Kenai AK 99611 Andrew Theresa --_ Kelley, 1106 Mission Avenue [Kenai AK 99611 L Sam Street IKenai AK 99611 i8orgen, _ 143097 iCarmodyrKati. __ ;601 Frontage Raa !Kenai, RK 99611 I L ChaHrn, Adeline 635 Dolcok Lane !Kenai, AK 99611 I -]Cheesman, Karen 1503 Cinderella St ;.Kenai AK 99611 _ _ Ghrebtow, Vital 506 Ja onski Dr 'Kenai, AK 99611 _ Cissell, Brand 306 James Street V !Kenai, AK 99611 IN AKIN 13 AK 99611 dill (kZil We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children MAPS Printed Name -SSiyg�nature Physical Address Phone # _ Date signed Under 19 vrs. qKV ,r 51 �> >3: f i � :��3-�? y�t�� , _der ���; r,c�—.� air zc' S S, Paz a i �� car, f' x LL PETITION OPPOSING fi MMG CHANGE-wrymN auR commibAM We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zane. Number of Children ntnrs P,e,djW# Name Signature P]bAieal A dress Pbone # Date signed Under 19 vrs. 0 I PEMLON Q''Q !t t I We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone, Number of Children R4 Printed iVame { _ Sji/g�na_ture�Phvsicat Address Phon # Date signed Under ` —Vr�.iMA vd T._fArr 2Zh-1^i3 %J Ste _ c�63—�csFrF-- PETITION OPPOSING A ZONING CHANGE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY e, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children mAps Printed Name Signature Plhvsical Address Phone # Date signed Linder 19yrs. 14-ar ! Yi) t j l C�J 9 7t79-AfQ i e Al, � 53 y � 4 t� 02 - 62 --0 2 V a IS 100��4(<_ �— 2L C 6�c� ❑ ❑ ❑ PETITION OPPOSING A ZONING CHANGE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children MAPS Printed Name Signature Physical Address Phone # Date signed Under 19yrs. El El ❑ ❑ tt�r e, -5�3-4r�� PETITION OPPOSING A ZONING CHANGE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. i%kps Printed Name 0 Signature Physical Address Phone # Date signed Number of Children Under 19 yrs. ❑ au„ to. , , 4's 7a 152 rz. iZ ' '2e5 S _ � -6 7 l PETITION OPPOSING A ZONING CHANGE WITHIN OUR. COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning, from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential i and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children M Printed Name Signature Physical Address Phone # Date signed Under x9 vrs. ❑ '�- r`1 ` i'LS ❑ i sty` C7 �AA n ova A--10a -9 3 S'-Z PETITION OPPOSING A ZONING CHANGE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zane. Number of Children IviAPS Printed Name Signature P6nysical Address Phone # _ Date signed- Under 19 yrs. ❑ 0416814 t -1- l s `�Lt� c _f �, 5 t� 172 ��i� 17 S2 arcs ? D Number of Children Signature Physical Address Phone # Date si¢ned Under 19yrs. We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. MAPS Printed Name V IV PETITION OPPOSING A ZrONING CHANGE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children Mars Printed Name Signature Physical Address Phone # Date signed Under 19 yrs. 2,e1�Hl�eay _� A( t! rayz Z52- 3�& I 3�b o j 0 u _N - o Ln W PETITION OPPOSING A ;BONING CHANGE WITHIN OUR COMM1t7NM We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent: resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential i and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children MAPS Printed Name Signature Physical Address Phone # Date signed Under 19 vrs. Nthp061V :� j�tl ,14/ /.)P 4a)'�?— PETITION OPPOSING A ZONING CHANGE WrrHIN OUR COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children MAPS Printed Name &A-ature Physical Address Phone # Date signed Under 14yrs. 7 2 5 C3 et u j 0�z. Ivan 11#1 e, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children I Mars Printed Name Signature Physical .Address Phone # Dale signed Under 19 vrs. OPP05ING A ZONING—AAN—GEi' OUR COMA"ITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. L41APS Printed Name td .`a 11 V-CJV11 1 Ail AN A Signature, r S L,• �ag Q�.� { 11�us Number P11,tysical Address Phone # Date signed of Children Under 19 yrs. :0 s'3 -5d'dY /-OBI D 11 *.4 it(t `-, t,'24;21 Z_1`o1 2 fWI1_h _ .aos/i 04_fo 54- 7C1 s f a -I We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children MAPS Printed Name ice' Signature Physical Address Phone # Date signed Under 14 vrs. ❑_611Ll'tj(A PL.67-3s 10F9 ❑ PETITION OPPOSING A 2'10NING CHANGE WITHIN OUR COMIy UNILTY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Ftural Residential 'f and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Righway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children .YIAPB Printed Name mature Phviical Address Phone # Date signed Under 14 vrs. dJ Fli�o�'�t 1 s��( sir�2r �?C ICu ass .. _�_ � ' Jr ono ?5 , 377 Vq, ---0--_ ❑t� G..i"P !F/,c"c F`�. .t.td V s.4d�.� /. .7`�4'.u..s. ��� f31 1y21taw- 1,L f� :w,a- je' e --v` �❑ PETITION OPPOSING A ZONING CHANGE WITHIN OUR COMr4UNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning front Rural Residential l and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children MAPs Printed Name Signature PlIXsical Address R Phone # Date signed Under 19 yrs. •mert'�l ors° ❑ 'L)'Aos PETITION OPPOSING A ZONING CHANGE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children mAPs Printed Name Si Elrtitrt �o �/Iras a < nature Physical Address Phone # 1 ? well - a�3 b� Date signed Under 19 yrs. /Z/S aftrvaor ❑ !n. C;ge.t I i 0,j �l•wE.r' .�' G(%to-d P� J J° VY�..tt�aitl4t�t Nk /' •z ❑ 1 tI L V 1 51{z a .ct .tit Bh �nm 95 A & -7 2,1- 66 Z-3 P14- ❑ (�1��. �� '��n r� ��.lJ• ii� �i3-tail- a-�.=o�r t ❑ tm 1iCEe _cic, .�f. /so9 Z�ya.J WAY -33-327,/ 3"..9 __ -oit El sa. MAPS U 0 o 0 We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children Printed Name Sigpftture Physical Address Phone # Date signed Under 19 yrs. j ii G, h0j '�/ �. i'- 3U' _-} PETITION OPPOSING A ;BONING CHANGE WYMIN OUR COMMUNITY We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential I and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number of Children mAPs Printed Name Signature PIUTsical Address Phone # Date signed Under 19 Yrs. 0 F. { t Iy. i i 'i r )G F { Ca tt,w_, ' r vti :1,<.,_. i! i<=. �S - ,1 0 I Y� 4 Y+ t Es JL keel' ��� 3 aEitkc � L —1 —0 7 6 is Gi -�y -{�I �•t-11 fCf.hAl.,>{illli —,t,j- —fj le"cyzl X M r tr`Je, the under-s€fined, are OPJPOSED to rer4ronina tro€io Rural Residential I AndOlnsecaticat 'to Limited €otnotereial the properties north of the Kenai Shur Ekihevav included in the frontage strip extendict� Prom McCollum give to the city -owed conservation parcel west of princess Street and any additional subsequen€ resolutions or ordinances that sy'ould result in the rezone of properties herein identified, is whole or in part, from Rural Residemial ; and CnnScrvati©o to Limited Commercial Zouc, Number M,kgs Printed Name of Children S€gnatpree Physical Address Placue # Date signed Under 74 yrs. C9 , t 7Iv.A 1 A I k 4 ctA L� l -f--VI ri I IX � Fl,v a f� n f .ul (E755 Sf '3060 0,4aAie1_5;s = 7 3 -05 3 1l3( U PEI ITION OPPOSING A ZONING r" `ANGE WnHIN OUR COMMUNITY h We the undersigned, are OPPOSED to rezoning from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial the properties north of the Kenai Spur Highway included in the frontage strip extending from McCollum Drive to the city -owed conservation parcel west of Princess Street and any additional subsequent resolutions or ordinances that would result in the rezone of properties herein identified, in whole or in part, from Rural Residential 1 and Conservation to Limited Commercial Zone. Number Mors Printed Name Signature - of Children Phrrysical Address Phone # Date signed Under 19 3n. C�kk ceA AeteEr +�6 P J-Q6� 391 t`lcC� �� 314- ZVA (o . -S1 ,zone} 0 [�' .` J. ,(,� f . �%✓G//Q✓� % � yi% / ?1 � [.Zl.ct fr n� �` 3 L/ � `7' 7 ��3'� i�ta0 � C? 2�34` q--) V-06 20og c �cu 1r Q =— I c� � l�cL c� 9 d:3 4-IL 02l, l0 Vld��'X .p f ow���c� y net i� ` t9067 6t-bl-c WOOS P(r- 23732 2 1,-oc) ❑ �� ❑ [ r?? 1 � 25 2 0-94— La"; Z — I —C9 ❑ Fs' a d Sf Lddg; ❑ ❑ Tu1? ,� t�eN. '�tt 5 5� 'xr� S4 � A1r �-S� it >GG /3 11 210 FIDALGO AVE., SMITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794 TELEPHONE 907-283-7535 FAX 907-293-3014 ivsz Date: October 14, 2004 To: Linda L. Snow, City Manager From: Kim Howard, Assistant to the City Manager RE: 2004 Foreclosure Sale Sixteen of sixty lots were sold by sealed competitive bid at the 2004 Land Foreclosure Sale on October I", Thirty-five bids were received. $150 was included in the minimum bid for sale costs. Taxes owed to the Borough in the amount of $9,560.04 will be paid from the proceeds of the sale. The nronerties that sold are as follows- P I iZeeal Min. Bid H hBid 3906213 Lot 13, Block 9, Carl F. Ahlstrom Subdivision $434.001 $1,001,70 3906214 Lat 14, Block 9, Car, F. Ah sra Subdivisian D3Y9.0 a1,001.60 3906215 Lot 15, Block 9, Carl F. Ahlstrom Subdivision $399M $1,001,50 3910409Lot 6, Block 6, Mommsens Sub. Addition 1 & 2 $965.00 $5,254,00 3912110 Lot 3, Block 1, Mommsens Subdivision Replat of Add. I & 2 $907.00 $955.00 3914222 Lot 25, Block 3, Radar Subdivision $376.00 $550.001 3914223 Lot 26, Block 3, Radar Subdivision $376M $550.00 4101250 ILot 7, Block 6, Inlet Woods Sub. Part 1 $6 500.00 $7,021.50 410131.4 Lot 4, Block 4, Inlet Woods Sub. Part 1 $61500.0p $7,021.50 4106317 ILots 14 & 15 BF Beaver Ck. Alaska Sub Amended $616.00 $2,553.00 4107221 ILots 9 & 10 Bl (ADL201234) Beaver Ck Alaska Sub ended $461.00 $1,001.00 4506005 Govt L 28 lying N of Kenai Spur H $8 100.041 $10,200.00 506007 Govt L 27 lying NY of Kenai Spur Hwy, $5,600.00 $10,010M 4518003 Portion of Govt L 27 lying N of Kenai Spur H $1,108.001 $12,000.00 4706404 Original Kenai Townsite L6, B4 (Undivided one-half interest.) $587.00 $875.00 932001 Lot 1, Block 5, Valhalla Heights Sub. #3 1 $573.001 $1,001.00 OtaIB S33,901.001 $61,996.80 -431- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF ALASKA SS, Denise Reece being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: That I am and was at all times here in this affidavit mentions, Supervisor of Legals of the Peninsula Clarion, a news- paper of general circulation and published at Kenai, Alaska, that the 2004 Foreclosure Sale PO #10634 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed was published in said paper one each and every d�_for eight successive and consecutive days in the issues on the following dates. August 27, 2004 September 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17, 24, 2004 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me before t 's 11th y of October 2004 t 00 NOTARY PUBLIC in favor for the State of Alaska. My Commission expires 10-1ul-06 r------------- 1 —CITY OF KENAI 1 [ 2004 FORECLOSURE SALE . [ [ On October 1, 2004 at 2:00 p.m.,, the City of! (Kenai will be conducting a sale of land that has, (been acquired through property tax and speciail lassessment foreclosures. Approximately 621 [parcels will be sold by competitive bid sale. Sidi [package and information can be obtained at Kent[ ,City Hail, 210 Fldatgo Avanue, Kenai, Alaska, 199611.7794 or by calling (907) 283-8223. 1 #PUBLISH: 8127, 9tl, 3, 8, 10, 16, 17, 24, 2004 1 1 419412111 `--------------------- a -432- v v v rM v 2004 LAND FORECLOSURE SALE BID RESULTS October 1, 2004 @ 2:00 p.m. MAP F Parcel No. 4106317 Bidder's Name $500 Deposit? Offer Parcel No. 4107221 Bidder's Name $500 Deposit? Offer MAP G Parcel No. 4506005 'Bidder's Name $500 Deposit? Offer Parcel No. 4506007 Bidder's Name S500 Deposit? Offer $. L C,(-')L s J Parcel No. 4518003 Bidder's Name _J 1$500 Deposit? Offer I $ J� 44� $ 6�Lj k4-li i$ -433- Legend J Conditional Use Permit - - Home Occupation Permit (Inactive) 0 Y 5 m 0 V ALIAK DR — y _ O on _o N K dO _ O z KAK NU WAY / � / � StEFiXEpOti ca6wct gg � / b A �/ cp aau�oa COLONIAL DR Entity Page t of 2 Bey Entity Name By AK Entity # By Officer Name OBy Registered Agent Verify ';Ovedfy Certification Biennial Report ,.✓File Online Initial Biennial Report LLC DFile Online Business Corporation a File Online Online Orders Register for Online Order Good Standing Name Registration Register a Business Name Online Renew a Business Na Date: 1/6/2009 Filed Documents (Click above to view flied documents that are available.) Print Blank Biennial Report (To view the report, you must have Acrobat Reader installed Entity Name History Name Name Type E Z MANAGEMENT, LLC Legal Limited Liability Company Information AK Entity #: 81997D Status: Active - Good Standing Entity Effective Date: 08/26/2003 Primary NAICS Code: 531: Real Estate Home State: AK Principal Office Address: PO BOX 3293 KENAI AK 99611 Expiration Date: Perpetual Last Biennial Report Filed Date: 4/23/2007 10:50:58 AM Lest Biennial Report Filed: 2007 Registered Agent Agent Name: Office Address: Mailing Address: Principal Office Address: Organizers https://myalaska.state.alc.us/business/soskb/Corp.asp?285326 -435- F4MOMI Z -- jy Q -► c • o- A KENAI AK 99611 PO BOX 3293 KENAI AK 99611 PO BOX 3293 KENAI AK 99611 I/6/2009 rage z of L Name: Patricia Falkenberg Address: PO BOX 3293 KENAI AK 99611 Title: Manager Owner Pot: 25 Name: Patricia Falkenberg Address: PO BOX 3293 KENAI AK 99611 Title: Member Owner Pet: 25 Name: Address: Title: Owner Pet: Officers & Directors Webrnaster Contact the Division https://myalaslca.state.ak.us/business/soskb/Corp.asp?285326 -436- Cindy S.Trepanier 7624-44 St Marysville WA 98270 Member 25 1/6/2009 4 Alaska Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing Page l of t Online Business Licem n State of Alaska > commerce > > Prolosalonal Llcenefng > Business License Search LicNum: 113173 Business Name: XCEL Address: PO BOX 751 KENAI AK 99611 Status: ACTIVE Original issue. Current Issue: 11/02/2007 Expiration: 12131 /2009 Business Type: SOLE PROPRIETOR Tobacco Endorsements: 0 Line Of Business: Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Primary Activity: 541990 Secondary Activity: 541690 Owners: COLLEEN C WARD View Your License using our Search Program a Webmaster Email Business and Prolessional Licensing Email corporations i Dd (y\ TIv http://www. commerce. state. ak. us/ooc/bussearch/BusDetail.cfm?LieNum=1 13173 1 /6/2009 -437- Alaska Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing Page 1 of 1 r-;- � Unline Business� Licensing State of Alaska > Commerce > > Professional Licensing > Business License search - L1cNum: 908073 Business Name: WARD SERVICES LLC Address: PO BOX 751 KENAI AK 99611 Status: ACTIVE Original Issue: 10 /29/2 0 07 Current Issue: 12/18/2008 Expiration: 12/31 /2009 Business Type: LLC Tobacco Endorsements: 0 Line Of Business: Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Primary Activity: 541611 Secondary Activity: Owners: WARD SERVICES LLC View Your License using our Search Program wesmester Email Business and Professional Licensing Email corporations `1D8 Na-`-J http://www. commerce,state.ak.us/ocelbiassearchlBusDetail,cfm?LicNum=908073 1 /6/2009 -438- Alaska Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing Page 1 of 1 `+ i�4c'��✓1�'hiwr?vVv f�P—,i+�i �/�r�f�f��1 Online, Business Licensing State of Alaalta > commerce > > Professional Licensing > Business License Search UcNum: 908189 Business Name: ALASKAN WOOBIES AND GIFTS Address: 1111 FOX AVE KENAI AK 99611 Status: ACTIVE Original Issue: 10129/2007 Current Issue: 10109/2008 Expiration: 12131 /2010 Business Type: PARTNERSHIP Tobacco Endorsements: 0 Line Of Business: Manufacturing Primary Activity: 315291 Secondary Activity: 315299 Owners: JEANNE N HAYES JACK L HAYES View Your License using our Search Program Webmester Email Business and Professional Lioensing Email corporations http://www.commerce. state.ak.us/occ/bussearchlBusDetail.cfm?LieNuin=908189 1 /6/2009 -439- Alaska Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing Page I of I Online Business Licensing Slate of Alaska > Commerce > > Professional Licensing > Business License Search LicNum: 237622 Business Name: SCOTT CONSTRUCTION Address: 606 MCCOLLUM DR KENAI AK 99611 Status: ACTIVE Original Issue: 03/ 1811997 Current Issue: 12/1312007 Expiration: 1213112009 Business Type: SOLE PROPRIETOR Tobacco Endorsements: 0 Line Of Business: Construction Primary Activity: 236220 Secondary Activity: Owners: SCOTT A HOLMES Contact SCOTT CONSTRUCTION by e-mail. View Your License using our Search Program Webmaster Email Business and Professional Licensing Email Corporations http:/iwww.commerce.state.ak.us/occ,/busseareh/BusDetail.ofni?LieNum=237622 1 /6/2009 -440- "Village wiik a Past C# wA a Fa�are ®� J; 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: 907-283-7535 / FAX: 907-283-3014 1�IB�P \� theciy0/ ALASKA S KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE —14.20.230 ROME OCCUPATION PERMIT (a) Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to permit home occupations which are compatible with other permitted uses and with the residential character of a neighborhood, and which are clearly secondary or incidental to the residential use of the main building. In general, a home occupation is an accessory use so located and conducted that the average neighbor, under normal circumstances would not be aware of its existence other than for a sign as permitted in this chapter. Home occupations are permitted accessory uses only so long as all the development requirements listed in this section are observed. (b) Uses Permitted. Subject to the development requirements of this section, home, occupations include, but are not limited to, the following uses: (1) .Art studio. (2) Day care of no more than eight (8) children under the age twelve ('12), including children related to the caregiver. (3) Dressmaking. (4) Millinery. (5) Beauty parlor. (6) Tutoring and musical instruction. (c) Uses Prohibited. (1) Commercial auto and boat: repair. (2) Commercial kennels or similar uses. (3) Convalescent homes for the care of more than two (2) patients. (4) Mortuaries. (5) Private schools with organized classes. (6) Real estate office. (7) Restaurants. (d) Development Requirements. (1) Not more than one ('1) person outside the family shall be employed in the home occupation. (2) No more than thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of all buildings on the lot shall be used for the home occupation. 6/24/2008 -441- (3) The home occupation shall be carried on wholly within the principal building, or other buildings which are accessory thereto. Any building used for a home occupation shall be wholly enclosed. (e) Permit Application. G) An application for a home occupation permit shall be filed in writing with the City Planning and Zoning Department and signed by the person requesting to operate the home occupation. (2) If the Planning and Zoning Department finds the application meets the criteria of KMC 14.20.230 it shall be placed on the consent agenda of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Applications Iisted on the consent, agenda are considered routine and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of the application unless a member of the Commission 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. (3) A finding by the Planning and Zoning Administration that an application does not meet the criteria of KMC 14.20.230 and the denial of placement on the consent agenda may be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission by filing a written appeal with the Kenai City Clerk within thirty (30) days of the date of denial. (4) Notice of the consideration by the Commission of a home occupation permit application shall be published once at least two (2) days prior to the meeting in a paper of general circulation in the City of Kenai. (f) Permits Non -transferable. A home occupation permit granted under this section shall not be transferable to another person or location. (g) Exemption. No home occupation permit shall be required for: (1) Activities or business which are carried on solely by use of phones, computers and mail or delivery services; or (2) A state -approved relative home day care provider that provides care to no more than five (5) children (including the care giver's own children) under the age of twelve (12) of which no more than two (2) may be under thirty (20) months of age and who are the care giver's grandchildren, great-grandchildren, sibling (only if living in a separate residence), niece or nephew (not a great niece or nephew), and which involve no outside sign, little m no increase in traffic, and with only occasional visits by members of the public to the home. (h) Fire Code Inspections. (1) Day care facilities shall be inspected by the .Fire Marshal for compliance with the fire code (KMC 8.05) prior to approval of the permit. Thereafter, they shall be inspected every other year by the Fire Marshal. Failure to comply with the fire code (KMC 8.05) shall be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the facilities' home occupation permit. (2) Residences which are the subject of a home occupation permit application (other than day care facilities) may be required to be inspected by the Fire :Marshal for compliance with the fire code (KMC 8.05) prior to approval of the permit, if the Fire Marshal determines it is necessary for public safety. (Ords. 925, 1456, 1885-2000, 1933-2001, 2093-2005) 6/24/2008 -442- Suggested by: Administration CITY OF KENAI AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, INCREASING ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS BY $45,501 IN THE AIRPORT FUND AND BY $1,820,000 IN THE RUNWAY IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL PROJECT FUND FOR ADDITIONAL PHASES OF THE AIRPORT APRON PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2386-2009 appropriated funds for Phase A of the Airport Apron Rehabilitation Project which is projected to have a total project cost of $9,012,573; and, WHEREAS, it is anticipated FAA grant awards for several years will be necessary to fully fund the project; and, WHEREAS, FAA 2008-2009 Entitlement and Discretionary grant funds totaling $1,820,000 are now available for Phase B of the project and the City has been awarded a grant totaling $1,820,000 comprised of 95% FAA $1,729,000, 2.5% State of Alaska $45,499 and requiring a 2.5% local share of $45,501. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, estimated revenues and appropriations be increased as follows: Airport Fund Increase Estimated Revenues: Appropriation of Fund Balance Increase Appropriations: Transfer to Capital Project Fund $45,501 $45,501 Airport Runway Improvement Car)ital Proiect Fund Increase Estimated Revenues: Federal Grant Revenue State Grant Revenue Transfer from Airport Fund Increase Appropriations Administration Engineering Construction $1,729,000 45,499 45,501 $ 8� 20.000 $ 36,400 145,600 1.638,000 $1,820,000 New Text Underlined; (DELETED TCXT BIRCKETED1 -443- �� Meuyaf �� KENU AL SKA To: Rick Koch, City Manager "Vilria9e with a Past Gi y with a Future` FINANCE DEPARTMENT 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: 907-283-7535 ext 221 / FAX: 907-283-3014 From: Terry Eubank, Finance Director"] �- - Date: April 1, 2009 Re: Recommended postponement of Ordinances 2394-2009 and 2395-2009. Based upon recent communications with the FAA it appears the amounts of the grants may differ from the amount contained in Ordinance 2394-2009 and 2395-2009. These grant amounts were communicated to the City by the FAA as expected levels of funding but final award amounts will be based upon contractor bid amounts. To avoid future Ordinances to align appropriations with actual bid amounts and grant awards it is recommended that action be postponed on adoption of these ordinances. It is anticipated action would be requested at the May 20, 2009 council meeting in conjunction with a resolution authorizing award of the construction contract. Bids are scheduled to be due on May 7'h ;`. Suggested by: Administration <<A CITY OF KENAI KENAI, ALASKA ORDINANCE NO. 2395-2009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, INCREASING REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS BY $2,415,000 IN THE AIRPORT APRON REHABILITATION - STIMULUS FUND FOR THE GRANT FUNDS AWARDED THROUGH THE "AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) STIMULAS PACKAGE. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2386-2009 and 2394-2009 appropriated funds for Phase A and B respectively of the Airport Apron Rehabilitation Project which is projected to have a total project cost of $9,012,573; and, WHEREAS, "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" (ARPA) grant funds totaling $2,415,000 are now available for Phase C and the City has been awarded a grant totaling this amount with no local or State required matching funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, appropriations be increased as follows: Airport Apron Rehabilitation -Stimulus Capital Project Fund Increase Estimated Revenues: Federal Grant Revenue $2,415,000 Increase Appropriations Administration $ 48,300 Engineering 193,200 Construction 2.173,500 $2.415.000 PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this first day of April, 2009, ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Q Approved by Finance: % Z" PAT PORTER, MAYOR Introduced: March 18, 2009 Adopted: April 1, 2009 Effective: April 1, 2009 New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEST BRACKETED] M A CITE' OF KENAI KENASU Suggested by: Administration A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AWARDING THE BID TO ALASKA AUTOMATIC FIRE PROTECTION, INC. FOR VINTAGE POINTE DRY SPRINKLER SYSTEM REPLACEMENT - 2009 FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $49,574,00. WHEREAS, the following bids were received on March 3, 2009: SIDDER TOTAL Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. 49,574.00 Accel Fire Systems, Inc. 81,900.00 Harri Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 1.03,653.00 Blazv Construction, Inc. 109,592.00 ; and, WHEREAS, Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc.'s bid meets the bid specifications; and, WHEREAS, the recommendation from the City Administration is to award the bid to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc.; and, WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Kenai has determined that Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc.'s bid is a responsible bid and award to this bidder would be in the best interest of the City; and, WHEREAS, sufficient monies are appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that the bid for Vintage Pointe Dry Sprinkler System Replacement - 2009 be awarded to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. for the total amount of $49,574.00. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this first day of April, 2009. ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Approved by Finance: I. J PATPORTER, MAYOR 'Village with a Past, Ci witk a Future' 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535, Ext. 236 / FAX: (907) 283-3014 KE the M.ALA/, MEMORANDUM C, TO: Rick Koch, City Manager FROM: Wayne Ogle, Public Works Directorx A DATE: March 11, 2009 SUBJECT: Vintage Pointe Dry Sprinkler System Replacement - 2009; Council Resolution 2009-08 to Award Contract Rick, The City opened sealed bids on 3 March 2009 at 2 PM regarding the subject project. Four construction companies submitted bids: Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc., Accel Fire Systems, Inc., Hard Plumbing & Heating, Inc. and Blazy Construction, Inc. Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. was the apparent tow bidder with the Bid: $49, 574.00. The City has determined the contractor is a responsible bidder. I recommend City Council award the contract to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. This is a request to issue a Resolution to Council for a P.O. for $14, 016 from Line Item 010-466-4999 (Sewer Contingency) for the following equipment: m ®®i/ifta e witk a past Cit� y witk a Future 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 r j Telephone: (907) 283-7535, Ext. 236 / FAX: (907) 283-3014 �� thea�Vfxl KENAI. ALASKA MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Koch, City Manager FROM: Wayne Ogle, Public Works Dlrectof DATE: 25 March 2009 SUBJECT: VINTAGE POINTE DRY PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REPLACEMENT-2009; COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2009-2008 TO AWARD CONTRACT Rick, At their 18 March 2009 meeting, Council had questions about the wide difference between the apparent low bidder (Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. at $49,574.00) and the next lowest apparent bidder (Accel Fire Systems, Inc. at $81,900.00), Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. operates a business model of low overhead and limited staffing. Mr. Tooke provides all the labor with assistance from a helper. This low overhead model provides Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. an ability to significantly underbid competitors with different business models. Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. has provided the following examples of similar sized projects they have completed on time and within budget: • Primose Assisted Living Facility, Wasilla, Alaska - Howdie Inc. • Mat -Su Hazmat Facility, Palmer, AK - Roger Hickel Constnlction • Wasilla Elementary School, Wasilla Alaska - General, Collins Construction During an interview, Mr. Tooke provided assurance that he thoroughly understood the scope of the work to be performed and was confident his bid reflected the cost for Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. to perform the work. The specifications and material estimates for the bid package were prepared by a licensed mechanical engineer, Jerry Herring. All bidders visited the project site as required by the bid package. All reasonable precautions were made by the City to prepare bid documents that clearly stated to bidders the project scope and requirements. In conclusion, I believe the low overhead of Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. is responsible for their low bid. We have verified other projects Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. has done and are satisfied they are fully capable to complete this project with good results. I recommend that Council award this project to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. Suggested by: Administration CITY OF KENAI A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AWARDING THE BID TO WORLD WIDE ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR VINTAGE POINTE CASEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT - 2009 FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $94,297.00. WHEREAS, the following bids were received on March 3, 2009: BIDDER TOTAL I World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc. 94,297.00 Alaska Earthmovers LLC 97,807.06 Dan Sterchi Construction 144,113.00 Watson & Sons General Construction, Inc. 150,989.00 Blazy Construction, Inc. 158,851.00 Sterling Custom Homes, Inc. I88,558.23 Holden Company 281,844.00 j Im WHEREAS, World Wide Roofing & Construction, Ine.'s bid meets the bid specifications; and, WHEREAS, the recommendation from the City Administration is to award the bid to World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc.; and, WHEREAS, the Council of ti:e City of Kenai has deter^'-rl +'-a, World Wide Construction, Inc.'s bid is a responsible bid and award to this bidder would be in the best interest of the City; and, WHEREAS, sufficient monies are appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that the bid for Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement - 2009 be awarded to World Wide Construction, Inc. for the total amount of $94,297.00. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this first day of April, 2009. ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Approved by Finance: a.i PAT PORTER, MAYOR `'Vi la e with Past, Ci witA a Future' 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535, Ext. 236 / FAX: (907) 283-3014 992 1(ENAt. SKA MEMORANDUM l � TO: Rick Koch, City Manager FROM: Wayne Ogle, Public Works Director) DATE: March 11, 2009 SUBJECT: Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement - 2009; Council Resolution 2009-09 to Award Contract Rick, The City opened sealed bids on 3 March 2009 at 2 PM regarding the subject project. Seven construction companies submitted bids: World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc., Alaska Earthmovers LLC, Dan Sterchi Construction, Watson & Sons General Construction, Inc., Blazy Construction, Inc., Sterling Customs Homes, Inc, and Holden Company. World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc. was the apparent low bidder with the Bid: $94,297.00. The contractor bid the contract using a window model not specifically called out in the bid. The City allows substitutions as long as the City agrees the substitution is equivalent to the specifications in the Bid document. We have conducted a line by line comparison of the substitute and determined there is an equivalency. I recommend City Council award the contract to World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc. . g ., ��`Vdllaye wd A a Past C# wdtk a Future' 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 �. eG4� °f Telephone: (907) 283-7535, Ext. 236 / FAX: (907) 283-3014 a9r 96�RBmP �W W&m YBm 31 March 2009 Mr Dan Sterchi Sterchi Construction 36525 Kalifonsky Beach Road Kenai, Alaska 96111 Subject Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement — 2009; Letter of Protest Dear Mr, Sterchi: This letter is in response to your letter of protest dated 18 March 2009 regarding the subject project bid. The basis of your protest appears to be that the apparent low bidder, World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc., has not produced any documentation to demonstrate that their proposed alternate window, Fibershield casement window, has met the City's basic bid specification. This is not the case. The City has obtained the technical specifications for the Fibershield windows and compared them with the Milgard casement window called out in the bid specification. Our direct comparison indicates the Fibershield window meets or exceeds all the specifications of the bid documents. One specification supplied by the Milgard manufacturer was for the sound attenuation. Fibershield casement windows have not been tested for sound attenuation. However, the Fibershield manufacturer has stated they intend to test for sound attenuation soon. Based on all the other testing results, we believe Fibershield casement windows would test favorably for sound attenuation. Additionally, the City has obtained a letter from Quality Testing, Inc. that states that they have tested the the Fibershield casement windows and verify the test results. Quality Testing, Inc. is a National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) accredited laboratory and is listed on the NFRC web site at www nfrc oro. I believe the City has performed due diligence in comparing the specification of the Fibershield casement windows with the Milgard windows and determining an equivalency between the products. A further note, the apparent low bidder, Worldwide Roofing & Construction, Inc. has verbally offered to use the Milgard product for the project at no additional cost to the City. I do not believe the issues you have raised in your protest letter of 18 March 2009 has merit for the reasons stated above. Therefore, the Administration will recommend to City Council the award of the project Pointe Casement Window Replacement — 2009 to the apparent low bidder, World Wide Roofing and Construction, Inc. Yours Ir VR ck R. Koch City Manager �4 v W21 COMPARISON AF MILGARD TO FIEERSHIELD WINDOW U�IT 'P� �Z Fita td Glazin T e Lo E, Low Argon filled Low Ar on filled E, Ar _ _ Solar Heat Gain .21 .29 Sound Transition Class 36 Not tested, should be veryRood _ Winter Heat U factor .36 .26 Structural Class C-C40 C-C70 Air Infiltration 0 .01 Wind Speed 127 167 Ultra Violet Li ht Transmittance .47 .162 Visible light transmittance .40 .506 Frame Min 3'/a deep multi -chamber fiber lass 3'/ dee fiber lass _ Sash Min 2 3/8 deep multi -chamber fiber lass 1 3/ fiberglass Hardware Dual steel arm rotary operator. Single multipoint locking mechanism. Dual steel arm rotary operator. Single 3-4 multi point locking depending on size. Insect screens Tight fitting with hardware to allow easy removal. Cloth fiberglass mesh. Frame - aluminum with rigid plastic corner keys. Tight fitting with hardware to allow easy removal. Cloth fiberglass mesh. Frame - aluminum with rigid plastic corner keys. Warranty 10-year's 20-years frame and sash 10- ears glass units lw9 i� `t 2 tv a, Solar Heat Gain- Higher value = more solar heat passing through the glass (Alaska higher is better) LIVovb s Sound Transition Class- Higher value= more sound passing through the glass �'b Winter Heat U factor- Lower value = better energy efficiency a�g �a�s� Structural Class -Higher value = stronger unit Air Infiltration -Lower value= less air leakage 10VV �NDPO Wind Speed-- Higher value = stronger unit q Ultraviolet Light Transmittance- Lower value= less UV light passing through the glass l Mjm-/& Visible Light Transmittance -Higher value=more light passing through the glass lyl n/I (fi"tI /,ry J�_ey2ee N0 c,tr-�tMS J� 111YINTINSK 33I0 Hill Avenue, Everan. WA 98201 Phone: (425) 25q•079.9 PAX; (425) 259-4936 emoll: igfoo glllestrom March 25, 2009 Connie Gray Pioneer Glass, Inc. RE: Specific results for your gap fill Connie, First I would like to assl Accredited Laboratory for both �t e pe Casement window with Cardinal 272 glass and argon you and anyone else that Quality Testing is an NFRC ysical testing and computer simulations. As a matter of fact, FRC ever accredited'. We have maintained these acereditations ever since. I also served on the NFRC Board of Directors for 5 years. The current list of all NFRC accredited labs can be found on their web site at w_ _ww.nfrc.ore .1 am also including copies of our accreditation certificates for you records - Here are the answers to your specific questions for this product: The NFRC thermal simulations was performed with, 3mm Cardinal 272 glass with the Low E coating on the second surface/0.750 inch 90% argon filled gap/3mm clear glass. The results are as follows: Total ProductU•Factoi = 0.27 Total Product SHGU (Solar Heat Gain),= 0.29 Total ProductVt (Visible Transmittance) = 0.51 Tuv (Ultra Violet Transmittance) of glass = 0162 2. A review of your AAMAj"JdDMA/CSA 10 l ,,2/ 044�+ OS Smicturai report (52007-075- AD) which includes a four p latch tem and six sets of snubbers shows a maximum deflection at design pressu ,(70 ps o be 0.026 inches': The uniform load structural test was performed at 150% of ressure (105 psf). The maximum permanent set was determined to be 0.010 inches. pressure Hopefully I have been able to answered all of your questions. Sincerely, Randal J. Vad Voorst President - Quality Testing, Inc. Page 1 of 5 at a test March 25, 2005 900/90G.�I 6Z9D499L06 X'V2 ZV:00 600Z/9Z/60 PLAYINESTING 0 ....o_J11 ti Hit, Avenu6, Evereil, WA 98201 Phone-'4425) 259-6799 FAX- (425) 259-4956 small: Into Q'gtltest.com TABLE OF EQUIVALENT CLASS/ .DESIGN PRESSURE IN PSF.("W:X E6IUIVALENT'_.. ` WIND VELOCITYIN MPH STRUCTURAL TEST PRESSURE 9N PSF ("9J9.C.) EQUIVALENT WIND VELOCITY IN MPH WATER TEST PRESSURE IN PSF ("W.C.) EQUIVALENT bF9@N®YELDCIT°6 IN MPH 15 (2.88) 77.52 22.50 (4,32) 94.94 2.66 (0.55) 33.85 20 (3.64) 89,51 30.00 (5.76) 109.63 3.00 (0.58) 24.67 25 (4.60) 100.00 37.50 (7,20) 12Z57 3.75 (0.72) 38.76 30 (5,76) 109.63 46.00 (8.64) 134.27 4.50 (0,06) 42.46 35 (6.72) 118.42 52.50 (10.08) 145.03 5.25 41.01} 45.8E 40 (7.") 126.59 80.00 (11.52) 155.04 5.00 (1.15) 49.03 46 (0.64) 134.27 67m (mm) 164,46 6.75 (1,30) 52,00 w g° 50) ., , 141.53 75.00 (14,40) e . 173.34 7.60 (1.44) 54.82 56 (10,56) 146,44 62.50 (15.54) 161.80 6.2E (1.58) 57.49 60 (11.52) 155,04 90.00 (17.2a) 169,89 9.00 (1.73) 60.05 65 (12.48) 161,37 97.50 (16.72) 197,64 9.75 11.57) 62.50 70 (13.44) 167.47 105,00 pf).16) 205,10 I 10.50 (2.02) 64.8E 75 (94.40) 173.34 112,50 (2 5.60) 212.30 11.25 (2,16) g 67.14 6® (15.36) I 179.03 120.00 Q2:§.04) 219,2E 12.00 (2.30) °AAMA CAP 69.34 66 (46.32) 184.54 127.50 (24,48) 2211 12.00 (2.30) 09.34 90 (17.2s) 109,80 135.00 (26,92) 232.56 12,00 (2.30) 60,34 95 (10.24) 195.09 142.50 (277.36) 238.94 12.00 (2,30) 69.39 100 19.20 200.1E 140.90 28.80 245.14 12.00 2.30 69.34 AIR IN RLTRATION PRESSURE IN PS OF "W. EQUIVALENT WIN® VELOCIT`4 IN MPH 1.67 (0.30) Z5.08 6.26 1.20 50.00 These values are calculated from the Ensewiler Formula, P ® .002496 V2, where V s Wind velocity in MPH and P m the Differential Pressure across the window in Pounds per Square Foot (P8F).The equation assumes the direction of wind Is perpendicular to the window and there are no effect. from surrounding terrain or the shape of the building in which it Is installed. Positive.(-) pressures act Inward and Nageitive (-) pressures act outward on the window. An ®safer vms7 to perferm this calculation would Ibe as follows: Square RaoO of PSF X 20.010 (e.g. 15 Sq.RR. ® 3.071( #6 77,52) March 26, 2009 900/VOOIQj 6ZSDt4Vt06 XVd ZV 00 600Z/9Z/S0 a 0 0 0 0. 4 �, THE + i 1i • l ASSOCIATION +LABORATORY ACCREDITATION :1 Everett, WA Mechanical Tesg This laboratory is accredited in accordance with the recognized international Standard ISO/lEC 17025:2005 General Requirements for the Competence of Testfn,8 and Calibration Laboratories. 7inis accreditation demonstrates technical competence for a defined scope and the operation of a laboratory quality management system (refer to joint ISO-IL4C-1AF Communique dated 18 June 2005). Presented this 8'h day of July 2008, P President For the Accreditation Couucii Certificate Number 2701.01 Valid to Junc 30, 2010 For the tests or types of tests to which this accreditation applies, please refer to the laboratory's Mechanical Scope of Accreditation u9D . s 4 TO: The City of Kenai and Kenai City Council: After meeting with Rick Koch on March 31, 2009, he could not show me that the Fibershield Window met city specs. line for line as a AS EQUAL replacement for the Miiguard Windows. Daniel A. Sterchi Dan Sterchi Construction Suggested by: Administration Csl4i`1i7� aiti �i/<�1 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, APPROVING A CONTRACT TO NORTH STAR PAVING & CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED SOUTH AMES ROAD AND BASIN VIEW WAY PAVING LID - 2009 FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $223,658.32. WHEREAS, the following bids were received on March 24, 2009; Bidder Basic Bid North Star Paving & Construction Inc. $223,658.32 Alaska Roadbuilders $244,9$5.00 Engineer's Estimate $255,300.00 and, WHEREAS, North Star Paving & Construction, Inc.'s bid is the lowest responsible bid and award to this bidder would be in the best interest of the City; and, WHEREAS, the recommendation from City Administration is to award the contract to North Star Paving & Construction, Inc. for the total cost of $223,658.32; and, WHEREAS, sufficient monies are appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that the contract for the project entitled South Ames Road and Basin View Way Paving LID - 2009 be awarded to North Star Paving & Construction, Inc. for the total amount of $223,658.32, PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this first day of April, 2009. ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Approved by Finance: 7 G PAT PORTER, MAYOR -450- Wm, J, Ne-f5on & 5,ocla CONSULTING ENGINEERS 155 BIDARKA STREET (907) 283.3583 March 24, 2009 Wayne Ogle, Public Works Director City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo St. Kenai, Alaska 99611 RE: S. Ames Road and. Basin View Way Paving LID - 2009 Dear Wayne, STRUCTURAL CIVIL ENVIRONMENTAL KENAI, ALASKA 99611 FAX (907) 2834514 Bids for the S. Ames Road and Basin View Way Paving LID — 2009 Prgject were opened today at 3:00 PM. Two bids were received and opened. Bids were received as follows: Company Basic Bid 1. Alaska Road Builders Inc. $244,985.00 2. North Star Paving Inc. $223,658.32 3. Engineer's Estimate $255,300.00 North Star Paving Inc. is the low bidder. All bids included all required submittals. I recommend that the City award the contract for the S. Ames Road and Basin View Way Paving LTD — 2009 Project to North Star Paving Inc., contingent upon sufficient funds available in accordance with the Bid Schedule. A spreadsheet, including the two bids and the Engineer's estimate is attached for your use. Sincerely, Blake Larson, PE Attachment -451- Suggested by: Administration eke City of KENALASKA A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, DEMONSTRATING SUPPORT FOR AND WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE KENAI WATERSHED FORUM ON THREE FISH PASSAGE PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF KENAI. WHEREAS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Department of Commerce have an open solicitation for habitat restoration through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; and, WHEREAS, the City of Kenai and the Kenai Watershed Forum have successfully worked together in recent years to restore fish passage where culverts pose migration barriers to juvenile salmon; and, WHEREAS, a successful grant application by the Kenai Watershed Forum would improve fish habitat on three Kenai River tributary streams owned and maintained by the City of Kenai and these projects would create local jobs; and, WHEREAS, the following three projects could begin within 90 days of a successful grant to NOAA and be completed in their entirety within 12 to 18 months; and, WHEREAS, the three project locations are identified as follows: ADFG Stream Code 244-30-10010-2001 Unnamed Creek/4th Ave, Crossing ADFG Stream Code 244-30-10010-2001-3004 Unnamed Creek/Cohoe Avenue ADFG Stream Code 244-30-10010-2005 Unnamed Creek/Lawton Drive NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, the City of Kenai supports the above -fisted projects and will assist in accommodating the Kenai Watershed Forum in ensuring the projects will be completed in a timely manner should the grant application be successful. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this first day of April, 2009. PAT PORTER, MAYOR ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] -452- _r A CITY OF KENAI 111:4:440111112a • a�. Suggested by: Administration A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, APPROVING A CONTRACT TO ALASKA ROADBUILDERS, INC. FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED KENAI MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RUNWAY SAFETY: TAXIWAYS F, G, AND H LIGHTING, GRADING, AND DRAINAGE - 2009 FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $451,676.00 WHICH INCLUDES THE BASIC BID AND ADDITIVE ALTERNATE. WHEREAS, the following bids were received on March 24, 2009; Bidder Basic Bid Additive Altemate TOTAL Alaska Roadbuilders, Inc. $309,061,00 $142,615.00 $451,676.00 Peninsula Construction, Inc. $387 826.00 $165,734.00 $553,560.00 Roger Hickel Contracting, Inc. $399,841.00 $195,276.00 $595,117.00 North Star Paving 8v Construction, Inc. $466,845.03 i $152,568.82 $619,413.85 Wolverine Supp ,Ina $476,926.00 $226,200.00 $703,126.00 Engineer's Estimate $282,341.00 $155,410.00 1 $437,75L00 and, WHEREAS, Alaska Roadbuilder, Inc.'s bid is the lowest responsible bid and award to this bidder would be in the best interest of the City; and, 11 THEREAS, award of this project t4 Ala.skQ Rl7ad.b lAllUGl J. llll:. 1(1`S been approved by FAA; and, WHEREAS, the recommendation from the City Administration is to award the contract to Alaska Roadbuilders, Inc. for the total cost of $451,676.00; and, WHEREAS, sufficient monies are appropriated, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that the contract for the project entitled Kenai Municipal Airport Runway Safety: Taxiways F, G, and H Lighting, Grading, and Drainage - 2009 be awarded to Alaska Roadbuilders, Inc. for the total amount of $451,676.00 which includes the Basic Bid and the Additive Alternate. -453- Resolution No, 2009-14 Page 2 of 2 PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this first day of April, 2009, PAT PORTER, MAYOR ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Approved. by Finance: f New Text Underh ; (DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] WINCE — CORTHELL — BRYSON Consulting Engineers Box 1041 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Phone 907-283-4672 Fax 907-283-4676 E-Mail cmaddeii rLwg1 alaska.com March 25, 2009 City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, Alaska 99611 Attention: Wayne Ogle, Director of public Works Subject: Kenai Municipal Airport Runway Safety Improvements, Taxiways F, G, & H Lighting, Grading, and Drainage Recommendation for Award On March 24, 2009, at 1: 00 PM, bids were received for the construction of the subject project. Five bidders submitted bids and are listed as follows: Contractor Basic Bid Add. Alt. Total 1. Alaska Road Builders Inc $309,061.00 $ 142,6I5,00 $ 451,676.00 2. Peninsula Construction Inc. $387,826.00 $ 165,734.00 $ 553,560.00 3. Roger Rickel Contracting $399,841.00 $ 195,276.00 $ 595,117.00 4. North Star Paving Inc. $466,845.03 $ 152,568.82 $ 619,413.85 5. Wolverine Supply Inc. $476,926.00 $ 226,200.00 $ 703,126.00 6. Engineers Estimate $282,341.00 $ 155,410,00 $ 437,751.00 All bids were checked and found responsive. The low bidder is 22.5% under the next highest bidder, however, is only 3% over the Engineers Estimate and is experienced in airport work of this nature. The Basic Bid for reconstructing the taxiway lighting system as well as the Additive Alternate to complete much needed grading and drainage improvements in the area are within the 2007 grant remaining funds and I would recommend awarding both schedules to Alaska Road Builders Inc. in the amount of $ 451,676.00. Sincerely (� //W Z' � _ I Casey Madden, P.E. — Project Engineer Philip W. Bryson PE Mark E. Manning PE Alan N. Corthell PE -455- Prank W. Wince. PE (Rot) E. Casey Madden PE IlVillage with a Past C# with a Future"' 210 Fidafgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 / Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us the a'yof KENO ALASKA April 2, 2009 Ms. Dawn Holland -Williams Records & Licensing Supervisor Alcoholic Beverage Control Board - 5848 East Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99507-1286 Re: LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER - Package Store From Foodtown Liquor, Ine., co/a Kenai Country Liquor to Country Liquor, LLC d1b/a Country Liquor 'At it rcg'iliai uiccuiig of April i, 'LUU'ti, the Kcilal l.11y Council approved the LrdnSIer OI the liquor license from Foodtown Liquor, inc., d/b/a Kenai Country Liquor to Country Liquor, LLC d/b/a Country Liquor. The City has raised no objections based on unpaid taxes, delinquent taxes or obligations of the premises to the City. If you have any questions, please contact me at 283-7535, extension 231. CITY OF KENAI Carol L. Freas City Clerk / clf cc: Kenai Peninsula Borough Clerk Applicant -456- MAR-25-2009 WED 11:19 AM KENAI PENN BOROUGH CLERK FAX NO, 907 262 8615 P, 01/01 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH �^ I�•� 144 N. BINKLEY ST e SOLDOTNA, ALASKA • 99669-7520 s rP,� PHONE: (907) 714-2160 • FAX: (907) 714-2388 5R Toll -free within the Borough: 1.800.478-4441, Ext. 2160 EMAIL: assemblyclerk@borough.kenai.ak.us March 25, 2009 Ms, Dawn Holland -Williams Records & Licensing Supervisor Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 550 W. 71h Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501-6698 Re: Transfer of Ownership & Name Change License #1308 :Dear Ms. Holland -Williams: 10HNI BLANKENSHIP, CIVIC BOROUGH CLERK Please be advised that the Kenai Peninsula Borough has no objection to the transfer of ownership, and narne change of the following liquor license, located within. the City of Kenai, Alaska: FROM- l;oodtown Liquor, Inc. D.B.A. Kenai Country Liquor, 140 S. Willow St., Kenai, Alaska i n. d .. Y Y Y1 1 G YT-....: A a v. ..�»ntry 1Qti6r iuC %.u.A. �611Tiiy Liquor, ,.40 illOc'v' 0.1 I.�.ciaal, n. a5. a If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Blankenship, CMC J Borough Clerk cc: Applicant City of Kenai KPB Finance Department File -457- Date of Notice: March 10, 2009 Application Type: NEW Governing Body: City of Kenai Community Councils: None License #: License Type: D.B.A.*: Licensee/Applicant: Physical Location: State of Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 1.308 Package Store Country Liquor Country Liquor LLC 140 S Willow St Mail Address: 506 Attla Kenai AK 9961.1. Telephone #: 907-283-7651,907-283-7627 Fax BIN: None Given Corn/LLC Aaent: I Address Phone X TRANSFER X Ownership Location X Name Change Date and State Limited Benjamin Jackinsk'y 506 Attla Kenai AK 907-283- January 28, 2009 Yes 99611 7651 ( Alaska standing? Please note. the Members/Officers/Directors/Shareholders (principals) listed below are the principal members. There maybe additional members that we are not aware of because they are not primary members. We have listed all nrincinal memherc and those who hold at h aet ln% charec. Member/Officer/Director: DOB Address Phone Title/Shares (%) Benjamin Jackinak y 1 �l. j 1 4/28/58 .�vi i^r Susie i..irC .° 130177 Suss. Circle go ^°^ 1^10 ! " `°' , /-LO$-VGGo F eslueutJ7o Kasilof AK 99610 I Everett Billingslea 4/1.1 /61 ! 2424 Lorentz PL N. 206-439-5490 See/Treasure 0% Seattle WA 98109 Billingslea Family Limited PO Box 76 SoldotnaAK 206-439-5490 j Shareholder 95% Partnership 99669 It transfer application, current license information: License #: 1308 Current D.B.A.: Kenai Country Liquor Current Licensee: Foodtown Liquor Inc Current Location: 140 S Willow St Additional comments: None. **Date of Birth * Doing Business As Cc: Kenai Peninsula Borough 1-10.,,,iwy-.'!, 7458- KENAI CITY COUNCIL. - REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 7:00 P.M. KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS httn: / /www.ci.kenai.ak.us 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. ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (10 minutes) David Horton -- ATV and Snow Machine Use on City Streets ITEM C: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 minutes) ITEM D: REPORTS OF KPB ASSEMBLY LEGISLATORS AND COUNCILS ITEM E: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker.) Ordinance No. 2389-2009 -- Amending KMC 14.20.260 to Better Provide for Enforcement for Violations of the Kenai City Code and to Provide for Appeal of Administrative Enforcement Orders to the Board of Adjustment. (Clerk's .Note: At its March 4, 2009 meeting, Council moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2389-2009 and subsequently postponed action to allow time to correct verbiage omitted from Attachment A. The motion to adopt is active.) a. Substitute Ordinance No. 2389-2009 -- Amending KMC 14.20,260 to Better Provide for Enforcement for Violations of the Kenai City Code and to Provide for Appeal of Administrative Enforcement Orders to the Board of Adjustment. 2. Ordinance No. 2391-2009 -- Amending KMC 14.20.240(c)(6) to Allow an Extension for the Ninety (90) Day Time Limit for Skirting in Mobile Homes Placed in Mobile Home Parks. Im 3. Ordinance No. 2392-2009 -- Amending KMC 21.05.085, Airport Fuel Flowage Fee. 4. Resolution No. 2009-06 -- Supporting the Efforts of the Kenai Watershed Forum to Secure Financial Support, Both Private and Public, for Renovation of the House and Adjacent Property at Soldotna Creek Park Leased to the Kenai Watershed Forum and Owned by the City of Soldotna. 5. Resolution No. 2009-07 -- Supporting the Continued Use of the Cultural and Historical Name of Shk'ituk'tnu for the Creek Situated Approximately One Mile North of the Kenai Spur Highway, East of Marathon Road. 6. Resolution No. 2009-08 -- Awarding the Bid to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Dry Sprinkler System Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $49,574.00. 7. Resolution No. 2009-09 -- Awarding the Bid to World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $94,297.00. 8. Resolution No. 2009-10 -- Authorizing the Kenai Police Department to Participate With the Bureau of Highway Patrol Traffic Team and to Authorize the Kenai Police Department to Hire a New Officer to Meet Staffing Needs Within the City of Kenai as a Result of the Department's Participation with the Bureau of Highway Patrol Traffic Team, 9. Resolution No. 2009-11 -- Authorizing a Budget Transfer Within the City Shop Department to Cover Costs in Excess of Budgeted Amounts for Operating and Repair Supplies. ITEM F: MINUTES 1. *Regular Meeting of March 4, 2009. ITEM G: UNPINISHED BUSINESS ITEM K: Ratification of Bills 2. Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding $15,000 3. Ordinance No. 2393-2009 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Approximately 22 Acres Located North of the Kenai Spur Highway From McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek From Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC). 4. *Ordinance No. 2394-2009 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $45,501 in the Airport Fund and by $1,820,000 in the Runway Improvement Capital Project Fund for Additional Phases of the Airport Apron Pavement Rehabilitation Project. 5. *Ordinance No. 2395-2009 -- Increasing Revenues and Appropriations by $2,415,000 in the Airport Apron Rehabilitation --Stimulus Fund for the Grant Funds Awarded Through the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Stimulus Package." 6. Discussion -- Schedule Work Session/Kenai Salmon Task Force Presentation. 7. Discussion -- Draft Ordinance -- KMC 14.20.270/Amendment Procedures. ITEM I: 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 a. Beautification Committee b. AIaska Municipal League Report c. Mini -Grant Steering Committee d. Advisory Cemetery Committee e. Kenai Convention & Visitors Bureau f. Salmon Task Force ITEM J: REPORT OF THE MAYOR :... 0 1 1 ' ! ' s,RM City Manager Attorney City Clerk ITEM L: DISCUSSION Citizens (five minutes) Council -461- ITEM M: PENDING LEGISLATION (This item lists legislation which will be addressed at a later date as noted.) Ordinance No. 2362-2008 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Tract A, Papa Joe's Subdivision, Chumley Replat From Rural Residential 1 (RR I) to Limited Commercial (LC). Ordinance No. 2365-2008 --Amending KMC 1.80.010 by Increasing the Mayor's Salary From $900 to 81,000 Per Month and Council Members' Salaries From $400 to $500 Per Month. (Clerk's Note: Ordinance No. 2365-2008 was tabled to the first meeting in July, 2009, to allow for further consideration of a salary increase during the budget FYI 0 budget process.) Ordinance No. 2347-2008 -- Repealing the Existing KMC 1.15.040 and KMC 1.15.050(c) Regarding Preparation, Distribution and Publication of the Agenda and Replacing Them with a New Section KMC 1.15.040 Entitled, Agenda and Packet - Development -Preparation -Distribution -Publication -Late Materials. (Clerk's Note: Ordinance No. 2347-2008, Substitute F3 was moved for adoption at the January 21, 2009 Council Meeting and subsequently tabled, no time certain. Within 60 days, items from the ordinance are to be incorporated into a suggested policy as well as an ordinance identifying those items to codify.) EXECUTIVE SESSION -- None Scheduled ITEM N: ADJOURNMENT -462- KENAI CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 7:00 P.M. KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS htto: / Iwww. ci.kenai. ak.0 s MAYOR PAT PORTER, PRESIDING ITEM A: CALL TO ORDER Mayor Porter called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Kenai City Hall. Building. A-1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Porter led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance. A-2. ROLL CALL The City Clerk took roll. Present were: Absent was: Mike Boyle A quorum was present. Also present: Student Representative Maya Johnson A-3. AGENDA APPROVAL The following changes were requested: ADD TO: E-3, Ordinance No. 2392-2009 -- Letter from Everts Air Hertel, Inc. with concerns related to fuel flowage fees. ADD TO: E-b, Resolution No. 2009-07 -- 3/9/09 Dr. Alan Boraas Letter of objection related to the creek name of Shk'ituk'tnu and a brief history of Shk'ituk'tnu. ADD TO: E-7, Resolution No. 2009-09 -- Bid award for Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement - Letter of protest submitted by Dan Sterchi/Sterchi Construction w/attached letter from Milgard Windows & Doors. -463- KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 2 SUBSTITUTE: H-2, Purchase Orders Exceeding $15,000 -- Addition of an increase to the existing purchase order to RSA Engineering with memorandum of explanation. ii'Ti ui((ON Council Member Smalley MOVED for approval of the agenda with the requested additions and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. A-4. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Council Member Smalley MOVED to approve the consent agenda as presented and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (10 minutes) B-1. David Horton -- ATV and Snow Machine Use on City Streets Mr. Horton discussed concerns he had with snow machine winter usage and four - wheeler summer usage of city streets when the municipal code prohibited use on streets. He requested signage, enforcement of the Prohibited use currently in the code, or amend the code to allow their use. A brief discussion followed during which comments included a review of what the city ordinance and state law allowed, past policy of the Police Department, enforcement of the code and state law, contacts made in Horton's neighborhood with regard to snow machine and four -wheeler complaints. ITEM C: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS -- None. ITEM D: REPORTS OF KPB ASSEMBLY LEGISLATORS AND COUNCILS Borough Assembly Member Smalley reported the next meeting would be held on March 24, 2009. ITEM E: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker.) E-1. Ordinance No. 2389-2009 -- Amending KMC 14.20.260 to Better Provide for Enforcement for Violations of the Kenai City Code and to m KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 3 Provide for Appeal of Administrative Enforcement Orders to the Board of Adjustment. (Clerk's Note: At its March 4, 2009 meeting, Council moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2389-2009 and subsequently postponed action to allow time to correct verbiage omitted from Attachment A. The motion to adopt is active.) E-la. Substitute Ordinance No. 2389-2009 -- Amending KMC 14.20.260 to Better Provide for Enforcement for Violations of the Kenai City Code and to Provide for Appeal of Administrative Enforcement Orders to the Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Council Member Eldridge MOVED for approval of Substitute Ordinance No. 2389- 2009 and Council Member Smalley SECONDED the motion. The floor was opened for public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Council reviewed the ordinance and Acting City Manager Sandahl explained the need for the code amendment. It was also noted the amendment would provide for an appeal to the Board of Directors and guidelines to work with individuals to provide abatement as well as a payment schedule. VOTE: *Student Representative Johnson: Yes 1 Ross Yes I Moll o Yes Boyle Absent Porter Yes Smalley Yes Moore Yes Eldridge Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. E-2. Ordinance No. 2391-2009 -- Amending KMC 14.20.240(c)(6) to Allow an Extension for the Ninety (90) Day Time Limit for Skirting in Mobile Homes Placed in Mobile Home Parks. Council Member Molloy MOVED for enactment of Ordinance No. 2391-2009 and Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion. -465- KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 4 The floor was opened for public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. It was noted, the ordinance allowed for an extension to skirting of mobile homes within mobile home parks (only location allowed within the city for placement of mobile homes) when building permits for the mobile home has been extended. vzolifg *Student Representative Johnson: Yes Ross Yes Moll o Yes Boyle Absent Porter Yes Sm.atley Yes Moore Yes Eldridge I Yes I MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. E-3. Ordinance No. 2392-2009 -- Amending KMC 21.05.085, Airport Fuel Flowage Fee. iTf•y14folk) Council Member Molloy MOVED to enact Ordinance No. 2392-2009 and Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion. The floor was opened to public hearing. Mike Kelly, P.Q. Box 874, Kenai -- Referred to the letter added to the packet noting concerns related to fuel fowage fees and stated he opposed the increase in landing fees and objected to the fuel flowage fee. With no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Molloy MOVED to postpone Ordinance No. 2392-2009 in order to hold a work session to be scheduled. Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion. Discussion followed during which it was noted the ordinance would lower the fuel flowage fee and the memorandum included in the packet from City Manager Koch was reviewed. Ee• KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 5 Council Member Molloy, with the consent of Council Member Eldridge, withdrew his motion. It was requested a work session be held to include members of the Airport Commission and users of the airport. Information to be included in a work session packet was to include the Everts letter and minutes of the Airport Commission meetings when the topic had been considered. VOTE: *Student Representative Johnson: Yes Ross Yes Mollo Yes Boyle Absent Porter Yes Smalie Yes Moore Yes Eldridge Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. E-4. Resolution No. 2009-06 -- Supporting the Efforts of the Kenai Watershed Forum to Secure Financial Support, Both Private and Public, for Renovation of the House and Adjacent Property at Soldotna Creek Park Leased to the Kenai Watershed Forum and Owned by the City of Soldotna. Council Member Moore MOVED for approval of Resolution No. 2009-06 and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion. The floor was opened to public hearing. Robert Ruffner, Executive Director/Kenai Watershed Forum -- Ruffner spoke in support of the resolution. Additional comments included: ® The bird viewing platform was 90% completed. • Stimulus package grants were available for the removal and replacement of culverts. • Identified culverts within the city needing to be replaced and his desire to include those culverts in the grant application the Forum was preparing. • Understood a resolution would be brought forward for council consideration at its next meeting related to the culvert replacement. -467- KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 6 VOTE: There were no objections. SO ORDERED. E-6. Resolution No.'2009-07 -- Supporting the Continued Use of the Cultural and Historical Name of Shk'ituk'tnu for the Creek Situated Approximately One Mile North of the Kenai Spur Highway, East of Marathon Road. MOTION: Council Member Eldridge MOVED for approval of Resolution No. 2009-07 and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Moore SECONDED the motion. The floor was opened for public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. It was noted, the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed the application at its special meeting, though the historical name of Shk'ituk'tnu was not known at that time. It was also reported the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the information and recommended the historical name be maintained. VOTE: There were no objections. SO ORDERED. E-6. Resolution No. 2009-08 -- Awarding the Bid to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Dry Sprinkler System Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $49,574,00. MOTION: Council Member Eldridge MOVED for approval of Resolution No. 2009-08 and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Molloy SECONDED the motion. The floor was opened for public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Council and administration comments included: • Concerns of the large difference between the low bid and the next lowest. ® It was a specialized type of construction and it was felt the work could be done by some more efficiently than by others. ® The city manager was familiar with the low bidder and felt comfortable they would complete the job. m KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 7 The guarantee of bid price was for 90 days and the issue was not time sensitive. Council Member Ross MOVED to postpone Resolution No. 2009-08 and Council Member Moore SECONDED the motion. VOTE ON POSTPONEMENT: *Student Representative Johnson: Yes Ross Yes I Molloy Yes Boyle Absent Porter Yes 1 Smaller Yes Moore Yes Eldridge Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. E-7. Resolution No. 2009-09 -- Awarding the Bid to World Wide Roofmg & Construction, Inc, for Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $94,297.00. Council Member Molloy MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 2009-09 and Council Member Moore SECONDED the motion. The floor was opened to public hearing. Dan Sterchi, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the resolution and reviewed his letter added to the packet, noting his protest of the award of the bid. Council and administration comments included: • Administration had not had time to address the letter of protest prior to the meeting. • Administration received the specifications for the Fiber Shield windows and found they had the same attributes as the Milgard windows, except for sound. • When speaking with representatives of Pioneer Glass, they felt their product was equal to the Milgard product. • Administration reviewed and compared the window specifications and felt the Pioneer Glass product was equivalent to the Milgard product. • The specifications stated Milgard or the equivalent. • The other bidders used Fiber Shield products in their bids. ,•• KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 8 s Administration discussed the issue but had not responded to Milgard or Sterchi. Council Member Ross MOVED to postpone Resolution No. 2009-09 to the first meeting of April and Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion. VOTE: *Student Representative Johnson: Yes Ross Yes Molloy Yes Bo le Absent Porter nalley Yes Moore Yes Eldridge I Yes � I MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. E-8. Resolution No. 2009-10 -- Authorizing the Kenai Police Department to Participate With the Bureau of Highway Patrol Traffic Team and to Authorize the Kenai Police Department to Hire a New Officer to Meet Staffing Needs Within the City of Kenai as a Result of the Department's Participation with the Bureau of Highway Patrol Traffic Team. MOTION: Council Member Eldridge MOVED for approval of Resolution No. 2009-10 and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Smalley SECONDED the motion. The floor was opened for public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. There were no council comments. VOTE: There were no objections. SO ORDERED. E-9. Resolution No. 2009-11 -- Authorizing a Budget Transfer Within the City Shop Department to Cover Costs in Excess of Budgeted Amounts for Operating and Repair Supplies. MOTION: Council Member Smalley MOVED for adoption of Resolution No. 2009-11 and Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion. -470- KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 9 The floor was opened for public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. There were no council comments. CiIII *Student Representative Johnson: Yes Ross Yes Mallo Yes Boyle I Absent Porter Yes Smalle Yes Moore Yes Eldridge Yes ITEM F: MINUTES F-1. Regular Meeting of March 4, 2009 -- Approved by consent agenda. ITEM G: UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- None. H-1. Ratification of Buis MOTION: Council Member Smalley MOVED to ratify the bills. Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. VOTE: There were no objections. SO ORDERED. H-2. Approval of purchase Orders Exceeding $15,000 17O_ ;rk Council Member Molloy MOVED to approve the revised list of purchase orders exceeding $15,000 and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Smalley SECONDED the motion. VOTE: There were no objections. SO ORDERED. -471- KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 10 BREAK TAKEN: 8:02 P.M. BACK TO ORDER: 8:10 P.M. H-3. Ordinance No. 2393-2009 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Approximately 22 Acres Located North of the Kenai Spur Highway From McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek From Rural Residential 1 (RR I) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC). MOTION: Council Member Eldridge MOVED to introduce Ordinance No. 2393-2009 and Council Member Moore SECONDED the motion. The floor was opened for public comment. Charles Winegarden, 309 Princess Lane, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the ordinance and noted concerns with the Comprehensive Plan and traffic. Mark Schrag, 312 Princess Lane, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the ordinance, requested a work session be held, and requested the ordinance be tabled in order to allow time to move forward a petition received to form a MAPS Special Zone. Roy Espy, 403 McCollum Drive, Kenai -- Requested council to work with the neighbonccod ir. reviewing the MAPS Special Zone petition documents and find a compromise. Janine Espy, 403 McCollum Drive, Kenai -- Spoke in opposition to the ordinance and requested the ordinance be postponed, a work session be held, and a compromise found. With no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Discussion followed with Council and administration comments including: • Concern several of the "whereas" paragraphs were inappropriate. • Support for postponing action on the ordinance to allow time for the Limited Commercial Zone amendments to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission and council. • Postponement could be considered after the public hearing was held. VOTE ON INTRODUCTION: *Student Representative Johnson: Yes -472- KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 11 Ross Yes Moll, Yes Boyle Absent Porter Yes Smalley No Moore Yes Eldridge Yes MOTION TO POSTPONE: Council Member Molloy MOVED to postpone Ordinance No. 2393-2009 until the first council meeting in May (May 6, 2009). Council Member Smalley SECONDED the motion. VOTE ON POSTPONEMENT: *Student Representative Johnson: Yes Ross No Molloy i Yes Boyle Absent Porter No Smalley Yes Moore No Eldridge , No MOTION FAILED. I3-4. Ordinance No. 2394-2009 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $45,501 in the Airport Fund and by $1,820,000 in the iCUYlway 1mproVCirient Capital rr l ei.t rL_ufor nddiftx6nai. Phases of the Airport Apron Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Introduced by approval of the consent agenda. H-5. Ordinance No. 2395-2009 -- Increasing Revenues and Appropriations by $2,415,000 in the Airport Apron Rehabilitation --Stimulus Fund for the Grant Funds Awarded Through the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Stimulus Package." Introduced by approval of the consent agenda. H-6. Discussion -- Schedule Work Session/Kenai Salmon Task Force Presentation. A work session was scheduled for May 18, 2009 to begin at 6:00 p.m. with a light meal provided. -473- KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 12 The "smoke free ordinance' work session previously scheduled for May 28, 2009 was rescheduled for May 26, 2009 beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the council chambers. H-7. Discussion -- Draft Ordinance -- KMC 14.20.270/Amendment Procedures. Council Member Molloy discussed the draft ordinance he developed to amend KMC 14,20.270, noting he did so because there was a lack of written standards to guide the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on rezone applications. Molloy reviewed the draft ordinance and suggested the draft be sent first to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a work session to be held within the next three months. Other comments included: i A suggestion the Airport Commission review the ordinance as well. ® Request administration work with both the Planning & Zoning and Airport Commissions to make sure what comes out of their reviews have appropriate language. Council consensus was for the draft ordinance to be forwarded to the Airport Commission first and then to the Planning & Zoning Commission for review and comment. ITEM I: COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS Council on Agiug __ NO meeting. I-2. Airport Commission -- Council Member Eldridge reviewed the meeting summary of the March 12, 2009 meeting which was included in the packet. I-3. Harbor Commission -- Council Member Smalley reviewed the meeting summary of the March 9, 2009 meeting which was included in the packet. I-4. Library Commission -- Council Member Molloy reviewed the meeting summary of the March 3, 2009 meeting which was included in the packet. I-S. Parks & Recreation Commission -- Council Member Moore reported the next meeting would be held on April 2, 2009. I-6. Planning & Zoning Commission -- Council Member Molloy reviewed the minutes of the March 11, 2009 meeting which were included in the packet. I-7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees I-7a. Beautification Committee - Mayor Porter reviewed the meeting summary of the March 10, 2009 meeting which was included in the packet. Im KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 13 I-7b. .Alaska Municipal League Report -- Council Member Smalley reported a tentative meeting could be scheduled for April and a trip to Juneau prior to the end of the legislative session. 1-7c. Mini -Grant Steering Committee -- Mayor Porter requested Clerk Freas to schedule a meeting in April. I-7d. Advisory Cemetery Committee -- Council Member Eldridge reported the next meeting would be held on April 16, 2009, 1-7e. Kenai Convention & Visitors Bureau -- Council Member Smalley reported a meeting would be held on March 25, 2009. 1-7f. Salmon Task Force -- Council Member Moore reported a meeting would be held but had not yet been scheduled, ITEM J: REPORT OF THE MAYOR -- Mayor Porter reported the following items: s She participated in a ribbon cutting of the new gymnasium of the Community Care Center. • She attended the St. Baldrick's fundraising event. ITEM K: ADMINISTRATION REPORTS K-1. City Manager -- No report. K-2. Attorney -- No report. K-3. City Clerk -- Clerk Freas reported effective meeting training had been scheduled for March 28, 2009 for commissions and committees and April 4, 2009 for the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. It was suggested the training be recorded and Clerk Freas stated she would inquire to that regard. ITEM L: DISCUSSION L-1. Citizens (five minutes) Robert Ruffner, Watershed Forum -- Discussed. the 90-degree turn at the boat launch and needing to decide whether to maintain the foot trail or not. Ruffner reported he spoke with administration and they were discussing it, however he wanted council to be aware of the issue. Council comments included -475- KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 14 • Agreement with the recommendation to leave the trail. • Request clarification from administration. • Concerns with continuing the trail and foot traffic in that area. • The Harbor Commission stated concern that if the path would be continued, it would need to be marked well with signage added. Mark Schrag, 812 Princess Lane, Kenai -- Questioned whether the neighborhood's efforts to find a compromise was a waste of time. General comments from council were that work was progressing. L-2. Council Smalley -- No comments. Moore -- • Reported he would be absent from the April 15 meeting. • Noted there was another no -name creek at the mouth of the river and suggested contacting the Kenaitze Indian Tribe to learn if there was a historical name for the creek. • Expressed concerns with the Molloy draft ordinance related to airport - conservation lands, rezone process being made more difficult, and possible costs to General Fund with regard to sale of conservation lands. Eldridge -- No comments. Johnson -- No cnm nents. Ross -- Referred to the earlier Molloy ordinance discussion and requested a verbatim of the meeting's comments be forwarded to the Airport and Planning & Zoning Commissions to review during their consideration of the draft ordinance. There were no objections of the request from council. Molloy -- Thanked council for its comments related to his draft ordinance, and thanked administration for the schematic design of the library to review and the Police Department's annual report. Porter -- Noted she was beginning to develop the spring newsletter and was seeking information for inclusion. Smalley -- Noted upcoming fundraising activities for the library expansion, i.e. March 28 dance at the VFW and April 4 high tea at the Merit Inn. ITEM M: PENDING LEGISLATION (This item lists legislation which will be addressed at a later date as noted.) • KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 2009 PAGE 15 Ordinance No. 2362-2008 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Tract A, Papa Joe's Subdivision, Chumley Replat From Rural Residential 1 (RRI) to Limited Commercial (LC). Ordinance No. 2365-2008 -- Amending KMC 1.80,010 by Increasing the Mayor's Salary From $900 to $1,000 Per Month and Council Members' Salaries From $400 to $500 Per Month. (Clerk's Note: Ordinance No. 2365-2008 was tabled to the first meeting in July, 2009, to allow for further consideration of a salary increase during the budget FYI budget process.) Ordinance No. 2347-2008 -- Repealing the Existing KMC 1.15.040 and KMC 1.15.050(e) Regarding Preparation, Distribution and Publication of the Agenda and Replacing Them with a New Section KMC 1.15.040 Entitled, Agenda and Packet - DevelopmentaPreparation-Dist ibu*aon-Publication-Late Materials. (Clerk's Note: Ordinance No. 2347-2008, Substitute B was moved for adoption at the January 21, 2009 Council Meeting and subsequently tabled, no time certain. Within 60 days, items from the ordinance are to be incorporated into a suggested policy as well as an ordinance identifying those items to codify.) EXECUTIVE SESSION -- None Scheduled ITEM N: There being no : 'rther business before the Council, the meeting adjounzed at approximately 9:35 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk *The student may cast advisory votes on all matters except those subject to executive session discussion. Advisory votes shall be cast prior to the official council vote and shall not affect the outcome of a vote. Advisory votes shall be recorded in the minutes. A student representative may not move or second items during a council meeting. -477- KENAI CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 10, 2009 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAYOR PAT PORTER, PRESIDING Council present: R. Molloy, H. Smalley, B. Eldridge, J. Moore, P. Porter, and R. Ross Staff present: City Attorney C. Graves and City Clerk C. Freas The work session was called to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. A brief discussion followed as to the process to follow. 0TO _ MW Council Member Ross MOVED for council to go into executive session with City Attorney Graves and City Clerk Freas included. Council Member Eldridge SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. Executive Session Began: 6:03 p.m: Work Session Resumed: 6:44 p.m. Process to follow was determined as: + City Attorney Graves to contact applicants who were not chosen to move forward to the second phase. • City Attorney Graves to contact references, do background checks (including criminal and credit) of the following applicants: Eric Auten, Eric Jorstad, Anne Marshall, Mark Osterman, Steve Jones and Gary Poorman. • Outcome of the background checks would determine those to interview. The work session ended at approximately 6:48 p.m. Notes prepared by: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Ewell PAYMENTS OVER $15,000.00 WHICH NEED COUNCIL RATIFICATION COUNCIL MEETING OF: APRIL 1, 2009 VENDOR DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT AMOUNT ENSTAR GAS USAGE VARIOUS UTILITIES 46,427.24 HOMER ELECTRIC ELECTRIC USAGE VARIOUS UTILITIES 113,400.37 HOLIDAY COMPANIES FUEL USAGE VARIOUS OPERATING SUPPLIES 16,691.45 4 INVESTMENTS VENDOR DESCRIPTION MATURITY DATE AMOUNT Effect. Int, PURCHASE ORDERS OVER $15,000.00 WHICH NEED COUNCIL APPROVAL COUNCIL MEETING OF: APRIL 1, 2009 VENDOR DESCRIPTION DEPT. ACCOUNT AMOUNT INCREASE OF EXISTING PURCHASE ORDER 'VENDOR DESCRIPTION P.O. # - DEPT. REASON AMOUNT TOTAL PO AMT UNIVAR USA HYPOCHLORITE 88117 - WATEP/SEWER INCREASED COST 5,000.00 19,500.00 JACKSON ENTERPRISES FUEL 88029 - AIRPORT AIRFIELD ADDITIONAL FUEL 5,000.00 60,000A0 K2 k Y.. ♦: .I. j.:' To: Terry Eubank — Acting City Manager From: Mary Bondurant— Airport Manager Date: March 26, 2009 Subject: Jackson Fuel— Increase to Purchase Order Please consider this the Airport's request to increase purchase order #88029 to Jackson Fuel by $5,000. High fuel costs and usage due to a long and tedious season of snow removal operations which began on October 7, 2008 is the basis for the increase. www.ci.kenai.ak.us. Suggested by: Administration AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING THE KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE WITH THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 10.40, ENTTITLED, "RELEASE OF PUBLIC RECORDS" AND 'REGULATIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC RECORD INSPECTIONS." WHEREAS, the Kenai Municipal Code currently does not include a specific provision for the release of public records; and, WHEREAS, including specification for the release of public records in the Kenai Municipal Code is in the best interest of the city to provide definition and direction for requesting, exempting, responding to requests, etc. with regard to the release of public records. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, the Kenai Municipal Code be amended with the addition of Chapter 10.40, entitled 'Release of Public Records" as provided in Attachment A and 'Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections" as provided in Attachment B. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 15th day of April, 2009. PAT PORTER, MAYOR ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk .0 Introduced: April 1, 2009 Adopted: April 15, 2009 Effective: May 15, 2009 Sections: 10.40.010 Intent 10.40.020 Definitions 10.40.030 Information available to the public. 10.80.040 Records exempted. 10.40.050 Regulation of time, place and manner of inspection of public records. 10.40.055 Litigation Disclosure 10.40.060 Response to requests for public records 10.40.010 Intent. It is the intention of the City to provide full and free access of the public to municipal records and information so that the people of the City may be well informed at all times as to municipal business. With the exception of the specific exemptions set forth under Section 10.40.040, all information and records in the control of the municipality shall be made available to the public upon request. 10.40.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter: (a) "Municipal agency" shall be defined as any department, division, board, commission or private contractor, of the City, which has custody of public records as defined in this chapter. fbl "Public records" means books, papers, files, accounts, writings, including drafts and memorializations of conversations, and other items, regardless of format or physical characteristics, that are developed or received by the city or a municipal agency and that are preserved for their informational value or as evidence of the organization or operation of the city; "public records" does not include proprietary software programs. 10.40.030 Information available to the public. Except as provided by Section 10.40.040, or by other provisions of municipal, state or federal law, all public records shall be open to inspection by any person subject to guidelines regulating the time, place and manner of inspection which may be adopted by the City Clerk pursuant to Section 10.40.050. Documents are not required to be created in order to comply with an information request, but will be provided from documents/information that _already exists. The types of records and information open to public inspection pursuant to this chapter shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Attachment "A" Chapter 10.40, Release of Public Records Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page I of 5 (a) Financial and operational cost information, including information as to revenues, expenditures, indebtedness, department budget requests, and formal departmental recommendations in regard to project priority; (b) Information relating to contracts to which the municipality is a party, including payment provisions, information relating to bids and requests for proposals received or solicited by the municipality, and information relating to the status of goods or services furnished pursuant to contract; (c) Regulatory, financial assessment and tax information concerning real property located within the municipality; (d) Salary levels and fringe benefits accorded municipal officers and employees by law, including information in regard to the pay range and step grade of an employee or officer and statistical analyses or compilations relating to municipal practices and policies concerning compensation for various occupational groups, departments and divisions; (e) Statistical information and analyses concerning case loads, numbers and categories of persons for whom services were performed or treatment provided, results achieved and per patient and per unit cost; and, (i) Feasibility, management, cost effectiveness and similar reports prepared by the municipality with municipal moneys. The foregoing enumeration of information available for public inspection is not designed to limit the categories of records and information that shall be made available to the public pursuant to this chapter. The policy of providing public access to public information shall be broadly and liberally construed. 10.40.040 Records exempted. The City shall not be required to release or disclose the following documents or records: (a) Communications of any kind between the municipal attorney and officers or employees of the city, or any other individual, firm or corporation containing a legal opinion, memorandum or other disclosure or information pertaining to any matter then in litigation or where litigation may be reasonably anticipated. This exemption does not extend, however, to any documents, records or other written communication that may have been made public prior to the commencement of litigation and public records which must otherwise be disclosed cannot be withheld on the grounds that they have been submitted to the municipal attorney; (b) All personnel records of city officers and employees, including, without limitation, employment applications, examination materials, and performance evaluation records that reveal medical information about any specific individual; records the reveal the personal, intimate, or private life of an individual; and, in addition, any record the disclosure of Attachment "A" Chapter 10.40, Release of Public Records Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 2 of 5 -484- which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy; but this subjection does not protect from disclosure the following: (1) employment applications of city officials appointed by the city council; (2) employment applications of the director of each department of the city; (3) performance evaluations of city officials appointed by the city council to the extent the performance evaluations relate to the individual's job performance and do not impugn an individual's honesty, integrity, or morality outside of professional life; (4) the names and position titles of all city employees; (5) the current and prior positions held by a city employee. (6) the dates of appointment and separation of a city employee; and, (7) the records described in subsection 10.40.030(d). In the event of a request for disclosure of items described in subparts 1, 2, and 3 of this subsection, the City Manager, City Officials and Directors will be notified at least two (2) days prior to release of such records and may appeal the decision under KMC 10.40.060, (c) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent the production of the law enforcement records or information: (1) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings; (2) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication; (3) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of suspect, defendant, victim, or witness; (4) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source; (5) would disclose confidential techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; (6) would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or, (7) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual; (d) Information such as name, address, etc., that would identify complainants in actions to enforce any City regulation or ordinance, except as such disclosure may become necessary to a fair and just disposition of the enforcement proceeding; Attachment "A" Chapter 10.40, Release of Public Records Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 3 of 5 -485- (e) Records held by the City concerning any customer using municipal services, release of which would be unwarranted invasion of privacy; (f) Engineering or other technical specifications or data which might provide a competitive advantage to any person, firm, or corporation engaged or potentially to be engaged in municipal business; (g) Information obtained by and in the custody of insurance carriers insuring the municipality and their attorneys and agents regarding possible and pending claims against the municipality; (h) Medical and related public health records; (i) Records pertaining to juveniles unless disclosure is authorized by law; U) Records required to be kept confidential 'by law. 10.40.050 Regulation of time, place and manner of inspection of public records. The City Council shall adopt regulations as to the time, place, and manner of inspection of public records held by the municipality. Such regulations may also provide: (a) That a fee may be required. The fee shall not exceed the actual cost to the information request. In the event the person is unable to pay any requested fee, and signs an affidavit to the effect that he or she is indigent, there will be no cost to the above -described person. See Regulation 1.06, Regulations Concerning .Public Record Inspections. (b) The form in which the specific documents shall be made available. Documents need not be reproduced in the exact form or medium in which they are stored. However, any alteration of the form or medium of public record shall not change the substantive content of the information contained in the public record. When the actual content is changed, the nature of the change and why it was necessary shall be communicated to the requestor. Regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall be posted in a conspicuous manner at City Hall. 10.40.055 Litigation Disclosure. A public record that is subject to disclosure and copying remains a public record subject to disclosure and copying even if the record is used for, included in, or relevant to litigation, including law enforcement proceedings, involving the city or any municipal agency, except that with respect to a person involved in litigation, the records sought shall be disclosed in accordance with applicable court rules. In this section, "involved in litigation" means a party to litigation or representing a party to litigation, including obtaining public records for the party. Attachment "A" Chapter 10.40, Release of Public Records Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 4 of 5 m 10.40.060 Response to requests for public records. All requests for public information or records shall be approved by the City Clerk, The City Clerk, or his/her designee shall, consistent with the orderly conduct of municipal business, make a good faith and diligent effort to provide a rapid and intelligible response to requests for inspection of records made pursuant to this chapter. To effect this policy, the following guidelines are adopted: (a) Information pursuant to this chapter shall be furnished promptly to the requesting party unless the information requested is declared privileged or confidential pursuant to applicable federal, state or municipal law. If the City Clerk or his/her designee considers the information to be privileged, after consultant with the City Attorney, he/ prepare a slip setting for the date, the item of information requested, the specific provision of applicable state, federal or municipal law exempting the requested information from disclosure. A copy of this slip shall be provided to the party requesting the information. (b) A decision regarding a request for information or inspection of public records may be appealed to the City Council and a written reply will be given within seven (7) working days from the Council's consideration thereof either granting or denying the appeal. An appeal from the decision of the Council shall be to the Superior Court. (c) All requests for records and information made pursuant to this chapter shall be responded to within a reasonable time period. If the records and information cannot be located in time to make a response within five (5) working days of the request, the requesting party shall be promptly advised, and, if the requesting party still desires the information or records, a reasonable and diligent search shall continue. (d) if a request is deemed non -routine or targe, % *tten notification will be made to the requestor within five (5) working days with an estimate of production costs pursuant to KMC 10.40.060(c) and Regulation 1, Rees, Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections. Attachment "A" Chapter 10.40, Release of Public Records Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF KENAI REGULATIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC RECORD INSPECTIONS PRE 1.01 Copies. The fee for copying public records is as follows: The first nine copies are free. There shall be a charge of $2.50, plus sales tax, for the tenth (I0th) copy. There will be a charge of $.25, plus sales tax for each copy over ten (10). Copies of audio recordings to CD are $25.00 plus sales tax for the first CD and $5,00 for each additional CD for each request. Cassette tape recording copies are $25.00 plus sales tax for the first cassette tape and $5.00 for each additional cassette tape. 1.02 Certified Copies. The fee for a certified copy of a document will be the City's standard certification fee, plus the standard copying fee. At this time, the certification fee is ten dollars ($10.00) per document. Only the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk will certify documents. 1.03 Production Fee. If the production of records for one requestor in a calendar month exceeds five -person hours, the requester must pay a production fee. The production fee will be the city employee's actual salary, plus benefit costs, for the time required during the month to search, review, and copy the records. The time for review includes the time spent to examine the records for the purposes of determining whether the document is responsive to the request and whether the document will be disclosed or whether it must be withheld based on privilege, exemption, or other exception. The production fee will be in addition to the standard copying fee, 1.04 Estimate and Advance Payment. If a production fee is required or anticipated under the preceding paragraph, the city staff will prepare an estimate of the production fee and copying fee that are expected to result from producing the requested records. The requester must deposit the estimated production and copying fees in advance of the search. If the actual production and copying fees are less than the estimate, the requester will be given a refund of the difference. If the actual production and copying fees are greater than the estimate, the records will not be released to the requestor until the requester pays the difference. 1.05 Inspection Only. There will be no fee for simple inspection of records, except when the production of the records for inspection by one requester in a calendar month exceeds five person -hours. In that case, the requester will be required to pay the production fee as described in the preceding paragraphs. Attachment "B" Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 1 of 6 -488 1.06 Indigeney. If a person is unable to pay a fee, and signs an affidavit to the effect that he or she is indigent, then the City Clerk will waive the copying fee and production fee, except when the City Clerk, based upon reliable information, determines the affidavit of indigency is made in bad faith or fraudulently. Annual income as a Percent of current health And human services (HHS) Poverty Guidelines for Alaska Percent of fee reduced 1 — 100% 100% Waiver 101 — 1490/. 75% Waiver 150-174% 50% Waiver 175-199% 250% Waiver 200%plus No Waiver. An application for indigency may be filed with the City Clerk for waiving or partially waiving the costs of record reproduction. The City Clerk may allow an applicant, who qualifies as an indigent, a reduced record reproduction fee, a payment plan or a waiver of the filing fee -,-.,here the City Clerk is able to make a written finding, based on information provided by the applicant that payment of the record reproduction fee would be a financial hardship. Based upon the information provided, the fee may be reduced or waived in accordance with the above scale. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR •*D REQUESTS -- APPROVALS AND 2.01 City Clerk Approval. According to Kenai Municipal Code, Section all requests 171- pub'uc umfCrmativu or ...cards are to be appr.,�ed byr t1:L' �.. yr Clerk, after consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney. (See Regulation 5.01) The City Clerk, or the Clerk's designee, will, consistent with the orderly conduct of city business, make a good faith and diligent effort to provide a rapid and intelligible response to requests for inspection of records. 2.02 Routine Requests. Routine requests for inspection or copying of records may be approved (but not denied) and responded to by the City Clerk, Deputy City Clerk, or the Department Head of the department in which the records are located. They may act as the City Clerk's designee for the approval of routine requests. For purposes of these regulations, a routine request is a request for records that are clearly to be made available to the public, and which can be responded to quickly without a substantial amount of effort or time by the city staff. Routine requests may be submitted orally or in writing. 2.03 Non -Routine Requests. Non -routine requests for inspection or copying of records must be made in writing and referred to the City Clerk for approval or Attachment "B" Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 2 of 6 -489- disapproval. Non -routine requests include, but are not limited to, requests for records that are or might be exempt from disclosure, requests that will or might be denied for any reason, requests that will take more than one person -hour of staff time to respond, and requests from a person involved in litigation with the City. 2.04 Litigation Disclosure Requests. A person "involved in litigation" means a party to a lawsuit involving the City, a person representing a party in a lawsuit, or a person requesting records on behalf of a party to a lawsuit. If the City Clerk, based on reliable information, after consultation with the City Attorney, determines that a request for inspection or copying is being made by or on behalf of a person involved in litigation, the City Clerk, may deny the request and require the request be processed in accordance with applicable court rules under Kenai City Code, Section 10.40.055. 2.05 Aggregation of Certain Requests. If the City Clerk, based on reliable information, after consultation with the City Attorney, determines one or more individuals have made one or more requests for public records on behalf of another person or group for the purpose of dividing a request into smaller parts to avoid the payment of a production fee (for production of records requiring more than five person -hours of staff time per month), the City Clerk will aggregate all such requests and treat them as one request made by person. 2.06 Bad Faith Affidavit of indigency. If the City Clerk, based on reliable information, after consultation with the City Attorney, determines a person has made an affidavit of indigency in bad faith or fraudulently for the purpose of avoiding payment of production, copying, or other fees, the City Clerk will deny the waiver of the fees. 2.07 Harassment Request. If the City Clerk, in good faith, after consultation with the City Attorney, reasonably determines a request for copies or inspection of records is not made in good faith, and is made for the purpose of harassment of the City or city officials, or to purposely interfere with the orderly conduct of city business, the City Clerk will deny the request. Such a determination will be made only after notice and an opportunity for the requestor to be heard by the City Clerk, 2.08 Description of Records Requested. A requestor must describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable the City to locate and identify the records sought. If the records are described by the requestor in general terms, the city staff shall attempt to communicate with the requestor to identify the records requested and lessen the administrative burden of processing an overly broad request. If the request is not sufficient to allow the staff to identify the requested records, the requestor shall be notified promptly by the City Council, the request cannot be approved or processed until a sufficient description of the record is received. Attachment T" Regulations Concerning Public Record inspections Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 3 of 6 -490- 2.09 Deliberative Process Records. There is a recognized need to encourage open, frank discussions among government officials about proposed or contemplated governmental action. Disclosure of official deliberations will inhibit those discussions, invade the mental processes of government officials, and adversely affect the quality of administrative decision making. Records containing deliberative process information are confidential and need not be disclosed. Accordingly, requests for internal, pre - decisional records that are deliberative in nature, will be denied unless the City Clerk, after consultation with the City Attorney, determines the requestor has established, on balance, the interest of the public in having access to the record outweighs the interest of the public in having city business carried on efficiently and without unreasonable interference. 3.01 Routine Requests. A routine request for records will be responded to promptly at the office where the records are kept, or another city office if more convenient to the City, during business hours at a time that does not interfere with the orderly conduct of city business. If the records cannot be produced within five (5) working days, the requestor will be advised. 3.02 Nan -routine Requests. Records in response to an approved non -routine request will be made available for inspection or copying at City Hall, under the direction of the City Clerk or the City Clerk's designee. For the convenience of the City, the City Clerk may designate an inspection location elsewhere in the City. The time for inspection will be during business hours. The City Clerk will advise the requestor of the speC4r" time and date on v,!hicl, the inspection may occur, if, and to the extent necessary to maintain the orderly conduct of city business, the City Clerk may limit the days and hours when inspection and copying of public records may occur. 3.03 Large Requests. If a request is made for inspection or copying of a large volume of public records, the City Clerk, after consultation with the City Attorney, may require the requestor to make a written designation of the order in which the requestor wants the records produced. When such order is designated by the requestor, the City will attempt to produce the records in that order. Requests for inspection or copying of a large volume of public records, or requests that will require the City to search or review a large volume of public records, will be responded as city staff time permits. The orderly conduct of city business will not be interrupted to make fast response to such a request. It is reasonable the maker of such a large request should expect an extended time for response. The City Clerk will advise the requestor of the estimated time in which the response will be made. Attachment 'B" Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 4 of 6 -491- 4.01 Form of Records. The records of the City will normally be made available for inspection or copying in the format in which the City maintains or disseminates the records. Exact reproduction is not required, but any alteration of the form or medium of public records must not change the substantive content of the information, and if the actual content is changed, the nature of the change and the reason for the change will be communicated to the requestor. 4.02 Summarization or Manipulation of Records. The City is not required to compile or summarize its records in response to a request for information. The City is not required to manipulate its data to create new records in response to a request for information. 4.03 Partially Disclosable Records. If public records contain information that is disclosable in part and non-disclosable in part, the non-disclosable information shall be removed prior to disclosure. 5. WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS AND APPEALS 5.01 Written Response. If the City Clerk, after consultation with the City Attorney_and City Manager, makes an adverse determination, in whole or in part, to a written public records request, the City Clerk will provide a written response setting forth the adverse determination. It will include a description of the records requested, a description of the records that will not be provided, and the reasons for the adverse determination, including reference to provisions of law or regulations, facts, and other information relied upon. The City Clerk's written response will also include a notice the requestor has a right to appeal to the City Council. 5.02 Response to Oral Requests. Oral requests may be accepted for a routine request. Oral requests for records will not be accepted for a non -routine request or receive a written response from the City Clerk unless the requestor is unable to make a written request because of inability to write or because of mental or physical disability. In that case, the City staff will assist the requestor in making a request that will be responded to and treated as a written request for all purposes under these regulations. 5.03 When No Response is Deemed Denial. If the requestor receives no response to a written request for records within five (5) working days of making that request, the requestor may file with the City Clerk a written demand for a written response. If the City Clerk does not give a written response to that demand within Attachment "B" Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 5 of 6 -492- three (3) working days of the City Clerk's receipt of the demand, the request for records will be deemed denied. 5.04 Appeal to City Council. A denial, in whole or in part, a deemed denial, or any adverse written determination by the City Clerk in response to a written request for public records may be appealed by the requestor to the City Council under City of Kenai Municipal Code, Section 14.20.290. 5.05 Appeal to Superior Court. A decision of the City Council on an appeal from a decision of the City Clerk may be further appealed to the Superior Court. Such an appeal must be made under the court rules of procedure governing appeals to the Superior Court. Approved by Ordinance No. 2396-2009. DATED: This 15th day of April, 2009. PAT PORTER, MAYOR ATTEST: Carol L. Preas, City Cleork Attachment "'B" Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections Ordinance No. 2396-2009 Page 6 of 6 -493- "Villaye with a Past, C# witA a Future" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 / Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us KE AL ALASKA MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Carol L. Freas, City Cl rk DATE: March 26, 2009 Ordinance No. 2396-2009, if passed, will amend the Kenai Municipal Code to include Chapter 10.40, "Release of Public Records" and "Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections" which were developed to enhance the code by setting standards for managing requests for public records. In addition to the code amendment and the regulations, attached is a copy of the newly developed "Public Records Request Form" and a "Policies &, Procedures for Public Record Requests" which will assist as a quick reference when managing requests. If you have any comments, please contact me. MOM REQUEST IDENTIFICATION NO. (Year) (Sequence) J �i��d ����v�u��vz"^�M�t^-)�+; �)c�i � ~ F� f '� F1 sf •J e7�"3'N'F b tiA �'3�''am�� > Fr.h+'� 2hV `'F e+3 ^I M l 1�'4 ky,� q.2 ✓"l � � � '� d.� ,i' ,1 .., ] -R v*b" 7w _'Snmfae �l o-,S'n�r-. 3_, .. �{6'�LY...✓M...>e_ t �..,! ... .. .. 1.Yi.i'-.. __�,....,a,a ... i.. u.�...r 210 Fidalgo Avenue Phone: (907) 283-7535, ext, 231 ! Kenai, AEaska 99611 Fax: (907) 283-5068 cfreasCalci kenai ak us Name: Address: City: j State: j zip: Email Address: ®• a r I herebV request the following documents be specific, or you may attach a re uest letter Title of Record: Date of Record: Description of Record: I acknowledge and agree to pay the following charges for the documents requested: Copies = Up to nine pages are free. tip to ten pages are $2.50, plus sales tax, and $.25 (twenty-five cents) plus sales tax for each additional page. Copies of audio records to CD are $25.00 plus sales tax for the first CD and $5.00 for each additional CD for each request, Cassette tape recording copies are $25.00 plus sales tax for the first cassette tape and $5.00 for each additional cassette tape. I understand research is limited and will be charged per requestor in a calendar month exceeding five -person hours, i.e. the fee is the City employee's actual salary plus benefit costs. An estimate will be prepared and the requestor must deposit the estimated production and copying fees in advance. If the actual costs are greater than the estimate, the records will not be released until the difference is paid and if the actual costs are less, the requester will receive a refund of the difference. No fee for simple inspection, except when the production of records by one requestor exceeds five person hours in a calendar month pursuant to AS 40.25.110 C). m F ! , I hereby certify: 1. I am not involved in litigation, in a judicial or administrative forum, nor am I acting on behalf of or an,, hhan�•a representing tine narh, w� i involved in iitinnton wit e J of Kenai to whic t r pre n he s in�o ed yu i h the Ci y h he a r r requested record is relevant; and 2. The requested public record is strict) for: My own personal use Use on behalf of: (Name of business, organization) I certify under penalty of pedury the foregoing statements are true. Print Name Signature Date • • • REQUEST ID NO. 1 Staff Member Research Time Date minutes Request received Request reviewed Recordslocated Fee calculated Re uestor notified Documents provided Amount -495- CITY OF KENAI i • ) • ! ' • The State of Alaska Open Records Act governs access to public records. It requires a public record be made available to the public for inspection and copying during normal business hours. Most requests are subject to fees for copying costs, and in some instances, the cost of personnel time required to respond to the request. In no event, however, may the fee for copying public records exceed the standard unit cost of duplication set by the city. The Open Records Act is found at AS 40.25.100 to 40.25.220, and the pertinent sections for these purposes are AS 40.25.110 and 40.25.115, In order to ensure compliance with state law, the following procedures shall be followed whenever a request is received from a public citizen to inspect or copy public records of the City of Kenai. • / s : ,, ► is 1-`37: i1C9:] g61077o7i:7:�Tr] r� 1. A request for public records must be made from a public citizen to inspect or to obtain a copy of a public record. The request shall be in writing, on a form provided by the City Clerk, entitled "Public Records Request." 2. Upon receipt of a completed request form, date stamp the form in the space provided on the date received. Inform the Requester a charge may be associated with the request. 3. Submit the completed Public Records Request form to the City Clerk to be processed. 4. The City Clerk shall: a. Review the request and determine in which city department the record. may be held; b. Incorporate the requested information and department where the record may be held into a memorandum to the City Manager and request the City Manager to instruct his/her department head or his/her designee to provide an estimate of how much time will be required to research, compile, etc. the requested records and submit the information to the City Clerk. d. Upon receipt of the time/cost estimate for providing the requested public record for review or copying and if it is found to exceed the five hour time limit Policies & Procedures for Public Records Requests Page 1 m provided for in Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections 1.03 and AS 40.25, request the Finance Director or his/her designee for a breakdown in costs for the employee(s) who will be researching/compiling the requested information. Upon receipt of the estimated cost information, forward that information to the Requestor in writing, noting the estimated cost must be paid in advance of the research/compiling of the requested records to proceed. e. Upon receipt of payment of the estimated cost (if the amount of time to research/compile will be over five hours), notify the City Manager to proceed with the research/compilation of records requested. 5. The City Clerk, or his/her designee, shall process the request within five (5) days from its receipt. If a request cannot be processed with five (5) days of the date of receipt, the City Clerk shall contact the Requestor immediately to explain the reason for the delay and complete the request within a reasonable period. See KMC 10.40.060(d) and Regulation 1, Fees. 6. Once the request is processed and completed, the Requestor shall be contacted, in writing, to pick up the request. 7. Any public records request shall not be distributed to the Requester unless and until all charges allowed by law are paid by the Requestor. 8. The City Clerk shall maintain a record of all "Public Record Requests." Public Record Requests shall be numbered. Policies &, Procedures for Public Records Requests Page 2 -497- Ire "V (laye wctk a Past C# with a Future' 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephone: (907) 283-7535 / Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.ci.kenai.ak.us Date: March 24, 2009 To: Terry Eubank, Acting City Manager From: Kim Howard, Assistant to the City Manager RE: Assignment of Lease — Dennis D. Linnell, Eugene C. Chase, Harold R. Smith, and Robert E. Gerdon, Jr., dba DEHR-Joint Venture to Dennis D. Linnell, Dennis R. Linnell and Betty J. Smith, dba DEIiR Joint Venture/ Lot Seven (7), Etolin Subdivision, Second Addition Dennis D. Linnell, Eugene C. Chase, Harold R. Smith, and Robert E. Gerdon, Jr., dba DEHR JOINT VENTURE have requested an assignment of their lease for the above referenced property to Dennis D. Linnell, Dennis R. Linnell and Betty J. Smith, dba DEHR Joint Venture. The property is the location of B&C Supply, Thai Town and Jersey Subs. The property is Airport Land, outside of the Airport Reserve. Last year the lessee provided a deposit and written request to purchase the property. However, several of the partners have died, complicating title. The title has now been cleared and the lessee wishes to proceed with the sale. The lessee would like to close the sale before the appraisal expires on April 22. The lease states, "Lessee with City's prior written consent, which will not be unreasonably denied, may assign, in whole or in part, its rights as Lessee." The parties are in compliance with the City and with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The City Attorney has reviewed the attached documents and has no objection as to the forms. If Council approves the assignment, the consent can be executed by the City Manager and we can proceed with the sale. Cc: Peggy Clements, First American Title Attachments m AND WHEREAS, on the January 30, 1979, the Assignment of Lease as amended was consented to by the City of Kenai, and said consent was recorded on March 9; 1979, at Book 140, Page . 133, records of the Kenai Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska; AND WHEREAS, on the April 5, 1988, the lease was anrended to "increase the lease rate, and said Amendment to Lease was recorded on May 3, 1988 at Book 327, Page 68, records of the Kenai Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska AND WHEREAS, on April 15, 1993, the lease was amended to increase the lease rate, and said Amendment to Lease was recorded on April 27, 1993, at Book 417, Page 13, records of the Kenai Recording District; Third Judicial District, State of Alaska; :AND WHEREAS, on April 16, 1998, the lease was amended to increase the lease rate, and said Amendmenbto Lease was recorded on May 1,1998, at Book 528, Page 649, records of the Kenai Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska; AND WHEREAS, on the July 2., 2003, the lease was amended to increase the lease rate, and said _Amendment to Lease was recorded on July 3, 2003, at Serial No. 2003-008455-0, records of the Kenai Recording District, Third Judicial District; State of Alaska; AND WHEREAS, on July 14, 2006, the lease was amended to change the uses authorized on the property and to modify the insurance requirements of the lease, and said Amendment to Lease was recorded on June 29, 2006, at Serial No. 2006-006691-0, records of the Kenai Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska; AND WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007, the lease was amended to provide a new assignment and subletting clause, modify an insurance requirement and change the lease adjustment cycle, and said Amendment to Lease was recorded on March 16, 2007, at Serial No. 2007-002799-0, records of the Kenai Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska; AND WHEREAS, the owners of the DEHR JOINT VENTURE have changed, and the new owners wish to have the Lease properly reflect their ownership; NOW THEREFORE, said Lease as amended being referenced and incorporated with the same force and effect as if written out herein, and that it is the desire of DENNIS D. LINNELL, EUGENE C. CHASE; HAROLD R. SMITH, and ROBERT E. GERDON, JR., DBA DEHR JOINT VENTURE to.assign said lease as amended to DENNIS D. LINNELL, DENNIS R. LINNELL and BETTY J. SMITH, DBA DEHR JOINT.VENTURE and it is the desire of DENNIS D. LINNELL, DENNIS R. LINNBLL and BETTY J. SMITH, DBA DEHR VENTURE to accept said assignment as assignee of said lease, now therefore; 3N CONSIDERATION of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, DENNIS D. LINNELL, EUGENE C. CHASE; HAROLD R. SMITH, and ROBERT E. GERDON, JR., DBA DEHR JOINT VENTURE, assigns, sets over, ASSTGNEMNT OF LEASE Page 2 of 9 --TsU2lV.innelPLrdPrap�2-24-04'5. .. ... _ -500- Us KENAI AIRPORT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2009 KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL ITEM 2: AGENDA APPROVAL ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY -- February 12, 2009 ITEM 4: PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ITEM 5: OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion -- FY10 Budget (Finance Director) b. Discussion -- Update on Airport Projects (Casey Madden - WCB) ITEM 6: NEW BUSINESS ITEM 7: REPORT a. Commission Chair b. Airport Manager C. City Council Liaison ITEM 8: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ITEM 9: PERSONS NOT SCHEDULXED TO BE HEARD ITEM 10: INFORMATION ITEMS a. Kenai City Council Meeting Action Agendas for February 18 and March 4, 2009. b. Ordinance No. 2383-2009 C. Ordinance No. 2385-2009 d. Ordinance No. 2386-2009 e. Ordinance No. 2392-2009 f. Airport Manager's Report -- February 2009 g. January 2009 EnpIanement ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT -509- KENAI AIRPORT COMMISSION MARCH 10' KENAI CITY COUNCIL f 1 PRESIDINGCHAIR HENRY ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND .ROLL GALL Chair Knackstedt called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. Roll was confirmed as follows: Commissioners present: J. Zirul, J. Bielefeld, H. Knackstedt, L. Porter, D. Haralson, G. Feeken Commissioners absent: E. Mayer Staff/Council Liaison present: Airport Manager M. Bondurant, Council Member B. Eldridge, Finance Director T. Eubank A quorum was present. ITEM 2: AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION: Commissioner Zirul MOVED to approve the agenda as presented and Commissioner Porter SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY -- February 12, 2009 LOTION: Commissioner Feeken MOVED to approve the meeting summary of February 12, 2009 replacing FAA breakfast on page two with EAA breakfast. Commissioner Porter SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. ITEM 4: PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD -- None ITEM 5: OLD BUSINESS 5-a. Discussion -- FY10 Budget (Finance Director) Finance Director Eubank presented the FY10 draft budget to the Commission and a general discussion on operating fund, permanent fund and investment strategy followed. 5-b. Discussion -- update on Airport Projects (Casey Madden - WCB) Casey Madden with Wince, Corthell & Bryson updated the Commission on airport projects, including general aviation lighting, the courthouse paving project, and the -510- stimulus dollars of $2,415,000 and the scrutiny that would come with it. General discussion followed on projects, planning, funding sources and future projects. ITEM 6: NEW BUSINESS ITEM 7: REPORT 7-a. Commission Chair -- Knackstedt noted the Commission should have been notified regarding the amendment to reduce the fuel flowage fee. 7-b. Airport Manager--.Bondurant reported on the 9th annual Air Fair progress, AVO/volcanic ash radar equipment, and winter snow removal operations. 7-c. City Council Liaison -- Council Member Eldridge reviewed the March 4, 2009 council meeting action agenda which was included in the packet. ITEM 8: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Porter reported the Medallion Mobile Flight Simulator would be at the Challenger Center during the next week and invited the Commission to visit. ITEM 9: ITEM 10: 10-a. 10-b. 10-c. 10-d. In-c. 10-ff. 10-g. ITEM 11: MOTION: Kenai City Council Meeting Action Agendas for February 18 and March 4, 2009. Ordinance No. 2383-2009 Ordinance No. 2385-2009 Ordinance No. 2386-2009 Ordinance No. 2392-'2009 Airport Manager's Report -- February 2009 January 2009 Enplanement ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Haralson MOVED to adjourn and Commissioner Porter SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 p.m. Meeting summary prepared and submitted by: Corene Hall, Deputy City Clerk AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 12, 2009 -511- PAGE 2 ISH4 032 ii40M PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 25, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: a.Roll Call b.Agenda Approval e. Consent Agenda d.*Excused Absences *All items Iisted with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non -controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. *March 11, 2009 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: (10 Minutes) a. PZ09-16 — Tracts DI -A & Dl-B Hollier Subdivision No. 6 (A replat of Tract D-1, Hollier SD #5). Plat submitted by Tinker Creek Surveys, PO Box 2342, Soldoma, Alaska. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testirner.;r limited to 3 minutes per speaker.) a. PZ09-15 - An application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an Assisted Living Facility — Senior Living from the property known as Lot 10, Block 4, VIP Country Estates Subdivision Part 5 (750 Baleen Avenue), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Nicole Baiduf, 750 Baleen Avenue, Suite 1, Kenai, Alaska 99611. :mil1117310i►q X I 7. NEW BUSINESS: S. PENDING ITEMS: a. PZ09-03 — A resolution of the PIanning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council the enactment of KMC 14.20.255 establishing a process for the regulation and establishment and placement of communications towers within the City of Kenai and amending the Land Use Table in KMC 14.22.010 to provide that communications towers/antennas are a conditional use in the CMU zone. 9. REPORTS: -512- a. City Council b.Borough Planning c. Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: (3 Minutes) 11. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. Landscape/Site Plan — GCUAlaska DigiteI b.Landscape/Site Plan — Span Alaska — Kenai c.Zoning Bulletins (2/10/09 & 2/25/09) 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: 13. ADJOURNMENT: -513- CITY OF KENAI ZONINGPLANNING & • s COUNCILCITY MARCH 25, ar= 0r P.M. CHAIR JEFF TWAIT, PRESIDING k'l�lfl7ll�'9 1-a. Roll Call -- Chair Twait called the meeting to order at approximately 7:01 p.m. Roll was confirmed as follows: Commissioners present: P. Bryson, K. Rogers, G. Brookman, K. Koester, S. Romain, R. Wells. J. Twait Commissioners absent: None Staff/Liaison Present: Council Member R. Molloy, City Planner M. Kebschull, and City Clerk C. Freas A quorum was present. 1-b. Agenda Approval The following items were requested to be added to the packet: ADD TO: S-a, PZ09-16 -- Photographs of the property applying for a Conditional Use Permit. MOTION: Commissioner Wells MOVED for approval of the agenda with the addition of the Item 5-a lay down information. Commissioner Brookman SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. 1-c. Consent Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Rogers MOVED to approve the consent agenda as presented and commissioner Brookman SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. 1-d. Excused Absences -- None. *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non -controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. -514- ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- March 11, 2009 Approved by consent agenda. ITEM 3: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -- None. ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF PLATS 4-a. PZ09-16 -Tracts D 1-A & Dl-B Hollier Subdivision No. 6 (A replat of Tract D-1, Hollier SD #5). Plat submitted by Tinker Creek Surveys, PO Box 2342, Soldotna, Alaska. City Planner Kebschull reviewed the staff report which was included in the packet, noting the following: • The request was for a preliminary subdivision plat to subdivide a large parcel into two tracts. • The resulting parcels would meet the minimum lot size for the Rural Residential zone. • City water and sewer were not available. • The parcels would be accessed from Hollier Street, off Beaver Loop Road. • Because Hollier Street was platted, but not developed, the City would need to verify if the street would meet City road standards. • It appeared the plat would meet the requests of Borough and State waiver requirements and if so, the City could not require an installation agreement to bring the street to city standards. • The owner would need to recognize that if the street was not built to minimum city standards, the City could not issue building permits. • Staff recommended approval of the plat with the stipulations that when weather permits, the City would verify the status of Hollier Street and if Hollier Street was not built to City jtanda-rristhe City would not issue building permits on the tracts of land. The floor was opened for public hearing with rules of public hearing stated by Twait. Gary Hollier, 43680 Ross Street, Soldotna -- Hollier noted the following: • He was representing his mother, owner of the property, and spoke in support of the resolution. • He understood and agreed with the statements Kebschull made with regard to Hollier Street. s It was the intent one of the parcels would be deeded to his daughter for her to build a home. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 25, 2009 -51 5- PAGE 2 Commissioner Romain MOVED to approve PZ09-16 with the inclusion of the staff recommendations. Commissioner Wells SECONDED the motion. Bryson Yes Rogers Yes Broolonan Yes Koester Yes Romain Yes Wells Yes Twait Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5-a. PZ09-15 --An application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an Assisted Living Facility — Senior Living from the property known as Lot 10, Block 4, VIP Country Estates Subdivision Part 5 (750 Baleen Avenue), Kenai, Alaska. Application submitted by Nicole Balduf, 750 Baleen Avenue, Suite 1, Kenai, Alaska 99611. Kebschull reviewed the staff report included in the packet and noted the following: • The application was for a conditional use permit to operate an assisted living facility. • City became aware of the business being run from the property and notified the property owner of requirements; the applicant then applied for the conditional use permit. • Although the business is licensed to care for two individuals, the owner is in the process of licensing for a maximum of five individuals. • The business was low impact to the neighborhood. • The pictures added to the packet indicated adequate parking was available. 0 Staff recommended approval with the requirements including the facility 1>a .. spected b`y' use F.r- ..larshal ,F?r upiianCe 'v`viui iiaC uIC CvC[Cpiior to approval of the permit and thereafter, be inspected every other years; occupancy be limited to the number of occupants permitted by the State, with a maximum of five (5) occupants; copies of the State of Alaska license(s) be provided to the City; and, the applicant provide proof of Borough sales tax registration. The floor was opened for public hearing. Charles Obendorf, Soldotna -- Spoke in support of the resolution, noting a family member was a resident of the facility and he and his wife were very impressed with the care provided. Commissioner comments included: a Commissioner Koester noted she owned property adjacent to the subject property but had no financial or monetary relationship to the property or property owners. A PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 25, 2009 -516- PAGE 3 VOTE: Bryson Yes Rogers Yes Brockman Yes Koester Yes Romain Yes Wells Yes j Twait Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Twait noted the 15-day period during which an appeal could be filed with the City Clerk. ITEM 6: OLD BUSINESS -- None. ITEM 7: -- None. ITEM 8: PENDING ITEMS PZ09-03 - A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council the enactment of KMC 14.20.255 establishing a process for the regulation and establishment and placement of communications towers within the City of Kenai and amending the Land Use Table in KMC 14.22.010 to provide that communications towers/antennas are a conditional use in the CMU zone. ITEM 9• REPORTS 9-a. City Council -- Council Member Molloy reviewed the March 18, 2009 council meeting action agenda included in the packet, noting actions taken, discussions held, and wn-rk sessions scheduled. 9-b. Borough Planning -- Commissioner Bryson reviewed the March 23, 2009 Borough Planning Commission meeting agenda which was included in the packet, and noted actions taken. 9-c. Administration -- City Planner Kebschull reported the following items: • Reminded commissioners to indicate to the City Clerk whether they would be able to attend the April 4, 2009 effective meetings training. • Reminded the Commission their City Financial Disclosure Forms were due to the City Clerk on or before April 15, 2009. • She met with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding restoration of the Church. The issue would come before the Commission in the future for approval of permitting. • There would be a public hearing at the next scheduled meeting as well as a work session related to suggested amendments to the Limited Commercial (LC) Zone. • She would be out of town from April 9-20, back for a few days and then to a conference. PLANNING &, ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 25, 2009 -517- PAGE Proposed changes to the LC Zone would not address signs, but the sign code did. ® The antenna ordinance was receiving fmal review with some changes being incorporated. A work session would be scheduled in the near future. ITEM 11: INFORMATION ITEMS 11-a. Landscape/Site Plan - GCl/Alaska Digitel 11-b. Landscape/ Site Plan - Span Alaska - Kenai 11-C. Zoning Bulletins (2/10/09 & 2/25/09) ITEM 12: COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS -- None. ITEM 13: • a, Commissioner Rogers MOVED to adjourn and Commissioner Brockman SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED. There being no further business before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:40 p.m. Minutes prepared and submitted by: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 25, 2009 -518- PAGE' SALMON TASK FORCE MEETING MARCH 12, 2009 KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 P.M. ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL ITEM 2: AGENDA APPROVAL ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY -- February 11, 2009 a. Discussion -- Details for Presentation of Information b. Discussion -- Identify Recommendations to Provide to Council ITEM 5: NEW BUSINESS ITEM 6: INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM 7: ADJOURNMENT PRO • •- MARCH 12, 2009 KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 P.M. CHAIR JIM BUTLER, PRESIDING MEETING SUMMARY Chair Butler called the meeting to order at approximately 3:05 p.m. Roll was confirmed as: Members present: J. Butler, K. Tarbox, R. Ruffner, J. Torgerson, Members absent: B. Scott and D. Kramer Staff/Council Liaison present: Council Member J. Moore and City Clerk C. Freas A quorum was present. ITEM 2: AGENDA APPROVAL There were no changes to the agenda. ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY -- February 11, 2009 There were no changes to the meeting summary of February 11, 2009. 4-a. Discussion -- Details for Presentation of Information The membership reviewed information presented in a draft format and discussed changes to be made; information to be added; who would speak to what issues during the presentation to the council; what the information would communicate to the council, etc. 4-b. Discussion -- Identify Recommendations to Provide to Council The membership reviewed the draft ordinance for establishing a City of Kenai commission that would advise the council on clean surface water issues described in the ordinance. Some reworking of the ordinance took place. An updated ordinance would be made available for review at the next meeting. -520- The membership agreed it would like to make the presentation to the council in a work session on a separate night from a council meeting, allowing about two hours for the presentation and a question/answer period following. Council Member Moore was asked to take the membership's request to council to schedule the work session. ITEM 6: ITEM 7: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Task Force, the meeting adjourned at approidmately 4:55 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk -521- SALMON TASK FORCE MEETING MARCH 12, 2009 PAGE 2 I Oki 4 :IQ A 4 m 10) 1 m 14 Oki R "Village with a Past Ci° w th a Future ®, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Telephoner (907) 283-7535 / Fax: (907) 283-3014 www.ei.kenai.ak.us \\ the u'tiv a/ X/ KENAI, ALASKA MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members THROUGH: Carol L. Freas, City C1er FROM: Corey Hall, Deputy City erk DATE: March 27, 2009 In accordance with the city of Kenai Records Retention Schedule, approved and adopted by Resolution No. 2008-58, the City Clerk's Office disposed of certain city records on March 12, 2009, which were subject to disposal under the Schedule. Those disposed records were composed of the following: Airport 1 box ity M Canager 2 boxes Clerk 12 boxes I Finance Department 26 boxe Legal Department 14 boxes Library 3 boxes Parks & Recreation Department 1 box 11 Planning & Zoning 1 box Public Works Department 9 boxes Senior Center 3 boxes The records were authorized for destruction by the respective department managers and the City Attorney, pursuant to KMC 10.30. A complete list of the above - referenced obsolete records is available for review in the City Clerk's Office. -523- Albany, N.Y.: Timesunion.com - Print Story Page i of 2 Real meetings, real time Audio, video programming of state agency deliberations available on the Web By CATHY WOODRUFF, Business writer Click byline for more stories by writer. First published: Friday, 6larch 27, 2009 RENSSELAER — Curious as to why the Capital District Transportation Authority decided to use federal stimulus money to buy buses? Didn't learn everything you wanted to know about the last meeting in the newspaper story? Maybe you're just wondering about the tone a sometimes -sarcastic board member used when he remarked that something was a "great idea." Wonder no more. Just go to your computer, cue up the webcast on the CDTA site and see and hear for yourself. CDTA is among dozens of state agencies and authorities that now pay to have live video and audio feeds of their meetings transmitted over the Internet while they meet — and then posted as part of a Web site archive for viewing on demand. The webcasts were billed as a new dose of sunshine for the state's governing bodies when then -Gov. Eliot Spitzer issued Executive Order No. 3 shortly after taking office in January 2007. Now, though, CDTA board member Arthur Young suggests the mandate may be an onerous expense that exceeds its benefits for the cash -strapped authority. CDTA pays $1,400 per meeting for the webcasts, including closed -captioning for the archive, for a total cost of $16,600 a year. "Nobody I know watches these programs," Young said, "I don't know that it has any real value, except somebody can say 'On, hey, look. We have full public disclosure of public agency meetings. Isn't that great?"' Young was alone In his opinion at a board meeting last month, but his comments cast a spotlight on the services provided by 32-year-old Michael Pollock's expanding business, Webcasting.com Inc. Pollock, an Air Force veteran, conceived the idea shortly after he returned home to Ossining from his military hitch in 2005. "I noticed that every house on one street had a satellite dish on the roof," he said. That meant the occupants didn't have cable television and couldn't watch their local board meetings on a cable public access. He pitched the idea of streaming meeting on the Web to Ossining town officials and quickly had his first customer. Today, the town remains one of Pollock's 10 local government customers. And thanks to Spitzer's executive order, he also has close to 40 state -chartered boards, authorities and agencies on his client list. Pollock, who has a staff of five, isn't the only contractor that provides webcasting services for New York http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp 4 StorylD=784211 3/27/2009 Albany, N.Y.: Timesunion.com - Print Story Page 2 of 2 public bodies, but he may be the most active. On Wednesday, in addition to CDTA, he and his technicians were streaming meetings of the state Board of Elections and the Division of Criminal Justice Services; that night, they would put up a webcast of an Ossining Chamber of Commerce meeting taped earlier. Thursday's schedule included New York City Off -Track Betting Corp., the state Office of Mental Health, the state Racing and Wagering Board, and the Westchester Department of Emergency Services. Given his success webcasting local meetings, Pollock was ready to pounce when the state mandate came along. "I hit the pavement back in the day and went around to every state agency knocking on doors;" he said. These days, he's also working to woo customers outside of New York, Pollock just inked an agreement with the city of Kenai, Alaska, which will pay about $600 a month for audio -only webcasting, with Pollock's staff engineering the transmission remotely from New York, said City Clerk Carol Freas. Pollock declined to disclose annual sales figures, but he said the cost of service can vary widely depending on meeting lengths and the production services requested, such as closed captioning. The state Board of Elections pays between $3,500 and $5,000 to have each of its meetings webcast, said Bob Brehm, deputy director of public information. On Wednesday, as Pollock was working the camera and streaming CDTA's March meeting, employee Rachel Robinson was running coverage at the Board of Elections. Pollock did a spot check and found 52 people were watching the elections board proceedings live. He estimated that another 200 to 250 might watch later. CDTA board member Denise Figueroa endorsed the webcasts. "It's very helpful if you are trying to participate in government," she said. "I don't know who is listening, but I'm sure there are some folks out there who can't get to the meeting and find it helpful. I think it's important for people to understand the thought process that goes into making the decisions." Cathy Woodruff can be reached at 454-5043 or by e-mail at coodruff@timesunion.com. -525 http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprinf-a7p. StoryID=784211 3/27/2009 0 1191 0. �j I i 010 6 1 A L INFORMATION ITEMS KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL I, 2009 4/ l/2009 Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000 for council review. 3/ 11/09 letter from the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development with revised City of Kenai 2008 population (7,134). 3. 3/25/09 Public Works Department, Project Status Report. 4. 2/2009 City of Kenai Municipal Airport Enplanements. PURCHAoE ORDERS BETWEEN $2,500.00 AND $16,000.00 FOR COUNCIL REVIEW COUNCIL MEETING OF: APRIL 1, 2009 VENDOR DESCRIPTION DEPT. ACCOUNT AMOUNT NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES (3) COMPUTERS SENIOR CENTER SMALL TOOLS 3,000.00 e CSI N 4 LC---� # �Itw aIATB OP ALASKA A�K— DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Sarah Patin, Governor COMMUNITY AND Emil Moat' Commirlioner ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tara,Jolk'q Director Division of Community & Regional Affairs March 11, 2009 The Honorable Pat Porter Mayor City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo, Suite 200 Kenai, AK 99611-7794 RE: REVISED FYI0 POPULATION DETERMINATION Dear Mayor: MAR 16 2009 In a letter dated January 30, 2009, the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) provided the City of Kenai with its 2008 population determination for use in various financial assistance programs. The population estimate was prepared by the State Demographer at the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. We have been notified by the State Demographer that the 2008 population figures previously provided to the DCCED and your municipality were incorrect due to recently discovered account code errors applied to 2008 Permanent Fund Dividend data. As a result, the State Demographer has needed to revise the 2008 population figures for all municipalities. The revised 2008 population of the City of Kenai has been determined to be 7,134. All population appeal deadlines and processes remain in effect as outlined in the January 30, 2009 population determination letter. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause your municipality. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 907-465-4733. Sincerely, Bill Rolfze Program A ministrator --- P.O. Box 110809, Juneau, Alaska 99811-0809 Telephone: (907) 465-4751 Fax: (907) 465-4761 Text Telephone: (907) 465-5437 Email: quesnons@alaslca.gov Website: http://w .commeTce.state.ak,us/dcra/ -528- ProjectStatus Report NC Non -Construction RK - Rick Koch F=Future WO - Wayne Ogle . - STIP=State Trans. Imp LF - Larry Floyd- . A/NC/F/ City Contact Project Name Statue STIP A WO Airport Runway Safety Project complete except for re -painting. Zone/Extension Completion 6/15109. A WO AP Apron Rehabilitation Wince-Corthell-Bryson is engineering. Design scheduled to be completed 4/7. A WO Courthouse Parking Lot Bid opening 3124109 at 2 p.m. City is considering bids. A RK Kenai River Bluff Erosion The Corps has received funds to help with the Control Project design and answer any questions from the study and agencies including obtaining the Corps Permit. City working with Corps consultant. Tetra Tech main consultant. R&M drilled monitoring wells. A WO Library Expansion ECl/Hyer, Inc. issued schematic design report 2125109. City is negotiating contract for additional design work, A WO Marathon Rd. tmpr. Phase II - Baron Park & HEA Access Road. HDL engineering. A RK Marathon Road Improvements Final completion by 5115/09. Winter shutdown. A WO Runway Safety Imp: Taxiways Bid opening 3/24/09 at 1 p.m. Council to consider F,G,H Lighting, Grading, contract award at 411/09 meeting. Drainage A WO S. Ames & Basin View Way Bid opening 3124109 at 3 p.m. Council to consider Paving LID contract award at 4/1/09 meeting. A WO Thompson Park LID Project complete except for minor items in spring. Wednesday, March 25, 2009 Page 1 of 2 SIMI AACIFI city Cee$eCt Project N= stm STIP A LF Vintage Pointe Dry Pipe Bid opening 313109 at 2 p.m. Council to consider Sprinkler System Replacement contract award at 4/1/09 meeting. A LF Vintage Pointe Window Bid opening 3/3109 at 2 p.m. City is responding to Replacement protest. Council to consider contract award at 4/1109 meeting. A RK Water System HDL is conducting further investigations in vicinity of Well House 2. A WO Wildwood Drive Improvements Preliminary engineering complete. ROW issues. Project on hold. F WO Contaminated Soils - Shop Further work in progress Wednesday, March 25, 2009 Page 2 of 2 -530- r Municipal AirpoK 26.83% GRAN,662T ERA GRANT Change KENAI Combined Month AVIATION AVIATION Total 2008 from AVIATION Month Total 9nna �January 5,063 1,761 6,824 7.752 -928 322 7.146 Februa 4,369 1,602 5,971 7,032 -1,06i 316 6,287 March 6,911 A dl 7,057 Me 7,572 June 8,020 Jul 11,274 Au ust 10,492 September 7,761 October 7,805 November 6,738 December 7,183 Totals 9,432 3,31 12,796 95,597 5-year Comparison Chart 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 (Ja2n�uLa,.ry. 7,417 6,466 6,023 6.326 6454 March 6,667 6,808 6,184 5.993 5,280 ZMW May 7,391 7,071 5,974 5�,70c�0c 5,848 July 11,606 11,370 10,860 10,654 9445 September 7.,�5.,988 7.359 6,886 6,838 6,435 �a1'fLi4�',. ✓.N2n �4wr✓ Ty�.'ia',2,V ,..�rNfaY',!� ..a �,rn r�5��'+ .�_ .7� .. ...,. November 7,413 7,068 6,939 6.245 5,.^8py2�0 ON- It Totals 93,684 90,070 83,623 82,009 76,729 E 66000 _�j 80000 X 7 t I 76000 70000 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 -531- The effective meetings/parliamentary procedure training held on Saturday, March 28 was very successful with 35 people attending. of the Airport •' • • e from the Library Commission;one '• " • both the Library • • Harbor • • one • i Committee;Cemetery • • five membersof administration. remainingThe folks represented the City of Soldotna, the presenter • #' the Kenai Peninsul Boroughoffice. There were lots of positive comments made by t4iose who attended. For the April 4 training, to date, I have four Planning Zoning Commission memberswho are planning •' attend, three council members, and our student representative : • are planning to attend, as as myself • ! a.. deputy '••: • • to hear .1 • two of •` commissioners and two council members COUNCIL MEETING OF:�a� d i • III, • • � II M s v HNSON — MOLLOY BOYLE PORTER �! SMALLEY ! MOORE ELDRIDGE ROSS ® M S v JOH ON MOLLOY ihd BOYLE f,! PORTER SMALLEY i MOORE ELDRIDGE ROSS Page % Of JOHNSON MOLL ur :• ELDRIDGE IIII_�� 1 E�uL�' IIII■ �Ql� COUNCIL MEETING OF. g^i.... m s -v JOHNSON r MOLL0Y BOYLE PORTER �✓ SMALLEY MOORE ELDRIDGE ROSS /l P•R i__ SMALLEY ELDRibGEROSS M s v JOH SON C MOLLOY BOYLE 14 PORTER SMALLEY MOORED ELDRIDGE ROSS Page of m s v I I m I s I v I MOLLOY BOYLE PORTER SMALLEY MOORE ELDRIDGE I I m I s I v I MOLLOY BOYLE PORTER SMALLEY MOORE ELDRIDGI ROSS 1 47 TESTIMONY SIGN -IN SHEET NAME ORGANIZATION RESIDENCE ADDRESS/ PHONE NUMBER � IF CITY RESIDENT LL) Eqtj AV, of ct it. U\"� c - C, cll(y L oyo Uo) TESTIMONY SIGN -IN SHEET NAME ORGANIZATION RESIDENCE ADDRESS/ PHONE NUMBER -+ V IF CITY RESIDENT �j ��� MMENT SIGN-UP SHEET COUNCIL MEETING OF: NAME ADDRESS TOPIC Agenda or Non -Agenda Item? co 0( 1 A e k C, 1�k I yj uUt S u'A VVLl 14 c-, c 14C 17 COMMENT SIGN-UPSHEET COUNCIL MEETING OF.4 / NAME ADDRESS TOPIC Agenda or Non -Agenda Item? �(�Q !Q ? RpZ-o yr l3 16- COUNCIL MEETING OF: -Yll NAME ADDRESS TOPIC Agenda or Non -Agenda Item? C-r-A Itz OWWA -3z,s-o \rC- Iq 30 a ;2 CITY OF KENAI NOTICE OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT THE APRIL 1, 2009 COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the City of Kenai Council passed the following Ordinance(s) and/or Resolution(s) at its regular meeting of April 1, 2009. Ordinance No. 2393-2009 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Approximately 22 Acres Located North of the Kenai Spur Highway From McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek From Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC). 2. Resolution No. 2009-08 -- Awarding the Bid to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Dry Sprinkler System Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $49,574.00. (Clerk's note: Resolution No. 2009-08 was postponed at the March 18, 2009 council meeting related to request for further explanation of difference between amounts bid.) 3. Resolution No. 2009-09 -- Awarding the Bid to World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $94,297.00. (Clerk's note: Resolution No. 2009-09 was postponed at the March 18, 2009 council meeting related to protest of bid award submitted on March 18, 2009.) 4. Resolution No. 2009-12 -- Approving a Contract to North Star Paving & Construction, Inc. for the Project Entitled South Ames Road and Basin View Way Paving LID - 2009 for the Total Amount of $223,658.32. 5. Resolution No. 2009-13 -- Demonstrating Support for and Willingness to Work with the Kenai Watershed Forum on Three Fish Passage Projects Within the City of Kenai. 6. Resolution No. 2009-14 -- Approving a Contract to Alaska Roadbuilders, Inc. for the Project Entitled Kenai Municipal Airport Runway Safety: Taxiways F, G, and H Lighting, Grading, and Drainage - 2009 for the Total Amount of $451,676.00 Which Includes the Basic Bid and Additive Alternate. *Liquor License Transfer -- From Foodtown Liquor, Inc. d/b/a Kenai Country Liquor to Country Liquor, LLC, d/b/a Country Liquor. Copies of the ordinances and/or resolutions are available in the Office of the Kenai City Clerk. Please be advised, subject to legal limitations, ordinances and/or resolutions may have be amended by the Council prior to adoption without further public notice. Carol L. Freas, Kenai City Clerk Posted: April 4, 2009 '"`` COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Ma or/Council Attorney ✓ Tn for/Flo d Clerk Police Department 7 City Manager Finance V v' Kebschull/Carver Ole ✓ Senior Center V Air ort ✓ Kim ✓ Library (2) ✓ Parks & Recreation Clarion / Fire De artment ✓ Schmidt ® Mellish Student Re . ' KSRM AGENDA DISTRIBUTION Sewer Treatment Plant Streets Shoe Dock Ruildin2 Maintenance Animal Control Water/Sewer Counter DELIVER Council and Student Representative Packets to Police Department Dispatch desk. The Clarion, KSRM, Mellish & Schmidt's Office will pick their packet up in my office. The portion of the agenda published by the Clarion should be emniled as soon as possible on packet day. The camera-ready agenda c:/myfiles/documents/minutes/agenda form for paper) is emniled to Denise at Peninsula Clarion (at email folder Work Session/Special Meetings, or Composition in Contacts or (bell@acsalaska.net). Home Page documents (agenda, resolutions, ordinances for public hearing, and ordinances for introduction) are usually emailed to me and I hold them in my HTML file. Place information (meeting e-packet and agenda, resolutions and ordinances for public hearing, etc. on the city's webpage as soon as possible before leaving the office for the weekend. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the City of Kenai will conduct a public hearing on the following Ordinance(s) and/or Resolution(s) at its regular meeting of April 1, 2009. 1. Ordinance No. 2393-2009 -- Amending the Official. Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Approximately 22 Acres Located North of the Kenai Spur Highway From McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek From Rural Residential 1 (RRI) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC). 2. Ordinance No. 2394-2009 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $45,501 in the Airport Fund and by $1,820,000 in the Runway Improvement Capital Project Fund for Additional Phases of the Airport Apron Pavement Rehabilitation Project. 3. Ordinance No. 2395-2009 -- Increasing Revenues and Appropriations by $2,415,000 in the Airport Apron Rehabilitation_ Stimulus Fund for the Grant Funds Awarded Through the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Stimulus Package." 4. Resolution No. 2009-08 -- Awarding the Bid to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Dry Sprinkler System Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $49,574.00. (Clerk's note: Resolution No. 2009-08 was postponed at the March 18, 2009 council meeting related to request for further explanation of difference between amounts bid.) 5. Resolution No. 2009-09 -- Awarding the Bid to World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $94,297.00. (Clerk's note: Resolution No. 2009-09 was postponed at the March 18, 2009 council meeting related to protest of bid award submitted on March 18, 2009.) 6. Resolution No. 2009-12 -- Approving a Contract to North Star Paving & Construction, Inc. for the Project Entitled South Ames Road and Basin. View Way Paving LID - 2009 for the Total Amount of $223,658.32. Resolution No. 2009-13 -- Demonstrating Support for and Willingness to Work with the Kenai Watershed Forum on Three Fish Passage Projects Within the City of Kenai. 8. Resolution No. 2009-14 -- Approving a Contract to Alaska Roadbuilders, Inc. for the Project Entitled Kenai Municipal Airport Runway Safety: Taxiways F, G, and H Lighting, Grading, and Drainage - 2009 for the Total Amount of $451,676.00 Which Includes the Basic Bid and Additive Alternate. *Liquor License Transfer -- From Foodtown Liquor, Inc. d/b/a Kenai Country Liquor to Country Liquor, LLC, d/b/a Country Liquor. The public hearing will commence at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as business permits, in the Kenai City Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska, 99611. All interested persons are invited to attend the meeting and participate in the public discussion. Written comments may be sent to the Kenai City Council, c/o Kenai City Clerk, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, AK, 99611. Copies of the ordinances are available in the Office of the Kenai City Clerk and will be available at the meeting for public review. Please be advised, subject to legal limitations, ordinances may be amended by the Council prior to adoption yvithout further public notice. Carol L. Freas,`Kenai City Clerk Posted: April 1, 2009._ AGENDA KENAI CITY COUNCIL — REGULAR MEETING -?-' APRIL 1, 2009 7:00 P.M. v N, tlP KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS _hit p.//www„ci_kern ak. us ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (10 minutes) 1. Charles Winegarden -- Application/Establishment of MAPS Special Zone 2. Becky Espy/Colleen Ward --Establishment of MAPS Special Zone ITEM E: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker. 1. Ordinance No. 2393-2009 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map by Rezoning Approximately 22 Acres Located North of the Kenai Spur Highway From McCollum Drive West to No -Name Creek From Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Conservation (C) to Limited Commercial (LC). 2. Ordinance No. 2394-2009 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $45,501 in the Airport Fund and by $1,820,000 in the Runway Improvement Capital Project Fund for Additional Phases of the Airport Apron Pavement Rehabilitation Project, 3, Ordinance No. 2395-2009 -- increasing Revenues and Appropriations by $2,415,000 in the Airport Apron Rehabilitation --Stimulus Fund for the Grant Funds Awarded Through the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Stimulus Package." 4, Resolution No. 2009-08 -- Awarding the Bid to Alaska Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Dry Sprinkler System Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $49,574,00. (Clerk's note: Resolution No. 2009-08 was postponed at the March 18, 2009 council meeting related to request for further explanation of difference between amounts bid.) 5. Resolution No. 2009-09 -- Awarding the Bid to World Wide Roofing & Construction, Inc. for Vintage Pointe Casement Window Replacement - 2009 for the Total Amount of $94,297.00. (Clerk's note: Resolution No. 2009-09 was postponed at the March 18, 2009 council meeting related to protest of bid award submitted on March 18, 2009.) 6. Resolution No. 2009-12 -- Approving a Contract to North Star Paving & Construction, Inc. for the Project Entitled South Ames Road and Basin View Way Paving LID - 2009 for the Total Amount of $223,658.32. 7. Resolution No. 2009.13 -- Demonstrating Support for and Willingness to Work with the Kenai Watershed Forum on Three Fish Passage Projects Within the City of Kenai. 8. Resolution No. 2009-14 -- Approving a Contract to Alaska Roadbuilders, Inc. for the Project Entitled Kenai Municipal Airport Runway Safety: Taxiways F, G, and H Lighting, Grading, and Drainage - 2009 for the Total Amount of $451,676.00 Which Includes the Basic Bid and Additive Alternate. 9. 'Liquor License Transfer -- From Foodtown Liquor, Inc. d/b/a Kenai Country Liquor to Country Liquor, LLC, d/b/a Country Liquor. ITEM G: UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- None ITEM H: NEW BUSINESS 1. Ratification of Bills 2. Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding $15000. 3, `Ordinance No. 2396-2009 -- Amending the Kenai Municipal Code with the Addition of Chapter 10.40, Entitled, "Release of Public Records" and "Regulations Concerning Public Record Inspections." 4. Approval -- Assignment of Lease -- Dennis D. Linnell, Eugene C. Chase, Harold R. Smith, and Robert E. Gerdon, Jr., d/b/a DEHR-Joint Venture to Dennis D. Linnell, Dennis R. Linnell and Betty J. Smith, d/b/a DEHR Joint Venture/Lot Seven (7), Etolin Subdivision, Second Addition. EXECUTIVE SESSION -- None Scheduled. ITEM N: ADJOURNMENT The public is invited to attend and participate. Additional information is available through the City Clerk's office at 210 Fidalgo Avenue, or visit our website at http://www.ci.kenai.ak.us. Carol L. Frees, City Clerk D/211