HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-13 Planning & Zoning Packet - Work SessionCITY OF KENAI
PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION
Work Session Reminder
Immediately Following The
MEETING
May 13, 2009
- Amendment to KMC 14.25 - LandscapelSite Plans
~.~- .
t{re citvof
CITY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PZ09-Y9
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
KENAI, ALASKA, RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL THAT THE FOLLOWING
SECTIONS OF KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE BE AMENDED: 1} KMC 14.25.040(b] BY
REQUIRING ASIX-FOOT HIGH WOODEN FENCE OR MASONRY WALL BE
CONSTRUCTED TO SHIELD BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES; 2}
KMC 14.25.045 BY PROVIDING THAT PROPERTY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL
ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO ROUTE TRAFFIC AWAY FROM
RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND PROVIDING THAT SOME DEVELOPMENTS MAY BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FRONTAL ROADS; AND 3] KMC 14.25.070 BY PROVIDING A
MECHANISM TO APPLY FOR VARIANCES.
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai has adopted landscape/site plan regulations in KMC
14.25; and,
WHEREAS, in order to provide a better buffer between residential and commercial
development within the City of Kenai a six foot high wooden fence or masonry wall
should be required as a shield between residential and commercial areas; and,
WHEREAS, commercial development adjacent to residential zone should be designed to
provide that traffic is routed away from residential, streets; and,
WHEREAS, some commercial development should be required to provide frontage
roads in order to provide for safer and more efficient traffic flow; and,
WHEREAS, KMC 14.25 should provide a mechanism far a developer to apply for a
variance from the landscape/site regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, amend Kenai Code of Ordinances as shown in Exhibit "A."
PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, this 22nd day of April 2009.
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Public Hearing: 4/22/09 Postponed
New kext underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED AND ALL CAPS]
Section I
14.25.040 Landscaping plan Performance criteria.
(a) Objectives for Landscaping Plan. An effective landscaping plan should utilize a variety
of techniques for achieving the intent of this section. The appropriate placement or retention of
vegetation in sufficient amount will provide the best results. Perimeter, interior, street right-off
way, and parking lot landscaping must be included as components of the overall landscaping
plan.
{b) Perimeter/Buffer Landscaping. Perimeterl6ufferlgndscaping involves the land areas
adjacent to the lot lines within the property boundary. This buffer landscaping serves to separate
and minimize the impact between adjacent uses. Buffer landscaping maybe desirable along the
perimeter of the property to shield vehicular or building lights from adjacent structures and to
provide a visual separation between pedestrians and vehicles and commercial and residential
uses. Landscaping adjacent to residential zones shall have landscaping beds/buffers that meet all
of the following minimum standards:
1. Landscaping Beds. Minimum often feet (10') in width along all property lines, which
adjoin residential zones, exclusive of driveways and other ingress and egress openings.
[A SIX-FOOT (6') HIGH WOOD FENCE OR MASONRY WALL MAY BE USED IN
PLACE OF FIVE FEET (5') OF THE REQUIRED BED WIDTH.]
2. Screening A six-foot (6') high wood fence or masonrx wall must be constructed to
shield between residential and commercial uses. Where a fence or wall has been
constructed under this subsection, the landscaping_bed required under subsection (b)(1)
above may be natural vegetation.
,3~. 2.] Ground Cover. One hundred percent (100%) within three {3) years of planting and
continuous maintenance so there will be no exposed soil. Flower beds maybe considered
ground cover.
4.j3.] Trees and/or shrubs appropriate for the climate shall be included in the landscaping beds.
(c} Interior landscaping involves those areas of the property exclusive of the perimeter and
parking lot areas. Interior landscaping is desirable to separate uses or activities within the overall
development. Screening or visual enhancement landscaping is recommended to accent or
complement buildings, to identify and highlight entrances to the site, and to provide for attractive
driveways and streets within the site. Landscaping may include landscaping beds, trees, and
shrubs.
(d) Parking Lot Landscaping. Parking lot landscaping involves the land areas adjacent to or
within all parking lots and associated access drives. Parking lot landscaping serves to provide
visual relief between vehicle parking areas and the remainder of the development. It also is
desirable for the purpose of improving vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns.
PZfl9-19
Attachment ' `A"
Page 1 of 3
{e) Street right-of way landscaping softens the impact of land uses along street rights-of-
way, but does not obscure land uses from sight. Landscaping beds must meet all of the following
minimum standards; except where properties are adjacent to State of Alaska rights-of--way, the
Administrative Officer may approve alternatives, which meet the intent of this section but protect
landscaping from winter maintenance damage.
1. Landscaping Beds. Minimum often feet (10'} in width along the entire length of the
property lines which adjoin street rights-of--way, exclusive of driveways and other ingress
and egress openings;
2. Ground Cover. One hundred percent (100%) ground cover of the landscaping bed within
three (3) years of planting and continuous maintenance so there will be no exposed soil;
3. Trees and/or shrubs appropriate for the climate shall be included in the landscaping beds.
(f) Review. The Administrative Official may consider plans for amendments if problems
arise in carrying out the landscapinglsiteplav as originally approved.
Section ~I
14.25.045 Site plan-Performance criteria.
(a) Objectives. An effective site plan should utilize a variety of techniques for achieving the
intent of this chapter. The appropriate placement or retention and improvements of buildings,
parking lots, etc. should be considered on the site plan.
(b} Buildings. A commercial or industrial use housed in the building is to be compatible with
the surrounding properties, land use plan, and not be hazardous to the health, safety and welfare
of citizens.
(c) Special Permits. The site plan shall list any special permits or approvals which maybe
required for completion of the project.
(d) Farking Lots. Parking lots referenced on the site plan shall comply with KMC 14.20.250.
Paving is required for "commercial development" including a multifamily development
requiring a building permit valued at one hundred thousand dollars {$100,000.00) or
more for new construction, or any improvements which adds square footage valued at
one hundred thousand dollars {$100,000.00) or more, and the property is located between
Evergreen Drive and McCollum Drive/Tinker Lane as shown in the map marked
Appendix 1 to this chapter.
2. Exception to this requirement:
PZ09-19
Attachment "A"
Page 2 of 3
(i) Properties zoned Heavy Industrial are exempt from the paving requirement.
(e) Snow StoragelRemoval and Drainage. Snow storagelremoval and drainage as referenced
on the site plan shall be compatible with the surrounding area.
(f) Dumpsters. Dumpsters must be screened with asight-obscuring structure made of wood
or concrete. The Administrative Official may approve other construction materials.
~ Access. Pro erties ad'acent to residential zones should rovide in ess and a ess to
ensure commercial traffic is routed away_from residential streets. Access should be from an
arterial street. Devel~ments ma.. b~quired to deyelon frontage roads„and are encoura eg d to
consolidate existing access points.
Section III
14.25.070 Modifications -Variances.
~ Whenever there are practical difficulties in carrying out the provisions of this chapter, the
Administrative Official may grant minor modifications for individual cases, provided the
Administrative Official finds that a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this
chapter impractical and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purposes of this
chapter
An applicant maX apply for a variance from the requirements of this chapter using the
process and standards set out in KMC 14.2D.180.
Pzo9-i 9
Attachment "A"
Page 3 of 3
Nar'ICV Carver
From: Kristine A. Schmidt ]kschmidt@a[aska.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 20D9 3:04 PM
To: Jeff Twait; Gerald Brookman; Scotk Romain; Karen Koester; Phil Bryson; Kurt Rogers; Roy
Wells
Cc: Nancy Carver; Bob Molloy
Subject: P&Z Resolution 09-19
I atn opposed to Resolution PZ-09-19 for the following reasons. I apologize for the lateness of these comments. Kris#ine
A. Schmidt
1. Fences. The "one size fits all" approach to requiring 6' high fencing or masonry walls between the commercial
development and residential development is inappropriate. Fencing should only be required where the development
warrants.
These "spite" fences can be very ugly and inappropriate to the surroundings, such as the Alaska USA fence along the lot
boundary with the Kenai Recreation Center, which is an eyesore. These type of fences also restrict wildlife movement,
and can drive animals into the street, creating a safety hazard, in a city located within a boreal forest, which has lots of
wildlife that people like to look at, such as Kenai, it is very inappropriate to require these fences in every situation.
Think about what how this ordinance would operate on Dr. Wortham's proposed development --which is surrounded by
residential -- if it had to have a six foot fence all around the 3 acres. It could look like a prison, not a professional office
development.
The first priority for a Kenai landscaping plan should be to retain the natural vegetation as the perimeterlbuffer, and
prohibit removal of exising (pre-development) vegetation within the 10' perimeterlbuffer. If the lot has already been
developed, and the natural vegetation removed, then fencing would be an option if the development warranted -- was
noisy, or had lots of traffic. And even then, the developer should have to plant vegetation around the fence, in the
perimeterlbuffer, not stones, rocks ar woad chips, such as is currently allowed (KMC 14.25.100). The developer should be
required to have openings in the fence to allow wildlife movement.
In my opinion, the landscaping ordinance, as written, discourages retention of high value natural vegetation (carbon
sinks), and encourages replacement of that vegetation with low value materials. Although that is not in front of you tonight,
] hops you will consider amending the landscaping code #o encourage retention of the high value Kenai boreal foresk.
2. Frontage Roads. The language "Developments may be required to develop frontage roads" is too vague. Under what
circumstances would that occur? You should give developers some guidelines about when #hat will be required.
3. Variances. Variances from the landscaping code should not be allowed using the vague and ambiguous "review
criteria" of KMC 14.20.180{c). In my many years of attending Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, 1 have rarely
seen a variance request denied, primarily, because the "review criteria" are so broad one can almost always interpret the
criteria to support the variance request. Instead, standards by which variances will be allowed for the landscaping code, if
any, should be developed.
urge you to postpone this resolution, and bring it back far another work session. Thank you
Brookman Yes Koester Yes Romain Absent
Wells Absent Twait Yes B son Yes
Ro ers Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARINGS {Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker.)
5-a. PZ09-19 - A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that the following
sections of Kenaf Municipal Code by amended: I} I~MC 14.25.04Q(b) by
requiring a slx-foot high wooden fence or masonry wall be constructed to
shield between residential and commercial uses; 2) KMC 14.25.045 by
providing that property adjacent to residential zones should provide
ingress and egress to route traffic away from residential streets and
providing that same development may be required to provide frontal
roads; and 3) KMC 14.25.070 by providing a mechanism to apply for
variances.
Kebschull reviewed the resolution and noted the following:
• The proposed amendment to KMC 14.25.040 would provide a better
buffer between residential and commercial development, and would require asix-foot
high wooden fence or masonry wall to shield one area from the other.
• The proposed amendment addresses ingress and egress for commercial
developments away from the residential streets.
• The amendment would provide a mechanism for a developer to apply for
a variance from the landscape/site plan regulations.
The floor was opened for public hearing.
Kristine Schmidt, 515 Ash, Kenai -- Reviewed her email submitted to the
commission at the beginning of the meeting, expressing concern with the screening,
frontage road, and variance amendments. Schmidt requested the resolution be
postponed for additional review at a work session.
Colleen Ward, 708 Magic Avenue, Kenai -- Stated concern with the screening
amendment and suggested it needed refined criteria.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION:
Karen Koester MOVED to approve Resolution No. PZ09-19 and Commissioner Bryson
SECONDED the motion.
Commission comments included:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 22, 2009
PAGE 3
• A question of whether fences would be required or would someone need
to request one be placed. Answer: As written, a fence would be required, however one
could apply for a variance if not wanting to place a fence.
• Suggestion another work session be held to discuss further the buffer
issue.
• Concern of including masonry wall to use as a buffer when none are
used in the area. Would not ob,)ect to another work session an the issue.
• When site plans axe submitted, they would be reviewed to determine if a
buffer (fence) would be appropriate an a case-by-case basis.
• [Jse of a masonry wall would be a prerogative (less maintenance, etc.).
Commission's comments at its work session on the issue was no chain link fence with
slats.
• Expression of support of the resolution, based on the answers to the
questions asked.
MOTION TO POSTPONE:
Commissioner Bryson MOVED to postpone PZ09-19 to take back to a work session.
Commissioner Rogers SECONDED the motion.
VOTE ON POSTPONEMENT:
Brookman Yes Koester Yes Romain Absent
Wells Absent Twait Yes B son Yes
Ro ers Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
5-b. PZ09-20 - A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Kenai, Alaska, recommending to the Council that the Land Use
Table in KMC 14.22.010 be amended to: 1) change the uses of personal
services, restaurants, dormitories/boarding houses and
greenhouses/tree nurseries from principal permitted uses (P) to
conditional uses (C) in the Limited Commercial Zone {LC); 2) change
mobile home parks from conditional use {C) to not permitted (N) in the
Limited Commercial Zone (LC); 3) change automotive repair from not
permitted (N) to conditional use (C) in the Limited Commercial Zone (LC};
4) adding language to footnote 25 to clarify that tattoo parlors are
personal services; and; 5) requiring tattoo parlors to have a conditional
use permit in the Townsite Historic Zoning District (TSH] .
Kebschull reviewed the resolution anal noted the following:
• Amendment to personal services, would change some from principal
permitted uses {P) to conditional uses (C) in the Limited Commercial zone (LC).
• Automotive repair would be reclassi$ed from not allowed (N) to
conditional use {C) iri the LC zone.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 22, 2009
PAGE 4