HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-28 Planning & Zoning Packet - Work SessionAGENDA
CITY OF KENAI
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
WORK SESSION
November 28, 2012
Work Session from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. and
Immediately Following Regular Meeting
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
Commission Discussion — Imagine Kenai 2030 — Public Review Draft — Review of
Comments — Continued from October 24, 2012.
*Public Participation: Public comments will be allowed on a limited basis throughout the
review.
4. Adjournment
* Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated.
The Commission may relax this restriction.
"Villaye with a Past, Ci� wilk a Future"
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 ����„
Telephone: 907 - 283 -7535 / FAX: 907 - 283 -3014
iJ1PUof,' 1992
KENAI, ALASKA
MEMO:
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administration
DATE: November 15, 2012
SUBJECT: Imagine Kenai 2030— Public Review Comments
Attached is a copy of the large spreadsheet you were provided at the October 24th
meeting. If you still have the large spreadsheet, I suggest you bring it to the meeting. It
is easier to read. We will begin the review where we left off at the last meeting, Page 26
after Dr. Hansen's comments.
Map 7 has been updated to reflect comments and direction from the Commission to
incorporate changes. Attached is a copy for review.
Marilyn Kebschull
From: Henry Knackstedt [hknackstedt @hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 12:32 PM
To: Marilyn Kebschull; Nancy Carver
Subject: Comp Plan Anadromous
Marilyn
It was brought to my attention that the proposed Comprehensive Plan makes no mention regarding anadromous streams
within the City of Kenai. I think it would be appropriate to include a paragraph in the document identifying that there are
a number of anadromous streams within the city besides the obvious Kenai River and Beaver Creek. The existence of
these streams will effect development around them. I have included the ADF &G site I use that identifies all cataloged
anadromous streams which is useful in illustrating my point. It may be appropriate to include the link below in the
paragraph I am recommending.
Henry Knackstedt
P&Z Commissioner
http: / /www.adfe alaska.gov /sf /SAAR /AWC /index clm ?adfa =maps interactive
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19 -October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Lang comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been Folded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to"Bcaneoae t„ re. ,
Plan Riefererim
t
General Comment7draft
ta %ftecommendat Ion to Planning and Zoning Commission
Commenter
4d1e.
I attended a number of meetings concerning the Comprehensive Plan. Having raft of the
Kenai 2030, 1 do not see a plan that the majority of people want. During the gs we
d buffer strips between residences and commercial businesses. This looks like usinesses of
Fadministration
d the administration rather than the proposed plan by the residents. The procclosed door
very un- user- friendlyconcerning residents. Iwould like to see more public wmment.
Appendix A to the plan describes the extensive public process
Rev ew D aft of the Comprehensiive Plan •This Prooces s incl died
two formal comment periods (one month each), a community
wide public meeting, an open house, a survey, two newletters,
many worksessions of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
regular updates on the [ICy website.
Richard Kelso
10/19/12
The April 2011 public meeting Involved a prioritization process
where each of the breakout groups assigned a score to each item
identified by group members. A similar process was used for
meetings with City departments, boards and commissions and
rty and LIVLIHOOD: Highland Pride Mobile Home Park
1) Somewhere along the way the Comprehensive Plan's priorities which the public wanted in the meeting held in
April 2011 and which have been expressed in numerous other ways, have been changed to reflect what the
City's officials want, not what the public stated, and many of the goals were awarded "zero" points. (Note: Part of a
longer comment letter)
Add chapter numbers to bottom of each page for easier navigation.
local businesses. A spreadsheet was created that displayed all
comments from these meetings, even those that received a How
or no score by the groups. The City Department heads then
reviewed all comments and agreed on priorities forthe plan. The
Planning Team (consultants and City planning staffs developed
multiple drafts of the plan that were carefully reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The Public Review Draft
incorporated comments from the Commission.
The Planning Team recommends the existing numbering system
be retained.
Sandra Lashhrook
10/19/12
KPB Planning Department feels "sideways" format of document makes it difficult to read (the KPB's own comp plan
being formatted the exact same way notwithstanding)) information.
The Planning Team recommends the landscape orientation of the
plan be retained because it provides more flexibility for displaying
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Page 1 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
want the city to know that I disagree with the current comprehensive plan. It seems to favor the rich
People, and Ignores the needs of those who don't have a lot of money. Why do I say this? Because with number
f my friends who are struggling to make ends meet, the city's focus in this plan puts a medium priority on frivolous
hings like making landscaping requirements for all types of zones, and beautifying the city. For Pete's sake, really?
ave you taken a good look around? People need help. They need to be able to afford to live here, specially in the
Pinter when many are unemployed. People are living in their vehicles, some with children, and the city doesn't care
nd seems to want them to just go away. There are many seasonal workers here, and how can they afford to live in
single - family home? They need more affordable housing options, but the City's plan does not allow for that, and
ants to make a 11 the residential zones into single family homes on large, expensive lots. Rural residential is now
cpensive homes, and everybody who is not an expensive residence is left out and is being pushed out. It appears
Pat the rity think. a� .r....:._
• Leaves out or downgrades priorities established in the community-wide public meeting held in April 2011.
• Does not cite sources for polity decisions made in Objectives- Strategies- Priority. Appears to be City
Administration, but not disclosed in Draft Plan.
• Ignores maps, objectives, strategies and priorities of 2003 Comprehensive Plan.
• Ignores KEDS Committee work plan.
• Public opinion survey has few community planning questions, is not connected to the future land use map or
other policy decisions made in the draft plan.
• Does not reflect well -known community attitudes such as public resistance to highway strip re- zoning.
• Commercial and industrial development favored over existing and new residential development.
page
— _.._ -._. ......•,..�.,� „•, <..�y, .-e Pry or Kenai LOmPrehensive Plan
2003 olan.”
Page 2 of 33
Pmmend incorporation of a new objective and strategies
ar Goal 1: Objective, Develop strategies to ensure there is
luate affordable housing in Kenai; New Strategy Determine ii
a is adequate property zoned multifamily;
Strati Consider revising the subdivision code to include
lot line subdivisions; and New Strategy Subject to
trmance standards continue to allow mobile home parks as a
itional use permit in several zoning districts in Kenai.
retained.
local comment
submitted by
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes:
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission' will be changed to "Response to Comments"
plan Refe
Plan Reference
Page
Comment
3 For instance, t e plan states on page 8: he economy is iverst ed, t ere is a we -qua I ie wor
Staff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission
Commenter
Date
orce,
and wages are competitive." This is simply not true. Kenai's wage base is one of the lowest In the State of
Alaska —why is Kenai ashamed to openly admit this is a PROBLEM, and create a strategy to accommodate this or
otherwise do something about this? Kenai's per capita Inca me Is LESS THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE In fart, the
percent below the Alaska statewide average has DOUBLED since the 2003 Plan! In the 2003 Comprehensive Plan,
on page 7, it stated: "Kenai is a relatively low -cost labor area. Average monthly wages in the Kenai Peninsula
Borough ($2,543) were about 9 percent below the statewide average ($2,793) in 1999. Per capita income in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough in 1999 was $25,478. This compares with the statewide figure of $28,629 and the national
figure of $28,546."
However, there were no strategies, no objectives, no goals to help Kenai's residents who must somehow
budget their hard - earned dollars to afford to live here while earning much less than their Alaskan counterparts in
other cities. The current proposed draft glosses over this issue, refuses to mention that the comparison to the state
wide average monthly wage statistic has DOUBLED, and even neglects to mention how much lower Kenai's wages
are per capita as compared to the NATIONAL average! The current plan states on page 22 -23: "Kenai is a relatively
low -cost labor area. The estimated 2009 annual income for City of Kenai households of $54,054 was about 18.8%
lower than that for Alaska, and the estimated per capita income of $27,597 was about 6.1% lower than that for
Alaska." "Historically, unemployment rates in the Kenai Peninsula Borough have been above statewide averages.
The estimated unemployment rate in the City of Kenai for the period 2005 -2009 was 11.2 %, about. 2.5 %higherthan
the unemployment rate forthe entire state and 2.1% higher than forthe Kenai Peninsula Borough." Note: Part ofa
8
longer comment letter)
Sandra Lashbrook
10/19/12
Chap 3 - 10 -12
8
Under Kfi, add "Municipal" to read "Kenai Municipal Airport "; last entry "Kenai Municipal Airport Master Plan" ITechnical
correction - recommend adoption
Christa Cady, KPB
pp
10/19/12
Second paragraph, first sentence is hard to read. Consider revising as follows:'Tha Kenaitze Indian Tribe operates
11 a Tribal Court under its sovereign leader with oversight by the elected Tribal Council." Technical correction- recommend adoption Christa Cady, KPB
11 Missing "The
a word: 10/19/12
Kenaitze Indian Tribe operates a Tribal Court under its soverign _..:' Technical correction - arid word: "authority" Larry Lewis - email 09/20/12
Chap4- pp13 -45
12 Third paragraph, first line needs a period after 1141. Technical correction - recommend adoption Christa Cady, KPB 10/19/12
14 Second........ of Kenaitze is misspelled.
Technical correction - recommend adoption Christa Cady, KPB 10/19/12
IS First paragraph, last sentence- odd Norway and Sweden after Oslo and Stockholm.
Technical correction- recommend adoption Christa Cady, KPB 10/19/12
second paragraph, last sentence- Check with homer to verify that Kenal's airport is the only "major" airport on Technical correct ion - recommentl adoption. Only one with flight
15 the Kenai Peninsula
In Climate and Environment section, there should be a reference forthe two sentences of the second paragraph service station. Christa Cady, KPB 10/19/12
15 thatrefers todrying
edify what kind of tanks, Septic, Technical correction - recommend adoption
36 In Flooding section specify what kind of tanks, le. Septic, propane, etc. Christa Cady, KPB 10/19/12
16 Second column- include the yearthat the sewer line was relocated. Technical correction- recommentl adoption Christa Cady, KPB 10/19/12
Technical correction- recommend adoption Christa Cady, KPB 10/19/12
Page 3 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
Plan Reference Palte Commenr _
Second paragraph, second sentence -add the underlined" multiple agencies that regulate activities and
17 development in and along the Kenai River."
Staff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Cgmmiss[on
Commenter
Date
Technical correct(on- recommend adoption
Christy Cady, KPB
10119/12
Second paragraph, last sentence - There are two River Center publications (On the River, and On the Coast) which
17 provide guidance for coastal and shoriine development.
17 Ignore suggestion to put spruce bark beetle in caps!
Technical correction- recommend referencing both publications
Chrirta Cady, KPB
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19 li
/
10119/12
Recommend adding a new strategy under current Objective 1
Provide a variety of formal and informal educational programs.
New Strategy: Continue to Promote and support the Kenai
Section 4.3.2 Education, the figures at the end of the paragraph at the top of page 20 indicate a need to promote
19 -20 higher education. Goal 1 of this plan should include an objective to promote and support higher education.
20 Second column, last sentence - specify what about rentals are lower, availabili > >
20 Last paragraph -the Kenai Peninsula Btrough no longer publishes the Situations and Prospectsnrepart s
4.4 20 New assiste d livinghousingon Forest Drive and Anchor Trailer Park.
4.3.3 21 Update with closure of Lowes (date) and sale of facilities.
Secontl column, first full paragraph -the closure of the Lowes store needs to be included either in the same
21 reference to the Kmart closure, or as "Lowes Improvement Center (2008, closed 2011)"
Section 4.4.1- Split Rrst sentence into 2 sentences after "workforce."
Second column, first full paragraph, third sentence -the cited "decline" is actually an increase. Either the
24 Me cubic footage needs to be switched. years or
Peninsu
whenever polss ble.ntl other institutions of higher education
Techniceel correction eCnote that this spublication has sceased
Technical correction - mention new assisted living housing.
FOgtnpl211 notes the closure of Lowes
Footnote 11 notes the cloture of Lowes
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Christa Cady, KPB
Christa Cady, KPB
V
Phil Bryson
10/19/12
10/19/12
10/19/12
10/17/12
Christa Cady, KPB
Chrirta Cady, KPB
10/19/12
10/19/12
Fust column, last paragraph, gnat sentence -Can this be reworded to be easier to understand? Example: "Cook
2S Inlet gas provides Southcentral Alaska with electric power."
Ind KI IIfereI: tp Hl al who is in the process of acquiring Marathon's assets and bringingthe Drift Rivertank
26 storage facility back online.
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Technical correction - recommend adoption
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Second column, first paragraph - this section provides support fora goal or objective in this plan (Economic
26 Development) to support aCook Inlet spur line and accompanying industries /businesses. Consider adding.
First column, second full sentence -do the processors "focus predominantly on high - quality fresh seafood" or
27 "focus on predominantly fresh high-quality seafood "?
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Firs tcolumn,secondpatagraph- seafood proressingarea should be in quotes or etherwtse calletl out to show it as
27 being a category with that Plan.
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
29
Maps 2 &3 &30 Airport configuration is very old i.e., parallel runway is full length and gravel runway is not shown
30 Second column - Adopt -a -Park should be capitalized.
30 Second column- "rights -M- way ^ not "right-of ways"
32 First paragraph - Does "Kalifornsky Beach " refer to the actual beach onto Kalifornsk Beach Road? Techni
V Technical
Recommend leaving text as is
Staff will look into this issue further
Technical correction- recommend adoption
cal correction- recommend atloption
correction- recommentl adoptien -rand area Christa
Casey Madden
Christa Cady, KPB
Chrlsta Cady, KPB
Cady, KPB
10/19/12
10/19/12
10/19/12
101912
Page 4 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes:
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be chanced to '11— n—e.,, r,........._.
Plan Rehrentt
Page
Comment
32
First paragraph, last sentence - Is there a goal or objective in the plan supporting the developmem of Millenium
Square? Consider adding.
Stall Recommendation W Planning and Zoning Commission
Technical rorrection - recommend adoption
Commenter
Dra
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
34
34
2nd Paragraph: Acquired land total 1942 acres, released lantl tota1484, 1456. Afield should read airport as it
refers to made of the fence. 3rd paragraph: Is the city or the airport developing the industrial park. "Floatplane
taxiway /slip area." Photo - Kenai Municipal Airport. 4th paragraph: Runway length is 7,855. Gravel runway, not
strip. Do not refer to heltpads as landing and take off as it infers heliport and requires airspacing might refer to
parking or loading /unloading. 65' wing span in five commercial slips.
" Hangers" should be spelled "hangars"
Casey Madden
10/17/12
34
35
35
Page 34, paragraph 4, sentence S. This sentence regarding slips at the float plane basin is poorly written,
Inaccurate and grammatically incorrect. It appears that there are 25 long -term slips, 30 transient slips and some
unspecified number of commercial slips. What slips have a 48'wingspan capability, short term or private? Perhaps
there is too much Information one sentence? can't begin to give a recommended change to this sentence
Perhaps the Airport Manager can provide some guidance?
1st paragraph: Runway not strip. 2ntl paragraph: FAA required flight service station Kenai Municipal Airport.
Tic control tower. At the terminal. 3rd paragraph: Airport lands are. Airport reserve boundary. 4th paragraph:
Alaska Region Fire Training Facility now Beacon Occupational Health and Safety Services. §& Animal Control
Shelter. FAA Flight Service nation. and rumberous aviation and non " ti .. 5th paragraph: The most recent
KMA Master Plan. Funding may have been secured in 2010. However the Master Plan got underway in 2011.
Developed local aircraft noise... and estimated aircraft noise exposure by 2015. Map 6 depicts current aircraft
noise Levels? Source? Master Plan will provide 2012 aircraft noise levels soon (2013). 6th paragraph. Figure 5
illustrates the Passenger emplanements Ms incorrect. 2001 - 106,673 passengers, 2009 82,277 (see MP Table 2 -3
page 2 -7).
First column, second full paragraph, third sentence -For clari g
ty, consider addin the underlined: "The current
conservation zoning designation of airport lands does not support this requirement."
First columnint sentence- Forclartry, consider spitting into 2 sentences and revising as follows' 'The City should
consider rezoning these lands as an industrial zone within the Airport Reserve, and elsewhere as appropriate to
Provide highest and best use development for the airport. Such uses include support for airport- related services,
revenue generating leases, other private development, or public improvements."
Map 5. Legend: cemetery, airport land acquisitions bounda
lanni ry, map does not match use or colors established by
Planning. Airport and web staff for Master Plan Land Use Fig. 3 -77
Airport Boundary misleading- leads reader to believe airport owns land within bounda ry
Recam d t'o • Add" Municipal" to title of Figure 5 to say "Kenai Municipal Airport" and in Table of Contents
Kenai Boating Facility section - dipnet should be one word here and throughout plan.
5: Passenger emplanements... Use Master Plan Table 2- Z. page 2 -7. 1st paragraph - 2005 Kenai Municipal
Pl A e e t Note14. Who travel too tlfrom Kenai.
Technical correction - recommend adoption
p
Rewrite sentence with assitance of airport manager.
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Technical correction - recommend adoption
Technical correction - recommend adoption
P
Staff will look into this issue further
Remove Airport Boundary from Map
Technical correction - recommend adoption
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Mary gondurant - email
1D/Ol/12
Henry Knackstedt-
email
10/16/12
Casey Madden
10/17/12
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Map 5
35
36
36
vi, 38
38
Figure
38 Airport5upolemgntal
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Casey Madden
Rick Koch
10/17/12
30/08/12
Casey Madden
Christa Cady, KPB
Casey Madden
10/17/12
10/19/12
10/17/12
Page 5 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19- October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to C
Plan Reference
Page
Comment
omments
Staff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission
Commenter
The goal of the Parks and Recreation Department is: To enhance
pate
Sec. 4.S.4
39
Replace Parks and Recreation mission with goal
the quality of life for all citizens through park facilities, programs,
Second paragraph, third sentence - add the following underlined "...the center serves the City of Kenai
and community services.
Rick Koch
10/08/12
42
communities of Salamatof..." and the
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
42
Last paragraph - consider changing
g' g "cope with" faced with mobility limlations"
42
Second column - Alaska Challenger Learning Center
Technical correction - recommend adoption
P
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Last paragraph, second sentence - For clan
clarity, consider revising as follows: "Through grants the City supports
Technical correc [ion - recommend adoption
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
multiple agencies and public activities including the Kenai Watershed Forum, Oilers Baseball, the Chamber
44
of
Commerce Industry iation Day, Central Area Rural Transit (CARTS),
Economic Outlook Forum." the Boys and Girls Club, and the
"
Technical correction - update with current name Chamberof
45
First full paragraph - "areawide" should be one word throughout plan
of
Commerce.
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
45
First full ara ra h-
p g p KPB no longer provides "economic development planning "•
Technical correction - recommend adoption
Christa Cady,KPB
10/19/12
48
First full paragraph - For clarity, consider splitting this into 2 sentences.
Technical rorrection- recommend ado tion
p
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
48
First full paragraph -should the word "series" be "services'?
Technical correction - recommend adoption
Technical
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
Chap S
- pp 49 -69
correc [ion - change to "services"
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
-- °•• •_•...,..., coo are more important that what a few people think shouldhappen torertam
in the future. GIVE PRIORITY to the people who have bought land and are using it in its current use — as
ised to changing it so they become "non - conforming"! 1 The people who were there FIRST Should take priority
those who came and bought land nearby LATER. The LATER people have NO COMPLAINT and no reason to
)lain —they knew what they were getting into, and they should not have rights over those who came first!!
ui ..ve ;.. -
I There have been pretty extensive changes to current Comprehensive Plan yet the planners continue to
)"play" them as though they won't act as the future "BLUEPRINT" or AUTHORITY for making the zoning
urges that the City administrators seem intent on making. We are not stupid —we know that this Plan gives the
r the blueprint to implement drastic zoning changes inconsistent with current uses, under the guise that its
Isistent with the comprehensive plan!" So please don't lie to us and tell us "it's only a GUIDEI"
:or instance, City Manager Rick Koch's November, 2011 Memo to the Council regarding Ordinance 2597 -2011
ich attempted to make sweeping changes to the Land Use Table and zoning in residential zones PROHIBITING
bile home parks, for instance, where they are now allowed as a CONDITIONAL USE) stated: "Postponement of
ordinance would allow the changes to the land use tables proposed by the Planning & Zoning Commission in
trance 2597 - 2011 to be considered during the Comprehensive Planning process. The information assembled 1
Comprehensive Plan then would be used by Council in consideration of changes to the Land Use Tables
[ained in the City Code." IComini-ri I ".."....on
Page 6 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant pan of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
12) In the proposed plan, stronger emphasis needs placed on existing use patterns in residential zones. No one wi
iisagree with this except the City Administrators! We realize that this Comprehensive Plan will be used to justify all
`uture approvals or denials of rezones and conditional use permits — therefore, the emphasis in this proposed land
,se plan needs to be on what is CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE... not on "single family, low density" for ALL residential
:ones, and NOT "commercial development" along ALL corridors like the Kenai Spur Highway and Beaver Loop!
a) For instance, EXISTING mobile home parks, including HIGHLAND PRIDE MOBILE HOME PARK, MUST be listed
m the FUTURE LAND USE MAP as "Mixed Use" and not "rural residential;' which is now deemed to be solely for
low- density, single family" residences.
b) Highland mobile home park, which has been in existence since the 1960's, is currently deemed "COMMERCIAL"
in Map 11, the "Existing Land Use Map,' (see the two little red parcels in the insert). That is a misnomer —it is
I ESIDENTIAL, medium density, and could be considered "multifamily residential," which seems to be a category
rider the "Mixed Use" category.
iI Mobile home parks are NOT " COMMERCIAL;' which is defined as including "Central Commercial, General
ommercial, and Central Mixed Use zones" and "as intended to create a concentrated, vibrant, and attractive
owntown business district which is convenient to both motorists and pedestrians." Mobile home parks appear to
e best categorized as "Mixed -Use" as far as land use plans go, and as "Suburban residential" or something similar
s far as zoning.
i) Booth's Landscaping business which is located between Highland and the Kenai Spur Highway is deemed "Multi'
se" in the Proposed Land Use Plan Map 7 — see the insert. Highland Pride Mobile Home Park's tracts, (the above
d tracts), need to be designated as MIXED -USE in Map 7 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan —in other words,
• "purple" Mixed -Use land designation needs to be extended onto Highland's two tracts as well! Why would
• Planners have a problem with doing that, since that's what it 157 Wrintinncn novr in
Page 7 of 33
Lashbrook
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
1 For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
12) In the proposed plan, stronger emphasis needs placed on existing use patterns in residential zones. No one wi
filagree with this except the City Administrators! We realize that this Comprehensive Plan will be used to justify all
uture approvals or denials of rezones and conditional use permits— therefore, the emphasis in this proposed land
ise plan needs to be on what is CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE... not on "single family, low density' for ALL residentla
'ones, and NOT "commercial development" along ALL corridors like the Kenai Spur Highway and Beaver Loop!
a) For instance, EXISTING mobile home parks, including HIGHLAND PRIDE MOBILE HOME PARK, MUST be listed
in the FUTURE LAND USE MAP as "Mixed Use" and not "rural residential," which is now deemed to be solely for
low- density, single family' residences.
b) Highland mobile home park, which has been in existence since the 1960's, is currently deemed "COMMERCIAL"
�n Map 11, the "Existing Land Use Map," (see the two little red parcels in the insert). That is a misnomer —it is
'.ESIDENTIAL, medium density, and could be considered "multifamily residential," which seems to be a category
rider the "Mixed Use" category.
i) Mobile home parks are NOT "COMMERCIAL," which is defined as including "Central Commercial, General
ommercial, and Central Mixed Use zones" and "as intended to create a concentrated, vibrant, and attractive
owntown business district which is convenient to both motorists and pedestrians." Mobile home parks appear to
e best categorized as "Mixed Use" as far as land use plans go, and as "Suburban residential" or something similar
far as zoning.
i) Booth's Landscaping business which is located between Highland and the Kenai Spur Highway is deemed "Multi
se" in the Proposed Land Use Plan Map 7 —see the insert. Highland Pride Mobile Home Park's tracts, (the above
.d tracts), need to be designated as MIXED -USE in Map 7 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan —in other words,
ie "purple" Mixed -Use land designation needs to be Mended onto Highland's two tracts as well! Why would
e Planners have a problem with doing that, since that's what it IS? IContimipH pi. n—m
Page 8 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major paints in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations maybe provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
d. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to
Plan Reference
TComment l!t
proposed plan, stronger emphasis neetls placed on exirttng use patterns in noddlemial zones. No one will disagree
Staff Rerommendetionto Planning and Zoning Commission
Commenter
Date
except the City Administrators) We realize that this Comprehensive Plan will be used to justify all future approvals or
f rezones and conditional use permits - therefore, the emphasis in this proposed land use plan neetls to be on what Is
LY IN EXISTENCE... not on "single family, low density" for ALL residential zones, antl NOT "wmmercial tlevelopment"
co rldors like the Kenai Spur Highway
and Beaver Loop!
stance, EXISTING mobile home parks, including HIGHLAND PRIDE MOBILE HOME PARK, MUST be listed on the
FUTURE LAND USE MAP as "Mixed Use" and not "rural residential," which is now deemed to be solely for "low- density, single
family' residences.
b) Highland mobile home park, which has been in existence since the 1960's, is currently deemed "COMMERCIAL" on Map 11,
"Existing
the Land Use Map," (see the two little red parcels in the insert), That is a misnomer—it is RESIDENTIAL, medium
density, and could be considered "multifamily residential," which seems to be a category under the "Mixed Use" category.
i) Mobile home parks are NOT "COMMERCIAL." which is defined as including "Central Commercial, General Commercial, and
Central Mixed Use zones" and "as intended to create concentrated, vibrant, and attractive
downtown business district which is convenient to both motorists and pedestrians.- Mobile home parks appear to be best
categorized as "Mixed -Use" as far as land use plans go, and as "Suburban residential" or something similar as far as zoning.
i) Booth's Landscaping business which is located between Highland and the Kenai Spur Highway is deemed "Multi -Use" in the
Proposed Land Use Plan Map 7 — see the Insert. Highland Pride Mobile Home Park's tracts, (the above red tracts), need to be
designated as MIXED -USE in Map 7 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan —in other words, the "purple" Mixed -Use land
designation needs to be extended onto Highland's two tracts as well Why would the Planners have a problem with doing that,
since that's what i[ IS? )Continued next cell)
Sandra Lashbrook
10/21/12
Page 9 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
�I
L2) In the proposed plan, stronger emphasis needs placed on existing use patterns in residential zones. No one wit
lisagree with this except the City Administrators! We realize that this Comprehensive Plan will be used to justify all
uture approvals or denials of rezones and conditional use permits — therefore, the emphasis In this proposed land
ise plan needs to be on what is CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE... not on "single family, low density" for ALL residential
ones, and NOT "commercial development" along ALL corridors like the Kenai Spur Highway and Beaver Loopl
a) For instance, EXISTING mobile home parks, including HIGHLAND PRIDE MOBILE HOME PARK, MUST be listed
m the FUTURE LAND USE MAP as "Mixed Use" and not "rural residential," which is now deemed to be solely for
low-density, single family" residences.
b) Highland mobile home park, which has been in existence since the 1960's, is currently deemed "COMMERCIAL"
n Map 11, the "Existing Land Use Map," (see the two little red parcels in the Insert). That is a misnomer —it is
ESIDENTIAL, medium density, and could be considered "multifamily residential," which seems to be a category
nder the "Mixed Use" category.
tl Mobile home parks are NOT "COMMERCIAL," which is defined as including "Central Commercial, General
ommercial, and Central Mixed Use zones' and "as intended to create a concentrated, vibrant, and attractive
awntown business district which is convenient to both motorists and pedestrians." Mobile home parks appearto
r best categorized as "Mixed -Use" as far as land use plans go, and as "Suburban residential" or something similar
far as zoning.
i) Booth's Landscaping business which is located between Highland and the Kenai Spur Highway is deemed "Multi
ie" in the Proposed Land Use Plan Map 7 — see the insert. Highland Pride Mobile Home Park's tracts, (the above
d tracts), need to be designated as MIXED -USE in Map 7 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan —in other words,
e "purple" Mixed -Use land designation needs to be extended onto Highland's two tracts as well! Why would
e Planners have a problem with doing that, since that's what it ice tfnntin ... A...._ —H,
Page 10 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes:
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and zoning Commission' will be chanoed m ^n.,,.
Plan Reference
Page
Comment
12) In the proposed plan, stronger emphasis needs placed on existing use patterns in residential zones. No one will
Staff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission
Commenter
disagree with this except the City Administrators) We realize that this Comprehensive Plan will be used to justify all
future approvals or denials of rezones and conditional use permits— therefore, the emphasis in this proposed land
use plan needs to be on what is CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE... not on "single family, low density' for ALL residential
zones, and NOT "commercial development' along ALL corridors like the Kenai Spur Highway and Beaver Loopl
a) For instance, EXISTING mobile home parks, Including HIGHLAND PRIDE MOBILE HOME PARK, MUST be listed
on the FUTURE LAND USE MAP as "Mixed Use" and not "rural residential," which is now deemed to be solely for
"low-
density, single family" residences.
b) Highland mobile home park, which has been in existence since the 1960's, is currently deemed "COMMERCIAL"
on Map 11, the "Existing Land Use Map," (see the two little red parcels in the insert). That is a misnomer —it is
RESIDENTIAL, medium density, and could be considered "multifamily residential," which seems to be a category
under the "Mixed Use" category.
1) Mobile home parks are NOT "COMMERCIAL," which is defined as including "Central Commercial, General
Commercial, and Central Mixed Use zones" and "as intended to create a concentrated, vibrant, and attractive
downtown business district which is convenient to both motorists and pedestrians." Mobile home parks appear to
be best categorized as "Mixed -Use" as far as land use plans go, and as "Suburban residential" or something similar
as far as zoning.
1) Booth's Landscaping business which is located between Highland and the Kenai Spur Highway is deemed "Multi
Use" in the Proposed Land Use Plan Map 7 — see the Insert. Highland Pride Mobile Home Park's tracts, (the above
red tracts), need to be designated as MIXED -USE in Map 7 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan —in other words,
the "purple" Mixed -Use land designation needs to be extended onto Highland's two tracts as well! Why would
the Planners have a problem with doing that, since that's what it IS? (Continued next cell)
Sandra Lashbrook
Page 11 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Commems
Table Notes:
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations maybe provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be chanted to " Resnonse to
Plan Reference
nt
city's policies seem to favor people with money antl high education, not low income, disabled or elderly
like me. we are important too, and we cannot be ignored. The city needs more affordable housing, but that
Staff Recammandationto PlanningarM Zoning COmmissian
Commertter
Date
occur under this proposed Comprehensive Plan, with its goal to apparently condense all the residential
7like
to rural residential with the restrictive designation of being single - family low density homes. The Planners
have more land use designations to reffect the GOALS of the quality of living section, including
ABLE HOUSING and a VARIETY of housing options l! Those goals cannot be reached without opening up
sidential zones to mobile homes, mobile home parks, and other types of low and medium income housing
rtment buildings. I read in the Clarion where Marilyn KubskulI said that low income housing is an issue the
STATE needs to resolve, but I disagree l! The CITY IS PREVENTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF MUCH- NEEDED
MULTIUNITS and MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENTS by its restrictive zoning codes, based on the
"comprehensive plan." So let's fix this, and make the plan conform to the current land uses, and the NEEDED land
uses, which includes many rural residential areas containing mobile homes, mobile home parks, and multi -unit
complexes, maybe even zero4ot line townhomes, or similar properties with a low -land cost, so people can
actually afford to live here in the beautiful city of Kenai.
Please stop discriminating against other residential neighborhoods, too, by redesignating everything the way the
City Administration wants it, either "single- family low density" or "commercial strips" along all the highways,
making other people who built nice homes along the corridors and highways and have been there a long time
suddenly non - conforming (like you did to Highland), and LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.
Recommend incorporation of a new objective and strategies
Nobody wants strip malls,
industrial uses, or intense commercial zoning near their homes. If the City feels like there needs to be more Mixed
under Goal 1: Objective: Develop strategies to ensure there is
adequate affordable housing In Kenai; New Strategy
Use or commercial areas, then it should designate some of its own property as such, since it has so much of it,
and create new centers of commerce, away from already-established
Determine if
there is adequate property zoned multi - family;
residences of long -term Kenai residents!
(Continued next cell)
New Strategy Consider revising the subdivision code to include
zero lot line subdivisions; and New Strategy' Subject to
performance standards continue to allow mobile home parks as a
conditional use permit in several zoning districts in Kenai.
lacquie Stauffer
10/19/12
Page 12 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes:
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Res
Plan Reference
ent
voices must be hear l. We vote) We will re member what you dal The people who were here first, who bought and
d their lives around the land use in place at the time they built their residence, (or pulled in their mobile homes) are
portant than the City's goals to become another Palm Springs) Kenai leans heavily
pone to CU,,,,,reF�ts
Staff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission
Commenter
Date
s being mostly a blue-collar town, has low wages when compared to other towns, and has lots of service-oriented jobs
wlssMedliving
rd - working people filling them (which people kenai NEEDS), and elderly, some of whom are disabled, and those on fixed
s, and with young families. Provide a land use plan which accommodate,
e types of people as well as those who can afford to live along the river. There is enough land that nobody needs to be
out. Be nice!
lad to see an assisted living center will be developed in Kenai, but am sad to learn that all of the Anchor park residents
will have to move out. This is all the more reason to open
u other land use areas where people can live in mobile homes. What
is so bad about that? Mobile homes provide a viable living option, low
-cost, and allow people to spend more time on their
families instead of making payments on a $150,000 mortgage with both parents having to work! Kenai
needs to stop its
vendetta against mobile homes! I doubt the City's residents truly support all those prohibitive ordinances, when so many
people
are having trouble paying for housing!
I will be fallowing what the City does with this plan, as will dozens of my friends, neighbors, and others affected by it. Your
actions will not go unnoticed. You have awakened a sleeping giant. The Planners who are ignoring public comments and molding
a plan that they want contrary to the
people, should remember: even though you are not elected and we did not vote you in,
we can certainly vote out the people who hired you, which is something our elected wu ncilmen, too, keep
should In mind. We
brought you into the Council... and we can take you out.
Jacquie Stauffer
10/19/12
Page 13 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
I live in the City of Kenai Intl rent a mobile home in Highland pride mobile home park. I like the area, and enjoy the fishing
aportunIdIs. I live here with my little girl who Is in 2n d grade.I pay less than $ Soo a month in rent, plus utilities. Even With
at low rent, there have been times I have had trouble meeting my bills. I can't imagine where else I could move to in the kenal
ty where I could afford it. Affordable housing options are very limited in the city, and although the city seemed to realize this it
e Goals section of the prppos -d comprehensive plan, there don't seem to be much else about it. The section on strategies
id plans to make those goals happen leaves out anything about more affordable housing or variety of housing. This Is not
Pod. The city needs to focus on the needs of all Ks residents, not just those Who want nicer landscaping.
After looking at the document, it seems to me that the city wants everyone to live in traditional wood - framed houses. I would
re to, but I can't afford that. The rural residential land use means single family law density omen, which, Of course, excludes
e trailer homes where I currently live. It seems that most other types of housing are apparently excluded from this large
Rion of land use called rural residential? Making the land that the trailer park is an turned into single family low density,
!a ns that all of the park's homes are called nonconforming. I understand that this means that the park owner cannot spend
rre than 10% of her rental home's replacement value on fixing up homes, including the one I live in.1 guess the city has figured
t that with rules like this, eventually they will get to condemn all the homes In Highland. I've heard from my neighbors that
: city's officials have been very vocal about their desire to get rid of mobile home parks, but what about people like me, do
sy want to get rid of me and my little girl, too? Where else would we be expected to live?
By designating highland's property as rural residential, the Planners seem to be buying Into the city's plot to get rid of us. The
nners obviously know that a mobile home park sits here, and it does not fall into the single famlly low density category, but
y did not designate it for what it is: a mixed use or multifamily land use. This underscores my previous paint that the city Is
'ing to get rid of us, and I don't think that's fair or right. The consultants working with the city on this plan must have to put
it signatures on it confirming that they agree With it. How can they agree with this obvious problem? The future land use
n needs to designate Highland property for what H has been for a very long time: a mobile home park, which is probably
red -use or mufti- family or something like that, but definitely not rural residential if that means single family low density
nes. The Planners had no problem designating all the areas around the major roads as mixeduse, so they should not have
problem designating a true mixed -use property as it already is and should be desienateri .
143 auvn Or resmenaal uses. Delete "multi- f,mlly" obje
of undevelopetl areas as a mixed use only encourages strip I
Use classification on Kenai Spur between Evergreen St. and
to RS (Woodland S /D): Use
Page 14 of 33
look into
comment
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to " Resoonse to
Plan Reference
7Comment t Use Parcel. Please note that Kenai Peninsula Bo rough owned parce1045- 010 -07 whichis located along
Spur Highway across from Kenai Central High School is deed restricted to etlucational uses according to
al patent. The property is proposed for Mix Use which would support the etlucational use of the property.
gh therefore supports the proposed mixed use designation for this property.
Stiff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission Commemer Oate
Marcus Mueller -letter
10/17/12
Parcel, Please note that the "Existing Land Use" Map shows Kenai Peninsula Borough owned parcel 014-
vacant. This property is improved with motor racing facilities and has been used for motor sports since
the early 1970's. The "Future Land Use" Map shows this parcel as being with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
area. Additionally Table 19 on page 80 of the draft plan provides Goal 3, Land Use, Objective 10 "reivew zoning and
subdivision codes for present and future uses "; 6th strategy "Review recreation zone to determine types of uses
that shoudl be permitted, ie.e., racetrack, AN, snow machine trails and other similar activities." Parcel 014 -030 -58
is leased to the Kenai Peninsula Racing Lions for motor sports uses open to the public. Please not that the Kenai
Peninsual Lions have expressed to the borough and to the City that development and use of motor sports facilities
should be permitted uses under the City of Kenai's zoning. The borough interprets the stated stragegy as reflecting
the interests expressed by the Kenai Peninsula Racing Lions involving proper owned by the borough and therefore
supports the plan's intent to consider motor sports as permitted use facility.
Marcus Mueller -letter
10(17/12
Page 15 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19- October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comment, have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
To Whom it may concern:
I am writing this in regards to the city of kenays PROPOSED comprehensive plan.
I have lived In highland pride mobile home park since june of 1991. During this time there has been many change .
in and around the park. People have moved in around the park, knowing full well they were buying property next
[o us. Now the City wants to pass some damn "comprehensive plan" stating the future land use of this property it
"rural residential" while defining that as "single - family low density" which means the park and its mobile homes It
nine are "non - conforming' even though we were here first! It's the other residences around us which are "non -
:onforming"!
:HANGES REQUESTED: As best as I can tell, Highland's tracts should be deemed "mixed -use" which will allow w
n eventually be zoned as what we've been for over 50 years: a mobile home park! Otherwise, if this plan leave
iighland property as only "single- family, low density" land use, my home will remain "non - conforming" indefinteh
Ind I will not be able to put more than 10 percent of the replacement value of my mobile into repairs for the
Ipkeep and maintenance DUE TO PREVIOUSLY PASSED City Ordinances.
for one, can not afford a newer mobile home, let alone a house. where are we suppose to live ifthis should pass'
Ve need to keep our homes, and the land use plan needs to support those who bought property FIRST, and built
heir lives around it under the assumption they would be able to live there without interference] thelowerincoml
ousing is needed in Highland — In fact, we need more of it!
eople who bought land and built homes around highland knew the park was here long before their purchases. It
idn't stop them from buying and building and since then they have done nothing but complain about Highland to
)e city — perhaps they should not have bought here if they thought that we were the ones who should move out.
certainly feels like we low- income home- owners are being discriminated against by this proposed cumprehensiv
'an, one might go on to say just plain old harassed . ........... like being bullied! makes me wonder what was meant
f `residents enjoy a choice of residential neighborhoods and lifestyles'
aver Creek Area: The Kenai Peninsula Borough owns parcel 049 -120-06 which is a 19 acre parcel north of Beaver
op Road proposed for Rural Residential with mixed use along the Beaver Loop Road frontage. The borough's
)perry has gravel pit uses on both sides of it. While the borough agrees with the proposed land use, the borough
:oncerned that a Rural Residential one does not reflect actual characteristics of the area behind the mixed use
Tel. The borough recognizes that the highest and best use of this land is for material extraction. Additionally, the
'ough would be extremely hesitant to encourage a residential use of the property given the surrounding gravel
land uses. Recommend ti •The borough therefore asks the City's consideration of proposing a zone more
Ing to the existing and compatible uses of this are, and In particular that recognizes the suitability of the land
material extraction purposes. Attached is a man whirh
Page 16 of 33
Staff Recommendat ion to Planning and Zoning Cammfsslon
Commenter Date
s
se
s
6
)
Mr. and Mrs. James
Patten 10/19/12
Marcus Mueller -letter 10/17/12
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes:
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may he provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
Plan Reference
Map 7, Future Land
Use Plan
Page
Comment
Critique of Future Land Use Map:
Staff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission
Commenter
Date
• Drastic changes to current Comprehensive Plan with little or no public notice or support, downplaying these
drastic changes in public forums ( "it's just a guide ") when in fact the map is used to justify all future approvals or
denials of rezones and conditional use permits.
• Mixed use encourages highway commercial strip development that is not supported by most residents.
• Rezones from residential to Mixed Use Zone or other, commercial zones will lead to single family residences being
labeled as "nonconforming," and zoned out.
• Includes numerous proposed rezones to commercial that are known to be unpopular with Kenai residents, such
as: Walker Lane, Lawton Acres, MAPS, Angler Drive.
Chuck Winegarden
• Industrial and commercial zone "creep" into currently residential zones.
(Identical comment
• Decrease in conservation and open space,
also submitted by
Glenn: I appreciate your quick response and attention regarding my attempts to get my romments on the "Imagine
Kristine Schmidt)
10/19/12
Kenai 2030" Comprehensive Plan draft heard. This says tome that you care about theend product truly reflecting
the wishes of our community members and that it is something you can be proud to have your name associated
with.
As I explained on the phone, I was in attendance at the April 2012 public meeting. There seems to be a disconnect
between my personal input and that of others present that day and what is being put forth in the draft. I realize
there were other meetings held after that to gather input, but its my understanding they were held with more
"special interest" groups vs. the general public. I would hope that you have or will have access to the comments
made at that April meeting and thus see where some of my concern is
See response to the second comment at the beginning of this
coming from.
table regarding how issues were prioritized.
Nancy Schmg -Email
10/17/12
Page 17 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
major concern lies with the Proposed Land Use Plan. It is weighted heavily with Industrial, Commercial and
ed Use which greatly impacts Residential. In particular:
' Current Conservation (located next to Residential) has been changed to Industrial.
Current Conservation (located across from Residential) has been changed to Commercial
" Mixed Use is essentially Commercial which doesn't allow for single family residences.
' A "City Center ", which was part of previous Comprehensive Plans and still a priority for many residents, is not
ncnIk —a
closing, I want to say that I am active in my community and participate in various forums where our community
d its health are discussed. The desire expressed in all of them is for a community where "quality of life" is a
onty and a belief that if that exists, people will want to move here and then industry will follow, not the other
y around. Residents have time and time again expressed a desire for the protection of our residential
ighborhoods and for our commercial areas to be more concentrated without sprawl along our corridors. A
maim saying is, "we don't want to become another Wasilla ".
Page 18 of 33
Email
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 )Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major paints in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
6. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission' will be changed to "Response to Comments"
agree with Sandra Lashbrook in her concerns for the future of Highland Mobile Home Park and the other parks in
:enai just as all the other tenants in the park are concerned. l do feel very strongly that Me Park should be
lesignated as (Mixed use on the Future land Use Map). The Park has been in this location for over 50 years. The
wrier of the properties that have been bough and homes that have been built since then, they are "newcomers".
hey don't have a right to say "we don't like you (poor people) being here anymore, you need to go ". One of these
tewcomer) "Home Owners ", use to live in the Highland Park when he first moved to Kenai. Then he bought and
uilt a home on the hill just past the Park. Now he does not want to see a reminder of where he came from, where
e used to live. He considers himself high class and the people in the Park low class. Most of the people that live in
to park live on Social Security, Social Security Disability, limited fixed income, low income (minimum wage jobs and
sere are a lot of them in Kenai) or Retirement income. We cannot all be RICH people. There are a lot of poor in this
orld, but if they have a roof over their heads and food on the table then I consider them RICH in a lot of ways. I
ave known people that have had to live in their cars even in winter. Right here in Kenai a high school teen lost both
`her parents had no family and was evicted from here only home and was forced to live in her car. There are going
o be more homeless people in Kenai because we are going to lose jobs and the cost of living is going to go up.
mai will have a homeless situation just like Anchorage. Some city officials need to get OFF their POWER TRIPS.
sere will be some people I am sure that will disagree with the way the current tenants of the Park feel, but those
:ople are no longer tenants for a very good reason and I personally am grateful that they are no longer tenants
:re. I do not care for DRUGS, HEAVY DRINKING,. VIOLENCE and DISREGARD for human decency in my
,ighborhood. As a former Federal Gent I cannot tolerate it. I had my run ins with some of those tenants and they
ade me very uneasy." I am in agreement with the other tenants when I say, "This is my home ", I do not want to
forced to move or have the Land Use changes that would not be beneficial to the Park and its tenants. The city
ads to stop passing ordinances and land use plans that zone out low income people from the City of Kenai,
sed on a Land Use Plan that does not reftect current use. Live and Let Live P.S. I hate to see some people make
ter suffer, even when they don't know them, because of their sick sense of superiority. *Three of the tenants
at were evicted were even given notice of the upcoming hearing in violation of the Kenai Municipal Code.
live on Beaver Loop Road and am opposed to the changing of land use from rural residential to that of mixed use
s the new plan implies. It is in fact in direct opposition to the city's previous plan drafted in 2003. You'll find on
age 35 the following paragraph. Beaver loop Road is a rural area with scenic vistas, natural Open space, and a low -
msity residential lifestyle with a short drive to city services. This area is not likely to develop at densities that will
Ipport public sewer and water service in the foreseeable future. Much of the vacant property in the Beaver Loop
'ea is affected by wetland or floodplain conditions, and may not be suitable for uses more intense than rural
sidential development. I believe the paragraph above, defining Beaver Loop Road as it Ls, is accurate. I can only
antler why we've deviated from the former comprehensive plan.
Page 19 of 33
Weir- comment
email
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes:
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comment,"
Plan Reference
mment
oposing beach and dunes area at end of Kenai Avenue to be mizetl use is ridiculous. It is obviously a Parks,
creation and green space area.
Staff Recommer elation to Planning and Zoning Commission
Commenter
Date
ind it offensive for the commission to anticipate that all property along major roads to be mixed use in the future.
a property owner in a subdivision that borders the Spur Highway I am curious why anyone would anticipate a
ange in zoing for my property. For clarification I do not live in MAPS. Existing neighborhoods should not be
visioned to change. They can be managed by conditional use. You can say it is not the interest to change and
ere are no plans but the title "Future Land Use Plan" shows intent or a belief by the P &Z Commission that is not in
e with people who spend $100,000's to buy homes in subdivisions. Undeveloped areas are perhaps ok for mixed
e but not current residential use.
Anonymous
10/19/12
Fnn
Anonymous
10/19/12
52
ere is a strip of green Open Space that extends from the Kenai Spur Highway north to the northeast corner of the
ure city maintenance lot shown in red. I recommend the following modifications to the green Open Space
ip. 1) Clip the northern end of the green so that it terminates at the southeast corner of the future
intenance shop lot shown in red. 2) Provide a 100' wide green buffer strip along the northern and western
undaries of the adjacent Suburban Residential area shown in pink. This area to be changed from Industrial to
en Space is wetland and is likely not to be developed in the n ext 50 years. This issue was pointed out by a nearby
ident during the public outreach at the Senior Center. I think the concern is valid and should be considered.
p ], "Future Land Use Plan ", shows a great deal of areas along the North Road, Spur Highway, Strawberry Road,
ver Loop Road, and the Kalifornsky Beach Road, as well as a portion of downtown Kenai as "Mixed Use ". White I
lize that such listing does not constitute rezoning, I believe that inevitably, sooner or later it would be used as
tification to rezone these areas to less restrictive classifications than now exist. The Downtown /Old Town area
maybe de facto "Mixed Use ", but if it is desired to rezone this area it should be done as a separate act, and not
through use of the to -be- adopted Comprehensive Plan. I would urge that the "Mixed Use" classification should be
removed from the plan, and more specific classifications, based both on present uses and the desires of the
residents, should dictate their zoning.
Henry Knackstedt -
email
Gerald Brockman -
email
10/19/12
10/16/12
Page 20 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
Pmment
Staff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Wmmisslon Commenter page
I strongly disagree with the new designation of Beaver Loop Road as'Mixed Use' and I hope you will
onsider. I have the following comments and questions Ten years ago Beaver Loop was described in the city's
prehensive plan as "a rural area with scenic vistas, natural open space, and a low-density residential lifestyle
ce then, a few new houses have been built along the road. The grovel pits are producing less gravel. The long
tch of forest next to me (though it has been inexplicably labeled in 2012 as under 'Industrial Use') is unbroken,
ept far a pond. Ten acres of old gravel pit behind my house are being protected and enhanced for the Dolly
den and Coho in the pond there. My question why all of a sudden is Beaver Loop being re- designated as'Mixed
'? It has changed very little, and along most of the road, it has changed in the direction towards more single -
ily homes and away from industrial /commercial use. hen a person buys property and builds a house in a neighborhood, should they have a reasonable expectation
the city is not going to change the land use underneath and around them? It seems to me that the people of
ai have spoken clearly on this issue -the MAPS referendum, for example. I attended the public meetings over
last couple of years that were meant to collect citizen input on the comprehensive plan. I did not hear one
on say they wanted commercial and industrial development in neighborhoods. l do not think that citizen Input
accurately communicated to the author of this comprehensive plan.
hat does it mean to have a line running through one's front yard with a designation (Mixed Use) that is
different from the rest of one's property and house (Rural Residential)? It seems needlessly confusing, or maybe
even misleading. If the city wants Beaver Loop to be zoned differently, it should be upfront about it and notify
people.
What is the city going to actually do to enhance and protect salmon habitat, which is a stated goal of the plan?
There are ponds and streams in the Beaver Loop area with fish. How is 'Mixed Use' going to protect waterways? If
anything, more traffic, asphalt parking lots, and clearing of trees destroy and change habitat.
Thanks for reading this, and I hope you listen to what the people who live in the neighborhoods, and the people
who care about Kenai, say about this comprehensive plan.
Laura Sievert - 2nd
email 10/19/12
Page 21 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
I. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major paints in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commiscinw, will b " —
Plan Reference
Page
Comment
�ommenrs'.
Staff Recommendation to Planningand ZOning Commission
Commenter
Date
Having gone to the public input meetings leading up to the plan, was surprised to see the 'Mixed Use' designation
all along Beaver Loop and Spur highway.
Residents at those meetings specifically asked that the city try to contain
sprawl and make the downtown of Kenai more vibrant and compact. People do not want businesses
in their
neighborhoods. I also feel that the way this change is portrayed on the map is misleading. What does it mean to
have'Mixed Use' in yourfront yard, while your house is still on 'Rural Residential'? That really really thin purple
line means a lot, yet appears so small. I live on Beaver Loop, and can tell you that people want Beaver Loop to
remain Rural Residential. yes, there are small businesses like B & Bs in the area -we have long successfully handled
the addition ofthose via exemptions from Rural Residential that allow a public hearing. There is no reason for
Beaver Loop to be designated for a different use. Right now there are more than 50 single family homes right on
Beaver Loop. Does the city want to phase them out in favor of apartments and businesses? Some people have
lived on this road since homesteading days. The city planner downplays the importance of this new designation,
saying that there would still have to be a hearing for any rezone. True- but the city will ultimately be guided by the
new plan. Isn't that the point of it? It would be more honest far the city to just ask for a rezone for Spur and Beaver
Loop to Mixed Use. That way at least residents would have to be notified about what is likely to occur in their
neighborhood. Recommendation: Please ask P&Zto reconsiderthis large change that would completely change
49
Beaver Loop as well as Spur. Thank you.
Laura Sievert - 1st
email
10/18/12
1 would prefer the area in yellow in front of 4101awton to be zoned mixed use vs Commercial - maily due to
52
houses across the street. Recommend rezone to mixed use.
Though not specifically a zoning issue -the Kenai River side of Bridge Access Rd. west of She Kenai dock to the
"current
Roy Wells
10/08/12
soccer field" needs a review to convert the area to prime view /commercial with an aim to promote
restaurants and hotels to build with a "water view." Kenai is not taking advantage of the waterfront. Water view
52
property created from the eye sores of boats etc. currently there.
The industrial designation that abuts Princess Street should be reconsidered. Recommended action: Consider
Roy Wells
10/05/12
designating area east of the drainage way to suburban residential and extending the parks, recreation, open
space designation along the drainage way north. Both designations northern boundaries would align with the
Mark Sontag -
commercial area to the west.
comments to City
49
Second paragraph - change "in "to "through "a
Council
10/05/12
Map 8- Zoning
52
Colors do net match those developed by Planning, Airport and WCB Staff for Master Plan?
l lion
rntoothis
Christa Cady, KPB
10/19/12
53
First paragraph, last sentence - Consider revising for clatty.
Stff will look issue further
Casey Madden
10/17/12
EH
ame aps don'[ show airport as now exists.
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Chrsta Cady, KPB
10/19/12
econImprovement District should be capitalized.
delete period after the word "Ofl
M�Elch
Technical corcec [ion - recommend adoption
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Casey Madden
Christa Cady, KPB
10/17112
10/19/12
fl�6'Coor
hat prov ided WCB for Master Plan S- 25-12 INC, NC_4 -24-12 MK
echnical correction- recommend adoption
Christa Cady, KPB
10)19/12
Staff
will look into this issue further
Casey Madden
10/17112
Page 22 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zonine Commissinn" will ha —
Plan Reference
Page
Comment
.........
Map 10
Staff Recommendation to Planningand Zoning Commission
Commemer
I live on Princess Street. The land across the street is currently classified as "vacant' in the comprehensive
pne
plan,
and zoned conservation. It is proposed to become "industrial' in the new plan,
I am having difficulty understanding why planners would want to change this land from conservation zoning to
industrial as the "Industrial' classification
would allow for any kind of noxious and /or dangerous activity
imaginable. Even though you say that would never happen, what is the message we send if we classfy it as such?
This is not an industrial areas. Accidents happen
and any explosion, emission, spill could have disastrous effects on
the atljacen[ neighborhood and businesses. It is
a sensitive wetland draining into the Kenai River.
High on your various lists of priorities expressed by the
community is quality of life. Desirable components of
quality of life include recreation and wildlife. This little piece of wetlands is the last corridor for
wildlife on the north
side of the Spur [Road] for miles in either direction. It is also used recreationally as an access point out into the
open
country east of the airport for ATVs and snow machiners.
I fully support letting the world know Kenai is ready and open for business by making accommodations for
increased business growth. But Corporations and businesses are also looking for locations that have a high quality
of life, which allow them to attract more talented workers. Removing these last remaining bits of wildness
detracts from the appeal Kenai has. We are not Anchorage and many have relocated here forjust that reason.
Wherever possible I hope we can preserve some of the wilderness left in town.
Stanley Kaneshim -
letter
10/08/12
Page 23 of 33
Table Notes:
Map g
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
I. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments'
email is to request a change in the zoning for an area In which one half the block is zoned Neighborhood Residential, and
other hall the block Is zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Specifically, this Is the area along First Avenue between Birch
et and Spruce Street.
are currently two homes in the Proposed Commercial area, and only One business. We own an original government lot
cre) which has been subdivided into three lots. There Is a one acre lot next to us on the corner Of Birch and First which is
Illy undeveloped, and another one acre lot in the center of the block between the former Halls quality Builders and our
respectfully request the city zone this half block as Mixed Use, the same as Old Town Kenai. That designation would allow
o use our additional lots as a home site for our retirement home or for our children to build on. It would also allow us or the
ters of the other home currently in the above area to rebuild if disaster were to destroy our house. It is far more likely that
acre at the comer of First and Birch would be developed for residential housing (as is the rest of the block, and the block
ng it) then as commercial property. A Mixed Use designation would in no way impact the existing commercial building.
extremely unlikely that the City of Kenai will have need of this half block, which is not highway frontage, for any type of
.Merrill use, or that a business would move Into this area, There is a strip mall on the other side of First Avenue that has
fable space and fronts the highway. Another strip faces the first across the highway, and it also has available space.
Page 24 of 33
-email
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19 - October 39, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant Part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zonine Commission" wlli ho h--v — ,u...___-
Plan Reference
Page
Comment
This week I reviewed the 2012 Comprehensive Plan deft, and I would like to bring to the Kenai Planning
Staff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission
and Zoning Commission's attention several important items which either have been left out or I believe
need further emphasis. These three items are: 1) Development of a City Center /Millennium Square, 2)
Tourism, and 3) a Convention Center Facility.
Next, I reviewed the 2003 Comprehensive Plan to see what its recommendations were, noting that
much of the emphasis was on developing an attractive City Center/ Millennium Square; see attached
Pages 2, 26, 30 -34 of the 2003 Plan. (Exhibit A)
In 2004, following completion ofthat document, the Mayor and Council selected 17 individuals in our
community to be on a committee called KEDS (Kenai Economic Development Strategy) . I have served on
this committee since its inception. We met every
other week for many months during 20042005, and
in 2005/2006 following a public hearing, presented a document to the City Council with their
acceptance. Five major initiatives and an artists' concept of Millennium Square Development Plan were
part of that document; see attached KEDS document, specifica lly Appendix pages 27 -29, which
incorporate ideas and strategies fo r implementation of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan; and 23
Recommend adding a new objective under Goal 2: Economic
page of
the Business Development Initiative, and page 26 of the Tourism Industry Initiative which both support
Appendix A. (Exhibit B) (Continued in
Development: New Objective Investigate if there is interest to
reactivate the Kenai Economic Development Strategy (KEDS)
next cell- see letter for Exhibits)
Committee to review status of recommendations from the KEDS
Moving forward in time to the 2012 Comprehensive Plan... Thursday April 21, 2011 at Kenai City Hall, Boards,
document.
Commissions, and Committees got together and broke up Into six groups; Economic development was the KEDS
group. There were 4S of us. This was chaired by RickCook, and I served on this Committee, in which Business,
Airport lands, and Industrial development became a priority in the 20 minutes we were allotted, and this was then
Presented to the wrap up session; facilitating year -round Tourism was runner -up with mention of a Convention
facility. Seeattached -Sum Mary of that meeting. (Exhibit C)
April 23, 2011, a Saturday, a general public work session was held but I was unable to attend. Reviewing the
summary of that gathering there was emphasis on developing the City Center, trails, and green areas, among other
things. (Continued next cell)
P
Page 25 of 33
ents"
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes:
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
Plan Reference Page Comment
SI... .comremadon to Planning and Zoning Commission Commenter pgtp
June e, 2011, a Wednesday morning, a business work session was held at the Senior Center with many business
men and women. I attended, and we broke up into four rantlom groups. Reviewing the prioritization of these
groups, three of the four groups listed as a priority the developing of a Convention Center for the city, and tourism.
Seeattached copy of that 8 page summary. (Exhibit D)
Summarizing:
• The 2003 Kenai Comprehensive Plan Recommendations
• The KEDS Tourism Initiative and Artists Draft showing strategies for implement ing above
• The 4/21/2011 Boards, Commissions, Committees work session recommendations
• The 4/23/2011 Public work session recommendations for City center development
• The 6/8/2011 Bus!nesswork session with three out of four groups recommendations
All of the above signify the importance of creating an emphasis on developing Kenai's City Center /Millennium
Square, Year -around Tourism, and a Convention facility which will provide jobs, small business development, and a
beautiful surrounding park with trails; all of which add to our quality of life in Kenai Alaska.
Now if we can look at the 2012 Comprehensive Plan draft. The following are recommendations.
• Please look at pages 62 -63.1 strongly suggest the KEDS Art fists' conception of Millennium
Square Development Plan be added
• See pages 75 -76, Rem 6.3, goal 2- Economic Development should have Tourism. Conventions
and Meetings added ... and bullet g5 add Tourism. Table Sg goal 2, under Item 8 Promoting
Ideas for lob Security, add Developing Tour ism and Conventions Add a new strate
• Page 77 under strategies, fifth paragraph down, adding strategy under Goal 2: Economic Development,
g "and unity m ether• current Objectiveti lob Security. New Strategy: Promote tourist
Appendix C presents the Public Survey of the top 3 things community members like living in Kenai The same goes businesses and activities at City sponsored events.
for tourists coming to our city whether for recreational or convention purposes. Top dislike lack of employment
opportunities. Tourism and meetings /conventions bring new employment opportunities to our area for people of New Strateev Develop alternatives to constructing a City funded
all ages. Page 2 of appendix Cnotes people would support increase in property taxes for walking/biking/pathways
and ski trails; this would come with the development of Millennium Square as outlined on the DS artists' oncept destination. center to promote Kenai as a large meeting
Chap 6 pp 70 -93
Peter Hansen, M.D. J101198//1'2'
General 2) Landscaping, beautiflcation, and funding the library are all lofty goals, but the City is placing too much emphasis
on "cosmetic" issues in an attempt to create a faSade of a "beautiful city" and not enough emphasis on more basic
quality of life and land -use issues that haunt its residents. Kenai is not a retirement town and never will be. Its
wage base is lower than almost anywhere else in Alaska, yet the Comprehensive Plan seems embarrassed to
address this issue or create goals antl strategies to acknowledge this problem and help the residents affected by it.
(Note: Part of a longer comment letter)
Sandra Lashbrook
Page 26 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments'
- - -- — °---- ••- •••���.. n mss me xraregies and most
mportantly, assigns a priority to each item, was ARBITRARILY determined without a public review, and completely
;notes several of the goals as apparently too insignificant to even have a strategy. This section and much ofthe
Ian seems to be controlled by 2 -3 people "in charge" at the City, and I have a big problem with that. This is OUR
]TY, and it makes no sense to have goals listed then completely ignored.
a) For instance, in the QUALITY OF LIFE section, one ofthe goals is "Housing — Affordable with a variety of housin
ptions." This is a critical goal for Kenai! On page 9 ofthe plan, it states: "An increase in education attainment and
msonable wages make Kenai a desirable location for new businesses." However, where are these people who
rake 'reasonable (i.e., LOWER) wages" supposed to live? Everyone can't live in Sterling, Ridgeway or Nikiskil
Page 27 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes:
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be chanopd to "pnennn.e ..,
Plan Reference
Page
Comment
Staff Recommendation to Planning and ZonIng Commission
Commenter
p�
b)There is a SERIOUS LACK of low. to medium- income housing in the City, yet the City continues its elitist attempts
to try to make all residential zones all "low - density, single family" which excludes mult!-unit housing, mobile home
parks, and other potential housing options which do not cost Upwards Of $100,000. This is NOT "variety." It is
systematic discrimination against the poor, elderly, disabled, and the blue - collar working people as well as young
families starting out. The City claims that this is a "State" issue, but it is not —it is a planning and zoning issue. The
City has consistently reflected an "elite attitude" and seems to be against the low and medium residents.
i) Although "Affordable Housing" is listed as a goal on page 71, there is nothing in the page 72 -75 "Table 17
Objectives and Strategies" about how the City could contribute to this goal being met. Here are some suggestions:
ii) Does the City truly want to respond to the need to provide avenues for low -income AFFORDABLE HOUSING and
increase the number of housing options as its GOAL states? Here's how: (1) There are already many areas of the
City which contain mobile homes on lots —Make those LAND USE AREAS consistent with the CURRENT USES, such
that those lots may be appropriately zoned so the structures on them are not NON - CONFORMING! (2) Designate
and /or "open" those areas and the surrounding areas which already contain these housing types to
accommodate land use consistent with allowing mobile homes and other mufti -unit housing developments
instead of trying to force those areas to be all "single family, low density"1 (3) The City has already "protected"
any land which could involve the future development
Subject to performance standards, the City currently allows
of mobile home parks by passing the Mobile Home Park
Ordinance in 2006 establishing standards for new mobile home parks, yet seems bound and determined to "zone-
mobile home parks as a conditional use permit in several zoning
out" and PROHIBIT mobile home parks from all the city's residential zones! Was the passage ofthe Mobile Home
districts. Recommend Incorporation of a new objective and
Park Ordinance on November 21,2006 just "lip service " ?(4)City Officials need to cease publicly boasting that 'The
City's
strategies under Goal 1: Objective: Develop strategies to ensure
there is adequate affordable housing in Kenai; New Strateev'
goal is to get rid of all mobile home parks." Who is "the City?" What right does this City Administration have
to dictate " goals" that eliminate housing for dozens families,
Determine if there is adequate property zoned multi - family; New
of the elderly, the disabled, and those on fixed or low-
incomes? The action of passing an Ordinance providing for new standards for mobile home
Strategy: Consider revising the subdivision code to include zero
Goal 1- quality of
parks,
then turning around and stating the goal is to get rid of all of them, is inconsistent and clearly prejudicial. (Part of
lot line subdivisions; and New Strategy- Subject to performance
standards continue to allow home
Life
a longer comment letter)
mobile parks as a conditional
Goal 1
attended the Initial Plan Public Hearing. At that meeting the majority of groups highlighted the
use permit in several toning districts in Kenai.
Sandra Lashbrook
10/19/12
need to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial encroachment. I see nothing in the plan that
recognizes this vital need. Proposed Action: Make this the number one priority In Goal 1.
Kellie Kelso
10/19/12
Under Chapter 6: "Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Plan Implementation ", pri cling and preserving the
character of residential neighborhoods seems to have been completely overlooked. Based on my 34 years of
residence in Kenai, believe that this is the most Important priority to the great majority of people I know, as well
as
myself. This section ofthe plan needs to be completely reworked, with adequate consideration given to
protecting, preserving, and enhancing the character of residential neighborhoods.
email
Gerald Brockman -
Page 28 of 33
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part ofthe table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been belted.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be rho nuod t„ 11 oe ............. e
Plan Reference
.Page
Comment
_._ Y .,�.�.,.......ulw
7) The City emphasizes the development of businesses and industries way more than it emphasizes the happiness
and quality of life of its CURRENT residents who live in residential zones. (Note: Part of a longer comment letter)
StaffRecommerMation to Planning and ZOnfng Commission
Commenter
Date
Sandra Lashbrook
10/19/12
71
4) Where are the strategies and objectives to address this severe unemployment that ll %of Kenai's residents
suffer from in order to try W make these people's lives EASIER? Is it the page 73 "medium priority, strategy which
states that the City should spend time and money to "Consider establishing landscaping requirements in all zoning
districts "? I think not (Note: Part of a longer comment letter)
"Low Priorities ", last sentence -Far ciarjty, revise as follows: "These priorities are listed as issues atthe beginning
of each section."
Sandra Lashbrook
10/19/12
72
75
Objective 2, 4th strategy
gy- add "to be" coord "need".
Issues, bullet 5, Kenai Municipal Ai ort
Tourism and Convention Center: Meetings on the 2012 draft Comprehensive Plan, the 2003 plan and the Kenai
Economic Development Strategy emphasize development of round tourism and a convention center.Such a facility
would provide business development with beautiful surrounding park with trails which would improve the quality
of life in Kenai. Economic development should have tourism, Convention and Meetings added; add tourism W
bullian and add "developing tourism and conventions" to Table 18, goal 2 g8 Promoting Ideas for lob Security.
Note: Comment summarized- see letter for detailed justification for this recommendation.
Recommend adoption of this recommendation.
Recommend existing language recommendation.
Technical correction- recommend adoption
Christa Cady, KPB
Christa Cady, KPB
Casey Madden
Peter Hansen, M.D.
10/19/12
10/19/12
10/17/12
10/19/12.
75-
76,
77
Addnew 11—s u nder _,i. 2. Economic Development,
current Objective 8' Job Security. New Strateev Promote
tourist businesses and activities at City sponsored events,
New Strateer Develop alternatives to constructing a City funded
convention center to promote Kenai as a large meeting
destination.
Technical correction-recommend adoption
Technical correction - recommend adoption
Add anew strategy undercurrent Objective 13' Evaluate
85
86
7885' asphalt R/W, 2000' gravel runway. 4600 water runway. FAA flight service station and a airtraffic control
tower -as well as associated terminal and aircraft service facili ties.
#17- Airportreservebounda ry ... Consistent with the Airport Mast rPlan and ...
Casey Madden
Casey Madden
10/17/12
10/17/121
feasibility /need for public improvements. New Stratee,
92,
88
Motion to strongly su
gy pport GoalB and to support
pport a drift boat pullout in Kenai
Coordinate with the State to site adrift boat pull out on the Kenai
River.
Recommend this suggestion be adopted into plan
Technical correction- recommend this suggested be adopted
Technical con, cuon - recommend this suggested be adopted
HarborCommission-
discussion at meeting
88
88
88
Bicycle and pedestrian traffic along Bridge Access Road are fatalities waiting to happen. It could occur by a misstep,
a bike, an errant car or a truck unbalancing a bike with its air wake. Priority should be changed to High. Could also
appear in Table 21 Line item l8 (as prlorIty Mgh)
Objective 21 trail sPier, y-adtl "youth soccer "aRer"djsc cl.
Objective 21 - trails Plan and Un(ty Trail shoultl be cepital(zed.
Phil Bryson - Comment
form
Christa Cady, KPB
Chrism Cady, KPB
09/10/12
10/19/12
101912
10/19/12
Page 29 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part ofthe table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
am very concerned that the goal to pursue funding for completion of the bicycle path has been designated as a
tedium priority. I have regularly biked the trail including the very dangerous part of the Bridge Access Road that
oes over the bridge and connects with Kalifornsky Beach Road. In my mind and in the mind of many others, the
resent bike trail immediately next to car lanes looks like an accident waiting to happen. A separate trail needs to
e designated and buid along the road and bridge. Recommend changing the priority level to pursue funding for
ampletion of the _ from medium to HIGH -these needs to be a separate trail - not bicycle signs and trail on the
rip M.ha rasa
was unable to attend many ofthe sessions on this plan, for personal reasons. However, I am disappointed that
ublic input was not more extensively solicited, and did not seem to be welcome. I would like to urge that the
roject be re- opened, with more extensive public Input solicited, welcomed, and incorporated into the final plan
. In view of the lack of meaningful public input, l would like to urge that the process go back to "Square One ",
nd do it over, but do it right this time.
Page 30 of 33
Brockman-
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
Table Notes: September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the Planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
TAsf,a, mment
Staff Recommendation to Planning antl Zoning Commission Cgmmenter
1 must protest they in short public comment period that was allowed to review and make comments about this Date
an. I have been very involved in attending planning & Zoning Commission meetings on the comprehensive plan,
lwas able to ob[ainadraft plan on September 19, 2012. However, as faraslknow, there was no wide - spread
blic announcement on September 19 that the draft plan was available on that date, or what the comment period
s. As far as I know, the draft plan was not even available on the City Webs that
until well after September 19. Even
w, people cannot get a hard copy of the draft plan without going to the Ciry and having to provide information
out themselves in order to get a copy. In my own situation, I have not been able to provide the extensive critique
the draft plan that I would like, because 1 was out ofstate for a coupleofweeks. I understand that you have
ked for "solutions" not just criticism, and the City's recently provided form is designed to have the commenter be
cific about page numbers and so forth. However, it is not reasonable to require people to be specific or to give
u page by page alternatives in the short period of time given. 1 request that you extend the comment period for
other 30 days, so that people can have a MEANINGFUL (instead ofjust a pro forma) opportunity to comment on
plan and give alternatives. n my 30 years of living in Kenai, I have never seen a more closed and non - transparent process than the current
ai comprehensive plan process. At every step of the process so far, ordinary citizens have been restricted (and
ome cases actively prevented) from getting information about the plan process or contents of the draft plans,
from giving input, participating in the plan process, and having their input and participation given respect or
ight. In addition to extending the public comment time period, the City Administration should open up this
process by holding several town hall -type meetings for people to give input, throwing out the "gag rule" in place
for planning commission work sessions on the comprehensive plan, and having rules of conduct in place to ensure
that planning commissioners and council members who attend meetings on the comprehensive plan behave in a
professional and respectful manner towards the public, and do not interrupt, chastise, argue with or ridicule
members ofthe public who are trying to give input. Furthermore, the City Administration should disclose the
sources of the objectives - strategies- priorities, so that everyone Is aware of who is behind these important
Policies. This is all l have had time for in the unreasonably short period allowed. Thank you fortheupportuniryto See Appendii,A fora description ofthe public participation
submit comments. D14]process. The 30-day comment period was advertized in a
public notice, on the City webpage, and in a newsletter that was
sent to all property owners. Kristine Schmid[ 10/19/12
6) The public opinion survey did not have many questions about planning and land uses or other important policy
plans and decisions which the Administration of the City made "far us" In the Comprehensive plan of September,
2012. It app ears as though the City Administration does not truly want people to give their true opinions. (Part of a The purpose of the survey was to get input on public interest on
Survey longer "Isle
letter) public services and some land use issue to guide the City on
future priorities for expenditures. Sandra Lashbrook 10/19/12
Page 31 of 33
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
1. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part of the table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation Is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
The City did not give its residents enough time to comment and review this plan. There needed to be meetin
th the areas of the residents who would be affected by the severe changes in the land use map —NOT just
aetings with business groups The Planning & Zoning "work sessions" were too often not well announced in
Vance, were not recorded, and the public was kept from making comments at some of them. It appears the City
ministration wants the plan that they want... not the plan that the residents of Kenai want!
The notice and outreach to the Kenai residents was weak. The surveys done at the high school were a waste o
m. questionnaires should have been sent to the residents of Kenai instead of a slick newsletter with the phot
the city's administrators on it. Where was the public input when the strategies and objectives were determine
meet the goals? (Part of a longer comment letter)
- -- -• - -••• • n•U..� Wdres me concept Of the plan. The residents of an area being considered shouK
been specifically notified. With growth low, there was no need to hurry. Radically changing zoning is not
rn •d,r "r,,,.d�,
—� m-, -� �w �� cove r,an process:
• Public comment period too short. Two weeks (October 5 to October 19) is not enough time for citizens to
review, comment and provide alternatives for 100 page draft plan.
• Roadblocks to meaningful citizen input:
- new "gag" rule at P &Z work sessions impedes public participation
- no verbatim record of P &Z work sessions such as taping or on the internet
- public inappropriately banned from participation at some P&2 work sessions
no agenda or advance notice of CP topics for upcoming P &Z work sessions
- no schedule of events related to CP disseminated to the general public
- restricting public input at 10/5 Open House to written comments only
no meetings with neighborhoods affected by changes in the land use map
Public outreach lacking: Only one community -wide session in April 2011, no follow up when developing
)bjeaives- Strategies - Priority.
10/5 Open House restrictions on Input (only written comments accepted), choice of date and time suspect
Friday night after work).
giased: outreach and private meetings with business groups, but no outreach or meetings with ordinary
midents or neighborhoods.
Secretive: notes from public meetings were posted on City's web site, but notes from private business group
ieetings are not.
Page 32 of 33
Staff Recommendation to Planning and ZOning Commission C
Commen ter
Date
Table Notes:
Kenai Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft
Response to Comments
September 19 - October 19, 2012 (Updated October 22, 2012)
I. Long comments have been separated into multiple cells and entered into the relevant part ofthe table.
2. Recommendations and major points in the comments have been bolded.
3. For some issues, a staff recommendation is provided in this draft, and additional recommendations may be provided after the planning team meets to discuss comments.
4. After the Commission decides how to address public comments, the column titled "Staff Recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission" will be changed to "Response to Comments"
have been told that there was a meeting "by invitation only ", that was held with business owners that was closed The meeting with local businesses was public noticed and held in
o the public. If this is true, it seems to me to have been a violation of the state's Open Meetings Act, and could a public building (Senior Center). Although it targeted the Gerald Brookman -
ubject the city to legal action.
Page 33 of 33
items with
text as it -
Map 7. Future Land "Use Plan
City of Kenai
Corporate Boundary
4F Suburban Residential
dF Rural Residential
dF Mixed Use
* Industrial
- - Commercial
if Institutional
dF Parks, Recreation & Open Space
Data Source: City of Kenai
� V
i �
/-....I
�A N-01%
tit- f
1
�.i 0 0.5 1 2
Miles