HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-12 p&z packetCITY OF KENAI
~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
**AGENDA**
Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo
June 12, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Kevin Walker
1. ROLL CALL:
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 22, 1996
4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD:
5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS:
a. PZ96-43-Preliminary Plat, Strawberry Fields Forever Subdivision
b. PZ96-44-Preliminary Plat, Buxton Subdivision No. 2
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. NEW BUSINESS:
a. PZ96-42-Conditional Use Permit-Surface Extraction of Natural Resources
(Gravel), W %2, NW 1/, S 10, Lying North of Beaver Loop within T5N, R11W
8. OLD BUSINESS:
a. Richka Park Property for Airport Buffer Zone
9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS:
a. Letter to Hanson Roofing, 309 Birch Street
b. Letter to Roy Wright, Wildwood Station Road
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council
b. Borough Planning
c. Administration
11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED:
~_ ~
Planning & Zoning Commission
Agenda
12. INFORMATION ITEMS:
Page 2
June 12, 1996
a. Request for Reconsider Memo from City Clerk Carol Freas
b. Challenger Learning Center
c. Notice of Borough Planning Commission Action of May 28, 1996
13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
14. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
May 22, 1996
Minutes
UNAPPROVED
1. ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Phil Bryson, Teresa Werner-Quade, Ron Goecke, John Booth,
Karen Mahurin, Kevin Walker
Members Absent: Carl Glick
Others Present: Councilman Smalley, City Engineer Jack La Shot,
Administrative Assistant Marilyn Kebschull
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
GOECKE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF AGENDA AS PRESENTED WITH
THE ADDITION OF THE HANDOUT AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS
CONSENT. MAHURIN STATED SHE OPPOSED UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Mahurin stated she was under the impression that at this meeting under Old Business
would be the recommendation or discussion of the purchase of the Richka Park property
after a meeting and a report from the Airport Commission. Mahurin noted the minutes
reflect this. Walker asked if Mahurin would like to ask staff if they have that report
prepared. Mahurin stated at the last meeting a motion was made that the discussion
on making a recommendation to city council to purchase the Richka Park property
would be discussed at the Airport Commission meeting then would be brought back to
the next Planning & Zoning meeting with a report from the Airport Commission as to
their direction on this issue. La Shot stated he believed it was discussed. Kebschull
advised that the Airport Commission had discussed the property but it was on their
agenda as an information item only. Kebschull added that the Airport Commission
chose to take no action until they were given more information. Kebschull advised they
don't meet again until the second Thursday in June.
MAHURIN STATED SHE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THIS ITEM, PER DIRECTION
FROM THE LAST MEETING, UNDER OLD BUSINESS. WALKER ASKED IF
THERE WAS A SECOND ON THE AMENDMENT? WERNER-QUADE
SECONDED THE REQUEST. WALKER ASKED IF ANYONE OPPOSED THE
ADDITION OF THE RICHKA PARK DISCUSSION. BRYSON STATED HE
WILL ABSTAIN FOR REASONS STATED DURING THE LAST MEETING.
l CITY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
**AGENDA**
Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo
May 22, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Kevin Walker
1. ROLL CALL:
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 8, 1996
4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD:
5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS:
a. PZ96-39-Preliminary Plat, Oberts Pillars Subdivision -Part 2
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
~ a. PZ96-38-Conditional Use Permit-Gov't Lots 83 & 84, Sec. 31, T6N, R11W
b. PZ96-40-Conditional Use Permit-Tract A, Inlet View Subdivision, a
Resubdivision of Tract A
c. PZ96-41-Creation of a Prime Residential Zone
7. NEW BUSINESS:
8. OLD BUSINESS:
9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS:
a. AAA Taxi
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council
b. Borough Planning
c. Administration
11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED:
Planning & Zoning Commission
Agenda
12. INFORMATION ITEMS:
Page 2
May 22, 1996
a. KPB Administrative Approval of Hakkinen Estates Subdivision & Sprucewood
Glen Subdivision No. 7
b. Kenai River Special Management Area Advisor Board Minutes of 4/4/96
c. Work Session on Prime Residential Zone Minutes of 4/10/96
d. Memo from Robert C. Springer, Building Official
13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
14. ADJOURNMENT:
VOTE ON AMENDMENT TO AGENDA:
BRYSON ABSTAIN WERNER-QUADE YES
GOECKE YES BOOTH YES
MAHURIN YES WALKER YES
MOTION PASSED.
VOTE ON APPROVAL OF AGENDA AS AMENDED:
WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES
BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES
BRYSON YES WALKER YES
AGENDA APPROVED.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 8, 1996
BRYSON MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF MAY 8, 1996 AS PRESENTED
AND REQUESTED UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MOTION SECONDED BY
MAHURIN.
Walker asked if any changes to the minutes. None noted. MINUTES APPROVED.
4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD:
5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS:
a. PZ96-39-Preliminary Plat, Oberts Pillars Subdivision -Part 2
GOECKE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PZ96-39 PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR OBERTS PILLARS SUBDIVISION, PART 2. MOTION SECONDED BY
BOOTH.
Walker asked for additional staff comments. La Shot stated no additional comments.
Walker asked if anyone in the public wished to speak to Item 5a, PZ96-39. No
comment. Walker brought item back to Commission for discussion.
VOTE:
GOECKE YES
MAHURIN YES
WERNER-QUADE YES
BOOTH YES
BRYSON YES
WALKER YES
PLAT APPROVED.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes
Page 2
May 22, 1996
~l
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. PZ96-38-Conditional Use Permit-Gov't Lots 83 & 84, Sec. 31, T6N, R11W
BRYSON MOVED TO APPROVE PZ96-38. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE.
Walker asked for additional staff comment. La Shot stated nothing additional.
Public Hearing Opened.
Truman McCrady-Advised he had been on the original Planning & Zoning
Commission for the City of Kenai. McCrady stated he feels that this variance is
degrading to the area for the simple reason that it is urban residential. McCrady
stated he had lived in that area for 40 years. McCrady stated he would encourage the
commission to go against this noting it is a fire hazard. McCrady added that the city
has had very bad luck regulating parks and has had to close them in the evening.
McCrady noted that this is a neighborhood of retired people. If they remove the trees,
it will destroy the noise buffer between the airport and the residential area. McCrady
stated he urged the Commission to vote against this.
Werner-Quade asked if Mr. McCrady had contacted her by phone. Werner-Quade
stated she needed to report an ex parte contact with Mr. McCrady noting that she didn't
feel that what they discussed would effect her decision.
Ann V. King-Stated she strongly objects to the location of a commercial enterprise
being located adjacent to her property at 1109 Third Avenue as well as the other
objections that she stated in a letter to the Commission.
Bobbie Oskolkoff-Oskolkoff stated that to put in commercialism like RV parks in
the city is trashy noting she has never been in a city that sticks their RV parks
downtown. Oskolkoff stated she is close to town. She noted she has been putting in an
$8000 kitchen in her house and between cutting the trees and putting in RV parks, the
city is not enforcing the laws on the garbage. Oskolkoff stated she could name three
homes down there that are a disgrace to the neighborhood noting that they tried to
report it last year. Now, they want an RV park. Oskolkoff stated they were part of the
people who asked for the park on 4th, now there is nothing but pot heads down there
and noted they cannot let their grand kids go down there. Oskolkoff stated there are
brand new homes going down on Birch. Oskolkoff stated she didn't think they needed
to get commercialized in the residential area. Oskolkoff stated she urged the
Commission to start looking at all that stuff that is at the edge of the city noting the
city is a first class city. Oskolkoff said she doesn't feel like selling her home because
they are going to cut the trees down toward the airport noting she will not get the
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3
Minutes May 22, 1996
~ money back out of her kitchen. Oskolkoff stated she wanted to live there commenting
that they are getting older as are several of her neighbors. Oskolkoff stated they are
there because they like the location; they raised their kids there. Oskolkoff stated she
feels like they are being pushed out by all of these things that are going on. Oskolkoff
stated she didn't feel that anybody had considered this was a residential area.
Oskolkoff asked the Commission to consider that they wouldn't want an RV park in
their area.
Ozzie Osborne-Stated he lives at 1106 Third Avenue right across from the planned
RV park. Osborne stated he takes care of the house for the owner and was planning on
buying the property. Osborne stated that if park goes in, he will have to reconsider the
purchase. Osborne noted that the traffic will pick up and it is a gravel road. Osborne
stated the area needs to stay urban residential as it is.
Gene Moyer-Moyer stated he is the petitioner and noted he is new to the area.
Moyer stated he has owned property in the Kenai/Soldotna area for ten years, moving
up from Oregon. Moyer stated he is a retired police officer and knows what riff raff
amounts to. Moyer stated he bought this piece of property in rundown condition noting
he has put a substantial amount of money into this property and has cleaned up the
area. Moyer added that the people who walk up and down the road everyday should
notice that they have been cleaning up the garbage. Moyer stated beyond his place,
there is a whole bunch of garbage along the road. Moyer stated he chose not to contact
any of the neighbors for one reason, to see if anyone would contact him to see what his
plans were. Moyer noted he has owned property in Oregon for a number of years and is
under a forest deferral plan there and he does not cut trees. Moyer stated he has cut
one tree on the property and that was it. He has pulled up some small ones because of
their locations. Moyer stated he has replanted a number of trees. Moyer asked the
group to rest assured that he will not go in and clear cut the property. Moyer noted the
RV park is for four spots. Moyer noted he had visited the Visitor Center and they had
stated they need some place for people to camp and that is same with a controlled
environment. Moyer stated they also stated they needed an RV park. Moyer stated he
figured four RV's could go in the lower part along the swell and they would be there
during the two months in the summer, not along-term project. The tents, Moyer stated
this was one of the big items noted, they claimed the city has six tent spots in town.
Moyer stated that on this same note, across the street behind the airport, the city has
put in camping spots. Moyer stated he didn't know how true that was but there has
been some excavating in there and spots cleared and gravel put in. Moyer stated he
didn't know who would be allowed to use the spots. Moyer added there are lots of kids
in the neighborhood noting he has had his kitchen window shot out and his pickup
window shot out and broken. Moyer stated he did not call the police. Instead, he went
to the children and they agreed to do some additional cleaning up of the property.
Moyer stated the alternative to this would be to probably build another house, two
houses, three houses, or whatever. Moyer stated they could legitimately put six kids in
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4
Minutes May 22, 1996
each house, then there would be 18 more kids there. Moyer noted they would cut out a
lot of trees excavating the property to build additional buildings. Moyer commented
that he had done this only as a stepping stone to find out what the need for the area
was. Moyer stated the current building that is there is a duplex and commented that
maybe they need a bed and breakfast type operation in there. Moyer stated they have
no objections to amend the permit to drop the tents, drop the RV's but they would like
to have a bed and breakfast to increase the income from the property. Moyer stated
that people will notice that he does have camp trailers that he parks there and will
have relatives driving into the area that will be parking their RV in his back yard
sometime during the summer. Moyer noted that whatever the decision of the
Commission, there would be garbage cans, toilet facilities, and the area policed and
kept up if there was anybody who came in to park their RV or to camp in tents
overnight. Moyer advised he would answer questions.
Mahurin asked Moyer if he intended to live on the property and run the operation
himself. Moyer stated they intend to live upstairs in the duplex. Mahurin clarified he
would be living there year round.
Booth asked Moyer if he planned on installing rest rooms or how would he plan to take
care of this accommodation. Moyer stated he had contacted the people who have the
portable toilets and they would service them once a week or whatever is decided is
needed. Moyer stated the other alternative would be to put a bath house on wheels and
find some way to attach it to his sewer line and use it that way. Booth asked if he
planned on having fire pits on the property for the tent campers. Moyer stated he
would like to have that but noted if you can't burn trash there, you certainly don't want
to have camp fires.
Zoya Oskolkoff-Oskolkoff noted she had grew up at the end of Birch Street and now
she is lucky enough to rent a house next door to her parents. Oskolkoff stated that RV
parks would ruin the area noting it is a residential area. There are a lot of kids in the
area. Oskolkoff stated that public toilets are not what anybody wants to see where they
live and drive. Oskolkoff stated she didn't feel RV parks belong where you live. RV
parks belong where you want to attract attention for the tourist industry even if it is
downtown. Oskolkoff added that Birch Drive and Float Plane Road is not a tourist
industry and doesn't get along where there are families.
Foster Walters-Walters noted he lives at 214 Birch Street and has lived there for 16
years. Walters stated he is opposed to the whole thing noting he wrote a letter and
asked that it be read. Walters stated he hasn't much to add except the outhouses would
be terrible. The outhouses would smell, you would have fire hazard, and a road that
was supposed to be paved years ago for access to the Float Plane Basin. Walters stated
it didn't work that way and stated he knows how things work and this will be another
disaster if it goes through.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5
Minutes May 22, 1996
~ Raphael Moore-Stated he has been before the Commission several times and stated
they will keep beating the issue until somebody wins. Moore commented that if Moyer
wants to buy his property and other property, let him make a bid. Moore stated he
didn't think it was right for someone who has money to come in and do what they want
to do, when they want to do it, anyway they want to. Moore asked what you call that.
Moore stated he called it unreal. Moore stated he thought it was time that somebody
sat down before things really start happening.
Michael Christian-Christian stated he lives in Woodland Subdivision. Christian
stated he would like to point out there are zones for residential areas and zones for
commercial activities. Christian stated the more encroachment of commercial into the
residential area, the more the quality of life will deteriorate. Christian stated he
doesn't see a real problem with a bed and breakfast; however, the RV park even though
suggested for four spaces could be expanded. Christian stated that Moyer had said he
could build houses there and noted that is what residential areas are for and
commented he felt that would be a much better choice for that area. Christian stated
he would suggest they turn down the RV section of the proposal.
Kristine Schmidt-Schmidt stated she also lives in Woodland Subdivision and would
like to echo the comments made by Mike Christian. Schmidt stated she is against any
encroachment of commercial activities into residential areas. That is why there are
residential zones. Schmidt commented that Conditional Use Permits, although
permitted in the zoning code, should be very sparingly, if ever, approved. Schmidt
stated she felt the appropriate usage for residential areas is for residences. Schmidt
stated that increased traffic because of the commercial nature of the activity would be a
nuisance to the residential neighborhood. Schmidt noting that Mr. Moyer had said he
would not cut trees, stated she appreciated that but there is no guarantee that that
won't happen as he would need space for R.V.'s and campsites. Schmidt stated the fact
that Third Avenue is unpaved and it is very dusty in the summertime from the
residents. Schmidt asked the Commission to vote against the project as designed.
Chairman Walker asked that the letter from Mr. Walters be read into the record.
Letter read into record by Kebschull and body of the letter as follows:
"Please read this letter at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
on May 22, 1996. We have no objection to the Moyers getting a permit for
a Bed and Breakfast at their residence but we are opposed to the R.V.
parking and overnight camping to be located at Third Avenue and Float
Plane Road (Gov't .Lots 83 and 84, Section 31, T6N, R11W), Kenai, Alaska.
We oppose for the following reasons:
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6
Minutes May 22, 1996
~~ 1. Third Avenue is a gravel street. More traffic will create more dust and
noise in the neighborhood.
2. If Lots 83 and 84 are cleared or partially cleared of trees for parking and
camping, the airport noise buffer for the homes on Third Avenue will be
destroyed. As it is, summertime float plane noise exceeds acceptable
levels.
3. If RV parking and overnight camping were permitted on these lots, fire
danger would increase for the homes on the block between Second and
Third on Birch from barbecue grills and other camping fires.
4. An RV park and overnight camping would increase traffic to the
residential neighborhood at all hours of the day and night. Noise is the
least of the disturbing situations such a facility would create.
5. The residents on Third Avenue between Birch Street and Float Plane Road
are retired people and do not want the area to become noisy and possibly
dangerous because of a transient population.
6. The Float Plane Road is already littered with broken glass and other
debris. An overnight camping area would only add to the litter problem."
Letter was signed by Foster H. Walter, 214 Birch Street, Kenai, 283-7305, and also by
Virginia E. Walters.
Chairman Walker asked if any other public comment on this item.
McCrady-Noted he would like to make a correction and that there is no such address
as the Float Plane address stating it is on Third Avenue. McCrady stated they have
never numbered any of the streets on Float Plane. McCrady stated that 1105 Float
Plane should be 1105 Third Avenue.
Public Hearing Closed.
Goecke stated that there was substantial neighborhood input as far as the camping part
of the permit. Goecke added that the applicant had stated he would not be opposed to
only a bed and breakfast. Goecke stated in light of testimony that that might be a good
way to proceed. Walker asked if Goecke wished to make an amendment at this time.
GOECKE MOVED TO AMEND PZ96-38 THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT BE FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST ONLY AND NOT THE R.V. PARK
AND CAMPING. MOTION SECONDED BY BOOTH.
Bryson stated he is a resident in the general area and is well aware of the nature of the
neighborhood. Bryson stated that commercial or semi-commercial development can
effect the area with such low density. Bryson stated that he feels that the R.V. facility
and overnight camping are inappropriate for the area. Bryson stated he will be
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7
Minutes May 22, 1996
~~ supporting the amendment. Bryson asked if the item could be passed back to the public
regarding the bed and breakfast only and see if there was additional input in that
regard if the amendment is approved.
Booth stated he is somewhat opposed to the project the way it stands because of the
camping and because of the R.V. park. Booth stated he felt it is inappropriate to have
port-a-potties and camp fires in the residential neighborhood. Booth stated he does
support approval of a bed and breakfast for that area.
Bryson stated the petitioner requested the status of camping that is planned in the
airport area and wondered if the administration could advise the status of that
situation.
La Shot stated that he felt Councilman Smalley could better answer that question.
Smalley advised he is not fully aware of the number of sites but it is only a few. The
Airport Commission a couple years ago decided it would be nice to have a facility
available for the itinerant float plane pilots to spend the night. Smalley stated that to
the best of his knowledge he doesn't think it has ever been used. Smalley stated that in
talking with the Airport Manager at council meetings when it came up as a discussion
item, it had yet to be used. Smalley stated the sites have been in almost two years.
Walker stated he would like to comment that the Planning & Zoning Commission was
bypassed on that particular decision in it's entirety and added that they would have
strongly objected to it. Bryson commented that the camping is tent camping only and it
is not adrive-in situation.
Mahurin stated that whether the Airport Commission put in camp sites she felt is
irrelevant on this issue. Mahurin added she would like to pursue that issue at another
time. Mahurin added she will support the amendment to eliminate the R.V. parking
and the camping and she would like to hear input from the public about the bed and
breakfast. Mahurin noted she still has a lot of concerns so would like to hear from the
neighbors. Mahurin stated she too lives in that neighborhood and is trying to be
objective and not let it influence her decision; however, records shows she is strongly
interested in the float plane area and in the airport buffer. Mahurin added that houses
would provide a different type of a buffer if that is what the property owner wishes to
do. Mahurin stated she would like to hear public testimony regarding the bed and
breakfast and would support the amendment so far.
Chairman Walker stated he felt it would be appropriate before taking additional public
testimony, to vote on the amendment. Then, open the amended issue up for public
hearing.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT:
BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8
Minutes May 22, 1996
~ BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES
GOECKE YES WALKER YES
AMENDMENT PASSED.
Chairman Walker advised that PZ96-38 has been amended to provide for a bed and
breakfast only.
Public Hearing Reopened.
Bobbie Oskolkoff-Stated she does tours of the Russian Church and there is a need
for places for people to stay. Oskolkoff added that there is a need for tent campers
commenting that she doesn't want them in her neighborhood. Oskolkoff stated she had
a suggestion noting that the city used to have camping until cannery workers ruined it.
Oskolkoff suggested opening up like other parks and charge noting that the city does
have to accommodate tent campers. Oskolkoff questioned how many people Moyer
would intend on having in his bed and breakfast. Oskolkoff stated she is not opposed to
the bed and breakfast adding that her contact with the tourist has been really good.
Oskolkoff added that that goes for the motorhomes but she doesn't want them in her
neighborhood. Oskolkoff reiterated her concern would be how many people Mr. Moyer
would want to stay there and how much traffic would be coming and if he would be
open year round. Oskolkoff stated she would like to know more about the bed and
breakfast. Oskolkoff added that her cousin had one in Ninilchik and never had a
problem, the guests were doctors, lawyers, people like you. Oskolkoff commented it is
his home and if he feels it is safe to have someone in his home, that is probably his
business. Oskolkoff stated there is no difference between bed and breakfast or foster
kids as long as it takes place in the home and he lives there.
Chairman Walker asked Mr. Moyer if he would care to respond asking how many
persons he wished to have at the bed and breakfast. Moyer stated there are three
bedrooms and they anticipate putting in the neighborhood of six single beds and maybe
a seventh. Moyer stated a maximum of eight at any one time and that would be a
family group. Moyer stated there won't be a lot of traffic with the bed and breakfast
adding that there is a lot of traffic from Float Plane Road from people outside of his
neighborhood. Moyer added they use it as a speedway and throw bottles, etc. but he
doesn't think the people from the bed and breakfast will cause a problem. Moyer stated
he has a grandson patrol the road and take the glass off the road. Moyer commented
that 1105 Float Plane is a legitimate address noting he had requested that it be
because of the fire department, phone, and electric companies decided that would be the
appropriate way to identify that piece of property. Moyer added that the driveway is off
of Float Plane Road.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 9
Minutes May 22, 1996
~~} Virginia Walters-Stated she lives at 213 Birch. Walters stated they were not
opposed to the bed and breakfast noting that the former resident always had the
basement rented. Walters stated that it has been legitimately a two family dwelling for
a long time. The only objection would be making sure the egress was on Float Plane
Road so they wouldn't get more traffic on Third Avenue. Walters added that hopefully
there would not be another cabin built to accommodate more people.
Zoya Oskolkoff-Stated she doesn't oppose the bed and breakfast. Oskolkoff stated
she wondered why they couldn't have someone patrolling the Float Plane Road adding
it is like an abandoned road. Oskolkoff commented there is the Float Plane Basin, kids
up and down the road, and it is a bad spot for riff raff. Oskolkoff stated she worries
about her kids and wonders what they will see. Oskolkoff added there was an incident
with the police department on the road even though she doesn't know how true it was.
Oskolkoff wondered if it could be patrolled more.
Chairman Walker advised the P&Z would have no direction to the police department
one way or another and should be addressed through council or administration.
Leon Quesnel-Stated he lives in Woodland Subdivision and would like to note he
supports the bed and breakfast and not the R.V. park.
Mr. McCrady-Stated he is a little bit on the fence about the bed and breakfast
adding a toe in the door is just before you get the head in. McCrady stated he would be
opposed to a bed and breakfast adding what would be next. McCrady stated that
ordinances as they have been protected over the years. McCrady stated that Third
Avenue had been promised to have been paved eight or nine years ago but that was the
last time he ever saw anybody. McCrady stated the dust is bad and there is high speed
driving even now without anything there.
Mr. Walters-Noted that as he had stated in his letter that was read, he is not opposed
to the bed and breakfast but would like to be assured of it that is doesn't expand.
Walters stated if it is contained to that residence, he has no problem at all. Walters
said they don't want another house built with it turned into a bed and breakfast or a
cabin built. Walters added that he doesn't know if there is anyway to restrict it to that.
Kristine Schmidt-Stated she wanted to express the same feelings as Mr. Walters.
Schmidt noting that one of the problems with Conditional Use Permits is that they
come back on you later as the next person along the line thinks there is grandfather
rights and want to expand the use. Schmidt asked that if they are going to approve a
conditional use for bed and breakfast, that it be as restrictive as possible to the existing
residence so that the next person along the line can't use it as a toe hold to put
eventually a bigger, more expanded commercial type development.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 10
Minutes May 22, 1996
>>,, Raphael Moore-Stated he would like to second what was just said.
Ann King-Stated she wanted to agree with what Mr. McCrady said and wanted
reiterate her objections to the entire thing.
Chairman Walker stated that before closing the public hearing he wanted to read
something into the record as there has been a great deal of discussion on this item.
Walker stated this is Ordinance 14.20.321, Bed & Breakfast establishments, under A,
"It is the intent of this chapter to permit bed and breakfast establishments by
conditional use which is compatible with other permitted uses with the residential
character of a neighborhood and which is clearly secondary or incidental to the
residential use of the main building. Under B, Provided that these establishments shall
be owner operated, not more than one person outside of the family shall be employed in
the bed and breakfast, rent out no more than 30 percent of total floor area, have
adequate off street parking for owner and all guests and shall meet all other
requirements as set forth by the Planning & Zoning Commission as set forth at the time
of the public hearing. Item C is, "The bed and breakfast establishment must meet all
area height and setback requirements of the zones of which they are allowed according
to the Land Use Table."
Walker noted that this may allay some of the concerns as to how much room may be
used on this item, only 30 percent of this specific building may be used under this
permit. Walker asked if there were any other comments from the general public.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mahurin stated she would like to ask Mr. Moyer, nothing he had originally sounded like
he wanted 50 percent of the house to be used, if with the 30 percent he still wished to
proceed with the permit. Moyer responded yes adding that would be two bedrooms out
of three and asked if that would allow use of bathrooms. Chairman Walker advised
that includes the total square footage of the dwelling. Moyer asked if they were saying
that would be two bedrooms and a bath and they wouldn't have access to the kitchen,
living room, etc. Walker stated the Commission doesn't draw the line on where they
would or would not have access. Walker added they are allowed to rent out 30 percent.
Mahurin clarified that is of the total square footage of the building. Mahurin asked if
they intend to keep the entrance to the home coming off of Float Plane Road. Moyer
confirmed this.
Goecke stated that in reference to the traffic only coming in off of Float Plane Road,
that the Commission cannot control that traffic flow. Goecke noted this information is
per the memo from the Building Official in the packet. Goecke stated the traffic issue
was a moot point.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 1
Minutes May 22, 1996
Chairman Walker asked for roll on Bed & Breakfast only.
VOTE:
MAHURIN YES BRYSON YES
WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES
BOOTH YES WALKER YES
UNANIMOUS.
Chairman Walker noted the item passed as a bed and breakfast only.
b. PZ96-40-Conditional Use Permit-Tract A, Inlet View Subdivision, a
Resubdivision of Tract A
MAHURIN MOVED TO APPROVE PZ96-40. MOTION SECONDED BY
WERNER-QUADE.
Walker asked for any additional staff comments. La Shot stated nothing additional.
Walker noted the additional packet provided to the Commission.
Public Hearing Opened.
Michael Christian-Christian noted there were a large number of people in the
audience who may not be aware of what this is.
Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience representing this item.
Nate Kiel-Kiel advised he was the applicant for the CUP. Kiel advised the purpose
for the permit would be to erect a cellular site on Tract A1. Kiel stated he was
approached a month or so ago by the people at Mactel who are interested in putting a
70 to 75 foot monopod cell tower somewhere in the central city area. Kiel stated his
initial reaction was that he was skeptical. After looking it over and investigating it,
Kiel stated he decided to apply for the CUP. Kiel stated the area adjoins Tract A2
which Kiel stated belongs to him and is where his home is. Tract Al is off Lawton
Drive. The land next to Tract A1, Tract B is zoned conservation which would be a
principle use for something like this. Kiel stated his initial skepticism was because he
wasn't sure what the tower entailed. Kiel noted he has a nice, rural country setting
where his home is. It is fairly secluded. Kiel stated he didn't want to cut down a bunch
of trees and have a big, ugly tower to look at. Kiel stated that after examining things,
and looking at pictures of other sites, reading the literature, and visiting with their
engineer, Kiel stated he is convinced that it wouldn't be an obtrusive structure at all.
Kiel stated it is a monopod type tower and wouldn't have guide wires or require that the
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 12
Minutes May 22, 1996
} lot be clear cut. Kiel stated the lot itself is 200 feet off Lawton Drive. Kiel stated his
home is another 180 feet deep so to the back edge of the Rogers Road neighborhood, it is
379 feet or something like that. There are lots of trees. Kiel stated he has spoken
personally with several folks, notably all four adjoining property owners. Kiel stated
Mr. Bailey adjoins his property and he has spoken with him as well as the other owners
on the side of his lot A2. Kiel stated that before he did anything he wanted to talk to
people personally and to see their reaction and to explain what it entailed. Kiel stated
it is a 75 foot tower. Kiel stated there are several trees in the 55 to 60 foot range all
over those two lots. Kiel stated there is a buffer between Lawton Drive. Kiel
commented he has big beautiful spruce and huge birch trees which would help buffer
the cell site from Lawton Drive. Kiel stated he also has at least 100 feet of buffer zone
between his home and where the cell site would be loaded with trees. On the other side
of the house there is 80 feet or so between the back side of the Rogers Road
neighborhood and that is all trees. Kiel stated he has no intention of clear cutting the
trees and that was one of the first thing he told the engineers. Kiel stated that is the
proposal.
Questions from audience:
Where is this in relation to the golf course and Wooded Glen Court?
Kiel stated if you turn at 7-11 on Walker Lane and take an immediate left down
Lawton toward Rogers Road and the high school, you pass the Baptist Church on the
right. Just past that is a gully with city lift station, also on the left between the
highway and Lawton Drive it is completely wiped out where the city allowed the road
builders to use as a facility. Kiel stated that just past the gully there are a few gravel
driveways, it is the first gravel driveway on the right is the property in question.
Are you leasing this land?
Kiel stated at this point nothing is leased and there isn't even an agreement.
Would you be paid for use?
Kiel stated he would be paid if an agreement is reached. Kiel stated he will be leasing
the land to Mactel.
Do you have any family relationship with Mactel?
Kiel stated none at all.
It is strictly business?
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 13
Minutes May 22, 1996
,~ Kiel stated he has never met them and they approached him looking for a site.
Is there any strategic reason for positioning this at that location?
Kiel stated they are looking for the strongest signals. Kiel stated they haven't even
talked specifics or dollars. Kiel stated there is one natural clearing and doesn't want to
cut down any more trees than are necessary. Kiel stated he has been assured that
whenever they pull out, they take everything with them. Kiel stated the lot in question
is over a half acre.
Does this cause interference with t.v.'s in the neighborhood?
Kiel stated they had told him it wouldn't but he would let them answer that question.
How large of a gravel pad would they need?
Kiel stated the gravel pad on the initial map they put down a 40 by 40 foot gravel pad.
Kiel stated this is one are he plans to talk to them about because he doesn't want it to
be that big. Kiel stated it wouldn't be larger than what a home would take up.
Do they put in a separate road to the site?
Kiel stated they would turn off his driveway which goes down to the end of the lot line,
across his half acre, and they would turn in and it would be a short drive of 40 to 50 feet
in.
Chance Blemer-Stated he is with Mactel Cellular. Blemer stated he wanted to
answer a couple questions. Blemer noted that one of their cell sites is between Kenai
and Soldotna at Site 17. Blemer stated they don't have the density coverage that they
need for the Kenai/Soldotna area. This site would be strategically located stating they
had drawn a circle on a map and they need to be somewhere in this area. Blemer
advised he had met Kiel at the high school when attempting to locate people to contact
to try to find a location. Blemer stated he had spoken with Kiel who had advised he
had property in the area. Blemer stated it is a 75 foot monopole and it stands by itself.
Blemer stated it looks like a street pole and it is galvanized in color. There are no guide
lines and does not require a light since it is under 200 feet. Blemer stated he would like
to say that the pictures that were provided are deceiving. Blemer stated that is a
picture of a site outside of Anchorage in the middle of a construction gravel pit. The
tower and building look like what is proposed but they have assured Kiel that they will
cut as few trees as possible. Blemer stated they want to do this for: 1. Better coverage
for Mactel to support the fishing industry on the lower side of the bluff; 2. To better
support the downtown shopping areas; 3. For tourism; and 4. For safety reasons.
Blemer stated there is a document out by the federal government called an OST 65 but
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 14
Minutes May 22, 1996
~ added he was unable to get a copy for the meeting. Blemer noted it states that there is
no harm by radiation. They are rated by power by certain calculations and factors.
Blemer commented that there would be 50 times more power off an FM broadcasting
than this site.
Questions from the audience:
What range does this cover, square mile area?
Blemer stated that right now the coverage off of cell site 17 you can actually make a
phone call from outside the parking lot. Blemer stated they are trying to increase
density because of buildings and concrete walls, even trees will cause density. Coverage
is unpredictable but he would say between a 10 to 15 mile radius.
The actual location could be within a few hundred yards or a half mile, plus or minus?
Blemer stated it could be.
Any particular reason you selected this site?
Blemer stated he didn't have a lot of contacts in the area and meeting Kiel at the high
school and Kiel stating that he had a lot.
Did you check with any commercial people in the area?
Blemer stated HEA has entertained the thought of allowing them to build on their
property behind the Jeep Eagle dealership. Blemer stated that HEA cannot guarantee
that within the next year and a half when they start developing that area that they
would not have to relocate the cell site. Mactel is probably investing a quarter of a
million dollars for this installation and they need a five to ten year guarantee. Blemer
commented that they are here to stay and are not here to make fast money.
Comment from audience stating they live in the Inlet View Subdivision and it appears
to them that this is a commercial venture that belongs in a commercial area and not in
a residential area. That is why he was trying to clarify the location and to see if it
couldn't be at the high school itself.
Blemer stated he is not from the area and used the contact with Kiel to propose this
site.
Comment from audience that Mactel advertises they are a local company and noted
that Blemer is not. Blemer responded he has been here since October living out of
Anchorage but Kenai is his responsibility.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 15
Minutes May 22, 1996
Is this the type of device that could be put on top of a tall building. Blemer stated if
there was one tall enough and the support structure was tall enough. Blemer noted
that most of the cell sites in Anchorage are installed like that. How tall does the
building have to be. Blemer stated they are looking for about 75 feet to provide the
coverage and to overlook down the bluff.
Mahurin, noting her questions are from ignorance, asked if this interferes with
televisions, c.b.s, pace makers, fillings in teeth? Blemer asked if she had ever used a
phone and if it has ever bothered her. Blemer stated that is one of the things that the
OST 65 will answer. Mahurin stated she if feeling uncomfortable since none of them
know enough about it, she is not sure she knows enough to vote yes or no. Mahurin
added that perhaps reading something like that could help them to understand a little
more of what this is before they voted on it. Blemer stated what he could relate is that
right across the back area where it looks like a couple of satellite dishes, etc., this
particular location will put out around 250 watts. Blemer stated most broadcast
stations and high powered ham gear are putting out 15,000 to 50,000 KW watts of
power. Blemer noted that is the difference in power.
Ron Hansen-Hansen stated he lives in Inlet View Subdivision and presented a letter
from Betsy Arbelovsky. Hansen noted she had been one of the property owners
contacted. Hansen stated he had just been notified two days ago about this. Hansen
stated he is in agreement with Mr. Rich that they ought to try to keep subdivisions
residential and keep commercial ventures in their zone. Hansen stated he has lived
there in Inlet View 16 years and has watched it grow. Hansen said it is a quiet
subdivision and would hate to see it turn commercial. Hansen stated he is against the
zoning change.
Lewis Rich-Rich advised the Commission had heard some of his questions. Rich
reiterated stating he feels this is a commercial venture and belongs in a commercial
zone. Rich stated he has been in the area for 7 years and has grown to like that
neighborhood. Rich stated after listening to Mactel he didn't feel that they had really
done their homework in the situation and explored opportunities in the commercial
area. Rich stated if this is a paid for plot of land there ought to be people who have land
on the Spur Highway that might be willing to lease property to Mactel. Rich stated he
felt that they ought to explore further rather than select a site based upon a casual
acquaintance. Rich stated it is encroaching on them. Rich advised they had looked at
the trees and did not have time to measure them but as Mrs. Arbelovsky stated in her
letter, they are never sure when the trees will disappear. This could be through spruce
beetle kill, etc. Rich reiterated that he felt it should be in a commercial zone.
Dianna Alvey-Alvey advised she is the local manager of Mactel. Alvey stated that
their engineer is from Anchorage but all of Mactel people have been hired locally and
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 16
Minutes May 22, 1996
-~ live here noting she has lived here 14 years. Alvey stated they are concerned with the
community and has explored a lot of different avenues before Blemer got involved.
Alvey advised that a lot of areas that they have looked at haven't worked out. Alvey
stated this site looked like it might work out with the land owner wanting to do it.
Alvey stated the cellular is very clean, there isn't a lot of traffic. Alvey stated they need
to have better coverage in the area and this has been brought to their attention by the
fire department, police departments, and state troopers. Alvey noted they are trying to
remedy the problem.
Bryson asked how many competing companies work the same area. Alvey advised two
cellular companies are allowed in each area. One is owned by the local telephone
company and the other is free enterprise and awarded through a lottery. Bryson noted
that a few weeks ago in the news it was reported that waves from the phone itself was
affecting pace makers. Alvey stated that most of the phones today are made under very
strict rules and regulations. Alvey stated that some that are cheaper and don't adhere
to the codes in place might do that. Alvey stated that all the phones that they sell are
very high quality phones. Blemer stated that she hasn't heard of it personally (unclear
as speaking from audience.) Someone in the audience stated they had heard it and that
certain type of pace makers can be affected if you were to wear you r phone in your
breast pocket and it was to ring, it could cause a disturbance.
Lady in audience stated she had a pace maker and it takes a huge magnet to make it
act up noting that she has to put on it every two months to transmit over the phone to
see if the battery is good or not. She added that she didn't think cell phones had big
enough magnets in them unless placed directly over the pace maker.
Nate Kiel-Kiel stated he wanted to clarify that he had contacted all of the adjoining
property owners including the only property owner he thinks will be able to see this
thing. That is Mr. Bailey who owns the four to five acres adjacent to his land. Kiel
stated there will be a buffer zone even between his property. Bailey advised he
wouldn't contest, nor were the other three. Kiel stated his new home adjoins that
property and the last thing that he wants to do is lower the value of that property and
home. Kiel stated he will be very aware of how this is placed and not cutting down
trees. Finally, Kiel stated he realized that it is residential but if you have driven by
and looked at the lot, it borders the conservation land, the lift station is right there,
heavy duty equipment is right across the street adding there are so many trees there he
doesn't see this as being obtrusive. Kiel stated he had walked throughout Norman
Street and had visited with people even the one who wrote the letter. Kiel stated he
had been asked to have a meeting and the meeting never happened but he had been
there. Kiel stated he didn't see that an antenna that was going to stick up 10 to 15 feet
above that tree line over a football field and a half length away from those homes on the
right side of Norman Street how they will see the antenna.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 17
Minutes May 22, 1996
Walker asked how far away from Inlet View Subdivision he was located. Kiel stated it
would be something like a football field length from the back side of the homes on
Susieanna Lane. Kiel stated from Norman Street it would even be further.
Mr. Rich from the audience stated he would like to rebut noting the further away the
higher the probability you have of seeing the structure. Rich stated they didn't
measure the trees but they could but 50 feet high which will put that antenna about 25
feet higher than those trees. Rich stated this is a commercial venture with an
electronic device and he doesn't think it belongs in this area. Rich stated he lives two
houses down from Mrs. Arbelovsky and thinks they have a good opportunity to see this
thing.
Public Hearing Closed.
MAHURIN MOVED TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING
WHEN IT COULD BE READVERTISED AS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MORE
OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA. MAHURIN ADDED THAT ON A PERSONAL
LEVEL SHE WOULD LIKE MORE TIME TO STUDY WHAT SHE IS VOTING
ON.
CHAIRMAN WALKER ADVISED THIS IS A NONDEBATABLE MOTION.
WALKER ASKED IF THERE WAS A SECOND TO THE MOTION. NO SECOND,
AMENDMENT DIES.
Walker asked for further discussion.
Mahurin stated she is concerned that she does not feel knowledgeable enough to vote on
the issue. Mahurin stated she would like to know more about it adding that she knows
Mr. Kiel and respects his opinion and believe him fully when he says what will happen
with the trees. Mahurin stated that Mrs. Arbelovsky mentioned in her letter that there
are many more people who would like to testify but because of high school graduation
tonight they are not able to attend. Mahurin stated if they have to vote on this tonight,
she will have to vote no for many reasons where it may be a positive thing. Mahurin
added that since there was no second to her motion she doesn't feel she has a choice.
Goecke stated he felt part of this could be cleared up by asking the secretary how many
of the notifications were received back from the registered letters. Goecke stated he got
his notice, noting he owns property in the area, a minimum ten days ago, almost two
weeks ago. Goecke stated he was sure he was not the only one who had sent back and
signed for their registered letter.
Kebschull advised she would have to take a recess and pull the file to give an exact
number. Goecke stated he didn't feel that it was that important but asked if everyone
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 18
Minutes May 22, 1996
who was sent a letter to did in fact receive that letter. Kebschull advised that is correct.
Kebschull added that everyone within 300 fee were notified.
Bryson stated that he felt that trees typically average around between 40 and 60 feet in
virtually the whole area. Bryson stated he didn't feel from a distance this will be much
more of an obtrusive situation than an antenna on top of a two story building in an area
that is nominally cleared of trees along the road. Bryson stated he feels in the long run
there will probably be 15 feet of this antenna visible above the trees. Bryson stated
that it will be more visible the further you get away from it but conversely the closer
you are the less you see it.
Werner-Quade commented that she lives in the area and knows Lawton well. Werner-
Quade stated she knows where Kiel lives but doesn't know him personally. Werner-
Quade stated she sees this as a business venture on his part, maybe he wants to make a
little money without having to put in a duplex or an R.V. park. It is his property and he
has decided to put, in her opinion, anon-obtrusive structure. He will retain the trees.
He lives behind the structure and it is a drop off bluff area. Werner-Quade stated it
might impact a few but she doesn't think the impact will be great in that area. Werner-
Quade stated she would support the CUP.
VOTE:
BRYSON YES
GOECKE YES
MAHURIN NO
WERNER-QUADE YES
BOOTH YES
WALKER YES
PASSED 5 TO 1.
Recess from 8:35 to 8:48 p.m.
c. PZ96-41-Creation of a Prime Residential Zone
GOECKE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PZ96-41, CREATION OF A PRIME
RESIDENTIAL ZONE. MOTION SECONDED BY MAHURIN.
Public Hearing Opened.
Michael Christian-Christian stated that they would like to have each individual
item discussed rather than as a package so that they can come up with something that
is acceptable to everyone.
Kristine Schmidt-Schmidt stated she thought that the people that were before the
Commission on the last two items are a good reason why you should support a prime
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 19
Minutes May 22, 1996
'~ residential zone. Schmidt stated that one of the things about this zone that will be
useful if it is adopted is that you won't have to be dealing with waking up one morning
with a notice in the mail that ten days from now there will be an R.V. park next door or
a 50 lot subdivision, or a radio tower. There would be no conditional uses in a prime
residential zone. Schmidt stated she hoped that they would accept the zone as they
were talking about it in the work session. Schmidt stated she is not clear where the
Commission is and would appreciate it if someone would advise her of the status of the
zone. At the last work session Schmidt attended she stated that the Commission
appeared to be favoring a zone with some limitations as far as no conditional use and a
larger lot size about 12,000 or so. Schmidt stated they don't get copies of the packets.
Lastly, Schmidt stated that she thought if they were going to have planning and zoning
in the city they need to have every tool available at their disposal. Schmidt stated they
came here a year ago to protest Richka Park Estates Subdivision and were told that
the city couldn't restrict the subdivision to single family residents because the city
doesn't have that zone. Schmidt stated that after a lot of work from the people in their
subdivision they came back with a zone. Schmidt stated these zones could be used as
negotiating tools with developers. Schmidt stated that she felt that was common
knowledge that they could tell a developer they wouldn't accept a development as it is
but is you come back with this zoning they might accept it. Schmidt stated she felt they
should look at this as the best negotiating tool that they have with developers. Schmidt
stated if they didn't like the fact they were proposing a gravel road and onsite septic you
could vote it down and tell them if they come back with a prime residential zone you'll
1 accept it. Schmidt stated she didn't know why the Commission would not want to have
this kind of tool for now and for the future. Schmidt stated that the course of events in
this borough are changing and people are not interested in the high intensity
development as in the past. Cooper Landing has voted to put buffer areas in their area
and restrict commercial activity, the borough is discussing limitations on gravel pits
and requiring buffer areas around them. Schmidt stated she thought the trend is that
people will be advocating more for a higher quality of life rather than allowing "willy
nilly" kind of development around town. Schmidt urged the commission to accept a
more restrictive residential zone. Schmidt stated they would love to put this residential
zone on Woodland Subdivision is they could convince their neighbors. Schmidt added
there is no limitation on multi-family housing even in their subdivision. Schmidt urged
the Commission to vote in favor of the residential zone and not to water it down.
Schmidt stated if they were going to water it down and let a lot of conditional uses in,
just vote it down and let them put an initiative on the ballot. Schmidt asked the
Commission not to water it down anymore.
Chairman Walker advised Schmidt he would like to address a couple questions. Walker
stated there are some condition uses listed in this zone those being for churches,
elementary schools, libraries, parks and rec, daycare centers. Walker noted those are
the permits that are currently listed in the proposed resolution. Walker stated that in
Woodland Subdivision there are multi-family dwellings and except for under a
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 20
Minutes May 22, 1996
~) grandfather clause qualify. Walker asked if Schmidt had any areas of town that she
would like to see zoned in this particular zone or do you know of any developers that are
desirous of this particular zone. Walker stated you cannot simply zone someone else's
property.
Schmidt stated you could and that is where the comprehensive plan comes from.
Schmidt stated you have to start somewhere and you can put zones on or overlay zones
on such as the KPB just did. Schmidt stated she knew it was true that it probably
would not be popular and some of the developers in the area would not be in favor of it.
Schmidt continued that some of them their practice is to build as cheap and as fastest
as possible. Schmidt stated she would like to remind them that the developer who put
in Woodland, at least parts one and two, had something a little bit more of quality in
mind. Schmidt stated that if this zone had been available then she believed they would
have used it. Schmidt stated that while you say you can't impose the zone, you can use
it as a negotiating tool. Schmidt continued saying she didn't know why they wouldn't
want to have such a tool available. Schmidt stated she didn't see why having this on
the books would be a negative thing noting you can tell a developer that they don't like
what they have but here is a good zone that if used you would consider. Schmidt stated
that Mr. La Shot spoke a couple meetings ago advising he had told a developer who had
been turned down is that if he would pave the roads and have city water and sewer that
his subdivision would probably go through. Schmidt stated there is a negotiating
process going on and believes this zone could be used for this as well as developers who
would like a better quality of subdivision. Schmidt stated she would be opposed to
daycare centers as a conditional use noting she didn't see a problem with the rest of
those Walker had listed.
Bryson stated he was getting a mixed message noting that Schmidt had indicated she
didn't want them to modify the zone and then that you would like it to apply to
Woodland Subdivision. Schmidt responded she was not sure where they were at with
the zone noting that she doesn't have a current version of what they are looking at.
Schmidt stated she is speaking from ignorance and doesn't know what the lot size is
that is being proposed. Bryson stated the numbers are as was originally proposed.
Schmidt stated she didn't know what those were. Bryson stated 15,000 square foot lot
which would virtually eliminate all of Woodland Subdivision noting it wouldn't matter
if it was in the original portion or not. Schmidt stated she wasn't aware of that
commenting that the last meeting she attended the Commission was also looking at the
possibility of splitting the zone into smaller lot sizes. Schmidt stated that a lot of lots
are larger. Schmidt stated they would like the opportunity to have such a zone.
Schmidt stated they have not been able to obtain a current copy of the zone. Schmidt
stated she understood that the Commission was considering taking this zone and
adding some of the requirements of it to already existing zones. Schmidt asked if that
was in front of the Commission as an amendment. Walker advised not at this time.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 21
Minutes May 22, 1996
Bryson asked for clarification on preference for lot size; is it your intent that Woodland
Subdivision generally conform to the requirement the Commission adopts. Schmidt
stated her personal preference is to have this zone split in two with a larger lot size and
a smaller lot size for already existing subdivisions who wanted to come in under that
zone. Schmidt reiterated she didn't know where they were at tonight.
Bobbie Oskolkoff-Stated that when you put a zone in like this in an existing area
some people may have bought split level homes thinking that as they got older in their
retirement they would convert it to a duplex. Oskolkoff said she had heard people say
they were going to do that for income when they were older. Oskolkoff stated she felt
new subdivisions were fine but telling somebody you can't have a duplex if they bought
the property when there was no restriction is wrong. Oskolkoff stated she felt there
was a limit to how many restrictions you restrict people to. Oskolkoff stated she felt
duplexes look like homes and wouldn't be opposed to a duplex next door to her as long
as it was built up to a certain standard. Oskolkoff reiterated she didn't think they
should be restricting preexisting areas.
Leon Quesnel-Stated he felt the restrictions are quite tight and some of them may
need to be opened up. Quesnel stated that as far as present homes are concerned, not
necessarily Woodland, but for other subdivisions within the city or proposed
subdivisions need some restrictions on them rather than let anyone build any sort of
houses that they wish. Quesnel stated if you want to keep the integrity of the city to
the point where people want to live here you want to keep the city a place where you
want to keep on living and are proud to live in. Stated he felt certain restrictions
should be put on buildings out there and build a building that looks like a home as
opposed to any rectangular block building as the neighborhood across the waters.
Quesnel stated he felt this zone had a lot to say for it and he would request the
Commission give it serious consideration.
Goecke commented that where Quesnel resides is one of the earlier Woodland homes.
Quesnel stated he had to wait for it to be completed to move in in 1968. Goecke asked if
he knew how large his lot size is. Quesnel stated he didn't know but added it is on a
corner. Goecke asked how long he had lived there stating that with Quesnel being one
of the early residents of Woodland and that the lot size seems to be a basic stumbling
block. Goecke stated he thought it would be helpful if they knew what the original lot
sizes were. Quesnel stated it is one of the larger ones as it is one of the first homes
built.
Mr. Christian stated they had done a survey and part one, the first development, they
counted 113 lots. The majority of those, 54% were over 13,000 square feet; all of them
were over 11,000. Christian stated the original plan was to have the larger size lots.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 22
Minutes May 22, 1996
Bryson stated along the same line that the lot configurations are highly dependent on
where they are in the subdivision. Bryson stated there were several situations in the
first addition that included an area that was platted for multi-family, a long stretch of
road that had double frontage on Forest Drive and the interior road and those lots were
higher, and it went over to the other side where there was bluff and had a curving road
and they felt they weren't going to be able to develop them so they made the lots larger.
Bryson stated it is correct to say the median lot in the first addition was 12-14,000
square feet. Quesnel stated he would agree adding his is a corner lot. Quesnel asked
them to take into consideration the type of subdivision that is allowed to be built
alongside of the better subdivision. In other words, not allowing pig pens alongside
adding he didn't like pig pens.
Raphael Moore-Stated he was talking to somebody the other day about Clint Hall
who works for Clint Hall and told him Hall could buy anything he wants.
Chairman Walker advised Moore to address comments to the item being discussed and
that is the creation of a prime residential zone.
Public Hearing Closed.
Bryson stated he has a series of concerns regarding the proposed ordinance. First, an
area that has the potential of being referred to as prime residential, Section 36 between
the Spur Highway and the bluff was broken into four large tracts. Those tracts were
sold by the city. The city had specific development requirements concerning the roads.
They were required to put in water and sewer, paved roads of specified widths,
sidewalk, curb and gutter, and lighting. Bryson stated that to date, this being at least
ten years later, several of the people who bought the property have turned the property
back to the city. There has been absolutely zero work there and the reason is because
there is zero market for that type development. Bryson added that may not be the case
next year but it has been the case the last ten years. As far as developing access, water
and sewer, etc. it parallels this situation. Bryson stated his comment was that
developers now plat to whatever size they wish larger than the minimum. Bryson
stated that he worries about the proposed numbers which are proposed as absolute
minimums. Unless you are going to put in rectangular lots, you don't come up with
minimums. You have waste property. Bryson stated if you have a minimum for a lot to
make things work out, it usually ends up being bigger than that and that cost is
transferred to the people that would buy the property. Bryson stated there is an RS2
zone that allows single family and duplex residences. It has been in effect for ten years;
there has been no interest in petitioning to be included in this zone. Bryson stated that
by no he means zero. No one has requested to be in that zone at all. This is the type
zone that would have provided some protection to people in Woodland from multi-plexes
other than the covenant situation. Bryson reiterated there has never been any interest
in it. Bryson stated these are the things he would use to argue against the proposed
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 23
Minutes May 22, 1996
~ ordinance. Bryson stated he doesn't feel that developers feel they can market a zone
like this.
Goecke commented that Section 36 properties was sold in the early 80's and in the mid-
80's when the economy when south is when everything fell by the wayside. Goecke
stated he thinks one person in particular would have done something with his had the
economy not gone south. At about the same time the Inlet Woods fiasco happened.
Goecke stated his original and main support for the RP zone is the fact that it is there if
somebody wants it they don't have to go and throw a bunch of covenants at it. Goecke
stated covenants are only as good as people who are living there at the time. The zone
would take care of things and covenants would not be needed. Goecke are we talking
about letting Woodland rezone themselves into this RP zone, Goecke stated that would
be up to the residents of Woodland. Goecke stated that Mr. Bryson is probably right
that nobody right now is going to come out and ask for ultra tight restrictions if they
are making a very large subdivision. Goecke stated he thinks there is the capability
and hopefully in the near future of some smaller developer coming in and saying Kenai
is where I want to make my stand. Goecke stated that is his reason for support of this.
Mahurin stated current unemployment is 17 plus percent, school enrollment is down
district wide. However, because the economy seems to be at a stalemate right now does
not mean we don't have an opportunity to plan for the future. Mahurin stated she
thought it would be very helpful if they had an opportunity to have a progressive
thought to plan for future to plan for a subdivision like this. Mahurin stated this is
their opportunity but this doesn't mean I support going into neighborhoods or making
them conform or rezoning. Mahurin stated that is a different issue. Mahurin stated
she supports the concept of this zone as written and will vote it. That doesn't mean she
supports going back in and rezoning the current subdivisions.
Werner-Quade stated she has a question about the lot size as Bryson stated and that
for the developer it can create a lot of waste or unusable portions. Werner-Quade asked
if that is what she is hearing.
Bryson stated the RS2 zone has a minimum of 7200 square feet and requires a lot width
of 60 feet. Bryson noted the normal lot platted is normally in the 10 to 12,000 square
feet size and probably in the range of 75 feet wide. Bryson stated they are not platting
lots at the minimum size. Part of this is because if that is the minimum you work with
you will end up with a certain block that you can only squeeze five lots out of it.
Werner-Quade stated this has been her only area of concern, that being the 15,000
square feet. Werner-Quade stated that even though she will support the RP zone she
would really be supportive of maybe smaller minimum lot size adding that she thought
the Christians had said they would be willing to discuss this. Werner-Quade noted that
even Mr. Quesnel had state his lot size was about 11,000 to 13,000. Werner-Quade
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 24
Minutes May 22, 1996
~ asked if they could work with the figure and get it cut down some so it will be more
attractive at the onset to these potential developers. Werner-Quade stated this would
make her feel good about supporting this. Werner-Quade stated she concurs with Ms.
Mahurin's statement that rezoning is a separate issue.
Bryson stated the area he supports of the ordinance is limiting some areas to single
family only. The lot areas are way out of line and feels this best use for this ordinance
would be one that is created so that Redoubt Terrace and Woodland and subdivisions
developed to that level improvements can adopt it.
Walker stated he would like to make a couple comments. Walker stated he has heard
that they have an opportunity to create a zone. Walker stated the concern with this
opportunity is that they are creating legislation that he truly believes will not be used
by any developer in this community as there is absolutely nothing in the laws of this
city or the ordinances of this city that prevents a developer from putting in exactly what
you are asking for except for economics. Walker added that if there were that many
people who truly wanted this type of subdivision, he believed they would in fact have
this type of subdivision. Walker stated some of these requirements as far as lot sizes
are similar to what is seen in VIP. Walker stated that VIP is a very nice subdivision
adding that he doesn't happen to live there but they have large lots and many beautiful
homes. Walker stated he doesn't see anything in the ordinances against duplexes and it
doesn't seem to be an issue from VIP. Walker stated they had also heard about overlay
districts. Walker stated he does not now, nor will he ever, support an overlay district
that restrict current land uses and that includes the borough's proposed and past
ordinance on the Kenai River Overlay District. Walker added that is a very different
issue in it's entirety and the city has not accepted it as yet. Walker stated he also
believes that he believes that if they try to pass this type of an overlay district onto
other property owners that have not requested this type of zoning that this would
constitute a taking and they would have legal recourse. Walker stated as far as lot
sizing, they are showing 15,000 square feet proposed in the draft ordinance. Walker
stated if they were to truly have an upscale, upbeat neighborhood, he would think an
acre would be a good minimum lot size. Walker stated in the lower forty-eight, you will
have two to five acres and sometimes more, definitely bigger than 15,000 square feet.
Finally, RS2 is still unused noting it has been 10 years. Walker added there is also the
recreational zone that has been on the books many, many years and they have not been
used. Walker stated as such, he does not favor creating another piece of legislation that
in fact will come to no purpose. Walker stated if a developer was to come in and say
they would like to have this zone created and has a piece of property to put in the zone,
Walker stated he would have absolutely no concern. Walker stated they have been
discussing this item off and on for nearly a year and he has not heard one developer
come in and ask for more restrictive zoning and until that time he has a concern
creating more legislation.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 25
Minutes May 22, 1996
' ~ VOTE:
WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES
BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES
BRYSON NO WALKER NO
MOTION PASSED 4-2.
Chairman Walker advised this will be sent to council and they will address is as far as
introducing an ordinance. Walker thanked the public for coming and testifying.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
8. OLD BUSINESS:
a. Richka Park Purchase or Trade
Mahurin stated that her intent was not to make any motions adding that she knew that
Werner-Quade attended the Airport Commission meeting last week and was hoping she
could share with the Commission. Mahurin asked when the Airport Commission would
meet again and is this on their agenda so they could have a time frame to know what
they are looking at for the airport buffer zone.
Werner-Quade stated she did not know when the next meeting was but they did agree
to put it on their agenda for discussion. Werner-Quade added there was just a quorum
added that the Christians had been there and she had attended as a member of the
public. Werner-Quade noted that she lives on the opposite side of the airport and has
concerns of her own regarding buffer and that she had previously served on the Airport
Commission. Werner-Quade stated it came as quite a surprise that people were there
and didn't understand what was being discussed. Werner-Quade added that the
audience was divided on the issue. Half of the people were speaking to the Clint Hall
subdivision in Richka Park and the other half speaking to something of a proposed
buffer zone. The Airport Commission is in the process of doing a master plan for the
airport but they agreed to-look at the possibility for a buffer zone. Werner-Quade stated
it is her personal feeling that they were generally defensive and felt that it wasn't a
needed thing. Werner-Quade added that was a personal feeling and perhaps the
Christians had different feelings. Werner-Quade stated that she had presented a
Clarion article from 1994 talking about a 737 that took off one morning and a map
which was the only map from a couple years ago. Werner-Quade talked about the
wording in the Comp Plan about growth at the airport. Werner-Quade stated she had
also read out of the Anchorage Comp Plan and again read a portion about the need to
develop short-range implementation projects and programs to implement the long-
range recommendations of the plan. Werner-Quade stated she sees this as why not start
now. Werner-Quade stated she had said that any recommendations to council that can
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 26
Minutes May 22, 1996
°~ be made, let's try to do it. Werner-Quade commented that everyone was saying that
there is no money. Werner-Quade passed her map around showing her concern for the
other side of the airport. Werner-Quade noted she feels a buffer strip needs to go all the
way to McCollum Drive commenting that you won't want to put a Challenger Learning
Center into a clear cut area and a potential buffer might be needed for any kind of
expansion that would be going up Marathon Road. Werner-Quade stated this is what
the borough recently did when they reclassified land. Werner-Quade stated she had
gotten a paper from the Airport Commission on the float plane facility and added that it
appeared to her that they felt there wasn't any noise. They justified that by saying
these are the FAA standards and if the FAA says there is no noise, there is no noise.
Werner-Quade stated that is how she heard it but stated that the reality is that the
noise and low-flying aircraft exist. Werner-Quade added she had brought the paper
about obtaining property for public use to the Airport Commission noting it was clear
that the property would be for a buffer, that being the public use. Werner-Quade
commented that the Acting Airport Manager Holland had said that if you don't call and
complain they don't know it is happening. Werner-Quade stated that the public had
said they would call and report it. Werner-Quade added that he had brought up a good
point that the FAA holds the reigns on the low flying aircraft. Werner-Quade reiterated
that there had been a mixed bag of complaints at the meeting.
Mahurin asked when the next Airport Commission meeting was and was advised of the
date. Mahurin asked if this would be on the agenda and Werner-Quade stated that was
what she had heard. Mahurin asked if the motion she made at the last meeting will
continue to after that meeting. Mahurin asked her question was with procedure noting
that since they don't have a report from the Airport Commission, do you consider this a
continuance to the June 6th meeting and then could it be on the P&Z agenda? Walker
stated he felt that could be done easily by unanimous consent, is anyone opposed to
that. Bryson stated he would abstain.
Chairman Walker advised to place this on the June 12th agenda under Old
Business.
Smalley advised with regard to FAA, they control the height and the take-off patterns
from the arrival and departure at the Kenai Airport. There are specific altitudes that
aircraft are required to fly. When they are below those altitudes or outside of a pattern,
it is up to the tower to report those planes by number, pilot, etc. and that does take
place. Smalley stated as far as the noise level, what an individual in one's home
determines to be a noise level that is intolerable is probably different than what the
FAA who monitors that noise level and uses certain legal decibels as a guideline.
Smalley stated the FAA doesn't feel there are sufficient violations to warrant any
changes. There have been lots of complaints. Werner-Quade stated that is correct and
this is important because there can be money from the FAA to purchase property as a
buffer if there is found to be a problem. So far, they have not found a problem.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 27
Minutes May 22, 1996
~~
Werner-Quade asked the Chairman if they could ask Mr. and Mrs. Christian as to their
perception of the Airport meeting. Christian stated his perception was that they were
very receptive to the idea. (From here tape unclear as Mr. Christian was speaking from
audience.)
Walker stated that most industry standards allow a maximum of 85 decibels at the
property line of continuous noise, not intermittent. Walker stated that the noise from
propellers would be intermittent and the federal regulations may allow a greater
quantity of noise crossing your property line before they consider it a nuisance. Walker
added he thought that at a borough level it had been analyzed for some of the plants in
the North Kenai area. When the sound quantities were measured, it was found they
were within the measures.
9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS:
a. AAA Taxi
Kebschull advised that La Shot had visited the site and that the vehicles had been
moved.
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council
Smalley reported that a copy of the agenda was in the packet. Smalley stated they had
speakers concerning the use of Leif Hansen Memorial Park to be restricted to small
gatherings and to prohibit the Kenai River Festival from using the facility. It was felt
it would be more appropriate to use the area by the ball park where there are facilities
to accommodate groups. Smalley advised it is up to the Parks and Rec Director and the
City Manager to determine usage. Individuals had reported damage to trees planted
there. Smalley stated the city has conflicts with baseball tournaments which are
already scheduled.
Marion Nelson spoke to the city on two different items; one in support of the festival
using the site and support of the City Manager.
Smalley advised that C1 reduced the COLA from 2.7 to 2.0. Smalley advised the rest of
the items passed. Item 4, increased revenues it was a donation and needed to be
appropriated for completion of the feasibility study for the learning center. Smalley
added it is not 2861eve1 but state of the art. Smalley commented that 286 is above the
space shuttle technology.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 28
Minutes May 22, 1996
At the next meeting the budget will be introduced. Smalley stated adjustments were
made; several items were removed that had previously been removed in work sessions
but still showed up in the document. Approximately $36 to $40,000 were taken out that
had previously been removed.
Smalley advised that Item 9 was the Alaskan proposal for the aircraft fire fighting
facility which would be placed north of the present facility on Marathon Road. This
would be on the same tract at the Challenger Learning Center. There are nine in the
US and four or five under consideration for construction at approximately $9.7 million
dollars which the airport fund would be accountable for anywhere from $455,000 (the
cost of the land) to $955,000, $500,000 from the airport fund for the funding of the
training facility. The rest is federally funded. Smalley stated this is going well and
there is a lot of support for this facility here. Smalley explained the facility and stated
there would be a potential to bring in funds from Korea, Japan, etc. who may want to
use the facility.
Bryson asked about the Mission Street improvements. Smalley stated there was talk
about attaching funds which cannot be done. Smalley stated it dealt with the ROW and
it remaining in perpetuity and Smalley had questioned if the city could do anything
with perpetuity. Smalley stated the State Highway Dept. wanted an agreement
between the church, state, and the city with a statement stating the ROW would
remain with the city in perpetuity. Smalley stated they will have to knock that
statement out. Bryson asked if the project had been bid. Smalley stated he thought it
had been and was scheduled for construction this summer.
Walker asked if there was a resulting public action from the executive session. Smalley
stated the announcement was to draft a severance agreement to present to Mr.
Manninen at the meeting on June 19tH.
b. Borough Planning
Bryson stated the consent agenda at the May 13th meeting had been approved without
deviation. Item El, Bryson stated dealt with an ordinance requiring permits for certain
land uses within the borough. Bryson stated the borough assembly has drafted an
ordinance controlling the use and reclamation of barrow pits and restrictions on
halfway houses. Bryson advised that the borough planning had stated that public
comment should be provided before taking a position. Because this is an assembly
ordinance, Bryson stated it was probably on their agenda this past Tuesday. Item Hl
an ordinance authorizing conveyance of lands was a situation that the borough acquired
property from the University of Alaska to construct K Beach Elementary School.
Bryson stated there was an offer to trade land to rectify the situation. The property
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 29
Minutes May 22, 1996
~~ was a tract of land within the City of Kenai and Bryson stated he thought it was 38
acres with about 2000 feet of bluff frontage behind Eadies. Bryson stated he had
concerns feeling that the property being traded was worth more than the property that
was acquired. Bryson stated he was in the minority and the item passed. Bryson
stated they are battling through with name changes and in particular one difficult one
in the Ridgeway area, Spruce Street. The discussion on that item is continuing and
administration has been requested by the Planning Commission to widen advertising
and include people in the area presently called River Street. Bryson explained that
staff wanted to name everything River and there was some opposition.
c. Administration
Kebschull advised that the zoning map has been reviewed and corrections sent to the
borough. Kebschull noted administration hopes to provide each Commissioner with a
personal copy.
11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED:
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 30
Minutes May 22, 1996
~} Kristine Schmidt-Stated she appreciates the change from merely posting the agenda
to having it in the newspaper but would ask that it be published in the newspaper at
least a week before the meeting. Schmidt also asked that some explanation of what the
resolutions are using the borough assembly agenda as an example. Schmidt stated that
for example the Conditional Use Permits and just looking at them you don't have an
idea of what they are about. Schmidt stated she would also that a street description of
where the property is located and not the just the legal description commenting that
most people don't know places by the legal description.
12. INFORMATION ITEMS:
a. KPB Administrative Approval of Hakkinen Estates Subdivision & Sprucewood
Glen Subdivision No. 7
b. Kenai River Special Management Area Advisor Board Minutes of 4/4/96
c. Work Session on Prime Residential Zone Minutes of 4/10/96
d. Memo from Robert C. Springer, Building Official
13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
Mahurin asked if packets were available to the public. Kebschull advised they are
available with notice as only one extra packet is made. Kebschull added they are
welcome to obtain copies but they may have to wait for them.
Kebschull stated that regarding Ms. Schmidt's request that the agenda be published
earlier, the agenda is not even prepared until Friday morning and that people in the
administration have until noon to place items on the agenda. Kebschull added that
public hearings are published as required by code at least ten days before the meeting.
14. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at approximately 10 p.m.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 31
Minutes May 22, 1996
Administrative Assistant
~~
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Date: June 3, 1996
Prepared By: JL/mk
Res: PZ96-43
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Integrity Surveys
605 Swires Drive
Kenai, AK 99611
Requested Action: Preliminary Plat.
Legal Description: E1 /2, NE1 /4, SE1 /4, Section 6, T5N, R10W, S.M.
Existing Zoning: RR (Rural Residential)
Current Land Use: Undeveloped
ANALYSIS
City Engineer:
This plat creates a 6.50 acre tract along Devray Street to the east of 3W
Subdivision. A half right of way dedication is required to match the existing Devray
Street right of way.
Building Official:
No building code issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approval with a note on the plat that "further resubdivision will require a City of
Kenai installation agreement."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. PZ96-43
2. Preliminary Plat
CITY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONWG COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO._PZ 96-43
SUBDIVISION PLAT
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
KENAI RECOMMENDING THAT THE ATTACHED SUBDIVISION PLAT BE APPROVED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
WHEREAS, the attached plat Strawberry Fields Forever Subdivision was referred to
the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission on May 29, 1996 and received
from Integrity Surveys ,and
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission finds:
1) Plat area is zoned RR (Rural Residential) and therefore subject to said zone
conditions.
21 Water and sewer: Not available.
31 Plat does not subdivide property within a public improvement district subject to
special assessments. There is not a delinquency amount owed to the City of
Kenai for the referenced property.
4) Installation agreement or construction of improvements is not required.
5) Status of surrounding land is shown.
6) Street names designated on the plat are not correct.
7) CONTINGENCIES:
a. Note be placed on plat- "Further resubdivision will require a City of Kenai
installation agreement."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI THAT THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER SUBDIVISION
SUBJECT TO ANY NEGATIVE FINDINGS AS STATED ABOVE.
PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, JANE 12 , 1996.
,,
,~_ - ;:, f
CHAIRPERSON
EST: Planning Secretary
n b~m ~ .1 m ~gpo ¢° Z rJ }05 S S
~ Its wa I ~ awq z ~ t- ~_°c N
o= en°i it ~ x a '~ •C~ ~
N ~ C
ic-~a d W~~w ~~ W ~ ~ •N x° YJ ~ ~ 4
I ~ 6 ~~n ~ wa¢< z~w ~ ° orrb ~ ° o ~¢ ~ ~ ~ ~
RtOW ~ ~®ai ~=r U o J g "V N NY j¢
R11W L.I..I Z LLO=W¢ ~a~ ~ Q ~i ~ \`o ~_v^,
~ N ~ ~ N o~u ¢ ~ J ~ _ ~ "O yY ~ZO i%
I- ~' °z ~ 9 z I p tF~ ~j C/~ ~ ~ a
S M O Q ZwZ<w¢ ~p=m ~ fn ~ a r ~'r 1-Y M
~ 4- U 30~~~ ~_~ 0 ~ ~ Z ^~ ~ Z m ~ W
Vl '00 O (J CU OUJ Z W ~ Y "Q N- ~~N °
70 O~ ~' W Z U ~ ¢ ~ ~ Q W ~ ~ ~ P g U~ ~ f
~° "~' ~z~ oA ^~~ Iw- ~ ~~~a °wza Q o f- ~ ~ h ~ ~ t° ¢ mow-' (n ° $
~~ N Q -p aW~o oFQ m Q o f u ~ ~ ~ =o$ m z~0 g s~
}} ~ U C a > ut a ~ o (/) z vt -~ ~' w ~ W 'N ~ ~ o ~6 cn >-
I-a~ Lt_ D ~8mw ~~< °o }- 5~~ ~ ~ ~ s °o: ti (/~ O a c°O¢ c o
ZQ~- mza ~"' ~°~ 3 a a w m ~ $x a 5 ~~ m
~z~-U~ r ~ ~~¢ZU Fz~ Tm Q o w a ~ J p21 ~ ~ "~ ° N ~
~ > W Wr]'Omp rcWFZ a~ ~ a T6 a ¢ N aC °~O `d ~ d
U U~Sattil U~(7 0 o n ~ p N ~ Z z
SUN c ° W F- O_ ZZ
p mYm Z~m Zw wFW ~V)¢ Z m ~ ~ J N a
n Y NUv W~NY~ ~Z~ ~0o N 4 ~ 0_ ~ < ~
OQC m ~ Z I I
rn\ N m ~0 N`~3.~ ~pK MY N~ ~ ~ U Y N a t°
Wy~ O)
~~ O ~>O1
\O o D W >~OY
NO Q ~ m-"
t` ~ ~~~~
M ~ W~~ •
a~D ~JJ //// r W Q~ WZOW
\C\\\`\ ~ of rc-~°Y
~~1 ~ O ~
'n
~o ~ 6
~ ~ ,00'658 M,41,B0 N °~i
3
°9
m
°m
m
e~ ,-, ~ ~ u
~ a ~ o ~ ¢
!S' of e ~ N
M ~ N
-~ ~ '~ °a
< o
O O ~ O ~ U
a ~ ~ 3 9~j m
Z N ~iT/ iV
a N ~ ~
U m ~ N
E z
Q ~ ,oN
~ +•~m u
,00'659 _
r> n ~aa.~~. D.L(L8 n ,69'099
o ,S9'6t£L ,08'6L£t 3,41,90A05) 6ul~oag ;o slsog
\ i°HN ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
,os
~ ( ~ I d `~ ~
~ Ali ~®~f] ~ I ~ ~
6 °~Mn °aPPC/ °P41~~ ~6M o oo~ab
P q V O « O°
N tOy ~ O « r
~°° °°< Y ~
., °oc ~Et o
0
Y r~~ oam c m° a,~~s-~i
r ~.°y ~;G U ~ ~ 90m~r0
m oo'o ca~° E ~ ~``f-P'*`:a1, if~~ W o«°$'~°~
.3 ° 3 z ° o L' o m Q ; h ~' : ,~ r'. 9y.I~ H o v T o m
m~°~; ~$OU ° 5 ~ ~ iQ' ': ~j W ~o ~~~
u•,y u a ° ° ° °-' w orc I~~ H: :°d• d _~ ~i= N ac E c o9
QQQ"`_~~_ E rna ~ o
d o°OU ou3i° ° E~ °c ~ In III d,(S .~z ~~ O o o'Ot$o
Tv $.' woEW c o-°a „'o, ... Er ,,~~11\\~~~ W aZE`s°~
~o=~ o=bo° c p ~ ~ a o°a. ~ .p graf°aa ~
Eo z~« aonc ° .°YO E o: av = roa'4~a i
~ p~ 0~+~-++ N.• O O ~ V Z ~ N K
H ~u ~i~ ;om°o° ~ °p m ~O~'c°`ma
O O ~ ¢0~3° 3vU Fc o - ^ $ no Eve ° i
Z ~ N 17 ~~ Q L i ~i Ole D I
J I
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Date: June 7, 1996
Prepared By: BS/mk
Res: PZ96-44
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Integrity Surveys
605 Swires Drive
Kenai, AK 9961 1
Requested Action: Preliminary Plat
Legal Description: Replat of Lots 4-6, Buxton Subdivision, located SE 1 /4 SW
1 /4, Section 31, T6N, R1 1 W S.M.
Existing Zoning: RS (Suburban Residential)
Current Land Use: Medium Density Residential
ANALYSIS
City Engineer:
Not available for comment.
Building Official:
The applicant intends on eliminating the current property line and vacating an
existing ROW to create a larger lot.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. PZ96-44
2. Preliminary Plat
CETY OF KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION`
RESOLUTION NO. PZ 96-44
SUBDIVISION PLAT
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
KENAI RECOMMENDING THAT THE ATTACHED SUBDIVISION PLAT BE APPROVED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
WHEREAS, the attached plat Buxton Subdivision was referred to the City of Kenai
Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5, 1996 and received from Integrity
Surveys ,and
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission finds:
1) Plat area is zoned RS (Suburban Residential) and therefore subject to said zone
conditions.
2) Water and sewer: Available
3) Plat does not subdivide property within a public improvement district subject to
special assessments. There is not a delinquency amount owed to the City of
Kenai .for the referenced property.
4) Installation agreement or construction of improvements is not required.
5) Status of surrounding land is partially shown.
6) Utility easements, if required, are shown.
7) Street names designated on the plat are (not) correct.
8) CONTINGENCIES:
a. M intain at lest a ?~0 foot utility easement in place of
tie proposed right o way vacation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI THAT THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE BUXTON SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO ANY
NEGATIVE FINDINGS AS STATED ABOVE.
PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, JUNE 12 , 1996.
~~ ;
CHAIRPERSON A ST: Planning ecretary
d ~_~~ ~o wwz i ^l m
n~o ,~P .. Oa~~ as a~5 a u, 3 m x
c ~`v rc~x~ a8 wwm ~ u '~ ~ i i ~
..,e n ~~~ ~ (S wgaa z~W aaa W ~ m ao n« /l o g
~_ N a iiittt W Z €acai~ ~orc ~~a C7 o J a ~ -~ ~° ~a vS _ m
of°a a~ca-i ANN O Q N 'O ao ~a "" c ~~ ~ '~ ~z
-= ~ O w°~j a~ ZZ~ W I ~ ? a
,roo ~n
I~~U :~ r_° _ O Q wZ~w` tom ~o° ~ N ~ a ~ ~'na ~aQ x og ff ~ a
" ~a ~ ~•`.•~ v- U 3~zvwi 3w oo:~ O ~ a
° MLya b; O OpU~ oho waZ Z w W r m'O ~`` ~' ~~
., < 2. ~ wQ ~ ,^,x~a aacYi Y ~ Q ~ `o vwiYO ~ (g Y d
~ ~ ~d,~~+i ° F- ~ ~o4a h1Z~ amp' Q ~ ~ ~ ° ~ .~ v ° r °cm ~ u ~
,_....00. ,, Q awY pOa xww "- m ° «4 -Ye a ~~jy
-W 3° Fa ~w m J ° W J ti ~ °~ roc O °'fA r °.
.! ;:..; •;'.~.~ s L~ O a°wmw `-~a aow ~- ~ rc W ° ~ o ~ ~ n ;~ ~ - o ~ a ««i
~Z~ U~ 1 ~ ~UaQ Frc~ ~~; ~ N w < ~ a (3~0., ~ n° o~a ~ i c m
NZ Uzz rc2~ W x Q p ,Y ~ J~u c SSS q7
~ W Kppm3 VFa ~~~" ~' a O a < N a`° viY U ~ !7i G
(~ ~pNa= o:o~ cwioZ O p vNi 3 z z
Y<OOw FUN rpa Z m 4 3 <~ a
rc~oa~ ~°~ rcpW Ow y v o_ m ~
wOUyw 2~ w b ~ a rnl I ~_
r y1 ~ m °i Y xN O W
NO><F 3p~ OS N~ f Y- U Y In m
m
p y~um
/ LJ U m~pY
5
~ ~~ ~~~ ~~o(~~~oao~ ~ ~ ~N<
QO O ~ K pF o:?eY
- - ~~J,~P
,L8'L6 L, m ? MON ,SZ
~ uo~y°oo~ M021 Pae do~d + t ~ ~'l.G2rJ..G7J~j
M,0£,ZLAON _~~
~I ~ ~ 3 0l a V
w o y~
'~ ~ ui
3,o q ~ m~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ °aP a
~.,
c~~ ~ I` '~ O n n ~ r~
Z I= ~ ~ N N f5
I~
~~
3 L - - - -L8'L6l 7uaulaeo3 R3!10f1 ,Ol ,Z6'86 O
- ~ p
~~ ¢ ,08'9fiZ 3,00,£LA05 d
°(A~
m Q
•~~ °~
~I'
[~, QD ~s7 c U~ `~ O
~ ~ em ~a Q ~
~oo~uaopgw~ ~o~~cw a ~
-__~~ ~ a
^°' Em
_ s° `oo u
°`o is '
` i
x o« m ° ° a`°oEw
~. o° _ ° aEd~a N
°o« E?_ o~~?o
r ~ £ ° - '~
4~ °~`o c ~,~....; / U wo ~ _ mow`
~« o os E ~ .~'r" 3II F- ° o m ~ m T ~'n o
o m; ~~ sr o ° II ~'y~.. d; :~ (n ac a c" a ..
'V.. ~' yoc ~ 1
I ,(S. ' : ~~' e ~
` } " "Y ~m
-~ o °n o n ~ E `3 u c ~ ~ a° o~ o°i°
uEm ~• p°,° ~ r°~ rc ~
`° L m > > oa oa
Eo E°o z° _ !n mom` ~ ~ i ~ n rc rc
marm o a> °Em°
vi d- „~ mo _m cm
~ p° ° z ~ .°. v a ~'n ~ 'm m ~ o E v'O° ... .J
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Date: 6/3/96
Prepared By: JL/mk
Res: PZ96-42
/GZ..
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Daniel Krogseng
P.O. Box 7431
Nikiski, AK 99635
Requested Action: Conditional Use Permit-Surface Extraction of Natural
Resources (Gravel)
Legal Description: W 1 /2, NW 1 /4, S 10, Lying North of Beaver Loop within T5N,
R11W
Existing Zoning: RR-Rural Residential
Current Land Use: Undeveloped
ANALYSIS
City Engineer:
The applicant has made an offer to purchase the referenced site pending issuance
of a CUP to extract gravel. 14.20.152 o f the KMC requires that the application be
reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. If the Commission determines
additional information is needed, an addendum to the application will be prepared.
A public hearing will be scheduled for the next meeting (June 26) according to KMC
14.20.153.
Building Official:
Not available for comment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
No formal action required. Request additional information if needed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. PZ96-42
2. Application
3. Drawings
CITY OF-KENAI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PZ96-42
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
KENAI GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO DANIEL KROGSENG
LOCATED: W1/2, NWl/4, 510, LYING NORTH OF BEAVER LOOP WITHIN
T5N, R11W
WHEREAS, the Commission finds:
1) That an application meeting the requirements of Section
14.20.154 has been submitted and received on:
MAY 23, 1996
2) This request is on land zoned RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL)
3) That the applicant has demonstrated with plans and
other documents that they can and will meet the
following specific requirements and conditions in
addition to existing requirements:
a.
b.
4) That a duly advertised public hearing as required by
KMC 14.20.280 was conducted by the Commission on:
JUNE 26, 1996
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI THAT THE APPLICANT HAS
DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PROPOSED EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MEETS TILE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SAID OPERATION AND THEREFORE
THE COMMISSION DOES AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO
ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT.
PASSED HY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
KENAI, ~,ASRA JUNE 26, 1996.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST: Planning Secretary
APPLICATION FOR NATURAL RESOURCES PERMIT
Name of Applicant• A.A. Dan's Construction & Sharalyr.
Address• 11412 Ba.rabara Dr.
Phone: ~7ti_
:VLU.
Kenai, AK. 99611
1. Legal description of the proposed area:
~~5d?88?oi
right ~^~
~,
X1996 ,'
/rn nt Deb
~"
~~
S2~ZFZZZI"L"Z~
TnSnr Rt t w ct n wt ~~ NWl,G? r :g ~T~rth .of KPavPr T nnp Rnar~
2. Dimensions in square feet or acres: 27 acres
3. Highest and lowest topical contour of area before extraction:
Highest: ~g~ Lowest: 5n•
4. Highest and lowest topical contour of area after extraction:
Highest: 50• Lowest: 35'
5. Describe existing buildings (if any) on the property; i.e.
placement, type, etc.
None
6. Describe proposed buildings (if any) on the property; i.e.
placement, type, etc.
Nnna
7. Describe any access or haul roads onto or from the property,
i.e. width, length, surfacing, etc.
One access road at S.W. corner of Aroperty and
~':e °Q 'a^ov^°coo sv^al~ ~pp~A~fr~iiiBtA~T-iii~G~W3`T-G~ff ~Ba•Y 'f..1' T.nnn
8. Describe location and nature of operations proposed to take
place on site:
Will start extracting gravel from west side of property
9. Has a soil survey been done on the property? Yes$s No
10. If a soil survey has been done, give locations:
One approximately 100 vards off highway and 150 yards ___
from East end of property. One 100 yards off Beaver Loop.
I Firs. wo ho1PS dig by Foster Construction. Third hole
dug by A.A. Dan's Construction.
11. Describe water table depths on the property:
6' where checked.
i
12. Estimate the amount of material to be removed from the site:
350,000 cubic yards.
13. Estimate the length of time required to complete the
operation. If continuing indefinitely, so state.
Continuing indefinitely.
14. Proposed hours of operation:
7 A.M. to 7 P.M.
15. Method of fencing or barricading to prevent access. (This
should be indicated on site plan.)
Iron Gate at access points.
I
16. Amount and location~of natural screening (trees, vegetation)
between property lines and excavation site:
200' off Beaver Loo - 150' from West side &none on North
and East side.
17. Plans, if any, to construct artificial screening:
Construct a 12' high burm on West side and plant with trees
and wildarasses if necessary.
18. Describe operations to take place on-site during and after
extraction:
Use a loader or excavator to load trucks. After excavation
a 2:1 slope of sides (planted) - House sites along Beaver Loop.
19. Describe plans for regrading and shaping land after operations
are complete:
2:1 slope and use of stock piled top soil, planted with
grass with house lots along Beaver Loop
20. Describe method of backfilling or replacing top soil:
TTca ~f ~*^~kp•ilQd material ~~6~ e~si~e
-- will be s read over edges and slopes.
21. Describe proposed future use of land after extraction (i.e.,
houses, parks, etc.). Include proposed development plan.
House lots along Beaver Loop and pond.
22. State and Federal license numbers for extraction:
State# None Federal# None
23. Detail proof of property ownership of the site:
Property presently owned by Coyle Estate and upon receipt
of permit will be sold to Daniel Krogseng
~ 24. Attach the following to this application. Adequate map(s)
which clearly illustrate the following:
a. Present state of entire parcel, including buildings and
landscape-features.
b. Proposed future development plan.
c. Proof of ownership of parcel.
0
~~ 3
~ ~ a
w
;~ a
~~ C ~ ~
W
`` _ i
O y C~. ~
,SG~~
,ASG
Q
~'
o ~
~ ~
~ o
i~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~,
~ Z Z~
~ ?`
~. 3
Z
TACPRT052162MAY2196 9605
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
j 1 Year 1996 Parcel 04912001
------------Primary Owner------------
COYLE WALDO E REVOC TRUST
WRIGHT SHARALYN SUE TRUSTEE
1412 BARABARA DR
KENAI, AK 99611-8364
-----------Legal Description---------
T05N R11W S10
Wl/2 NWl/4 LYING NORTH OF
BEAVER LOOP ROAD
----Current Working-----
-------Assessment-------
Land 41,200
Imps
Other
Total 41,200
Taxable 41,200
TakeMeAway
04912001
-------General Information--------
Tax Code Area 30 KENAI
N'hood CPO1 CENT PENINSULA
Usage VA VACANT
Voting Dist K2 KENAI 2
Ownership 00 PRIVATELY OWNED
Bk/Pg 380 758 Base Map KR06
Xfered D 04/91 Acres 27.00
Grantor
Appraiser WF WARREN FINLEY
----------- ---Buildings---------------
Type Blt Eff SgFt
----Exemptions---- -State Plane Coordinates-
x y
Last Alteration
02/22/96 at 22:50
by JSRECAL
June 04,1996
_, Sharalyn Wright
%1412 Bambara Drive
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Z'o Whim It May Concern:
'' ~' ''\
~t w
Jtg1
.~
~~~
'~ ~/
I affirm and support the subsurface excavation permit as
written by AA Dan's Constructio». I do not oppose it in
any fvi-Yii. Yc~u may Ieave a message at 283-537 if you
have any questiu~ts.
.,
..-~~ aralyrt~~iVrig ._
8~.
Memorandum ~ '~
'~# ~
To: The Planning and Zoning Commission .~
Fr: Randy Ernst, Airport Manager
Date: May 30, 1996
Subject: Richka Park Property for Airport Buffer Zone
The Airport Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting of May 9, 1996
took public comment on the possibility of the City purchasing the property
known as Richka Park or trading city land for the acquisition of this
parcel to create a Conservation Zone as an "Airport Buffer".
Any decision on the part of the Airport Commission or the Planning and
Zoning Commission to create an airport buffer zone at this time would be
somewhat premature. Since the City has retained the services of Aries
Consultants Ltd. to prepare a new Kenai Municipal Airport Master Plan as
required by the Federal Aviation Administration. The Master Plan by its
very nature is mandated to look into all aspects of airport development,
not the least of which are the environmental issues. (Letter to Randy
Ernst from Aries Consultants Ltd. is attached.)
However, if time is of the essence, then the conclusions of the current
Master Plan (May 1987) on noise impact should be considered. Chapter 4
deals exclusively with environmental artd land use inventory, including
noise exposure levels and impact. (Chapter 4.1.5 Noise is attached.)
The basic conclusion of 4.1.5 is: "No significant noise exposure problems
or noise-related land use compatibility problem$ were identified for the
community in the vicinity of the airport." --- "Residential sites west of
the airport are not within the 65 Ldn and should not experience a serious
noise intrusion. This does not mean that the noise wil{ not be heard, or
that no person will be bothered by the noise, but the level will be such
that very few people are disturbed."
Given this finding of no significant impact neither the City or the FAA
could jus~kify an expenditure of airport funds for the acquisition of land to
create an airport buffer zone at this time.
fii
ARIES CONSULTANTS LTD.
16360 Mor~tersy Road, Suite 270
Morgan Hili, California 95037
May 29, 1996
Mr. Randy Ernst
Airport Manager
T~enai Municipal Airport
210 Fidalgo Street
Kenai, Alaska 99611
RE: Kenai Municipal Airport Master Plan
Dear Mr. Ernst:
Phone: (408) 779-5776
Fax: (408) 779-9052
~iECEi~EC
;;`... 2~1 I~ci~
CITY ADMIN. D~ ~'~'°~`~
Aries Consultants Ltd. is preparing Aircraft Noise Exposure Maps for inclusion in the
environmental docwmentation for the Kenai Municipal Airport Master Plan. The noise
exposure maps are being prepared for existing (1995) aad future (2015) airport and aircraft
operations using the Federal Aviation Administration's Integrated Noise Model (T.NM). Noise
exposure maps will. be prepared depicting the locations of the 60, 6S, 70 and 75 dB DNL
contours based on the number and distribution of aircraft operations by aircraft types, airport
layout, aircraft flight tracks, runway use, and flight procedures.
The 1995 and 2015 aircraft operations are based on the infomnation presented in our Working
Paper 2-to. 1, Aviation Demand Forecasts and Existing Airport Facilities, March 1996, and
approved on Match 25, 1996 by the Federal Aviation Administration for the continuing
master planning process. The existing and future land use compatibility with respect to
aircraft operations will be addressed in the environmental documentation currently being
prepared.
Please call me if you have any questions or require additional information.
Yours sincerely,
ARYES CONSULTANTS LTD.
J. Freddi CompeTChio
JFC/djic
cc: Jack La Shot
A Corporation
attraction. Moose also calve and .feed in the airport vicinity,
utilizing aquatic and emergent wetland vegetation during the
summer. Although a small number of moose gain access to airport
property, the immediate site does not provide important habitat
for any mammalian species.
4.1.5 Noise
Aircraft noise in the vicinity of Kenai Municipal Airport was
analyzed for existing and projected operations. Existing (1984)
noise exposure contours are shown in Figure 4-4. Noise exposure
contours projected for 2005 are shown in Figure 4-5. In the
complete analysis, noise exposure was estimated based on 1984
operations without a float plane facility, 1995 operations with
and without a float plane basin, 2005 operations without a float
plane facility, and 2005 operations with a float plane facility.
The number of projected operations using a float plane facility
is low relative to other airport operations and would produce
1 very little additional noise impact. No significant noise
exposure problems or noise-related land use compatibility prob-
lems were identified for the community in the vicinity of the
airport.
Noise impacts were estimated using the Area Equivalent Method, a
noise impact screening procedure developed by the FAA (14 CFR
312, Appendix 1). The float plane facility alone would not
create an adverse noise impact. The number of operations for
aircraft on this facility would be so low that, using the Day/
Night Average Sound Level (Ldn), the 65 Ldn contour would not
extend beyond the landing basin. The facility would, however,
generate additional traffic for the airport. This increase in
operations was used in the initial screening of noise impacts
associated with a float plane facility. The increase in area
with the 1995 65 Ldn contour as a result of constructing the
proposed facility is 7.5 percent. The increase in area within
the 2005 contour is 6.3 percent. An increase of 17 percent is an
4-14
increase of approximately 1 decibel Ldn at a given point. Any
~ change less than this amount is considered to be of no signifi-
cant impact.
The existing master plan projected noise exposure using the Noise
Exposure Forecast (NEF). The NEF contours did not extend beyond
the airport boundary. This system has been replaced by the Ldn'
Although there is some correspondence, the two are _. not equiva-
lent. The 65 Ldn contour in 2005 would extend just beyond the
airport boundary only along the extended centerline of the
principal runway (Figure 4-4). The presence of the float plane
facility does not appreciably change the shape or location of the
noise exposure contours for the main runway.
All land uses are generally considered to be compatible with
values of 65 Ldn or lower. The land uses which are within the 65.
Ldn are not considered to be incompatible and should not be
adversely affected by the noise exposure. Using land use com-
~ patibility guidelines found in FAR part 150, there are no current
or projected land use problems.
Ldn noise exposure levels do not always provide a complete
understanding of noise exposure. The proposed location of a
hotel adjacent to the aircraft apron is outside the 65 Ldn'
However, aircraft operations on the apron could have an adverse
impact on this facility. Any residential facility which is
located adjacent to aircraft operations should have noise re-
duction considered as part.. of the design.
Residential sites west of the airport are not within the 65 Ldn
and should not experience a serious noise intrusion. This does
not mean that the noise will not be heard, or that no person will
be bothered by the noise, but the level will be such that very
few people are disturbed. Aircraft manufactured prior to 1979
• were not required to meet noise emission standards and in some
~ cases, direct overflight could involve levels which interfere
4-18
with normal conversation. Peak noise levels could reach 90 dBA
directly under the flight path of a departing Cessna 185 .(man-
ufactured prior to 1979). The duration of noise levels in excess
of 65 dBA is less than 10 seconds. This noise intrusion could
interfere with normal outdoor conversation beyond five feet for
less than ten seconds. Indoor conversation should experience
little or no interference from a direct overflight.
The number of operations which could potentially affect these
residential areas is very low. Only operations departing to the
south would potentially overfly this area at full power. The
percentage of operations in this direction is 40 percent of total
operations. The aircraft which would emit the high noise levels
are a small percentage of the aircraft which would use the float
plane facility. High noise levels would be experienced an
average of one time per day during the summer months. This
intrusion could be reduced even further by close coordination
between the community and the FAA air traffic controllers.
Emphasis on north departures and designated 'southerly departure
flight paths would reduce the potential number of flights passing
directly over residential areas.
b ~
C
O
a.
~~
..r
~;
d
b
r ",i
,~~, h
'~~ b
~' / ,I' T/
~' ,-
. i~__.:_ - fem. --
~' `` ,;
~r• ~
/ :~ J>< 1
..,
r.i..
i
r 1%~,
F
tt7
~l
w
~ ; ~\ ~t
~ ~ e~i, 1 N
_. :: .. ,
. ., J ,,
,~ ;. ~
,' :; __
-- ~~;~ --
:~~.L,. /jl. i
.~
`. i : ,
.~
' ~~
.~y~ i '
:' : _ .-
W
O
~a •
8
U
2
CITY OF KENAI ~ ~--
210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794
TELEPHONE 907-283-7535
_ _ FAX 907-283-3014 ~
aF~nmr
1I~II~
1992
June 3, 1996
Hanson Roofing
Glenn A. & Loraine I. Hanson
309 Birch Street
Kenai, AK 9961 1-7646
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hanson:
The City has received inquiry regarding the possible operation of a business on
Birch Street. As you are the owner of record, you are responsible to assure that all
activity taking place on this property is in accordance with the Kenai Municipal
Code.
The area where this property is located is zoned RS (Suburban Residential).
Businesses cannot operate within this zone without either a Conditional Use Permit
or Home Occupation Permit. Please contact the City within 10 days of receipt of
this letter to explain whether or not a business is operating, and what action you
plan to pursue to obtain the proper permit, if necessary.
Sincerely,
_ ~_.c_1~_ ~~~ i~ l ~..~--E- j~~~ ~
Jack La Shot, City Engineer
Planning & Zoning
cc: Kathy Lawyer, Finance
~~
CITY OF KENAI
.~ 210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794
TELEPHONE 907-283-7535
_ _ FAX 907-283-3014 ~
~reinrrr
1III'~
1992
June 3, 1996
Roy Wright
P.O. Box 95
Kenai, AK 9961 1-0095
Dear Mr. Wright:
The City has received inquiry regarding the possible operation of a business on
Wildwood Station Road. As you are the owner of record, you are responsible to
assure that all activity taking place on this property is in accordance with the Kenai
Municipal Code.
The area where this property is located is zoned RS (Suburban Residential).
Businesses cannot operate within this zone without either a Conditional Use Permit
or Home Occupation Permit. Please contact the City within 10 days of receipt of
this fetter to explain whether or not a business is operating, and what action you
plan to pursue to obtain the proper permit, if necessary.
Sincerely,
tQ ,,-'1 Gt.
Jack La Shot, City Engineer
Planning & Zoning
JL/mk
cc: Kathy Lawyer, Finance
AGENDA
RL~NAI CITY
COQNCIL - REGIILAR MEETING
JDNE 5, 1996
7500 P.M.
RBNAI
A. CgLL TO ORDER
CITY COONCIL CSAMHERB
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda
*Ali items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered
to be routine and non-controversial by the Council and
will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council
Member so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General
Orders.
8. SCHEDIILED PIIBLIC COPII~iENT (10 Minutes)
~~;xG~i~ 1. Barbara Raagss, Alaska's Reservation Ceatrai - Vending
State of Alaska Fishing/Hunting/Trapping Licenses and
Tags at Kenai Airport.
2. Peter Rlauder - Public Works Projects
/~g~~'~ ~~.
~ Mary Rinq Alaska Department of Fish & Game/Request for
~~
~ ~eserved Parking at Cunningham Park.
POH LIC H INGB
~~,~~ G*• 1. Ordinance No. ib96-96 - increasing Estimated Revenues
and Appropriations by $250 in the 1967 Debt Service
Fund for the Trust Account Administration Fee.
Q,,,~~ ~ 2.
~a Ordinance No. 1697-96 - Increasing Estimated Revenues
and Appropriations by $1,600 in the Council on Aging -
Sorough Special Revenue Fund for Commemorative Posters.
3. Ordinance No. 1698-96 - Adopting the Annual Budget for
the fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 1996, and Ending
June 30, 1997.
~~n~~~ ~ a. Substitute Ordinance No. 1698-96 (includes
~~ amended budget totals).
~
~~% b- Consideration of Substitute Ordinance.
lbw
-1-
~~~~~ 4. Ordinance No. 1699-96 - Increasing Estimated Revenues
and Appropriations by $7,000 in the General Fund for
Additional Playground Improvements at Municipal Park.
~~~ 5. Resolution No. 96-40 - Transferring $7,330 in the
Congregate Housing Enterprise Fund for Construction of
a Sidewalk and Landscaping.
G{•6.
IJ Resolution No. 96-41 - Establishing the Authorized
~
~" Signatures for Withdrawal From Depositories of
Municipal Funds.
~~ ,~n/~• 7.
` Resolution No. 96-42 - Awarding the Janitorial Contract
1
~ for the Airport Terminal Building, for the Period July
1, 1996 through June 30, 1999, to Heaven Scent for
$1,695 Per Month.
~~ ~ 8. Resolution No. 96-43 - Fixing the Rate of Levy of
Property Tax for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1,
1996 and Ending June 30, 1997.
D. COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Library Commission
5. Parks & Recreation Commission
6. Planning & Zoning Commission
7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees
a. Beautification Committee
b. Historic District Board
c. Challenger Steering Committee
d. Kenai Visitors & Convention Bureau Board
E. MINOTES
1. *Regular Meeting of May 15, 1996.
F. CORRESPONDENCE
G. OLD BIISINE88
8. NEW BIISINE88
~~~f~~ 1. Bills to be Paid, Bills to be Ratified
~ 2. Purchase Orders Exceeding $2,500
-2-
gbh
3. *Ordinance No. 1700-96 - Amending Kenai Municipal Code
1.85 to Remove the Requirement That Department Heads
File Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Statements.
4. +Ordinance No. 1701-96 - Amending Kenai Municipal Code
I.85.020(b~ to Remove Some Conflicts Between State and
City Requirements for Financial Disclosure and
Reporting Conflicts of Interest.
5. *Ordfaaaco No. 1702-96 - Increasing Estimated Revenues
and Appropriations by $30,000 in the Parks Restrooms
Capital Project Fund for Construction of a Restroom in
the Municipal Park on Forest Drive.
6. *Ordinance No. 1703-96 - Increasing Estimated REvenues
and Appropriations by $6,210 in the Boating Facility
'
Fund and General Fund for the Purchase of a Boat Motor
and Mustang Suits Damaged in the Kenai River Flood.
7. *Ordiaance No. 1704-96 - Amending Kenai Municipal Code
,
by Adding Chapter 14.20.095 to Establish a Prime
Residential Zone and Amending the Land Use and
Development Requirements Tables.
~or 8. Approval - Award of Contract/Vintage Pointe Manor
Building Manager.
i'O~'~ 9 • Approval - Application for Lease to Margaret A.
3ackson/Lot 4, Block 5, cook Inlet Industrial Air Park
& Adjace
t ROW
n
.
10. Approval - Dairy Queen Facility/Splitting Lease into
Two Separate Leases.
~~~
,~'l•
~~~w%"~''~ Discussion - Amendment to Lease Request by Kenai Arts
and Humanities Council for th
K
e
enai Fine
Arts Center.
~ 12. Discussion - Mission Street Right-of-Way
.
E~CECOTIRR SESSION
I . p,~!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
L3~TRATION REpORTB
Mayor
City Manager
Attorney
City Clerk
Finance Director
Public works Director
Airport Manager
-3-
J. DIBCIISSION
1. Citizens (five minutes).
2. Council
R. ADJOIIRNMENT
-4-
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
PLANNING COMMISSION
~ CHAPMAN SCHOOL GYM ~'~~~~,~
ANCHOR POINT, ALASKA ~+~
TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1996 7:30 P.M. y ~~
w
Tentative Agenda
~I
A. CALL TO ORDER ~~
~~Ll19~'~1
B. ROLL CALL
Iohn Hammelmaa
Chairman C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
Areawide
Term Expires 1996 All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and noncontroversial by the Planning
Commission and will `;e approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
Philip Bryson items unless a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public so requests, in which case the
~9°~ C~a`n''~ item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the regular
Kenai Cry agenda.
"erm Exai_*es 1998
If you wish to comment on a consent agenda item or a regular agenda item other than a public
Aan''~`'•more-Painter I hearing, pieaso advise the recording secretary before the meeting begins, and she will inform the
ParliamentarL, Chairman of your wish io comment.
;/:oose Pass Area
Term Expires 1997
1. Time Extension Requests
Peggy G. Boscacci
PC Member a. Holm S/D No. 5 (Johnson Surveying)
Setaovia city KPB File 95-052
Term Expires 1997 Location: Kasilof River/Coho Spur Road
F/ayae Carpenter
PC Member 2. Plats Granted Administrative Approval
Seward City
Term Expires 1996
3. KPBPC Resolutions
Robert Clutts
Pc ivlember a. KPBPC Resolution 96-13: Vacating a 30 right-of-way withirl Lot
AncborPoint 12, Block 20, Rinehart Subdivision Plat 1372 KRD ;within
Term Expires 1998 ( )
Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 10 West. Seward Meridian,
Wes C°lesan Alaska. (approved during the April 22, 1996 meeting )
PC Member
soldotna city 4. Kenai River Habitat Protection KPB 21.18 -None
Term Expires 1996 ~ )
Leroy Garrna~y 5. Coastal Management Program
PC Member
Homer Ciry
Tenn Expires 1998 a. Coastal PJlanagement Program Consistency Reviews
Ellis Hensley, k. 1) Seward; Lowell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant
PC Member NPDES Renewal; Ci' of Seward; AK9508-05AA
Nikiski ry
Term Exa_ Tres 1996
2) Ninilchik; Timber Harvest; Circle DE Pacific Corporation;
areal 7°bnson KK96-11
PC Member
Kasilof Arca
Tenn Expires 1997 b. Conclusive Consistency Determinations Received from DGC -
- None
' Tom Knock
PC Member
Coopcr Landing
Term Expires :998
1
Giiman, Mayor
~
n
~
,~I~
-{/
°{ k_ ~ 4~
' `~
Ong for ~
{
~, -'
~` ~
A is
~..~
1,:,:
[t
8 .~•
~M,
.,-
` ~ r
L° a! 5 4y ..
c. Administrative Determinations -None
6. Commissioner Excused Absences
a. No excused absences requested.
7. Minutes
a. May 13, 1996
D. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PRESENTATIONS
(Items other than those appearing on the agenda. Limited to three minutes per speaker unless
previous arrangements are made.)
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Tentatively scheduled. Planning Commission consideration subject
to timely receipt ofi requested information.
Vacate a portion of a 66' section line easement centered on line common
to sections 7 and 18; Portion of easement petitioned for vacation is the
full 66 `width starting at the E1/16th section corner common to sections
7 and 18, running easterly to corner common to sections 7, 8, 17 and 18.
AND, vacate the portion of the 33' section line easement within section 8,
lying between said common section corner and a point approximately 255
feet westerly of the w1/6 section corner common to sections 8 and 17.
AND, vacate the portion of the 66 foot section line easement common to
sections 7 and 8 lying between Skyline Drive and said section corner.
AND, vacate approximately 210 feet of the 33 foot section line easement
within Section 18 lying between said section corner and the southeast
corner of Lot shown as Lot 11 on preliminary plat of Tulin Terrace
Subdivision Unit 1 [Also shown as Tulin Terrace Upper Terrace on a
Preliminary Plat DrawingJ. All being within Township 6 South, Range 13
West, Seward Meridian, Alaska; KPB File 96-036
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition to (A) vacate Sarah Avenue and associated utility easements as
dedicated and granted by Scott Subdivision (Plat 85-76), within Section
34; AND, (B) vacate 66 foot Section Line Easement lying north of Lot 1,
Scott Subdivision, within Sections 34 and 27; all being within Township 4
South, Range 15 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska and the Homer
Recording District; KPB File 96-076 and 96-077
2. Ordinance 96-14: Enacting KPB Chapter 21.13 Requiring Permits for
Certain Land Uses Within the Borough
Rename existing streets to help implement the Enhanced 9-1-1 Street
Naming and Addressing project within the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Streets under consideration at this meeting are described as follows:
a. ALDER CIRCLE within Hidden Hills Subdivision No. 5 (Plat KN
76-43), Section 15, T5S, R14W: located off North Fork Road;
proposed to be renamed to FOX ROAD.
b. ALDER CIRCLE within Hidden Hills Subdivision No 4. (Plat HM
75-45), Section 15, T5S, R14W, located off North Fork Road;
proposed to be renamed to MILLBURN COURT.
c. EAST ALUT AVENUE within Salmon Heights Subdivision (Plat
HM 74-2196), Section 8, T5S, R14W, located east of the Sterling
Highway and west of North Fork Road; proposed to be renamed
to ALUT AVENUE.
d. WALSH AVENUE within Anchor River Ranchos (Plat HM 72-
328), Anchor River Ranchos Unit 2 (Plat HM 81-89), Section 17,
TSS, R14W, located east of the Sterling Highway and west of
North Fork Road; proposed to be renamed to ALUT AVENUE.
e. ANCHOR COURT within Southfork Subdivision (Plat HM 77-68),
Section 3, T5S, R15W, located east of the old Sterling Highway;
proposed to be renamed to HOAG COURT.
NORTH FORK ANCHOR RIVER ROAD within Craig's
Subdivision (Plat HM87-57), Section 4, TSS, R15W, located off
the Sterling Highway; proposed to be renamed to NORTH FORK
ROAD.
g. ANCHOR POINT AVENUE within Sprucegate Subdivision (Plat
HM 76-59), Section 35, T4S, R15W, August Knight (Plat HM 81-
7), Amended (Plat HM 83-17), Section 3, T5S, R15W, located off
the Sterling Highway; proposed to be renamed to NORTH FORK
ROAD.
h. NORTH FORK ROAD within August Knight (Plat HM 81-7),
Amended (Plat HM 83-17), a portion within Spruceridge
Subdivision (Plat HM 76-49), Section 3, T5S, R15W, located off
the Sterling Highway; proposed to be renamed to
SPRUCERIDGE LOOP.
ANCHOR ROAD within North Fork Acres (Plat HM 74-484),
Section 26, T4S, R14W, located near the intersection of North
Fork Road and Nikotaevsk Road; proposed to be renamed to
YESSEY STREET.
BILLBERG STREET within Mulberry Acres (Plat HM 78-82),
Section 6, T4S, R14W, located east of the Sterling Highway;
proposed to be renamed to MULBERRY STREET.
k. BIRCH ROAD within Birch Haven Estates (Plat HM 74-2193),
Sections 19 and 30, T4S, R14W, Otta Subdivision (Plat HM 76-
8), Section 25, T4S, R15W, located north of North Fork Road;
proposed to be renamed to OTTA STREET.
CLEAR CREEK ROAD within Inlet View Tracts Subd. (Plat HM
74-698), Sections 7 and 18, TSS, R14W, located off Alut Avenue;
proposed to be renamed to HEARN STREET.
m. COTTONWOOD COURT within Cottonwood East Subdivision
(Plat HM 78-20), Section 28, T4S, R14W, located off North Fork
Road; proposed to be renamed to FINLEY CIRCLE.
EAST WAYNE AVENUE within Knob Hill Subdivision (Plat HM
88-7), Sections 1 and 2, T5S, R14W, located east of North Fork
Road; proposed to be renamed to WAYNE AVENUE.
o. GILLHAM LANE within Lionel Subdivision Addition No. 1 (Plat
HM 76-53), Section 35, T4S, R15W, located west of North Fork
Road; proposed to be renamed to HAAKENSON AVENUE.
p. GILLHAM LANE within Cave Subdivision (Plat HM 79-43),
Section 36, T4S, R15W, located east of North Fork Road;
proposed to be renamed to CAVE AVENUE.
q. HAPPY STREET within Hoffman Acres (Plat HM 74-2195),
Section 4, T5S, R14; proposed to be renamed to EMMA
STREET.
r. MAN O WAR ROAD within Salmon Heights Subdivision (Plat
HM 74-2196), Section 8, T5S, R14W, located south of North Fork
Road; proposed to be renamed to GUNNISON AVENUE.
s. WEST NORDVIK AVENUE within Birch Haven Estates (Plat HM
74-2193), Section 19 and 30, T4S, R14W, located north of North
Fork Road; proposed to be renamed to HAVEN AVENUE.
t. NORDVIK AVENUE within Stutes Retreat (Plat HM 85-10),
Section 24, T4S, R15W, located north of North Fork Road;
proposed to be renamed to HAVEN AVENUE.
u. WEST NORDVIK AVENUE within Camai Subdivision (Plat HM
88-20), Section 27, T4S, R15W, located off the Sterling Highway;
proposed to be renamed to VALLEYSIDE AVENUE.
v. ROSELLA STREET within Wallace Subdivision (Plat HM 77-86),
Section 1, T4S, R15W, located east of the Sterling Highway;
proposed to be renamed to JERALD STREET.
w. STARISKI ROAD within Stariski Estates (Plat HM 76-99),
Winnburg Heights,(Plat hm 78-84), Section 6, T4S, R14W,
Hamiltons Countryside Estates (Plat HM 87-31), Section 12, T4S,
R15W, located east of the Sterling Highway; proposed to be
renamed to STODDARD AVENUE. (This proposed name
change incorporates a suffix change for Stoddard Drive shown
on Stariski View Subdivision (Plat HM 79-132)to Stoddard
Avenue).
x. STARISKI ROAD within Stariski Creek Acres No. 2 (Plat HM 74-
607), Section 32, T3S, R14W, located off Tall Tree Road;
proposed to be renamed to STARISKI CREEK STREET.
y. TREE ROAD within Jeppesen Subdivision (Plat HM 75-28),
Section 36, T3S, R15W, located east of the Sterling Highway;
proposed to be renamed to COTTONFIELD AVENUE.
z. WARREN AVENUE within Dean Warren Subdivision (Plat HM
77-72), Section 15, T5S, R15W, located off the Old Sterling
Highway; proposed to be renamed to DEAN WAY.
aa. WILLIAMS COURT within Parkinson South Subdivision (Plat HM
78-76), Section 8, T5S, R15W, located west of the Old Sterling
Highway; proposed to be renamed to BECKER COURT.
bb. UNNAMED RIGHT-OF-WAY within Spruce Acres Subdivision
(Plat HM 60-45), Section 34, T4S, R15W, located adjacent to
Lots 5, 6, 19, 20, 21A, 22, 23, 24, off the Sterling Highway;
proposed to be renamed to WILLIAMS WAY.
cc. UNNAMED RIGHT-OF-WAY within Spruce Acres Subdivision
(Plat HM 60-45), Section 34, T4S, R15W, located adjacent to
Lots 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21A, off the Sterling Highway;
proposed to be renamed to ROSE AVENUE.
dd. UNNAMED RIGHT-OF-WAY within Spruce Acres Subdivision
(Plat HM 60-45), Section 34, T4S, R15W, located adjacent to
Lots 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, off the Sterling Highway;
proposed to be renamed to MAX WAY.
ee. KLUCHEVAYA LANE within Kluchevaya Village (Plat HM 91-43)
Amended (Plat HM 91-59), Section 24, T4S, R14W, located in
Kluchevaya Village; proposed to be renamed to BARANOF
DRIVE.
ff. NAHODKA AVENUE within Kluchevaya Village (Plat HM 91-43)
Amended (Plat HM 91-59), Nahodka Village No. 2 Subdivision
(Plat HM 82-29), Section 24, T4S, R14W, located in Kluchevaya
and Nahodka Villages; proposed to be renamed to SERGIEF
AVENUE.
gg. NIKOLAEVSK COURT within Kluchevaya Village (Plat HM 91-
43) Amended (Plat HM 91-59), Section 24, T4S, R14W, located
in Kluchevaya Village; proposed to be renamed to CHICHAGOF
COURT.
hh. TAYNITSKIY ROAD within Stina Creek Subdivision (Plat 73-
148), Section 15, T4S, R14W; proposed to be renamed to Turku
Avenue.
G. VACATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING -None
H. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Bayview Gardens Addition No. 6, Lot 36-A, Block 6 -Bldg. Setback
Exception; KPBPC Resolution 96-14: Granting an exception to the
twenty foot building setback limit for a portion of Lot 36-A, Block 6,
Bayview Gardens Addition No. 6 (Plat 92-23 HRD) Section 8, Township 6
South, Range 13 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska.
2. A Resolution Classifying Borough Land Within the Boundaries of the City
of Kenai
3. An Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of Borough Land to the City of
Kenai for a Well Site and Other Public Facilities
I. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
1. Sonnichsen S/D 1996 Additions
Cape Starichkof; Roger Imhoff
KPB File 96-079
2. Dutch Landing S/D; Robinson Loop
Preliminary; McLane Consulting Group
KPB File 96-080
3. Oberts Pillars S/D; Kenai City
Preliminary; McLane Consulting Group
KPB File 96-084
4. Cedar Street Extension Dedication
Seldovia City; Preliminary
Ability Surveys
KPB File 96-082
5. Hooting Owl SlD;
Sterling Highway, Falls Creek
Preliminary; Segesser Surveys
KPB File 96-083
6. Soldotna Junction TransAlaska Replat
Soldotna City; Preliminary
Integrity Surveys
KPB File 96-085
J. KENAI RIVER HABITAT PROTECTION (KPB 21.18) -None
K. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS -None
L. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS
M. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS
N. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
O. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
P. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is June 10, 1996 at 7:30 p.m.
in Conference Rooms A 8~ B at the Borough Administration Building in Soldotna.
6
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
NO ACTION REQUIRED
1. Seldovia Planning Advisory Committee
Apri13, 1996 Minutes
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ~'~'~
~ ~ "~!~\
t
PLANNING COMMISSION
BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ~
CONFERENCE ROOMS A ~ B ~ ~
SOLDOTNA, ALASKA ~ ~
JUNE 10, 1996 7:30 P.M.
4~ v
_Q~~
Tentative Agenda
John Hamnbtnan
chakman
Arsewlds
Term Expkes 1998
Phtia Brveon
vkxi Chakman
Ksntl Clty
Term Expires 1998
Am VVhltrnore-PalnAer
Partiamer>mrtsn
Moose Pass Aran
Term Explrss 1997
Peggy G. Boscaod
PC Member
Sekkrila CUy
Temp Expires 19917
Wayne
PC Member
Seward Clly
Term Expires 1986
Robert Ck~ltt
PC Member
Anchor Pont
Term Expires 19®8
Wes Cobmsn
PC Member
Sokkkna Cky
Tenn Expkes 1998
~oY Y
PC Member
Homer Clly
Tenn Expires 1998
EAis Hensley, Jr.
PC Member
NNdsld
Tenn Expires 1996
Brent Johnson
PC Member
Kaslbf Arse
Tenn Expires 19i}7
Tom Knock
PC Member
Cooper tarxing
Term Expires 1998
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT
AGENDA
All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and noncontroversial by the Planning
Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Planning Commissioner or someone from the public so requests, in which case the item will
be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the regular agenda.
ff you wish to comment on a consent agenda item or a regular agenda item other than a public hearing,
please advise the recording secretary before the meeting begins, and she will inform the Chairman of
your wish to comment.
1. Time Extension Requests
a. Kelly S/D 1994 Addn.
KPB File 94-054 [TWA Surveying]
Location: Ninilchik Fairground area
2. Plats Granted Administrative Approval
3. KPBPC Resolutions -None
4. Kenai River Habitat Protection (KPB 21.18) -None
5. Coastal-Management Program
a. Coastal Management Program Consistency Reviews
1) Regional; Oil and Gas Lease Sale 85A; Alaska
Department of Natural Resources; AK
2) Ninilchik; Ninilchik #1 Exploratory Gas Well;
Marathon Oil Co.; AK 9605 - 01 OG
3) Chuitna; Marie Gas Well # 1; Trading Bay Energy
Corporation; AK 9605 - 020G
4) Sterling; Wetland Fill; Across the River RV Park; AK
9601 - 26AA
.~ ;,,}
Doa ci~fm.n,
Lnl'nlrar r`~r,
>~ r,
>!~a ',
.~_
.,
!`~ b. Conclusive Consistency Determinations Received from
.~~~ DGC -None
~4
c. Administrative Determinations -None
,i 6. Commissioner Excused Absences
~~
a. John Hammelman
b. Peggy Boscacci
7. Minutes
a. May 28, 1996
D. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PRESENTATIONS
(Items other than those appearing on the agenda. Limited to three minutes per speaker
unless pr3vious arangements are mada.j
1. Jeny Anderson
2. Sam Best
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1-a. Vacate that portion of Lincoln Street, and that portion of the 20 foot
alley, bounded by Lots 69, 70, 71, and 72, Woodrow Alaska
Subdivision filed as plat 8 in the Seward Recording District.
Sections 12 and 13, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Seward
Meridian, Alaska; KPB File 96-065
1-b. Vacate that portion of the 66' Section Line Easement lying within
Lots 71, 72, 73-A and 73-B, Woodrow Alaska Subdivision;
Sections 12 and 13, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Seward
Meridian, Alaska; KPB File 96-078
2-a. Petition to Vacate that portion of Moose Turd Avenue lying
between Lot 21, Sea Watch Estates Subdivision (Plat 83-48 KRD)
and Tract 2-B, Kalbea Subdivision No. 2 (Plat 84-32 KRD); within
Section 31, Township 5 North, Range 11 West, and, within Section
1, Township 4 North, Range 11 West; all being within Seward
Meridian, Alaska and the Kenai Recording District; KPB File 96-053
2-b. Petition to Vacate the full width of the 66 foot section line
easement lying between Kalifomsky Beach Road and Cook Inlet
within Section 31, Township 5 North, Range 11 West, and, within
Section 1, Township 4 North, Range 11 West; all being within
Seward Meridian, Alaska and the Kenai Recording District; KPB
File 96-054
3. Vacate the entire of Joyce Place and associated utility easements
as dedicated and granted by Eagle's Roost Subdivision (Plat 81-
126 KRD). Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 8 West, Seward
Meridian, Alaska; KPB File 96-064
4. An Ordinance Amending Kenai Peninsula Borough Chapter 5.14,
Kenai River System Habitat Protection Tax Credit
5. Ordinance 96-22: Amending Kenai Peninsula Borough Chapter
21.02 Regarding Advisory Planning Commissions
6. Ordinance 96-26: Repealing KPB Chapter 21.14 "Mobile Home
Parks"
7. Ordinance 96-24: Adopting Regulations Establishing Parking,
Size, and Weight Restrictions and Control of Construction Within
Borough Rights-of--way
G. VACATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING -None
H. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Stanley's Meadow No. 16 -Final Review by Commission -
Exception to Staff 12/14/95 conditions for final approval under the
Administrative Approval provisions [Patrick J. Church)
KPB File 95-077
2. P/VN Neal, Tony
KPBPC Resolution 96-15: Granting a platting waiver for certain
lands within Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 15 West,
Seward Meridian, Alaska.
KPB File 96-094
3. P/VV Phillips, Brad
KPBPC Resolution 96-16: Granting a platting waiver for certain
lands within Section 23, Township 5 North, Range 11 West,
Seward Meridian, Alaska.
KPB File 96-092
4. P/W Hanson, Marvel
KPBPC Resolution 96-17: Granting a platting waiver for certain
lands within Section 9, Township 5 North, Range 9 West, Seward
Meridian, Alaska
KPB File 96-105
5. Proposed Classification of Borough Land
a. The land proposed for classification of certain Borough land
as residential is located in the Kasilof area and is described
as follows: Government Lots 2 and 5, Section 9, T2N,
R12W, S.M., Alaska, containing 93.05 acres, more or less.
THIS CLASSIFICATION PETITION HAS BEEN
WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
b. A Resolution Classifying Tract 2B, Kalbea Subdivision No.
2, Replat of Tracts 1 and 2, Plat No. 84-3, Containing 7.889
Acres, Located at Approximately Mile Post 11, Kalifomsky
Beach Road, as Residential
CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
Kalbea Subdivision Sea Watch Addn.
Kalifomsky Beach Road; Preliminary
McLane Consulting Group
KPB File 96-053
2. Bumt Norton S/D; Kasilof, east of highway
Preliminary; McLane Consulting Group
KPB File 96-090
3. Jake Ivanoff S/D; North Kenai
Preliminary; McLane Consulting Group
KPB File 96-093
4. Tukak Harbor S/D No. 2; Big Eddy Road
Preliminary; McLane Consulting Group
KPB File 96-098
5. Gruber S/D No. 7; Echo Lake Road area
Preliminary; McLane Consulting Group
KPB File 96-099
6. Eagle's Roost Replat; off Funny River Road
Preliminary; Integrity Surveys
KPB File 96-064
7. Lost Lake No. 5; north of Seward
Postponed Preliminary; Integrity Surveys
KPB File 96-068
8. Cliff Addn Seward Townsite Thomas Replat
Seward City; Preliminary
Integrity Surveys
KPB File 96-088
9. Old Mill S/D Addn 4 Replat; north of Seward
Preliminary; Integrity Surveys
KPB File 96-096
10. Old Mill S/K Bohna-Fouts Addn.
Seward Highway, north of Seward
Preliminary; Teny Eastham
KPB File 96-086
11. Soldotna East No. 13; east of Soldotna
Preliminary; Teny Eastham
KPB File 96-087
12. Maranatha S/D Addn. No. 4;
west of Lamp Light Road
Preliminary; Terry Eastham
KPB File 96-089
13. RNV Cottonwood Lane Bridge Replacement BRO-0001(79)
Anchor River, Preliminary
DOT/PF
KPB File 96-091
14. Tract A, B, 8 C Kinzel Acres; Resurrection River area
[Name to change -Resurrection Valley Park S/D]
Resurrection River area; Preliminary
Cooper and Company
KPB File 96-095
15. Stewart Petroleum; west side of Cook Inlet
Revised Preliminary; LCMF Incorporated
KPB File 96-061
16. Antone Muth No. 3; Chakok Road
Preliminary; Mullikin Surveys
KPB File 95-087
17. Luke's Wilderness Acres; Anchor Point area
Preliminary; Mullikin Surveys
KPB File 96-100
18. Beluga Slough Trail S/D; Homer City
Preliminary; Seabright Surveying
KPB File 96-101
19. Ninilchik Airpark; Oilwell Road
Revised Preliminary; Seabright Surveying
KPB File 96-043
20. A. A. Mattox 1958 Addn No. 3; Homer City
Preliminary; Seabright Surveying
KPB File 96-103
21. Cranewings S/D; east of Homer
Preliminary; Seabright Surveying
KPB File 96-102
22. All Mine No. 7; east of McNeil Canyon
Preliminary; Roger Imhoff
KPB File 96-104
J. KENAI RIVER HABITAT PROTECTION (KPB 21.18)
1. Ordinance 96-06 Guidelines
K. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS -None
L. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS
M. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS
N. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
O. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
P. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is June 24, 1996 at
7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers at the Borough Administration Building in
Soldotna.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
', NO ACTION REQUIRED
1, AML Legislative Bulletin #19-16
2. Anchor Point Advisory Planning Commission
August 1, 1995 Minutes
3. Anchor Point Advisory Planning Commission
October 3, 1995 Minutes
4. Anchor Point Advisory Planning Commission
January 2, 1996 Minutes
5. Seward Planning Commission
May 1, 1996 Minutes
6
CITY OF KENAI ~°~~
~,-.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission ~r,'1Z~''°~ ~,'
d~
0
FROM: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk ~~ ~~ ''•~N
City of Kenai ~ w
DATE: June 6, 1996
RE: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
I have been advised by Marilyn Kebschull that after the May 22, 1996 Planning &
Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioner Goecke gave her ahand-written note that
he wanted reconsideration of PZ Resolution No. 96-41, recommending the creation of a
Prime Residential Zone.
In order for the item to be reconsidered, a motion must be made, seconded and passed
by at least four members of the commission. After the motion is made, seconded and
passed, the subject is placed on the following meeting's agenda for discussion. The
purpose of which is to allow further comment on the subject and to notify the public that
the item has been reconsidered and that another public hearing will be held at which
time public comment may be made.
I have attached a copy of a 1989 memorandum from former City Attorney Rogers which
explains the procedure.
Because PZ Resolution No. 96-41 was passed by the Commission at the May 22, 1996
meeting and to follow through with the direction of the resolution and explanation given
to the public attending that meeting, Ordinance No. 1704-96 amending the Kenai
Municipal Code to include the Prime Residential Zone, was developed and introduced at
the Kenai City Council Meeting of June 5, 1996. Ordinance No. 1704-96 will be
forwarded for public hearing on June 19, 1996. If, at the Commission's June 12 meeting,
a motion for reconsideration is made and passed by at least four members and the
reconsideration is then scheduled for the June 26 P&Z meeting, the public hearing of
the ordinance could be requested to be postponed for action until after the
reconsideration is held.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 283-7539.
210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794
TELEPHONE 907-283-7535
FAX 907-283-3014 ~
~~~~
1III~1
1992
cc: Attorney Graves
1791-1991
CITY OF KE~iAI
__ 210 FIDALGO KENAI, ALA~/1 gg8»
TELEPHONE 283-755
FAX 907-283-30T4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Art McComsey, Council Member
City of Kenai
FROM: imothy J. Rogers, City Attorney
~ ,City of ~Cenai
DATE: June 6, 1989
RE: ?arliamentary Procedure
This memorandum is in response to several questions posed to the
Legal Department concerning parliamentary procedure. For the
sake of clarity and to provide you with future reference, the
answers to your questions are provided in this memorandum.
1. Who may move to reconsider?
KMC 1.15.060(g) states in part, "any member who voted on the
prevailing side may move a reconsideration thereof at the. same
meeting or at the next succeeding meeting." Robert's Rules of
Order is the same.
2. Does a Motion to Reconsider require a second?
KMC 1.15.060(k) provides that, "All motions require a second,
unless otherwise provided." Since the provisions of KMC 1.15.060
dealing with motions to reconsider do not provide otherwise, a
Motion to Reconsider must have a second. Robert's Ru.tes cif Order
is the same.
KMC 1.15.060 is silent as to who may second a Motion for
Reconsideration. KMC 1.15.120(b) provides that Robert's Rules of
Order shall govern parliamentary procedure as to matters not
covered under the Kenai Municipal Code. Section 36 of Robert's
Ru.Ies of Order provides that any member of the Council may second
the Motion for Reconsideration.
-1-
3. Can a date in the future be set for the vote concerning
the Motion to Reconsider?
According to Section 36 0` Robert's Rules of Order, a future date
for the vote on a Motion for Reconsideration may be set only when
the motion is made on the same date as the vote t.o be
reconsidered is taken. Such a motion is termed a "Motion to
Reconsider and Have Wintered on the Minutes." If the Motion for
Reconsideration is made during the next meeting, the vote must be
taken during that succeeding meeting.
A Motion to Reconsider and Have Entered on the Minutes was
designed for assemblies with frequent meetings and small quorums
where a majority of the quorum can pass legislation. The Motion
is designed to allow a Motion to Reconsider to be scheduled at a
later meeting when a proper majority of the assembly could be in
attendance. Under the provisions of our Code, an ordinance may
not pass without receiving the votes of a majority of the Council
as a whole. KMC 1.15.060(e).
This Motion has been criticized by some scholars because it
allows two members .of an assembly to hold up action taken by an
assembly. Mason's Legislate ve Manual, X474. Mr. Robert
acknowledged the potential for abuse of the motion. On page 167
of Robert's Rules of Urder, he states a remedy for an attempt at
abuse:
I
Should a minority make an improper use of this form of
the motion to reconsider by applying it to a vote which
required action before the next regular business
meeting, the remedy is at once to vote that when the
assembly adjourns it adjourns to meet another day,
appointing a suitable day, when the reconsideration
could be can ed up and disposed of.
Implicit in Mr. Robert's discussion of this motion is that the
Motion to Reconsider and Have Entered in the Minutes, means that
it is to be scheduled for a vote on the next regular meeting of
the assembly. Any other Motion to Reconsider must put up for a
vote during the same meeting as made. However, the vote on any
motion to reconsider may be rescheduled by a vote of the Council.
Mason's Legislate ve Manual, X461. Any such action would require
four votes. KMC 1.15.060(e).
The Motion to Reconsider and Enter in the Minutes was interpreted
by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Rutherford v. City of
Nashville, 79 S.W.2d 581 {Tenn. 1935}. The Nashville City
Council was considering an ordinance licensing the drivers of
motor vehicles. After the final reading of the ordinance, the
-2-
~^ ordinance passed upon a majority vote. A councilman then moved to
reconsider and have entered on the minutes. The presiding
officer overruled the Motion to Reconsider and sent the ordinance
to the Mayor for his signature. At_the next meeting, the
councilman who made the motion tried to call it up for
disposition. The Court held that the Motion to Reconsider and
Have Entered on the Minutes was properly overruled by the
presiding officer, but did not explain why other than to say the
deliberative body may establish its own rules.
4. Is a Motion to Reconsider debatable?
Some Motions to Reconsider are debatable and some are not.
Whether such a motion is debatable or not depends upon whether
the motion which it is proposed to reconsider is debatable. The
following is an example. A Motion to Table is not a debatable
motion. Thus, a Motion to Reconsider a Motion to Table is not a
debatable motion. Mason's Legislate ve Manual, ~ 82.
If the. underlying motion which is being reconsidered is one which
is debatable, i.e.; an ordinance or resolution, then the Motion
to Reconsider is debatable. Mason's Legislative Manual, X81.
KMC 1.15.060 states that debate on such a motion shall be limited
to twenty-five (25) minutes, with no member speaking more than
five (5) minutes.
5. What is the effect of a Motion for Reconsider?
According to Section 36 of Robert's Rules of Order, the effect is
to "suspend all action that the original motion would have
required until reconsideration is acted upon." Section 467 of
Mason's Legislate ve Manual also states that a Motion to
Reconsider suspends all action on the underlying motion until the
Motion to Reconsider is acted upon.
TJR/clf
-3-
/2b
/- Alaska. Challenger Learning Center
r Challenger
CENTER
Date: May 2~, 1996
To: City o~f Kenai Boards & Commissions
Fr: Kat~kty Scott, ~'roject Facilitator
Subj: Challenger Learning Center
In an effort to keep the community of Kenai well informed. about the
Alaska Challenger Learning Center, we are enclosing a copy of the
executive summary from the recently completed feasibility study. A
full report is available upon your request from the city staff or from the
project office.
We believe this project is one that everyone in our area can be proud
of. We will be m~.king informational project presentations in the fall
and welcome invitations to speak about the Alaska. Challenger Learning
Center. The city staff would likely make that request on your behalf if
your so desire. Your questions and comments about the project are
important to us, so please do not hesitate to call me at the project
office or speak to one of the steering committee members.
K. Scott & Associates, Inc., • PA. Box 2488 • Kenai, Alaska 99611-2488
Phone (907) 283-5130/Fax (907) 2835918
'~
Executive Summary
The Alaska Challenger Learning Center Steering Committee, convened
~ by the City of Kenai and facilitated by K. Scott & Associates, Inc., finds the
~a City of Kenai a feasible location for a Challenger Center in Alaska.
Endeavoring to provide all of Alaska's students with access to programs from
~ the Challenger Center for Space Science Education in Alexandria, Virginia,
~ this proposal uniquely incorporates the latest technology in distance
education delivery. The committee envisions using multi-media, video and
telecommunications technology to overcome distance barriers through an
.~ electronic classroom.
~ The center's primary market is students, grades 4-12 and their
~ teachers. Seventy-three percent of Alaska's 82,764 public school students
in this age group live on the highway system; most no more than ahalf-dais
~ drive from Kenai. In 1995, over 9,000 students from other school districts
participated in interscholastic sports activities on the Kenai Peninsula.
More than 7,000 students participated in field trips to Homer's Pratt
~ Museum last year, some coming from as far away as Fairbanks in interior
Alaska. The maximum academic audience to be generated in the 180 day
school year is estimated to be 14,400 students. Almost 50%, or 7,035 of
~ the maximum potential students users reside in the Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District. The cost per student is anticipated to be no more
than $10-12.
Use of the facility by Alaska's visitors provides another strong revenue
market. Trends established since a baseline tourism study in 1990, show
strong growth and a $11 million increase in tourism related sales. At $12
per person. for amini-flight 4,000-4,412 visitors would provide $50,000 in
revenue the first year of operation.
Budget scenarios for operation of the Challenger Center show that by
the third year, when expenses stabilize and revenues level off, revenue out
paces expenses by a comfortable margin. During the first year and part way
through the second, when marketing efforts take hold, the facility will
require a subsidy. The projected number of revenue producing facility users
during the first and second year have been stated in the lower ranges in
order to provide a conservative view of revenue projections.
The City of Kenai's extensive experience in public facility development
and ownership provides a solid rationale in support of a similar arrangement
for the Challenger Center. The Kenai Senior Center, the Federal Aviation
Administration building and the Kenai Visitor and Cultural Center are all
owned by the city and operated under contract provisions with private,
government or non-profit outside entities. Recognizing the initial cash
requirement to capitalize the facility, the steering committee recommends
the city construct and own the Center's building and further recommends
that management of the facility be contracted through the University of
Alaska. The proposal is logical for several reasons: 1) the land selected for
Alaska Challenger Learning Center Study, a project of the City of Kenai
Facilitated by K. Scott & Associates, Inc. Page 4
the center's site (Baron Fark Subdivision Part 7, Tract A-1) is already leased
from the city to the university for a training campus; 2) the Mining and
Petroleum Training Services Center, an extension of the university, already
resides on the site, 3) the University of Alaska Anchorage, Kenai Peninsula
College Campus, located less than eight miles from the proposed site, is
staffed with 26 full-time and 90 adjunct faculty offering a full spectrum of
general education courses including a four year education degree; 4) the
City of Kenai has the capacity to provide interim funding for the facility's
development and construction phase, and 5) the City of Kenai has the ability
to attract a wide variety of private and public dollars in order to capitalize
the construction.
It is expected that the proposed 13,000 square foot facility to house
the Challenger Learning Center, an electronic classroom for seating a 100
people and an inter-active science and technology exploratorium will cost
$3.5 million if constructed in 1998. This cost includes $750,000 for the
Challenger Learning Center simulator package. The core funding for
building the facility will be drawn from state agencies, corporate donors,
municipal government and through state legislative support. In other
Challenger Centers across the nation, corporate sponsorship has been
successfully solicited from companies contracted and sub-contracted by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to build spacecraft.
Companies doing business in Alaska with the Poker Flats Rocket Launch
Facility or with the Kodiak Satellite Launch Facility will be considered
important potential partners. Debbie Sedwick, Assistant Commissioner,
"~" Department of Commerce and Economic Development and Pat Ladner,
Director of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation have pledged
their assistance in identifying potential corporate partners. A high profile
fundraising committee will be appointed upon receiving the prestigious
Challenger Center designation for Alaska.
The benefits of bringing the Alaska Challenger Learning Center to
Alaska and the Kenai region are numerous, including:
• through the proposed electronic classroom, many Alaskan students
who might not otherwise participate in the Challenger Center
experience, will have the opportunity.
• students of the peninsula will enjoy the opportunity for frequent
visits to the center due to its close proximity.
• our students, statewide, can improve knowledge and skills in the
areas of science and math while learning valuable team
building/problem solving skills.
• .the center provides an opportunity to engage visitors in activities
other than those that impact our wilderness resources and
environment while increasing the potential for business income from
retail sales of food, gas and lodging.
Alaska Challenger Learning Center Stndy, a project of the City of Henai
Facilitated byK.Scott&Assodat~es,Inc. Page 5
r~~~
The Alaska Challenger Learning Center Steering Committee concludes
that sufficient opportunity exists, through the creation of this facility to
recommend that the City of Kenai process an application for designation as
the Challenger Learning Center's. site in Alaska. Preliminary review by the
Challenger Center for Space Science Education of the comrruttee's rationale
and recommendations has resulted in an invitation to submit the City of
Kenai's application for site designation to the national board in April, 1996.
~i
Alaska Chal`l~nge~- Learning Center Study, a project of the City of Kenai
Facilitatcd by K.~Scott & Associates, Inc. FiBge 6
`
~ ~ t~i ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Xi 75i ~ ~ ~ ~ >
Y
~
$
$
$ t
li e3
$ R
Y ~ Y Y Y Y pp
Cn Y Z Y a Y
o
N
ems..
O
_
O
O ~
O
N
~
..~
_
~
~
.~..
N
N qp
'
Sa
SS O N
Y ~ C~ ~
~ 7"`
~O N
~p N
~p OOD
it
~
gg~~ ~
~ ~ Q
'N"
O
~j Cn
~ ~
~ _
O C C Ri
~ O
~
~ t3
Y C~J~
O OD
O N
O
~ ypl.+
(
) _
~ 0
~ _.
~
~
~ m ~ Z Z p
('7 Y
M ~ ~ ~ m m m ~ ,
~ Z ~ U
~ pomp} ~ m Cp N l~
X27 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ^ O O
e-
d
m
e-
~
~
~
a.
st
N (
p
t`7
U ~
~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
a ~
~ o
8
S
~
_ ~
~'
g'
~
~'
~,
~
~-
~
_
`- fs fs o ~ `- '- ~
~ ~- a~ ~
~ p Y 5 a a a Y = v Q
rn ,~ v as us ~ s an ~ Y
(~ .S ° .S cLg _
ca _
co _
m m o c .c ~
~ ~ ~ •~
~ o
~ U ~ U ~ Y Y Y Y Y U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y U
~
~
~
%
'v
~
~
'~
tg
~ y~
'3'-
~
~
c
~
f5 -~ G
~3
V
~
~
U
N
.g
..~..
~
~s;
_
~
~
~
~
ci
~
o
c'n
4
w
~
~ .~
~
~
` a
~
o dS
o
~
~
o
t a
U +•
~
Y
co ~
y ~ ~ ~ g a~i
~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~
Q
d
f6
m
m`
a
o
~i
~
i
~°
z
a
$
vii ~
cn
~
~
~
~
C
~
~
~
~
L
~
N
}
D _
~
~ yy
C ~p
C~
~ .~
C
G
Y
L
~ Y S Q LU J ~ O Y D U' ~ ~a d
~ ~ ~
(
p ~ t
p ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ u'~ lA
~ N S'
Y( M ;C,
JO(,
W f~j N N N N N N N N w.,
~~w
1~ ~ ~ N !
~
(V ~ ,
N
N
N cc
pp
F~ (h ~ ~
_ ~
~ ~ W
f
~
j N_ (p
S2 ~
C
~
~p
ep
tD
~
(O
~
~
~
~j
~
~
J
~i
j ~
N ~
~
N N
fV
[V QU
N
N OD
N
~ OD
N ~p
N
N
N
N c
p
lff
t
N
N
aV
1~1
.nI
C
y~
W
~^T
V
~~ ~
~ Kenai Peninsula Borough
P Planning Department
~~ d 144 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669-7599
~ (90~ 262-4441, extension 260
.~, ,.. ~ FAX (90'n 262-8618
May 30, 1996
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
MEETING OF MAY 28, 1996
RE: Oberts Pillazs Part Two Preliminary Plat
The proposed preliminary plat was conditionally approved by the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Commission. The conditions of approval aze stated in the attached draft minutes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning
Department.
This notice and unapproved minutes of the subject portion of the meeting were sent
May 31, 1996 to:
City o£ City of Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Street, Suite 200, Kenai, Alaska 99611.
Advisory Planning Commission: n/a
Survey Firm: McLane Consulting Group, P.O. Box 468, Soldotna, Alaska 99669.
Subdivider/Petitioner: Leo Oberts, 1440 Chinook Court, Kenai, Alaska 99611-8609.
KPB File Number: 96-084
~ =a\
`~
~ m
o~
v
AGENDA ITEM I. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS
3. Oberts Pillars Part Two
-° ~ ~ KPB FILE 96-084
Staff report as read by Maria Sweppy.
Location: Kenai Spur Highway and Chinook Drive within the Kenai City Limits
Proposed Use: Residential
Zoning: Rural Residential (RR)
Sewer/Water: On-site
(Preliminary)
PC Meeting 05/28/96
Supporting Information: The proposed subdivision will create an 18.47-acre tract out of a 41.57-acre parcel.
The proposed tract encompasses a portion of a Govemment Lot, which may be subject to public access
easements. If those easements exist and are over the portion of the Government Lot within the boundary of this
tract, those easements are to be shown on the final plat.
The Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the plat and recommended approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant approval of the preliminary plat subject to any above recommendations,
and the following conditions:
REVISE OR ADD TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
KPB 20.12 AS FOLLOWS:
1 Correct or add to the legal description/location/area. Include reference to Gov't Lot.
2. Gov't Lot. Show right-of--way easements.
~ 3. Vicinity Map -Label city limits.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
TITLE 20:
4. Provide Improvement Installation Agreement from City or a letter that an agreement is not required.
5. Survey and monumentation to meet Ordinance requirements or an exception having been granted.
6. Conform to conditions of KPB Planning Commission Resolution 78-6.
7. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation requires their approval on the final plat and
recorded instruments in accordance with 18AAC Chapter 72 Article 3.
8. Compliance with Ordinance 90-38 (Substitute) -Ownership.
9. Compliance with Ordinance 93-59 -Payment of all taxes due prior to final approval. If final approval and
filing the plat is sought between January 1 and the tax due date, the full amount of the estimated taxes will
be on deposit with the Finance Department.
END OF STAFF REPORT
MOTION: Commissioner Knock moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitmore-Painter, to grant approval of the
preliminary plat subject to staff recommendations.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous consent.
HAMMELMAN BRYSON WHITMORE-PAINTER BOSCACCI CARPENTER CLUTTS
YES YES YES YES YES YES
COLEMAN GANNAWAY HENSLEY JOHNSON KNOCK ELEVEN YES
YES YES YES YES YES
KPB PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 1996 MEETING U ~! ~+~ P R ~V ` / J I 1 ~ ~ PAGE 30