Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-22 p&z packet`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: /" ~~ I 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: UNAPPROVED CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 8, 1996 Minutes 1. ROLL CALL: Members present: Carl Glick, Phil Bryson, Teresa Werner-Quade, Ron Goecke, John Booth, Karen Mahurin, Kevin Walker Others present: Councilman Hal Smalley, City Engineer Jack La Shot, Administrative Assistant Marilyn Kebschull 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: GOECKE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA WITH THE ADDITION OF THE LETTERS THAT WERE PASSED OUT TONIGHT AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MOTION SECONDED BY GLICK. Chairman Walker noted Item 11, Persons Present Not Scheduled To Be Heard, was missing and asked if anyone would care to address that. Bryson requested that Item 11 be added to the agenda. Maker of the motion concurred as did the second. Walker asked if anyone opposed unanimous consent of the agenda with the additions. None noted. AGENDA APPROVED. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Apri124, 1996 GLICK MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 1996 AND ASKED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE. Walker asked if anyone opposed unanimous consent. None noted but Werner-Quade asked to make a correction. Werner-Quade commented that on members present, Bryson was listed twice. On page 8, fourth paragraph read, "...reiterated the issue before the issue before the Commission.." Also asked that her name be spelled Teresa without the H. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 8, 1996 Walker asked for other corrections. Walker asked if anyone opposed unanimous consent. MINUTES APPROVED. 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD: None. 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS: None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. PZ96-32-Encroachment-Lot 2, Block 2, Spruce Grove Subdivision CLICK MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF PZ96-32, ENCROACHMENT, LOT 2, BLOCK 2, SPRUCE GROVE SUBDIVISION. MOTION SECONDED BY BRYSON. Walker asked for additional staff comment. La Shot noted that if the encroachment of the front yard was only a garage, it wouldn't be an encroachment as the code allows that. A garage can encroach up to 10 feet from the right of way. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. No comments received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Walker brought item back to Commission for discussion. None noted. VOTE: GLICK YES BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES WALKER YES UNANIMOUS. b. PZ96-33-Variance-Lot 23, Block 4, Basin View Subdivision GOECKE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PZ96-33 VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE/WORK SHOP LOT 23, BLOCK 4, BASIN VIEW SUBDIVISION. MOTION SECONDED BY CLICK. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 Minutes May 8, 1996 ~ Walker asked for additional staff comment. None given. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. No comment received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Item brought back to the Commission. Bryson asked if either adjacent property owner had commented. La Shot noted no comments had been received. Mahurin noted she will be voting no noting that variances are a concern that she has expressed many times. Mahurin commented that they have an opportunity to stop something that violates the code before it begins so will be voting no. VOTE: BRYSON YES GOECKE YES MAHURIN NO WALKER YES WERNER-QUADE YES BOOTH YES GLICK NO MOTION PASSED. c. PZ96-34-Conditional Use Permit-Lot 20, Anglers Acres MAHURIN MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF PZ96-34. MOTION SECONDED BY BOOTH. Walker asked for additional staff comment. None noted. Walker stated that before he opened the public hearing he wanted to asked the maker of the motion if she wishes to include the staff recommendations in that motion. Mahurin noted yes and Booth concurred. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. No one commented. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Walker brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Werner-Quade stated she wondered if Mr. Dere had a DEC approved septic for that number of people. Mr. Dere came forward and Werner-Quade asked if he had the DEC permit for that number of people to occupy the residence. Dere advised yes. Mahurin Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 8, 1996 asked Dere if he was planning to park the boats in the river or on the property. Dere stated it would be on Beaver Creek. Chairman Walker advised that Mr. Ron Rainey had called in and requested to submit his support of this item. VOTE: WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES GLICK YES BRYSON YES WALKER YES UNANIMOUS. d. PZ96-35-Conditional Use Permit-Tract A, Block 1, Bridge Road Subdivision No. 2 BRYSON RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PZ96-35. BRYSON STATED HIS INTENT TO INCORPORATE STAFF (CITY ENGINEER) COMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY BOOTH. Walker asked for additional staff comments. La Shot stated nothing additional but the applicants are available to answer questions. PUBLIC HEARNG OPENED. No comments received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Item brought back to the Commission for discussion. Walker noted there are several letters opposing the permit in the packet with concerns that the Commission may wish to address. Walker asked for discussion on the item. Goecke commented that having read the letters, it doesn't sound like the neighbors are too happy. Bryson stated he personally feels given the existing zoning in the area this type of activity won't affect the area. Bryson noted he feels that the property limits should be delineated in some way to contain the activity on the property and that the activity stay within those limits. Bryson stated he also felt parking should be provided onsite. Bryson stated he felt a review of the permit in one year might be appropriate. Glick asked if that was a motion and Bryson stated they were his comments. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 Minutes May 8, 1996 Mahurin stated she felt it important to note that in the backup material it stated their intent to be open Saturday, Sundays, and Wednesdays with vehicles not arriving before 10 a.m. and leaving occasionally as late as 8 p.m. during summer months. Mahurin stated she didn't have a lot of concerns about that and wanted to make the Commission aware of those comments. Goecke commented that he agrees with everything that has been said and that if they can provide parking on that property and not on that road which the neighbors are concerned about. If they can make a border and require users to stay within their property, Goecke noted he doesn't have a severe problem with it. Goecke, noting he doesn't think it is these people doing this, commented that the building he is in with his business has been hit with paint balls so has a bit of a sour taste because of these things. Goecke stated if they can assure him they can keep it on their property and the parking on their property, he is willing to give them a chance for one year. Smalley asked if under the consideration after one year, would there be a waiver of additional filing fees each year or would they have to pay a new filing fee each year. La Shot stated he thought for review, it would not be necessary to refile. Walker stated that as he understands it these people are just out and shooting at each other with paint balls and he doesn't see that they are changing the property appreciably requiring P&Z action. Walker stated that as long as they are contained within their borders, he will support the item. Walker stated he would like to note the paint ball guns are in town and he would rather see a place to go for people to use them than on public buildings and items like that. Walker added he will be supporting this initiative. GLICK MOVED TO APPROVE WITH A REVIEW IN ONE YEAR AND THAT PARKING ON THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE AVAILABLE. Walker asked if this was an amendment to the main motion. Glick confirmed that was his intent. MOTION SECONDED BY BRYSON. Walker asked for discussion on the amendment. None noted. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: GOECKE YES BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES GLICK YES BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES WALKER YES Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes ~ UNANIMOUS. Page 6 May 8, 1996 Walker stated that brings up the main motion and asked if there was further discussion. Bryson asked if the petitioners have any concerns about the conditions that have been added. Walker asked if the petitioners were here and if they have any concerns on the additions. They responded no. VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES GLICK YES BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES WALKER YES UNANIMOUS. e. PZ96-36-Variance-Lot 10, Block 7, Inlet View Subdivision GOECKE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PZ96-36 A VARIANCE FOR LOT 10, BLOCK 7, INLET VIEW SUBDIVISION. MOTION SECONDED BY GLICK. Walker asked for additional staff comments. None noted. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. No comments received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Walker brought item back to the Commission for discussion. Bryson stated that given the irregular shape of the lot, it's lack of depth, and apparently no comments from the adjacent lot 8 that would be most closely affected, Bryson noted he will be supporting the motion. Mahurin stated she will be voting no as she does not approve of the Commission approving these items ahead of time because they come back to haunt the Commission later. Mahurin reiterated she will vote no. Bryson commented he believed the purpose of a variance is to address these situations before they occur rather than after they occur. A variance is not appropriate after a Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7 Minutes May 8, 1996 situation has been constructed and reiterated he feels this is the appropriate procedure to follow. VOTE: MAHURIN NO BRYSON YES GOECKE YES WALKER YES GLICK YES WERNER-QUADE YES BOOTH YES ITEM PASSED. f. PZ96-37-Conditional Use Permit-Gov't Lot 5, Section 11, TSN, R111W, S.M. GOECKE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PZ96-37. MOTION SECONDED BY WERNER-QUADE. Walker asked if additional staff comment. La Shot noted nothing additional. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. No comment received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Walker brought item back to the Commission for discussion. Bryson stated the item is listed as being on Government Lot 5 and asked if this is the remaining portion of that lot? Bryson noted that it appeared on a map that the whole subdivision came out of that government lot. La Shot stated it could be and he thinks there has been further resubdivision of that lot. Bryson asked if this is a tract that is proposed for a subdivision also. La Shot stated the applicant is at the meeting but they indicated to him that they were planning to leave it as one large tract. Mahurin asked if there is information on the size of the lodge, how many overnight clients they intend to have, and how many rooms will be rented out. Lowe stated he planned on building his home and five rooms for rent. Walker asked Lowe to come forward and sign in. Bryan Lowe-Lowe stated he planned on building his home and five bedrooms for rent adding that he doesn't want to be limited to that. Lowe stated he plans to only lodge ten people in the proposed building. Lowe reiterated he did not want to be limited to ten people but perhaps 18 in the future. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8 Minutes May 8, 1996 Mahurin asked the square footage of the proposed lodge? Lowe stated it has not been laid out yet and does not plan to build until the fall. Lowe estimated 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. Lowe added it will be a custom building with DEC approved sewer and water. Lowe stated a designer is coming in to look at the land. The building will be set back in the trees as far as possible and it will be built first class. Mahurin questioned about the planned sewer and water. Lowe stated it will be DEC approved. Mahurin asked how many bathrooms they would be planning for. Lowe stated DEC doesn't care how many bathrooms they have but he plans on having a bathroom in every room that is rented. Mahurin clarified that by sewer and water he was referring to septic. Bryson asked Lowe if he had ever considered requesting a rezone of that entire area. Bryson commented that Lowe appears to be the person with the greatest activity in the area. Bryson noted that the city has the recreational river-oriented recreational zone. Lowe responded he didn't know that could be done but would be interested. Bryson stated the intent is to provide for recreationaUcommercial activities that are river oriented adding that virtually everything going on at Angler's Angers is appropriate. Lowe asked the procedures to do that. Bryson stated he should contact the city. Bryson stated it is a zone that he didn't think any facility had ever been put in it but the intent was to address the Angler's Acres area. Lowe stated he appreciated the information and would check into it. Glick asked how many guides they intended to work out of the building. Lowe stated that there will not be any guides operating out of the building because there is no access to the river although there is 1000 feet of river front. Lowe stated he believed it was designated wetlands. Lowe stated it will basically be for lodging. Lowe advised he currently has two properties up for sale and plans on consolidating into this place instead of being spread out. The plan is to set the lodge back for privacy. Booth asked La Shot if any public comment had been received. La Shot stated there was one letter in the packet. Walker asked Lowe about his statement about not running any guides out of the building. Lowe stated it will be hard to run guides from a place without water access. Walker was questioning the permit requesting lodging and guide business. Lowe stated he had put that in because part of his guide business will be conducted there adding that if he has clients staying there he will be collecting money there. Lowe commented he wanted to make sure he is covered under the permit. Walker stated potentially they will be conducting some guide business in the facility. Lowe stated the guide business will be limited to money and stuff like that. Goecke stated that Lowe realistically meant by guide business is guide booking business and Lowe agreed. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 9 Minutes May 8, 1996 Werner-Quade asked if Lowe had stated how many rooms would be in the building or how many rooms it would be limited to? Lowe stated he plans on building 5 rooms to rent but doesn't want to be limited to that. Lowe added that ten years in the future, noting they were talking about 25 acres, he may want to add an extra cabin or two reiterating that he doesn't want to be limited. Lowe added that there are other permits wherein they are allowed to lodge 18 people. Lowe commented he is only asking for ten now and has a property 25 times larger than anyone elses. Lowe stated he isn't saying he wants 25 times 18 but is saying he doesn't want to be limited to ten people. Lowe commented that he has hired an engineer and everything will be done right and first class. Lowe added that right across the street from him that pretty much everyone there has Conditional Use Permits. Mahurin asked for a clarification to Lowe's statement that there is a business that can lodge up to 18 people and wanted to know which one it was. Lowe responded Will Jahrig's CUP say 18 people on one acre. Lowe added that there are a lot of other CUP's like one with a triplex on it that doesn't say the number of people and others that don't say the number of people. Booth asked if Lowe would be planning on storing the boats on the property. Lowe stated he doubted it as he has another property, Lot 6, and that is where he stores the boats now. Lowe stated he wants to keep all the trees he can and doesn't need to leave the boats there. Mahurin commented she is uncomfortable and doesn't feel she has enough information. Mahurin stated she supports the concept and the businesses that are going in there noting she has voted yes on all of Lowe's permits that have come before the Commission. Mahurin stated she feels like she doesn't have enough specific information in her mind noting she doesn't know how big it will be. Lowe responded if he knew, he would tell them. Lowe added he hasn't priced out the building noting he is busy getting ready for his season. Lowe stated he has two properties up for sale. Some of that money will be used for building. Lowe said he would like to build a place that would cost about one-half million dollars but he couldn't do that. Mahurin stated she understood what he was saying but that she would have to vote no because she doesn't feel she has enough information. Lowe stated the building will be under 6,000 square feet. His home will be approximately 2,000 to 3,000 square feet and the other part probably 2,000 square feet and five bedrooms for rent. Mahurin stated she appreciated his comments but will still vote no even though she supports the comments. Mahurin added that probablies are not good enough for her when issuing a permit. VOTE: GLICK YES BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES BOOTH YES MAHURIN NO WALKER YES Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes MOTION PASSED. 7. NEW BUSINESS: Page 10 May 8, 1996 a. PZ96-30 -Home Occupational Permit -Child Care - Carlough (Continued from 4/24/96) Walker noted this was continued from the 4/24/96 meeting. GOECKE RECOMMENDED BRINGING BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION PZ96-30 A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. MOTION SECONDED BY MAHURIN. Walker asked for additional staff comment. La Shot nothing in addition to the memo and that the additional information as requested had been collected. Walker asked if there was any public comment. None noted. Item brought back to the Commission for discussion, none noted. VOTE: BRYSON YES WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES GLICK YES WALKER YES UNANIMOUS. 8. OLD BUSINESS: a. Prime Residential Zone (Christian) Walker noted that this item had been brought back at the Commission's request and would entertain a motion to put it on the table. MAHURIN MOVED TO PUT ITEM ON THE TABLE. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE. Walker asked for additional staff comment. La Shot stated the minutes from last meeting read that the Commission wanted this back on the agenda on May 22nd. La Shot stated administration wasn't sure if the Commission wanted a public hearing at that time on a proposed ordinance so decided to bring it back this time for additional work, if there was any, or additional comments. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 1 Minutes May 8, 1996 Mahurin stated that Mr. Christian and several of the petitioners have come before P&Z five or six times and have been working on this over a year. Mahurin stated she feels they have asked for this and have been diligent in providing information, worked with the Commission, answered questions and thus would like to have a public hearing at the next meeting. Mahurin stated she would move to have a public hearing to gather input from the community and to see if there really is an interest from the public to establish this type of a zone. Walker asked that any motions be held until there are enough items decided to include in all in one motion. Mahurin agreed and withdrew motion. Bryson stated as he envisioned this, this would be a zone in which it might be appropriate to incorporate existing areas zoned RS-1 or RS-2 among others. As such and given they are all suburban residential, medium density situations, Bryson stated he felt it would be appropriate that it not be considered spot zoning if a person attempted to incorporate an existing lot or five lots or whatever the community wanted into this zone if they met the conditions. Bryson stated he didn't know how much leeway the zoning ordinance has with that regard but would feel that there be some definition that an area that is zoned residentially already, whether RS-1 or RS-2, if the RP zone is adopted, not have to undergo the test of spot zoning to be applied to an area. Walker asked Bryson the area he was discussing, noting he had said one lot or five lots, Walker asked if he was indicating that in the middle of a current suburban residential area, that you would consider taking one 8,000 square foot lot and zoning that RS-2 and not considering that spot zoning. Bryson stated that virtually all of the medium density lots in the city are zoned RS at this time. Continuing, stated that if an area in the city, for example Toyon Street, had five lot owners which were reasonably contiguous petition to have the conditions presently listed as RP applied to their property, that that not be considered spot zoning. Walker asked if he was putting a minimum acreage on it. Bryson stated he would not be supporting any rezone that effectively deviated from the lots that were being rezoned in the area. Bryson stated that in that regard he is probably at odds with the petitioners. Glick stated he concurs with Bryson that perhaps instead of creating a new RP zone, that the RS-2 zone which isn't used be modified and that the items discussed be moved into that zone. Glick stated there wouldn't be many changes except like two family dwelling would be an N. Glick added he felt they should put a square footage on it. Walker asked for suggestion. Glick stated 10,000 per lot. Glick added he doesn't think they want to get too strict feeling some things should be under covenants and if the owners don't follow the covenants they may need to create an association to make the people adhere to the covenants. Glick commented it was not up to the city to enforce those items. Glick stated he felt that what they had gone through on the chart was appropriate but they shouldn't add some of the other things that were wanted. Glick Planning & Zoning Commission Page 12 Minutes May 8, 1996 ~ stated that they probably wouldn't fit into areas that wanted to be changed to the zone and secondly a lot of items should be covenants. Goecke stated what he has had in mind for the RP zone was not trying to change anything in existence. Goecke added he has spoken to a builder in the area who thought the zone merited some thought so that if a builder that wants to build a "more upscale" area they could have this designation available to a new development. Walker stated as he understands it from carefully reviewing past packets, and the information, there is a petition requesting that this body review, analyze and discuss this subject. Walker stated a number of public comment sessions have been held. Walker stated that as yet he has not seen people come forward that actually qualify under this zone and no developers have came forward asking for more restrictive zoning. Walker stated that he is concerned that if they create a zone and it is not used or brought forward, and questioned if it will be forced on adjacent properties perhaps even against property owner's wills. Walker stated that was a strong concern and inasmuch he will not support the creation of this zone. Walker stated they could make some adjustments to the RS-2 zone. Then, if any property owners in groups, noting he does not support zoning, wish to bring something forward and zone their properties as RS-2 to create an area without multiple family dwellings, he would support that. Walker noted he does not support the creation of a very prohibitive zone that the city has not seen one developer request. Christian asked if Walker would take comment from the floor. Walker stated not yet and that the Commission had taken several hours of comments on this item. Bryson stated when the Commission receives testimony what he sees is a very large group of people who are very concerned about their homes. But the argument for creating the zone is to apply it to an area that is not yet platted. Bryson stated to him those two situations don't mesh. Bryson stated he sees the greatest problem is people worried about multi-family homes and all they have to oppose these with is a covenant situation. Bryson stated he feels if the RS zone were modified to address that situation that is about as close as they could come to affecting the majority of people who were petitioning whose prime interest is the home they have. The stated intent of this zone is to be applied to someone elses property and not on their property. Bryson stated he is uncomfortable with that. Mahurin said she sees this as a positive step noting initially it was a reactionary response to protect their homes. However, it is almost a year and a half later and because their homes were threatened, they see that there is a need within the city. Mahurin stated she tends to agree with that. Mahurin added she agrees with the comments about spot zoning and would not approve of that. Mahurin stated she agrees with Mr. Goecke's comments that there should be a zone of this nature if anyone wishes to do zone land using the zoning. Mahurin stated she takes this as a proactive step for Planning & Zoning Commission Page 13 Minutes May 8, 1996 \? the City. Mahurin commented that an ultimate compromise if she had to do it would be to modify the RS-2 to incorporate some of these requirements. At this point, Mahurin stated she would like to stand by her original motion and open it to public testimony noting they should see what the response is in a public hearing. If there is not a positive response, the Commission still can vote no. Mahurin reiterated she felt they owed the public a hearing. Glick asked if they have a public hearing if she is recommending that it be on what is in the draft, or changes to the draft, or as it is? Mahurin stated she was proposing it be over the material as it was in the draft noting she thought they had reached consensus. Glick asked including the square footage. Mahurin stated she thought they had reached an agreement and this was the final document. Glick stated he thought so too except for the square footage and didn't feel there was a consensus. Mahurin stated since she hadn't heard any negative response that is part of her original motion at this point. Walker stated it was brought before the Commission as a discussion item and so it is being discussed. Walker commented he would like to have open discussion among the members and hear from everyone because if it is going to be brought forward, it definitely needs items like square footage clarified. Walker stated he understands she was favoring the 15,000. Mahurin stated that in response she assumed he was back to the motion as she thought that he had gone through discussion and thought procedurally she felt he was to the motion. Mahurin noted she didn't realize they were still at the discussion and she could wait for the motion. Walker stated there had not been a second. Walker commented that he felt square footage should be batted back and forth noting there had been a suggestion of 15,000 and one of 10,000 and hoped they could reach a consensus or a middle ground. Goecke asked about 12, 500. Booth stated they had asked for developmental costs and looking at the bottom line those costs are far higher than he expected to see. Booth added he felt those costs were prohibitive and thinks that some adjustments to property sizes need to be done to make this a realistic zone. Booth added he agrees with Ms. Mahurin that it needs to be opened for public comment. Walker asked if he had a recommendation on lot size and Booth responded no. Werner-Quade stated she felt the same as Booth did when looking at all the numbers and it seemed prohibitive for a developer to embark on a project in an area with this zoning. This made her feel that perhaps they should shift over and look into the residential zone that is not being used, but understands that the petitioners don't want to make a lot of compromises. Werner-Quade stated she is not comfortable with the prime residential the way it is with these costs and restrictions. Werner-Quade added she didn't know what they could do to alter the residential zone (RS-2) but her Planning & Zoning Commission Page 14 Minutes May 8, 1996 } immediate feeling would be to try that. Werner-Quade noted she is not opposed to a public hearing. MAHURIN MOVED THAT A WELL ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD AT THE NEXT P&Z MEETING ON THIS. PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. MOTION SECONDED BY GOECKE. La Shot asked for any specific comments the Commission may have as to any changes as far as the draft regarding square footage, uses, etc. With regards to advertising, since there isn't an area defined for the proposed zone, there will not be individual notices mailed. There will be an ad in the newspaper and it will be posted in three public places. La Shot stated he was not sure how to go about an article in the paper. Smalley asked if this body would be willing to entertain letters to developers in the area that build. Smalley stated he felt input from developers might be important. Smalley added you are talking potentially about a lot of other land although this is not assigned to a specific area but it could be. Walker stated he felt that was an excellent suggestion. Bryson stated that the motion as proposed with a 15,000 square feet lot size, will basically be custom home construction. Bryson noting he is not privy to the number of custom homes in this range that are constructed each year but noted you could probably count them on one hand. Bryson stated his other concern is that there have been very loyal attendance from the residents in Woodland and Birch Drive areas. This zone as proposed would only affect 4-5 percent of the lots in Woodland Subdivision and probably not be applied to a situation where a large property owner owned the property other than the petitioner. Bryson stated he didn't know that this is what the majority of the people who are testifying expect. They are looking for protection of their own. Walker asked if Bryson wished to make an amendment. Bryson stated not at this time but he would allow it to go to public hearing and would make comments at that time. Walker stated there were people present who had asked to speak and he would like the Commission to indulge him and allow them to do so noting this was not a public hearing. Walker noted there is a motion before the Commission to have a public hearing on the RP zone. Walker stated he would ask that those persons who wish to come up and speak be brief as this is not a scheduled public hearing and to direct their comments toward the motion. Michael Christian, 613 Maple-Christian stated it is his name on the proposal. Christian stated he would like to comment on a couple items from the discussion. First, Christian stated it was mentioned that there had been many hours of public hearings or testimony and that did not happen. Mainly, Christian stated he was talking and that was because this was in rough draft form and hadn't gotten to the public hearing Planning & Zoning Commission Page 15 Minutes May 8, 1996 process. Christian said hopefully they will be now. Second, Christian stated they have always given the indication they were willing to negotiate or compromise or come to some conclusion noting he has said that every time he has spoken and yet people still get the impression they are steadfast on a specific item. Christian said that is not true. Christian said he has mentioned that he is willing to work with an RS-2 or RS-1 as an appropriate form to the prime zone. In fact, RS-1 is more closely related to what they intended because it has the lot size of 12,500 already whereas RS-2 has a 7200. Christian said if they could think in those terms and perhaps speak to each item. One last thing, is that some people were saying that most of these items were aimed at or designed as covenants rather than zone items and the only one he would put in that category would be the tree issue with the idea as far as keeping mature trees. As far as paved streets, underground utilities, sewer and water, those things are more code than covenants. Barb Christian, 613 Maple-Stated she wanted to express that Ms. Mahurin has a clear grasp of what they are trying to do in her estimation. Christian stated they saw that something wasn't working and that it was threatening some people's property and wanted to see if there could be a new zone established to prevent similar problems in the future. Christian stated she feels bad that this is seen as an effort of Woodland Subdivision dwellers to protect themselves and devil may care about anyone else. Christian stated from her standpoint, maybe because she has been a teacher for 25 years, when something goes wrong she tries to think of a way to do it better next time. Christian stated this was proactive on her part. Walker asked if any further discussion. None noted. VOTE: WERNER-QUADE YES GOECKE YES BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES GLICK YES BRYSON YES WALKER YES MOTION PASSED. Walker noted a public hearing will be held on the item as submitted. b. Purchase or trade of Richka Park Property for Airport Buffer Zone (Discussion) Chairman Walker advised this is a discussion item. Mahurin noted this item was on the agenda as result of a motion she made at the last meeting. Mahurin recognized the Airport Comprehensive Plan being developed that could take this topic into consideration. However, because this property is being developed or had started to be developed but is now in a holding pattern, Mahurin Planning & Zoning Commission Page 16 Minutes May 8, 1996 noted she felt it important for the Commission to discuss a recommendation to City Council that they pursue purchase or trade of this property because it is the only buffer. Mahurin stated the trees existing in this area between the residences and the airport are a buffer for noise pollution. Mahurin stated she felt the Commission needed to respond to the public who has come before the group and added that she felt this was one way the Commission could do it. Mahurin reiterated she understood there is an Airport Plan in place adding that she felt it would take too long otherwise she would be willing to wait for that. Mahurin stated she would hope they could discuss, before any motions were made, that the Commission could ultimately request City Council take action on this. Walker asked for Commission comments. Councilman Smalley stated that Council had discussed this briefly at the Council level. Smalley added it was not this issue but the proposed purchase from other previous discussions at past Planning & Zoning meetings. Smalley asked if this had been presented to the Airport Commission for their thoughts adding they deal with airport matters and they may want to have some input in this. Smalley recommended that it go to the Airport Commission before it be sent to Council adding that is the first thing Council will ask. Walker advised Councilman Smalley that the information was in the Airport Commission packet for tomorrow's meeting as an information item. Smalley noted that one concern that Council members have expressed is the lack of developmental or undeveloped lots (residential) within the city. Smalley noted that as Mr. Bryson had pointed out on custom made homes that are designed on specific size lots, you probably could count those on one hand. Smalley stated that with developmental lots the city is "kind of in a crisis as far as the numbers of lots for building. Smalley stated the city has a great deal of lots that are tied up in a law suit but nothing can be done with them adding they are on paved streets with water and sewer. Smalley noted that depending upon the resolution of that conflict, it could be an additional ten years before any kind of title or deed can be issued on those properties. Smalley commented these are general thoughts adding that potentially the city might be having it's hands on a great deal of developable properties. Smalley stated the city does not wish to be in the real estate business for housing but due to circumstances the city may be. Smalley stated at the last Council meeting they took action to identify lots within the city that have been foreclosed on that the city has had for several years. These lots have been put up for auction but no bids have been received. Smalley stated they are going to put "For Sale" signs on them and see what business is generated. Smalley stated he felt this was something worthy of discussing and would welcome discussion at this level with public hearings and then have it sent on to Council. Mahurin stated that in response to Councilman Smalley's negative comments, Mahurin stated she didn't envision this property, if the city should purchase it or trade for it, as being on the market to be developed. Mahurin stated she viewed it as a conservation zone to be used strictly as an airport buffer. Mahurin stated she didn't think it would Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 17 May 8, 1996 be something that the city would be stuck with adding she would like the record to reflect this when it goes to Council. Goecke stated he feels he understands what the people are wanting to do and why. Goecke noted he has a problem with the city owning a whole bunch of property. Goecke stated he does not know why the city would want to own this property and then just leave it there. Goecke added he doesn't know why the Borough wants to have property, or the state, or the federal government. Goecke stated that property, in his view, should be in public or private hands where it can be put on the tax rolls and everyone derive some good from it. Goecke stated that the city owning a lot of land is not a benefit to anyone. Goecke reiterated he feels he knows and understands what the residents are requesting but has a problem with any government entity owning large tracts of land that could be in private hands. Walker asked for any other discussion. None noted. Walker asked if the Commission wished to bring forward any motions. MAHURIN MOVED THAT A REQUEST BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY PURSUE EITHER PURCHASE OR TRADE OF THE PROPERTY TO BE USED AS A DESIGNATED CONSERVATION ZONE AS AN AIRPORT BUFFER. Goecke asked if he could ask a question and Walker allowed through the Chair. Goecke stated he would like to know if the Commission is not being premature with the motion until something is heard from the Airport Commission. Walker asked if Goecke was wishing to postpone the motion until the Airport Commission is heard from. Goecke stated he would feel more comfortable proceeding that way. Walker noted there was not a second on the motion. Walker asked for a second on the motion. No second. MAHURIN MOVED THAT THIS ITEM BE BROUGHT BACK UNDER OLD BUSINESS AT THE NEXT PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING WITH A REPORT FROM THE AIRPORT COMMISSION AS TO THEIR DIRECTION ON THIS ISSUE. MOTION SECONDED BY GLICK. Walker asked the Commission to indulge him as there were a number of people in the audience that may wish to speak to the item. Walker asked that the Commission allow them to speak. Walker asked if anyone disagreed. Walker noted there is a motion before the Commission to bring the item back for further discussion at which time they would have the Airport Commission's input and perhaps more information. Walker stated he had an indication that there were one or Planning & Zoning Commission Page 18 Minutes May 8, 1996 } more persons wishing to speak to this item. Walker advised them to come forward and state their name for the record and sign in. GEORGE SILIDES, 508 ASH-Silides stated he had spoken to the Commission before on this issue and other related issues. Silides stated he was asking that his testimony be accepted in addition for consideration. (Silides read from a letter he later provided to the Commission.) "It has been said before this commission that, An owner has the right to develop his property as he sees fit, including clearcutting. To that statement I must say, "Maybe." I say, Maybe because courts have held that a property owner can be constrained in his development if such development will diminish the value of adjacent property, adversely affect the quality of life or other property holders, or if environmental damage ensues from the proposed development. Property owners in Woodland fear that all three of the above conditions will stem from the development of property lying between Woodland and the Kenai Airport." "Having said that, I agree that Mr. Hall, the person proposing the development of Richka Estates, has the right to profit from his investment. After all, the property was available for sale to any person or entity, including the City of Kenai. In fact, (Silides added comment that this has been a bone of contention) it was widely circulated to purchasers of property in Woodland that the property now planned for development was the City's "Greenbelt," and not subject to development. A good example of "Buyer Beware." "They City of Kenai can protect both the residential and development interests involved, and it self from further complaint of noise from its airport traffic, by leaving the land between Woodland and the airport in its historic use. It can do so by either buying the property in question, or by trading other land of equal or greater value. We both urge such intervention by the City of Kenai in this matter." Silides added a comment noting it was for Mr. Goecke's benefit. Silides stated he understood his comment that he doesn't like the government owning a lot of property sitting around doing nothing. Silides stated this property would not be doing nothing, it would be acting as a buffer noting it has historically acted as a buffer. Silides noted he wanted to make that distinction that it is not doing nothing adding that is his opinion. MICHAEL CHRISTIAN-Noted he would like to make comments on comments that have been made. The idea that there are no lots available in Kenai or very few is hard to swallow when looking at how much money city tax payers, including himself and others in the audience, have put into the paving and sewer and water connections on First through Fourth Avenues. Christian noted a lot of money had been spent and there are a lot of lots there that can be developed. Christian added they all spent a lot Planning & Zoning Commission Page 19 Minutes May 8, 1996 ~ of money on Inlet Woods and that money is sitting there. Now, Christian stated they are asking someone to please go in and develop this new area which will not have city water or sewer or other things that will have to be put in there. Christian noted the developer does not seem to intend to put them in meaning that later on the city will have to go back in and pave and put in sewer and water and it will be a tax burden on the tax payers to allow that development to go on as proposed. The idea that the city not being in the business of promoting land doesn't seem to be accurate since the city has been involved in all these projects in the past. Christian stated they would like to look at this as a conservation zone as Ms. Mahurin proposed. Christian stated there are conservation zones along Richka Creek from Fourth Avenue to the Inlet. Christian stated he didn't see any problem extending that up Richka Creek and including that wooded area which has been providing Woodland, Inlet Woods, and any new development with the type of protection they are looking for. ALAN POINTER, 509 ASH-Pointer stated he felt it would be a wise idea if possible for the city to pickup the property as a buffer zone. Pointer noted he agreed with Mr. Goecke and that a lot of government bodies own too much property. However, the city will be faced with, if everyone has their wishes come true, that Kenai will continue to grow. Pointer stated that many of the discussions that have gone on over the past year surround the activity at the airport. Pointer stated that everyone says they want the planes to come in because it represents revenue and it does. Pointer stated if the city continues to grow, the airport is going to get more active. If the airport gets more active, a buffer zone will be needed more in the future than is needed now. Pointer asked if the city would prefer to buy the property after it has been developed when they have to buy it with the houses on it because people have had enough of the noise and the airport needs to expand. Or, does the city want to look at the future now and address it by picking up the property undeveloped and not have to provide recompense for people who developed the property. Pointer stated that is the issue and that is the issue that is trying to be reached now. JANICE RODES-Rodes noted she usually likes to restrict herself to talking about things that she has researched, but in this case will stick her neck out. Rodes stated that when she first found out about the developer's plans, they included a road which would connect to Birch Street. Rodes stated she lives on Birch Street. At the time they bought their property on Birch Street, it was a gravel road. Rodes noted she didn't mind when it was paved even though the traffic picked up. Rodes stated she doesn't have any small children at home but that is not true of her neighbors. The idea of increased traffic on the street appalled her. Rodes noted her confidence factor was low when she saw some of the things that were happening and was told that the permits weren't in place. Rodes stated she had this information second hand but would love for someone to tell her that there was no chance that there would be a road connecting with Birch Street. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 20 Minutes May 8, 1996 ~ Walker asked La Shot to respond and explain the plat that was approved by the borough. La Shot stated that at this point the preliminary plat that went before Planning and Zoning approximately a year ago has been approved by the Kenai Peninsula Borough. La Shot stated he doesn't know the status as far as what the developer intends to do at this point noting he hasn't made his intentions clear. Rodes asked if there was a road on the plat. La Shot stated there was a platted right of way on the plat. GINGER KRONA, 691 SYCAMORE CIRCLE-Kaona noted she would like to voice support for the previous speakers. Kaona stated that she felt the City of Kenai has done a good job in planning the city in the past and would hate to see her taxes go up because the city has to purchase something down the road that could be purchased now and save everyone money. Kaona drew attention to the developer who owns the particular property and asked the Commission to look on Poplar (the street down from Sycamore) noting that the last three houses that were built do not even have a bush. Kaona stated that her fear is the buffer zone on Birch, if the developer develops that property like the property on Poplar, it will increase the noise. Kaona stated she would like to see the city purchase or trade that property. GEORGE NAVARRE, 600 MAPLE-Navarre noted he had missed most of the meeting and may repeat something. Navarre stated he believed they were talking about quality of life which should be very important to each one us. Navarre stated he wakes up almost every morning in the wintertime because the air is brisker and sounds travel faster and longer to the sound of roaring motors about 6 a.m. In the summertime, Navarre stated he goes to sleep with the sound of roaring motors about 11 p.m. because somebody comes down and decides to make practice landings. Navarre stated he doesn't like the practice landings about but it happens. Navarre stated he is not worrying about his kids but other kids might have a problem. Navarre stated his hearing is bad noting that when he was young he lived about a mile from a drop forge (?) and believes this is what impaired his hearing. Navarre stated he believes that the quality of the life for the young people living in the area will be impaired by the sound of the roaring motors in the morning, in the afternoon, and the evenings at different times of the year. Navarre stated he is not sure if it is a big buffer zone but it does help. Every little bit helps. Navarre commented you find that out when you look at charities. If somebody gives $5 and another gives $1, pretty soon you have a total you can do something with. Navarre stated he believes this buffer zone being talked about is a needed thing for the city for the future so you won't get future complaints. Navarre commented that people who live here can say we have a good place to live. LISA SKINNER, 608 MAPLE-Skinner stated they have moved from out North into Kenai for the fact that they love the conveniences. Skinner stated she loves the dog leash laws noting that out north there is nothing for laws. Skinner stated she feels the city should start looking at buffer zones for the future if they plan on the city growing and look to building the city outward instead of in toward the airport. Skinner stated Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 21 May 8, 1996 that many of the communities outside have grown enormous and total airports are being moved out of town because of the noise pollution. Many subdivisions in these cities have been built up to the airport and now they have big planes coming in. Now many of the airports are out of town and the city may want to look at ahead. Skinner commented like the gentleman said, buy now when it is undeveloped and save some money in the future. Eventually, if the city grows, you end up buying homes as in other cities or small towns in the states. BUDDY SKINNER, 608 MAPLE-Skinner noted that as a pilot he felt Kenai has one of the best flight schools in the State of Alaska, Alaska Flying Network. Skinner noted they do a left hand traffic pattern when they shoot touch and goes in practice that come right over Woodland all the time. As that increases, it will increase the noise. Skinner commented it is a great flight school and more people will come down for it. Skinner stated that in Soldotna they do a right hand traffic pattern to stay away from the city noting it is more unique. Skinner stated that in the summertime with float planes there is High Air Country Adventure using the facility. Skinner noted they are flying props and it is noisy and you can open your door and think they are coming right through. Skinner stated he would appreciate the city keeping it a conservation zone. SHERRY MCBRIDE, 1111 5TH AVENUE-McBride stated she lives right off Birch and is next door to every bit of this and agrees that the City should buy the property. She sees moose, caribou, and other wildlife and added there are blue jays nesting in the area. If you take out all of the woods, all of the animals will leave. There has already been the float plane basin put in. McBride stated she lived in Anchorage for two years before they moved to Kenai living next to the Air Force base. McBride noted the AWACS would take off at 1 a.m. and sounded like cannons. McBride stated they moved back to Kenai for the peace and quiet for their children. When the planes take off now, they sound like mosquitoes after living in Anchorage. McBride stated it is quiet and peaceful but if you take out all of the trees, she will start hearing more of these planes. McBride stated she is getting used to the float plane traffic already after two years. McBride noted her husband was born and raised here less the three years they were in Anchorage. Her in-laws put in Birch all the way back building the first home in there. McBride stated the city needs to purchase or trade the property to keep the property as it is. It is beautiful woods and the animals love it. McBride stated she walks her three year old through there where they have done the clearing and there are beautiful marsh lands. A lot of caribou come through and a lot of moose, they breed in the area and have their babies. McBride stated she can every year count on a cow and at least two calves coming through the yard like saying hi and to let her know they are still there. McBride stated she is afraid if they take it out there will never be anything like it again. McBride stated her three year old thinks moose are the neatest thing in the world and to him are like a big horse that you can't touch. McBride stated that in Anchorage he never got to know what a moose was until they returned to Kenai. McBride noted her husband and two older children were born at this house. McBride ~ noted she would like to keep it the way it is. McBride commented she loves the Planning & Zoning Commission Page 22 Minutes May 8, 1996 convenience of being in town. Her kids can walk up to the Park on Fourth through their property. McBride stated that once everything starts changing she will have to leave her kids locked in the house or on the property. McBride stated the land is beautiful and would like them to leave what the property looks like. McBride stated that they had just gone for a long walk Saturday through the area and there is lots of garbage being dumped back there and noted she is still chasing kids off. McBride stated they never had this problem until last year when the man opened up the road and got the clearing in there and now they can't keep anyone out. McBride reiterated she thinks the city needs to purchase or trade the property and keep it the way it is. McBride noted some might not think it is nice to buy property, but not to look at it as property, look at it as a buffer zone, a place for the wildlife. McBride commented that once you take the trees out you won't see the wildlife anymore. GUS RODES, 207 BIRCH STREET-Rodes commented that when you talk about noise from the airport you have to realize that engines on planes are getting bigger. Now engines on the 777 are 95,000 pounds thrust, a few years ago a 747 with 39,000 pound thrust engines took a 2.5 ton truck that was 200 yards behind it and rolled it down the runway like a tin ball. Rodes noted he knew one of the people who were in it at the time. Rodes stated that is a lot of power and noise. As the engines increase, the noise will increase. There is practically nothing you can do to stop the aircraft from landing and taking off from the airport. Rodes noted the only thing you can do is put up a noise buffer zone and that is what this is. Rodes noted he would like to add that when he was campaigning last year, the number one problem that people wanted to solve was the high speed and the number of cars going down Birch Street. They were against the subdivision unless there was an exit on 5th Avenue on Float Plane Road so the traffic wouldn't come down Birch Street. The second complaint was wondering if there was anyway to cut off access to Forest Lane so the traffic would not move from that over to Birch Street. Rodes stated he felt purchase of this property as a buffer zone is exactly what is needed. CHRIS MCBRIDE, 1111 5TH AVENUE-McBride noted that he and his friends go in the area to play and if the cars go through they will have to stay in the yard and won't be able to go out there. McBride added he has a dog that is almost a year old and if they put in that road they will have to move her from where she's at to a different place. In the morning when he goes to school, it is really hard enough already to get to the bus stop and if the city puts in all these cars it will make it harder for him to get there. Chairman Walker thanked the audience for their comments noting if the motion does pass he would like the comments sent to council adding he felt that Councilman Smalley would pass the information to council. Walker brought the item back for discussion. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 23 Minutes May 8, 1996 Werner-Quade asked the Commission to look at the Comprehensive Plan, the updated version, on page 41. Werner-Quade stated it notes future airport improvements, 5 to 10 year time line. Number 3 expand, Number 4 develop, Number 5 extend, Number 6 possible 500 foot extension, Number 7 extend, extend the length of the runway. Going back to Number 4, develop the west side of the water taxi way parking area, the float plane facility for additional parking slips and lots. Werner-Quade commented that is what the airport's future includes. Werner-Quade asked the group to look at Page 17, the potential for growth in Kenai under existing land use. "Much of the subdivided land in Kenai is still vacant and there are approximately 2000 acres of additional, private land which is developable but has not been subdivided. All neighborhoods have land which is either platted or could be platted for new residential or community commercial development. Werner-Quade noted that her point is that there seems to be a lot of other available land noting that the airport is planning on expanding. There is a small buffer zone now that the city has the potential to use and to keep and Werner- Quade stated her recommendation is that council make any kind of arrangements possible to secure the land. Mahurin asked Chairman Walker to share with the audience the time and place for the Airport Commission meeting tomorrow night so they could share their comments since Planning and Zoning's motion does pertain to that recommendation. Walker advised the Airport Commission meeting would be at 7 p.m. in council chambers. Bryson noted he would be abstaining due to business conflict with the owner. Goecke noted this may be taken wrong but he needed to say it. Goecke stated he doesn't necessary disagree with what has been said but development is going to go to the airport. Goecke stated Planning & Zoning can make a recommendation to council to purchase the property and that is good for now. But, at some point in time, Goecke stated he couldn't help but believe that something will happen and development will go to the airport. A prime example is, and Goecke noted one of the speakers may have been alluding to, is Denver building a new airport 20 miles east of Aurora. When they built Stapleton, Denver wasn't close. But, people build to the airport. Development happens to the airport. Goecke commented that Mr. Skinner alluded to the fact of flight path on touch and goes with a flight school. Goecke noted he thought the FAA could control the route the pilots take. Goecke stated he thought they could request that the turn be larger than out and an immediate 90 back over Woodland to alleviate part of that problem. Goecke stated he hoped that the people in the audience don't take this as his being against what they are trying to do noting he was not. Goecke stated he had lived in that area for two years and understands the airport noise especially this time of year coming off the float plane basin the first few time. It can shake you and you wonder what is going on. Goecke noted these were comments that he had to make ~ because of his feelings. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 24 Minutes May 8, 1996 Werner-Quade commented that she had learned at a workshop in Anchorage that if there ever is any litigation they will go immediately to the city's Comprehensive Plan. The courts want to see what is in there and what provisions were made. Werner-Quade stated the city is bound to their plan essentially. Werner-Quade stated that in the couple years that she has been on the Commission she doesn't remember having as huge a turn out on any single issue with the exception of halfway housing besides the Richka Creek development. Werner-Quade stated she had listened to these people, heard them, and don't think they are particularly opposed to development for development's sake. Werner-Quade stated she thinks they have a valid reason. Werner-Quade added where she lives she gets the airport noise too. Werner-Quade noted that at one point there was a proposal to rezone and stated she felt a lot during that time and did a lot too. She got petitions not to have the ground zoned that particular way because of the feeling these people have expressed about the conservation and about the buffer. Werner-Quade commented that once you lose that buffer, you won't get it back. What little buffer there is now, Werner-Quade stated she feels should be retained. Walker commented he will be supporting this measure as he feels this is an appropriate council decision as council does have the purse, so to speak. Walker stated he felt council should look at this item. Walker stated he is not sure as it serves one specific portion of the community, and that being Woodland and the closely surrounding areas, that this could not be looked at as a local improvement district. The persons in that district could at that time look to see if they wish to financially support this purchase and that would help keep residents in other distant areas of town from having to support this burden. Walker stated the reason he makes this comment is he believes this will come up in the discussion if it is looked at very strongly as they are talking about a large quantity of money and is not too sure that the city would not want to, even in the interest of conservation zones and items like that, wish to put out that kind of money. Walker stated on a local improvement district scenario, it may be possible. Walker reiterated he will support it. Mahurin asked if airport funds could be used for a project of this type? Walker stated he has not heard of airport funds money purchasing properties but thinks it would have to be looked at in the interest of the airport and in acquiring lands for the airport and/or buffer zone. Walker stated it is possible that could be done. Walker stated he couldn't answer the question adding he thought it would be up to council whether they would choose to use airport lands and city funding because airport moneys are in fact city funding in support of one specific part of the community, or in benefit of one specific part of the community. Walker stated he thought that was a decision council should make and would support that noting the people have brought up extremely valid concerns and thinks the entire body understands and shares those Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 25 May 8, 1996 i concerns. Walker stated it was his opinion that this would pass and council has a definite hot football to look at. Councilman Smalley commented that Commissioner Mahurin made an important comment when she made the recommendation that this group come to the Airport Commission meeting tomorrow. Airport Commission will eventually get this testimony but there is nothing better than face-to-face comments. Smalley recommended the group go to the Airport Commission meeting. VOTE: GOECKE YES BOOTH YES MAHURIN YES GLICK' YES BRYSON ABSTAIN WERNER-QUADE YES WALKER YES PASSED-6 YES VOTES, ONE ABSTAIN. Walker thanked the audience for comments and noted the comments will be forwarded to council as well as the Airport Commission. Walker added that he was sure Councilman Smalley would do his best to bring these points forward as well. Mr. Christian asked when this would go before council. Walker stated he did not know when it would be scheduled so would have to look for public notice. 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS: Walker asked La Shot if there were any items to report on. La Shot stated no. Walker asked for an update on the Highland Park issue. La Shot stated he had to check on it and didn't know if he had gotten rid of the cars yet. Walker stated he thought they were still there. 10. REPORTS: a. City Council Councilman Smalley commented that he felt the need to get reacquainted because it has been awhile since he has attended a meeting. Smalley reported they have been actively involved with the city budget and noted that the budget proposal will be presented at the next council meeting for introduction. Smalley stated that approximately an $8 million budget of which approximately originally $976,884 would be additional moneys from the general fund. That has been reduced to $560,000. The last four years the average has been a little over $500,000 from the general fund to support the budget. Smalley stated it has taken a lot of time and drained a lot of energy but it looks like a good budget. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 26 Minutes May 8, 1996 i Walker asked if dollars were put in for the purchase of Richka Park? Smalley stated no. Walker commented there is a great concern in the public regarding the dollars being pulled from the general fund and the fund is being reduced. Smalley replied that the amount of money coming from the general fund versus the interest that is earning is just about offsetting. Smalley stated it will be slightly more again. Walker commented it is being reduced over the past five years. Walker commented he was on the council at a time when there was a lot more money. Smalley stated that wasn't correct. Walker corrected saying a lot more money coming in from other sources. Smalley reported the city had received zero dollars the last two years. Walker stated he felt one of the questions to be asked is as these dollars in the general fund start to dwindle, is the city looking at more property tax or at more user taxes. Or, has that been discussed at budget meetings. Smalley stated they had briefly discussed the reduction in moneys especially the reduction in moneys for funding projects out of Juneau. Smalley stated he won't say that zero dollars have come. Smalley noted there was a rewrite of a grant of left over from Thompson Park moneys that came to the city. There is a possibility of about one-quarter million for some small road projects for which the city has it's capital project lists. Walker commented no multi-million dollar projects. Smalley stated no and that the well moneys that they needed and had hoped for was not granted. That will also come from the city's funds and is approximately $900,000. La Shot stated that was a preliminary estimate and feels it will come in less. Smalley added the comments about the use of airport moneys is accurate in the sense that it hasn't been used in the past to do things like this. Smalley stated that one of the things the Commission and the Airport Manager will look at and perhaps bring a recommendation back to P&Z and to Council. Smalley stated that perhaps, depending on testimony, that land is needed as a buffer for protection in the future and perhaps to protect from future liability on behalf of the city and the airport. Smalley reiterated that it may be possible to use those funds but doesn't have the answer which would probably have to come from legal or the Airport manager. Smalley added that money is not in the budget for the animal control shelter. Walker asked for Smalley's comments on the offset of the general fund. Smalley stated it has been discussed briefly but no steps have been taken in that area. Walker stated he is under the assumption there will be employee increases. Smalley stated the city has 102.8 employees and in this budget there are no additional employees. Walker stated he was referring to wage increases. Smalley stated that cost of living was 2.7 and the city went with a 2.0. Walker commented that in three years the city will see like amounts and assuming that the general fund's share will become larger which means the general fund itself will dwindle unless interest rates rise considerably. Smalley stated that the interest rates have been approximately what the usage has been, give or take $24,000 to $25,000. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 27 Minutes May 8, 1996 Smalley added that a printout will be provided to council as to what the actual differences are noting it is somewhere around $550,000 to $560,000 from the original amount. Smalley reiterated it was a long, involved process. Many citizens came requesting assistance for much needed programs which benefit the citizens of the city. Funding from Juneau is being reduced and Juneau is telling them to go to their local city for assistance. Smalley stated the city looked at the list hard and felt that it was not the city's responsibility but the state's responsibility. Again, that will cause some changes in services that have been provided in the past. To continue the services, they will have to look at different revenue sources. Smalley stated it is the same for the city and it will need to look at some methods of increased revenues. Smalley commented that the City of Kenai still has one of the lowest, if not the lowest, mill rate charges in the state and the same with water and sewer rates. Smalley drew attention to the agenda and the public hearings. Smalley stated most passed unanimously. Item C3 was amended and the fee for usage was set at $.25 cents. It has been recommended at $.05 and it has previously been set at $.50. That is the rate that is charged at other public facilities and does not put the city in competition with private entity nor is the city trying to encourage people by reduced rate bringing people off the street to make copies. That hasn't happened in the past, but if the rates were reduced substantially, that could happen. Under Item C4, the Challenger Learning Center individuals selected and returned Kenai's application to approve Kenai as a potential Challenger Learning Center. The approximate cost of facility is $3.4 to $3.5 million. The Challenger Learning people from the east coast will be working with the city and the committee to secure private funding to fund the facility. Smalley stated it will be developed behind Craycroft in the area of the old "Noah" hill used to be there is 40 acres the Council set aside for educational usage. This is where the Fire Training Center sits. The center would be built on that facility between the Fire Training Center and the pond. Some schematic designs have been presented. Council will look carefully at these and work as diligently as possible to secure if not all, as much as possible, of the needed funds. The facility will be operated by the University. Goecke commented that this had started out as a million dollar center that went to approximately $3.5 million dollars. Goecke stated he has not heard a good explanation of how that happened. Smalley responded he never looked at this as a million dollar facility. It was introduced that that was the portion that the city could potentially be responsible for was $1 million dollars. The other portion would be funded by other sources of income; the other $1 million from the Challenger Learning people, corporate sponsorship, etc. Smalley stated that doesn't mean the city would be responsible for coming up with half of those fees. The idea is to seek as much corporate funding as possible. Of the 26 existing centers, there have been some built with nothing but corporate foundation money. Goecke stated he understood that but what happened to just the Learning Center to the rest of the things that are now incorporated into it. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 28 Minutes May 8, 1996 Goecke stated he understood it started out with just the Challenger Learning Center as such but now there is a bigger entity involved in this thing with more stuff than just the Challenger Learning Center. Smalley stated that is not to his knowledge it is still the Center in size, development, etc. It encompasses a lot of different entities. It is two or three rooms, basically a similar to a facility of a mini-space camp in the sense that it has computers, simulators, flight training, etc. as if the individuals taking the courses were involved in a simulated space shuttle mission. That is what the facility is designed to be. Smalley stated to the best of his knowledge, that has not changed. Smalley stated that before Council spends any money, it will be up for public discussion. Walker asked if this may involve a million dollars, will the city see this on a referendum or will it close to a million and be able to pass it by Council vote. Smalley stated that has not been discussed or decided. Smalley stated he thinks as much funding as possible will be obtained as previously mentioned and go from there. Walker stated he understood this is based on 286 technology. Smalley stated that was not to his knowledge. Walker stated that was what he had been lead to believe. Smalley stated he would speculate that was inaccurate. Walker stated a number of other facilities are using 286 technology, according to people who have visited them. Walker stated if that is in fact the case, we will be about 6 generations old on computer technology when building a new facility. Walker noted he would have strong concerns in this regard. Walker stated if they get close to a million dollars he feels it should go to a referendum. Walker commented that when building the Bicentennial Visitors Center the city did the $800,000 thing and then came back and purchased the property as a separate item and ended up spending more than what should have been spent without going to a referendum. Walker stated since it was for the same facility but done at two separate times, a year or two apart, on two separate pieces of legislation, Walker stated he felt it was for the same facility and should have gone to a referendum. Walker reiterated he would like to see this on a referendum before the city commits to anything over $250,000 city dollars. Smalley stated he would pass it on but recommends that when it comes up that Walker draft a statement and send it to council or come and speak to council on the item. Walker added he did not believe the vast majority of the people in the community supported the expenditure at this time more that than figure ($250,000). Smalley stated he was not sure that was an accurate statement. Walker stated that was his opinion and that is why he would like to see it on a referendum because then the city would know the public's opinion. Item 6 the leases at the public dock facility were worked on. Smalley stated the docks are not aprofit-making venture from the standpoint that they don't pay for themselves. La Shot stated it was his understanding that if the capital costs are taken out each year as the city has been that it does not pay for .itself.. The Harbor Commission will review the potential of multi-year leases and staggered leases like they used to have instead of coming back every year to see if that is in the best interest of the city. In year's past, the bidder would have to bid literally with guesstimate information and the city Planning & Zoning Commission Page 29 Minutes May 8, 1996 benefited more because to maintain the leases they had to bid so much per year. If you come in year by year, it will probably be at a reduced amount. Goecke asked if the city considered or discussed the fact of putting in a decent fuel dispensary there and supplying the fuel to the fishing boats. Smalley stated the city has a fuel facility there. Goecke stated they have one pump. Smalley stated they have a fuel facility that the Harbor Commission feels is appropriate at this time. Most of the boats can purchase fuel cheaper from the cannery. Goecke stated if you are saying that if you weigh all costs, the dock is anon-income producing entity, what about talking to the canneries and putting in a couple more fuel pumps and selling the fuel through city pumps rather than the canneries. Smalley stated he felt the cannery owners would have a response to that. That maybe something that should be passed onto Harbor Commission if this body should feel that a recommendation should be sent to them. Smalley stated they don't make any money on fuel. The absorption material that has to be kept there, it is almost costing the city money to provide the service. Smalley stated that was discussed during the budget because the absorption material is so expensive. Smalley stated he didn't know if it could be expanded. La Shot stated that he hasn't heard there is a need for more pumps except during the crunch time before fishing periods, they pile up. They do sell quite a bit of fuel. La Shot stated the operational costs on a yearly basis versus the income is pretty close. It is the capital costs that come out of the budget each year for the project that was done year's ago that seem to outweigh it. La Shot stated he thought it might be time to look at fuel prices again. La Shot stated they had just leased the docks again for the year and the lease rates are not as high as they used to be during those peak fishing years. La Shot stated they expect the launch fees to go up quite a bit this year as result of the sport fishery and the dip net fishery. La Shot stated he could not say it was a big money maker. Item G discussed the dunes parking. Smalley stated there was extensive discussion on this topic. The decision was to put signs on the south side and making it a violation to drive above high tide in the grass. On Kenai Avenue at the bottom of the hill past the Care Center, Council is talking about from the old outhouse area to the mouth of the river gating it and providing an access key for those individuals who own property there if they wish to request a key from the city. Other than that it will be closed for vehicular traffic. The city will be placing log berms between the road and the dunes to prevent driving up onto the dunes. Eventually, there will be boardwalks to keep people off the dunes as much as possible. Informational signage will be put up to explain the dunes and their importance. The gate will be in operation from July 1 to the end of August. This will alleviate some of the impact from the dipnetting. There will be no parking at all in that area. The city is looking into expanding some parking further up. The state has put the city in a precarious position, thus the city is asking the state to assist the city in receiving any kind of permits that might be needed for the potential parking area where fill has been put on the hill. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 30 Minutes May 8, 1996 Walker asked if there was still a lot of fill around the airport available. Smalley stated he thought so but wasn't sure. La Shot stated there is fill but not a lot of good fill. La Shot stated he has been told to apply for a Corps permit to fill that area to the right as you go to the bottom of the road. Part of the reason is for parking and part of the reason is to expand the sewer plant within the next few years. The part closest to the sewer plant would need to be good fill. Walker asked if that was a wetlands permit that may destroy wildlife areas. La Shot stated he didn't expect it to be improved in time to do much for this year. La Shot stated they may have an answer by next spring. Smalley stated if anyone had questions on the other items on the agenda he would be glad to respond. Smalley drew attention to Items 8 and 9 as being sent up from P&Z. Walker commented that he was pleased that Council was reviewing the P&Z minutes and knew they were concerned with actions of P&Z and are very supportive of P&Z. Walker thanked Council for their support. b. Borough Planning Mr. Bryson advised there had not been a Borough Planning and Zoning meeting last Monday and thus no report. c. Administration Mr. La Shot stated the well project will go out to bid next week. The state highway project will resume on Monday. The city's dust control project will start Tuesday. La Shot stated they may have noticed the article about a land swap in the paper. La Shot stated that article may be premature and preliminary talks have been started. La Shot added he will do everything possible to get that before P&Z before it gets too far. Walker asked which lands are being proposed to be swapped. La Shot stated the city owns 2,100 acres of river wetlands. Those are the lands under discussion. Walker commented that it hadn't gone through P&Z. La Shot stated he thought the article was premature. La Shot stated it has just been preliminary talks to this point. Walker stated that would have to go as a referendum also adding that for the city to give away 2,100 acres he would hope the public would be allowed to comment. Goecke stated he had heard a troubling report that he would like clarified regarding the start up on the highway. Goecke stated that is that part of the utilities still are not moved. Goecke commented that the city and the state should be taking the utility companies to task over the fiasco that occurred last summer as result of this. Now, he understands a year later that some of those utilities are still not moved. La Shot stated that if there are major relocations to take place, it would be in the middle section and that is where the heavy excavation is yet to be done. La Shot stated he hadn't heard if there was a problem with utility relocates but advised there is a meeting tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. with everyone concerned. Walker asked where they will be starting out. La Planning & Zoning Commission Page 31 Minutes May 8, 1996 } Shot stated he initially thought they would do some pavement removal and possibly some paving on the areas that they worked on last year until there a couple more weeks pass to allow the frost to leave the ground. Also, they are waiting for the schools to shut down for the year. That section would be most affecting the schools. La Shot noted there is a water line crossing at Tinker that would definitely affect the schools and Aliak. They will start again on Monday. La Shot stated they don't expect the mess they had last year. 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED: No one present. 12. INFORMATION ITEMS: a. KPB Notice of Planning Commission Action - Hakkinen Estates Preliminary Plat b. US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice of Application for Permit Chairman Walker drew the Commission's attention to the information items in the packet. Walker noted the Corps permit and that it is an item in the Kenai River that will require some fill in some wetlands. Walker commented that perhaps this could open property behind the golf course to housing. 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: Glick advised he will not be at the next meeting as he will be in Colorado. Werner-Quade asked what the dust control project was? La Shot stated it is the city's yearly application of CSS-1 dust control. Werner-Quade asked if it was oil. La Shot stated it is asphalt emulsion. Werner-Quade noted that she had said she would speak to the Airport Manager regarding the air traffic routes and noted she had done that and he will be getting back to P&Z and it will be available at the first meeting in June. Walker asked Smalley if it was Council's intention to utilize dust control several times this summer as needed? Smalley stated the plan is to do it two times. La Shot stated they have the same money budgeted this year as last and they did one application with a few extra applications where it was needed. Walker asked if the dollars budgeted, some $4,000, was additional. Smalley stated that was additional and he thought there was $170,000 budgeted. La Shot stated it is in the $40,000 range. Walker stated he was under the assumption that this figure would drop with the advent of the paving in the Lawton Drive area and the McKinley/Haller/Evergreen areas. La Shot stated it did drop especially after Evergreen. La Shot stated they took off $17,000. La Shot stated they are down to about 14 miles down from 17 or 18. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 14. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:35 p.m. Respe ully Submitted: Ma 'ily Kebschull Administrative Assistant Page 32 May 8, 1996 ~~ _,~ STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date: May 7, 1996 Prepared By: JL/mk Res: PZ 96-39 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: McLane Consulting Group Leo T. Oberts (Owner) P.O. Box 468 Soldotna, AK 99669 Requested Action: Preliminary Plat Legal Description: Oberts Pillars Subdivision -Part 2 Existing Zoning: Rural Residential (RR) Current Land Use: Low Density Residential ANALYSIS City Engineer: This plat creates a large (18-47 acre) parcel adjacent to Oberts Pillars Subdivision - Part 1, a subdivision created last year. Further resubdivision may require an installation agreement. No water or sewer available. Building Official: No building code issues. RECOMMENDATIONS Approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. PZ96-39 2. Preliminary Plat CITY' OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING_COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ 96-39 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 Oberts Pillars Subdivision -Part 2 was referred to the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission on May 6, 1996 and received from McLane Consulting Group ,and WHEREAS, the City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission finds: 11 Plat area is zoned Rural Residential and therefore subject to said zone conditions. 2) Water and sewer: Not 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. 41 Installation agreement or construction of improvements is not required. 5) Plat verifies that no encroachments exist. 6) Street names designated on the plat are correct. 71 CONTINGENCIES: a. Further resubdivision may require an 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 OBERTS PILLARS SUBDIVISION -PART 2 SUBJECT TO ANY NEGATIVE FINDINGS AS STATED ABOVE. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, May 22 , 1996. CHAIRPERSON i A T ST: Planning Secretary -=1 n:JQS `~ j _ c _ w ~ I \ `~ ' ~ ~'` ~ ~~ ` p~ ~ ~n Cp ~ ~ ~ in v~ ~ ~ j o ~ _ i ' ~r ~ t^ ~ ~~ Y~ ~ '---~ O ' h~ . , ~`~ a~ ~~ -"-__ _ UI .~ f , "' C~ ~ ~.. r ~ ~ `~ ! '~ 11 ' . - ~ / ~ /~ l ? ___ - ,~ / :~~ /J/ ' ~ ~-~ i0 ,. , ( ~.:_ ~ ~. ' ' ~ 139.63 / `-r, ' Q `t NDv'35 Oy'w ~' -- ' ~ .t . ~ ~, ~ a0 a IQ9_ng ~---- ~ - ~, - - u, _ Y1. ~:`~' ~-' 1 ~J I 'I _~ ~ ~ 1 ~--- S ~ 1 Y n „~ ~-, - i V ~ - ~_ .:. rn ~_ m r - ,~ N '+J ~ -. Z R ~.: I L' ~~..~- a: 1 ' '- ~ _ : -,~,'° v. ~ 6a F' ~ ~r 1 ~~ .~ ~ ' Ey. ~. i Jai r~ 1 - `'t. '[HIS -~. •-= '~!~?'- PLAT - -.._ i 7 ~ 8 .~~._ 9 ~+S~R~f~Lt~+rn'".•"~ . ,..a-e.:>;. =A^!«~+«-. y. ~='~.~a-L.Yyt~,. l.e _ --- _ - _a _ -. - _ ' ~ -- _ _ _- - - `L``L~` - - '~ ~ _ - l 3 z41 , ~zo is 'i~ ~`~ n VICINITY ,MAP ., :. .. - Score ? ~.-t;.96fe - -~:-~.. ~_. LEGEND y,< _; _ _ ~ C ] c.M monument founn tnis 3.rvev .••~ •. .. :~: monut^.. ~ eacrn ra: -fLa,~eretl j DYER DISPOSAL =-~ ule 3 t;'» ]ium. =]FFea mermen'. I "remm~n' ;nC a:~c..>a 5v5tem¢ must meet -the reonWiwq ~-..- ~- _, .L _ . ]_~.o eoartment bf-En,.irmmen;yF'Consenvuare. ~ Foun6:1/Y reaor o; prooerty Fcr^er - - _~• i 4„c• •-..;. ~. ~.,..:.,.nmen:~ LaMewc: orcaparoaei_~tsr _.. c 'r9 ra" _ .m:-c^ ^ t , >. '?'-Rm .ern .TM`?~ - ~ _ _ -~s' ._..-~;. ..: - s. e. L;4-. ,i Z<" reenr..~[A Ne:a:f aapKOCtaeFna - .... _ _~ y01ES -~ ~f..i _. ]._ - ]'. - CMR1itYCY Nn~G>5 -' of S. ~_ t' L y!QCeC _ _. --. : ..~ .n eafemMt nh Lh -NtY C .r.e a w.;a tM oD3i1~~E: ~ - ~ - ~ - i ~ ~ ; _._... •~ OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATIO". ` _. . ... x zrse ¢:~ - -- ~ -. _ _ _ ~. - ~~ OF A~q Ili ReCOl7lieG I ~qP S, f ~I~ i~A' :rc ` Oi5' `~'S 4CKNOYJ_EDGEMENT ~ * 49L~~ *~~ r ~ a~ : - ~, N $COTL M>ANE- 4S[S~f+e, AIGGne I~ 4918-5 Cmsrrig Bv~n C _, m ,m ~4 ~- .4. i.Q Bm 169 - ~,, -:,,: ., w. "~~~ Saabrno, AK 9%69 _ ~vt; ...• E :],_ ;t Amsa] PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OBERTS PILLARS SUBDMSION PART TYY(3 _ - .. :- _t . L^e owner -_ ., n_Lr :L~- - Lour. ,,. --_.. L- r _ SITL 't1K - _ _ ._ _ - Sur„oven c. onswtin; Grcwc McLane SF: ~ .L 4K ; ,: .._ Sta. t?9E 600 Ns. S. .._r ,... P5:'_1: .. Jrnen Uy _ she^. 'A".:!7 CITY OF KENAI t~~ -- G,GI e~~~l °~ ~~-~~ ~, ~ 210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794 TELEPHONE 907-283-7535 _ _ FAX 907-283-3014 ~ ~-a~cnr 'IIII~ 1992 CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The following public hearing has been Scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 22, 1996: A Conditional Use Permit for a Bed & Breakfast, R.V. Parking, and Overnight Camping to be located at Third Avenue and Float Plane Road (Government Lots 83 & 84, Sec. 31. T6N, R1 1 W), Kenai, Alaska. The Meeting will commence at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Anyone wishing to present testimony concerning this permit should do so at the hearing or submit written comments to the City of Kenai, Planning Department, 210 Fidalgo, Suite 200 Kenai Alaska 9961 1-7794 prior to May 22nd. For more information please contact Jack La Shot or Marilyn Kebschull at 283-7933. YOU ARE BEING SENT THIS NOTICE BECAUSE YOU OWN/LEASE PROPERTY WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE OR ARE AN INTERESTED PARTY May 8, 1996 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date: May 7, 1996 ' Prepared By: JL/mk Res: PZ 96-38 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Olen (Gene) & Andrea Moyer P.O. Box 433 (1 105 Float Plane) Kenai, AK 9961 1 Requested Action: Conditional Use Permit- Bed & Breakfast, R.V. Parking, Camping Legal Description: Gov't Lots 83 & 84, Sec. 31, T6N, R1 1 W Existing Zoning: Suburban Residential (RS) Current Land Use: Medium Density Residential ANALYSIS City Engineer: The applicant wishes to utilize an existing residential building as a Bed & Breakfast located along Float Plane Road. Also, up to four (4) R.V. parking spaces and eight (8) camping spaces would be provided with the R.V. entrance from Third Avenue. Approximately 2 acres is available at the site with a swale along the westerly side, the airport along the easterly side, Third Avenue to the north and governments lots to the south. Considering the space available and other site characteristics, this site may be appropriate for the proposed use. Building Official: Toilets and urinals shall be provided for any RV park as per Sec. E46 of the Uniform Building Code. They shall be located within 250 feet of any RV site not provided with individual sewer connections. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ96-38 ~ Comments Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend a suitable buffer be established along Third Avenue, Float Plane Road, and to the south, using the swale as a buffer to the west. Consider public input. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. PZ96-38 2. Application 3. Drawings CITY OF :KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ 96-38 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR: BED & BREAKFAST, _ ' TO: GLEN (GENE) & ANDREA MOYER LOCATED THIRD AND FLOAT PLANE (GOV'T LOTS 83 & 84) WHEREAS, the Commission finds: 1) That an application meeting the requirements of Section 14.20.150 has been submitted and received on: May 6, 1996 2) This request is on land zoned Suburban 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: Upon approval of this permit, the applicant will register with the City of Kenai Finance Department for the Hotel/Motel Bed Tax. 4) That a duly advertised public hearing as required by KMC 14.20.280 was conducted by the Commission on: May 22, 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MEETS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SAID OPERATION AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSION DOES AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, MAY 22 , 1996. ~~~~ rCHAIRPERSON ATE T: Planning Secretary CITY OF KENAI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NAME L ~- .,1 C~r~~- `~ ~- ~v ~ r~ . l'Y~ G ~s~ PHONE '` 3 ~-- ~. ~ ~2 MAILING ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~~ ADDRESS ~=-~J~ 1C Cj(~• ~ ADDRESS I ~ C7 ~'° ~~1 C?~7 ~ !~ C . LEGAL ~-p ~ ~ ~" LO ~'' 3 J ~E'- G v? / 1 T(~.N 1 Yl.~' ! j DESCRIPTION ~J'T ~.p T ZONING C RR RR-1 ~ RS-1 RS-2 CC CG IL IH R RUl DISTRICT Section 14.20.150 of the Kenai Municipal Code outlines regulations which allow Conditional Use Permits for certain developments. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING, COMPLETE THE BLANKS AND INITIAL THE SPACE BEFORE THE ITEM TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THESE CONDITIONS. A Conditional Use Permit issued by the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission is required for some uses which may be compatible with principal uses in some zones if certain conditions are met. I understand a conditional use permit is required for the proposed development as described: l~ E~~ s ~ p~? .v, e T C,r.., ,.,6 Please submit site Plan, Map (if available) and Traffic Flow & Parking Please submit plans showing the location of all existing and proposed buildings or alterations, elevations of such buildings or alterations, and data ~S'~'L as may be required. A Public Notification and Hearing is required before the issuance of this permit. A $105.00 non-refundable deposit/advertising fee is required to cover these 1Q~~'~'! notification costs. (Please see attached sheet) . An approved conditional use permit shall lapse twelve months from the date of approval if the nonconforming use for which the conditional use permit was approved has not been implemented. The Commission may grant a time extension not to exceed six months upon a finding that circumstances have not changed sufficiently since the date of initial permit approval. A request for extension must be submitted prior to expiration of permit. A public hearing shall not be required as a condition to granting the extension. ADDITIONAL CONII~IENTS Applicant Signature: ~~~~~~~ Date: ~~~~- ~ G~ ~ Approved at P&Z Meeting: ~, pproved: Chairperson ~. -• ~ M~ W a M ~l O I t F51. ~,~ N ~ O ® ~ ,E4 ~ ~ I N J O ~_ I N 4 Q ' - - - - - - - ~ ' - - - - - ~a v %~ \\JJ _y ~ ~ ' M '1; F6 ` i o' ~ /06.73' Z O N NO/S//~/Og/7d' 2'7T.Y7D M No/fIA/OOn! M'JV18 71/MM ~ ... - __ M . r _ ~ / ~ ~ NO/S'/~/A6nf /y-'92'oW 'I '9' m MN JAd Nl6 , 9 ~ ~ i Q ,S'H6 m 'G V ,f7'G -i. v es n e ;~ ~ O ~ _ N ~ N v O $ 2 ~n p - _ ., .. ~ a ~ m - - - - - ,rfL ,S'+6 ,K•Gc .. r ,. ~ ~~ ~~ c ~ s _~ ~: ~ I ` ~ ;~ n J i ~ _ ,` ~~ ~ , 1 `~~ - - - - - - - ,c£ - - - - 2dQ 3~(]2ddS l ~ C .. ~~ ~~ ^^~ J • " f ' ~ r' • ! O i3-~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ,,~ ~ ,/~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ J f ~ ~ ~~ ~ l ,~ ~ ~ 0 v ~ ~ ~ - _ .. _ ~ A ~, __ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ;,~ ~> C ~ ti ~. '~ ~ ~ } -~ ~~ A ~ , ~ ~ ~.~ ~~ :, ____ ~ ~ N ~ ~e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y L i T_-_._ ~. ~~ o r ~ 3 / 3~ ~ C~c Jj~I~i2~.v~ ~i'rirT R U ~~ ~~'~ ~~~~~ ~ ~G ~ Tyr r C'o,fr~ ~ o~ ~ sG'~ !i ~ SEP 21 ' l~l~ 1 KHI`IbHLHSKH 11 1 LL 7CJ r GOJ r r 17 i ~. I ). S 894'23' W 165.03 .- • 3rd AVENUE j ~y. ~ i c~ ~~ S 89'34'23' W I~ 132,03 ~ 1 i i • NOTE : This surrey is auDJect ~ to any facts that maybe 1 LOT 84 disclosed by o true and ~ ~ acarote title search. ~ i i ~ 5/8' Robar set at ~ 1 each comer. 1 1 i f~ 1 i N ~ M w ;, ^_ i O . O a is i N 10?- ~3 o J t~~ 1~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ O ~/ i ~ i 132 ~ 5 8950'34' W 165.00 ~ 1 i OTs~r3~ SaryeYint Mlelf~~l if.~M t.t.6. P.O. Bo: 9A ~ • SOIOOfni. AK 99669 •19071 26 2 1 O 1 d AM It ^Y u I I ^•uN .a i/- I'.f/ 1 Mp^ ^wffh fNf / /or/wiw^O ^ Marfy^p^^ MIpIiNM of IM /aNa~ep NN/NM po/My , . ~~'~' Ge ~'" 8.3 ~~ ,~/ 3i r~./ ~i~w S.~!!- .sit (ANled N IM KMNAKenL^~ OUfrkt ReMI, AM, eed fAU BAs A^ora.wenb sliwNd /Mn^^ ^~ .Ayd^ IINp~oaenYMeseedd0awor^ngper~nao^enmtAAA~a?^nrhMp^akumfet~f^rgtANneMnaa~ Innfl^ on popfty Ifblp NNswf fAw^!o^scle^^^ en U^ M~^yq N fYNlbn ^IM Ol^1 IOM M N fas ~^yq rf^^I 1^^ I /^reffur^uief^Ntlf1^IMI~O^NAl yfeo^A-Ifa^plNl^dlNerl AMawr• As•IUfcr . f~ / . _ ~ . ~f i» i it _ . ~ n ~ .~- /rte !1-T J°L~Z~r/,p i ~ t i ~i 1 ~. 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ j•7 ~ ~' i ~ S 1 ~ z WOOD FRAlvtm ~ BUILDING I fA~ i i e ~1 ^ ~ ~ °~ ! d~ a " ~Ar 1~ M City of Kenai N Planning and Zoning Commission ~ May 13, 1996 ~~, re: Res. PZ 96-38 conditional use permit Applicant: Olen (Gene) and Andrea Moyer P.O.Box 433 (1105 Float Plane Road) Kenai, Alaska 99611 Please read this letter at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 22, 1996 We have na 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 (Government Lots 83 and 84, sec. 31, T6N, R11Wj Kenai, Alaska. We oppose for the following reasons: 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, summer time float plane noise exceeds acceptable levels. 3. If R.V. 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 Street from barbeque grills and other camping fires. 4. An R.V. 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 all 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. Sincerely, ~,~ ~~/d..~" Foster H. Walters 214 Birch Street Kenai, Alaska 99611-7643 phone 283-7305 Vi inia E. Walters cc: Jack La Shot Marilyn Kebschull City of Kenai Planning Department 210 Fidalgo, Suite 200 Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 Planning ~ Zoning Commission; We wish to protest the Conditional Use Permit -Bed F, Breakfast, R.V. Parking ~ Camping, (including toilets ~ urinals) on Gov't Lots 83 ~ 84, Sec 31, T6N, R11W. This is a nice quiet residential area and hope that it remains as such. John F. Loosli a` Sharon A. Loosli // ,,' G~ ~ ., Lots 8 ~ 9 Oehler S/D ~3,~~5 i~ 9798y9 ~,, '~D ^h~ R ~~ o aN ~ ~~~ w ~= ~Mp~jIM~• ~ ~ y i ~ti w;'t,£ 5~1~9G ~~~~ , ~ ~,, ~..~ x-13 ~..~; ~ ~ P ~- Cd~~ ~P.,ti~e.,~,- ,~8~-~, ~.~e Q-~0 ~- T~ ~. o~ ~~~ ~.~r~Gtt ~ ~ ~~ ~~Z,~g14i516t~'~' ~ o ~ N ~, Nay h N m N W .•o"'/ \oE CITY OF KENAI 210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611 SUBJECT: RV PARK AT THE CORNER OF 3rd AND AIR-PLANE ROAD ATTN: PLANNING AND 20NING COMMISSION I WOULD HAVE TO SAY NO to the proposed R-V Camper Park and Bed and Breakfast facility for the corner of Airplane Road and 3rd Ave. Z would like to keep the neighborhood as close to residential as possible. There must be plenty of Commercial property available for this purpose. Respectfully, D.R. KIMBRELL OWNER OF PROPERTY AT 1106 3rd AVENUE KENAI, ALASKA 73 M o N N r N ~~ ~Oti~~ ~&ir~saZ51' May 16, 1996 To: City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Re: The proposed Mom conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast, R.V. Parking and overnight camping to be located at Third Avenue and Float Plane Road. 1 wish to express my strenuous objections based on the following: I strongly oppose such a commercia! enterprise being located adjacent to my property at 1109 Third Avenue. This area is zoned residential, not commercial, and is a quiet neighborhood comprised of retired senior citizens who do not wish the peaceful quality of same to be destroyed. Other objections include, but are not limited ta: 1, increased traffic and dust 2. clearing resulting in toss of trees that provide a buffer none to the airport. 3. garbage and litter along Third Avenue 4. noise pollution--drinking and parties 5. smoke pollution from campfires and the possible escapement of same 6. odors from toilets and urinals In addition ,the proposed clearing would provide another party place far kids and their noise, fighting, and loud music. Float Plane Road is bad enough as it is without adding to increased duties of the Police Qepartment. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, ~/ r v` Ann V. King 1109 Third Avenue o,~,~1213~4~s P.O. Box 1266 ~~ Kenai, Alaska 99611 ,~'~ ~~ m ~ q a M N ~_ 207 Birch Street Kenai, Alaska 99611 May 17, 1996 Zoning Commission City of Kenai 210 Fidaglo Kenai, Alaska 99611 Due to a death in the family, we are unable to attend the public hearing on the proposed RV park on Float Plane Road. We do not live in the notification zone of 300 feet, however the noise and traffic will affect us. This is to voice our opposition to granting of this variance. This is a residential neighborhood and this type of variance will increase traffic noise and danger to the many children living here. While we don't have children at .home now, our grandchildren do come to visit. Even Mayor Williams has grandchildren in this neighborhood. We would also call your attention to state law AS 29.40.040 Land use reaulation. (b) A variance from a land use regulation adopted under this section may not be granted if 2) the variance will permit a land use in a district in which that use is prohibited. The present zoning must prohibit RV parks, otherwise a variance would not be needed. This would make the variance in conflict with state law. If the commission wishes to change the zoning of this area, they should hold a hearing. J ice Rodes ~'~ Gus N. Rodes ~y,~g171818~ ~a ~~ ~~~ ~ 0 \~ ~~'~' ~~ CITY OF KENAI ~,~ -- G~ e~~~l ~ ~4~~ ~ 210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794 TELEPHONE 907-283-7535 _ FAX 907-283-3014 ~ ~n~~aly IIIIII 1992 CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The following public hearing has been Scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 22, 1996: A Conditional Use Permit for a cellular phone system site to be located at Tract A, Inlet View Subdivision, Resubdivision of Tract A, Kenai, Alaska. The Meeting will commence at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Anyone wishing to present testimony concerning this permit should do so at the hearing or submit written comments to the City of Kenai, Planning Department, 210 Fidalgo, Suite 200 Kenai Alaska 9961 1-7794 prior to May 22nd. For more information please contact Jack La Shot or Marilyn Kebschull at 283-7933. YOU ARE BEING SENT THIS NOTICE BECAUSE YOU OWN/LEASE PROPERTY WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE OR ARE AN INTERESTED PARTY May 9, 1996 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Date:. May 8, 1996 Prepared By: JL/mk Res: PZ96-40 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Nathan A. Kiel P.O. Box 2853 404 Lawton Street Kenai, AK 9961 1 Requested Action: Conditional Use Permit-Cellular Phone System Site Legal Description: Tract A, Inlet View Subdivision, Resubdivision of Tract A Existing Zoning: RS-1, Suburban Residential 1 Current Land Use: Medium Density Residential ANALYSIS City Engineer: The applicant wishes to place a cellular phone system site on the referenced property. The site consists of a 75 foot tall monopole type antennae and an 8 foot by 16 foot equipment shelter. This type of use is not listed as a principal use in the existing zone; however, in the immediate adjacent zone (C-Conservation) it would be a principal use. The site offers the space to buffer the site from Lawton Drive and adjacent residences. Building Official: No building code issues. RECOMMENDATIONS Approval subject to public input. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Resolution No. PZ96-40 2. Application 3. Drawings CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RES4LUTlQN ND. PZ 96-40 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR: NATHAN A. KIEL USE CELLULAR PHONE SYSTEM SITE LOCATED TRACT A1, INLET VIEW SUBDIVISION, RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT A WHEREAS, the Commission finds: 1) That an application meeting the requirements of Section 14.20.150 has been submitted and received on: May 8, 1996 2) This request is on land zoned RS-1 -Suburban Residential 1 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: May 22, 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MEETS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SAID OPERATION AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSION DOES AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, MAY 22 , 1996. ~~~ \ -~-~- - CI.IAIRPERSON ATE T: Planning Sec etary CITY OF KENAI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NAME /.-~'/~/ - ~L PHONE c~ ~ ' j - ~j _j ADDRESS ~v ~` X ~ ~ S 3 €~/,~ ~ / ~~l ADDRESS `':'O y L~/f~J ~~i/ ?T - ~s~/,c~ b L~~e~ `~~'j~-C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4.Q ~c°S'~1 b~• d DESCRIPTION , ~ ZONING C RR RR-1 RS RS-1 RS-2 CC CG IL IH R RUl DISTRICT Tra~T l~ Section 14.20.150 of the Kenai Municipal Code outlines regulations which allow Conditional Use Permits for certain developments. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING, COMPLETE THE BLANKS AND INITIAL THE SPACE BEFORE THE ITEM TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THESE CONDITIONS. A Conditional Use Permit issued by the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission is required for some uses which may be compatible with principal uses in some zones if certain conditions are met. I understand a conditional use permit is required for the proposed development as described: Ae ~ CP /~~, ~..,~ Sys~tz~u ~, T~ Please submit site Plan, Map (if available) and Traffic Flow & Parking Please submit plans showing the location of all ,/ existing and proposed buildings or alterations, ~~` elevations of such buildings or alterations, and data as may be required. A Public Notification and Hearing is required before .~ the issuance of this permit. A $105.00 non-refundable deposit/advertising fee is required to cover these notification costs. (Please see attached sheet). ~~ ~ >>r\ a„ K~r ~ ~~ _~) An approved conditional use permit shall lapse twelve months from the date of approval if the nonconforming use for which the conditional use permit was approved has not been implemented. The Commission may grant a time extension not to exceed six months upon a finding that circumstances have not changed sufficiently since the date of initial permit ~'~ approval. A request for extension must be submitted prior to expiration of permit. A public hearing shall not be required as a condition to granting the extension. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Applicant Signature: ~/ ~v ~ Date: ~ ~ ~ Approved at P&Z Meeting: `Approved: Chairperson Lawton Drive 3.01' ------------------~•--•--'--•--'--'-T•--'--'--~-~ 91.oz' ~ i ~ _. ~ ~ i i ~ • ~ i ~ ~i i ~~ i I ~ I i I W ~ ¢ c , ~ o. ~ ~ W A ~ ~~ a EDGE _ , GRAVEL u1 ' S'-0' to EDGE GRAVEL E POLE 7S._O. B CNAIN UNK FENCE (lYP) ZO'-0' ~ 1'x10' W/J'-0' AMN CATS 10'-0' ~ / ~r-~ ~ WIM STAIRS ~ 1' 1 j ~ SHE TER ' FENCE / ~ -_ ' ~ `f00A U SERVICE ENTRANCE AND DISCONNECT EDGE GRAVEL / 5'-0' POLE I 75 f00T MONOPOLE r 75'-0' ' f0' UTILItt EASEYEM . ~~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I / ~ 1 ~~ -c ~ i I I S 89' S)' 28` W 156.38' _,T_,.~ 1 I i ~ 1 I ~ I 1 I ~ 1 I 1 I i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I ' I 1 I ; I 1 i 1 ~ i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 z 1 1 5 0 1 1 1 1 ^ i 91:~~~ ~ n ~ ~ p6~ s~~ MACTIEL SITE SURVEY rvEw ~ ~~ O _ ! KENAI ALASKA '~ TiiLCOM. 1NG HORIZONS O ee ~~ ~ , 4 i 83111 ..a .ex w ..ua r..u ..w wn +«-.n ... pm...-«.. ,+ 4928-S W1~16 ~i~ 5133 ..~ ... .. ..~., ~..~_., S14 1985 Lawton Drive -____ ____________ _~~ 113.01' I ~ / I I j ~ ~Il~Q~ ~-~ I I ~ I 1 ~ I . I ~ ~~ I I~ ~ ~ I 1 ., .. .,.,~ . ~.....~ . ~ / GRAVE I I S ~ / PAD I I ~]C~E$ ~ ~/ / $ ' I I I w a I I o~ W I I ~ ~ / ,._.~ a I I : ~ / L: I ~ / ~ ~ I ,',,, I % / ~ I I , ., ~, /PROPOSED MACTEL I I .~i, i I / MONOPOLE AND EQUIPMENT • ~ . ~ ~ s _ SHELTER -SEE 0001 I I ' M I ' r FOR DETAILS I j ~ ~ ~w ;~ ~. :::: ~II'all~it ~ I / ~ I I 1 ~ ~ ~~ lo' unLm I j I % ' EASEMENT ~ ~ I \\ W v, s 99' sT~ z9• w Iss.39' I ~ / ~ / ~ EXISTING - I / r ~ ' ' GRAVEL DRIVE I I / : ~ ~ I / ~ ~ I o 1 / ~ I / / ~ I / / ~~ I I / / ~ I / / ~ wooD FRAME 1 / / ' MOUSE I I I / 4b ~ ~ I 1 ~ s/ ~ I I / / I / 'J i I i ~' I ! / i I I i ~' I 1 / i i `~~.~~ ...1 ----- -T-- ~ ~ ~ I ~ \ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ A¢ 9 \~ LEGEND `~ \ IC.®$ 3 `~ \ ~TM 6a `~ ~ MONUMENT '. / ~ ~ ~ ~ S/B• REBNt SET 11/20/95 / ~ ~ \ • S/8• REBM SET -OLD \ \ \ I ~ AFp~ o c7 ~ A~3 ~ MACTEL SRE SURVEY NEw '= ~ •• I(C~'A, ~$~ u~ HORIZONS mscor, lrc. ~ S ~~ ~~~I}~ ra o ~~ar rrru, ~ ww (w>J ro-an nu twrlrw-~a~ ~> C., Kenai City Council Chambers May 22, 1996 at 7 p.m. For Information Call: 283-7933 CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION PZ 96-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE KENAI CITY COUNCIL THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRIME RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO BE ADDED TO ZONES LISTED IN TITLE 14 OF THE K.M.C. OF THE CITY OF KENAI. WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission received a request from Michael Christian, a citizen of Kenai, that a new zone be established, and; WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission received public comment at meetings held in April and May, 1996 and a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 22, 1996, and; WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission determined the current zones do not address the development requirements as listed for the Prime Residential Zone. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA THAT A NEW PRIME RESIDENTIAL ZONE AS NOTED ON THE ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A" BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF KENAI. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, MAY 22, 1996. CHAIRPER N ST: Planning S cretary 14.20.095 Prime Residential Zone (RP) (a) Intent. The RF Zone is intended to provide for medium density residential development that will provide a rural ambiance with higher standard residences. The specific intent is establishing this zone is: (1) To separate residential structures to an extent which will: [iJ Allow for adequate light, air, and privacy; [ii] Preserve the rural, open quality of the environment; [iii) Provide for stable property values by setting higher development standards. (2) To prohibit uses which would: [i) Violate the residential character of the environment; [ii] Generate heavy traffic in predominantly residential areas. (b) Principal Permitted Uses: As allowed in Land Use Table and subject to the provisions of this chapter. (c) Conditional Uses: As allowed in Land Use Table and subject to the provisions of this chapter. (d) Accessory Uses: As defined in this chapter. (See Definitions.) (e) Home Occupations: Uses as allowed by this chapter. (f) Development Requirements: As described in Development Requirements Table. (g) Parking Requirements: As required by this chapter. LAND USE TAl DRAFT' ~'' ~T: P = PN~tipel Persisted Use NOTE: Refenree footeotes e = CaMitianel use m tolloriro psyes for s = sewrdsry Use edditiaol ewtrietion. M s Mot persitted _ Table 1 of 3 a ,~:ris ~ .. y, r ~ e~ . v 5<'°h v~. 'arc ... . ... .. ~.::..~ 2 H ~ :.o.:. $ V 1~4~b ~ ~ ~~ ~ # ~ 1 ~i ~ ~C ~l7 a ....v. u. : g-:: .: :.. Q':. ~ ' ' n 'i "'i."xb?s:.;: +K~~::. ~~F % $ vYO 'V.i^:`;Ly' ~. :y 5. .f!,$.ih:;; :.~<Ji.:cw ,::Y. ~ w 6~:.. ..o -..:: .:: ;` .. : :. . :.... .: .. c }~ 11 t~,~hj ~,.M°zF~1'i'I.~..,sh 2`.~~+~~ f3i.Q 1.~~'~~~ O'~#R~'~ k J IDEit~Y... ~ ... . .. . One Family Dwelling P P P P P P S S' SZ P P P Two Family Dwelling P P P P P P S P P N Three/Four Family P P p S Si N Dwelling Five/Six Family C3 P P S Si N Dwelling Seven or More C3 C3 P S Si C N Family Dwelling Townhouses ~ C C C N Mobile Homes s N Mo b il Home p ~ k S 6 C C N Planned Unit igesidential C C C N Development T N Aatomotive Saks P P P N Automotive Service Stations P P P N Banks P P N Badnes~s/Const~er Services P P C N HotdsJMotels P P C N Professional Offices P P P P P S P N Restaurants C° P P C C N Retsil/Wholesale Badness p p p p C C N Theaters/ Commercial Recreation P P P C N 14-65 CITY OF I~iAI ICY: P = Prineipel Permitted Use C = Caditierrl use S • Seeaderr use r = rot per=itted R R] ~! lL / ~ ~Y LAND USE TAE DQ A~~ { ~ C7 IIOREz Refrnree foobogs on fotlwiro Prr.s for additiernl restrietione. Table 2 of 3 Airports and P Related Uses P P N Automotive Repair! T~ R~PP~~ P P P N Rebuilding Gas Manufacture/ ~ N Storage Manufacturing/ Fabricating/ P P N Assembly/Storage Warehouses P P N N Charitable Institutions P P ~ N Churches pio pio pio pw C~ P C° Ctinia P P C N Colleges C C C C C N IIemeatary Schools C C C C C C" Governmental Buildings C C C C N ~ Schools C C C C C N Hospitals C C C C C N Libraries C12 P P P C° Mu.4eums P P P N Parks and Reczeation P S S S S S p P C Public Facilities C C C P C N Sanitariums C C C C C N 18 On developed arterial only. (This footnote will be added to current list.) 146 CITY OF ICII~iAI ~ i ~ ~ l ~ LAND USE TAI ~ ! PF RET: P • Primp/ Permitted Uq D ROIEs Refwwee footestes R C • Corditianel Use on iolloriro pOS for S • Use edditionel restrfetiorr. R • rot pr~itted _ Table 3 of 3 >: .:. t ,~ ~ :... ,, x :.' " .~~~~~ F ,. ...;~. .. . .~ 4 $ x ~ .. rv 2 y.. ~ ~ ::MK~3' l "F . . . : ~ . .3c:i ~, : .. .::, ...: r. a9;~:. ,t. .:: __ 4 d f Animal Boarding is C C C N Bed & Breakfasts C C C C C N Cabin Rentals C C N Cemeteries C N Crematories C C C C N Day Can Centers 12 C C C C C C C C C Dormitories/ Boarding Houses P Si S C N F~eatial Services P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Faiming/Gardenmg/ Gena~ai Agriculture P P P N ° n' ~ ~ ~ C C C C C C N Aaseanblages is Qarge: Circuses, C C C C C C N Fairs, etc.) I.odges/Fraternsi Organizations P P C N Nursing, Convalesoeat or C C P p N Rest Homes Parking, OR-Strcet P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Park~g, Public ~ C C C P C N Private Clubs P P P S C N Rad~o/TV Transmitters P P P S N Recreational Vebide Parks C C C C C C C N Solaal Halls P P C N Subsurface Ext- raction of Natural C C C C C C C C C C C N Resources ib Surface Extraction of Natural Resources ~~ C C C C C C C C C C C N Union Halls P P C N 14-67 CITY OF I~1AI r v\ ~ ~ .. JO e°'o ~ a J CO H ~. a~ s ~- 0 .~ x3.: :.~ ~' ~ ~ - i 1 1 i I ' .{/' 5 c ' ~' ~ ~ W ~ C ~ s .. i O d .. ~++ ~ ~ ~ M y i ' i 's ! i i ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ a ~~ N ~ ~ N l~ .+ ~ •~ s s h ! P ~;; ! p^ U v~ o ~ ~ I i ! I i ~ ~ I = i ! I .Nn N ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ i ? I i ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ V V ~ 6~ ~ ~ h N V Ir ~, a ~~ ~~ 3 >~ 3 3 3 v v C.I d ~ _°^. 3 A ~~ o ~ ~ ,, ~ A '' w~ E «. c. o' S u w w a w ~rOyryy{ V ~- o~ N Q ~O h H r 0 Nyy 00 a ~. F- LL oo ~ 0~ N .~. N ~ evi "`"^: O~ N .~-~ A ~ i :~' C~w~i ~~~~~' $ I I°I ~ ICI ICI I ~~ $ I I NI ~ I ~I i ~i I ~I $ I INI ~ ICI ICI IMF $ I I NI ~ I ~I I ~i I ~i Q~ N ~ A ~ M O~ N .~. !V ~1 M wl ~ la W d O ~ O t "'" °O~ w ~ ~ C M .-r ~ ~„ .. V _- Y ~ 4O =V l y yVr _. ~8 ~~ ~ ~_~_ •y c ~ ou ~ :~ .e -. ~ ~ 3 G ' ~ ~ H ~]j( h ~ ~ 5 w o ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ w C ~ "" .. E $ '" _ w p ~ O ~ p~ d 8 .... «. ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~W 0~ l7 ~ ~,'- y 3 E ;~ ~ . = ~ 6 ~ ~ iT s ~ r : ~3 ~~" ~ . b ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ s y °° o ~ o ~~ , N ~ C ~ s$j .L' 3 .~ ~ ~ w , .~ U R y t.+ ~ ~+ v ~ -. Q L ?~ ~ W ~ N t a ~ ~ { r T N y .r ~ i j~~ AGENDA .-~. RENAI CITY COIINCIL - REGIILAR MEETING MAY 15, 1996 7:00 P.M. RENAL CITY COIINCIL CHAMBERS '~ ~; ,,,, A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Pledge of Allegiance ~'' 2 . Roll Call ~ ~' ~~~ 3. Agenda Approval 4. Consent Agenda *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Council and...: will be approved by one motion. There will be no '' separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its ,,,~.,_;; normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. ,,~ .,-~ . , -~ ~~ 8. BCHEDIILED PIIBLIC COMMENT (10 Minutes ) ~ ~~! ~~~ ~.~ , ~~;, ~u~s+ r 47~i~i~ Tiw~/~yp~( ~. n/G,-rv~is.~ ~.e~..E.. !,l..~-~e_.. C. PIIBLIC HEARINGS 1. Ordinance No. 1691-96 - Replacing the Tables Referred to in the Personnel Regulations (Title 23) to Establish a New Salary Structure by Grade and New Hourly Rates for Part-Time Employees. (2.7$ COLA) ~~~ ~ ~, a. Substitute Ordinance No. 1691-96 - Replacing the Tables Referred to in the Personnel Regulations (Title 23) to Establish a New Salary Structure by Grade and New Hourly Rates for Part-Time Employees. (2.0$ COLA) b. Consideration of Substitute Ordinance. ~~*~~ °`~ 2. Ordinance No. 1692-96 - Amending Title 23.50.010 of the ~~~ ~. Renai Municipal Code in Order to Incorporate Changes Brought About by the Organization-Wide Classification Study Conducted in 1995. 3. Ordinance No. 1693-96 - Amending KMC 1.25.030(c) ~~ ~ Allowing for a Deputy City Clerk or Temporary Deputy City Clerk to be Paid the City Clerk's Salary During the City Clerk's Absence. -1- ~~~ ~ 4. Ordinance No. 1694-96 - Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $5,000 in the General Fund for Completion of the Challenger Learning Center Feasibility Study. ~.~~p 5. Ordinance No. 1695-96 - Suspending the Provisions of Chapter 7.12 of the Kenai Municipal Code Beginning June 15, 1996. /~~~ ~ 6. Resolution No. 96-37 - Awarding a Contract for /~ Professional Services for the Alaska Challenger Learning Center for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $30,000 to K. Scott and Associates. 7. Resolution No. 96-38 - Transferring $4,000 in the Water ~~~ ~~ and Sewer Fund for Instrumentation for Water Analysis. 8. Resolution No. 96-39 -Awarding a Contract for Third- ~`~~ G1. Party Environmental Services for Environmental Cleanup at Lots 13 and 14, Block 1, Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park to GeoEngineers, Inc. for $12,793.00. ~d~^/ 9. 1996/97 Liquor License Renewal - Withdrawal of Protest - American Legion Post #20 Club. D. COMMISSIONjCOMMITTEE 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. MINIITES 1. *Regular Meeting of May 1, 1996. F. G. OLD BII8INE88 -2- 8. NEW BIISINE88 ~~Orrd~' 1. Bills to be Paid, Bills to be Ratified ~o~d/'~Y~ 2. Purchase Orders Exceeding $2,500 3. *Ordinance No. 1696-96 - Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $250 in the 1967 Debt Service Fund for the Trust Account Administration Fee. 4. *Ordinance No. 1697-96 - Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $1,600 in the Council on Aging - Borough Special Revenue Fund for Commemorative Posters. ~~, 5. Ordinance No. 1698-96 - Adopting the Annual Budget for i~ the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 1996 and Ending June 30, 1997. 6. *Ordinance No. 1699-96 - Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $7,000 in the General Fund for Additional Playground Improvements at Municipal Park. -,~/~`Gca~7. Approval - Shop Truck - Re-award of Bid. ~ ~~G~~B. .Approval - Ft. Kenay/Mission Street Improvements. ~, ~ ~n c!~?fiy~ 'j $~'`~f 9. Discussion - Aircraft Recovery Fire Fighting School (ARFF) - Authorization to Proceed with Design. ~~ 10. Discussion - FAA Land Trade, Antenna Farm Relocation, and Proposed Flight Service Station Expansion. ~- ~s~C EBECIITIVE 8E88iON - Personnel Discussion. -~ EBECIITIVE SESSION - City Clerk and City Attorney Evaluations. ~ `j~~.. I. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS 1. Mayor 2. City Manager 3. Attorney 4. City Clerk 5. Finance Director 6. Public Works Director 7. Airport Manager J. DISCII88ION 1. Citizens (five minutes). 2. Council R. ADJOIIRNMENT -3- Ib~ KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ~` ASSEMBLY CHAMBERS SOLDOTNA,ALASKA MAY 13, 1996 7:30 P.M. Tentative Agenda John Hammchnan Chairman Areawide Term Expires 1996 Philip Bryson Vice Chairman Kenai City Term Expires 1998 Ann Whitmore-Painter Parliamentarian Moose Pass Area Terns Expires 1497 Peggy G. Boscacci PC Member Seldovia City Term Expires 1997 Wayne Carpenter PC Member Seward city Tetra Expires 1996 Robert Clutts PC Member Anchor Point Tetra Expires 1998 Wes Coleman PC Member Soldotna City Tetra Expires 1996 Leroy Gannaway PC Member Homer City Tetra Expires 1998 Ellis Hensley, Jr. PC Member Nikiski Tetra Expires 1996 Brent Johnson PC Member Kasilof Area Term Expires 1997 ~ Tom Knock PC Member Cooper Landing Tetra 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. If 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. Fishermans Road S/D Edelman Addition KPB File 93-183 Location: Kalifornsky Beach Road approximately 1 3!4 miles southerly of Cannery Road 2. Plats Granted Administrative Approval 3. Plats Granted Final Approval Under 20.04.070 4. KPBPC Resolutions a. KPBPC Resolution SN 96-04: Renaming Certain Public Rights- of-Way Within Section 4, T3N, R11W; Sections 3, 22, 27, 28 & 33„ T4N, R11 W; Section 36, T4N, R12W; Sections 21, 26, 35, 36, TSN, R8W; Sections 5, 11, 19, 20, TSN, R9W; Sections 19, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, TSN, R10W; Sections 13, 22, 23, 24, 27, 34, 35, TSN, R11W, Seward Meridian, Alaska; Within the Emergency Service Number (ESN) Area 302 as Approved 4/22/96 Don Gilman, lvtayor 5. Coastal Management Program Lisa Parker P,~t ~~~~~ a. Coastal Management Program Consistency Reviews lJlSria Swep ~~ gamin. nss,~t ~ 1) Kenai; Cannery Loop #5; Gas Development Well; y~~ ~ Marathon Oil Co.; AK 9604 - 02OG ~ 2) Jakalof Bay; Aquatic Farm; Natural Mystic Sea Farms; ,~ Sheer; AK 9604 - 06AA P ~,~~:~.~,~~ ~~~~~ b. Conclusive Consistency Determinations Received from DGC c. Administrative Determinations 6. Commissioner Excused Absences a. No excused absences requested. ?. Minutes a. Apri122, 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 1. Ordinance 96-14: Enacting KPB Chapter 21.13 Requiring Permits for Certain Land Uses Within the Borough F. PUBLIC HEARINGS -None G. VACATIONS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING -None H. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. An Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance of Tract A-1 Shoreline Heights Subdivision No. 2, Plat No. 93-26 to the University of Alaska in Exchange for Tract 1, Kalifornsky Elementary School Subdivision, Plat No. 83-100 I. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS 1. Byington Homestead; Kasilof River Preliminary; Johnson Land Surveying KPB File 96-066 2. Aksala S/D No. 3; Denise Lake Preliminary; McLane Consulting Group KPB File 96-067 2 3. Gerhart Homestead Tract 9; Soldotna City Preliminary; McLane Consulting Group KPB File 96-070 4. Lost Lake Addition No. 5; north of Sewazd Preliminary; Integrity Surveys KPB File 96-068 5. Willow Brook S/D; K Beach Road Preliminary; Integrity Surveys KPB File 96-075 6. R.W. Edens S/D Addition No. 1 Homer City; Preliminary Roger W. Imhoff KPB File 96-069 7. Waugh Subdivision; north of Anchor Point Revised Preliminary; Seabright Surveying KPB File 96-023 Newell Pazk; east of Fritz Creek Preliminary; Mullikin Surveys KPB File 96-071 9. Kenai River Estates; Soldotna City Preliminary; Whitford Surveying KPB File 96-072 10. Bluff Park No. 4 Harmon-Porter Addn. Homer City; Preliminary Whitford Surveying KPB File 96-073 11. Hobart Subdivision; north of Tote Road Preliminary; Whitford Surveying KPB File 96-074 J. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS -None K. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS 1. Direction Requested by Staff for Proposed Street Re-Name SPRUCE AVENUE within Suthard Subdivision (Plat KN 855), Lande Subdivision (Plat KN 980), Irons Subdivisions: Lots 1 thru 13 in Block 3 and Block 6 (Plat KN 1516), Block 7 & Lot 8 of Block 9 (Plat KN 72-5), Portions of Block 3A, 9, and 10 (Plat KN 74-111), Block 4, Remainder Blocks 3, 3-A (Plat KN 75-100), Block 11 (Plat KN 78-174), 1981 Addition (Plat KN 81-148), Sections 20 and 29, TSN, R10W, off Kenai Spur Highway north of Soldotna; proposed to be renamed to RIVER AVENUE. L. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS M. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS N. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS O. ADJOURNMENT The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is TUESDAY May 28, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in the CHAPMAN SCHOOL GYM AT ANCHOR POINT. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS NO ACTION REQUII2ED 1. Seward Planning Commission April 3, 1996 Minutes 2. Soldotna Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 1996 Minutes 3. Homer Advisory Planning Commission April 17, 1996 Minutes 4. AML Legislative Bulletin # 19-15 5. Supplemental Notice for Sale 85A 6. Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission Apri124, 1996 Minutes 7. May 6, 1996 Letter to Jerry Anderson from Lisa Parker 4 .~~`~~. 144 N. BINKLEY SOIDOTNA, ALASKA 99669-7599 BUSINESS (907) 262-4441 FAX (907)262-1892 )~Z~ DON GILMAN MAYOR KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL SUBDIVISION: HAKKINEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION KPB FILE 96-058 THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE SUBDIVISION PLAT. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED ON APRIL 26,1996. THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE PLAT WITH THE DISTRICT RECORDER WILL EXPIRE ONE YEAR FROM APPROVAL DATE. BBIE HARRIS PLATTING OFFICER NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS ~(Q DAY OF 1996. `~ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR STATE OF A MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: - - NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF ALASKA MARIA E. SWEPPY SURVEY FIRM HAS BEEN ADVISED OF ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, IF ANY, TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO FILING PLAT WITH DISTRICT RECORDER _.~1415tes~_ "'~ b'N ~r ~ N ,ti .,,. f ~--ti. BOROUGH 144 N. BINKLEY SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 99669-7599 BUSINESS (907) 262-4441 FAX (907)262-1892 DON GILMAN MAYO R KENAI PENINSULA ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL SUBD[VISION: SPRUCEWOOD GLEN S/D NO.7 KPB FILE 96-024 THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE SUBDIVISION PLAT. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED ON APRIL 25, 1996. THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE PLAT WITH THE DISTRICT RECORDER WILL EXPIRE ONE YEAR FROM APPROVAL DATE. R BBIE HARRIS ATTING OFFICER NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS ZSDAY OF ~~i I , 1996. ~~~ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR STATE OF MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~_~~ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF ALASKA 11AARtA E. SWEPPY SURVEY FIRM HAS BEEN ADVISED OF ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, IF ANY TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO FILING PLAT WITH DISTRICT RECORDER. ~~~~,~314151s~j7'~ 8 ,o '~ `'o ~r~r ~ NN N a ~~ ; o^'/ \~ ~~h KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ADVISORY BOARD Thursday, April 4, 1996 Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association I. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call Members Present: ]eff King, Ted Wellman, Irv Carlisle, Jim H. Richardson, Robin Nyce, Patricia Bower, Peggy Mullen, Ben Ellis, Tom Knock, Barbara Jewel for Ken Lancaster, Robin West, Bill Schuster for Duane Harp, Gary Leipitz for Lance Trasky, Jack LaShot, Chris Degernes. Members Absent:. Jim A. Richardson B. Approval of March 7, 1996, minutes. The minutes were approved as written. C. Agenda Changes and Approval. The agenda was approved. I1. PUBLIC COMMENT Michelle Brown. representing The Nature Conservancy announced there will be a Kenai River Community Forum April 19-21. She asked if the Board would like a booth. Chris stated Parks had access to photo displays and other information but requested assistance from Board members in developing and manning the booth. Peggy stated she would help, stating it would be nice for the Board to have a presence at the symposium. Bill Stockwell, announced there would be a joint meeting with the Cooper Landing, Seward, and Moose Pass Advisory Planning Commissions at Cooper Landing's Community Hall on April 27 to discuss Kenai Borough, State, and Federal land issues. He felt it would be an important meeting for the Kenai River planning process. He encouraged Board members to attend. 111. NEW BUSINESS A. KRCMP Revision Process Chris gave a brief synopsis of the March 30 meeting and requested input on how the April 6 meeting could be improved. She stated the meeting will have a different facilitator, Jane Angvik, and that her methods may be different from the last facilitator. After discussing each topic, each focus group should try to summarize the top six issues of each of the main four topics: fish and wildlife habitat, land use, recreation, and environmental. KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA 2 ADVISORY BOARD -April 4, 1996 Minutes Bruce stated one improvement would be to have the staff people shorten their presentations somewhat. He wanted the groups to develop the presentation focusing on the issues and not just having the group's spokesperson expressing his/her feelings. Each group's final presentation should be kept as tight as possible. Chris reemphasized that the process is one of vision and not one to rehash old problems. Each group should try to keep focused on their specific topic and should discourage bantering and debate. Irv agreed that everyone in the group should work on developing the presentation. In some groups at the last meeting only the spokesperson worked on the final presentation while the other members of the group conversed for a half hour. He also suggested extra Board members or staff people be assigned to each group to assist with late comers or information beyond the scope of the group. To keep affinity within the group, Peggy suggested having each person write down six issues within their topic to be discussed. This would also help create an outline for the final presentation. She noted the group's spokesperson should be carefully chosen because often the most vocal person is chosen and he/she is not necessarily a good listener. Ben stated that many people were not anticipating staying throughout the whole meeting to voice their opinion on a subject. He felt there should be an avenue for these people to voice their concerns. Often once a person has a chance to voice their peeve, they can then funnel their positive energies into the meeting. He also stated that the final presentations should just present the framework and not swctured informational details. Jim H. Richardson complemented the facilitator in his group. He agreed that many people were surprised to find out the meeting was an all day process. Suzanne suggested after everyone has separated into their respective groups that the spokesperson should allot five minutes for persons to voice their concerns. Then they could come back to the concern at the proper time. Irv liked the idea. Chris asked for ideas on how to break the ice in the group. Irv stated his method was to briefly give his background and then state he was not there to contribute but to seek out their thoughts. He further stated he was not looking for solutions but wanted to hear what they wanted to see happening to the river in 10 to 15 years. He felt it started the group out on a positive step. For the April 6 meeting, Chris asked Board members to be at the Borough building by 8:30 a.m.to help set up. She also requested any Board member who desired to be a facilitator to contact her. KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ~~ 3 ADVISORY BOARD -April 4, 1996 Minutes B. Plan Goal and Objective Development Process Bruce Phelps discussed the different processes in developing a plan. He stated it's very important to maintain the Board's involvement and ownership to the plan. Now that they have obtained varied public comments, he would first like staff to put some organization to it. Then the Board should translate the comments into goals and objectives. He recommended two Board. members assist the staff on each topic with the Chair and Vice- Chair reviewing all of the goals and objectives to see if there are any inconsistencies. He stressed these would be working goals and objectives and that they would change as the planning process continued. Suzanne suggested the Board members also review the old plan to make sure nothing is lost. The Board and staff were assigned as follows: To is ~ff Board Members Robin Nyce, Jack, Ken L. Ben, Ted Pat, Jim H. Richardson Peggy, Jeff Land Ilse Bruce Recreation Chris Habitat Suzanne Environment Bruce C. Kenai River Center Update Llsa Parker, representing the Kenai Peninsula Borough, stated the MOl! was signed in January. Bids for office space went out and the center will be located in the old HEA building on the Spur Highway. The Borough will provide a planner and a clerk typist; Parks will provide a permit officer and a seasonal office clerk to help with guide permitting. Occupancy is planned for mid-April and the center should be operational by late-April. They plan to do a lot of advertising to get the word out. Suzanne stated the banks along Caymus Subdivision have been nominated for bank closure to Fish 8z Game. She suggested writing the Board of Fish thanking them for their support. Ted stated the intent of the ruling was to close banks where damage was occurring. He did not want to see closures simply because the area is pristine, it was to be a policy to keep heavily impacted areas from overuse. Chris suggested the issue be a topic at the next meeting with Gary Leipitz or Doug Vincent-Lang giving a presentation. Ben agreed the Board needed to write a letter to FAG supporting the bank closures, but stated areas should not be closed if they are not being affected. He requested that Gary Leipitz or Doug Vincent-Lang also report on the 309 data base. :~:. KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA 4 ADVISORY BOARD -April 4, 1996 Minutes Irv stated he thought the Caymus Subdivision did not lend itself. to barik fishing. Lisa Parker stated there were a number of areas within Caymus Subdivision impacted. The Borough has developed a restoration and rehabilitation project plan which recommended removal of a jetty. She stated the Borough would also like to start some dialog regarding a land exchange with Parks. Peggy thought it would be too late to comment at the May 9 meeting and suggested drafting a letter at this meeting. She was informed there would still be time to comment at the May 9 meeting because the public comment period would not be closed before that date. Suzanne pointed out all the areas nominated for closure on the river. She stated that Parks will also be closing portions of the Ciechanski, Big Eddy, and Kenai Keys park units to bank access and that these closures would be accomplished by signing and fencing. Lisa Parker stated during the peak fishing periods, there will be ads twice a week in the paper and PSAs on the radio to let people know where they can fish. The Kenai River Center will also disseminate the information. D. KPB Ordinance 96-06 Update Chris provided the Board members a copy of the amended ordinance as it stood prior to the last Assembly meeting on April 2. Lisa Parker stated that at the March 19 public hearing 18 persons testified and amendments were made to the ordinance. Afterwards there was a work session strictly to work on the amendments. Last Tuesday the ordinance was again discussed. The watershed issue was reconsidered to include the entire watershed and that issue was defeated. The Assembly was also asked to reconsider adding the tributaries, but the Assembly failed to reconsider so the tributaries are not included. Lisa stated the Borough was not prepared to oversee management of the tributaries without being provided the staff for administration. The Assembly added in new intent Language to allow structures under construction. Also, if a structure was damaged, the individual could reconstruct within the structure's footprint. Several items were not considered such as the lower five miles and the Cooper Landing area because of time limitation. Pat stated there was some ambiguity on the Board's position represented at the meeting. She suggested writing a letter in support of the ordinance so the Assembly was clear where the Board stood. She had been informed that letters of support would be appreciated. Irv stated the letter that was written was not presented to the Assembly for at least a month. He understood the letter was supporting the recommendations of the working group. He did not feel that the letter supported the ordinance as it has been amended. Irv did not support the current ordinance. KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ;,_ 5 ADVISORY BOARD -April 4, 1996 Minutes Ted stated he read the letter into the record at the Borough Planning Commission meeting. He thought the letter was a matter of interpretation. He believed the letter supported and encouraged the standards from the working group, however, if those standards were not met, it did not mean the Board no longer supported an ordinance. He stated he wanted some protection for the river; even if it was only 50 ft., it would be better than nothing at all. MOTION: Ben made a motion to draft a letter to the Borough stating the importance of a land use ordinance on the Kenai River, urging them to amend the current ordinance to fulfill the points listed in the prior letter and stressing the passage of an ordinance. Irv seconded. Irv stated the inclusion of the floodplain was very important to him. He also wanted the activities, not just structures, regulated. He also opposed the tributaries being left out. He did not think awatered-down law would be any good and it would not be strengthened in the future. He felt if the floodplain and tributaries were left out of the ordinance, it was better off defeated. He was not in favor of writing a letter because the last one took over a .month to get to the Assembly, and he also was not in favor of the current ordinance without the floodplain. Ted stated many decent structures were built within the floodplain without floodplain permits because at the time the structures were built, it was thought floodplain penniu were only needed if you wanted floodplain insurance. He further stated he had no objection to Cooper Landing and the lower five miles being included and noted the working group included those areas. He stated he would rather have the whole thing; but that it has been an ugly battle to get this far with the ordinance, he would grab whatever there was. Jim H. Richardson supported having an ordinance and desired wording for a letter. Tom thought the working group was a very diverse group and that they came out with something pretty good. However, since it has gone to the Assembly, the ordinance has changed. He definitely wanted to see an ordinance, even if it had holes in it. Pat asked what kind of impact would it be to the Borough to administer the tributaries. Lisa gave her examples of the increased building and development that has occurred in the last few years in the areas around the tributaries. Robin West did not want to give up hope that an ordinance would pass. He believed the ordinance would continue to change even after its passage. However, if an ordinance did not pass this time around, he felt it would be even more difficult to pass one in the future. Tom would like to have the ordinance reviewed after one year and then every other year afterwards to see if other changes were needed. „4 KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA 6 ADVISORY BOARD -April 4, 1996 Minutes Ben felt the real crux of the situation is that an ordinance, even in its weakest form, is better than none. He urged support for an ordinance. VOTE ON MOTION TO WRITE LETTER: All in favor except for Irv, who opposed the motion. The Board then took a break to work on the wording of a letter. MOTION: Ben moved to state in the approved letter to the Assembly that the Kenai River Advisory Board supported the passage of a Kenai River ordinance. The letter would encourage the Assembly to incorporate: 1) inclusion of the entire river, 2) inclusion of the 100-year floodplain, 3) consenting to a review after the first year and then every two years, 4) inclusion of tributaries with the appropriate funding to support, and 5) changing the fuel tank size from 200 gallons to 50 gallons. The final paragraph would state the Board would like the ordinance to dovetail with the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. It should also thank them for their hard work and reiterate the importance of passage this spring. VOTE ON MOTION REGARDING WORDING: Unanimous without objection. The letter will be taken to the Borough Clerk's Office for dispersal and Tom will also read it at the rrext borough meeting. E. Environmental Assessment Update Bill Schuster gave a brief update stating the US Forest Service looked at the Russian River Angler Trail, damage to the stream bank and archeological site damage. The preferred altemative will reduce streambank access by 10% by putting in '/s-mile worth of boardwalks while the trail in the remaining area will be upgraded with surfacing. Anew toilet will be built about 400 feet from the confluence with a removable tank (accessed by ATV). They also plan to build a small river overlook by the estuary and an access tram enabling persons with disabilities to get down to the bottom. Bill stated the preferred alternative is anticipated to be released next week with aone-month comment period. Each Board member will get a copy of the environmental assessment. He also noted everything will not be built in one year and the entire project will be over $800,000. Ben was concerned about people walking in the river and the impact it may have on spawning in the riverbed. Bill stated the area from Red Salmon parking area down to the confluence will have a good trail or boardwalk on which the public can walk. He did not feel there would be a significant change to the spawning beds. KENA1 RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA 7 ADVISORY BOARD -April 4, 1996 Minutes 1V. PUBLIC COMMENT V. ADJOURNMENT A. Board Comments Tom inquired as to the status of the Ingram property (Cooper Landing boat launch project at the outlet of Kenai Lake). Chris informed him they are working on the designs now and could possibly begin work this Fall, however, it will most probably begin next year. She also stated work will begin this Spring at the Pillars with a double boat ramp, floating dock, bioengineering on the river bank and boardwalks being developed. In the Fall they will start on the parking and roadway. Ben announced the Kenai River Classic will fund Streamwatch workshops on May l 8 and 19 in Soldotna and on ]une 1 and 2 in Anchorage. Also, with Kenai River Classic funding they have begun a norrhem pike data base study in the Moose River area. They have also earmarked $10,000 for a water quality study with a matching grant from USFBtWS. He also stated work on the Soldotna Visitor Center Project continues to be examined. Robin West stated the Lower Skilak parking design is currently being reviewed. They anticipate going out to bid soon. They will also be developing the boat launch area. Suzanne announced the Fourth Annual Kenai River Public Lands Cleanup Day on May 11. She hoped the guides will also help by picking up debris in the river. They are planning to have a barbeque afterwards at Soldotna Creek Park. Gary Leipitz stated residential projects from Exxon funds are moving ahead with 75 applications being submitted. So far 34 have been approved. There are also 15 proposals to do public land restorations and they, too, are going forward. B. Date/Agenda of Next Meeting Peggy announced the next meeting will be May 9 at the Borough Building. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submi , %~~ ~~ Ear ene Reed, Recording Secretary for the Division of Parks 8t Outdoor Recreation )ate CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 1996 WORK SESSION MINUES PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ZONE (MICHAEL CHRISTIAN): Vice-chair Carl Glick opened the session advising that it was a work session and was conducted informally. Glick asked for input on the proposal. Glick asked Bryson if he had a concern to address. Bryson stated he has always been troubled about the blank spots on the Land Use Table. Bryson stated that at one time administration had received the legal interpretation that those areas could be considered for Conditional Use applications. Bryson commented that in many cases it would seem inappropriate. Bryson added that he realized in the Prime Residential Zone there are several uses that are spoken to as being undesirable. There are a lot more than that if the blank areas on the chart are considered conditional uses. Bryson stated that would apply to the chart at all times. Glick stated he would agree because if you could mark conditional use at one place, prohibit it in another, and in between not mark anything, that is vague. Glick asked if the people in the audience have had a chance to review the proposal. Mr. Christian stated he had not but had just picked up a copy and asked what they were referring to. Bryson explained there are three pages in the Land Use Table that are identified by permitted uses, conditional uses, principal permitted use, and secondary use by the designation P, C, or S. Then, there are the blanks. Bryson explained that in the recent past areas that were left blank, have been interpreted as being appropriate for conditional uses. Bryson commented he was not sure that was Christian's intent. Christian clarified that if it is not forbidden, then it is okay under a conditional use. Bryson stated the ordinance that was proposed listed several uses that were considered not permissible. Bryson commented there are many others that he is sure you (Christian) would want designated as not permissible if you looked at it from that perspective. Christian stated that what they were requesting were over and above what is normally seen in the RS zone. Christian stated that they were assuming, and shouldn't have, that everything that is already in the RS zone would be included in the new zone plus the extra items. Christian stated it would be easy to include those items. Mahurin stated that she had never assumed that because it was blank it meant it was permissible. Mahurin stated that when she read it and it didn't have a "C" she thought they could not apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Mahurin stated that if there is a Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 longer history, and Mr. Bryson is indicating that there is, she would like to know if this has been a problem. Mahurin stated it is not just for this area it will be for all of them. Mahurin added that perhaps this should have been addressed this in the Comprehensive Plan. Mahurin asked for a history on this. Glick commented there have been a couple instances where even the administration was saying they were not sure if something was permitted or not. Glick asked if there had been one on the proposed dog kennel near Swires wherein it was not sure if it was permissible or not. La Shot stated there has been a couple items like that. La Shot noted that the attorney has ruled if it is a blank space, it could be a conditional use. La Shot stated there are times people come in with uses that don't match with anything in the table or even close to the table. La Shot added that it is difficult to know how to handle it. La Shot stated that possibly the table should be cleaned up and make it very clear in the code that only if it is stipulated can it be a permitted use. Or, take all the "C's" out and keep the system as it is wherein a conditional use could be allowed in any zone after going through the process. Bryson stated that if among the uses that are listed there were areas that were considered objectionable, possibly they could be indicated as "NP" for Not Permitted or something like that. La Shot commented that may be a better way to do it. Bryson noted for example if you had a large Prime Residential zone and there were an arterial road running through it, it would still have the potential of being appropriate for a church or something like that that serves the public as long as access is reasonable to it. In a small portion of that, as in a corner of a Prime Residential zone, it might not be feasible. La Shot noted there is always the variance procedure if there is something that is not permitted. Under a special condition, the variance method could be used. Bryson stated his concern is he doesn't see the "C's" serving any purpose in the table. La Shot agreed. Bryson stated in regards to the proposed subdivision in general, Bryson noted he would like to see a zone set up with lot sizes that would be compatible for taking some of our existing subdivisions and incorporating. For example, the 9,000+ square feet lots and enable those areas to protect themselves from resubdividing and smaller lots, duplexes and four-plex type construction. Bryson stated that from his perspective, the proposed 15,000 square foot lot does not do that for Woodland wherein virtually 90 percent do not conform. Christian stated they had discussed that in their group to decide whether they should go along with cutting down the lot size or not. Christian stated that in looking at the Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 ~~ figures that in order to have a 15,000 square foot lot you would have to start out with 18,000 before you took out the easements and the other things. Bryson clarified that he had been taking a gross, undeveloped area. For example 40 acres, if you were focusing on having an average of 15,000 square lots it will really take 18,000 square foot per lot by the time you provide for roads. Christian stated that if they start out saying they have to be 15,000 and then when they do that dividing up into lots, they would end up something like 12,500 or 13,000. Then, we would be in the range of what Woodland was when it was first started and what he thought they expected it to be. Christian noted that they had reduced the size of those lots until with the last section nobody would qualify with those small houses. Christian stated the point of having a Prime Zone, the committee came to the conclusion, was that these zones as they continue to use them, will have the size capable of taking the house that people want to build now. They are not going to be 1500 square foot houses anymore, they will want a 2000 to 3000 square foot homes with two or three car garages and they will need that size lot. Christian reiterated that they were hoping to keep the 15,000 as maybe the initial size until they cut down for easements and then perhaps to 12,500 or 13,000. Kristine Schmidt stated they had talked about using the zone for undeveloped areas rather than superimposing it over old subdivisions that are 30 years old, like Woodland. Schmidt stated she could agree with Bryson that Woodland, for example, still has unfilled lots and for those older subdivisions it would be useful to be able to protect themselves. Schmidt commented that perhaps the Commission would consider splitting this zone like the suburban residential wherein the older subdivisions with smaller lot sizes could qualify with a smaller lot size and the newer undeveloped areas could be required to have larger lot sizes with the other protections of the zone. Glick asked how they felt about schools and churches being included in the zone. Christian stated that he thought they would prefer they not be in the zone mainly because, of the traffic they will incur. Christian stated that on the first page they had stated that private schools and restaurants not be permitted. Christian stated he thought churches had been noted but perhaps on an arterial road could be considered. Christian commented that if, for example, the church were on Forest Drive and the access to and from was on Forest Drive and not through the subdivision. Glick stated they are listed now as a conditional use. They would need a permit and at that time traffic could be looked at. (Note: Mr. Christian made comments here that were unclear on the tape.) Christian commented for example the Latter Day church on the other side of Woodland did not cause a problem. But, if they had to go through Woodland to get to the church it could cause a problem. Goecke stated that was his thought to not allow those type of institutions in a Prime Residential area. Goecke stated his thinking was that if you are going to build a "prime building location or residential area" at least in the center of that not put an institution whether it be a commercial venture or a charitable organization like a church or school. Goecke commented that on the edge he probably would not have a problem with it but Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 in the core of the zone, he didn't think they should be allowed. Goecke reiterated that in the core he would not be in favor of any type of institution. Goecke stated he thought it should be strictly RESIDENTIAL. Glick noted that unless it is available as a conditional use they may not be allowed on the edge either. Goecke stated he understood that and noted he does not have a problem with the conditional use. But, he would like to amend the use to state it could only be a conditional use on the peripheral of the Prime Residential area. Glick stated he has more problems with government buildings and couldn't see why to have a government building in the middle of a residential area. Goecke stated that would be a big NO for him. Bryson commented that perhaps institutional uses in general should have arterial access or front on arterial access. Werner-Quade stated that on Page 14-67, if she is understanding this correctly, since there is nothing indicated going down, if they obtained a Conditional Use Permit they would be able to have animal boarding, bed and breakfast, cabin rentals, cemeteries, crematories, day care centers, boarding houses, etc. Werner-Quade asked if that was correct, because there is nothing to indicate otherwise. Goecke commented that he thought that was one thing they should be able to control by just putting an "N" in the table. Werner-Quade stated she was wondering that too; is there any kind of designation to indicate that a use is not permitted at all. For example, no cabin rentals in the Prime Residential zone because there is an "N" or an "X" to indicate that this is not an allowed conditional use. Goecke asked Bryson or La Shot if they could put an "N" for not permitted? La Shot stated that he thought they could put an "N" in the new zone in this process and define it. But, it should not be put in any of the other columns until the process is gone through for a full review. Goecke stated they are worried right now about the new zone and added he thought that would be the ideal way to handle it. Goecke added that if someone felt strongly about a particular group or operation then it could be discussed further. Werner-Quade asked if they could request a variance at a later time. Goecke stated a variance can always be requested. Werner-Quade commented that she was under the impression that this was supposed to be Prime Residential noting that she thought even home occupation permits were limited to a few, low traffic occupations. And, it was her understanding that conditional use permits were pretty much not even allowed in the zone. Werner-Quade stated she could see some things that could fall under it. Bryson stated if the intent of the zone is very specific and well described and justified, particularly when creating a new zone when you are not rezoning anyone, you could be more specific and prohibit more uses. However, if you are to do it in the chart, you are changing someone's zoning given the existing interpretation. Werner-Quade clarified it could be done for the new zone. Bryson stated he thought so but that it would have to go through the attorney for comments. Werner-Quade stated she would like to see that Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 ~ rather than the arbitrary current system. Bryson stated this has been a concern he has had and that on one of the recent requests his interpretation was different than the chairs. Mahurin asked Mr. Christian if the off-street parking permitted had been his comment or the administration? Christian stated he didn't think he had it included. Bryson stated the administration had put the information in to give the Commission a starting point. Mahurin stated she didn't feel that the intent would be to permit off-street parking. Bryson stated that as far as Christian's comments regarding RP-1 and RP-2, if a zone is created that is appropriate for the existing lots typically in Woodland and Redoubt Terrace that they would fit in with the smaller lot situation. Glick stated that everything else would be the same except the lot size. Bryson stated that he would think they should be required to have municipal water and sewer. Mahurin concurred as did Glick. Bryson commented they are in awell-developed fairly small lot situation. Schmidt stated that she thought the city was pretty well zoned and that residential subdivisions being able to have on-site septic are pretty a thing of the past. That is one of the reasons they felt this was one of the best quality zone that you could have for a residential zone. Schmidt stated that those of the group who have lived here have seen the battle over city water and sewer and tax payers usually end up paying for it, so they might as well just pay for it up front. Bryson asked La Shot if he had any comments. La Shot asked the Commission if it would be the Commission's intent to not allow a Prime Residential Rural zone? La Shot asked if he understood that all residences should be on city water and sewer. Bryson stated he definitely felt the small lot situation should be in the prime zone; the large lot he would defer to the Commission. Glick asked if they had an RP-1 and an RP-2 and one being the small lots, they would have to have city water and sewer and the other could be larger lots and only have one or the other. Goecke stated he thought that was in a sense what he was saying could be allowed, but he doesn't agree. If there is going to be a Prime Residential zone, you must have sewer and water regardless of the lot size. Werner-Quade stated that was her concern with Clint Hall and Richka Park estates when he was going to put in 51ots that anything would have been allowed. Werner-Quade stated that was instrumental in her no vote. La Shot stated what he was saying is what if someone in the VIP area or another rural area wanted to have a similar Prime Residential zone, then that would not be allowed. Werner-Quade commented because there is not city sewer and water service. Bryson stated they are in a situation wherein they would nominally be over 40,000 square feet unless they had some semi-community system. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 Christian asked what would prevent them from building their subdivision under these standards even though it is not required until they do have water and sewer available. There is not reason they couldn't have the 40,000 square foot lots with everything in it except that and they don't have to be zoned Prime Residential until sewer and water are available. Werner-Quade asked what they would be zoned then as they would have to have some zoning. Christian responded it will still be under the Rural Residential zone. Goecke stated that if the developer wanted to build next to VIP and he wanted to build under the guidelines that are being worked on tonight, the only thing he would have to do then is to preclude someone from buying a lot and putting up a duplex or something similar in the covenants that are drawn up and state they are strictly single family residences. Booth commented that putting himself in a property owner's position with a 40,000 square foot lot with a sewer system he didn't know if he would want to foot the bill to bring in water and sewer just because of the Prime Residential zone. Booth stated if there are existing systems there, he didn't feel there is a lot that would encourage people to bring in city water and sewer unless there was a problem or unless they felt that was the only way they could protect their property values. If you have a system that works, what is the economic driver to make you want to encourage city sewer and water to come in. Christian stated that the intent would be to have them build just one part of the 40,000 square foot lot so that when sewer and water came in, they could subdivide their individual lot. If they build right in the middle, they would have a problem with it but if they build off to the side, they could subdivide it to two, 20,000 foot lots. Bryson stated that 40,000 square foot is beyond the pale for justifying construction of water and sewer economically unless you just cannot sale the lot. Bryson stated you would be better off not building there or to find a smaller lot somewhere. Booth stated his point was that if you already have an existing well and septic system and the city wants to come in and put in sewer and water, he thought a lot of people would not go for that. Basically, they would be saying you have to pay for it but they already would have one that worked. Booth stated he felt it would create an uproar in the community. Goecke commented to look at Thompson Park where everyone had their own water and sewer system and they were borderline starting to have problems. Now, with sewer and water available, they are required to hook up. Booth stated he didn't disagree and thought that in the zone it should have water and sewer but was trying to address the argument of people putting in their wells and septics and then at a later date being encouraged to connect to the public system. Bryson stated he didn't feel Thompson Park was a borderline situation. Bryson noted the first subdivision the lots were 7200 square feet and the last one was around 20,000 square feet and there Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 ~ were continual failures of septic systems. Bryson added there were people who didn't want to participate even in a reduced assessment district. Mahurin stated that the septics were falling in and they couldn't put another one because they were too close to the water supply. Mahurin added she was living there at the time and just sold adding there were major problems at that time. Booth agreed stating he was not trying to avoid the "if there were problems." Glick asked Mr. Christian, based on the items discussed tonight, if those kinds of changes are made, would his group be reasonably satisfied? Christian stated there are a number of items, in particular, no lots without water and sewer. Continuing, Christian stated there were a number of items on the list, which he had not gone through, such as having paved streets. Christian stated it was on the second page. Having two separate street accesses to a subdivision for safety purposes, fire, etc. Christian stated they were hoping to address these items. Continuing, leaving mature trees (35 percent), paved accesses to each individual lot, street lighting, no equipment storage. Glick commented that some of these items should be addressed as covenants in a subdivision rather than as zone requirements. Christian responded stating they probably should but covenants are violated and unless you have an active committee there is no other recourse. Goecke commented that in the real world if you build a subdivision, you put sidewalks in. Goecke stated he felt this would be a prime zone for sidewalks. Goecke commented that there is not a subdivision that he can think of that has a sidewalk. Thus, where do the kids play, in the middle of the street. Christian stated he would be for that but did not think that anyone would go for that. Goecke stated the rest of the Commission may not agree but he thinks this would be a prime place for that requirement. If you are going to develop this area, then this is what needs to happen. Goecke stated they are trying to set down fairly restrictive guidelines and doesn't see what would be wrong with having that requirements. Booth concurred. Werner-Quade added that she agrees with Christian on the covenants and feels that they are some kind of a real estate ploy. Werner-Quade added they are violated all the time and that they really don't mean anything. Werner-Quade added that perhaps they should explore that every so many feet that a lot be left vacant. That would give the kids a place to play. Or, take the lot and put in some play equipment. Werner-Quade commented that she doesn't think Woodland has one lot left. Christian stated there are a few lots still open. Werner-Quade commented that she doesn't think they are set aside specifically for recreation for small people who live in the subdivision. Sidewalks are probably okay, but it seems like it would be nice to set aside every so many feet, it doesn't have to be a lot, but a piece that will have play equipment or nothing but trees and dirt as a play area for the kids. Werner-Quade stated that could be explored too. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 Goecke commented that the price of the lots just went way up. Werner-Quade responded asking what do you want to do, put in a great big subdivision with sidewalks going no where. Werner-Quade added one park in a subdivision is not too much to ask. Werner-Quade added she is not even talking about a lot, perhaps a small piece of a lot, or a half of a lot, just some where kids can go to play. Bryson stated they ought to keep in mind that they have to create a district that a developer is going to want to develop. By that, he will have to be able to sell the lots. If the intent is for a rural atmosphere, and through that justification, you are proposing sidewalks, Bryson stated it seemed that is getting away from the rural district. In any way, the property owner has to be willing to apply this zone to his property and by doubling, or tripling the cost of developing lots, you are certainly restricting the options and possibility of breaking even. Glick added it couldn't be applied to a subdivision already in place. Bryson stated that is probably the case as there would be anything that conforms to it. Essentially, the property owner must be willing to apply this district to his own property. Mahurin commented that if the Commission is having the opportunity to create the ideal subdivision, which is what this will be, she is in favor of the suggestions that the committee has suggested such as paved streets, no parking on the street, paved driveways, sidewalks, lighting, underground utilities, all of that needs to be part of the zone. Mahurin added she is not sure about the park idea but imagines with large enough lots there would be fenced yards and that would be a parental choice. Mahurin stated that if you have a lot large enough to have a 3000 square foot house plus parking for a two car garage plus motor home, boat or snow machines, you are talking about someone who will pay for the property and the sidewalks to live in that kind of a subdivision. Mahurin reiterated she supports this concept and she doesn't think the Commission is being restrictive, but that if you don't want to live in this kind of a subdivision, you can live elsewhere. If we have a chance to do it, do it right. Werner-Quade clarified she didn't mean park but envisioned something more than what she sees in Woodland now. Werner-Quade stated there is no place for the children and there will probably be a lot of them. Maybe there is not a solution, maybe it is too costly, maybe parents will have to drive them to the park. Bryson reminded the Commission that there is an RS-2 zone and to his knowledge there has never been anyone zoned to that district. It was a small lot, medium density residential zone. Bryson asked if there was anyone in that zoning. La Shot responded no. Bryson stated it was an area restricted to single family and duplexes which comes the closest the city has to being restricted and there is no one in it right now. Bryson added it is easy to create a district that it is less likely that anyone will volunteer to be in it voluntarily. Werner-Quade stated she sees exactly what Bryson is saying that there is a real danger of over-regulating, and over-zoning the whole thing so that no one Planning & Zoning Commission Work Session Minutes Page 9 April 10, 1996 ~ can afford to live there or no one will want to pursue it because they can't see any future in it. La Shot stated that administration had put down the items so the Commission would have something to build from but also to go along with what Bryson said, if you make it too restricted, you probably won't get anyone who wants to be in the zone. Usually these types of subdivisions start with the developer and it has to be economically viable for them to do it. And, the more that is put in, the more that has to be enforced by the city. La Shot stated he is not sure that some of the items that could be covered by covenants should be dealt with through zoning regulations. Goecke asked what would be wrong with asking a couple of builders to come and listen to what has been said and get their input and see if something like that is viable with all of the things that have been discussed. Goecke asked the group to regress for five years and look at Inlet Woods and if at inception it would have had all of these requirements and ask a couple builders how much more the cost would be to have this and ask if this is viable. Goecke stated there is not one person in the room who has a good idea as to how much more this will cost. Goecke stated that Bryson may from his engineering background but commented that he wouldn't know how much it costs to put in a sidewalk. La Shot asked Bryson if he wanted to address Goecke's comments. Bryson commented that La Shot could probably come up with figures. La Shot said he could come up with costs. La Shot added that to give an idea Inlet Woods, at development, development costs were at the neighborhood of $10,000 per lot. Those lots were on the average 80 feet wide. Costs would increase if you increase the lot size and add sidewalks, plus adding in the purchase of the property, and the financing of the entire project. La Shot stated the lots, if they were put on the market now to cover costs, would be a different situation. They are in the $12,000 to $15,000 city investment now. Goecke stated if they had a couple contractors come in and talk to the Commission, it is unknown how much market there is for the 2500 plus square foot homes with the big two and three car garages. Goecke stated he didn't know how many of these are being built. There may not be a market for them. La Shot stated it is his personal feeling that this type of development will be chosen by a developer and they'll come in with this type of standards. Many of the things being discussed are development requirements and would be handled right a way. These items would probably be easier to build into the system than long-term zoning enforcement such as keeping track of metal buildings on lots or making sure that their driveway is paved within a certain length of time. La Shot commented that he didn't think the city should be doing that. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 10 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 Werner-Quade asked what the Commission thought about going through the sheet (Land Use Table), doing a mock up, taking each item, and deciding what to allow and not allow. Werner-Quade stated they could attempt to come up with a group consensus and that information could be used by La Shot to determine costs. Werner-Quade stated this is just a review process and asked if she was correct in that assumption. Bryson stated he thought it would be easy but first they needed to create a new designation of an "N" for "Not Permitted". Glick stated on the first page, they would on be "N" except the first line. Page 2, first half all "N". Goecke asked what had been discussed about churches and schools being on arterial roads. Bryson stated that would be a reasonable location for them. Bryson stated it appears that administration has recommended that institutional uses should be conditional use. Bryson stated the question is what the rest of them are. Glick stated his preference would be the rest would be "N" and even government buildings would be an "N". Werner-Quade asked Christian what he thought. Christian stated he didn't see anything on the list he would want allowed. Mahurin asked what about parks and recreation. Werner-Quade stated that was the only one she saw. Christian agreed. Mahurin agreed. Glick commented that if the others will be on the edges or on the main artillery, there would have to be a way to do that. Mahurin asked if they would have to add a "C" then. Glick said that if it was under conditional use with a foot note stating only if on the peripheral. Mahurin commented she would not include government buildings in that but that churches and schools are different. Mahurin added she thought of emergency services depending on how the city grows whether substations are put in for ambulances. La Shot stated he has no strong feelings but thinks a zone like this will be small and contained and there probably won't be a need for public buildings. Charitable Institutions-N Churches-C* (Must be on the peripheral or on a developed arterial road system.) Clinics-N Colleges-N Elementary School-C* (Must be on the peripheral or on a developed arterial road system.) Bryson explained why he felt this was an appropriate conditional use. Planning & Zoning Commission Work Session Minutes Government Buildings-N Page 1 1 April 10, 1996 High Schools-N Discussion by Commission on why they felt High School was not appropriate for the zone. Hospitals-N Libraries-C* (Must be on the peripheral or on a developed arterial road system.) Discussion on how libraries don't cause undue traffic. Museums-N Parks & Recreation-C Discussion by Commission on if this should be Secondary or Conditional use. Questioned how it could be secondary if it isn't secondary to another use. Werner-Quade felt it was secondary to the housing. Bryson stated he felt secondary was lot specific. Werner-Quade asked if it could be a P. Goecke stated no as that is principal use. Bryson stated if the Commission didn't want to review it, it could be a P as Principal. Consensus of a C. Public Facilities-N Sanitariums-N Animal Boarding-N Bed & Breakfasts-N Cabin Rentals-N Cemeteries-N Crematories-N Day Care Center-C As a home occupation. DormitoriesBoarding Houses-N Essential Services-P Mahurin asked what essential services were. La Shot stated they could be pretty ugly things including utilities, substations, or that type thing. Glick added a lift station for the sewer system. Mahurin stated she would hate to see some of those types of things. Discussion about how necessary they were. La Shot stated that big lift stations, etc. wouldn't be in the area. La Shot read definition of Planning & Zoning Commission Page 12 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 ~, essential service from the KMC. Discussion on why it is necessary to denote it as a P. Christian asked if it was necessary to note overhead wires as conditional since they wanted only underground utilities. La Shot stated that would be taken care of in the beginning under the development requirements. Glick stated the rest of the page should be N. La Shot stated that off street parking should be permitted because each home will need parking. Mahurin stated that if it is prime residential she didn't think it should have off street parking. Walker asked where they should park. Mahurin responded in their driveway and Walker noted that would be off the street. Bryson questioned extraction of natural resources and if they should separate the extraction from the facilities. Bryson added that subsurface owners of the resources have certain rights that supersede the surface rights. Bryson stated that is for the attorney to word if it will not be allowed. Walker noted then it would be a conditional use and all of the rest of them would be a conditional use. Christian questioned if halfway houses had been included under institutional uses. Bryson stated it will be covered by the time council gets through with dealing with halfway houses. Christian questioned if under the farming, gardening, and general agricultural would allow for personal gardens. Glick stated he read that as a commercial enterprise. La Shot stated he agreed that it referred to commercial gardening. Glick confirmed that it wouldn't stop someone from having a personal garden. Glick asked if they could look at the lot sizes and come up with a consensus. Bryson asked if radio and t.v. transmitters were addressed and given an N. Glick stated yes. Bryson asked if the intent would prohibit short wave. Walker asked what extent that would be and would it include C.B. radios? Walker asked if it should be commercial radio and transmitters? La Shot stated he would say it referred to commercial. La Shot added that there are a lot of ways to interpret the table. Discussion that a satellite dish was a receiver not a transmitter. Christian commented that transmitters can cause real problems and interfere with reception. (Background discussion.) Walker commented that he thought they should check with the attorney because he didn't think they could preclude the use of Ham radios since it is part of the defense system. Glick reiterated that they needed to discuss lot sizes and the RP-1 and RP-2 in order to get lot sizes that the old areas like Woodland could fit in by having the smaller lot size. The new developments would be the bigger lot sizes. Walker asked why they didn't grandfather in what was there. Bryson stated that virtually 95 percent of the subdivision would be in non-conformance and that he feels it would be inappropriate for grandfathering. Bryson noted that Christian had suggested two districts and that he Planning & Zoning Commission Page 13 Work Session Minutes April 10, 1996 ~ thought that was reasonable. This would allow the district to be created for a prime ~` situation and also would enable the existing lot sizes to create a district themselves to protect themselves from multiplex by the municipal authority rather than covenants. Walker commented he would be concerned with two different zones. Bryson noted there are already two RR zones and two RS zones. Walker stated that they are talking about ruling what is in place is okay but anything next to be built has to be on a larger lot. Walker added that unless the area was separated by a distance he wouldn't feel comfortable with it. Walker noted similar to Thompson Park. Bryson stated his intent was to create a district where the area that was being included is in essential compliance with the requirements of the district. Bryson gave the example for the PR1 zone having minimum lot size of 7200 square feet that would enable virtually all the lots in Woodland to conform to that requirement where virtually none of them will fit within the 15,000. Walker asked where the RP zone be utilized. Bryson stated either one would have to be applied to areas that petition for the zoning. Walker stated he could agree with that. Bryson added that eight lots in Woodland might petition to have this zoning and the appropriate zone would be the smaller lot situation. Walker commented that he didn't think they could or would want to spot zone noting that anywhere else in the city all of the neighborhoods are basically zoned the same unless they were an in-place infringement. Walker added it was not allowed in VIP. Bryson commented that he felt it was something the attorney should address and be comfortable with. Work session adjourned at approximately 7:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Marilyn Kebschull Administrative Assistant ~zd Memorandum Date: 05/17/96 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Robert C. Springer, Building Official ~_ RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-PZ96-27-HERSHBERGER After consulting with the City Attorney regarding your requirements on the above-referenced permit, I do not believe I can deny a building permit based on traffic patterns. I offer the following information: 1. Conditional Use Permits should not be issued wherein special requirements must be completed as part of issuance of a building permit. 2. Special requirements may be listed on the CUP but it should be stipulated that if the requirements are not completed, the permit holder would be in violation of the Conditional Use Permit and thus it may be revoked. To clarify the above, the Building Official can issue the above building permit even if the Hershbergers fail to complete the special requirements, i.e. the traffic pattern. However, an Occupancy Permit could not be issued as the business would be in violation of the requirements listed on the CUP. Herbergers will be submitting me with a drawing indicating to me their intended plans to comply with P&Z's requirements. Based on this information, a permit will be issued. This is normal procedure for any permit that is issued. In the future, I would appreciate it if this clarification was noted when permits are issued. RS/mk cc: Jack La Shot, City Engineer SIGN IN SHEET ~ ~- PUBLIC HEARING-- +~ ~~- , 1996 i !NAME iADDRESS `/ I 31 ~ ~ I ~ / 5 I ' ~ ~ ~ ~`~~ d~ ~°` 6 7 I GG~lG~~ ~ ~ l `1 8 ~ ~ .~~ ~ ~~~~ 7 r ~ ~~ 1~) ` ' ~ ~~~ `r \ r l ` ~% 1 I ~ ~ ~ .~~~~i`, 12 / ~ ~-~r~ z.~ a c. 13 i Y ~~ ! ~p ~l G r 14 ' 1~ 1 6-C., ~' ~ 'l ~ ~.~w~ ~,1 15 I ~ ~ ~k 161 / 17 ~ ~ / ~~ ICI ~~ ~/u-~r~.-J .f c ~`yti~-/ 19i 1 3 /~ ~ 20 ~~'l~t ~ ~J~ ~ ~~~ ~`~- ~-W~~~v( Page 1 SIGN IN SHEET PUBLIC HEARING-- ~ t / , 1996 i i NAM (ADDRESS 1 i ( _ ~ .4 a ~~i e ~~!~G~C 2, ~ i /V ~~~v • V""V~/~ ~ ~~ 3 4 5 ~~ 61 7~~ ~ 8~ 9'~ 101 11~ 121 13~ 14~ 15~ 16 17I 181 19I ', 201 21~ 22~ Page 1 Cr M ~" ~ ~ m .-x eo a v o m a aai ~ ~ ~ oaa n vaa s c°n s C ~° o J ~ m s x a a a a a o a i ~ a a a H ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ c 7 o D R 1 m -~. a a N z a ~ a ° ~ v ~ a v m a ° s n o a ~ n t z ,- r U c p m d a ~ v z °m °° a~ v a ~ ~ n m ~ ~° g r C ~ ~ ~ l r- D a z z a ~ a N H °° a w a + a ~ a n ~ o a s z v ~ ` T' W p v z o°4 d a z oa ~ a k ~ N a m ~ ~' g ~~ N m d a z a a ac o o a ~ o a a ~ ~ H ~+ 1~7 a ~ R n a o ~ 04 d a a a e~ o a a ~ a a i C9 OD ~ t9 ~ p m W a z a a a o a a ~ a a a v m ~ ~ ~c a n ~ o a ~ n P m D a a ~ ~ ~ z ~ as ~ a a ° n ~ m ~ a a n m D a z z a a a N ° v ~ a v m z ° ~ n ~ ~ ti c ao w R d a z z a ~ a ~ D V W z U 04 a m ~