Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/89TAPE #666 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1989 0O35 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4TH Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, August 23, 1989 at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Spencer Horning. Council members present were Shirley Marry Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Hank Waibel, Morris Dawkins, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson. Councilman Lon Overson was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horning and Invocation was given by Reverend Gordon Hanstad of the Sylvan Way Baptist Church. President Hornina announced Item 6A had been pulled from Agenda for three weeks. CONSENT AGENDA - None Councilman Collins left the Council Chamber at 5:35 p.m. CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on August 23 1989, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 45223 through 45318 in the total amount of $467,177.91 and Regular Payroll in the total amount of $388,450.96 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Johnson reported he participated in a Solid Waste Forum held on Monday, August 21, which was televised on Community Access Channel 29. The forum was a good start in the community involvement and showed what is going on between governments and the private sector in a cooperative manner. There will be a follow on forum on the same subject that will get into more details of industrial development that may take place around the solid waste issues and some expansion of curriculum at Olympic College. Letters are still being received in response to Council's initiative from the State of Washington, Business Assistant Center, Trade and Economic Department as well as Department of Ecology. Today, a large package of materials was delivered to Representative Wes Pruitt for his meeting on Thursday with the Legislatures Solid Waste Recycling/Marketing Committee. In regard to the recent Boundary Review Boards meeting, it now appears that the City is to provide sewer and water services to people before they can be considered for annexation. He did not know where this requirement came from nor could he believe it was used as a basis for some of the decisions made by the Board. And, he believed decisions should be made on who is really part of the community, where their services come from and how, for all concerned, it is most cost effective for citizens to get support. Annexation should not be viewed as "land grabbing". Councilman Collins returned to Council meetina at 6:40 Mr. Colvin reported he had several members of District #1 participate in taking a survey as to whether or not to sell Roosevelt Field. As soon as the tabulations of the survey sheets are completed he will make the results known. Mr. Collins reported he artended the First Annual Shipyard Picnic and not only was it outstanding but well artended (between 4- TAPE #666 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 2 of 11 5,000). He noted the only unpleasant part of the picnic was the presence of the same dunking booth he had become acquainted with during Scalawag Waterfront Fair. He also felt there is a resurgence in people taking an interest and accomplishing something as a group - something that has been missing from our lives for many years. This summer he has seen a Neighborhood Block Party, a very successful Scalawag and very successful Shipyard Party and this indicates to him people are more concerned about their communities than they use to be. Mr. Waibel briefly reviewed Council's action in sending the proposed sale of Roosevelt Field back to the Parks Board and Planning Commission for further study and recommendation. He assumed that as part of their review they would be holding public meetings for public input and at this time he is not aware of any such meetings scheduled. He requested both the Parks Board and Planning Commission to allow time for public notice prior to their holding a public meeting or a closed meeting. In regard to the construction work on the Ferry dock, he noted the shutdown time has been reduced to less than five days and it appears the shutdown will be for vehicles and passengers two days over a weekend and that they will be able to run a passenger only service on the other three days of that five day period with a regular size ferry. He expressed concern over the fact that passenger only ferry service has been discontinued and it may work out that Bremerton will be without even passenger only service during the two days scheduled for passenger service only. On August 24 and 25 he will be attending a PSCOG Retreat where they will be deciding whether or not to continue their function. Mrs. Morton related an open letter in the Sunday Times written by a lady living in Detroit but who had lived in Seattle. In the article she cautioned against the possibility of cities becoming another Detroit with drive- by- shootings, prevalent drugs, deterioration of the neighborhoods; and her message was in trying to keep a downtowns alive and keeping the commercial areas viable don't neglect the neighborhoods - band together to form Neighborhood Watch Groups and parents know where your children are. Mrs. Horton emphasized the way to turn the tide is to unite, form a strong united front and say we won't allow this type of thing in our community. She commended Kitsap County Sheriff's Department for their recent drug bust and maybe the City can unite forces with them and have that type of action go on in Bremerton as well. Mr. Crutcher noted actions in Seattle are underway to promote more Police protection through a Bond issue. He expressed concern over crime in Bremerton's downtown area and the continued sense of fear for people coming to and going home from work in the Shipyard. Me has been told by some of the women workers that they are seriously considering getting permits to carry guns for their protection. Mr. Morninu reported there is a Ferry Petition being circulated at the Kitsap County Fair, which has been signed by all three Mayoral candidates, requesting the passenger only ferries be returned to service. Also at the Fair is a DARE Booth sponsored by the Bremerton Police Department and it is a very popular with the young people. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Lawrence Soriano, 3006 Cherry Avenue, Attorney, stated he was a Board member of Bremerton Main Street Association and as such is the Main Street representative on the Parking Committee. Since the Parking Plan has been rescheduled and will be heard first at the Council Study Session he questioned if the Study Session would be open to the public and when it will be held. President Hornin~ stated yes, Council Study Sessions are open meetings and the next TAPE #666 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 3 of 11 meeting will be September 11, 6:00 PM. Mr. Soriano also supported Mr. Crutcher's position that more Police Patrols are needed in the downtown area. Since the Police Patrol moved to Westpark, there seems to be an absence of Officers in the downtown area. Ed Gossett, 2110 N. Callow, expressed concern over proposed revisions that will be coming up on Kennel License. Having personally experienced problems living next door to a residence that has nine dogs, he hoped that the City will tighten up enforcement in this area. His main concern, in the proposed ordinance, is that it include a description of what constitutes a "kennel" He has offered some suggestions to Animal Control for revision of the ordinance and strongly believes kennels do not belong in neighborhood areas. He believes people in the neighborhood should be protected as well as protecting the health and welfare of the animals. 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REPEALING CATERPILLAR ORDINANCE #4159, #AB89-236 On May 21, 1988, Council passed Ordinance #4159 in an attempt to control western tent caterpillar infestation within the City of Bremerton. The ordinance has been used through two periods of heavy caterpillar infestation and has had little effect on the overall outcome of the caterpillar problem within the City. After review of the effectiveness of this ordinance, it is the recommendation of the Mayor and the Building Department staff to repeal this ordinance. Richard Mumma, Building Official, stated the current ordinance has gone through two seasons of enforcement and they receive on an average of 300 complaints dealing with caterpillars each season they occur. This involves an inspector from the Building Department driving to each location and serving the homeowner with a notice that he is in violation of a City Ordinance and with that notice is a threat that a possible citation could be served if there is not compliance. The affect of this is the City is requesting the citizens to eradicate caterpillars and the most commonly used methods is spraying of insecticides. Each time a person sprays insecticides there is a potential complaint from adjacent neighbors that insecticides are being used close to their property. Some of the other issues that have been raised that are dealt with through this enforcement are: (1) number of man hours spent in serving notices and contacting people (caterpillar infestation usually lasts 4-6 weeks); (2) there is no caterpillar control in the adjacent County so if caterpillars are controlled in the City the infestation continues because the adjacent County properties have no control; (3) complaints received of financial hardships from some of the elderly citizens that cannot do the spraying themselves and are required to hire an outside contractor to eradicate the caterpillars. There does not appear to be any direct threat to human life due to the caterpillar infestation. There is potential that if a tree has been defoliated for a number of years a tree could be lost. The worst complaints they have received is the fact that the caterpillars are offensive. Mrs. Horton questioned when Ordinance #4159 was passed it repealed another ordinance and in that ordinance it referenced securing abandoned refrigerators - does this action create any conflict? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the repealed ordinance is a dead issue. Mr. Waibel stated this proposal had been brought before the Operations committee and they do agree with this action. They did noted if citizens take care of their yards in general there would be less chance they would be a nuisance in any way to neighbors. 0699 M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Colvin) to pass ordinance, on first reading, 0792 0816 0865 0972 TAPE #666 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 4 of 11 repealing Ordinance #4149 which set out specific actions to be taken by the City to address the infestation of tent caterpillars. 7B - ORDINANCE #4228 (SECOND READING) CORRECTING ERRORS ON THE ZONING MAP ALONG WYCOFF AVENUE SOUTH OF SIXTH STREET (WHITLOCK ZONING MAP REVIEW, ~AB89-232 M/S/C/U(Horton/Crutcher) to pass Ordinance #4228, on second reading, changing certain zoning district designations and amending the official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton to correct zoning errors in an area south of Sixth Street and on the east and west sides of Wycoff Avenue. (Whirlock Zoning Review) 7C - ORDINANCE #4229 (SECOND READING) CORRECTING ERROR ON THE ZONING MAP IN A COMMERCIAL AREA NORTHEAST OF WHEATON WAY AND SHERIDAN ROAD (TOWHE ZONING MAP REVIEW), #AB89-233 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horton) to pass Ordinance #4229, on second reading, changing the zoning district and amending the official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton to correct a zoning error in a commercial area northeast of the intersection of Wheaton Way and Sheridan Road. (Towne Zoning Map Review) 7D - ORDINANCE #4230 (SECOND READING) ALLOWING THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE MEMBERS WHO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE CITY, #AB89-231 On second reading of the Ordinance: Residency requirement amended to allow non-City residents only if the Council has a policy on soliciting candidates and this policy fails to produce a qualified candidate. However, for 1989 any non-resident may be appointed for a full term. Mr Colvin stated for clarification that this is not a blanket motion to appoint people outside of the City but only concerning areas where qualified people could not be found in the City. M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Waibel) to pass Ordinance #4230, on second reading, allowing the Cable Communications Advisory Committee to include members who reside outside the City; and amending B.M.C. 2.100.020. 7E - ORDINANCE #4231 (SECOND READING) SETTING BENEFITS AND SALARY OF THE LEGAL SECRETARY II POSITION, #AB89-234 Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated at the request of Jackie Dixon, who was hired for the position, he requested changing reference to Legal Secretary II back to Legal Assistant. Not only did Jackie prefer the term "Legal Assistant" but an audit was made of staff in the Attorney's Office and the "Legal Assistant" title provides a better description of the function of the position and eliminates potential confusion to a Legal Secretary I position that is a Civil Service and Union position. The subject position is an exempt, non-Union position. Mr. Johnson stated he had no problem with the Attorney's recommendation, however, he remembered not too long ago another department had a name change which had a lot of affects and he did not want to get into any such difficulties with this proposal. And, he noted in no way is this intended to affect the level of salary, Union representation or anything else that goes with it - it is just a change in the name. M/S/C/U(Johnson/Waibel) to pass Ordinance #4231, on second reading, with the substitution of the term Legal Assistant. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO A SUSPECTED ZONING ERROR IN THE ZONING OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTYNORTH OF KITSAP LAKE (HEETER ZONING MAP REVIEW), #AB89-237 David Heater requested a zoning review of his property north of Kitsap Lake, at the intersection of Harlow and Kitsap Way. The TAPE #666 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 5 of 11 Zoning Review Committee conducted its review on June 19 in an effort to determine whether or not the "Neighborhood Business" zone had been correctly applied to the Heeter property. The committee was deadlocked on whether an error actually occurred and, if so, what the proper zoning should be. Therefore, this matter is coming to the City Council for a public hearing in accordance with the "Corrections of Errors" process. The staff report describes the property, surrounding areas, and other factors important to this decision, but does not include a recommendation from the Zoning Review Committee President Horninu asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with Councilman Johnson stepping down and all other members being seated. Ron HouGh, Planning Manager, provided view graphs showing the location of the subject property. This general area has been the subject of zoning reviews before - on March 28, 1989, the Zoning View Committee conducted a review of the 16 properties that make up the commercial area in which this property is a part. Many of the existing businesses were found to be more representative of the General Business (GB) zone than the Neighborhood Business (NB) zone. The Committee recommended that several lots along the north side of Kitsap Way be corrected to GB. No change was recommended on the south side of Kitsap Way. It was felt that the existing NB zone was desireable to buffer the nearby neighborhood from more intense commercial development. The City council agreed with the Committee's recommendation and, following a public hearing on May 3, 1989, approved the changes as recommended. The Heeter property was among those on the south side of Kitsap Way that remained in the NB zone. The subject property is connected at its northwest corner to the business district and commercial zoning. All other areas surrounding the property are currently zoned SF-3. The applicant believes he is being down zoned from the previous B2 (medium intensity business district under the old ordinance) to NB (Neighborhood Business) under the current Zoning Ordinance. He stated he had intended to build an office building at the south end of the property. The present use of the property is a non- conformity (carpet sales business), which has a more regional market than a neighborhood market. The intent of neighborhood businesses is primarily to serve the immediate neighborhood area, so he feels that is a non-conformity also and would be more suitable in a General Business zone. The initial staff review that went to the Zoning Review Committee in March, concluded that no error existed in the zoning and the property should have been and was included in the Neighborhood Business (NB) district. The present use is non-conforming in the Neighborhood Business district but it can continue indefinitely, it can also be replaced by similar type business and may also be approved for other businesses unique to that type of building. The owner also has the opportunity to build an office building if he desires as office buildings are allowed in the NB zone provided all setbacks, parking and landscape requirements are met. An important consideration was the protection to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Zoning Review Committee, following a lengthy discussion at its June 19 meeting, voted 1-1 (tie} with one member abstaining. One member felt there was a general transition going on in this district toward higher intensity uses and the subject property should be zoned GB. The other member felt that it should stay NB TAPE #666 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 6 of 11 for the protection of the surrounding low density neighborhoods. Jim Strait, 6530 Harlow Drive, President of Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association, expressed concern that this property is directly adjacent to single family residential area. This area already has a noise level problem due to its being an amphitheater for noise. Presently people living on Lake Drive and Harlow Drive hear the music from establishments that are on the north side of Kitsap Way and he is concerned about the possibility of Mr. Heeter selling his property and a different type of business established there. If something like this did happen, Mr. Strait believed the whole neighborhood would be destroyed. He stated they have no objection to neighborhood business as it is now. He noted at present the area on the south side and behind the building is not being maintained and there are two large commercial trailers on the property which is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Strait stated the zoning should remain as is. A statement that this area is developing more business is not true, the only new business building in the past several years is the subject property. There are presently between 17-20 acres zoned Industrial Park or Business General that is not developed on the north side of Kitsap Way. Bruce McCann, 6515 Lake Drive, stated he lives approximately 500 feet from the subject property and the present owner is a good neighbor. However, he opposes any change which would allow any noise generating type business to locate there. William Carlson, 6604 Lake Drive, stated he was very much concerned of any change in business use because of potential noise or increased traffic in that area. Dave Heeter, owner/applicant, pointed out this is a multifaceted, economic and principle issue to him. When he built the building and was allowed to do so under the B2 zoning, the environmental group of Kitsap Lake had no problems with what he was doing there. As a matter of fact, Mr. Strait was a proponent for his project. The essence of the problem is that to go to Neighborhood Business is definitely a down zone. He was informed that General Business would be slightly higher density than B2, but the NB zone designation does devalue the property. It has been brought up several times that General Business is buffered in many situations with neighborhood businesses but it is not that usual for neighborhood business to buffer between General Business and residential. Therefore, he does not feel that is a real issue. As far as the concerns about the business changing and becoming a noise polluter, he can understand the concern, however, the building is designed for its current use. It is a large warehouse - wide open building and there is not enough space on the property for the type of parking required for restaurant/lounge sort of businesses. It is designed for the type of business it currently is being used for which is floor covering retail or a furniture store. The location of the business is not in a high density retail area so a retail location there has to lend itself to a "large ticket" item. Presently the business does serve the entire County, which is where he says it does not conform to Neighborhood Business zoning. Gary Gartin, Bradly Scott, provided a map showing various zoning throughout the City of Bremerton. He pointed out that the idea of Neighborhood Business is to serve neighborhoods and an example of that would be at 15th Street where there is a neighborhood type business surrounded by residential. He pointed out that many areas where commercial businesses are located are adjacent to neighborhoods. What is being said is the neighborhood near the subject property is a "special neighborhood", they are different from all the other citizens in the City. Mr. Gartin pointed out that the property would not allow required parking for other types TAPE #666 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 7 of 11 of business which could generate higher noise levels. Mr. Crutcher questioned prior to the passing of the Comprehensive Plan if the current building burned down could Mr. Heeter rebuilt it? Mr. Houuh stated if it totally burned down he could build another commercial structure - it is a commercial zone still and the type of use of the building would be regulated by the zoning. Mr. Crutcher questioned if he could operate the same type of business he currently has? Mr. Houuh stated no, he would loose the use of the property because it is a non-conformity. Mr. Crutcher expressed concern that to him that would represent a down zone of a property. Mrs. Horton question since the neighbors pointed out what could possible go in if the zoning were changed what percentage of the parcel can be developed? Mr. Hough stated it is a small portion on the southeast corner, maybe 20-304. Mr. Waibel stated this is not a request to rezone but a request to determine whether or not an error was made when applying a zone under the new Zoning Ordinance to this parcel. Basically, he believed if the subject building were totally burned and it was General Business zoned they would be able to build a small neighborhood bar with plenty of parking on this size parcel. What needs to be decided is "what is the most appropriate zone", under the new Zoning Ordinance, to accomplish the Comprehensive Plan for this area. And, he believes that Neighborhood Business is the most acceptable zone and best allowable uses for this area bordering on residential properties. Me did note that the applicant can petition the City through a requested rezone to have the zoning changed. Mr. Collins stated, in response to the comments made by Mr. Gartin, that in many areas General Business use borders along residential areas, it is generally something besides a street or line that separates the general business from the residential areas, usually topography. He stated he feels Neighborhood Business is the best use of this piece of property because it is actually sided on three sides by a residential area. Mr. Dawkins questioned regardless of the zoning is a 25 foot setback in effect? Mr. Hough stated yes, that was a condition of a previous rezone that occurred several years ago. Mr. Colvin questioned presently how is the owner being restricted from using the full potential of the subject property? Mr. Houuh stated that the current building use is a legal non-conforming use so it can continue indefinitely as long as it is there. Even if the business moves out of the building and a similar type business moves in it would be allowed. In some cases there may also be the opportunity to approve through the Special Use Permit process a different type of use that is suitable to that building. It is not limited to just those uses allowed in the Neighborhood Business zone. For example, if a furniture sales type business moved in, which may not be a neighborhood type business use but would be very suitable for that type of building that might also be allowed through the Special Use Permit process. Mr. Colvin questioned if a General Business zone designation were granted would adjacent properties be devalued? Mr. Houuh stated probably not it would depend on the use and what affect it would have on adjacent properties - the zoning alone would not devalue the properties. President Hornin~ stated it would be nearly impossible, unless part of the building was torn down, to put a tavern type business in that area because of the parking requirements and setback. Mr. Hough stated that is probably true. President Horninu questioned if a Special Use Permit was issued in order to build the present TAPE #666 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 8 of 11 structure? Mr. Strait stated he was Chairman of the Planning Commissions that zoned this property and it was zoned B2 and was not zoned B3 due to the types of businesses allowed in the B3 zoning. At one time a neighborhood gas station was located on the subject property. President Horninu stated that if it would take special conditions to rebuild the main structure in the event it was destroyed then the applicant has been down zoned. Mr. Houah stated the owner could rebuild the structure but not for the same use. President Hornina noted the neighbors would still be protected by such basic economics that having to tear down the building to get parking for a higher density use would not happen. Mr. Colvin called on Mr. Gartin to speak. Mr. Gartin stated there is the possibility that the current tenants of the building will be building a new facility in a few years in the Silverdale area, and questioned if the tenant moved out and a year went by would the non-conforming use status be lost? If it was, then they could not use the existing building as a carpet warehouse. He did not think, under the ordinance, that a Special Use Permit would allow the facility to be used for that purpose. That is a distinct economic possibility for buildings such as the subject property. Mr. Hough stated there is a section in the Zoning Ordinance addressing options built in for that type of situation. In other words, there is a way to approve a non-conforming use for a building which is uniquely suited for that type of use even though it is not permitted or allowed outright in that zone. And, in response to the scenario that a building could set vacant for a year and would then loose the non-conforming use status of that business but if another carpet business came along two years from now and desired to use that building they could apply for a Special Use Permit and possibly have it approved. President Mornin~ noted that "possibly" is really stretching the point. Mr. Crutcher pointed out that other people have had financial losses in similar type circumstances. Mr. Waibel pointed out that what should be decided is what will fit into the general Comprehensive Plan - future contingencies. He noted that the subject area is not intended to grow into a commercial area in that plan. This fact was in the Comprehensive Plan itself. If in fact they loose it, the City's intent is to maintain residential or even reclaim residential area around the lake. President Horninu stated he did not agree with the use along the highway. Mr. Collins pointed out that a great deal of concern is being generated toward "what is going to happen to Mr. Heeter as an individual", and he felt that was the wrong approach. The issue is what is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and what does it do. The purpose behind a Comprehensive Plan is to protect the people who are currently located in an area. The subject property is surrounded by single family residents on three sides - what is a different land use of Mr. Heeter's property do to the property of surround neighbors? President Horninu stated he totally disagreed with Mr. Collins and noted what is being asked is "was an error made" and if the City upholds the Neighborhood Business zone that is an error. Mr. Colvin requested Mr. Wooten be allowed to speak. Jim Wooten stated he lives 1/2 mile on Harlow Drive from the subject property. He pointed out that the business does not front on Harlow Drive, it is totally barricaded from the lake. He noted the other types of businesses both across the street (General Business zone) and on the same side as Mr. Heeter's property and emphasized that the businesses such as Goddards, gas station, mom & pop grocery store could probably do whatever they want to do on their property. Also, he pointed out that Cascade Natural Gas has a high volume of APE #667 130 TAPE #666 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 9 of 11 traffic even in evening hours due to the availability of banquet room facilities they rent out. Another questionable use of a property was Ray's Air Conditioning Company located in his residence. If Bremerton wants business he doubted they would shut business out of an area. Mr. Wooten believes the Council should look at this corridor as "business", which is badly needed by the City. And, he stated Mr. Heeter's property and business use does not infringe on the neighborhood whatsoever on the Harlow Drive side and it does front a business area. Mr. Waibel requested Mr. Hough to read into the record what is approved under a Business General Zone. Mr. Houuh read a list of uses included in the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Hotton stated it is a tough call due to the fact that there are residential properties involved. If a change is made to General Business, the residents are not considered. If the requested change is denied there is still the option for the applicant to go through the Rezone process. And, through that process the neighborhood would have the opportunity to present their arguments in a proper setting. Therefore, after hearing the discussion she supported upholding the presenting zoning. M/S/C(Collins/Waibel) that an error in zoning had not occurred and that the property is appropriately zoned Neighborhood Business (NB) Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Horton, Waibel, Collins, Colvin Crutcher, Horning, Dawkins Councilman Russ Johnson returned to the meeting at 7:10 p.m. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING - TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONSIDER A ZONING REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PERTAINING TO ZONING IN THE VICINITY OF PREBLE AND LAFAYETTE (KASSAHN & FORDAHL ZONING MAP REVIEW), ~AB89-238 Darrell Kassahn and Thomas and Sharon Fordahl are owners of adjacent properties in the vicinity of Preble and Lafayette. Both requested zoning reviews of their properties in accordance with the "Correction of Errors" process established by the City Council following the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance and Map. The Zoning Review Committee conducted its review of these properties and the surrounding neighborhood on June 19, 1989, determined that certain zoning errors did occur, and has made a recommendation to the city Council for the correction of those errors. This public hearing is for the purpose of accepting public comments and considering the Zoning Review Committee's recommendations. President Horninu asked the "Appearance OF Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ron Houuh, Planning Manager, provided view graphs showing the location of the properties - southwest corner of Preble and Cambrian owned by Mr. Kassahn and at the southwest corner of Preble and Lafayette owned by Fordahls. The "Existing Land Use" map shows that the immediate neighborhood consists of a mixture of single-family and multiple-family dwellings in a hillside setting overlooking Sinclair Inlet, PSNS and the new steam plant. Businesses are located along the highway (Cambrian). Mr. Kassahn's property at the corner of Preble and Cambrian consists of the furniture/antique business, a single-family dwelling and a duplex that front on Lafayette, and a series of eight attached dwellings on the lower level that have access from Cambrian. There are trees and vegetation along the residential TAPE #667 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 10 of 11 areas but the business is surrounded by asphalt. The Fordahl property is directly west of the Kassahn property at the corner of Lafayette and Preble. It consists of a nine-unit apartment complex. This appears to be the largest such complex in the immediate vicinity. There is a triplex to the north and one to the south, but all other surrounding development consists of single-family homes and duplexes. The previous Zoning Map showed that the Kassahn property was originally split-zoned. What is now one lot was partially within the "C", "R-l" and "R-2" zones. The furniture business and its Cambrian frontage was in the "C" (Commercial) zone while the remainder of the property was zoned R-2 (high density) and R-1 (low density). The Fordahl property was also included in the R-2 zone, as were several other properties along the southeast side of Summit. Areas west of Summit and most areas west of Lafayette (on the north side of Preble) were zoned R-1. The new zoning in this area consists primarily of General Business (GB) for highway frontage properties and Duplex Residential (DR) for residential areas to the west. Although some properties consist of three, four and five unit complexes, most of the existing residential uses are adequately accommodated by the Duplex Residential zoning. The fordahl property is an exception. This property is considered a legal nonconforming use. It can continue to remain indefinitely, provided the structure was legally established to begin with. However, the DR zoning doesn't afford it complete protection against disaster or old age. If the building is eventually destroyed or otherwise eliminated, new development would have to conform to the DR zone regulations. In this case, the property is .18 acres or about 7,840 square feet in area. A minimum lot size of 9,600 sq. ft. is required for a duplex. Thus, this property could only be developed with a single- family dwelling. The owner considers this possibility a severe down-zone from the previous R-2 zone. The Kassahn property, fronting on Cambrian, consists of about 11 older small dwellings and a small business. According to the County Assessor's records, this lot and all its improvements have a total assessed value of $140,200, or less than $12,000 per unit. Split-zoning (devising a property with a zone boundary) is discouraged. When the new Zoning Map was being prepared, it was decided that most of the current value was in the residential structures. Therefore, the entire property was included in the Duplex Residential Zone with other residential properties. The business use became a legal nonconformity. The effect of this was that the business, if destroyed, could not be replaced in the DR zone. A drawback is, if that happened, it is unlikely that a dwelling would be built in this location and the owner would need to apply for a rezone to "commercial" in order to build something that is more appropriate for this site. The Zoning Review Committee recommends that the City council first determine that an error did occur in the zoning of the Fordahl and Kassahn properties and that changes to the Zoning Map are necessary. The Committee also recommends that the identified errors be corrected by: (a) Re-establishing the higher-density buffer of "Multiple-family 0550 TAPE #667 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 23, 1989 Page 11 of 11 (MF)" zoning between the commercial zones and Summit and from Porter Street on the north to the southern extent of the former "R- 2" zone. (b) Correcting the zoning of the Kassahn property from "DR" to "General Business" (GB). President Hornin~ opened the opportunity for public comment - non received. Mr. Johnson questioned what the nearby County properties were zoned? Mr. Houuh stated he did not know. Mr. Collins noted it was General Business. M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) did determine that errors did occur in the zoning of the Kassahn and Fordahl properties and in the surrounding neighborhood; and to approve the Review Committee's recommendation for correcting those errors, as presented on the map entitled "Recommended ZONING CORRECTION". With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK APPRO · CER HOR 1 cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault President