Loading...
09/20/2013 Regular Meeting RECEIVED KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AUG - 8 2013 PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES BOROUGHC K'S OFFICE September 20, 2012 5:30 p.m.in the KIB Con tyy{K CALL TO ORDER SI CHAIR VINBERG called to order the September 20, 2012 Project Advisory Committee meeting at 5:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Luke Smith and Janet Buckingham requested excusal. Committee members present were Alan Torres,Sonny Vinberg, Dan Rohrer,Ted Panamarioff, Mark Anderson,and Oliver Holm. Excused were Luke Smith and Janet Buckingham.Absent was Andy Schroeder. A quorum was established. COMMITTEE MEMBER TORRES MOVED to excuse Luke Smith and Janet Buckingham. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Community Development Department staff present was Duane Dvorak and Sheila Smith. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER MOVED to approve the agenda. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLYN MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS None provided. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Joe DeCenso was here to see what was going to be done with the comments submitted. OLD BUSINESS A) Review of the Draft Codes a. Title 17 Zoning i. Accessory Dwelling Units and Bed and Breakfasts on oversized lots (Page 40- 2 and 40-3) Both items talked discussed below. ii. Bed and Breakfasts as Conditional Uses vs. having a test that allows them to be permitted if meeting certain guidelines Review 17.100.020 (Page 100-2) The item submitted by Mr. Decenso is the last item at the bottom under other items. Discussion regarding shouldn't there be a test such as guidelines they must pass rather than all conditional uses and therefore all coming to Planning & Zoning, a mechanism to review the process, perhaps an administrative process, parking requirements, guest rooms, should it be done the way it is currently. Regarding B&B's in this checklist there's nothing that references parking. Dvorak stated it's under parking code. September 20, 2012 Page 1 of 6 PAC Work Session COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER MOVED that RS1, RSZ,and RU3-Bed &Breakfasts be changed to permitted uses on page 40-3. Discussion COMMITTEE MEMBER TORRES MOVED to amend to change RU1 and RU2 from conditional use to permitted uses. TORRES stated in essence if it passes it would change all five categories permitted uses. ROLL CALL MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMITTEE MEMBER TORRES MOVED to add paragraph K to 17.100.020-Bed & Breakfasts to say"must comply with parking requirements in Table 17.160.030-1. ROLL CALL MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ROLL CALL ON MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIOUSLY In the interest of our guest COMMITTEE MEMBER ANDERSON suggested moving to the issue that he came to speak to. CHAIR VINBERG stated we will skip down to Item xi xi. Suggested re-write of 17.120.040.B to address livestock grazing theh the Remote and Conservation zoning districts (Page 120-4) During discussion COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER asked regarding B.1 as it's re- written is that intended that the Soil & Water Conservation Distrct would write the plan for the land owner, before it felt like it was being done between the land owner and the Conservation, Decenso stated that we already write them but we are not a regulatory agency and we don't want to be a regulatory agency. We don't mind writing the plans but compliance for those plans is strictly voluntary by the landowner.You can have it as a requirement that they have a plan but then there's a plan the public can compare with what they're doing. If they aren't doing it then they can complain. It sounds like there's an enforcement issue anyway with borough codes. We don't want to be enforcement for anybody. We have someone on staff who is going to be qualified to write these plans here. Dvorak stated the borough doesn't have the expertise or jurisdiction to deal with the range management issues or grazing issues of public lands like state lands that might be included in one of these conservation plans. Having an organization that is qualified to work with the grazers is probably be better bet. Discussion regarding regulatory reviews, grazing, enforcement, and if you pass a motion it should be sent to the refuge folks. COMMITTEE MEMBER HOLM stated there's been problems with buffalo have been off the leases and wintering in Hidden Basin beyond Wild Creek causing problems for people who live there raising issues of all these public lands are essentially turned into hunting ranch for the owners. The owners are the only ones who can authorize people to harvest them but they aren't on their grazing lease when they are doing it, and he thinks it's a serious issue. COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER said the Refuge Manager has the authority to, if those buffalo are off their leases he can authorize a hunt extermination if they're on the refuge. There is some interest in starting some grazing operations out there on private land and without this change to the code it couldn't even be considered. September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 6 PAC Work Session COMMITTEE MEMBER TORRES MOVED to adopt the changes of the Kodiak Soil and Water Conservation District submitted at the September 6, 2012 meeting. ROLL CALL ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY iii. Zoning along the road system iv. Height restrictions (Pages 40-3, 40-4,40-7,40-10,40-13, 50.5, 60-4) All 3 items discussed below v. Building height in the proposed Commercial/Services District - the draft says 35 feet and the existing standard is 50 feet. (Page 40-7) During discussion COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER stated on a commercial building the only thing he can think of in the CS district where he doesn't want to see us go to 50 feet and feels it's too big. Does 35 feet eliminate a 3 story commercial building vs. does40 feet allow? Are we opposed to a 3 story building in that district and if not should the number be modified up slightly to allow for a 3 story building. A 40 foot building could allow for a 3 story building but you wouldn't have room to make a legal 4 story building. If it exceeds the height restriction and then it would come to the P&Z. COMMITTEE MEMBER ANDERSON stated if it says existing standards 50 feet why would we change that? Dvorak said when LSL first came they did the focus groups and drove around the community and the Comp Plan would talk about encouraging commercial development in the downtown corridor, some king of revitalization so what they wanted to do was if you want a high rise type building with lots of density or intensity. We haven't defined where the downtown corridor is going to be. We made a map and described the parking exempt area for now but when we get to the mapping stage and have some codes on the books and look at changing the zoning map to conform. A lot of people have talked about re-defining the downtown core area and he thinks that's a decision to be made later but the idea was to focus high rise development in a downtown core area and having this low rise commercial. Discussion of where the industrial side of Near Island falls into this. Discussion of Lilly Lake and FAA and so the decision was made to adopt a 35 foot maximum height limit across the board,also discussion on Mill Bay Road,and different zones around town. Dvorak stated the consultants were trying to give the downtown core area some sort of advantage that might encourage some re-development and he thinks that what has undercut the downtown core area is Wal-Mart and Safeway areas and the fact that you keep rezoning commercial properties at the periphery where land is cheaper, there's not any incentive for people to rent high priced office space or retail space downtown when they can get a residential lot rezoned and build something brand new to their own specifications. COMMITTEE ROHRER stated there are no lots available downtown. COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER MOVED to the CS district height restriction changes from 35 feet to 40 feet located in Table 17.40.020.2. Dvorak said it's basically core area. COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER said it gives Maria Painter's lot 5 more feet. September 20, 2012 Page 3 of 6 PAC Work Session ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMITTEE MEMBER TORRES MOVED to take a short recess at 7 p.m. CHAIR VINBERG reconvened the meeting at 7:21 p.m. vi. Septic systems (Pages 40-4, 50-5, 200-3, 220-2) In response to COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER'S inquiry about this because he wasn't sure when he read a section again it started sounding like you could install a septic system without any kind of plan but he thought state law said you have you have an engineered system, is it required to have an engineered septic system by the state, Dvorak said not for a conventional system, if you have a good lot with relatively flat area where you're going to put your drain field and soils that perk. I think you're supposed to engage a certified installer who fills out paperwork and files with DEC that you have a conventional system. If you have steep slopes or soils that don't perk properly or some other constraint then a conventional system may not work and you may have to have some engineered system. There are a lot of options these days. Discussion of septic systems and the borough keeping records on those kinds of things and would be beneficial to the community as a whole on any kind of septic system, neighbors septic system sitting on your property line, problems with neighbors leach fields leaching onto others properties has been a problem. We have received complaints about this. Certification should go to the Community Development Department. Discussion on 200-3 we're getting back into the permitting process and Dvorak thinks there was some kind of indicator about what kind of information is required at what level of review. Go to page 200-3 at the top size and location if applicable of the existing utilities; water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electric, gas, phone, septic tanks, drain fields, and wells. You can add check marks to these tables. We want storm water, water and sewer managed here. Discussion went to different areas in the draft code. COMMITTEE MEMBER ANDERSON MOVED to add a V mark on Table 17.200.030- 1 in the small scale and large scale administrative review box under the size location of existing utilities. Dvorak stated whether someone would have to provide an as-built survey, he went back to page 200-1 at the bottom required plan submittals, and it says under A the submittal requirement of each type of land use permit are summarized in Table 17.200.030-1, all land use permits shall be accompanied by a plan that includes the elements that's listed, and then sub-section B says "a site plan my utilize as a base as-built survey prepared by a licensed surveyor provided it's not more than 10 years old and the owner certifies that it accurately depicts current conditions. It doesn't require a new as-built survey but provides that option. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In response to COMMITTEE MEMBER PANAMARIOFF'S inquiry about if under this section where it says administrative land use permits, 17.200.040, if it wouldn't be along the same lines as adding another letter I that would specify out septic or sewer system or something like that. vii. Septic system rules (the ability to install without a plan if it is for a single- family dwelling) (Pages 40-4, 50-5, 200-3, 220-2) September 20,2012 Page 4 of 6 PAC Work Session Covered under item vi. viii. Native land issues status update (Staff) Dvorak said the borough attorney has been tied up with this long term care center and she sent him an email that she's not at liberty to share. He can speak from it and said he doesn't think she's going to come in recommending an exemption of all ANCSA and ANILCA lands across the board. If you're going to exempt remote land everyone is exempt or no one is exempt type of thing. Discussion of native lands being federal, ANCSA is also federal and it will escalate everything up to that level, Comp Plan and such. All through the BLM or DNR process you have to get all those lands quick conveyed, quit claimed, lease an interest, deeded, warranty deeded, statutory deeded, all the things we have to go through the federal process. Our codes should reflect our plans such as they are, but if we are going to get out of the business of regulating remote lands that should be incorporated in a community adopted Comp Plan and then executed in the zoning codes The Comp Plan spends very little time out where it is remote,we did reach out to the native stakeholders but we got very little involvement. Our codes should reflect our plans but if there's going to be getting out of the business of regulating remote lands then that should probably be incorporated into a community adopted Comp Plan and then executed in the zoning codes. The recommendations will come in a little later. ix. Landscape buffers...Chain link with inserts not being allowed but wood is? (Page 150-2) COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER said one of the highly used ways of hiding junk is chain link fence with inserts and they are used all over. On page 150-2 - F-2 under Fences it says "a fence or wall shall be at least 75% opaque, then it goes on to say "chain link or wire fence inserts shall not be permitted" but a chain link or wire fence with inserts can easily be made to be 75% opaque. COMMITTEE MEMBER TORRES and PANAMARIOFF both said they thought that sentence had already been removed. Duane thinks we're going to have at least one more meeting and wants to bring back the changes from the 6th and 20th meetings highlighted in final version.There are several minutes to adopt and this time we make sure the changes have been made. COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER MOVED to strike the last sentence in 17.150.020- Section F-2-Landscaping Screening & Buffering to strike the 2nd sentence on page 150-2. ROLL CALL MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY x. Add a definition for independent trucking? (Page 80-5) (Staff) COMMITTEE MEMBER ROHRER stated he suggested it because several people comment in the comment section since it wasn't defined. Dvorak went through the American Planning Association Dictionary of Development terms and their dictionary is based on what they consider most representative ordinances from around the country. There may be multiple definitions of various terms to show the different ways communities can go. September 20,2012 Page 5 of 6 PAC Work Session Dvorak produced a draft and would be subject to further review and read it out loud. Discussion regarding principle domicile, owning several houses, and independent truck vs. boom truck, and what changes to make. COMMITTEE MEMBER TORRES MOVED to change 17.80.080 Paragraph A strike 1A-Independent Trucking and change on Paragraph B-1 change the requirements from less than 2 acres to not less than 40,000 sq. feet and change on Paragraph B- 1-B change the weight rating from 20,000 lbs to 26,000 lbs. COMMITTEE ROHRER asked Dvorak to wordsmith this to be more consistent with the wording elsewhere. ROLL CALL ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Dvorak said he thinks we need to have at least one more meeting, we need to bring this back with all the motions you have made over the last 2 meetings highlighted so you can go through it real quick. There are minutes to adopt, and maybe a motion to pass this on. We're looking at October2, 4, or 8, 2012. Dvorak thinks he'll be back by October 8th. Committee consensus on October 8th. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE MEMBER ANDERSON MOVED to adjourn. CHAIR VINBERG adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PRO FGT_Ie ISO t II Li LA TTEE Alan Torres,Vice Chair ATTEST By: ,:"AaOck Sheila Smith, Secretary APPPROVED: June 12, 2013 September 20,2012 Page 6 of 6 PAC Work Session