Loading...
2014-10-22 Regular Meeting RECEIVED Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commissio DEC 2 2 2014 Code Update Special Public Hear ng Minutes BOROUGH CLERK'S KODIAK,ALASKA OFFICE \A October 22, 2014 6:30 p.m, in the Assembly Chambers CALL TO ORDER COMMISSIONER DRABEK called to order the October 22, 2014 special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMISSIONER DRABEK led the pledge of allegiance ROLL CALL Requested excusal were Pat Olsen and Alan Schmitt. Commissioners present were Kathy Drabek, Jennifer Richcreek, Maria Painter, and Scott Arndt. Excused were Pat Olsen and Alan Schmitt. A quorum was established. COMMISSIONER ARNDT MOVED to excuse Pat Olsen and Alan Schmitt. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Community Development Department staff present was Director Pederson, Martin Lydick, Sheila Smith, and Jack Maker. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER ARNDT stated he'd like to extend public comment from 3 minutes to 5 minutes for Titles 16, 17, & 18, and he'd like to combine the comments for Titles 16, 17, & 18 for folks who can't attend all meetings could represent their concerns. COMMISSIONER ARNDT MOVED to approve the October 22, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting agenda as amended. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CITIZEN COMMENTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued from the October 1, 2014 Special Meeting A) Case: Update of KIBC Titles 16 (Subdivisions), 17-Zoning, & 18-Borough Real Property. Request a review of the recommendations for amendments to Title 16, Title 17, and Title 18 of the Borough Code. The applicant is the Kodiak Island Borough and the agent is the Community Development Department. The location is borough-wide and zoning varies. Director Pederson stated this is the second of four scheduled public hearings on the Code Update. The third hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, October 29th at 6:30 p.m. in these chambers and the 4th meeting is for November 5th at 6:30 p.m. in these chambers. There is a link on the website to email comments in. We did distribute a packet of comments with the letters and emails that we received through last Friday and we'll be doing another distribution of those this Friday and similarly the following week. At the staff level, we are working on a supplemental staff report listing 10/22/2014 P&Z Minutes Page 1 of 9 all the issues that have been brought up. There are three issues that has the most input; the proposal to combine the RD Zoning District, melding the RR Zoning District into the RR1 Zoning District which is the subdivision on Woodland Drive, and timber harvesting. The motion on the floor from the October 1, 2014 Special Code Update Special Meeting is: COMMISSIONER ARNDT MOVED to advance Titles 16, 17, & 18 to the Assembly for passing. The public hearing was still open for continuing public comment and public testimony time was extended to five minutes. Dick Rohrer stated his concerns are with the RD and Conservation Zoning Districts. He owns three remote parcels that encompass the National Wildlife lands that were patented around 1907 and made available by the Trillium Corporation a number of years ago. Rohrer was able to purchase three parcels; two of the parcels are in the east arm of Uganik Bay. He has the guide camp that was developed by the Madsen family. Two of the cabins he uses still were built in 1935. There is one cabin that was built in 1976. In 1993 we came up with the RD Zoning District. Consequently he has one lot zoned RD and the permitted use is up to fifteen clients. If Rural Development goes away and that parcel becomes Conservation his permitted use goes from fifteen clients to six clients. This isn't acceptable. How would you like for someone to come and take that much away from what you already own. Mr. Pederson pointed out that at the time that Rural Development Zoning District came about there were a number of us who were able to buy these smaller parcels who thought they wanted to be in the guide business someday so they rezoned. Rohrer was successful at rezoning the one parcel. The other parcel that houses the primary guide business had to go through a land exchange with the federal government, which took five years. During that time the Assembly put it on hold and everyone forgot about Rural Development until this came along. The committee and consultant that was hired to do this code rewrite, a letter dated January 10, 2012 recommended to keep Rural Development, and the recommendation was to allow the existing numbers and they also recommended reducing the size from five acres to three acres. That came out of the two years of committee working on it. Somehow that went away and he was surprised of the change. He understands he can apply for a conditional use. He understands the potential for when he wants to do something there's going to people opposed to it. He's seen people in your position vote not on the merits but on the public comment. It's his livelihood that's severely impacted by this. Rohrer said he has no problem if we do away with RD and make it Conservation if we stick with 15 people permitted like we have in RD now or keep it the way it is. It would only be for a small number of parcels outside of native corporation lands. Peter Boskosky stated he's an attorney and shareholder for Afognak Native Corporation. Afognak has submitted comments on the proposed Title 16 in the past and they will submit further comments elaborating on their recommendations to the commission. Afognak requests that the minimum lot size in Conservation be reduced from five acres to 20,000 sq. feet. Afognak recommended written revisions to Draft Title 16, it will reconcile the language used in the current proposed amendments with federal law and provide further clarity for all interested parties. Due to the direct conflict between the borough's minimum size of five acres and the maximum lot size authorized under the Shareholder Homesite Provision of the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act, in other words 1 '/2 acres. Afognak and other similarly situated village corporations with ANCSA land on the Kodiak Archipelago have been prevented from implementing the federally authorized Shareholder Homesite Program. Title 17-Agognak has submitted a number of comments in written form regarding Title 17. Regarding timber harvesting activity, Afognak asked the commission to read our comments carefully and take under advisement the seriousness of our concerns and recommendations. The issues we raise within our written comments are not going away and are only the beginning of the problems that may not have been anticipated by the commission. If the proposed amendments to Title 17 was perhaps a mistake or the issues we raised in our written comments were not properly identified we ask that the commission reconsider and make a reasonable recommendation to the assembly. Because the commission cannot make a good faith 10/22/2014 P&Z Minutes Page 2 of 9 recommendation with the proposed amendments to Title 17 as currently written. Also for the record, due to the Alaska Native Federation Convention held in Anchorage this week please do not infer from a thin crowd that Alaska Native Corporations do not take this issue seriously. There would be others here today but were called away with respect to their duties to AFN. The timing of today's meeting is not great because all the preparation, attendance, and debriefing associated with AFN. Additional comments will be introduced through Afognak staff and its shareholders during the next public hearings. Afognak would like to highlight that Afognak land targeted under these proposed regulations is remote and mostly unconnected with the rest of the borough. A substantial portion of Afognak's land is accessible only by boat or plane. Our neighbors are the State and other Alaska native corporations. There are Federal and State laws that already address timber activities on Afognak's ANCSA lands. At this point, no legitimate reason has been offered to support the reclassification of timber harvesting activities for permitted use of right to conditional use. The proposed amendments to Title 17 will create an undue hardship for Afognak and a substantial change from the current regulations which is the permitted use as a matter of right. Such an injury and hardship may be measured as such. Significant time and expense imposed on Afognak and similarly situated Alaska native corporations. The risk of duplicative and/or inconsistent decisions issued by the State Division of Forestry which has the exclusive authority for overseeing logging operations on private land and expertise to provide oversight for logging operations. Based on the information Afognak has we believe the borough does not have any unique expertise within the area or the authority to regulate Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act land. Diminishment of the right of self-determination of Alaska native corporations under ANCSA, in other words the right to manage ANCSA land in accordance with traditional Alutiiq values and without interference from the State or local government. Additional harm is the potential loss of ANCSA land value in contravention with Federal land and policy perhaps, takings. All aspects of timber harvesting and reforestation are regulated under State law specifically the Forest Practices Act. Oversight for the enforcement of State law and protection of land and natural resources is vested in the Division of Forestry. No additional administrative oversight is necessary or (inaudible) the functioning of the extensive and all-encompassing scheme for timber harvesting. Under ANCSA Alaska native corporations lands are not subject to a form of taxation on predevelopment basis. In other words, undeveloped ANCSA land cannot be taxed by any government authority including the borough. A proposed conditional use fee which would be required by predevelopment basis is in the nature attacks on ANCSA protected lands. The reclassification of timber harvesting activities as a use requiring a conditional use permit when conducted on private land contained within a Conservation District would be preempted under Federal law as against Alaska Native Corporations under ANCSA and under the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act. If necessary Afognak will seek court assistance to enjoin any infringement of our private property rights under ANCSA and ANILCA. Taken together the facts suggest the decision to amend Title 17 to subject Afognak and other Alaska native corporations to immediate fees and potential fines in the event of non-compliance has no legitimate government purpose and is otherwise designed to impermissibly target Alaska native corporations and ANCSA land for purposes of generating revenue for the borough. Kyle Crow stated he recently had the opportunity to be involved in the process to request a variance for setback requirements. In that process he did research on the internet and discovered that setback requirements in some cases are being viewed as unproductive and unnecessary. He understands the reason for the setback requirements but they aren't articulated well in the existing code and they're not articulated in the proposed code. He suggested that the intent of those setbacks be clearly articulated point by point so the landowners know if there is a need to use that setback space that they can address those issues on a case by case point by point position. Somehow these setbacks have a life of their own, there's some sacred ground for some reason. He doesn't see the proposed code addressing that. He reviewed the new code and compared it with the existing code and he seen a lot of improvements. In doing his research on this issue there are many websites that talk about using those setbacks that the existing code requirement 10/22/2014 P&Z Minutes Page 3 of 9 arbitrarily require these large setback areas that direct urban sprawl, they are directing the inefficient use of land in some cases, and many modern community planners are using these areas more efficiently. Another concern in the proposed code was cookie cutter approach to the down south large communities that have been developed over the past 50 years or so with the strip malls and large, sprawling subdivisions with land inefficiently utilized. New community planners are taking a look at that. In one case in Denver where they were developing a community they had the opportunity to develop the whole community, they wanted on street parking to slow traffic down rather than thoroughfares where people were racing around in residential neighborhoods. They were also encouraging houses to be to be built utilizing some of these setback spaces and reducing them instead of arbitrarily cookie cutter development that some logic went into it. Kodiak has the opportunity to have a little bit of personality and uniqueness in that would go away with just a these large radius intersections where you can look and then race through and things like that. A firm from down south was hired to just take a canned code and put it in place here in Kodiak. We can do a little more work to allow individual property owner's a little flexibility. Jenny Shank stated she appreciates the commission's time and energy. She spoke opposing the rezone of Woodland Drive, Seabreeze Circle, and part of Sunset Drive from Rural Residential to RR1. She said they started building their home in 1980 and occupied it in 1982. When they purchased the property in the late 70's the zoning was 1 dwelling per acre. At that time there was no access to public water and sewer. With the availability to water and sewer there was no choice whether or not to hook up although all of us owners had spent thousands of dollars digging wells and putting in septic systems. In 1989 the zoning changed from RR1 to RR. Property owners who wanted to subdivide their acre into 2 lots had to submit their application before the new RR zoning was established. We fought against that change but it passed. Now as you drive down Woodland Drive you see some half acre lots fronting on the road, some flaglots, and this was not the original intent of this subdivision plan. Regarding accessory dwelling units, no such thing was allowed. There is currently some property owners breaking the law keeping connex units on their property hooked up to electricity with windows installed. We thought they were just there for the building material storage during house construction and another place where a camper has been occupied periodically. The original homestead owner of all of Woodland Acres would be rolling over in her grave with what is proposed and what already has happened. Please don't make it worse. We would like to keep the RR zoning. Woodland Drive, Seabreeze Circle, and part of Sunset Drive included in this rezone is unique in itself, providing a rural setting on mostly acre lots very close to town. In the Section 17.80.011.6 Description and Purpose of this code revision, No. 1 speaks to enhancing property values. She doesn't think enabling people to subdivide 40,000 square feet lots into two 20,000 square feet lots will enhance their property value. Allowing property owners to build an accessory dwelling unit either on a 40,000 square foot or a 20,000 square foot lot in addition to their home will only result in higher density population which was not the original intent of this subdivision. Maybe part of the original motivation for allowing ADU's here was to increase the number of available rental units in the borough but she believes there are at present a sufficient number of rental units available to meet the need. The US Coast Guard is in the process of building a number of new housing units on the base and apparently it's pretty difficult for Coast Guardsmen to get permission to live off the base. In addition the new ADU size allows for a maximum of 650 square feet which potentially could be 25 x 26, that's a pretty big space to take up in addition to a home. Regarding space for extended family to live, homeowners would be better off making space in their home or adding on to their home. We do not want property owners in the proposed rezone area to be able to subdivide or have an accessory dwelling unit. The only reason that comes to mind for property owners in the proposed rezone area to be in favor of subdividing and/or building an accessory dwelling is money. These people were aware when they bought their property that they could not subdivide nor have an accessory dwelling unit to rent. These options are both unacceptable to them. They are just trying to protect the investment of their life savings and earnings in their homes. 10/22/2014 P&Z Minutes Page 4 of 9 Kathy Simpler stated their home is in the Woodland Acres and currently zoned RR and is being proposed to be changed to RR1. She spoke opposing this proposal. The first page of a memo dated August 29, 2014 from Robert Pederson, Director addressed to the Planning and Zoning Commission states that Title 17 has not been comprehensively updated since the late 1960's. That may be true but in fact in 1989 there was a request put before the Assembly to change the area of Woodland Acres zoned RR1 at the time to be rezoned to RR. People living on Woodland Drive and Seabreeze Circle were unhappy with the subdividing that was happening so close to them and the neighboring streets off of Puffin Drive. The proposed change was rejected because they wanted to maintain the rural neighborhood. The assembly adopted an ordinance at their request only after the Community Development Department at the time found that a rezone was necessary and just because it was not substantially less consistent with the Comp Plan and the existing zoning from 1968. We agree with the findings in the memo addressed to the assembly from the Community Development Department dated October 10, 1989 under the subject Ordinance 89-32-0. Their findings state that a rezone to RR was necessary and just because it was not substantially less consistent with the Comp Plan than the existing zoning was suitable to the existing lots given the existing lot sizes with placement of structures as well as the existing topography and coastal location and would not adversely impact surrounding developments nor negatively impact traffic in the area. Further findings from that report state that the zoning change to RR wouldn't maintain the areas low density residential land use character through a traditional residential neighborhood. On January 4, 1990 the ordinance was passed and people have enjoyed living in our rural residential neighborhood since then. Should the current proposed rezone pass it could significantly change the character of our neighborhood. It is highly probable that existing trees will be taken down to make room for structures which is the areas only buffer against the wind. The landscape will change and traffic will increase exponentially in our rural area. We enjoy our rural lifestyle and privacy afforded us by living in this neighborhood. We know most of our neighbors do to. That part of living in our area hasn't changed since 1990 and even before. We're also disappointed that we were only asked of our opinion on matters affecting our land only towards the end of any work being done or already discussed. It would seem that if the Planning and Zoning Commission would be considering changing the codes affecting our neighborhood we would receive notice at the beginning of the process to be able to provide input. Bill St. Clair stated who lives on Seabreeze Circle stated he doesn't want the area to be subdivided either. He thanked Ginny Shank and the Simplers for all the research they've done. When he owned a house on Gull Drive he seen in 3 % years the end of the street go from being wooded to about forty-two houses when he sold his home. He moved to this area where he thought he had a beautiful yard and this wonderful place to live for his kids to run down the street and play, and it turned into a racetrack. The road was paved after all the homes were put in and people drove crazy. He doesn't want to see this happen in the Seabreeze-Woodland Drive area. Ben Jackson also lives on Seabreeze Circle stated his parents moved here in 1977 and in the eighteen years before he left for college his family lived in about sixteen different homes that were tight spaces and quarters. He went to college to make a better future and when returned to Kodiak because he loves it here. They purchased their house on Seabreeze Circle because of its rural location. It wasn't rural enough for him but almost too rural for his wife. It has afforded them a great luxury which came at a price, it was more expensive than the areas on Woodland Drive and homes they looked at in town. We paid the extra money because we knew the old adage of location, location, location was true. Him and his wife are worried about the potential changes to that area regarding traffic, noise, proximity, and privacy. Anyone in Alaska would argue as part of the wonderful value that we have as residents of this great state. He and his wife has written comments regarding the possible rezoning of 60 parcels in the Seabreeze Circle, Sunset Drive, and Woodland Drive area from RR to RR1. They understand this action would allow the subdivision of lots along this area. They are opposed to the rezone. He requested the commission consider alternatives which do not directly affect rural properties. As a lifelong resident of Kodiak 10/22/2014 P&Z Minutes Page 5 of 9 he bought his home intentionally because of location and rural status of their property and the size of lots around their property. The lack of excessive traffic, the quiet, and privacy afforded them by their house in its current zoning of RR came at a price. They fear in addition to the loss of these qualities afforded by location and the lot sizes in this area there may exist the potential to see a diminished property value to their investment and those of their neighbors. If this rezone is necessitated by a lack of lands or for our populace we ask that you commit to demonstrating where this need exists and what other options such as opening as yet undeveloped borough lands have been considered in place of this action. It's their understanding that the population of Kodiak has in fact diminished but may have changed recently but currently real estate sales have slowed dramatically and there is not a pressing necessity for more homes. Also it may be state regulation for local Planning and Zoning Commission to propose possible options for opening new land simply as a matter of regulation reconsideration. If this proposal is to meet regulations we whole heartily ask you to reconsider pushing forward this proposal and allow for the voices of the majority of the homeowner's affected to be heard. Jackson thanked the commission for all their work. Nancy Bell stated she owns a house on Seabreeze Circle and she's against the rezone of Seabreeze Circle and Sunset Drive. She chose that property because of the land and she and her husband want to retire here. They have lived many places across the country and what they see is a lot of people moving into housing areas that are dictated by rules and homeowner associations, and once people move into the area they buck the system. They knew the rules when they bought the property and yet they move in and then try to change the rules for self-serving reasons. We all bought property here because we love the area and we love Kodiak. Her kids grew up in Kodiak and want to come back to live and she doesn't want the zoning changed if it's someone's selfish reason or self-served reasons. You have to look beyond just more people because then it creates more traffic, more needs in the schools, are there enough teachers. When you start changing things and adding more people it creates a downfall for the whole community. She chose that area because they were buying 1 1(3 acre. She and her husband are against the rezoning. Mel Stephens stated it seems to him that the last few people who have spoken are illustrating a very important point and they are concerned about a rezoning of a particular area which they live. You are re-writing the whole code and in the course of it you are making very important substantive changes in the rights of individual property owners. Under the existing code what would happen if you wanted to consider changing the zoning rights and requirements of a particular area that particular area would be the subject of what would eventually become an ordinance changing that. People from that area would be notified about the borough thinking about changing the rules for your particular area come forward and let's talk. Here you are doing this with a broad brush for the entire borough all at once. Stephens does not think it's an efficient way to do it, it's not a proper way to do it although legally you can change the code in the way which you are doing it. You've got people here tonight who have taken the trouble to look at this code and say it does affect their rights. He would bet most people here tonight stopped reading after they read the code revisions relating to just their provision, and he'd bet there are a lot of people who haven't read this at all but will be very mad when this goes through. They will be told why weren't you here talking when we were thinking about changing the code. He thinks this is just too broad a brush. He thinks you should not take it as a given that this is going to the Assembly but you consider postponing indefinitely further work on these code revisions. Stephens has practiced law here for thirty-five years and he thinks he knows the borough code as well as the next person. From his perspective the existing zoning, subdivision, and platting provisions of the code while not perfect are certainly adequate for this particular community. We are not a community like Wasilla where population is growing leaps and bounds. Between 2000 and 2010 our population actually went down and has stagnated. That removes most of the legitimate justification for a complete code rewrite. In terms of process he would ask the commission to show us what is being changed in the code and if you don't know what is being changed then you cannot expect comments from the public at large which cogently point out what should or shouldn't be changed. What he's talking about is changes from 10/22/2014 P&Z Minutes Page 6 of 9 the code as it exists now. He thought that was what was being done when he read the staff memo that said there are two versions of Title 17, the first being a clean copy and the second one shows the track changes in format. He thought the public isn't being given the second one showing the changes and it appears to him that those changes with the way it's being phrased are only changes from the last draft of this code, not changes from the existing code. He really thinks the existing codes are more than adequate. When you come in and have people here point out defects and then you say maybe we'll change the code to adjust those defects before it's passed on to the Assembly it seems that what you are doing is saying we're going to hang you at dawn but if there's enough public comment on it we'll be glad to change that and hang you either at noon or sunset. Stephens thanked the commission for their work. Michelle St. Clair who lives on Seabreeze Circle stated she spoke last week about her displeasure about the rezone and asked if the consultants made all the changes or did some changes come from the Planning and Zoning Commission. She talked to someone at the borough who said Jack Maker and a couple of community members were part of the PAC. She would like names of who was on PAC that was instrumental in giving information to. Kevin Arndt stated he was under the understanding that these meetings were to bring to light some of the concerns the people have about what's being changed. Are you going to look at this again and change anything that's being vocalized? He wanted to make sure this wasn't the product going to the Assembly. Arndt is wondering where some of the changes came from. There were people of the community that were on this committee where this was discussed but he's wondering why they thought this was a good idea. The changing of the zoning for Woodland Drive, about 20 years ago there was a moratorium put on subdividing doing away with subdividing 40,000 square feet lots. Arndt son is purchasing a house on Woodland and he doesn't want to see the area subdivided. He moved out of a 7200 square foot lot to get to an acre lot. Also he's in favor of flaglots. Two out of three subdivisions that he has done has flaglots. He agrees with the stacking thing that you're looking at doing away with. He doesn't believe they should be stacked also but he does believe that the 20 foot wide stem when you have 2 of them together is more than adequate. Conservation land-Remote taking it from 15 clients down to 6, he doesn't know where that came from or what the benefit is but you are basically taking a piece of property that people have paid a lot of money for anywhere from 5 acres on up and saying now you have 160 acres so you can only have 6 people here now. That really cuts into anyone trying to do a lodge. He doesn't know if the intent to do away with lodges. Mr. Rohrer said you can come to the commission and say this is passed now I want to change it to get 15 again. You will have your neighbors saying they are against that. The neighbors carry a lot of weight, they say it doesn't but it does. Arndt feels there is no need to change it and he doesn't know why it was even discussed to change it other than one or two people basically stated we need to get this down. This company that came up from the states, Arndt feels that they didn't take into consideration Kodiak being as small as it is and the character of the community. Jascha Zbitnoff stated he's been to at least a dozen of the Code Revision work sessions and he's voiced his opinion a few times sitting there for the 2 hours to get through 1 section. Regarding decibel levels at the property lines for different zones on page 81, 17.140.120 Noise Standards, Section C, line 3094. Sixty decibels is basically talking in a room so the noise at the property line can barely be above the noise in this room. You need to look at those sections again. Also on page 52, Schedule of Uses, Table 17.90.030-1, Intensive Use Section-In agricultural/Forestry Related Uses-if you look at the table, nowhere in that code does it allow you to do anything related to timber harvesting. There's no permitted or conditional use for anything related to timber use or harvesting so that means that the Samson dock where they are sending all the timber from according to the new code it's not permitted and Zbitnoff is opposed to this. On page 53, line 2312 again looking at the tables just look at the front yards and the size requirements. He's already stated his opinion on that at previous meetings. On page 59 in the rural areas, 17.100.030-1, timber harvesting activities not permitted anywhere, again, conditionally maybe with the permission 10/22/2014 P&Z Minutes Page 7 of 9 of the zoning department in Conservation District only. Basically there's only one place in the whole island that you could, maybe, with permission from the borough cut trees down to use as timber harvesting. Zbitnoff said he has a lot more and will put them in writing. Kevin Arndt stated he didn't know about the timber thing. He asked when you say timber harvest- what is the definition of harvesting-clearing the property and selling the logs. Parking with the 4 options, Arndt is in favor of the one that encompasses the whole town. He thinks that would work the best again. He has 2 properties which both have parking issues. Right now they utilize on street parking and it works. There are always parking places downtown and it's working fine. Jascha Zbitnoff asked how much was the consultant paid? He'd also like to see a proposed code and existing code side by side with the changes to the old code in red. It's pretty hard to go through this document page by page and try to figure out where to find it in the existing code because the pages or sections doesn't line up with each other. It is possible because that's what staff was doing in the work sessions. COMMISSIONER ARNDT MOVED to postpone until the October 29, 2014 Planning and Zoning Special Meeting. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY D) Code Update Submitted Written Comments Director Pederson stated he didn't prepare a report but they are there for your information. You'll get another packet of comments this Friday. CITIZEN COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS None COMMISSIONER DRABEK stated the upcoming meeting schedule is: • October 29, 2014 Special Code Update Public Hearing-6:30 pm-Assembly Chambers • November 5, 2014 Special Code Update Public Hearing-6:30 pm-Assembly Chambers COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Maria Painter thanked everyone for coming out and voicing your opinion. We all have an opinion and she's grateful there was such a good turn out tonight. She looks forward to seeing everyone at the following meeting. Jennifer Richcreek thanked everyone for participating and she wanted to speak to the process as a whole. Consider this process as an ongoing process that's been happening for 4 years now. There was a consultant that was a professional in the field of community planning that was brought in who held meetings throughout the borough including the villages to get input into this process to develop a strawman. That strawman, yes, there was someone who didn't live in Kodiak but was an expert in the field that had assisted through that process but then community members have been working on this for years. The Planning and Zoning Commission have been meeting for nearly twice a week since July and August of last year. We've been putting substantial effort to make sure it is customized to the Kodiak community and the public has participated and been welcomed into the process throughout those years of process. What we have before us is the strawman, it's a lot easier to comment on something that you see right before you so you can adjust it. That's why it's in writing before you so it's not intended to instill fear, it's not intended to be disrespectful or disregarding of native land rights or existing laws. It is a strawman that's meant to be commented on, refined, and developed through the great work you are doing in reviewing and commenting on it. These public hearings, even though the public has been invited into the process for years, we're 10/22/2014 P&Z Minutes Page 8 of 9 holding these formal public hearings over a series of 2 months. No one is taking any action while we receive these comments in writing and verbally so we can refine this even further. Through the process of deliberating in a public forum even further we'll continue again and again throughout time. That's just for the Planning and Zoning portion. Once we get to a point where we feel it's been refined enough to take it, or at least we've debated enough and this debate goes to the Assembly and that process starts again. The public is invited to participate throughout this whole process with strawman proposals that are moved through. She is very appreciative of the work and effort that the community is doing in looking and being engaged in this and bringing in comments. There are differing opinions about land policy. We are a diverse community so it's important to hear the different perspectives from everyone as we refine this document as best we can for the benefit of our community. Scott Arndt stated there is a lot of heated discussion in all the work sessions and a lot of those comments are not incorporated into this work at this point. We'll be forthcoming when these hearings close and he hopes that once all the comments come in it goes back out for public testimony again because some of it is substantial changes. We've had some good arguments on there and in many cases we didn't reach a consensus so many of us feel this isn't done either. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER ARNDT MOVED to adjourn. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER DRABEK adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PL NNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: `�+ L� Alan Schmitt, Vice Chair ATTEST By: y%ij'R 0 CDC10) Sheila Smith Community Development Department APPROVED: December 17, 2014 10/22/2014 P&Z Minutes Page 9 of 9