Loading...
2016-03-16 Regular Meeting E ,,EIVED Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting �Ilf::�:: 2 ' 1 : 'IED Minutes March 16, 2016 Regular Meeting 6:30 pm-BoroughlAss �°IliA.� Simp u CALL TO ORDER CHAIR ARNDT called to order the March 16, 2016 regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIR ARNDT led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners present were Scott Arndt, Jay Baldwin, Barry Altenhof, Maria Painter, Alan Schmitt, and Greg Spalinger A quorum was established. Community Development Department staff present was Director Pederson, Jack Maker, Sara Mason, and Sheila Smith. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER SPALINGER MOVED to approve the agenda. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER SPALINGER MOVED to approve the January 20, 2016 & February 17, 2016 minutes. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to three minutes per speaker) Local Phone number: Local is 486-3231; Toll Free is 1-855-492-9202. None PUBLIC HEARINGS Phone number: Local is 486-3231; Toll Free is 1-855-492-9202. Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. A) CASE S16-007 (Postponed from the February 17, 2016 Regular Meeting for lack of quorum). The applicant is the City of Port Lions and the Surveyor is Woods Land Surveys. Request preliminary approval of the replat of Parcel C and Tracts C and E, Port Wakefield Subdivision creating Lots C1 and C2, Peregrebni Point Subdivision (KIBC 16.40). The location is NHN Kizhuyak Drive, Port Lions and the zoning is I- Industrial and PL-Public Use Lands. Jack Maker reported this request seeks to replat two large tracts to create two newly configured lots. One lot (Lot Cl) is 56.2 acres and the other (Lot C2) is 2 acres. Both lots meet I-Industrial zoning lot area and width requirements. Lot C1 is vacant and Lot C2 contains the community fuel dispensing facility. Kizhuyak Oil Sales owns and operates the facility, but does not own the land underneath it. Should preliminary and final plats be approved, the City of Port Lions intends to transfer ownership of Lot C2 to Kizhuyak Oil Sales. Staff has determined that this plat meets the minimum data and design requirements of chapter 16.40 (Preliminary Plat) of the Borough Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 1 Code and that the recommended conditions of approval should ensure that the final plat meets the standards of Titles 16 (Subdivision) and 17 (Zoning) of the Borough Code. Staff recommends preliminary approval be granted subject to the 10 conditions of approval listed in the written staff report. Maker stated he made a trip to Port Lions with the Borough Resource Management Officer for a site visit and some other site visits and discuss other business with them. He was able to describe the required conditions of approval and the improvements that are required and the City of Port Lions concurs and agrees to make those improvements. He was able to go on site, boots to the ground to see that the very end of the Tract by the ferry dock, the area is improved and is capable of accommodating fire apparatus tum arounds by putting the easement in place and at the other end of the access road to Tract H, we were able to show them where they could place that. He will be providing that information to the surveyor also. In response to COMMISSIONER PAINTER's inquiry regarding page 1 of the markup plat, Tract E, she's trying to figure out if Tract E is separate from Tract C on that particular plat because it's Public Use, Maker said that's correct, it's not separate, he can explain. Maker said Parcel C was deeded by Quit Claim by a metes and bounds description that included Tract C and Tract E, Parcel C was never platted so it still exists as Tract C and Tract E. What this platting issue will do is the dash line that goes around Tract D will be vacated that will all be one parcel and they will carve basically Lot C1, the two acre lot that Kizhuyak Oil Sales is looking to purchase. In response to COMMISSIONER PAINTER's regarding Plat 68-11, it shows a Tract E, 19.67 acres, that's a plat and that means there had to be a recording supposedly, there's a stamp, so she's assuming that exists. She knows what Maker is saying but for someone to look at this plat and say yes, there's a Tract E that is Public Use Lands and now we're combining it into a C without any type of public comment on the Public Use Lands because we're making it an Industrial property, Maker stated this action does not rezone that parcel, the boundaries of that parcel even though the lot line will be vacated Tract E, former Tract E will remain zoned Public Use Lands. It will result in split lot zoning in that area which isn't uncommon when we run into these larger tracts, if you remember we had the same issue with the Pillar Mountain wind farm tract. COMMISSIONER PAINTER stated her problem with this particular thing here is it's not clear. What we're saying here is "no, we're not really doing a rezone but we're just going to delete the lot lines that says Tract E is Public Use Lands and we're going to pretend that we're going to keep it the way it's currently zoned although we're going to name it C and then later on we're going to forget about it. She understands what you are trying to do but it's very confusing and people aren't going to remember that they can't do that on this piece of property because it's Public Use Lands, now we have to go for a rezone. What Painter is saying is this is muddy water and it should be cleaned up and that's part of our job to do that. What she's seeing is we're just sweeping things up and then calling it C. She has a hard time with that. Director Pederson stated we are not rezoning, the zoning map will not be changed, the boundaries of the zoning districts are not changing in any way so if any proposal comes forward in the future they have to comply with whatever the zoning is wherever that proposal is located. That's the way the code operates. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant preliminary approval of the replat of Parcel C and Tracts C and E, Port Wakefield Subdivision creating Lots C1 and C2, Peregrebni Point Subdivision (KIBC 16.40), subject to ten (10) conditions of approval and to adopt the findings in the staff report entered into the record for this case as "Findings of Fact"for case S16-007. Open public hearing: None Close public hearing: Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 2 COMMISSIONER PAINTER stated there's another portion that has to do with the submerged pipeline, we didn't call it submerged but it's the ten foot wide easement for that pipeline. Is there anything that we're supposed to do, has anyone been notified that ther'es actual submerged pipelines in that area that maybe needs some signage, Maker stated the pipelines, to clarify, are not submerged in water, they are buried pipelines. It's the pipeline that goes from the fuel dispensing facility from proposed Lot C2 through Lot C1, and one of the conditions of approval is that pipeline easement kind of stops. It's also a requirement that any utility which it is considered a utility, it's their fuel service for the ferry and other boats that come to that dock facility, we were requiring that they extend that easement and he identified the path of the actual pipelie to the end of Parcel C1, at that point it enters the breakwater and the roadway that goes out to the ferry dock. He can only assume that Kizhuyak Oil Sales followed all State and local regulations in regard to the installation in burying that pipeline In response to COMMISSIONER PAINTER's inquiry of is it buried in the tidelands, Maker stated it actually goes out to the edge of the meander line where the water goes and then that's where the built up breakwater with rocks and an improved roadway that goes out to the ferry dock is. It passes all on land above the actual mean high water line. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. To meet the minimum local road right-of-way width requirement of KIBC 16.80.030.A, a 60' wide public access and utility easement along the existing gravel dock approach road that passes through lot C1 shall be depicted on the Final Plat. 2. The Final Plat shall depict a fire apparatus turn around easement where the existing gravel dock approach road exits Lot C1. The easement shall meet the requirements of the adopted fire code, as determined by the Fire Marshall. 3. Prior to Final Plat approval, a fire apparatus turnaround shall be constructed within the turnaround easement where the existing gravel dock approach road exits Lot C1. Construction must meet the standards of KIBC 16.80 (Standards for road improvements) and the fire apparatus access road requirements of the adopted fire code. 4. To meet the minimum private road right-of-way width requirement of KIBC 16.80.030.A, the width of the public access and utility easement from Kizhuyak Drive to Tract H, U.S. Survey 4793 shall be increased from 40' to 50' on Final Plat. 5. Prior to final plat approval, the existing gravel access road from Kizhuyak Drive to Tract H, U.S. Survey 2005 shall be reconstructed to meet the fire apparatus access road width requirements of the adopted fire code. Construction must meet the standards of KIBC 16.80 (Standards for road improvements). 6. The Final Plat shall depict a fire apparatus turn around easement at the end of the existing gravel access road from Kizhuyak Drive to Tract H, U.S. Survey 2005. The easement shall meet the requirements of the adopted fire code, as determined by the Fire Marshall. 7. Prior to Final Plat approval, a fire apparatus turnaround shall be constructed within the turnaround easement at the end of the existing gravel access road from Kizhuyak Drive to Tract H, U.S. Survey 2005. Construction must meet the standards of KIBC 16.80 (Standards for road improvements) and the fire apparatus access road requirements of the adopted fire code. 8. The 10'wide pipeline easement shall be depicted to follow existing pipeline from Lot C2 to the point at which it exits Lot C1 on Final Plat. 9. Prior to Final Plat approval, the storage container that encroaches across the front lot line of Lot C2 shall be relocated to an area that meets I-Industrial zoning setback requirements. 10. The outer boundaries of Lot C1 shall be identified with solid lines on Final Plat. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat meets the minimum data and design requirements of Chapter 16.40 (Preliminary Plat) of the Borough code. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 3 2. With the exception of a storage container encroaching across a property line, this plat meets the requirements of Title 17 (Zoning)of the Borough code. The adopted conditions of approval will ensure the encroachment is remedied prior to Final Plat approval. 3. This plat provides a subdivision of land that is consistent with the adopted Borough plans and development trends for this area. 4. The adopted conditions of approval should ensure that the Final Plat meets the standards of Titles 16 (Subdivision) and 17 (Zoning) of the Borough Code. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED 5-1. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS ARNDT, BALDWIN, ALTENHOF, SCHMITT, AND SPALINGER. The noe was COMMISSIONER PAINTER. B) CASE 16-010 (Postponed from the February 17, 2016 Regular Meeting for lack of quorum). The applicant is Alaska Wireless Network and the agent is New Horizons Telecom, Inc. Request a Variance to construct a 67' tall telecommunications tower that exceeds the B-Business zoning 50' building height limit by 17' on Lot 3, Block 4, Airpark Subdivision (K1BC 17.195 and 17.90.040). The location is 1812 Mill Bay Road and the zoning is B-Business. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant a variance, per KIBC 17.195 and 17.90.040, to construct a sixty-seven (67)foot tall cellular communications tower that exceeds the B-Business zoning district fifty (50) foot building height limit by seventeen (17) feet on a leased site located at 1812 Mill Bay Road (Airpark Subdivision, Block 3, Lot 4), and to adopt the findings of fact listed in the staff report entered into the record for this case as "Findings of Fact" for Case No. 16-010. Sara Mason reported staff is proposing to postpone this case based on supplemtnal information that we received a little too close to this meeting. We have an updated site plan that will require another supplemental staff report that we weren't able to get into the packet. CHAIR ARNDT said this will be the third site plan. Director Pederson stated after your packet review where the property owner expressed concern about the location they proposed at that time, the second location moving it further to the north, he had a third site plan and we said that was too late because packets had already gone out so we recommend continuance. We spoke with the adjoining property owner again today. They've been in contact with the applicant in trying to work out a mutally agreeable location so staff recommends postponing this to your April meeting for action at that time. In response to COMMISSIONER SCHMITT'S comment regarding a note he had from last month and didn't catch it at last week's work session, we have some information in the packet that they have and indeed have applied to the Federal Communications Commission but it would be nice to get the approval as part of the packet. He was going to make that a condition of approval. Director Pederson said he would be happy to see if that has been issued yet and if it's not or their timeframe for that approval would follow after your approval we could enter a condition that they couldn't get the Zoning Compliance to commence construction until they have the actual approval document and a copy to us. CHAIR ARNDT stated since we have it scheduled for public hearing, do we want to hold the public hearing or just wait. Director Pederson stated you should open it for public hearing but he doesn't think anyone is here for that item. Open public hearing: None Close public hearing: Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 4 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to postpone this to April 20`' regular meeting agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY C) CASE 16-011. The applicant is Surf and Turf, LLC and the agent is Doreece Mutch. Request a rezone of Lot 1, Sawmill Subdivision from C-Conservation to I-Industrial (KIBC 17.205). The location is 1667 Monashka Bay Road and the zoning is C- Conservation. Note: 6 public hearing notices were mailed on December 15 and 1 response was received. COMMISSIONER PAINTER MOVED to recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezone of Lot 1, Sawmill Subdivision from C-Conservation District to I-Industrial District and to adopt the findings of fact listed in the staff report entered into the record for this case as "Findings of Fact"for Case No. 16-011. Director Pederson stated as you know the commission and the assembly recently adopted the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this site to correct (inaudible) like the other case on tonight's agenda to correct an error In the Comp Plan Update in 2008 that got the mapping wrong. Although the zoning is correct as Conservation, it is now the future land use designation is Industrial so as we put forth in our staff report we think it's appropriate that this property be rezoned to Industrial. It's conistant with the Comp Plan and there are adequate buffers in place with the greenbelt area of the borough owned property to the north and northeast of this site. There's also a platted greenbelt designation on Lot 2 of Sawmill Subdivision that paralells the Monashka Bay Road there. It also reflects the long standing Industrial and Business uses of this property and we recommend approval. Open public hearing: None Close public hearing: CHAIR ARNDT stated he'd like to see an amendment that returns the $1000 application fee on this case because the Old Harbor Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone change was handled with one fee. It's only appropriate that this fee be refunded because they paid $1000 fee for the Comp Plan Amendment. COMMISSIONER SPALINGER MOVED TO AMEND the motion to refund the $1000 application fee for this case due to already paying the $1000 fee for the Comp Plan Amendment. Director Pederson said he will take that as a recommendation to the Manager because the fees are not part of what the Planning and Zoning Commission does so we will be glad to make that recommendation to the Manager. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The rezone will recognize long standing industrial uses on this site. 2. The lot is of sufficient area and provides suitable building sites for industrial use. 3. The lot is adjacent to I-Industrial zoned land and uses. 4. Adequate buffers between'°this lot and nearby residential development are established by ordinance and plat restrictions. 5. The lot appears to be capable of accommodating the full range of industrial uses without negatively impacting the surrounding area. The I-Industrial zoning performance standards listed in KIBC 17.105.060 should further ensure that there are no negative impacts with future industrial development. 6. The rezone is consistent with the adopted 2008 Comprehensive Plan Industrial/Light Industrial Future Land Use Designation and plan guidance for identifying new industrial locations. The rezone will also further implement various objectives of the plan. 7. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Borough Assembly approve this rezone. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 5 ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY D) CASE 16-012. The applicant is N&F Properties, LLC/Wilfredo and Yolanda Taboy and the agent is Stephen Foreman. Request a rezone of Lots 10 thru 13, Block 31, East Addition Subdivision from R2-Two-family Residential to R-3 Multifamily Residential (KIBC 17.205). The location is 910 and 914 Rezanof Drive East and the zoning is R2-Two-family Residential. Note: 48 public hearing notices were mailed on December 15 and 1 response was received. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezone of Lots 10 thru 13, Block 31, East Addition Subdivision from R2-Two-family Residential District to R-3 Multifamily Residential District and to adopt the findings of fact listed in the staff report entered into the record for this case as "Findings of Fact"for Case No. 16-012. Maker stated this is a request to rezone four lots from R2-Two-family Residential to R3- Multifamily Residential. The four lots in question have been developed as two parcels since the late 1960's, which is explained more thoroughly in the written staff report. A multi-family residence is established on each parcel. Both structures are currently legal nonconforming uses in R2 zoning. Rezoning the parcels to R3 would be an extension of adjacent R3 zoning to the west of the site. The rezone would extinguish the non-conforming uses and allow for expansion of the existing multi-family residences, provided all requirements of current zoning code could be satisfied. The rezone would also allow both structures to be reconstructed as multi-family residences should either structure ever be destroyed by fire or other means, which is prohibited as currently zoned. It is important to note that the rezone will not bind the applicants to the existing multi-family dwelling use. Once rezoned, any use permitted in R3 zoning may be established on either of the parcels provided all requirements of current zoning code could be met. The rezone is consistent with the objectives of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and satisfies the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code for amendments and changes. Staff recommends that the Commission forward this rezone request to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER PAINTER stated other than the non-conforming use, they have essentially taken, and these are two different applicants applying for the same thing, so there's a line from facing the school from this lot, either Lot 10 or 13 past all the way down is R3, and then it starts Lots 13, 12, 11, 10 which is the four we are talking about and all the way down is R2. So what they are saying is we want to be R3 even though the lot sizes are so small, we're talking 4000 sq. feet and then you can go up to twelve units in R3, then you have parking to contend with. COMMISSIONER PAINTER is for progress but she doesn't see how this is doable, and she thinks we're giving something that makes no sense. If they were to delineate the lot lines and make Lots 10 and 11 one lot and rezone to R3, and then turn Lots 12 and 13 into one lot and rezone, that's one thing but what they are asking for is four lots that are 4000 feet essentially with one being 4500, they want individual R3's for those lots and she's wondering where all the parking is. Because there's no site plan, no discussion on parking, it's yes they want but what have they produced to show any plans at all other than they want to rezone. Director Pederson stated first of all each property owner owns two lots and the structure straddles the property line so by operation of code and long standing legal opinion in the borough they are de-facto replatted into one lot so as long as that structure remains they are treated as one lot for all purposes, for subdivision purposes, for assessment purposes, and all those things. Only if the structures were to burn down and be destroyed then they would be considered separate lots and they would have to vacate it to rebuild over the lot line or potentially rebuild on the individual lots but they wouldn't be able to get more than one unit because there is a minimum square footage per dwelling unit in the R3 zoning district. Even in the event they burned down and they wished to redevelope the four lots separately it looks to be that they would only be the size to get one or maybe a duplex but none of the four lots would be Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 6 big enough to get a three-plex on if the existing lots were burned down or removed. There's no requirement to show any future development plans in a rezone because you can't condition the rezone, the fundamental issue here is they are grandfathered and they are legally non- conforming. Every so often fairly routinely we get requests from realtors, title companies, or insurance companies wanting a letter that if this burns down could they rebuild it when it's non- conforming and we can't give them that letter because the code is very clear that if it's destroyed in that fashion it could only be rebuilt in accordance with code so that sometimes creates a financing or insurance problem for folks. The only way to cure that is to rezone it. There are already multi-family structures on each lot and Maker went into some detail during the work session about the parking spaces there and the number of units. In a practical sense it would be very difficult to add another unit to either lot because of the parking restrictions. That would be a limiting factor but it helps both property owner's with the structures they have today. Maker stated should the rezone be approved and either of the buildings destroyed any reconstruction would have to meet the requirements of current code including all the parking requirements. As Director Pederson said if they do not vacate those lot lines they would not be able to get more than maybe a duplex, and he even doubts a duplex but a single-family residence because you have to have three off-street parking spaces. Both buildings right now are grandfathered with less parking than required and the expansion would require w additional spaces per unit and all the maneuvering area has to be on that property so it would be a challenge as he pointed out in the staff report to develop parking for any expansion of these units. One of the big things is that they could be reconstructed as a triplex and during that reconstruction process he spoke with the Building Department, they would be required to vacate the line because of the fact that now they cant issue a building permit to go over that line without firewalls down the middle of it, and if they were destroyed only a duplex would be able to go on each parcel that means that you would be losing an extra rental unit in Kodiak. CHAIR ARNDT said Maker went over it but he doesn't see it attached in the packet is a parking plan but you had talked about it. ARNDT was trying to figure out how and where they are going to park. First he would like Maker to go over that again and then answer the question as to why there's not a parking plan submitted. Maker stated there is no record of zoning compliance on the construction of these because they have been around so long, there's no parking plan in either property file. He did state last time that the one tri-plex is grandfathered with three off-street parking spaces. The other four-plex is actually a tri-plex with an apartment above an attached garage. The tri-plex is grandfathered with three off-street parking spaces. The apartment is grandfathered and was built in 1978, at that time the code required two off-street parking spaces. No parking plan is on file. This will make the use conforming but they will still be non-conforming due to the parking. If they were ever destroyed or they want to expand they would have to bring in a parking plan showing their grandfather parking and the two additional parking spaces per unit. He can only see the possibility of maybe one of them adding one unit in the bottom of that garage in the four-plex but it will take extensive excavation with retaining walls in order to improve the yard and provide those additional parking spaces and the maneuvering area where they don't back out onto the right-of-way. It would be very difficult for them to expand where the possibly lies is if they were ever destroyed and rebuilt then they would have to have the required parking. In response to CHAIR ARNDT'S inquiry of is there anything in the file on either of these properties where there had been any letters sent by the borough, Maker stated yes, he can't give the exact date but he can say that former Planner Martin Lydick did the research and verified they are both grandfathered and those letters are in each property file. In response to CHAIR ARNDT'S inquiry of about how long are you thinking, Maker said he would say in the 90's. In response to COMMISSIONER PAINTER'S inquiry regarding the application what is it they want, what is it they are trying to accomplish, is it because they can't get insurance, what are Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 7 they trying to clean up, and essentially what it says is this would allow an expansion of the exsiting multi-family dwelling units through construction of additional units so their plan is to improve the property by increasing the units, and the two different ones-N&F Properties and Wilfredo and Yolanda Taboy are two separate owners with one owning Lot 10 and 11 and the other owning Lots 12 and 13. So both separate parties are planning to do the same thing according to this application, can you clarify that, Maker said he will say that there has been no permits been put in because they wouldn't be able to do that. When N&F Properties approached him this was their idea. Maker explained to them that parking was going to be an extreme challenge and he also explained to them one of the advantages even if you weren't able to expand would be the fact that you could rebuild as a tri-plex or multi-family residence provided you met all the requirements of current code. He clearly explained to him that parking was going to be a challenge. The neighbors joined in on the rezone because N&F Properties approached Maker who said it would be unlikely we would recommend approval if it went R3, R3, R3, R2, R3. The Taboys felt it was worthwhile due to the fact that they could rebuild and it is a big thing with regards financing when they come in they can't get financing because it can't be rebuilt as a tri-plex, it would have to be rebuilt as a duplex. That's one of the advantages right there if they ever wanted to sell they avoid that difficulty with receiving financing and if it's ever destroyed it could be rebuilt as multi-family residence. Director Pederson stated our standard caveat that we would in any rezone regardless of what the intent may be, the rezone is appropriately evaluated under consistency with the Comp Plan and any of the permitted uses of the R3 district could be possibly sought by an applicant and as in any case any other property they would have to demonstrate compliance with the code in order to get a zoning compliance for any of uses. COMMISSIONER PAINTER said she wants to do this to help people but it's almost like you know I want to rezone just in case something happens. She's having a difficult time saying yes to this because there's nothing specific, no real plan, there's once upon a time this could happen and then if we rezone everything is fine. Everthing is tine now; they are grandfathered and nothing has happened. She could see if something happened and there needed to be a change but you are wasting our time. Maker pointed out that the rezone recognizes these long standing non-conforming uses that have harmoniously co-existed within the area for decades. COMMISSIONER PAINTER stated along with the other twelve to fifteen along that street right next to them, why don't we just give it to all, blanket all the through if it's this great need. It's going to this one, the next one, the next one, and then parking and parking and parking. Again it's almost like we are saying let's do this so just in case something happens. She is against this and will be voting no. Open public hearing: None Close public hearing: ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION FAILED 3-3. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS ARNDT, ALTENHOF, and SCHMITT. The noes were COMMISSIONERS BALDWIN, PAINTER, and SPALINGER. E) CASE 16-013. The applicant is the Kodiak Island Borough. Request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation of Seaview Subdivision and Lash Dock Tideland Lease (a portion of unsurveyed fractional Section 21, Township 28 South, Range 20 West, Seward Meridian) from Conservation to Industrial/Light Industrial (KIBC 17.205). The location is W. Rezanof Drive and the zoning is I-Industrial. Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 8 Note: 20 public hearing notices were mailed on December 15 and 1 response was received. COMMISSIONER SPALINGER MOVED to recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough assembly approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation of Seaview Subdivision Lots 1A through 22A, USS 2539 Old Shipyard-Womans Bay Parcels A & B, and Lash Dock Tideland Lease from Conservation to Industrial/Light Industrial (KIBC 17.205)and to adopt the findings of fact listed in the staff report entered into the record for this case as "Findings of Fact"for Case No. 16-013. Sara Mason stated this future land designation change was requested by the Kodiak Island Borough to eliminate a mapping error in the 2008 Comp Plan. The subject parcels are designated Conservation in the plan. Prior to adoption of the plan the future land use of the area was designated Industrial per an ordinance passed in 1981. The area was zoned Industrial in 1981 as well. As indicated in a July 2013 memo provided in your packet as Exhibit C to the assembly. Staff believes that the identification of these parcels as having a future land use designation of Conservation was an administrative oversight and that amending the adopted 2008 maps is necessary. The subject parcels are zoned Industrial with exception only to the LASH Dock Tideland Lease which is zoned Conservation. All parcels that are not vacant are currently supporting Industrial or Business uses though the LASH Tideland Lease is zoned Conservation the property in past and present been used in support of Industrial activities. Land adjacent to the subject parcels is vacant Conservation land and vacant RR1-Rural Residential 1 land. Womens Bay and the Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak lie to the east. Development in the immediate area has been Industrial or Business but most RR1 and Conservation zoned lots with the exception of the LASH Tideland Lease are currently vacant. The proposed amendment with land use is consistant with land use and economic goals identified in the 2008 Camp Plan and staff recommends the amendment is consistant with the Comp Plan and satisfies the requirement of Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code for Amendments and Changes. Staff recommends that the commission forward this Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to the assembly for recommendation for approval. In response to COMMISSIONER PAINTER'S inquiry of it's her understanding that the Kodiak Island Borough is the applicant, not the owner's of the land, the owner's of the land have not asked for this amendment change or rezone essentially but the borough is requesting that, Mason we requested the future land use change, we haven't requested to change the zoning. In response to COMMISSIONER PAINTER'S inquiry of it's basically one in the same because one follows the other, Mason said it's already zoned Industrial with the exception of the LASH Tideland Lease which is zoned Conservation, all of the Seaveiw Subdivision is zoned Industrial, it has been with the exception of one lot which was rezoned Business at one point and then rezoned back to Industrial with the exception of Lot 21 in this subdivision the entire subdivision has been zoned Industrial since 1981. The future land use just doesn't match the zoning. Director Pederson left the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Open public hearing: Michael Brechan stated if this thing had started out saying " we made an error in the Comprehensive Plan instead of (inaudible) over the paperwork" Brechan probably wouldn't be quite so offended. Of late the borough has taken a couple of really cheap shots at his corporation and the one he represents and he gets tired of that. He questions seriously how this body can zone a piece of land that we lease from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and have done so since back in the 80's that is still zoned Conservation, and if you are going to do that then you say you are pro-development, why don't you zone the bottom of the bay Industrial out in front of our property and the rest of that because it's still owned by the Coast Guard now or they say. It looks to him that he's just been a target of something that doesn't do much good for anything besides waste his time. He doesn t think this is something that, it was done in 2008 and they are just now getting to it, pretty serious questions of what staff has been looking at as of late so he takes offense to it and he expects that the commission will pass it but he doesn't Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 9 think it's correct. He questions seriously how you can zone a piece of property that we filled, developed, and built but the land is still owned by the Federal Government and if you are going to do that does the next person who wants to get a tideland tract lease there have to come to you first to get a zoning permit before he turns around to apply for the rest of the things he would have to do. Brechan's been around long enough to remember the Office of Governmental Coordination by the State of Alaska so that you could deal with the Coast Guard, Fish & Wildlife Service, National Maritime Association and he forgets who else was involved when built that property because there was a need in this town for another dock besides Sealand. When we came in there the (inaudible) on Industrial commodities came down by 50% to 60% because it was cheaper to bring it in by barge. He doesn't think Light Industrial has anything to do with it, he thinks that's a new idea from the borough and we don't think much of that either. He will answer any questions the commission may have. COMMISSIONER PAINTER's inquiry of does Mr. Brechan know his lot number because she's trying to figure out which lot is his, Brechan said Lots A and Tract A and B of LISS 2928/2939 or whatever it is, that's the one we owned originally and originally we owned it all. We bought it all from Koniag and all the uplands to go with it, then we got a tideland lease to be able to fill in the area that is shown on this map as Conservation which was done a long time ago. We bought the whole thing from Koniag somewhere around 1982, we leased it from them first to get started,it was the old shipyard. It's a unique piece of property, this is why when they talk about future land use, this was done right after the earthquake and tidal wave in 64' and the community needed a shipyard. As it turns out his late father in law, Ab Stuart, was in the Navy and got this property to where that(inaudible) could buy it, then Koniag bought it and they had a shipyard there during that time and left the facilities which we took out. During that time, it was unique when the Navy got all this property under a PLL so the Navy owned the bottom of the bay, the roads, the State of Alaska only got an easement for the highway and that's all they have, and it's subject to question because the original documents say they got a 100 foot right- of-way down the centerline of the existing road, the State of Alaska changed that about 1986 claiming that something of an onslezedak which they could never prove to us so they made it 100 foot each side of centerline. Here we had a piece of property that we paid for a whole bunch of acres that we have to lease part of it back from the State of Alaska. It's confusing, it's one of those things that happened in the old days. We have been fighting this battle for a long time and he's just trying to make sure that we aren't getting our foot into another one. This thing with the tidelands, if you are going to say we can zone that and maybe you should zone the rest of it to give us some more Industrial land, it takes an act of Congress for us to get a permit to build anything. He doubts if you will see anymore marine development out there because he doesn't think you can get a permit under the current regime to build anything. We tried for five years on Shannon Point and then gave up because we couldn't make it happen. Close public hearing: Commission discussion In response to COMMISSIONER PAINTER'S request for clarification on the image overlay map that kind of depicts the various properties that are under question here and Lot 23 that is that long piece right by the tidelands and then after that there's two more parcels that she assumed are A and B because they are not marked, Mason said she's only seeing 21 and 22, Seaveiw Subdivision was Lots 1 through 22, you are right there are two lots that are not Tabled, if you look at the location and zoning map just before that there's the one shown in white is the tideland lease that Mr. Brechan spoke of and then next to that is the old shipyard. CHAIR ARNDT gave Mr. Brechan the opportunity to clarify that. Mr. Brechan said it's confusing. When we originally subdivided that tract of land they decided that the best way to do it was to define it by the centerline of the existing proposed highway because what is drawn on the plat is not anywhere close to what the real road looks like. That's what they did so when we sold the lots on the uphill side of the property everyone owns a 100 Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 10 foot piece of the ground under that State Highway and everyone on the LASH side owns a 100 foot piece and that is where Lot 21 and 21A or 22, two long skinny lots through there and that is actually the right-of-way. We made Lot 21A so that it was defined by the actual property and took out that long skinny lot and subdivided. That property is the Shannon Point has since been sold and to make everything work we had to do the other one and merge it with old shipyard (inaudible) so it shows that we own the rough land underneath the highway which is quite confusing. In response to COMMISSIONER PAINTER'S inquiry to Mr. Brechan is what she is understanding is is that it is zoned what it is zoned Industrial with the exception to the tideland lease she doesn't know what that is zoned, CHAIR ARNDT said it's Conservation so what they want to do basically is say "The Comp Plan that is the bible is kind of messed up so what they want to do is change the map color to show it's consistent with what they have of record, it's not doing anything other than changing the Comp Plan, that's her understanding with, currently it's saying it's Industrial, that's what it's zoned and that's what it is legally with the exception of the tideland lease that is Conservation currently and she's assuming that it's going to be changed to Industrial, can you clarify that, Mason stated we don't having any plans on initiating a rezone, that tideland lease has been used for Industrial purposes for decades, it's grandfathered, we don't want to touch the zoning at all, it's just that the assembly in 2013 when there was a rezone of Lot 21A, questioned why they should approve a rezone from Business to Industrial when the future land use identified is Conservation, and the 2008 plan having those subject parcels shown as Conservation really was an oversight because there was an ordinance past in 81' that said that the future land use of this property was to be Industrial and there was no ordinance past to change it to Conservation but it was changed to Conservation by virtue of the fact that the assembly approved the maps in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan so we don't want to touch the zoning at all. We realize that the tideland lease is shown as Conservation and we have no plans on changing that. COMMISSIONER PAINTER told Mr. Brechan that he has this on record now that is not their intent to change that portion that is currently zoned Conservation to rezone it to Industrial. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT said his intent in voting is to clear up a problem with the Comp Plan and he looks at the Findings of Fact and he thinks they are short and sweet. In response to CHAIR ARNDT'S inquiry if there was any other property in the area heading out towards Bells Flats that has problems including the fairgrounds, Mason said currently the Seaview Estates Subdivision which is zoned RR1 is also shown as Conservation in terms of future land use in the 2008 Comp Plan. She doesn't know if those lots meet the minimum lot size requirements in the Conservation zone. In response to CHAIR ARNDT'S question of why did that not come forward, Mason stated we wanted to address Seaview Subdivision first because the assembly specifically asked that staff address that. In response to CHAIR ARNDT'S question of how long ago was that that staff was asked that question, how many years, Mason said 2 '/z years. CHAIR ARNDT stated he doesn't like getting surprises and he would prefer that the commission is made abreast of these kinds of things that are going to come forward rather than all of a sudden they show up in a packet. He would rather it's done in some discussion at a work session or something because this is not making him very happy to see that we are going to be looking at another piecemeal deal. Jack Maker stated that one of the reasons we're finding these Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map issues is because we have been cleaning up the zoning maps. We've been creating zoning maps like in the Boy Scout Lake area that did not exist and we've been doing the future land use maps, and we're scrutinizing them and finding that errors were made in the 2008 plan. It doesn't reflect the current zoning in some areas so he believes there will be more of these Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 11 Comp Plan Amendments to correct these errors on behalf of the borough and their adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Maker said what we will do before bringing those forward is making sure that you are aware of them. It isn't something that can really be attacked all at once to bring forward several different staff reports at one meeting but you want a heads up that they are coming. CHAIR ARNDT said these are adjacent and he takes issue with not knowing that we are looking at another one coming forward, that was not brought up in the work session. He's feeling a little blindsided here as the applicant was. Maker said he will have a discussion with the director and when we look at these Comp Plan Future Land Use Map Amendments in the future that if there are any adjoining/adjacent near by ones that we will combine them. COMMISSIONER PAINTER said as we are doing this she thinks it is only fair, especially Mr. Brechan has had this lease for so long and then the Kodiak Island Borough comes along and says this is what we are going to do, take it or leave it, she can understand where there would be some concern. It's kind of like the cocoanut game,where is it, where is it. There's always something underlying usually so it's a little scary as an owner or lessee what is going to take place. She understands the cleanup and the necessity of that but when you are dealing with the public in the future for the other particulars just notify them to let them know that there was a screwup on the borough's behalf and that you are just trying to clean it up. Just be blunt and be honest; we screwed up and we are very sorry, it's not going to change your zoning. Do it in a letter because they need it in a letter, in writing so they have some security. You wil solve a lot of problems and a lot of people's time. CHAIR ARNDT said it also helps if you don't have an Enforcement Officer going out there saying things that weren't accurate to begin with. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject parcels were developed for industrial uses and have been consistently used for industrial purposes for several decades. 2. Each of the subject parcels is of sufficient area and is capable of providing suitable building sites for a range of industrial uses. 3. The amendment is not in conflict with the goals and objectives of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. 4. The amendment is necessary to eliminate a mapping error in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. 5. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Borough Assembly approve this Comprehensive Plan amendment. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED 5-1. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS BALDWIN, ALTENHOF, PAINTER, SCHMITT, AND SPALINGER. The noe was COMMISSIONER A RND T. F) CASE 16-007 (Postponed from the February 17, 2016 Regular Meeting for lack of quorum). The applicant is the Kodiak Island Borough. Request an ordinance amending KIBC Chapters 17.25 (Definitions) and 17.160 (Accessory Buildings) to include development standards for accessory dwelling units in the Borough. This ordinance will also amend the following KIBC Chapters to specifically list accessory dwelling units as a permitted use: • 17.50 (C-Conservation District) • 17.60 (RR2-Rural Residential Two District) • 17.65 (RR-Rural Residential District) • 17.70 (RR1-Rural Residential One District) • 17.75 (R1-Single-family Residential District) • 17.80 (1112-Two-family Residential District) Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 12 The location is Borough-wide and the zoning is certain residential zoning Districts. Motion on the Table from the January 20, 2016 regular meeting was: COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to recommend that the Assembly of the Kodiak Island Borough approve the ordinance amending KIBC Chapters 17.25 (Definitions) and 17.160 (Accessory Buildings), and related Chapters of Title 17 (Zoning) to include the standards for accessory dwelling units in the Borough and to specifically list accessory dwelling units as a permitted use in all residential zoning districts, and to adopt the findings of fact listed in the staff report entered into the record for this case as "Findings of Fact"for Case No. 16-007. Motion to Amend approved at the January 20, 2016 regular meeting was: COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED TO AMEND by substitution the attached ordinance amending Chapter 17.25 KIBC Definitions and 17.160 Accessory Buildings and related Chapters of Title 17 Zoning to include development standards for accessory dwelling units in the borough. Staff recommends that Case No. 16-007 be postponed to the May 18, 2016 regular meeting to allow borough and city staff additional time to research potential impacts. - Note: To allow the provision of additional information and facilitate further Commission discussion, staff will ensure the case is placed on the March and April agendas as an old business item. Maker stated we did not have a quorum at last month's meeting so this is a continuance of the third public hearing on ADU's. Your packet includes all information to date, the most recent information being the Community Development Director's response letters from letters from City Mayor Branson dated February 10'h and recommended language from City Fire Chief Mullican to address access for emergency services providers. At last month's work session there appeared to be agreement by the commission to postpone the public hearing until the May 18th regular meeting. Open public hearing: Steven Foreman called in for Case 16-012. That case was already heard and the commission did not take public testimony. Leo Kouremetis stated he wanted to make sure the commission has the packet dated March 3`d. He and his wife have lived on Woodland Drive for over forty years. They bought the property because of the zoning; one acre, single-family, and low density. Allowing ADU's in this neighborhood is an infringement of their property rights. What is proposed is a sweeping zone change, it is not a code change. He wanted to make that clear because he's stated it man times. He was appalled to see a public hearing comment which was submitted on February W by the Borough Mayor's wife, Brenda Friend. In her testimony, which he believes is over the line, included photos of our buildings, shop, and storage shed that was built forty years ago. She stated these are accessory dwelling units. These allegations of illegality are completely false. These photos were posted on facebook and the borough website falsely calling them ADU's on his property. If you look on page 367 you will see Friend's quote. She stated "here's our neighbor's home which clearly has accessory dwellings." In addition she attached photos that are on pages 368 and 369. The Borough Mayor's wife's statement is an outright lie. He did not and tried not to make this a personal issue but to speak to the issue only as we have done in the past. How did we get to this mean stage? What was stated and published openly is false. There is no picture of his home and the pictures shown are of his storage shed and shop. He has no accessory dwellings and never have. In order to set the record straight he is considering a law suit against Brenda Friend for these lies that have been published all over the community making it look like we have done something illegal. We are trying to protect the integrity of our neighborhood. This has gone far enough. Reject this ordinance and find some land for these people that need it. Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 13 Ginny Shank stated she has lived on Woodland Drive since 1982. As you know from previous testimony she is against this ordinance. She's always felt that this goes way beyond a code change. She does believe that it is a rezone. She quoted the letter that Mr. Pederson wrote to the City Mayor and Council in response to the letters that the City sent to the Planning Office and to you, keep in mind that words don't change the facts. "At the present R1, RR1, RR, and RR2 allow for low density single-family housing." Mr Pederson wrote in that letter of February 271h "the ordinance states that ADU's are not intended to allow a two-family residence in the R1 zoning district" and that does not make any sense to her because in effect it will allow them in an R1 zoning district. There's a fact that ADU's allow for duplexes and two separate family dwellings in R1 zoning districts. She doesn't understand his take on that. About the notice because you feel this is not a zoning change, this is a code change that the Planning Office has not felt the need to notify everybody that's involved and owns property that this affects. She believes that notice should go to all affected property owner's, Pederson denied that in this letter saying this is a code change and doesn't require individual notice. However, it seems that because of the objections that she, Kouremetis, and other people have been raising the commission has seen clear way to get the word out more. Why? Because it should have been done in the first place because it's a far reaching ordinance effecting many, many property owner's. As you know, you have done more getting this information and notice about this ADU ordinance than she's ever seen on any other ordinance that P&Z has tried to pass. Why is that? It's because it's a far reaching ordinance that affects many, many people that just weren't getting the information including the fact that you apparently, this notice was posted at places around town. When she seen it she thought you don't even know, it doesn t even say who put this up and it is very much slanted in favor of this is going to do a lot of good so you better show up and support it. It is stated "why incorporate development standards for ADU's into the KIB Zoning Code" quote "There is a growing awareness of the need for additional affordable and workhouse options in Kodiak once the closure of Jackson's Mobile Home Park etc., we've heard it all. However, in a later paragraph in Mr. Pederson's letter to the City he says "since the borough has not adopted housing powers the ADU proposal is not intended to create an affordable housing program." This ordinance has been marketed as a way to help solve this problem and then Pederson turns around and says "this proposal is not intended to create an affordable housing program." She doesn't get it. She is on her way after this meeting to the Borough Assembly/City Council Joint Work Session now. She was happy that Mark Kozak from Public Works came to the P&Z work session two sessions ago and entered the discussion into the information about how the effect of increasing population density in some areas could possibly be a problem for the services so she's hoping that you as a commission will truly postpone the decision on forwarding it to the borough assembly until after all of that information has come together and can reach some conclusions that makes sense. Dan Ogg stated he's been a resident of Kodiak for many decades. This ordinance as written could benefit him, he has property that would be rezoned and he used the word rezone because it"s not a code change. It's RR1 property and instead of one building on it he could build two buildings. Even though he could benefit from it he does not support this ordinance. He got a copy of a letter from the Planner Pederson and he was addressing some of the questions in the letter from the City Mayor and all City Council Members unanimously. One of the items he talked about was: "Is there a need to define affordable and workforce housing or to conduct an analysis of housing needs? We believe the answer to this question is no." Draft ordinance does not attempt to define the terms of affordable housing or workforce housing. He's curious since he put down "we", this is a letter from the planner, he doesn't recollect the Planning Commission taking that position. The letter from the City of Kodiak was to the Planning Commission. He's curious whether or not you approved Pederson to write those motions. His concern is that people have come forward to the commission and asked that these particular questions "please define those terms, let's know what we are talking about, let's have some specificity so we can know what this plan is about. The planner is telling the city and possibly us you're not going to get an answer to that and you don't deserve one. He's refusing to answer those questions. Ogg took a little time to talk to one of the people in the Assessing Department to try to get some data Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 14 because there was no data to look at. He heard that he missed it because of a hockey tournament, they do have data on housing needs presented to you orally at the last work session. There are 1,030 RR1 properties, and 247 vacant lots. In RR2, mostly Chiniak there are 37 lots and it's not clear how many are vacant. In RR there are 60 lots which is Woodland Drive with a few vacant lots there. In R1 section of the city and borough there are 1,541 lots with 300 vacant. In R2 there are 1,149 lots with 149 vacant, and 630 of those R2 lots have a single-family residence on them, 128 of those lots have a mother-in-law apartment. Presently there are 779 R2 lots that may be developed into "ADU type housing" under the present code. Presently about 547 available lots to be developed in the RR1 are to be developed into small housing or something else that this ordinance is trying to do. It's interesting to know that there's a couple of areas in the packet that Commission Painter submitted some information about a HUD Report talking about ADU's but he has the report from February 5'" so his pages are different from what the commission have. On page 186 it's talking about municipalities that adopted ADU's and the programs, many of these programs were not very successful as they lacked flexability in scoping. He thinks that we need to take a look at that, it's not all roses. On page 195 talking about the case studies and they are talking about all the case studies in that report. The examples provided in the previous section involved communities that have to rely on an existing housing stock to meet rising demand either due to lack of developable land or strict growth management regulations. Kodiak doesn't have either of those two problems. Also presented was this census data that shows the population growth between 1990 and 2014 in the borough six-hundred-seventy-seven people, housing units increased in that timeframe 442 units. Population growth between 2000 and 2014, seventy-three people, housing growth in that period one-hundred-sixty-eight housing units. That's more than two houses per person. In the Chamber of Commerce Survey 58% of the people wanted single-family homes or starter single- family homes. They want to live in single-family neighborhoods. For multi-family condo townhouses, 36% said they want to live in. It's interesting to note that nobody wanted to live in two-family housing. Most of the people in that report want more borough land, they think that's the solution. What the data tends to show is it's unmistakenly clear that if this stage of our communities development there's no need for this ordinance. There's plenty of land and plenty of opportunities to build the type of housing that you are trying to do. It's not happening. If this ordinance is adopted, and here's the hidden thing that nobody is talking about, it will have a catastrophic effect on R2 property. The ordinance will increase R2 stock by 2,668 huts, that's three and one half the times the existing stock of R2 property. He hopes the commission postpones this until they get proper data to see if there is support for this ordinance but what he seen is the proper thing would be to reject it. Close public hearing: COMMISSIONER PAINTER said she's in favor of this small, affordable and environmentally friendly form of housing. It doesn't mean that you have to do it. This text amendment doesn't say that everyone has to do this, what it is saying for some of the people that live in your neighborhood, we're allowing more freedom of the use of your land, that you could have a backyard cottage, that your adult child that lives with you could live there harmoniously, or your care giver can live there to take care of you because now you are old. There's so many positives to this. It's a very small footprint; we're talking about 650 square foot. A little backyard cottage that must meet the required setbacks for that district. It's not imposing anything on anyone and she has a problem with that. She doesn't see how we as citizens of Kodiak can so adamantly oppose something so positive for young folks, old folks, it could help so many people. CHAIR ARNDT said at the work session last week staff had some preliminary information on what was potentially available in the Aleutian Homes area and is continuing to work on additional data to bring forward at the May meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to postpone Case No. 16-007 to the May 18, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting. Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 15 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT said ideally this will give the city enough time to figure out what is going on and get back to us so we can react appropriately. COMMISSIONER ALTENHOF said his concern with this is that May 18th may not be long enough, and the reason he mentioned it is that there are a number of issues that need to be clarified more fully. In light of both comments made tonight and the fact that there are bits and pieces of information that seem to be dribbling in that make this almost like death by a thousand cuts. We're not getting a package of compelling information that at this point would make him nod his head and say that this is a good thing. He will vote to postpone but he wonders if this is long enough. He urged the rest of the commissioners to begin thinking about exactly what blanks there are in this presentation and in this proposal because once this is done, it's a wide ranging proposal. It's borough-wide and will have a big impact, perhaps far greater than simply accommodating the needs of teenagers, recent graduates, grandma and grandpa who need to live someplace which he understands that and he's not opposed to that but it has far more reaching affects than he thinks what we are recognizing currently. CHAIR ARNDT said we will hear back from the city and staff is working on additional information. We don't want everything piecemealed in April and he wants it to come forward in May so we will be refreshed on it and basically go over it again because basically he has concerns too. There are some things that he doesn't like and is not convinced of. The concept is good but it's in the details. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY OLD BUSINESS A) Discussion on amendments to Title 17 KIBC (Zoning) to establish development standards for a Small Lot Subdivision Zoning District. Maker stated there's no new information. This is the packet that was presented at the work session and we didn't get around to discussing it. It will carry forward to the next meeting. COMMISSIONER PAINTER stated she thinks the Small Lot development and the PUD should probably be in the same category as the ADU issue as far as the water and sewer. If there is a true problem she doesn't see how these are going to go through. The city is researching the potential for a problem now. The commission directed staff to put the Small Lot Subdivisions and PUD's on the May agenda and not on the April Agenda. B) Background information on Planned Unit Developments C) Tract R-2, Killarney Hills Subdivision Planning Discussion - Placeholder COMMISSIONER SCHMITT said he made the request at last week's work session to move this item into New Business for next month. The last page is sort of the flow chart timeline if we have things happening in March but we wouldn't potentially do anything with it. Are you going to move that out further? Mason stated the schedule will be changed accordingly. NEW BUSINESS None COMMUNICATIONS A) Letter of Courtesy&Advisory dated 2/12/2016 B) Letter of Courtesy&Advisory dated 2/25/2016 C) Requirements for KIB Code Compliance Letter dated 2/25/2016 D) Letter of Courtesy& Advisory dated March 4, 2016 COMMISSIONER SPALINGER MOVED to acknowledge receipt of communications. Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 16 VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY REPORTS A. Meeting Schedule: • April 13, 2016 Work Session-6:30 p.m.-Borough Conference Room • April 20, 2016 Regular Meeting-6:30 p.m.-Assembly Chambers B. Minutes of Other Meetings • November 12, 2015 Parks and Recreation Committee Regular Meeting • December 22, 2015 Parks and Recreation Committee Regular Meeting COMMISSIONER SPALINGER MOVED to acknowledge receipt of reports. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY STAFF COMMENTS Maker stated he appreciates all the questions because you are bringing up good points. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (These are limited to three minutes per speaker) Agenda Items not scheduled for public hearing and general comments. Phone number: Local is 486-3231; Tall Free is 1-855-492-9202. None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Alan Schmitt stated he will be out of town for the April 13"' work session but he intends to be back for the April 20'n regular meeting. Jay Baldwin stated he may not be available for the April 13" work session. He will know when it get closer. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CHAIR ARNDT adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ONING CO PSION By: CO n Scott Arndt, Chair ATTEST , By: , Sheila Smith, Secrgiifj Community Development Department APPROVED: April 20, 2016 Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 17