Loading...
2016-01-20 Regular Meeting Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Regular Meeting &30 pm-Borough Assembly Chambers CALL TO ORDER CHAIR ARNDT called to order the January 20,, 2016 regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission at 6`32 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIR ARNDT led the pledge of allegiance, ROLL CALL Requested excusal was Jay Baldwin due to being sick,. Commissioners present were Scott Arndt„ Barry AQtenhof,, Maria Painter, Alan Schmitt, and Greg Spalinger. Excused was Jay Baldwin, A quorum was established. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to excuse Jay Baldwin. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Community Development Department staff present was Director Pederson, Jack Maker, Sheila Smith, and Sara Mason. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to approve the agenda. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER SPALINGER MOVED to approve the December 16, 2015 minutes. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY -....... - CITIZENS'COMMENTS (Limited to three minutes per speaker) Agenda Items not scheduled for public hearing and general comments. Local number is 486-3231; Toll Free is 1-855-492-9202. AP R i� None PUBLIC HEARINGS Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. Local number is 486-3231; Toll Free is 1-855-492-9202. A. CASE 16-004 (Postponed from the December 16, 2015 Regular Meeting). Request a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation of a t 8.26 acre portion of Tract B, U.S. Survey 4793 from Conservation to Industrial/Light Industrial(KIBC 17.205). The applicant is the City of Old Harbor.The location is Kizhuyak Drive, Old Harbor and the zoning is R1-Single-family Residential. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 1 Note:46 public hearing notices were mailed on November 4,2015 and 1 response have been received. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation of a t 28.9 acre portion of Tract B, U.S. Survey 4793 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. 16-004. Maker reported this request was postponed from the December 15, 2015 regular meeting so it could be heard at the same time as a rezone request for the same site (P&Z Case No. 16-009). Both requests are part of the City of Old Harbor's effort to increase economic development potential in the community. Efforts so far have included improvements to the harbor, dock, and airport facilities. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit was recently approved for a hydroelectric project that is expected to break ground in early 2017. To further improve economic development potential, Old Harbor hopes to rezone this site to I-Industrial to encourage industrial development that will benefit the local economy. This request to amend the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation of the site from Conservation to Industrial/Light Industrial is a necessary prerequisite to rezone the site from R1-Single-family Residential to I-Industrial. If the Future Land Use Designation is changed to Industrial/Light Industrial,the subsequent rezone request would be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Should the Comprehensive Plan be amended and the subsequent rezone approved, the City of Old Harbor could then seek permits to establish any permitted or conditional use in Industrial zoning. The City of Old Harbor has also agreed to the Commission's recommendation to expand the area of the site from t 8.26 acres to t 28.9 acres as shown in the written staff report. Staff has determined that no further advertisement is required for the expansion and the recommended motion has been updated accordingly. Staff has determined that the amendment is consistent with various objectives of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and satisfies the requirements of Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code for amendments and changes. Staff recommends that the Commission forward this request to the Borough Assembly with a recommendation for approval. Open public hearing: None for this case. Jonathan Strong called re: Case 16-007. His comments are under Case 16-007 public hearing. Close public hearing: During discussion, COMMISSIONER PAINTER inquired about the two different zoning designations„ which is due to a Comp Plan change and a rezone. Commission discussion FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The site is of sufficient area (t 28.9 acres) and is capable of providing suitable building sites for the full range of industrial uses. 2. The site is near compatible industrial development (AMHS ferry dock) and appears to be adequately separated from the nearest institutional and residential development (church, cemetery, vacant PHS building, and single-family residences). 3. The site appears to be capable of accommodating the full range of industrial uses without negatively impacting the surrounding area. The I-Industrial zoning performance standards (KIBC 17.105.060) should further ensure that there are no negative impacts with future industrial development. 4. The amendment is a necessary prerequisite to rezone the site from R1-Single-family Residential to (- Industrial.Approval of the amendment and a subsequent rezone will allow industrial development that will provide potential for economic growth within the community of Old Harbor. 5. The amendment is consistent with the adopted 2008 Comprehensive Plan guidance for identifying new industrial locations. The amendment will also facilitate a rezone that will further implement various objectives of the plan. 6. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Borough Assembly approve this Comprehensive Plan amendment. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 2 B. CASE 16-009. Request a Rezone of a +8.26 acre portion of Tract B, U.S. Survey 4793 from R1- Single-family Residential to (-Industrial (KIBC 17.195). The applicant is the City of Old Harbor. The location is Kizhuyak Drive,Old Harbor and the zoning is R7-Single-family Residential. Note: 46 public hearing notices were mailed on December 14 and 0 responses were received. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezone of a+28.9 acre portion of Tract B, U.S. Survey 4793 from R1-Single-family Residential District to 1-Industrial District(KIBC 17.195) 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. 16-004. Maker stated this rezone request follows the request to amend the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation of the site from Conservation to Industrial/Light Industrial. Should that amendment be approved the rezone would be consistent with the site's future land use designation and the same Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and implementation actions listed in the written staff report for the amendment request. The rezone also satisfies the requirements of Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code for amendments and changes. As was the case with the Comprehensive Plan amendment request, the recommended motion has been updated to reflect the expanded site area. Staff recommends that the Commission forward this rezone request to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly with a recommendation for approval. Open public hearing: None Close public hearing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The site is of sufficient area (t 28.9 acres) and is capable of providing suitable building sites for the full range of industrial uses. 2. The site is near compatible industrial development (AMHS ferry dock) and appears to be adequately separated from the nearest institutional and residential development (church, cemetery, vacant PHS building, and single-family residences). 3. The site appears to be capable of accommodating the full range of industrial uses without negatively impacting the surrounding area. The (-Industrial zoning performance standards (KIBC 17.105.060) should further ensure that there are no negative impacts with future industrial development. 4. Approval of the rezone will allow industrial development that will provide potential for economic growth within the community of Old Harbor. 5. The rezone is consistent with the adopted 2008 Comprehensive Plan guidance for identifying new industrial locations.The rezone will also further implement various objectives of the plan. 6. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Borough Assembly approve this rezone. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY C. CASE 16-007(Postponed from the December 16, 2015 Regular Meeting). 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(R2-Two-family Residential District) • 17.85(R3-Multi-family Residential District) The applicant is the Kodiak Island Borough.The location is borough wide and the zoning is all Residential Zoning Districts. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 3 Display ads were published in the newspaper on January 11th & 18th and the agenda was published on January fish. Motion on the table from the December 16,2015 regular meeting: 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. Director Pederson reported you have the cover memo that you just went through with a motion, the suggested substitute ordinance for Case 16-007.This ordinance reflects the concepts you talked about at the work session last week and those are highlighted in yellow on pages 4, 5, and 7 of that ordinance. Those are the areas that we revised the ordinance for substitution to reflect discussions at the work session. You also have a memorandum to the commission from him dated January 6th addressing some issues raised at the public hearing in December, and you have a copy of the legal opinion from the borough attorney on a question of notice on this issue. In addition, Sheila Smith handed out to you the comments received today. There's also COMMISSIONER PAINTER sent an email to Smith with suggestions for this ordinance. COMMISSIONER PAINTER had a parliamentary inquiry re: this motion that COMMISSIONER SCHMITT made, all should be removed in certain zoning districts should be in its place because we got rid of R-3. If she's going to make a 2nd amendment does she go ahead like she would do a regular amendment, Director Pederson stated the motion on the floor from December was to adopt the ordinance as you had in front of you on that date so now you have in front of you a suggested substitution so if you move to amend by substitution then this would be the ordinance on the floor for discussion and then if you wish to make any motions to amend it would be amending from this amended ordinance. 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. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Director Pederson stated the substitute ordinance would add under the intent language in 17.160070 on line 161, the language that ADU's are not intended to allow a two-family residence in the R1 zoning district and #2 ADU's are not intended to circumvent the parking requirements for a two-family dwelling(duplex) in the R2 zoning district. That was one of the concerns of the commission expressed at the work session. The next change was on that same subsection 17.160070 and this is C6 as to size limit. It reads within the Conservation, Rural Residential, Rural Residential One, and RR2 zoning districts and the ADU and it established the size limit of 800 square feet and in the R1 and R2 districts it established it as 650 square feet, and then in D under #6 an ADU an attached accessory building as follows from the changes above is limited to 800 square feet in the C, RR, RR1, and RR2 zoning districts and ADU's and attached accessory buildings in the R1 or R2 zoning districts are limited to 650 square feet. Then the language that was suggested last week, what Mr. Strong was talking about, #6E would read mobile homes, recreational vehicles, campers and travel trailers are not permitted to be used as an ADU. The last change was the very last line of the ordinance, on page 7 of 7, line 299; under the two- family residential district, it states accessory dwelling units when there is a single-family residence on the property, not a duplex to make that clear. The other change that you don't see is, because it was just stricken from the draft ordinance was taking out the R3 zoning district. Open public hearing: Jonathan Strong called in during Case 16-004 in support of ADU's. His concern is that a mobile home or a manufactured home unit cannot be an accessory dwelling unit and he asks that the commission consider that because some families can't afford to build a new construction accessory dwelling unit but if they had a mobile home that fit within the square footage requirement and is only one bedroom, one bathroom, and kitchen. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 4 Ginny Shank spoke in opposition stating she lives on Woodland Drive. She's of the opinion that this proposed ordinance should be considered a zoning change, not a code change since it affects all residential zones and now with the elimination of the R3's and will eliminate single-family low density neighborhoods designated in the Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan. The present situation is the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Borough Planning Office staff has persistently called this a code change only. However, if passed in its present form it will effectively eliminate all single-family dwelling neighborhoods since ADU's will be approved for all residential zones.Whatever happened to the Comprehensive Plan that labeled some areas low density for single-family residential? The attorney's opinion seems to be a matter of semantics to what zoning really is as opposed to code change and not really taking into consideration the long-term effects. Hypothetically, under the present zoning code a property owner on an RR or RR'I lot wants to build another dwelling on the property in addition to the one he lives in, he would first have to apply for a zoning change to R2 because of the zoning plus he would have to apply for a variance to the Comp Plan because what he wants to do is not in line with that plan. In addition, the borough would have to notify his neighbors about the plan and listen to neighbor's comments before making a ruling. Under this proposed code the same property owner does not have to apply for a zoning change, a variance to the Comp Plan, or notify his neighbors. To her this seems like bypassing the process that only has been put in place for the borough to ensure that orderly development takes place for the benefit of the whole island, which is the responsibility of Planning and Zoning. She would like to see the borough mail out notice to all effected property owners, all residential property owners in all zones except R3 now on the whole island. At least all affected property owners will have correct information about what this will mean. The Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning Office still needs to answer the questions that some of us have been asking since the first public hearing. What is the definition of affordable or workforce housing. Has a study been done on what the need really is? Has a study been done showing that the need for R2 property has economic analysis been done about the impact about this proposed ordinance? How about the impact on the existing infrastructure; sewer, water, garbage, and roads?The details of allowable height, placement of an ADU is not clear. Right now where she lives, she could build an ADU the size of an Aleutian home. Who is actually benefiting from this code change? People who want an ADU and want to bypass the present system? Do you really think this will help the people who have to move out of Jackson's Trailer Court? Creating a code like this because of non-compliance, people have said there are already a number of ADU's out there in residential areas so if we pass this then they will be in compliance. What kind of idea is that to pass an ordinance in order to bring those apartments into compliance? That seems like an enforcement problem and if this ordinance is passed, the Enforcement Officer is going to have a very hard time enforcing everything that you are containing in this code change. Look at the big picture, you may think there will not be any significant negative impact but you need to be thinking of the future. What will Kodiak look like in 20 years from now? It is you job to represent all of us and protect residents from unorganized development. Judi Kidder addressed the comments that Jonathan Strong made and she does not believe mobile homes should be ADU's. It is designed to be like a mother in law apartment or when you son comes home from college they are small. She does not know where the idea that ADU's were a solution for Jackson's that came from the Planning and Zoning Commission. That is not an option that we feel is realistic. We would like a place to move our existing homes and that has nothing to do with ADU's and nothing to do with the solution that is going to help anyone in Jackson's. There are some wires crossed and she wanted to clear up that confusion. She does support the ADU ordinance; there is a need for it because there are professionals who come to town to work at the hospital who cannot find affordable housing or an elderly relative so it is ideal for those kinds of things. With it being tied to single-family residents she sees that she doesn't think it should be a permitted use and it should be a conditional use and there should be a public process so that neighbors get to say whether they will be impacted or not. It should not just be carte blanche for everyone because of the restrictions, setbacks, and everything else that has been discussed at the P&Z work sessions. There are a lot of lots where it just would not apply so it is not going to affect everyone in Kodiak. She supports ADU's but thinks it should be conditional use. Leo Kouremetis stated Woodland Acres tat Addition is a neighborhood of 1 acre or less size lots with single-family dwellings and zoned RR. This is why he bought here, and everyone else who bought here knew and understood that when they purchased their properties. He is here to oppose the current proposed ordinance of the Planning and Zoning Commission to change the zoning from RR to essentially an R2 designation by allowing ADU's everywhere. His opposition to this ordinance is not for personal monetary gain but for the protecting the integrity of Woodland Acres and other neighborhoods. It has not Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 5 been widely advertised as promised by Planning and Zoning at their last meeting. This drastic change would affect potentially every residential property owner and residential neighborhood in the entire borough. In our neighborhood contrary to some opinions, the majority of property owners that he has spoken to are not in favor of this sweeping change. Most had no idea that this was being proposed and wonder why they were not notified. He's concerned on many levels of what impact this proposed change will have in the borough and specifically in his neighborhood, such as increased density, no more single- family properties, tax impact, ADU size and ADU setbacks, storage space for these ADU's, and there are a lot more.This proposed ordinance seemed to have been concocted without to the long-term plan and to the appearance of our town. The perception is that with this proposed ordinance is anyone can build anything they want, as enforcement is already a problem. Today on Facebook there was a comment relating to ADU's, quote "This means that if existing apartments inside homes will now be compliant." What is that all about? They weren't compliant but they will be compliant? He has attended a few meetings of Planning and Zoning work sessions and regular meetings and have been`concerning as to the conversation has been only one sided. Please consider both sides. Hopefully you can take more time with this issue, have more constructive meetings with citizens who are affected and address both sides of this contentious issue keeping a transparent dialogue. He hopes that you will take his concerns seriously. All he asked is that your recommendations are fair and unbiased without the perception of anyone having a conflict of interest. He thanked the commission. Cheryl Boeland stated she is in favor of this ordinance. She agrees that it should be a conditional use because what she believes with a conditional use it is more controlled. If we think enforcement is a problem then we need to talk to our enforcers and encourage them to continue or get better at enforcing zoning, building, uses that may be under the eaves of a house that nobody knows about. She thinks this is a way to build small places on lots that have been thoroughly looked at, meets all the setbacks and everything to give the opportunity for people to live here affordably. She thinks that is affordable housing. It does not mean they will live there forever but it could be a transition place. If it is controlled through a conditional use, it can be done orderly. She is not sure that the building that has been going on in Kodiak for how many years, she would not call it orderly so this is not going to make it any worse. She thinks if RR1 is high density you would not put an ADU there unless they had a big lot, and usually the big lots are outside of residential areas. She supports this but it should be conditional use. John Butler stated he has been an active contractor in Kodiak for thirty-five years. He also sits on the City and Borough Code Review Board as well as the Building Code Board of Appeals. He feels moved to establish accessory dwelling units is not a move toward more affordable housing. His point is stated in line 180 & 181; page 4 of agenda item 16-007, all buildings will comply with all applicable building code requirements. He does not know if anyone has investigated this or done this but he did take the time this morning to stop at the Building Department to ask if anyone from this commission or anywhere has asked them what is going to be required for Building Codes on this. The answer was no, no one had at this point in time. Our Building Department is compiled a very comprehensive 21 page list of code items that would have to comply with for life safety of a tenant or tenants in a building, duplex style or an ADU, whatever the case may be. As a landlord,this is a requirement that should never be overlooked. Any structures that is attached or within the structure requires a totally different protocol of codes, and how will the homeowner feel when they arrive at the doorstep because they were told they can take this house and tum it into basically a duplex, and they have this dream of$10,000 going in to change this house over, hypothetically, to turn this into another dwelling for a rental. They arrive at the Building Department and their$10,000 dream is now$100,000. As a contractor, he has seen this many times with remodels and with remodels that he has done on his own properties. There is this thing that they were only going to charge$1000 a month and figured it would be paid off in 10 months and now it's 10 years or more so it's out the window. If this were to pass in any way and with talking with the Building Department a unit that is totally detached from the existing unit would be more acceptable if this ordinance were to pass the Assembly mainly because they could control it a little better as for the codes and things of that sort because the codes get more strict when you go into a house and start doing this or if it's attached in any farm to the existing structure. When the ADU limits residency to two people how does this alleviate the housing problem for families of more than two people. What if the family of two has a baby, are you going to kick them out?Who's going to kick them out? That does not make sense; this is per line 211, item 7. Then he goes to lines 206 &207 as far as allowing mobile homes and things of that sort, travel trailers as an ADU is totally unacceptable in a residential area and has been for years and should continue to be so. Are we going backwards with our property and investments?Will we be back to the 60's living in shacks, if you have seen pictures of before the earthquake and so on? We have built standards and we have good standards these days and good construction and let's keep it that way. Also lines 159 &160 of 007 Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 6 "ADU's are not intended for transients or B&B's so it is a rental, it's something you are expecting someone to live in hopefully for a year or more so keep that in mind as well. He is not in support of ADU's and he does not feel this will create affordable housing unless it's done illegally and a lot of it is illegal at this point in time, and sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness after the fact and that's what it would do it would give forgiveness after the fact. We're not going to stop illegal units being built and what not, we can't police the whole community and never will unless you put 6, 8, or 10 people on board to patrol it and enforce it then you would have government control totally. He thanked the commission for all they do for the community and let's hope things work out better. Lisa Kostelecky stated she is a licensed real estate agent and owns real estate in town with at least four rentals. These ADU's would probably affect her in a good way if she wanted to although she is opposed to ADU's. She shows many properties to people and people buy those homes not just based on the house they are looking at but their neighborhood. Some of these homes are fairly expensive homes and when they buy into that neighborhood they have an expectation as to what they are buying and what she is selling them. First thing she usually tell them is to contact Planning and Zoning to find out how that property is zoned and what to expect when they purchase it as to what they can and cannot do with it. She finds this to be more than just a text change, if you are changing how many people are living there even if it is just two it does change the scope of the neighborhood. She does own a rental property on Woodland Drive and it has a lot of room for an ADU however, the tenants she has now their only complaint they have about her property is that there is a lot of traffic already on Woodland Drive. Our house is the second one back so they have an abundant amount of traffic already there that they are dealing with. If we allow these ADU's the traffic will increase so that is a concern for her. Some other concerns are she is wondering about places with septics, she sees many septics in this town that were not put in with standards that we have today and if ADU's are allowed she would hope that we would have some kind of inspection process for those septics before they would be allowed on property. She also did not see anything in this code that addressed garbage either so she wondered if that would also, be something that would be added in so you would have to have a second garbage bill for that ADU, we have a huge trash problem so she would hate to see that not addressed somewhere. In addition, to echo some of the other concerns she thinks enforcement is a huge issue. She goes into many of people's homes, invited in and she gets to see what they have. There are many enforcement issues that are not dealt with right now and she does not see how you can deal with what you have here. It looks great on paper but she does not see how the borough can enforce it. You do not know what is going on behind those doors right now and you are not going to even when you put this on paper so you are giving away the goose on this one. Her last concern is the appraised value, she did read the memorandum and she doesn't think she would be so concerned about the appraised value to the house that has the ADU as the home that has two ADU's next to them in homes. If you have bought a $500,000 or$600,000 home and all of a sudden your two neighbors put ADU's what does that do to your appraised value of your home. Has anybody checked with the local appraising office, they come to town at least twice a month and she would suggest consulting with them to see how that would affect the appraisal of homes that already exist today. She would hate to see the value of people's homes go down and she thinks that covers pretty much what hasn't been talked about. She is opposed to ADU's and she thanked the commission. Chris Kostelecky stated he is opposed to the ADU's. He is a builder in town and he can see all kinds of problems. He deals with issues on a daily basis with zoning, building codes, and there were many valid points tonight in reference to those things. One quote from the lawyer's opinion that he did get out of this that he does not agree with. He has a vacation rental adjacent to his property; he has an RR1 property on Abercrombie. If this passes, he could dissolve the property line in-between his home and the vacation rental and make his vacation rental an ADU. It's 590 square feet. In his eyes, it does not meet the ADU prescriptive method but what happens in this case. Does the borough have to lower my overall value because now it would not be two lots it would be one lot?We are talking about trying to fix problems and we are creating more problems. Infrastructure is huge, property values is a big concern. If he lived at the bottom of Monashka with septic and well, we all know what runs downhill. It is not pretty. There are so many things to consider here. The quote "it's just a text change" is reminiscent of if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.As a small business this year Obamacare would have cost me$28,000 and he has to pay the fine, he cannot afford healthcare. He has lived in a trailer for 20 years; he struggled, scrimped, saved, and then he tore it down and built a house so you really do not know all of the different scenarios that can come into play unless you have gone through the process seeing some of the things, the convolution. For example, we are on a four sewer main in his area so then you run into the convolution of whose sewer pump is it? Do you have multiple people paying for the sewer pump or fixing it, there are iust issues that are aoino to come up with this and he is definitely opposed to ADU's. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 7 Dan Ogg stated he has sat where the commission sits and knows how difficult it is to deal with issues and trying to solve problems. This is a long term planning issue for the community and it needs to have that kind of attention paid to it under a microscope. It is not something you want to move forward this quickly without thinking about it. He thinks the notice, he agrees with other folks who talked about the notice, he disagrees with the attorney's opinion; you can slice attorney's opinions any way you like. One opinion is one way and one opinion is another way. At some point, someone will make a decision but he thinks you really have to look at the four comers of what's going on here and before this ordinance goes through you have nice single-family neighborhoods and if someone wanted to change one of those neighborhoods they had a process they had to go through. Say they want to upgrade to an R2, if they were in an area where the Comprehensive Plan needed to be changed to do that they would need to do that and notice the individual property owner's around them. This is a protective device for neighborhoods, the Comprehensive Plan allows people to plan, put their money in on a piece of property, and grow their investment. If their neighbors want to change that area and they are all on board with it that is one thing but this particular instance if you use a code change opinion you do not have to notice the neighbors. They will not be aware. He has talked to many folks to ask them about this code change, this awareness and are they aware of it. Folks just do not know and they do not even know this is going on. Most of the folks he talked to they say they are against it because they do not think it is a good thing and they do not want to see their neighborhood changed. There are some people he has heard that are in favor of it, and he read it. What was really surprising to him on the notice and awareness, Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Altenhof were there at the City Council meeting he went to last week and talked to them about this code change and there was kind of this look on the council members face like what is this all about, we haven't heard this. He talked with some council members afterwards and they indicated no, this is the first they have heard about it. They had discussion and Mr. Schmitt gave a fairly great portrayal to them at that meeting, and now the City Council will have some more dialogs on this issue but as of Tuesday, last week they had no idea. He was in Port Lions for Christmas and visited with the former mayor and he brought the subject up to him. He had no idea that this was going on and it would affect his community because they are basically R1. Most of the villages are R1. So the notice issue is somewhat lacking here, we are not getting it out to people something this important. Ogg thinks it really is a rezone, it is just a different way to accomplish a rezone and he thinks you need to take that extra step and notice folks. He also thinks that some information really isn't here and he's listened a couple of times to the information that's been put forth, and he's heard things like they're doing it down south and it seems to be going OK down there, there's not much opposition, doesn't seem to be much of a problem, everyone that was talked to seemed to be in favor of it(that's what some people said), some people say that people have already done this so we're just going to make it legal. These are sort of the comments that were put forth in justification of moving forward.That is not really data. Here are my comments to you about most people he has talked to and they seem to be against it but that is just hearsay. What we really need here is we need some data, we need a definition of what is affordable housing, this ordinance doesn't get you there and he thinks John Butler talked to you pretty clearly. It does not get you affordable housing. What is the definition of workforce housing? Is this housing for schoolteachers, is it housing for cannery workers, what are we talking about here? There is no definition or discussion of that. There is no study, no data, no independent data done by the borough, at least we asked last time of a need of this type of housing that this would create so he thinks that needs to be accomplished. There was a question asked last time of how many requests have the Planning Commission or Community Development Department received in the last 10 years to rezone property from R1 to R2 so you could do exactly this type of thing. No answer. Has there been any study that shows how many R2 units are actually needed by our population? No answer to that. Has there been an economic impact analysis of what this ordinance would do and he thinks other people are speaking more eloquently about is it going to increase the value of our properties, decrease the value of properties. People in single-family neighborhoods certainly want to know that, that is their prime investment in life, their one piggy bank. Those questions need to be answered before we move ahead. He's not against a dwelling but he's against this ordinance the way it's written; additional dwelling unit or a grandpa or granny apartment, those are some good things but he thinks you can draw them much tighter, you can make them explicit, you can make them so they're enforceable. This particular one is not really enforceable based on the way we live here. If the ordinance is going to require that the owner live in one of these units, first, who's going to enforce that and how are you going to enforce that. Secondly, it does not fit our island, the Coast Guard personnel rotates on a 3-year basis. They come here and then off they go. They do not sell their house when they go off to Pensacola or wherever,what are they going to do, have an empty house. That is what the code requires, if they are not there, nobody can be there. If someone gets lucky and gets to be an IFQ holder of Gulf Rationalization, if that ever cioes through, they may decide to move to Arizona but they still want to keen their house here. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 8 This code would say they have to leave it empty. Those two issues, fairness and data are things that are definitely necessary and he thinks it is too premature on this one. He had some short recommendations that may be helpful; to postpone this ordinance until you have the notice and data so folks could look at that and the commission could look at it and maybe craft something that's tighter, perhaps you want to create a sub-committee of folks who are in favor, folks who are opposed, and with a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission chairing that group so you can get kind of both ideas and come out with something. There is a lot of folks here that had some good ideas, good folks in the community that would be an asset to work towards that.Another thought was you could create a new zone, call R2-Light, and adjust the Comp Plan to create areas where R2-Light could be located. A quicker way to help folks out is to create a grandpa-granny conditional use permit that allows a person to put an extra living quarters in their home. The permit must be exact with drawings showing dimensions and layout of the quarters and the permit would expire when the owners sold their home. That is how Anchorage dealt with the issue. There are other ways to do it and he hopes the commission moves in those directions. Ogg thanked the commission. Close public hearing: COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED TO POSTPONE this to our February Regular Meeting agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT was in favor for getting as much input as we can and earlier today at the Borough Lands Committee meeting he brought up the issue of getting some input from the City Public Works Department on the capacity issues for the sewer and water systems. We haven't had any indications previously when cases have come to us that that is an issue but it seems to make sense to get that information. He would also like to see, and he knows that there have been additional newspaper ads and that Director Pederson appeared on KMXT's Talk of the Rock and maybe some other ideas for getting the word out more so we can explore that over the next month. COMMISSIONER PAINTER wanted to say that we are postponing and that will be a third month, 90 days that people have had the opportunity to discuss, write in, oppose, whatever they want to do. She doesn't know what else we can do to inform other than we can wait around until everyone gets tired and doesn't want to do anything, that's always an option but she thinks we've done the best we can to inform people, it just may be that they don't care either way. There are a few people that are adamantly opposing it and some that are for it but she believes that we are doing the best we can to inform the public. We just can't take advertisement and spend money foolishly. Again, this is the third month and we started out actually in October mentioning it and then we have had the public meetings, work sessions, and everyone has had the opportunity to write in, call in, or speak publicly so she just wanted to clear that up. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY D. CASE S16-007. 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 applicant is the City of Port Lions.The location is NHN Kizhuyak Drive, Port Lions and the zoning is I-Industrial and PL-Public Use Lands. Note: 7 public hearing notices were mailed on November 24, 2015 and 2 responses were received. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED TO POSTPONE Case No. S16-007 to the February 17, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting. Director Pederson stated we do not have a staff report for that but there was a very detailed survey involved with this property that led to a number of questions. Staff has been working with the city and the surveyor to work through those.They are amenable to postponing so we can continue those discussions. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY E. CAST: 16-005. Request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a warehouse on Lot 5 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 33, East Addition Subdivision (KIBC 17.200 and 17.90.030.15). The applicants are Anne and Vito Kalcic. The location is 817 Tagura Road and the zoning is 113- Business. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 9 Note:41 public hearing notices were mailed on November 24 and 2 responses were received. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant a Conditional Use Permit, per KIBC 17.200 and 17.90.030.E, to construct a warehouse on Lot 5 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 33, East Addition Subdivision, subject to three (3) conditions of approval 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. 16-005. Maker stated this conditional use permit is to allow construction of a t 2,800 square foot warehouse on an 8,571 square foot Business zoned site. Warehouses are listed as a conditional use for Business zoning. The site is across from the boatyard and canneries, which is very noisy. Previously on the site there was a business downstairs with a single-family residence upstairs. The applicants were finding it hard to rent out the residence due to the noise emanating from the intensive industrial uses. The sites location between residential uses and industrial uses make it appear well suited for a warehouse. A warehouse is a less intensive use than other Business zoning uses that could be obtained without a conditional use permit. In an effort to streamline the permitting process staff incorporated the required screening review into this conditional use permit request. The applicant requests no screening be required between the warehouse and the adjacent residential uses. Staff has determined that the no screening option is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. A recommended additional finding of fact stating that no screening is required is included in the written staff report. Staff has determined that the recommended conditions of approval will ensure the warehouse satisfies the intent of B-Business zoning„ is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Pian, and meets all conditions necessary for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted. Staff recommends this Conditional Use Permit be granted, subject to three(3) conditions of approval. In response to COMMISSIONER SCHMITT'S inquiry of Maker said the no screening requirement was going to be included in the conditions of approval, Maker said it's actually included as an additional finding of fact and it's referenced in the report. If the commission sees fit they can require such screening they can prescribe such screening as a condition of approval. Open public hearing: None Close public hearing: Brief discussion CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to issuance of zoning compliance, Lot 5 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 33, East Addition Subdivision, shall be replatted into a single lot. 2. Prior issuance of zoning compliance, an updated site plan based on the replat shall be provided. The site plan shall satisfy all requirements of KIBC Title 17(Zoning). 3. To ensure adequate access for emergency responders, no portion of the warehouse shall be less than five(5)feet from any property line. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A Warehouse is consistent with the value, spirit, character, and integrity of the surrounding area. The warehouse should also provide a more effective transitional buffer between existing residential and industrial uses than other more intensive uses that could be established without a conditional use permit. 2. The conditional use satisfies all other requirements for B-Business zoning. 3. The warehouse will be engineered and constructed to meet the requirements of the adopted building code. The conditions of approval and zoning compliance permit, building permit, and building inspection processes required for the development will ensure the public's health, safety, convenience, and comfort are not harmed. 4. The site consists of two abutting lots that will be replatted into a single lot. The replatted lot will have unobstructed access from Tagura Road and will be of adequate size to accommodate the warehouse and all required off-street parking and associated maneuvering areas. The conditions of approval will further ensure sufficient setbacks, buffers, and other safeguards are provided. 5. This conditional use Permit is not fora public use or structure. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 10 6. The applicant's request for no screening between the site and adjacent residential uses is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. Therefore, no onsite screening is required. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY F. CASE 16-006. Request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a warehouse on Lot 8, Block 33, East Addition Subdivision and Lot 1, Block 1, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision (KIBC 17.200 and 17.90.030.E).The applicants are Anne and Vito Kalcic. The locations are 719 East Marine Way, 811 and 813 Tagura Road.The zoning is B-Business. Note: 40 public hearing notices were mailed on November 25, 2015 and 3 responses were received. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant a Conditional Use Permit, per KIBC 17.200 and 17.90.030.E, to construct a warehouse on Lott 8, Block 33, East Addition Subdivision and Lot 1, Block 1, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision, subject to four (4) conditions of approval 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. 16-006. Maker stated this conditional use permit is to allow construction of a t 4,200 square foot warehouse on a 12,053 square foot B-Business zoned site. The site is located in the same area as the previous Conditional Use Permit request, so this request is similar to that request, including the recommendation for no screening. This site is separated by a lot that is also owned by the Kalcic's that currently has a multi-family residence with three units. Staff has determined that the recommended conditions of approval will ensure this warehouse satisfies the intent of B-Business zoning, is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and meets all conditions necessary for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted. Staff recommends this Conditional Use Permit be granted, subject to four (4) conditions of approval, and the additional condition is related to ensuring that the duplex that is on one of the parcels is removed. Zoning Compliance has been issued but before we move forward and approve the replat that residence has to be removed. Open public hearing: William Bacus stated he does not understand why no one has gone down to look at it down there. Off the front of the property there is a vertical cut that's almost 20 feet down and there's a 4 foot retaining wall which drops down from there another 16 feet. It is very dangerous, liability wise, his sister's kids came over the summer, and they couldn't even play out there because it's so dangerous failing off the bank. They could have been hurt. He doesn't understand how the problem is not being addressed of the neighbors. Our yard is deteriorating and he understands there is a 5 or 10 foot setback but if you drop down 4 feet and then from the shoulder out to the (inaudible) 16 feet. That would almost be about an 18 feet setback that would be safe. I would think you would require some kind of retaining wall or fence be put up there to protect the people on our property or anything else that might fall off on that cliff. He would like to see that addressed before any approval. The single dwelling that needs to be torn down that is another problem in the neighborhood. This needs to be addressed better and more thought put into it before we get a warehouse down there and the size and height of the warehouse and what's the warehouse going to have in it because there are residential neighbors up there. None of the problems has been addressed. He feels one of the conditions should be to address that wall or fence to protect our property and value of our house. Anne Kalcic, applicant, stated she is happy to address Mr. Bacus'concerns. We do plan to put up a fence however; you have to get a conditional use permit to go ahead with construction. The only problem we have with this lot is Mr. Bacus has runoff from his lot coming down onto ours and we had to go down to bedrock to build the building. Now we have runoff from his lot running down onto ours,which is something that we will have to take into consideration. We do have it partially completed but we do plan to take care of his runoff onto ours. Our warehouse will not be abutting the back of the lot; it complies with everything required under our conditional use permit. Close public hearing: COMMISSIONER SCHMITT wanted to note for the record that site plan shows the building will be 13.64 feet at the closest from the rear property line and the rear properly line is a Z so it will be further than that in many instances. He feels that is adequate. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 11 In response to CHAIR ARNDT'S inquiry about the fence Ms. Kalcic spoke about and asked Maker if that was in the conditions of approval, Maker stated no, the fence is not there, the screening option was what was addressed in the findings of fact. He also said when it comes to whatever cut and slope is required for the construction that would be a matter for the Building Department and Building Code... Director Pederson stated for grading permits more than 6-foot vertical you have to bench and he doesn't know when this site was excavated. If the Building Department feels it's necessary for structural support to protect that foundation they can deal with that. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to issuance of zoning compliance for the warehouse, the single-family residence on the south portion of Lot 8. Block 33, East Addition Subdivision shall be demolished or otherwise removed from the site. 2, Prior to issuance of zoning compliance, Lot 1, Block 1, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision and Lot 8, Block 33 East Addition Subdivision, shall be replatted into a single lot. 3, Prior issuance of zoning compliance, an updated site plan based on the replat shall be provided. The site plan shall satisfy all requirements of KIBC Title 17(Zoning). 4. To ensure adequate access for emergency responders, no portion of the warehouse shall be less than five(5)feet from any property line. FINDINGS OF FACT 1e A Warehouse is consistent with the value, spirit, character, and integrity of the surrounding area. The warehouse should also provide a more effective transitional buffer between existing residential and industrial uses than other more intensive uses that could be established without a conditional use permit, 2. The conditional use satisfies all other requirements for B-Business zoning. 3. The warehouse will be engineered and constructed to meet the requirements of the adopted building code. The conditions of approval and zoning compliance permit., building permit, and building inspection processes required for the development will ensure the public's health, safety,. convenience., and comfort are not harmed. 4. The site consists of two abutting lots that will be replatted into a single lot. The replatted lot will have unobstructed access from Marine Way West and Tagura Road and will be of adequate size to accommodate the warehouse and all required off-street parking and associated maneuvering areas„ The conditions of approval will further ensure sufficient setbacks, buffers, and other safeguards are provided. 5. This conditional use permit is not for a public use or structure. 6. The applicant's request for no screening between the site and adjacent residential uses is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. Therefore, no onsite screening is required. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY G. CASE 16-008. Request a variance to allow an existing residential structure to encroach 2.8 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback and to allow the front eaves of the structure to project 3.3 feet beyond the allowable 3 foot projection into the required 25 foot front yard setback on Tract G-6, U.S. Survey 1396 (KIBC 17.80.040.A.1, 17.150.020.A.2, and 17.195). This action is to accommodate a survey error that resulted in encroachments that exceed those allowed by a previously approved variance. The applicant is Mark Salo. The location is 1328 Larch Street and the zoning is 112-Two-family Residential. Note: 63 public hearing notices were mailed on December 7 and 5 responses were received. COMMISSIONER PAINTER MOVED to grant a variance to allow an existing residential structure to encroach 2.8 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback and to allow the front eaves of the structure to project 3.3 feet beyond the allowable 3 foot projection into the required 25 foot front yard setback on Tract G-6, U.S. Survey 1396(KIBC 17.80.040,A.1, 17.150.020.A.2, and 17.195). Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 12 Director Pederson stated he recalled from the work session and Maker did a good job of getting all the numbers in there.The best way to describe this is if this is the street,the previous variance was to put the house right there and that is where the house was built. The problem was in determining the numbers for the previous variance, it was measured from the wrong point so nothing about where the house was going to go has changed at all since the first variance, and there was just this problem with these measurement errors. All the details are in the report and you can look at the drawings. It's to get it cleaned up from the past variance, Maker stated staff recommends this request meet all the conditions necessary, as reflected in the findings of fact,for a variance to be granted under Chapter 17.195(Variances)of the Borough Code. Open public hearing: None Close public hearing: Brief discussion FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The lot is encumbered by steep sloping terrain falling away from Larch Street to Lilly Lake.This steep sloping topography has historically caused issues with flooding of basements and crawl spaces on neighboring properties. The topography also provides challenges for off-street parking development, The existing structure and site improvements were designed to address these development constraints. 2. The strict application of the provisions of Title 17 KIBC would require that a portion of the existing structure be demolished and reconstructed to meet the setback requirements established by a previously approved variance. 3. The variance will not cause material damage or prejudice to neighboring properties or negatively impact the public health, safety, or general welfare of the surrounding area. As currently constructed, the existing structure and site improvements benefit the surrounding area by providing increased off- street parking and remedying pre-existing drainage problems. 4. The special condition from which relief is being sought by the variance was not caused by the applicant. The structure was inadvertently constructed within the required front yard setback due to survey errors that inaccurately identified the location of the front lot line. 5. The variance is not contrary to the objectives of the 2008 Comprehensive plan, as the plan does not specifically address setback requirements. 6. The variance will not permit a prohibited land use. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY OLD BUSINESS Ay Discussion on amendments to Title 17 KIBC (Zoning) to establish development standards for a Small Lot Subdivision Zoning District. Director Pederson asked the commission if they wanted staff to queue this up as a possible first public hearing in February. We will certainly have time to discuss it at the work session so we could place it on there for public hearing if you want or not. If we put it on it can always be continued. CHAIR ARNDT stated we still have questions and discussion and basically postpone the discussion at the work session until the next meeting so he would prefer not to see it on the agenda and continue the discussion at the work session. Director Pederson stated it could certainly be on the agenda as a discussion. CHAIR ARNDT stated it is not read} to move forward at this point so it can go on the work session agenda for discussion on February 10 h. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 13 B) Background information on Planned Unit Developments. Director Pederson stated the other two items, B and C are just the background information we still owe Mr.Altenhof a packet from the past before he was on the commission. Commission discussion C) Tract R-2, Killarney Hills Subdivision Planning Discussion -Placeholder NEW BUSINESS A. Elections for Chair and Vice-chair The CHAIR ARNDT opened nominations to the commission for Chair: COMMISSIONER PAINTER nominated Scott Arndt for Chair. There were no more nominations. COMMISSIONER SPALINGER MOVED to close nominations. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY VOICE VOTE ON SCOTT ARNDT AS CHAIR CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CHAIR ARNDT opened nominations to the commission for Vice-Chair: COMMISSIONER SPALINGER nominated Jay Baldwin for Vice-Chair. There were no more nominations.. COMMISSIONER ALTENHOF MOVED to close nominations. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY VOICE VOTE FOR JAY BALDWIN AS VICE CHAIR CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMUNICATIONS A. December Planning and Zoning Commission Case Results Letters REPORTS A. Meeting Schedule: • February 10, 2016 Work Session-6:30 p.m.-Borough Conference Room • February 17, 2016 Regular Meeting-6:30 p.m. B. Abbreviated& Final Approvals—Subdivisions S16-006. Abbreviated Plat Procedure. Final approval of the subdivision of Tract V&W, U.S. Survey 3218 creating Tract V-1, U.S. Survey 3218. Plat 2015-30. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to acknowledge receipt of reports. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 14 STAFF COMMENTS Director Pederson welcomed Sara Mason, Community Development Department's new Associate Planner. There was a second meeting of the Borough Lands Committee today. He described the first meeting as a meeting of organizational meeting and the meeting today they started to focus in and he thinks there was some common agreement to start to zero in on some short (inaudible) and long-term ways of looking at borough property to see if there were smaller parcels that could be easily platted and put on the market where they have a road adjacent and utilities there to see if that could get things moving and continue working on some of the others. That group will be meeting again on February P at noon in the conference room. CITIZENS'COMMENTS(Limited to three minutes per speaker) Agenda Items not scheduled for public hearing and general comments. The local number is 486-3231; Toll Free is 1-855-492-9202. Judi Kidder stated she would have nominated Greg Spalinger for Vice-chair. She welcomed everyone aboard. She also went to the Lands Committee meeting and there was a lot of positive discussion. It is important to think outside the box. Jumping the gun on a lot of things she felt from the beginning that the ADU's were not going to be anything that was going to help anybody in Jackson's because of all that in the binder, the options, and the order was created to supposedly help us because of our timeline. She felt that the Planning and Zoning's timing could have been better spent on other things to help us in the timeline involved. Many people today talked about the public notification process and it is a real important thing. What happened up there is because of a change of land use, there should have been a public hearing, and we are real property owners under Alaska Statutes. We were not notified and we are suffering a loss of our property because our due process rights were violated. Because of the impact on the community of that procedure, the way things were done with a rubber stamp permit by Community Development Department this caused undue hardship and it will have such an extreme impact on our community. For that very reason alone, the decision should have been made that this is not a rubber stamp process, this should have gone before Planning and Zoning as required under Alaska Statute. Planning and Zoning's purpose is to ensure due process and to take into account the impact to the community as a whole, safety, health, general welfare, rendering all of those people homeless with an administrative decision that is outside of the powers and duties laid down in borough code was absolutely wrong and should have been more objection on this. The process should have been delayed because we could not have possibly legally complied with what we are up against. You can't physically do something, we have homes and we are not about to walk away from them. The fact that procedure was not followed she thinks this is something that needs to be clearly addressed because there's some confusion where there's more public hearing for a shed that is two feet into a setback than making 7 '/2% of the Kodiak Island Borough's population homeless with a rubber stamp. She thinks there's something seriously wrong and it needs to be addressed, it needs to be fixed, and it needs to be clarified Borough Code 2.80.020- The Powers and Duties of Community Development Department clearly states that they shall assist the Planning and Zoning Commission and serve the Planning and Zoning Commission to do research and make recommendations. There is nothing in there that gives them the authority to make these kinds of decisions;they should have been run by Planning and Zoning. She thanked the commission. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Alan Schmitt welcomed Barry Altenhof to the commission. Barry Altenhof said it's good to be here and clearly from citizen comments tonight on the ADU's that has clearly struck a nerve and he's tried as quickly as possible to get up to speed on the background information regarding not only ADU's but all the agenda items. He thinks he'll be able to do that. He mentioned again that he'll be out of town for the February meetings but he looks forward to hearing from more people so there is a clear the air so to speak dialogue between everyone impacted and he hopes that takes place. He looks forward to the extended discussion. He is glad to be here working with folks. Greg Spalinger welcomed Barry Altenhof and Sara Mason and he is looking forward to working with them. He thanked all the people out there that were listening and came to testify because that is what we need to hear is more from the community. Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 15 Maria Painter welcomed Barry Altenhof and Sara Mason. She just wanted to say that she is for the ADU's and there may need to be more fixing it up, when people were talking about the wells and septics, etcetera. Maybe that could be a conditional use; it's something to throw out there. She thinks it's really important not only we listen to the people that have come up here to make their comments but also we kind of forget all the people that had written the comments and they are really important and so far we have received a lot of positives for the ADU's and we're getting a lot of negatives also in public comment. She just asked the public to be more active in attending the meetings so that we can move forward with this because this is just one more thing that affords us freedoms of our use of our property. Scott Arndt also welcomed Barry Altenhof and Sara Mason. One of the things that he heard tonight on the ADU's was that we did a little better job on the public notification but there was also comments that there is still a question in many people's minds to whether we should send anything out to all the residential property owner's. His question to staff is approximate cost to do that. Director Pederson stated over$5,000 and that is postage, envelopes, mailing, and that is not counting staff time. He just based that on when we did that before for an item that was in the range of cost and we especially put that into our budget for that year so we don't have that flexibility in our budget this year. It would have to come from other accounts. He will have to consult with the Manager on that. Scott Arndt said what he heard here tonight is that we are not reaching the villages and he is a little concerned. Director Pederson said at the time of the Code Update we were proposing that all the villages would be rezoned to V-Village which would allow two-family dwellings on every lot in every village and the villages were all in support:of that. They have asked several times since then if that was going to come back up to which the answer was we certainly don't want to get away from that because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan was structured that way to have mixed use zoning in the villages and once we are through these series of code structure amendments that that would be one that certainly we would need to talk about it again. We didn't give a direct notice to the village any different than the other property owner's because of that history in there their broad support for the village zoning which would have allowed this or actually a duplex on every what is now an R1 lot in every village. Scott Arndt said the only problem is that is not what is before us; this is a form of possibly a duplex. Director Pederson said he was saying this in the context of this is something less than a duplex; it's an accessory dwelling as opposed to two full dwelling units on each parcel. Scott Arndt said to him there is not much difference here because it has a full kitchen by the Building Code. Sara Mason said as far as advertising goes she doesn't know how in tune people here are with Facebook, but Facebook advertising is a cheap way to get to many people. You can do targeted advertising for$25 or$50 and it shows up on the sidebar of every person in a zip code. You can also get statistics with Facebook to see how many people are clicking on your link, how many people are going back multiple times so it just doesn't give you the number of hits it can tell you how many people are looking at it more than once. Depending on what other kinds of stuff you want they can also give you general demographics but it will not give people's names for privacy purposes. If people have certain information linked to their profile it can tell you how many males are looking at it versus females and things like that.The borough also has a Twitter account. Scott Arndt said those were good suggestions but he doesn't go on Facebook and he does not go on Twitter. That is one way but that does not address the villages, One of the things he's been hearing at the assembly meetings is that certain members of the assembly is concerned about the way things are being advertised in the villages,which is not advertised.We need more discussion on this. Director Pederson said he'd be happy to send a notice to the villages, that is easily done. He's very reluctant about noticing every property owner in the borough because for any other text amendment in the history of the borough that has never been done so if we start that practice it could be financially a very slippery slope opening an expectation that the borough would do that for every single thing they change moving forward. One of the assembly members did come to see him because if some of you Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 16 recall in the code process we were, one of the proposals was to go back to the old way the notice was done thirty years ago with the more rural you were the bigger the radius it got in terms of notice in terns of the idea to whatever possible to get the word out to more people. One of the assembly members come to get that language from me because Pederson thinks they are contemplating bringing that back too. Scott Arndt asked Director Pederson if staff is going to send something to the villages would it be one notice would it go to the City Council members just to see that it does not get lost. Director Pederson said we will probably contact the mayor of each village or the tribal council to let them know and ask them how they would prefer it rather than assuming they all want it the same way. Scott Arndt said with the consensus of the commission staff will do some advertising on Facebook; Twitter, and reach out to the villages to see how they would like it and he's open to any other suggestions. Director Pederson said he agrees with what Arndt said but he has a bit of concern about Twitter,we do in our accessing Facebook more often when we have a social media policy through the Manager's Office that deals with Facebook. He doesn't think it extends to twitter yet but we will check that. He doesn't have any problem doing outreach like that and he did reach out to the newspaper and asked if they wanted to do a story and they did not contact him back. KMXT was in two seconds. Scott Arndt said he is not advocating sending a property notice out to everyone but he wanted to talk about this to see. We need to do as much due diligence as we can and he is not seeing as many people here tonight. It is the same people so something we are doing is not working and that is why he raised the question. Sara Mason asked if there is a fair amount of community councils here or is there an association of community councils? Director Pederson said no,we don't have those. Scott Arndt said the City Council did not seem to know and would staff reach out to them too. Director Pederson said we have and he'll state for the record that meeting last Tuesday was the fourth time he had been to the City Council and the fourth time ADU's had been mentioned to the council and mayor at one of their staff sessions. We went for the purpose of talking about all amendments and the Building Officials have been well aware of this for quite some time. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER SPALINGER MOVED to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CHAIR ARNDT adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 01 Scott Arndt, Chai ATTEST -.. By: ,O Sheila Smith, ecretary Community Development Department APPROVED: March 16, 2016 Kodiak Island Borough Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2016 Page 17