Loading...
1986-04-16 Regular Meeting0- P_ KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 16, 1986 I. CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Acting Chairman Dan James on April 16, 1986 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Others Present: Dan James, Acting Chairman Bud Cassidy, Borough Resource Mike Anderson Management Officer Robin Heinrichs Bob Pederson, Assistant Planner, Marlin Knight Community Development Department Mary Lou Knudsen Dave Crowe, Borough Engineer Scott Thompson Patricia Miley, Secretary, Community Development Department Commissioners Absent: Others Absent: Steve Rennell, Excused Linda Freed, Director, Community Development Department A quorum was established. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the March 19, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. APPEARANCE REQUESTS AND AUDIENCE COMMENTS Appearance Requests: A) CASE 85-031. Request for a one-year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2--Two-Family Residential District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 61 Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commission to answer questions. The Commission had no questions for Mr. Arndt. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION for a previously approved variance (Case 85-031) to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in the R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated May 8, 1985 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT KIBS225944 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which P & Z REGULAR MEETING 1 APRIL 16, 1986 generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. This lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two-thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to construct a zero -lot -line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant to build a duplex structure on the lot. 3. The granting of the or prejudice to to the public's nor The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right-of-way. The variance should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use, the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief None of the reasons for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. B) CASE 84-110. Request for a five-year extension for a condition of approval for a previously approved exception (that permitted a temporary storage warehouse in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District); specifically the condition requiring that the r temporary warehouse and any vans located on the property must be removed by April 1, 1986. Lot 26, U.S. Survey 3099; 2756 Spruce Cape Road. (Ken Forster) COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT A REOUEST FOR A FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION for a condition of approval of a previously approved exception (Case 84-110), specifically the condition requiring that the temporary warehouse and any vans currently located on the property must be removed from the property by April 1, 1986. Lot 26, U.S. Survey 3099. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: KIBS225945 P & Z REGULAR MEETING 2 APRIL 16, 1986 1. The temporary warehouse and any vans currently located on the property must be removed from the property by April 1, 1991, or when the main warehouse is remodeled, whichever comes first. 2. The main warehouse building will not be enlarged. 3. There will be no outside storage. r 4. The van in the road right-of-way must be moved. C) CASE S-85-016. Request for an extension of preliminary plat approval period. Lots 2 through 11, Block 3, Holland Acres Subdivision 2nd Addition (Parcel P-1, Plat No. 85-28). (Scott Arndt) COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION of the preliminary plat approval period for CASE S-85-016. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. D) CASE S-85-019. Request for extension of preliminary plat approval period. Subdivision of Lot 8, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision to Lots 8A and 8B. (Leroy Cossette) COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION of preliminary plat approval period: subdivision of Lot 8, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision to Lots 8A and 8B for six months or until November 19, 1986. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. There were no further appearance requests or audience comments. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS ►'� A) CASE 86-021. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) of the Borough Code to permit the expansion of the cubical content of an existing nonconforming single-family residence that is part of a nonconforming use of land (three single-family residences on one lot) in order to construct a new, steeper pitched roof on one of the residences in a RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. Lot 1, Block 2, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision; 1200 Abercrombie Drive. (Richard Blackburn/Lawrence Williams) BOB PEDERSON indicated 12 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, voicing non -objection to this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. KIBS225946 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.070 of the Borough Code to permit the expansion of the cubical content of an existing nonconforming single-family residence that is part of a nonconforming use of land (three single-family residences on one lot) in order to construct a new, steeper pitched roof on one of the residences in a RR1 Zoning District. Lot 1, Block 2, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which P & Z REGULAR MEETING 3 APRIL 16, 1986 generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. In this case, the unique conditions applicable to the request are the three (3) existing single-family residences on the lot. Although the RR1 district permits only one single-family residence per lot, there have been three (3) residences on this property since at least 1978. Any expansion of these structures will require a variance. r2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would not allow any additions to the existing residential structures. This is an unnecessary hardship when the existing land use is residential, the property is within a residential zoning classification, and the current density of the area will not be increased. 3. 7� other properties in the vicinity nor to the public's health, safetv and welfare Granting of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the area because additions to existing residential structures will not change the existing land use and will not change the overall density of the area. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan which depicts the area for Low -Density Residential Development because the proposed new roof will not change the existing low to medium -density use of the property. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause is be e. In this case, actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The three mobile homes on the lot are a legal nonconforming land use. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Single -Family Residential land uses are permitted in this district and the variance does not permit a change in the existing land use. B) CASE 86-022. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.67 (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code to permit a 24 space recreational vehicle park to locate in a r C--Conservation Zoning District. Alaska Division of Lands 36049, F commonly known as the VFW site; located off Monashka Bay Road, approximately one mile past the "Timberline Sawmill." (VFW/KIB) BOB PEDERSON indicated 26 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 2 were returned, 1 in favor and 1 opposing this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: KIBS225947 DAN MOEN, representing the VFW, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. P & Z REGULAR MEETING 4 APRIL 16, 1986 PHIL ANDERSON appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN stated a concern about water quality. Phil Anderson indicated that the VFW received City water. 011- COMMISSIONER ANDERSON read portions of the memo dated April 8, 1986, from the Borough Resource Management Officer. George Pikus, VFW Post Commander, indicated that all funds in excess of the operating expenses are returned to the community. r� COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT in accordance with Chapter 17.67 of the Borough Code to permit a twenty-four (24) unit recreational vehicle park to locate in a C--Conservation Zoning District on ADL 36049, commonly known as the VFW site, subject to the conditions of approval outlined below and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All long-term recreational vehicle units shall be connected to the sewer and water systems. 2. Any change for a recreational vehicle space from the specified residency designation must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. The recreational vehicle park management plan is incorporated into the conditions of approval. 4. A sign shall be placed at the entrance of the recreational vehicle park road warning residents of the presence of the nearby shooting range. 5. All recreational vehicles currently located on the property shall be relocated within Phase I of the new recreational vehicle park. 6. Phase I of the recreational vehicle park shall be completed within two (2) years and Phase II within four (4) years. 7. If Phase I is not completed within two years, the seven existing recreational vehicles shall be removed from the property. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the conditional use will preserve the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area. It appears that the proposed use will not detract from the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area because the land north of the recreational vehicle park out to Monashka Bay is under the applicant's management and all other surrounding properties to the south and west are undeveloped and have not been subdivided. The City Sanitary Land Fill lies to the east of the VFW site. A recreational vehicle park should also be a compatible use with surrounding existing land uses (vacant land and the sanitary landfill) and the range of potential land uses permitted or conditionally permitted on surrounding properties that are zoned C--Conservation and PL--Public Use Lands. Among other uses, these districts permit agricultural, fishing, forestry, horticultural and hunting activities, utility installations and conditionally permit airports, correctional facilities, petroleum exploration and P & Z REGULAR MEETING 5 KIBS225948 APRIL 16, 1986 development, resource extraction, seafood processing establishments and solid waste disposal sites. 2. That the conditional use fulfills all other requirements of this chapter pertaining to the conditional use in question. The proposed use will fulfill all other requirements of the C--Conservation Zoning District and the requirements of Chapter 17.53, Recreational Vehicle Parks. Recreational (" vehicle parks are permitted in the C--Conservation Zoning II District through the conditional use permit process. Staff has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and finds that the standards of Section 17.53.040 (Development Standards) of the Recreational Vehicle Code are being met. 3. That granting the conditional use permit will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and comfort. It appears that the proposed use will not be harmful to the public, health, safety, convenience and comfort. Recreational vehicle units have been and are currently located on the site and departmental files do not indicate that they have posed any danger to the public's health, safety or welfare. In addition, the plan for the park provides for water and sewer services, a dump station, dumpsters, bathrooms and showers, laundry facilities, lighting and play areas. If all these facilities are provided and if all building, fire and sanitary codes are met, the proposed use should not endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare. This also assumes that the proposed park rules will be enforced by the applicant. 4. That sufficient setbacks, lot area, buffers or other r safeguards are being provided to meet the conditions listed Iin subsections A through C of this section. There are sufficient setbacks and lot area on the 110.70 acre parcel for the recreational vehicle park. If the proposed conditions of approval are incorporated in the conditional use permit, provision of additional safeguards should not be necessary for this case. C) CASE 86-024. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.18.030 (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code to permit an office as a home occupation to locate in an existing single-family residence in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 24A, Block 1, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; 512 Hillside Drive. (Royal Large) BOB PEDERSON indicated 41 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, in favor of this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT in accordance with Section 17.18.020 of the Borough Code to permit an office as a home occupation to locate within the existing single-family residence on Lot 24A, Block 1, Aleutian Homes Subdivision and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT KIBS225949 P & Z REGULAR MEETING 6 APRIL 16, 1986 1. That the conditional use area. It appears that the proposed home occupation will preserve the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area. The home occupation (an office) will be conducted entirely within the residence, the exterior of the structure will not change and according to the applicant no customers will call at the residence. r2. That the conditional use fulfills all other require li this chapter pertaining to the conditional use in � The proposed home occupation will fulfill all other requirements of the R1--Single-Family Residential District (Chapter 17.18) and the definition of a home occupation (Section 17.06.320). 3. That ¢ranting the conditional use oermit will not be harmful The proposed use will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and comfort because the character of the surrounding area will not change and there will be no increase in traffic resulting from the home occupation. 4. That sufficient setbacks. lot area, buffers or other As the home occupation will be conducted entirely within the existing residence and because no customers will call at the residence, provision of additional buffers or other safeguards are not necessary in this instance. Should the nature of the home occupation change over time, the Commission could review the conditional use permit to determine if additional safeguards are appropriate. D) CASE 86-023. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) of the Borough Code to permit the expansion of the cubical content of an existing nonconforming church structure in order to construct a 176-square foot entry way addition and a 450-square foot drive-thru carport addition on to the front of the existing church; and a Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit the entry way and drive-thru carport additions to encroach an additional 19-feet, for a total encroachment of 20-feet, into the required 25-foot front yard setback in a RI —Single -Family Residential Zoning District. Lots 2 through 6, Leite Subdivision; 1212 through 1312 Ismailov. (Berean Baptist Church) BOB PEDERSON indicated 81 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of these requests. COMMISSION HEINRICHS requested to be excused due to a conflict of interest. COMMISSIONER JAMES excused COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened. Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. KIBS225950 COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO GRANT A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.070 of the Borough Code to permit the expansion of the cubical content of an existing nonconforming structure in order to construct a 176-square foot entry way addition and a P & Z REGULAR MEETING 7 APRIL 16, 1986 11 450-square foot drive thru carport addition on to the front of the existing church building in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District, Lots 2 through 6, Leite Subdivision and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO GRANT A VARIANCE from Section 17.18.050 of the Borough Code to permit the new 176-square foot entry way and 450-square foot drive-thru carport additions to encroach an additional 19-feet into the required 25-foot front yard setback for a total encroachment of 20-feet in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District, Lots 2 through 6, Leite Subdivision and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT A. For the requested expansion of the cubical content; and B. For the requested 19-foot additional encroachment into the required 25-foot front yard setback. 2 3. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the DroDerty or intended use of development. which A. In this case the unique physical condition is the existing nonconforming structure located on the lot. Any expansion of this structure will require a variance. B. In this case the unique physical conditions are the placement of the existing structure on the lot, the interior design of the building, the location of the existing driveways and parking areas, and the topography of the property. The only logical location for the new entry way and carport is in front of the existing entry way. Alternative locations are available but would interfere with existing parking, not utilize the existing driveways, and possibly require redesigning the interior of the existing church. Strict application of the A. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would not allow any additions to the existing structure. This is a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship. B. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would not allow the additions to the existing structure to be located as proposed. This is a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship when there are several physical conditions that justify the granting of a variance. ting of the variance will not result in material or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity mental to the public's health, safetv and welfar A. Granting of this variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the area. A substantial number of structures in the nearby Leite and East Addition Subdivisions are nonconforming, and a number of variances have been granted in the past by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the expansion of the cubical content of these nonconforming structures. P & Z REGULAR MEETING 8 KIBS225951 APRIL 16, 1986 B. Granting of this variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the area. The location of the additions will not interfere with safe traffic flow or present any line -of -sight problems. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. �^ A. Granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies this area for medium -density residential development. The addition will not increase the existing density or result in a change of land use. B. Same as "A" above. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. A. In this instance, actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The variance will be decided prior to construction of the addition. B. Same as "A" above. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. A. Churches are a permitted land use in the R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. B. Same as "A" above. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission. E) CASE 86-025. Request for the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 2, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision from RR1--Rural Residential One to PL--Public Use Lands, in accordance with Chapter 17.72 (Amendments and Changes) of the Borough Code. This property is proposed to be incorporated into Panamaroff Creek Park. (Kodiak Island Borough) BOB PEDERSON indicated 36 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 2 were returned, in favor of this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: PAM HUMMEL, Chairman of the Womens Bay Parks Committee, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOROUGH ASSEMBLY approve the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 2, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision from RR1--Rural Residential One to PL--Public Use Lands, in accordance with Chapter 17.72 of the Borough Code and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or Amendment_ KIBS225952 P & Z REGULAR MEETING 9 APRIL 16, 1986 A rezone to PL--Public Use Lands is needed so that the zoning of the lot reflects the public ownership of the land and because the lot is proposed to be incorporated into the adjacent Panamaroff Creek Park. 2. Findings as to the Effect a Change or Amendment would have on the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The requested PL--Public Use Lands Zoning District will be generally consistent with the objectives of the Womens Bay Community Plan. F) CASE 86-026. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.18.030 (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code to permit an office as a home occupation to locate in an existing single-family residence in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 21, Sublot 3, U.S. Survey 3099; 2564 Spruce Cape Road. (Don Mack) BOB PEDERSON indicated 24 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 2 were returned, in favor of this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT in accordance with Section 17.18.020 of the Borough Code to permit an office as a home occupation to locate within the existing single-family residence on Lot 21, Sublot 3, USS 3099 and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the conditional use will preserve the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area. It appears that the proposed home occupation will preserve the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area. The home occupation (an office) will be conducted entirely within the residence, the exterior of the structure will not change and according to the applicant no customers will call at the residence. 2. That the conditional use fulfills all other requirements of this chapter pertaining to the conditional use in question. The proposed home occupation will fulfill all other requirements of the R1--Single-Family Residential District (Chapter 17.18) and the definition of a home occupation (Section 17.06.320). 3. That granting the conditional use permit will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and comfort. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and comfort because the character of the surrounding area will not change and there will be no increase in traffic resulting from the home occupation. 4. That sufficient setbacks, lot area, buffers or other safeguards are being provided to meet the conditions listed in subsections A through C of this section. KIBS225953 P & Z REGULAR MEETING 10 APRIL 16, 1986 As the home occupation will be conducted entirely within the existing residence and because no customers will call at the residence, provision of additional buffers or other safeguards are not necessary in this instance. Should the nature of the home occupation change over time, the Commission could review the conditional use permit to determine if additional safeguards are appropriate. G) CASE 86-027. Request for an exception from Section 17.19.020 r (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit a temporary fireworks sales stand to locate in a R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. Tract C-1, U.S. Survey 1682; 3472 Rezanof Drive East. (Les Seaton/Mike Anderson) COMMISSIONER ANDERSON requested to be excused due to a conflict of interest. COMMISSIONER JAMES excused COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. BOB PEDERSON indicated 58 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION from Section 17.19.020 of the Borough Code to permit a temporary fireworks sales stand to locate in a R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District on Tract C-1, U.S. Survey 1682, subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report dated April 2, 1986, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated April 2, 1986, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The sale of fireworks shall be discontinued at this location by July 6, 1986. 2. The use and structure shall be removed from the lot by Monday, July 7, 1986. 3. Provide a copy of the required State of Alaska "Permit for the Sale of Salable Fireworks." 4. Agree to place "No Smoking within 250 feet" and No Fireworks to be Discharged within 250 feet" signs on the premises. 5. Agree to provide a trash receptacle on the premises for the use of patrons. 6. The exception shall be valid only until July 7, 1986. FINDINGS OF FACT KIBS225954 1. That the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not (A) endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, (B) be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title and (C) adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. A. It appears that the proposed use will not endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare. Fireworks sales have previously occurred at this location and departmental files do not indicate that these sales have posed any danger to the public health, safety or welfare. Additionally, the use is temporary in nature P & Z REGULAR MEETING 11 APRIL 16, 1986 F r r and the applicant has obtained a permit (#85A-009) to sell fireworks from the Office of the State Fire Marshal. Lastly, the applicant agrees to comply with the conditions attached to all fireworks stands, as follows: 1. The sale of fireworks shall be discontinued at this location by July 6, 1986. 2. The use and structure shall be removed from the lot by Monday, July 7, 1986. 3. Provide a copy of the required State of Alaska "Permit for the Sale of Salable Fireworks." 4. Agree to place "No Smoking within 250 feet" and No Fireworks to be Discharged within 250 feet" signs on the premises. 5. Agree to provide a trash receptacle on the premises for the use of patrons. 6. The exception shall be valid only until July 7, 1986. B. The proposed use will be consistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and with the specific description and intent of Chapter 17.19, the R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District because the proposed use will not be a permanent retail sales outlet and also because the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly specifically exempted Article 78 of the 1982 Uniform Fire Code when it adopted this Code on June 6, 1985. Article 78 forbids the sale of fireworks. C. The proposed use does not appear to adversely impact other properties in the area because the location of the stand on the lot is approximately 400-feet away from the nearest residence, at least 250-feet from the church on Tract B-1 and because other surrounding properties are undeveloped. Further, adequate off-street parking is available and previous fireworks sales at this location have not generated any complaints from surrounding property owners. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission. H) CASE 86-028. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.18.030 (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code to permit an office as a home occupation to locate in an existing single-family residence in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 23, Block 1, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; 514 Hillside Drive. (Tuck Associates) BOB PEDERSON indicated 41 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, in favor of this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. KIBS225955 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT in accordance with Section 17.18.020 of the Borough Code to permit an office as a home occupation to locate within the existing single-family residence on Lot 23, Block 1, Aleutian Homes Subdivision and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT P & Z REGULAR MEETING 12 APRIL 16, 1986 f 1. That the conditional use will preserve the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area. It appears that the proposed home occupation will preserve the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area. The home occupation (an office) will be conducted entirely within the residence, the exterior of the structure will not change and according to the applicant few, if any, customers will ever call at the residence. 2. That the conditional use fulfills all other this chapter pertaining to the conditional rements of use In question. The proposed home occupation will fulfill all other requirements of the Rl--Single-Family Residential District (Chapter 17.18) and the definition of a home occupation (Section 17.06.320). 3. That to t the conditional use permit will not be harmful convenience ana comtort. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and comfort because the character of the surrounding area will not change and there will be no increase in traffic resulting from the home occupation. 4. That sufficient setbacks, lot area, buffers or other safeguards are being provided to meet the conditions listed in subsections A through C of this section. As the home occupation will be conducted entirely within the existing residence and because few, if any, customers will call at the residence, provision of additional buffers or other safeguards are not necessary in this instance. Should the nature of the home occupation change over time, the Commission could review the conditional use permit to determine if additional safeguards are appropriate. I) CASE 86-029. Request for a variance from Section 17.17.040 (Area Requirements) of the Borough Code to permit the creation of two (2) lots (approximately 18,513 square feet each) in the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District that do not meet the minimum area requirement of 20,000 square feet. Lot 5, U.S. Survey 3466; 2551 Beaver Lake Drive. (Ed Van Fleet) BOB PEDERSON indicated 13 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended denial of this request. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON outlined possible findings of fact for granting this request. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN indicated that she had spoken with some of the area's residents and that these residents had indicated non -objection to this request. These residents stated they would prefer a variance rather than a rezone in order to maintain the area's rural atmosphere. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON outlined a condition requiring submission of a topographical map with the preliminary plat. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: ED VAN FLEET appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. KIBS225956 Regular Session Opened. P & Z REGULAR MEETING 13 APRIL 16, 1986 COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN stated it was the purpose of the Commission to rule on these types of requests and that she strongly supported the granting of this variance. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.17.040 of the Borough Code to permit the creation of two (2) lots (approximately 18,513 square feet each) that do not meet the minimum area requirement of 20,000 square feet for RR1 Zoning District; lots served by public utilities. Lot 5, r U.S. Survey 3466; 2551 Beaver Lake Drive; and that we defer the findings of fact to the end of the meeting. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. J) CASE 86-030. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review of the disposal of Borough land in accordance with Section 18.20.030 (Review by Planning Commission -Assembly Approval) of the Borough Code for a lease of Borough property for the Kodiak International Shipworks facility. Tract A, U.S. Survey 2539, Old Shipyard-Women's Bay and a Portion of U.S. Survey 2539. (Kodiak Island Borough) BOB PEDERSON indicated 6 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned from the U.S. Coast Guard opposing this request. MR. PEDERSON deferred all questions regarding this request to MR. CASSIDY, Borough Resource Management Officer. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: LT. REX TAKAHASHI, Planning Officer of the Coast Guard Support Center, appeared before the Commission and stated, "as the official position of the Coast Guard has been entered into the official record, the Coast Guard has no further statement at this time. If there are any questions, I will be available to answer r them." COMMISSIONER KNIGHT requested Lt. Takahashi to give a short synopsis of the Coast Guard's letter of objection dated April 9, 1986 and to explain the Coast Guard's position. LT. REX TAKAHASHI stated the "Coast Guard is standing on the written agreement of 1977 which was made with Koniag and the Department of Interior which states that there will be no interference or no development that will interfere with electronic propagation of signals from the Communications Station and that we are standing on that legal agreement; and therefore oppose the development of this shipworks by KIS." COMMISSIONER KNIGHT asked if some of the facilities that had been proposed would have an interference on your ability for search and rescue. LT. REX TAKAHASHI answered, "Yes, sir, that is correct." COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN stated that it was her understanding at Assembly worksessions and public hearings that the Coast Guard had approved this project. LT. REX TAKAHASHI stated, "that is not correct. We had never approved it; we have had discussions with representatives of KIS, but at no time did we approve the r proposal." SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commission and asked, in regards to a lease does the Borough not normally own it before they decide it is surplus and lease it; is this a new way of doing it? CHAIRMAN JAMES requested that MR. CASSIDY answer this question. BUD CASSIDY appeared before the Commission, stating in part, that a policy decision has already been made by the Assembly. The reason that the Commission is looking at this matter of a lease is due to a technicality in the Borough Code. Whenever the Borough acquires land, by Code the Commission reviews it, except in cases where the land is acquired for specific purposes. The P & Z REGULAR MEETING 14 KIBS225957 APRIL 16, 1986 Commission is not reviewing the acquisition of this land because the Borough is in the process of acquiring the land for a specific purpose. The Commission is looking at this matter because of a technicality in the Borough Code regarding review of leases by the Commission. He stated there were some irregularities as the Borough does not own the land but all legal requirements had been met. Two reasons that the Commission is reviewing this matter now are (1) to show the lending institutions that the Borough is making a commitment to support this project; and (2) to expedite the process. The matter is before the Commission to determine if this disposal meets the zoning code, requirements such as parking. In fact, this disposal meets these zoning requirements. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated that other than the Coast Guard's opposition, the fact that the Borough does not own the land presents a problem. MR. CASSIDY indicated that if an agreement is not consummated between the Coast Guard and Kodiak International Shipworks (KIS), the Borough will have no liability. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN asked if the Assembly has a condition to the effect that if the Coast Guard will not allow this development, then all negotiations will cease. MR. CASSIDY indicated the problem existed only between the Coast Guard and KIS. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT stated that he had no problem with the fact that a policy decision has already been rendered on this matter. CHAIRMAN JAMES asked if anyone in the audience had a question of MR. CASSIDY. SCOTT ARNDT asked if the Borough had an option, in writing, on the property presently. MR. CASSIDY indicated that he could not answer that question. SCOTT ARNDT stated that throughout all the subdivision and zoning regulations, it is required that one has the permission of the property owner. It seems as if this same requirement would hold true for a lease. Another question concerns the gravel extraction taking place on the property. If the Borough purchases the property, then it is a Borough -owned gravel site and extraction (and the royalties generated from gravel extraction) would need to be addressed in the lease. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON asked where a copy of the lease is and how can the Commission review the lease if it is not present. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS stated that he had not seen a copy of the development plans, that the Commission is being asked to look at something by an agency that does not have title to the land, and yet the Commission is being asked to approve the disposal of surplus lands. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS asked for exact clarification of what the Commission is being asked to do. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated that if a private individual came to Il the Commission with this much information, the Commission would reject the proposal. It seems that the Commission is being asked to approve a matter on which there is insufficient data. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON also stated he did "not feel comfortable making any kind of decision" adding that he saw no site plan, no copy of the lease, only letters from the investors and a paper on local community benefits. CHAIRMAN JAMES requested the Commission limit the discussion to questions to public hearing participants and resume Commission discussion after the public hearing closed. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS asked MR. CASSIDY for clarification. P & Z REGULAR MEETING 15 HIBS225958 APRIL 16, 1986 e— MR. CASSIDY indicated Barry Still of Lash Corporation was in the audience and Mr. Still could address the specifics of the development plan. MR. CASSIDY also stated that the types of things the Borough is doing by purchasing the land are done commonly by communities all over the United States which invite industry or business into their communities. CHAIRMAN JAMES asked if there were any more questions for MR. CASSIDY. SCOTT ARNDT stated that the gravel extraction issue had not been addressed as far as leasing is concerned. MR. CASSIDY indicated that he did not have knowledge of all the particulars of the project and therefore ought to defer to BARRY STILL. CHAIRMAN JAMES asked if there were any other audience comments at this time as the Commission was still in public hearing. CHAIRMAN JAMES asked if MR. STILL would like to address the Commission. BARRY STILL appeared before the Commission and stated that he attended the meeting at MR. CASSIDY's invitation. He also stated that he had been on the periphery of a portion of this matter and that it was his understanding that the revenues from gravel extraction would go to the developer but if this was out of the ordinary it would need to be addressed in the lease. MR. STILL indicated that to his knowledge a draft of the lease had not been prepared as yet. COMMISSIONER ANDE.RSON asked MR. STILL about KCI's current agreement concerning gravel extraction. MR. STILL said he had /-� seen a copy of the lease with an option and that it is his understanding that they are leaving. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS asked MR. STILL if he had seen the Coast Guard's memo to the Commission. MR. STILL responded no. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS asked if MR. STILL wanted to comment on the Coast Guard's objections. MR. STILL responded that they had had discussions with the Coast Guard in the past, both Lash Corporation and the Shipyard, and that the Coast Guard's position has not changed. REX TAKAHASHI confirmed that the Coast Guard's position had not changed. MR. STILL continued that he was not certain what legal grounds the Coast Guard had until the covenants on the land were actually broken. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS stated "so you have addressed the potential problem and feel like you would not be breaking the covenants in the type of uses you would need or the type of uses that you would have there at the Shipyard where maybe you would have a generator or an arc -welder or something." MR. STILL stated that he was not sure of the question. That his knowledge of the electronic side of the matter was not extensive enough for him to have a professional opinion. REX TAKAHASHI reappeared before the Commission and stated, "I do need to clarify one thing. MR. CASSIDY talked about a continuing negotiations between the Coast Guard and Kodiak International Shipworks. Actually at this point there are no further negotiations that are going to take place at least at the levels where they exist and right now there have been negotiations directly between the District Office in Juneau, the District Headquarters in Juneau, and Andy Andrews who does represent KIS. The position statement that you have from the Coast Guard is the official position from the District Commander, Admiral Lucas, and that position is not going to change so there should not be any anticipation that further deals are going to be struck at least at the levels at which they have taken place now. Those levels have been very P & Z REGULAR MEETING 16 KIBS225959 APRIL 16, 1986 high. Also I would like to make a statement about the zoning of that area as industrial. The zoning was done in 1979 and in 1979 the Coast Guard went on record opposing the zoning of that area as industrial and did want it to remain conservation, but the Borough went ahead and zoned it industrial. Thank you." SCOTT ARNDT reappeared before the Commission and stated that his concern still centered around procedure: (1) the Borough does not appear to have anything in writing that they are a representative of this property; (2) there is no lease; and (3) there is no information concerning gravel extraction. MR. CASSIDY reappeared before the Commission and stated in part that this matter was before the Commission due (1) to a technicality in the Borough Code and (2) to show the financial backers that the Borough and the community support this facility. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Meeting Opened: COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated in view of the exceedingly incomplete packet of information for review; the fact that the Coast Guard is adamantly opposed to the shipyard; the lack of information on the gravel extraction aspect (which could conceivably be a major issue); the absence of a lease of any type; the absence of a site plan, he did not feel comfortable with taking any action. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated that he felt this matter was before the Commission for a "rubber stamp" and suggested that the Commission either table the matter because of the lack of information or deny the resolution. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT stated that the problem that he saw was the technicality in the Borough Code. The Code is not specific as to what the review process is. The interest in the property prior to coming before the Commission is a significant item that has been maintained by the Commission in the past and it is the only irregularity that he sees. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN stated the matter was before the Commission at the request of the Assembly to show the financiers that the Borough and the community supports this project. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN asked if there were some way to ensure Commission review when the lease was drafted. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners, Community Development Department staff and the Resource Management Officer concerning leases. COMMISSIONER JAMES asked MR. CASSIDY if all the requirements of the Code were met for parking, etc., this issue might never return to the Commission for review. MR. CASSIDY answered that if all the provisions of the Code were met, the permits could be issued administratively. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON noted that on page two of the staff report it stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission's role is to review the lease and to make land use decisions. There is not i-- enough information in our packet to make land use decisions, there is no site plan in our packet and there is no lease to review. COMMISSIONER JAMES indicated that the five items on page two of the staff report are what is being considered our review of the lease. COMMISSIONER JAMES asked MR. CASSIDY if that was correct. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS asked what are the Statutory requirements of the Commission? COMMISSIONER KNIGHT read Section 18.20.030 of the Borough Code. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT stated it was his opinion that there is no requirement in the Code that the Commission review leases. P & Z REGULAR MEETING 17 KIBS225960 APRIL 16, 1986 COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS agreed with COMMISSIONER KNIGHT. And stated that he was confused as to whether there is actually a Statutory requirement for the Commission to fulfill. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT said that he thought the Commission had a statutory requirement to fulfill, but it was very vague as to what that is exactly. The statutory requirement is under Section 18.20.030 of the Borough Code, but it is anybody's interpretation as to what "review" means. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated that the Commission could not review a matter without any information and strongly recommended tabling the matter. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON also stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to deny the resolution, but it seemed more appropriate to return it to staff for more information, stating that a decision could be made after the Commission received more information and the matter was more clearly outlined as to what is expected of the Commission. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON stated that he also recommended tabling the matter and go into a more in-depth review with the staff, obtain the information that the Commission needs pertinent to making a decision at a later time, if that is in fact what the Borough and the Assembly is asking the Commission to do. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED ON CASE 86-030 TO TABLE this until we receive more information on the matter, specifically (1) the lease, if there is a copy of it or at least an outline of it, (2) a site plan; (3) some information on the gravel extraction, specifically the agreement between the people that are now leasing the land from the natives for gravel extraction, what is going to happen to that agreement. The motion was seconded and FAILED by roll call vote. Commissioners James, Knight and Knudsen voted no. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON asked MR. CASSIDY what he wanted. MR. CASSIDY responded that the decision was the Commission's to make but that the sole reason that this matter was before the Commission was due to a technicality in the Borough Code. MR. CASSIDY also stated that what he wanted was a decision, yes or no, as to whether or not this is a good use of land. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON stated that even if there was no opposing neighbor like there is in this particular case, there would be some concern and the Commission cannot address something that the Commission does not really understand. MR. CASSIDY asked what aspect do you not understand. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON stated there were a lot of things that he did not understand but he thought it was because he did not attend the last worksession. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON asked if it was discussed in the last worksession. CHAIRMAN JAMES stated, "not really." COMMISSIONER THOMPSON stated he did not feel comfortable saying no to this request because he understood that funding was r essential for the project and he did not want to see the I Commission split and objecting. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON also stated that he did not feel comfortable approving the matter and not knowing what it is the Commission would be approving. MR. CASSIDY stated that if the Commission did not feel comfortable in approving the matter then the Commission could table it. The Borough Code in this regard is very vague and it is unclear. If the Commission feels it needs to know about gravel extraction, MR. CASSIDY stated that the Commission could approve it with a clause stating if gravel extraction did occur, the matter was to be returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission; if the Commission feels it needs to know more about the oil tank farm, the Commission could request additional information P & Z REGULAR MEETING 18 KIBS225961 APRIL 16, 1986 as a condition of approval of the lease. Whatever the Commission's decision in the matter, MR. CASSIDY requested the Commission specify the information that the Commission desired to have so that he could then obtain that specific information. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON stated that if he came before the Commission with the amount of data presented, it would not be considered a formal presentation of a project. r COMMISSIONER ANDERSON noted that in the letter received at this IIII meeting from the Coast Guard it is stated that in the agreement between Koniag and the Coast Guard the land shall not be used for welding shops, electric power generating plants or manufacturing which uses equipment or processes which create electromagnetic interference at the Holiday Beach receiver site. The 1977 agreement unconditionally prohibits all types of welding and all types of electric power generating plants. Any type of manufacturing which uses equipment or processes which can create electromagnetic interference to the Holiday Beach receiver site is also prohibited. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated that the objections contained in the Coast Guard's letter were major stumbling blocks to a shipworks. MR. CASSIDY stated that the Coast Guard's objections were the problem of Kodiak International Shipworks and if a compromise could not be reached between these two parties, the project would end at that point. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated he did not feel comfortable approving the matter and saying to the Borough Assembly that this is fine after having read the Coast Guard's letter. MR. CASSIDY stated that the feeling about the covenants and what the shipworks is doing can be summed up by saying that the r shipworks feels that it can meet the requirements by not I producing electromagnetic interference; not have generators above a certain horsepower; and install an electromagnetic shield to prevent interference. LT. REX TAKAHASHI confirmed that MR. CASSIDY was correct in his interpretation of the shipworks' position. The Coast Guard's position is that the electromagnetic interference problem cannot be overcome, citing a study conducted in Kodiak by the Navy Electronic Systems in Charleston. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated that he felt the Commission was being asked to do too much, too fast considering the lack of information presented. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON asked RES TAKAHASHI for the date of the study he had cited. REX TAKAHASHI responded 10 October 1985. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT recommended additional clauses in the resolution so that the Assembly could understand the Commission's frustration in this matter, particularly by adding "Whereas the Commission desires to review the lease prior to the signing and whereas the Commission desires a specific site plan to be reviewed prior to the signing of said lease." In this way the r Commission's intent could be presented to the Assembly. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS requested COMMISSIONER KNIGHT to repeat the two clauses. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT repeated the clauses. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN requested an additional clause, "whereas the Coast Guard covenants be honored." COMMISSIONER KNIGHT stated he felt COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN'S clause to be a moot point. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN stated that concerning gravel extraction, the Borough Code (Section 18.40.090) states that gravel cannot be removed from Borough leased lands without written permission from P & Z REGULAR MEETING 19 KIBS225962 APRIL 16, 1986 the Borough manager, and if it is sold, the market value is to be paid to the Borough. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS stated that he tended to agree that the Coast Guard's objections will take care of themselves; however, the Commission has had difficulty making those kinds of assumptions in the past. Even though the situation in the past was not exactly parallel, on a subdivision the Commission assumed that the glide slope was going to take care of itself and yet the judge was specific in saying the Commission could not ignore other restrictions and covenants placed on the land. Even though these cases are not exact parallels, COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS stated that the general principle is similar and that the Commission cannot ignore the restrictions and covenants. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON asked if the United States Government went to court against the Borough, in what kind of position would the Commission find themselves? CHAIRMAN JAMES indicated he would entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 86-02-R recommending that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve a lease of Borough lands: Tract A, U.S. Survey 2539, Old Shipyard-Women's Bay and a Portion of U.S. Survey 2539. The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO READ, after the last whereas, and WHEREAS the Commission desires to review the lease prior to its signing; and WHEREAS the Commission desires a site plan to be reviewed prior to signing of said lease. The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN requested an additional whereas clause be added after the last whereas, WHEREAS the Coast Guard covenants upon the land be upheld. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT ACCEPTED COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN CLAUSE AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO AMEND. CHAIRMAN JAMES noted that COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN seconded the motion to amend so that the second did concur. The question was called. THE AMENDMENT CARRIED BY MAJORITY ROLL CALL VOTE. Commissioner Anderson voted no. The question was called. THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED BY MAJORITY ROLL CALL VOTE. Commissioners Anderson, Thompson, Heinrichs and James voted no. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and the Community Development Department staff. It was decided to take no further action on this matter. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS stated that he liked the idea of inaction on this matter but that he did not want to give the impression that the Commission was talking about whether or not this was a good idea and that the Commission is not saying that it opposes this use of Borough land but that the Commission was only saying r that for various reasons the Commission has had problems I considering this matter. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS also stated that he felt the matter should not have been placed on the Commission's agenda and that he did not want this issue to be misinterpreted. FEL KNUDSEN MOVED THAT A MEMO BE THE COMMISSION TOOK NO ACTIO a Y KIBS225963 P & Z REGULAR MEETING 20 APRIL 16, 1986 r A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners, the Resource Management Officer and Community Development Department staff concerning COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN's motion concerning a memo. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS stated that he did not want to "go that far," that he wanted to say that the Commission is not endorsing nor opposing this matter; all the Commission is saying is that this package is technically improper to be considered and for that reason only the Commission has not considered it. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated that there had been considerable discussion of all the points and reasons of the Commission and that those comments are in the record. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON requested that the minutes reflect these comments. CHAIRMAN JAMES concurred. CHAIRMAN JAMES RECESSED THE MEETING AT 9:25 P.M. CHAIRMAN JAMES RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 9:35 P.M. K) CASE 82-002. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review of the conditions of approval of an exception for a fishing gear storage building located in a R3--Multifamily Residential Zoning District. The applicant had requested that the conditions requiring screening and the construction of a residence within two (2) years of sewer and water installation be waived. Lot 3, Block 1, Kadiak Alaska 1st Addition; 3310 Rezanof Drive East. (William Alwert/Buccaneer Enterprises) The Planning and Zoning Commission rescinded action taken on this request at their regular March meeting after initial review of the request at their regular February meetine. BOB PEDERSON indicated 11 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, opposing this request. Staff recommended denial of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST THAT THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION requiring screening and the construction of a residence within two years of sewer and water installation be waived on Lot 3, Block 1, Kadiak Alaska Subdivision First Addition. The motion was seconded. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners. The question was called and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Knudsen voted no. Findings of fact were deferred to the end of the meeting. L) Sixth public hearing on the revised draft of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. BOB PEDERSON noted the following correspondence: (1) a memo dated April 10, 1986 from the Borough Engineer; and (2) two letters from the Borough Attorney, dated April 4 and April 15, 1986. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: ANN MOEN appeared before the Commission, noted her memorandum dated April 16, 1986 and expressed her concerns with the present draft. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Ann Moen. P & Z REGULAR MEETING 21 KIBS225964 APRIL 16, 1986 TIM HILL appeared before the Commission and expressed his concerns with the present draft. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Tim Hill. DAN MOEN appeared before the Commission and expressed his concerns with the present draft. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Dan Moen. SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commission and expressed his concerns with the present draft. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Scott Arndt. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Community Development Department staff. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE MAY REGULAR MEETING. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. M) CASE S-86-005. Preliminary subdivision of Lot 4, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision 1st Addition to Lots 4A, 4B and 4C. (Burton Parker) DAVE CROWE indicated 95 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, in favor of this request. r-- A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and the Borough Engineer. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION of Lot 4, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision 1st Addition to Lots 4A, 4B and 4C subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the memorandum from the Borough Engineer dated April 8, 1986. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. That a note be placed on the final plat stating that natural drainage courses shall not be blocked or impeded. 2. That existing fence encroachments into the Neva Way and Eider Street rights -of -way and Lot 4B are to be eliminated. 3. That five -foot -wide electrical easements be provided along road frontages and on either side of the lot line common to Lots 4B and 4C. 4. That water and sewer services are to be installed to Lots 4B and 4C. VII. OLD BUSINESS A) CASE S-85-074. Final vacation of Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Monashka Bay Alaska Subdivision and replat to Lots 11A, 12A and 12B. (Patricia Eufemio) KIBS225965 P & Z REGULAR MEETING 22 APRIL 16, 1986 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF CASE S-85-074 vacation of Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Monashka Bay Alaska Subdivision and replat to Lots 11A, 12A and 12B. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. VIII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. F'- IX. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of the items of Communication and Reports. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Biannual review of the memorandum of agreement between the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough that established a coordinated procedure for the enforcement of zoning regulations within the city limits. X. REPORTS A) Status Report from the Community Development Department - March 1986. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE 86-029: request for a variance from Section 17.17.040 (Ar Requirements) of the Borough Code to permit the creation of two (2) r lots (approximately 18,513 square feet each) in the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District that do not meet the minimum area requirement of 20,000 square feet. Lot 5, U.S. Survey 3466; 2551 Beaver Lake Drive. 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to The property or intended use of development, which generally d not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The unique condition applicable to the intended use of development is the substandard lot size. This lot was platted prior to establishment of the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for RR1--Rural Residential One lots served by public water and sewer. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship because the lot size creates a unique physical condition that justifies a variance. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safetv and welfare. 4. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages to other properties in the area nor be detrimental to the public's general welfare because all other Title 17 requirements except minimum lot size will be met. The lot sizes proposed will be in keeping with the rural nature of the area, and no public objections have been received on this request. will not be ve Plan. to the KIBS225966 P & Z REGULAR MEETING 23 APRIL 16, 1986 0- XIII Granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies this area for Medium Density Residential Development. 5. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Single-family residential land uses are permitted in this district but only on 20,000 square foot lots. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE 82-002: request for Planning and Zoning Commission review of the conditions of approval of an exception for a fishing gear storage building located in a R3--Multifamily Residential Zoning District. The applicant had requested that the conditions requiring screening and the construction of a residence within two (2) years of sewer and water installation be waived. Lot 3, Block 1, Kadiak Alaska 1st Addition; 3310 Rezanof Drive East. 1. A fence containing screening will not screen the existing structure from the highway and therefore that condition is no longer appropriate. 2. The addition of a residential apartment unit within the warehouse to satisfy a condition of approval will not materially change the use or appearance of the land and therefore that condition is no longer appropriate. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT ACTING CHAIRMAN JAMES adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: Q� teve Rennell, Chairman ATTEST By: I Jm- ^" /� Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: f1 al tq g(, A TAPE RECORDING IS ON FILE AT THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KIBS225967 P & Z REGULAR MEETING 24 APRIL 16, 1986