Loading...
1986-08-20 Regular MeetingF_ I KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 20, 1986 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chairman Steve Rennell on August 20, 1986 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Others Present: Steve Rennell, Chairman Linda Freed, Director, Mike Anderson Community Development Department Robin Heinrichs Bob Pederson, Associate Planner, Marlin Knight Community Development Department D.L. Smedley Dave Crowe, Borough Engineer Scott Thompson Patricia Miley, Secretary, Community Development Department Commissioners Absent: Mary Lou Knudsen, Excused APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following additions were made to the agenda: ITEM V - APPEARANCE REQUESTS AND AUDIENCE COMMENTS B) Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review of an administrative decision that Section 17.24.060(G) (Performance Standards) does not apply to determine screening requirements for a commercial land use located within an I --Industrial Zoning District adjacent to a residential zoning area and residential land uses on Tract S-4A, U.S. Survey 3218. Requested by four property owners in Shahafka Acres Subdivision. ITEM IX - COMMUNICATIONS D) Letter to Wanda Fields and Tom Everitt from Gordon Gould, dated August 18, 1986, re: Lot 1, USS 3100 - Case 84-018: an exception approving the expansion of a mobile home park. E) Letter to Mike Rasmussen from Robert Pederson, dated August 19, 1986, re: Case 86-034. F) Memo to the Kodiak Island Borough Mayor, Assembly and Planning and Zoning Commission from Linda Freed, dated August 20, 1986, re: Chiniak Comprehensive Plan. The following deletion was made to the agenda: ITEM IX - COMMUNICATIONS A) Administrative interpretation and opinion regarding zoning compliance for minor developments such as decks and stairways. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda with the revisions noted by the Community Development Department staff. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING KIBS226040 P & Z MINUTES 1 AUGUST 20, 1986 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the July 16, 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 A) CASE S-85-002. Request for an extension of the preliminary plat approval period: subdivision of Lot 6, Block 1, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision. (Pamela Delys-Baglien) PAM DELYS-BAGLIEN appeared before the Commission and requested the Commission grant final approval of this subdivision. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners, Ms. Delys-Baglien and Engineering Department staff. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL of the subdivision of Lot 6, Block 1, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision, subject to the condition that ADEC approve the revised final plat and that each lot be served by onsite water and septic systems. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. B) Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review of an administrative decision that Section 17.24.060(G) (Performance Standards) does not apply to determine screening requirements for a commercial land use located within an I --Industrial Zoning District adjacent to a residential zoning area and residential land uses on Tract S-4A, U.S. Survey 3218. Requested by four property owners in Shahafka Acres Subdivision. At the request of the Commission, Linda Freed reviewed the sequence of events that led to this request. 0'- GIOVANNI TALLINO appeared before the Commission and requested that Section 17.24.060(G) be applied to the Safeway project. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Mr. Tallino. CATHY TALLINO appeared before the Commission and requested that Section 17.24.060(G) be applied to the Safeway project. ANDY CRISTALDI appeared before the Commission and expressed the views of the developer concerning this request. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Mr. Cristaldi. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO CONCUR with the staff interpretation that Section 17.24.060(G) does not apply and that the existing screening requirement taken from Section 17.57.040 is correct. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. There were no further appearance requests nor audience comments. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) CASE 86-057. Request for a variance from Section 17.60.030(H) (Residential District Signs) of the Borough Code to permit an illuminated 2-foot by 4-foot sign to locate in a residential zoning district. Lot 7, Block 7, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; 413 Cedar Street. (Keith Hediger) BOB PEDERSON indicated 52 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 6 were returned, 2 in favor and 4 opposing this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: KEITH HEDIGER appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. ,IBS226041 P & Z MINUTES 2 AUGUST 20, 1986 A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Mr. Hediger. TOBY COOK, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners, Community Development Department staff and Mr. Hediger. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.60.030 of the Borough Code to permit a permitted sign in a residential zoning district to be illuminated. Lot 7, Block 7, 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 majority roll call vote. Commissioner Smedley voted "no." FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The exceptional physical condition applicable to the intended use of this property is the location. Although zoned R2--Two—Family Residential, the lot is adjacent to vacant business land and across the street from public use lands zoning and public buildings (the Post Office and Teen Center). Any residences are behind or to the side of the structure. Because the clinic is located in a residential building in an area of nonresidential land uses, an illuminated sign would help to identify the actual activity within the structure. This is especially true in Alaska with less daylight during the winter months. In this case, it is notable that the applicant is seeking the variance prior to installation of the sign. In addition, the clinic will be located in a residential structure, thereby creating a physical need for a sign. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would not allow an illuminated sign. This is an unnecessary hardship when the sign will not be a nuisance to the properties the sign will face (the Post Office and Teen Center). The sign will not be visible from any residences in the area. 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, safety and welfare. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare. The variance will also not damage other properties in the area. The sign will not interfere with safe traffic flow along Cedar Street and will not be visible from any residential structures in the area. Surrounding land uses include a vacant business zoned lot, the Teen Center and Post Office, and residences behind and to the side of the building. 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 because the clinic is a permitted land use under the zoning district regulations and signs are customarily used to identify businesses such as clinics. KIBS226042 P & Z MINUTES 3 AUGUST 20, 1986 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is be sought by the variance. In this instance, actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The variance request will be decided prior to erection of the sign. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Signs are permitted in the residential zoning district. B) CASE 86-058. Request for a variance from Section 17.17.050(A) (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit an 8-foot by 18-foot arctic entry/mud room addition on to the front of the existing single-family residence to encroach 8-feet into the required 14.9 foot front yard setback of the R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 23, Block 10, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; 222 Birch Street. (Adolfo Gonzales) BOB PEDERSON indicated 75 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 request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 of the Borough Code to permit an 8-foot by 18-foot arctic entry/mud room addition onto the front of the existing single-family residence to encroach 8-feet into the required 14.9-foot front yard setback in the R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District on Lot 23, Block 10, 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 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. In this case, the exceptional physical condition is the placement of the existing structure on the lot. Any addition of an arctic entry will require a variance. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. r The strict application of the zoning ordinance will not allow the addition of an arctic entry. This is a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship when many other Aleutian Homes have arctic entries. 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, safety and welfare. Granting of this variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the area. The addition of this mud room will not block sight distance on Birch Avenue. A substantial number of other Aleutian Homes KIBS226043 P & Z MINUTES 4 AUGUST 20, 1986 have arctic entries and the Commission has granted variances in the past for arctic entry additions. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the 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 r' addition will not increase the existing density. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause is be e. In this case, actions of the applicant did not cause the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The existing structure was built in 1951 and purchased by the applicant in 1980. 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. C) CASE 86-059. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.O1O(C) (Fences and Walls) of the Borough Code to permit a 4-foot chain link fence to project into the Birch Street right-of-way. Lot 24, Block 10, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; 224 Birch Street. (David Popken) BOB PEDERSON indicated 8 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned in favor of this request. Mr. 0— Pederson also noted that a letter from the City of Kodiak was distributed with the packet materials. 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 variance from Section 17.54.010 of the Borough Code to permit a 4-foot fence to encroach onto the Birch Street right-of-way across Lot 24, Block 10, Aleutian Homes Subdivision as shown on the attached "as -built" survey, 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. The fence is constructed at the applicant's sole expense. 2. The applicant assumes any liability associated with said fence on city -owned property. 3. If at a future date the city determines that the fence must be removed from the city -owned property, the applicant or any subsequent owner of Lot 24, Block 10, Aleutian Homes Subdivision, agrees to remove same without cost to the city. 4. Since the land is publicly owned, no prescriptive right accrues to the user. FINDINGS OF FACT KIBS226044 P & Z MINUTES 5 AUGUST 20, 1986 0- 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The exceptional condition applicable to the intended use of the property is largely a perceptual one. Typically, the average property owner assumes that all the land out to the sidewalk is their "yard," and that they should be able to erect a fence around that yard. In this case, it is notable that the applicant is seeking permission for the fence to locate on the public property prior to erecting the fence. In addition, if the fence was built along the property lines, a small strip of City property would remain outside the fence. It is possible that this property would not then be maintained by the property owner. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would only allow the fence to be placed on the property lines. This is an unnecessary hardship when many other fences in the same subdivision have encroached on the public property without first receiving 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 Dublic's health, safetv and welfare. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare. The fence will not interfere with safe traffic flow along Birch Street and will not obscure visibility at the Birch and Hemlock intersection. Also, the conditions outlined below ensure that any future removal of the fence will not impose a cost to the public. The erection of the fence out to the sidewalk will hopefully ensure that the small strip of City property is maintained by the property owner to the benefit of the City. 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. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. In this instance, actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The variance request will be decided prior to construction of the fence. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Fences are permitted in all land use districts. D) CASE 86-060. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit an existing single-family residence located on a nonconforming lot (substandard lot width) in a R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District to be converted into a two-family dwelling unit (duplex); and a Request for a variance from Section 17.57.O2O(A) (Off -Street Parking - Number of Spaces Required) of the Borough Code to permit the additional dwelling unit to be exempt from the requirement of providing two additional off-street parking P & Z MINUTES 0 KIBS226045 AUGUST 20, 1986 spaces. Lot 2, Block 34, East Addition; 1112 Mission Road. (Patrick Holmes) BOB PEDERSON indicated 74 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 7 were returned, 1 in favor and 6 opposing this request. Mr. Pederson noted that a new staff report was distributed with the packet materials as a result of the discussion at the August 13, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission worksession. Staff recommended approval of the request. 0 Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: PATRICK HOLMES appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Mr. Holmes. RICHARD MACINTOSH appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. BILL GLYNN appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 of the Borough Code to permit the existing single-family residence located on a nonconforming lot of record to be converted into a two-family dwelling unit (duplex). Lot 2, Block 34, East Addition, subject to the conditions of approval outlined below, and to adopt findings 1A through 6A contained in the staff memo, dated August 15, 1986, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Rennell voted "no." CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Two parking spaces will be provided by construction of a parking deck as shown on the attached site plan. 2. The applicant obtains written permission from the property owner for the parking deck and removal of the guardrail. 3. The parking deck will be completely constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling unit. 4. The parking deck is constructed at the applicant's sole expense. 5. The applicant assumes any liability associated with said structure on city -owned property. 6. If at a future date, the City of Kodiak determines that the parking deck must be removed from the city -owned property, the applicant or any subsequent owner of Lot 2, Block 34, r East Addition agrees to remove same without cost to the City of Kodiak and convert the structure back into a single-family residence, or secure alternative parking for the duplex that is satisfactory to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 7. Since the land is publicly owned, the applicant agrees that no prescriptive right accrues to the user. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.57.020 of the Borough Code to permit an additional dwelling unit to provide zero instead of the two required off-street parking spaces. Lot 2, Block 34, East Addition, subject to the conditions of approval outlined below, P & Z MINUTES KIBS226046 7 AUGUST 20, 1986 and to adopt findings 1B through 6B contained in the staff memo, dated August 15, 1986, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Knight voted "no." CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Two parking spaces will be provided by construction of a parking deck as shown on the attached site plan. 0- 2. The applicant obtains written permission from the property owner for the parking deck and removal of the guardrail. 3. The parking deck will be completely constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling unit. 4. The parking deck is constructed at the applicant's sole expense. 5. The applicant assumes any liability associated with said structure on city -owned property. 6. If at a future date, the City of Kodiak determines that the parking deck must be removed from the city -owned property, the applicant or any subsequent owner of Lot 2, Block 34, East Addition agrees to remove same without cost to the City of Kodiak and convert the structure back into a single-family residence, or secure alternative parking for the duplex that is satisfactory to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 7. Since the land is publicly owned, the applicant agrees that no prescriptive right accrues to the user. FINDINGS OF FACT A: For the requested variance to allow the structure to be converted into a duplex. B: For the requested variance to exempt the additional dwelling from the requirement of providing two additional off-street parking spaces. 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. A. The unique physical circumstance in this case is the width of the nonconforming lot of record, approximately 51 feet. The lot contains 8,310 square feet which is adequate land area for a two-family dwelling, but does not meet the 60-foot minimum lot width. The lot was platted with a width of 50-feet in 1942 and the lot has been zoned R2 since at least 1968. B. The unique physical circumstance in this case is the location of the existing residence and parking deck on 0- the lot. This placement leaves no area for two off-street parking spaces along Mission Road. Also, there is no access to the rear of the lot, precluding parking on that portion of the lot. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical _difficulties or unnecessary hardships. A. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would not allow the structure to be converted into a duplex. This is an unnecessary hardship when the lot is zoned R2--Two-Family Residential, provided other Title 17 requirements such as height of structures, lot area and parking can be met. P & Z MINUTES KIBS226047 8 AUGUST 20, 1986 F F B. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would require the provision of two off-street parking spaces. This is a practical difficulty on this lot because of the location of the residence and the lack of access tc the rear of the property. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material 4. 5. 6. to the public's A. Granting of the variance for an additional dwelling unit would generally not be detrimental to the public's general welfare. However, when adequate parking is not available, a traffic and traffic safety concern results which renders granting of the variance a detriment to public safety. In this case, if construction of a parking deck within the Mission Road right-of-way is authorized by the City of Kodiak, the guardrail is removed and the parking deck is completed prior to occupancy of the second dwelling unit, the public's health, safety and welfare can be maintained. B. Granting of the variance subject to conditions (e.g., installation of a parking deck) would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, even though the parking deck would be located within the Mission Road right-of-way. A parking area within the right-of-way is proposed because there are physical circumstances that preclude parking on the property. 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. B. Same as A above. A. In this case, 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 any conversion of the structure to a duplex. B. Same as A above. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. A. A two-family residential land use is permitted in this zoning district. B. Same as A above. E) CASE 86-061. Request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit an existing dwelling unit located in a detached accessory building to remain on a lot that already contains a separate single-family residence in the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District; and a Request for a variance from Section 17.51.050 (Accessory Buildings - Area) of the Borough Code to permit the existing accessory structure to encroach 4-feet into the required 5-foot rear yard setback for accessory buildings; and a Request for a variance from Section 17.51.040 (Accessory Building Height Limit) of the Borough Code to permit the existing accessory building to exceed the 14-foot maximum height at the side wall by 1.6 feet. Lot 1, U.S. Survey 3464; 729 Lilly Drive. (Dale Westmark) KIBS226049 P & Z MINUTES 9 AUGUST 20, 1986 BOB PEDERSON indicated 44 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 4 were returned, 1 in favor and 3 opposing these requests. Staff recommended denial of each of the 3 requests. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: DALE WESTMARK appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Mr. Westmark. BUD CASSIDY appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Mr. Cassidy. NICK SZABO appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. LORNA ARNDT appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. DALE WESTMARK reappeared before the Commission to express support for this request. BOB PEDERSON read a letter expressing opposition to this request from Milstead C. Zahn, dated August 11, 1986, into the record. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Community Development Department staff. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 of the Borough Code to permit an existing dwelling unit located in a detached accessory building to remain on a lot that already contains a separate single-family residence in the RR1 Zoning District. Lot 1, U.S. Survey 3464 with the following two conditions: 1. That the use be restricted to two residents with one car for the apartment. 2. If the property is sold or the ownership is transferred, the apartment use must be discontinued The motion was seconded and FAILED by majority roll call vote. Commissioners Smedley, Heinrichs, Knight, Thompson and Rennell voted "no." A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Community Development Department staff. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.51.050 of the Borough Code to permit the existing accessory structure to encroach 4-feet into the required 5-foot i-- rear yard setback for accessory buildings. Lot 1, U.S. Survey 3464. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioners Smedley and Rennell voted "no." COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.51.040 of the Borough Code to permit the existing accessory building to exceed the 14-foot maximum height at the side wall by 1.6-feet. Lot 1, U.S. Survey 3464. The motion was seconded and FAILED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT as described in the staff report for the exception. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. KIBS226049 P & Z MINUTES 10 AUGUST 20, 1986 FINDINGS OF FACT 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. The proposed use will endanger the public's health, safety and general welfare. The dwelling unit will increase the permitted density of the lot, set a precedent for other dwelling units in accessory buildings in the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District, and set a precedent for legitimizing illegally constructed dwelling units. These factors are a detriment to the public's general welfare. Moreover, no building, electrical or plumbing permits have been issued or inspections performed for the conversion of an unfinished workshop into a dwelling unit. There is no assurance that the conversion complies with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes and therefore the use endangers the public's health and safety. Lastly, the location of the structure within a roadway and utility easement is detrimental to the public's welfare. B. The proposed use is inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and with the specific description and intent of Chapter 17.17, the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. This description and intent states "to encourage the continued use of land for low density residential and general agricultural purposes" and "to encourage the discontinuance of r existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter." Accessory buildings containing additional dwelling units are not in keeping with a low density residential development. C. The proposed use adversely impacts other properties in the area. Granting this exception will set a precedent for changing the use, density and expected lifestyle (i.e., large lot, low -density, one residence per lot) of the subdivision, the neighborhood and the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO ADOPT findings 1B through 6B contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for the variance request from the maximum height requirement for accessory buildings. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. FINDINGS OF FACT For the requested variance to the 14-foot maximum height at the side wall for accessory buildings. 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable r to the property or intended use of development, which Ill generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. B. There do not appear to be any unique physical circumstances or conditions applicable to this property that necessitate an accessory building being more than 14-feet at the side wall. There are many other accessory buildings in the surrounding area that comply with the maximum height requirement. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. P & Z MINUTES KIBS226050 11 AUGUST 20, 1986 F3. F 4. 5. B. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would require the height of the accessory building to be reduced by 1.6-feet. This is not a hardship because the applicant was informed of the maximum height requirements at the time of construction and these requirements were not adhered to. Further, reduction of the building height could be easily accomplished by backfilling the structure. or prejudice to other mental to the public's vicinity nor B. Granting of the variance will set a precedent that will be prejudicial to other properties in the area and will be detrimental to the public's general welfare. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan because the plan does not address specific development standards such as setbacks for accessory buildings. However, conformance with a comprehensive plan implicitly implies adherence to the technical requirements of the zoning ordinance that implements the plan. That actions of the applicant did not cause B. Actions of the applicant have caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The maximum height was specified on the building permit and construction did not comply with these setbacks. Moreover, granting of a variance to alleviate "special conditions that require the variance are caused by the person seeking the variance" is specifically prohibited by Title 29, Alaska Statutes [Section 29.40.040(3)(b)(1)]. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. B. Residential accessory buildings are permitted in the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF 1. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would require the accessory building to be relocated on the property. This would be an extreme hardship due to the construction of the r building and its placement on a concrete foundation. I1j 2. 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 comprehensive plan because the plan does not contain specific standards for accessory buildings. 3. The Qranting of the variance will not result in material trimental to KIBS226051 P & Z MINUTES 12 AUGUST 20, 1986 The granting of the variance will not result in damages to other properties in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The location of the structure within a roadway and utility easement is not a problem because the easement is not in use and not expected to be used in the foreseeable future. 4. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Residential accessory buildings are permitted in the RR1 Zoning District. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. CHAIRMAN RENNELL recessed the meeting for ten minutes. CHAIRMAN RENNELL reconvened the meeting at 9:55 p.m. F) CASE 86-062. Request for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Section 18.20.030 of the Borough Code to review the disposal of Borough land in preparation for Land Sale #10. Lots 10-A and 10-B, Block 2, Monashka Bay Alaska Subdivision; 3511 Monashka Bay Road. (Kodiak Island Borough) BOB PEDERSON indicated 26 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: MARK CHASE appeared before the Commission and expressed concern about safety at the intersection of Bay View Drive and Monashka Bay Road. RON CHASE appeared before the Commission and expressed concern about safety at the intersection of Bay View Drive and Monashka Bay Road. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners, Community Development Department staff and Ron Chase. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE Resolution 86-03-R and recommend to the Borough Assembly the disposal of Lots l0A and 1OB, Block 2, Monashka Bay Alaska Subdivision and to direct staff to write a letter to the Alaska Department of Transportation expressing concern with the line -of -sight at the intersection of Bay View Drive and Monashka Bay Road. The motion was seconded. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Community Development Department staff. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION BY SUBSTITUTING THE FOLLOWING MOTION: To allow lots l0A and 1OB, Block 2, Monashka Bay Alaska Subdivision to be sold and incorporated into the adjacent properties is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in keeping with the general character of the neighborhood; and To encourage the Borough Staff to review these lots to assure that they are not required for line -of -sight requirements for the intersection of Bay View Drive and Monashka Bay Road. The amendment was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. The question was called and the main motion as amended CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. P & Z MINUTES KIBS226052 13 AUGUST 20, 1986 r r G) CASE 86-063. Request for an exception from Section 17.18.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the enlargement of an existing nonconforming dam and water reservoir in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. The exception will also allow rock extraction for construction of the dam. Located in U.S. Surveys 567 and 4657, north of the Akhiok Townsite. (Akhiok-Kaguyak, Inc./Kodiak Island Borough) BOB PEDERSON indicated 8 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 2 were returned, in favor of this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT requested to be excused due to a conflict of interest. COMMISSIONER RENNELL excused COMMISSIONER KNIGHT. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: MARLIN KNIGHT, Director of the Kodiak Island Housing Authority, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT a request for an exception from Section 17.18.020 of the Borough Code to permit the enlargement of the existing Akhiok dam and water reservoir facility located in U.S. Survey 4657 and to permit the extraction and stockpiling of rock and overburden within U.S. Surveys 567 and 4926 to be used for dam construction, dam access road construction, pads for six new houses, community road maintenance, and cover material for the sanitary landfill, as shown on the site plans, 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 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, but rather, enhance them. The dam enlargement will provide additional water storage for the community to alleviate shortages. The extraction activities associated with the dam construction will also provide fill material for six residences, dam access road construction, community road maintenance, and cover material for the sanitary landfill. These items will be a benefit to the entire community of Akhiok. B. The proposed use will be consistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 because of the many benefits that will accrue to the community, because an existing dam and reservoir are already on the site, and because exceptions are provided for in the Borough Code to provide consideration of land uses that are not permitted in certain zoning districts. Further, the activities proposed under this exception request are supported by the Akhiok City Council. C. It appears that the proposed use will not adversely impact other properties in the area. Except for the Akhiok school, all land surrounding the dam and reservoir is vacant open space and to a large degree, part of the watershed that supplies the reservoir. The P & Z MINUTES YUBS226053 14 AUGUST 20, 1986 r- existing dam has not been shown to adversely impact any other land uses (i.e., school) in the vicinity. Within U.S. Survey 567, extraction activities will be adjacent to the sanitary landfill and at least 150 feet from the Russian Orthodox Church. This distance should provide adequate separation of the land uses. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission. H) CASE S-86-023. Preliminary subdivision of Lot 3, Tract A, Woodland Acres Subdivision 1st Addition to Lots 3A and 3B. (Dana McNair) DAVE CROWE indicated 39 public this case and 3 were returned, request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: hearing notices were mailed for 1 in favor and 2 opposing this DANA MCNAIR appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners, Engineering Department staff, and Community Development Department staff. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners, Engineering Department staff, Mr. McNair and Community Development Department staff. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT final approval of CASE S-86-023: subdivision of Lot 3, Tract A, Woodland Acres Subdivision 1st Addition to Lots 3A and 3B, subject to the conditions outlined in Dave Crowe's memo dated August 11, 1986, numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and condition number 3 to read: "Include the following plat note: "Neither Lot 3A nor 3B may be sold separately and Lot 3B may not have any structures built upon it until public water and sewer are available for connection." The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Change the Title Block to include "First Addition" after "Woodland Acres Subdivision." 2. The accessory building must be moved to comply with Title 17 prior to recording the final plat. 3. Neither Lot 3A nor 3B may be sold separately and Lot 3B may not have any structures built upon it until public water and sewer are available for connection. 4. Correct the Legal Description to show 40,005 square feet, not 4005. 5. Correct the Ownership Affidavit and Notary's Acknowledgment to read "Dana L. McNair" and add another signature line for "Barbara Yaura." 6. Include five -foot -wide electrical easements along Woodland Drive and Seabreeze Circle. I) CASE VS-86-024. Request for a variance from Section 16.20.050C of the Borough Code to permit platting of a lot with an area or width less than that required by the zoning title; and Preliminary subdivision of Lot 11A, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision to Lots 11A-1 and 11A-2. Lot P & Z MINUTES KIBS226054 15 AUGUST 20, 1986 11A-2 is created to accommodate a portion of the existing Otter Avenue roadway. (Kodiak Island Borough) DAVE CROWE indicated 14 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: r Seeing and hearing none. 0` Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED ON CASE VS-86-024 a request for a variance from Section 16.20.050C of the Borough Code to permit platting of a lot with an area or width less than that required by the zoning title; and Preliminary subdivision of Lot 11A, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision to Lots 11A-1 and 11A-2. Lot 11A-2 is created to accommodate a portion of the existing Otter Avenue roadway. TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL subject to the conditions outlined in the memorandum from the Borough Engineer dated August 13, 1986 and subject to the condition in the memorandum from the Resource Management Officer dated August 12, 1986. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Show Lot 11A-2 as additional dedicated Otter Avenue right-of-way rather than a separate lot. 2. Perform the lot survey to monument the new corners of Lot 11A-1. 3. Change the Ownership Affidavit and Notary's Acknowledgment to indicate the following: Henry E. Brigdon Margaret J. Brigdon 4. Change the Title Block to indicate that this is an Otter Avenue right-of-way taking. 5. Add a North arrow to the Vicinity Map. 6. An additional ownership affidavit and notary's acknowledgment be provided to be signed by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. VJ0�61a�771b-1IINM*11 A) CASE 5-85-071. Vacation of a roadway and utility easement across Lots 9, 10A and 10B, U.S. Survey 3099 and subdivision of Lots l0A and 1OB, U.S. Survey 3099. (Jonathan W. Smee) COMMISSIONERS ANDERSON AND HEINRICHS requested to be excused due to a conflict of interest. COMMISSIONER RENNELL excused i-- COMMISSIONERS ANDERSON AND HEINRICHS. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF CASE 5-85-071 vacation of a roadway and utility easement across Lots 9, l0A and 1OB, U.S. Survey 3099 and subdivision of Lots 10A and 1OB, U.S. Survey 3099 subject to the conditions outlined in the memorandum from the Borough Engineer dated August 13, 1986. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Correct the distance along the Spruce Cape Road right-of-way of Lot 10A-2 to read 97.84 feet. P & Z MINUTES KIBS226O55 16 AUGUST 20, 1986 2. Complete utility improvement installation. COMMISSIONERS ANDERSON AND HEINRICHS returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission. B) CASE S-86-016. Subdivision of Lot 5, U.S. Survey 3466 to Lots 5A and 5B. (Ed Van Fleet) COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED ON CASE S-86-016 subdivision of Lot /— 5, U.S. Survey 3466 to Lots 5A and 5B, TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL of this subdivision subject to the following correction being made to the plat: "show the total distance along the lot line between Lots 5A and 5B to be 221.25 feet, and the distance to the witness corner to be 192.81 feet." The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. C) CASE S-84-016. Final plat Lakeside Subdivision: Lots 1 through 8, Block 1; Lots 1 through 19, Block 2; and Lots 1 through 11, Block 3. (Creating residential lots in Block 2 and greenbelts in Blocks 2 and 3.)(Kodiak Island Borough) COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL of the subdivision of Lots 1 through 8, Block 1; Lots 1 through 19, Block 2; and Lots 1 through 11, Block 3, Lakeside Subdivision, subject to the conditions outlined in the memorandum from the Borough Engineer dated August 19, 1986. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Sheet #1: 1. Add a signature line and a Notary's Acknowledgement for the Mayor of the City of Kodiak for Lot 2, U.S. Survey 3467; P11- 2. Show the boundary between Lot 2, USS 3467 and USS 3468. Sheet #2: 1. Change the dimension for the centerline of Beaver Lake Drive to 238.22 feet; 2. Add dimensions for the southwesterly boundary of Beaver Lake Drive of 236.58 feet; 3. Designate Lot 7, Block 1 as greenbelt; 4. Add the dimension of 669.01 feet for the southeasterly boundary of Lot 10, Block 3, along the City Airport; 5. Change the delta angle for the right-of-way at the northwesterly corner of Lot 14, Block 3 to 88042'57"; 6. Redraft this sheet to eliminate appearance that original has been pieced together from several sheets. Sheet 113: 1. Show the boundary between Lots 1 and 2, USS 3467, and the boundary between USS 3467 and USS 3468; 2. Change the boundary between the greenbelt and the industrial lots to agree with the revised preliminary plat. Instead of being a curve, it should be a series of straight lines; 3. Change the Beaver Lake Drive centerline and right-of-way delta angle to 38040'36"; 4. Change the right-of-way delta angle at the intersection of Beaver Lake Drive and Von Scheele Way to 63051'43". General: KIBS226056 P & Z MINUTES 17 AUGUST 20, 1986 1. Redraft all three sheets to show the exterior boundaries with a heavier line than the interior lot lines, and all similar lines should be of equal density; 2. Clean up the lettering to be clearly legible and of uniform density. VIII. NEW BUSINESS /— There was no new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ITEMS B, C, D, E AND F UNDER COMMUNICATIONS. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by voice vote. B) Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Tallino from Linda Freed dated August 4, 1986, re: Safeway project and adjacent property (Lot 8B, Block 1, Shahafka Acres) C) CASE 85-013. Planning and Zoning Commission review of the conditions of approval of an exception which authorized construction of a temporary structure to aid in a topsoil screening operation on Tract C-1, U.S. Survey 1682. (Michael Anderson) D) Letter to Wanda Fields and Tom Everitt from Gordon Gould, dated August 18, 1986, re: Lot 1, USS 3100 - Case 84-018: an exception approving the expansion of a mobile home park. E) Letter to Mike Rasmussen from Robert Pederson, dated August 19, 1986, re: Case 86-034. r F) Memo to the Kodiak Island Borough Mayor, Assembly and Planning and Zoning Commission from Linda Freed, dated August 20, 1986, re: Chiniak Comprehensive Plan. X. REPORTS A) Status Report from the Community Development Department. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS XIII. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN RENNELL adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: teve ennell, Chairman ATTEST By. I t� - Patricia Miley Secretary Community Dev opment Department DATE APPROVED: KIBS226057 P & Z MINUTES 18 AUGUST 20, 1986 A TAPE RECORDING IS ON FILE AT THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KIBS226058 P & Z MINUTES 19 AUGUST 20, 1986