Loading...
1987-07-15 Regular MeetingF- r- r KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JULY 151 1987 7:30 p.m. AGENDA I CALL TO ORDER 014r*19wift"I III APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: Regular Meeting of June 17, 1987 V APPEARANCE REQUESTS AND AUDIENCE COMMENTS A) CASE 86-052. Request for a one-year extension for a previously approved exception and variance that permitted a three and a half (3.5) acre base camp for logging activities to locate in the C--Conservation Zoning District and permitted eight (8) base camp structures to encroach into the required seventy-five (75) foot front yard setback in a C--Conservation Zoning District. Located in Section 33, Township 23 South, Range 20 West, Seward Meridian on the east side of Kazakof (Danger) Bay. (Afognak Native Corporation) B) Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off -Street Parking --Location) of the Borough Code to (1) find that it is impractical to locate the thirteen (13) additional required off-street parking spaces for a four thousand forty-nine (4,049) square foot clinic expansion to locate on Lots 1 and 2, Block 55, East Addition and to permit the off-street parking spaces to locate on Lot 1, Block 1, U.S. Survey 1822 (an adjacent lot); and (2) to find that screening between the adjoining parking areas on Lots 1 and 2, Block 55, East Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, U.S. Survey 1822 is not necessary. Located at 1816, 1818 and 1910 Rezanof Drive East. (Kodiak Island Medical Associates/Frontier Baptist Church) VI PUBLIC HEARINGS A) CASE S-87-001. An appeal of the Borough Engineer's decision in accordance with Chapter 16.95 (Appeals to the Commission) of the Borough Code of a decision requiring as conditions of final plat approval that (a) Lots 1A-2 and 1A-3 be combined into one lot on the final plat in order to reduce the intensity of development in a hazardous area; and (b) the entire area seaward of the mean high water line (MHWL) be designated as a public access easement, in recognition of the regular public use of the beach. The appellant is seeking relief in the form of not requiring these two (2) conditions on the final plat for the subdivision of Lot 1-A, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision, U.S. Survey 1682. The appeal hearing will be held on July 15, 1987. Written comments supporting or opposing the appeal may be submitted until July 15, 1987. A copy of the appeal record is available for public inspection at the Community Development Department counter, Room 204 of the Borough Building. A copy of the appeal record may be obtained upon payment of the appropriate fee. B) CASE 87-033. Request to initiate the rezoning of Lots 1 through 18, Block 1, Lakeview Subdivision from R2--Two-Family Residential to PL--Public Use Lands, and an Unsubdivided Portion of U.S. Survey 1396 that will adjoin Lots IA and 2A, Allman Addition from C--Conservation to B--Business, and an Unsubdivided Portion of U.S. Survey 1396 (proposed Tract K, USS 1396, preliminary plat dated February 18, 1987, Case S-87-019) from C--Conservation to PL--Public Use Lands in accordance with Chapter 17.72 (Amendments and Changes) of the Borough Code. The area encompassed in this rezone includes Lilly Lake, the land at the south end of Lilly Lake and subdivided vacant lots along the lakeside of Larch Street. (Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission) Tabled from the May 1987 Regular Meeting. KIBS226256 Planning & Zoning Commission - 1 - July 15, 1987 Agenda C) CASE 87-037. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010 (A and C) (Height -Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit a six (6) foot fence in the front yard and to permit a four (4) and six (6) foot fence to project into the Birch Avenue and Thorsheim Street rights -of -way in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 3, Block 5, Aleutian Homes; 1018 Thorsheim Street. (Michael Brown) Tabled from the June 1987 Regular Meeting. r-- D) CASE 87-038. Request for a variance from Section 17.57.020(2)(G) (Off -Street Parking - Number of Spaces Required) of the Borough Code to permit the conversion of a four hundred sixty-five (465) square foot kitchen area into a patron use area that will increase the permitted occupancy of the structure by thirty-one (31) persons, to be exempt from the requirement of providing ten (10) additional off-street parking spaces in a B--Business Zoning District. Lots 5 through 7, Block 8, New Kodiak Subdivision; 302 Marine Way. (Mecca, Inc.) E) CASE 87-039. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010(C) (Height - Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit an eight (8) foot chain link fence to project into the Shelikof Street right-of-way in a B--Business Zoning District. Lot 19A, Block 18, Kodiak Townsite; 410 Shelikof Street. (Ursin Seafoods, Inc.) F) CASE 87-040. Request for a variance from Section 17.19.040 (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit a sixteen by sixteen (16 x 16) foot garage addition onto the rear of the existing single-family residence to encroach six (6) feet into the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback in a R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 6, Block 35, East Addition; 1113 Mission Road. (Vern and Debra Hall) G) CASE 87-041. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010(C) (Height - Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit a fence that meets all other code requirements to project ten (10) feet into the r Rezanof Drive East right-of-way in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 16A, Block 51, East Addition; 1522 Rezanof Drive East. (Dale Heath) H) CASE 87-042. Request for a variance from Section 17.57.020(2)(A) (Off -Street Parking --Number of Spaces Required) of the Borough Code to permit an existing office building and clinic and a proposed two thousand (2,000) square foot addition for office space to provide only sixteen (16) off-street parking spaces instead of the required forty-one (41) spaces in a B--Business Zoning District. Lot 2, Block 10, New Kodiak Subdivision; 402 Center Street. (Wayne Kelley/Gary White) I) CASE 87-043. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010(A and C) (Height --Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit an eight (8) foot fence with a solid vertical surface to locate in the front yard and to project into the Mission Road right-of-way in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lots 7 and 8, U.S. Survey 2873; 1812 Mission Road. (Eagle Fisheries/Westward Petroleum Industries) J) CASE S-87-022. Vacation of a ten -foot -wide Utility and Road Easement, Easterly Lot Line, Lot 20A, Block 14, Kodiak Townsite. (Sharlene Sullivan/Leonard Dubber) K) CASE S-87-023. Vacation of a Right -of -Way and Utility Easement not to r exceed fifty (50) feet wide, Easterly Lot Line, Lot 2, U.S. Survey 3464. (Craig Johnson/Milstead Zahn) VII OLD BUSINESS A) CASE 87-035. Findings of Fact for the granting of a variance from Section 17.17.050 (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit an addition onto the side of the existing single-family residence to encroach five (5) feet into the required fifteen (15) foot side yard setback in a RRl--Rural Residential One Zoning District on Lot C-1, U.S. Survey 1678; 2231 Three Sisters Way. (Richard and Sandra Thummel) Deferred from the June 17, 1987 Regular Meeting. KIBS226257 Planning & Zoning Commission - 2 - July 15, 1987 Agenda r- VIII NEW BUSINESS IX COMMUNICATIONS A) Letter dated June 24, 1987 to Henry Friedman, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, from Robert H. Pederson, re: Brechan Solid Waste Permit Application No. 8621-BA019. X REPORTS A) Community Development Department Monthly Status Report - June 1987. B) Engineering Department Abbreviated Plats Report. 1:��111�7���[N1K�Ju^uL�fu7.y XII COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS XIII ADJOURNMENT The public is invited to attend the packet review worksession for these agenda items to be held in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room at 7:30 p.m. the preceding Wednesday. 11 4i �l Minutes for this meeting are available upon request, call the Community Development Department at 486-5736, extension 256. Planning & Zoning Commission - 3 - KIBS226258 July 15, 1987 Agenda KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JULY 15, 1987 I. CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Steve Rennell on July 15, 1987 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Others Present: Steve Rennell, Chairman Bob Pederson, Acting Director and Mike Anderson Associate Planner, Community Robin Heinrichs Development Department Tom Hendel Donna Smith, Acting Secretary Mary Lou Knudsen Community Development Department D.L. Smedley Scott Thompson Others Absent: Linda Freed, Director, Community Development Department Patricia Miley, Secretary, Community Development Department Dave Crowe, Borough Engineer A quorum was established. r" III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff reported no additions to the agenda. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON 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 June 17, 1987 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 86-052. Request for a one-year extension for a previously approved exception and variance that permitted a three and a half (3.5) acre base camp for logging activities to locate in the C--Conservation Zoning District and permitted eight (8) base camp structures to encroach into the required seventy-five (75) foot front yard setback in a C--Conservation Zoning District. Located in Section 33, Township 23 South, Range 20 West, Seward Meridian on the east side of Kazakof (Danger) Bay. (Afognak Native Corporation) r — COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT a one-year extension for a previously approved exception and variance (Case 86-052) to permit a three and a half (3.5) acre base camp for logging activities to locate in a C--Conservation Zoning District and to permit eight (8) base camp structures to encroach into the required seventy-five (75) foot front yard setback of the C--Conservation Zoning District located in Section 33, Township 23 South, Range 20 West, Seward Meridian, and to reaffirm the findings contained in the staff KIBS226259 Planning & Zoning Commission 1 July 15, 1987 Minutes report dated July 8, 1986 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote. FINDINGS OF FACT Exception: 1. That the use as proposed in the application, or under r - 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. Logging activities have previously occurred on Afognak Island at this location and departmental files do not indicate that the previous base camp posed any danger to public health, safety or welfare. The plan also proposes to utilize existing water, sewer and electrical facilities that have been in place for 10 years. The applicant has indicated that the sewer and water systems have handled twice the proposed population in the past. Domestic refuse will be burned in accordance with, and at a site approved under ADEC regulations approximately six miles up the road from the camp. Vegetation will be retained around the edge of the camp. If the above criteria are adhered to, and if all building, fire and sanitary codes are complied with, the proposed use should not endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare. If these codes are met and all buildings are constructed in compliance with the approved plan, adherence to the additional standards of the Mobile Home Park Chapter of Title 17 is not necessary for this specific use in this specific remote location. 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 17.13 (Conservation District). Agricultural activities, forestry activities and single-family dwelling are all permitted uses under the Conservation Zoning District and a base camp is necessary to support these activities in this remote location. C. The proposed use does not appear to adversely impact other properties or uses in the area because all surrounding land is under the applicant's management and ownership. This should provide adequate separation between the base camp and any other uses. Variance: 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 unique circumstances and physical conditions applicable to this request are the previous locations of the proposed structures and the existing electrical, water and sewer facilities. The structures are proposed to be sited exactly where they used to be, when the site was previously used as a base camp, and connected to existing water and sewer stub -outs. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in __,,4 ­l Ai4F4:4 .l t4 oo -- -----o--­l­.l..l.4.._ Strict application of the zoning ordinance would require the structures to be located elsewhere. This would be a practical KIBS226260 difficulty and unnecessary hardship because it would require Planning & Zoning Commission 2 July 15, 1987 Minutes extensive construction to relocate the existing road, electrical, water and sewer facilities. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or Dreiudice to other DroDerties in the vicinitv nor Granting of the variance will not result in material damages rl— or prejudice to other properties in the area or be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare because all surrounding land is owned and managed by the applicant and the structures will be connected to previously constructed and "grandfathered" infrastructure facilities. 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 plan does not address Afognak Island. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. Actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance because the variance will be decided prior to the location of the structures on the site. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. r- A base camp which includes single-family residences and a cookhouse will be a permitted land use at this location in the C--Conservation Zoning District only if the exception request is granted. B) Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off -Street Parking --Location) of the Borough Code to (1) find that it is impractical to locate the thirteen (13) additional required off-street parking spaces for a four thousand forty-nine (4,049) square foot clinic expansion to locate on Lots 1 and 2, Block 55, East Addition and to permit the off-street parking spaces to locate on Lot 1, Block 1, U.S. Survey 1822 (an adjacent lot); and (2) to find that screening between the adjoining parking areas on Lots 1 and 2, Block 55, East Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, U.S. Survey 1822 is not necessary. Located at 1816, 1818 and 1910 Rezanof Drive East. (Kodiak Island Medical Associates/Frontier Baptist Church) BOB PEDERSON presented an additional staff, memo dated July 14, 1987, noting three areas of concern. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO ADOPT the findings contained in the staff report dated July 2, 1987 pursuant to Section 17.57.020(D), 17.57.030, and 17.57.040(C) of the Borough Code .for the additional required off-street parking spaces for a four thousand forty-nine (4,049) square foot clinic expansion located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 55, East Addition, subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report dated July 2, 1987. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Points of ingress and egress are approved by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 2. The spaces in front of the clinic building may be arranged perpendicular to Rezanof Drive, if a variance to the minimum twenty (20) foot space depth is first granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. KIBS226261 Planning & Zoning Commission 3 July 15, 1987 Minutes r r 3. All parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 17.57.040--Parking Area Development Standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the clinic expansion. 4. An easement granting joint use of the parking area as shown on the site plan shall be recorded for both properties. The easement should be permanent unless the existing land use(s) change and a revised parking plan is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Commission finds that the parking spaces located on Lot 1, Block 1, U.S. Survey 1822 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 55, East Addition meet the minimum parking requirements for the church on Lot 1, Block 1, U.S. Survey 1822 and the clinic on Lots 1 and 2, Block 55, East Addition because the primary hours of operation do not overlap. 2. The Commission finds that it is impractical to locate all required parking spaces for the clinic on Lots 1 and 2, Block 55, East Addition if the proposed clinic expansion is constructed. The required spaces are permitted to locate on Lot 1, Block 1, U.S. Survey 1822, subject to approval of the parking plan. 3. The Commission finds that it is impractical and unnecessary to separate the parking on Lots 1 and 2, Block 55, East Addition and the parking on Lot 1, Block 1, U.S. Survey 1822 with a fence or hedge between four (4) and six (6) feet in height. There were no further appearance requests or audience comments. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) CASE S-87-001. An appeal of the Borough Engineer's decision in accordance with Chapter 16.95 (Appeals to the Commission) of the Borough Code of a decision requiring as conditions of final plat approval that (a) Lots IA-2 and 1A-3 be combined into one lot on the final plat in order to reduce the intensity of development in a hazardous area; and (b) the entire area seaward of the mean high water line (MHWL) be designated as a public access easement, in recognition of the regular public use of the beach. The appellant is seeking relief in the form of not requiring these two (2) conditions on the final plat for the subdivision of Lot 1-A, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision, U.S. Survey 1682. BOB PEDERSON indicated 7 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned in favor of this request. Staff also indicated that the Borough was withdrawing the condition requiring an access easement following consultation with the Borough Attorney. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: BOB PEDERSON indicated that he had no additional information. MEL STEPHENS, representing Mr. Jock Bevis, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Stephens asked that the Commission grant the appeal and touched on several points. 1. The Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program (KIBCMP) did not give sufficient notice to property owners that this plan might result in restriction to development of their property. 2. Fairness to all landowners should dictate more notice, especially when the KIBCMP is not codified in the Borough Code; incorporation by reference does not provide adequate notice. Planning & Zoning Commission 4 KIBS226262 July 15, 1987 Minutes 3. "Hazardous Areas" should be defined and mapped. The Coastal Management Program policy referencing hazardous 4' areas applies to "siting", not subdivision. "Siting, design, and construction measures" speaks to where and how you build and not how you subdivide land. 5. The Borough has been inconsistent in the application of this policy. Mr. Briggs' subdivision across the street has nine lots and is not much higher in elevation than the Bevis property. The entire Spruce Cape area was rezoned to allow for a higher density without consideration of "Hazardous Areas". 6. The potential for erosion is obvious to anyone who buys there. 7. No opposition from neighbors has been noted. JOCK BEVIS appeared before the Commission and stated that he had intended to subdivide this property when he purchased it and that all of downtown Kodiak is lower in elevation than his most seaward lot. Mr. Bevis requested that the Commission grant his appeal. CHAIRMAN RENNELL stated that it is the duty of the Commission to affirm, deny, or revise the decision. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN the decision of the Borough Engineer requiring that as conditions of approval for the subdivision of Lot 1A, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision, that Lots 1A-2 and 1A-3 be combined into one lot on the final plat in order to reduce the intensity of development in a r"' hazardous area. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION to include the following condition: 1. A note is placed.on the final plat stating: "The shoreline of Mill Bay is a high wave energy coastline." The AMENDMENT was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. The question was called and the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioners Rennell, Knudsen, and Smedley voted "no". CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. That a note be placed on the final plat limiting access into Rezanof Drive to a common driveway for Lots IA-1 and 1A-2: This will necessitate your obtaining a driveway permit from DOT/PF, constructing the new driveway, and removing your existing driveway prior to filing of the final plat. 2. That the following note be placed on the final plat: "Natural - streams and drainage courses shall not be blocked or impeded." 3. That the existing electrical service to the residence on Lot IA-1 be located and that an electrical easement across Lot IA-2 be provided which is ten feet each side of the underground lines. 4. A note is placed on the final plat stating: "The shoreline of Mill Bay is a high wave energy coastline." FINDINGS OF FACT The Commission deferred Findings of Fact for this case to the August 19, 1987 regular meeting. KIBS226263 Planning & Zoning Commission 5 July 15, 1987 Minutes B) CASE 87-033. Request to initiate the rezoning of Lots 1 through 18, Block 1, Lakeview Subdivision from R2--Two-Family Residential to PL--Public Use Lands, and an Unsubdivided Portion of U.S. Survey 1396 that will adjoin Lots 1A and 2A, Allman Addition from C--Conservation to B--Business, and an Unsubdivided Portion of U.S. Survey 1396 (proposed Tract K, USS 1396, preliminary plat dated February 18, 1987, Case 5-87-019) from C--Conservation to PL--Public Use Lands in accordance with Chapter 17.72 (Amendments and Changes) of the Borough Code. The area encompassed in this rezone includes Lilly Lake, the land at the south end of Lilly Lake and subdivided vacant lots along the lakeside of Larch Street. (Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission) Tabled from the May 1987 Regular Meeting. BOB PEDERSON indicated 242 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 4 were returned, 2 in favor and 2 opposing this request. Staff recommended tabling the rezone of Tract K, U.S. Survey 1396 and Lots 1 through 18, Block 1, Lakeview Subdivision until the land trade was consummated; forwarding the rezoning of Portions of U.S. Survey 1396 that will adjoin Lots 1A and 2A, Allman Addition to the Borough Assembly recommending approval of the rezone to Business. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO REMOVE CASE 87-033 FROM THE TABLE. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: JIM MOTES appeared before the Commission and expressed concern about this request and asked whether it affected his property. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON assured Mr. Motes that the rezone did not include or affect his property. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezoning of an Unsubdivided Portion of U.S. Survey 1396 (to become portions of Lots LA-1 and 2A-1, Block 1, Allman Addition, preliminary plat dated February 25, 1987, Case 5-87-011) from C--Conservation to B--Business in accordance with Section 17.72 of the Borough Code, and to adopt the findings of fact contained in the staff report dated June 26, 1987, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Thompson voted "no". FINDINGS OF FACT A. Findings as to need and justification for a change or amendments. A rezone to B--Business is needed and justified to eliminate split lot zoning and to have the zoning district boundaries follow the newly platted property lines. B. Findings as to the effect a change or amendment would have on the obiectives of the comprehensive Dlan. The requested B--Business Zoning District is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan to the extent that the plan is valid and up-to-date for this area. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO TABLE the rezoning of Tract K, U.S. Survey 1396 and Lots 1 through 18, Block 1, Lakeview Subdivision until the land exchange between the City of Kodiak, the Kodiak Island Borough, and Mr. Lenhart Grothe is consummated. The rezone will then be considered as an 'Old Business" agenda item. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. KIBS226264 Planning & Zoning Commission 6 July 15, 1987 Minutes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON stated he wished to change his vote on the rezone to business because he realized he had voted incorrectly. Mr. Pederson indicated that to change vote at this time, the Commission would need to reconsider its action on the case. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO RECONSIDER the Commissions action on Case 87-033. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. T COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezoning of an Unsubdivided Portion of U.S. Survey 1396 (to become portions of Lots IA-1 and 2A-1, Block 1, Allman Addition, preliminary plat dated February 25, 1987, Case S-87-011) from C--Conservation to B--Business in accordance with Section 17.72 of the Borough Code, and to adopt the findings of fact contained in the staff report dated June 26, 1987, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Findings as to need and justification for a change or amendments. A rezone to B--Business is needed and justified to eliminate split lot zoning and to have the zoning district boundaries follow the newly platted property lines. B. Findings as to the effect a change or have on The requested B--Business Zoning District is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan to the extent that r- the plan is valid and up-to-date for this area. r COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO RECONSIDER Case 87-033 to specify that the rezoning of Tract K, U.S. Survey 1396 and Lots 1 through 18, Block 1, Lakeview Subdivision appear as a public hearing item on the agenda. Motion was seconded and FAILED by majority roll call vote. Commissioners Bendel, Thompson, Anderson, Knudsen, and Smedley voted "no". C) CASE 87-037. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010 (A and C) (Height -Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit a six (6) foot fence in the front yard and to permit a four (4) and six (6) foot fence to project into the Birch Avenue and Thorsheim Street rights -of -way in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 3, Block 5, Aleutian Homes; 1018 Thorsheim Street. (Michael Brown) Tabled from the June 1987 Regular Meeting. BOB PEDERSON indicated 59 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 3 were returned in favor of request but that all 3 were concerned with visibility. Staff recommended approval of this request. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO REMOVE CASE 87-037 FROM THE TABLE. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: MICHAEL BROWN appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. KIBS226265 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.54.010 (A and C) of the Borough Code to permit a six (6) foot fence to locate in the front yard and to project into the Birch Avenue right-of-way and to permit a three (3) foot fence with forty (40) inch posts to project into the Birch Avenue and Planning & Zoning Commission 7 July 15, 1987 Minutes r F_ Thorsheim Street rights -of -way in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District on Lot 3, Block 5, Aleutian Homes, subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report dated July 2, 1987 and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated June 5, 1987 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. Motion was seconded. CHAIRMAN RENNELL called for discussion. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION changing it from a four (4) foot fence to a three (3) foot fence with two (2) feet being solid and one (1) foot being lattice work with forty (40) inch posts to project into the Birch Avenue and Thorsheim Street rights -of -way. Motion seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. The question was called and the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED 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 3, Block 5, Aleutian Homes, agrees to remove same without cost to the City. 4. Since the land is publicly owned, no prescriptive right accrues to the user. 5. Construction of the fence shall be in such a manner as to not reduce any required off-street parking. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exc or conditions applicable to the vroverty or lntenaea use of aeyelopmenL, Wnicn 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 or roadway edge is their "yard," and that they should be able to erect a fence of reasonable height around that yard. In addition, if the fence was built along the property lines, strips of City property would remain outside the fence. It is likely that this property would not then be maintained by the property owner, this could constitute a public health problem. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in r Strict application of the zoning ordinance would only allow the fence to be placed on the property lines and to a height of four (4) feet in the front yard. This is an unnecessary hardship when many other fences (some higher than 4 feet) in the community have encroached on the public property without first receiving a variance. The Commission has also granted variances in the past for fences to project into road rights -of -way and to exceed the maximum height requirements. 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. KIBS226266 Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare because the fence will not Planning & Zoning Commission 8 July 15, 1987 Minutes Regular Session Closed Public Hearing Opened: WAYNE KELLEY, majority owner o before the Commission and exp- Kelley stated that the exist designated as the required of 3 e r-- Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED KIBS226274 om Section 17.57.020(2)(A) of ing office and clinic building and an-auu�_ two thousand five hundred square feet) for office space to pry ____nly sixteen (16) off-street parking spaces instead of the required forty-two (42) spaces in a B--Business Zoning District on Lot 2, Block 10, New Kodiak Subdivision, subject to the condition outlined in the staff report dated July 10, 1987 and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. Motion was seconded and CARRIED by a unanimous roll call vote. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. Bumper guards or wheel stops are provided in accordance with Section 17.57.040(3) for spaces one through thirteen (1 - 13) on the revised site plan. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not aDDly to other properties in the same land use The unique physical circumstance applicable to the property and intended use of development is that the existing structure covers the majority of the property. This precludes the provision of any additional off-street parking on the lot. In fact, this condition is applicable to the entire downtown area bounded by Rezanof Drive, Center Street, and Marine Way. This area is identical to the defined "central commercial" area in the land use plan for the downtown Urban Renewal Project R-19. Among other regulations, the urban renewal plan specified that "buildings shall occupy 100% of the area" and that "parking will be provided in public parking lots conveniently located to all development parcels. No public parking shall be used on a reserved or continual basis by or for the benefit of anyone or any use." This clearly presents a physical circumstance precluding provision of off-street parking. A variance is therefore justified. 2. 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 or expansions to many existing structures in downtown Kodiak that are contained in the R-19 Central Commercial area. Any change in use that increases the permitted occupancy would also be prohibited. This is clearly an unnecessary hardship and presents practical difficulties if the viability of the Central Business District is to be maintained and businesses are able to grow and/or adjust to changing market conditions. 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 should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the area and will not be BS22bL75 detrimental to the public's health, safety, or welfare. There are physical conditions that justify a variance and ample Planning & Zoning Commission 16 July 15, 1987 Minutes pose a line of sight problem along Thorsheim Street either due to its height or placement in rights -of -way. 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. r Whether the proposed fence creates a visibility problem at the Birch Avenue/Thorsheim Street intersection is debatable. Based on a site inspection, staff feels that there is a potential for a visibility concern because of the angle of the intersection and that Thorsheim Street slopes slightly downhill from the intersection to the southwest. This assumption is based on a car on Birch Street stopping at the stop sign. Staff recommends that the Commission make a specific finding as to whether the proposed fence will potentially create a visibility problem. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Granting of this variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address minor structural developments such as fences. The main use of the property for residential purposes is consistent with 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. 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 87-038. Request for a variance from Section 17.57.020(2)(G) (Off -Street Parking - Number of Spaces Required) of the Borough Code to permit the conversion of a four hundred sixty-five (465) square foot kitchen area into a patron use area that will increase the permitted occupancy of the structure by thirty-one (31) persons, to be exempt from the requirement of providing ten (10) additional off-street parking spaces in a B--Business Zoning District. Lots 5 through 7, Block 8, New Kodiak Subdivision; 302 Marine Way. (Mecca, Inc.) BOB PEDERSON indicated 25 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request. COMMISSION HEINRICHS requested a ruling from the Chairman as to whether his preparation of the preliminary construction drawings and floor plan for the ABC Board constituted a conflict of interest. CHAIRMAN RENNELL ruled that there was no conflict of interest. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: BILL BISHOP, one of the owners of the property, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. KIBS226267 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.57.020(2)(g) of the Borough Code to permit the Planning & Zoning Commission 9 July 15, 1987 Minutes r- conversion of a four hundred sixty-five (465) square foot kitchen area into a patron use area that will increase the permitted occupancy of the structure by thirty-one (31) persons, to be exempt from the requirement of providing ten (10) additional off-street parking spaces in a B--Business Zoning District on Lots 5 through 7, Block 8, New Kodiak Subdivision and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated June 30, 1987 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 cond do not apply to other properties in the same land use The unique physical circumstance applicable to the property and intended use of development is that the existing structure covers the entire property. This precludes the provision of any off-street parking on the lots. In fact, this condition is applicable to the entire downtown area bounded by Rezanof Drive, Center Street, and Marine Way. This area is identical to the defined "central commercial" area in the land use plan for the downtown Urban Renewal Project R-19. Among other regulations, the urban renewal plan specified that "buildings shall occupy 100% of the area" and that "parking will be provided in public parking lots conveniently located to all development parcels. No public parking shall be used on a reserved or continual basis by or for the benefit of anyone or any use." This clearly presents a physical circumstance precluding provision of off-street parking. A variance is therefore justified. 2. 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 or expansions to many existing structures in downtown Kodiak that are contained in the R-19 Central Commercial area. Any change in use that increases the permitted occupancy would also be prohibited. This is clearly an unnecessary hardship and presents practical difficulties if the viability of the Central Business District is to be maintained and businesses are able to grow and/or adjust to changing market conditions. 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 should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the area and will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or welfare. There are physical conditions that justify a variance and ample off-street parking is provided in the mall parking lots and the Harbor East parking area for the use characteristics of the structure (primarily evening occupancy). Further, the Urban Renewal Plan designates public parking lots as the required off-street parking for the Central Commercial 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 identifies this area as Central Business District. Comprehensive plans do not generally address specific development standards such as off-street parking and central business districts generally have extensive lot coverage with little off-street parking. Planning & Zoning Commission 10 KIBS226268 July 15, 1987 Minutes 0- v— 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause or financial hardship from which relief is variance. In this case, actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The existing building was constructed in compliance with the Urban Renewal Plan, which precluded provision of off-street parking. Further, the variance will be decided prior to conversion of the kitchen area. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. An eating and drinking establishment is a permitted land use in the B--Business Zoning District. E) CASE 87-039. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010(C) (Height - Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit an eight (8) foot chain link fence to project into the Shelikof Street right-of-way in a B--Business Zoning District. Lot 19A, Block 18, Kodiak Townsite; 410 Shelikof Street. (Ursin Seafoods, Inc.) BOB PEDERSON indicated 31 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Three telephone calls were received indicating support for the approval 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 17.54.010(C) of the Borough Code to permit an eight (8) foot chain link fence to project into the Shelikof Street right-of-way out to the sidewalk in a B--Business Zoning District on Lot 19A, Block 18, Kodiak Townsite, subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report dated June 26, 1987 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. 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 19A, Block 18, Kodiak Townsite, agrees to remove same without cost to the City. 4. Since the land is publicly owned, no prescriptive right accrues to the user. 5. Construction of the fence shall be in such a manner as to not reduce any required off-street parking or block the sidewalk. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally KIBS226269 Planning & Zoning Commission 11 July 15, 1987 Minutes I"' r- 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 or roadway edge is their "yard," and that they should be able to erect a fence of reasonable height around that yard. In addition, if the fence was built along the property lines, strips of City property would remain outside the fence. It is likely that this property would not then be maintained by the property owner, this could constitute a public health problem. 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 community have encroached on the public property without first receiving a variance. The Commission has also granted variances in the past for fences to project into road rights -of -way. 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. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare because the fence will not pose a line of sight problem along Shelikof Street either due to its height or placement in the right-of-way. 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 this variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address minor structural developments such as fences. The main use of the property for storage purposes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special 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. F) CASE 87-040. Request for a variance from Section 17.19.040 (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit a sixteen by sixteen (16 x 16) foot garage addition onto the rear of the existing single-family residence to encroach six (6) feet into the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback in a R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 6, Block 35, East Addition; 1113 Mission Road. (Vern and Debra Hall) COMMISSIONER conflict of HEINRICHS. HEINRICHS requested to be excused due to a possible interest. COMMISSIONER RENNELL excused COMMISSIONER Planning & Zoning Commission 12 KIBS226270 July 15, 1987 Minutes BOB PEDERSON indicated 51 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 2 were returned in favor of this request. An addition verbal comment in favor of this request was received by staff. Staff read a letter received from Debra Hall into the record. 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 a variance from Section 17.19.040(C) of the Borough Code to permit a sixteen by sixteen (16 x 16) foot garage addition onto the rear of the existing duplex to encroach six (6) feet into the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback in a R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District on Lot 6, Block 35, East Addition and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated July 6, 1987 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. Motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT or inrenaea use le to do not aDDly to other DroDerties in the same land use The exceptional condition applicable to the intended use of development is the terrain of the lot and location of I� off-street parking. These factors limit the area available for development to the rear yard only. The lot slopes steeply downward from the house to Mission Road, precluding development in the front yard. On the right side of the house (towards Lot 5) is a filled area for off-street parking. The fill is contained by a tall wooden retaining wall. Construction in this area would reduce the area available for off-street parking. This constitutes a physical hardship with the property that justifies a variance. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would only allow addition of a garage in a location that could actually reduce required off-street parking. This location might also pose practical difficulties due to the fill in this area and loss of maneuvering room. Physical circumstances limit development on other portions of the lot. This constitutes a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor to the public's health, safetv and we r" Granting of this variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the area. At least four (4) other lots in this block have received setback variances due to physical circumstances. In addition, allowing the garage to encroach into the rear yard setback will not reduce off-street parking, will not interfere with access to and from the property, and will not interfere with traffic flow along Stellar Way. 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 KIBS226271 objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies this Planning & Zoning Commission 13 July 15, 1987 Minutes area for medium density residential development. The construction of the garage will not change the existing density in the area. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is beine sought by the r In this case, actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The physical constraint of only a small buildable area on the lot results from the design of East Addition Subdivision. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. A single-family residential addition is a permitted use in the R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission. G) CASE 87-041. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010(C) (Height - Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit a fence that meets all other code requirements to project ten (10) feet into the Rezanof Drive Fast right-of-way in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 16A, Block 51, East Addition; 1522 Rezanof Drive East. (Dale Heath) BOB PEDERSON indicated 37 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned in favor of this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. rl— Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.54.010 (C) of the Borough Code to permit a fence meeting all other code requirements to project into the Rezanof Drive East right-of-way in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District on Lot 16A, Block 51, East Addition, subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report dated June 26, 1987 and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by a 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 16A, Block 51, East Addition, agrees to remove same without cost to the City. 4. Since the land is publicly owned, no prescriptive right accrues to the user. 5. Construction of the fence shall be in such a manner as to not reduce any required off-street parking. FINDINGS OF FACT KIBS226272 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development. which generally Planning & Zoning Commission 14 July 15, 1987 Minutes 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 or roadway edge is their "yard," and that they should be able to erect a fence of reasonable height around that P - yard. In addition, if the fence was built along the property lines, strips of City property would remain outside the fence. It is likely that this property would not then be maintained by the property owner, this could constitute a public health problem. 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 community have encroached on the public property without first receiving a variance. The Commission has also granted variances in the past for fences to project into road rights -of -way. 3. The zrantinz of the variance will nor to the public's Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare because the fence will not pose a line of sight problem along Rezanof Drive East either due to its height or placement in right-of-way. 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 in the right-of-way 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 this variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address minor structural developments such as fences. The main use of the property for residential purposes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions 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 zrantinR of the variance will not permit a r-- Fences are permitted in all land use districts. H) CASE 87-042. Request for a variance from Section 17.57.020(2)(A) (Off -Street Parking --Number of Spaces Required) of the Borough Code to permit an existing office building and clinic and a proposed addition (maximum size of 2,500 square feet) for office space to provide only sixteen (16) off-street parking spaces instead of the required forty-two (42) spaces in a B--Business Zoning District. Lot 2, Block 10, New Kodiak Subdivision; 402 Center Street. (Wayne Kelley/Gary White) BOB PEDERSON indicated 16 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none returned. Staff recommended approval of this KIBS226273 request. Staff brought to the Commission's attention the addition memo designating three optional loading berth sites. Planning & Zoning Commission 15 July 15, 1987 Minutes r-- off-street parking is provided in nearby public parking lots. Sixteen (16) off-street parking spaces are provided on the lot. Further, the Urban Renewal Plan designates public parking lots as the required off-street parking for the Central Commercial 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 identifies this area as Central Business District. Comprehensive plans do not generally address specific development standards such as off-street parking and central business districts generally have extensive lot coverage with little off-street parking. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or variance. In this case, actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The existing building was constructed in compliance with the Urban Renewal Plan, which precluded provision of off-street parking that meets the current Borough zoning ordinance requirement. Further, the variance will be decided prior to construction of the addition. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. An office building and a clinic are permitted land uses in the B--Business Zoning District. r— I) CASE 87-043. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010(A and C) (Height --Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit an eight (8) foot fence with a solid vertical surface to locate in the front yard and to project into the Mission Road right-of-way in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lots 7 and 8, U.S. Survey 2873; 1812 Mission Road. (Eagle Fisheries/Westward Petroleum Industries) BOB PEDERSON indicated 26 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned opposing this request. Staff recommended approval of this request and noted that the applicant was unable to attend due to a work conflict. 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 17.54.010 (A and C) of the Borough Code to permit an eight r (8) foot fence with a solid vertical surface to locate in the front yard and to project into the Mission Road right-of-way in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District on Lots 7 and 8, U.S. Survey 2873, subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report dated June 26, 1987 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. KIBS226276 Planning & Zoning Commission 17 July 15, 1987 Minutes 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 Lots 7 and 8, U.S. Survey 2873, agrees to remove same without cost to the City. 4. Since the land is publicly owned, no prescriptive right accrues to the user. 5. Construction of the fence shall be in such a manner as to not reduce any required off-street parking. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional circumstances or conditions to 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 or roadway edge is their "yard," and that they should be able to erect a fence of reasonable height around that yard. In addition, if the fence was built along the property lines, strips of City property would remain outside the fence. It is likely that this property would not then be maintained by the property owner, this could constitute a public health problem. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would only allow r"' the fence to be placed on the property lines and to a height of four (4) feet in the front yard. This is an unnecessary hardship when many other fences (some higher than 4 feet) in the community have encroached on the public property without first receiving a variance. The Commission has also granted variances in the past for fences to project into road rights -of -way and to exceed the maximum height requirements. 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. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare because the fence will not pose a line of sight problem along Mission Road either due to its height or placement in the right-of-way. 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 within the right-of-way 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. r Granting of this variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address minor structural developments such as fences. The main use of the property for residential purposes is consistent with 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 case, actions of the conditions from which relief is This is due to the fact that the KIBS226277 to the granting of the variance. Planning & Zoning Commission 18 applicant have caused the being sought by a variance. fence was constructed prior However, staff believes that July 15, 1987 Minutes r- r the variance would have been requested prior to construction if the applicant had understood that it was necessary. 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. J) CASE S-87-022. Vacation of a Easement, Easterly Lot Line, Lot (Sharlene Sullivan/Leonard Dubber) ten -foot -wide Utility and Road 20A, Block 14, Kodiak Townsite. BOB PEDERSON indicated 26 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended tabling this case at the request of the applicant. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO TABLE Case S-87-022 to the August regular meeting. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. K) CASE S-87-023. Vacation of a Right -of -Way and Utility Easement not to exceed fifty (50) feet wide, Easterly Lot Line, Lot 2, U.S. Survey 3464. (Craig Johnson/Milstead Zahn) BOB PEDERSON indicated 29 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the vacation of a Right -of -Way and Utility Easement not to exceed fifty (50) feet wide, Easterly Lot Line, Lot 2, U.S. Survey 3464. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. VII. OLD BUSINESS A) CASE 87-035. Findings of Fact for the granting of a variance from Section 17.17.050 (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit an addition onto the side of the existing single-family residence to encroach five (5) feet into the required fifteen (15) foot side yard setback in a RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District on Lot C-1, U.S. Survey 1678; 2231 Three Sisters Way. (Richard and Sandra Thummel) Deferred from the June 17, 1987 Regular Meeting. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. the property or intenaea use or aevelopment, wnicn generally do not aDDly to other DroDerties in the same land use The exceptional conditions applicable to the property are the steep topography, the location of the existing structure, and the large amount of unusable area beyond the cliff. These physical circumstances reduce the area available for development and do not lend to expansion of the structure in KIBS226278 alternative locations. Planning & Zoning Commission W, July 15, 1987 Minutes /'„ 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances Strict application of zoning ordinance would require the addition to be built fifteen (15) feet from side property line. As identified above, the lot does not provide ample buildable area in other areas that will be consistent with the existing floor plan. 3. The eranting of the variance will judice to other properties in the vicinity nor to the public's health, safetv and welfare. Several other structures in the immediate neighborhood have similar setbacks. These structures are grandfathered and have not proven to be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or welfare. This variance also poses no threat to the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Lastly, no adverse public testimony from the surrounding area has been received. 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 addition will not change the permitted land uses or allowable density in the RR 1 Zoning District. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is bean¢ sought by the r In this case, actions of the applicant did not cause the conditions from which relief is being sought by a variance. The existing house was constructed in 1979 and only purchased by the applicant in 1980. In addition, the variance will be decided prior to construction of the addition. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Single family residences are a permitted land use in the RR1 Zoning District. There was no further old business. VIII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of item A of communications. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Letter dated June 24, 1987 to Henry Friedman, Alaska Department of r Environmental Conservation, from Robert H. Pederson, re: Brechan Solid Waste Permit Application No. 8621-BA019. There were no further communications. X. REPORTS COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A and B of reports. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Status Report from the Community Development Department. B) Engineering Department Approved Abbreviated Plats Report. KIBS226279 Planning & Zoning Commission 20 July 15, 1987 Minutes XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN stated she will be out of town for the month of August. XIII. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN RENNELL adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: teve Rennell Chairman ATTEST By: T Donna Smith, Acting Secretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: A x 5; 19 . 11 g*- r^ A TAPE RECORDING IS ON FILE AT THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KIBS226280 Planning & Zoning Commission 21 July 15, 1987 Minutes