Loading...
1969-01-29 Regular MeetingKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING & ZONING ConlISSICN I✓ISETING - JANUARY 29th, 1969 I CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairman Ed Haney at 8: 10 P.M. in the Courtroom of the New State Office Building, Kodiak, Alaska. II ROLL CALL r" III MINUTES Present Ed Haney, Vice -Chairman Mrs. Wilda Gellis Ernie Brothers Harry Wallaca John Waller Absent John Welch (excused) Also Present: Sam Best, Borough Chairman Jim Stansbury Jerry Fawcett, Barr & ASSOCS. representative & two people in the audience A. Regular Meeting - January 8th, 1969: The minutes were approved as presented. IV OTHER MINUTES A. Assembly - Regular Meeting, January 16th, 1969: Mr. Wallace asked what was meant by the statement that "the base could have its kids back." It was noted that originally whei the children from the base were accepted into the Kodiak School the Naval Base was receiving PL 815 Funds and the eligibility for these funds were to he transferred to Kodiak. At the time the children were admitted the PL 81.5 Funds were discontinued in this area. This was not considered a threat although it was felt that if people on the base realized the situation perhaps they would be able to a_d'inthe procurement of the Funds by writing to others in a position to help. Mr. Best stated that he had talked with some of the Representatives and had been assured that they will do everything possible to get this Fund reinstated. B. Assembly - Special Meeting, January 24th, 1969. No Comments were made. V CODIq NICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE - NODE VI PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Vacation and Reolat of Entire Urban Renewal Project (New Kodiak Subdivision) seconded by Mrs. Gellis. The meeting was closed and the Public Heari.nq opened. There were no catmients from the audience on this matter and the Public Hearing was closed. The meeting was reconvened and the question called for. The motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. VII ZONING ITEL+IS, PRELIMINARY REVIEW A. Rezoning East Addition, Blocks 36, 44, 45, 40, 43, 46 & 47, from R-1 to R-2, case 209-D) The memo from the Assembly was read stating this case had been retrrned to Planning & Zoning with the request that P&Z hold a Preliminary Public Hearing. Mr. Wallace moved that this be brought up for public hearing at the next P&Z Meeting cahich will be February 11, 1969, seconded by Mr. Brothers. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote. KIBS272621 B. Preparation of Report for Appeal Board on Exception Denial, USS 3100, Lot 101 J. J. Holman (Case 212-A) Excerpts from the Code were read stating the necessary information required from the P & Z Commission in the report to the r Appeal Board. The minutes of the January 8th meeting were read concerning this case. Mr. Brothers otated this lot has been in the same condition for the past five years. :ors. Gellis questioned whether or not a temporary exception could be granted and was there a way to enforce it. It was noted that this could not be granted now. Further noted that the request was denied because of past experience that the City and the Borough have had with Mr. Holman. 11r. Haney pointed out that this request was not based on past record and should not be considered under such. Mrs. Gellis further stated that she believed that the property used as a jun],yard would be detrimental to other property in the area. Although this is an unclassified area it does not set forth uses as junkyards and the only section that would have junkyards would be in an industrial area. The report to the Appeal Board should have the following reasons: The request was denied because it was not deemed essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare aid was not in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the Commprehansive Borough Plan. Under the Comprehensive Plan this area is set aside for a txailer park and the area next to this is planned P&Z ImETING - JANUARY 29th, 1969 Page 2 for medium density. It is the reccumendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission that the appeal be denied. C. Variance Request, Erskine Subd., Blk 8, Lot 67, Slater (Case 14-C). An excerpt from the Code was read setting forth conditions for granting a variance. The letter from Mr. Slater's attorney, George Vogt, was read requesting a variance due to the irregular shape of the lot and the desire to obtain an ocean view. The Borough Attorney's opinion was read which stated that there are several conditions not met in the application; (1) that the applicant had not signed the application and (2) the conditions were not set forth in proper form. The variance could not be granted under these existing conditions. I�W. Waller moved that this be tabled until such time as the paper work was commleted. seconded by tir. Wallace. The motion Passed by unanimous voice vote. A. Approval of Final Plats, Russian River Subdivision, State (Case 198-B). A review was submitted by the Engineer R. A. Jones and certain points brought Wt. Mr. Best stated that at this time he was before the Commission in his capacity as a surveyor and further stated that this contract was worked out with the State Division of Lands and had been checked and approved by Division of Lands. The review by the Engineer stated: (1) Street naming is confusing and the areas of conflict have been noted on the plats. The road in question was South Russian Creek and the fact that it runs through the entire subdivision to the main road. (2) "Alaska" in the title of the subdivision is superfluous. It was noted that this is a requirement of the State Division of Lands and signifies that this is a State Survey, all of the State Plats have this in the title. (3) End points of various streets, as noted on the plats is questioned. For example Lot 19. (4) Osin Way and Gara Drive should intersect South Russian Creek Road at a commn point. (5) Leta Street and Snek Way appear to serve no useful purpose. Concerning these three points it was stated that the roads were platted as near as possible to the Existing roads in the survey. (6) Legal description does not make certain the intent of tangency to described '— curves with the record lines or curves subsequent. It was stated that these are set out in the covenent as "curves run PC to PT in direction of the curve." (7) Legal description corrections noted on plat. Corrections noted change SE to Easterly and NE to Northerly, however it was pointed out that by using the original tern "SE" or "NE" there would be no question as to the corner referenced. It was further stated that the Alaska Division of Lands wants these legal description set forth and have been approved by the Division of Lands. Special instructions were received from BLM as to the setting up of the gravel resources and these measurements are stated in parenthesis whereas other land points are not in parenthesis. Mr. Wallace moved for approval of the final Plat as presented on Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision, seconded by B. Approval of Final Plats, Bell's Flats Subdivision, State (Case 196-A) Mr. Jerry Fawcett was present as a representative of Barr & Associates. The review from the Engineer was read: (1) Street naming is confusing, areas of conflict have been noted. Mr. Fawcett stated that the words "Drive" and Kalsin can be inserted to clarify this point. (2) the Submitted prints are very poor and therefore difficult to review. It was noted that one of the prints was lighter than the others, but still readable, however if desired another print could be submitted. (3) If the Borough proposes to use the existing sewer line then utility easements should be provided on the plats. It was noted that this is taken care of on the plat by a dotted line and the easement is the regular ten foot. (4) The "Alaska" in the title of the r— Subdivision is superfluous and only serves to make the title more bulky and difficult to work with. As pointed out in the previous paragraph this is a requirement of the State Division of Lands to designate that this is a State Survey. (5) Legal descriptions do not7nake certain the intent of tangency of described curves with the record lines or curves subsequent. This also was stated in the above paragraph. Mr. Waller moved for final approval of the Bell's Flats Alaska Subdivision Plats as Presented with one correction to X OLD BUSINESS - NONE KIBS272622 P & Z MEETING, JA1WM 29th, 1969 Page 3 A._ Discussion on Amendment to Code to include "'USE` Variance. The opinion from the Borough Attorney was read stating that: A "use" variance is one which permits the use of land other than which is prescribed by the zoning regulations. Thus, a variance which permits a commercial use in a residential zone, which permits a multiple dwelling in a district limited to single family homes, or which permits an industrial use in a district limited to commercial use, is a use variance. In order fcr the Planning & Zoning Commission to grant a "use" variance as referred to in the American Law of Zoning it would be necessary that the Borough's Code of Ordinances be amended to permit the granting of variances for other reasons than irregularly shaped lots or exceptional physical conditions. It was stated that if these exceptions or variances were granted everything else should be in accordance with existing building and zoning codes. Mr. Best stated that conditions can be put on these grants to protect the Code. Mrs. Gellis felt it was not wrong to give exceptions and variances and that there should be a certain amount of leniency in the rules. Mr. Haney stated that if the Borough were to live up to the Ordinances as the letter of the law there would be no need for the Comnission. It was pointed out that many people had moved here from more populated areas to have a little more freedom in building and living. Mr. Best noted that area wide planning and zoning is most beneficial to the community in the long run. XII AUDIENCE: COM[=S A. Mr. Stansbury stated that in his opinion the "use" variance is another way of acccuplishing what cannot he obtain :. through exception or spot zoning: People will ;.:<! trying to accomplish- this for their cam personal reascrs and will be coming back in order to get this ors, way or another.. without regulations it. is not possible to control the development of the cc m;unity and ncv is a good time tlD'insure the prevention of another Leite Addition. Mr. Stansbury also stated that when people buy or build a house they should consider at that r-- time how the house is to be paid for and if a rental unit is necessary to pay:for the house then it should be purchased in an area that allows rentals. XIII The meeting was adjourned at 9.55 P.14. / ohn Waller, Chairman F- SM1ITTED Norma L. Holt, Secretary KIBS272623