Loading...
1989-11-15 Regular MeetingKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 15, 1989 MINUTES I. 11. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Tom Hendel on November 15, 1989 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Tom Hendel, Chairman Bruce Barrett Wayne Coleman Robin Heinrichs Jody Hodgins Mary Lou Knudsen Commissioners Absent: Jon Hartt, Excused A quorum was established. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Others Present: Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner, Community Development Department Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department Staff reported the following additions to the agenda: AGENDA ADDITIONS IX COMMUNICATIONS F) 1989 Kodiak Island Borough Population Update. G) Zoning and Planning Law Report November 1989, re: New duties on developers to avoid wetlands use. H) Letter dated November 9, 1989, to Norman and Margaret Sutliff from Duane Dvorak, re: Lot 1, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite. I) Letter dated November 15, 1989, to Fern Fuller from Duane Dvorak, re: Lots 5, 6, 11, and 12, Block 33, East Addition. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda with the additions reported by staff. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. KIBS226692 Page 1 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15,1989 IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the October 18, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS & APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments. A) Case S-87-034. Request for a one (1) year extension of preliminary plat approval (to October 21, 1990). Subdivision of Lot 6A, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision, creating Lots 6A-1 and 6A-2, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision. 3985 Cliffside Road (Dana and Jeanette Campbell) COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO GRANT a one (1) year extension of preliminary plat approval (to October 21, 1990) for the subdivision of Lot 6A, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision, creating Lots 6A-1 and 6A-2, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision; and to confirm the condition of approval contained in the original approval. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. All outdoor storage must be removed from Lot 6A-2 prior to filing of the final plat. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. B) Case S-87-033. Request for a one (1) year extension of preliminary plat approval (to October 21, 1990). Vacation of Lot 4, Block 8 and Tract J, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite, and the subdivision of an Unsubdivided Portion of Tract E, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite, and replat to Lots 4A and 5, Block 8, and Tract J-1, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite. (City of Old Harbor/Emil and Jack Christiansen) COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO GRANT a one (1) year extension of preliminary plat approval (to October 21, 1990) for the vacation of Lot 4, Block 8 and Tract J, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite, and the subdivision of an Unsubdivided Portion of Tract E, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite, and replat to Lots 4A and 5, Block 8, and Tract J-1, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite; and to confirm the conditions of approval contained in the original approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Clearly delineate the exterior boundary of the property involved in the subdivision by a line heavier than any interior lot lines; 2. Show corners of Tract J and adjacent lots which were found, or set corners for those not found; 3. Indicate that the corner of Lot 4, Block 8, common to the Birch Street right-of-way was found, or set new corner, and set corner KIBS226693 Page 2 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 for westerly Birch Street right-of-way at southerly boundary of the subdivision; 4. Make dimension changes shown on attached copy of plat; 5. Change the lot areas for Lots 4A and 5 to show the actual areas (30,000 -- not 3,000); 6. Provide a legal description for the entire subdivision, since it includes an unsubdivided portion of Tract "E", Old Harbor Townsite, U.S. Survey 4793. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. C) Case 88-020. Request for reconsideration of condition of approval number one for a previously approved exception from Section 17.21.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit a shelter for the homeless to locate in a B--Business Zoning District. Lot 2, Block 15, Kodiak Townsite; 411 Cedar Street. (City of Kodiak) As an additional handout, staff provided the Commission with a letter dated November 7, 1989, from the City Manager regarding this case. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO REMOVE condition of approval number 1 for Case 88-020, contained in the staff report dated March 28, 1989, and to adopt the findings of fact contained in the staff memorandum dated November 2, 1989. The motion was seconded. The Commission, with input from staff, discussed the off-street parking requirements of the Brother Francis Shelter/Kodiak, the A. Holmes Johnson Library, the police and fire stations, and the Teen Center. The question was called and the MOTION CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITION OF APPROVAL DELETED: Prior to issuing zoning compliance, the overall parking plan for this facility and adjoining City of Kodiak facilities Gail, fire station, police station, library, and teen center) shall be revised to show at least one hundred twenty-eight (128) off-street parking spaces to serve a zoning code requirement of one hundred forty-five (145) spaces as permitted by Case 88-047. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The variance referenced in this condition of approval has expired. 2. The shelter will be built independently of other City facilities in the area and will be required to meet off-street parking requirements prior to occupancy. KIBS226694 Page 3 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 3. If at some time in the future a parking variance is required for the construction of additional City facilities, a new request will come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. There were no further audience comments or appearance requests. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Case 89-017. Rural Development Zoning District Implementation. The Planning and Zoning Commission is considering the creation of a new zoning district, the Rural Development (RD) Zoning District. The purpose of this zoning district is to provide opportunities for development in remote areas of the Borough and to recognize the importance of the balanced utilization of natural resources. This zoning district is also designed to: (1) allow traditional commercial activities on remote land; and (2) provide a review mechanism for intensive development activities. A seventh (7th) draft of the regulations implementing this district are the subject of this public hearing. (Planning and Zoning Commission) (Postponed from the October 1989 regular meeting.) LINDA FREED indicated 27 public hearing notices were mailed. Staff noted that Akhiok-Kaguyak had tried to fax their comments to the Commission for this evening's meeting, but were unsuccessful. Staff recommended postponing action on the eighth (8th) draft of the Rural Development Zoning District regulations in order to hold a public hearing on the draft at the December regular meeting; noting that a copy of the eighth (8th) draft of the regulations should be sent to interested persons and a display ad placed in the Borough newspage to inform people about the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO REMOVE CASE 89-017 from the table. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. The Commission, with input from staff, reviewed the suggested changes to the seventh (7th) draft. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO AMEND the seventh (7th) draft of the Rural Development Zoning District by incorporating the following changes: A. 17.14.020 Permitted Principal Uses and Structures - reword to read: 2. Agricultural activities and support structures except "commercial" livestock grazing. MBS226695 Page 4 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 4. Lodges. [No more than ten (10) unrelated guests are permitted at one time - each related family group counts as one (1) guest. Any number of people associated with the operation of the lodge are permitted.] B. 17.14.040 Conditional Uses - change 2 to read as follows and add as number 3 the following new section and renumber the remaining sections: 2. "Commercial' livestock grazing. 3. Lodges that cater to more guests than those permitted in 17.14.020(4). C. 17.14.080 Setbacks from Property Lines - 2.13 and 3.6. 1. Add "facilities" after the words water dependent in 3.13; and 2. Enlarge the definition of water dependent to include the examples from both definitions into one definition. D. 17.14.090 Special District Regulations - 1 - reword to read: Conditional uses in this zoning district are required to conform to the previously identified general district regulations unless the terms of the conditional use permit specify otherwise. E. 17.14.110 Nonconformities - 1.A.ii - reword to read: Agricultural activities and support structures except "commercial" livestock grazing. F. 17.14.110 Nonconformities - 1.b - reword to read: b. Any permitted principal and/or accessory use and structure not listed in Section 17.14.110(1.a) proposed for a lot that does not meet the minimum lot size requirements of this chapter will be treated as a conditional use. G. 17.14.080 Setbacks from Property Lines - 2.a and 3.a - reword to read: 2. Setbacks from marine waters. a. There is a required setback (i.e., clearing, filling, excavation, or structural development) of fifty (50) feet from the mean high tide of marine waters except in the case of timber harvesting activities whose required setback will be regulated by the applicable laws, rules, and regulations of the State of Alaska Forest Practices Act and its amendments; and except further that this provision shall not prevent removal in the KIBS226696 Page 5 of 19 P 8 Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 setback area associated with a habitable residential or recreational structure of (1) up to fifty (50) percent of the trees and (2) other vegetation if a suitable ground cover (such as grass) is planted. 3. Setbacks from anadromous fish water bodies. a. There is a required setback (i.e., clearing, filling, excavation, or structural development) of fifty (50) feet from bank vegetation of anadromous fish water bodies that are specified pursuant to AS 16.05.870(a) and 5 AAC 95.010 except in the case of timber harvesting activities whose required setback will be regulated by the applicable laws, rules, and regulations of the State of Alaska Forest Practices Act and its amendments; and except further that this provision shall not prevent removal in the setback area associated with a habitable residential or recreational structure of (1) up to fifty (50) percent of the trees and (2) other vegetation if a suitable ground cover (such as grass) is planted. H. 17.14.080 Setbacks from Property Lines - 2.b - reword to read: 2. Setbacks from marine waters. b. Water dependent facilities may be located closer than fifty (50) feet and over the water, if constructed on pilings, bulkheads, etc., or of a floating design, provided they do not contain facilities or operations which generate solid, liquid, or hazardous waste unless permitted to do so by the State and/or federal government. I. 17.14.090 Soecial District Regulations - 2.a and 2.b - reword to read: 2. Approved conditional uses in this district shall conform to the following specific performance standards: a. Conditional uses must minimize the impact on the natural environment and preserve, to the extent feasible and prudent, natural features. Specifically, to the extent feasible and prudent: Conditional uses in upland habitats must retain natural vegetation coverage, natural drainage patterns, prevent excessive runoff and erosion, and maintain surface water quality and natural groundwater recharge areas; and Conditional uses in estuaries, tideflats, and wetlands must maintain or assure water flow, natural circulation patterns, and adequate nutrient and oxygen levels. KIBS226697 Page 6 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 Nothing in this provision shall require improvement to the natural condition existing prior to development. b. Although a particular conditional use may constitute a minor change, the cumulative effect of numerous piecemeal changes can result in a major impairment of the environment. The particular site for which a conditional use application is made will be evaluated with the recognition that it may be part of a complete and interrelated environmental area. A conditional use shall be denied under this provision only if the weight of credible scientific evidence shows that the proposed conditional use together with all other then existing conditional uses in the area will have a substantial adverse impact on the interrelated environmental area if such conditional uses are operating in accordance with all required State and Federal rules and regulations. Consideration shall be given to the mitigating effect of not locating the conditional use in any other area and mitigation efforts, if any, which the proposed conditional user may offer for this or any other environmental areas. J. Throughout the regulations correct "principle" to "principal." The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION on the eighth (8th) draft of the Rural Development Zoning District regulations in order to hold a public hearing on the draft at the December regular meeting. A copy of the eighth (8th) draft of the regulations should be sent to interested persons and a display ad placed in the Borough newspage to inform people about the public hearing. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. B) Case 89-059. Request for a variance from Sections 17.54.010A and 17.54.010C (Height --Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit a three (3) foot fence with approximately sixty-six percent (66%) solid vertical surface above two (2) feet in height rather than the permitted fifty percent (50%) and to allow the fence to project into the Poplar and Maple Streets rights -of -way (adjacent to the paved sidewalk) in the R-1--Single-family Residential Zoning District. Lot 12, Block 3, Aleutian Homes; 310 Maple (Daniel Benton) (Postponed from the October 1989 regular meeting.) DUANE DVORAK indicated 80 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO REMOVE CASE 89-017 from the table. 1�jBS22669g Page 7 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: DANIEL BENTON appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. The Commission and Mr. Benton, with input from Community Development Department staff, discussed the fence and its impact on line of sight visibility. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Sections 17.54.010A and 17.54.010C of the Borough Code to permit a three (3) foot fence with approximately sixty-six percent (66%) solid vertical surface above two (2) feet in height rather than the permitted fifty percent (50%) and to allow the fence to project into the Poplar and Maple Streets rights -of -way (adjacent to the paved sidewalk) in the R-1- -Single-family Residential Zoning District on Lot 12, Block 3, Aleutian Homes; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff memorandum dated November 2, 1989; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff memorandum dated November 2, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded. The Commission discussed the fence's impact on visibility at the intersection of Poplar and Maple Streets. The question was called and the MOTION CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Hodgins voted "no." 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 right-of-way, the applicant or any subsequent owner of Lot 12, Block 3, 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. 5. Construction of the fence shall be in such a manner as to not reduce any required off-street parking. KIBS226699 Page 8 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional Physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the oroperty 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, residential property owners assume 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 then possible that this property would not be maintained by the adjacent 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 extend to the front and/or side property line. This is an unnecessary hardship when the Commission has granted many variances in the past for fences to project into the road rights -of - way. In addition, strict application of the Code would require that the fence be modified from its original configuration. This is an unnecessary hardship since it does not appear that such modification will improve the sight distance along Poplar and Maple Streets. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or Preiudice 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 if the suggested conditions of approval are included as part of the variance. In addition, the City of Kodiak has granted approval for the fence encroachment subject to additional conditions to protect the public's interests. 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 for Medium Density Residential Development. In general, comprehensive plans do not address minor developments such as fences. 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 caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. This is due to the fact that the fence was partially constructed prior to the granting of the variance. However, staff believes that the KIBS226700 Page 9 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 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 C) Case 89-061. An appeal of an Administrative Decision in accordance with Section 17.68.020E (Appeals from Administrative Decisions) of the Borough Code of a decision ordering the discontinuation of an unlawful use of land (maintaining a junk yard in a B--Business Zoning District) and removal of all items classified as junk within forty-five (45) days. The appellant seeks the following relief: 1. an extension of time to correct the violation, if the operation is determined by the Planning Zoning Commission to be a "junk yard" and the exception request is not granted; or 2. an exception from Section 17.21.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued operation of an automobile parts salvage yard in a B--Business Zoning District. Lot 6, Block 1, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision - 777 Cottonwood Circle. (Doug Deplazes) DUANE DVORAK indicated 40 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, opposing this request. Staff recommended affirming the administrative decision and denial of the exception request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: DOUG DEPLAZES appeared before the Commission. The Commission and Mr. Deplazes discussed the clean-up of the property referenced above. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO AFFIRM the administrative decision that the junkyard located on Lot 6, Block 1, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision, is an unlawful use of land and all items of junk and scrap salvage must be removed by May 1, 1990. .— The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION by adding the following: "If the applicant wishes to exclude any items classified as junk from enforcement action, a list of those items must be reviewed and approved by the Commission at their December 20, 1989, regular meeting. This list of items the applicant wishes to keep on the lot must be received by the Community Development Department no later than December 12, 1989." KIBS226701 Page 10 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 The AMENDMENT was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioners Knudsen and Coleman voted "no." The question was called and the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT an exception from Section 17.21.020 of the Borough Code to permit the operation of a salvage yard in a B--Business Zoning District on Lot 6, Block 1, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision. The motion was seconded and FAILED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO ADOPT the findings contained in the staff report dated October 30, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for Case 89-061. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice 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, may endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare because industrial land uses (e.g., junkyards, scrap salvage of vehicles and other items) have the potential to detract from the use of the land on adjoining properties for residential and business purposes. This is evidenced by the complaint already received regarding the storage of junk vehicles and scrap materials. Methods of limiting these potential land use conflicts can include, but are not limited to, screening, limits on the land area to be used for the activity, or time limits on the length of time the proposed activity is allowed. Conditions, such as those above, may address concerns about the appearance of outdoor storage in the form of junk and scrap salvage and thereby preserve the public's welfare. However, it is much harder to specify what conditions of approval would insure that contamination of the soil with petroleum products or other byproducts does not occur as a result of vehicle salvage operations. B. The proposed use will be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 17.21.010 (Description and Intent) of the B--Business Zoning District. Section 17.03.080 specifies that uses not listed as permitted uses are prohibited. Junkyards and scrap salvage are not permitted uses in the B--Business Zoning District. The description and intent of the B--Business Zoning District, Section 17.21.010, is to encourage the continued use and development of land for retail purposes; to discourage the KIBS226702 Page 11 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 use of business district lands for other than retail purposes; to prohibit the use of business district lands for manufacturing and industrial purposes; and to encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter. C. The proposed use could potentially have adverse impacts on other properties in the area. In addition to the potential land use conflicts between the requested industrial land uses and the existing/potential residential and business land uses (e.g. noise, traffic, hours of operation, etc.) granting this exception will set a precedent for changing the expected use of the B--Business Zoning District. This is especially true given the existence of the current uses already taking place on the property. This exception, if approved, will allow what are essentially industrial land uses on this property. This can give the impression that the intended use of the surrounding B--Business zoned land may also be of an industrial nature. If the Commission feels this is a legitimate impression to give to the public then at some point the property should be investigated for possible rezoning. D) Case 89-062. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050B (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit a carport addition to an existing single- family residence to encroach no more than one (1) foot into the required five (5) foot side yard setback in a R-1--Single-family Residential Zoning District. Lot 6A, Block 54, East Addition - 1713 Rezanof Drive East. (Mike and Anita Brechan) DUANE DVORAK indicated 34 public hearing notices were mailed and 2 were returned, stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 17.18.050B of the Borough Code to permit a carport addition to an existing single-family residence to encroach no more than one (1) foot into the required five (5) foot side yard setback in a R-1--Single- family Residential Zoning District on Lot 6A, Block 54, East Addition; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated October 31, 1989 as "Findings of Fact' for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. KIBS226703 Page 12 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 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 conditions are the topography and the placement of the existing structures on the lot. Due to these conditions, the property owner is extremely limited in the placement of a reasonable carport addition where some kind of variance would not be required. While one option may exist for the placement of a carport on the west side of the house this option will not fit as well with the existing architecture. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would not allow the addition of a reasonably sized carport at the proposed location. While there may be an alternative location, the alternative would not be consistent with the existing architecture. Due to the exceptional conditions on the lot noted above, denial of the variance would constitute a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship to the property owner. The encroachment of a carport addition of less than one foot at the proposed location will substantially maintain the side yard setback requirement. 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 to allow an encroachment of the side yard setback will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity. If permitted, the side of the carport would be at least four (4) feet from the side lot line. The main structure on the adjoining lot is located well away from this common lot line. An adequate separation of structures will still exist if the variance is approved. The variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or general welfare since all construction and separation standards of the Uniform Building Code will be met as part of the construction permitting process. 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 for Medium Density Residential Development. The addition will not increase the existing density or alter the permitted land uses. 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 applicant have not caused special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought KIBS226704 Page 13 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 by variance. The applicant will take no action until the variance has been decided by the Commission. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Additions to single-family residences are permitted in the R1-- .� Single -Family Residential Zoning District. E) Case 89-063. Request for a variance from Section 17.17.050C (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit a twenty-two by forty (22 x 40) foot agricultural building to encroach eight and a half (8.5) feet into the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback in the RR-1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. Lot 11C, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision - 125 Otter Avenue. (Allan and Kathy Crouse) DUANE DVORAK indicated 25 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to a condition of approval. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: ALLAN CROUSE appeared before the Commission, expressed support for this request, and opposition to the proposed condition of approval which stated: "An as -built survey must be submitted to the Community Development Department to verify the location of existing improvements on Lot 11 C, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision, prior to the issuance of zoning compliance. The location of improvements must be substantially consistent with the information supplied by the applicant. If the information is not substantially consistent, then the Planning and Zoning Commission retains the right to re-evaluate the request and modify the decision." CHAIRMAN HENDEL read a public hearing notice response from Kelly Wakefield, expressing non -objection, into the record. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 17.17.050C of the Borough Code to permit a twenty-two by forty (22 x 40) foot agricultural building to encroach eight and a half (8.5) feet into the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback in the RR- 1--Rural Residential One Zoning District on Lot 11C, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated November 1, 1989 as "Findings of Fact' for this case. The motion was seconded. The Commission, with input from Community Development Department Staff, discussed the proposed condition of approval. The question was called and MOTION CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. KIBS226705 Page 14 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT 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 circumstances or conditions applicable to the property are the topography of the lot and the location of existing improvements on the lot. The lot is located in an area where the average slope is about thirteen (13) percent. Most of the existing development on the lot is located where the slope is only about five (5) percent. The sewer drain field occupies a steeper area of the lot which is about twenty-two (22) percent slope. In addition, the water improvements are located in and around the main structure (see attached site plan). If these facilities are located where the applicant has indicated, then the lot is severely limited in terms of future development. 2. _Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in Practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships Strict application of the zoning ordinance would require the agricultural building to be located twenty (20) feet from the rear property line. As identified above, the lot does not provide adequate buildable area that would permit a reasonable agricultural building to locate where it could support the applicant's existing agricultural activities. The Zoning Code allows up to thirty (30%) percent of the total lot area to be covered by agricultural buildings. The addition of this building would bring the total coverage on this lot to less than 2,000 square feet (5%). The Code allows up to 12,011 square feet of agricultural building coverage on this lot. Therefore, denial of the variance would be a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. 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 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. An adequate setback (approximately 11.5 feet) will still be maintained along the rear lot line which coincides with the undeveloped rear yard of Lot 12C- 1. 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 for large lot, low density residential development and agricultural uses. Comprehensive plans do not generally address minor development standards such as setbacks and granting of the variance will not change the permitted uses or density of the area. KIBS226706 Page 15 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 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 applicant have caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The applicant understands that the Commission could require either modification or removal of a portion of the proposed structure. If the applicant had understood that a variance was required, a variance would have been requested before the agricultural building was started. In addition, even if this case were being processed as an enforcement action, the applicant would still be entitled to request relief in the form of a variance and would not have been required to pay the required fifty (50) dollar fee. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Agricultural buildings are permitted in this zoning district when a residential structure is located on the lot. F) Case S-89-038. Vacation of a ten (10) foot wide utility easement along the rear lot line of Lots 1A through 7, Block 3, Russell Estates Subdivision; Lots 8A through 13 and 14A and 15A, Block 3, Russell Estates Subdivision 2nd Addition; and Lots 16 through 18, Block 3, Russell Estates Subdivision 3rd Addition. (Kodiak Island Borough) DUANE DVORAK indicated 148 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 (with four attachments) was returned, stating non - objection to this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: DANE CARROS appeared before the Commission and asked for an explanation of this request. LINDA FREED explained the proposed vacation of the utility easement. DANE CARROS expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the vacation of a ten (10) foot wide utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 1A through 7, Block 3, Russell Estates Subdivision; Lots 8A through 13 and 14A and 15A, Block 3, Russell Estates Subdivision 2nd Addition; and Lot 16, Block 3, Russell Estates Subdivision 3rd Addition; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated November 2, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded. CHAIRMAN HENDEL noted that a public hearing notice response was received from Weldon and Kay Cox expressing support for this request. KIBS226707 Page 16 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 LINDA FREED reported that the Borough Attorney (in a memorandum dated October 31, 1989) stated "... the easement is owned by the Kodiak Island Borough for the benefit of the public for public utilities. The vacation of the easement extinguishes only the Borough's property interest, the interest of other property owners is unaffected. For this reason it is my opinion it is unnecessary for the other legal and equitable property owners whose lots are shown on the plat to sign the plat, whose sole purpose is the vacation of the public utility easement." This plat will, therefore, be signed only by the Borough and this is a unique occurrence. The question was called and MOTION CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. 2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code. 3. This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. VIi. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VIII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A through I of communications. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Enforcement Policy Draft dated October 1989. B) Letter dated October 20, 1989, to John Parker from Duane Dvorak, re: Planning and Zoning Commission decision of April 19, 1989, requiring the property owner to provide and maintain screening consisting of a four (4) foot high chain link fence extending from the proposed building(s) to the rear property line where Tracts D-1 and D-2, U.S. Survey 3218 are adjacent. C) Memorandum dated October 20, 1989, to the "file" from Linda Freed, re: Zoning violations on Lots 6 and 7, U.S. Survey 3100. D) Letter dated October 20, 1989, to Fern Fuller from Duane Dvorak, re: Planning and Zoning Commission decision of January 18, 1989, requiring screening in accordance with Section 17.57.040C of the KIBS226708 Page 17 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 r— X. XI. Borough Code between Lots 6 and 7 and between Lots 5 and 6 and Lots 11 and 12, Block 33, East Addition. E) Letter dated October 25, 1989, to Jock Bevis from Bob Scholze, re: Lots 1A-2 and 1A-3, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision - gear storage where no owner -occupied residence exists. F) 1989 Kodiak Island Borough Population Update. G) Zoning and Planning Law Report November 1989, re: New duties on developers to avoid wetlands use. H) Letter dated November 9, 1989, to Norman and Margaret Sutliff from Duane Dvorak, re: Lot 1, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite. I) Letter dated November 15, 1989, to Fern Fuller from Duane Dvorak, re: Lots 5, 6, 11, and 12, Block 33, East Addition. The Commission, with input from Community Development Department staff, reviewed Communications items A and B, above. The Commission requested that the Enforcement Policy be revised to include public education about the seasonal (fishing gear storage), chronic (junkyards and squatters), and acute (Assembly mandates) historic violations. Staff responded that the Enforcement Policy would be amended and returned to the Commission for another review at the December regular meeting. There were no further communications. REPORTS COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A and B of reports. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Community Development Department Status Report. B) Community Development Department Plat Activity Report. LINDA FREED reported that the Commission's request for a joint worksession with the Assembly on November 30, 1989, was not possible due to the Assembly's other commitments. The Commission requested that a joint worksession with the Assembly be scheduled as soon as possible on a mutually convenient date. The Commission requested further information about the Alaska Marine Highway System Advisory Board meeting. LINDA FREED reviewed the meeting. There were no further reports. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. KIBS226709 Page 18 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989 r. . XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS The Commission discussed Title 16. The consensus of the Commission was that adopting a finding of fact that "all the stamps are in place" on the plat appeared to be the only review applicable by the Commission. Xlil. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN HENDEL adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ATTEST By. � Patricia Miley, Seetary Community DeVeopment Department r — DATE APPROVED: December 20, 1989 By: v1Y� Tom Hendel, thairman KIBS226710 Page 19 of 19 P & Z Minutes: November 15, 1989