Loading...
1989-10-18 Regular Meetingr KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 18, 1989 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Robin Heinrichs on October 18, 1989 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Robin Heinrichs Wayne Coleman Jon Hartt Jody Hodgins Mary Lou Knudsen Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Linda Freed, Director Community Development Dept. Duane Dvorak Associate Planner Community Development Dept. Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Dept. Bud Cassidy, Resource Manager Tom Hendel, Chairperson, Excused Bruce Barrett, Excused A quorum was established. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff reported the following additions to the agenda: IX COMMUNICATIONS F) Letter dated September 25, 1989 to Timothy Hurley from Richard J. Gutleber, Corps of Engineers, re: Tract "D," Woodland Acres. G) Letter dated October 9, 1989 to Linda Freed from Joel Bolger, re: Kodiak Island Borough v. Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux. H) Letter dated October 11, 1989 to Jim Wheeler from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 3, Block 1, Russell Estates Subdivision - 1113 Selief. I) Letter dated October 12, 1989 to Thomas and Shirley Minio from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 9, U.S. Survey 3464 - 3390 Island Lake. J) Letter dated October 13, 1989 to Thomas Terry from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 15A, U.S. Survey 3098 ("Body Doctor"). KIBS226715 Page 1 of 28 P 6 Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda with the additions reported by staff. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the September 21, 1111 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS ALAN SCHMITT, representing the Archdiocese of Anchorage, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for the extension request S-86-027. A) Case S-86-027. Request for a third one (1) year extension of the preliminary plat approval period (to September 20, 1990). Subdivision of Lot 19, U.S. Survey 3101 creating Lots 19A, 19B, and 19C, U.S. Survey 3101. (Archdiocese of Anchorage/Alan L. Schmitt) The Commission, with input from Community Development Department staff, discussed the Code requirements for extension of the preliminary plat approval period and the conditions of approval adopted when this case was r originally granted preliminary approval. The Commission discussed with Mr. Schmitt the Archdiocese's plans for completion of this project. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO GRANT a request for a third one (1) year extension of the preliminary plat approval period (to September 20, 1990) for the subdivision of Lot 19, U.S. Survey 3101 creating Lots 19A, 19B, and 19C, U.S. Survey 3101; and to confirm the conditions of approval contained in the original approval. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Revise the lot line between Lot 19A and 19B to follow the center of the existing driveway. This boundary to be platted in straight lines rather than curves, and make the north edge of the sewer easement be the boundary between 19C and 19A and 19B. 2. Install a new water service for Lot 19C within the existing driveway. 3. Install sewer services for Lots 19A and 19B. KI13S226716 Page 2 of 28 P s 2 Minutes: October 18, 1989 4. Remove or relocate the accessory building on Lot 19A prior to filing the final plat. There were no further audience comments or appearance requests. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS r 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 sixth (6th) draft of the regulations implementing this district are the subject of this public hearing. (Planning and Zoning Commission) (Postponed from the September 1989 regular meeting.) LINDA FREED indicated 34 public hearing notices with the seventh draft and staff suggested changes attached were distributed. Responses were received from the Natives of Kodiak, Koniag, Inc., and Katmai National Park and Preserve. In addition, in early October, staff requested a legal opinion regarding the seventh draft regulations from the Borough Attorney. The Borough Attorney's response was received on October 18, 1989. Due to the timing of the Borough Attorney's response, staff recommended postponing action on this item until the November regular meeting. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION on Case r 89-017 until the November regular meeting and I instructed staff to schedule this item for another public hearing at that time. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. B) Case 89-038. Request for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with Sections 18.20.030A (Review by the Planning Commission - KIBS226717 Page 3 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 Assembly Approval) and 18.20.100A (Disposal for Fair Market Value) of the Borough Code of a disposal by lease of Borough land (approximately 2,400 square feet) for fair market value to be used for the location of a nine (9) meter satellite earth station and support facilities. Portion of Lot 5A, U.S. Survey 2538; 623 - 815 Rezanof Drive East (Kodiak Island Borough/General Communications, Inc.) DUANE DVORAK indicated 83 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 3 were returned, 1 opposing and 2 stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended that the Commission forward this request to the Assembly recommending approval of this request. Staff further noted a memorandum received from the Resource Manager that provided the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of the Regional Solicitor Alaska Region "interpretation of public purposes clause in deeds issued pursuant to 25 USC 293a" to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This memorandum was supplied to the Commission as an "additional handout." The Commission and Community Development Department staff discussed the Solicitor's memorandum and its implications. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: DAN BOYETTE, representing General Communications, Inc., appeared before the Commission to answer questions and to express support for this request. The Commission discussed other potential sites, potential interference with existing communications and electric distribution lines, state-of-the-art satellite operations, site security, and access and parking requirements with Mr. Boyette. WALLY JOHNSON, 722 Rezanof, appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. Mr. Johnson stated that he had "power of attorney" for his daughter and son-in-law, Debbie and Lyle Refior, and that they were also in opposition to this request. BUD CASSIDY, Resource Management Officer, appeared before the Commission. The Commission and Mr. Cassidy discussed the Borough Attorney's opinion that the parcel would need to be platted and whether or not this particular parcel was "surplus" to the Borough's needs. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. KIBS226718 Page 4 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ADOPT Planning and Zoning Resolution 89-09-R in accordance with Sections 18.20.030A and 18.20.100A of the Borough Code, recommending that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly dispose of a 2,400 square foot parcel of Borough land by lease for fair market value; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated October 9, 1989; and to adopt the finding of fact contained in the staff report dated October 9, 1989. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A letter of non -objection from the Bureau of Indian Affairs allowing the lease of this parcel to private organizations providing public services. 2. The lessee is responsible for providing an as - built survey of the leased area. 3. The lessee shall pay fair market lease value for the parcel as determined by the Borough Assessor and/or a private fee appraiser. The motion was seconded. CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS recessed the meeting to read the Solicitor's memorandum. CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m. The question was called and the motion FAILED by unanimous roll call vote. Commissioners Hodgins, Coleman, Heinrichs, Hartt, and Knudsen voted "no." The Commission deferred findings of fact in support of their decision until agenda item "New Business." C) Case 89-052. Request for a variance from Section 17.60.040 (Signs) of the Borough Code to permit more than one (1) sign per business enterprise in a Business Zoning District. Tract S-4A-1B, U.S. Survey 3218; 2645 Mill Bay Road. (National Bank of Alaska) DUANE DVORAK indicated 13 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was 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. KIBS226719 Page 5 of 28 P 6 Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 17.60.040 of the Borough Code to permit more than one (1) sign per business enterprise in a Business Zoning District on Tract S-4A-1B, U.S. Survey 3218; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated October 4, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. I The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district The typical condition applicable to the intended use of this property is largely a perceptual one. Typically, the average business property owner assumes that they may have any number of signs. This is especially true in the case of retail establishments providing services, merchandise, and groceries to the general public. In this case, it is notable that the applicant is seeking the variance prior to enforcement action or complaints from the public. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would only allow one sign on the property. This is an unnecessary hardship when many other businesses in Kodiak have more than one sign. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare. The signs, due to their location on the structure, will not interfere with safe traffic flow along Mill Bay Road. In addition, staff does not believe that the signs will constitute a nuisance for the residential area across the street. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. KIBS226720 Page 6 of 28 P s Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 Granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan because signs are customarily used to identify business establishments and comprehensive plans do not generally address minor structural developments such as signs. r 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. This is due to the fact the signs were installed as part of the construction of the building itself. Even though the signs were installed prior to a variance being granted, staff believes that the variance would have been requested prior to construction of the building 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. Signs are permitted in the B--Business Zoning District. D) Case 89-053. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010C (Height --Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit a chain link fence to project into the Maple Street right-of-way adjacent to the paved sidewalk. Lot 4, Block 10, Aleutian Homes; 411 Maple (Don Morrison) DUANE DVORAK indicated 82 public hearing notices were mailed and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to six conditions of approval. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 17.54.010C of the Borough Code to permit a chain link fence to project into the Maple Street right-of-way adjacent to the paved sidewalk on Lot 4, Block 10, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated October 6, 1989; and to adopt the findings KIBS226721 Page 7 of 28 P 3 Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 contained in the staff report dated October 6, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. 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 time the City determines that the fence must be removed from the City owned right- of-way, the applicant or any subsequent owner of Lot 4, Block 10, Aleutian Homes Subdivision, agrees to remove same without cost to the City. 4. Since the land is publicly owned, no prescriptive right accrues to the user. 5. Construction of the fence shall be in such a manner as not to reduce any required off-street parking. 6. The fence must not interfere with sidewalk use, cleaning or maintenance. r The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. 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 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 property line. This is an unnecessary hardship KIBS226722 Page 8 of 28 P 6 z Minutes: October 18, 1989 when many other fences in the community have been permitted to encroach on the public rights - of -way without first receiving a variance. The Commission has also granted numerous variances in the past for fences to project into the 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 a chain link fence will not pose a line of sight problem along the Maple Street right- of-way. Also, the conditions of approval will insure that any future removal of the fence will not result in a cost to the public. 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 r Residential Development. In general, comprehensive plans do not address minor developments such as fences. In addition, the construction of this fence will not change the permitted residential land use. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. In this instance, actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions from which relief is being sought by 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. E) Case 89-054. Request for a variance from Section 17.60.040 (Signs) of the Borough Code to permit more than one sign per business enterprise in a Business Zoning District. Lots 1 through 7, Block 11, New Kodiak Subdivision; 218 Center (First National Bank of Anchorage/Associated Island Brokers) KIBS226723 Page 9 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 DUANE DVORAK indicated 34 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 3 were returned, 1 opposing and 2 stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to one condition of approval. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: CRAIG JOHNSON, Associated Island Brokers, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Mr. Johnson read a public hearing notice response supporting this request from Wally Johnson into the record. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 17.60.040 of the Borough Code to permit more than one (1) sign per business enterprise in a Business Zoning District on Lots 1 through 7, Block 11, New Kodiak Subdivision; subject to the condition of approval contained in the staff report dated October 4, 1989; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated October 4, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. FCONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the additional sign permitted by this variance to insure compliance with the Uniform Sign Code. The motion was seconded. The Commission and Community Development Department staff discussed finding of fact number five. The question was called and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to r other properties in the same land use district. The typical condition applicable to the intended use of this property is largely a perceptual one. Typically, the average business property owner assumes that they may have any number of signs. This is especially true in the case of retail or other establishments providing services, merchandise, and groceries to the general public. In this case, it is notable KIBS226724 Page 10 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 that although the sign is already installed, the applicant is seeking the variance prior to enforcement action or complaints from the public. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would only allow one sign per business on the property. This is an unnecessary hardship when many other businesses in Kodiak have more than one sign. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare. The sign will be required to comply with the Uniform Sign Code as adopted by the City of Kodiak if the suggested condition of approval is adopted with this variance. 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 signs are customarily used to identify business establishments and comprehensive plans do not generally address minor developments such as signs. 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. This is due to the fact the sign was installed prior to a variance being granted. Staff believes that the variance would have been r— requested prior to installation of the sign 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. Signs are permitted in the B--Business Zoning District. KIBS226725 Page 11 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 F) Case 89-055. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit a six by 20 (6 x 20) foot roof to cover an existing deck on the front of a single-family residence which will project six (6) feet into the required fourteen (14) foot front yard setback. Lot 28, Block 6, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; 419 Willow Street (Romeo and Corazon Pasion) DUANE DVORAK indicated 60 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was 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 HARTT MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 17.18.050 of the Borough Code to permit a six by twenty (6 x 20) foot roof to cover an existing deck on the front of a single-family residence which will project six (6) feet into the required fourteen (14) foot front yard setback on Lot 28, Block 6, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated October 6, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN expressed concern with the "line of sight" impairment that would occur if the covered deck became enclosed. The question was called and the motion CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Knudsen voted "no." FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. In this case the exceptional physical conditions on the lot are the nonconforming lot size of 5,245 square feet, and the nonconforming placement of the existing structure on the lot where it is only fourteen (14) feet from the Willow Street right-of-way. Due to these conditions, construction of any addition to the KIBS226726 Page 12 of 28 P 6 Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 front of the existing single-family residence will require 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 not allow the addition of a roof over the existing deck. This is a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship when many other residences in Aleutian Homes Subdivision and surrounding subdivisions have arctic entries, and covered decks which similarly project into the front yard setback. The applicant seeks only to place a roof on the deck, which already exists as an encroachment into the required front yard setback. The addition of a deck will not substantially increase the nonconformity of the structure. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. Granting of this variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the area. A substantial number of other residences in the area have arctic entries and covered decks. 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 of a roof over an existing deck will not increase density or constitute a change from the permitted residential land use. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from r which relief is being sought by the variance. In this case, actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions for which relief is being sought by a variance. The Commission will decide this variance request before any action is taken by the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. KIBS226727 Page 13 of 28 Additions to single-family residences are a permitted land use in the R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. G) Case 89-056. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.21.030E (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code to permit a warehouse to locate in Business Zoning District. Lot 20A, Block 18, Kodiak Townsite; 412 Shelikof (Kinnear and Reed, Inc.) DUANE DVORAK indicated 26 public hearing notices were mailed and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to one condition of approval. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO GRANT a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.21.030E of the Borough Code to permit a warehouse to locate in a Business Zoning District on Lot 20A, Block 18, Kodiak Townsite; subject to the condition of approval contained in the staff report dated October 9, 1989; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated October 9, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. Permitted and conditional uses listed in Chapter 17.24 of the I --Industrial Zoning District of the Borough Code are specifically prohibited unless an exception has been granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission for such a use. The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN inquired about the conditions of approval outlined in a letter from Gordon Gould, City r Manager, dated September 15, 1989. Community Development Department staff noted that the City would be responsible for enforcing their provisions for permitting use of the utility easement on the property. The question was called and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. KIBS226728 Page 14 of 28 P 6 Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 H) Case 89-057. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.040C (Nonconforming Structures) of the Borough Code to permit the relocation of an existing nonconforming structure (due to lot line encroachment) where the nonconformity will neither be enlarged or reduced in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 10A-2, U.S. Survey 3099; 2713 Spruce Cape Road. (William T. Wever) DUANE DVORAK indicated 25 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to one condition of approval. CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS passed the gavel to Commissioner Hodgins. Commissioner Heinrichs requested a determination of a possible conflict of interest as he has ongoing contractual design work with the applicant. CHAIRMAN HODGINS determined Commissioner Heinrichs had no conflict of interest and passed the gavel back to CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: BILL WEVER appeared before the Commission and r expressed support for this request. I The Commission and Mr. Wever discussed the project and its timeframe. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 17.36.040C of the Borough Code to permit the relocation of an existing nonconforming structure (due to lot line encroachment) where the nonconformity will neither be enlarged or reduced in a R1--Single-Family Residential Zoning District on Lot 10A-2, U.S. Survey 3099; subject to the condition of approval contained in the staff report dated October 10, 1989; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated October 10, 1989, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. r CONDITION OF APPROVAL I 1. The applicant must remove the old shop building and quonset but from Lot 10A-2, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence and shop/garage. The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION to add the following condition of approval: KIBS226729 Page 15 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 2. The encroachment must be eliminated by December 31, 1990 or an extension granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The AMENDMENT was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Knudsen voted "no." The question was called and the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant must remove the old shop building and quonset but from Lot 10A-2, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence and shop/garage. 2. The encroachment must be eliminated by December 31, 1990 or an extension granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The exceptional circumstance applicable to the intended use of the property is the location of the existing shop building where it encroaches over the side lot line. The location of this building where it does not encroach is the most suitable on the site for the new single-family residence and shop/garage. However the applicant needs to maintain the existing shop building in order to stay in business while making the desired improvements to the property. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would require the shop to be relocated to a legal location on the lot. There is no place on the lot suitable for the old shop building in order to allow for the construction of the new residence and shop. This is an unnecessary hardship when the adjoining property owner, the City of Kodiak has no objection to the proposed action, and where the encroachment will not be enlarged. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other KIBS226730 Page 16 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be damaging or prejudicial to other properties in the vicinity. The nonconformity will not be enlarged and the new location will only be temporary. The applicant will be forced to remove the old shop building before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the new structure if the Commission requires it as a condition of approval. Also, the conditions placed on the applicant by the City of Kodiak will help to insure that building and fire codes are met. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Accessory buildings are not addressed by the comprehensive plan. The granting of this variance will not change the permitted residential land use of this property. 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 special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by variance. The variance will be decided before the applicant takes any action. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. The granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Accessory buildings are permitted in all residential zoning districts, and the granting of the variance will not increase the nonconformity of the structure or use as it impacts the adjacent lot. I) Case 89-058. Request for an exception from Section 17.19.020 (Permitted Uses of the Borough Code to permit the development of three (3) triplexes on three (3) lots (one triplex on each lot) in the R2-- Two-Family Residential Zoning District. Lots 47, 48, and 49, Block 12, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; 811, 813, and 815 Lower Mill Bay Road (Samuel Graber/John Hesser) KIBS226731 Page 17 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 DUANE DVORAK indicated 71 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 4 were returned, 1 in favor and 3 opposing this request. Staff provided findings of fact for either approval or denial of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: JEANNE MILLER, 817 Lower Mill Bay Road, appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT an exception from Section 17.19.020 development of thr (one triplex on Residential Zoning Block 12, Aleutian of the Borough Code to permit the ae (3) triplexes or each lot) in the District on Lots Homes Subdivision. The motion was seconded. i three (3) lots R2--Two-Family 47, 48, and 49, The Commission paused to read the July 20, 1988 minutes of Case 88-026 which concerned the rezoning of the lots in question. The question was called and the motion FAILED by unanimous roll call vote. Commissioners Knudsen, Hartt, Heinrichs, Hodgins, and Coleman voted "no." COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO ADOPT findings Al, B1, and Cl, contained in the staff report dated October 11, 1989, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not (A) endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, (B) be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this r title and (C) adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. Al. The proposed use does not appear to endanger the public's health or safety; however, the potential use characteristics of triplexes (e.g., parking, number of residents, utility demands, etc.) are substantially different from those of a duplex residence. KIBS226732 Page 18 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 Multifamily dwellings are not exempt from the parking code requirement that prohibits vehicles from backing onto a major arterial when entering traffic. This will require a large parking area which is uncharacteristic of medium density developments to be constructed as part of the project. The additional unit on each lot could increase the density by as much as forty (40) percent over what is normally permitted in the R2--Two-Family Zoning District. According to Borough survey information the average number of people residing in a duplex is 2.85 per household. The average for a triplex unit is 3.16 per household. (It should be noted that all multifamily units are included in the survey, so this figure also averages multifamily complexes larger than a triplex) Two duplex units would average 5.70 occupants under this assumption, as compared to three triplex units which would average 9.48 occupants. This is a forty (40) percent increase in population density. As with the number of occupants, it could reasonably be assumed that the demand for utilities would also be about forty (40) percent higher. Therefore there could be a reasonable concern about the nearness and availability of adequate water supply to satisfy fire safety requirements. B1. The proposed use is not consistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and the specific description and intent of Chapter 17.19, the R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District, because it will generate more than the normal vehicular traffic of the zoning district along Lower Mill Bay Road. In addition, the density of this development exceeds the goal of Medium Density Residential r— Development as established in the 1968 Comprehensive Plan. Cl. The proposed use would adversely affect other properties in the neighborhood because multifamily dwellings such as the ones proposed would not be consistent with the prevailing character of the Aleutian Homes Subdivision. In addition, it is questionable whether or not the apDli�—t KIBS226733 Page 19 of 28 P s Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 can actually build the parking area shown on the site plan due to the topography of the lots and the lack of sufficient lot area at grade with Lower Mill Bay Road. J) Case 89-059. Request for a variance from Section 17.54.010C (Height --Extension onto Public Property) of the Borough Code to permit a three (3) foot fence to project into the Poplar and Maple Streets rights - of -way adjacent to the paved sidewalk. Lot 12, Block 3, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; 310 Maple (Daniel Benton) DUANE DVORAK indicated 79 public hearing notices were mailed and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to six conditions of approval. 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 line of sight, Code requirements, and postponement I for readvertisement request. Mr. Benton of an additional variance expressed non -objection to postponement. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION on Case 89-059 until the November 15, 1989 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose of readvertising this request to include a variance from Section 17.54.010A in addition Section 17.54.010C. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS recessed the meeting. CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS reconvened the meeting at 9:40 pm. K) Case 89-060. Old Harbor Comprehensive and Capital Improvements Plan. (City of Old Harbor/Community Development Department) DUANE DVORAK indicated 17 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned stating non - objection to this request. Staff recommended the Commission recommend approval of this request to the Assembly. KIBS226734 Page 20 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 LINDA FREED complimented Duane Dvorak for his work on the comprehensive plan. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. rPublic Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. The Commission expressed appreciation to Duane Dvorak for completing this task. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly adopt the Old Harbor Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvements Program, dated June 1989 and incorporate the plan into the Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. L) Case S-89-035. Subdivision of Lot 1A, Block 8, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision First Addition creating Lots 1A-1 and 1A-2, Block 8, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision. 3543 Antone Way (Ruth Hansen) DUANE DVORAK indicated 14 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to three conditions of approval. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HARTT MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot IA, Block 8, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision First Addition creating Lots 1A-1 and 1A-2, Block 8, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision First Addition; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated October 11, 1989; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated October 11, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Create a ten (10) foot utility easement along the lot line between Lot 1A-2 and Lot 2, to serve Lot 3A. KIBS226735 Page 21 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 2. Rename Lilly Drive to Mallard Way. 3. A driveway plan that meets the requirements of the Borough Code must be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department for Lot 1A-1 before the plat is processed for final approval. rThe motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION by adding the following condition of approval: 4. A thirty (30) foot wide access easement must be created on Lot lA to serve Lot 3A. The AMENDMENT DIED FOR THE LACK OF A The question was called and the MAIN 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 Iof the Borough Code. 3. This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. M) Case S-89-036. Subdivision of Tract B, U.S. Survey 2538 creating Lot 1, Tract B, U.S. Survey 2538. Generally located on Pillar Mountain Road. (City of Kodiak/Kodiak Electric Association) DUANE DVORAK indicated 35 public hearing notices were mailed and 1 was returned, stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: ED KOZAK, representing Kodiak Electric Association, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of Tract B, U.S. Survey 2538 creating Lot 1, Tract B, U.S. Survey 2538; and HIBS226736 Page 22 of 28 P & Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated October 11, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and 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. Approval of exception Case 89-035 specifically approved the use of this property for an electrical substation with less than the required lot area and lot width and permitted the structure to be constructed without meeting the minimum setbacks of the Conservation Zoning District. 3. This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. N) Case S-89-037. Subdivision of Block 3, Tract A, r Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision creating Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Tract A, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision. 224 Salmonberry Drive (Brechan Enterprises, Inc.) DUANE DVORAK indicated 34 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to four conditions of approval. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: MIKE BRECHAN, representing Brechan Enterprises, Inc., appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request as well as opposition to proposed condition of approval number one, which read: "Place a note on the final plat stating: Access to Lot 2 will be from Middle Bay Drive only." Mr. Brechan stated that he had no objection to the three (3) other proposed conditions of approval. The Commission discussed access to Lot 2 with Mr. Brechan. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of Block 3, Tract A, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision creating Lots 1 and 2, KIBS226737 Page 23 of 28 P s Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 Block 3, Tract A, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated October 11, 1989. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Place a note on the final plat stating: "Access to Lot 2 will be from Middle Bay Drive only." 2. Place existing easements for electrical distribution and services lines on the plat which are recorded in Book 96, Pages 90, 91, and Book 37, Pages 400, 401, Kodiak Recording District. 3. Create a twenty (20) foot wide sewer and water easement along the lots adjacent to all the existing rights -of -way. 4. Rename Uyak Drive to Salmonberry Drive. The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION by deleting condition of approval number one, "Place a note on the final plat stating: Access to Lot 2 will be from Middle Bay Drive only." The AMENDMENT was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Hodgins voted "no." The question was called and the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Hodgins voted "no." CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Place existing easements for electrical distribution and services lines on the plat which are recorded in Book 96, Pages 90, 91, and Book 37, Pages 400, 401, Kodiak Recording District. 2. Create a twenty (20) foot wide sewer and water easement along the lots adjacent to all the r existing rights -of -way. 3. Rename Uyak Drive to Salmonberry Drive. The Commission deferred findings of fact until agenda item "New Business." KIBS226738 Page 24 of 28 P c 2 Minutes: October 18, 1989 F F F VII. OLD BUSINESS A) Case 89-044. Request for a variance from Section 17.19.040A (Yards) of the Borough Code to permit a single-family dwelling to project thirteen (13) feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback on a nonconforming lot of record (lot area 6,790 square feet) in the R-2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 13C, U.S. Survey 3100; 3036 Spruce Cape Road. (Richard D. and June Juelson/Craig Johnson) (Postponed from the September 20, 1989 regular meeting) COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ADOPT the findings contained in the memorandum dated October 10, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for the denial of Case 89-044, a request for a variance from Section 17.19.040A of the Borough Code to permit a single-family dwelling to project thirteen (13) feet, modified to six and a half (6.5) feet, into the required twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback on a nonconforming lot of record (lot area 6,790 square feet) in the R-2--Two- Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 13C, U.S. Survey 3100. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Heinrichs "abstained." There was no further old business. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Findings of fact for the denial of Case 89-038: a request for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with Sections 18.20.030 (Review by the Planning Commission - Assembly Approval) and 18.20.100 (Disposal for Fair Market Value) of the Borough Code of a disposal by lease of Borough land (approximately 2,400 square feet) for fair market value to be used for the location of a nine (9) meter satellite earth station and support facilities. Portion of Lot 5A, U.S. Survey 2538; 623 - 815 Rezanof Drive East (Kodiak Island Borough/General Communications, Inc.) Community Development Department staff reviewed possible findings of fact for this case with the Commission. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ADOPT the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF F 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this property is not necessarily surplus to the public needs, due to the location of the KIBS226739 Page 25 of 28 P a Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 property adjacent to existing public facilities (e.g., the Kodiak Island Borough office building, high school, junior high school, and other public facilities). 2. No long term development plan exists for all of the public land in this area. Until such a plan is completed, no finding can be made that this Ir property is surplus to the Borough's needs. 3. It appears that there may be other suitable locations for the proposed use that would not utilize this parcel of Borough property which may be needed for public purposes in the future. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. B. Findinas of fact for the approval of Case S-89-037: Subdivision of Block 3, Tract A, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision creating Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Tract A, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision. 224 Salmonberry Drive (Brechan Enterprises, Inc.) Community Development Department staff reviewed possible findings of fact for this case with the Commission. COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO ADOPT the following findings of fact: 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. There is no need to place a note on the plat restricting access to Middle Bay Drive since no official plan exists designating Sargent Creek Road as a collector road. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Hodgins "abstained." There was no further new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A through J of communications. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Letter dated September 20, 1989 to Doug Deplazes from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 6, Block 1, Russian Creek Page 26 of 28 KIBS226740 P k Z Minutes: October 18, 1989 Alaska Subdivision - 777 Cottonwood Circle - Junk and inoperative vehicles; illegal dwelling unit. B) Letter dated September 22, 1989 to Ray Ducolon from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 23, Block 1, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision - 11520 Rezanof Drive West - Illegal dwellings. C) Letter dated September 25, 1989 to Wolf -Ray, Inc. from Linda L. Freed, re: Sport Fishing Lodge - Ayakulik. D) Letter dated September 29, 1989 to Sara Hunt from Linda Freed, re: Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program - FY89 Annual Report (with report). E) Letter dated October 4, 1989 to Patty Bielawski from Linda Freed, re: Kazakof Bay 1 Modification F) Letter dated September 25, 1989 to Timothy Hurley from Richard J. Gutleber, Corps of Engineers, re: Tract "D," Woodland Acres. G) Letter dated October 9, 1989 to Linda Freed from Joel Bolger, re: Kodiak Island Borough v. Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux. H) Letter dated October 11, 1989 to Jim Wheeler from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 3, Block 1, Russell Estates Subdivision - 1113 Selief. I) Letter dated October 12, 1989 to Thomas and Shirley Minio from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 9, U.S. Survey 3464 - 3390 Island Lake. J) Letter dated October 13, 1989 to Thomas Terry from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 15A, U.S. Survey 3098 ("Body Doctor"). There were no further communications. X. REPORTS LINDA FREED reported: 1. The October 25, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission worksession was cancelled so that the Commission could attend the Alaska Marine Highway System Advisory Board's public hearing at 7:00 p.m. in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers. 2. The Director of the Alaska Marine Highway System had resigned and that the new Director would not be attending the October 25th Advisory Board meeting in Kodiak. 3. Beginning November 1, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission worksessions, at the request of the Commission, would be held in the Kodiak Island Borough School District Conference Room. 4. Three appeals of Planning and Zoning Commission cases would be heard at the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly meeting on October 19, 1989. a, KIBS226741 Page 27 of 28 P & S Minutes: October 18, 1989 5. The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly had removed both the Rural Residential Zoning District regulations and the rezone of portions of Woodland Acres from the "consent" agenda. Both of these items would be heard in first reading on October 19, 1989. COMMISSIONER HODGINS 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) Plat Activity Report from the Community Development Department. There were no further reports. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS XIII. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1� By: Tom endel, Chairman ATTEST By: Patricia Miley, Sec etary Community Devel nt Department DATE APPROVED: November 15, 1989 KIBS226742 Page 28 of 28 P & 2 Minutes: October 18, 1989