Loading...
1999-12-15 Regular MeetingKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING — DECEMBER 15, 1999 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by VICE CHAIR SELIG on December 15, 1999 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. IL ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Donna Bell Bob Himes Roberta Scheidler Walter Stewart Clarence Selig, Vice Chair Commissioners Not Present Two vacant seats A quorum was established. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Others Present Bob Scholze, Associate Planner Community Development Dept. Jennifer Smith, Secretary Community Development Dept. COMMISSIONER STEWART MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the November 17, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting, as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER STEWART, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments or appearance requests. P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 1 of 11 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Case 99-012. Request for a Planning and Zoning determination, in accordance with Section 17.57.050 of the Borough Code, that nine (9) parking spaces required to support an expanded use on Lot 18, Block 3, New Kodiak Subdivision be permitted to be located on Tideland Tract N26B across the street, a lot within six -hundred (600) feet to be secured by long-term lease, license, or permit. 330 Shelikof Street. (Postponed from November 17, 1999 regular meeting). BOB SCHOLZE indicated forty (40) public hearing notices were mailed for this case with one returned by an adjacent property owner expressing opposition to the request. A letter of chronological events detailing his involvement with the property was received from Mr. James, adjacent property owner, and presented to the Commission. Also included was a letter from Bill Jones, City Manager, expressing concerns with possible traffic implications on the city street in front of the property with a recommendation of a minimum 30 year deed restriction for any off site parking lease. Staff recommends approval subject to five conditions of approval. COMMISSIONER HIMES MOVED TO DETERMINE, in accordance with Section 17.57.050 of the Borough Code, that nine (9) of the eleven (11) parking spaces required to support an expanded use on Lot 18, Block 3, New Kodiak Subdivision can be located on Tideland Tract N26B across the street, a lot within six -hundred (600) feet, to be secured by a long-term lease of thirty (30) years recorded as a deed restriction on Tideland Tract N26B, subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report dated December 1, 1999, and to adopt the findings in that staff report as "Findings of Fact' in support of this determination. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to issuance of permits, the nine (9) parking spaces on Tideland Tract N26B designated to support the expanded retail seafood market, stand-up eatery, and small-scale seafood processing operation on Lot 18, Block 3, New Kodiak Subdivision must be installed consistent with the applicable parking area development standards of KIBC 17.57.080. 2. Prior to issuance of permits, a deed restriction, signed by the current owner and binding on all future owners for a thirty (30) year tern, will be recorded on Tideland Tract N26B reserving that portion of the tract designated for nine (9) parking spaces exclusively to support the use on Lot 18. signs will be posted on both Lot 18 and the parking area on Tract N26B P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 2 of 1 I clearing identifying, on Lot 18, the location of the parking across the street, and on Tract N26B the nine (9) parking spaces and the use across the street for which the designated parking spaces are reserved. 4. The operation of Island Seafoods on Lot 18 must continue to be consistent with the description contained in the Commission's similar use determination (Case 95-009), in which it is described as "retail seafood processing" including "custom seafood processing," consisting of "...filleting, vacuum sealing and freezing of seafood... small in scale and light in intensity... intended to be incidental and subsidiary to the retail use." 5. This determination will expire in one year (on December 15, 2000) if zoning compliance and building permits for the proposed expanded use on Lot 18, Block 3, New Kodiak Subdivision have not been issued. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The footprint of the existing structure on Lot 18 occupies nearly 40% of the area of the lot. Consequently, there is inadequate lot area surrounding the structure to provide for parking requirements based on calculation criteria imposed by parking code revisions adopted subsequent to the platting of the property. In similar circumstances on other small lots, parking variances have been granted, which basically provides for no alternative parking. In this case, the property owner is seeking to provide required parking off -site as allowed by code. 2. The nine alternative parking spaces provided are located directly across the street and within approximately one hundred (100) feet of Island Seafoods. Conditions of approval are designed to ensure that this alternative parking will be functional and practical and allow for expansion of the use on Lot 18 without compromising the public good or creating traffic safety hazards. The code requirement for a "long-term" lease is satisfied by a thirty (30) year lease recorded as a deed restriction on Tideland Tract N26B linking off -site parking to the reasonable life expectancy of the expanded structure. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed. P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 3 of I I r f� Regular session opened: COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER questioned the difference between condition of approval #2 in both the staff report and supplemental statement. BOB SCHOLZE clarified that the two separate conditions were one in the same. COMMISSIONER BELL questioned Mr. Whiddon's point of view. BOB SCHOLZE indicated that applicant felt a 30 year deed restriction would be hard to accomplish and would have the same overall effect as a denial. The question was called and motion FAILED by a unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER MOVED TO ADOPT the findings for denial contained in the supplemental memorandum dated December 10, 1999, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. FINDINGS OF FACT (DENIAL) 1. Proposed new construction will more than double the square footage of the structure on Lot 18, while at the same time eliminating most of the existing parking. The proposed lease does not guarantee that the requirements of K113C 17.57.050 to secure long-term alternative parking, and of KIBC 17.57.010 to provide parking for the life of the building or use are satisfied. Without such a guarantee, a shortage of off-street parking in the area may cause traffic congestion in the city street and result in a zoning enforcement nightmare. For this reason the City of Kodiak has expressed concern stating that "...the expansion of a building which removes existing on -site parking and creates a much greater demand is problematic and the City is concerned that it not only encumbers the future but is basically unenforceable on a subsequent use." 2. Approving this parking determination request may burden a future Commission with the thankless task of requiring that the building on Lot 18 be left vacant or torn down if the parking lease is not renewed. With substantial investment in improvements that would have been based essentially on this parking determination, complicated legal issues related to amortization and just compensation might then surface. The only conceivable alternative to forced vacancy or demolition at that future time, absent a lease renewal, would be an "after -the -fact" variance, not justifiable according to the criteria of KIBC 17.66.050. The motion was by COMMISSIONER STEWART. The question was called and motion CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 4 of I 1 B) Case 99-014. Request for a variance from Section 17.57.080.F.1 of the Borough Code, to permit an eighteen (18) foot wide driveway, rather than the required twenty-four (24) foot wide driveway for two-way traffic to support a non- residential use on Lot 16C-1, U.S. Survey 3098. 2010 Mill Bay Road. BOB SCHOLZE indicated seventeen (17) public hearing notices were mailed for this case, and none were returned for this case. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to two (2) conditions of approval with the Commission concurring on the recommended single convex mirror with the mirror placement on fence as required in condition #2. COMMISSIONER STEWART MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 17.57.080.F.1 of the Borough Code, to permit an eighteen (18) foot wide driveway, rather that the required twenty-four (24) foot wide driveway for non residential uses on Lot 16C-1, U.S. Survey 3098, subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report dated November 29, 1999, and to adopt the findings in that staff report as "Findings of Fact' in support of this approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The front lawn will be preserved/restored and shrubbery planted to enhance the landscaping to ensure that no parking occurs on the property in front of the structure. 2. A convex mirror will be attached to the fence adjacent to the driveway to allow drivers ingressing or egressing the parking lot behind the structure to see traffic coming from the opposite direction. The entire driveway area between the building and the fence must be graded level and appropriately surfaced. FINDINGS OF FACT 17.66.050 A.I. 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. Lot 16C-1 is generally flat and at 9,024 square feet sufficiently large to support a business use. The only condition applicable to the property or intended use or development not generally applying to other properties in the same land use district is the location of the preexisting residential house on the property. This is not seen as adequate justification for the granting of this variance request. 17.66.050 A.2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 5 of 11 Strict application of the zoning ordinance results, in this case, in the practical difficulty of not being able to convert the existine structure to a business use which would conform with the current zoning. This is because on -site parking can only be located to the rear of the existing structure, and there is neighbor width sufficient on one side to meet the two-way driveway requirement (24 ft.), nor width sufficient on both sides to meet the one-way driveway requirement (12 ft. on each side). 17.66.050 A.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 prejudicial or result in material damage to other properties in the vicinity, nor be detrimental to the public safety and welfare. Eighteen (18) feet of width has been determined to be sufficient for two-way traffic on rural roads in parts of the country, and is double the average width required in Borough code for a vehicle parking space. Since the eighteen (18) foot driveway width exists only between the structure and fence, the driveway can be made to fan out to the required twenty-four (24) feet width at road's edge. In this way there should be no compromise of safety related to maneuverability, line - of -sight, or entry into the traffic -way. The placement of mirror(s) as directed by the Commission will significantly reduce and potential for driving hazards by allowing drivers ingressing or egressing the parking lot at the rear of the structure to see traffic coming from the opposite direction. Parking in the rear of the building would eliminate potential traffic congestion resulting from parking in the front and would screen all or most of the parking lot from the roadway, allowing front "yardspace" to be landscaped in an attractive manner. 17.66.050 AA. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan was amended by Assembly action in 1979 identifying this area for business use. Granting this variance would not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan. The proposed conversion of the property would replace the existing nonconforming residential use of the property. 17 66 050 A 5 That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. The only action of the applicant which may have caused the condition or hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance is in purchasing a pre-existing nonconforming house originally constructed with the intention of residential, not business use. P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 6 of 11 17.66.050 A.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 B- Business zoning district since it will accommodate the conversion of a nonconforming residential use into a permitted business use. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER HIMES. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed: Regular session opened. The question was called and motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. VII. OLD BUSINESS A) Case 99-024. Planning and Zoning Commission review of a disposal, in accordance with Section 18.20.030.A and 18.20.100.13 of the Borough Code for less than fair market value, of the south (front) portion of ADL 36049 (Tract A of BLM Tract D), comprising approximately fifty (50) acres of land to the VFW, generally located in the vicinity of the Veterans of Foreign Wars facilities. 8625 Monashka Bay Road. (Postponed from the June 15, July 20, and September 21,1994 regular meetings). BOB SCHOLZE reported that this is a recommendation to the Assembly. Staff recommends that the Commission, recommend to the Assembly, not to approve the land disposal request, but to reaffirm an existing disposal of the Borough land to the VFW for less than fair market value by lease for one dollar ($1) per year until the year 2027. Staff further indicated that at that time (2027), a better informed and more knowledgeable decision could be made regarding disposal by extended lease or by deed transfer, if appropriate. Staff further indicated that the findings of fact for this case are incorporated into the recorded resolution. COMMISSIONER HIMES MOVED TO ADOPT the following resolution containing a recommendation for denial to the Borough Assembly regarding the land disposal request reviewed by the Commission as Case 94-024, and to adopt the findings of fact contained in that resolution as findings in support of the recommendation for denial: P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 7 of l l Now therefore, be it resolved by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, That, the disposal for less that fair market value by deed transfer to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7056 of a portion (approximately 50 acres) of Tract A of BLM Tract D, ADL 36049 (Plat #70-1), located in Monashka Bay, is hereby recommended for denial by the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, based on the following findings of fact: 1. There is no compelling reason to dispose by deed transfer now of public land located immediately between the only active landfill serving a population center of more than 10,000 people and the watershed serving that same population. If, as the lease draws near to its term in twenty-seven years, it is obvious that Borough land within the lease area is not needed for landfill expansion or buffer, a better informed and more knowledgeable determination can be made regarding land disposal, whether by sale, lease renewal or by deed transfer. The landfill is expanding and will continue to expand. The need for a viable landfill meeting increasingly strict Federal and State regulations is essential to the public good and health of the community. 2. The greatest benefit to the Borough of this public land is for it to be retained as a site for possible future landfill expansion that may be necessary in the long term (50 year period). In addition, there continually will be a need for a rock source as landfill cover material even prior to expansion. Therefore, it cannot reasonably be found that this "..disposal will allow the use of the land for a public purpose beneficial to the borough. " It would be not only foolish, but also fiscally irresponsible, to put a future Assembly in the position of having to repurchase for high market value land given away now. Or, in the alternative, of having to pay a premium in public funds to relocate the landfill and construct a new baler facility. It would take considerable public recreation benefit to offset that public cost. From a public land management perspective, there is simply nothing to be gained by disposal now and, potentially, much to be lost. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER STEWART. Due to number of people attending the meeting on behalf of the VFW, VICE CHAIR SELIG decided to receive comments from interested parties relevant to the case. Cliff Stone. VFW Member: Mr. Stone agreed with staffs recommendation and concurred, with the staff report however Mr. Stone expressed that the Borough delayed progress on planned projects for the VFW. Mr. Stone further indicated the most prudent solution would be that VFW meet with staff in the near future to P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 8 of l l discuss other viable options, and in return a VFW representative would return [I[ with an alternative proposal if they chose to do so. VICE CHAIR SELIG concurred with Mr. Stone and thanked him for his comments. The question was called and motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. B) Case 99-042. Planning and Zoning Commission review of a disposal, in accordance with Section 18.20.030.A and 18.20.100.13 of the Borough Code, for less than fair market value, of the northeast 1/4 (approximately 17.6 acres) of ADL 36049 (Tract A of BLM Tract D) to the Kodiak Island Sportsman Association. 8625 Monashka Bay Road. (Postponed from the November 16, 1994 regular meeting). BOB SCHOLZE reported that this is a recommendation to the Assembly. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend, to the Assembly, not to approve the land disposal request, but to reaffirm an existing disposal of the Borough land to KISA for less than fair market value by sublease for fifty cents ($.50) per year until the year 2027. Staff further indicated that at that time (2027), a better informed and more knowledgeable decision could be made regarding disposal by sale, extended lease or by deed transfer, if appropriate. Staff further indicated that the findings of fact for this case are incorporated into the recorded resolution. COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER MOVED TO ADOPT the following resolution containing a recommendation for denial to the Borough Assembly regarding the land disposal request reviewed by the Commission as Case 94-042, and to adopt the findings of fact contained in that resolution as findings in support of the recommendation for denial: Now therefore, be it resolved by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, That, the disposal for less that fair market value by deed transfer to the Kodiak Island Sportsman Association (KISA) of a portion (approximately 17.6 acres) of Tract A of BLM Tract D, ADL 36049 (Plat #70-1), located in Monashka Bay, is hereby recommended for denial by the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, based on the following findings of fact: 1. There is no compelling reason to dispose by deed transfer now of public land located immediately between the only active landfill serving a population center of more than 10,000 people and the watershed serving that same population. If, as the sublease draws near to its term in twenty- seven years, it is obvious that Borough land within the sublease area is not needed for landfill expansion or buffer, a better informed and more P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 9 of l l knowledgeable determination can be made regarding land disposal. The landfill is expanding and will continue to expand. The need for a viable landfill meeting increasingly strict Federal and State regulations is essential to the public good and health of the community. 2. The greatest benefit to the Borough of this public land is for it to be retained as a site for possible future landfill expansion that may be necessary in the long term (50 year period). In addition, there continually will be a need for a rock source as landfill cover material even prior to expansion. Therefore, it cannot reasonably be found that this "...disposal will allow the use of the land for a public purpose beneficial to the borough. " It would be not only foolish, but also fiscally irresponsible, to put a future Assembly in the position of having to repurchase for high market value land given away now. Or, in the alternative, of having to pay a premium in public funds to relocate the landfill and construct a new baler facility. It would take considerable public recreation benefit to offset that public cost. From a public land management perspective, there is simply nothing to be gained by disposal now and, potentially, much to be lost. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER HIMES. Since the case is consistent with Old Business Item A, VICE CHAIR SELIG decided to receive comments from interested parties relevant to the case. No comments were voiced. The question was called and motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HIMES questioned approximate timeline this case would be addressed by the Assembly. Bob responded that perhaps in January 2000. VIII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. STAFF reported the following meeting schedule: ■ 01/12/00-Packet review worksession ■ 01/19/00-Regular meeting P & Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page 10 of 1 I L There were no further reports. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Steve Kreber commended the Commission and staff. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS The Commissioners wished the Community a safe and happy holiday season. XIII. ADJOURNMENT VICE CHAIR SELIG requested motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER HIMES MOVED TO ADJOURN the meeting. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: _H WMA&'A A Clare ce Selig, Vice C air 0 ATTEST Development Department DATE APPROVED: February 16, 2000. P& Z Minutes: December 15, 1999 Page I I of I I