Loading...
2005-08-17 Regular Meeting ori2wQ.?- KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2005 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by CHAIR FRIEND on August 17,2005 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Jerrol Friend - Chair Casey Janz Reed Oswalt Gary Carver Dennis McMurry A quorum was established. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Excused Others Present Brent Watkins David King Mary Ogle, Director Community Development Dept. Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Dept. COMMISSIONER McMURRY MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER JANZ, and it CARRIED 5-0. IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS COMMISSIONER McMURRY MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes of July 20,2005, and COMMISSIONER JANZ SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED 5-0. V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments or appearance requests. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 06-002. Request for a Similar Use Determination, per KIBC 17.03.090, to permit a single story 1200 sq. ft. structure built to be used as a school classroom and office space for a time not to exceed three (3) years, after which time the facility may be used entirely for church related purposes, subject to the review and approval of a conditional use permit for the expansion of church use in the B- Business zoning district. Staff reported (20) public hearing notices were distributed for this case on July 27, 2005 with none returned. The applicant requested interpretation to put a school on this property. Strict interpretation of the ordinance says that schools themselves are not permitted in the business zone, but it is common in determining zoning uses that schools associated with churches tend to be on the same facility, so the P & Z Regular Meeting Minutes: August 17,2005 Page 1 of7 applicant was directed to file a Similar Use Determination stating that a school use is similar to a church use and other types of office uses within the business zoning district. We have a staff report to support the recommendation, which staff believes this request meets the standards of a Similar Use Determination as reflected in the Findings of Fact in the staff report. Should the commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is as read in the report. COMMISSIONER CARVER MOTIONED TO GRANT a similar use determination in accordance with KIBC 17.03.090, to permit a 1,200 Sq. Ft. expansion of an existing nonconforming school use on Lots 27 A and 27B, U.S. Survey 3098, as a use similar, in terms of character and impact to the permitted uses specified in KIBC 17.24.020.B for Assembly Halls; and KIBC 17.21.020.1 for Fraternal Organizations and Private Clubs; and KIBC 17.21.020.V for Offices; and KIBC 17.21.020.BB for Retail Stores and Service uses, and to adopt the findings in the staff report dated August 5, 2005 in support of this determination. COMMISSIONER OSWALT SECONDED the motion. Regular session closed: Public hearing open: Public hearing closed: Regular session open: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The petitioner will be required to submit a detailed site plan and building plan for zoning compliance review once the appeal period has elapsed for a decision of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. This determination is substantially based upon the verbal and written information submitted by the petitioner for review. Subsequent changes to, or further expansion of, the school use or structures permitted by this determination shall be subject to a re- evaluation of this determination by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission in order to determine if the increased scale or density of the use has implications not previously addressed by this determination. 3. This determination includes within its scope all existing nonconforming school use and related school structures currently located on Lots 27 A and 27B, U.S. Survey 3098, that are occupied for school use, in addition to the proposed 1,200 Sq. Ft. office and classroom building expansion. 4. There is no need to limit the school use, and proposed expansion thereof, to a three (3) year time frame as suggested by the petitioner, provided the Commission determines that the school use is similar in character and impact to certain permitted uses in the B-Business zone. The subsequent expansion of the church use P & Z Regular Meeting Minutes: August 17,2005 Page 2 of7 '" however, as indicated in the petitioner's submittal, will require a Conditional Use Permit under the applicable provisions of KIBC 17.21.030.A and KIBC 17.67. 5. The proposed school expansion will permit the Kodiak Christian School to continue to serve its students on a single site and in the most efficient manner on the same site where the school activity has already been occurring for many years. 6. The proposed parking characteristics and traffic generation of the expanded school use are not expected to substantially increase traffic in the area. These parking characteristics are found to be similar to several permitted uses in the B-Business zoning district and the arterial status and design of Mill Bay Road is sufficient to handle any marginal inprease in traffic from this expansion of use. 7. The hours of operation for the school use will not be substantially different from past experience and these hours of operation are similar to many permitted office, retail and service uses permitted in the B-Business zoning district. 8. The expanded school use will require a screening review by the Commission prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, this review would be similarly be required for the expansion of any permitted use in the B-Business zoning district. 9. Any changes to the site layout or parking plan that are required as a result of the building addition will be reviewed by staff and held to the same site development standards that apply to other permitted use in the B-Business zoning district The question was called, and CARRIED 5-0. B) Case 06-003. Request a Variance from KIBC 17.19.040 A, to allow a 6.5-foot encroachment into the 25-foot front yard setback, in accordance with KIBC 17.66.020. A plat note appearing on the face of Plat Number 96-19 Kodiak Recording District requires the setback. Located at Woodland Acres 8th Addition, Block 12 Lot 2 and zone R2 - Two Family Residential Staff indicated there were one-hundred-three (103) public hearing notices were distributed on August 1, 2005 with one (1) written response returned. When this portion of Woodland Acres was subdivided, several flag lots were created, and at that time the Planning & Zoning Commission wanted to make clear what should be determined what should be the front yard. They determined the beginning of the flag strip of 50 ft. along the road is not where you take the front yard setback, they wanted it to be where part of where the flag opened up to be the true front yard line, so the applicant is requesting a variance from that additional condition that was placed on this specific property. Staff believes that this request meets all the conditions necessary, as reflected in the findings of fact, for a variance to be P & Z Regular Meeting Minutes: August 17,2005 Page 3 of7 "' granted under Chapter 17.66 (Variance) of the Borough Code. Exhibit 3 shows the plat and the existing property line and the normally required front yard setback should be. The last exhibit in the report is a statement of remonstrance from Constance Jenson that is part ofthe record and in the report for you to consider. COMMISSIONER OSWALT MOVED TO GRANT a variance from KIBC 17.90.040 A, to allow a 6.5-foot encroachment into the 25-foot front yard setback, in accordance with KIBC 17.66.020, and to adopt those Findings of Fact contained in the staff report dated August 3, 2005, as Findings of Fact for the Case No. 06-003. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER JANZ. Regular session closed: Public hearing opened: Public hearing closed: Regular session opened: FINDINGS OF FACT 17.66.050 A.1.Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions ap{>licable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. There are no physical circumstances applicable to the property, which does not apply generally to other lots in the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District. Staff review determined that the administratively conditioned development restrictions placed on this property during the subdivision process resulted in an inequitable burden not shared by similarly situated properties. 17.66.050 A.2.Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinances, as currently applied, would relieve the property of the 25- foot minimum setback requirement per Plat Note No. 1 of Plat 96-19. 17.66.050 A.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 the variance to permit a 6.5 encroachment into the required 25-foot front yard setback would not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The proposed construction will be accomplished with appropriate oversight from agency inspectors in accordance with applicable building codes. Granting the variance would not prejudice other properties in the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District as minimum setbacks will be met. P & Z Regular Meeting Minutes: August 17,2005 Page 4 of7 17.66.050 A.4.The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a general policy guide, which does not address site- specific standards such as setbacks. 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 intent of the KIB variance standards, and the applicable Alaska Statutes which form their basis, is to require the adjudication of variance requests before the property owner undertakes construction activity and significant investments. In this case, the actions of the applicant substantially relied upon the administrative guidance provided by staff prior to undertaking initial construction. 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 R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District. The question was called, and CARRIED 5-0. VII. OLD BUSINESS . A) Case 05-009. Variance. Adopt Findings of Facts. COMMISSIONER McMURRY MOVED TO ADOPT the alternate Findings of Facts for Case 05-009.COMMISSIONER JANZ SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED 5-0. FINDINGS OF FACT 17.66.050 A.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 physical circumstance appears to be the lot area subject to tidal action that is the subject of this request. It should be noted that this exceptional circumstance does not affect all of the lots proposed in the subdivision; however it does pertain to proposed Lots 3C through 3F as indicated. 17.66.050 A.2.Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The petitioner is indicating through this request that the strict application of the zoning ordinance (and by implication subdivision ordinance) will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The result of the applicable zoning and subdivision code provisions is to disallow substantial land area subject to tidal action from being considered as part of the proposed subdivision. If relief cannot be obtained by variance, the subdivider will have to reduce the number of lots in the subdivision from the requested seven (7) lots down to about four (4) lots, or P & Z Regular Meeting Minutes: August 17,2005 Page 5 of7 "' redesign the subdivision substantially to share the burden of the tidally influenced land more equally among the proposed lots. The minimum lot area standards of the Kill zoning code are minimum standard to regulate overall density. Given the significant amount of naturally encumbered area within this larger lot, the overall impact to density is minimal. Providing a set number of potential lots through this variance does not imply that the subdivision layout and design is approved as part of this variance request. The minimum allowable lot size should be whatever the Commission determines is necessary to develop a "reasonable" use of the land. In the C-Conservation zoning district, this means a lot that is reasonably suitable for the development of the uses and structures permitted in the zone with consideration given to the natural constraints on this particular piece of property. 17.66.050 A.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. It is unlikely that granting the variance in this case will result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity. Granting relief in this case should not result in additional variances being required because the minimal acreage designated on proposed Lots 3C through 3F may not be adequate to support many permitted uses and structures after the required zoning setbacks are computed for each lot. 17.66.050 A.4.The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the obiectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan does not address the development density in this area, so granting the variance will have no affect on the objectives of the Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan. 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. In this case, the petitioner has not created special conditions or financial hardship. The fact that the petitioner is required to go through this variance procedure first, before being allowed to subdivide the property, will ensure that such special conditions or financial hardships that might befall the petitioner, or subsequent owners of property in the proposed subdivision, may be avoided. 17.66.050 A.6.That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. It does not appear that the granting of the requested variance will permit a prohibited land use in the C-Conservation zoning district. Quite the contrary, it appears that granting the variance may result in artificially constraining certain permitted and conditional uses from being developed on proposed Lots 3C through 3F. P & Z Regular Meeting Minutes: August 17,2005 VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Introduction of the Capital Improvement Program Process for 2006 - 1010. VI. ADJOURNMENT CHAIR FRIEND ADJOURNED the special meeting at 7:50 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AJ'ID ZO MISSION ,/ By: ATTEST By::9he.&c~drr~ Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Department , I DATE APPROVED: September 21,2005 P & Z Regular Meeting Minutes: August 17,2005 Page 7 of7 "