The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-08-16 Regular Meeting KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2 MINUTES 6 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE 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 16,2006 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Excused Absent Others Present J errol Friend - Chair David King Gary Carver Brent Watkins Dennis McMurry Casey J anz Gary Juenger x X X Duane Dvorak, Director Community Development Dept. Jasmine Oliver, Secretary Community Development Dept. X x X X A quorum was established. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER KING MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER WATKINS, and it CARRIED 4-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes as submitted. COMMISSIONER KING SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED 4-0. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS Lorna Arndt said she faxed in a sheet of paper after she had talked to the Community Development Department about vehicles and junk on a public road. They've all been parked there so long and they said she had to report the troopers. So she made a list for the troopers and the Borough and nothing has been done. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 07-001. Request for disposal of borough land for fair market value, in accordance with KIBC 18.20, of a portion of Lot lA-3, U.S. Survey 3465, an 11,792 square foot parcel of land located next to the principal residence of the requesting parties. The location is along Dark Lake beyond the north end of scout circle. The zoning is public use land. The applicant is abutting property owner and states in their original application a desire to acquire additional lands for the purpose of adding a garage somewhere close to their existing residence. Due to topography and other easements in the back of their property they had some unusable area. Staff reported (19) public hearing notices were distributed for this case. Two responses were received indicating no objection to the request for disposal of a portion of Lot lA-3. That parcel August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 ...~....~,. .'. ......'.. ~""''''','_r we investigated and it does appear it has been designated for disposal in the past. When Scout Circle was platted, parcels were dedicated to recreational use or park use; however Lot 1A-3 was designated for disposal at that time and our indication was that there was in fact a subdivision plan at one time as!part of that disposal process, as well as connecting roads to bring traffic from i~land lake subdi~ision through to Selief lane or to Dark lake road. Of course the subdivisions didn't happen, the property is still there. Staff has looked at the request, how it lays out and what it would mean for future disposal purposes. Staff feels that the request as submitted would not be in the Borough's best interest, and that there would still be some public need to maintain the parcel in this area as it is. However, staff recommended disposal to the request as put forward by the requestors. There are some suggestions and examples given for a possible land trade scenario that wouldn't necessarily involve transfer of money, but transfer of land which would help maintain the development potential and help maintain the potential for future access through this area which has been something that has come up in the past when we've looked at subdivisions on Dark Lake Road. The Borough has been reluctant to give up the potential for future access through this area. COMMISSIONER FRIEND inquired that if we wanted these guys to change their request would we postpone this to have them come back? DVORAK stated he thought that it would need to be at a minimum re-advertised, however he thinks there is a separate chapter for land trades that may have different requirements. As far as he can see the Tract 1A has already been designated for disposal as a parcel but the idea of disposing pieces of it, which may impact the future disposal of the remainder, is something that we're addressing now. But maybe a land trade would be a better way to go. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO ADOPT the following resolution containing a negative recommendation to the Borough assembly regarding a request for land disposal per Kodiak Island Borough Code 18.20.030 now there for it is resolved by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission the applicant in case 07-001 has sufficient existing land area for the purpose of constructing a detached garage serving the residential dwelling located on Lot 1 US survey 3466 that the disposal of an unsubdivided portion of borough land described as a portion of Lot 1A-3 US survey 3465 is precipitous and at this time would unduly restrict the publics options in future land disposals encompassing the entirety of Lot 1A-3 US survey 3465 that the disposal of an unsubdivided portion of Borough land described above is a portion of Lot lA-3 US survey 3465 for fair market value is hereby not recommended for approval by the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly. COMMISSIONER JUENGER SECONDED the motion. Regular session closed: Public hearing open: Robert Berg stated he was the property owner and he requested to buy this piece of property for the garage because he lives on a hill. The Borough put a water and sewer main right through my property a few years ago before he purchased it. So ifhe builds a garage on the upper part of it, he'll be building right on top of a water and sewer main. Then as for the request of a change in land he didn't see it because for one he would be losing a lot of land if you look at your paperwork if. For one it's not a fair trade and he would just rather buy the property and be done with it. Earlene Berg stated she was one of the property owners and according to the paperwork they received they are asking for a larger amount of property in trade for this property. The actual August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 property we are trying to obtain is directly in front of our residence. There's only the possibility of one lot in there between us and the Boy Scout camp. The problem with building here also is that there is an existing bike path, and that is the only recreation area that is used. If we have to build up there we'd have to take out that whole bike path. There's no lake front property that anyone uses there because the only lake front is directly in front of our house. So they would have to come all the way down our driveway and be in the driveway access area to use a lake front. According to the paperwork you sent us the $20,000 which was quoted to us by the borough is not the right amount for it and our 2006 Land Only was only $35,000 estimated by the borough. So the little piece of property we have $20,000, is pretty good for it. If you've ever been out there, you can see it's straight up hill from our house, so you'd have to take out that hill, take out the utilities and everything just to put a garage up there, along with the bike path. We have no intentions of adding any residences to the property that's our deal with the people we purchased the property from, no additional residences are on our property and all we want to do is add the addition. Public hearing closed: Regular session open: DVORAK stated that at the packet review work session he mentioned that that is a conceptional representation, but the way the land trade ordinance reads, it's based on value it's not based on square foot per square foot. They would be based on equal value and frankly he said he wouldn't want to characterize this as something that the department is trying to determine at this stage. COMMISSIONER FRIEND asked Robert Berg if he understood the explanation given by Dvorak? ROBERT BERG answered yes he did but he still didn't understand because it was right next to each other. Where we're at the square footage is exactly the same here and here. EARLENE BERG commented that according to the paper we got and the survey she had done the Borough already has a 10 foot easement onto the property for utilities, which is the area that we're-purchasing. At the top part they also have a 50 foot easement on the property they want to trade for. COMMISSIONER FRIEND responded that actually the only land you would be losing is from the road right-of-way easement, down to the property. COMMISSIONER WATKINS noted that he was reluctant to support the proposal the applicants are making but he's not opposed to something being worked out. He believes it is ill advised to portion out a piece of disposable property without looking at the other options. COMMISSIONER FRIEND inquired who would initiate the appraisal for the cost of that upper part of the lot? DVORAK stated in a straight up land disposal as requested now the cost of appraisal, the cost of surveying would go to the requestors and \X/ould be part of the disposal process, but in case of a land trade he was not sure, he would have to look at the code and see if the parties split the cost. He would imagine it would be a more equitable process in the land trade scenario. The question was called, and FAILED 3-1 because of a lack of a quorum behind it. COMMISSIONER KING MOVED TO POSTPONE until September Regular Meeting. COMMISSIONER WATKINS SEONDED the motion and it CARRIED 4-0. August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 B) Case 07-002. Request for A Similar Use Determination, in accordance with KillC 17.03.090 to allow a 9 foot by 52-foot addition onto an existing thrift store and to allow an increase in the hours of operation as a use similar in character and impact to a permitted Home Occupation in the R2- Two- family Residential zoning district, located on Tract T -2A, U.S. Survey 3218. Location is 2934 Mill Bay Road, the current zoning is R2. Staff sent out (68) public hearing notices and we got three back with no objection. Staff stated the thrift store has been there for a number of years, when the request came in staff reviewed the file. It used to be a 900 square foot stmcture, when they built the new church the thrift store moved to the old church which increased the square footage from 900 to about 2500 square feet. At that time there was a write up, associated with the parking plan. The thrift store was characterized as a use similar to a home occupation. Part of the reason why staff decided it could be viewed as similar to a home occupation was that it seemed to be subsidiary and incidental to the use of the property. It was only operated on Saturday's at the time, and according to the notes and margins of the write up, there weren't any hours of overlap between the different uses, and the site has a number of different uses from residential, to a school, church, thrift store and now the Marion center. We've tried primarily to track the parking on the site. The request before you this evening was begun because of the request to put on a 9 foot 3 inch by 54 foot addition to the thrift store. Staff didn't really feel comfortable passing on that request given the previous determinations that had been made, and the changes to the code. In addition the hours of operations have also increased to Wednesdays now for 4 hours a day. There has been some evolution of the use and so staff was concemed and felt it needed to come to the commission for this review. They have in fact brought it forward for your consideration. You were copied with the complete submittal last week at the packet review. Staff in the recommendations had recommended approval subject to four conditions which you may wish to discuss with the petitioners. COMMISSIONER MCMURRY arrived at 8:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER KING MOVED TO find that A Thrift Store, located on Tract T-2A, U.S. Survey 3218, with appropriate Conditions of Approval, is similar in character an impact to a permitted Home Occupation in the R2- Two- Family Residential zoning district, and to adopt the findings of fact in the Staff Report dated July 26,2006, as Findings of Fact for this case. COMMISSIONER WATKINS SECONDED the motion. Regular session closed: Public hearing opened: Sister Barbara Harrington stated she was grateful for the work that has been done on this. She believes it has been proven, that we have adequate parking on campus but she doesn't think we have ever put forward an adequate parking plan. She has asked and has received from a surveyor, to her satisfaction, the fact that we do have the number of congregate spaces on campus that are required. The conditions of approval are reasonable. She said there is a number of parking places for each of our buildings and a congregate number and I think that's what needs to be revisited, but the understanding was that there is shared parking because the activities very seldom collide. The parking has always been adequate, sometimes a bit crowded, but adequate. Hopefully we will have provided an up to date parking plan that is acceptable number one. Number two she believes we have not adequately identified the way to park or the number of places that we have available because of our gravel land, but we could do a better job. In terms of the fourteen parking spaces we do indeed have those. They are all around the thrift shop, very close to the August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 thrift shop, but again it's shared parking so as long as it's shared I don't mind a number being specified. She thinks this will follow the fonner plan that she saw in the history file where each building is assigned a certain number of parking spaces and if this building needs to be assigned this many parking spaces she still thinks it's ok, as long as it doesn't raise the total congregate number. It would be better to say that parking should be identified as being associated with the thrift shop rather than specifying a number of spaces, except that in the listing that we have of the building and the numbers of spacing that we have this is already in the history file. It stated that there is an overlap with the school on Wednesdays from 10a.m to 2:00p.m. when the thrift store is open. School is in session and there really aren't any automobiles parked on our premises, and the parents do not really park they come and pick up their children and leave again. She is hoping we can get this done before the end of the building season this fall. Public hearing closed: Regular session opened: COMMISSIONER FRIEND asked if fourteen spaces, the way it was spelled out in #3, would be shared spaces like the space around the church that's adjacent to it? DVORAK answered that concept of shared spaces is based on the premise that hours of operation are not overlapping. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL [1] The Applicant is to provide an updated parking plan consistent with the requirements ofKIBC17.57 for all uses located on Tract T-2A U.S. Survey 3218. [2] Parking spaces identified on the "Plan" must be developed, and available for use, during hours of operation. [3] Fourteen (14) parking spaces must be identified as being associated with the Thrift Store, and must include a minimum 0 one (1) handicap accessible space. [4] Any change in physical plant (store) size, or change in hours of operation, requires a new administrative review, and approval(s) as necessary. FINDINGS OF FACT [1] KIBC 17.06.320 defines Home Occupation as: A business profession, occupation, or trade located entirely within a residential building, or an accessory structure which use is accessory, incidental and secondary to the use of the residential building for dwelling purposes and does not change the essential residential character or appearance of such building or neighborhood. [2] The continued operation of a Thrift Store on Tract T-2A U.S. Survey 3218 will not change the essential residential character of the neighborhood. [3] The low-intensity of use represented by the operation of a Thrift Store ensures that the performance standard(s) enumerated in KIBei 7.06.320 "F" will not be violated. The question was called on the main motion, and CARRIED 5-0. C) Case 06-018. Request for Women's Bay Comprehensive Plan Update. The location is Womens Bay community. DVORAK stated that we discussed this at the packet review last week and he believes we did find the memorandum should have been really just a cover memo for this since you were given August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 the actual plan drafts last month as well as the issue response summary. We did also get a packet of materials from one of the Women's Bay residence that had some red lettering suggested amendments to the plan for your consideration. Tess made her own copies so you can see the suggested changes. We didn't receive any other comments or responses from public hearing. You already announced that you would hold a work session on August 30, so he thought most people will wait for that. Nevertheless it is on the agenda as a public hearing and he suggested holding a public hearing this evening and then carrying the case over at a minimum to the September agenda maybe the October. But my recommendation would be postpone at the minimum until next month but no longer. COMMISSIONER FRIEND questioned if we do get a lot of information on the August 30 work session, would you have time to work things into the September meeting or will you need until October? DVORAK suggested shooting for October 18. COMMISSIONER KING MOVED TO POSTPONE Case 06-018 until the September 20,2006 meeting and to carry forward the public hearing until that date and time. COMMISSIONER MCMURRY SECONDED the motion. Regular session closed: Public hearing opened: Public hearing closed: Regular session opened: COMMISSIONER MCMURRY stated that at the work session he brought up possibly postponing this until after the borough wide plan came out. The Borough Wide Plan is almost done and if we approve this one now as written we'll probably have to change it anyway because a lot of it may not adhere to the new structure. So he wanted to make a motion to go ahead with the community work session and get all the comments, and not throw them away but postpone approval of this plan until after the Borough Wide Plan is developed. COMMISSIONER WATKINS asked if this document in its form now is a valid resource document for the Borough Wide Plan without final approval? Can they take this material and use the comments and information in it and use it in the Borough Wide Plan without our approving it? As long as we're not losing these people's comments for the Borough Wide Plan he thought we should postpone this until we have the Borough Wide Plan also. DVORAK stated he thinks they can use some of it. The idea of a Borough Wide Comprehensive Plan is probably not intended to be quite as specific as a localized neighborhood or community level plan, and there may be some of that material that doesn't get used because in the case of the Borough Wide plan their really comparing the input between the different communities looking for overlap and areas of common interest in order to develop a general Borough Wide Policy fr",mpuTnrlr Tt ;"n't on;no tn opt tn thp 11""1"1 Af rlph.;1 th<:>t <:> f'Al'Yll'Yllln;t" nl<:>n uTAlllrl Tn nrrlpr tA .......-..........- "" "'........1lo.. ..L\.. ....u.&..... " b'--'..I..I..l.b ""'" b""'''' \."-' .........L"-' .1."-" v.... v.... 1>.&-\o,I&.U.1..I. ".J.J.Ul. U ,",V.I..I..I..I..1..l.U-.I..I..l.LJ .p.l.~.1. y, '-'U.I.'-I.. .L..I..l. v....u-.......... 1."-' give every community every neighborhood and every city in the borough their own chapter would be a planning document that wouldn't be very workable from an administrative standpoint. COMMISSIONER MCMURRY asked who has the power? DVORAK said we rely on the plans to guide the decision making process, we would probably go to the Regional Plan. They would recommend that the Regional Plan be sort of elevated over the August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 other local plans. One of them should be as the over arching policy. To say that the other policies couldn't be considered, whether or not the assembly gives it that status, remains to be seen. And as a policy guide it's sort of speculative on that point. COMMISSIONER JUENGER wanted to go ahead and thank Tess for making the color copies at her expense and time that we received in our work session. It's helpful to have the red on there. The question was called on the main motion, and CARRIED 5-0. D) Case 07-003. Request review of draft ordinance to amend the definition of bed & breakfast, to define vacation home and to detennine in which zones and under what conditions these and other transient accommodations uses are appropriate. DVORAK stated earlier the commission had approved an ordinance change for transient accommodations; this was particularly intended to break out new definitions for bed & breakfast and vacation homes as well as fine tuning some of the other transient accommodation ordinance provisions. When this appeared before the assembly it looked as though the ordinance draft may have been incomplete on some of the proposals that were contained in the last recommendations of the planning and zoning commission. Staff had investigated that, and in Commissioners Watkins and Friend recommended to the assembly to basically fail that ordinance and allow it to be remanded back to this commission. He said that he gave the commission a revised ordinance draft using the last matrix and putting it in this same ordinance that has previously been introduced by the assembly. If the commission believes that this is the recommendation that was made you can forward this to the assembly with a recommendation of approval or you can amend it and forward it, or as a last alternative if it needed more work you could hold it over for additional work. COMMISSIONER JUENGER MOVED TO FORWARD the revised draft ordinance amending the definition of bed & breakfast, defining the ten11 vacation home and determining in which zones and under what conditions these and other transient accommodation uses are appropriate. COMMISSIONER WATKINS SECONDED the motion. Regular session closed: Public hearing opened: Public hearing closed: Regular session opened: COMMISSIONER KING stated that in here on a vacation home you can be rented or leased not to exceed thirty (30) days. DVORAK said he believes that is covered in the definition. Bed & Breakfast means an overnight accommodation and a morning meal in a dwelling unit provided the transients for compensation. It doesn't have a specific term, but the definition of transient accommodation is defined as an accommodation for thirty (30) days or less. So if you're going to rent your home, a home rental whether it's year to year or month to m011th, it's for thirty day's or more and less then that is a transient accommodation for the purposes of the transient accommodation tax, also known as the "Bed Tax." So if you have a bed and breakfast you could have overnight accommodations for up to 30 days. The commission discussed the different aspects that define a Dwelling Unit. DVORAK stated the kitchen usually defines a dwelling unit. Houses can have any number of bedrooms, bathrooms, accessory areas, etc., but if you have more than one kitchen that has August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 l I independent accessibility, and can be partitioned off by a door, crosses a line. It depends on how it looks and how it is being used. He continued by saying previously the interpretation was that the owner of the B&B had to reside where the B&B was being operated, now they just have to reside on the premise so that if they're occupying one side of the duplex and using the B&B on the other side, that could still happen as long it's in a R-2 zone and it's in a duplex. You wouldn't be allowed in a R-I zone. That's where staff was talking about it crossing the line. COMMISSIONER MCMURRY inquired why recreational cabin is under conditional uses. DVORAK stated just by checking RRI it appeared that this was added but he didn't attend that meeting so he wasn't sure why recreational cabin had it as a conditional use. It is defined somewhat differently from single family, perhaps there's a difference. A recreational cabin means a structure occupied on a temporary or seasonal basis by a group of people meeting the definition of a family. DVORAK said from a staff prospective we've always considered that RRl or even the conservation zone is a single family residential zone. It allows single family residential as a permitted use. He didn't think we would allow a second dwelling unit even on a temporary or seasonal basis. He thought he would consider this a lesser form of residential, perhaps more rustic type cabin thing for a seasonal basis, but on the road system any habitable structure you're going to build is going to have to meet building codes. He didn't think you're going to have a recreational cabin but we're going to call it a single family dwelling either way. The only instance he was aware of when we would allow for satellite cabins is in the conservation zone because it allows for lodges; in that instance we only allow cabins to be sleeping rooms or guest rooms, they all have to rely on the main structure with the kitchen and so forth. So he didn't know how appropriate that would be in the RRl as a conditional use, but as a conditional use the commission could deal with it on a case by case basis. COMMISSIONER WATKINS commented that the main conditional use that struck him was to have the B&B's and the Rl be a conditional use because of the input from the neighbors about the traffic and the nature of the neighborhood. As far as the recreational cabins permitted would make a lot more sense to him then the conditional. COMMISSIONER FRIEND elected to take a recess at 8:45 p.m. COMMISSIONER FRIEND elected to resume the meeting at 8:49 p.m. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO AMEND the motion that recreational cabins and rural residential one (1) be changed from a conditional use to a permitted use. COMMISSIONER KING SECONDED the motion and it CARRIED 5-0. The question was called on the main motion, and CARRIED 5-0. E) Case 06-015. Request for a rezone, in accordance with KIBC 17.72.030 (C), of Lots 1 through 6 and Lots 20A through 24, Block 2; and Lots 1 through 8, Block 3, Island Lake Subdivision from RI-Single Family Residential to R2-Two Family Residential. The location is 3174 through 3274 and 3217 through 3273 Ptannigan Pass Street, 3226 through 3274 Arctic Turn Street. The zoning is Rl. Staff indicated (77) public hearing notices were sent out related to this request, and we did receive one (1) new response in your packet recommending denial and also one that was supposed to be seen in June. DVORAK indicated that response was faxed to the department a couple of months ago but it was misfiled in a completely unrelated case. The person came in to August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 write up a new comment list and the old one was found so he would consider it one response, but they did also object to the request. The petitioners provided a new submittal to the commissioners with their own recommendation. This case was originally heard in June, at that time it was postponed and the commission had requested additional information particularly regard to parking and circulation in the area. Staff has provided a supplement which was presented last month, but the petitioners were unavailable for that meeting schedule so public hearing was held over to this months meeting. Staff did not change the recommendation based upon this new information provided. Staff also did get a letter from the local fire chief discussing some ofthe public safety concerns in the area. Staff didn't find that any of the new information had changed staffs view or the recommendation. There are a number of photographs included in here as well as the one fold out map which shows a diagram of what a borough standard cal-do-sac would look like, and how much additional area it would require. COMMISSIONER WATKINS commented that on the color photograph with the overlays on it there's a Ptarmigan Pass extension shown through Lot 7B through Lot 7C is that something that is in the plat that we've got an easement for it or is that just an option of solution? DVORAK stated that there isn't an easement there now. It's a possible solution but it would require taking the properties that would be impacted by that. Ifwe're speculating about possibilities he believes that you could potentially come in from another end or create a looping drive. If you had that looping aspect you wouldn't need a cal-do-sac. It might in some ways reduce the impact to the properties in the cal-do-sac but at the same time you'd have to acquire more area to fulfill that. COMMISSIONER KING MOVED TO RECOMMEND that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve by ordinance the rezoning of Lots 1 through 6 and Lots 20A through 24, Block 2; and Lots 1 through 8, Block 3, Island Lake Subdivision fron} Rl-Single Family Residential to R2-Two Family Residential. COMMISSIONER MCMURRY SECONDED the motion. Regular session closed: Public hearing opened: Art Zimmer said he'd like to see the Island Lake area "developed" which your whole organization stands for, Community Development and he would like to see that happen. The streets are substandard, the lots are substandard, to present standards at least, certainly they didn't provide cal-do-sacs or turn-around areas or better access. He did encourage the commission to accept this recommendation as the appropriate motion. He inquired why certain factors such as, inadequate access weren't considered in 2000. DVORAK responded saying what we included in the packet is the minutes from the meetings when that 2000 case was considered if it were discussed at the meetings it would be in the record presumably. He didn't have the staff reports to say for sure whether it was looked at and he didn't believe it was included in this file folder so if you would like an answer to that I would possibly suggest a postpone it for further research on it. Art Zimmer spoke with Mr. Hines acting chief at Bayside Fire Department he has been against anything new done in the Island Lake Subdivision due to these substandard streets, with no turn- arounds or proper cal-do-sac areas provided. According to Mr. Hines conversation in the past we have accepted a sixty foot (60) diameter turn-around where land was an issue or space was. Most of the property at the immediate north end of Arctic Turn is government property of some kind. August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 He drew a circle sixty feet (60) in diameter on Ptannigan Pass, which Hines said would suffice by not encroaching onto anyone's present buildings. The vacant land could be acquired as a possibility to ease the problem. That could be a way to provide sixty foot (60) turn-arounds. In the year 2000 the right-of-way width stayed at forty (40) feet and the commission rezoned some of those lots to R2 though they had 60 foot (60) frontages as do the present Rllots and he noted that the substandard right-of-way was not an issue then but it is now. Lot 4 Block 2 does provide six parking spaces and he numbered and circled them on the drawing. Last October, he found out that his property had not rezoned, but was told that it had and he only needed provide enough off street parking, which we then did. The same street widths that service these "substandard" size lots are equal to those that are already approved for R-2 and have been rezoned to R-2. He doesn't see any problem with making these lots also R-2 because they would require and would provide the same amount of off street parking and accommodations as if they were R-2. Lorna Arndt stated that the commission voted on rezoning Block 1 to R-2 because their lots were bigger than 7,200 square feet that is required by an R-l residence lot. The end lot is 74.4 feet wide, so you have to take this into consideration that these lots did meet more than what was asked for in R-2 zoning. She doesn't think any of the other lots should zoned R-2 because they are too small and on Ptannigan some places don't even have off street parking, they are parking on the road right-of-way. His new house that he's building is almost right on the road, you couldn't park a car behind that house, and it would be on the road encroachment there. She wondered if the Planning and Zoning or Community Development has straightened out the fact that he couldn't use the right-of-way easement. She said that her kids abide by all borough rules. They are builders and they don't go against any of the rules whatsoever and if they can follow it so can an older gentleman that should know better. In response to putting a road through Lot 8, she objected to that saying her daughter being against that as well wouldn't give up any of her land for any road to go through there. She thinks planning and zoning need to clean up that right- of-way situation and that they need to get after the person that has all their belongings on there. On Kitty Way they have blocked the road that used to go up Ptarmigan Pass with big boulders up there. She believes that was done for a good cause. Nevertheless there is no access into Ptarmigan Pass except from the Island Lake Road. She agrees with the fire department that they can't turn vehicles around, it is impossible up there. Our road, Arctic Turn, seems wider than that one, but our houses are also set back further than on Ptarmigan Pass. She is off the road forty-five (45) feet and the required is twenty-five (25) feet. So my yard is a great big turn- around. Sumie Ono stated that she sent in a letter to the commissioners and elected to read it during the public hearing. She strongly urged the commissioners to deny the request for rezone at this time. However, once the area is brought into compliance with all codes the applicant should not hesitate to submit another rezoning application. Public hearing closed: Rel!ular session onened: .... . COMMISSIONER KING inquired ifR-2 zoning requires 3,600 square feet per unit? DVORAK stated yes. He believes R-2 zoning requires 7,200 square feet per lot, you don't really get to the per dwelling unit calculation until you get the R-3 zone where it has the kind of sliding scale. August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 COMMISSIONER FRIEND commented if circumstances were different, right now there are just too many nonconformities, if things were brought up, if we got a cal-do-sac in there somewhere then he could see doing it. He said he would have to fail this one in his opinion. COMMISSIONER WATKINS stated that i, then the one in 2000 should have been failed as well. Ms. Arndt does have a nice driveway for backing up, but it is not a public access and it can't be considered for the fire department. He would lean the other way towards approving because we've granted R-2 for sixty foot (60) lots on a forty foot (40) wide right-of-way, so he doesn't see how we can turn around and say to the next people because you don't live on the lake you can't do R-2 on the same streets without cal-do-sacs. Art Zimmer said when these lots were surveyed then, the Borough approved 6,000 square foot lots for R-I and that would say that at present time anything that's less than 7,200 square foot is illegal, and you don't say that you are allowing the R-1's to remain though they are substandard in your word. It's a new standard to an old subdivision. COMMISSIONER JUENGER agreed it is unfortunate that a different call wasn't made earlier but we are ill-equipped to go back and fix things that happen many years ago. COMMISSIONER KING MOVED TO ADOPT the findings of fact in the staff report dated June 5, 2006 that the findings of fact for Case 06-015. COMMISSIONER MCMURRY SECONDED the motion and it CARRIED 5-0. FINDINGS OF FACT 17.72.020 A. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or Amendment. [1] The lots proposed for rezone have been subject to extensive scrutiny in numerous rezone actions in the past. Substandard right-of-ways serve the proposed rezone area. [2] [3] Further increasing the development density of the neighborhood will negatively affect the ability of emergency services to respond efficiently. The non-conforming lot areas of the subject lots are not conducive to the development of two-family dwellings without the benefit of numerous variances. 17.72.020 B. Findings as to the Effect a Change or Amendment would have on the Obiectives of he comprehensive plan. [1] A rezone to R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District would not conflict with the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan The question was called on the main motion, and FAILED 1-4. [4] OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A) Case 07-004. Request for initial review of the Draft Recreational Amenities Ordinance that was forwarded to the Commission with a recommendation by the Kodiak Island Borough Parks and Recreation Committee. DVORAK said that this was a draft ordinance transmitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission from the Parks and Recreation Committee. You did have ajoint meeting on this at one time and discuss some ofthe issues relating to this ordinance; however, they did pass it August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 l I forward in this form for your consideration. Staff has placed it on the agenda as a new business item thinking that our agenda is already rather full with ongoing stuff, but at least this way it brings it on in a formal fashion that is open to acknowledgment. If you feel like you would like to schedule a work session just to discuss this at a future packet review it would be something you could consider now or carry it over. Staff didn't feel like it was ready for a public hearing yet, and you may wish to consider it and review it first, and possibly make some recommendations of your own. With that staff had included a recommendation to reschedule this for another review in the future. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO SCHEDULE case 07-004 for a new business item on October 18, regular meeting agenda. COMMISSIONER JUENGER SECONDED the motion and it CARRIED 4-1. COMMUNICATIONS A) Notice of Violation to Mr. Richard & Ms. Patricia Collins from Martin Lydick, Associate Planner dated July 21,2006. B) Letter of Courtesy & Advisory to Mr. Daniel R. Miller form Martin Lydick, Associate Planner dated July 21, 2006. C) KIBCMP Project Review, Port Lions Tidelands Conveyance, August 1,2006. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO ACCEPT communications as submitted. COMMISSIONER KING SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED unanimously. REPORTS Meeting schedule: . August 31, 2006 special work session at 7:30 p.m. in the KIB Conference Room . September 13,2006 work session at 7:30 p.m. in the KIB Conference Room . September 20,2006 regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO ACCEPT reports as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER MCMURRY, and it CARRIED 5-0. AUDIENCE COMMENTS COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS COMMISSIONER FRIEND asked if COMMISSIONER MCMURRY had got the votes handled. COMMISSIONER MCMURRY said still working on it. COMMISSIONER JUEN G ER thanked the remai ning staff for picking up after the sudden departure of our Commun i ty Development Director. He said you guys are doing a good job. COMMISSIONER WATKINS said he thinks staff did a good job this evening. COMMISSIONER FRIEND thanked and welcomed temporary secretary, Jasmine Oliver, and wished her good luck with school. ADJOURNMENT CHAIR FRIEND ADJOURNED the regular meeting at 9:35 p.m August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 ATTEST By: f/~) ~ Jasmine Oliver, Secretary Community Development Department By: DATE APPROVED: September 20,2006 August 16, 2005 P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 ! l I ;;;