Loading...
2001-10-17 Regular MeetingKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER MINUTES The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by CHAIR SELIG on October 17, 2001 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Paul Alexander Donna Bell Robert Lindsey Cheryl Boehland Bazbaza Williams Clazence Selig-Chair Reed Oswalt A quorum was established. Commissioners not present All seats filled III. 1:V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Others Present Duane Dvorak, Director Community Development Dept. Erin Whipple, Secretary Community Development Dept. STAFF presented item F, a letter from Alayne Larsen regazding Case 01-033, to be added to the agenda. COMMISSIONER BELL MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as amended. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER BOEHLAND, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes of September 19, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER OSWALT, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. r n _ i _r •Q J. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments or appearance requests. VI. PUBLIC BEARINGS A) Case SO1-022. Request for preliminary approval of the subdivision of Block 2, Selief Estates Subdivision, Plat #'s 99-26 and 2000-9 creating Lots 1 - 21, Block 2, Selief Estates Subdivision within Kodiak Recording District. STAFF indicated forty-four (44) public hearing notices were distributed for this case with three (3) returned objecting to the subdivision. Staff recommended postponement of the preliminary plat to allow for redesign of the subdivision to provide for access to the lots by dedicatedt rn t ve motionf and thirtee ls(13) disagreed with this recommendation, an a conditions of approval were provided. COMMISSIONER SELIG announced a possible conflict of interest~n shouldea at 2320 Beaver Lake Loop. He would not have any monetary g decision be made either way. When asked by STAFF if he could make an impartial decision, COMMISSIONER SELIG said he felt he could. STAFF and COMMISSION had no objection in COMMISSIONER SELIG'S participation in the decision. COMMISSIONER BELL MOVED TO postpone Case SO1-022 until the next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, on November 21, 2001, provided that the subdivider resubmits an appropriate number of revised subdivision plat copies by October 24, 20 access to int rior lots to pro del for returned to the subdivider for redesign o dedicated right-of--way access and frontage in accordance with KIBC 16.40.OSO.B.8 and other applicable provision of KIBC Title 16. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER WILLIA.MS• Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: Kevi= dt Agent for Applicant: Mr. Arndt stated he objected to postponement of this case. He also stated should the requessu ~ ps one Help ovidedlofurther didn't feel there was any way to redesign the information on the plan for the Commission. Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed. Regular session opened: ti The question was called, and the motion CARRIED six (6) to one (1) by roll call vote. The one (1) nay was COMMISSIONER LINDSEY. B) Case 01-036. Request for a variance, from KIB Code 17.17.O50.A Front yazd), in accordance with KIBC Chapter 17.66, to permit the addition of a carport onto the front of the house which will encroach ten (10) feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback located on Lot 10, Mountain View Subdivision, U.S. Survey 1678. STAFF indicated fifteen (15) public hearing notices were distributed for this case with none being returned. Staff recommended approval of this request subject to one (1) condition. from KIB COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER MOVED TO grant a variance, Code 17.17.OSO.A (Front yard), in accordance with KIBC Chapter 17.66, to permit the addition of a carport onto-fie 25 t foothfront Yazd setba k in the RRl ten (10) feet into the required twenty ( ) zoning district, located on Lot 10, Mountain View Subdivision, U.S. Survey 1678; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated October 9, 2001; and to adopt the findings in that staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Construction of the carport relying on this variance is not permitted into the twenty (20) foot wide construction and maintenance easement at the front of Lot 10 adjacent to the cul-de-sac unless that easement is first vacated by Assembly action as prescribed by code. FINDINGS OF FACT 7.66.050 A.1 or ro erties in the same land use district. This lot is characterized by an extremely steep slope falling away from the reaz of the house towazd Monashka Bay Road. This topography significantly constrains reasonable and affordable construction of a garage/carport anywhere on the property other than in front of the house. Variances provide for the fact that all lots in a particular zoning district area not equally developable according to a single set of developable standards. 17 66 050 A 2 Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in the practical difficulty of the property owners having to pursue considerable, most likely cost prohibitive, excavation for site development in order to attach acarport/garage to the house. 17 66 050 A 3 The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or reiudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfaze. Granting the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, nor be detrimental to the public safety and welfare since Lot 10 is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. One traditional rationale for requiring front yard setbacks-maintaining line of sight and open space uniformly along a through street is removed. The non-permitted construction, however illegal, of a shop and entryway/canopy on the house well into the front yazd setback on adjacent. Lot 11 has resulted in no documented complaints or public safety issues over fifteen years. 17 66 050 A 4 The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Granting this variance will be consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan which identifies this area as residential. 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. Actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought. The steep slope of the lot essentially dictated where the house could be placed neaz the front of the lot. 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 this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this district The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER OSWALT. Regulaz session closed. Public hearing opened: Steven Ivanoff, Applicant: Mr. Ivanoff informed the COMMISSION that he has already started the process to vacate the utility easement. Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed. Regular session opened: The question was called, and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. C) Case 01-038. Request for a street name change, in accordance with KIB Code Section 12.10.030, to change the name of Scout Circle to Dark Lake Road. STAFF indicated eight (8)public hearing notices were sent out with none being returned. Staff determined that Title 12 only applies to dedicated right of ways. Applicants live on private drive beyond dedicated right of way. STAFF recommended that should the Commission find that it is appropriate and justified to change the name of Scout Circle as platted, the Commission upon its own motion could initiate the street name change as prescribed in KIBC 12.10.030, which would then be scheduled on next month's (November) agenda. COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER MOVED TO initiate the action to create a .name change from Scout Circle to Dark Lake Road on behalf of the petitioners relating to KIBC 12.10.030. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: Lois Stover, resident: Ms. Stover spoke in favor of changing the name of the road due to 911 /emergency vehicle confusions. Ron Fried, resident: Mr. Freed spoke against changing the name. Joyce Fried, resident: Mrs. Fried spoke against changing the name. Charles Lorenson, resident: Mr. Lorenson clarified why the drives were called Scout Circle and spoke in favor of leaving platted road as Scout Circle and allowing residents on private drives to change the names as they see fit. Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed. Regular session opened: The question was called, and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. D) Case 01-037 Request for a variance from the requirements of Section 17.57.040.A (Off-street Parking-Number of spaces required) of Borough Code to permit construction of three bunkhouses consisting of eight (8) housing units for thirty-two (32) persons where none of the additional sixteen (16) off-street parking spaces required will be provided on Lot 6A-1, Block 18, New Kodiak Subdivision. STAFF indicated twenty (20) public hearing notices were mailed for this case, none were returned. Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to three (3) conditions. COMIVIISSIONER LINDSEY 0 pO~ODff-s Oet Parking-Number of spa es requirements of Section 17.57 required) of Borough Code to permit construction of three bunkhouses consisting of eight (8) .housing units for thirty-two (32) persons where none of the additional sixteen (16) off-street pazking spaces required will be provided on Lot 6A-1, Block 18, New Kodiak Subdivision. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Occupancy of all bunkhouses on site is restricted to seasonal employees of the processing plant who do not have motorized vehicles and is limited to peak operating periods. 2. parking required in support of processing plant operations, as designated on the updated and revised pazking plan, must be kept unobstructed and available for parking in conformance with the parking area development standazds of KIBC 17.57.080. Failure to satisfy this condition will invalidate the variance and may result in notice to remove the modulaz housing units. 3. Uniform Building (UBC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC) review and approval is required prior to construction. FINDINGS OF FACT 17 66 050 A 1 Exceptional ph sical circumstances or conditions applicable to the ro ertv or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. There do not appear to be exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to this property that are not applicable to other properties along the Kodiak waterfront. However, as described in KIBC 17.66.010, variances serve the purpose "of relaxing zoning district requirements is special circumstances." Provision of boazding house units on site for employees can reasonably be characterized as a special circumstance, although not related to a physical condition of the property, since it should have the effect of reducing need for pazking and related problems. 17 66 050 A 2 Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would require provision of sixteen (16) additional pazking spaces. The difficulties and hardships from the applicant's point of view are shortage of employees during peak seasons and resulting economic efficiencies, with spillover effects on the local economy in general. Whether these are, respectively, "practical" and "unnecessary" is probably debatable, however, in this case, it might be said that strict application of the zoning ordinance might actually make the pazking situation worse by requiring that most, if not all, employees own a vehicle and drive to work. 17 66 050 A 3 The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or - rejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the pubhc's health, safety and welfare. The grant of the variance will not result in material damages to other properties or be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. Provision of on site housing for seasonal employees will not result in an increase the plant's production capacity or intensity of use, but rather should alleviate traffic congestion on public streets in the azea and reduce the need for pazking. Uniform Building (iTBC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC) review and approval is required prior to construction to ensure maintenance of public health and safety. 17 66 050 A 4 The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Seafood processing establishments and their dormitories aze permitted uses in the I-Industrial zoning district, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area. 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 vanance. Actions of the applicant have not caused special conditions from which relief is sought by the variance. The variance request will be determined prior to the proposed construction. While the need for the pazking variance, for lack of a more suitable code mechanism, is created by the proposed bunkhouse additions, it can also be said that the proposal brings with it a remedy for this need as well as a partial solution to wider parking demand by eliminating use of vehicles by employees. 17 66 050 A 6 That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Seafood processing establishments and their dormitories are permitted uses in the I-Industrial zoning district. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER BOEHLAND. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: Greg Hathaway, Agent for Applicant: Mr. Hathaway indicated he was available to answer any questions. He also advised he was willing to abide by the conditions recommended by STAFF. Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed. Regular session opened: The question was called, and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. E) .Case 01-034. Request for a rezone, in accordance with KIB Code Section 17.72.030.C (Manner of Initiation), of Alaska State Land Survey 90-151, from WH-Wildlife Habitat to RD-Rural Development. Generally located along Eagle Harbor, Ugak Bay. STAFF indicated that five (5) public notices were sent out with one (1) being returned in objection to the rezone. STAFF recommended that the Commission forward this rezone request to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly with a recommendation that it be approved, subject to two (2) effective clauses. STAFF also noted that COMMISSIONER BOEHLAND had a concern as to the lack of notification to the State and the lack of involvement by the applicant. Should the Commission feel it necessary this case could be postponed. COMMISSIONER OSWALT MOVED TO recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezoning of -ABCs 90-151, a 3.46 acre parcel of land, from WH-Wildlife Habitat to RD-Rural Development, subject to two (2) effective clauses, and to adopt the findings of fact in the staff report dated October 10, 2001 as findings of fact for this case. EFFECTIVE CLAUSES 1. The property owner shall submit a written request for the withdrawal of Rezone Case 93-044, prior to the rezone in this case becoming effective. 2. The property owner shall submit a current as-built survey showing the location of the lodge structure on ASLS 90-151, and submit a completed zoning compliance permit, along with the required fee, for review and approval by the Community Development Department to update the official record as to the nature of the structures and use on ASLS 90-151 FINDINGS OF FACTS Section 17.72.020 states that the Commission shall incorporate the following criteria into their report to the Assembly: 17 72 020 A Findings as to the Need and Justification fora Change or Amendment. A rezone from WH--Wildlife Habitat to RD--Rural Development is needed and justified because the RD--Rural Development zoning district permits development that: A. is consistent with the type of development that private land owners increasingly want to develop in remote areas of the Borough; B. will not increase the nonconformity of any nonconforming uses or structures, subject to an effective clause requiring zoning compliance prior to the effective date of the rezone; C. must be setback from marine and anadromous waters unless the use developed is water dependent; D. will result in a sensible and efficient use of coastal lands; E. allows for a balance of uses, due to the range of uses permitted, which will not favor short run gains at the expense of long-term benefits, and; F. will be coordinated with the applicable State and federal agencies, to the appropriate extent, when new development occurs; G. the nearest existing RD-Rural Development zoned sites (4) are located 8 to 10 miles distant at the head of Ugak Bay (2) and on Hidden Basin (2). 17 72 020 B Findings as to the Effect a Change or Amendment would have on the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A change of zoning from WH--Wildlife Habitat to RD--Rural Development on ASLS 90-151, a 3.46 acre tract located along the south .shore of Ugak Bay, is generally consistent with the applicable policies of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program. The KIBCMP is an adopted component of the Kodiak Island Borough's comprehensive plan. The tract is located in the area designated by the KIBCMP for Development with Restrictions. Subsequent review of development on ASLS 90-151 will be subject to RD-Rural Development zoning district standards which aze comprehensive, flexible, and based in large part upon the applicable sections of the KIBCMP. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER BELL. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed. Regulaz session opened: COMMISSIONER BOEHLAND MOVED TO postpone this case until the November 21, 2001 regular meeting. The question was called, and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. Public hearing closed. Regular session opened: The question was called, and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. 10 Minute Recess VII. OLD BUSINESS A.) Case 01-033 Findings and Conclusions. STAFF indicated that Findings and Conclusions from the decision made on the appeal at the September 19, 2001 meeting need to be adopted. STAFF also indicated several Commissioners presented their own findings and they had been combined by staff. In addition, STAFF addressed the issue of some unsatisfaction in the wording of the motion to support the appeal. STAFF advised Commission that they could move to rescind the original motion and amend it if wished. COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER MOVED TO RESCIND the motion made at last meeting by COMMISSIONER LINDSEY to continue to allow Mr. Charles Lorenson to utilize the property of his mother, Mrs. Betty Lorenson, located at 3315 Spruce Cape Rd, for unrestricted business purposes pending Findings of Fact to be introduced at next month's scheduled meeting, October 17~'. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER BELL. Motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER LINDSEY MOVED TO AMMEND the rescinded motion to read: To continue to allow Mr. Charles Lorenson to utilize the property of his mother, Mrs. Betty Lorenson, located at 3315 Spruce Cape Rd. and to accept the Findings of the Commissioners submitted in the supplemental memorandum as the Findings of Fact for this case. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER BELL. COMMISSIONER LINDSEY WITHDREW the above motion. COMMISSIONER BELL CONCURRED. COMMISSIONER LINDSEY MOVED TO AMMEND the rescinded motion to read: To continue to allow Mr. Charles Lorenson to utilize the property of his mother, Mrs. Betty Lorenson, located at 3315 Spruce Cape Rd. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER BELL. The motion CARRIED six (6) to one (1) by roll call vote. The one nay was COMMISSIONER BOEHLAND. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS MOVED to adopt findings and conclusions contained in the supplemental staff report dated October 16, 2001, in support of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision at the September 19, 2001 regular meeting to reverse the determination of zoning violation by the Community Development Department director, and to allow Mr. Lorenson to continue using the property located at 3315 Spruce Cape Road. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER OSWALT. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In reviewing this case, the Commission has substantially complied with the applicable provisions of KIBC 17.90 (Appeals to the Planning and Zoning Commission). 2. The Spruce Cape area is an older suburban area that is in transition from a lower density rural residential area to a medium density residential area. The Spruce Cape area has historically been characterized by mixed use development, which includes both conforming and non-conforming uses, such as the sewage treatment plant, trailer courts, warehouses, machine shops, sand blasting and storage areas, boat storage, fishing equipment storage, heavy equipment parking and some limited home businesses. The neighborhood surrounding the subject property is currently zoned R2- Two-family Residential. It is comprised of older, pioneer's homes on large lots with various "grandfathered" nonconformities and newer single-family residences built on small to minimum size lots. 3. The appellant, Mrs. Betty Lorenson, is an ethical and upright person who would not do anything that she believed to be unethical, illegal, or inconsiderate of neighboring property owners. The appellant would not allow her son to do anything on the property that would not meet the same criteria. 4. The Commission believes that the appellant believes that her son's use of the property is legal, ethical, and considerate of surrounding property owners, and that the use is agrand-fathered (nonconforming) exception. This position is fully reinforced by the issuance of a building permit and a zoning compliance permit for the use that has been challenged. 5. The appellant seeks to support her children in their chosen pursuits, and to keep her family and family home intact and preserve the. way of life, that she has enjoyed as a pioneer for the last forty years. The appellant has acted in a fashion that indicates a sincere belief that the use of the land in question is a bona fide "Grandfathered" use. 6. By upholding the appeal, the Commission would allow the appellant's son, Charles Lorenson, to continue the traditions and established practices begun by his father on the subject property and carried on continuously from 1964 to the present at this location, and to allow the appellant to live in the manner to which she has become accustomed. 7. The Commission believes that the appellant's son, Charles Lorenson, acted in full faith that the small changes in location on the same property were fully protected and properly permitted for the use in which he was engaged. His beliefs are affirmed by the issuance of a building permit, a zoning compliance permit and numerous site visits by the staff of the City of Kodiak Building Department, acting on behalf of the Kodiak Island Borough by agreement. 8. The situation portrayed in this appeal is not unique to Kodiak and only mazks the slow, inexorable march of progress that always affects highly desirable, older properties as local azeas aze inevitably developed. 9. The appellant and her family were some of the first people to establish the neighborhood, and they have lived there so long because of its ambivalent nature. The appellant sincerely believes that the past uses of the site by her family members would be allowed to go on into the future, consistent with their perception of the character of the neighborhood, and that they would be allowed to continue living as they always have, with some mixed use of residential and personal pursuits. 10. The appellant has acted in a legal, ethical and properly permitted fashion. 11. The appellant's son, Chazles Lorenson, has acted in a sincere belief that his use of the site was, A: Grand-fathered, B: properly permitted, and C: in full scope of all administering agencies. 12. To deny the appellant this appeal would go against the judgment of the Commission and would fall outside the Commission's ability to interpret the applicable law. The Commission believes that the appellant has acted honestly and openly in these proceedings. 13. That the area is one of the most transitional in Kodiak in terms of land use, and also one of the most confusing as to zoning because of all the zoning changes that has been subjected to. There are more nonconformities in the general azea than any other azea of Kodiak. Allowing the appellant to progress will take care of the problems with compatibility of land uses. 14. It's very unfair that a neighbor's complaint may actually lead to the termination of a family's source of livelihood. 15. The appellant has acted in good faith with the Borough all these years; thinking that their property was protected by a "Grandfathered" clause. They felt they were doing things in the right way. 16. Kodiak is special, in that many families have built up a business out of their home. Kodiak is the second most expensive place to live in our nation and many families need two or even three extra incomes to be able to build a life here for their families. 17. This area of Spruce Cape Road has been in constant zoning evolution and is at present in transition and growth. A. Zoning History: The 1968 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan I identifies the property as Residential Unclassified. B. Apri13, 1980 KIB Ordinance 80-90-0 rezoned the property to Rural Residential. C. March 3, 1983 KIB Ordinance 83-1 S-0 rezoned property to Rural Residential One (1) District. D. September 16, 1984 KIB Ordinance 84-45-0 rezoned property to R-2, Two Family Residential District. 18. It is possible and therefore probable that there was inadequate information given to the property owners in this area as to the changes in allowable uses with the zoning changes. The appellant's family could not address the reference to the "grandfather" clause, if indeed they were not aware of any zoning change that would affect their present use of their property. If a "grandfather right" were applicable, it was not know and therefore not applied for or granted. The statements in the: Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Enforcement Policy dated December, 1989 supports this. This document states on page two (2): "The enforcement program is directed toward elimination of the violation, not the punishment of the violator. The underlying philosophy is that the majority of persons in violation of zoning ordinances are in violation due to ignorance of the law and will voluntarily comply with the community's regulation once they have been properly informed." The appellant's family believed that they were in compliance. 19. As further support for believing that they were in compliance, the appellant was issued: Zoning Compliance BZ98-096 on 11-09-98 and a Building Permit BP981 16 on 11-10-98. It is possible, though not known that prior to the issuing of the zoning compliance that insufficient data was presented or that zoning compliance information necessary to this case was not researched. This statement is made in reference to the statement given by Martin Lydick; Associate Planner, in his memorandum dated September 19. 2001, subject P&Z Case No. PZO1-033 re: 17.03.070 Building Permit and Conformity to Zoning. It states: "No building permit, plans, or specifications will be approved which permits any violation, modification, or waiver to this policy." Mr. Martin Lydick' s response to this in reference to this case was simply; "A building permit does not regulate zoning." In this case, one hand did not know what the other hand was doing. Clearly, the zoning compliance was issued first and then the building permit was issued. In this case the proper sequences of applications were followed and the permits were issued. 20. Neighborhood Character: At the public hearing there was overwhelming support from residents of this area for the appellants. It would be hard to deduce from this support that of all the apples on the tree this family should be singled out as the one "bad" apple. Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Enforcement Policy. December, 1989 provides a legal basis: Neighborhood Standards. pg.three (3), "Since a particular zoning violation might be a nuisance for one neighborhood [or neighbor] {my insert} and not another, the investigation-upon-complaint system seeks to be more responsive to violators which have a negative impact on citizens by allowing "neighborhood standards" [as defined by complaints received] to dictate which violations are enforced." It is apparent from testimony given or documentation provided at the public hearing that the majority of persons testifying showed their support. They did not object to or state that there was a negative impact to the character of the neighborhood associated with the appellant's property or that the existing storage facility presented a serious problem for safety and did not detract from the character of the neighborhood. 21. Expansion: The appellant's son, Mr. Charles Lorenson, gave testimony that he is not considering any type of expansion or other uses on the appellants property located at 3315 Spruce Cape Road. He stated that what is in place now is a storage building. Mr. Lorenson stated that his residence and primary place of business for Wild Iris Enterprises/Island Foam is located at 4055 E. Rezanof. 22. Storage Building/LJses/Conditions: Mr. Lorenson stated that bulk foaming material would be stored. He stated that in a solid form, the foaming material does not constitute as a hazardous material. On site would be one forklift to move supplies as needed. Turnaround time for pickup and delivery of materials would be kept to minimal time as not to cause any traffic problems on Carroll Way. Mr. Lorenson also stated that he has complied with the "quiet hours" and normally conducts his storage operations from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Mr. Lorenson stated that he has the necessary burn permits if needed to do a controlled burn of expendable dunnage. 23. The appellants are honest and sincere in their efforts to secure the right of their appeal. Their testimony and the testimony of others in support of their appeal says that there are some inconsistencies and that somewhere along the way from perhaps the late 1960's to present some zoning changes and procedural information was not forthcoming and therefore gave the appellants the feeling that every thing was ok and that they were in compliance regarding their land use. Having secured a zoning compliance and building permit would surely tell me, as I am sure it re-enforced the appellant's belief that all was ok. The Commission believes that the present storage facility presents no harm or discredit to the neighborhood. The appellant's son, Mr. Charles Lorenson, has displayed the will to create a business which supports the needs of multiple clients, residential, business and marine. The storage facility is vital and necessary in support of his business enterprise. It is a credit to the appellants family who continue to contribute to the economy and growth of our CityBorough in the true spirit of entrepreneurship. COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER MOVED to AMEND the motion to read: Move to adopt findings and conclusions contained in the supplemental staff report dated October 16, 2001, in support of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision at the September 19, 2001 and October 17, 2001 regular meetings to reverse the determination of zoning violation by the community development department director, and to allow Mr. Lorenson to continue using the property located at 3315 Spruce Cape Road The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER OSWALT. The question was called and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. VIII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS A) Letter dated Letter dated September 20, 2001 to Minerals Management Service from Duane Dvorak, Community Development Director RE: Comments on the proposed 5- year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2002 - 2007. B) Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. 93-43. A resolution supporting the "Tri- Borough Position Paper" concerning federal oil and gas lease sale No. 149. C) Tri-Borough Position Paper, Federal Oil and Gas Lease No. 149. D) Letter dated September 21, 2001 to Mrs. Betty Lorenson from Martin Lydick, Associate Planner RE: explanation of appeal decision by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission in the matter of case PZO1-033. E) Authorization to request legal action dated October 9, 2001. RE: Requesting legal assistance in obtaining compliance of administrative order to remove items of business property stored on a Rl-Single-family Residential District lot. F) Letter dated October 10, 2001 to Community Development Department from Alayne Larsen regarding case 01-033. There were no further communications. COMMISSIONER BELL MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of item A through item F of Communications. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. X. REPORTS STAFF reported the following meeting schedule: • November 17, 2001 Packet review work session at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough conference room. • November 21, 2001 Regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers. There were no further reports. COMMISSIONER BELL MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of reports. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER BOEHLAND, .and. CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Teri Schneider, resident: Ms. Schneider spoke in response to the decision of Case 01- 033. Louis G. Schneider, resident: Mr. Schneider spoke in response to the decision of Case 01-033. Charles Lorenson, resident: Mr. Lorenson spoke in response to the decision of Case 01- 033. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS COMMISSIONER OSWALT felt Case 01-033 was a tough one but hoped that all will work out in the end. Feels the (Spruce Cape) area is a transitional area with a lot of problems and a lot of different people. COMMISSIONER BOEHLAND is learning Robert's Rules, and is taking it upon herself to educate the public about the grandfather clause. COMMISSIONER BELL feels bad for people on both side of cases, feels she voted the right way (on case 01-033). Hopes as neighbors they (The Lorensons and Schneiders) can get things worked out between them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS felt that this one (case 01-033) was difficult but her decision was easy after looking at the code and the property. (COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS voted against the motion in the September 19, 2001 meeting. She was against the appeal.) Wants Staff to explain Findings of Fact to Mrs. Schneider. Thinks all the Commissioners felt strongly about their decisions. Thanked everyone for attending. COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER thought this was the first meeting he had attended without having to welcome a new member, the stability (in the Commission) was nice. Agreed case 01-033 was tough and he put a lot of time into making the right decision. COMMISSIONER LINDSEY had met Mrs. Schneider in Sutliff s and was trying to explain to her that at the previous meeting he had just been trying to find middle ground, not badger her. Felt this (case 01-033) ended up being an all or none decision. Acted as what he felt was genuinely within his commission. What the Commission granted does not exempt any person from rules, whatever they might be. Wanted to applaud both parties involved. COMMISSIONER SELIG (Case 01-033) was a tough one as chair due to the uniqueness of case and decision. Thanked fellow Commissioners, staff and participants for their input. Was a learning experience. Felt a Commissioner has to go with what they feel is right and commit to it. XIII. ADJOURNMENT CHAIlZ SELIG requested a motion to adjourn. CONIlVIISSIONER ALEXANDER MOVED TO ADJOURN the regular meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANI~TING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: larence eli air ATTEST By: Erin Whipple, Secretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: , 2001.