Loading...
2001-09-19 Regular MeetingKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 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 SELIG on September 19, 2001 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Paul Alexander Donna Bell Robert Lindsey Cheryl Boehland Barbara Williams Clarence Selig-Chair Reed Oswalt A quorum was established. Commissioners not present All present III. IV. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Others Present Duane Dvorak, Director Community Development Dept. Erin Whipple, Secretary Community Development Dept. Agenda was APPROVED as presented. The motion CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMIVIISSIONER LINDSEY MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes of August 15,2001 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as submitted. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER OSWALT and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQ~ESTS , ~n~ Lq _.,..~_.-,~._,w - _,-....~ ~-_-- There were no audience comments or appearance requests. APR 17 ~`~ ~ '._ 4 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Case SO1-019. Request for preliminary approval of the vacation of Lots 13B and 13F, U.S. Survey 3100, creating Lots 13B-1 and 13F-1, U.S. Survey 3100. STAFF indicated forty-three (43) public hearing notices were distributed for this case with one (1) sent back not opposed to this request. Staff believes that the request meets all the standards of Titles 16 & 17, as reflected in the findings of fact, for granting of preliminary appeal of the replat of Lots 13B and 13F to create Lots 13B-1 and 13G-1. US Survey 3100. Staff recommended approval subject to one condition. COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER MOVED TO grant preliminary approval of the vacation of Lots 13B and 13F, U.S. Survey 3100, creating Lots 13B-1 and 13F-1, U.S. Survey 3100, subject to the condition of approval contained in the staff report dated September 5, 2001, and to adopt the findings in that staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Create on the final plat a twenty (20) foot wide access and utility easement adjacent to the northerly side lot line covering the existing driveway on proposed Lot 13F-1 to provide driveway and water line access supporting future development on proposed Lot 13B-1. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. 2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code. 3. This plat provides a subdivision of land that is consistent with adopted Borough plans for this area. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER LINDSEY. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed. Regular session opened: The question was called, and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. B) Case SO1-017. Request for vacation of sewer and utility easements on Lots 1, 2, and Tract Q, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision as part of a re-plat creating Lots 1 through 9, Russian Hill Subdivision. (The replat was granted preliminary approval, subject to conditions, at the August 15, 2001 regular meeting) 12044, 12262, 11872 S. Russian Creek Road. STAFF indicated eighty-four (84) public hearing notices were distributed for this case with none being returned. Staff recommends approval of this request. COMIVIISSIONER BELL MOVED TO grant preliminary approval to the vacation of sewer and utility easements on Lots 1, 2, and Tract Q, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision, as part of a re-plat creating Lots 1 through 9, Russian Hill Subdivision, and to adopt the findings in the staff report dated September 12, 2001 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This vacation of unneeded sewer and utility easements will not adversely affect the ability of utility companies to provide service to the public in this area. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: 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 01-028. Request for a rezone, in accordance with KIB Code Section 17.72.030 C. (Manner of initiation), of Lot 29-A, U.S. Survey 2539 located southwesterly from Shannon Point and northwesterly from Frye Point, Womens Bay from C-Conservation to RRl-Rural Residential One. W. Rezanof Drive. (Postponed from the July 18, 2001 regular meeting. STAFF indicated nine (9) public hearing notices were sent out with none being returned. COI\~IlVIISSIONER LINDSEY MOVED TO recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezoning of Lot 29-A, from C-Conservation to RRl-Rural Residential One, and to adopt the findings in the staff report dated September 12, 2001 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER BELL. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: 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 SO1-012 Request for preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot 29-A U.S. Survey 2539 creating Lots 1 through 20, Seaview Subdivision, 1" Addition. W. Rezanof Drive. STAFF indicated nine (9) public hearing notices were mailed for this case, one was returned with no objection. Staff recommends commission grant preliminary approval subject to six (6) conditions of approval. COMMISSIONER OSWALT MOVED TO grant preliminary approval of a request to subdivide Lot 29-A, U.S. Survey 2539 creating Lots 1 through 20, Seaview Subdivision, ls` Addition, subject to six (6) conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Rename the subdivision slightly to eliminate the need to refer to this subdivision as "ls` Addition". The Borough Assessing Department discourages the use of Alpha-Numeric lot descriptions and the subdivision is substantially different from the original Seaview Subdivision which is located in the I-Industrial zoning district. 2. Obtain Assembly approval, by ordinance, of the rezone requested in Case 01-028, from C-Conservation to RRl-Rural Residential One, in order to penmit the minimal lot sizes proposed on the preliminary plat. 3. Submit a driveway plan to ADOT/PF, as indicated in the letter dated September 6, 2001, showing access to all lots from the lower "frontage road" easement located within the Rezanof Drive right-of--way. 4. Engineering and soils testing for Lots 1 through 20, Seaview Subdivision , ls` Addition, must be provided prior to final plat approval documenting that this subdivision design can satisfy ADEC requirements for onsite well and septic systems. 5. Designate the lower road access easement as an access and utility easement. 6. Submit a solid waste disposal plan for review and approval by Community Development Department staff prior to final plat approval. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: 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 001-033. Request for an appeal of an administrative decision, under Section 17.90.010 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code, ordering the cessation of the business use of the property located at 3315 Spruce Cape Road; further requesting that a "non-conforming" business use of the land and building be recognized predicated upon past use; further requesting that such non-conforming use of land and building be allowed to relocate and expand. STAFF reported that seventy-six (76) public hearing notices were sent out and six (6) were returned. Three (3) were in support of the applicant, three (3) were asking to address the Commission. STAFF outlined the rules for presenting the appeal and the time limits for each speaker. NOTE: The verbatim transcription in this section starts with Martin Lydick's staff report and ends at the end of the appellant's testimony. All minutes prior to this note and after the close of the appellant's testimony are based on action only transcription. (EEW/Secretary) MARTIN LYDICK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, ENFORCEMENT, presented STAFF's case. Mr. Lydick stated: "...This case had evidently originated some time before I assumed the duties which I presently hold. There were, according to the records, at least two complaints received by our department by telephone alleging improper activities on this property described as United States Survey 3100 Lot 11. For a variety of reasons, probably the primary being a change in staffing levels and personell adjustments, no follow up was made to those telephone complaints other than to record them in the file. Upon receipt of the second telephone call the caller was briefed as to the enforcement policy oC the Kodiak Island Borough and how to `get something DONE' is the only way to put it. The policy is that you need to submit a written complaint in order to generate an aggressive investigation if you would like to put it that way. After that policy was explained we did received a written complaint on July 6, 2001. The policy is that once we receive the written complaint, if the complainant has, in effect, demonstrated a commitment to the process in their desire to see a resolution to a perceived problem, then we do move such complaints to the top of the priority list and begin the actual investigation and looking into the circumstances of the complaint. Whether or not the allegations are merited and whether or not they, um, violations are found and should be communicated to the property owner or the violator as the situation may be. We conducted our field investigation on the 7`~ of July and then we proceeded to review the records contained in the Assessor's department, the Community Development Department, the records of the property in the Building Department. We inquired as to the status of the property and the accounts that were related to this property in the city utilities billing depaztment. After we collected our information, reviewed the information that we had, and then reviewed the applicable portions of the Kodiak Island Borough Code as they relate to the activities and the property in particular, we determined that a violation did exist on the property. We communicated that finding in letter to the property owner and in the same letter stated, you know, issued an administrative decision, ordering the abatement or the cessation of the illegal business activity on that property. We did not find that the building itself constituted an illegal activity. We did however find that the use of the building and the premises it occupied constituted a violation. The property in question is zoned R2. The zoning that applies to the property was instituted September 16, 1984 by Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance #84-45-0. At that time the property was rezoned to R2, Two Family Residential District. The permitted uses in the R2 District aze: accessory buildings, beauty shops, churches, clinics, greenhouses, home occupations, hospitals, pazks & playgrounds, professional offices, schools, single family dwellings and two family dwellings. As I stated earlier the specific violation we found was the business use of the portion of the property, primarily the reaz portion of the property off Spruce Cape Rd., at the corner of Sheratin and Cazroll Way. The structure, which is utilized for business purposes as faz as we have been able to determine, was originally permitted in November of 1998. It was permitted on the Zoning Compliance Permit as an accessory building. The construction of an accessory building in the R2 zone is a permitted use. The size of the building itself does meet the minimum standazds, it certainly does not exceed the maximum standards for an accessory building in that district. It's approximately 1 '/4 acre in size, land azea, the Code allows a maximum coverage of 10% of that so you'll be looking. at a building, maximum size, of about 5,000 square feet, a little bit over. The building itself is only 1560 square feet according to records contained in the Assessor's Department. Our field investigation established that the primary use of the building, as far as we could determine from the public right of way, was to house, warehouse, store, whatever term we want to use, business material and equipment. We could not determine any use of the building by the resident of the structure, of the house, on that lot. It was obvious that there was construction equipment parked on the outside of the premises, or the outside of the building and around the premises, and we felt at that time that it was kind of obvious what the use of the building was. Therefore we didn't find in particularly necessary to request or demand entry into the building to actually verify what it was. Or to actually verify whether or not the homeowner of the property was storing personal household goods inside the building. Having made that determination and after reviewing the information, looking at the neighborhood, looking at the applicable codes, and then transmitting the letter of violation to the property owner, we naturally waited for a response. The letter itself set a timeline of 30 days from the date of receipt, the date of transmittal of that letter, to abate the violation. Normal course of procedure, or what we would hope would happen, is in those 30 days we would be contacted by the property owner, we would have additional information supplied to us, and then we could take a second look at the violation or alleged violation and whether or not it met applicable codes for that zoning district. In this case the contact that we had or that we received in the departmental office was by the son of the property owner. Mr. Charles Lorenson came in and stated that he was representing his mother, Mrs. Betty Lorenson. We had no reason to argue with that nor dispute his right to do so. At that point in time we requested that they supply any documentation or any evidence that they would like us to consider. prior to the deadline of that 30 day notice period. We did not receive any such information or evidence fonm the appellant prior to the filing of the appeal. We understood at that time and we understand at this time that he has important business commitments that often call for him to be out of town and that he has to answer to and respond to. So we did not object to the filing of the appeal twenty days prior to the release of that. Although the requirement for an appeal to that decision, is, I do believe it's a ten day requirement that an appeal do be filed. We tried to the best of our ability to fully advise Mr. Lorenson of his rights of appeal and to advise him carefully that is was incumbent upon the appellant to make their case and to provide us with information that bears upon the investigation so that we would have an adequate time to consider that evidence and reconsider our determination of violation. In the subsequent time period some evidence has been coming in, principally in the form of photographic evidence and historical use on some portion of the property. None of that evidence relates to the structure in question nor that portion of the property that is in question. I believe that that fairly summarizes the state of the evidence that we have had submitted for review and I think it fairly summarizes the state of evidence that you have before you in this issue." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Thank you, Martin. At this time, while it's fresh in our minds, does the commission have any questions for Mr. Lydick? And let me ask you also, do you feel comfortable with, has the commission reviewed the additional information or do you feel you some additional time perhaps to review the additional information?" COMMISSIONER LINDSEY: "I would like to request a five minute recess but I would like to question Mr. Lydick, if I may?" COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Okay, let me ask the Commission, because we're either going to take a break here or we're going to continue on. Does the Commission feel confident that it can continue on? Would you like to take a recess to review the information after you have any comments to Mr. Lydick, or any questions? Okay, Rob, go ahead and ask your question." COMMISSIONER LINDSEY: "Mr. Lydick, um, sorry to be such a homespun boy not aware of all the letter of the law, um, perhaps you could clarify what would be the legal allowable uses of that building. What could Mr. Lorenson use this accessory building for?" MR. LYDICK: "I think the code is pretty clear, Mr. Lorenson's use of that building is severely limited. That building is on the property owned by Mrs. Lorenson, his mother. I don't think there would be any objection by anybody if he wanted to store some excess personal household items in that building. 1 don't think there would be any question or argument that his mother could use that building for that purpose. I don't believe that there would be any azgument about the allowable use of that building as a garage for her grandson if she wanted to do something of that nature. But the essential essence of an accessory building, as defined in the code, is: Code 17.15.020 Definition: an accessory building means: a) a detached building, the use of which is appropriate, subordinate, and customarily incidental to that of a main building located on the same lot as the main building and which is not designed or intended to be used for living or sleeping purposes. Appropriate, subordinate, and incidental to the main building. The main building on the lot in question is asingle-family residential structure. I believe that contemporary community standards would leave you to believe that anything incidental to the residential use, which that single-family building represents, would be allowable. Family gatherings, if you would like to do that. Recreation, indoor recreational purposes of a family nature, I believe that would be allowable. The questions of what would be allowed and what not be allowed ultimately come down to, for lack of a better term, contemporary community standards. If everybody in a neighborhood uses their detached garage for an auto shop, then that may be allowable. But the odd use of a detached garage for a winery in a residential district, especially if that winery was for commercial purposes, or in pursuit of a monetary gain, would be rather questionable, I believe." MR. LINDSEY: "So the code definitely forbids Mrs. Lorenson from allowing her son to park the foam truck, or his fork lift, or his small trailer on that property? Because I know I have watched that foam truck legally be parked on the other side of the house and to my mind it very much does come under what you previously just said. And, frankly, I'm still confused, if he was allowed to park that very same foam truck basically just around the corner, I don't understand how come he can't park it off of Anna Way." MR. LYDICK: "I think the point turns on a technical point which in previous use of parking a foam truck or any type of business equipment on that property, along Spruce Cape Road, is a different issue than building a new building on the rear of that lot and using it exclusively for business purposes. There is also the issue that the primary, the previous use which you relate to, in the detached garage, which still stands by that house, was right up there by Mrs. Lorenson's house, and no written complaint was ever received about that use. The new construction of a 1500 square foot building devoted to building use on a large portion of that lot is what generated the written complaint and is what has generated the controversy. 1 think your point is well taken. At one point in time during our conversations I believe I did tell Mr. Lorenson is the mistake he made was to build the new building and to put it right out there in front of everyone in the neighborhood rather than remaining where he had been." MR. SELIG: "Just a point of correction there, Mr. Lydick. Your statement there, `The mistake he made' I would like to note that I'm sure Mr. Lorenson would not acknowledge that he made a mistake so I think that language is probably inappropriate. And also, that would not really tie into, if you would like to touch on this evening. I also, with what your comment's stating, I'm a little concerned as to the mistake he made when he was issued a building permit. I don't understand how an individual could be issued a building permit. I have spoke with Staff on this and it appears that it is two separate issues, the building permit and the zoning violation. However, I would tend to believe that somebody needs to police somebody here because if you've issued a building permit and Mr. Lorenson went ahead and did exactly what the building permit stated, storage tent and van, how does this go through the crack? If the building permit was issued for the specific storage tent and van, and yet, you're stating he is in violation for having that type of storage facility there, and this is under the auspices of an accessory building? Could you comment on that please?" MR. LYDICK: "Your point concerning my choice of words is well taken Mr. Chairman. The only clarification we can make about the distinction between a zoning compliance permit and a building permit is that one does not regulate the other. The simple issuance of a building permit has to do with the design and construction of a structure. A building inspector is not required to verify independently the applicable zoning for the property in question. A building permit is issued upon the presentation of a completed zoning compliance permit, which is issued by the Community Development Department. When there is a conflict between the two, by code, the zoning compliance permit trumps the building permit." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Thank you, I guess, Rob, were you finished?" COMMISSIONER LINDSEY: "I have no more questions but I would like to read through the material." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Okay, fine. Before we move on then, I have a, do any of the Commissioners have any other questions for Mr. Lydick? Yes, Barbara?" COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Not right now." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Not right now, okay. I think maybe one more question for Mr. Lydick, uh, before we do take the recess. The question I had, Mr. Lydick, is that in the memorandum that you presented to us there are specifics in regarding time constraints. It seems to have begun in 1968 with the zoning history which identifies that property as Residential Unclassified. And then we move on to Apri13, 1980 where it was zoned to Rural Residential, and then you go on to March 1983 and it ~~~oved to rural RRl. And then you go on to September 16, 1984, I guess to the current R2. My question is, as you presented your information to us tonight, you made a mention in your supplement that sometimes there is not proper communication between the property owner and the Borough. I would like to think that, uh, it says right here in policy, `The enforcement program is directed toward elimination the violation, not the punishment of the violator. The underlying philosophy is that the majority of persons in violation of zoning ordinance are in violation due to ignorance of the law and will voluntarily comply with the community regulations once the have been properly informed.' And I would ask staff, excuse me, I would ask Martin, could you please explain to me then, how this process could have gone that far from 1968 to the current RR2. I really believe that had the Lorensons known what code read and how it read they might have applied for a different status. And as you stated they are not applicable for grandfathers in this case, is that correct, because of what has transpired? Could you give us a little bit of history on the grandfathering as would maybe would or would not apply to this?" MARTIN LYDICK: "My understanding of the changes in the zoning that you see over the several years noted here reflect the growth in the community and the availability of public water and sewer. As'you have those utilities expand and available to property owners there is a natural inclination and desire for those property owners to develop those properties to the highest extent that economic prudence dictates to them. Their own impressions, their own desires. Certainly every one of those zoning changes, all of which predate my time in Kodiak, were accomplished through a very open and public process with every property owner having been properly noticed and invited to speak and address. The issue of a nonconformity being legally recognized, ie: your term grandfathered, is one which time to time comes before Staff and comes before Planning and Zoning Commission, without a doubt. I think the present property owner, which was engaged in an activity which obviously was not going to be allowed by a change in zoning would naturally come forward and raise that point during the rezone hearings and properly request that recognition of that grandfathered status or nonconformng status be recognized in some form or fashion. That is not a requirement but I believe that it just would represent good common sense practice on the part of the property owner who felt that they had a vested interest in maintaining that nonconformity. The recognition of a nonconformity, a legitimate nonconformity, has been granted in past cases by the Community Development Department up proper documentation of the continual and uninterrupted use on that property for those intervening years. It's not required to do it beforehand, the process is available after the fact if becomes an issue. In this particular case we did not go out and solicit the property owners on an individual basis and say "We think you're in violation when this new zone goes through. Would you please apply for a nonconforming use status on your property prior to the zoning change going through'. With proper staffing and budgetary support such a procedure may be possible but at the current, in the current situation, certainly, I don't see how that's going to be affected." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Thank you for that, Martin. I guess that answers my question in part. Only to the extent that understandably if you don't have the money or the man power to dictate that to or to maybe post that notice in the local paper or maybe on the radio or whatever. I guess where I'm going with this is that, do you, could you see that there might be the possibility that some property owners, because of not knowing the possible changes in rezones and not having access to those codes just didn't know any better and just would say well, and you know, and didn't have that. Could that have happened in this case? Where the comfort level was at such that perhaps the individual property owner just felt that going from unclassified to residential to RRl to RR2 would not hinder their operation. Is that a possibility?" MARTIN LYDICK: "I think anything's a possibility, basically. I mean I'd certainly hesitate to ascribe any motive or anything else to the property owner in this case. I think there was ample opportunity for an involved property owner to inform themselves, to engage the process. Whether or not that property owner neglected to do so and why, I wouldn't be able to provide and answer for." COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I have a question about grandfathering. When, you know, a business is operating in a property then you have these changes and so on and they're grandfathered for having the business. Is that any business or if the business then changes character to a different kind of business like I see something here in terms of having been a boat building shop and then later on being something to do with construction and now having to do with foaming? Does that grandfather continue with the business regardless of what its activity is or does it apply strictly to the particular activity that was involved?" MARTIN LYDICK: "The recognized nonconformity is strictly limited to as is where is. A business use is not a business use is not a business use is the answer to your question. A change in use, which still represents a nonconformity, is allowable but only if that use represents a dimunition in the nonconformity, ie that change in use represents a move toward conformity. The granting of a nonconforming status is not a grant for unrestricted commercial activities. It is only for that particular use which is established prior to the implementation of the controlling zone." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Thank you. Any other questions from the commissioners? Thank you, Martin" MARTIN LYDICK: "Mr. Chair, if I may, please, I did omit. making some preliminary statements that I should make for the edification of not only the Commission but the members of the public. The hearing notices that we sent out for the neighborhood. There were 114 properties in the area which we desired to notice. Of those 114 properties, only 76 represented unique ownership, ie. a number of the properties were owned by several different people. The affect is that we sent out 76 letters of notification of this action to properties in the immediate neighborhood. In response, we have received four (4) written comments supporting the decision to order the cessation of the business use, and we have received three (3) written responses supporting the appellant's request for a dispensation, if you would place it that way. We have also received three (3) written requests to address the commission this evening." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Mr. Lydick, are you saying that some of the written comments you received were from persons outside this neighborhood? People that would not be impacted by this decision necessarily?" MARTIN LYDICK: By the return addresses that we have received on the written comments that's a true statement." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Are those written comments, as Barbara just mentioned, what ration was that from outside to in? And also, just a brief response if you would please, while you're thinking about that. If you sent out 76 inquiries and you received maybe under 10 or 12 at the most, does that say anything to you in regard to the concern of this or is it just homeowner's just don't want to be bothered or concerned?" MARTIN LYDICK: "I would like to think that the majority of the opinion in the neighborhood has a well founded belief that this commission's going to arrive at a just decision in this case and therefore their interests are adequately represented." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "As far as the ratio then, do you feel that the ratio coming from out is more or less appropriate or inappropriate for those that are in the hub, if I stated that right?" MARTIN LYDICK: "I don't think I can make a value judgment on that. I believe that that's the proper perview of the commission." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "I appreciate your thoughts on it. Okay, are there any further questions for Mr. Lydick?" COMMISSIONER LINDSEY: "I have a question for Duane." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Okay, have a question for Duane." COMMISSIONER LINDSEY: "Were we to uphold the appellants appeal and vote on a motion to continue Mr. Lorenson to operate as he has with no further increase, um, just looking at the middle ground, is it advisable to try and propose a situation where he's got a timeline review? And, the problem I see with a nonconforming use, should we decide to go ahead and support grandfathering of this use, can we put some type of mechanism that will prevent it from being perpetual? As is ie. would it be reasonable to allow this nonconforming use to go on, allow this business owner to go on, pursuing his livelihood, as long as certain conditions were met and as long as the other neighbors were awaze at some point in time this use would, ie. if we grandfather a property... I guess my question is two-fold. One: the complainant still has a further recourse with the assembly, Two: can we put a time limit on it?" DUANE DVORAK, DIRECTOR: "I believe that Mr. Lydick has covered some of this in his supplemental memorandum, um, but I will refer to Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.90.050 which discusses the kinds of decisions the Commission can make on an appeal of this type. `The Commissioner shall either affirm or reverse the decision of the Community Development Department Director in whole or in part.' So what that means is that the Commissioner can either affirm or reverse in whole or in part. So that means if you affirm in part, you could affirm with conditions, or if you reverse, you could reverse, perhaps in part, and apply some conditions. But, to go on, "Every decision of the Commissioner to affirm or reverse an action of the Community Development Department Director shall be based upon findings and conclusions adopted by the Commission."' So that in support of whatever it is the Commission decides to do, you have to explain your rationale on the record. What Staff has done, in our original staff report, on the very last page, before we got into some of these exhibits, is we had proposed six findings of fact based upon our analysis which you're all thoroughly familiaz with at this time. What the Commissioner would need to do in making a decision to affirm or reverse is to sort of address, I guess, some of those which we consider salient points or whatever the Commissioner considers to be salient points. But if you were to put a time limitation on something, whether you affirm or reverse, you need to explain, however briefly or at length, why you're doing that or why you think it needs to be done that way and what the basis is. And basically a majority of the Commission has to agree with that in order, well. That that's the basis, they have to agree that that's the basis. And I guess, getting into the findings may be sort of jumping ahead but uh. It's really two different things. Its making a decision, which has to have at least for affirmative votes, and then going on to the findings. And, if somebody disagrees with the main decision it doesn't necessarily mean they cannot vote for the findings. The findings, they just have to have a feeling that the findings are reflective, it's a matter of perfecting the record, not of two motions to decide the same question. There needs to be some mechanism to sort of address why you're doing what you're doing and I think that's where the Commission really need to look at the options. I think the Commission has a lot of latitude as to how you want to decide the case. But you need to make an effort to explain why you're doing it that way." COMMISSIONER LINDSEY: "I have prepared written findings of fact based on my own personal knowledge of the azea and knowledge of the general neighborhood and also the evolution of the neighborhood. Whether they will stand up to the light of, uh, the most definition of the law, is, I guess..." DUANE DVORAK: "I think, if I may, Mr. Chair, it's a little premature to start talking about that until the public hearing." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Right, I was going to mention that. I think probably appropriate at this time, so that we could maybe get done here timely, I think Chair will request a ten (10) minute recess to review the material that has come in this evening. And again, Martin, thank you for your presentation. At this time the chair will declaze a ten (10) minute recess." RECESS COMMISSIONER SELIG: "At this time I would like to call back into order the Planning and Zoning meeting. We have heazd Martin Lydick's statements. At this time I would like to open the testimony, public testimony, regazding this case. And, uh, this duration will be ten (10) minutes per speaker. We will follow as set path here where those wishing to speak for approval of the appeal will come forwazd, sign in please, and make their statement. Then, second pazt, we'll go into those that do not support the appeal, and at the end of that process the appellee will have time for rebuttal. Now again to caution that, only those individuals that have presented previous statements or paperwork will be allowed to give testimony this evening. It's been brought to my attention that since there, this is timely and there was a, was maybe, perhaps, a time constraint regazding the mail-outs that we would be allowed and will be allowing other individuals in support of the appeal and against the appeal to come forwazd. And please announce your name and when you do come forward to sign in please. I would appreciate that. So with that again, reopening the public testimony process, those wishing to speak in favor of supporting the appeal, please come forwazd and sign in. And again, ten (10) minutes duration. And again, to caution those in the audience to refrain from crosstalking from the audience." DUANE DVORAK: "Point of order, Mr. Chair." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Yes." DUANE DVORAK: "First we're supposed to hear from the appellant. The appellant is supposed to make his opening statement.. . COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Okay, I thought so. Thank you." DUANE DVORAK: "...then we go into the uh, persons in support. I apologize, Mr. Chair." COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: "Do we need to have a motion on the floor first?" COMMISSIONER SELIG: "I think we don't, we've already got beyond that, don't we have that process taken Gaze of?" COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: "No, I don't think so:" DUANE DVORAK: "Well, Sir, we've only heazd from Mr. Lydick with his opening introductory in the case." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Is it appropriate then, you feel that we should put this before the Commission and ask for a motion to do this, or, is this the process?" DUANE DVORAK: "A motion to do what?" COMMISSIONER SELIG: "That's what I thought. Okay, Mr. Rohrer, could you please sit down and come back? We'll have Mr. Lorenson give his opening statement. Thank you." CHARLES LORENSON, APPELLANT: "My name is Charles Lorenson, I was born and raised in Kodiak, I'm a lifelong resident here and graduated from the vocational high school when it used to be a vocational high school. Pursued boat building when I was in high school, pursued building with my dad when I was in high school. And so immediately when I got out of high school it was kind of obvious what I was gonna do. I didn't go to further education, I just went right into business for myself. I lived and operated out of that, my mom's residence until 1983 when I moved out. The pictures clearly show that I was coming and going up until that time. I guess the magic date is 1980 so I didn't, I can bring books and books of pictures from ' 80 on but there wasn't really any point in it. I am having a difficult time with the city, with the crisis last week, obtaining a copy of my business license. I even have the legislative aides working on it, uh, `cause we were supposed to show documentation. When we received this certified letter, all of a sudden we got a certified letter. We didn't even get a courtesy phone call or nothing. I was not given thirty (30) days, I was given ten (10) days to respond to this or face legal action. If I went thirty (30) days then the legal action would take place but I was told I only had ten (10) days to get my stuff in and get an appeal started. And this was back in July and I was leaving on the twelfth day. Ten days and then two days later I was gone. I was unable, I got the best of my ability to go in. Since then I have learned about the grandfather clause and everything, but when I filled the paperwork out I asked to continue what I was doing like I'd been doing since 1977 and if that's not asking to be grandfathered I don't know what is. The back half of the lot, in reference to moving from the front to the back, I was in the front forever and if you look at the vehicles out there they're all rusted away. The salt air's horrendous out there. The buildings are falling apart. The original building is a 1964 plumbing shop that my dad brought over there and built and he built lots of additions. He loved additions and duct tape, I mean, that's just two things he loved. And so, uh, they're rotting away. And so, my brother and I, I was able to, they put Carroll Way along the side there. We were unable to ever access the back of the lot until that time, there's a big swamp that runs through there. All of Woodland Acres, not all of it, but the better part of one side, flows through the middle of our lot. Comes down and dumps right on down in the ocean about six or eight blocks down. So, it just seemed natural that we moved to the back of the lot. This was before there was even any activity in the neighborhood and behind or anything. It was still relatively, relatively, you know, everybody wasn't chopping up their land then, you know. My mom kept is as one big acre. There's about a half a dozen of us that still have the big lots out there. And, I didn't try to hide anything. I went and cut the trees down, filled it in and I started using it to park my truck on the back there. I have all kinds of pictures back there of my truck sitting back there and stuff. Get it away from the salt air. I lost one of my trucks that way because the salt's a killer. And so I was able to acquire a building, so I go up and I get a, you know, I didn't even, I acquired the building permit before I even secured the building. Igo, you know, I'm gonna go ahead and go ahead and do this so I can have a building large enough to put my trucks inside. It kind of looks funky but, I mean, the fourteen foot door is designed for my truck. You can't get my truck in most places because it's too tall. That's why I built the building seventeen feet tall. I was able to acquire a building, you just, you can't do it. The only time I get to work on my equipment is when it's pouring down rain so I need to be able to pull inside somewhere so that's why we built the building that way. I don't do any work out of there. Occasional jobs here and there, little stuff, but I can't bring a ninety foot boat to my yard. I have to bring the stuff from Southern Alaska, put it in my truck, and go do the job. And then (the client) ties up to the dock down here, and you charge him a dol.., the harbor and ports and advisory charge him a dollar a foot per day, so if it's a hundred foot boat it's a hundred bucks a day.. The city is making, while I sit there and stay tied to his boat. It takes me anywhere from three to seven, eight. days to work on these fish holds and stuff down there. So, the city is generating revenue. I pick my truck up, I go back home. I mean, I don't put any miles on that thing, its from point A to point B. Um, I've always done construction stuff. Their talking about specifying foaming and stuff like that. I've always done construction, I've always been a wood butcher. Sure you might have changed some of the things and added some of the things. I used to do shingles, I got to the point where I didn't like shingles, moss grows on them. I got metal, I used to buy my metal and I go `Why should I buy my metal?' Why not get a machine that makes it and I can go to people's houses and make it and I don't have to. But I need a place to park the thing. I got a $30,000 piece of equipment and I don't want to let it sit out in the rain. I mean, its, you got a lot of money invested in stuff and you can't afford to let it sit out in the rain. And, uh, I never tried to hide anything. I went and got a zoning compliance permit, I mean, you can't get a building permit until you get a zoning compliance permit. That's just the way it is, that's for everything. I mean, that's the way it is. I've built too many houses to know how the system doesn't work. You get a zoning compliance permit, then you go down to the building inspector and get a building permit, you know. There was an issue with the driveway permit. Well, back then, there was, who knows who was working tat Facilities and Engineering. They were, people were coming and going like candy back then. And I had somebody come over and they says `No, you're at the top of the lot, you really don't need a driveway pernut. It's all dry, don't worry about it, you're done.' They wouldn't issue me a zone, I went back. They wouldn't issue me a zoning compliance permit until somebody walked in the office and said "No, he doesn't need a building permit, just go ahead and go.' So that's how that all took place. I've been up front with Doug. There was also some notations in here about engineering and the building falling down and everything. The building is, God, it's an engineered building. The way it was set up before I was changed what I was doing. I added foam to it. I increased the strength of the building. The building department does not have a problem with my building over there. I've got all the wiring and conduit, all the lights are in conduit. Um, you know, it's up to code. It's not completed, but I didn't have a problem with them assessing me the 100% value back in February when they took a picture. There's a picture in the packet I give you last week. We've been assessed, the taxes were brought up. We were paying taxes on it. My mom, sure she's a tax exempt, but I rebuilt her house in '98 and it bumped it from $140.00 to $170.00 so right off the bat I increased your guys's revenue by twenty grand, uh, for taxes. If I didn't rebuild her house she'd still be at $140.00. So, and then they went from $140.00 to $170.00 up to $203.00. We've only increased the value of the property. It hasn't gone down, none of the property has gone down in that area at all. Traffic, you know, you're talking about what is permitted: hospitals beauty shops, and everything like. If I put a beauty shop in there and schedule a client every half hour they're gonna come and go all day long. I have no employees, my son doesn't drive yet, I'm the only one. Sure, I have, there's occasions that I have workers. They come and go, pick up something and go but most of the time I'm the only one coming and going out of there. I want to stress it's not a home occupation. I never tried it to be a home occupation, I never asked to be a home occupation. I got a permit for a storage building, a storage building and a storage area to park my equipment. That's what I got the permit for. My office is based out of my house, that's where the computer, the fax, the whole nine yards is over there. I don't do any business there. Somebody might come by and see me but yeah, hey, what's wrong with that? I mean, they come by and see, I'm not, I don't do any business there. I have to go down and look at everybody's boat. That's the trouble. I have everybody trained and if they want me they just call me and I come down and I go look at their job. I can't roof a house over there or anything. So, um, and the front shop. We started taking, Mike Anderson, we had a trailer that my brother used to live in at the end of the road that we had it filled up with motorcycle parts in storage and such and it was all the roofing and construction stuff in there. Well, the thing was an eyesore so we decided to get it out of there. My mom said, `you know, its time that we need to start straightening up the front now that you've got something going on in the back'. I said `Fine', so Mike Anderson and I, we pulled that trailer out, we emptied it out, pulled it out, took it to the dump last year. Cost eight hundred bucks or something. And so, and then we have started taking the additions down on the outside because the lean-to's are all starting to rot away. Why rebuild that when we have someplace to go into that's heated with a concrete slab that's dry and has lights, I mean. It sounds to me like my brother can come and go way more than I can if he works on motorcycles and doesn't collect a dollar for it. I could foam anybody's boat I want, possibly, if I don't charge them any money. But I don't do that, I mean, I don't, I'm not trying to hide anything, I never have. That was too big of a structure to try and hide. I mean, I've lived here all my life and I wanted to do something that would be here for a while to come. So, I guess, that would probably be good. Do you have any questions?" COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Thank you, Charles." CHARLES LORENSON: "Do we do questions now?" COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Yeah, I think probably it would be proper for Commissioners to ask you questions. Yes, uh, Mr. Lindsey." COMMISSIONER LINDSEY: "Uh, Mr. Lorenson, in reading the definition of the rules in what is applicable you stated that you remodeled your mother's house. Is that correct?" CHARLES LORENSON: "Yes, that, well, that was part of the thing. I got a building permit in November of '98. Mainly because the lot was level and I was working out at the Coast Guard Base at the time and the guys that were working for me in their spare time, that's what they do, is concrete. They said `Well, lets put the footings in for your building' and I said "Well, I don't even know if I have the building yet or anything."' So I went up and I got the building permit then I went and acquired the building then I put the building per.., then I went and got the building permit after I got, you know (unintelligible over coughing). Then I didn't anything on it. I just sat with footings on it and I parked all my trucks and everything on there until just last fall. I didn't actually start construction in there until November of last year, October of last year. I actually started building, putting the building up and shelling it in and drying it in. And here in March is when I was the bad guy. Granted, I had a fire that was too big. I mean, it was a burn pile. But we moved out of three buildings at the same time. I had stuff scattered all over the countryside and we brought it all to the place, all to the shop, it was time to start moving stuff in there. And uh, I had burn piles and stuff there and some of the pictures of the barrels and stuff there. But we were in the process of taking it all to the dump. It looked like heck back then. And uh, but I you know, I've cleaned it up, I intend on keeping it clean. It's mainly for outside storage is mainly my vehicles, and occasionally the roofing machine or the forklift will sit outside. Sure I'll pick up a crate, I picked up a crate the other day and put it on the ground. We just weren't ready to have it at the job and I had to get it out of Southern Alaska. They start charging you storage fees after awhile. So, I picked it up and I took it over there and put it down." COMMISSIONER LINDSEY: "Ts that remodel finished? Are you still working on that remodel and are you storing tools and equipment for that remodel?" CHARLES LORENSON: "I have siding and stuff. We're not done. See, the little shop is gonna stay. And we have to finish siding that, put the windows and the roofing on that and there's stuff in my, in the big quonset but for the main house yes, and then there's stuff on the main house. But see we're moving most of the stuff from the little shop and the front is moving to the back. Gene's moving all of his motorcycle stuff. I built a loft in the back and that's where the motorcycle stuff is all going to go, up in there." COMMISSIONER LINDSEY: "Now, did you use that roofing machine to put a roof on the remodeled house?" CHARLES LORENSON: "Yeah, I did stuff that nobody's seen around here before. I used my metal for pazapit for residential construction, just because I was able to I mean. Yes." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Okay, thank you Mr. Lindsey. Any other commissioners have any other questions?" COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: "Just one question. How many, um, vehicles aze we talking about?" CHARLES LORENSON: "I have my foam truck and I have my roofing machine and a fork lift and a sander truck, or another flatbed truck. In the wintertime it's a sander and in the summer it's a flatbed truck to haul materials around. But according to the letter of the law here. I buy a vacuum cleaner from Seazs under Wild Iris, I can't leave it at the building overnight. I'm in non-compliance. My pickup truck has Wild Iris on the side. I don't park it there overnight but if it was pazked there overnight it would be in non-compliance. My boat's registered to Wild Iris because the accountant told me that was the way to go. Well, right now it's in non-compliance because it's registered to Wild Iris." COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: "And what other, besides, besides these vehicles, what other stuff do you have stored there?" CHARLES LORENSON: "There would be occasional coils of metal, but if I could find a rack and figure out a way to, these coils weigh about two thousand pounds and they're about this big azound." COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: "Uh huh, I've seen pictures of them." CHARLES LORENSON: So, it's these coils of metal and some occasional barrels while they're in transit from moving them from one point to another. And they're in steel drums that are sealed. You know, you can drop them from quite sways and you don't damage them." COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: "Thank you." COMMISSOINER SELIG: "Anymore questions to Chazles from the Commissioners? Chazles, I have a question, Mr. Lorenson, a question for you. You said that you, on 9/98, that's when you got your zoning compliance?" CHARLES LORENSON: "Yeah, nine or eleven, whatever, yeah." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "And then 11/10/(98) was when you got your building permit?" CHARLES LORENSON: "Yeah." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "At that time when you received both these piece of paperwork, were you fairly confident that you were in compliance or that, did you know...?„ CHARLES LORENSON: "It was grandfathered in. I've been doing the same thing I've been doing since 1977. I just moved from the front to the back. That was, we've had this discussion with my dad before he passed away many times, you know, he said, you know. He said, you know, we gotta make, you know, doing things right, you know. And I said, `Well, I wanna,' you know, he used to get, you know, keep all your ducks in a row." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Okay. And then, one more question, uh, Mr. Lorenson. And you probably heard this stated earlier so maybe you can have an answer for me. Considering the history of this zoning history all the way back from 1968 to the present date, do you feel that there was proper communications between the Borough and yourself as to the changes in the zoning compliance, I mean in the, from R, from, it goes from, it goes from residential unclassified to rural residential, and then it goes to RRl and then it goes to RR2. Do you feel that the time lapsed for all those years, and you felt comfortable in feeling that you were grandfathered in?" CHARLES LORENSON: "Oh yes, I understand how they work and the reason that you go from RRl to RR, you know, the lot size. First we got water back, we got water way before we got sewer. And the minute we got sewer everybody wanted to go from Rl to R2, I believe about that, or from, to RRl, and then you can start subdividing as soon as you get good water and sewer. And everybody, like they said, they want to chop up the land. We just took it for granted, we were doing in 1980, you know, I mean. You don't go knock on everybody's door and say, this is, you know, you're in noncompliance and stuff. We just were doing nothing that we, we'd been doing the same thing. My parents moved in there in -1960, um, and he was always building stuff in there. Since, you know, when I was a little kid. I've got pictures of me this tall of my dad building skiffs and bookcases and gun racks, working on peoples outboards, you know." COMMISSIONER SELIG: "Okay, thank you Mr. Lorenson. With that we'll continue on for any other person that wishes to speak for the appeal. Sign in please and state your name." Dick Rohrer, resident: Mr. Rohrer spoke in support of the appellant. Gene Lorenson, resident: Mr. Lorenson spoke in support of the appellant. Betty Lorenson, appellant: Mrs. Lorenson spoke in support of the case her son, Charles, presented to the Commission. Gary Marconi, resident: Mr. Marconi spoke in support of the appellant. Penelope Lorenson, resident: Mrs. Lorenson read the letter she had submitted to the Community Development Department in support of the appellant. Glen Dick, resident: Mr. Dick spoke in support of the applicant. Victor Mullen, resident: Mr. Mullen spoke in support of the appellant. Scott Arndt, resident: Mr. Arndt spoke in support of the appellant. John Parker, resident: Mr. Parker spoke (via telephone) in support of the appellant. Terry Schneider, complainant: Mrs. Schneider read the letter she had submitted to the Commission. Spoke against the appeal. Louis G. Schneider, resident: Mr. Schneider (via letter read by STAFF) spoke against the appeal. Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed. Regular session opened. CHARLES LORENSON: Spoke again supporting his case and in rebuttal of complainants testimony. MR. LYDICK: Spoke in rebuttal of appellant's case and clarified questions for the Commission. COMMISSIONER LINDSEY MOVED 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, 2001. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER OSWALT. The question was called, and the motion CARRIED four (4) to .three (3) by roll call vote. Nays were COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, COMMISSIONER BOEHLAND, and COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. NOTE: The audio tape used for recording these minutes ran out at this point and not other tape could be used for recording. The Commission was informed of the lack of tape and they decided to continue of the recorded record instead of postponing the remainder of the meeting. F) Case 01-027. Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation of revisions to Chapter 17.11 (WH-Wildlife Habitat District) to establish a minimum lot area of five (5) acres and a minimum lot width of 250 feet, and to incorporate setback requirements from the C-Conservation zoning district into the WH-Wildlife Habitat zoning district. Shearwater Peninsula. STAFF reported that notices were sent to all affected property owners and that the case was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation (Kodiak Daily Mirror). COMMISSIONER BELL MOVED TO forwazd this proposed revision to code language for the WH-Wildlife Habitat zoning district to the Borough Assembly with a recommendation that it be adopted. FINDINGS OF FACT A change to Chapter 17.11 that would make the minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements of the WH Wildlife Habitat zoning district consistent with those of the C-conservation zoning district is appropriate because of the inherent remoteness of lands zoned WH Wildlife Habitat, which presently has no minimum lot area, lot width or setback requirements. This would help prevent potential trespass issues arising from access conflicts with lots not fronting on navigable waters, as well as potential building conflicts related to density and sanitation. It can also help control potential density, an issue critical to the remote lifestyle, by minimizing potential for subdivision, since 9.2 acres is required to satisfy prescribed Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) minimum standards for onsite waste disposal. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER OSWALT. Regular session closed. Public hearing opened: Hearing and seeing none. Public hearing closed. Regular session opened: The question was called, and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. VII. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VIII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS A) Letter dated September 17, 2001 to Mr Glenn Gray from Duane Dvorak, Director Community Development Director RE: Comments on the proposed 5-yeaz OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2002 - 2007. B) Letter dated Aug 13, 2001 to Mr./Mrs. Glen Evans from Martin Lydick, Associate Planner, Enforcement RE: Notice of violation of storage of business related equipment, items, and structures in RRl-Rural Residential One Zoning District on Block 2 Lot 21 located at 2981 Monashka Bay Road. C) Letter dated Aug. 14, 2001 to Mr. Norman Ursin, Sr. from Martin Lydick, Associate Planner, Enforcement RE: Notice of violation of zoning compliance permit and pazking plan review for business activity at Tract N-29-A located at 319 Shelikof St. D) Letter dated Aug. 15, 2001 to Mr. Ken Warner from Bob Scholze, Associate Planner RE: Requirements of Chapter 17.26, mobile home pazks, parking, space coverage and minimum distances requirements at U. S. Survey 3098 located at 1912 Mill Bay Rd. E) Letter dated Aug. 15, 2001 to Ms. Maureen McCrea, Senior Project Review Coordinator, from Bob Scholze, Coastal District Coordinator RE: North Pacific Tazgets Program, Kodiak Launch Facility. F) Letter dated Aug. 16, 2001 to Mr. Socrates Balmes from Martin Lydick, Associate Planner-Enforcement, RE: Thank you for zoning violation correction on Alderwood Block 3 Lot 4. G) Letter dated Aug. 16, 2001 to Mr. Timohty Howland and Ms. Norma Cordry from Martin Lydick, Associate Planner -Enforcement RE: Thank you for zoning violation correction at 2934 Pruitt Lane. H) Letter dated Aug 21, 2001 to Mr. Richazd Knowles from Martin Lydick, Associate Planner -Enforcement, RE: Inadequate pazking at Lot 4A located at 202 E. Rezanof Dr. I) Letter dated Aug. 30, 2001 to Mr./Mrs. Anthony Will from Martin Lydick, Associate Planner -Enforcement, RE: Follow-up letter concerning business located in a residential building at 3291 Lakeview Dr. ~ Letter dated Aug.. 29, 2001 to Mr./Mrs. William Bacus from Martin Lydick, Associate Planner - Enforcment, RE: Notice of Violation of storage of business related equipment, items, and structures in Rl-Single-family Residential District on Lot 26B located at 2316 Mill Bay Road. There were no further communications. COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of item A through item J of Communications. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER LINDSEY, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. X. REPORTS STAFF reported the following meeting schedule: • October 10, 2001 work session at 7:30 p.m. in the KIB Conference room. • October 17, 2001 regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers • September 26, 2001 special meeting in the Assembly Chambers. There were no further reports. COMMISSIONER BELL MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of reports. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER OSWALT, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS (Commissioner's comments were recorded to the best of the clerk's ability but due to the fact they were not recorded verbatim they have not been recorded in the minutes.) XIII. ADJOURNMENT CHAIR SELIG adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ,~ ~ ~ ~ By: Clarence Seli hair 1 ATTEST By: Erin Whipple, Secretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: October 17, 2001.