Loading...
2011-01-19 Regular Meeting II I . KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 1 I MAR :2011 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 'Cr January 19, 2011 - - - - - - Assembly- Chambers CALL TO ORDER CHAIR KING called to order the January 19, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission at 5:32 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIR KING led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Jay Baldwin requested to be excused due to medical reasons. Commissioners present were Dave King, Brent Watkins, Casey Janz, Bill Kersch, Alan Torres, and Alan Schmitt. Excused was Jay Baldwin. A quorum was established. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to excuse Jay Baldwin. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Community Development staff present was Bud Cassidy, Director, Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner, and Sheila Smith, Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED to approve the January 19, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission agenda. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER SCHMITT stated there is a typo to be corrected on the December 15th minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to approve the November 19, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission minutes and the December 15, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission minutes as amended. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments and appearance requests. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Case 11 -007. Request a Conditional Use Permit according to K1BC 17.200 (Conditional Use Permits), to allow non - recreational mineral extraction and related structures as provided for by KIBC 17.50.040.F, and located on about 120 acres of land in the C- Conservation zoning district. (Case postponed from the November 19, 2010 regular meeting). The applicant is Koniag, Inc. and the agent is PND Engineers, Inc. The location is located within Sections 13 & 24, T26S, R21W, Seward Meridian, and the zoning is C- Conservation. Dvorak reported 7 public hearing notices were sent out with 5 comments received by the deadline expressing concerns. All comments from the November packet have been carried over. New 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 1 of 20 • information was received from the petitioner's engineers and they re- submitted their application on December 1, 2010 and provided new supplemental information on January 6th, Comments were submitted by Bruce Short who would have been here tonight if the road from Anton Larsen were passable. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit, according to KIBC 17.200 (Conditional Use Permits), to allow non - recreational mineral extraction and related structures as provided for by KIBC 17.50.040.F, to be located on about 210 acres of land in the C- Conservation zoning district located within Sections 13 and 24, Township 26 South and Range 21 West, Seward Meridian, subject to the stipulations contained in the staff report dated January 6, 2011 and to adopt the findings of fact also presented therein. The public hearing was opened: Public testimony was given by: Susan Payne reminding everyone that protecting the environment and public health, safety, and general welfare are the purposes of zoning. She read part of the Conservation District's Special District regulations and gave suggestions for more stipulations re: leaching of arsenic, reclamation of the land, and the possible use of Anton Larsen Road. Charlie Powers, Koniag applicant /agent spoke of the approach that Koniag is taking in terms of responsible development stating they've done testing and rushed a test of the core sample of granite to see what its chemical makeup was relative to arsenic. The geologist was in the field for 60 days over the summer doing core sampling and Powers read the results which addresses some staffs concerns and gave a copy to staff for the record. Powers assured everyone that the rock will be transported by barge. In response to COMMISSIONER TORRES'S inquiry of what will the mechanism be for the public to address issues as they arise if the commission approves this, Powers stated we have a DNR and Army Corp permit which both go through a public comment period. They will be looking at other details in our application packet also. There is information not in our borough submittal but is in our DNR submittal and we'll need a Corp of Engineer mitigation plan with regards to the wetland habitat. The agencies will provide the public opportunity for questions. We'll address the questions as they come up. The regular meeting was opened: Discussion of the applications submitted to agencies, core sampling for comparison for 10 year reviews and having baselines established from streams flowing out of the area where they will be working out of, agencies tracking chemicals, the Conservation District Special District Regulations, and staffs stipulations. In response to CHAIR KING's inquiry if there will be any pre - excavation testing done, Powers stated we started out with surface grabs and sent them in from different locations, then we did the core samples which is where a lot of the test results come from, then to get on the site and as you construct what is called an exploration trench which is a cut -bank and while you cut-bank you gather more information. The exploration trench will be the next piece of information we'll have from samples. In response to CHAIR KING'S inquiry of are there plans for water sampling by Koniag, the state or Federal Government, Powers stated that's what we want to do. Water baselines in impacted areas are definitely conceivable. In response to COMMISSIONER KERSCH'S inquiry of what the water source is for that's shown on the drawing, Powers stated when you do a quarry you have to drill a lot of holes and put charges in to create an explosion that carves off the rock and the drill rigs need water to lubricate the holes. The water source is lower than the quarry which would be the place for water testing because there are fish in that lake. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 2 of 20 In response to COMMISSIONER KERSCH'S inquiry of why does the project have a 30 year life and why would we not re -look at this every 10 years, and why we're requesting a 30 year project life, Dvorak stated it's staffs recommendation based on the concerns we're hearing. It helps to ensure the operation they're proposing today is the way they want to operate 10 or 20 years from now, and you can come back in 10 year increments to look at the stipulations. If they want to change the operation substantially or go in a different direction, that would be reason to re -open it before 30 years. The review dates will be specified 10 years from the date of approval. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to amend the motion for stipulation #5 to insert the words "and applications" after the word "permits." FINDINGS OF FACT 1. KIBC 17.50.040.F requires a conditional use permit for resource extraction. 2. There are no specific stipulations of approval for resource extraction uses provided in the code. Over the years the commission has typically applied stipulations of approval as required by the unique circumstances and scale of each resource extraction request. The stipulations typically take into account the development context, concerns of nearby property owners, and the health, safety and welfare of the general public. 3. Indications are that the resource extraction use, once established, will be active at this location for many years. Estimates and projections tend to be less certain over long periods of time and for that reason the impacts of development anticipated today may not be the impacts that concern the community 10, 20 or 30 years from now. For that reason the commission believes that a periodic review of the Conditions of Approval on a 10 year time frame and a 30 year initial CUP approval period for this use are necessary to ensure that the use can be re- evaluated in the future when the impact of resource extraction operations are more plainly understood in the context of actual experience. 4. The CUP is approved on the basis of the case materials submitted for this review and any significant deviation from said plans will be cause for a new CUP review at the time such a deviation or change to site operations become necessary. CUP STANDARDS - FINDINGS OF FACT A. That the conditional use will • reserve the value s . irit character and inte • ri of the surrounding area. The proposed resource extraction use, subject to stipulations, will preserve the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area in the sense that it will not unduly impact other land uses in the area. This is because the surrounding uplands within a 1 -1/2 mile radius are under contiguous ownership with the native corporations that are proposing to establish the proposed resource extraction use. Public access and marine and tideland areas in the vicinity will not be unreasonably restricted except during barge /vessel arrivals and departures when safety is of the greatest concern. Public access, habitat, tideland disturbances, among other things, are being considered by state and federal agencies to which the borough defers to in their respective areas of expertise and jurisdiction. Should these agencies require any kind of environmental monitoring or reports to be made over the duration of this use, the commission will require copies of the reports to be placed in the borough's project file for this case. A 30 year approval period and 10 year decennial review periods will ensure that the borough remains engaged with this project and can take into account the information relating to this use as development occurs over time. B. That the conditional use fulfills all other requirements of this chapter pertaining to the conditional use in question. Stipulations of approval will be required to ensure that this use remains consistent with all applicable borough codes once the use has been established. It will be necessary for the developer to submit a 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 3 of 20 zoning compliance permit application within 24 months of CUP approval which will provide another opportunity to ensure compliance before actual construction work takes place. Given that this area is unsubdivided and unsurveyed, it does not seem likely that issues of zoning setback will arise and all building plans will be reviewed during zoning compliance in the context of lot coverage and overall building height. Similarly, off - street parking issues are not expected to be a concern at this location. C. That granting the conditional use permit will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and comfort. Typically the borough relies more heavily on federal and state agencies to regulate extractive industries located away from the island road system. The borough does not typically have the authority or expertise to require environmental stipulations of approval, however past approvals have typically required copies of all environmental monitoring or studies to be placed on file with the borough for ease of access to local residents. In addition, a periodic review is proposed for this approval so that the use can be reviewed in the future for any unanticipated impacts which may only become apparent over time. In addition, any substantial changes to the extraction plan or facilities layout as proposed here shall be cause for re- opening the CUP process to consider whatever new information may be proposed by the developer in the future for this site. If there is a harm arising from this land use that would affect the public health, safety, convenience or comfort it will likely be expressed by the public that uses this area for recreational or subsistence purposes. Since the upland surface estate is owned and managed by the Ouzinkie Native Corporation it is likely that the bulk of the impact resulting from the addition of this use to the area will affect shareholders of the corporation. The petitioner has expressed the desire to minimize restrictions on tideland access except during barge /vessel arrivals and departures. This is an issue that is regulated by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and it is expected that the tideland permit should provide a definitive response to this concern. D. That the sufficient setbacks. lot area, buffers or other safeguards are being provided to meet the conditions listed in subsections A throu . h C of this section. Due to the remote location of this site it does not appear that the site will require any buffers or setbacks in order to meet the conditions identified in subsections A through C above. As this request makes its way through the larger regulatory process it is likely that it will pickup certain setback and buffer requirements that may be required by those federal and state agencies responsible for regulating resource extraction uses and related facilities. In order to ensure this use remains consistent with all provisions of code it may be prudent to consider approval of the resource extraction use on a 30 year basis with a review of the stipulations of approval on a 10 -year cycle. In this way, future commissions may have an opportunity to revisit this use and fine tune the stipulations of approval if it appears to be necessary due to changed circumstances over time. STIPULATIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The project is approved on the basis of plans and narratives submitted by the petitioner Koniag, Inc. and the agent PND Engineering, for this case. Any substantial change to the use or layout of related facilities on the site as represented on these submittals may be grounds for re- opening this CUP for further review. 2. The CUP is approved for an initial period of 30 years with a review of the stipulations of approval to be scheduled on a 10 year basis, assuming that the CUP is not re- opened prior to that time by a substantial changes as indicated in stipulation #1 above. 3. Any environmental monitoring or studies required by federal or state agencies to be accomplished by the developer or their contractors or agents shall be copied to the Community Development Department and placed on file for this case. 4. Prior to the issuance of a zoning compliance permit for this case, the petitioner shall submit evidence of registration for the borough severance tax. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 4 of 20 5. Copies of all federal and state approvals or permits and application related to this project shall be copied to the Community Development Department for placement in the CUP file for this case. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY B) Case 11 -003. Request a Similar Use Determination, according to KIBC 17.15, 090.A, to allow the storage of petroleum contaminated soil for the purpose of ADEC approved treatment, as a use that is similar in character and impact to permitted or conditional uses in the I- Industrial zone, including Asphalt Batch and Mixing Plant, Manufacturing or Refining (KIBC 17.105.010.C) or, Petroleum or Flammable Liquid Production, Refining or Storage (KIBC 17.105.020.F), the latter use would also require a conditional use permit (CUP) review if approved as a similar use by the commission. (Case postponed from the September 30, 2010 regular meeting.) The applicant is John Zbitnoff and the agent is Jasha Zbitnoff. The location is 465 Sargent Creek Road, and the zoning is I- Industrial. Dvorak reported 26 public hearing notices were sent out for the December 21, 2010 meeting with 1 response returned objecting. All comments received are in your packet. 'There was a revised staff memo provided with an updated motion on top of your original packet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant a Similar Use Determination, according to KIBC 17.15.090.A, to allow the storage of petroleum contaminated soil on Tract B of Tract A, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision, for the purpose of ADEC approved treatment as a use that is similar in character and impact to a permitted Asphalt Batch and Mixing Plant, Manufacturing or Refining use in the (- Industrial zone, in accordance with KIBC 17.105.010.C, and to adopt the recommended findings in the staff report dated January 6, 2011 as FINDINGS OF FACT for this case. The public hearing was opened & closed. Public testimony was given by: Jessica Horn stated you're talking about putting toxins at the entrance of our neighborhood where we walk, fish, and our kids ride their bikes by. With the huge numbers of written comments submitted in objection she can't imagine anyone would be in favor of this being dropped in front of their door step. The regular meeting was opened: Discussion of what the regulatory agencies review, the letters of concern, putting it at the bottom of the watershed vs. top of the watershed, the area starting out as agricultural use and has moved to Light Industrial Use, and the need for the borough to come up with a plan for these sort of things. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION FAILED DUE TO A LACK OF QUORUM: The ayes were COMMISSIONERS WATKINS, KERSCH, and SCHMITT. The noes were COMMISSIONERS KING, JANZ, and TORRES, COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to postpone Findings of Fact until the February 16th meeting. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY C) Case 11 -004. Request a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195.020 (Variances), to allow a residential scale wind turbine tower to exceed the 50 foot height limitation set forth in KIBC 17.130.060 (Building Height) for utility installations, by an additional 10 feet (not including the turbine blades); and A Variance from KIBC 17.130.050.8 (Yards) to allow a residential scale wind turbine tower to encroach into the 25 foot street side yard setback; and Site Plan Review, according to KIBC 17.130.020.P (Permitted Uses) to consider a detailed site plan for a proposed wind turbine (utility installation), with or without the above reference variance. (Case postponed from the September 30, 2010 regular meeting.) The applicant is the 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 5 of 20 Kodiak Island Borough and the agent is Scott Williams. The location is Lot 3, U.S. Survey 2538A, North corner, near Powell Avenue and the zoning is PL- Public Use Land. Dvorak reported 80 public hearing notices were sent out for this request with 3 responses received by the deadline, 2 in favor and 1 objection. The postponement allowed the petitioners to search out another location, which in order to qualify for the Wind for Schools Program it had to be somewhere on the borough hill. (inaudible) In response to COMMISSIONER JANZ'S inquiry of what does ice shedding refer to and is that something to be concerned about with kids on the playground, Dvorak stated it has curves blades of fiberglass or plastic composite that are flexible which don't tend to build up ice, and the blades are black so they absorb heat. In response to COMMISSIONER JANZ'S inquiry of is 40 to 65 decibels very loud, CHAIR KING said it is half of the legal limit. In response to COMMISSIONER JANZ'S inquiry of are there any wind turbines on other sites where students are, do we know how they affect people with autism, epilepsy and children with hearing aids, and will it affect their education, Dvorak said he doesn't know if those questions could be answered until it actually gets installed but with regard to the noise 60 decibels is noticeable but as the wind speed picks up, at a certain point it will stop spinning because it has brakes on it for safety and (inaudible). As the wind picks up the natural wind noise blocks out a lot of the turbine noise. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to grant a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195.020, to allow a residential scale wind turbine tower on Lot 3, U.S. Survey 2538A, to exceed the 50 -foot height limitation set forth in KIBC 17.130.060 for a utility installation that will exceed the maximum height standard by an additional 10 -feet (not including the turbine blades), and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated December 21, 2010 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The public hearing was opened & closed. Public testimony was given by: Scott Williams, agent stated this is an opportunity for the students to receive exposure to and curriculum in renewable energies. It's a curriculum that's based on maintenance, erection of the tower, and to have the information available to them. Besides the high school, the middle school and college are also interested in developing a curriculum and certification program for turbines, maintenance, and erection. It's a residential turbine, 2.4 kilowatt generating, on a monopole, and is minimally visibly impacting. It's on a 60 foot tower and the turbine blades are 6 foot long each, 12 foot in diameter and it's a small item on top of a 60 foot tower. It has minimal audio impact. Williams said he doesn't have an answer as far as the frequencies or impact on special needs students. This is the preferred tower and turbine for schools and this project is supported by the Nationwide Wind for Schools Program and the Alaska Winds for Schools Program. Juneau Douglas High School, another Juneau middle school, the Shirat Middle School in Palmer, and the Mt. Edgecome High School in Sitka also have this turbine. Susitna Energy in Anchorage, their corporation has this same turbine on this tower in their parking lot, We haven't found any evidence that there is any ice shedding or concerns. The blades are flexible, tapered and feather, and don't cut into the wind, the wind pushes them. It has to be within 200 feet of the school. It's safe and accessible to the students. This project has the support of many organizations let alone individual support. We're asking for 10 feet to allow us a maximum pure wind, and the 2nd Variance allows us to go as close to the edge of the parking lot as we can. Jennifer Ridgecreek stated she is a supporter of renewable energy development and of science and technology education in our community. This project strives to achieve both of those efforts and will be a great addition to our community. It's part of a larger effort, both national and state. It provides innovative hands on curriculum. Ridgecreek asked the commission to recognize that this is a wonderful opportunity for the Kodiak Wind for Schools Program to provide to our youth and that they support all 3 Variances. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 6 of 20 The regular meeting was opened. Discussion regarding this playground being the staging area for 2 other high school renovation projects at the same time this project is going on, material storage and construction schedule needs to be coordinated with the Engineering & Facilities Department for the use of this area by the contractors, no dimensions on the site plan, and that area continues to get smaller from different uses. COMMISSIONER TORRES expressed concern regarding the blades extending beyond the property line if the tower is set right at the 5 foot setback. A brief discussion on setbacks, projections and foundations. FINDINGS OF FACT 17.195.050 A.1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. In this case, there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the intended use or developments which do not apply generally to other properties in the same land use district. The borough zoning code does not provide for the regulation of wind turbine towers specifically and although the code seems to be generally favorable to the concept of energy efficiency and substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels, at this time there is no specific regulation establishing standards for permitted or conditional use wind turbine towers. The catch -all category of "utility" facility is cited in this case because the energy produced by this turbine will be credited to the grid and will not necessarily benefit the site where it is produced due to the proposed use of "net metering". The height and setback variances are needed in order to ensure the turbine has reasonable access to the least turbulent air and a location on the periphery of the site ensures maximum separation distances from other trees and structures that might interfere with the operation of the turbine. It is also a benefit that the proposed turbine tower location will minimize any interference with the middle school playground and parking area by being placed as close to the property edge as reasonably possible. 17.195.050 A.2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Denial of the variances would still allow a wind turbine to be erected as a permitted principal use, however the long term productivity (and perhaps the longevity) of the turbine would be compromised for the life of the project. This would reduce the amount of power that could be generated by almost half. 17.195.050 A.3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare, In this case, the grant of the height and setback variances requested will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties. The location chosen for the turbine is as far away from other buildings and uses as possible in the "borough hill" area. This site is intended to meet the Wind for Schools program requirement that the turbine be located within 300 feet of the school it serves. By being located away from other buildings and uses, it minimizes any potential impact to existing uses that may occur from noise or movement of the turbine. The proposed turbine is considered residential in scale not only by the consideration of a 60 foot tower, but also in terms of the 2,400 watt electrical power generation rating. It is not expected that the turbine will generate any electromagnetic interference to radio, TV or WiFi services. 17.195.050 A.4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A grant of the requested height and setback variances would not negatively impact the current comprehensive plan. Currently identified as Public Facilities /Ownership, the grant of the variances 1/19/2011 P &'L Minutes Page 7 of'20 requested would not result in a higher density institutional use. Utility facilities are a permitted use in the PL- Public Land Use District, subject to a commission site plan review and other specific district regulation. 17.195.050 A.5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. In this case, the actions of the applicant, have not created any special conditions or financial hardship or inconvenience from which relief is being sought by variances. The petitioner will not begin the construction process in earnest until such time as this case has been decided by the commission. 17.195.050 A.6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. The property is currently improved with a middle school and related playgrounds and parking lots. The development and use of utility facilities in the PL- Public Land Use zoning district is a permitted use in the district. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to grant a Variance from KIBC 17.130.050.B (Yards) to allow a residential scale wind turbine tower to encroach no more than 20 -feet into the required 25 -foot side yard setback; subject to one (1) condition of approval, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated December 21, 2010 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. Brief discussion. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to amend the motion for stipulation #1 to replace the word "excluding" with the word "including." In response to COMMISSIONER SCHMITT'S inquiry if the base is going to be cylindrical or cone shape, Williams stated it's cylindrical (inaudible). SET BACK CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. The petitioner shall ensure that lot corners are properly identified in the field so that the tower upright (including the foundation pad at- grade) is located at least five (5) feet away from the exterior lot boundary. FINDINGS OF FACT 17.195.050 A.1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. In this case, there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the intended use or developments which do not apply generally to other properties in the same land use district. The borough zoning code does not provide for the regulation of wind turbine towers specifically and although the code seems to be generally favorable to the concept of energy efficiency and substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels, at this time there is no specific regulation establishing standards for permitted or conditional use wind turbine towers. The catch -all category of "utility" facility is cited in this case because the energy produced by this turbine will be credited to the grid and will not necessarily benefit the site where it is produced due to the proposed use of "net metering ". The height and setback variances are needed in order to ensure the turbine has reasonable access to the least turbulent air and a location on the periphery of the site ensures maximum separation distances from other trees and structures that might interfere with the operation of the turbine. It is also a benefit that the proposed turbine tower location will minimize any interference with the middle school playground and parking area by being placed as close to the property edge as reasonably possible. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 8 of 20 17.195.050A.2. Strict a' 'lication of the zonin• ordinances would result in •ractical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Denial of the variances would still allow a wind turbine to be erected as a permitted principal use, however the long term productivity (and perhaps the longevity) of the turbine would be compromised for the life of the project. This would reduce the amount of power that could be generated by almost half. 17.195.050 A.3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor he detrimental to the public's health. safety and welfare. In this case, the grant of the height and setback variances requested will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties. The location chosen for the turbine is as far away from other buildings and uses as possible in the "borough hill" area. This site is intended to meet the Wind for Schools program requirement that the turbine be located within 300 feet of the school it serves. By being located away from other buildings and uses, it minimizes any potential impact to existing uses that may occur from noise or movement of the turbine, The proposed turbine is considered residential in scale not only by the consideration of a 60 foot tower, but also in terms of the 2,400 watt electrical power generation rating. It is not expected that the turbine will generate any electromagnetic interference to radio, TV or WiFi services. 17.195.050 A.4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A grant of the requested height and setback variances would not negatively impact the current comprehensive plan. Currently identified as Public Facilities /Ownership, the grant of the variances requested would not result in a higher density institutional use. Utility facilities are a permitted use in the PL- Public Land Use District, subject to a commission site plan review and other specific district regulation. 17.195.050 A.S. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardshi p from which relief is bein • son' ht b the variance. In this case, the actions of the applicant, have not created any special conditions or financial hardship or inconvenience from which relief is being sought by variances. The petitioner will not begin the construction process in earnest until such time as this case has been decided by the commission. 17.195.050 A.6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. The property is currently improved with a middle school and related playgrounds and parking lots. The development and use of utility facilities in the PL- Public Land Use zoning district is a permitted use in the district. ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED to grant approval of the site plan for a residential scale wind turbine tower to be located on Lot 3, U.S. Survey 2538A in accordance with KIBC 17.130.020.P. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION 5 -1. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS WATKINS, JANZ, KERSHC, TORRES, and SCHMITT. The noes were CHAIR KING. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to take a 10 minutes recess. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CHAIR KING called a recess at 7:35 p.m. CHAIR KING reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 9 of 20 D) Case S11 -004. Request a preliminary approval, according to KIBC 16.40, of the subdivision of Lot 1A -3, U.S. Survey 2878 creating Lots 1 through 7, U.S. Survey 2878; and, Creating a 60 foot wide private roadway easement to provide access to said lots. Cassidy reported this subdivision primarily subdivides the remainder tract in Kalsin Bay. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions of approval. Based on comments from the work session, Mr. Ecklund came in to the office and they went over the conditions of approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant preliminary approval, according to KIBC 16.40 (Preliminary Plat), of the subdivision of Lot 1A -3, U.S. Survey 2878 creating Lots 1 through 7, U.S. Survey 2878; subject to Conditions of Approval, and to adopt the findings in that staff report dated January 6, 2011as "Findings of Fact" for case S11 -004. The public hearing was opened & closed: Public testimony was given by: Roy Ecklund stated he agrees with the conditions of approval except #6 because it's a private subdivision.. He provided an easement access drawing that shows 4 public access easements to the Olds River. Ecklund stated he feels the condition that states "any development must be preceded by a drainage plan by the Engineering & Facilities Department" should not be included because the plat shouldn't be burdened with the condition. In response to COMMISSIONER TORRES'S inquiry of is that Leinoi land east to Lots 5 & 6, Ecklund stated yes, and he spoke with Leisnoi and they weren't eager to comply with an easement. In response to COMMISSIONER WATKINS asking Ecklund to define EIN, Ecklund stated Easement Identification Number and that is in the patent which Leisnoi was granted. The regular meeting was opened: COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to amend the motion to delete condition of approval #6 and re- number them appropriately. In response to CHAIR KING'S inquiry of is there any requirement for a drainage plan for a private road, Cassidy stated the idea is to have the Engineering Department take a look at it so it doesn't affect other properties in the subdivision or adjacent properties. Brief discussion of advantages of having drainage plans. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to amend Condition of Approval #9 to add a plat note reading "any development of subdivision and lots shall be preceded by a drainage plan approved by the Engineering & Facilities Department." ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE SECOND MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE FIRST MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to amend the motion to strike original condition of approval #7. ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Perform a wetland determination. Wetland boundaries shall be indentified on the final plat; 2. Obtain written approval from the fire marshal (City of Kodiak Fire Chief) that the private road serving proposed parcels is designed and constructed to support firefighting equipment (KIBC 16.80.030 (E). 3. All parcels being served by the subdivision's private road (Lupine Lane) must enter into a Private Road Agreement (which is a written and recorded agreement and covenant) that meets the requirements identified in KIBC 16.40.080 (A -C). Such agreement shall be reviewed by the Borough Attorney for completeness. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 10 of 20 4. Meet requirements, identified by ADF &G that might be cited for the protection of water quality and fish habitat. 5. Place a note on the plat stating that "Engineered designed septic systems are required for each lot.' 6. That a note be placed on the plat that states: The owners of parcels in this subdivision will be subject to a private road agreement that spells out the construction and maintenance responsibilities of each property owner to create a road that meets the standards of KIBC 16.80.030(E). This agreement will be a recorded document recorded at the District Recorders Office prior to the final filing of this plat. 7. Add a plat note reading "Any development of subdivision and lots shall be preceded by a drainage plan approved by the Engineering & Facilities Department." 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. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY E) Case 11 -014. Request a Rezone, according to KIBC 17.205.030.0 (Manner of Initiation), to consider a rezone of Lot G -1, a Portion of U.S. Survey 3218 from B- Business to R3- Multifamily Residential. The applicant is Bruce & Lila Beehler. The location is 3325 Mill Bay Road, and the zoning is B- Business. Dvorak reported 33 public hearing notices were sent out with no responses returned. Staff recommends postponing this case to allow an investigation to expand the rezone area to include additional lots. COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED to postpone action on Case 11 -014 in order to expand the scope of the rezoning review to include the investigation of Tracts D - 1, H - 1, H -2 and G -2 from RR1 -Rural Residential One to R3- Multi- family Residential in addition to the pending review of Tract G -1 which is requested to be rezoned from B- Business to R3- Multi - family Residential and reschedule this case for a new public hearing on the March 2011 regular meeting agenda. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to amend the motion to strike D -1 and replace it with D -2. The public hearing was opened & closed: Public testimony was given by: Bruce Beehler, applicant, stated he's in favor of postponing to allow the expanded investigation The regular meeting was opened. Discussion ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY F) Case 11 -013. Request a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195 (Variances) for the grant of a variance from KIBC 17.75.050.A (Front Yard) which would allow a two story residential and garage addition to an existing nonconforming single - family dwelling that would encroach no more than 21.5 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback; and, A Variance from KIBC 17.75.050.B (Side Yard) to allow a residential addition to encroach no more than 4.15 feet into the required 10 foot street -side setback. The applicant is Robert Dierich. The location is 111 Bancroft Drive, and the zoning is R1- Single Family Residential. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 11 of 20 Dvorak reported 23 public hearing notices were sent out and 3 responses were received with 1 opposing the request. These are very complex recommendations. Staff recommends denial for the motion to encroach into the front yard setback and that findings of fact be adopted to support that denial. Staff supplied an alternative motion for a second story addition above the existing building footprint, and another motion to allow the addition to encroach about 5 feet into the required 10 foot street side setback. COMMISSIONER TORRES made a parliamentary procedural inquiry. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to grant a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195, from KIBC 17.75.050.A (Front Yard) which would allow a two story residential and garage addition to an existing nonconforming single - family dwelling that would encroach no more than 21.5 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback, on Lot 25A, U.S. Survey 3098. The public hearing was opened & closed. There was no public testimony. In response to CHAIR KING'S inquiry if the applicant has looked at recommended motions #2 and 3 and are you OK with that, Robert Dierich stated it's not what he's looking for but he can work with them if he's still allowed the addition to go out single story towards Bancroft and he can go with a 2 story going under the existing footprint. Smith, Secretary, told the commission that the motions are numbered differently in the guidelines than the staff reports. Discussion regarding the applicant working with staff, and the motions. Consensus regarding the motions and findings are confusing. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION FAILED 4 -2. The noes were COMMISSIONERS JANZ, KERSCH, TORRES, and SCHMITT. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS KING, and WATKINS. When asked COMMISSIONER KERSCH changed his vote to noe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to adopt findings "A" as contained in the staff report dated January 4, 2011, as findings of fact for this case. FINDINGS OF FACTS - A - Front Yard Setback 17.195.050 A.1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the pronerty or intended use of development which generally do not aR2ly to other properties in the same land use district. A. The lot is conforming in terms of lot width and lot area with a rectangular shape that is very similar to other lots in the same zoning district. Some difficulty may be observed in terms of topography regarding vehicular access options and the placement of the existing residential structure is not optimal with regard to the lot boundaries. 17.195.050 A.2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. A. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would not result in an unnecessary hardship, although there may be justification to allow some variance consideration for the existing building foot print and other identified access and parking issues. 17.195.050 A.3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. A. The granting of the variance, as requested by the petitioner, may result in some material damages or prejudice to other properties by allowing in imposing two story structure within 3.5 feet of the front lot line. Typically the commission has not permitted enclosed garages or residential additions within 5 feet of the front property line without more compelling circumstances than those presented here. Some degree of relief less than what the petitioner has requested may be considered 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 12 of 20 such as whether to allow a single -story parking garage or carport, and allowing some latitude for the building footprint of the existing dwelling unit. 17.195.050 A.4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A. Granting of the variance will not increase existing density or alter any permitted land uses, and is not contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as residential. 17.195.050 A.S. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which reliefls being sought by the variance. A. The actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions for which relief is being sought by variance. 17.195.050 A.6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. A. The proposed single - family residence will remain consistent with the requirements of the R1- Single- family residential zoning district. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED 5 -1. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS WATKINS, JANZ, KERSCH, TORRES, and SCHMITT. The noe was COMMISSIONER KING. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195, from KIBC 17.75.050.A (Front Yard) which would allow a second story addition above the existing building footprint where it encroaches about 9.5 feet into the 25 foot front yard setback and a single -story garage /carport that encroaches no more than 20 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback, on Lot 25A, U.S. Survey 3098, subject to conditions of approval, and to adopt findings of fact "A" as contained in the staff report dated January 4, 2011 as findings of fact for this case. The public hearing was opened & closed: There was no public testimony. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A revised site plan will be prepared to show the proposed additions in conformity with this approval prior to issuance of zoning compliance. 2. The retaining wall and fencing in the Bancroft right -of -way will be removed as part of the project. 3. The revised site plan will show two off- street parking spaces in the garage /carport and one additional off - street parking space on Lot 25A so as to make the site conforming to the current off - street parking standards. 4. The maximum height of a permitted garage /carport shall be 15 -feet, single story, as measured through the adopted building code methodology. FINDINGS OF FACTS - A - Front Yard Setback 17.195.050 A.1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. A. The lot is conforming in terms of lot width and lot area with a rectangular shape that is very similar to other lots in the same zoning district. Some difficulty may be observed in terms of topography regarding vehicular access options and the placement of the existing residential structure is not optimal with regard to the lot boundaries. 17.195.050 A.2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. A. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would not result in an unnecessary hardship, although there may be justification to allow some variance consideration for the existing building foot print and other identified access and parking issues. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 13 of 20 17.195.050A.3. The •rantin• of the variance will not result in material dams es or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health. safety and welfare. A. The granting of the variance, as requested by the petitioner, may result in some material damages or prejudice to other properties by allowing in imposing two story structure within 3.5 feet of the front lot line. Typically the commission has not permitted enclosed garages or residential additions within 5 feet of the front property line without more compelling circumstances than those presented here. Some degree of relief less than what the petitioner has requested may be considered such as whether to allow a single -story parking garage or carport, and allowing some latitude for the building footprint of the existing dwelling unit. 17.195.050 A.4. The granting of the variance will n be ntr coay to r t ob o t Comprehensive Plan. A. Granting of the variance will not increase existing density or alter any permitted land uses, and is not contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as residential. 17.195.050 A.S. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. A. The actions of the applicant have not caused the conditions for which relief is being sought by variance. 17.195.050 A.6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. A. The proposed single - family residence will remain consistent with the requirements of the R1- Single- family residential zoning district. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant a Variance from KIBC 17.75.050.B (Side Yard) to allow a residential addition to encroach no more than 4.15 feet into the required 10 foot street -side setback on Lot 25A, U.S. Survey 3098. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION FAILED 4 -2. The noes were COMMISSIONERS JANZ, KERSCH, TORRES, and SCHMITT. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS KING, WATKINS. COMMISSIONERS JANZ and KERSCH changed their votes to no. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to adopt findings "B" as contained in the staff report dated January 4, 2011, as findings of fact in support of the commission's denial for this case. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION FAILED 5 -1. The noes were COMMISSIONERS KING, WATKINS, JANZ, KERSCH, and TORRES. The aye was COMMISSIONER SCHMITT. During the vote COMMISSIONER WATKINS stated all the findings do not support a denial. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO POSTPONE. (invalid motion, the vote must be completed) VICE CHAIR TORRES called a Point of Order and stated the motion was called when we are in the middle of the vote. COMMISSIONER WATKINS called a Point of Order because the conditions do not reflect the motion and are not valid findings and conditions to be voted on. The vote is out of order. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to recess for 5 minutes. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CHAIR KING recessed at 9:02 p.m. CHAIR KING reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 14 of 20 ROLL CALL VOTE FAILED 5 -1. The noes were COMMISSIONERS KING, WATKINS, JANZ, KERSCH, and TORRES. The aye was COMMISSIONER SCHMITT, COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to reconsider case 11 - 013. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to postpone Case 11 -013 until the February 16th regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED 5 -1. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS KING, WATKINS, JANZ, KERSCH, and TORRES. The noe was COMMISSIONER SCHMITT, CHAIR KING explained to the public that we approved the motion to reconsider so the case starts over next month at the February 16th regular meeting. The commission asked Mr. Dierich if he would get with staff to work things out. Smith called a Point of Order stating to the applicant that the commission is just asking him to get with staff to work things out. G) Case 11 -012. Request a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195, for the grant of a variance from KIBC 17.115.090.G, to allow a 10 by 16 foot accessory building to be located five (5) feet from the mobile home that it serves where the code requires a six (6) foot separation distance between an accessory building and mobile home. The applicant is Beverly Jones and the agent is Donna Reed. The location is 353 Benny Benson, Space #2, and the zoning is R1- Single- Family Residential. Cassidy reported that the applicant has withdrawn their request. H) Case S11 -006. Request preliminary approval, according to KIBC 16.40, of the replat of Lots 6A -1 & 6A -2, Block 1 Miller Point Alaska Subdivision, creating Lots 6A -1A & 6A -2A, Block 1, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision. The applicants are Peter & Janet Danelski and the agent is St. Denny Surveying. The location is 4235 Parkside Road, and the zoning is RR1 -Rural Residential One. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT stated he has a conflict of interest and recused himself Cassidy reported this is a vacation of what was interior lots and the creation of a new lot around an existing house. It meets the zoning requirements. There are also a number of easements created on this plat. The issue is the status of an existing driveway and the road easement it's in which are the legal issue here. In response to COMMISSIONER TORRES' inquiry about condition #5 - does that cover the easement that KEA wants, Cassidy stated you should add that as a condition of approval. In response to COMMISSIONER WATKINS'S inquiry about any written permission for the driveway to be where it is or any documentation for where it is now (the area that meanders out of the 50 foot easement), Cassidy stated there's nothing in the file but there is the original plat 77 -14 that shows the easement at an angle but it doesn't show the existing road. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to grant preliminary approval, according to KIBC 16.40 (Preliminary Plat), of the replat and subdivision of Lots 6A -1 & 6A -2, Block 1 Miller Point Alaska Subdivision, creating Lots 6A -1A & 6A -2A, Block 1, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision subject to the conditions of approval and findings of fact found in the staff report dated January 3, 2011. The public hearing was opened: Public testimony was given by: Pete Danelski stated the original owner who owned the whole parcel built a house up above and we bought his house below. When he put the road in that tree was in the way and that's why the driveway meanders to the right. In 1987 when Danelski subdivided he created that flaglot and moved that 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 15 of 20 easement where it made the most sense for the best utilization of that property. Right after water and sewer was put in Danelski asked the Fiorentino's to get together with him to put in a common road to their property within the 50 foot easement and also lay the water and sewer lines. Fiorentino thought it was too much expense and decided not to do it. The project was on hold because Danelski didn't want to put him in any kind of monetary situation so he let the Fiorentino's drive up across the road where it is now but it's always been his intention to move everything for the best utilization of that property. Janet Danelski stated she'll let Fiorentino know when Mike Anderson is available at the end of February and Fiorentino will come to Kodiak. We'll then be cutting down the tree and she thinks they all have the same desires to be able to get the driveway to go up and curve around so that when they have their finished driveway they won't be coming down to what will be our parking area. Smith, Secretary, read into the record the Fiorentino's comment opposing the request. In response to COMMISSIONER WATKINS'S inquiry of are you re- building your house, Danelski said they're selling the house they're in and will build another one on the lot just above it. That's the reason we're subdividing it. It's the prime location for the new house and that road is in the way. When we put the easement in the Fiorentino's didn't have a problem with it. The regular meeting was opened: COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to amend the motion to add a Condition of Approval #6 creating an electrical easement that serves the current lot 6A -1. Cassidy said the chair of the service area's concern is how the road meets Parkside Drive and how it has to do with the slope at Parkside Drive. You are supposed to have a reverse slope where the driveway meets the road, and the issue is the drainage coming down your driveway. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Reduce the access easement found on the preliminary plat to create a 50 foot wide access easement parallel with the western edge of the applicant's parcel; 2. Relocate the existing driveway into the 50 foot driveway access easement; 3. Resolve the location of the horse barn that encroaches into the 25 front yard setback; and 4. Enlarge the utility easement that serves the existing home to a width that provides 10 feet of clearance on both sides these existing lines. 5. Create water and sewer easements for utilities that serve Lot 6B that remain outside of any designated access and utility easement. Said easement shall be ten (10) feet either side of existing lines. 6. Create an electrical easement that serves Lot 6A -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. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY I.) Case 11 -015. Request a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195, to allow a fence in a portion of the side yard and the entire rear yard on Lot 3 -A, Block 2, Woodland Acres 2nd Addition, to be eight (8) feet in height which is two (2) feet higher than the six (6) foot fence height permitted in residential zoning districts by KIBC 17.170.020.A. The applicants are Shaw & Dana Patterson. The location is 3974 Woodland Drive, and the zoning is RR -Rural Residential. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 16 of 20 Cassidy reported the applicant owns a B &B and wishes to build an 8 foot fence to shield his clients away from a farm located next to his property. His neighbors have a number of goats, chickens, and farm animals that range off the property that has done damage to his property. There are noises and odors associated with this operation. The applicant believes this will solve his problem. Staff recommends denial. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to grant a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195, to allow a fence in a portion of the side yard and the entire rear yard on Lot 3 -A, Block 2, Woodland Acres 2nd Addition, to be eight (8) feet in height which is two (2) feet higher than the six (6) foot fence height permitted in residential zoning districts by KIBC 17.170.020.A, and to adopt findings contained in the staff report dated December 21, 2010 as "Findings of Fact" for Case 11 -015. The public hearing was opened & closed: Public testimony was given by: Shaw Patterson stated he believes, considering the proximity of the dwellings and various structures, that this 8 foot fence would be the best resolution to this problem. It will shield noise, maintain his lifestyle, and protect his business. In response to COMMISSIONER TORRES'S inquiry of whether the Sorter's have said anything, Patterson stated he has kept them informed through this whole process. They've walked the boundaries together and when the surveyor was on site. They have talked about everything. If the situation changes he could easily knock 2 feet off the fence. Cheri Pearson stated that everything that Patterson has done to his yard is fabulous. Any time he's done any structure it looks great. She is in support of the request. The regular meeting was opened: Discussion about the code, the code re- write, and the Variance standards to meet. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED 5 -1. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS KING, WATKINS, JANZ, KERSCH, and TORRES. The noe was COMMISSIONER SCHMITT. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to postpone findings of fact to the February 16th regular meeting ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The following motion was made during Commissioner Comments. CHAIR TORRES MOVED to amend the main motion for Case 11 -015 to read "Move to grant a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195, to allow a fence in a portion of the side yard and the entire rear yard on Lot 3A, Block 2, Woodland Acres 2 Addition to be 8 feet in height which is 2 feet higher than the 6 foot height fence height permitted in the residential zoning district by KIBC 17.170.020.A. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED 5 -1. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS KING, WATKINS, JANZ, KERSCH, and TORRES. The noe was COMMISSIONER SCHMITT. OLD BUSINESS A) Case 11 -009. Request a Fence and Screening Review according to KIBC 17.105.060.F & G, to allow the outdoor storage of bulk timber as permitted under KIBC 17.105.010.0 (Outdoor Storage) subject to commission review and approval of a fence per KIBC 17.105.060.F and commission review and approval of screening for a lot located within 100 feet of residential use or zone per KIBC 17.105.060.E (Case postponed from the November 19, 2010 regular meeting). The applicant is John Zbitnoff and the agent is Jascha Zbitnoff. The location is 465 Sargent Creek Road, and the zoning is I- Industrial. Cassidy reported this case was postponed from your November meeting. You will review a fence plan and a screening plan. Staff recommends approval of both requirements -the fence and the screening. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 17 of 20 In response to COMMISSIONER KERSCH'S inquiry of what the timeline is for getting the fence put up, Cassidy stated the applicant had suggested sometime in June. There are KEA and drainage issues that will be dealt with also. In response to COMMISSIONER JANZ'S inquiry about the status of the drainage issues in the letter addressed to Mr. Zbitnoff and his response to the service area, Cassidy stated he talked to the service area chair Dave Neuman today and the applicants have been meeting with Neuman also. Cassidy stated the service area is standing by their letter sent to the Zbitnoffs. The service area is developing a work plan. In response to COMMISSIONER JANZ'S inquiry of will they be doing business prior to work being completed, Cassidy said they can put in a temporary fence with temporary gates that can suffice to continue the logging operation until such time a formal more long term fence is constructed. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to find acceptable a temporary fence established for the site by the applicant subject to the provision that it run around three sides of the lot and that the vegetation located along the common border with Sargent Creek be left in its natural state, that gates be provided to completely close off the site from Sargent Creek Drive, and that the fence be maintained on a regular basis, and adopt findings found in the staff report dated January 7, 2011 as Findings of Fact for Case 11 -009. Discussion FINDINGS OF FACT 1. KIBC17.105.060 (F) requires a fence option acceptable to the commission be submitted for review. The fence erected will provide the needed security for the public as well as the property owner preventing unauthorized or casual entry. 2. The fencing provided will address a number of other issues important to the Womens Bay Community, specific providing a specific entrance and exit to the parcel and confining the activity associated with the logging operation (i.e. loading and unloading and equipment maneuvering), within the boundary of the designated parcel and off Sargent Creek Drive. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED 5 -1. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS KING, WATKINS, KERSCH, TORRES, and SCHMITT. The noe was COMMISSIONER JANZ. COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to approve the "no screening option" proposed by the applicant along the border of the parcel that is common and within 100 feet of any residential use and adopt the finding the findings outlined in the staff report dated January 7, 2011 as Findings of Fact for this case. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. KIBC 17.105.060 (G) requires commission review of screening provided by the applicant along the property line that is common and within 100 feet of any residentially zoned parcels; 2. The no screening option is sufficient along the boundary of the parcels that sits adjacent of Sargent Creek and Russian Creek as residential development in this area will not occur in the near future; and 3. The no screening option is sufficient as there is a significant vegetative buffer between this parcel and the area zoned C- Conservation. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to take a 10 minute recess. CHAIR KING recessed the meeting at 10:20 p.m. CHAIR KING reconvened the meeting at 10:28 p.m. 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 18 of 20 NEW BUSINESS A) Election of Officers COMMISSIONER TORRES MOVED to open nominations for chair. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER TORRES nominated Dave King COMMISSIONER KERSCH nominated Dave King COMMISSIONER JANZ nominated Alan Torres COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED to close nominations, VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ROLL CALL VOTE CARRIED for Alan Torres as chair. 5 -1. In favor of Alan Torres was COMMISSIONERS KING, WATKINS, JANZ, KERSCH, and SCHMITT. In favor of Dave King was CHAIR TORRES. CHAIR TORRES MOVED to open nominations for vice chair. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER KING nominated Bill Kersch Bill Kersch respectively declined. COMMISSIONER KERSCH nominated Dave King COMMISSIONER KING nominated Brent Watkins COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED to close nominations. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ROLL CALL VOTE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY in favor of Brent Watkins as vice chair. COMMUNICATIONS A) Letter of Courtesy & Advisory re: two single family dwelling units in the R1- Single Family zoning district dated 12 -1 -10 B) Letter of Courtesy & Advisory re: junk vehicles being stored and dismantled in the B- Business zoning district dated 12 -29 -10 C) Notice of Zoning Violation Closure re: Airpark Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 7A dated 12 -29 -10 D) Notice of Zoning Violation Closure re: Selief Estates, Block 3, Lot 1A dated 12 -29 -10 E) Notice of Zoning Violation Closure re: Crestview Subdivision, Lot 5 dated 12 -29 -10 F) Notice of Zoning Violation Closure re: Miller Point Subdivision, 1st Addition, Block 3, Lot 3 dated 12 -29 -10 Cassidy gave a brief staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to accept communications as presented. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY REPORTS A) Meeting Schedule: • February 9, 2011 work session at 6:30pm in the KIB Conference Room. • February 16, 2010 regular meeting at 6:30pm in the Assembly Chambers. B) Minutes of Other Meetings • November 9, 2010 Parks & Recreation Committee minutes 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 19 of 20 C) Abbreviated and Final Approval - Subdivisions Cassidy gave a brief staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to accept reports as presented. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CHAIR TORRES MOVED to amend the main motion for Case 11 -015 to read "Move to grant a Variance, according to KIBC 17.195, to allow a fence in a portion of the side yard and the entire rear yard on Lot 3A, Block 2, Woodland Acres 2nd Addition to he 8 feet in height which is 2 feet higher than the 6 foot height fence height permitted in the residential zoning district by KIBC 17.170.020.A. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED 5 -1. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS KING, WATKINS, JANZ, KERSCH, and TORRES. The noe was COMMISSIONER SCHMITT. Casey Janz stated on the Old Business case where it says there won't be any residential built there on that Conservation for a long time" and she hopes there won't be. It's in the findings. Brent Watkins said on January 24th of this month starts the official planning for the high school, participate or don't complain. Dave King apologized for missing last week's meeting. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to adjourn. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CHAIR KING adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION By: Alan Torres, Chair ATTEST By: . iaP1 f7tm21I6J Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Dept. APPROVED: February 16, 2011 1/19/2011 P &Z Minutes Page 20 of 20