Loading...
2012-09-19 Regular Meeting iE Ii WI I i , Kodiak Island Borough 11 H , , L F ; I ! NOV 1 9 2 012 ( 1„_/ � Planning & Zoning Commission 11 k Minutes / — -- 3 DROOGN r!. RK'S OFFICE _. September 19, 2012 6:3 n the 'Assembly lumbe . v CALL TO ORDER CHAIR TORRES called to order the September 19, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Commissioners present were Brent Watkins, Bill Kersch, Alan Torres, Alan Schmitt, Rick Vahl, and Sonny Vinberg. A quorum was established. Community Development Department staff present was Martin Lydick and Sheila Smith. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CHAIR TORRES stated he would like to see added to the agenda under New Business B -P &Z Rep to the Parks & Rec Committee. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to approve the September 19, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission agenda as amended. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER VAHL MOVED to approve the August 15, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission minutes. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Case 13 -006. Request a Variance, per KIBC 17.195, reducing the required off - street parking from 22 spaces to 10 spaces, according to KIBC 17.175.040. The applicant is Island Fish Company, LLC /Pacific Seafood Kodiak and the agent is John Whiddon, General Manager. The location is 317 Shelikof Street and the zoning is I- Industrial. Lydick reported this request for a parking variance is the administrative culmination of a protracted code enforcement proceeding against the subject property. Borough enforcement policy calls for extraordinary efforts on the part of staff to achieve voluntary compliance before proceeding with judicial remedies. This request for a parking variance is the last avenue that staff was able to identify as possible administrative relief before proceeding with more aggressive enforcement efforts. Variances of any kind are knotty problems to address due to the high bar that has been established, under law, for their approval. Required standards of approval contain six separate factual findings, all of which must be met in order to receive commission approval. Forty -seven public hearing notices were sent out for this 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 1 of 13 request on August 7, 2012. Fifteen comments were returned opposing the request, and one comment was returned expressing non- objection. Numerous comments & statements supporting the request have been received in the department after the comment deadline established per Commission Bylaw Article 9 Paragraph D. Staff recommended denial of this request. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to postpone Case 13 -006 until the October 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION FAILED 3 -3. The noes were COMMISSIONERS TORRES, SCHMITT, and VAHL. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS WATKINS, KERSCH, and VINBERG. When asked if anyone wishes to change your vote CHAIR TORRES changed his from aye to no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant a variance, according to KIBC 17.195, to allow a reduction in the number of required off - street parking spaces on City Tideland Tracts N26B and N29B from 21 to 10, in support of a seafood processing (industrial) land use per KIBC 17.175.040. The public hearing was opened: Public testimony was given by: Gretchen Wing read from commission bylaws; under Article 9 -D. New Information - The commission shall not consider any new information submitted less than 15 days prior to a regular meeting date. The new information introduced after the 15 day deadline may be considered by the commission for action at a future meeting or referred to staff for study. Next is Article 11 Reports and minutes - The Community Development Department will have the staff reports for public hearing petitions available for review by the applicant and commission members 12 days prior to the public hearing. The commission shall keep minutes of the proceedings and such minutes shall be record the vote of each member upon every question formally presented for consideration. The minutes shall be filed in the office of the Borough Clerk and shall be a public record, open to inspection by any person. When this started there have been all kinds of deadlines put out, the deadlines have been past, there's new variances, there's been stays, and this has been a very complicated case because it keeps changing by the week. According to the public hearing notice we received in the mail and other information they have 15 days prior to the meeting to submit their written information. That was out there as public knowledge. We've worked really hard to get this case going, to keep this case going with factual knowledge and we presented our information in a timely manner within the 15 days prior. You need to consider the information that was presented in a timely fashion so it could be given to you within the 12 days so you had plenty of time to review it. There's a reason that we have these laws and there's a reason there is a deadline. Cases cannot be tried and listened to, to the full extent if people are constantly submitting late information. Please remember the bylaws that were agreed on and it's what we should be running our community off of when the late information is presented and when the late information is in front of you in the packets that was received after the deadline. In response to COMMISSIONER SCHMITT'S point of order regarding he thought the effect of the motion that was voted down was that we will not be considering the material submitted after the deadline, CHAIR TORRES said the motion failed to postpone the meeting to allow consideration of the comments. Staff chose to put them in our packet but our bylaws say that we shall not consider them, and TORRES said he didn't even download it all. Chris Wing stated he and his wife own the building across the street from Pacific Seafoods. This Variance request is very similar to P &Z Case 11 -011 dated December 15, 2010, this gives you an idea of how long this has been going on. That case was denied and the principal 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 2 of 13 difference in that case and this new case is the addition of 5 parking spaces. In the previous case it went from 17 to 10 in this case. Staff did the investigation and five more spaces were required than he had originally been told so that increased the number to 22. This is the same variance that was denied, there are minor differences and those differences were brought up in the investigation of the older case. Pacific Seafoods chose not to comply and continued not to provide required onsite parking. After 16 months of the denial Wing filed a complaint and seen no apparent actions with anyone, and the investigation revealed Pacific Seafoods is out of compliance after repeated inspections. There's a timeline that goes with this from December 2010 until today. The 16 months Wing stepped back and waited for action to happen but he should have been aggressive at that time. It all came down to a parking inspection on May 16th by the enforcement officer and the parking was there, for one day only. The next day it didn't meet the requirements. On the same day of the inspection the applicant got a new zoning compliance permit, the applicant submitted an associated parking plan with 22 spaces which Whiddon signed off on along with staff, and they pulled building permits on the same day. On June 5th a notice of violation and order was issued, the applicant did not apply for an appeal within the 10 working days. Wing feels that it was expired and he's in violation. If you review the appeal and denial information it's easy to deny this case. Chris Lynch stated she owns property on Cope Street and recently occupied a building from Pacific Seafoods which was a small retail business. She opposed this request strongly. On- street parking is very limited on Shelikof and while we need to address a parking issue an individual variance does not address the parking issue. The on- street parking belongs to all, there's one hour parking across from Pacific Seafoods that's supposed to accommodate the retail stores in that location. Lynch submitted pictures with her opposition and it's clearly not being enforced and there are labeled cannery vehicles in those spaces for days on end. If this variance would be allowed that would be 20 less on street spaces that would be taken by the people that can't park off - street. She's had customers specifically tell her that they haven't stopped at her store because they can't find a parking space. She has a private parking lot next to the building that she rented and the minute the building was beginning to be less occupied Pacific Seafoods staff was taking those spaces in the private lot without any permissions. That clearly indicates there is a need for their own onsite parking. When she purchased her Cope Street property she also had a parking issue and she was held strictly to that parking requirement and she expects this requirement to be held strictly to as well. Bill Alwert stated he's one of the owners of Pickled Willy's across from Pacific Seafoods. He said he has 1 parking space in front of their business which is in Mr. Wing's building. He's parked in front of his business and has got 3 parking tickets for parking in front of his business because there isn't any other parking spaces. Many people have also told him that they don't stop because there isn't any parking anywhere. That is harming our business. Pacific Seafoods should have plenty of parking. This request should be denied and they should have their off - street parking. Alwert has parked twice in front of Napa but he won't anymore because they've taken his windshield wipers off his car for parking there. We don't have anywhere else to park. We have to park all way down across from Sutliffs and walk down to his business so hopefully they will have 1 parking space for a customer to park in front of their business. This variance request should be denied. John Whiddon, Pacific Seafoods Manager, stated he's doing everything he can to resolve this matter. We've been in business on Shelikof Street for over 13 years, predating any of the people you've heard so far. Before we started on Shelikof there was a parking challenge, there's a parking challenge today and will be one in the future unless something is done about 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 3 of 13 it. We're asking for 10 not 22 parking space reduction and he'd offer that if they put 10 more cars in their parking lot you won't see a noticeable difference. The businesses that have come before you have mentioned they have no parking, he would reference that they have zero parking, none. We are required to maintain parking and they're not. The borough recognized over twenty years ago that there's a parking shortage on Shelikof Street, so much so that the borough code 17.140 established that the businesses on Shelikof Street were nonconforming and they issued what amounts to a grandfather clause with regards to parking. It seems to him that the borough realized that in order to grow and sustain the seafood industry that mandating parking on very limited space would otherwise be used for processing was not the best use of land. If you drive down Shelikof Street today you will see cars stacked up in every direction. Right now that's the cost of doing business on Shelikof. We're concerned the borough is selectively enforcing this ordinance. This matter came before you as a complaint. Other entities in Kodiak have been granted waivers or variances, particularly the convention center and also Trident for their bunkhouse and he would suggest that was done for economic necessity. The failure to obtain a variance in our case would mean not just the elimination of a portion of the business but the entire business, we cannot sustain a business if we reduce it by 22 %(recording fuzzy). The area that would be dedicated to vehicles is actually the area that we use to process fish. Without that we wouldn't be able to process fish and we would see a loss of up to 75 -90 jobs in the associated economic impact. We believe this is a valid case is a way to support the seafood industry. Lauri Whiddon state she's here to support Pacific Seafoods request for a parking variance. After spending 20 years as a Coast Guard wife and dependent we elected to stay in Kodiak and start their second career. Over the past 13 years she's watched her husband build the business from 3 to over 90 employees through hard work and dedication. He has some of the finest employees in the industry so she's here tonight to say that your decisions are far more reaching than just a parking variance. It impacts the lives of over 90 employees and their families who through Pacific Seafoods have access to health care retirement benefits. Parking was a challenge 13 years ago and it remains a challenge today. Her husband and Pacific Seafoods are committed to help to develop solutions that benefit all users and businesses on Shelikof Street. Jennifer Ridgecreek stated she's concerned about the parking situation on Shelikof. She agrees with the comments that said Shelikof has an issue with parking, it's difficult and it's difficult for pedestrians to use that space. She also understands the role of variances and zoning where you have a very specific circumstance where regulation doesn't fit on that circumstance; however, this is not that circumstance and she opposed the issuance of a variance because the parking situation is a problem. She believes the appropriate way to address this is through a parking plan in its entirety. To enforce a regulation by piecemeal by issuing variances here and there depending on which businesses have the time and resources to go through additional permitting is inappropriate and it sends a message to the Kodiak business community that some rules apply to some but not others. If parking is a situation as bad as it is then that situation should be addressed in its entirety. By voting no on this variance you are motivating the issue to take further to have a more long term comprehensive solution rather than perpetuating an ongoing problem through piecemeal enforcement so she urged the commission to vote no. Kevin Arndt stated he owns property within the public notice area next to the coffee shop. He's not at a place where there's a problem with parking. It seems like we have private parking but it's never full. He thinks the problem starts from the town side of Napa heading in 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 4 of 13 where it's really congested. He can say he's never been to Napa when he couldn't find a parking space. He submitted a letter but it says it was received after the comment deadline. He feels we do need to accommodate for this variance. We've given a grandfathered clause to everything else in the area that was developed. Just like Whiddon said if he does get the variance or he doesn't it's not going to change anything, the parking is the way it now whether he gets it or not. He deserves it. You should grant 50% of their parking should be allowed to be on street parking. You do have the establishments that have been there a long time that doesn't have any parking and how they were granted that in the beginning he doesn't know. Arndt is in favor of the commission approving this variance. Barbara from Pickled Willy's stated she thinks the parking is something that needs to be taken care of and it's the commission's fault that these guys are pitted against each other. Long term is a solution and piecemealing is not the answer. She said it's your duty to fix this or come up with some kind of long term plan. The public hearing was closed. Discussion of the high standards for a variance, the business outgrowing the location, height limits and building upwards to allow for onsite parking spaces, move things that are not critical for the particular site elsewhere, parking concerns, businesses being responsible for their planning, future planning, plan growth, and the parking should be accommodated onsite as much as possible. this variance being similar to their prior case and should not have allowed it to come before the commission, not allowing comments submitted after the deadline because it doesn't limit public comment; public testimony can be given at the meeting or over the phone, the deadline is there to allow the commissioners time to read the packets, digest the information to allow the commission to make fair decisions, and disappointment that those comments were added to the packet. CHAIR TORRES stated with this variance being similar to their prior case it should not have been allowed to come before the commission, the comments submitted after the deadline does not limit public comment; public testimony can be given at the meeting or over the phone also if comments can't be submitted by the deadline. The deadline is there to allow commissioners time to read the packets, digest the information to allow the commission to make fair decisions, and TORRES expressed disappointment that those comments were added to the packet. CHAIR TORRES stated P &Z cannot fix the parking problem on Shelikof and that it would be a culmination of the City of Kodiak and the borough assembly to do a parking plan. In response to COMMISSIONER VAHL'S inquiry if this is postponed a month is there time to aggressively try to solve this problem, Lydick stated he thinks a postponement would allow you to consider the new comments that have come in after the deadline imposed by the commission's bylaws, he does not think a simple 30 day postponement will lead to any effective enforcement of any parking situation on Shelikof Street. Our current case which has gone on now for almost 18 months, he believes every individual business up and down that street would have the same opportunities for administrative delays that has been afforded this property. That is not bad in itself, it's what the process is and those steps are available to any business or any individual that finds themselves subject to an enforcement action. In response to COMMISSIONER VINBERG'S inquiry of the documents back from 2010 notifications were received, there were plans that were developed by PND Engineers showing the dock extension assuming to provide for some parking, can you elaborate on that and why nothing has been acted upon in those 2 years, Lydick requested VINBERG direct him to the document he's referring to. COMMISSIONER VINBERG said it's the prior case packet 11 -011. 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 5 of 13 CHAIR TORRES said we have case packet 11 -011 in our dropbox packet, Lydick stated staff doesn't have ipads and it's not in the packets that staff has. COMMISSIONER VINBERG stated what it tells him is that if nothing has been acted upon in the last 2 years then how much longer is this going to take and he believes we do need to have a new master parking plan for the downtown area. COMMISSIONER KERSCH who is also the Postmaster stated the Post Office is looking at not going down Shelikof Street because we cannot find parking to deliver the mail that will probably be addressed in the next month with the businesses down there. During discussion there was consensus that this variance should be denied. COMMISSIONER KERSCH MOVED to postpone indefinitely. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO POSTPONE INDEFINATELY FAILED 4 -2. The noes were COMMISSIONERS SCHMITT, TORRES, VAHL, and VINBERG. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS WATKINS and KERSCH. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MAIN MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated September 8, 2012 as "Findings of Fact" supporting the DENIAL of this request. FINDINGS OF FACT 17.66.050 A.1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. Tracts N29 -B and N26 -B are typical for waterfront lots located along this stretch of Shelikof Street. Together they are rectangular in shape and measure about 1.4 acres total. The tracts, taken together or separately, exceed the minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet and lot width of 75 feet that is required for the I- Industrial zoning district. If there is something atypical, it is that the two tracts have been developed with the bulk of building development on tract N29B and Tract N26B has historically provided the parking and maneuvering to support the use on Tract N29B. The more recent use of Tract N26B for outdoor storage, loading berths and other related activities has largely displaced the availability of parking and maneuvering on this tract. The decision by the land owner to displace employee and customer parking in this way however does not rise to the level of an exceptional physical circumstance or condition that would justify the granting of a variance. Historically, the site has been able to provide ample off - street parking in compliance with the parking code without the need for variances or satellite parking arrangements. As noted in the petitioner's application however, it is the increased intensity of the current use for seafood processing and the changes that occur to that industry periodically which has driven the need to maximize the use of the site for seafood processing. The petitioner has not clearly identified exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to City Tidelands Tract N26B and N29B or the intended use of development on same which do not generally apply to other properties in the same land use district. 17.66.050 A.2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. According to the petitioner, strict application of the parking ordinance would limit the ability of the site to remain competitive with other seafood processing uses in the area. As noted by 9/19/2012 P &7. Minutes Page 6 of 13 staff the community has typically recognized the changes to the fishing industry and the limited locations for such uses to occur as justification for some case -by -case relief from parking requirements in the past. That said, suggestions that the parking calculation for seafood processing plants in general needs revision does not justify the grant of a variance. Revision or amendment of zoning codes is a legislative prerogative of the community whereas the request of a variance, as in this case, is a quasi - judicial request to consider individual property rights of a single landowner. There is substantial area on the site which is sufficiently devoid of building development so as to accommodate the required off - street parking. It is only because this area is being used for outdoor storage and industrial activities that the petitioner is unable to provide the parking required by the code. The petitioner has not indicated why at least some of the outdoor storage and equipment could not be relocated to another location off -site It should also be noted that a considerable portion of the waterfront industrial area was originally developed long before the advent of modern parking requirements. Community growth has resulted in a largely "auto- dependent" lifestyle for many residents. The relief requested in this case therefore cannot be based solely on an appeal for equity with other waterfront industrial sites which might look much different if they also were just getting started. 17.66.050 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. While Variance Standard #1 references a comparison of "physical circumstances" with other lots in the same zoning district, Standard #3 is pertinent to all properties in the vicinity of the subject parcel(s) regardless of zoning or use. In this regard, it must be recognized that there is a substantial lack of parking in the overall area. Many of the business establishments across Shelikof Street are themselves nonconforming due to changing code standards or have themselves been recipients of relief by variance on a case -by -case basis. As a result there are already many nonconforming uses on both sides of the street which are not providing all of the parking required for those uses in this day of auto dependency. While the petitioner has based a substantial argument for the grant of a parking variance on issues of equity with other industrial properties on the waterfront, it is not justifiable to grant equity with other industrial properties at the expense of business properties in the area. Business properties also have workforce parking needs but in many cases also require a certain amount of parking turnover for customer access. This is much different from parking characteristics of seafood processing which typically relies on long shifts and large numbers of employees on site during peak processing times. While the petitioner has indicated that they encourage carpooling and walking to work, there is no evidence presented on the record to say how effective this encouragement is at reducing the number of employees who need to park in the vicinity of Tract N26B and N29B. In addition, the grant of the variance will run with the land in perpetuity and will create an additional burden on for the city to regulate and manage in the Shelikof Street right -of -way. It is prudent therefore to work with property owners to ensure the maximum number of required off - street parking spaces are maintained in the area even if this requires giving the site owner some control and flexibility in the location and layout of the parking plan so long as the minimum parking standards of the code are met. • 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 7 of 13 17.66.050 A.4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The grant of a variance would not be contrary or detrimental to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to its support for seafood processing uses. The grant of such relief however, should not come at the expense of other general commercial uses in the area, which are similarly encouraged to succeed by comprehensive plan goals and objectives. 17.66.050 A.S. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. The actions of the applicant have caused the special conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. As noted in the staff analysis some of this need may be due to the nature of the industry itself, but it is difficult to assign a value to these structural changes to the industry versus the responsibility of the land owner to control and manage the site layout and utilization. In both Zoning Compliance Permit CZ2012 -79 and prior Variance Case 11 -011 it was demonstrated that there is adequate room for off - street parking to be provided on site if some of the storage on -site could be moved to an alternate location off -site. The actions of the applicant, contrary to the provisions of the approved zoning compliance permit, have resulted in complaints, enforcement action by the borough, and ultimately this variance request. Had the petitioner maintained the site in compliance with approved permits prior to making this request this condition might have otherwise been met. 17.66.050 A.6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. This request is to allow a variance from parking requirements and the grant of such a variance would not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY B) Case S13 -006. Request Preliminary approval, per KIBC 16.40, of the replat of Lots 1A & 2A, Hospital Subdivision, creating Lots 1A -1 & 2A -1, Hospital Subdivision, providing a location for the construction of a Long Term Care Facility, according to KIBC 17.130.020.H. The applicant is the Kodiak Island Borough. The location is 1909 Rezanof Drive East and the zoning is PL- Public Use Lands. Lydick reported this review if the final administrative public review process in a joint borough /city effort to provide our community with a fully functioning, modern Long Term Care Facility; an infrastructure upgrade that's been identified as needed for some time. The design provides for the like — exchange of lands between the borough and city in order to provide a consolidated parcel of land capable of accommodating the facility's construction on the preferred site. The commission reviewed and approved the construction design at the August 15, 2012 regular meeting. This plat re- aligns lot boundaries, vacates and re- creates required utility easements where needed, and provides sufficient land area to accommodate a private driveway serving as ingress and egress to the new facility. Fifty -one public hearing notices were mailed on August 8, 2012 and 2 comments returned supporting the request. Staff recommended approval subject to 3 Conditions of Approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant Preliminary approval, per KIBC 16.40, of the replat of Lots 1A & 2A Block 1, Hospital Subdivision, creating Lots 1A -1 & 2A -1, Hospital Subdivision, providing a location for the construction of a Long Term Care Facility, according 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 8 of 13 to KIBC 17.130.020.H, subject to Three (3) Conditions of Approval, and to adopt those findings of fact in the staff report dated September 7, 2012, as Findings of Fact for Case No. S13 -006. The public hearing was opened & closed: There was no public testimony. Discussion regarding the trail, seeing, when it comes to the parking plan stage where the trail is going to be and what they are specking out as a trail, more definition and how this is going to be handled early in the process. There was consensus regarding keeping the Chichenoff Trace Trail and possible re- routing it. In response to COMMISSIONER KERSCH'S inquiry about the access, has anyone has talked to the city about potentially using their parking lot to get through, Lydick stated he's not aware of any staff in our department that's taken the initiative on that point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT'S inquiry regarding this facility is going to be up on a hill with a single drive access to it, the trail has the potential if approved, if permission can be acquired from the Baptist Mission, to provide some sort of alternate access to the facility and he thinks it's a good idea. SCHMITT said Woody Koning was thinking about starting discussion with the city about having an emergency access through the back of the City Police Station because the elevations are close. It's SCHMITT'S understanding that this facility would replace what is currently in the hospital building now that is deficient that is not adequate for the current state of care for the elderly but not exclusively that need good access to medical professionals 24/7 whereas the existing facility senior housing across from the Senior Center on Erskine is for basically independent living. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The legal description (references) of the subdivision shall be corrected to read: Lots lA -1 & 2A -1 Block 1 Hospital Subdivision. 2. The Kodiak City Fire Marshall shall certify that the access drive meets the minimum requirements of the fire apparatus access road requirements (Section 10.207 of the Uniform Fire Code) of Chapter 15.30 KIBC; 3. The subdivision shall incorporate the existing "Chichenoff Trace Trail" in a manner which does not prohibit or restrict public access or use of the existing recreational amenity. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat provides a subdivision of land that is consistent with adopted Borough plans for this area. 2. This plat meets the requirements of Title 15 of the Borough Code. 3. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. 4. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY C) Case 13 -010. Request a Manner of Initiation, according to KIBC 17.205.030.B, to rezone Lot 3, Block 4, Port Lions Subdivision, Third Addition from R1- Single- family Residential to PL- Public Use Lands. The applicant is the Planning & Zoning Commission and the agent is Mayor Steve Andresen, City of Port Lions. The location is 443 Bayview Drive, Port Lions. The zoning is R1- Single - family Residential. Lydick stated this request for rezone was initiated at the Commission's request, and underscores the Commission's position that most lands within the Kodiak Island Borough are indeed subject to the Borough's zoning ordinance. The rezone would provide the subject 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 9 of 13 parcel with the appropriate zoning in order to accommodate the existing public infrastructure facility. The issues of appropriate zoning were brought to the attention of the department by a concerned citizen. The department's out -reach effort resulted in acknowledgement by the City of Port Lions of the zoning over - sight, and a subsequent request by the City for the Commission's intervention and resolution. Thirty-four public hearing notices were mailed on August 8, 2012 and no comments have been returned supporting or opposing the request. This request for rezone has been non - confrontational and uneventful. Staff recommends approval of the rezone, and requests one (1) Condition of Approval. The applicant is required to obtain after the fact zoning compliance for the existing facility. COMMISSIONER VAHL MOVED to recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezoning of Lot 3 Block 4 Port Lions 3rd Addition from R -1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to PL- Public Use Zoning District, subject to One Condition of Approval, and to adopt the "Findings of Fact" in the staff report dated September 7, 2012, as Findings of Fact for Case 13 -010. The public hearing was opened & closed: There was no public testimony. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant is required to obtain a zoning compliance permit for the existing building on the subject parcel, and to pay the appropriate "After the Fact" fee. FINDINGS OF FACT 17.72.020 A. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or Amendment. A rezone from the R -1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to the PL- Public Use Zoning District is needed for the purpose of removing doubt with respect to the property's ability to legally support the existing use. A rezone from the R -1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to the PL- Public Use Zoning District is justified because no alternative highest & best use has been presented. 17.72.020 B. Findings as to the Effect a Change or Amendment would have on the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A rezone from the R -1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to the PL- Public Use Zoning District would be in conformity with the broad guidelines of the applicable comprehensive plan. A rezone from R -1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to the PL- Public Use Zoning District would provide positive reinforcement to the general principle that the Zoning Ordinance should be adhered to even in the case of locations not on the existing Urban Area road system. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER SCHMITT stated in the previous case, page 80 for commissioners, for Lydick this was page 7 of 11 under public comments for Case S13 -006, there was a comment from Bob Scholze, Resource Management Officer, about there was some disclaimer language on the plat that he didn't feel was consistent with the borough code and do we need to affirmatively need to vote on that, Lydick stated that's been a topic of discussion for a while and it's unresolved at this point in time. He thinks the departments current position is if Mr. Scholze isn't satisfied with the language on the plat the borough won't sign that plat. They will change the language if they want the plat signed. His decision to resolve the issue that way was because of the concern on parties that this case be moved forward and not to gum up the 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 10 of 13 works because of a legal dispute between the surveyor and property owner. The easiest way to resolve it is that everyone understands that the plat is not going to be signed if the language appears on the plat. OLD BUSINESS There is none. NEW BUSINESS A) Case 13 -011. Request a disposal review of tax foreclosed property, according to KIBC 18.20.030.A, for property described as Lot 17, Block 7, Baranof Heights Subdivision, 1st Addition. The applicant is the Kodiak Island Borough and the agent is Bob Scholze, Borough Resource Management Officer. The location is 1311 Larch Street and the zoning is R2- Two - family Residential. Lydick stated from time to time, the Borough is required to sell property delinquent on property taxes in order to recover taxes owed as well as penalties and interest. Tax foreclosed property that is not redeemed within the one year redemption period is transferred by Clerk's Deed to the Borough. Following satisfaction of extensive notice requirements, including certified letters and the physical posting of the property, tax foreclosed property can be sold at auction. The City of Kodiak has declined to exercise their right to redeem the property for taxes, penalties, and interest due as afforded by Alaska State Statute 29.45.450. Due to the advanced dis- repair of the property, the Borough has elected to move forward with the disposal procedure in an effort to minimize the escalation of costs attributable to the onset of winter. This action does not require that a public hearing be noticed. Staff is recommending the Commission find the property ill- suited for a public purpose, and recommends forwarding a resolution supporting the disposal to the Assembly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to adopt Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -04 recommending disposal of Lot 17, Block 7, Baranof Heights Subdivision, 1st Addition as surplus to the borough's needs and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated September 8, 2012 as Findings of Fact for this case. Discussion FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is no public need to be satisfied in the location of this tax foreclosed property. 2. The property is distressed and in need of repairs but there is no guarantee that any repairs performed by the borough would increase the return on the property at the time of sale. 3. There is a need to expedite the disposal process to sell the property to a qualified purchaser who can determine the best way to go about effecting repairs to redevelopment before change of season damages the property further. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY B) Planning & Zoning Rep on the Parks & Recreation Committee CHAIR TORRES stated that Casey Janz was the P &Z rep on the Parks & Recreation Committee but with her resignation we need a new representative. He asked if anyone is willing to be the P &Z rep. Smith explained that the Parks & Recreation Committee meets on the 2na and 4th Tuesdays at 7 p.m. in the KIB School District Conference Room and the meetings don't go any later than 9 p.m. and usually in the summer their meetings are cut back to 1 meeting a month. 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 11 of 13 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT said he's willing to be the rep. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to assign COMMISSIONER SCHMITT as the Planning & Zoning rep on the Parks & Recreation Committee. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMUNICATIONS A) August 15, 2012 P &Z Results Letters B) Notice of Violation and Order dated August 8, 2012 C) Notice of Violation and Order dated August 16, 2012 D) Notice of Violation and Order dated August 16, 2012 CHAIR TORRES gave an update on the communication items. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to accept communications as presented. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY REPORTS A) Meeting Schedule: • October 10, 2012 work session at 6:30pm in the KIB Conference Room. • October 17, 2012 regular meeting at 6:30pm in the Assembly Chambers. B) Minutes of Other Meetings • July 10, 2012 Parks & Recreation Committee CHAIR TORRES gave an update on the Reports items. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to accept reports as presented. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AUDIENCE COMMENTS COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Rick Vahl said it was a drawn out case just with the comments coming after the deadline when it's in the bylaws; it confused him. With the facts the commission made a good decision and he thinks Pacific Seafoods will professionally address this and solve it so they will continue to be successful. Bill Kersch said he won't be here the month of October and requested to be excused. Tonight was different and he thinks it was a good outcome. Sonny Vinberg said the first case was difficult. He can agree with the people in favor but it is incumbent on the owner to make sure he's in compliance. It's just been drawn out way too long and we need to work to get a parking plan for downtown pushed forward. He received an email this morning that he forwarded on to staff, as a member of the American Institutes of Architects he received an email regarding the Sustainable Design Assessment Team. It's a program to help communities plan for future growth, sustainability, growth in general that encompasses all sorts of things including beautification. He thought it was appropriate that this email came today being with the current case on the docket. Alan Schmitt said his comments tie in with COMMISSIONER VINBERG'S and to ask staff to tell us what we can do to get things moving. With the land sale issue it's in the code that we have this specific role and it sounds like things are moving forward. He doesn't see that we have the 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 12 of 13 clear task of parking but we should in the context of planning. If it's to seek money to hire a consultant or what but clearly there is a problem down there. Across the street from Sutliffs they put in the retaining wall and created a lot of parking whether it's the section to the right of the ramp and Island Seafoods they haven't done that it won't be cheap to do. It sounds like an option. If there is anything we can do as a commission other than deny variances to move forward on it he'd like to see it happen. Rick Vahl asked if we have the funds for more commissioner training this year. Alan Torres said it's November 10 - 12th and Cassidy sent an email out saying we have money in the budget for it. He wants the commissioners to keep those dates in mind and it's in Anchorage this year at the Captain Cook Hotel. Torres said regarding the variance case tonight, he feels it was a good decision and it does move it on. He also agrees that there needs to be a parking plan for the area. Torres said he doesn't have a problem with going to the assembly work session. With Casey Janz resignation on PAC there are 2 P &Z rep seats on there and since then Sonny Vinberg has come on the commission and he wonders if Vinberg should just be moved over to the P &Z seat since he's on the PAC. Torres' next suggestion would be to remove the 2nd P &Z position. Brent Watkins stated he will be here at the next work session but not for the regular meeting in October. Alan Torres mentioned that the commission has a vacant seat with Casey Janz resignation. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to adjourn. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CHAIR TORRES adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING & &ZZO & G COMMISSION • Alan Torres, Chair ATTEST By: KThe P Q(2 C 9/Y9 Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Dept. APPROVED: October 17, 2012 9/19/2012 P &Z Minutes Page 13 of 13