Loading...
06/07/1984 Regular Meeting (Attached Documents)EXECUTIVE PROCLAMATION by MAYOR or• KODIAK ISLAWD BOROUGH, ALASKA Hiring of veterans will be emphasized nationally during the Month of June, with one of the major objectives being to maximize the effectiveness of the Emergency Veterans' Job Training Act (EVJTA Program) and subsequently reduce the unemployment rate of the nation's Vietnam and Korean war veterans. Hire the Vet Month will explore all ways to make every employer aware that EVJTA provides direct payment to an employer for half the cost of hiring and training a veteran for work in growth or technological based industry. This means that an employer can be reimbursed up to $10,000 for hiring and training a Korean or Vietnam era veteran. The Job Service offices of the Alaska Department of Labor, the U. S. Veterans Administration and the Veterans' Employment and Training Service will be concentrating on the developing of jobs with the employers for the Emergency Veterans' Job Training Act and the placing of veterans in these jobs. In addition, the Alaska Job Service will continue with its concentrated program of developing jobs and placement of veterans from all wars in all jobs that become available. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jerome M. Selby , Mayor of Kodiak_ Island Borough, AK do hereby proclaim the month of June 1984 as: ALASKA HIRE A VET MONTH and hereby encourage Alaska private and public employers to actively seek out and hire veterans through the Emergency Veterans' Job Training Act, to improve existing programs that can link all veterans with employment and training opportunities and to stimulate the formation of action groups at all levels to marshal available resources to attain these goals for Alaska veterans. 4 0 OFFICE OF THE I4AYOR PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, more Americans each year are choosing recreational boating as an ideal way to relax with their families and friends. However, what starts out as a pleasant cruise often ends in tragedy because boaters fail to teach their families to swim, fail to properly equip their craft with Personal Flotation Devices and other protective equipment, or fail to instruct their passbngers in the use of such. devices to a boating cruise; and WHEREAS, every year hundreds of lives are lost in boating accidents, These fatalities can be reduced and boating made more pleasurable if those who engage in it will emphasize knowledge, care and courtesy necessary for safe boating; and WH=ZF_4S, the Congress of the United States, having recognized the need for such emphasis, has, by joint resolution of i 4 June 1958 (72 Stat. 179), requested the President to annually proclaim one week as National Safe Boating Week. NOW, THEREFOP.E, I, Jerome Selby, mayor of the Borough of Kodiak, Alaska, do hereby designate the week beginning June 3, 1984, as FNATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK IN KODIAK I urge all who use our waterways to acquire those skills and knowledges essential to their own safety and that of others and to aptly them carefully. IN 1-11ITNESS WEEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty four. I'.ayor' the Borough of Koaiak Is ri 1 0 0 0 2 n Q' I , ko , �Sxy C� vA - 0 2 c, A 00,4 �� , ... em u) . Q �S \C\ `\ . 41, .:. ,a !_fond 9orrugh _dj:. Aluska 19, r4 o I ,11 i111211i J -lii %) Y F-1 11�C DIVED APR 131984 P r,r Dan Ogg 4;;{if1�1!1�11�12�1�213,41516 Box 2754 Kodiak , Alaska 99615 (� Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, This public testimony adresses the request to purchase the land known as the sawmill lease site in Monashka Bay . I would like to strongly object to the request for sale and purchase by Timberline of the property they presently lease from the citizens of the Borough . I object as a resident property owner of the adjacent affected area and as a citizen of the Borough . In 1974 I purchased my property on Marmot Drive. At that time it was a new residential area with no houses and very rural ; the only land farther out was public use and a lease to the V.F.W. I purchased my land mainly because it was far from the industrial center of town and the nature of the surround- ing land was zoned lowest density residential and agricultural The furthest thing from my mind was that the Borough was intend ing to create an industrial site this Far out of town . By 1976 people had built homes , the residential character of the area was developing , and much to the pleasure of many property owners the value of land began to increase . This was due in part to the unavailability of land but was mainly due to the character of the area . The value of land in Monashka Bay has been consistently highc•i than the land in Bells Flats ; this can be traced to the fart that the residential land in Bells Flats surrounds indus!::al use land . For if the difference was related soley to the d. tance from town and southern exposure_ \ one would expect the land in Bells Flats to be higher . Such is not the history of land prices of the two areas 9 O n 7 2 0 1 7 4 page 2 rti In 1976 Timberline Inc. requested to "Temporarily Lease a portion of the Sanitary Land Fill Site for use as a sawmill . It was the understanding at the time of the request that it would be temporary and that the officers of the Corporation were looking for suitable industrial or commercial land to put their permanent facility . At the time of the request there was no industrial land available and the Borough was debating where future industrial land should be located . As I remember from the P and Z meeting of March 1976 the Commission approved the " temporary lease " and added that it was with the understand- ing the area was not to become commercial in the future . There was a feeling among the people who lived in the area of oppos- ition to industrial or commercial development of the Sanitary OLand Fill Site . However with the understanding that the lease and the use were to be temporary and with the assurance of the owners that they were planning to move when they had found a location ; the residents went along to help out . The Attitude of the resident s were reflected by Assemblyman Emmick at the April 1976 Assembly Meeting that approved the "temporary lease " and use ( This lease is given with the understanding that the property will NOT BE SOLD ) Please refer to the minutes of that Assembly Meeting . The lease which was given at that time was a Five year renewable . In July 1977 the Borough adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that designated the area as Conservation and open public 1 space . This zoning was not objected to by the residents nor `\J111 was it objected to by the holders of the lease , Timberline Inc r" page 3 So it appears from the record that the zoning was acceptable to all the parties concerned ; the Borough , the local residents , and the leasee Timberline When the lease came up for renewal in 1981 there was much opposition to the releasing of the property to Timberline Inc. As a consequence the renewal of the lease was delayed for at least six months before being approved by the Assembly . Timb- -erline Inc through their represenative Mr. Ebell again stated their intent that the lease was to be only a temporary one for them and they had no plans to set up permanently . The Borough had Timberline draw up a lease that would be acceptable and would place their intention and desires in written form. It is significant that the new lease is not a renewable lease as the 1976 lease was . The fact that the lease was drafted by Timb- erline and it is not renewable is consistent with the corpora- tions' representation to the Borough and the neighboring prop- erty owners that they were only interested in a temporary place to operate their business . Now half way through the lease ,( 2 1/2 vears later ) we are presentedwitha change in position by Timberline Inc . they now wish to become a permanent facility . In September of 1981 ; the same month as the lease renewal the Borough defined the uses that were to be in the industrial zone and the Borough ''-de §§17:24:010-0 now lists sawmills exclusively as an industrial use . 'Timberline did not object to this placing of sit -mills in the industrial zone . The next summer 1982 the Ilorou It changed the priority of uses on Rural - Residential zoned lam; ; the effect was to have persons build houses before they built agricultural or fishing type buildings. t ,1 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 4 3 page 4 ^ The reason for placing this restriction was to stop the \1 quasi -commercial use that was taking place by people building gear shed and not using the land for primarily residential . Another reason was that the Commission felt that the value of the homes people had built would decrease if someone put all �I their fishing gear on a lot to a home . Now we have a request to have a permanent industrial use next to a primarily residential area. The land that this request concerns is zoned conservation which is the opposite end of the zoning spectrum from industrial . My prime concern as a property owner is the effect the proposed permanent indus- trial use is going to have on the value of my home and property I believe it is common knowledge that residential land right r next to industrial land has the lowest value of all residential -) land . This is rightly so because of increase hazzards of crime and the high niose possibilities and dangers to health . I believe that the value of my land will decrease and I don't If'�I feel that I should have to bear the loss. Will the Borough compensate the adjacent property owners for the loss in value J to their homes as a result of creating a permanent industrial zone adjacent to the Island Vista Subdivision . There are eleven lots that border the area proposed for purchase which will be most directly affected by the change . The average value of a parcel with house is $130,000 ; some a lot more and some less and almost all the lots have houses . �\ For a Home Owning individual this represents quite a bit of his IiFes earnings . If you change the expectations of the property owner ,who planned on a residential area by allowing this per maopnt industrial use next door ; the value of his home would r1 page 5 drop as much as 30% . If you add the loss that all the property owners would take as a whole e 11�.30-130000=429000 ) you come out with a sizable loss of under a half million dollars for the property owners most affected . This figure becomes even higher when you add the next tier of property owners who are one lot or one block away . Is it fair to ask the home- owner to bear this kind of loss when they bought their land under a comprehensive plan which showed residential and conser- vation and have intentions of living in the area for a long time . on the other side of the question you have a Corporation requesting to purchase the land they have been leasing with the public intention that they only were there temporarily while they searched for a suitable location. The total value of the Mill at least by the records of the assessor comes to around $100,000 ( March 83 puts the replacement cost of the buildings at $84,864 and I believe the value of the personal property which includes the saw itself was $19,000 filed June 1983) This does not include the value of the land as the land at the present belongs to the citizens of the Borough and is under lease . Why does Timberline want the land ? This was similar to the question asked of Mr. Ebell at the July work session by Chairman Tim Hill. Thr� work session I refer to was a special one held On the Mnnday afternoon before the regular July P&Z Meeting . Mr. Ebell replied in essence that the bank. would not loan Mr. Grothe arry monev on land that was under lease . IF Ire could purchase the land then he would have an asset in his portfollio and a better chance to get a loan Chairman Hill 1 0 0 0 2 0 I' A page 6 ' t6eiljask4rl if Timberline had any plans to expand their opera- tions ? Mr. Ebell in essence replied that there were no plans to eicpAnd'the operations of the mill. art does not seem fair to me for the Borough to sell this '•`iandAcy Timberline so that one of its officers can be in a Better pdsition to get a loan.. Are we selling the Borough land G on tire basis'of who can benifit the most by getting a loa n I sure hope not . It also does not seem fair to ask the residen- tial neighbor who has more invested than the corporation does 'Po i4k-e a loss out.of his life savings so that a corporation can`benifit. This seems especially unfair when Timberline has consistently represented their temporary intentions . I would hope the'decision would be not to sell so that the government would protect the vastly greater investment of the homeowner and taxpayer. `!if'the Planning Commission is to recomend this particular Piece _Of -land for sale it is first necessary to determine that the laird is surplus to Borough needs . As I am unable to be at the meeting and do not have a statement from the P&Z declar- ing the land surplus ; I request that the Commission make this determination.of whether the land is surplus of not . I also re quest that the Commission state on the record what the factors and the reasons are that have lead to the decision of declaring the land surplus or not surplus. Before offering the land for sale ; if the Commission has n declared the land surplus ; did the Borough offer the land to other Borough public entities ? was the land offered to the School District for their future needs ? was the land offered page 7 to the Mill Bay Fire District for their, future expansion ? Was the land offered to the Monashka Bay Road Service District for their future needs of a materials and storage site ? was the Land offered to the Borough Parks and Recreation for their future plans ? It would seem a shame to sell a piece of land t that the citizens of the Borough have developed by a very wise leasing arrangement and especially when these improvements have been paid for by the citizens through a tax credit to the leasee Timberline ; i.e. ( the Borough gives a tax credit of $106,250 of the total value of the lease for 85,000 cu yards of fill- this has deducted $10,000 worth of lease rental a year from what the leasee should have paid ); only to find out a couple of years down rile road that the school needs a school site in the area or there is a necessity for a fire house because of the increased residential housing in the area . Without answers to these questions and perhaps a lot more con- siderations I recomend that the Planning Commision NOT declare this land surplus to Borough needs and thus not for sale at this time . Timberlines' request -ilist forsee industrial use of this parcel of land and if that is the case the sale would not fit into the present Borough%'omprehensive-Plan . The land is pres- ently zoned Conservation If the land were put up for sale as it is presently zoned nne could not operate a sawmill on the land. The Borough is tira owner of the land and as such is the owner of Lite Grandfathers Rights for a sawmill . But the Borough does not own a sawmill: so when the tease ends as it must before it is sold , the land loses its grandfather rights 1 0 0 0 2 0 I 3 2rtB and reverts to the present zoning , conservation (agricultural) Even if the borough were able by some sleight of the hand to place the property for sale in a manner that gave no potential purchaser an advantage or priority and yet at the same time transfered the grandfather rights , the lucky purchaser would not be able to expand the present operations with out an adjustment in zoning or an exception . Mr. Tubbs seems to point out the Zoning problem in.:his memorandum of October 11, 1983 concerning a modification to the present lease ; " this area was not intended for industrial use and still has not been rezoned ." So it would seem that if Timberline wished to purchase for use as a sawmill or if the Borough wants to sell the land for use as a sawmill it would be necessary for the Borough to rezone the land to Industrial. OState Statutes require that the land be sold at a public auction . The land going to the high bidder but the sale cannot be structured in any manner that will give one person an advan- tage over another . It would appear that the fairest way to put the land up for sale in the required neutral manner would be to { JJJ offer it as it is presently zoned or to change the zoning to reflect the planned growth patterns of the coqununity . If the Borough decides that they would like to offer the land For industrial use ,(sawmill), I oppose the rezoning as it does not fit into the ;'umprehensive Plan . If the Borough is to sell the land they should sell it in conformance with the Com- prehensive Plan , (r_on-�ervation) . The result would be that who ever purchased the laid would not be able continue or, create an Oindustrial use The Comprehensive Plan is a tool for the planning of the page 9 communities' future needs . It gives property owners an under- standing of the projected growth of an area of the community . It allows the individual the stability to plan his future with the future of the community . However times change and so does the pattern of growth ; sometimes this change is radical , none theless this change is required to be reflected in the Compre- hensive Plan . The Borough Comprehensive Plan does not shw this land , requested for sale by Timberline , as being industrial. Sometimes a radical change in the Comprehensive Plan is required but there are limits to changing the Comprehensive Plan ; the change must reflect the needs of the community ; the change must not be arbitrary or reflect the desire to benifit an individual or private group and the change must show a rational relation to the health safety , and welfare of the community . A change that is for the benifit of an individual or private group or corporation and at the same time is a de- triment to the adjacent property owners is an invalid use of the Planning Power entrusted to the local government by the citizens . This is especially so if there are alternative pieces of land that are presently available for the desired use Does the Borough at present have industria'1 land that is that is unoccupied ? The answer is ves ! This land was zoned as a result of the lack of industrial land around the Kodiak Town area . The land is loc:ii_ed on the nortwest side of the muni- r_ipal airport . Timberline requested a "temporary lease " in hopes it could locate -,me suitable land . I don't know if Timberline has searchc for or found suitably zoned land for their operation . In the seven years since the "temporar> lease 2 () 1 j p4e%110 was given the Borough has rezoned a sizeable piece of land in- dustrial at the municipal airport . This seems to indicate that the Borough has considered where they would like to have future industrial development take place . It is interesting to note that the Borough did not choose to designate the "temporary lease " site of the sawmill as future industrial land use . In this same period of time the Borough placed sawmills exclusive- ly in the uses designated as industrial . These actions by the Borough seem to present a consistent pattern with their state- ments given at the time the original lease was given to Timberline in 1976 ; i.e. the land was leased with the under- standing that it was not to be sold and that the area was not to become commercial . It is upon this consistency that I have built my home and that the other property owners have purchased Oand built on the adjacent land . To sell this land for perma- nent industrial use would not reflect good use of the planning powers but would seem to reflect an arbitrary and prejudicial decision that would benifit one individual (Timberline) and at the same time Force the neighboring home owners to bear a size- ) able financial loss . This seems especially arbitrary when the home owners have relied on the present comprehensive plan and the public statements of intentions of the Borough and Timb- erline . This would nor be quite as arbitrary if theBboough had not designated another site For industrial and that land is presently unoccupied and will soon be available if -not already available O Other problems with the sale that concern me as a taxpayer and a neighboring home owner are the safety hazzards that a permanent industrial use will create at the present time . The r" page 11 safety hazzards are fire and police protection . A sawmill is a high fire hazzard risk . The present existing mill is no excep- tion . During the first couple of years of the lease there was a fire at the mill . the building that burned was a total loss Since that time there has been an accumulation of seven years of sawdust and slab ends . These have been pushed over the hill on the backside of the mill where many sawmill fires start It is in the sawdust and debris At present there is a serious fire hazzard and to sell this land as industrial will only increase this hazzard I have doubts if the present fire fight ing capability can put out such an industrial fire with out an adequate water supply driving trucks back and forth to town is probably not sufficient for an industrial fire . Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the airport site was chosen as future industrial and the lease was to be only temporary . I certainly hope so . I would not want my home or any ones home to burn because the government was trying to accomadate an individual (corporation) and forgot to see if there was ade- quate fire protection in case there was an industrial fire ! If the answer is that the fire district could up grade its fire service to meet the industrial standard . My question as a taxpayer is how much do I have to contribute in taxes to upgrade the fire protection to benifit this individual (corpor- ation) when at the present time the Borough has industrial land that has adequate fire protection r_loser to town. To create an industrial zone this far out of town at the pr esent time would probably cause two more increases on my taxes and a decrease in safety to the conuuunity . An industrial use requires an increase in police protection . At present the city .' 1 0 0 02 0 � 3 p4g0712 • police department comes out to the sawmill at night ; on occasion last summer I saw two police cars from the city at the �) entrance to the sawmill at night . This is an added cost to the city in safety and to the taxpayer in taxes The city has to hire more police to cover a larger area or they have to cut down on the service provided down town By selling the land as industrail it seems that the concerns of governmental economy would be overlooked as well as concerns of protection p provided to the citizens safety Having an industrial use that far out of town causes an increase of industrial and commercial traffic on the road This causes greater wear and tear on the road and as such it will have to be repaired sooner . The more important concern is that the road goes through three miles of residential area . This area is increasing in density and to place an industrial use at the far end creates a safety hazzard for the children that live that live in the area . It is true that children should not play in the road but the Fact of life is that they do . I see no reason for increasing this hazzard by selling in- dustrial land so far out of town especially when there is presently industrial land available at the municipal airport . For the reasons of good community planning , economy of government services , fairness to the home owner who has relied on good planning , and the health and safety concerns affecting the residents and the community I as a resident of the affec- ted area , a citizen and taxpayer of the Borough oppose the sale of this land as industrial or For the industrial use as a sawmill . Respectfully (� �� c It SRN nee " r I F Kodiak, Alaska 2 ( RCEIVED Dan Ogg APR 3 0198"1 49 Marmot Dr. PM Monashka Bay Kodiak Alaska +,;sI�I1Q111�12�11218IfIg19 Dear Mayor and Member of the Borough Assembly This letter is in resionse to the item on the May 3 1984 agenda concerning the possible surplus of Borough property known as the "Temporary Sawmill Lease " in Monashka Bay . Having received no notice of the item being considered by the Assembly I am sorry that I can't supply the agenda # or Title Please accept this as my testimony regarding the subject . I am opposed to the Borough declaring the "Temporary Lease " area surplus to Borough needs at this time I agree with the position taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their April 18 1984 meeting when they denied the request for sale of sale of the property I certainly hope the Borough Assembly follows the advise of the Commission in this matter and declares the land not surplus I would like to -include in whole by reference my testimony before the P&Z Commission public hearing on the subject at the April 18 1984 meeting as some of the reasons for my objections to the proposed surplussing of the property at this time . I am curious ifithe Borough is planning to surplus the property as presently zoned (i.e. conservation ). If that is the plan why is this particular piece chosen situated in the middle of a conservation zone ? Why not a piece across the road or the whole of the land fill site except for the dump ? It�would seem that the citizens of Kodiak could use more 5 acre home sites as is the allowed use on Conservation Zoned Land . Sawmills are not a use in the Conservation Zone ; Sawmills are especially listed in the Industrial Zone ( refer to Code §17.24.010-0 . It would appear that if you are to declare the land surplus at this time it would be as Conservation land . If however the Borough wishs to surplus the land as Industrial it would seem that the proper proceedure would be to first to have the Comprehensive Plan reflect this use . The Plan presently depicts the area as Conservation and it is presently zoned Conservation . I oppose the change as their is presently Borough Industrial Land open near the municipal airport . It would seem more consistent with the growth pattern n laid 00t Dt n 'n present ny the :ioAu& to keep the industrial in close to town where the safety services of fire protection and police could be provided in a more efficient manner . I urge the Borough to follow their philosophy stated only a little while back that they were to plan and develop in a more consistent manner . I appears to me that the permanent sale of this land for an industrial use would not be consistent with the Present Borough Comprehensive Plan . It would change the whole nature of the planned future development of the area as it exists today and it would cause a great financial hardship to the present home owners in the immediate area)who have invested their lives and savings on the future depicted in the present Comprehensive Plan . The land that is in question was given to the Borough as an economic asset . The Borough is to manage this land to benifit all the citizens of the Borough . It would seem that the present Temporary Lease arrangement is the most benificial use of the land . We have received an annual rental of about $5000.00 and an inprovement of the site to the tune of $100,000.0o . If the land were appraised properly for the sawmill use on the land the rental would be a lot higher . At, present the present leasee gets the rental rate on a Conservation appraisel of the land . It does not seem that the Citizens of the Borough will benifit by the sale of the land . If it were sold then the Government would not have a site developed for future public uses but would of necessity have to develop a new one at taxpayers cost . So with the present lease arrangement we citizens get a reduction on our taxes and we get a future public function site developed for nothing . What better benifit could the land be put to until that day when the neighborhood finds a need for a fire station or a school site . TAME I would urge the Borough to not surplus the land at this'! I would also urge the Borough to place the Industrial land at the airport up for auction and allow the leasee to fullfill their initial desire when they originally "Temporarily Leased" the site . (refer to original and renewal of lease , 1976 &1981 ) as ��iey Thank You �hN 0�U i