The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08012006 Planning & Zoning Packet Seward Planning & Zoning Commission August 1, 2006 7:30 p.m. Re4.ular Meeting 1'.' T Ity CouncIL Chambers Marianna Keil Chair Term Expires 02107 1. Call to Order .. Tom Smith Vice-Chair Term Expires 02107 2. Opening Ceremony A. Pledge of Allegiance Margaret Anderson Commissioner Term Expires 02109 3. Roll Call 4. Special Reports & Presentations Kevin Clark Commissioner Term Expires 02109 A. City Administration Report B. KPB Planning Commission Report - Lynn Hohl C. Other Reports, Announcements & Presentations Lynn Hohl Commissioner Term Expires 02108 1. Liaison from Seward Bear Creek Flood Service Area Board Kay Strobel Commissioner Term Expires 02108 5. Citizens' Comments on any subject except those items scheduled for public hearing. (Those who have signed in will be given the first opportunity to speak. Time is limited to 2 minutes per speaker and 30 minutes total time for this agenda item) Sandie Roach' Commissioner Term Expires 02107 Clark Carbridge City Manager 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda. [Approval of Consent Agenda passes all routine items indicated by asterisk (*). Consent Agenda items are not considered separately unless a Commissioner so requests. In the event of such a request, the item is returned to the Regular Agenda.] Donna Glenz Acting Planner Maggie Wilkins Assistant Planner Christy Terry Execut;ve Liaison Planning & Zoning Commission August I, 2006 Regular Meeting Agenda Page 1 7. Public Hearings [Limit comments to 5 minutes. Those who have signed in will be given the first opportunity to speak] A. Unfinished Business requiring a Public Hearing - None B. New Business Items requiring a Public Hearing 1. Resolution 2006-16 recommending City Council approval of amending the Land Use Plan and rezoning of Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 17, Original Townsite of Seward, Federal Addition from Single Family Residential (Rl) to Auto Commercial (AC) ........................................................ Page 3 2. Resolution 2006-18, granting Ronald Fike a variance from Seward City Code Chapter 15.25 Floodplain Management to construct an aircraft hanger on Lot 8, Block 200 Seward Airport..._............................... Page 20 8. Unfmished Business - None 9. New Business A. Select Topic for August 15,2006 Work Session........._............................. Page 36 * B. July 6" 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes....................................................... Page 39 10. Informational Items and Reports (No action required) A. Response to Political Sign Letter from Sean Parnell..._..............._............ Page S3 B. Land Parcels in a GIS: Truths and Fallacies (Reprinted with permission from Government Engineering Magazine) ... Page S4 11. Commission Comments 12. Citizens' Comments [Limit to 5 minutes per individual - Each individual has one opportunity to speak] 13. Commissions and Administration Response to Citizens' Comments 14. Adjournment Planning & Zoning Commission August 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Agenda Page 2 Sponsored by: Applicant CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-16 ;0 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEWARD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN AND REZONING OF LOTS 7, 8, AND 9, BLOCK 17, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF SEWARD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Rl) TO AUTO COMMERCIAL (Ae) WHEREAS, Applicants Tom Tougas and Kevin Clark submitted an application and $250.00 filing fee, requesting that Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 17, Original Townsite of Seward, Federal Addition be rezoned from Single-Family Residential (Rl) to Auto Commercial (Ae); and WHEREAS, Lots 7 and 8 are at present vacant land and Lot 9 currently contains a single family home and a second single family unit used at this time as a guest house; and WHEREAS, the present Zoning of the property is Single-Family Residential and the Land Use Plan designation is Two Family Residential (R2); and WHEREAS, the Auto Commercial district was established to provide areas to accommodate highway-oriented commercial activities such as offices, certain institutional uses, and limited personal services and retail uses requiring substantial outdoor activity, traffic, and parking; and WHEREAS, a goal of the Seward Comprehensive Plan is to, "Maintain Seward's Land Use Plan as the primary local tool to ensure quality community land use arrangements, growth, and development to the Year 2010"; and WHEREAS, the public notification process was complied with and the appropriate public hearing as required by Seward City Code ~ 15.01.040 was conducted by the Commission on August 1,2006. :3 Seward Planning and Zoning Resolution 2006-16 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Seward Planning and Zoning Commission that: Section 1. The Commission recommends Ordinance 2006-_ be forwarded to City Council for approval. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Seward Planning and Zoning Commission this 1st day of August 2006. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA Marianna Keil, Chair AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Jean Lewis, CMC City Clerk (City Seal) Lf P&Z Agenda Statement .. Agenda Item: August 1, 2006 Clark Corbridge, City Manager ClJ- ~-Z'-" Donna Glenz, Acting Planner ~ Amending the Land Use Plan and rezoning of Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 17, Original Townsite of Seward, Federal Addition from Single Family Residential (R1) to Auto Commercial (Ae) ~ of!S"es; ~~~ u~;'4 <l{J(sl'-1': Meeting Date: Through: From: BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: Attached for the Commission's review and recommendation to the Seward City Council is Resolution 2006-16 recommending City Council approval of the attached Ordinance 2006-XX, amending the Land Use Plan and Rezone of Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 17, Original Townsite of Seward, Federal Addition from Single Family Residential (R1) to Auto Commercial (Ae) (see attached maps). The applicants are requesting this rezone in order to provide land suitable for future commercial uses allowed within the Auto Commercial District and bring the second single family unit on Lot 9 into zoning compliance. The lots directly to the East, across the alley, are currently zoned Auto Commercial and Central Business District. The lots directly North and South are currently zoned Single Family Residential (R1) and the lots to the West are currently zoned Urban Residential (DR). The current uses on the lots to the North consist of the Seward Volunteer Ambulance barn and single family homes. The uses to the South are single family and a multi family unit. The uses to the West are single family. The uses to the East are the Alaska Heritage Tours Warehouse and the Phoenix Building. Each of the three (3) lots being considered for rezone are approximately 50 feet by 100 feet, each at approximately 5,000 square feet. The total land area of the requested rezone is approximately 15,000 square feet, which is roughly one third of an acre. The land area meets the minimum size required for a rezone request, as per see 15.01.035, Amendments, (b) (3) "Except for an ordinance altering the boundaries of existing, contiguous zoning districts or an ordinance which brings a parcel into conformance with the land use plan, no ordinance altering zoning within the city shall be considered if the area encompassed by the proposed ordinance contains less than one acre, not including street or alley right-ofways." The requested zoning change area is contiguous to the Auto Commercial Zoning District as adopted by the Land Use Plan by the lot directly to the East owned by Alaska Heritage Tours. In order for the lots to be rezoned, the underlying Land Use Plan will also have to be S amended. The Land Use Plan adopted with the 2020 Seward Comprehensive Plan recommends this area be zoned Two Family Residential (R2). see 15.05.025. Land use districts--Established, definitions a) Established The city is hereby divided into land use districts which shall be bounded and defined as shown on the official land use map. This official map, together with all explanatory matter thereon, as exhibited at the time of public hearing, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The current zoning of the area requested for rezone is Single Family Residential (Rl) defmed in sce 15.05.025 (b). as Intended to provide for stable and quiet low to medium density (one to five dwelling units per acre) detached, single-family residential development, free from other uses except those which are both compatible and convenient to residents of such district. The requested zoning change of the area for rezone is Auto Commercial (AC) defined in sec 15.05.025 (b). as Intended to provide areas to accommodate highway oriented commercial activities such as offices, certain institutional uses, and limited personal services and retail uses requiring substantial outdoor activity, traffic and parking, and which also serve the offices and nearby residential areas, and which do not materially detract from nearby residential areas. The Land Use Map, as adopted by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, designates the area requested for rezone as Two-family residential (R2) defined in SCC 15.05.025 (b). as Medium density (one to seven dwelling units per acre) transitional housing area with a mix of single and two-family units, free from other uses except those which are both compatible and convenient to residents of such district. Recognizing that the primary concern of all land use regulatory actions, including zoning is to promote public health, safety and general welfare, as per SCC 15.01.010. and SCC 15.05.020. Land use plan--Purpose states: A part of the comprehensive plan is the development of a land use classification system on which to base zoning and to guide the land use regulation system. Such a classification system should provide a balanced, compatible land use mix, in order to separate incompatible uses and minimize conflict between land uses. Administration does not recommend this rezone for several reasons: 1. The current Land Use Plan adopted by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan recommends this area remain residential by adopting the recommendation of Two Family Residential. 2. The Land Use Plan recommends the Auto Commercial Zoning District and the uses associated with that zone remain connected to Third and Fourth Avenue due to the nature of these uses. 3. The lots requested for rezone are located on Second Avenue which serves as a secondary residential street. Co CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST YES NO N/A --- 1. Comprehensive Plan (2020) As stated above, this plan recommends the area remain residential. l_ 2. Land Use Plan (2006) l While this Plan does not support the rezoning, it can be amended based on new findings. 3. Strategic Plan (1999) l - The Strategic Plan supports the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and encourages bringing the Zoning Map into conformance with the Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Commission not approve Resolution 2006-16, recommending City Council approval of the attached Ordinance 2006-XX, Amending the Land Use Plan and Rezoning from Single Family Residential (Rl) to Auto Commercial (Ae), due to concerns with: the small amount of land being rezoned, lack of support in the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Plan and the lack of ovemll benefit to the residential neighborhood and the community. 7 Sponsored by: PlanniDll and Zonin!! Commission Introduction Date: Public Hearing Date: Enactment Date: CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA ORDINANCE NO. 2006- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN AND REZONING OF LOTS 7, 8, AND 9, BLOCK 17, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF SEWARD, FEDERAL ADDITION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Rl) TO AUTO COMMERCIAL (AC) WHEREAS, an applicant has requested a rezone of Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 17, Original Townsite of Seward, Federal Addition from Single Family Residential (Rl) to Auto Commercial (AC); and WHEREAS, the size of the land being rezoned is approximately one third of an acre; and WHEREAS, the Seward City Code allows the rezone of less than one acre when the land is contagious to the requested zoning district, SCC 15.01.035, Amendments, (b) (3); and WHEREAS, although changing the zoning of this area to Auto Commercial is not supported in the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Use Plan, current zoning to the East allows this rezone; and WHEREAS, the official zoning map described in SCC 15.01.030 will have to be amended from Single Family Residential (Rl); to Auto Commercial (AC) and the official Land Use map will have to be amended from Two Family Residential (R2) to Auto Commercial (AS) in response to this rezone; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission has complied with public notice and public hearing procedures for amending zoning and land use district designations, as required by Title 15; and WHEREAS, at the August 1, 2006 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the applications, held public hearings and recommended City Council approval of the proposed zoning amendment included in this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA that: B City of Seward Ordinance No. 2006-xx Page 2 Section 1. The official Land Use Map of the City is hereby amended by changing the land use designation of the Lots 7,8, and 9, Block 17, Original Townsite of Seward, Federal Addition from Two Family Residential (R2) to Auto Commercial (AC) (as displayed in Exhibit A attached hereto) i Section 2. The official Zoning Map of the City is hereby amended by changing the zoning designation of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 17, Orginal Townsite of Seward, Federal Addition from Single Family Residential (Rl) to Auto Commercial (AC) (as displayed on Exhibit B attached hereto). Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect ten (l0) days following enactment. ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, THIS DAY OF 2006. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA Vanta Shafer, Mayor AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Jean Lewis, CMC City Clerk (City Seal) 9 . . CITY OF SEWARD f ~~~_~ 1 0 2006 PlANNING OfflCE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT - REZONING APPLICATION Petitioner: IOIlVl Tou~y"J.S I <;PIL1(\J"A w',\A\;kCfU'\S.pS Address: LOX' R1"'c.tr $).[~\JL-t {),O. \<.ox~S-l2.., ~'~d.., 111\\(. Phone No: ""2'2-1..\-43>1-<(' J Legal Description: ~r\S Vr\.r c..& 1:0 \ "\1 \ 5030/ \ Lt 1-\ 5 0"29 ~ I 4'11 So3 \ Physical Location: 7V\J..17 ~. S:t-~; L 0 \-s 1, 'KJ 9} IS l OL\<( l}- Land Use Plan: Present: 'j/ I ~ Proposed: k \ Proposed: K2 14C. Zoning District: Present: Intended use and/or reason for rezoning: s~ '4~(1"o~ " A map is required to accompany this application! Proof of ownership for parcel(s) must be available if Borough tax roles do not indicate applicant's name. The APPLICATION and MAP (indicating the specific area) must be submitted together, with a FEE of $250.00 (payable to the City of Seward) to the Community Development Office. ADDRESS lIeaall '2'08' \SEA ~$(~ve.. 2 L/;I 6~au.u '5T, DATE to/So Ie(, 7/iOfO(; fO . . ENeWN TOURS 600 Port Avenue P.O. Box 2127 Seward, Alaska 99664 (907) 2244378 Fax (907) 224-7006 June 30, 2006 TO: Malcolm Brown Community Development City of Seward P.O. Box 167 Seward Alaska, 99664 Attached is the Tom Tougas/Seward Wildlife Cruises LLC application to rezone two city lots from Rl to Auto Commercial. The parcels are Lot 8, Block 17, and Lot 7, Block 17, at the comer of Second Avenue and D Street. (See attached map and photos.) Also included in this amended application is an adjacent lot owned by Kevin Clark, Lot 9, Block 17. That property is at 906 and 906 Y2 Second Avenue. (See attached Kevin Clark letter.) This application to amend the Land Use Plan and Rezone (3) lots from Single Family Residential to Auto Commercial is being made in order to accommodate a use that is practical and more in line with the surrounding properties. The concern is that the Seward Wildlife Cruises lots, which have been vacant for years, border the Auto Commercial zone and are more suitable to light commercial development - much like the surrounding lots. Currently the Land Use Plan has Single Family Residential zoning where these two lots are, although the lots are situated near a warehouse immediately west and an ambulance bay/equipment building directly north. Mr. Clark wishes to include his lot, Lot 9, in the rezone application because Auto Commercial zoning would resolve issues related to non-conforming structures on the lot. (See attached Kevin Clark letter.) The (3) lots are contiguous to the Auto Commercial zone and eligible for rezone, under city code. Tbe Seward City Code allows for tbe rezoning of less tban one acre (SCC 15.01.035, (b) (3)), provided the cbange involves tbe boundaries of existing, contiguous zoning districts. \\ . . The rezone request is consistent with land use regulations and poses no impact to public health, safety and general welfare. The requested rezone will provide for a development on now- vacant land that is consistent with the surrounding land use. (Please see attached photos.) The vacant Seward Wildlife Cruises lots meet the size requirements for construction in an Auto Commercial zone. There will be no significant increase in traffic or adjustment in traffic patterns and there are multiple options for accessing the property. Surrounding property owners will potentially benefit from the proposed rezone, because of the increased value and neighborhood stability a development would bring. As stated above, the Seward Wildlife Cruises lots are currently vacant and have been for many years. The proposed rezone is clearly consistent with the surrounding land uses. The property immediately north of the Second and D Street location includes a multi-bay garage (Seward Volunteer Ambulance Corps.) and the property immediately east is zoned Auto Commercial and is the site of the Kenai Fjords Tours warehouse. The residential structures immediately south are owned by Kevin Clark, who is including his lot in the application for rezone. The current land use regulations for Single-Family Residential zoning are intended to provide low to medium density detached and single-family residential development. The land use regulations for Auto Commercial zone districts provide for commercial activities such as offices, certain institutional uses and limited personal services and other activity - provided the uses do not materially detract from nearby residential areas. No housing will be displaced. A rezone to Auto Commercial will help to promote the development of an underutilized property and potentially enhance the community. Best regards, Tom Tougas, President \1, FROM: Kevin Clark a. _ FAX NO. --' .--.------. 907 224 4642 Jun. 22 2006 01:42PM P1 . To Whom It May Concern: June 22, 2006 My name is Kevin Clark. I am the Owner oflot number 9 block 17 OT8 also know as 906 and 906 and half second ave. this property is located adjacent to and SOUtl1 of the lots that are being considered for a zoning change. I would like to make my property part of this application. ~y including my property in thi.s zone change it solves my non conforming strUcture issue. I purchased the property last year believing this property was in compliance with the city code. I bave since found out that it is in a non conforming status because of the current zoning vs. the land use plan which shows a different zoning then what it is currently. I have since been educated as to the difference between the 7..oning map and the land use map. By allOwing the change in this zoning it thus makes my property in conformance with the 7.oning plan. Thank You.Kevin Clark ~cu \;; \ \ \ <., f' G r'- ~ I/' T " f 9- , .,. \.-oj e .... " V1 I f' 1 'f c -, ~ b G ~ r - 9 ~ 1"' \ C) 1 '." "r.-ro;,: - ....-" <. - ~ ?:- o ~ t n ::>' ~ V" V\ :--'1TQ-~",-"""","-,- o VI --r ~ -t" t"'""'> 11\ <:: > o .../ , ~ ,.. Current Zoning Map w ~ o z o u w (J) CST BST VAN BUREN ST w ~ o 0:: ::c I- Legend _ Rural Residential D SIngle FlI11i1y Residential ffc,j\i,HI Two Family Rosldenti81 f:;",'.'!1;~ Mulll FamIy Residential _ UrI>8n R_ _ 0Ilk:e Residential _ HarborCammorclal _ Auto Corrrnardal _ CanlraI_OIlllricl _Indu_ I:cllnslilullanal . Park t)},,~ O---__ment ""''''~'''~~ J Land Use Map r-I liE .P - Sponsored by: Staff CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA PLANNING AND WNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEWARD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, GRANTING RONALD FIKE A VARIANCE FROM SEWARD CITY CODE CHAPTER 15.25 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT TO CONSTRUCT AN AIRCRAFT HANGER ON LOT 8, BLOCK 200 SEWARD AIRPORT WHEREAS, applicant Ron Fike proposes to construct an aircraft hanger on Lot 8, Block 200 Seward Airport which he has leased from the State of Alaska., Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, Lot 8, Seward Airport is located within a designated 100-year floodplain as identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIR.i\1); and WHEREAS, according to fiRM No. 020012 3255 A, dated May 19,1981, the Base Flood Elevation for Lot 8, Seward Airport is 20.0 feet; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward Floodplain Management Ordinance, Seward City Code Sectiun 15.25.050.B.2., requires that the lowest floor of non-residential construction be elevated to the base Hood elevation. or be flood-proofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watci1ight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; and WHEREAS, according to the site plan prepared by registered land surveyor Cline <md Associates. the existing elevation of the proposed building site is 18.0 1eet which would place lhe lowest floor of the building 2.0 teet below the base Hood elevation; and \VHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a variance from the City of Seward ,Floodplain Manauement Ordinance to cons(wd the nTOnosed v ~ ~ I structure's lowest floor 2 feet below the base Hood e!e\!cou"n: ""oj WffF1U',AS. the public notification process was complied with and me appropriate public he,.rm' \1 ,1" r~.".;-,..d h.. Q~"".r.j to,;,,, ('o.le" l <; (\ i il4f\ \1"'S .......1....'".11-." ,I,,, '-""mm;",,!"'n 'lnA' 'Ig"'''' .... ...U ;eJ u..... _""'\.1Uil~.... 'jol" __'...."..fU...... '--''!'lJ '-.- Y :-; L~;._j_._ .v ,,,",<4<..: ......!J..u.y\..~""'4.......y "-.1.,'" t.ll...... '--."-.In ;" .w~ V ~ 'l 'U~~ ~ ")nnt~ i--".""I. ,'\." '...... ; .-.."'" ~ ......... ...~........+. "-_........,lh"".'!IL.=~ tHat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED by the Seward Planning and Zoning Section 1. In accordance with Seward City Code Section 15.25.060 the Seward Planning and z.nn~n[ (';.n-'3!,~s~~[';n h~::; .~0nside.red an of the !oHovv'ing t~ctors~ 1..0 Seward Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 2006-18 Page 2 of3 a. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; b. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; c. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; d. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; e. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; Not applicable. f. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; g. The compatibility of the proposed use with the existing and anticipated development; h. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area; 1. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; J. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; k. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges. Section 2. The Commission makes the following specific fmdings regarding the Ron Fike floodplain variance request: 1. The majority of the Seward Airport and surrounding property is located within the floodplain or floodway. Since the applicant's proposed aircraft hanger is dependent upon an airport location, there are no other feasible locations for the structure which are not located within the floodplain. 2. Failure to grant the variance would result in hardship to the applicant for the following reason: It is not feasible to elevate the structure at or above the base flood elevation. To do so would not allow the aircraft hanger to be utilized for its intended purpose. 3. Granting the requested variance will not result in damage or hardship for this or any other property. 4. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding industrial land uses and existing similar facilities. 5. Considering all of the above findings, the Commission hereby determines that the requested variance to construct the aircraft hanger on Lot 8, Block 200, Seward Airport, at an ~\ Seward Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 2006-18 Page 3 of3 elevation of 18 feet which is 2 feet below the base flood elevation, is the minimum necessary to afford relief. Section 3. Based on the above findings, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby grants Ron Fike a floodplain variance from Seward City Code ~ 15.25.050.B.2. to allow the lowest floor of the proposed aircraft hanger to be constructed up to two foot below the base flood elevation of20.0 feet. The proposed building shall meet either the minimum FEMA requirements for Professional Engineer's watertight design or openings requirements for allowing automatic equalizing of hydrostatic flood forces. Section 4. In accordance with 15.25.060.B.8., the Community Development Office must give written notice to the applicant that the structure will be permitted to be built with a lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation. Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Seward Planning and Zoning Commission this 1 st day of August 2006. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA Marianna Keil, Chair AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: (City Seal) Jean Lewis, CMClCity Clerk 7..1" P&Z Agenda Statement Through: Clark Corbridge, City Manager Kirsten Vesel, Assistant City Manager /<.1<. vi 1- / 'l =l-/O& .. of'S"l\; ~"'1> :c- ,'\'..: ..~......o u ';:;~"'~._ " \.;.. '-;a:"""" ~{...s...1': Meeting Date: August 1, 2006 From: Donna Glenz, Acting Planner Agenda Item: Ronal Fike Request for Variance to Floodplain Management Standards SCC Chapter 15.25 on Lot 8, Block 200 Seward Airport BackID'ound: Ronald Fike applied for a building permit to construct an aircraft hanger on Lot 8, Block 200, Seward Airport Lease Tracts. During the permit review process it was identified that the parcel is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped 100-year floodplain (Zone A3). The City's Floodplain Management Ordinance (Chapter 15.25) guides development in the floodplain in order to lessen the economic loss caused by impending flood events. Provisions of the ordinance Section 15.25.050 General Standards provides specific construction standards for development in the floodplain. Section 15.25.050 B. 2. requires that nonresidential construction must have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the level of the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: 1. Be flood-proofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; 2. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 3. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this subsection are satisfied. Based on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the Base Flood Elevation for Ronald Fike's lease parcel is 20.0 feet. According to the applicant's surveyor (Cline & Associates), the elevation of the proposed building site is 18.0 feet. Variance Reauested: The applicant is requesting a variance from Seward City Code ~ 15.25.050 B.2. in order to construct the proposed aircraft hanger's lowest floor 2 feet below the base flood elevation. 1/,7 CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE Variances as interpreted in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. As such, variances from the flood elevations should be quite rare. Variances may be issued for nonresidential buildings in very limited circumstances to allow a lesser degree of flood proofing than watertight or dry-flood proofing where it can be determined that such action will have low damage potential, complies with all other variance criteria except subsection (B)(l) of this section, and otherwise complies with Section 15.25.060(A) and (B). Variances shall only be issued upon: a. A showing of good and sufficient cause; b. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; c. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. FACTORS TO CONSIDER: According to the Seward Zoning Code 15.25.060, prior to granting a Variance, the Commission shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this chapter, and: a. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; There is no reason to believe that placement of the structure will increase the danger of materials being swept onto other lands. b. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; The past two flood events in 1986 and 1995 did not present any significant threat to life and property in the area of the proposed structure. c. The susceptibility of the proposedfacility and its contents to flood damage and the effed of such damage on the individual owner; The past two flood events in 1986 and 1995 did not present any significant threat of flooding to the area. d. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; None - the proposed hanger is for private use. e. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; Not applicable. f. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; The majority of the Seward Airport and surrounding property is located within the floodplain or floodway. Since an aircraft hanger requires a location near an airport, there 2'1 are no other feasible locations for the proposed structure. g. The compatibility of the proposed use with the existing and anticipated development; The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding industrial land uses and existing similar facilities. h. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area; The 2020 Comprehensive Plan section 3.8.2 addresses floodplain development. Flooding of streams and rivers has historically occurred in Seward and the outlying areas as all flat land along the southcentral Alaskan coast is floodplain. The Resurrection River channels and the airport erosion needs attention. There is no evidence that this project would in anyway increase or hinder the existing flooding issues in the area. i. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; It does not appear that the proposed structure will effect access to the property during flood events. j. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; The past two flood events in 1986 and 1995 did not present any significant threat to life and property in the area of the proposed structure. Ie. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities andfacilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges. Electrical utilities are the only governmental services in the area of the proposed hanger, no increased cost expected. Upon consideration of the above factors and the purposes of Chapter 15.25 Floodplain Management, the Commission may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of this chapter. Conditions for Variances. 1. Generally, the only condition under which a variance from the elevation standard may be issued isfor new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of * acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the baseflood level, providing subparagraphs (a) through (k) of subsection (A)(4) of this section have beenfully considered. As the lot size increases the technicaljustijication requiredfor issuing the variance increases. Not Applicable 2. Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places without regard to the procedures set forth in this section. Not applicable 1;5 3. Variances shall not be issued within a designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the baseflood discharge would result. Not applicable. However it should be noted that the designated floodway is located just north of the cross wind runway. The main runway is located within the floodway. 4. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief The majority of the Seward Airport and surrounding property is located within the floodplain or floodway. Since the proposed aircraft hanger is dependent upon an airport location, and it is not feasible to elevate the structure above the base flood elevation, the requested variance to construct the aircraft hanger on Lot 8, Block 200, Seward Airport at an elevation of 18 feet, which is 2 feet below the base flood elevation, is the minimum necessary to afford relief. RECOMMENDATION: Commission approve Resolution 2006-18, granting Ronald Fike a variance from Seward City Code Chapter 15.25 Floodplain Management to construct an aircraft hanger on Lot 8, Block 200, Seward Airport. 4 W _ CITY OF SEWARD ,- Floodplain DeveloDment Worksheet This worksheet must be completed for all construction and/or development within a floodplain area. Please forward the completed worksheet to the City of Seward, Community Development Department, P.O. Box 167, Seward, AK 99664. (907) 224-4048. I. APPLICANT INFORMATION APPLICANT NAME: 1<&r,vA-LP /) rl/(~ . ADDRESS: ?tJ BOY /3// SeW~...P AX "19t6'1 OWNER NAME (IfOther Than Applicant): ADDRESS: II. LOCATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PHONE: 9/)7-22..'1-(;.062- (1/26\ p-!I Ate) PHONE: Lot Range 9' Section .3 'f Block 2 " 0 Meridian Township Tax Parcel # Subdivision StEW/Tj<J) /}IRt:rJIl"l , AFTER-THE-FACT PERMIT [ ] Yes [ ] Residential [ ] Commercial ] No ] Other AJI!ll2.tff STPItIfti/: lll1lll61tt: III. IV. . TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT [vi New Construction ] Residential - ] Commercial Number of housing units [ ] Other fl) G Ate.. ] Addition/Reconstruction of Existing Structure ] Manufactured Home [ ] Private Lot [ ] Mobile Home Park ] Financing/Refmancing an Existing Structure ] Other \ CITY OF SEWARD \~---- , \ I t 1 0 2006 \ ; JUl \ \ \ I L--.---..'- PlANNING OFFICe To Be Completed by City of Seward FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP INFORMATION 1. Is the proposed development or structure located within the mapped IOO-year floodplain? ] No FIRM Panel #020012- 32/;5 of 6 37S ,/ - <0 . .. ] Yes Zone 2. The following will be required for this structure/development: [ ] City of Seward Floodplain Development Permit NOTE: This information is based on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Kenai Peninsula Borough. This information does not imply that the referenced property will or will not be free from flooding or damage. A property not in a Special Flood Hazard Area may be damaged by a flood greater than predicted on the FIRM or from a local drainage problem not shown on the maps. This information do~s not create liability on the part of the City of Seward, or its officers or employees for any damage that results from reliance on thiS information. Date Signature - City of Seward 1.-" Return to: City of Seward Community Development Department P.O. Box 167 Seward, AK 99664 - - Received By: Date: VARIANCE REQUEST to see 15.25 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT I. APPLICANT INFORMATION APPLICANT B#ALO D. HK€- Address P () f3 OX I 3 1/ City, State, Zip S/;CIAP-.P AIL 9CJtJ-LJ AGENT Address City, State, Zip Day Phone ~1P7 '2:J-tf ",.. bOb 1--Fax Day Phone Fax * If the applicant or agent is not the owner of record, a letter of authorization for this variance request, signed by the owner, must be attached. II. PROJECT LOCATION Assessor Parcel No. Subdivision Township Lot i' Range Section Block ;LCD 31 III. INFORMA TIONfDOCUMENTA TION REQUIRED Please attach additional pages if there is not sufficient space for your response. A. Documentation Required: 1. Completed City of Seward Floodplain permit application. 2. As-built or proposed site plan to scale, showing house location and local topography. 3. Building floor plans to scale. 4. A completed Elevation Certificate, FEMA form 81-31. fL;1- B. Describe the exact variance requested: i Do AJOT WfWT i"'f-IE. r=t.DoR ~tJR$ACE A.Bov,E 'THE Sl R~lJlh7lN0 APRON ANt> 7WtJ n -at=.. rn b r<-E... rJf AN ,'~" {JO{LJ)/NG 5ITlE..- rpt/t C. Describe any conditions which exist peculiar to this piece of property that are not applicable to other property in the same general location: ;f/~A/E D. Strict interpretation ofthe provisions ofSCC 15.25 Floodplain Management, would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same general location. These rights are: HAililvC. (VI'! J-IA/lit;/m tf'" A8oV.E THE. APRtM.l &;I.)t>4.-L.D j);FFE/2 PRom THE. HAN6AP-~ NOw EXI5-;-/AJ(; AT 5~WA-~P ~/IlPoRr AN'" tuba-LX> H,lJmPEA? EN/$IV/l/Ci AN A/PPL-Ihve- 8G/NCi mot/Et) I Nrf) S~//) fI/t1W1/J12.. 1..tt> Page 1 ofl . - E. The described special conditions anu .,;lrcumstances do not result from the actior", ufthe applicant and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute a monetary hardship or inconvenience in that: F. Granting the variance will not result in increased flood height for the following reasons: III1NQ,41< I="/.b()~ (AJDWJ.-f) p,e 7?J H/6H LO/lJl'/fPJEP Tb ,4P/U)N CA-t/5/NC1 {);J:F/CULT} 712 ~e.f!. HA/Jc:,AR w/'rH Al/2.PL;'t/IJE G. Describe the susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the owner: /qt, z. CGS~/V'.A fS-" 8 WIU- BE- PARICC/> IN flAAl1~.,e H. Describe the availability of alternative locations for the building which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage: #~I/c. I. Describe the compatibility of the facility with the existing and anticipated development in the area: SA-mE J. Describe the safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles: IV. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN FLOODW A YS For development in floodways, the applicant must submit documentation that this variance will not result in any increase to flood levels during the base flood, e.g. conveyance calculations and/or step-backwater analysis certified by a registered professional engineer or architect. The Floodplain Administrator will determine which analysis are required for individuals projects. ., v. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: The information contained on this form and. the attachments are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I grant permission for city staff to enter onto the property for the purpose of processing the variance request. I understand that a City of Seward Floodplain permit is also required and that the granting of a variance does Dot guarantee issuance of a City of Seward Floodplain permit. Cost of flood insurance is determined by actuarial risk and will Dot be modified bY1beP'"Of~- / ~ ~ ~7_~~-Ob Signature of Applicant or Agent R E eEl V E 0 Date JUL 1 0 20061,. ~ Dol" --......... Page 2 of 2 LOT 7 --- - JI 11.0' N86'32'34 E 56.4' ~ 149.93' 0, ".5 ...... LEGEND S Rebar & AI. Cap Property Comer .,f>Y' 7 Existing Ground Elevation <: a l,., I\.i \0 . vi' \!r LOT \0 .~ ~ \3 .g I&. a .!!l ~ \~ a .0' \0 \ . <: .,,'... a ~. ':"::... Co: IQ..... ..1\5 Proposed ,:)........51:0:.......... ~ .. Bid 'C.... . ., I'l Melo' g. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . " '''-' 01 on Cone. Slob l'~"" ... -..... 0) 8 . FF E1ev=IB.O' .m......... .................. ... (See Note 5) .~""""""""""""".'" \ i-.': :~q~.A~~.n:.:., 15-:",::<<,:> Cb- \' . I" ,'., , ~ -j>. " '" S86'30'15"W 149.83' e \ \ \ \ L --- LOT 9 250.0' I \ \ \ ~ ~"''''..'' .......r: OF .L1~'-- .~ '"'-\ \... ........... .. ^ r~ ,,- It . ..-r _..... .... .....:A. .-.J" ~..... · ..... l. ~ .~... ~ I....*~ : ; . th ~ =....~f.>.1'.t14.... ......~.:.....~.....i ~I..I (J/.f14.,At . .' ( ~;:""II"""" ..:Xi' ~ '00. ~ ~ \ Wm. Nicholas Cline': f? . 'P':..... . . ~ 01>...... LS-7569 /~. ...~::".f?1 /e0h1- ......"0-:,'1:- ~ ."':0 'I, rc...-r.e:.. _.c'\ . . 'O.-?Q............ \..t>-""-.. -_. FtSSION"'- ..... ."........"... · NOTES: 1 Flood Zone DesigrkJ-tion: AJ 2 Bose Flood [revation=20' 3 Vertical Datum is NGVD 1929, Mean Sea Level. 4 Basis of Elevations is 8M X-74, Elev=26.45' 5 The proposed Roor elevation for the building shown hereon is 2' below the Bose Flood Elevation. An exception to Seward Floodplain Ordinance 15.25 is required prior to construction. <: a l,., I\.i ~I~ ~~- ~ ~ ~ ):> -< .... CJ1 I~ l,., -- a o 50 100 ... - .. I GRAPHIC SCALE SITE: PLAN LOT 8. BLOCK 200 SEWARD AIRPORT LEASE LOTS withIn Section 34, TtN, R1 W. S.M., Ak. CLINE &: ASSOC/A rES P. o. BOX 2703 SEWAR~ ALASKA 99554 907-224-7324 FIELD BOOK:06-04 OWG: 06-218 OA TE: 07/08/06 SCALE: 1"=50' '],\ /Ot1~ d/A~O ~:; ~ - )007' 3D" 14902,' 15" PRODUCED 3Y THE UN TED STATES GEOLOGICII. SURVEY eotnROL BY: ..... .......... . .., ....... ..' OSGS. N05IHOA. AND usa COMl'lIJ;D FRC C _ PIlOllGlW'llS TAKE .............. ...... 1976 FIELD OlECIlE' .............. ..1971 MAP mrrm ....... .... ...I91S I'\lOoIECTION . ............... ...... UNI\IEIl' I\J. lRANSVER&1 MEJK:ATOR GRID: I _ME ER UNIVERSAL 11IANS_ M IlCATOR ...... .,. ZONE 6 IO._FI DT STATE GIUI TICKS ....... .......... AlA llA, ZONE . U1\lI GRID DEe .lNAT\OI'l...... .........."... ...."...".... 2'02' WEST U'3 MAGHET\l HOR111 DECUI ~11ON ..."". ............... h"30' E"'T \IEIlTICAI. OAt' M......... NA: IONI\L lZODf.T ; VERT1CI\L DA: 11M Of' "" HOIlIZONTJlL 1 'l'llM ........ ............ 19: 7 NOR1'It AMER CAN DAtuM To pUce Oft ~he pndIcted 'Wrth Amen. III Datum of 983. move the projectlo I "nes 66 ... ra north and 19 met.... .a. : Gray land Ib .. repre.nt 1 IlIUnIIY'Id anc unmarked 10 adORl pre- determined I y the Bureau of Land Man. gement, Polk' 5-14 and 5-16. Sewllrl MerIdIan There may t , privat. Inbo iIInp w\1bIn t .e bouncl.rla ){ any fed- ere! or Slah r_rvatlollll I 10_ on thllI : "'" A111irUm1 , nd lake,. are I orennta! e 22' 30' ,5 --.............. SC \LE 1:2 .._ ~llOMETER' -M-EfW . 0 MILES 010 51 feET ~ z 1 .5 100 I - "'----- ~--_. o .._~ o 1~ ~.J~g 2000 3000 CONTOUR I ~TERVAL PRO' IISIONA: . MAP ProdUCe< from original manuSCl pt drawtnl s. Infor- mation I hown as 0 date of field che :k. COIIl1l< L ~ATIONS HOWN TO 0l1l . ~AT1lltI1l lHOWN 1'0 To convert mt n. to feet Iftl To convert tel 1Ct mtt.... hi 3 1IIS MAP ro IPIJES WITH. IAnONA!. fOR ;ALE BY U.l . GEOLOGI( M. SURV DENVER. C JLORAOO . l225 OR . APPROXIMATE SCALE 1000 0 HAnOHAL. flOOD IIISURARC[ ,iD8RAII FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ~e KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH, ALASKA PANfL3255 OF 6375 leu: MAP IHDE)( 110" '.....ILI NOT ..FlINTED) e CoMMUIIITY .PANEL IIUM9ER 020012 3255 A EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 19, 1981 _I_cv_t_ fodonIln_.. odmlnlltr8tlon "ThIs I. .n ollie'. copy of. portion or the 8~ referenced loed map. ,It wea 8)[t,.cted ualng F-MIT On-Un.. Thla map doee not reflect changes or amendments which may h8Y8 been made aublequent to the date on the tftle block. For thelat..t product InfDrmlltlon .bout Nation. RoocIlnaurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at WtNW.!'rMIC,rem8.goV Memorandum Date: July 6, 2006 CITY OF SEWARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Jean Lewis, City Clerk Through: Kirsten Vesel, Assistant City Manager From: Donna Glenz, Acting Planner Subject: Revised - 2006 Planning & Zoning Meeting Schedule This memo is to provide a revised schedule of the Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings for the calendar year 2006. Unless otherwise noted the P & Z regular meetings will begin at 7:30 p.m. The "Scheduled Special Meetings" shall be beld ONLY if a Public Hearing item is on the agenda otherwise the meeting will be held as a work session commencing at 6:30 pm. Month Reeular Meetine: Soecial P & Z Meetine: for Public Hearine:s JaJmary January3fl1 lanaa}'}' 1 'f" F ebroary February 'f"-' Feemary 2151 Mareh . MSfeB 7* Mareh 21st April .A~pril1l1> f~pril18l1> May May 1l1> -{Th~1IS) May 1 adl-fBereHgh Assembly iB Se'llaf6. May 2~ .fuBe Jane all> N.^. July July 6th (Thursday) July 1St. August August 1 st August 15th September September 5th September 19th October October 5th (Thursday) October 17th (KPB & Local elections October 3rd) November November 9th (Thursday) November 21st (NatiOnal Election November 7~ December December 5th December 19th If you have questions or concerns, please call 224-4048 or em~l dglenz@citvofseward.net. '!;CP City of Seward 2006 Planning Zoning Commission Meeting and Agenda Cut-Off Dates Reminder: Per SCC2.30.220(a), the Commission shall meet at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers on the 1 st Tuesday of each month Public Hearing Items Variance/CUP/Plat Reviews (3 weeks prior to meeting) Non Public Hearing Notice Items (2 weeks prior to meeting) Meeting Date G:\Community Development Folder\Fonnats _ Donna\P and Z\Com}::L Meetings\P&Z mtg Cut Off Dates 2006.x1s r(1~<;; I VI 1 Donna Glenz From: Malcolm Brown Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 9:43 PM To: (dglenz@cityofseward.net); (stylin@ptialaska.net); Carol Griswold (C-9riz@yahoo.com); fnts@aurora.uaf.edu; Kay Strobel (kaystrobel@gmail.com); Ihohl@connect.kpbsd.k12.ak.us; Marianna Keil (backlash@gcLnet); Sandie Roach' (sandie@seward.net); Sandie Roach' (sroach@kpbsd.k12.ak.us); sewardJio@legis.state.ak.us Subject: P&Z priorities & timeline for 2006 Hello everyone, Here are my notes from the January work session. My understanding was that some items were to be dealt with as work session' items, some as public meeting items, (public hearings &lor discussion items) and some as both. Feb - 1. KPB Coastal Zone Management Plan, review 2. Parking code, review March - 1. Annual joint P&ZICouncil work session, as required by Code, review: a. Comprehensive Plan & Land Use Plan (2003) b. Municipal Land Use Plan (1995) c. Parks & Recreation Master Plan (1993) d. Subdivision ordinance (Title 16) April - 1. Comprehensive Plan, present for annual review as a public hearing item 2. Presentation on Transportation or Transit Committees, such as the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions. The intent would be to leam how to have more local involvement with DOT projects. . May - 1. Review Historic Overlay District in a joint work session with the Historic Preservation Commission 2. ADA Transition Plan, review June - 1. Capital Improvement Plan (annual), review July - Nothing. August - Nothing. September - Community Values discussion at a community meeting October - Title 15 Definitions, review and consolidate November - Annual review of the CUPs which were issued. Review the P&Z priorities on a quarterly basis. Thanks, Malcolm No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by A VG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 f Virus Database: 267.15.21253 - Release Date: 217/2006 )'?J .-. In I" 1\(\ C. City o/Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6. Page 63 Call to order The June 6, 2006 regular meeting of the Seward Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chair Marianna Keil. Opening Ceremony Commissioner Roach' led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Roll Call There were present: Marianna Keil presiding, and Margaret Anderson Kevin Clark Lynn Hohl Sandie Roach' Tom Smith Kay Strobel comprising a quorum of the Commission; and Clark Corbridge, City Manager Donna Glenz, Acting Planner Maggie Wilkins, Assistant PlaIlJ,lci' Christy Terry, Executive LiaisOn Absent was: None City Administration Report -Glenz updated the COmmission on the following items: . Introdu~ MaggieiWilk;jns, Assistant Planner and Christy Terry, Executive Liaison for ~.anc.t..Commissions. . Copies of the 7020 Compre~ve Plan were now available to view on the City of Seward Website QI'tbeptJblic could()bUlin a bard copy from Community Development for a fee of $15.00. . The Kenai Penins~~ugh Assembly would review the 4th of July Creek Subdivision, Polar Sel:tfood Replat at their July 17, 2006 meeting. . The C~~by booth was being constructed in the Harbor. . Commission lay downs included the Code violation letter sent to political candidates. Corbridge updated the Commission on the following items: . Introduced Eddy Athey as the new Deputy Fire Chief. . The next Council Meeting would include Introduction of an Ordinance changing Community Development back into a department from the current designation as a division of Administration. . There were plans to schedule a Work Session on planning and permitting after July 17th. ?/' City of Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 64 In response to Keil, Corbridge stated that the current Community Development did not have a department head and was not operating at a department level. In response to further questions, Corbridge noted the current proposal included five staff members in the Community Development Department, but that the Building Inspector position would remain in Engineering. Clark noted his approval of the Administration taking action instead of conducting another 'study.' Corbridge assured Keil that more staff would allow the Department to operate more efficiently. \"'f~, Smith agreed it was important for Community Development to li1tY: He requested the Administration clarify and detail the functions of Development Department. department status. . in the <;ipmmunity '''-t4\., ..;'..') '''i~' .,.,>, "-i'*~~;:::_:~JfffiJ;~\ HoW hoped one of the new positions was empowered wi e,,18eveloped outlining duties and 'J~ject to Council approval. Corbridge stated an organizational chart wo responsibilities, but reminded the Commission this was sti Corbridge noted that funding was also n~~~ for enforceme' . . <, .'-i. ,_J.- . ;oved of having structure in place to aid Anderson supported this proposal ~llUs~. with communication. .~ ,.2X:'''' _;.-,7'~ ,",.-'-- KPH Planning Commission Rep6k"by Lynn''8olWi;?:;r 4/f .,' .,' . HoW direc~~t Commission's attention to item #1 in her written report that she .:w;puld not altenct~rJuly lih KPB Planning Commission meeting. .H(1),tdirected thee~ll11lli~sion's attention to item #2 regarding whether or not Pl~.Commissio~' may vote in quasi-judicial matters before the Borough ,piaruung~':Gommissioti' when a member had already voted on the same issue at the leity level.''"' .,;;floW noted' #8 was timely regarding the risk associated with wind downing of . ~.s due~Thinning. . HoM fefetred the Commission to item #11 where the Borough Code required the preliminary plat show the approximate location of known utilities. . HoW reviewed item #12 clarifying that Borough Code requires, "No permanent structure shall be placed in the utility easement." . Lastly, HoW reviewed item #26 - The borough has 49 days to approve a plat once a completed application & fee was submitted. If no action was taken the plat is automatically approved as submitted. Other Reports, Announcements and Presentations yo City ojSf!Ward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 65 Liaison from Seward Bear Creek Flood Service Area Board- None. Citizens' Comments on Any Subject except Those Items Scheduled For Public Hearing- Tim McDonald, inside the City, expressed concern with speeding traffic on Fourth Avenue between 1 sl National Bank and Peking Restaurant. He suggested speed bumps on this section of the street. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda if. c_~:c':/i'f'Syt.' Approve the Agen'8?l{ind Consent Agenda Aft"'': -;;;' Zoning Motion (Anderson/Hohl) Hohl added to New Business an Item D: Djscussion Commission Packet Delivery. f.!"' ';i<.';;~\ ,,;;:i'4"'- ~-'"- ,'~",;':!: Hohl added to New Business an Item C: Set wo"'iiession topic for July 18,2006. Motion Passed As Amended Unanimous ~'r:; -;;:~~ft;~> .~).> ",'-,: :\:'if:j~it;rri Unfinished Business Items requiring a Publi"H~ring - .;,Y "E:? ,"':-,' Resolution 2006-07 recommendi .' Ci.ilamend Seward City Code Parking Requirements, 15.10.215 to ensure compliance, with the;pl'lrking requirements ofthe Federal Americans with Disabilities Act [postponed dbm tht:~rch 7,2006, April 4, 2006 and May 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Me~gs] \~<j,I;' ,{fir Glenz reviewed th~4~~~ory of this resolution and its accompanying ordinance. recommended~pproval. ';'~$... " "~~.". ';;l~::;;:);,.;.;r;" *(Motion (Roacb'/~derson) "f'r Glenz Approve Resolution 2006-07 recommending City Council amend Seward City Code Parking Requirements, 15.10.215 to ensure compliance with the parking requirements of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act] *Note: This motion was made at the March 7,2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting. Notice of public hearing being posted and published as required by law was noted and the public hearing was opened. No one requested to be heard and the public hearing was closed. 4\ City of Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 66 In response to Anderson, Hohl clarified that modifying the Building Code to match ADA compliance would not fall under the Planning and Zoning Commission's prerogative. In response to Hohl, Glenz stated that staff did not currently review for ADA compliance in individual parking lots, but did refer the plan submitters to the ADA requirements for compliance. Glenz stated that once this was codified, then staff would review plans with the specified requirements as they were submitted. Hohl pressed to understand how staff would know what requirements to review. Glenz stated that staff would be expected to research and know what thyprequirements were. if-"-;; In response to Anderson, Glenz noted that the City had been WOt".th Jim,~!ady from the Independent Living Center regarding the City's building and parking ADA~\lireme>>ts. Glenz also noted that this proposed resolution brought the City ~bde into compliance.~y~~itified that bringing City buildings and parking lots into compliancewithtlre ADA was a separate issue from what was in front of the Commission.}t~ ,"i'.' , '"",n. '17\'.''- .-' -'ij ,;~'; 'T \t~{J' Anderson stressed the importance of the City complying,c"ith ~e requirements. She inquired as to what the grievance procedure in these cases would be."J.,i,;~',i> .;,s ~4;i}j /f~i_!_ ,+:': Corbridge noted there was not a curre~~Peci,~,;grievance procedure in City Code to address ADA requirements. ;~"t,!Ji;J ''\l\i:, '~i 0-, ("-' IJ;+/'~\'"f" Smith discussed the importance of AD1"compli~aBce. ~4/i;;j"-;,~~ _ .{;};~io/: Strobel noted her concetiis with the sidewalk in front of the Senior Center. Corbri<,illy,darified'thatA compliance was required throughout the current DOT project, and administratio~'t'ould follow ti~;2~n ~issue. -:;:rc~' _~T< Hohl d:Q(f1",she currentfy volunteered for the Independent Living Center, had worked there in the p~, and ask~~r "I} ruling from the Chair if she had a conflict of interest. ~[- _<4.X!%tl9 iJ:"': _ ^ The or.... ruledtJiit Hohl did not have a conflict of interest. "'~-' s'; : '~'1~ Clark commented that Building Code Requirements and Parking Code Requirements were two separate issues. He noted that ADA requirements superseded City Code and Administration had brought this forward to bring our City Code into compliance. Motion (HohI/Anderson) Move 'requirements' to follow '(0) Accessible parking' and have the line continue as, 'All parking shall comply...' \.y1--- City of Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 67 Motion Passed Unanimous Motion Passed Yes: Anderson, Clark, Hohl, Keil, Roach', Smith, Strobel No: None New Business Items requiring a Public Hearing Resolution 2006-17 recommending City Council and the Kenai Peninsula Borough approval of the Replat of Lot 17 A, Block 9 and Lots 1 and 2, Blol.;ll; 4, O~inal Townsite of Seward, including: Vacation of the portion of Washington Street 10ca.J?ttween Fifth Avenue and the East boundary ofthe alley located 100 feet to the West; includmgiJWy assoc~ted utility easements; and adding an additional twenty (20) feetJ" the East side of/.lie allejt between Washington Street and Railway Avenue "if' "~<<)ii",ri . Corbridge introduced the Mary Lowell Center P USKH, Inc. and Bill White, Senior Planner, White presented the Mary Lowell Center Traffic Impact Anal reliminary Review of the Results and Conclusions. In response to a quesM,Qn~from Smith, Wlite stated that there would be 180 visitors per hour that would break down,~J'wll~# visitor to 1 automotive visitor to 1 public transportation visitor. This was the formuhfthey,~ed f<)'~ve at approximately 60 parking spots needed at the Center. White noted that tun1tive:ri:~uration~twhe part of the equation. " "' ~P'~l;tif' Anderson asked if White ~j)'ared Seal3~ ~ter visitor/parking numbers to their results, ",i_' - ~,~" '''({ White answered that they had q~stioned the Mary'Lowell Center Partners and used their judgment. White stated that the arno~!.~arking spaces recommended in the study would accommodate the visitor parkin~~:ds for a fnajci. " of the days of the year. There would be a few 'high-tide' times where overflow p~ng would be' ~ In resp()~t lained that a vehicle occupancy rate for facilities of this nature was 2.5 whileitii. occupan . ~te, forrestaurants was 1.5. He also described the peak time at the Mary .,,,',," ... <t' Lowell Cente~"in the mowhere there would be traffic congestion of 20 seconds at Fourth Avenue and Anftws Stree~;> HoW noted the numbers in the traffic study seemed flawed. She commented on the alley being dedicated one-way Northbound and the problems trucks would encounter going uphill. ~;~4h~'v,;,::: _ ,i4~'i:? In response to Roach', White clarified that the counts were collected in June 2004. In response to further questions, White would be taking concerns and comments from tonight's meeting and working those into the final report. White disclosed that the morning peak time was developed from counts taken from the State of Alaska study. L{J City of Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 68 Roach' echoed the concerns of others that Northbound was not a good solution for this alley. In response to Smith, White noted that historical data from the Partners was projected out from existing facilities to develop visitor numbers. In response to Keil, White reviewed the Level of Service Summaries and noted that this information included a base level of growth for the community. Hohl noted that these recommendations seemed to be orienting traffic towards Fifth Avenue instead of Fourth Avenue. Keil thanked Mr. White for his presentation. .td ~. Corbridge recommend Planning and Zoning approv~the resolution. <{' ,,~fr4 Assistant City Manager and Mary Lowell Center P~e~ltirsten Vesel responded to Keil' s question by reading item #3 in Section 1. Vesel clarified thai~~'partners were asking for a separate agreement for a ten foot allowance subject to Council reviewing1ap ordinance for a marginal access road.t.it;~,~ Hohl asked Vesel if it would be better to pos~one action untih ',ouncil was able to decide on the proposed Marginal Access Road Ordin~~~ an~;~eived a negative answer. 1:~;' "'W ";''1:, Alo:,: '.;;~';: Notice of public hearing being posted anti p$lished~ ~equired by law was noted and the public hearing was opened.~c' ,iff- ~#' ';~;, i,;,'ii'/' Shannon Kovac, inside',ffi~ City, read the"fe~~mmendations of the Mary Lowell Citizen's Advisory Committee in sup~of the project. s ;",*',,}, A~fi.t~y" '""(.;;> Bob Linvill~"inside the CitYi,tl1o~t the traffic study was very educational. He encouraged the Commission,i(J'~llire a 50 foo~\alrey on the plat. Linville encouraged the Commission to require that thi:i~et~ert back fo' a public right of way if the project was not built. Linville suggested another 8 foot~'7~ent on the East Side of the Plat. He noted that there should be a flashing crosswalk at Fourt:1J':A:~enue and Fifth Avenue to deal with the increase in pedestrians and vehicles. "'0: '\fh_, V Iris Darling, inside the City, concurred with Linville's statements. She expressed her concerns and would like to see the actual number of vehicles on Washington Street. Darling expressed confusion as to why this facility was being located in a street when it would be less expensive to locate on an actual lot. She noted her frustration at her business being a good neighbor for Seward since 1903, and felt the City was cutting off the visitors and creating a new visitor migration area away from downtown businesses. Darling felt downtown businesses were going to suffer when this facility was in place. l1L\ City of Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 69 Bill Hearn, inside the City, noted he was happy to see the traffic study, but felt it was unfair to present a partial study on the night of the resolution. Hearn felt the nwnbers were flawed and cited that the study recognized 135 vehicles on Washington Street with no building, but only projected a 60 vehicle increase on Railway A venue when the building was in place and Washington Street was vacated. Hearn asked the Commission to gather data and make decisions based on analyzing that data. He noted the extreme inconvenience this rerouting of traffic would impose. He asked the Commission to postpone voting on this issue until an economic analysis and a formal traffic study could be analyzed. Kerry Martin, inside the City, questioned if recreational vehicles and government vehicles were taken into account as part ofthe traffic study. Martin noted thaWtilit)'; ements were not located in streets; the utilities were located there, but additional easemen ~,. ' Unnecessary. Martin stated that the Planning Commission had to follow City Code and appro .. ." foot ~t Of Way. Martin felt that Seward's Subdivision Code was grossly ou,;'~fwhack, but to j~~.......e..nd'fthis piece didn't make sense without looking at the entire Code. H~lt that once the plat~ ~ed by the Kenai Peninsula Borou,gh, then the City would never re~n Q,'lfnership of this pr6perty. Martin .\,,<1h._~< noted his concerns that when projects were put in place. r ramifications off site tend to be imposed. Kathy Beyers, inside the City, supported the previous public g comments. She noted she used Washington Street on a regular basis t id bus traffic 'lway Avenue and had no safety concerns with Washington Street. Sh e fifty foot alley and stated that a remote parking lot wasn't feasible in practice. Be. .,i~ Martin's comments about auxiliary ramifications after facilities were put in plafe.!f\' Carol Griswold, inside , cauti~~,Planning and Zoning Commission about accepting the Traffic Study's n bers and recalleii . at the data was collected in 2004 during mid- week in early June. She n". ems in the Traffic Study: 1) questioned ifthe study examined a portion of Was . gton StreM . closed or the whole street, 2) the direction of alley traffic would be important 1If . Ie and pedest ", C ,3) study was based on a twenty foot alley instead of 50 foot right of way,f'.; estioned if., king stalls configured for compact cars or recreational vehicles, 5) s~#,Pat . should ntf counted, 6) overflow parking options would also be full when needed/'~ pedestri ing should be at Fourth A venue and Railway A venue to leave Fifth and Railway . heavy tru "exit and to divert tourists downtown, 8) noted City Code must be followed and }consi~g vacation there had to be equal or superior access, 9) require an 8 foot easement along ~'roperty line. Griswold supported the property reversion back to the City. She displayed her concept for a Washington Street extension. Sheryl Seese, inside the City, supported a 50 foot street. She suggested traffic on the alley be routed Southbound and only allow left turns. She stated that Mr. White's study made it clear pedestrian traffic would not be routed to the downtown businesses. She noted it was difficult parking downtown. Y7 City of Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6. Page 70 Scott Egger, inside the City, asked the COIllIIllssion to take a closer look at the project. He stated that band-aids were the mode of planning for the City of Seward. Egger felt that traffic problems were guaranteed. He stated he was against the vacation of Washington Street and spoke in opposition to the resolution and asked Planning and Zoning to vote against it. Tim McDonald, inside the City, felt the information for the traffic study was flawed. He noted any grade would cause problems for heavy trucks in winter conditions. He asked the Commission to consider the scene downtown without the full use of Washington Street for 4th of July. McDonald informed the Commission they would be making an error if they didn't postpone this resolution. He thought urban planners graded the buildings down to the waterfront. He urged everyone to get involved. McDonald made inappropriate comments an<;\\,Vas gl,l;~led out of order by the chair. He concluded by stating it was inappropriate for the City to be ~~1the partners working oo~~~ ~ ~ '"' Dale Hoogland, inside the City, originally suppotl~ vacation of was6~,o~:ltreet. He noted that his understanding was the developing agencies~ere,~ing to provide funds to renovate downtown. He supported construction of an undergroun~f~king structure where the Arcade building was formally located. Hoogland supported a 50 fdOt ri~pf way with the traffic flow going Southbound. He felt there would be less disruption using wasM~on,?~eet as a bus load and unload. He supported the multi-agency concept but also supported th~ for citizens to be heard. 4' ~';;", ,rfjtl' Jeff Mow, Superintendent Kenai Fj~.5dtNa~ Park, thanked the Commission for their time and effort, and thanked Bill White for Dis traillc s~ f()cusing on one element of the project. He clarified that the public process would cofitin~ and wo'9:l<flncorporate public comments into the project. He stressed that he wanted this project'ct'o not ~ be a success for the agencies involved, but also for the City of Seward.","i "~' 'i~;~l> elF fi'; Tanya Sandefur, ins;,A.e City, encouraged the Commission to listen to the public and look at procedures f~t~ppropriitiorl'~1lv;;tcations and leases. She felt the City was not learning from their mistakes. <;' -;;c.;,. . Darryl;~W,.yer, AI SeaLife Center, clarified that the partners withdrew their request to ac~e 10 feet 6t~e?cade property and SAAMS did not agree that 50 feet was needed there. He staWd SAAMS _d still be willing to provide the 10 feet without any conditions. He stated that eve~ng dOn,~j))r the Alaska SeaLife center was in following with their CUP. He again offered funding f6 matre additions available to this project, including parking for this area. Schaefermeyer concluded by offering assistance for the project. No one else requested to be heard and the public hearing was closed. The Commission took a ten minute recess beginning at 9:30 pm. Motion (Smith/Roach') Approve Resolution 2006-17 1.-\4> City afSeward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 71 Motion (Anderson/Strobel) Strike the word 'associated' and substitute the word 'unnecessary' in the heading and Section 1, line 5. Anderson stated that this language would give the City more flexibility. Motion Passed Unanimous Motion (HohllRoach') Substitute in the heading and Section 1 lines 5 and 6: "thirty (30) feet" in place of "twenty (20) fe#" alli" after the final Avenue add a selh~~n along with "and i "'>~ extending North t.~~te a cUl:v,ed radius in a~~rdance with' {Kenai Peninsula ~_. -, ::'c' -/.' Borotigh Code" ';Ii~ ,~'J HoW clarified her intent of replacing a 'street' wi eet' that met the minimum City Code using this amendment. She felt this street would:li6t '. ify as a 'marginal access road' because more then three lots used this road for access. Hohl asked'tbe. Fir~€hiefifthis would meet ,r:' i' emergency egress, and received an answer in the affirmative. c:F ,*/ "'ii" Motion Passed -;,,~~ _ ':7: .J St~e,.alllanguage after the word 'Code' in 111' S~bn 1, item 3. ~\, " ".;' " AdJf' ,,,,~ Unanimous Motion (Anderson/Hohl) Motion Passed Add a new item 4 under Section 1 (renumbering the following items) to read, "The rIfty (50) foot dedication shall be required extending North to create a curved radius in accordance with Kenai Peninsula Borough Code." Motion Passed Motion (Hob~~trobel) .-,".'<y Unanimous Motion (HohllRoach') Add a new item 5 under Section 1 (renumbering the following items) "In accordance with Kenai Peninsula Borough Code ~ 20.20.170 'Pedestrian ways required when' an eight foot N orth-Soutb pedestrian easement shall be provided within the western side of existing lot 17 A connecting 4l City of Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 72 to the eight foot pedestrian easement along the Northern Boundary oftbe property." HoW demonstrated how her proposed easement would run along the alley and join the easement already noted on the plat. HoW clarified her desire to have a pedestrian easement that the Mary Lowell Center would have to maintain. The rules were unanimously suspended to allow Kenai Fjords National Park Superintendent Jeff Mow to speak to the Commission. Mow clarified that the current building design allowed for a fivl}tto eigl;J,t,ifoot setback along that side of the lot for pedestrian easement, but it just wasn't present~,~'~"part of the plat. In response to HoW, he stated he did not have an objection to the eight foot~;;;trian e~,ment. He noted that the current design still had a twenty foot wide 'vi~ta' through the bUl~g aloo! the trace of Washington Street. In response to a question from Roaqh', Mow stated that thi'S~~ would be open twenty-four hours except for certain times in the wint~duc;)tb windblown snow. In response to a question from Corbridge, Mow stated that the loading doc~~picted on the schematic design was recessed into the building and should not interfere with the'l>ed~an easement. Motion Passed destrian easement along Roach' spoke in support of the amendment to add the eight the alley. Anderson asked the Commission to dis6'li~s SecM~~ 1, item 8. ,:,"(iI~ ~_"~M;: .;_~" !{d {,;;(" ,i~b' HoW felt item 8 should~e left in the Resolution, but stressed to the Administration they needed to enter into an agre~t with the partners to have the property revert back to the City if the project doesn'~~e place." ' ~'<,~,.l:Jr~ Corbridge a~ed HoW that1\dministration knew an agreement was necessary. ,ft,'" ""'j'>';-, ^'-' .",!,," Smith:~ncurred ~';I?:i~e importance of having an agreement. , ~"'i1"<'<>;f!,)' " ,,! Motion (HohVSmith) (> Strike the last senten~e of item 8 so that this item now ends with "at the property." Motion Passed Unanimous Consent Smith noted that the Center wasn't fully designed yet and urged the public to attend the meetings regarding the Mary Lowell Center. He had witnessed how public input was incorporated into the designs. Smith noted that the parking study needed to look at the percentage of Recreational Vehicles and needed to validate visitor numbers with the Forest Service and Park Service. He felt the study done in June was a little early to get an accurate picture. ~<3 City of Seward, Alaska July 6,2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 73 Motion (Hohl/Strobel) In Section 1, item 1 delete "City staff' and substitute "the Planning and Zoning Commission through the Conditional Use Permit process." Motion Passed Unanimous Consent Motion (Hohl/Smith) In Section 1, item 8 delete the start of the second sentence that reads, "If this is not done, then" and th foUo,vibg "that" and "consider." Add :tIf into" after "City" and before "an agre'~~nt" anc\Jldd "and reversion as a publi~;'~!tJrope~, if the .;., ,"{'t.,_ /" pro~t does not use the ~~ parcel" afte~~\co' ction begins" and before "at the p, " ,4$! Motion Passed A motion by HoW to amend Section 1, it~,9l prior to final authorization of the plat failed ~~ to require apprQ: of the tsunami escape route , e necessary second. , ~trf;+' 4;j:t. In response to HoW, Corbridge expItne~~t it did have the items necessary in this i~tance.'t:> "-'$'" ';H':: ~~ <<f' ce of the KenaiPeirinsula Borough staff reading the original plat note. HoW directed the Co ioners and Administration to the plat note requiring ownership of anything in th~r;j.ght-of-waY',~s, streetcars, poles, etc.) reverting back to the Ballaine family and their heirs if it'tv~':lWt used for the'~li?~oW was concerned that this would be a future issue and wanted the recordJ():~ect this info~on for the Kenai Peninsula Borough Staff for their review. , ~,' -'. ~- .{4/1 Main Motio assed Unanimous ~i~~;,".:!;~"Y. '';J'':J.*,,,~~- '\vas not a subdivision agreement, but "'.~" Unimished Bllmess - N~ "'.: -.-' *~':_ii:/>',_0q,/ New Business Approval of revising the 2006 Planning and Zoning scheduled meeting calendar to include the third Tuesday of each month as a Special Scheduled Meeting for Public Hearing Items and establish the Special Scheduled Public Hearing Cutoff dates. Glenz noted the Commission requested this amended schedule for Special Scheduled Meetings. Glenz clarified that if a Public Hearing was needed, then a Special Regular Meeting l\q City of Seward, Alaska July 6. 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6. Page 74 would be held, or if there were no Public Hearings on the Agenda, then a work session would be held. Motion (HohIlAnderson) Approve the revised 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting schedule, changing the third Tuesday of each month work sessions to "scheduled special meetings' if a Public Hearing item has been submitted by the required cut-off date and establishing the three week cut-off dates for Public Hearing items. Motion Passed Unanimous ,;f~' Work session municipal land plan on July 18th work ~sion. '\!i';s, After Commission discussion, Review and Update o~, nicipal Lands Management Plan was chosen as the work session topic for July 18, 2006 It 6':~$;pm. Discussion of Planning and Zoning Commission Packet Delive Hohl stated she would like her pa~~!'~~~. ;,y' Air!' ';;,p!ic 'k ~~ 't'<t, ,,~" The other Commissioners stated lIiey'Would pr~er to pick up their packets at Police Dispatch. -t+" " "1 "~ . . Informational Items and Re s- (No action required) "Garb ".. ,Can Gran "',, enai B~ars" written by Russell Freeman Stigall Anchorage Daily News, Seward ~nix Log, pubf~:d,ittJl;l[ay 31,2006. e to see the City participate. Roachtstated she. rted the program and wanted to present the information to the community dui'Uag the Se~ber community values meeting. J)>,._ . ."'~' .~),~~"tft-fi Hohl stated she remembered this being part of the Comprehensive Plan. Anderson stated she would like to see a resolution supporting this. Glenz stated she had been working with Larry Lewis to bring this program before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council with the ultimate goal of implementing this program in Seward. SO City of Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6, Page 75 Commission Comments Anderson expressed her gratitude for those citizens attending the meeting. She expressed her support for the multi-agency facility in this location and expressed her displeasure at being personally attacked. Hohl stated she did support this location at one time until the other realized their other property choice was larger. She noted she would excuse herself from voting at the Borough level. Smith noted that in a Democracy not every person gets their way 100% of the time. Clark stressed that the City was a partner in this project. Strobel supported the vacation of Washington Stre~ but also support.'. div:~als being allowed to vote on a referendum. She noted that it was'\filifortunate that this ~.nff'llble to be arranged. Strobel then stressed the need to move forwar te was not on the vacation, but on Roach' concurred with Strobel. She stated thatto issues regarding the plat. Citizens' Comments - not have autho over appropriations, calling lieve it was fair for the public to call any Keil commented that that this CommissiQU' a vote, or private property under discussion. _~d' Commissioner's integrity into question.' ~" jp ". ~~k .~. Kerry Martin was en ed by the partiCipation. He congratulated Tom Smith on his retirement. Martin thanke . dge for changing Community Development back to a Department. He stressed ~~ed for '. follo~ its own Code. Martin clarified that a CUP should be required prior to a*\J,l,lilding permit '.. ..Ii_on. Scott Ft~~' .}ated CoZ;sioner comments. He supported Citizens being able to vote and have theif:"say. Eggef""?,\ilrstood that not everyone could get their way, but wanted Boards, Commissions.~ d Council f~~'ier an atmosphere where people are welcome to express their opinions. Tim McDonald apologized for his inflammatory comments. He clarified that Washington's Army's intentions were for the citizens of Seward to have a vote on the issue. McDonald stated that this issue would continue to be examined. He stated the project had to be discarded for the citizens to have an actual vote. He commended the Planning and Zoning Commission on work they did on the job they were tasked. McDonald concluded by saying this whole issue was not a democratic process. 5\ City of Seward, Alaska July 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Volume 6. Page 76 Tanya Sandefur wondered if the City Manger could give an update on the procedures for leases. She noted appropriations should be adopted into a procedure where a referendum could be utilized. Polly Egger thanked the Commission for all their work. She clarified that Council and the City Manager were the individuals who retaliated when citizens shared their opinions. Commissions and Administration Response to Citizens' Comments - Corbridge noted the lease procedures were on a list submitted to Council that Council had discussed, but not prioritized. He needed to return to Council to ask the}ll. topil'oritize. "'''',<!,_ ,'i'" ~f, ''';;: Roach' responded to citizen complaints by referring them to the, that contained an organizational chart with citizens on the ~. ifJP' . omprehensive Plan ':"-', ..,~~ .~ .~. i~ 1JJf~ Anderson noted the opportunities for citizens to s~ ~ng the Agenda. She clarified that if a vote was required for every citizen disagreement, it wo~,be impossible to get anything done . & . ,:.k';'- '~*' because the CIty would be votmg on everything. -,/ Hohl noted that the City did not follow the Sign Code with the board sign posted as a banner on the boardwalk. She suggested Parks attd~ecreation apply r a variance. HoW suggested Corbridge approach Council with a pre-priori,~fd li.~i:;She felt Council should allow comments on 'Il' ....0'.,' .;.c..:'- each Agenda Item at the time they are beingdisc~d.'<~, . ~,;,' --i. _.'ti ",.'t-' ~ .,.'Y' Smith seconded HoW's sugg9stion to !lfpproac~YCouncil with a list of priorities already ranked. ........,.' .;..~i;;. fc&Y'" Keil noted that sh~: en approached by individuals who supported the vacation of W ashington ~,~t, but they '}lot want to testify for fear of attack from the public. She appreciated publi~,volvement in .' , 'I/\'-" 'C~~~~\t, Adjournment ~.. Meeting adjOlhed at 10:5 -~"~~l; -"'1.'r&., " '0~' ,.c:., Christy Terry Executive Liaison Marianna Keil Chair (City Seal) s-z., Marianna Keil, Chair Seward Planning & Zoning Commission City of Seward PO Box 167 Seward, AK 99664-0167 CITY OF SEWARD ~u~ 12 m PlANNING OFF1Ce July 10, 2006 Dear Ms. Keil, Thank you for your letter regarding the Seward sign ordinances. I was unaware of these ordinances and have alerted my volunteers, asking them to act accordingly. Again, thank you for letting me know. ~ 'Sean Parnell S, Paid for by Alaskans for Parnell: 4241 B Street, Suite 100 · Anchorage, Alaska 99503 · 907-334-9890 · fax 907-334-9884 www.alaskansforparnell.com spalaska@seanparnell.us ~ 1: , q , I il ] II Land Pareels in a GIS: Truths and FaUaeies How accurate are static maps? W. ith the advent of GIS, por- traying spatial information, making custom maps, and doing various kinds of geo- graphic analysis is steadily approaching the point where almost any- one moderately.conversant with software and geographic concepts can turn out pleasing, detailed, and informative maps. But the adage "garbage in, garbage out," (GIGO) still applies. Unfortunately, many people, corporations, and govern- ments rely on this informa- tio~ to make conclusions or decisions about themselves or other people or entities. The lives of people, be it their finances, their envi- ronment, their happiness, or their safety may be adversely affected if the information upon which the maps and analysis are based is flawed. When I tell GIS man- agers I am a land surveyor, the recurring comments I get go something like this: "I don't understand why measurements made by surveyors on neighboring land parcels of common lines don't always agree, and why don't all rhe parcels we get from our local land records agency fit together neatly as in a jigsaw puzzle?" Such questions are neither easily nor quickly answered. The portrayal ofland parcels in a GIS may occur in the offices of a public util- ity or in a government office such as a tax assessor or county planner. Generally, rhese maps (I am referring to the maps that can be generated by a GIS after parcel informarion has been input.) are produced to replace paper maps that have existed to help these institutions and agencies more efficiently discharge their work. There certainly is a legiti- mate place for these geographical infor- mation systems-regarrlless of whether they are on paper or electronic. But the GIGO principle applies, which may be because "official" looking maps can be generated by rhese systems that the uninformed regard as 100 percent accu- rate. In some localities the maps may even be used in lieu of property bound- ary surveys. It sounds like I am saying that maps carefully put together elec- tronically by the same people who put together land parcel maps on paper are not to be relied upon for certain infor- mation about property lines. I am indeed saying that, and further saying that the paper maps were not a source of certainty about property boundaries either. But why? Not cl Static Thing There are several reasons why the 16 . GoVERNMENT ENGINEERING . NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2005 'J By Joseph Paiva maps I described above are not reliable sources of information about property boundaries. The first reason is that boundaries are not static and can change. Property lines can be affected by such things as elements describing the property line that are contained in the deed, but which have been overlooked in the process of monumenting the line by building a fence or wall. Valid forms of unwritten ritle transfer can occur through adverse possession and pre- scriprive rights. Eminent domain, exercised by a gov- ernment, a utility, and even private corporations that do not fall under the utility cat- egory, can also cause changes to a property line that may not be within the four corners of a deed. Most changes regarding formal actions to exercise eminent domain will, at least, be somewhere in the official public records of a locality. But the courts have also always recognized valid transfers of title that have not been recorded. The layperson assumes that the description con- tained in the property defines the prop- erty's extents. This is true, but only in a perfect world. The problem is that ma."IY other factors can influence a deviation from what a layperson may see as a clear cut expression of measurements to determine the boundary. There may be a clear intent that is within the deed that conflicts with what is often teferred to as "metes and bounds." The metes and bounds them- selves may be ambiguous. Metes means measurements; bounds are monuments, www.govengr.com Supreme COllrr member in the late 1800s, referred to the surveyor's singular role as a "quasi-judicial" one. Cooley recognized that in many cases the sur- veyor weighed the evidence in a man net similar ro that of the courts and then made determinations of boundaries. There is no group of people today who are conversant in the art and science of land boundaries that is legally author- ized to determine boundary location except for land surveyors. When a map The courts have recognized that has been put together by parties who are licensed land surveyors are the only not land surveyors, users of the map legally authorized individuals who can who are ignorant of the legal amhoriza- provide to the landowner and the courts tion given to land surveyors. are taking .a physical!ocation ()ftl:i~iimitsofo:wn- an unknown risk. If they know of the ersrup. This is done ..by reseaidting th~ jegalauthorization, then they are mak- land records, examining the deeds and Ipg.it knoWn that they understand the histories of title uari.$fers of adjl>iners, ' , .i!)f?!'m~tion on the map and what they finding and exarn.i~i~g ph' .' ; !Wi." .~~ \\1i~ _that info~J11a~?n~ not related dence in the fieldsu<;fj\~.-. .-.lP.:1m}'~~t?rehab!~'f'Wl:!~rty bound- ~~:~~()i::~%J ~r~~'i::" . i!~~~h,~~)(~ ,\' meas~re~ents are m~d~:':ii!1.~:'...... .er 'a; an",,~k is done before a det~t~ria~ - . " ...,qftIie-J~,~tenrspf . .... ,'.Th.iS'>&rerminationii; fili~;asrhe courrs can ch~rtMit..B~t rh 'process of ~aking measuremerif#;iS (mli' . easpectoftite surveyor's job. Ihf:ict, ,.x~~,itmay be t~e least impi,>{- f!'/1~'mW.odol()gi~ tIi~,surveyftt,i f ,-. .( natural objects such as rivers, and even abstract lines such as the boundary of a neighboring property, that may be called in to "bound" the property description. There may be junior and senior rights involved. There may be evidence such as monuments, occupa- tion, and many other indicia that may only be found by collecting evidence on the site. There may be scrivener's (writer of the legal description) errors and plat- ting errors and surveyor's errors. These (and many more) combine to develop a situation that only the courts may solve. For example, Property Owner A owns a 40-acre tracr of land. How does he know it is 40 acres? Well. that is beCause the person wh()sold it to him claimed it Was. 40 ac(~iu1d Property Owner A can see matitiS approximately so. because the tract is sql,lare and is about 1,320 ft on a side. He decides to sell the "North 15 acres" on JaIluary 1 of this year to his n",it;hbor. Propc:rty-O\vn"r B, an~.on 'W.\!}!(;) :;()f this year, sold~e"$?ll~ '.' "i'~' . .. . rty . Owner C'::~h",re .. ... ." ,~,sutvey?r~!.~p. f,',; t Owner B and Property Owner C are not adjoining neighbors. Laypeople call these resulting problems overlaps and gaps, respectively, but in reality there is no such thing. Someone always owns all the land, even if it is the government. the original granting authority. But depending on where Property Owner B and Property Owner C decide to place a fence could be problematic. The Surveyor's function 'Boundary Co~if-rjA#ri; _ .,~~j', ./.' .'/1dpus, 3rd editioIl,~tqWti,".' i.i' ~p.Ss as~~~j;\o!ifi?',and'Wiison comrner;t on the sti~t?'S? ..0. rs..<ot. ~t1..)..J.' -'pir.ri.t:.:::.r~. aJ.~f~...~.;~!e.r..i: :;';~ction::, 'J',:, . h d r f iii' . ". '.c. outts oflaw'inte. r. pro "t. ..l'h.'. ;~~..'.h.'..' .. w 0 ma 'e:ainap H. or..... p.w. '..~... Ce.......... p. je. D..~-. -. d d . fl' ~I hid) th .., th.eQ.~.. .'. .m. e.aniog,. 'an ....irlt.e. rlt......O}~.f,~.. t e an . Wi olln~"tp.ti~IJ)t~.emll(C,' .'. d.a... cunlen.rs used .ro. ...desc..ribe... ..J{.n....... d...,.'. ter of the direc.ti.on o.f tho e.Ji...fieSep.atatl.'ng. . 'h' did b . d . If B d Pc OW ow'nerslP llll an?UIl~ies;'. ," ProPertyC),yllefan ....operty..ner sllrYeybrs;rte tpcorrectly measure C, itrutnsPl,lttha(Prpj:>~Ity QWp~r B and lay outb()undaries, they must has a seni()uigbt;arid. g.. et. Os all...J:lf his 15 . h th' acres. But Propet1y.QWn.er Chas a jun- koow w atec()utts have defined ior right and only goo what Property as the ineani!,gaIld intention of Owner A has left, up to the stated limit words and' phrases llsed in land of 25 acres. descriptions, ThUS la.i1d surveying includes 1) the science of measure- A similar problem may exist if it turns ments; 2) knoW-ledge of the laws out that Property Owner Ks tract is and customs that define the' actually 41.3 acres. In this case, Property . boundaries of real property; and 3) Owner B gets his 15 acres. but Property the art of evaluating the evidence Owner C does not gerthe remaillder; he needed to prove the location of the gets 25 acres. .Wha.t can.., be overlooked is bOUrtdary....~. that Propet1y OWnerAstillretailis title to 1.3 acres. meaning that Property JllsticeThomas Cooley. a Michigan t,:i:i , ! L ~g :.....v:, ,",., . 'e~'.lS-'nQ.t ro dissuade :/~~~. . ..... . .... ..'..... '.. ............. t~;Gi~;that portrays .J~~~ls,.mvq~!1ip.Qr,tl'e.rights of v#o9s'Pilrtjes, ~!'/1e~, it istQrecognize '~afusesQ(iI1f~r~;14?tijn~ .GIS have to belinlited to the qLiality ~f the. data that ~'usf:<ltbcre:itethe CJS, The quality ()f a databasegflink",ddata. can ooly be as' goOd u. ihi: V(orst of the data, similar io a way that the strength of a chain is only as that of irs weakest link. ti!! Dr. Jostph Paiva is a P<ofessional Engineer and land surveyor. He is a consultant to geomatics busincsres that develop, manujizaure, and dirtribute terhnology used by rurveyors and mapping profesrionals. He ir also a seminar presmter and author. In addition to prermting and a"thoring dozens o/reminars, workshops, technical papm, article;, and columns, he is currently working on a book: A Practitioner's Guide to Total Stations. GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING Ii! NOVEMBER-DECEMBER Z005!il 17