Loading...
1978-07-03 Regular Meetingr KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PINING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 3, 1978, at 8 p.m. Duncan Fields Variance Hearing I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by chairman, Mr. Dan Busch, in the Borough Assembly Chambers, at 8 p.m., July 3, 1978. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT Mr. Phil Anderson Mr. Ron Ball Mr. Dan Busch, Chairman Mr. Gene Erwin Mr. John Pugh Mr. Don Baker III. STAFF PRESENTATION Mr. Tony Perez, Excused for vacation Mr. Milligan made the staff presentation. He referred to the staff analysis prepared by the Planning Department, and submitted copies of the building permit, and the building plans approved by the City Building Inspector. Mr. Busch asked "who approved the building permit in the Planning De- partment?" Mr. Milligan responded that "the zoning approval was given by Mr. Mulitalo, based upon the policies of the Planning and Zoning Conmission, and directions given to the Planning staff. A discussion developed between the Commission and Mr. Milligan con- cerning the as built surveys, the building permit application, the building size and location, and the building plan. There being no further discussion, chairman Busch opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Duncan Fields came forward and stated: There is a curbcut in front of the property. He purchased the property in 1972 from a Mrs. Louis Baker. He thought the house to be about 25 years old, and stated that the building is constructed according to the plans. He stated that Mr. L. G. Schneider constructed the foundation based upon the approved plan. The addition was designed by a Mr. Mike Schwartz who was em- ployed at that time by Mr. Rolland Jones. Mr. Fields stated that following a field inspection to the site where he and Mr. Mulitalo measured the building, Mr. Mulitalo filled in the plot plan information in the upper right hand portion of the building permit application. He stated that when he received the Planning Department letter of May 31, 1978, the construction was approximately 95% complete. Other than sane bathroom fixtures, the structure was complete, and had been occupied for approximately 2 weeks. He felt that the construction is not detrimental to any of the neighboring properties. Mr. Fields stated that he had asked Mr. Mulitalo for a letter as to whether a variance was required. Mr. Mulitalo did not issue a letter, but he did write on the permit "no variance was required." A discussion developed as to who filled in what information on the approved building permit application? It was determined that Mr. Fields, Mr. Mulitalo, and Mr. Slagle filled out the application. Mr. Fields stated that he filled out the contractor -owner's information, and the class of work section. Mr. Mulitalo & Mr. Slagle filled out the rest of the application. KIBS273048 PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES OF JULY 3, 1978 Page 2 Mr. Joel Davis, Mr. Fields son-in-law, came forward and stated that he was unaware of any concerns of the neighbors about the construc- tion. He stated that he and his wife had contacted Mr. & Mrs. Wil- ton White about the construction plans, prior to the start of con- struction. He had also contacted the Kendel's. He stated that the Fitzgerald's live up above the White's and are not affected, and he did not contact or know the Robbin's. Mr. Stanley Fischer, attorney -at -law, came forward in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. White, to object to the granting of the variance sought by Mr. Duncan Fields. He stated that his first concern, as set out in his letter, as a defect in the publice notice. The notice stated the variance sought is to permit construction, while testimony al- ready presented indicated construction is virtually completed. Mr. Fischer stated that he wished the Commission to weigh the eco- ncxmic gains of Mr. and Mrs. Fields verses the economic losses of the White's during the Commissions deliberations, which are: 1. He contends the application, dated October 4, 1977, is replete with misinformation, and therefore, not valid. 2. That side yard requirements in the Kodiak Island Borough code section 1718.040, have been violated because con- struction is virtually completed. 3. Because of the significant alteration, and enlargment of Mr. Fields nonconforming use, Kodiak Island Borough code section 17.36.010 has been violated. 4. The general lot size requirements of the code have been violated. 5. The application for a variance does not contain the re- quired information set forth in Kodiak Island Borough code section 17.66.090. Mr. Fischer stated that he would expand on each of the above listed items. He wished to address: 1. 'Under the class of work, a significant number changes have been made. He explained the deficiencies which he felt existed in the application and the plot plan. He pointed out the deficiencies between the application and the re- cently completed, as built survey, of the property. He stated the conclusion, that no variance is required, is incorrect. Only the Cmmission can grant a variance. Administrative officials have no authority to waive the variance requirements. The existing structure was grandfathered in by virtue of its pre-existence, but the significant addition does not enjoy that same right. He quoted section 17.36.010 B, continuation provisions, and elaborated on the effect of this section on Mr. Fields building. He further elaborated on his contention that the code does establish minimum lot size requirements for r buildings, lot coverage, and building size. IMr. Fischer explained the variance application require- ments of section 17.66.090, subsection A & B of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinance. He quoted from subsections A & B, and explained the deficiencies in Mr. Fields application. He felt the staff, in their applica- tion review, had found the same deficiencies as indicated in their written report, and he felt that there was an economic gain and loss with respect to the view from the Fields and the White's properties. KIBS273049 PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES OF JULY 3, 1978 Page 3 He summarized by stating, he felt that the staff analysis reflected the permit had been issued in error, and that Mr. Fields should have recognized the error. A discussion developed between Mr. Fischer, Mr. Milligan and the Commission concerning the actual size of the property in question owned by Mr. Fields. Mr. Wilton White came forward, and explained the changes in ownership and character of the neighborhood during the past 30 years. He stat- ed that two of the immediately adjacent property owners, both he and Mr. Robbins, objected to the variance. He explained his interpreta- tion of the conversation between Mr. Fields daughter and son-in-law, and he and Mrs. White. Had he known they were proposing a two story addition to their building he would not have given them permission to get to the rear of their property by crossing over his lot, nor would he have let them use his yard for storage of their materials. Mr. White explained that when it became apparent that the building was going to be more than one story in heighth, he had his mother-in-law call the City Building Department and speak to Mr. Slagle, who told her that the building was being built according to the plan. (This was in February, 1978.) once he was no longer bedridden and again able to get around, Mr. White went up and talked to the City Build- ing Inspector, who assured him the city's concern was that the build- ing be constructed according to plan. Next, he went to the Borough Planning offices and talked to Mr. Mulitalo, who assured hum that everything was in order, and that it was a perfectly valid building permit. After about 3 weeks, Mr. White went back to the Borough to talk with Mr. Mulitalo, who was not available due to another assignment. In early May, when Mr. Mulitalo was still not available, he asked to talk with Mr. Milligan. Mr. Milligan assured him that he would look into the situation, which apparently he did. Mr. White stated that he felt that the building was built in viola- tion of the codes, and hoped that the Commission would correct the situation. At no time did the Fields indicate to him that the build- ing would be of a size that was constructed. Chairman Busch read two letters into the record. One from a Mr. Glen A. Robbins, and one from Mr. Mike Fitzgerald, both objecting to the requested variance. Mr. Duncan Fields came forward, and stated that he wished to clear up a couple of points. He explained the size of both the first and se- cond floors of the addition, and explained the new roof line above the addition is approximately 6' higher than the original roof line. As to the loss of view, he stated that he used to have a beautiful view until the Cherier & King building was built, and the rest of his view was lost when the State building was built. Any change in any buildings built downhill below his property would further hamper his view. As to the plot plan, Mr. Fields stated that he did not know how accurate the information has to be. He didn't recall where he got the lot size information, and the as -built survey he provided is the r first accurate survey of the property that has been made. I A discussion developed between Mr. Fields and the Commission concern- ing the building. Mr. Fields stated that the building with the addi- tion is appraised, from the plans, at approximately $100,000. The as built survey, dated July 1st, is required to close the loan. Mr. Fields stated that the changes in the class of work were made by he and Mr. Slagle when the building plans were being reviewed. KIBS273050 r F PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES OF JULY 3, 1978 Page 4 Mr. white came forward and asked for a verification as to the heighth of the building. He also stated that he felt that the original plans were for a one story building, and that later it was decided to build a two-story building. He agreed with Mr. Fields that view is not the primary concern, but rather, whether or not the new construction is legal. Mr. Fields commented on the code requirements for the foundation, and the addition. Mr. Fischer came forward and reconTended that the Commission examine the plans and the size of the addition. Chairman Busch closed the public hearing. The Commission indicated that they had questions which could only be answered by Mr. Slagle and Mr. Mulitalo, dealing with the information on the building permit application and the plan. Chairman Busch de- clared a 5 minute recess, and directed Mr. Milligan to call both Mr. Slagle and Mr. Mulitalo, and ask that they come to the meeting in order to answer questions. Following the recess, Mr. Mulitalo appeared to answer questions. He explained that most bul—ld—ingpenut applicants came to the Planning Department first. The information on the right hand side of the application is filled out in the Planning Department. He explained the responsibility of the Building Official and Zoning Official. He responded to various questions concerning his involvement in review- ing the building permit application. He explained those items which he reviews in approving a building permit application, and he ex- plained that the building plans were not submitted to the Planning Department at the time the application was reviewed, and that the Planning Department has implemented a new policy whereby the Plan- ning Department will not review any new building permit applications unless the building plans are also available for review. Mr. Pugh asked Mr. Mulitalo to respond to the questions raised by Mr. Fischer concerning expansion of a non -conforming use. Mr. Muli- talo explained his understanding of the CamLi.ssion's direction to the staff, with respect to the application of section 17.45.030 of the Borough Code of Ordinances. Mr. Pugh concurred with Mr. Muli- talo's explanation of that section, and that the staff was not given limitations as to how broad this section was to be applied. He stated that it was specifically intended for the Aleutian Hone Sub- division, but probably could not be limited to just that subdivision. Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed with Mr. Pugh, and he also felt it is the responsibility of the property owner to provide accurate information on how much land he owns, not the staff. The staff has to rely on the information they are provided. Mr. Ball agreed with Mr. Anderson. He also stated the 15' side yard information was provided by Mr. Fields, not by Mr. Mulitalo. Mr. Pugh stated that Mr. Fischer has asked that the Commission deny the request based upon five points. He felt that: 1. The building 2. He also had might refer stated that this time. permit was issued with misinformation. sane questions on section 17.36.010, which to a more close review of the code. He he would prefer not to make a decision at Mr. Ball stated that the Commission has to make a decision sometime, it might just as well be tonight. KIBS273051 PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES OF JULY 3, 1978 Page 5 Mr. Fischer asked to address some of the concerns of the Commission. He explained that the Commission cannot amend the Ordinance, by policy. To grant a variance, four conditions must be met. He felt that the staff had found two of those conditions had not been met, and that he personally felt he had proven that three of the four re- quired conditions had not been met. Mr. Fields came forward and further elaborated on the information he had filled in on the building permit application under the class of work section. He also commented on the original survey plot plan. It was moved by Mr. Ball and seconded by Mr. Anderson that the Commission deny the variance to allow the continued use of a recent- ly constructed addition to an existing structure in an R-3 zoning use district by Mr. Fields. Following a comment by the staff on the effect of a motion to deny, Mr. Ball moved to amend his motion to grant the variance. Mr. An- derson agreed to the change. Chairman Busch asked for a Roll Call vote on the main motion, as changed, to grant the variance. Mr. Anderson - No Mr. Ball - No Mr. Busch - No Mr. Erwin - No Mr. Pugh - No Mr. Baker - No The motion failed by unanimous Roll Call vote. IV. AATOURND= The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. approximately. ATTES ATTEST: ecr KIBS273052