Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
ISLAND VISTA BK 3 LT 3 - Exception
c7z771 3 VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER Ayes: None Noes: Monroe, Stevens, Fitzjearl, Gould, Hancock, Milligan, McFarland MOTION FAILED Unanimous MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR MESSAGES FROM MAYOR Mayor Selby explained that much time had been spent on issues such as Individual Fishing Quotas and Inshore - Offshore, which were to be discussed at the June meeting of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. According to the Borough lobbyist, the pollock release in June had not been totally resolved, and Mayor Selby urged the community to express concern over the economic impact this would have on Kodiak. The Mayor touched on the state budget. OLD BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS Presiding Officer McFarland recessed the regular meeting and reconvened the Board of Adjustment. Assemblymember Gould excused himself from the dias as he did not sit on the Board of Adjustment in the following case. _ A. Board of Adjustment - Findings of Fact BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT An appeal by James A. Crane and Logan of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non - permitted single - family dwelling unit on a lot in the RR -1- -Rural Residential Zoning District located on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way. (Applicant: James A. Crane and Logan Porter - Crane) FITZJEARL, moved to adopt seconded by STEVENS the findings of fact. As part of her motion, Assemblymember Fitzjearl read the findings of fact as follows: "Granting an appeal by James A. Crane and Logan Porter -Crane of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use Regular Assembly Meeting May 16. 1991 Volume XIV Page 118 of a second, non - permitted single - family dwelling located on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way. The Kodiak Island Borough Code allows the Assembly, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, to either affirm or reverse a decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission in whole or in part. Kodiak Island Borough Code also allows the Board of Adjustment to make its own finds on factual issues based on the evidence in the record. The Kodiak Island Borough Code also makes provisions for the establishment of conditions under which an exception may be granted (KIBC 17.65.060). In addition,: the Code states that if after consideration of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare or be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title and not adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood, the exception shall be approved (KIBC.65.050). It is, therefore, the findings and conclusions of the Board of Adjustment that the appellants have met the requirements necessary for the granting of conditioned exception. Specifically, the limited use of the cabin, as permitted by granting the exception with conditions, should not endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare. Based on evidence in the record, this structure has been used as a temporary residence since prior to 1980. The structural improvements that have been made to the building appear to have improved both the look and the liveability of the structure. There is no factual basis in the record to indicate that the use of the cabin as a limited dwelling will create any groundwater or surface water pollution in the area or negatively impact the community in any other way. The use of the cabin as a limited dwelling is also not inconsistent with the purposes and intent of Title 17 of the Borough Code, since accessory buildings are permitted as long as they are 'subordinate and customarily incidental to that of the main building...' The primary use of this structure will be as an accessory building, with only occasional use permitted as sleeping quarters, and then only for relatives or guests. In addition, the Regular Assembly Meeting May 16, 1991 Volume XIV Page 119 exception is limited in use to the existing owners of the property, thereby phasing out what has been a traditional use of the property if and when the property is transferred, bringing the property into conformance with the Code. The public testimony received in the case did not provide any concrete evidence that the proposed use of the cabin will negatively impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. In fact, as part of the public record, a petition was submitted by the appellant indicating that neighbors in the vicinity of the property supported the grant of a limited exception as requested by the appellants. Other documents included in the record indicated that the property-was not contributing to ground or surface water pollution in the area. These are the findings and conclusions supported by the record and the public testimony in this case, and which support the decision of the Board to grant the appellant a limited exception." VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT Ayes: Stevens, Fitzjearl, Hancock, Milligan, Monroe, McFarland . Noes: No MOTION CARRIED Unanimous Presiding Officer McFarland adjourned the Board of Adjustment and reconvened the regular meeting. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. BID AWARDS BID AWARDS 1. Household Hazardous Waste Collection CONTRACT Contract. MONROE, seconded by FITZJEARL moved to award household hazardous waste collection contract to Northwest EnviroService Inc. in an amount NTE $20,620. The Presiding Officer asked Mayor Selby to comment. He explained the program was the collecting and shipping of household hazardous waste materials. He answered questions from the Assemblymembers. Regular Assembly Meeting May 16, 1991 Volume XIV Page 120 VOTE ON MOTION TO AWARD Ayes: Fitzjearl, Gould, Hancock, Milligan, Monroe, Stevens, McFarland Noes: None MOTION CARRIED Unanimous B. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution No. 91 -21 Authorizing Submission RESOLUTION of Application for a Community Development NO. 91 -21 Block Gant (CDBG) Under the DCRA /Rural Development Fund Program (Elleneff Trading Co.). Presented for consideration was Resolution No. 91 -21 which supported a local business's application to participate in the CDBG Lender Participation Plan. FITZJEARL, moved to adopt seconded by MILLIGAN Resolution No. 91 -21. Mayor Selby detailed the intent of the program which allowed local businesses to participate in the Department of Community and Regional Affairs loan program. Assemblymember Hancock asked that presentations from the applicants were given at the meetings. Assemblymember Monroe pointed out that the program would not financially obligate the Borough. VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT MOTION CARRIED Unanimous voice vote 2. Resolution No. 91 -22 Entering Into a RESOLUTION Cooperation Agreement with the Kodiak NO. 91 -22 Island Housing Authority. Presented to the Assembly was Resolution No. 91 -22, which was requested by the Kodiak Island Housing Authority to permit submission of a development application to the US Department of HUD requesting funds to provide low- income rental housing for the elderly. STEVENS, moved to adopt seconded by MONROE Resolution No. 91 -22 Regular Assembly Meeting May 16, 1991 Volume XIV Page 121 May 9, 1991 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 James A. Crane and Logan Porter-Crane SR 2105 Harbor Way Kodiak, Alaska 99615 MAY 91991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT RE: Board of Adjustment Review of Planning and Zoning Commission Case No. 91-006. A request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non-permitted single-family dwelling unit on a lot in the RR1-Rural Residential Zoning District. Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way, Kodiak, Alaska. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Crane: The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, granted your appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission decision in the case referenced above. With respect to Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, created by Plat Number 74-29, the Board approved an exception to allow the use of the small cabin in the northwest corner of the property as a dwelling subject to the following conditions. 1. Wade Watkins may use the cabin as a dwelling until his new residence in Chiniak is built, or for two years, whichever comes first; 2. When occupancy by Wade Watkins ends, the cabin may not be rented and may only be used as occasional sleeping quarters for relatives and guests; and 3. This exception expires upon sale or transfer of the property. The Board of Adjustment directed that the limitations on this exception be recorded. We will have this letter recorded and forward a confirmed copy to you for your files. James A. Crane and Logan Porter -Crane May 6, 1991 Page Two The Board of Adjustment postponed the adoption of findings of fact in support of their decision until the May 16, 1991, Assembly meeting. If you have any questions about the' Board of Adjustment' procedures, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE T, Gaye J. ughan, CMC" /AAE Borough Clerk cc: Susan S. McLean Joel H. Bolger Board of Adjustment Members Planning and Zoning Commissioners Len Kimball, Building Official ITEM NO. AGENDA STATEMENT Okipt 4�'�a� �7�tD�yUJ!//7dDI��l1,V7DODDDDDVDDDODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDWDDDDDDD? 3 ITEM TITLE: Board of Adjustment - Crane Appeal 3 @DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDn'DDDDDDDDDDDDDY SUMMARY STATEMENT On May 2, 1991 the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, sitting as the Board of Adjustment granted an appeal pf a Planning and Zoning Commission decision to deny an exception request. With respect to Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, created by Plat Number 74-29, The Assembly approved an exception to allow the use of the small cabin in the northwest corner of the property as a dwelling subject to the following conditions: 1. Wade Watkins may use the cabin as a dwelling until his new residence in Chiniak is built, or for two years which ever comes first; 2. when occupancy by Wade Watkins ends the cabin may not be rented and may only be used as occasional sleeping quarters for relatives and guests; and 3. this exception expires upon sale or transfer of the property. Staff will have a copy of the letter notifying the Crane's of the Board of Adjustment decision recorded, as directed by the Board. The Board of Adjustment postponed findings of fact in support the decision until the May 16, 1991 meeting. Attached for your consideration are draft findings of fact in support of the decision. FISCAL NOTES IEXA N/A Expenditure Amount Required -0- Budgeted -0- RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, adopt findings of fact in support of the decision to grant the appeal in the case referenced above. PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION MAY 2. 1991 GRANTING AN APPEAL BY JAMES A. CRANE AND LOGAN PORTER CRANE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 17.17.020 (PERMITTED USES) OF THE BOROUGH CODE TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED USE OF A SECOND, NON-PERMITTED SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON A LOT IN THE RR-1--RURAL RESIDENTIAL ONE ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 3, ISLAND VISTA SUBDIVISION, 2105 HARBOR WAY. The Kodiak Island Borough Code allows the Assembly sitting as the Board of Adjustment to either affirm or reverse a decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission in whole or in part. Kodiak Island Borough Code also allows the Board of Adjustment to make its own findings on factual issues, based on the evidence in the record. The Kodiak Island Borough Code also makes provisions for the establishment of conditions under which. an exception may be granted (17.65.060). In addition, the Code states that if after consideration of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not endanger the public's health safety or general welfare, or be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title, and not adversely impact .other properties or uses in the neighborhood, the exception shall be approved (17.65.050). It is therefore, the findings and conclusions of the Board of Adjustment that the appellants have met the requirements necessary for the granting of a conditioned exception. Specifically, the limited use of the cabin, as permitted by granting the exception with conditions, should not endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare. Based on evidence in the record, this structure has been used as a temporary residence since prior to 1980. The structural improvements that have been made to the building appear to have improved both the look and the liveability of the structure. There is no factual basis in the record to indicate that the use of the cabin as a limited dwelling will create any groundwater or surface water pollution in the area, or negatively impact the community in any other way. The use of the cabin as a limited dwelling is also not inconsistent with the purposes and intent of Title 17 of the Borough Code, since accessory buildings are permitted as long as they are "subordinate and customarily incidental to that of the main building..." The primary use of this structure will be as an accessory building, with only occasional use permitted as sleeping quarters, and then only for relatives or guests. In addition, the exception is limited in use to the existing owners of the property, thereby phasing out what has been a traditional use of the property if and when the property is transfered, bringing the property into conformance with The public testimony received in the case did not provide any concrete evidence that the proposed use of the cabin will negatively impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. In fact, as part of the public record a petition was submitted by the appellants indicating that neighbors in the vicinity of the property supported the grant of a limited exception as requested by the appellants. Other documents included in the record indicated that the property was not contributing to ground or surface water pollution in the area.' These are the findings and conclusions supported by the record and the public testimony in this case, and which support the decision of the Board to grant the appellant a limited exception. removal of all junk vehicles (un- registered, inoperable vehicles, trailers, parts and scrap salvage) within sixty (60) days on Lot 5B, Block 3, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision; 782 Sargent Creek Road and denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit junk vehicles (un- registered, inoperable vehicles, trailers, parts and scrap salvage) on a lot in the RR1 -Rural Residential One Zoning District. (Applicant: Richard R. Madson) Charles Winegarden, attorney for the applicant, requested a continuance as Mr. Madsen was unable to arrive in Kodiak because of the cancellation of flights due to weather. He reminded the Board that Mr. Madson was available at the last meeting and had intended to be available at this meeting. Presiding Officer McFarland ruled that Mr. Madson's appeal was postponed until the next regular meeting. Assemblymember Fitzjearl rejoined the Board of Adjustment. An appeal by James A. Crane and Logan Porter- Crane of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non - permitted single - family dwelling unit on a lot in the RR- 1- -Rural Residential Zoning district located on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way. (Applicant: James A. Crane and Logan Porter - Crane) Linda Freed, Director of the Community Development Department of the Kodiak Island Borough, presented photographs of the property and building in question from the record of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. She read from Section 17.17.020 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. She drew attention to a brief prepared by staff dated April 16, 1991, that answered the points in the appellant's appeal notice and highlighted the sections pertinent for consideration. Wayne Coleman, Planning and Zoning Commissioner, did not have anything further to add to Ms. Freed's report. Susan McLean, attorney representing the applicants, submitted an original notarized affidavit from David Regular Assembly Meeting May 2, 1991 Volume RSV Page 101 Watkins, the previous property owner. She had requested, from Planning and Zoning, a copy of the zoning code that existed in 1980 but did not receive a copy before the hearing on February 20th. She submitted copies of the rescinded code that stated duplexes were allowed at that time. She supplemented the record with the tax assessment from the Borough Assessor which characterized the cabin as a sleeping room. She said the Cranes were appealing on the grounds that their requested exception did not adversely impact other properties in the neighborhood, was not inconsistent with the current uses or existing uses of the land, that the existence of the structures as they exist now was in part due to the fact that Planning and Zoning did not adequately inform the previous property owner of their rights, and that the use was not inconsistent with the general purposes of Title 17. She gave a history of the property use. She pointed out that in 1980 through 1982 non - conforming uses were grandfathered under the Kodiak Island Borough Code. She spoke to the concern that Mr. Shawn Dillon expressed on water contamination by the septic system and pointed out the system'was a self - contained self - compost septic system and was not polluting the water. She summarized the Crane's position by saying that the proposed exception was not an exception but an attempt to exercise grandfathered rights at the time Mr. Watkins applied for the original building permit and no surrounding property owner was adversely impact; therefore, the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission should be rescinded. Shawn Dillon, 2100 Harbor Way, opposed granting the appeal and cited his objection to a road on a piece of adjoining property being used as an access road to the accessory building, a pathway cleared through a greenbelt by the appellants, and affluent from a drainfield leaching into his drinking water. James Crane, owner of the property, reiterated Ms. McLean's statement that the cabin was assessed for tax on the full dimension of the sleeping quarters. He emphasized he had never cut any trees on his property or in the greenbelt. At the time he purchased the property, he perceived the guesthouse as a plus for the property. He thought the cabin was aesthetically pleasing and blended with the area. He argued a point -by -point rebuttal to the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. He presented a list of signatures of residents in the area voicing non- objection to the property use. Regular Assembly Meeting May 2. 1991 Volume XIV Page 102 The Assemblymembers held discussion with Mr. Crane and Ms. Freed. Ms. Freed concluded that there were no extinguishment of grandfather rights because the cabin was not grandfathered. She maintained that in 1982 it was illegal to have two dwellings on a lot and, subsequently, the building permit would not have been issued unless the old dwelling unit was made legal prior to the new dwelling unit being occupied. She called attention to the fact that altering or adding on to a non - conforming structure caused loss of grandfather rights according to the Code. Discussion ensued on the self - contained, self - compost septic system, the assessment by the Borough Assessor, and the use of the accessory building. Susan McLean contended that the applicant's original appeal requested conditional use of the building as temporary sleeping quarters until the present occupant moved and then use of the building for a guest house and studio. FITZJEARL, seconded by MILLIGAN moved to recess into executive session for deliberations regarding the appeal by James A. Crane. MOTION WITHDRAWN Second concurred. HANCOCK, moved to grant the seconded by FITZJEARL appeal. Assemblymember Hancock noted that because of the changes in the code over the years, Mr. Crane should not be the victim as he bought the property in good faith. Conditional use was discussed by the Assemblymembers. McFARLAND, seconded by FITZJEARL moved to amend by addition of the conditions: (1) must have owner occupancy certificate, (2) must meet building codes as applied today, and (3) current use for no more than two years. Presiding Officer McFarland examined his amendment and the opportunity of the building becoming a family dwelling unit if the appeal was granted without conditions. Regular Assembly Meeting May Z. 1991 Volume XIV Page 103 The intent of the appeal was contemplated and conditions that could be placed on the use of the building were explored. MOTION WITHDRAWN FITZJEARL, seconded by MILLIGAN VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND Ayes: Noes: MOTION CARRIED VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED Ayes: Noes: MOTION CARRIED • MILLIGAN, seconded by FITZJEARL VOTE ON MOTION Regular Assembly Meeting May 2. 1991 Second concurred. moved to amend by stipulating that if and when the property transfers ownership, the property reverts to. the present code. t'' Orant'4 the following conditions recorded: (1) Wade Watkins, present occupant of the accessory building, allowed to live in the building for no longer than two years; (2) the building was not to be used for a rental, only for guest house; and (3) if the property is sold, reverts to one dwelling with accessory building. Fitzjearl, Hancock, Milligan, Monroe, Stevens, McFarland None Unanimous Hancock, Milligan, Monroe, Stevens, Fitzjearl McFarland 5 Ayes, 1 No moved to postpone Findings-of-Fact until the May 16, 1991, regular meeting. Unanimous Voice Vote afT RA7G-4 DE.L) 0/'i Volume XIV Page 104 Presiding Officer McFarland adjourned the Board of Adjustment and reconvened the regular meeting. The Presiding Officer called for a five minute recess. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING All ordinances and resolutions presented at this meeting were introduced by title only and copies had been made available to the public. A. Ordinance No. 91 -03 Adopting a Severance Tax ORDINANCE Upon Natural Resource Extraction. NO. 91 -03 Presented for consideration was Ordinance No. 91 -03 which levied a tax on the business of extracting minerals, fish, rock, sand, gravel and timber in the amount of the mill levy. GOULD, moved to adopt seconded by FITZJEARL Ordinance No. 91 -03. Mayor Selby responded to the request for a staff report and recounted the several months of study by staff and Assembly. He expounded on a recommendation for a three -year tax policy change to expand the base from real and personal property tax only by incorporating other types currently not used by the Borough. Assemblymember Stevens disclosed that it was the Assembly's intention to have further public hearing on May 16th. The Presiding Officer called for public testimony. Barry Still, representing Brechan Enterprises, opposed the gravel portion of the ordinance and listed his reasons: (1) it would cost the industry an inordinate amount to produce the paperwork on the four pits; (2) the majority of aggregate removed came from a Borough -owned pit where an 85 cent royalty was paid; (3) the government was the largest consumer of aggregate; and (4) local contractors were not always successful in obtaining monies owed by an out -of -town contractor. Jim Carmichael, General Manager for Afognak Native Corporation, spoke specifically to the severance tax as it applied to timber. He listed four concerns with the ordinance as drafted: (1) the net revenue or profits rather than gross sales; (2) the property tax on personal property paid in addition to a Regular Assembly Meeting May 2. 1991 Volume XIV Page 105 severance tax; (3) the natural resource moratorium that would be lifted in 1992, which would expose a tax lability on land and timber added to the severance tax; and (4) confidentiality. He concluded his remarks by saying the private Native corporation expected to pay a fair share of taxes within the Borough and an equitable share throughout the timber industry. The Presiding Officer closed the public hearing and reconvened the regular meeting. Assemblymember Fitzjearl discussed with Mayor Selby the placing of the severance tax on the ballot in October. Mayor Selby reiterated that spreading the tax base was a positive factor in holding the mill levy down. Assemblymembers discussed the severance tax with the Mayor. GOULD, seconded by STEVENS VOTE ON MOTION TO POSTPONE Ayes: Noes: MOTION CARRIED moved to postpone Ordinance No. 91 -03 to May 16, 1991 for an additional public hearing. Milligan, Monroe, Stevens, Gould, Hancock, McFarland Fitzjearl. 6 Ayes, 1 No MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR MESSAGES FROM MAYOR Mayor Selby reported on discussions he had with legislators, commissioners, and staff; testifying on committee hearings; and meeting with the Borough's lobbyist while he was in Juneau. OLD BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS A. Ordinance No. 90 -34 Establishing a Permit System ORDINANCE for Excavation and Construction in Road Rights- NO. 90 -34 of -Way in Borough Road Service Areas. Ordinance No. 90 -34 was originally introduced October 4, 1990. A public hearing was held November 1, 1990, at which time it was postponed. It was postponed again December 20, 1990, to allow a user -group to meet and work on a rewrite. The rewrite was Regular Assembly Meeting May 2. 1991 Volume XIV Page 106 PT100W CHANGE Type: REAL PROPERTY Status A ACTIVE Owner 1: Owner 2: City: Street #: City: PARCEL MASTER MAINTENANCE Parcel #: Exemption Code Legal Description ISLAND_ VISTA _BK.3_LT_3 5/01/91 14:20:52 R6125030030 OWNER INFORMATION CRANE,LOGAN- PORTER Address 1: 2105_HARBOR_WAY ------ ---- - -- -------- ------------- - Address 2: ------ ------------------- KODIAK State: AK Zip: 99619 Dir: K▪ ODIAK ---- .._-__ LOCATION INFORMATION Name: HARBOR Type: WAY_ Unit: State: AK Zip: 99615 Assess Change Date: Assessed $$ Of Land 32,900 07 -06 OTHER INFORMATION - 3/09/90 Filing Date: _0/00/00 Assessed $$ Of Improve 94,500 SA MW Tax Roll: Building F =feet Land Current Zoning Sq. Ft. A =acre Area Use Code 1,680 F -- 54417.00 SFR RR1 CMD 01 -NO UPDATE CMD 05-LAND SCREEN KS IM II S1 A6 KB 0 GI 1 GI 2 GI 3 GI 4 GI 5 GI 6 CO 1 CO 2 1.796/- CO 3 CO 4 4 6,8U MARSH; LAND SWIFT RESIDENTIAL E'' - .tMATOR Parcel Number Property Owner Address City, State, ZIP Surveyed by Date of Survey FOR ASSESSORS _$ lL),?rk��S 5 /4:) /3x %9 (X QG 'G1 '0A //9 /C •. %/'9 M O /Cc€J ' 21V Type 1 (Single Family 2 Low -rise Multiple Zip Code Quality 1 Low 2 Fair Finished Fluor Area CO 5 6, Effective Age CO 6 Condition CO 7 2- Style 1 One -Story 2 Two-Story 3 Three Story 4 Split -Level CO 8 0(0,6i/ear" Pleating: 1 Forced Air 2 Gravity Furnace 3 Floor Furnace 4 Wall Furnace 5 Floor, Radiant, Hot Water CO 9 Wood France: 1 Plywood 2 Hardboard Sheets 3 Stucco 1 Worn Out 2 Badly Worn 5 1 -1/2 Story Finished 6 1 -1/2 Story Unfinished 7 2 -1/2 Story Finished 8 2-1/2 Story Unfinished Heating and Cooling 6 Ceiling, Radiant, Electric 7 Baseboard, Electric 8 Baseboard, Hot Water 9 Radiators, Hot Water 10 Radiators, Stearn Exterior Wall 4 Siding 5 Shingle 6 Masonry Veneer C010 / Roofing 1 Composition Shingle 4 Wood Shake 2 Built -up Rock 5 Concrete Tile 3 Wood Shingle 6 Clay Tile 3 Town House, End Unit 5 Duplex 4 Town House, Inside Unit 3 Average 4 Good 3 Average 4 Good 5 Very Good 6 Excellent 5 Very Good 6 Excellent 9 3-1/2 Story Finished 10 3-1/2 Story Unfinished 11 Bi -Level Heating & Cooling: 11 Warmed and Cooled Air 12 Heat Pump System Cooling only: 13 Evaporative with Ducts 14 Refrigerated with Ducts Masonry: 7 Common Brick 8 Face Brick 9 Stone 7 Galvanized Metal 8 Slate 9 Composition Roll 10 Concrete Block 10 Plastic Tile C011 Number of Units (Low -rise Multiples only) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS GARAGE & BASEMENT , BUILDING GENERAL LAN 2U= G� GAT SF Attached Garage GOT * SF Detached Garage GBU ✓_C6 d SF Built -in Garage CPT SF Carport (flat roof) TBA SF Total Bsmt. Area BMF SF Bsmt. Min. Finish BPF SF Bsmt. Prtn. Finish OSP Co•e4- '7-.23641 SF Open Slab Porch Land SIA SF or % Slab on Ground SIT /VDU /O() Site Improvements PLA 51,0P= 41a#e SF or % Plaster Interior PITY ,00keirlft( Physical Deprec. SFP Number of Single Fireplaces FUN 10'/[ Functional Deprec. DFP Number of Double Fireplaces LOC Looational Deprec. ❑ See back for additional miscellaneous items ADDITIONS AND REMARKS Description Cost AD1 XY 57-00C $ 1/)00 AD2 $ AD3 $ AD4 $ Options =1/ - RE1 /4 '2O5 )A) ,JcW E A (2,1 i ° 1, � ,:• ttJ i''; 1...' 1;4. C ce f (" RE2 .00 1705/ ) rode_7:S - eeTty)O,Sr'/e., U.u.'/ ve - -t/ eve,00x7ouS Ao6, cw/o /2 ei, -1rses t kpJ7co,I/e& xJamieet /77/0 SAVE* FORM A- 2200.2 Vex /93 Printed in U.S.A. Parcel Number Property Owner Address City, State, ZIP: Surveyed by Date of Survey R612503003 #2105 HARBOR WAY WATKINS, D & PO BX 1299 USCG KODIAK, AK 99619 5/16/89 'REVIEW; ML Single Family Residence Effective Age: 6 years Cost as of 3/89 Style: Exterior Wall: Roofing: Floor Structure: Floor Cover: Plumbing: Appliances: Floor Area; 1,680 square feet Quality: Fair/Average Condition: Good Two Story Siding Composition Shingle Wood Subfloor Standard Allowance Standard Allowance Standard Allowance Units Basic Structure Cost 1,680 Cost 51.33 Total 86,240 Garqge:. Built-in Garage 560 14.11 7,903 Extras: Enclosed Porch - Solid Wall42 Wood Balcony 230 WOOD STOVE DETCH'D STUDIO/SLEEPING RM396 Subtotal Replacement Cost New 1,680 56.26 15.90 25.00 66.21 2,363 3,657 1,170 9,900 17,090 111,233 Less Depreciation: Physical Depreciation <5.0%> Functional Depreciation <10.0%> Subtotal <15.0%> Depreciated Cost 1,680 Rounded to nearest $100 Cost data by MARSHALL and SWIFT RE& USES WOOD STOVE & KEROSUN SPACE HEATERS NO FLUSH TOILETS-COMPOSTER UNIT ****VERY OBNOXIOUS DOG ON PREMISES**** "THOR" SAVE #493 , 56.28 <5,561> <11,123> <16,684> 94,549 94,500 AID `dITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS 11 IS Balconies CBA Cement Balcony (square feel) WBA Wood Balcony (square feet) Basement BGF — Basement Garage Finished Area (square feet) OUT Outside Entrance Below Grade (number) Fireplaces S1 F Single Ono -story Fireplaces (number) S2F Single Two -story Fireplaces (number) S3F Single Three -story Fireplaces (number) 01F Double One -story Fireplaces (number) D2F Double Two -story Fireplaces (number) 03F __._. _ Daubi(1 Thine -story Fireplaces (umber) T3F Triple three story Fireplaces (number) Floor Covering FLO Floor Cover Allowance (dollar amount) CARL Carpeting (square feet or % of floor area) CER Ceramic Tile (square feet or % of floor area) (AR Hardwood Flooring (square feet or % of floor area) PAR Parquet (square feet or % of floor area) QUA Quarry Tile (square feet or % of floor urea) RES Resilient Floor Cover (square feet or % of floor area) TER Terrazzo (square feet or % of floor area) Garage CPG Carport, Gable Roof (square feet) SUB Subterranean Garage (square feet - low -rise multiples only) i (J( G 0 FIX FUB HAB RIN OPS R PO RPS WOD sP0 KWP SWP Plumbing Plumbing Fixtures (number) • Full Baths (number) t)g0 p,• Hall Baths (number)s f�bi© Rough -ins (number)- - E /,pr,u9 /c-P2 Porches lirf (UC%C. s/ C Open Slab Porch with_ re{i (sgrt rr f e Slab Porch with Roof squar feet fob PorcTi wiT fl and Steps (square feel — Wood Deck (squ. e feet) Enclosed Slab rch - Screened (square feet) Enclosed Wo. 1 Porch - Knee Wall w/ Panels (square feet) Enclosed od Porch - Solid Wall (square feet) Stairw ys (Exterior) CST Cerne Stairway (number of flights) SST Ste Stairw a (number of flights) WST W . la� ay (number of flights) Miscef neous APP Appli. ice Allowance (dollar amount) ARC Arc itect's Fees (percentage) BAC j p t(gIn fine dOCACjo)st }f P,t Zi oil t0! CLI `^ C inii affto Ad ustrnent (bolft ENE and FOU) ENE Energy Adjustment (1 -3) FOU Foundation Adjustment (1 -3) MUL User - supplied Local Multiplier ROU _ Rmin. tin., FORM A- 2200.2 j © 1986 — Copies of his form may be purchased horn MARSHALL and SWIFT 1617 Beverly Blvd., P.O. Box 26307, Los Angeles, California 90026 -0307 r'c1 et 47 .,� Other Description: /4'3, ,\ 3.; Valuation Code: , $'i; ' Ar ;,, Land Use: /, - /"- Use Zone: /{ jL Unit Price: 70 p fJ 0,4 INFLUENCES: PLUS MINUS REASON FOR CHANGE and Bldg s. Total '?7r 'r7.r).. "1_.%`7 C1%8 11I7 IC]_FC) 'Th'/ YO____ '55.a. rcW giS `ilp 'LW-) C ,$A2 "I () Depth — sr o Year of Valuation: ,'v' ? — ZC. Basic Land Value 5 ma=r ' Topography AS0d — /25OO JLeOvricc. P- Q.IICt-A,Caza!i ...9-Y1G'• pv Dp %(O. L4 z _ /7 C5 Plus or (Minus) Factors Irregular Modification " - -` •11/2,;)1 at.uOil)/ .iiyrc,. _ a),. �. �, -.,_ •. 1 — 1'7a°a soot; 6 ,,g-L ha! I55_2) f lc f 4 i . .._ , . _ . , Net Price of Land View loP. mod- ' . , Cill71 3 g75(>0 ,-, /,a6 %1r` n5-1 435_/x/ '50 ,3--),sa , IS D,�»» 1 SUSA Ni .LTI / 4A- --iJS (Nord Crtsfi..J 375X) _ b' aoc-- ,S L6•6 1 r•,,.'.I. • • ((I ,• ; ( . , : r, 1AAiIKti DAVlb . nl)-iflki Drainage LO I/04)Si n a, I'ci 4-sus a o 11 . ?l, OS '.2 V l.'3 3�1Cic�9Lj)SZ1v 3D goo Remarks: 1 •Jfr _ ,r./ 2 - a 'r \10.. (.) o I qal 11)024-se., 1e Physical Barriers Tf L_r 4 "&- k Al L ' 3z, 9O15 j '", - 1 y /Z7. you ,•:I .. ;' ' . • ,4' Access &,1, a!' ci" Jf nlr„iit to s -'7O Corner REMARKS l f/„y,/,' . rJ /0T- PICTURE: Water Sewer Sidewalk Paving LAND VALUE Curb & Gutter Other TOTAL _ Net -I- ( —) YEAR OWNER ASSESSED VALUATION REASON FOR CHANGE and Bldg s. Total '?7r 'r7.r).. "1_.%`7 C1%8 11I7 IC]_FC) 'Th'/ YO____ '55.a. rcW giS `ilp 'LW-) C ,$A2 14 , ?1 .4 e:44.a, -ate s6AC — sr o ;' fC -:. . Cr2:u�c_C!__i e asdc ryas, ■-utr� ' -L — ZC. sppxltp?Gii inc •.J, • AS0d — /25OO JLeOvricc. P- Q.IICt-A,Caza!i ...9-Y1G'• pv Dp %(O. L4 z _ /7 C5 %2.SOa, ,,7g� 11:'t' }t.,1 1i r''?_., , '1 ?'7.1_� ./.,91• ., Jl ;l ,'a3.j. -;; " - -` •11/2,;)1 at.uOil)/ .iiyrc,. _ a),. �. �, -.,_ •. 1 — 1'7a°a soot; 6 ,,g-L ha! I55_2) f lc f 4 i . .._ , . _ . , OC) — loP. mod- ' . , Cill71 3 g75(>0 ,-, /,a6 %1r` n5-1 435_/x/ '50 ,3--),sa , IS D,�»» 1 SUSA Ni .LTI / 4A- --iJS (Nord Crtsfi..J 375X) _ b' aoc-- ,S L6•6 1 r•,,.'.I. • • ((I ,• ; ( . , : r, 1AAiIKti DAVlb . nl)-iflki Gvo_l. Lula 1ri d -+ ntsa.n LO I/04)Si n a, I'ci 4-sus a o 11 . ?l, OS '.2 V l.'3 3�1Cic�9Lj)SZ1v 3D goo Pli. 57 3'-),'3o oo't, SOo ,aas ! DS III ;))5 I� '1IIo0 Ur/ LI ov r GJi f)too f'151 S-0 -`it i <.i.( } \10.. (.) o I qal 11)024-se., 1e t �)01_ikrl'�Q4l, lee„ LDAa Tf L_r 4 "&- k Al L ' 3z, 9O15 q Lit SOD /Z7. you L'relr)e 1.4)3a/1 Pdr1 -1 &,1, a!' ci" Jf nlr„iit to s -'7O REMARKS l f/„y,/,' . rJ /0T- PICTURE: Ownar ,493 drl gag- era .72e_, ✓ /17, Mailing Address c /45' ,/4,/-(r91/ (1 -b.cj> Property AddressZA_L%L? } 1L2L.l 440-a I rn K- )43 y/ ,, . Bu -, 4'5I 7/4,7 Re. Srrt' /()7, . r'•, " f z z Rp 9(�'ot/ r111`/ t ?,.�"'. ,Y' i 1x_1( =- / ;,IF'ct Oburved Physical Condition E Exterior i interior F Foundation t BUILDING TYPE AND USE 1 1. EXTERIOR t i 1 6 6. INTERIOR (Continued) 7 7. Floors (Continued) ' Single C Concrete Block % %� Trim r- 't c Kind F FINISH — Double _ <.- Shemhin Grade _p ---CA ._G W _ < —Other — Insulation . Concrete Stories I . K Floor Number N Number Bog, E. ('• . - t —Attic F --.1 Siding ( =' •''•' Kind B In Room • • j/ + • Basement B �/ B __Shakes 1 Bad Room t 1st Floor / / — — t _._Concrete Block - --- Bricktea 2 t) C 3rd Floor , — ...Log — _Log Siding A X S Attic X Stove t 9. PLUMBING (Continued) 1. FOUNDATION t j M Metal T —Oil F Source ' ^A - ' ' .,4 C Grade of — —Cool Stoker Concrete Thick - --Hat air Forced — Water S `Woad posts - --• C .—Radiant I —Sewer S S. ROOF _ __.Basement . _ Goblo _ Hi - —Space Heater Kind `Wood Sills . } 1 — -- .Wired __2nd Floor } —220 Service 2. BASEMENT" { .Other __ .Kind _ — Number of Chimneys _ F71-':": S ._._.Partial _.x._ _—S.F. _ _Shokas G _..Kind T IL GARAGE _LComposition # l i.S Shingle K Cribbed � • - r . 1st Floor .Type— " 2":4 • - __Insulation Kind — — Concrete — .__Range B _ __Metal Kind _ 9. PLUMBING ,...Rec. Room Siza B 12 PORCHES _ - __Attic Stairway 1 _--# Tubs_w /shower Grade Wails Kind _ .Other G ..Attic Unfinished , —Fin. W , s. 6. INTERIOR ( t; t� I - — —Fin. F —# T _LU„_L11 ri :"r r t t — Number Dormers P _Fin. G Insulation Board + +•# Kitchen Sinks -- ' Shed Type Size — I -1t— Plasterboard G 3. FRAME - Gable Size " _ / (' o 13. YARD IMPROVEMENTS Walls / _Plaster . 7. FLOORS , • + 1 v Bracing ' '-- M it Floor o Roof oc. W Plywood . oc C siXib Floor f — P ._ • Ceiling cc. — — F o a ___# Laundry Trays - —..- Other — — U 2nd Floor a.c. — Other Buildings A Area F Floor R Roof I Inferior H Hoat P Plumb U Unit Cost A Add A Dodcct, R Rep1. Cost A Age C Condition B Building C BUILDING VALUE CALCULATION O OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES B BUILDING AREA CALCULATIOH Performed By D Dato S Item U Area or Quantity C Unit F Total Floor ar Part W Width L Longth A Area C Clection (C G G'. I ' ' • 1 / /, ..'t ) � a Y` f ff( 1 `o' C C Calculation Review DEPRECIATION AND OBSOLESCENCE DEPRECIATION j j/ a. Effective Age ( ADDITIONS AND DEDUCTIONS b b. Observed Physical ti C • 1. t `/' ' '' t c Perimeter Scale '14" - c. Total Depreciation P j /c. f t' t .' /.Y , , 7 " . ( • 1 4 C ) . jc, Gt ( / . 14, .-)t-, ( (,e'/ =. d p .: 0 )oosG : :. (. 1 , , ,. , , ( OBSOLESCENCE e. Overimprovement 4 f. Undorimprovement % g. Other % • h. Net Condition , I. FINAL NET CONDITION c , s % 1 SUMMARY OF APPRAISED VALUE . Principal Building { Other Principal Buildings Appraisal I Accessory Buildings Appraisal - b - .. I Total Building 6 r Total Replace mont Cost ' ': t 1 A Total Land Cost' Conversion Factor A KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ORDINANCE NO. 80-9-0 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CHANGES IN ZONING DEALING ;40 UNCLASSIFIED ZONES. WHEREAS, the .triTs confusing as to the use of the lamd and, WHEREAS, area requirements are unclear in order to a clearer interpretation, NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Kodiak Island wough Assembly that: Section 1: 17:12 Title Unclassified (U) be changed to read Rural Residential (R-R). Section 2: (a) All references to (U) be changed to (R-R) in the Borough Code. • (b) All zoning maps with areas designated (U) be changed to (R-R). PASSED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of April , 1980. ATTEST: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ,qrst Reading: March 11, 1980 lecond Reading, Public Hearing: April 3, 1980 Effective Date: April 3, 1980 Sections: 17.12.010 17.12.020 17.12.030 17.12.040 Chapter 17.12 RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-R) ZONES Uses permitted. Building height limit. Lot area. Yards. 17.12.010 17.12.010 Uses permitted. Uses permitted are as follows: A. Accessory buildings and uses; B. Churches, provided that no part of any building is located nearer than fifty feet to any adjoining street or property line; C. General gardening and farming, including all types of fishing, agriculture and horticulture, kennels, small animal farming, poultry raising and similar uses; 102-2 (Kodiak Island Borough 12/81) 11.1Z.02 D. Home occupations; E. One- or twoLfmily dwelling; F. Required off-street parking; G. The borough planning commission may, after prop notice and public hearing, permit additional uses as ex- ceptions in this district where such uses are deemed essen tial or desirable to the public convenience or welfare and are in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the comprehensive borough plan and this title. (Prior code Ch. 5 subch. 2 §3A). 17.12.020 Building height limit. The maximum build- ing height shall be two and one-half stories but shall not exceed thirty-five feet, provided, that agricultural build- ings may be erected to a height not to exceed fifty feet. (Prior code Ch. 5 subch. 2 S3B). 17.12.030 Lot area. The minimum lot area and lot width for each one-family dwelling shall be as follows: A. If water and sewer service are not available on re- quest from a certificated public utility or municipal system, the minimum lot area is forty thousand square feet and the minimum lot width shall be one hundred twenty feet. B. If water service is available on request from a cer- tificated public utility or municipal system, the minimum lot area is twenty thousand square feet and the minimum lot width is one hundred feet. C. If water service and sanitary sewer service are available on request from a certificated public utility or municipal system, the minimum lot area is seven thousand two hundred square feet and the minimum lot width is sixty feet. (Ord. 74-42-0 §1(part), 1974: prior code Ch. 5 subch. 2 §3C). 17.12.040 Yards. A. Front Yards. 1. The minimum front yard shall be twenty-five feet unless a previous building line less than this has been es- tablished, in which case the minimum front yard for interior lots shall be the average of the setbacks of the main structures on abutting lots on either side if both lots are occupied. 2. If one lot is occupied and the other vacant, the setback shall be the setback of the occupied lot plus one- half the remaining distance to the required twenty-five foot setback. 3. If neither of the abutting side lots or tracts are occupied by a structure, the setback shall be twenty-five feet. B. Side Yard. There shall be a side yard of not less than ten feet if the minimum lot area is forty thousand square feet and lots of smaller permitted lot area shall have side 103 (Kodiak Island Borough 9/81) CLIVUS A iULTRUIL A NATURAL COMBINATION OF •ILET, ATHROOM VENTILAT1 •1\19 G AL ;AGE DIS AND •RGANIC CO 4 :POSTE The Clivus Multrunim' is a self- contained, waterless, odorless treat- ment system for all organic wastes. It uses no chemicals, heat or water, and has no polluting discharge. It can save over 40,000 gallons of water per year in the average home and can cost far less than conventional treatment systems. It is based upon one of the oldest principles in , nature-simple, organic de- composition. Clivus Multrum in Swedish means "inclining compost room," and this natural principle makes the MultrumTM the best waste treat- ment system available today. Not only does Clivus Multrum treat toilet wastes which would normally be flushed into a sewer or septic system, but it also composts kitchen and other wastes. Anything organic, from grass clippings to laundry lint to paper towels used in the kitchen, becomes a rich fertile soil in the Clivus Multrum. Organic materials are introduced to the Multrum's impervious composting chamber through one or more toilet The standard toilet is a hand- crafted hardwood pedestal with plastic seat and cover. This hardwood seat and cover are optional. 11,1 chutes and a convenient kitchen chute. The wastes mix naturally in the compost- ing chamber and slowly decompose in the oxygen- rich environ- ment. The principal by- products of this decomposition —water vapor and carbon dioxide—are drawn through the Multrum's ventilation system to the outside air. The Clivus Multrum is therefore com- pletely odorless. As these wastes decompose, their volume is reduced by more than 90% . The final product is fertile, organic compost— just just like normal garden soil. It is safe to handle, odorless and easily removed ROTARY %• VENTILATOR ; • COMPOSTING IBER COMPOST. • REMOVAL . HATCH: . AIR. INTAKE 'COMPOSTING' TAD.% Simplicity in waste treatment without pollution of air, water or land. The kitchen waste inlet is particularly convenient.An optional counter version includes butcher block and stainless steel bowL from the storage area for use on the garden. The entire process is self-contained and uses practically no energyThe standard kitchen waste inlet Not only is the may be installed in counter or wall. Clivus Multrum system efficient and environmentally sound, it is also attrac- tive and adaptable to new or exist- ing homes. So, if you are planning to install or replace a waste disposal system, con- sider the advantages of Clivus Multrum: P1 Cost effective E Modern, tasteful design • Low maintenance D Completely odorless • Adaptable to pre- viously unusable build- ing sites E Reduced energy, plumbing and leach field requirements D Low installa- tion costs D Convenient disposal of kitchen and household wastes Fl Protection of ground and surface waters El Requires no water D Produces fertile, organic compost Clivus Multrum has been proven in over 30 years of use in Scandinavia. , There are now more than 5000 units used , A white contemporary toilet is an alternative to the hardwood pedestal. through- out the world, including every state in the U.S. and most provinces of Canada. Quality and reliability have made Clivus Multrum the established leader in the field. Clivus Multrum USA pioneered alternative waste treatment sys- tems in this country We are the industry leader in both current and developing p technology Our - knowledge and experience assure that you are buying the best waste treatment system available. The end-product of the composting tank can be safely added to garden soil. VALUE Clivus Multrum is the best choice in waste treatment systems. It does not require hook-ups to plumbing or sewer systems, and can reduce septic tank and leach field requirements. In situations of poor soils, high groundwater or nearby surface water, Clivus Multrum can cost far less than a traditional septic tank and leach field. It uses no water and practically no energy. Operation and maintenance costs are negligible. A small electric fan is the only electrical or mechanical part. Each component is carefully engineered and con- structed to heavy specifications to provide dependable, trouble-free operation. Clivus Multrum is the only reliable system for both year-round and seasonal homes. Other systems are scaled for vacation or seasonal use, and require more energy, maintenance and frequent removal of waste. Clivus Multrum is a solid investment in your future and the future of your environment. HOW IT WORKS The key to the Clivus Multrum is aerobic decomposition, that is, decomposition in the presence of air and oxygen. In the Clivus Multrum, a constant flow of air permeates the organic material through a patented ventilation sys- tem, and more than 90% of the waste volume is decom- posed and evaporated. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are drawn off through the vent pipe. The presence of air also provides the oxygen which allows bacteria and other beneficial organisms to con- vert the organic material to safe, usable compost. The process is similar to that of a garden compost pile. As these organisms decompose the organic material, heat is created. This heat is preserved inside the con- tainer by built-in insulation, thus helping the process o decomposition to continue even in cold weather. The system is adaptable to all climatic conditions. In other words, Clivus Multrum is a process using nature's own method of waste disposal. COMPONENTS The key elements of the Clivus Multrum system are: toilet, kitchen waste inlet, chutes, composting chamber vent pipe and a small fan. The toilet comes in attractive styles to complement any bathroom. The largest component of the Clivus Multrum is the impervious, fiberglass compost tank. This carefully engi- neered and patented unit is normally located directly beneath the toilet and kitchen waste inlets, and can be supplied in various sizes which accommodate from one to fifteen people on a year-round basis. The composting chamber's inclined bottom, internal baffles and air channels control air flow around and through the or- ganic material. As this material decomposes, it moves in a slow, glacier-like manner along the sloping bottom, thus insuring thorough, safe decomposition. The garbage waste inlet is usually installed in the kitchen, convenient to counters and food preparation. It can be set into a wall or counter, and its modern appear- ance fits with any kitchen decor. The vent pipe from the composting chamber extends vertically through the roof. A small exhaust fan creates the constant draft which insures aerobic decomposition and Clivus Multrum's odorless operation. This can be powered by solar cells. WHAT GOES IN The Clivus Multrum composts anything organic: human wastes, toilet paper, kleenex, sanitary napkins and other bathroom wastes. Food scraps, bones, eggshells, cook- ing liquids, and grease and fat from the kitchen. Dust pan and vacuum cleaner refuse, paper towels, shredded newspapers, even kitty litter. Inorganic materials such as glass, metals and plastics should not be put into the Clivus Multrum because they will not decompose. However, they will not damage the system, and can be easily retrieved. Paints, chemicals and other toxic materials will kill the beneficial organ- isms in the compost and may make it unsuitable for use as a soil enrichment. Materials rich in cellulose—food wastes, leaves, sawdust, paper products, etc.—aid the decomposition process by lightening the compost pile and promoting air penetration. They also supply the carbon necessary for organisms in the compost to convert nitrogen and other nutrients to stable forms and to develop heat for evaporation. WHAT COMES OUT The final, fully composted material from the Clivus Multrum slowly passes under the lower baffle into the odor-free storage area where it can be easily removed through a large hatch. The composting chamber itself s never emptied. The end product—compost—is rich n plant nutrients and organic matter, with a bacterial omposition very similar to loam. It is an excellent addition to garden or plant soils. The frequency of removal and the amount of material will depend upon the household use of the system. In a normal household, it will take 4-5 years before compost reaches the storage area, which is large enough to store several years' accumulation of compost for an average family before any removal is necessary Once the system reaches full operation, the Clivus Multrum will deliver about 11/2 cubic feet of compost per person per year. ALBERT SCHAFER F.O. BOX 610 SEWARD, ALASKA 99664 -- May 2, 1991 Mr. Jim Crane Kodiak, Alaska Fax 486-2777 Dear Mr. Crane I hereby withdraw any objections I may have had in the past on Borough Case 91-006 in regards to past trespasses by previous owners. I understand from your letter of May 1, 1991 you will not allow any further trespass in the future. You may submit this fax to the proper authorities showing Thy withdrawal of objections on Case V91-006. Good luck on your use of your property in Island Vista Subdivision. Sincerely, U1-4 Albert Schafer junk vehicles (un- registered, inoperable vehicles, trailers, parts and scrap salvage) within (60) days on Lot 5B, Block 3, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision; 782 Sargent Creek Road and denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit junk vehicles (un- registered, inoperable vehicles, trailers, parts and scrap salvage) on a lot in the RR1 -Rural residential One Zoning District. (Applicant: Richard R. Madson) An appeal by James A. Crane and Logan Porter-Crane, of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non - permitted single - family dwelling unit on a lot in the RR- 1- -Rural Residential Zoning District located on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way. (Applicant: James A. Crane and Logan Porter - Crane) CLERK'S NOTE: As noted on page 92, the above mentioned appeals were postponed until May 2, 1991. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR Acting Mayor Freed had no messages. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS A. BID AWARDS None. B. RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution No. 91 -14 Authorizing the Execution of Amendments to the Reimbursement Agreement and Letter of Credit Related to the Borough's General Obligation Variable Rate Demand Bonds, 1986 Series A; and Providing for Related Matters. Resolution No. 91 -14, if adopted, would amend the letter of credit on the 1986 bond issue with Barclays Bank by extending the letter of confirmation from its current June 11, 1991, expiration date. Regular Assembly Meeting April 18, 1991 MESSAGES FROM MAYOR OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS BID AWARDS RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 91 -14 Volume XIV- Page 93 At the Presiding Officer's request, Finance Director Karieton Short introduced Dan Caplan who worked on the original bond issue. Mr. Caplan explained the 1986 bonds were at a five -year guaranteed variable rate by Barclays Bank. He said the guarantee was expiring and Barclays Bank offered to renew the guarantee for another year. MONROE, moved to adopt seconded by FITZJEARL Resolution No. 91 -14. VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT Ayes: Monroe, Stevens, Milligan, Fitzjearl, Gould, Hancock, McFarland. Noes: None MOTION CARRIED Unanimous 2. Resolution No. 91 -15 Supporting an Increase RESOLUTION in the Level of Funding Proposed by the NO. 91 -15 Governor for Kodiak College and the Fishery Industrial Technology Center. Presented for consideration was Resolution No. 91 -15, which supported an increase in the level of funding proposed by the Governor so that important educational programs would not be diminished. GOULD, moved to adopt seconded by MILLIGAN Resolution No. 91 -15. VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT MOTION CARRIED Unanimous voice vote 3. Resolution No. 91 -16 Opposing Oil and Gas RESOLUTION Leasing in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. NO. 91 -16 Presented for consideration was Resolution No. 91 -16, which opposed oil and gas leasing in the Cook Inlet Planning Area by the Mineral Management Service, Department of Interior. Acting Mayor Freed indicated the Borough has consistently been opposed to off -shore leasing in this area for twelve years given the high relative value of the resources for fisheries and habitat and the projected low value for recoverable oil and gas reserves. Regular Assembly Meeting April 18. 1991 Volime XIV Page 94 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BOROUGH ASSEMBLY /CLERK'S OFFICE 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 18, 1991. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, to hear comments, if any, on the following: An appeal by James A. Crane and Logan Porter -Crane of,the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non - permitted single - family dwelling unit on a lot in the RR -1- -Rural Residential Zoning District located on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way. (Applicant: James A. Crane and Logan Porter - Crane) If you do not wish to testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, ,,or-in a letter to the Borough Clerk's Office prior to the meting. This notice is being sent to you because our records indicate you are a property owner in the area of interest. If you have any questions about the ordinance, please feel free to call us at 486 -5736, ext 234. � Q / o Your name: ` ,, /'� 64 - 2 k / Mi E Mailing Address: 161f. PW9 3 ,i- Your property description: Comments: .7 - i-i! y-e frt- / f - • (1)1 c,* ,44///ra taite""144/7'1""le Qep L( L /(Y/4- ,:okiw- yeSr _IniAfoefi r-"5,4011 ro'ier -/?-9-iv -0, 47 /7°V°V7 rir inv4 G 5 .,0 Yoesi14-4647 -/v 2 vr /974- April 2, 1991 Kodiak IslandBorough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486 -5736 James A. Crane and Logan Porter -Crane SR 2105 Harbor Way Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: An appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non - permitted single - family dwelling unit on a lot in the RR -1- -Rural Residential Zoning District located on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way. Enclosed is your copy of the record on the above appeal. The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, has been scheduled to hear this appeal on April 18, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers. If"you should have any questions regarding this appeal or are unable to attend this meeting, please contact me at 486 -5736, extension 232. Gaye aughrr CMC /AAE Boron Clerk cc: Susan S. McLean, Attorney Enclosures' CERTIFIED MAIL - Return Receipt Requested KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BOROUGH ASSEMBLY /CLERK'S OFFICE 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 18, 1991. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, to hear comments, if.any, on the following: An appeal by James A. Crane and Logan Porter -Crane of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued uie of a second, non- permitted single- family dwelling unit on a lot in the RR- 1-- Rural-Residential Zoning District located on Lot 3, Block 3, island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way. (Applicant: James A. Crane and Logan Porter - Crane) If you do not wish to testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, or in a letter to the Borough Clerk's Office prior to the meeting. This notice is being sent to you because our records indicate you are a property owner in the area of interest. If you have any questions about the ordinance, please feel free to call us at 486 -5736, ext 234. Your name: Mailing Address: ', Your property description: Comments: TO : FROM: DATE: c-c=y7b-- MEMORANDUM Gaye Vaughan, Borough Clerk Linda L. Freed, Community Development Director April 16, 1991 Appeal of Case 91-006. Denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non-permitted single-family dwelling unit on a lot in the RR1-Rural Residential Zoning District, Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way (Appellant: Jim and Logan Crane) ***************************************************************** Kodiak Island Borough Code Section 17.80. . . . Briefs, including argument and supporting the argument may also be at the time of the hearing. . . 030.E states that: authority submitted This memorandum is submitted in response to the grounds for appeal cited by appellants James A. Crane and Logan Porter Crane in their "Notice of Appeal from Denial of Request for Exception" dated February 28, 1991. The applicant must prove three elements in order to require the approval of an exception. Kodiak Island Borough Code Section 17.65.050.A states: A. Approval. If it is the finding of the commission, after consideration of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that the uses proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare, or be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title, and not adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood, the commission shall approve the exception, with or without conditions. . If any of these elements are not satisfied, then the commission is required to deny the exception. RIBC 17.65.050.B. In this case, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that Mr. and Mrs. Crane did not satisfy any of the required elements for an exception. 1. Mr. and Mrs. Crane did not prove that, "the proposed use will not endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare." The evidence supporting the commission's findings on this issue was included in the staff report dated February 6, 1991, written responses from neighboring property owners, and testimony before the commission. The permission for an additional dwelling on the property will increase the permitted density permitted on the lot by a factor of two. The permitted density of one dwelling per unit per 40,000 square feet in this zoning district is related to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. These regulations are . intended to address the limitations of this area to support on site water and waste water systems. A neighboring landowner, Cathy Cordry, submitted a letter dated February 16, 1991, stating that: "The Island Vista Subdivision is already overburdened with sewage effluent created by the permitted one dwelling per lot. By allowing more than one dwelling per lot we are only-compounding the health problems. . " In addition, the record before the Planning and Zoning Commission included a letter of February 25, 1986, from Arnold Shryock, the Environmental Sanitarian from the Department of Environmental Conservation confirming that . a test on a water spring at Lot 3, Block 4, Island Vista Subdivision, owned by Shawn Dillon, indicated some presence of coliform bacteria. .In addition, Shawn Dillon testified before the commission about his concerns that the grant of this exception would increase the density of the area and pose a sanitation problem. A more serious concern may be the fact that no permit has ever been issued or inspection performed for the construction and enlargement of the dwelling concerned to insure compliance with building, fire, and electric codes. Residential construction that does not meet these minimum standards is unfit to be occupied for residential purposes. The failure to satisfy-this issue rests with the applicants and the previous owners of the property. It is clear from the record that the dwelling has been maintained and enlarged illegally for many years without any attempt to satisfy the permit requirements for a dwelling. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Crane did not prove that, "the proposed use will not be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17." This issue was determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission by recitation of the specific description and intent of 2 Chapter 17.17, the RR1-Rural Residential One Zoning District as follows: 17.17.010 Description and intent. The rural residential one district is established as a land use district for large lot, low density, residential and general agricultural purposes. For the rural residential one district, in promoting the general purposes of this title, the specific intentions of this chapter are A. To encourage the continued use of land for low density residential and general agricultural purposes; B. To prohibit commercial and industrial land uses; C. To encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter; and D. To discourage land uses which, because of their character or size, would create unusual requirements and costs for public services. Again, it is only logical that the approval of a second dwelling on this lot will increase the density by a factor of two which is inconsistent with KIBC 17.17.010.A. The approval of a second dwelling on this lot would be an ,express encouragement to continue the illegal use of the dwelling which is inconsistent with KIBC 17.17.010.D. In addition, the concerns about the water and sewage service to the second dwelling units and neighboring land raises serious concern about inconsistency between this application and provisions of KIBC 17.17.010.D, because these additional health concerns may raise the costs for public services. 3. Mr. and Mrs. Crane did not prove that, "the proposed use will not adversely impact other property or uses in the neighborhood." The Planning and Zoning Commission relied on the staff report on this issue. The staff report noted that the neighboring property owners' complaints about the two dwellings on one lot mainly center around the issue of possible contamination of drinking water. In addition, the commission received a letter from a neighboring landowner, Albert Schafer, who complains that Wade Watkins, the resident of the dwelling on the Crane property, has been using his neighboring property for access and using the 3 property and roadway for storage of materials. The Planning and Zoning Commission also relied on staff opinion concerning the impact on the neighborhood in general. Granting this exception would set a precedent for changing the use, density, and expected lifestyle of the subdivision and the RR1- Rural Residential One Zoning District. Considering that the previous property owner did not appeal prior administrative determinations or provide any documentation that the dwelling was grandfathered, granting this exception might serve to encourage other property owners in the district to continue illegal use of second dwelling units on their property. 4. The property owners were adequately advised by the Community Development Department. Mr. and Mrs. Crane apparently contend that the Community Development Department had an obligation to advise the landowners how they could continue the illegal use of the dwelling under a "grandfather" theory. This argument is inconsistent with zoning ordinances. The Community Development Department has no obligation to inform property owners about ways in which they can continue uses of property which would be illegal under the zoning regulations. The Borough Code requires the Community Development Department to do exactly the opposite. Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.17.010.0 provides that the specific intention of the Rural Residential One District is as follows: "to encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter. . . ." It would be inconsistent with this provision to advise landowners about uses of property that are not permitted. The use of the tool shed on the Crane premises as a dwelling unit has never been permitted under the "grandfather" provisions of the code. KIBC Section 17.36.010 provides as follows: 17.36.010 Explanation. When a lot, structure, or use legally exists prior to the adoption of an ordinance codified in this title, but does not meet the requirements of this title, it shall be permitted to continue within the limits set forth in this chapter. . . This code provision does not apply because it has never been legal to use the tool shed on the premises as a dwelling.. The first reason that the dwelling use of the tool shed is illegal, is because the building permit for erection of the shed only gives permission for erection of a "skid shack for tool storage in preparation for building a log house." A copy of the building permit issued April 19, 1979 is attached as Exhibit "1". 4 The second reason that the dwelling use of the tool shed is illegal, is because a second residence was built on the dwelling in 1982. A copy of •the building permit for the second residence issued August 10, 1982 is attached as Exhibit "2". The landowner at that time, Mr. David Watkins, signed the building permit acknowledging that it was correct. In response to the question on the building permit asking "number of buildings now on lot", Mr. Watkins indicated "none." The unnotarized statement of David Watkins indicates that he told David Crowe and Bryce Gordon about the use of the tool shed as a cabin at the time when he applied for the 1982 building permit. The building permit itself, however, indicates that it was prepared by Ann M. Moen on behalf of the building official and approved on behalf of the zoning administrator by JoAnne Jones. There is no indication that either Mr. Crowe or Mr. Gordon was involved with this application. The zoning enforcement file contains notes from Enforcement Officer Gordon Gould stating his conversation on March 10, 1986, indicating that when Bryce Gordon inspected the building he did not know a second dwelling was on the property. A copy of his notes are attached as Exhibit "3". The third reason that there is no grandfather status for the tool shed is that the shed was erected over the property line on a utility easement in violation of the setback requirements for this zoning district. KIBC 17.17.050.B provides that, "the minimum yard required, on each side of a principal building, is fifteen feet." The fourth reason that there are no grandfather rights with respect to the tool shed is that the shed has been enlarged substantially. KIBC 17.36.050.A provides as follows: A. No existing structures devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except by changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in which it is located. There were two as-built surveys submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The first as-built survey, dated August 23, 1983, shows a tool shed of approximately 9' X 20' encroaching in the utility easement. The second as-built survey, dated May 7, 1990, shows that the building has been moved and enlarged into a permanent residence by the addition of a 9i' X 28' addition, the erection a five foot high wood fence, and the addition of an above ground fuel tank. This enlargement resulted in an illegal structure which is nearly three times the size of the original tool shed. This enlargement destroys the nonconforming use of the dwelling under the provisions of KIBC 17.36.050. It is particularly serious, however, to note that all of these 5 enlargements and modifications were accomplished without any application for a building permit to insure that the property was adequately constructed and safe for its intended use. The fifth reason that the grandfather status of the tool shed does not apply, is because the landowners have waived or given up any reliance on the nonconforming status of the tool shed. Zoning Officer Gordon Gould issued a notice to David and Susan Watkins on March 13, 1986, referencing a citizen's complaint that there were two dwelling units on the lot. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit "4". Mr. Gould informed Mr. and Mrs. Watkins that the RR1 Zoning District does not allow two dwelling units on a lot. He inspected the property and determined that there was a second dwelling which he referenced to Borough records showing a building permit issued in 1979 for a tool shed. He also referenced the permit signed by Mr. Watkins stating that there were no other buildings on the lot at the time of .the August, 1982 building permit for erection of a single family dwelling on the lot. Zoning Officer Gould wrote to Mr. Watkins again on April 9, 1986. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit "5". He referenced Mr. Watkins' intention to bring the property into compliance with the zoning code by moving his brother into the main dwelling, converting the second dwelling unit back into a tool shed and obtaining a building permit to move the tool shed out of the utility easement and side yard setback. Mr. Gould wrote another letter on May 7, 1986, confirming the site inspection which indicated that the kitchen had been removed from the tool shed and that the shed could not be used "a dwelling unit or sleeping quarters." A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit "6". Mr. Gould confirmed the requirement that the building would have to be moved out of the utility easement and side yard setback. Zoning Officer Bob Scholze wrote to Mr. Watkins again on October 27, 1988. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit "7". Mr. Scholze repeated the requirement that the building would have to be moved out of the utility easement. Mr. Scholze also repeated that the accessory building could not be used as a dwelling even on a part time basis. Zoning Officer Scholze wrote to Mr. Watkins again on January 26, 1989, confirming that the accessory building had been moved. He also confirmed that no kitchen existed in the accessory building. He also confirmed his agreement with Mr. Watkins that the accessory building would not be used as a sleeping quarters even on a temporary basis. Mr. and Mrs. Watkins did not appeal any of the prior administrative decisions requiring them to discontinue the residential use of the tool shed and move it from the utility 6 easement. They could have raised their grandfather claim at any time during these numerous previous proceedings and obtained a prompt ruling from the Planning and Commission. They choose not to do so. Instead, they repeatedly asserted to the staff of the Community Development that they would cure the violations by discontinuing the residential use of the structure and moving it out of the utility easement and side yard setback area. 5. The Community Development Department answered the Planning and Zoning Commission's reauest for information honestly. Mr. and Mrs. Crane's appeal on this point is apparently based on the assumption that the use of the tool shed as a residence in 1982 was legal. This assumption is incorrect. First, the use of the residence as a tool shed was illegal because the only building permit for the structure was limited to the use of the structure as a "skid shack and tool shed." Second, the use of the tool shed as a residence was illegal because a second dwelling unit was built on the property in 1982. The third reason that the use of the tool shed was illegal is that it was built across the property line and extended across a Borough utility easement in violation of the side yard setback requirements of the Rural Residential One District. Thank you for your consideration. 4702\196M.001 7 ]•fn CIETARTMENT - CITY / BOROUGH OF KODIAK , APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AP 4U LaK s Irwn • OF OCCUPANCY • CLAS* OF K '"E' wt DC.....- Z}, ....t Gds •n/ TERATION EDITION REPAIR V UILDING PERMIT NO. DATE ISSUED Iq A-p'iL 1/19 USE OF BUILDING IIE OF BUILOING ? X a. 2b0 R NO. OF FLOORS OF BDILDI VALUATION FLAN C■K. FEE TOTAL NO. OF BUILDINGS NO OF FAMILI SIIE OF LOT .NOW CIFICATI OUNDATI RU1j DIN FOUNDATION FRAME PLASTER FLUES FINAL UM ELECTRIC TANK IN FIXTURES TOR FINI FINA XT RIO ERS WIDTH OF TOP WIDTH OF BOTTOM DEPTH IN GROUND R.W. PLATE,ISILU GI MRS JOIST H. L. JOIST bd. FL JOIST CEILING EXTERIOR STUDS nortEne_alrTHIS UNE evircame w BBlqIFafsl4C O. E. a. C.Itf t�7s. L. Z 3.4. , las_Z31 INTERIOR STUDS ROOF RAFTERS .. • RING WALLS COVERING EXTERI0 OOF INTERIOR WALLS RE FLUES FIREM.ACE FL FURNACE KITCHEN WATER NEATE FURNACE GAS 011. I hereby acknowledge that 1 he read this application and state that the above is correct and agree to comply with all City Ordinance§ and Blate Laws ruling building, construction. 1 wellwAnk, s id C j( k 6, 70;/c74,„7,- f076-•+.14... Fir 7316.11 r> a 47 obg c Approved! OHIgs BUILDING OPPIOAL _ illdif!i EXHIBfi`...., PAGE, / OF ! _ , FLANNINO • ZONING INFO. =O SING DISTRICT ... Unt t/(, Jr L4 TYPE OF OCCUPANCY 17; / ! Ada S L✓ S L A NUMBER OF STORIES • • TOTAL NT. AREA OF LOT • IRONY YARD SETBACK FROM MOP. LINE a, SI 7 IIDS YARD SMACK FROM MOD LINT 2 !' 1 'M' REAR YARD • • 2 I f' • ppraradi i0 NO ADMINIIITRATOfi �...__. rapputant to win In oetween heavy lines. 310 ?—._. • ire US, Cka PHA TO, TEL. NO. CLASS OF WONK BUILDING PERMIT NO. NE MOL ISH ALTERATION ADM /ION REPAIR MOVE 4s/ Ut- Ltt.t.Urpult... r USE OF EOLDING. 12.44 0 • SIZE OF BUILDING x at* f HEIGHT ta NO. OF RCIOmS NO. OF FLOORS • NO OF BUILDINGS VALUATION lose) (s) • DATE ISSUED EXHIBIT PAGE BLDG. FEE PLAN CHK. FEE OTAL ?Ars NO. OF IIUILDINGS NOW ON LOT NO. OF FAMILIES cb SIZE OF LOT a E OF BLDG. NOw ON LOT AL AL SPECIFICATIONS :TE LICENSE NO. OUNDATIO EI ATERIAL EXTERIOR. PIERS WIDTH 01 TOP WIDTH OF BOTTOM Y • ,*.*** 1 • • I DEPTH IN GROUND R.W. PLATE (SILL) TE LICENSE NO. • "..s • ZE SPA.. SPAN DIVISION ; IRDE 1ST 1,1. FL. JOIST 2n4. FL. .• z; t-,* 1.1: 1 L ; .10151 CEILING EXTERIOR STU i 7. i aE , ' !L'irN THILINE 1 . of Cimstrualon 1 •.: ".4 :. , • ni. iv;V, :if 1-; . ■;r- tflNi ; tl ; ...r 1 ," •••Zr ..., • . Thl .saniy Group A, B. C,13, E, .11, 1, J Div. 1, Z 3. 4, i 1 "1 • • -. .1:- 7,. • 2 7'' if : Zone 1 2 34 ,. '....:t: • ., • 41 4 • INTERIOR STUDS ' ROOF RAFTERS FUN COVER, EXTERIOR WALLS.: ROO INTERIOR WALLS REROOFING FLUES FIREPLACE • Ft: FURNACE KITCHEN WAIER HEATER FURNACE 01 I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the above is correct and .agree to comply with all City Ordinances and State Laws regulating building constructiQn. Applicants ' UILDIN FOUNDATION FRAME PLASTER FLUES FINAL PLUMBI ROUGH EPTIC TANK SEWER GAS BOSH 224Olei /10/Z2.-- It2.78.€5 et '9.9 sca= (400 r•tiuocAryft.seei ROUGH FINISH a 78 ELECTRIC FIX T RES MOTORS FINAL Approved: CHIEF BUILDING OFFICAL PLANNING & ZONING MFG). ZONING DISTRICT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY NUMBER OF STORIES AREA Of LOT 1Y3 (3„, crcs FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE 0.151,11499.1.Advri SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE 413 ti) REAR YARD ',1-11 Approved: ZONING AD IN By: 771 . Yfie/r7-- By: • -3 O's(-..-.1 1Z /0%.■••'‘,J` ■4"o■ rvaJLJ .,010LoL ,4.A4r" aJ; 0,74 44 *,■ wA4,17/ 5 F (2. S-1- • Uj . • — 1-' Lv-14;ti olurs -Z- idbr4-L . .elet/f-vv- ieLAILs' . 3 goe-414---J ,—.11*‘‘..'1\ PAGE-Z.- OF 3 118111X3 • 44 L) 4/D 11._ -15-7g 11 iyt„ rh/ Kodiak Island Borough CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RECEIPT NO. pyge-,47(4-c-4- David and Susan Watkins P. O. Box 1299 USCG Kodiak, Alaska 99619 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 March 13; 1986 . Re: Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision Zoning violation Dear Mr. & Mrs. Watkins: This office recently received a citizen's complaint claiming that there are two single family residential dwelling units on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision. Borough records show you as the owner of the subject lot which is located in a RR1-Rual Residential District. The RR1 zoning district does not allow two dwelling units on a lot, (Kodiak Island Borough Code Section 17.17.020.) In response to the alleged violation, Borough records were researched and a site inspection was conducted on March 10, 1986. No one was home at the time of the inspection, but what appeared to be a second dwelling was noticed on the hill above the main dwelling. Borough records show a building permit issued in 1979 for a tool shed. In August 1982, Building Permit 451 was issued to Mr. Watkins for a single family dwelling. The permit signed by Mr. Watkins stated that there were no other buildings on the lot at the time. Therefore, the tool shed was either not built or was removed before Permit 451 was issued. Our records do not show that any other building permits have been issued for this lot. EXHIBIT PAGE / OF Mr. & Mrs. Watkins March 13, 1986 Page 2 In order to resolve this matter -I would like to talk with you about the structures on your lot and they use. An inspection of the building on the hill may be required to verify its use. Please call me at.486 -5736, Ext 254 within ten days of the receipt of this letter to set up an appointment. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Sincerely, Gordon Gould - Assistant Planner /Zoning Officer Community Development Department ck cc: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor Linda Freed, Director, Community Development Department Bob Pederson, Assistant Planner /Zoning Officer Complaintant EXHIBIT , PAGE 2- OF ' CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RECEIPT NO. ,,, M}S- 4/13- y 1 Mr. David Watkins. SR 2035 Harbor Way Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. Watkins: Kodiak IslandBorough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 486.5736 April 9, 1986 Re: Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision Zoning Violation The purpose of this letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of April 4, 1986 in which you stated your intention of bringing the above referenced property into compliance with Kodiak Island Borough Code (KIBC) Title 17, Zoning. Specifically, the tool shed on the subject property which is currently being used by your brother as a second dwelling unit is in violation of KIBC 17.17.020, Permitted Uses in an RR1 Zoning District.. Your stated intention is to bring the property into compliance by taking the following action by May 5, 1986: 1. Move your brother into the main dwelling. 2. Convert the second dwelling unit back to a tool shed by removing the kitchen, 17.06.220. 3. Move the tool shed, which is located on the property line and in a utility easement, so it has the proper side yard set back, of 20 feet, 17.17.050(B). 4. Obtain zoning compliance and a building permit to move tool shed, 17.03.060. A site inspection is necessary to verify the conversion of the second dwelling unit to an accessory building (removal of the kitchen). May. 5, 1986 is the scheduled date of inspection. If the conversion work is completed before that date, please feel free to call and set up an earlier inspection time. It is EXHIBIT , PAGE % GF 2 David Watkins April 9, 1986 Page 2 not necessary for the tool shed to be moved for the use inspection to be conducted. Moving of the building will be reviewed and inspected by the Building Official. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Gordon Gould Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer Community Development Department cc: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor Linda Freed, Director, Community Development Department Bob Pederson, Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer Complaintant Arnie Shryock, DEC Health Inspector Bryce Gordon, Building Inspector ck Kodiak Island Borough CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RECEIPT NO. p s-44.4 41.7(&- TIT Mr. David Watkins SR 2035 Harbor Way Kodiak, Alaska 99615 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 Re: Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision Dear Mr. Watkins: May 7, 1986 On May 6, 1986 a site inspection was conducted of the subject property to determine compliance with Section 17.17.020 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code in accordance with the April 9, 1986 compliance plan. This inspection revealed that the accessory building did not have a kitchen and was not being used as a second dwelling unit. Therefore, this case is considered resolved as long as the accessory building is used in accordance with KIBC Section 17.51.020. That is, the use is appropriate, subordinate and customarily incidental to that of the main dwelling and not used as a dwelling unit or sleeping quarters. You are reminded that the accessory building is located in a utility easement and does not conform to the side yard set back requirements. It will be necessary for you to obtain zoning compliance and a building permit before moving the accessory building. This office can assist you with this process. The Building Inspector, Bryce Gordon, issues the building permit and reviews and inspects the moving of buildings. Your cooperation resolving this land use violation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Gordon Gould Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer Community Development Department cc: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor Linda Freed, Director, Community Development Department Bob Pederson, Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer Bryce Gordon Arnie Shryock, ADEC Health Inspector Complaintant ck Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 -6340 PHONE (907) 486 -5736 October 27, 1988 David Watkins SR 2035 Harbor Way Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision Dear Mr. Watkins: This letter follows up our phone conversation of October 25, 1988, confirming our discussion of bringing the above referenced property into compliance with Borough Codes. To comply with Borough Code, the accessory building must be completely out of the utility easement, which is twenty (20) feet from the property line. Also, as you are aware, the accessory building cannot be used as a dwelling, even on a part time basis. You indicated in the conversation that you are in the process of placing the accessory building on skids and intend to have it moved with a dozer within six (6) weeks. I will plan a site inspection at that time to confirm that it has been moved, and hopefully the file can be closed. Please notify me if you have a change of -plans or any questions. Thank you for your cooperation. Sixerel , (7? Bob Scholze, Associate Planner -- Enforcement Community Development Department /EXHIBIT __ _ , PAGE / OF MATTHEW D. JAMIN C. WALTER EBELL• JOEL H. BOLGER• DIANNA R. GENTRY ALAN L. SCHMITT WALTER W. MASON• DUNCAN S. FIELDS MICHAEL ARAUJO *AWAIT/TO TO ALASKA AND WASHINGTON BARS ALL OTHERS ADMITTED TO ALASKA OAR JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 323 CAROLYN STREET KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 FACSIMILE: (907) 486-6112 TELEPHONE: (907) 486-6024 REPLY TO KODIAK OFFICE April 3, 1991 Gaye Vaughan, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 SEATTLE Orrice: 300 MUTUAL LIFE BUILDING 605 FIRST AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 FACSIMILE: (206) 623-7521 TELEPHONE: (206) 622-7634 RECFivED APR 4 iggl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.' DEPT RE: Crane.-Appeal - Planning: and-Zoning-Commit-SiOn-Case Our File 4702-196 Dear Gaye: I am writing in response to the memorandum from Linda Freed, dated March 21, 1991, which contained a request for an opinion on the participation of Jack McFarland and Gordon Gould as members of the Board of Adjustment with respect to a decision on this appeal. The memorandum and attached documents indicate that Assembly member Gould was employed as an Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer responsible for prosecution of certain zoning ordinances with respect to the accessory building for which the exception in this case was requested. Assembly member McFarland was in the audience of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting from which this appeal is taken. The participation of Mr. Gould and Mr. McFarland would not violate the provisions of our conflict of interest ordinance, KIBC 2.18.010. The conflicts of interest which are prohibited by that ordinance generally involve only the officer's financial interest in an administrative decision. There are additional restrictions on the participation of members of an administrative body in an adjudicative capacity like Board of Adjustment proceedings. In certain circumstances, the participation of an administrative official could violate the due process clause of Art. 1, § 7 of the Alaska Constitution. When an administrative official has participated in the past in any advocacy capacity against the party in question, fundamental fairness is normally held to require that the former advocate take no part in rendering the decision. The purpose of Gaye Vaughan, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough April 3, 1991 Page 2 of 2 this due process requirement is to prevent a person with probable partiality from influencing the other decision makers. In re Robson, 575 P.2d 771, 774 (Alaska 1978). This due process requirement is similar to the rule provided in the Code sof Judicial Conduct, Part 1, Cannon 3.C(1)(a), which requires a judge to disqualify himself if he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts in any particular proceeding. Assembly-member:=Godid77ghtitid7requeet=t0-:be=excused7from7:, the-decision=on7.thel-Crane=appealrunder=these=guldeIines. It seems reasonably certain that Mr. and Mrs. Crane could contend either that he has participated in this matter previously as an advocate, or that he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts in this proceeding. AsSerably—member=McFarland=shaild=difit----be---te- iredflte request-ito2lbe7excused7fromTthis7ca-Sezffilless-:he7has.-Tarticipated-Lin some::substantial:_way-in7addition-7tolteing---S-2fteMbat:of7thezeudieftce at=the--7:Planntrig-a-n-d----Zoililig- -Commission 7-hearing. Since the proceedings before the Board of Adjustment are required to include a record of all Planning and Zoning Commission proceedings on this case, Assembly member McFarland's knowledge as a member of the audience cannot result in any disadvantage to either party to this appeal. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY Joel H. Bolger JHB:dlm cc: Honorable Jerome Selby, Mayor Mr. Jack McFarland, Presiding Officer Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Gordon Gould 4702\1961.001 Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM TO: Gaye Vaughan, Borough Clerk FROM: Linda L. Freed, Community Development Directo DATE: March 21, 1991 RE: Appeal of Case 91 -006. Denial of a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non - permitted single - family dwelling unit on a lot in the RR- 1- -Rural Residential Zoning District. Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way (Appellants: Jim and Logan Crane) Kodiak Island Borough Code Section 17.68.010B states that: "A report concerning each case appealed to the Board of Adjustment shall be prepared by the Community Development office and flied with the appropriate clerk. Said report shall state the decision and recommendation of the Commission together with the reasons for each decision and recommendation. All data pertaining to the case shall accompany the report." In addition, Section 17.80.0300 of the Borough Code states that: 'The Commission shall provide the clerk with all pertinent records including any written decision being appealed...." Please find attached the following items that constitute the "appeal record" for this case: The public hearing notice and map; 2. The staff report, including all the supporting documentation provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission; Public hearing notices returned with comments; 4. The approved minutes for the meeting from which the appeal is taken; 5. The letter to the applicant which states the decision of the Commission, and the reasons for that decision; and 6. An updated listing of the property owners to be notified of the appeal hearing. It should be noted that some of the exhibits provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the original hearing, are oversized, mounted photographs. These exhibits can not be photocopied and therefore the originals are being provided for the Board of Adjustment. By copy of this letter, at the request of Jack McFarland and Gordon Gould, I ani requesting an opinion from Joel Bolger as to whether these two Assembly members may participate in the Board of Adjustment proceedings. Concerns include the fact that Assembly Member Gould was active in enforcement efforts related to this property, while he was a Borough employee. Assembly Member McFarland was in the audience of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting from which this appeal is taken. I am requesting that Joel Bolger's opinion on this issue be forwarded to you directly. If you have any questions about the appeal record, or if I can provide any additional assistance please contact me. c.c. Jerome Selby, Borough Mayor (memo only) Joel Bolger (complete copies of the enforcement and case files) Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM TO Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department FROM Gaye J. Vaughan, Borough Clerk DATE March 4, 1991 SUBJECT : Appeal to Board of Adjustment on Case #91-006 Attached is an appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision on Case #91-006 submitted to this office by James A. Crane and Logan Porter-Crane on March 1, 1991. Please prepare the appeal record pursuant to Title 17 and return it to this office. Also, please supply us with an updated listing of property owners to be notified. Thank you. Attachment REeFIVED MAR 4 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT In Re: The Matter of ) JAMES A. CRANE and ) LOGAN PORTER - CRANE, ) vs. ) Case No. 91 -006 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION James A. Crane and Logan Porter - Crane, by and through their attorney Susan S. McLean, hereby give notice of appeal from the 'decision of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, case number 91 -006 denying their request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 of the Borough Code, which was denied February 20, 1991. The request sought an exception to KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH. Planning and Zoning Commission, permit the use of an accessory building as temporary sleeping quarters on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision. Specific grounds for this appeal are: 1. The proposed use will not endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare. 2. The proposed use will not be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17. GRAY, MCLEAN & RAZO, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3. The proposed use will not adversely impact other 326 CENTER AVENUE SUITE 203 KODIAK, ALASKA 5 property or uses in the neighborhood. 4. The original property owner was not adequately informed by the Community Development Department, and the Department's actions caused the loss of "grandfather" rights to the accessory GRAY, McLEAN & RAZO, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 326 CENTER AVENUE SUITE 203 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 (907) 486.8505 building. 5. The Kodiak Island Community Development Department did not fairly address the Planning and Zoning Commission's request for information concerning the legal status of the accessory building in 1982. Therefore, the Commission's decision that the accessory building would have violated the zoning code in 1982 was based upon an incorrect legal assumption, and the Findings of Fact should be vacated. The appellants request that the Assembly reverse the decision of the planning and zoning commission, and grant requested exception.A 15,0L DATED this day of February, 1991, at Kodiak, Alaska. GRAY, McLEAN & RAZO By: t.../Qat )2(tr- SUSAN S. McLEAN Attorneys for Appellants , 1 MOM ISLAND BOROUGH CLERICS OFFICE RECEIVED KE 0 i M NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION -2 Case No. 91-006 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM February 22, 1991 File Eileen l�robsco, _ �ecretary Additional file information RE: Case 91 -006. Request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non- permitted single - family dwelling unit in a lot in the RR1 -- Rural Residential One Zoning District. At the February 20, 1991 Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission six (6) sheets of poster board with various pictures of the referenced dwelling unit and surrounding areas were presented by Jim Crane to the Commission in support of his exception request. These sheets of poster board measure approximately 14" x 22" and were too large to be put in the case file. They are being kept in the bottom drawer of the black map file in Room 202 of the Borough building. A notation to this file will be made if the location of these pictures changes. /fie, ucAOS I.0, --0\rle,W0Acia. (o As p ac -t • 31 (519i Kodiak Island Borough James A Crane and Logan Porter-Crane SR 2105 Harbor Way Kodiak, Alaska 99615 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 February 21, 1991 RE: Case 91-006. Request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non-permitted singje-family dwelling unit in a lot in the RR1-- Rural Residential One Zoning District. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Crane: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 20, 1991, denied the exception request cited above. An appeal of this decision may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the Borough Clerk within ten (10) days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. Therefore, the Conunission's decision will not be final and effective until ten (10) days following the decision. The Commission adopted the following. finding of fact in support of their decision: That the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not (A) endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, (B) be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title and (C) adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. The proposed use will endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare, as the additional "accessory dwelling" will increase the permitted density permitted on the lot by a factor of two. The permitted density of one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet in this zoning district is closely related to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. These requirements are Kodiak Island Borough James A Crane and Logan Porter -Crane February 21, 1991 Page Two intended to address the limitations of this area to support onsite water and wastewater systems. Additionally, no permits have been issued or 'inspections performed for the construction of the "accessory dwelling" to ensure compliance with building, fire and electrical codes. Residential construction that does not meet these minimal standards is unfit to be occupied for residential purposes. B. The proposed use is inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and with the specific description and intent of Chapter 17.17, the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District as follows: 17.17.010 Description and intent. The rural residential one district is established as a land use district for large lot, low density, residential and general agricultural purposes. For the rural residential one district, in promoting the general purposes of this title, the specific intentions of this chapter are: A. To encourage the continued use of land for low density residential and general agricultural purposes; B. To prohibit comrraercial and industrial land uses; C. To encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter; and D. To discourage land uses which. because of their character or size, would create unusual requirements and costs for public services. C. The proposed use could adversely affect other properties in the area. For example, the neighboring property owner's complaint about the two dwellings on one lot mainly centers around the issue of possible contamination of the complainant's drinking water. Granting this exception would . set a precedent for changing the Kodiak Island Borough James A Crane and Logan Porter -Crane February 21, 1991 Page Three use, density, and expected lifestyle (i.e., large lot, low- density, single - family residential) of the subdivision and the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District. Considering that the previous property owner did not appeal prior administrative determinations or provide documentation that the "accessory dwelling" was grandfathered, granting this exception might serve to encourage other property owners in the zoning district to similarly disregard the requirements of the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District. In addition, it appears from the information provided at the hearing that the building has lost any "grandfather rights" it may have originally enjoyed. Not only has the building been moved since 1980, but the building has been substantially enlarged as evidenced by as -built surveys for the, property, without the benefit of any permits. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Eileen Probasco, Secretary Community Development Department )) B. The proposed use is inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 17.17.010 (Description and Intent) of the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District as follows: 17.17.010 Description and intent. The rural residential one district is established as a land use district for large lot, low density, residential and general agricultural purposes. For the rural residential one district, in promoting the general purposes of this title, the specific intentions of this chapter are: A. To encourage the continued use of land for low density residential and general agricultural purposes; B. To prohibit commercial and industrial land uses; C. To encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter; and D. To discourage land uses which, because of their character or size, would create unusual requirements and costs for public services. Section 17.03.080 specifies that uses not listed as permitted uses are prohibited. Junkyards and scrap salvage are not permitted uses in the RR1 -- Rural Residential One Zoning District. C. The proposed use would adversely impact other properties in the area. In addition to the conflict between the industrial land use and the surrounding residential land uses (e.g. vermin, contamination, traffic, hours of operation, etc.) granting this exception will set a precedent for changing the expected use of the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District. This is especially true given the existence of industrial use already taking place on the property. This exception, if approved, would allow what is essentially an industrial use on the subject property. This could give the impression to the public that the intended use of the surrounding residential and public use land may be of an industrial nature, thereby encouraging similar land use activities to occur in this area. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. Case 91 -006. Request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 -(Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued P & Z Minutes: February 20, 1991 Page 9 of 20 use of a second, non - permitted single- family dwelling unit in a lot in the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District. Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, 2105 Harbor Way (James A. Crane and Logan Porter - Crane). DUANE DVORAK indicated 14 public hearing notices were mailed on February 5, 1991 and 2 were returned opposing this request. Mr. Dvorak presented the Commission with an additional staff report, addressing grandfather rights as they may apply to the subject dwelling. Staff recommended denial of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Susan McLean, Legal Counsel for the Cranes, appeared before the Commission and expressed • support for this request. She presented the. Commission with documents in support of her position, including a signed affidavit from Dave Watkins, the previous property owner. Jim Crane appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. He presented the Commission with various color photographs of the subject dwelling and the property. Wade Watkins appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Logan Crane appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request, stating she had no concerns about the waste water disposal system in use for the subject dwelling. Arnold Shryock, Department of Environmental Conservation representative, appeared before the Commission and stated that tests taken on the lot in question showed no danger of water contamination. Shawn Dillon, neighbor, appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to the exception request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. A lengthy discussion followed between the Commissioners and staff about the history of the lot and the existing dwellings, including "grandfather rights ". COMMISSIONER BARREIT MOVED TO GRANT a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non- permitted single- family dwelling unit in the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision. The motion was seconded and FAILED by a roll call vote of 5 -1. COMMISSIONER HARTT voted in favor. P & Z Minutes: February 20. 1991 Page 10 of' 20 COMMISSIONER BARRETT MOVED TO ADOPT the findings of fact contained in the staff report dated February 20, 1991 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not (A) endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, (B) be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title and (C) adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. A. The proposed use will endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare, as the additional "accessory dwelling" will increase the permitted density permitted on the lot by a factor of two. The permitted density of one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet in this zoning district is closely related to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. These requirements are intended to address the limitations of this area to support onsite water and wastewater systems. Additionally, no permits have been issued or inspections performed for the construction of the "accessory dwelling" to ensure compliance with building, fire and electrical codes. Residential construction that does not meet these minimal standards is unfit to be occupied for residential purposes. P & Z Minutes: February 20, 1991 The proposed use is inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and with the specific description and intent of Chapter 17.17, the RR1 -- Rural Residential One Zoning District as follows: 17.17.010 Description and intent. The rural residential one district is established as a land use district for large lot, low density, residential and general agricultural purposes. For the rural residential one district, in promoting the general purposes of this title, the specific intentions of this chapter are: A. To encourage the continued use of land for low density residential and general agricultural purposes; B. To prohibit commercial and industrial land uses; C. To encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter; and Page 11 of 20 D. To discourage land uses which, because of their character or size, would create unusual requirements and costs for public services. C. The proposed use could adversely affect other properties in the area. For example, the neighboring property owner's complaint about the two dwellings on one lot mainly centers around the issue of possible contamination of the complainant's drinking water. Granting this exception would set a precedent for changing the use, density, and expected lifestyle (i.e., large lot, low- density, single - family residential) of the subdivision and the RR1 -- Rural Residential One Zoning District. The previous property owner extinguished any ' grandfather rights to maintain the accessory building on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision as a dwelling unit when the unit was moved as part of a compliance effort in 1988 or 1989, which was subsequently documented by the Borough enforcement officer. Therefore, granting this exception when the pre - existing "accessory dwelling" has no legitimate status as a dwelling would serve to encourage other property owners in the zoning district to similarly disregard the requirements of the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District by converting accessory buildings into dwelling units. The MOTION was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. E) Case 91 -007. Appeal of an Administrative Decision in accordance with Section 17.68.020.B (Appeals from Administrative Decisions) of the Borough Code of a decision ordering the discontinuation of an unlawful use of land (fishing gear stored on a lot not occupied by owner of record). within thirty (30) days. Lot 4A, Block 7, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision First Addition, 3438 Anton Way. (George Rieth /Jay Johnston /Peter Hannah), and Request for relief in the form of an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a lot in the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District for fishing gear storage, for at least 120 days, when the lot is not owner occupied. DUANE DVORAK indicated 22 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 3 were returned, 1 opposing, and 2 stating non - objection to this request. Staff recommended denial of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. P & Z Minutes: February 20, 1991 Page 12 of 20 • • GRAY, McLEAN & RAZO, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 326 CENTER AVENUE SUITE 203 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 (907) 06-9505 • AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID WATKINS 2CM,ffi David Watkins of P.O. Box 2002, Newport, Washington 99156, deposes and swears upon oath that: 1. I am the former owner of the property located at 2035 Harbor Way, Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision, which I sold to Jim and Logan Crane in 1990. 2. I brought that property frm Roger Dunham. At the time I purchased the property, the only building on the lot was the small shed which is the subject of the Crane's request for exception. At the time I purchased the property, I researched its history, and found that on April 19, 1979 an individual named Jim Olson was granted building permit number 143 for the purpose of building that cabin. 3. When we brought the property, the two men who were living in the cabin moved out, and my wife and I used the cabin like a vacation residence. We stayed there whenever I had leave time, and we stayed there every weekend. Between 1980 and 1982, we made improvements to the property, including a well. 4. In 1982, I applied for financing to build the larger residence on the property. 5. At that time, Bryce Gordon was the Borough Building Inspector. He came out to the property, and we discussed the types of septic systems which would work with that parcel. After discussing the matter with Mr. Gordon, I decided to install a self-composting septic system, which is contained entirely within • • RAY, McLEAN & RAZO, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 326 CENTER AVENUE SUITE 203 MUM, ALASKA 99615 , (907) 466 -9505 . suggested to me that I might be able to continue the residential : the garage on that property. I also decided to install a leach field which is twice the usual size. 6. After talking with Bryce Gordon, I went to the Borough office to apply for my building permit. I talked with Bryce Gordon and Dave Crowe. They filled out the form, asking me questions as they went along. They told me not to be concerned about the cabin. After they filled out the building permit form, I signed it. 7. I did install the self- composting septic system. It is entirely self contained, and it allows no contaminated water to seep into the ground. The system has always functioned efficiently, and was functioning efficiently when I sold the property to the Cranes in 1990. 8. My brother, Wade Watkins, has stayed in the cabin when he is not fishing. In 1986, Gordon Gould, who was then the Zoning Officer, informed us that the cabin was located on a utility easement. He ordered us to move the building. Eventually, Wade and I engineered a way to move that building 20 feet, which we did. We moved the building because the Zoning Officer told us that we must do that in order to be in compliance with the Borough Codes. The cabin is now completely out of the utility easement. 9. When I applied for the building permit in 1982, no one use of that building under the grandfather clause of the Borough AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID WATKINS - Page 2 • • • bU /dU /1yy1 16:k1,5 L HY McLUPN L. kHLUr N. (;. 111(b4Uba2'r'rYUWW JbbbkJ H.04 4 Code. Had anyone suggested to me that it Would have been possible to Qo so, I would have taken the steps Necessary to protect any grandfather rights that the cabin might have had then. DATED 1991. 5-r- Newport, Washington this a \ day of 3- b cu.c>:..r DAVID WATIKINS SUBSCRIBED AND SWQRN before me this day of I , 1991 at Newport Washington. 1430 N a'«a� \ ■V1 41t■ar�v��ti� e. UlMt i RNA P.C. NNtYS AT LAW !NM AVENUE SUITE 201 K. 90e16 AF DAVIT NOTARY PUB D ID WATK S - Page 3 "77 ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRUNIKEIVTAL CONSERVATION Division of Environmental Health Box 515, Kodiak, AK 99615 Shawn Dillon Box 1896, Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Dillon: 1 cvWz—. c I - (•• (-P ROI SHEFFIEW, GOVERNOR t-- j 12 February 25, 1986 Telephone: (907) Addness: 486 -3350 re: water spring at L3,B4 . Island Vista We have received the laboratory analysis report for your spring (which •we sampled at your•request). Two tests were run. , In one test, the most probable number of “coliformo bacteria was determined. That number was 221 bacteria per 100 ml of sample. The inference, would be that your water is contaminated. However, to place this in perspective, the Food and Drug Administration permits shellfish to be harvested from waters with coliform counts averaging less than 700 bacteria per 10 0m1.. The second test ran at a higher incubation temperature (44.500.). That temperature tends to favor the ttcoliforms1t that actually are associated with fecal wastes from warm blooded Animals. No bacteria grew during this test. It is unlikely that the contamination that we see in your spring is the result of failing sewage systems. There are many natural sources of contamination although any improperly installed ttgreywatertt system in your drainage could conceivably contribute to the type of contamination that we see here. . . The chemical sampling of your water spring in December, 1984, showed that it is unlikely that your spring is contaminated by leachate from the nearby landfill. co: Jim Allen, ADEC Anchorage Post -W" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # of pages . To rte, YV�GC c i From- !RcaaA4_, Dept. mnonek �f � Fax 4-16) -- 2 q Faxes IFEDALAC al FEDER a CUDIT. lii11011 • IIL IU[:N fl/�L A['f'IiAISAL Hl_f'OR'T yr ^r__..__....- _._T�AlI,12_E, _`And. SUS., ..WATKINS ._.. _c: .ultut.ty Athfrast hail::'.-- Way ,y Kodiak _ __counter _ 150_____.- State Alaska' Zip Code 99615 yat Description Lot 3 , I _ Vista Subdivision ��_'.11 _ e Price $ NA Date of Sale NA Loan Terra yrs Property Flights Appraised IX] Fee ❑ Leasehold LiDeMinimi. tual Real Estate Taxes $ NA _ (yr) Loan charges to be paid by seller $ _ Other sales concessions Winder /Client First National Bank of Anchorage _ Address Kodiak Branch :.upant Owner Appraiser J. Hughes /R_ Cook Instruclions to Appraiser Market Value "as complete" Fite No. a Map Reference cation :It Up ..rwth Rate Li Fully Dev. perty Values 'nand /Supply :iket,ng Time •ent Land Use 60 % 1 Family [_ Urban LI] Over 75% []Hapid ❑ Increasing ❑Shortage al Under 3 Mos. Suburban 1X125% to 75% 1X) Su :arty 1JStable 1R) In Balance r14 - -6 Mos. ] X) Rural 1.. Under 25% 1_ ]Slow [7.1 Declining [,_]Over Supply [_, )Over 6 Mos. % 2 -4 Family % Apts. % Condo % Commercial % Industria140 % Vacant % :age in Present Land Use [] Not Likely [.]Likely (•) []Taking Place (•) (') From Vacant ToSingie'family residence dominant Occupancy ]Owner []Tenant % Vacant :.gle Family Price Range S 125)000 to s 200)000 Predominant Value $ 1503000 :_!te Family Age 0 yrs to 10 yrs Predominant Age 5 yrs Employment Stability Convenience to Employment Convenience to Shopping Convenience to Schools Adequacy of Public Transportation Recreational Facilities Adequacy of Utilities Property Compatibility Protection from Detrimental Conditions Police and Fire Protection General Appearance of Properties A ) eal to Market Good Avg. Fair ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ FHLMC /FNMA do not consider race or the racial composition of the neighborhood to be reliable appraisal factors. . rnments including those factors. favorable or unfavorable, affecting marketability (e.g. public parks, schools, view, noise) Improvements in the area range from small. cabins to large custom built sil�lc family residences. The sloping terrain and heavy woods limit the detrimental effects of the mix of improvements. `tensions 57.96' x 146.43' x 397.28' x 123.00' 307.16' ..rung classification Rural residential •psest and best use: [R] Present use ❑ Other (specify) Public Other (Describe) cC. L 1 ;ter . ❑ .).Sewer ❑ Septic 54,417 Sq. Ft. c1S ❑ Corner Lot Present improvements do ❑ do not conform to zoning regulat OFF SI1 E IMPROVEMENT Street Access: In Public L] Private Surface Gravel Maintenance: ] Public ❑ Private [..-] Storm Sewer [_Curb /Gutter Sidewalk ❑ Street Lights Underground Elect. & Tel. Topo S1Ce Average for area Shape Irregular View Average for area Level to ridge at back of lot Drainage Appears adequate he property located in a HUD ldentif ied Special Flood Hazard Arse? K)No :inments (favorable or unfavorable including any apparent adverse easements, encroachrnents or other adverse conditions) Access frC n road to building site is good. Winter access may be difficult. Normal utility easements. Existing 1�Proposed CI Under Constr. No. Units 1 Type (dot, duplex, semi /del, etc.) Design (rambler Age: Actual 0 Effective 0 to 0 No. Stories 2 Detached \.o Story Gutters & Downspouts [] None Window (Type): —Vood- Thermo Assured none : ..ot Material Asphalt shingles Manufactured Housing : :undation Walls Poured Concrete Slab on Grade :,rnments pttt tevet, etc. Exterior Walls Wood siding _ ] Storm Sash ❑ Screens [] Combination 0 % Basement ❑ Floor Drain Finished Ceiling Outside Entrance ]Concrete Floor % Finished Evidence of: [!]Dampness ❑Termites [_](Settlement ❑ Surnp Pump Finished Walls Finished Floor Insulation ❑ None ❑ ®Ceiling DRoof um L st cement Fryer_ Living Dining Kitchen Den Family Rm. Rec. Rm. Bedrooms No. Baths I.aundry Other Gar /Shop Level 1 i Level 1 A 1 2 1 n'shed area above grade contains a total ol6 __rooms__ bedrooms baths. Gross Living Area 17yb sq.ft. Bsmt Area . U .:then Equipment: Llnelrrgerator )Range /Oven 1Dispo al [_.,Dishwasher ] Fan /Hood []Compactor ['Washer [ l []Dryer ❑ Type HWBB Fuel Gas Cond, New AIR COND: ❑Central 1J Other El Adequate ❑Inadequate ::rorz u' ►. 'inyl Good Fair •Its nm /Finish firth Floor ..•. :th Wainscot Hardwood [X] Drywall El Good ❑Ceramic ❑Ceram c Carpet Over ❑ Plaster ❑ [J Average [] For 1 1 Poor EN Vinyl [3 Tub enclosure ecial Features (including energy efficient' tents) Cathedral Ceiling in Liv/Din Foam extra insulation t `TIC: [ Yes ❑No CI Stairway LjDrop-stair (X]ScutIle 1 :nished (Describe) Unfinished ,'. %R STORAGE: Garage ® Built -in s, Cars 1 Adequate ❑ Inadequate Condition — Attached ❑ Detached L Floored Heated Car Port Quality of Construction (Materials & Finish) Condition of Improvements Room sizes and layout Closets and Storage Insulation— adequacy Plumbing— adequacy and condition Electrical— adequacy and condition Kitchen Cabinets — adequacy and condition Compatibility to Neighborhood Overall Livability - Appeal and Marketability - Yrs Est Remaining Economic Life 5_to 55 ❑ ❑ ❑ Avg, EJ 0 0 0 .Explain if loss than Lo: EPLACES, PATIOS, POOL, FENCES, etc. (describe) Woods Uwe :;,)MMENTS (including functional or physical inadequacies, repairs needed, modernization, etc.) None noted. New construction should •- shet�l- d -6ctrp site :u4,millad for FNMA, Use appraiser must attach (1) skald.) or limp .. cation 01 suulect, street names, nt5 ce "vrn reo,e >..ruor> .,mot,, a.,, o. •trin Intel conditions and (2) exterior buildin 1 II improvements showing dimensions. No. Stogy Sq. Ft. ESTIMATED HE: J • i ION COST - NEW - OF IMPROVEMENTS 28' x 36' x 2 2016 Dwelling 151.._ - - Sq. Fl. @ $ 55 ° $ 87,7R0 ...151 _ _ x 28' x (1) e 420 Sq. Fit. @ $ x x a Extras Guesthouse with Woodstove 7,500 x Woodstove 1 , 5{)n 11 x x Special Energy Efficient Items Insulation a 500 ,.reasurements x x Gross Living Area (List in Market Data Analysis below) 1596 •;'rnent on functional and economic obsolescence: None noted. ; Iew construction Porches, Patios, etc. 0 - Garage /Car Port 420 Sq. Ft. @ $ 30 = 17,6al Site Improvements (driveway, landscaping, etc.) = 10,000 Total Estimated Cost New . . . . . . . _ $ 119.880 Physical Functional 0 I$ 0 lEconornic $ 0 Less Depreciation $ _ $ ( 0 Depreciated value of improvements = $ 119 , 88'' ESTIMATED LAND VALUE n $ 35,000 (If leasehold, show only leasehold value) INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH . , $ 154,88( .,c undersigned has recited three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to subject and has considered these in the market analysis. The descr r, includes a dollar adjustment. reflecting market reaction to those items of significant variation between the subject and comparable properties. If a signif m in the comparable property is superior to, or more favorable than, the subject property, a minus (.1 adjustment is made. thus reducing the indicated valt, i;iect; it a significant item in the comparable is inferior to, or less favorable than, the subject property, a plus ( +I adjustment is made, Ihu$ increasing the in value of the subject. ITEM Subject Property COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. ;JJress s an. List Harbor Way :' Mountain View Sub. . Mountain View L1OA B7 Monashka Bay Sub. Lakeview Drive Li /B4 Island Vista 2000 ximity to Subj. 1 3 Mile Southeast 1 $ ].74 000 + $ 97.10 1Z1 1/2 Mile East -• _ �� $ 155 000 i -----$ 85.35 14 1/4, Mile Southeast -' $ 12 t_ $ NA $ NA �, ,:5 Price c e /Livin• area / $ 10 DESCRIPTION Adju in ource Inspect /Plans Bro er Files DESCRIPTION Adjustment :e of Sale and :,e Adjustment DESCRIPTION ( DESCRIPTION 1 Adjustment Current 4/82 ; 10/81 +6 200 Similar. I 12 81 Similar Similar t cation Good Similar I e/View Avg /Avg Similar Similar I cigen and Appeal Average -4 Similar I ( Similar t Similar. l •:!lity of Cont. Average Similar 1 Similar Similar 1 New 1981 1981 ' 1979 ( +3 :_ciitioit Good Similar I Similar 1 Inferior I +5 ing Area Room unt and Total ._ss Living Area Total 1 B -rms 1 Baths ' I Total % B•rms % Baths t Total , B -rms 1 Baths 1 1 t Total 1 B -rms 1 Baths 1 6 ' 3 ' 1 6 3 ; 2 -2,000 7 ; 4 ; 1.751 -1,500 6 i 2 1.751 -1 1596 S..FI. 1792 Sq.Ft. I -4,900 1816 Sq.Ft. { -5,500 Similar ! 1184 Sq.Ft. 1 +10 Similar I I ::ment & Bsrnt. :shed Rooms None Similar ! ;,ctional Utili Average Similar Similar r Similar i r Conditionir>sl :age /Car Port None Similar 1 Similar 1 Similar 1 1 car /shop BI 1 car /shop Det. 1 -2,000 1 Mud roan porch } - • 1 I Similar 1 ! 1 None 1 +3,000 I _hush s /balcony -1,500 I Similar j None 1 +3 I Covered Porch , • building 1 -2, 1 1 Similar 1 I aches, Patio, ::)1s, ale. None Extra Insulation scial Energy !icient Items ,er (e.g. fire- :•;:s, kitchen ,ip.� remodeling) Guesthouse Woodstove � 1 Similar 1 I 1 ! I Inferior 1_ +5,000 1 1 I Inferior 1 +5 :s or Financing' %sions NA I AIlFGEM 1 AHFC 1 i AHFC 1 ! Ad•. (Total) I Plus; 1 Minus ) 1�L I i!# Plus • Minus 1$ f• I= - --- 4 160,700 PIusI$ . 1$ 150 icated Value Subject �• -• ��. -- �$162,600' —,Iuments on Markel Data Similar weigh rural Alaska calmunities. as placed on _gacL c rp, Lack Qf_t.ru1y Similar r p r i.. or i; L: .IC'ATEO;1? tI:;UE"BV'MAFRKET DA;TA`•APPRoACA ,cA' ED AttlJE;BY.ANCQME!'APPgpACH: $ 15R, (If applicable) Economic Market Rent $ /Mo. x Gross Rent Multiplier . $ N/A :is appraisal is made subject to the repairs, alterations, or conditions listed below [(]completion per plans and specifications. I.•:rnments and Conditions of Appraisal: Appraised as complete as per�lans and Specifications assuming average quality materials and_finish_and_consrrttr•tion in arrnrdanc-e with -.standard building- pract4c:e. gasket- value "as is" $48,000 includes lot, guest_house,_well and driveway.. "'� _�.._ _ _ : ;3! Reconciliation: Market and cost approaches were weighted similarly. Income approach was not considered • due to the predominance of owner occupancy in the area. nstruction Warranty ❑ Yes n No Name of Warranty Program Warranty Coverage Expires appraisal is based upon the above requirements. the certification, contingent and limiting condition rand-Marke Value definition that are stated in r `ILMC Form 439 (Rev. 10 /781 /FNMA Form 1004B (Rev, •10/791 tiled with client 9 ® attached. 1- ..L•TIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AS OF Y 26 19 S rr t• Be $ 56 Review Appraiser (If app ® rid Did Not Physically Inspect P►, nC.ICfCF PN11.4 C,,.... .nn, n Blx 3092 Kodiak, AK 99615 nd Valuation Service, Location (including detrimental condition • 7 • • ::/!i::;! . • ..A • ":•:\ 111M111111111•11111.11MMMUMMININ 0111111111111hdjill WEININ11111111111111EGCMCM111111111111111mmummuragatin isimmunumummonlimmulrorsommumumunini sun amassimumunimmi iUNiUi! 11 Immummuminimulomm•mmummuimi ommuniummommuoin 11111111•11M1111111111111,NINIZWRINI IIIMINEWEV111111111111111111nommiamattaissaram J1111110111NO11111111111111111111 11111111111111M111111111111111•1111111101111111•111 11011111111111111110111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111NINIMINININ NUN 0111111111111111111111111111111•11111111111 11•11111111111111111111111•1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.11 111111M2E0121212111121•2111112 munimmimminalma inimmummunnummunnimumummumspama Immaimmunummmuniinumaimunnummoseisimpi •ni111111111110E1:. 1: !�CIA1111111111111 NEIN 111111111,11111I11111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIMI1I11111•11111111111In MIN N1111111111111111110111111111111111 NEM 111111M11111111111111111111111111111111 MINN ummummukawas IMINNUM111111111111111111111111111111111111111•11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111NININNUINIII1111111111•1111111111111111•11111111111111•11111111111111111 111111111111111111111•111111111M1111111111111111111111111111711111111111111 NININI111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111N 11111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111NI 11111101111111111111 Photographs date taken5-2.10-8, ) SUBJECT PROPERTY STREET SCENE DEFINITION OF MARKET VAL' highest price in terms of money which a property will bring in a competitive and - open market under all condition:- .,te to a fair sale, the buyer and sclle; cling prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected is Adue stimulus. Implicit in this definition i consummation of a salt as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in cash or its equivalent; (5) financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale; (6) the price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transaction..( "Real Estate Appraisal Terminology," published 1975.) CERTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that: ].The Appraiser has no present or contemplated future interest in the property appraised; and neither the employment to make the appraisal, nor the compensation for it, is contingent upon the appraised value of the property. 2. .The Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject matter of the appraisal report or the partici- pants to the sale. The "Estimate of Market Value" in the appraisal report is not based in whole or in part upon the race, color, or national origin of the prospective owners or occupants of the property appraised, or upon the race, color or national origin of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the property appraised. 3. The Appraiser. has personally inspected the property, both inside and out, and has made an exterior inspection of all comparable sales listed in the report. To the best of the Appraiser's knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and correct, and the Appraiser has not knowingly withheld any significant information. 4. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the assignment or by the under- signed affecting the analyses, opinions, and conclusions contained in the report). 5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and. is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the appraisal organizations with which the Appraiser is affiliated. 6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the appraisal report weje prepared by thc Appraiser whose signature appears on the appraisal report, unless indicated as "Review Appraiser." No change of any item in thc appraisal report shall be made by alnyorte other than the Appraiser, and the Appraiser shall have no responsibility for any such unauthorized change. CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The certification of the Appraiser appearing in the appraisal report is subject to the foliowine conditions and to such other specific and limiting conditions as are set forth by the Appraiser in the report. 1. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title there- to, nor does the Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership. 2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the prop- . erty. The Appraiser has made no survey of the property. 3. The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made therefor. 4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used: 5. The Appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. 6. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items:furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser. 7. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professiona) appraisal organizations with which the Appraiser is affiliated. S. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the r(Tort, ur copy thertof (including conclusions as to the property value, the identity of the Appraiser, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with Which t})e Appraiser is connected), shall he used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, the borrower if appraisal fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, Mot -i nce insurers, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or _ny state or the District of Columbia, Without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sale, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the .Appraiser. 9. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory co„ ipletion, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner. Data: Ok (- AA \Ct,ci?-4.2 Appr iser(s)_\.cnkib`1 - I H L M C r c u As, n c V, 10/75 / ) ToR M toots ncv, toles . ^7 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kodiak Island Borough REVISED MEMORANDUM February 20, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Department Information for the February 20, 1991 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Item VI-D RE: Case 91-006. Request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non-permitted single-family dwelling unit in a lot in the RR1-- Rural Residential One Zoning District. Fourteen (14) public hearing notices were distributed on February 5, 1991. COMMENTS The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this case at the packet review worksession on February 13, 1991. At that meeting the applicants asserted that the "accessory dwelling" on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision was grandfathered and that affidavits to that effect would be obtained prior to the regular Commission Meeting on February 20, 1991. Further research into this issue clearly shows that the previous property owner extinguished any grandfather rights to maintain an accessory building as a dwelling unit when the building was moved and enlarged. Section 17.36.050A (Nonconforming Uses of Structures) of the Borough Code addresses this situation as follows: 17.36.050 Nonconforming uses of structures. If a lawful use of a structure, or of a structure and premises in combination, exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the ordinances codified in this title, said use may 'be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: A. No existing structures devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, Case 91-006 Page 1 of 4 P & Z: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI-D constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except by changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in which it is located. The two as-built surveys contained in the staff report dated February 6, 1991, show that the building has been moved and enlarged since the first as-built survey was done. The enforcement officer documented in the enforcement case file for this property that the building was moved out of the easement along the property line as part of a .compliance effort by the previous property owner in 1988/1989 (see supporting documentation attached). After the building was moved, the enforcement officer inspected the structure and certified that it was not a functioning dwelling at that time. The fact that the structure is currently occupied as a residence, and the applicants statement that a self-contained toilet facility has been added to the structure, indicates that efforts have been made to upgrade and/or expand the structure without benefit of permits and with no assurance that Borough building codes are being met. With the issue of the possible grandfathered status of the "accessory building" eliminated, this case is now simply a question of whether to permit a nonpermitted second dwelling unit on a lot in the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. • Staff has not changed its recommendation of denial in this case, however, the findings have been slightly modified to reflect the status of the "accessory dwelling". In order to grant an exception, the Commission must find that the use proposed in the application meets all of the following: FINDINGS OF FACT • That the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not (A) endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, (B) be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title and (C) adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. Case 91-006 Page 2 of 4 P & 2: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI-D A. The proposed use will endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare, as the additional "accessory dwelling" will increase the permitted density permitted on the lot by a factor of two. The permitted density of one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet in this zoning district is closely related to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. These requirements are intended to address the limitations of this area to support onsite water and wastewater systems. Additionally, no permits have been issued or inspections performed for the construction of the "accessory dwelling" to ensure compliance with building, fire and electrical codes. Residential construction that does not meet these minimal standards is unfit to be occupied for residential purposes. B. The proposed use is inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and with the specific description and intent of Chapter 17.17, the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District as follows: 17.17.010 Description and intent. The rural residential one district is established as a land use district for large lot, low density, residential and general agricultural purposes. For the rural residential one district, in promoting the general purposes of this title, the specific intentions of this chapter are: A. To encourage the continued use of land for low density residential and general agricultural purposes; B. To prohibit commercial and industrial land uses; C. To encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter; and D. To discourage land uses which, because of their character or size, would create unusual requirements and costs for public services. fl C. The proposed use could adversely affect other properties in the area. For example, the neighboring property owner's complaint about the two dwellings on one lot mainly centers around the issue of possible contamination of the complainant's drinking water. Case 91-006 Page 3 of 4 P & Z: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI-D Granting this exception would set a precedent for changing the use, density, and expected lifestyle (i.e., large lot, low-density, single-family residential) of the subdivision and the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. The previous property owner extinguished any grandfather rights to maintain the accessory building on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision as a dwelling unit when the unit was moved as part of a compliance effort in 1988 or 1989, which was subsequently documented by the Borough enforcement officer. Therefore, granting this exception when the pre-existing "accessory dwelling" has no legitimate status as a dwelling would serve to encourage other property owners in the zoning district to similarly disregard the requirements of the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District by converting accessory buildings into dwelling units. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that this request does not meet the standards for an exception and recommends that the Commission deny this request. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: Move to grant a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non-permitted single-family dwelling unit in the RR1-- Rural Residential One Zoning District on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision. Staff recommends that this motion be denied and the following motion made: Case 91-006 Move to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 20, 1991 as "Findings of Fact" for Case 91-006. Page 4 of 4 P & Z: February 20, 1991 5 Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM DATE: February 6, 1991 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Information for the February 20, 1991 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Item VI-D RE: Case 91-006. Request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non-permitted single-family dwelling unit in a lot in the RR1-- Rural Residential One Zoning District. Fourteen (14) public hearing notices were distributed on February 5, 1991. Date of site visit: 1. Applicant:, 2. Land Owner: 3. Existing Zoning: 4. Zoning History: 5. Location:, Physical: Legal: 6. Lot Size: Case 91-006 January 23, 1991 James A. Crane and Logan Porter-Crane Same as above RR1--Rural Residential One The 1968 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Unclassified. Departmental records indicate, however, that the area was rezoned from C--Conservation to Unclassified by Ordinance 74-36-0. Island Vista Subdivision was rezoned to RR--Rural Residential by Ordinance 80-9-0. Island Vista Subdivision was rezoned to RR1--Rural Residential One by Ordinance 83-15-0. 2105 Harbor Way Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision 54,417 square feet Page 1 of 8 P & Z: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI -D 7. Existing Land Use: Two- family Residential 8. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning. North: ADL 44355 and Tract A, U.S. Survey 1678 Use: Landfill; Vacant Zoning: PL-- Public Use Land and C-- Conservation; RR1 -- Rural Residential One South: Lot 4, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision Use: Single - family Residential Zoning: RR1- -Rural Residential One East: Lot 2, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision Use: Single - family Residential Zoning: RR1- -Rural Residential One West: ADL 44355 Use: Landfill Zoning: PL- -Public Use Land and C-- Conservation 9. Comprehensive Plan: The 1985 Monashka Bay Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Residential. A. RESIDENTIAL A portion of the planning area has been designated for residential land use. In order to maintain the rural nature of the area, future residential subdivisions should be designed with large lots (two acres, plus), or connected to public sewer and water systems. Although neighborhood parks are not specifically identified in existing and proposed residential areas, neighborhood parks should be part of every residential area. A new residential area has been designated for property past the VFW site. The area on the ocean side of the highway could be developed for residential land use in the near future, while the property on the opposite side of the road has the potential for use as a natural resource extraction site, prior to being developed for residential use in the long term. 10. Applicable Regulations: The following sections of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Borough Code and the Kodiak Island Borough Case 91-006 Page 2 of 8 P & Z: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI-D Coastal Management Program are applicable to this request: 17.17.020 Permitted uses. The following land uses are permitted in the rural residential one district: A. Accessory buildings; B. Agricultural buildings and activities; C. Churches; D. Fishing activities when an owner-occupied dwelling is present on the premises; E. Greenhouses; F. Horticultural buildings and activities; G. Single-family dwellings; and H. Home occupations. COASTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICABLE POLICIES Residential Development 1. Location In areas with poorly draining soils, development where feasible shall be connected to a sewer line. Where this is not feasible, on- site facilities shall be designed so as not to cause conditions that will pollute rivers, lakes, and other water bodies, including the ground water supply. Consistent: Yes. The main structure on the lot is served by an on-site wastewater disposal system. The accessory dwelling is served by a nonconforming "outhouse". 2. Open Space Case 91-006 Green areas and open space shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible and prudent when land is subdivided. Consistent: Not applicable. This action does not involve subdivision of land. Page 3 of 8 P & Z: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI -D 3. Access New subdivisions or other residential developments on the shoreline shall provide usable public access to and along the shoreline, extending the length of the development, to the extent feasible and prudent. Consistent: Not applicable. This lot is not located along the shoreline. 4. Hazardous Lands Development shall not occur in hazardous areas such as avalanche runout zones, active floodplains, and high water channels to the extent feasible and prudent. Siting, design, and construction measures to minimize exposure to coastal erosion, mass wasting and historic tsunami run -up shall be required to the extent feasible and prudent. Consistent: Not applicable. This lot is not located in a known hazardous area. 5. Wetlands Filling and drainage of water bodies, floodways, backshores, and natural wetlands shall be consistent with ACMP Standards 6 AAC 80.070 (Energy Facilities) and 6 AAC 80.130 (Habitats) . Consistent: Not applicable. This action does not involve filling or draining of water bodies, floodways, backshores or natural wetlands. COMMENTS This case was initiated by the property owner after being contacted by staff regarding the continued use of the non - permitted "accessory dwelling ", which has been the subject of documented zoning enforcement efforts since 1986. Case 91 -006. Page 4 of 8 P & Z: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI -D Department records indicate that the original complaint about the .dwellings on Lot 3 was formally filed by an adjoining property owner in February 1986. Two additional complaints were subsequently filed with the Borough as well, one in 1988 and one in 1989. (The complaint in 1989 also alleged the possible cutting of trees in the nearby Borough greenbelt by a previous owner of the subject property. This was referred to the Borough Resource Management Officer.) Department records indicate that the "accessory dwelling" was originally permitted in April 1979 as a construction shack in preparation for building a main structure on the lot. In August 1982 a building permit was issued for a new single - family dwelling. The building permit (No. 451) indicates "none" in the block referencing the number of existing buildings on the lot at the time of permit issuance. The main dwelling was completed and picked up on the Borough assessing records in 1983. It is clear from the record that the "accessory dwelling" does not enjoy grandfathered status because there is no documentation on file to support its existence as a dwelling prior to 1980. In fact, the building permit for the main structure indicates that there were no other buildings on the lot at the time of issuance. Anecdotal evidence in the enforcement case file, from the Building Inspector and from a Borough Assessor, shows that the "accessory dwelling" was not in evidence at the time inspections of the main structure were done. A Community Development Department staff member recalls that the "accessory dwelling" may possibly have been converted to a dwelling and occupied prior to June 5, 1980. Although the previous owners of the property have never provided documentation to this effect, the structure could still be grandfathered if this documentation could be obtained. As indicated in the enforcement file, staff was not aware of this possibility when the permit to build the main structure was issued in 1982. If staff was aware of the "accessory dwelling" it would have been required to be converted to a legal accessory building at that time or the permit for the main structure would have been denied. If documentation does exist showing that the "accessory dwelling" is grandfathered, then the main structure would then become a violation due to the fact that it was permitted based on false applications for zoning compliance and building permits. If the "accessory dwelling" were ever shown to be grandfathered, staff would then be required to begin a new enforcement case against the main structure. Case 91-006 Page 5 of 8 P & Z: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI -D The applicants indicate that if the exception is denied they would request a permit to build an eight (8) foot wide breezeway between the main structure and the "accessory dwelling ". To be legal the "accessory dwelling" would still be required to be converted to a bedroom or sleeping room subsidiary to the main structure. Staff has reviewed this proposal along with the as -built survey of the property and believes that it is unreasonable to expect that a bedroom or sleeping room located 120 feet away, and up a hill, from the main structure can effectively function as a subsidiary . portion of the main structure. The "accessory dwelling" would not meet basic building code requirements without renovation in addition to the breezeway construction. The occupant of a subsidiary unit would be dependent upon the main structure for meal preparation, bathroom facilities, laundry, etc. Staff does not believe that a reasonable person would be likely to live under those conditions very long, especially in the winter, when an unenclosed breezeway 120 feet long is the only connection with the main structure. If the applicants make such a request, staff will deny the request and require the applicants to appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicants have the option of converting the "accessory dwelling" to legal accessory building at any time. The building could be used as a shop, studio, home office, etc. provided the use is subsidiary and incidental to the use of the property for residential purposes. In order to grant an exception, the Commission must find that the use proposed in the application meets all of the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not (A) endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, (B) be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title and (C) adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. A. The proposed use will endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare, as the additional "accessory dwelling" will increase the permitted density permitted on the lot by a factor of two. The permitted density of one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet in this zoning district is closely related to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. These requirements are Case 91-006 Page 6 of 8 P & Z: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI -D intended to address the limitations of this area to support onsite water and wastewater systems. Additionally, no permits have been issued or inspections performed for the construction of the "accessory dwelling" : to ensure compliance with building, fire and electrical codes. Residential construction that does not meet these minimal standards is unfit to be occupied for residential purposes. B. The proposed use is inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and with the specific description and intent of Chapter 17.17, the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District as follows: Case 91-006 17.17.010 Description and intent. The rural residential one district is established as a land use district for large lot, low density, residential and general agricultural purposes. For the rural residential one district, in promoting the general purposes of this title, the specific intentions of this chapter are: A. To encourage the continued use of land for low density residential and general agricultural purposes; B. To prohibit commercial and industrial land uses; C. To encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter; and D. To discourage land uses which, because of their character or size, would create unusual requirements and costs for public services. The proposed use could adversely affect other properties in the area. For example, the neighboring property owner's complaint about the two dwellings on one lot mainly centers around the issue of possible contamination of the complainant's drinking water. Granting this exception would set a precedent for changing the use, density, and expected lifestyle (i.e., large lot, low- density, single - family residential) of the subdivision and the RR1- -Rural Residential One Zoning District. Considering that the previous property owner did not appeal prior administrative determinations or provide documentation that the "accessory dwelling" was Page7of8 P & Z: February 20, 1991 Public Hearing Item VI-D grandfathered, granting this exception might serve to encourage other property owners in the zoning district to similarly disregard the requirements of the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION • Staff finds that this request does not meet the standards for an exception and recommends that the Commission deny this request. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: Case 91-006 Move to grant a request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non-permitted single-family dwelling unit in the RR1-- Rural Residential One Zoning District on Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision. Staff recommends that this motion be denied and the following motion made. Move to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 6, 1991 as "Findings of Fact" for Case 91-006. Page 8 of 8 P & Z: February 20, 1991 112_1 : DOtaiN -cox. /S 29 /PAT /N7V EASEM 0Air N B9' 5T' '1 ' ■. c/. Lei coiner 5`/590 �r* N �l) /2 sj.D0 k— y "at/Y- rovueer Wad, f4wet / /OM" Y104' 4,41005E ,rve4 TANk A0OVS gepv'VD• is LOT %3 Nst 2- 57vRV NouSE 20 F0d• ' l D caret a?' /l990 • SK�F cewriuNe-O &ARA&E DEr • Amine/ K (uN013?4,0 ?) . sod.. Md. tinLt 6 �3 De ejr W Fed' c04• 5/ I • fnd, 10,1 eorr)e/ 5/199a Af2 '� S - BUILT SURVEY 407 - SL0 CK 3 IVA N( ) V /5T/I sL Q /V/5IOAI , 1 hereby certify that I have•q rr xed fo owin desnibed property: : 5URV6y v3.e pi-4r N °- 74 -Z9, koD/M< FrG02WN• D/6TR/c7 and that the Improvements situated thereon ate within the property lines and do not overlap or encroach on the property lying adjacent thereto, that no Improvements on property lying adjacent thereto encroach on the pretniscs In question and that there are no roadways, tumuli,. Mon lines or other visible easements on said property except as Inds• rated hereon. Dated this 7 day of / — 19.V° 1AO/ 7 . ROY 1. ECKLUND Registered Land Surveyor Date: 2s /at 5e,' / /9x.3 Scales ale c t I Drawn by: 4 ✓A • „ ti fr .e n.00 peal ....CA.' .5/Aix e 6-• -$ /DA Y •• Ala LOT .3 '57z:/:'V tiOU56" • _J,._,11" \ 15 4/109 /1.3 1174 sm.\ «6o .; j rot (r1 d, 9-5 ( o Scale; /" r . . • h..i;,V41,.,/.,:jr 'Id,,...IYI:IiilifiiertI24tite*t W.r; • :440.32d:id' •• 7;/ /1/0 171/ IfC I( I 1 it it .j es 0152 1,Ativ xiVS - HIT SURVEY 1 lir " 3., certify that I have CO", 1 VII the ("flowing den raord or"..-try /or J, DO c.&- / f'24. /(0" 7'8 - and that the ..... ernento "Ina" if thereon it with", the property line, and Jo lint 11120111 itt cnc roach 1111 1/1r property lying adjacent there to. that no not ..... co" rits on property lying adjacent dirket" encroach the po Ini.es in plot; .... and that there Al c no roadw•ys. 11211111111 111111 111 1113112 11111/12 f1111111111111 Oh said property e•tept 21 acrd Inq eon. I ay. t / • paled 'hit '110Y A. LC:KU/NO Ilegittered land Stirscyor -4 0 1- I I); awn by: •-5,..1,4 Date: 03 Xff...../54, /Pet": - • :f 11, , . !r3: 4 • • Kodiak Island Borough James A Crane and Logan Porter SR 2105 Harbor Way Kodiak, Alaska 99615 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 February 1, 1991 RE: Case 91-006. Request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non-permitted single-family dwelling unit in a lot in the RR1-- Rural Residential One Zoning District (Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision; 2105 Harbor Way). Dear Mr. & Mrs. Crane: Please be advised that the request referenced above has been scheduled for review and action by the Kodiak Island Borough Plarming and Zoning Commission at their February 20, 1991 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Attendance at this meeting is recommended. The week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, February 13, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Conference Room (#121), the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet .material for the regular meeting. You are invited to attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, please call the Community Development Department at 486-5736, extension 255. Sincerely, Eileen Probasco, Secretary Community Development Department NAVA IV CI A NE) Z.OPI CI COMM 0 1 le- ":27--fsL /No 2)c, re_ou 14 L....A''V-AN Zo P._At\-)NINc2, Ans. No NI NC? C trk T R-rrt) K.) -To YO c-DiOc.61aNi 1.741 P2 cAsG : Dor _ tv, Z i HA t-2 ado rz, LLNAN/./. Qu To c 4.) 6.3.- s .s e. o F oc,04.10 t.) ar 1ED FA1L'/ D tALL LflC. A R. - t TTh.. /...-)An-, 0 Li 1.$7.714N- -S u Ovoti ii;°A,CY*4 c:Itj DC.1.-) 1.-3 rrt4 s LA3 A C, ■ L., g- ay ta E.1.1.- P Cy tt'tr *.) <4 fit 0 -rt+-^ (--J OE P(2- p& .- 0 &11 L'( _O 0 o 11.-,) Pla-o s TH LS C.)1 IL4 0 t-J 4-1-74--- - Fo e tJE-10,R_Ly ID - - - 0 czO‘S L " E PLY P\) 0 iv.c„ 5 (7_011 L.. \ CkA, PIN C.7 A-5 us -7 rro -15 . rn4 s y.5.-.71";111 -7- E. c_ x) to t-; C") °V V-1,1 leN 0 cisl NJ Cz•-• -r 3 t_o A o 5-T , e o orkj s \c140 Kt) LD /A L-A 611 i REC AVE FEB 2 0 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT y «� i? ,020 cc) igil Irv' IS 1S Sr ?GL Du, FfliE: FEB 2o 1gg1 COMMUNITY DEvELUPMENT DEPT KOWAK ISLAND BOROL %NH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodink, Alaska 99615 Public Hearing Item VI-D PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 20, 1991. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following request: Case 91-006. Request for an exception from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the continued use of a second, non- permitted single-family dwelling unit in a lot in the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District, 2105 Harbor Way (James A. Crane and Logan Porter-Crane). If you do not wish to testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, or in a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. This notice is being sent to you because our records indicate you are a property owner in the area of the request. If you have any questions about the request, please feel free to call us at 486-5736, extension 255. Your Name: Mailing Address: Your property description: Comments: CASE 91-006 Lot 3, Block 3 Island Vista Subd. PUBLIC NOTICE AREA Minimum of 350 feet from Exterior Lot Lines lc 3 6o- < < “) ( 503v o [ D 151 q •Cs* 11 (a. L _ 2 b La, 50 40 1• c (-6 ' Tr. 4 6aa 5-040 .. 090 (ol 1 ,5 •,` 010 0 0 1DGE CIRCLE 2051 R6125030020 6 SILVA>,JEFFREY & NADINE P.O. '60X I51:.. 2 KODIAK 3 9 11 PORTER., KATHLEEN .O. 130`79 KODIAK .R6125030030 LOGAN 7 18 19 22 24 25 ) 26 27 AK 99619. 16 R612503W 40 DILLON,SHAWN £ DEBRA • yO 13 0Y: 07.9.6 . 2u KOO.I AK AK 99615'. 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PAULLIi4 KENN07H:. 28 2 060 5�"DS`T E WAY .,. ,. 29 BEND OR 97701 30 31 32 33 34 35 R6125030060 36 SWEARINGIN, BILLY 1; BARB 38 KOD1 <A,< ao KODIAK AK 99615 47 48 49 R 612502.001T DIEMER,RI HARD C NANCY KODIAK 29 R6125020020 30 STARK ET AL, TIMOTHY AT E-A -COL;; 1'A°N- :.; SR BOX 215.9 KODIAK 36 37 P,6125020030 39 A; %iQREv,SHAleIN & .KIP1BEi31_Y 4oyP.0 0�' 23i4 41 KODIAK 42 43 45 46 AK 99615 47 R6125020040 48 MURPHY, JOHN E JAN IC E 49 I'';• 0 tO-X 1571 8. 50 KOflIAK 51 52 s3 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 K 996.15 86125030010' MATH'ERS £TAL 'DOUGLAS . CsA SANDRA "f A HER'S P.0. BOX 2916 KODIAK AK 99615 P.0.* BOX 3046 KODI AK 6 AK 99615 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 1 86125040120 BOLLENBACi-IER, PETER '519 . C R. e.STWOO "T ANCORAGE AK '99503 .. ENDRESEN,W & M R6225040090 LJ� 5 6 7 9 10 SCHAFER, ALBERT 86115000010 P.O. :BOX 610 '> SEWARD AK 99 • 99664 et-96)15'. : REcTivED FE3 7 1991 _COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Le0t.A u=it- rt-c.2,1 Cv, kta • u1/4-4i‘,4 c jcc A ee. • Logan Porter and Jim Crane SR 2035 Harbor Way Kodiak, AK 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 486 -5736 January 9, 1991 Re: Lot 3, Block 3, Island Vista Subdivision - 2035 Harbor Way Illegal dwelling unit Dear Mr. and Mrs. Crane: This letter follows conversations with both of you and confirms that you have been notified that the use of the accessory building to the rear of your residential property referenced above as a second dwelling unit is a violation of Kodiak Island Borough Code Sections 17.17.010 and 17.17.020 addressing the description and intent of and permitted uses in the RR1 -rural residential one zoning district. In consideration of your status as new property owners who may not have been aware that this is a zoning code violation, a deadline of February 21, 1991 is established to permanently vacate the cabin and remove the kitchen as required for an accessory building. As I demonstrated to Jim in the office, the property file documents that the Watkins brothers, one former property owner and the other past - -and present -- occupant of the illegal dwelling, both have been aware of the violation since 1986 and have chosen to ignore directives to permanently discontinue the non- permitted use. Unfortunately, it is you as current property owners, not them, who will face legal action if use of the cabin as a second dwelling unit, or even as a temporary sleeping room, is not discontinued. Failure, then, to meet the above deadline to vacate the cabin and remove the kitchen will require that the file be forwarded to the Borough Attorney for further enforcement action. Kodiak Island Borough Logan Porter and Jim Crane January 9, 1991 Page Two Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please call me at 486-5736, extension 254. Sincerely, Bob Scholze, Associate Planner - Enforcement Community Development Department cc: Linda Freed, Community Development Department Director Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner Planning and Zoning Commission Joel Bolger, Borough Attorney Complainant s197 ' `tt le* *.°p. j is.00 6'4 104 t5) ■ �have ec vpGK 'C1 cha t 3 tai B b �LDr vetrte °' e imQro en and that not (Perks? ots t and iniproverne t sti that °o ises in c vie the Pte es or other siat hViereoit• • ea4ed Dated this • Y"-'4 • o ' •i4+'•i cklund 91, Roh1o.;1 38:`5' •I 4% 7 ,,1: °_PROFESS \ONP,i'i ' LOett- 4P—"' "-> . . r• 79 ' 57' e7" 6' A&7i: /L vow.ff C 'J1 ye WCI1rMCNM Ivl, 600 �x av skd 54.r ti / /a4 Jcveu /0 /19 -/1 3 • /i/o 17a / Uip1 /t /l QF2 .n0 r .w f'• OF 4%1 a� V ••... 4 n ' • •R 7 49T►a • , I % Roy fs. d f Cc:.'.nn %J . rrt.. IG,.N•S Yar. • i.••• +•Sy ;� •� f,SStO'iF'. ` 4 Scale: /' r -40 - BUILT SUIIVE? 1 hereby truth, that 1 have surveyed the following described ; n.petty Lvr ,3 oznc t' .3 /f' 4•vv l'isri> y 4 5L -/4 ✓E✓ i6 78 • p4.47- /vie f¢ -P9 and that the improvements situated thereon are within the property lines and do evert trsetlip or encroach an the property lying adjacent thereto. that no improvements nn property lying adjacent theteto encroach •n. the premises nt question and that there are no roadway +, tratrsmes sure hoes or other visible easements on said property except as indt estct! hereon. Dated this '"`- day of 1 )Y A. LCKLU Registered I.and Surveyor Drawn by: 19 ... Date: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 MILL BAY ROAD, ROOM 204, KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340, (907) 486-5736 The application fee for all Items covered by this form is fifty dollars pso.00, except as otherwise noted. Conditional Use Permits EKG° lions and Variance sppllcatlona also requlre the submission of a site pien Applicant information Property owners name: 6,4," ?a-A-v.- / N-.... C___(....k 0 -9,-- Property owners mailing address: SZ 2_ t. - 1,, 01/43 City: EZ or-V:c.,k State: 4-k_ Zip: 1ct Home phone: LE le) ( S Fr Work phone: ---. It applicable, Agent's name: 3Tvv-.. Agent's mailing address: City: State: Zip: Home phone: Work phone: Property information Legal Description: 81.a zit- -7> 2; 4.e-10 U1s ./ Present use of property: 5L. .--t__. - a-U c- Irt If CA-CCO-4 5 Proposed use of property: na-s4.1.4.4* _c p& /-, V4.07.4 —4tru,, LO U&� S s- pv CASH RECEIPT Kodiak Island Borough 710 UPPER MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 -6340 PHONE (907) 486 -5736 RECEIVED FROM DATE 17842 199! -000- 101 -10 -00 010 -000- 105 -01 -00 010 - 000 - 105 -06 -00 c•''a 1 i^.a 010 -000= 111 -61 -00 010 -000- 107- -00 040 - 000 - 371 - 11 -00 040- 000 - 371 -12 -00 010 - 000 - 368 -'51 -.00 010 -000- 322 -11 -00 010- 000 -319- 10 -00 PROPERTY TAX, REAL PROPERTY TAX, PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX, LIENS PERSONAL TAX, LIENS LAND SALE, PRINCIPAL LAND SALE, INTEREST SALE OF COPIES BUILDING PERMIT PENALTIES, INTEREST 010 -000- 199-99 -00 -ono- - -CC So (DO CONDITIONS OF CHECK PAYMENTS PAYMENTS TENDERED BY CHECK FOR OBLIGATIONS DUE TO THE BOROUGH ARE SATISFIED ONLY UPON THE CHECK BEING HONORED. RETURNED CHECKS FOR ANY REASON RESTORES THE OBLIGATION AS UNPAID AND SUBJECTS THE PAYER TO ANY CHARGES, FEES OR OTHER LEGAL LIABILITIES AS MAY BE APPLICABLE. TOTAL P � I OO CASHIE PAYOR � J� PAYMENT tMADE BY: ( I r J CHECK NO. / 1„.5 ❑ CASH ❑ OTHER. FM08- 511815 ALBERT SCHAFER P.O. BOX 610 SEWARD, ALASKA 99664 January 28, 1991 Mr. Wade Watkins C/O David Watkins Box 1299 I1.S.C.G. Kodiak, Alaska 99619 Dear Mr. Watkins, It has been brought to my attention that you may be using a roadway belonging to me for access to your building as well as the storing of certain materials on the roadway. Also it was thought that you or someone may have cut some timber. You have no right to do any of the above. If my information is incorrect pardon me. But if the above is true please tell me by return mail how you intend to rectify this. I await your prompt reply. Sincerely, az`L�Jrf Albert Schafer CASH RECEIPT Kodiak Island Borough 710 UPPER MILL BAY ROAD 17842 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 -6340 PHONE (907) 4865736 RECEIVED FROM Arn DATE 99/ - 000 -•101 - 10 - 00 CASH f}�.1- -^,fi* 3 - ' F" • ' ^, • 51 , .1\'' ' -- ,: r.. .l;a 010 - 000 - 105 -.01 - 00 PROPERTY TAX, REAL 010 - 000 - 105 - 06 - 00 PROPERTY TAX, PERSONAL s'• ' C; i 5- r , V{L++ li.rs ttl,.. I I 010 - 000 - 111 - 61 - 00 PROPERTY TAX, LIENS 010 - 000 - 107 - - 00 PERSONAL TAX, LIENS ,.. K;,•,11� i t 040 - 000 - 371 - 11 - 00 LAND SALE, PRINCIPAL , °L z ,,--) �� • 'e i? 040 - 000 - 371 - 12 - 00 LAND SALE, INTEREST ti;`�: S y;! -N1.1••,. i I 010 - 000 - 368 -'51 -. 00 SALE OF COPIES t , , . 4 010 - 000 - 322 - 11 - 00 BUILDING PERMIT i,if a �a_k,- 010 - 000 - 319 - 10 - 00 " PENALTIES, INTEREST 010 - 000 - 199 - 99 - 00 CLEARING ' - -r,.) - '.1,)-..,.- � , PER ATTACHED�.0PP%1° ' ?j•;T \, :-� ' (4 .,:'� r , ,, i i CONDITIONS OF CHECK PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYMENTS TENDERED BY CHECK FOR OBUGATIONS DUE TO ^�/) (C / './L../I V THE BOROUGH ARE SATISFIED ONLY UPON THE CHECK BEING HONORED. RETURNED CHECKS FOR ANY REASON RESTORES THE OBLIGATION AS UNPAID AND SUBJECTS THE PAYER TO ANY CHARGES, FEES OR OTHER LEGAL LIABILITIES AS MAY BE APPLICABLE. CASHIER (Bs PAYOR PAYMENT MADE BY: ES CHECK NO ) 15✓ D CASH ❑ OTHER FM08- 511815 0 0 11, • or. 1 4k. Jam) 10 CLA, el) 3, gk 3 ..)--3) q1 lerzlhA, palm 4,7,Z4,„( Levk/ir c)Q; ;y31 qi