The URL can be used to link to this page

USS 2537B & USS 562 TR A-1 - Supplemental Information1 2 3 4 1 5,I LORRAIN DAYTON, represented by ) George Dickson, Attorney -at -law, ) 6' ) ) 7 ! vs. ) ) 8 � SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, re- ) presented by Bernard Dougherty, ) 9 f Attorney -at -law, ) 101 ) ) 11 ) 12 ' ) ! ) 13 I III, ) i ) 14 i ) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT KODIAK - -- 000 - -- vs. 15 16 17 ii 18 19 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, represent- ed by the Planning and Zoning Commission & Richard Garnett, Borough Attorney VERBATIM TRANSLATION OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING A- P- P- E- A- R- A- N- C- E- S : 20i IN FAVOR OF: 21; BERNARD DOUGHERTY, Attorney DENNIS MURRAY, Senior Citizens 22 1 Representative JOHN McCOOL, Architect 23,1 JACK SMOODY, HUD representative LOU IANI, Part Owner of Sunset 24 25 26 27 28 29 IN OPPOSITION OF: GEORGE DICKSON, Attorney ROBERT SHOAF,: Law Clerk MILDRED'MACKEY, Resident WILLIAM VANORDEN, Resident LORRAINE DAYTON, Resident COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dan Busch, Chairman Don Baker Gene Erwin Tony Perez John Pugh Ron. Ball ALSO PRESENT: 30 Harry Milligan, Planning & Zoning Secretary Mr. Richard Garnett, III, Borough Attorney 31 i I ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA .99615 907 - 486 - 4837 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 I 12 13 ,14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 was a quorum. (Mr. Phil Anderson was excused). 25 The meeting then went as follows: The following is a verbatim translation of the public hearing held at. 7:30 P.M., October 18, 1978 in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 700 Upper Mill Bay Road, at the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which was taken by an electronic recorder and also broadcast over KMXT FM radio station in Kodiak, Alaska. This transcript deals only with that part of the meeting which covered the variances being requested by the Sunset Development Company. The variances being requested are as follows: 1) Case #Z-78-075 Rezoning of Lot 39, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision, USS 562 and Tract "A". USS 2537 and USS 562 (formerly Lots 40-45, Block 2, Ers- kine Subdivision, USS 562 and Lot 12, Block 3, original Townsite, USS 2537 B. 2) Case #V-78-076, A request for variances to permit the continued construction and use of a building which encroaches into required yards. 3) Case #V-78-076. A request for a variance to permit the continued construction and use of a build- ing containing 55 dwelling units on a site which will only accomodate 40.7 units. 4) Case #V-78-076, A request for a variance to per- mit the continued use and construction of a building which provides only 28 of the 55 off- street parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Dan Busch called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., and asked that roll call be taken. Harry Milligan, P & Z secretary took the roll call, and established that there 26 27 28 29 30• 31 ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: First of all I'd like to mention'that we have a rather lengthy agenda and the only item that will be taken up tonight on tonight's meeting will be those items that relate to the Sunset Development so all the items from"C" where it says "other on the agendas, those items will be covered tommorrow evenina. So if there's anyone here for those other items, those will be covered tommorrow.evening. Going around then; Minutes--we have none at this time nor do we have any appear- ance as requested. Public Hearings--we have several concerning the Sunset Develdpment. Mr. ... Mr. Milligan, do we have a. staff report at all relating to this? MR. MILLIGAN: No, Mr. Chairman we didn't have a report as such. There's a tremendously.lengthy record associated with this. You have two rather lengthy letters in your packet. I'have some additional information that has been submitted to the staff within the last 24 hours also to present -Le you relative to this case. This material was submitted by uh the Sunset uh Develop- , ment Company. I also have Mr. Chairman uh some materials (can't 19 decipher) that was submitted by Sunset Development Company 20 yesterday afternoon (can't decipher) a draft ordinance address- 21 ing the rezoningbyWe,,felt.tht,with the extensive amount • 22 of information .uh that will be generated during this hearing 23 that uh the administration (can't decipher) would 'be here to 24 assist the commission during your deliberations on this case 25 and uh there are two well represented points of view here and 26 let those two uh organizations present the. factors as they 27 .understand them and uh there are some members of the commission 28 who have been on the commission dating back to 1974 when this 29 first came into being. And we have all of the case records 30 here from uh all of the.proceeding actions uh involved in the 31 Sunset Development Company and associated zones. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 1 :." 1 2 3 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank. you Mr. Milligan. One item I think we need to clarify,and that is the issue of Mr. Erwin since he does have an association with the elderly housing project. And • whether or not, I-believe we need to determine, whether or not, 5 he does have a conflict of interest in this. Mr. Erwin would 6 you like to comment on that? 7 MR ERWIN: Well, if the board favors that I 'should abstain from .81 voting, why I'll gladly do so. 9 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: ',Could you 'state your association or your.. 10 MR. ERWIN: ' ..Right now I'm a board member of the uh Kodiak Senior 11 Citizens as well as a member of the Planning and Zoning here. . 12 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other commission members like to comment? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CHAIRMAN BUSCH:. Uh, I'don't think you're mike is on. Does the 27 Commission feel they would like to take any action. concerning 28 Mr. Erwin's position? 29 Mr Baker moved that Mr. Erwin be allowed to participate, and vote 30 on this case. Seconded by Mr. Ball. Motion passed by unanimous 31 roll call vote. MR. PUGH:. Uh, well Gene do you have any financial interest at all in this Project? MR. ERWIN: None whatsoever.. MR. PUGH: Do the Senior Citizens have any financial interest in this Project? MR. ERWIN: To my knowledge, no. Financial interest to my know- ledge, no. CHAIRMAN BAKER: Mr. Erwin uh do you feel that you can uh view this situation and review the.information here and uh provide an objective outlook on it and uh vote without bias or prejudic in it? MR. ERWIN: Well, from the information I read and everything else why I believe I can give.a fair judgement on it. , ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 2 2 3 4 5 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: The motion passes and Mr. Erwin will participate. Going on then, first of all we'll hear an opening statement by Sunset Development concerning their request. I'd like to re- mind you of the ground rules that we did set in that you have fifteen minutes for this opening statement. 6 OPENING STATEMENT FROM SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE: 7 8 9 10 •1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 30 31 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, ladies and gentlemen., lam-Bernard Dougherty an attorney with the law firm of Cole,Aarti.g, Rhodes, Norman & Mahoney and we are council for-Sunset Development Company of Kodiak, the own- ers and developers of the Senior Citizens Project. To, for the information of the public, uh, Mr. Erwin has no association with Sunset Developmnt Company uh nor does the Senior Citizens, Group of Kodiak. It is a privately developed project. You have before you today the petition which was submitted by Sunset Development for clarification of the existing zones and variances. This petition isdated August 20.. I'm sorry October 20, August 21, 1978. When it was originally submitted it was not properly verified as is required by the Kodiak Island Borough Code. However, since that date it has been properly verified. by Mr. i.e76171A6;T4T—the-7-iii-dnaging partner of Sunset Development Company. The reason that we have come before you i to try to settle as expeditiously as possible the status of the zoning on the parcels -in question and also to settle the matteri of the variances. As you all know a law suit has been filed by Lorraine Dayton which has brought into question the earlier actions of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the assembly with regard to this project. The reason we are here is we feel that to bring this matter before the Commission is the most expeditious way to clarify this issue so the Project can be completed and occupied. And it is our hope that it can be ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 3 1 occupied prior to Thanksgiving. You have before you a black uh 2 folder which has several maps (can't decipher). • The first one 3 is a reduced copy of this plat which is on the board here which 4 shows the location of the buildings as they are presently being 5 erected and also the parking to the west of the building and to 6 the west of that is a drawing which is a proposed park. Jhe 7 park proposal has not been before the Planning and Zoning 8 Commission before and Iwill get into that later. The second 9 map which you have in your package is there to more easily un- • 10 .Orstand the history of this project and it has the lot and 11 block numbers. In 1974the Commission and the Assembly rezoned 12 what is marked here as Lot 13, I'm sorry Lot 12 of Block 1 of 13 the original townsite of Kodiak. tot 39, Block 2 was rezoned 14 to business in July of 1976. Those were the two steps of the 15 rezoning of these properties to business zone. The next chart 16 that you have is a, again a reduction showing the location of 17 the buildings on the property and the the asphalt paving to the 18 east of that, I'm sorry to the west of that. (It is to the 19 east of that). For the parking, the next map is the proposed 20 park and the fin,alt„4„rAmjAg„t,h,exgjs a drawing of some of the 21 rooms in the project. The oral presentation which we will fol-, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 low is an opening 'statement by myself and testimoney by Mr. Iani who is.one of the owners of the Project. He will testify as to the history of the project. . Mr. John McCool who is the archi- tect of the Project, he will give you information mostly as to the special design features, the lot area, and other items. having to do with the architecture. Mr. Jack Smoody of the Department of Housing and Urban Development will give you in- formation as to the size of the project, the need for the project in the community, HUD's design requirements and HUD's determination of what they call a land use intensity factor. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 . KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 4 1 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13• 14 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 FinalTy,.Dennis Murray will testify as to the need fOr the project in the community, determinations as to Tarking require- ments and also the social impact of the Project. We are here to give information to the Commission to make its determinations and so we feel that if there are any questions which any mem bers have at any time to please interrupt and we will try to answer.them. The commission is then to either recommend or not recommend the zoning of the property as business and also to rule on the variances. The history of the Project is basically in two sections. In 1974 a a petition was reviewed.by the -Com- mission and action was taken to to rezone Lots 40 and 45 of Block 2 of the Erskine Subdivision, and Lot 12, Block 1 of the Kodiak Townsite. * This has since been replated as tract A. And this property was rezoned to business and the recommendation was approved by the assembly In 1976, Lot 39, Block 2 of the Erskine Subdivision was rezoned tobusiness and again this was • reapproved, or the recommendation approved by the assembly. The or'dinance.which was passed in 1974 in preamble language mentioned that the building was not to be erected in excess of one story above .Rezanof Drive. Uh, the history of this is portant because in 1974 when this matter was before the Plannin 23 and Zoning Commission and the. Assembly, it was not the current-. 24 elderly housing project which was under consideration. It was 25 a 22 unit apartment complex. The Project that was then contem- 26 plated was abandoned and in 1975 and subsequent, plans began 27, to be developedfor the'current'project which contains 55 units. 28 There is something '1 would like to correct on Pg. 6 of our pet- 29- ition ition where we stated that the size of the unit, or the size of 30 • the 31 not correct. The size of the unit was an economic determinatio development as 55- units was determined by HUD. Uh, this is ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 5 • v4 = , ".„ 1 2 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 • . 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • „. • of Washington Mortgage Company which is the mortgaging institu- tion for.this project. The project was reviewed by many finan- cing institutions, governmental and private. And the only way that this Project could be put together was -For a si.ze of the Project at 55 units. That is how the determination for the size of the Project was made: The drawings which uh are here, the construction drawings, this large package of 'drawings, and thtsArawing is schematic with the exception of the park, were all before the Commission and the Assembly from 1976 in all its. meetings. They were reviewed by the Assembly and its Staff. After the.rezoning was 'approved in 1976 the owners of the Pro- ject, Mr. Iani and Mr. Brechan, approached the staff of the Planning and Zoning Commission with a statement pretty much to the effect: "What else do we need, what other actions do we need to take for the Project to continue and be completed." At that time a member of the Planning and Zoning Staff drew up a letter which has been submitted to the Commission. It is dated July 28, 1976. . Ilt is signed by Mr. Iani. But the important thing to realize about this letter is that it.was drafted.by the staff of th11'fiff.'iiiirfiiOng Commission and the, Mr. Iani will give us a little more background to this. But mainly what it was is a fairly simple situation of two people coming into the Planning and Zoning ,Commission.and saying: "We do not understand the technicalities, would you give.us some assist- ance, what do we need to do?" The letter was then drafted by the staff-of the:Planning and Zoning.Commission and it was understood by the developers that this letter was to deal with everything that needed to be done to bring this project into compliance with all the zoning requirements. Also before the Commission are various documents which we have asked to be entered to the record stating that all of the zoning require- ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 -4837 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ments had been met and these letters have been issued by both the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak. That all of the Planning and Zoning requirements had been met and the Pro- ject .could go forward. Uh, relying on these letters in good • faith the Project began An 1977. The building permit was issue and the Project began. When Mrs. Dayton filed her suit or actually prior to that-when she first notified the developers of her problem with the.size of the Project, in _excess of 1,000,000 had already been expended on this Project. Now we immediately responded—to that letter.stating that we thought that she had no grounds. for her suit. - The suit has continued and we fully intend to take whatever actions we need to, to - defend against that suit. But it is our position that in order for the Project to be completed and for occupancy to occur as soon as possible that the solution to this problem lies with of the Commission to clarify this issue. We intend to meet, give you all the information and meet all the burdens that we have to for this zoning to be clarified and the vari- 191 ances to be granted. At that time any problems with the pro- 20 ject have got to be put to work. Now to the present, in excess . ,:;.;:,••0.,::.- • ...,-.,-.-J.,:.:,:,,:?:-•,,-',,--,--,,-.='-,-.,,..-4,"••• • 21 of $2,000,000 hfave be'en'speht on this project. During the 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • presentation this evening I and other members of the public will separately treat with the zoning issues separately from the variance issues. This was determined by uh a meeting this . afternoon in a desire to keep the issue separate for ease of dealing with them by the Commission. So we will separately .deal item by item with the zoning matters and then item by item on the variance matters. There are four variances that are at issue. A height variance, a side yard variance, a lot area variance and a parking variance., It is our position that the height variance actually is not needed and the background.to ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 7 ,,. • t'. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 that will be developed by the Architect John McCool. The side yard variance and the lot area variances and the parking vari- ance all are to be considered. Now there is sufficient-area i the Project for the Project to meettall the parking require- ments. The alternatives to meeting all the parking require- ments is the construction of this park. Now our surveys indi- cate and these are made both by the, Mr. Murray and by the Housing and Urban Development that elderly citizens do not have high incidence of ownership of parking. In fact, from the . first twenty-five.applications submitted, five of those appli- cants, had automobiles. This project provides for twenty-six. parking spaces even though fifty-five would normally be re- quired. Perhaps.. one thing I would like to emphasize again an I will a number of times during the evening, is that the prob- lems that have arisen here have definitely, not been self inflicted as Mrs. Dayton's letter of October 11 indicates. The owners of the project have done everything that could conceiv- ably be done to meet the requirements of the zoning codes. .,They have come before the Commission numerous times in 1974 and '76, have provided theMwith all of the information required and requested. The Planning,St'a:ff and the Commission have reviewed all the plans arid 'indeed 'the Planning Staff prepared • letter requesting what the developers were told were all the formal variances needed. After that had been done the the per- mit was,issued and the building begun, as I've:said in excess of $Z,000,000 has been expended in -direct reliance on the actions of the Planning and Zoning.Commission and the Borough and City of Kodiak. Uh, we ask that the Commission tonight consider these matters and make a determination as soon as woul be possible so that the project can continue. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank-you, Mr, Dougherty. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 • :„' •• • . ' • 1 MR. 2 MR. 3 MR. 4 MR. 5 6 7 8 9 10 • BAKER: Uh, Sir? DOUGHERTY: Yes. BAKER: You alluded to a letter which was in our packet. DOUGHERTY: I'm sorry, I, that letter of July 28? MR. BAKER: The one drafted by the borough. MR. DOUGHERTY: That was uh submitted, there are ten exhibits which, which were submitted to the Commission this afternoon but they were duplicated, I don't believe, or I don't know if: they were. MR. PUGH: We don't. We don't have a copy. 11 MR. BALL: We don't have the letter. 12 (THERE WERE VARIOUS INTERJECTIONS HERE, NONE OF WHICH ARE AUDIBLE). 13 MR. 'DOUGHERTY: (Pause) I'm sorry that they were not copied but 14 here is a letter...whic.h is July 28, 1976... 15 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Is there.a chance, is there a chance we can get ' 1.6 those copied? 17 MR. DOUGHERTY: ...and also letters from the Borough and the City 18 19 20 211 22 stating that all requirements had been met and I believe that they are important that the Commission does have copies of them. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Do any of the Commission members have any ques- tions for Mr. Dougherty at this time? 23 MR. PUGH: Not at this time. 24 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. So would Mr., Mrs. Dayton's represen- 2 2 27 28 2 3•0 31 tatives 'like to make their statement at this time? (PAUSE)- OPENING STATEMENT FROM GEORGE DICKSON, LEGAL COUNCIL FOR MRS. DAYTON. MR. DICKSON: Good evening. My name is George Dickson. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Dixon., I'd like to remind you also that, a 15 minute time on the opening statement. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MR. DICKSON: I'll finish well within that time: CHAIRMAN BUSCH: O.K. MR. DICKSON: I'll make a short but I hope effective statement to you. I am the.attorney for Lorraine Dayton. I'm also the. former Assistant Director of Planning in the Anchorage Borough' when'it was a Borough. And I only mention that to indicate that I have some background familiararity with especially with which we're dealing with tonight. I'm certain that you' going to hear a great deal about the need for elderly housing in Kodiak and this is an important item that I'm not sure it' important for (can't decipher) to the case at hand. I think that many of these things that you shall hear should .be more properly directed. BUSCH: Bring 'your microphone over... MR. BAKER: Bring the mike a little closer or something 'cause I don't believe they can hear you in the back of the room either. MR. DICKSON,: All right. Can you hear me in the back of the room. 19 AUDIENCE: No. 20 MR. DICKSON: ...should be more properly directed to the policy - zir,u ;;, 21 makers of the community, to the Borough Assembly who drafts 22 your ordinances and if need be, should draft an amendment to 23 the text of the zoning ordinance to accomodate such a need. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Such a need to be accommodated without the required torturing and twisting of the zoning ordinances that now exist and has been done and without neglect that has been...can you...am I close enough now...and.without the neglect that has occurred. And I say neglect because tonight you have before you a re- quest for several variances uh none of which have previously been applied for. Although we have indicated to the uh borough and to the staff that these are needed. I would point ✓a ^ eta. o'rs 4nas ae' *!"�✓"�.4 y .. air.. 'ti71:. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 10 • ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 •11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2& 29 30 31 17- out-that the cost involved in this project, although great and although a million dollars was spent before Mrs. Dayton object- ed.to the Project, she didn't object until the minute she saw the floors start to rise above Rezanof Drive, the floors that effected her view and her property values, and she objected immediately in timely fashion. The minute sh.e saw these start to rise she immediately notified the appropriate governmental authorities and I believe notified the developer himself. Now, with this in mind, that is, that what you're really dealing with here tonight is not simply an elderly housing prbject,- something that can become very emotional. But as appointed administrators,,quasiAudicial if you will, of a zoning or- dinance, a law has been passed by your elected representatives: and that your duty isto uphold that law to keep us a govern- ment with laws rather than amend-.- A government ordered rather than a government that is arbitrary. . This can't possibly be repaired. And it should have been repaired in the first place. It should have been repaired at the policy leyel. And now we've got into a situation that one may call a no-end Situation It's a difficult thing. And we're going to do the best to convince you that what you should do tonight is uphold the laws as they are written'in,theBorough (lost about 5 seconds ' here as the tape-Was in the process of being turned over). ..as I tick them off. In the first place the application was not verified. And although the verification came, it came late And this hearing, at this time was not within the time allowed for the hearing subsequent for verification. And this hearing tonight lacks jurisdication. I would note that the newspaper. notice that.was published for the public to hear, to determine whether or not they should come to this meeting simply noted ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 1 1' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 that there was a request for rezoning of this property. -They did not note that the property was to be rezoned from say R-3 to business,or from business to business as we shall get into- later. So, therefore, that notice we believe is-dificient. And in that regard too,.this'hearing lacks jurisdiction. Third, the notice requests. three variances. As I noted before, none of these have been granted before and I. think that all parties will admit that, and that therefore it is quite clear that (can.'t decipher) the project at this date is illegal. it is illegal and is apparantly being admitted by all parties to this hearing that it is sOch', then, what we have done is clear within our rights in objecting to that illegality. Fourth, there was a request for "clarification". And 1 purpose ly put that word in quotation marks because I ask you to clari- fy the'actions of your Borough Assembly in regard to the.rezon- ing. Clearly this is asking you to do something which you are not authorized to do. Because only the Assembly. can clarify previous actions. I might point out that because of the change ofmembership in the Rlanning Commission and the Assembly that such an attempt clarification in any event at this stage would be an exercise. in futility. Now, keeping in mind all that.I've mentioned abovejfyou. should decide to continue,this hearing, I would like to •ddress myself a little bit to the 24 issues as they're going to be presented here. And, first I 2 would just like to address myself to the zoning matter. 26 (Can't decipher) ..look at that. You must determine exactly . 27 what it is that you are being asked to consider. The petition- 28 29 30 31 ers request, and the notices that have been given to the public are hopelessly ambiguous and confusing. A.) The petitioners request for "clarification", and once again I put that in quo- tation marks. We've already spoken to that, 1 won't speak to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 that again. B.) The notice in the newspaper and the notice that was sent to the property owners does not state the existing zoning and does not state the requested zoning. It makes no reference to clarification., and is therefore.defi- cient., C.) The letter from the staff to the Commission indi- cates that the petitioner is requesting a rezoning from R -3 and or business to business. In the first place, that's not what the petitioner is requesting. The petitioner is .request -- ing clarification. In the second place, if the Commission is to consider rezoning, (can't decipher) it must first determine from what we are rezoning. If you're going to consider re- zoning from R -3, well and good. If you're going to be.. certainly the lots we've mentioned that the lot is currently R -3 and the construction was and is illegal. The alternative is to consider zoning from business to business. The request; which we think is patently ridiculous. I relent further, our - client did not receive any `notice by mail of the proceedings although she does live within 300' of the subject property. I think that that these are items that you should consider before we go ,i nto thi s hear,i.ngfur,ther. And upon that note I'll end my opening statement. 1 would then of course as... the petitioner.` If you decide to,continue the hearing testify as to uh any further issues that will come before him, we're prepared -to do that this evening. CHAIRMAN'BUSCH: I have one question. MR. DICKSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: When you were stating four or five items there, what was your first item concerning-notices being sent out? MR. DICKSON: The uh.. MR. PUGH: The first one was that the application wasn't verified, until after the fact. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 -4837 13 . �.-a , _ • - '.,. Kati . w • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 MR. DICKSON: That'was correct. That the application was not verified. That was the first item on the four that I named. I don't think I got to Five. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: O.K. Fine. MR. DICKSON: Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any questions by the Commissioners? MR. PUGH: Not at this Point. MR.- DICKSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: . Going.onwith the public hearings then, the first item is requesting a zoning of of Lot 39, Block 2,. Erskine Subdivision, USS 562, and Tract "A".of USS 2537 and USS 2537 (B) (Sunset Development). Tract "A" of USS 2537 and USS 2537 (B) is at this time zoned Business, according to the Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance #74-5-0. So, since it is .zoned Business and uh certainly it's not necessary for this Commissio to attempt to zone something from Business to, to Business which already is. So the Chair will rule at this time that this is zoned Business and if the Commission would so like to uphold my ruling, and I would entertain a motion to do so. Mr. Pugh moved, that the Commission confirm your ruling on this matter. Seconded by Mr_ Ball. Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: The other rezoning item, requesting rezoning of . Lot 39, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision USS 562 is also zoned Business according to Kodi-ak Island Borough Ordinance #76-17-0, Its been implied that an error did occur perhaps or some uh notice verifications sent properly or in correct time.at the Borough level when the Borough was holding hearings on this Item. And if this is the case then this is where the matter should be taken care of, at the Borough level. • Were not to correct (can't decipher) action, so the Chair will rule also on ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 14 1 this item that this property is zoned business and won't enter - 2 tain a motion upholding my ruling on this. Mr. Pugh moved that this .Commission uphold the Chair's ruling on the zoning. 4! status of Lot 39. ,Seconded.by'Mr.'Perez. .Motion passed by 51 'unanimous roll call vote. 61CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Going on the agenda to variances, a request for a 7 variance to permit the continued construction and us-e of a 8 9; accommodate 40.7 units, (Sunset Development). Do we have a.' 101 staff report, Mr. Milligan? 11MR. MILLIGAN: Mr. Chairman, no. We do not have a staff report as 12 such. This was part of an action which he staff .felt had 13 been previously acted upon under a gr-ant.of exception in 14 times prior to the current administration coming on board and 15i has been requested for clarification for review of proper pro- f 16' 17 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: 18 comments or anything-they'd like to mention at this time? If 19 not, then at this time we'll close the regular meeting and open 20 the public hearing on a.re_que.st for a variance to permit the 211 continued construction'and use of.a. building containing 55 building containing 55 dweili'ng units on a'site which would onl cedure matters by the Sunset Development Company. Thank you, Mr. Milligan. Commissioners have any 22 2 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 dwelling, units on a site which wi.11.only accomodate 40.7 units, this request made by Sunset Development Company.. Will those wishing to speak concerning Sunset Development's request or for this variance please come forward at this time and make their statement., I'd just like'to` make one statement, first of_ all, we will first of all take all those for this petition, for this variance and then following those, those opposed will speak and that will then be the end of''this public hearing on this particular item. O.K. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 -.4837 • ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 : 25 26 27 28 29 30 .31 t. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE ABOVE ACTION: MR. DOUGHERTY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman... Again my name is Bernard Dougherty, attorney for Sunset Development Company. . The, I think the best place to begin the analysis. of the application for this variance again is to the letter that I mentioned earlier dated July 28, 1976. That letter was cast in terms of request for exceptions. That the owners of Sunset. Development, not being,experts in this area were, relying on the, Planning Staff and their .submission on that issue. I. is our position that even though the issue was considered as an exception,• that it.was it should have been considered a vari- ance. The, the:four criteria that must be considered by the- Commission in recommending or granting or not granting this variance are set, out in the Kodiak Island Borough Code. Uh, the square footage of this lot : is 40,717 sq. ft.. There are 55 units and so under the technical require- ments of the Code, the lot area is not sufficient. There are several things which must be realized about this lot and some of these items will be fully commented on by the architect and by Mr. Smoody of HUD. As I mentioned earlier, and I I don't want to repeat this to the point that it - becomes tiresome. The only way that this project is feasible is if it's • economically feasible. The project when it is finished will cost just.shy of (can't decipher). This is obviouslythe size projec“hat,individuals can't undertake. It has to involve either large scale financing or govern- mental financing. In this case it involves both of those. The mortgaee and the person who arranged the mortgage financing is Washington Mortgage Company and briefly again, they determined that the only way that this Project could be built was if it was comprised of 55 units. The analysis was borne out by HUD, who is not actually the financing institution, in this Project but is a guarantor of the financing. But they do review these projects minutely. The Project is more costly than most projects of this size because of the special design features met too late the stringent ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 ., 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • ,■•• tcn,;;,„.„ • , requirements set down by HUD. These will be dealt with by Mr. McCool. They • have mainly safety features as to fire, safety features as to hand rails in bathrooms, along hallways, and the like. Placement of lighting fixtures,:: • elevator access. Ndt only designs for the elderly but also for the handi- capped. And this increases the cost of thlSs building. The construction is dependant upon a 55 unit size. The project is not contrary to what some people may assort, an economic windfall to the developers. The return on this type of a project is strictly.limited by the regulations of HUD. AncL,, it ' is limited to a maximum of 6% a year which is probably what you or 1 re-,' ceive on ourpassbook savings. Uh, even though it's a large project, it is obviously not a economic windfall. There is clearly demonstrated com- munity need for the Project which has been determined by survey of the elder, ly in the. Kodiak area and also has been recognized by the Commission when The project is subsidized by what, called Section 8,-rental subsidies. This means that, if elderly or this matter was before them previously. is Other occupants cannot meet the cost of the units, they will only pay up to 25% of their income toward the rent and the rest is a subsidy from HUD. I think it is clear that granting this variance will notresult in any kind of material damage or prejudice to the other properties in the 'vicinity. The denSItneigdrafTetraWother property, detrimentally. It is certainly not detrimental to the public health and safety or welfare of the community because it has been demonstrated thatthere is a clear and overpowering community need for this Project. And certainly, the public health and safety and welfare are promoted by this Project. The Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed by us.and we can clearly state that the granting of this variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it we are addresssig each variance separately. Is that correct? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: That's correct. MR. DOUGHERTY: O.K. Thank you. IMR. BALL: Uh, from the time that this project originally started there (can't ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 17 ..!V; ,; . • , 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 , decipher) Sunset Development ln regard. to the 55 units. Every plan that was submitted (since I wasn't on the Commission at that time) to P & Z and that they reviewed showed 55 units, is this correct? MR. DOUGHERTY: That is correct. Any other questions? MR. BAKER: Yes. Uh, the Commission is at somewhat of a disadvantage here,. you on several occasions have alluded to a letter which we do not have before us. Could you read that letter? • MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes sir. I'll be glad to. (Pause) MR. DOUGHERTY: I must apologize for not photocopying that letter for everyone. This letter is dated July 28, 1976. And is signed by Louis P. Iani for Sunset Development Corporation which actually is Sunset Development Com- pany. Though this letter was signed by Mr. Iani as I Mentioned before, it was actually drafted voluntarily by the Planning Staff. *It's addressed to the Kodiak Island Borough, Planning and Zoning Commission, Kodiak, Alaska. Re.: Request for Exception: Gentlemen: Action on behalf of Sunset Devel- opment Corporation, owners of proPerty at Erskine Avenue and Rezanof Drive, otherwise.known as USS 2537 (B) Tract "A" and Lot 39,.Erskine Subdivision USS 562, I do hereby request the granting of an exception from the strict application of the zAning ordinance_under terms of section 17.66.010 of said ordinance. Sunset Development Corporation proposes to construct 55 units of elderly housing onto commercially zoned property and have been advised by our architects that the.exceptionally narrow and sloping con- ditions of the terrain have created great practical difficulties in siting the proposed structure. Recent highway construction on Rezanof Drive have excentuated an already difficult terrain situation by creating a down- ward slope condition of 25' in a horizontal distance of 40' from curve .to building face. This condition has placed an extraordinary restriction on building placement and elevation which'would deprive us of property rights and uses possessed by others in the same district. We therefore request this granting.of an exception of the strict interpretation of Section ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 • 18. • • 1 2 3 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 in the granting of these exceptions will enable us to meet the final sub- 15 mittal requirements for project construction. Respectfully, Louis P. Tani 16 for Sunset Development-Corporation. 17 MR. BAKER: You've indicated that that letter was drafted by someone in the 18 Borough. .Uh, could you indentify the responsible of that individual. Was 19 this a clerical type? Was this someone in the adMinistration, someone in 20 , the, in the Planning and Zoning Office? 21 4R. DOUGHERTY: Yes sir. It was someone in the Planning and Zoning office. 22 1R. BAKER An administrator or a clerical person? 23 24 25 26 27 28i 29 17.21.030 of Chapter 17.21 respecting building heights of three stories. . We ask that the building height be measured from mean slope position rather than at the footing level below grade. Such an exception would provide a building heighth that was only 22 feet above grade on Rezanof Drive and al- low a more attractive architectural profile. Further, we are requesting the granting of an exception of the strict interpretation of Section 17.21.050 of Chapter 17.21 respectiba side yards. Side yards are not nor- mally required in the business zone except when bordering a residential district. Slope conditions being as described in the previous section would deprive us from use of the property as enjoyed by other property . owners inothe sarne district if strict interpretations are applied. There-- fore, we are asking for an exception from full side yard requirements for 'west gable end of the building only. Your cooperation and understanding 30 31 •1R. DOUGHERTY: An administrator. Uh,' the this letter I would like to if I may, in further answer to your question, did not address the lot'area requirements which I have just addressed, and cast themHin terms of excep- tions, Oh, as Mr. Ball pointed out the drawings were always before the , Commission indicating 55 units. And this is something that should have been realized by the Zoning Staff even though it certainly was not re- cognized by Sunset when they came to the Planning Staff for help in drafting this letter. We're certainly not going to say that the issue was addressed in the letter even though it was presented to the staff. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 19 Ao •-• • .. 1 2 - 3 4 5 6 • • MR. BAKER My next question relates to the letter that was pre- sented to us several weeks ago concerning this request. And , I'm going to quote this out of context but ancLit'says, "In 1974, as many as 100 units were considered 'necessary regarding elderly housing and to further' stateicthe availability of housing has not improved appreciably over the last four' 7 years".. I would take exception to the statement that:housing, 8 .- housing'situation hasn't improved but can you give us some 9 figures relative to the survey as to.hbw many elderly housing: 10, units you feel is, are required in the community at this time? 11 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes sir. I can do that but I. think that Mr. 12 Murray would probably have more accurate figures than I since, 13 he has actually first hand conducted-this survey 14-MR. BAKER: I'll defer the question. 1) 161 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other discussions at this time? 1 • 171MR. PUGH: Yes. 18LCHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Pugh? 19 MR. PUGH: I have several. O.K. You were referring to the fact 20 that the Washington_Mortgage Company -has:the.uh, holds the 21 .mortgage on-this particular piece of property or on this ' 22 particular project and:that HUD guarantees-the funds. O.K. 23 if this project is, is turned down, does HUD still guarantee 24 the funds for what has gone. on so far? 25 don't,know that I can for certain answer that, 26 question. I don't know what the situation would be., 27 MR. PUGH: O.K. Now on your letter of July 28, 1976. It seems 28 - to refer to three or from what 1-heard in the reading of the 29 . letter...Do you want to turn the tape over? O.K. I'd I'd 30 like to, I realize I may be jumping the guns on the Public 31 Hearings but this gets back to' the issue at hand. I want to LAniu SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 74837 1 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 take the area of the building that is, that is or the area of- the lot that right now is designated for parking and for the park.. Now-the park right now, I guess, is something that came up. in earlier testimony, is something-that we hadn't seen originally in this. Sort of now there. Now that blank space on the side of the building, was that at all times considered by you to'be an area for parking or .was there some reason whyy. MR McCOOL: -Which? Here? MR. PUGH: Ya. This area over here that has "Parking" and "the ,:, park" in it. Or was there some reason why, shall we say that due to financial or architectural designs that, shall we say one or two of the stories of the principal structure that _faces on Rezanof,could not have been lowered and, 'shall we say a longer building? Going into that portion of the lot. 15 MR. McCOOL: ...I understand what you're saying. With the 1 161 17 .181' 19 20 21 would have had to been inserted over at this this end. And 22 of course, that automatically at the cost of,one elevator tower 23 ' makes that a non-feasible move. 24 MR. PUGH: Well also, O.K. Could we say, could another structure 251 :itself actually have physically been built on that portion of 26 the Tot excluding. elevators? Or would there have to,be an 27 elevator there? 28 29 gle story, you can appreciate for handicap and elderly require 30 ments. 31 MR. BAKER: One further question. As I recall and I can't find,:the restriction for the fire compartmentalization by 1-:UD that lim- its you to the number of units and to the length of the corridor as doesthe uniform building code. - So that had you done that as I, I said earlier what would . have had to happen i n order to make:that PP,01)1,q,01, another elevator tower MR.' McCOOL: — No. There has to be an elevator except in a sin- ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 `.k 4 - • -I.', ' - • • • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 • . ; . . . . . , . , ,,.-:,,.--,',-; •,' i.* .'„. ," , !, ,,:...,:.....,',. ..,,.44::....' f'.•.;.;,!4::: '', ';',..,-..,.-.i'• .- figure at hand, this lot is comprised on 40,000 sq. ft? MR. McCOOL: The number the surveyor has is 40,717 sq. ft. MR. BAKER: Could you point out what area that is comprised? That 40,000 sq. ft.? Did that include the park area? I guess is what Um saying? MR. McCOOL: Yes. The property lines are defined here, it's,. well the property lines are defined on here. It's roughly sort of a hatchet shape. I'll trace with my fingers. Right..,. right here. MR. BAKER: O.K. What brought the question to mind, there was a drawing that we looked at in the work session on this which included a section of land which would appear as a triangular shape below the park. Now is that a part of this property? MR. McCOOL: No. It's legal description on.your building or construction dOcuments do not, does not include that. MR. BAKER: But that is a part of the 40,000 sq. ft.? MR. DOUGHERTY: No, it is not. No. The 40,717 sq, ft. is just what you see o'n your construction documents and just what you see on .this, on this drawing. This triangular is another.piece of private-,proWiy.1--e'veii' know who owns i t. 21 MR. BAKER: All right. 22 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other :questions? . 23 ,MR. BAKER: The reason, the reason that piece was brought up 24 because the attorney did mention it in his statement. 25 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: ,,Theytriangular.piece? 26 MR. BAKER: Yes. 27 MR. BALL: Now I have two .questions. To the best of your recollec7 28 2.9 30 31 tion., when were you first contacted in regard- to the fifty- : five units? Is the first question. And the other one is, to the'best of your recollection, when was the first plan submit-: ted to the Borough showing. 55 units? ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 44' 22 7 8 • MR. McCOOL: I can't honestly recollect when we first became involved. I'll say this, we did do one schematic lay out And I can't even recall the number of units. It„was not, it: was not enough units.to make the Project economical. Where- upon, we went back to do this schematic and just based on the date,, now that's dated 15 April '76. That was probably done in the month preceding that. And.we dated it at the day when it left oLir office. 9 MR. BALL: Thank you_ 10 MR. McCOOL: And it did have 55 units and that's...the concept, 11 in fact it's remarkable in that oftentimes in going into 12 construction • documents with all the conversations that you do 13 have with building officials and fire marshalls that the con- 14 cents sometimes change. But if you look at the construction 15 docuMents in this one, this one is remarkable in that it was 16 developed almost Identical to the preliminary layout. 17 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other questions? Thank you. 18!MR. McCOOL: Thank you very much. 19 MR. SMOODY: Mr. Chairman, members of the Assembly, people, my 20 21 ing and Urban Development. ,I've been asked to appear before . 22 name is Jack Smposty, ,a.m,amployed by the Department of Hous- 23 24 2E 26 27 28 29 30 31 you to possibly clarify:some.of our processing procedures in : considering an application for housing whether it be in Kodiak or in the last place I was at, Point Barrow. Uh, with specific respect to this Project. It was to the best of my knowledge, received in our office approximately May, 1976. And the Project was submitted for 55 units, it was submitted to all of our departments for review within our own jurisdic- tion. This included our office, immediate-Office of Develop - ment• which is our architectural section, our appraisal section, our mortgage credit section, our economic section, our 23 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 economist, our 'equal opportunity officer and anyone else that cared to take a look. The Project was reviewed in accordance with known information that we had in the office based on the request from the sponsor. It was also reviewed in respect to the local authorities long-term housing goals. This housing goals are, for most of you who are very familiar • you just submitted to our office an updated set. It's what you call your Housing Assistant Plan and it goes for several years. Based on this review we found that the application was adequate. We found that there was adequate funds for Section 8 funding to go along with this Project. And for your information, as a clarification, section 8 funding is a subsidy that can be put into existing units or into new construction units- and this subsidy is only available to those that quali- fy based on income and need. Its not paid to a sponsor or a developer or an owner of a project just (can't decipher), it does take a qualified. individual to be able to receive that. Upon receipt of the application we immediately sent copies of the application out to various'members of state and local government to review. One of these requirements is by law that we submit to the A-95 clearing house. In this case it's in Juneau, and it was submitted to Mr. Estes, And A-95 clearing house did submit copies of the application.-back to the local authority for comment. We received comments back from the A-95 Clear*ing House, from Mr. Estes. These comments received from the Kodiak Borough (can't decipher) was dated June 22„ 1976. Its from the Kodiak Island Borough to Mr. Raymond Estes of A-95 clearing house. It basically stated that they reyiewe.d the application and found that it was consistent with the need and endorsed the project. About the same time we had submitted the application to the environmental, Mr. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 24 4 5 71 81 9 121 1 15 Cahill, (can't decipher) application from him that this Pro- ject basically met the requirements and that there was, there was a concern with the Erskine house but it was the finding of the State Historic Preservation Officer that it did not author anything adverse and therefore they recommended approval While this was going on we also sent an appraisor to the City of Kodiak to make a market determination and what we do with • the initial application is merely, we don't say,that the '.ject is economically feaSible or anything else. We take a. 'look at it and say the site and location is acceptable for the type of project proposed. That the number of units based on the proposal does meet the requirements that we have. But at the same time we must contact a local .authority. In this particular case, May 27, '76 we recognized that the Project units were in excess of the lot area requirements of zoning, 161 local area. We also discussed this with members of the staff. 17 (Can't decipher) original where this came about. We did 18; contact the Borough Clerk, the Superintendant of Public Works 1 191 and the City Manager and City Manager's Secretary. Uh, the 1 201 appraisor came back and said basically that he found the • 21 zoning did not quite .meet or the Project did not meet the 22 'zoning, localzoning.- But it did meet what we call our lancH:, 23 use intensity rating. Our land use intensity rating is a 24 rating that we come up with based on the type of Project based 25) on location, based on the user group that X amount of units on 26 X amount of land would with X amount .of space in it. does or 27 ' does not meet.a known requirement. This particular instance - 28 29 30 31 we assigned a land use intensity rating of 5.6 which was fell within the acceptable categories of the, as far as our guide- lines were concerned. Our.guidelines are not what takes precedence. While we said that 55 units fell within our guide.- ISLANDSECRETAR1ALSERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 .... :. . I • ' ' ' ' '''I . ' '‘ : I. - „L'"•'. . .. ''':.? . . . . lines, we recognized it did not fall within the zoning. . 2 requirement that before we would issue a firm commit- ment to our final commitment on the project that we receive 4 evidence that the Project did meet.the zoning requirements. 5 We received this evidence as far as we were concerned on 1 6] August 13, 1976 from the local authority by a letter to 71 Sunset Development Inc., signed by Gordon Burnett stating 8 the purpose of Project is, the. prop.osed. Project is in full 91 compliance with all the applicable zoning requirements and 10i restrictions. Based on that, we assumed that it had met the 111 requirements of the local authority,- it met our guidelines. 12k And we assumed, therefore, that the local authority had basi7-. 131 cally'endorsedit through their zoning and we proceeded 14 to process the application to-help make available the_Section 8 . 15 for the need that had been determined by our econoffist and 161. by local surveys. And the fact that the Project appeared 17 to be economically feasible, the project appeared to be with T8 in keeping of the long term housing goals of the local author- 19 ity and we said if that is what the local authority and the • 20 people want, we,,c,a,Kgr„.„.„&p,A,ha,s,jcally, based on that we 21 issued a firm commitment, authorized. .start of.construction 22 and we feel that the Project has 'coMe along very.well and feel 23 tha-Lthe Project wi1 l. offer the amenities that the 24 senior citizens have been looking for, for a long time. 25 , would like to add just one thing off the side of that. I 26 personally concurred with the need of this. have been per- 27 sonally involved in some of your housing here for several 28 years and partially was. personally involved in, where the 29 senior citizens are located today. And with that, if you 30 have any. questions I'll be happy to try to answer them. 31 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr.• Pugh? ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 •KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486 - 4837 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10'MR. SMOODY: We asked for satisfactory evidence from the local MR. PUGH: All that I want to get clear in my own mind is that the, the letter from Gordon Burnett that you received in 1976 that stated that the Project was in full compliance with all the - zoning requirements and regulations of the Kodiak Island Borough is what convinced you or your department that the Pro- ject was in full compliance even though you were aware prior to this that the number of units was over the maximum density 'permitted and that you felt that this issue had been solved, that this letter was proof that this had been settled. 11 authority that the Project did meet their requirements and yes. MR. PUGH: O.K. And Mr. Burnett at this time was the City Building Inspector? Was that his title? MR. SMOQDY: Yes, MR. PUGH: At-city or borough? MR. SMOODY: Signed it as Gordon Burnett, Building Inspector. The -letterhead was City of Kodiak. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. MR. SMOODY: Ah, there was one other item that kind of gave cre- dence to that and that was the original A-95 clearance, where. we basically were told in a letter from the Kodiak Island Borough, signed by Robert Craig; Morough Bayor. Gee, what a slip. Excuse me. Borough Mayor to Mr. Estes, the letter read "this Project was reviewed by the Assembly and the Borough -''administration. ''.Although the Kodiak Island Borough does not have housing authority and it can only regulate in land use through the planning.commission, the assembly members expressed the feeling that there was a much needed, that this was a much needed project. The assembly was in full agreement with the 'concept for this housing project, encompasses and favors 121 we considered this letter to be so, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2.7 28 29 30 31 ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 27 - strongly the building of this Project. So based on the addi- ' tional letter we felt that this had been-complied with. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other questions? Mr. Baker? MR. BAKER: Yes, . you indicated that there was a, a Section 8 which as I understood it pertains to assistance to low incoMe.,.? 6IMR. SMOODY: Yes sir. 7 8 91 10 11 12 13 14 MR. BAKER': What, what does this mean with respect to (can't decipher). Uh, does this apply only tb 'elderly? MR. SMOODY: In this particular Project, it was put in for this Project.and this project only. But it can be administeredwithi a local jurisdiction by a acceptable housing authority for any existing property that meets the'standards of safe, sani- tary housing. Section 8 assistance is fairly new, about three years old. And basically it says that the government can 15h subsidize a needy individual with an income less than the , amount necessary to pay their rent by applying a minimum of 25% of their salary toward the rent. If an apartment cost you 16 11 17 18, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 $300 or let's put 400 it's easier. And you have an income of $400. The person mist—pay a....miniMum.,df $100, 25% of their income. And the governMent will subsidize or make the differ- ence between the $100 and the other portion or the rent pay- . ment $400. Uh;. this basically was designed by the Department to help do away with public housing as known in all the big cities as well as (.can't decipher). To:bring the private secto as well as the local community and authorities into participa- ting in housing. To provide housing for those who normally . could not necessarily afford it by helping them pay the rent and keeping the property on the tax roles rather than taking- it off into public housing which does not return anything to the city, and it can be done for existing also. The City of Anchorage has been quite successful in it and we hope that, ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 - • • 28 •.4 1 personally, that you people will be able to participate in 2 accordance with your housingassistance needs in the near 3 future, whenever Congress appropriates some additional funds. 4 MR. BAKER: Uhm, as a iflatter of fact I believe Fur Terrace may, 5 one of the developments here may have something like that, I'm' 6 not sure but it'f off the subject. Is there anything in 7 HUD's requirement which stipulates that this housing is . 8 restricted to senior citizens? 91MR.' SMOODY: We have several different types of programs. Under 10 Section 231 of the Housing Act it is (Can't decipher) restrict- 11 ed to people 62 years and over. Under the program that this 12 was billed under. The question and truthful answer is no. It 13 is not restricted 100% to the elderly. However,'we recognize 14 and will bow to the wishes of the sponsor and everybody else, 15 the fact that this program was designed specifically for the 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 elderly by everything thats in it. And the elderly do have preference. If they could not fill this project with the elderly and it was a difference between going into foreclosure or something like that then the general public would have right of access. • CHAIRMAN BUSCH: When you say the elderly have preference. To What, to the units?— What guarantees them that preference? MR. SMOODY: The design of the Project, the application by the sponsor, and the method of processing that was basically taking place by the sponsor, by the community and by ourselves. What guarantees them the use? 26 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: 27 MR. SMOODY: There are several things. The same criteria that 28 29 30 31 we are going to be euided by more than anything due. .again as I said, if it had been insured under a different section of the act, Statutory Congressional Law would .have guaranteed it. In this case, they must submit a management plan and ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 29 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 MR. 11 MR'. • the management plan has to be approved by us and that manage- ment plan was approved for elderly. We would make-them live up to this management plan as long as its economically feasi- ble to do SO. MR. BAKER: Well, a very direct question then. Let's say for purpose of discussion'that we have a situation where 42 of the units were occupied and that seemed to be.the requirement . for the elderly. Could 1, as a resident of this community make application and live in that, in that uh housing,unit?: SMOODY: It could be arranged, yes. BAKER: Thank you. -3 14 CHAIRMAN •BUSON: Any other questions? Mr. B411? MR. BALL: I have two questions. One for him and then one that I'd like to get cleared up with Mr. Milligan. The first one 15 is that, releyant.or not, but you mentioned uh 4 priority:or 16 a land rating of 5.6. Could you explain that? 17 MR SMOODY: Well, that's kind of a. .just a general guideline but 18, we have what we call Agents General Guide Line to help us on 19 this and its a land use intensity rating. This is where we 20 21 22 type of development in developing whether we would want... 5.6 23 means that wel)ut 5.6 for•So many square feet. That same thing 24 I'll leave a copy of this with you if it will make any help 25 for you. It's not a bible, it's merely a guideline. And if 26 you had a walk up units you would never allow 5.6 floor ratio - 27 because'it would cover tOomuch land space... If this project 281 werea looa sq. ft. units a 5.6 couldn't be suPportecrbecause 29 there would be too much floor area covering the amount of 30 available space. If thi.s project were all three and four bed- 31 . room units for family people, we would be looking at a far consider the floor area against the land area, the parking area and these are all done in ratios. Now we also consider the ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE . P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 30. 3 • 5 6 7 8 lesser intensity rating.. Probably clear down around about a .3.- Which means roughly 4 units to the acre or maybe 6. Be- cause you have to take in. consideration people density. MR. BALL: In other words in your 5.6, what I was' getting at, did take in consideration the elderly, the parking,, the.. this is what it refers to? MR. SMOODY: Right. MR, BALL: The other question I. want to ask Mr. Milligan, since 9 it was. brought up. What were the duties of the Building 10' Inspector in regard to the City and the Borough? Wasn't he 11! working .for both at that time? 12IMR. MILLIGAN: M 13 1 r. Chair, in 1976 the Borough had a contractua agreement " with the city wherein the city provided building." inspection services for both the Borough and the City. And 151 at that time. the buil k 161 ng official .(can't decipher) Chapters 15, 16 & 17 of the Borough Code was charged with the responsi- 17 bility for administration and enforcement. 18.MR. BAKER: One additional question Harry, would. this letter fall 19' within the area of his responisbility, do you feel? 1 201MR. MILLIGAN: I feel ..q ven..,.:th.e situ_a-t_ion that existed at that 21 I time, ,yes.. That would' be the. case. 221MR. BAKER: He would have been the appropria 23 24 25 26 271 281 29 30 31 this letter?. R. MILLIGAN: I believe he would have been. R. PUGH: O.K. This letter from the notes that I have now, I have a copy. of it in my hand, seems to.address itself to what,; I consider to be three specific things. The first thing is that it requests; one of the three things that it requests is that the building height be allowed c!o above the restrictions of the ordinance to sit. approximately 22' above the heighth of Rezanof Drive. It also addresses itself to the fact that e party o reply ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE. P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 -4837 31. . „ • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 wants a 55 unit housing development on this particular piece ' of property. Which, although it doesn't ,seem to address itself to the, to the fact that the lot is undersize. And it also addresses itself to the fact. that it wants a, to ask for an exception to go into the side lots. Now this letter J assume was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission letter? Zoning Commission granted a what action exactly did the take on the request of this . 9 MR. MILLIGAN: The Planning and 10 variance for side lot only, I believe. The others were not. 11 specifically addressed is my remembrance. 12 MR. PUGH: O.K. So, So.. 13 MR.,5MOODY:. Uh, the the, height variance,'I believe probably was 14 not addressed 'cause it really is not at issue. The building 15 is within the heighth restrictions as the architect will 16 compute. And J would imagaine that's why that was.not consid-, 17 ered even though I do not, cannot say that first hand. As 18 to why the other issues were not specifically addressed I do 19 not know. 20 MR. PUGH: O.K. I'm just wondering. O.K. Then the last question, 21 that I have is uh, you have testified that the 55 units is what 22 was econimic, considered economically feasible by the Washing- 23 ton Mortgage Company. Is this 55 units, was that the minimum' 24 that was considered acceptably feasible financially by this 25 corporation? MILLIGAN: Yes... 27.MR. PUGH: Was that the minimum figure? MR. MILLIGAN: That was the 55 units was the minimum figure for the financing to be available. Now, my .understanding is 26 MR, 28 29 30 31 also that it was a function of need. But I believe that uh Mr. Murray would be able to comment better on that than I. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 32 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 •11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Plow you're saying that the mortgage coMpany said it was 55 units and not.HUD that said it was 55 units? MR. MILLIGAN: That's correct. MR. PUGH: O.K. And one thing that I want to get clear for the record,. on this July 28'letter. And maybe I should probably address this to Mr. Iani later and not to you but all that you are stating is that the basic information contained in this letter was given in rough draft, the basic ideas were given to Mr. Iani by a member of the Planning Staff but the Borough itself did not in any actual way type or write the final letter from Mr. Burnett? (At this point, the point was cut for.What appears to be.about 15 to 20 seconds). MR. BAKER: One further question, at this point in time this would have been as-I understand it in in May of '76 when you received the letter from Mr. Burnett? MR, SMOODY: No sir, August 13. May of '76 is when we received the application... MR. BAKER: I see, I see. And we've already established, at that we apparantly had a, or it was stated that we had a a Planning and Zoning official..uhm, can you', can you give some insight in that. Would would that have been or.. MR. ?UGH: Will, Garris? MR. MILLIGAN: I'm not sure. I'd have to check- the record. It was probably Mr. Will Garris at that time but there may be members on the Commission who were here. Uh, that recall that I.believe that's a name I've seen on some of the records. MR. BAKER: I was of the opinion Mr. Garris left prior- to that date. That, I've several times related to that and if my memory serves correct see, Mr. Garris left in the, in the Spring of '76. Perhaps I'm in error there but it seems to me it was in the Spring of '76 and at that point in time, I don't ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 33 know who would have been the Planning and Zoning Officer. 2 . Perhaps someone here can recall on that. 3 MR, MILLIGAN:—jihat_whatwas the date that you.. 4 MR. BAKER: This August date, did we in fact have a Planning and . 5 Zoning Official? 6 MR. MILLIGAN: At that time I believe it was a planning consultant 7 Who was under contract with the Borough, to'assist the'Borough 8 in developing its planning program. And I'd have, to check . 9 with the record to be sure. TO MR. BAKER: Would have this been such an item, it would have come 11 to his attention probably then? 12: MR. MILLIGAN: I can't answer because I don't know what the scope 13 of responsibilities were at that point and who they were 14 addressed to. really don't know. 15 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Ball? 16 MR BALL: Just just a yes, no answer. At that time, Harry, did 17 we have a Planning and Zoning Department as of, as we have 18 today? 19 MR. MILLIGAN: Structures . along the lines of today? 20 MR. BALL: Yes. 21 mR. MILLIGAN: I don't believe so, no. - 22 MR. BALL: Thank you. 23 MR. SMOODY: • Thank you very much. 24 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. 25 MR. MURRAY:. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, ladies and 26 gentlemen of the audience, my name is Dennis Murray. I work, 271 as a Project Director for the Senior Citizens of Kodiak. 28i And 1 would like to speak about the request you have before 29 you tonight and to fill you in and to (can't decipher) in the Project. I'd like to begin by giving you some history and some background as to the need for such a Project. I began ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 34 -,• 1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 in my work as the Director of Senior'Citrzens in October 'of 1972. At that time there was under construction what is now -knownas Kodiak Plaza which was constructed by the Cherrier Brothers and that'particular Project is a 235-236,HUDproject and part of the provisions within that are for the eligibility ' of.certain subsidies to tenants in that Project. And during' the course of the construction I was able to talk with the, the management, the.potential management and the the owner- developer and subsequently helped about nine elderly ;individuals: in the'community apply for the receive subsidy to live in that building. That building was not designed'for the elderly. In fact, it is a three story Walk. up. And there are one bedroom apartments but there are none of the amenities in the building that Mr. McCool referred to in the new senior citizen housing project. And also at the same time during the course of my work many, many, people came to me. wanting to know if they could get into those units and of course the units had teen filled since since the first day that the Project opened. There were nine people and of those nine people I believe six of those are still living in the same units that they began occupy-. 21 inq in April of 1973. Sothe need, you know, surfaced and we 22 began.as anorga,nization. The Senior Citizens of Kodiak is .,„ 23 anon-profit Corporation. We began to look around to find 24 out how we could address that need in the community of Kodiak. 251 And to do that we, the first thing I remember is that in late 26 1973, I and the President at the time Mrs. Bea Nauchway,had.a- 27 meeting with the then City Manager, Mr.. Jack Isadore. And the 28 purpose of that meeting was to determine what property might 29 be available in the downtown area. As in most-elderly projects 3.0, that is preferred area downtown in a community. And Mr. Isadore 31 brought out the maps showing the central business distric .of the ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 35 '•• A • 4') , 1 2 3 a • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .22 23 24 25 . • 26 2.7 28 29 30 31 1•••••,: ' community of Kodiak. And there were several, not several, but there were some lots still involved in the urban renewal PrOject.. I think it' called R-19 or whatever. And, infact. we looked at two lots which. are now, I don't know the lot descriptions, but they're now where the Koniag:apartment . building is. And we began, in.fact, T went to Anchorage and talked with the people and Mr.'8oyle who. Was then with the urban renewal project and obtained a packet, However, those two lots, both of them were appraised at something in excess,: together cumulative about $80,000. The Senior Citizens of Kodiak -is a non-profit corporation and has about. $5,000 in the bank. -It didn't•appear to me at the time nor to the corpora-y tion that we had any ability to obtain those lots for a senior citizenhousing project. Even to secure the land let alone try to develop something. At that same period of time you might be remember that President Nixon. had imposed, I believe in 1971, and Mr. Smoody, might correct me, but somewhere around.there, a moratorium on housing. So there was no financ- ing from Housing and Urban Development to construct projects. There was literally nothind. In late, in early 1974 we ap- • proached HUD of course, ,and were told that they had nothingTh But they said, they saidthe first you:Jleeded to do was to do survey to determine the need in the community. I did such a survey, circulated a questionnaire to our membership and of which I think there:were,atout 200 individuals at the time and received back 100 questionnaires, Of those 100 question-.: naires,-76 given that I 'said. "would you be interested in elderly housing? Where would you like it? How many bedrooms?, etc. etc.. Seventy-six answered in the affirmative. That. they were interested. Of those 76, I believe' a number of about 25% indicated they had automobiles. So that's the first 1SLANDSECRETARIALSERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 • 4837 4,4 - • t4.•••••■,■”' •;.•,"'' • • • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 26 27 28 29 30 reference in termstto a later question before you and that's the parking variance, or Whatever the heke you call it, excep- tion, who knows., Anyway, the that was the basis, that was the survey that eventually brought forth the 55 unit hobsing,devel- opment.. But nothing happened because we had ho money; HUD had no money.- And it didn't look like anybody had any money, In late 1974 I think,that we approached Mr. Brechan and Mr. Tani 'whethersor not they would be interestedin sponsoring an elderly. housing project in the community. Now, I remember, I believe it was in the month of November that they -came to, a meeting at the Senior Citizen Center where a. Mr. Talbert Elliott spoke. And he at the time was the director of A.S.H.A. which Is. the Alaska State Housing Authority. And he indicated that A.S:H.A. was certainly interested in in in housing in Kodiak but they too did not have any money.because they depended upon the same source which is the federal government and the housingHprograms that HUD administers. So Mr. Brechan and Mr Iani.then, in 1974 the moratorium was lifted and it was lifted by -the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. And that,-,was,.--thawas the legislation that led to the reeroctmerit.gr the .revitaljzation,of housing for the federal • government. And-subsequently, Mr. Jani-and Mr. Brechan submit- ted the the proposal which you see in front of you tonight for HUCO$ consideration, for the Borough's consideration, the Planning and Zoning's consideration and subsequently began construction. So that's, that's a little background I think, and perhaps helpful to you inyour deliberations here. Regards to the need, as•I said there were 76 that returned that . questionnaire affirmative. And that- is the basis of the need for the most part. I.think-that I Might say that, and Mr. Smoody might come back to say too, that•most housing project - 71 ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 4837 ' . . ... • . . . ':1111m4.v.:4 ,Wiamorcnt?Sat''".. , . . ti 37 • • ••••1,!...• 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 •0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 developments in the state of Alaska are full, with probably a 25-30 individual waiting list. So in terms of of' filling the need, I think that that certainly we're going be able to, .hopefully we're goino to to fill the. building with elderly ' people.. And as Mr. Baker pointed out, you know, the possibility may exist that if it were not filled some other then.you might occur, I don't believe, I don't see that happening. Also I would want to interject here too, the Pro- . ject is not at this point in time, not only for those over 62, it is also for those who are permanently disabled, handi- capped. .Physically handicipped, mentally handicapped indivi- duals are also eligible to apply for this Project at this time and they can be of any age. Could be a child, a mildly retarded individual at age 25, or it could be .a person, a war veteran who is an amputee. It could be anyone in that classi- fication. Given also, that they meet the income eligibility criteria that he referred toas to the Section 8 requirements. So, at present, there are two groups who can apply at this time and receive favorable consideration qiveh the things I've mentioned. Regards to the.sbcial impact, I might alsb, Mr. Smoody mentioned that the Senior Citizens of Kodiak occupy a unit in .the same Cherrier-King building. A three bedroom apartment which certainly is not designed for our operation but which has, has sufficed because other available space is not available in the 'community. It is our hope and our intent that when the new building opens we also as an operation and organization will move there. In terms. of that social impact,' were talking about a number of 300 people on our mailing list. And last year to give you some statistics in terms of the level of service, we served 250 separate.persons who reside either in Kodiak or-Kodiak Island area. And these services ••404,4";‘,:r.,1, ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 • 4837 -r-15 • - , • • - , • 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30• 31 • range from transportation, to information referral, to a noon meal, .a nutrition a luncheon program. We serve 25 persons at present on an average basis at a daily meal which we sponsor in the same three-bedroom apartment. And it was our, hopeand.,. our intent that it, this new project would mean for us a, you, know a better facility to operate our program and therefore provide services both to the tenants in.the building and to the elderly of the. community in.general. I would just . fu.rther, mention'that I think Mr., Dougherty mentioned. of the 25 applications to date, and of course we just started taking applications: three weeks ago so that's just an indication of the number of people already who have applied. Of those • twenty five, five persons had automobiles.. Of the fourty people previous to that, that were on a waiting list, just an informal list. It was not3ublic it was in house to the senior citizens of Kodiak, a total of •6 had automobiles. So regardS to the parking variance, perhaps Vm shooting ahead and is, is that appropriate at this time? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: No its not. MR, MURRAY; It's. okay? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: No, just speak-to the issue. MR. MURRAY:., BaSically.thars that's,what'I.have to say regarding the need, and our secretary, Reverand Childs, was here but he had to leave the meeting. So if, he was going to .read for you a a resolution which I think you have in your packet from. the Senior.Citizens. I'would like to read that for you at-this time into the record ' The following resolution was unanimousH ly adopted by the members of the Board of Directors, Senior Citizens of Kodiak at their October 17 meeting. I would note - at this time there was one abstention, Mr. Gene Erwin who is a member of your Planning Commission. It addresses those ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 • 4837 39 ,• • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29. 30 sentiments regarding the petition by Sunset Development Company to clear up any alleged difficulties surrounding the Project. "Whereas, the Board of Directors of the Senior Citizens of Kodiak,-Inc.,.as an interested party to the above mentioned ' action has advocated repeatedly for the construction of an elderly housing project. Initially, they began their activi- ties in early 1974 with a survey. And whereas that survey demonstrated the need for such a project as the community . . of Kodiak had no facility in the downtown area which met the special needs of the areas elderly and handicapped citizens. And whereas the Board researched the downtown area for available land suitable ,for the purpose of construction of such a facility without much initial success. And whereas it.was learned by the organization that the partnership of Mr. Louis rani and Fred Brechan formally known as Sunset Develop- ment Corporation had land adjacent to the downtown area and suitable for the purpose of the development. And whereas the Board of Directors of the Senior Citizens of Kodiak, Inc. , approached Sunset Development Corporation as to their interest in constructing such—a mdCW needed facility. And whereas Sunset Development Corporation was receptive to the idea and initiated steps to secure the necessary financing and Section 8 comittment from the Department of Housing and Urban Development And whereas construction of the facility began in September of 1977 with a completion date expected to be December 1, 1978, Therefore be it resolved that the Board of Directors of the Senior Citizens of Kodiak, Inc. strongly encourages the nine and Toning Commission to act favorably upon the request by Sunset .Development Corporation before you at your October 18 meeting. Many elderly residents of the Kodiak Island 31 community are anxiously awaiting the opportunity to become ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 40 ,4,.. • • .. . 2_, , 2 3 4 5 6 7 81' 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • residents in this much 'needed and properly designed •facilty for the elderly and handicapped." Thank you. I.would ask if you would might undertake:a recess so that I could take some of'the senior citizens who came here home. CHAIRMAN 'BUSCH: I have a couple of questions. First of all, • you mentioned that the survey was done in 1974 and at that time you had about 200 members.and now you have about 300 members.. Has a more recent survey taken place concerning the need? MR. MURRAY: No. MR. PUGH: O.K. I wanted to ask .you in reference to the survey. You indicated that 100 questionnaires were returned. But when you mail out the.questionnaires do they uh, would you mail one questionnaire or two questionnaires to a husband and wife? MR. MURRAY: One questionnaire. MR. PUGH: O.K. One questionnare. Therefore that this is response of '76 families. and/or individuals?- -Family units? MR. MURRAY: Right. Couples and/or individivals. We wouldn't necessarily be thinking of yOung small children. MR. PUGH: O.K. •Could you tell me at the 1,current stage that we're at right now;.- What is the housing 'situation for the elderly in'Kodiak? I mean, how many of the elderly shall we say live with their • families and how many live in their own homes, how many live in apartments? Do you know of, I mean? MR. MURRAY: Well I would have to give you a guestimate, I don't have, that's not a hard figure. I think you could look at some figures that might be appropriate. For example, the the Borough I believe uh gave exemptions in terms of property taxes to about 125 separate households or maybe, not:: ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486.4837 • ,;';/,`I'll.;:".44,: •11 • • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9! 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • • • . maybe that many, maybe 85 to 90 separate households. That .would be an exemption from property taxes which is a state program and it's where one or one member of the household is and who is the owner of record or at least jointly owner of record is 65 years of age or older. And as far as as those in apartments there are are 13 in the Cherrier King Building that I referred to. There are about nine at the, up at Pacific •Ter.race.in subsidized units. In unsubsidized units, I think we're talking* about 25 to 30 and'we're talking about several peOple living with family and in.,other related, under other. situations.. MR. PUGH: O.K. Now are the Cherrier King Units at this point subsidized by the... MR. MURRAY: ..Nine of those units are subsidized. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other questions? Mr. Baker? MR. BAKER: The lunch program you conduct. Are the Senior Citi- zens that participate in that, that come in from their own homes or apartments. Are they bussed in? MR. MURRAY: Yes, we have a transportation system. I might add too, just some background in terms of why, you know why the need for housing units. designed for elderly. When the Cherrier King Brothers built their building it was a three story walk up and there was as usual a lapse in the the code at the time. And the code said something about you didn't need fire alarms if it were three stories. It had to be more than three stories. So they.snuck under the wire in the sense that they didn't have to add that to their, to their project. And, had no intention of adding fire alarms. It wasn't until they were-pressured by the city at such time that they.applied for a rent increase that the city, you know sent . a letter to HUD who then said, you know you don't have fire • ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1911 c.‘ alarms. And they put fire alarms in: But certainly fire.alarms' alone are not the solution to fire safety and there's no I don't think there can be a comparison between the Cherrier King Apartments and the new elderly housing:project. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr, Pugh? MR. PUGH: One last question Dennis, will the new housing devel- . opment that's going in the Killarney Hills subdivision, will that in .any way respect uh alleviate the housing problem for . senior citizens or is that strictly low income? MR. MURRAY: Well, IAcn't know that I can answer your question specifically, John. I think that those units, its my understanding are one bedroom and two bedrooms and.that again depending upon income being the major consideration . there, persons can apply. So certainly, an elderly person has as an equal opportunity as anyone else to apply in those. units. . However, those units are not designed for elderly people. They are again wane-ups and I believe they're two stories. And so therefore, you know, again we're talking about construction and design and everything else. 20IMR, SMOODY: Distance also. 21 MR. MURRAY: res. •hey're also, out of town. 22 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Ball? 23 MR. BALL: One question. Since you have worked with the elderly 24 since approximately 1972, is that. what you say? On completion 25 of this project how many do you believe will be occupied. 26 immediately? From your own experience? 27 28 29 30 31 MR. MURRAY: I don't know that, I cannot answer that question, Ron. I I don't know at this point. I think a lot depends upon what you do. Because like anything, these' people are waiting for this kind of situation to resblve i tsel f. I mean, you know, sO.that they can; they can makejheir decision; Some ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 • 4837 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 - 14 - 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 are waiting.- And and the fact that the building is potentially in je.opardy is,has certainly made some effect and impact upon their coming forwardtoapply. MR. BALL: . Thank you, Mr. Murray. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Anyone else in the audience with to speak in support of this variance request? (PAUSE) CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this variance request? Sure Mr, Dickson, just. in opposition • • MR, DOUGHERTY: In order to make it work another approach is of course to say that you're not Going to use an elevator. building in which case then.you have a completely another chain of thought that comes out of it. MR. 'BAKER: Well of course the, there's there's two approaches to this. Were looking at a financial aspect and HUD is suggesting that in order to make this a viable project or the„ finance corporation was saying that in order to make this a viable project you require X number of units.. However, we're addressing a different problem here. And when this question, as f4r,as the ,density of the development came up, this is now-: „-- .a,question as far as the zoning ordinance)in the comminity-- where you're building, And this question never.cameup as far as the MR. DOUGHERTY: Certainly.. That's why we developed this drawing. And when we received your O.K. to. go you're I'm sorry, the authorities 0.K to co ahead, and .when we developed the building documents we brought them in and discussed them with ,your people. When we went to the state fire marshall by and large for-most of the, the detailed requirements and at that time you'd expect those things to be brought up and the building permit was subsequently issued. Obviously those ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 • 44 * , 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 1611 are the points, are, the name of most of our, in developing construction documents is to discuss it with the planning and with the building authority which we did in..this case. And they'd grant-a permit. • MR. BAKER: The the thing that appears strange is that we asked for uh exceptions as opposed to variances but we asked for exceptions for a number of things here but again to my 'knowledge we never,saw,anything that asked allow what appears.' to be 15 more units than the property will support. We we've—' asked for,•there's questions concerning side yards and parking. as I recall. ' But in no place in any of the (can't decipher) we find any in.dication that did the question of the unit per area ever occurred. And yet.you indicate that the question : did arise, that that it was discussed. MR DOUGHERTY: Though obviously that, the floor plan always indicated 55 units from this 'preliminary concept clear on through construction documents. That every Conversation that-. we ever were involved in... MR. BAKER: Yes, I grant you that the only that is, that occurs • 17 I 1811 191 201 to me is that it would have seemed that uh in this request, 21: some point in there they, would address this problem of 221 the number of units per lot area. 23 MR. DOUGHERTY: What, it —it struCk me that one point we we were 24', aiven to believe that the volume of the building, that the 25 number of units were related to the volume of the building 26 and not to the'unit count. And of course, at that point we 27 had already, the 55 units-was already established. So 28 usually at that point you're discussing the the details of 29 the the restrictions to develop construction documents so it 30 never came up again. 31 MR. BAKER: Is is the volume a criteria sometime used as far... ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 -4837 45 - • . ■ ■ 1 MR. DOUGHERTY: It is in in the, if I'm not mistaken at the time 2 ' that we developed this building it was in your zoning code. 3 MR: BAKER: Thank you. 4 THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST: 5 MR, DICKSON:. That was an empassioned and compassionate talk that we 6 just heard from.the previous gentlemen. I don't think any 7 of us would disagree with the .need, desirability. of properly. 8 housing our elderly in this community, in the state, in the 9 United States— ,However, I would like to as I said earlier in 10 my prior present.atdon,:—di.:reusack to the 11 The issue that we are dealing with is a variance from the code 12 of the Borough of Kodiak. Much has been.mado of the letter 13 • .purportedly written by a member of the Borough Staff. You'll 11 see that I'm-looking at the letter, that the letter directed itself only to two items; heighth and side yard density. The 161, 1)1 was oranted as an exception without any pretense of complying 18 with the or meeting the conditions. set forth in the ordinance. 19 I'd" like to get the 20 naivewhen he .dealt with the Borbugh and their staff who 21 -,apparantly were-even more-nalve than '9r. Tani. But if I were 22 to present two witnesses in *my favor, I would, present Mr. 23. McCool and Mr. Smoody. Because if Mr. Iani was naive, Mr. heighth part of it never was granted. The.side yard 'density ordinance. Now perhaps Mr. Iani was 24 2q 2q 271 28 29 30 3 Ianl was dealing with an experienced architect who had .designe 26 elderly housing projects and you ask any architect what he does when he presented with a design problem and the:firs thing he does is find out his —design limitations. the first thing he,determines td-find out'his design.limitations is to look at the local zoning ordinance. Ee'apparantly looked'at every.other ordinance. 'Every other laW.,.-that,-,ap lied He conducted long conversations and dialogue with the state' ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .2, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. 27 28 29 30 31 fire marshall. He looked carefully at the uniform building code. He checked out the elevator towers. Looked to see if they Met the*HUD requirement.' But he didn't pay-any attention to the, to the zoning code. If he did pay any atten- tion, he didn't say anything about it to Mr. Iani. Or did he say something about it to Mr. Tani? And if he didn't say anything about it to Mr. Tani.* Did Mr. Smoody say anything about It to Mr.:Tani? Mr. Smoody recognized.and.his staff re- cognized very early in the game the exact problem we're dealing with here today,,,,.,':-.-He-recognFzed immediately that they had a-density problem. Are We to believe that this was never communicated to the developers. . That seems very difficult. But.what do we have here? A letter written that had directed itself to one thing.. It didn't direct itself to the density..' It diWt.direct itself to the parking. The density is the real variance were dealing with'here tonight. And what no one.stood up here and directed themselves to, is your code: And I trust you have a copy of it in front you. If you turn to page 130, I think that's what we should talk about. What we should talk about, that the application shall..contain a statement and adequate evidence showing the following condi- tions. All four which must exist before variance can be grant- ed_ The. first ,condition are that there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to its intended use of development which should not apply generally to the .other properties in the same land, use district. Now what is there about this land from a . density standpoint that meets this requirement? Clearly there are no physical conditions of this property which so far as . density is concerned, which distinguished this property from any other in that same zoning district. Petitioners argument ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 • 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1,9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 that you should sUbstitute the HUD density requirement (can't decipher) you set forth' in- the Kodiak Zoning Code I don't be- lieve even .deserve consideration by this body, Two, That the strict application of the provisions of the title will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship.. The only practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship to the petitioner is that the code does not allow him to put 55- units where 40 is allowed. Any hardship to the petitioner is self inflicted, If he wanted legally to construct 55 units - he should have found himself land upon which he could legally construct 55 uhits. He Should not use 40 unit land for- 55 . unit purposes. It does.n't meet that one. That the granting of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinityor be-detrimen- tal to the public health, safety or welfare. If the violation of the density requirement to the ordinance did not damage other properties in the city we wouldn't be here tonight. Mrs. Dayton wouldn't have hired me at considerable expense, We reduce this to 40 allowed units. We reduce the height of the building to an acceptable limit, it wouldn.'t be that much, over Rezanof Drive. Finally, that the granting of variance will not.be contrary to the objectives of the • Comprehensive Plan. The primary objective of all comprehensiv . plans, The primary objective of every zoning ordinance, and its normally set forth in.the preamble, is to protect and enhance property values. And if you go and .look at the "for sale" signs and check the turn Over in houses on Rezanof Drive and near there, near this monstrosity's been built. If you talk to nearby property 'owners, you'd never dream that this building protects and enhances nearby property values. So where do they meet them? The four requirements set forth in ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 •-....,:,. -,,, ,. ....^,4 r,,?1. '"" t" ' -"-•to,-,t;Cr"''T1^;:,..,,,,, • -"''',......1.i.-P/4,: ,;....,- , ..,'•" . ,, s,,,.: . ..:..,4,-.:4,•:.....,...;-,-.:-,:..,-,...;A:.%',,,,."-r.,:,',. +.7,...`::'::::‘,..7431. 7,,,,,-. .....,,, -,,.... ,-.... • .....,, . :. • .. - , - , ,.. .. ,. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 29 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 .„,. ..........,,,-4:. 7r.-.4,1,--.1-----",'-:,13:- ,:.,t,... --.:,....‘,:tAit,-^.774":".:;:,....-„.:... „,,Ii„..,,,q, .., . ,„,....„,, „. „.. -ir,i:1.47-44.kl:r.'":7,4,..4-$-,...,...),-7":,- --e.:?('-`0- i:-.,...7,-,:..,..-01,7."-.7"-:;::-.4p:-.-,..\....,:-.-7.;.:.,■-.,--44. 1/4,-,, g..,.,t4+0=PeViCt.4.7i:r1.",•••7,"-.v;,.. ....,..!,,! -4:.-;;,...,ry,,....T-S,,f,',,•,i.1,,,..4T.NY,:',.,,W.,..",;'......,......::. ,..."..."%.,;.- . —4.. . -,... 4,..,,,,,: ..g ..., -...i4,.,,,,,-4,t.*•f"."a."?..`'''''?.2..-*".SA.4■1,47-'1k0FW2s7A,..'-..y.,..t.1,44"----.;?;.,‘,5,- - .- . , ' . '• ... . • .. ... • ... • : .,,,,,-...',' , :.- „,,,,...::.--..p.,..4.1....,4^,!1.NC,n.,.^ ';'?:•-■i."1%..,. " the ordinance. The requirements that you people are sittinghere to uphold in quasi judicial capacity.. They're not met. In addition, I'd notice for this variance and for the variances which follow that the condition of 17.66.120 of your ordinance which requires that-the Commission shall, - - cause to be made by its own members or its authorized agent an investigation of facts bearing on any application suffi- cient to assure that the action taken is consistent with the intent and purpose of this title has not been done. That's a requirement, 'before you can fully consider these matters. There's been no staff investigation or recommendation and to my knowledge there's been no-indication that any commis- stoners, have dope it. And I would. finally read 17.66.140 of your ordinance. The last part says, this is decision on granting a denial of variances. If'however such facts and conditions do not prevail, (the four conditions that we talked about). (Can't decipher) or if the granting of the variance will adversely affect the Troperty of persons in the vicinity of the applicants property (and I'm sure that that's happening). And for any other valid reason, the Commission shall:denytheapplication. And finally, as to this variance I'll simply point out thatwe believe that it's a use variance. It's .not the normal bulk variance that you uh, you normally deal with. And these variances are normally not, not legal. If there are any questions I'd be happy to address myself to them.. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: O.K. My first question is why do you say that this isa "use variance". MR. DICKSON: Because when you're dealing with an increased num- . berof units, for instance if you take a R-2 zone. which ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 49 ' • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • 11 12 13 14 15 16 •17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 30 31 , • ;4;c- , „ • ; allows two dwelling units in it and you allow 30 dwelling units in it, on property that would normally accomodate two. You are in effect rezoning it to another zoning -.district. You are rezoning it.int6 say an R-3 zoning district which would possibly allow that many units. That'.s basically what uh, what is happening here when you, when you allow a variance of, of up to this magnitude. Fifteen over fourty (can't decipher) 30% variance. The other two units perhaps could be considered within a a limitation. But not a 30% increase. CHAIRMAN.BUSCH: Mr. Ball? MR. BALL: One -of your last statements was you've mentioned .uh normal bulk variance. What were you referring to. What were..could you explain that to me? MR. DICXSON: Sure. Uhm, a bulk variance is a a variance that can be measured. That is what's normally considered to be an acceptable variance area. Side-yard variance, heighth variance, a front yard variance, bulk uh volume variance of some kind within the uh floor area ratio perhaps. Something like, that would be considered within the normal acceptable variance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this variance request? Yes, please come Microphone,'please. MRS. DAYTON: I'm Lorraine Dayton. I guess' I've stirred up a lot of trouble but I want the senior citizens to that I am Tito against their building at all. What I'm against is the height of the structure which does impair my view and it does devaluate my property. Now if'it was put in front of your homes I'm sure you'd feel the same way. Now if they go back to their three floors or fifty feet, .which ever comes first, like the ordinance reads, that's all I ask for and I'll forward. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 , KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 50 . , ... . •• ' ,.... , , k • .. . . , .. „ • .. ..C.,;,,e, frz: f, ':,,,''.' • , ,A■ ;., ,- 1,,....,,,' .,• , ,..,4%.4;9...',"7:';',-;;,'Ii.,:...:1,?'.,. ' ',-f,-—,'... ',:-.:. „....,V,'''.".L'..,;!!f:": ,..";,-'. .: 7 "i'-'..,,;:,..,::''..:, 4.`,2. : ')...I. . s' • ' ..... :':' '4':A','"'. C' ''.- ." .7 e , "' . ' .-,..;.:;:"?!.,; •0 - 4..:,1m, ,- ; f 4..-.= , ..)-,., ....,. '4.-t'..s."..,,i,1.-:':'-- ?,...--...-A° .i- or. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. BALL: Ijust waattp,..45.r.X.4A.,9e, when was, when did you 11 put your first uh Opposition into this? 12 MRS. DAYTON: Uh, December 28, '77. And it was ignored. 13 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Who'd you file, who'd you file the requests with?, .14 Or those appeals with? 15 MRS. DAYTON: Through my attorney. Through uh to Sunset Develop- pull in my horns. If not, we will go to court. If they would go by what they make- me build by and everybody else build by ' . they could only have twenty .units on that, not fifty-five, • So, if we're going to have a Planning and Zoning it should be.,' enforced or we don't need you. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mrs. Dayton, we've, there's some questions for You., MRS. DAYTON: Right. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Ball? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 30 31 ment .twice. And they didn't acknowledge it suntil I brought other attorneys in from Anchorage. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr.. Pugh? MR. PUGH: Ya, Mrs: Dayton , were you responsible for the uh the objections to the original rezoning of the land to business which created the wording in the,ordinance that the building” heighths be.limited to one story, above Rezahof? MRS. DAYTON: Say that again. MR. PUGH: Well, were you involved in the original testimony before the Borough Assemblyor: the. Planning.and Zoning Commission which uh limited the building to, the buildings:o that lot to one story above..? MRS. DAYTON: No. MR. PUGH: Do you know who was by any chance? MRS. DAYTON: No. MR. PUGH: O.K. ..Thank you. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 51 1 2 3 4 z• 5 ; 6 7 . • 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you, Mrs. Dayton. Anyone else in the audience that wishes-to speak in opposition to this variance request? Would:you please come forward? MRS. MACKEY: Mynamp.is Mildred Mackey and I live almost directly across from this development. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Could you speak a little closer to the microphone or pull it.. MRS. MACKEY: . My name is Mildred Mackey and I have a bad cold so you'll 'have to put ,up with me for a moment. I live almost ' directly across from the development and I too have no objec- tions to a senior citiZen_ I expect to be one shortly myself. But what I do, being a new person here, I've only . lived here three years. My objection would.be I never even, we weren't given the courtesy of.saying what were they building there? There was nothing noticed. All that I ever heard of in the paper was block 'so and so, such and such, not .what is was. So actually, we had nothing by mail or by paper that, I or my husband, either one understood. And my husband is a District Attorney. I shouldn't say things like that. But he is you know like, he also, I see the view, that she can't see also and that that would be the same thing with me,, it has also blocked the same. But we thought, now this was also a rumor, that it would not go above the street. That's-. all. I really have to say. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any questions? Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: Ya, ya where do you live exactly, Mrs. Mackey, uh do you know? MRS. MACKEY: It was uh, it's the second house from Gary and Rita Stevens if that helps you any, we're on the.. MR: PUGH: You're on, up from Mill Bay. Are you on Rezanof or Mill Bay? --• ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE. P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 rs' MRS. MACKEY: Mill Bay but its also the back, .which is, our living room faces Rezanof.: We are directly where.. MR. PUGH: O.K. You you bought (can't decipher) old house? MRS. MACKEY: Yes I was trying to (can't decipher), MR. PUGH: O.K. : I believe that that property is within 300' of theproject, isn't it Harry? MRS. MACKEY: Oh, I'm sure it is, its closer than.,. MR. MILLIGAN: Yes. MRS. MACKEY: Well that's the only is like I.said we we got no. 10 notice of anythilvo'at411 11 MR. PUGH; But, but you you never did get a notice at all on...? 12 MRS. MACKEY: .,on what they were building? 13 MR. PUGH; Did you get notices for this hearing? 14 MRS, MACKEY: Oh no, I read it on the scanner. 15 MR. PUGH; O.K. You never got a notice in the mail for this 16 hearing? 17 MRS. MACKEY: No, Idid not. No nothing in the mail about this 181 hearing. I came because of the concern.. Like 1 said I 19 object to the thing that we accepted a rumor that the, that 20 it would go. I think that it's great to build a place for 21 people to live, And I. think it would have been great too if,. 21 they would have sprawled it out where it was, where they .23 could live. But when.we came back, what we thought was 24 going to be above the street, it went above and then my 21 husband said "Q4, well they'll put a peaked roof next" and 26 -sure enough they did. That was like three.. 2) CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. 28 MRS. MACKEY: I'm -sorry my voice.. 2-9 CHAIRMAN BUSCH; Anyone else in the audience that wished to spealy., 30 in opposition to this variance request? If not then at 31 this time we'll close—the publi.c hearing on the Variance or ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 53 1. 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 •30' 31 , the request for a variance permit: And we'll take a five minute recess at this time. * * * *-* * * * * * * CHAIRMAN BUSCH: .Any af the Commission members have any comments or discussion they would like to make in regard to the public hearing on the request variance permit .concerning the density of the units? 'Mr. Ball? MR.-BALL: I don't know if it's proper or not but we did have a - person say that they, did not receive notice and they might not have in regard to their address. How many notices were sent out? MR. MILLIGAN: Looks like about six. MR. BALL: Uh, how would we make sure that .uh this list was inclu- ded in all the exhibits so that in the future they will know who notices were sent to.- I mean, I know in the past things have been lost, 'Do you think they should be read into. the record or, or how do you think jt should be handled? MR. MILLIGAN: You have a copy of the Public Hearing Notice that has a di'agram. map showing the area to which notice was mailed • or an area within at. least 3004surrounding the property. If the Commission wish, we*can.include that—information in the packet. .In vcase, 1 oq.check Mrs. Mackey, notice was mailed to William Mackey, and.the address, apparantly the, indicated on the tax 'assessment record which is where we draw these lists from , uh indicates General Delivery, Kodiak, Alaska as the address. MR. BALL: 1,1 heard. another party during recess say that they did not receive notice also. I didn't even get their name which is not important. I think that maybe we should make sure that this complete list of who notice was sent to is included in the packet or included in the information in some respect. . ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 54 • 1 2 3 4 5- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: I'd be part of the record for this case? Would it not be? MR. BALL: That, that's what I want a ruling on so that it will be, it definitely will be part. of the record? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: .They .always are. MR. PUGH: O.K. One thing I will state is that I talked to some people in the audience and at least one-person indicated that !they did get a notice for the hearing so that at least, you know, I do have a feeling that, some notices were mailed at least. MR. MILLIGAN:. IfAt's. the,desirecf--the Commission we can have this information in all future meetings incorporated in your packet; if tha-Cs what you wish? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: I don't know if that's really necessary. You know lf we request it, it would be available and it is part of the„ MR. BALL: I think it should be available. CHAIRMAN1'BUSCH: It's always, you know part of the record for the case so that would be sufficient. Any other .discussion on, this item? MR. BAKER: Uh, Mr. Chairman it was, it was mentioned during break that there was someone (can't decipher), does that individual wish to testify? MR. PUGH: I believe council for Mrs. Dayton had a request alotig those lines too,.. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: They would be able to speak at the next public hearing, MR. BAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other comments? If not, the next item then is a request for variance to permit the continued construction and use of a building which encroaches into the required yards, ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Sunset Development. Any staff report or comments on this, Mr. Milligan? MR., MILLIGAN: Mr., Chair, uh the side, the calculations to deter-. mine side yard in this instance were computed by Mr. Gordon,.. the Borough building official, who also handles the zoning • enforcement responsibilities for the Borough,. He determined - upon evaluation of the site plan and the requirements of the 'code that side yards of 61' are•required on this project. The - zoning ordinance says that in the business district if a build -- ing is devoted' to residential use it shall meet the side yard requirements set forth-for' the residential district. In this case the side yards would be 61': MR..-PUGH: How far does the building uh.... MR. MILLIGAN: We did not have a (can't decipher).. So we cannot tell you precisely where the bui.l.ding sits in relation to the. - side yard. CHAIRMAN BUSCH; Any other discussion, questions? If not, at this 18 time we'll close the regular meeting and open the public 19 hearing on a request for a variance permit to continue the 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. 29 30 31 construction and. use of a building which encroaches into the required yards. Anyone in the audience that wishes. to support: or speak in support of th.i,s' variance .request? THOSE-IN .FAVOR OF THE ABOVE ACTION; MR._ DOUGHERTY: My name is Bernard Dougherty, attorney for Sunset .Development. Before I address this issue, I would like to ask for a clarification from the Chairman with regard to an issue that has been raised as to the height'of the build ing. Now it is our position that a height is not required because of an alternate measurement which is provided in Section 17-.21.030 of the Kodiak Island Borough. Code which provides for an alternate measurement having to do with the ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 56 ' • 111 13 1 14 15 16 • , ' "I cubical content of the building. But we feel that if there is any doubt as to this issue by the Commission Members we would like to address it and get that also straightened out at this time. It is, perhaps I could' address it a little bit farther and then you can make a decis.ion. The lot area is 40,717 ft.. Section .030 that 1 just referred to states that the maximum building heighth can not exceed three stories or fifty feet. Then it had the following language, provided, - however that a building may be increased in height, provided ' the gross cubical content of the building does not exceed the . . sum total of the area of the lot x 50. The area of the lot is 40,717 x 50 gives a permissable cubical content in excess. of 2,000,000 sq. ft... The cubica• content of the building is approximately 421,000 sq. ft.., which is well within that restriction. But if there is any question as to the height. I would.like to address that/ BUSCH: That isn.q one+of the, youknow, variances being requested. You know, if it were, you know, we'd need the notification of public hearing and so forth on the item. 17',CHAIRMAN 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 MR. So it won't be one of the things that we'll be addressing . or, or .granting, or not granting at this time. DOUGHERTY: O.K. The, the other thing that I would like - to mention about the issue of notice which has been raised is; Mr_ Ecklund who is the 'surveyor in Kodiak, who is a regis- tered surveyor, performed a survey for us which we will sub- mit to the Commission tomorrow if that's permissable, which indicated •'that Mrs. Dayton's property is not within 300' and ' therefore she is not entitled to receive written notice. And I would like to receive permission to submit that affida- vit from Mr. Ecklund to the Commission tommorrow to that effect. Notice keeps being brought up. Uh, there was ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 ........:. ;415...: . '...^".1.Y.,.14'Ati. ,..`ei.'-•,- ',..i.v...4'Ve',',7.C...:,,,-.**....4.:-...."-i4:,;:,-,,,,--......,,,:N:',7;•401;.4s-s,4''''?•";-47`."`::"•.'''rt-.-^,-:"%,:e::..' -,,,,.......1.-,A....5-7.7,...„.--/ii'.......<4.4,,iitit4;::"... ,,,...;.:7•: • t,••. •,-,7.`5:-r.,- , • '', ‘,':-.• - ''• ' ...„ , „ ... . . . 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 published notice obvious y,.but she's not entitled to receive written notice or mailed notice, excuse me. I would like permission to submit that to the CoMmission as soon as we can receive that from Mr. Ecklund, • • CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Certainly, yes.., MR, DOUGHERTY; And then T would like to address the side yard. The, using the criteria, one, two, three, four, which lr, Dickson referred to previously which are contained_ in 17.66.090-, The first-criterion,has alternativelanguage in it And it is not just physical circumstances which can justify or can meet„ this criterion.. The language is . that, that there are exceptional physical circumstances - -or conditions applicable to the property or to its intended use or development. In other, words, physical characteristics alone are not the only criterion that can meet this require-, pent. Intended use, or conditions applicable to the property or its intended use can also fulfill this requirement. The side yard meets both of these criteria and I believe that the architect, Mr. McCool, sufficiently testified to this earlier- Because of the unusual shape of the lot; the building has to be located on the lot where it is. The lot is narrow and AT THIS POINT, THERE IS A_CUT IN THE TAPE FOR AN INDETERMINAB,L AMOUNT OF TIME. MR. DOUGHERTY CONTINUES..... ...construction of Rezanof Drive which causes the 25' drop ' off within 40' from the curb to the building side. The subsurface conditions also are constraints of the location of this building because of rock formations and water forma- tions.. The:second item, the strict -application of the provisions of this title would.result in practical difficul- ties or unnecessary hardship I believe we addressed somewhat,s, ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 58, , ..erf 4f $ - f.:,;-; • - .16 1 2 3 - 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 before. 1 would certainly like to clarify for this record that I don't think there's any way that the difficulties that have been presented to the. owners and developers of this Project can be called self inflicted, the term that Mr; Dicks,on has used and firs. Dayton.uses in her letter. Uh, again we were specifically relying on supposed expert help from the Borough Planning Staff in applying for exceptions which.are actually variances. I don't thknk we can call. those difficulties that subsequently developed to be self inflicted.. Certainly, we have unnecessary hardship. The' granting of a'variance pfla sjd,e,yard exception is not .going to cause material.damage or prejudice to other proper- ties in the vicinity and is -not detrimental to the public-. health, safety or welfare. And the granting of a side yard variance .of this type is not contrary to the objectives of . the Comprehensive Plan. If,the Commission members would like any measurement figures asto the location of the building, I will have todefer to Mr. McCool for those, .But other than that if there are any questions, I'd be ,pleased to answer . them. CHAIRMAN-BUSCH: Does he have our (can't decipher ) survey? MR., DOUGHERTY: ,s.I, understancLit.'. perhaps we can best direct these questions to Mr. McCool because without my...uh, I do-- not know. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other comments at this time? Mr. Ball? MR', BALL: In regard to this affidavit from Mr. Ecklund, in regard to showing Mrs. Dayton doesn't live within the 300', since you brought it up I'd like to ask you a question on it. Will this show the people that you consider living within the 300'? MR. DOUGHERTY: What we will ask...- MR. BALL: I I would like to know what you are going to have on ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0, BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 - • • • ,--1*-‘ • • 1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 • 23 24 25 26 so that it will be in the record. MR. D'OUGHERTY: W.e will go with the item, the only item that was prepared or presented to us prior to this meeting was. the '*7 • location of Mrs. Dayton's property. And tha•rs. the only thing that we asked Mr. Ecklund to address himself to. MR: BALL: Fine. MR. DOUGHERTY: And that's, I don't know exactly the format that he would pUt-that in. MR. BAKER: Uh, is Mr. McCool, will Mr. McCool testify? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: (cant decipher) MR. BAKER: It was intent to speak. .I'll address the question to you then. • CHAIRMAN BUSCH: ' Mr,fMcCool, would you please come forward? Mr, Baker? MR. BAKER:, Uh, the question of the irregular shape of the lot refers to the fall of the adjoining property between street level and this property, as I recall 25' and 40'. Approxi- mately where is the property line of the subject •roperty with.respect to the tow. of .the slope on Re'zanof? In other, words, how .much of this property is situated in the toe of the slope? MR. McCOOL: I don't the (can't decipher). But, the property linejs at approximately on this, on th.is preliminary survey, the property line is at approximately 98' and the edge of the shoulder or curve line is at about about 110'. This is, this is preliminary data from Mr. Ecklund and.I think that 27 subsequently it proves to be accurate. 28 MR. BAKER: Uh, are we talking about... 29 MR. McCOOL: The property line adjacent to Rezanof. 30 MR. BAKER: But are we talking about 6' of this property, or 12', 31 or 20'of this property being the toe of the slope? ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 9O7.4864837 " . ;•••■•••"'''''' ' "■••?;'• . 60 R. McCOOL: Well , the slope runs from, since this is just prelim- 2 inary survey it shows.the top most elevation on here to be 110'. Somewhat below the existing curve of 'Rezanof. The 4 property,line is at, on that area it crosses both. 95 and 100.,. 5 MR. BAK.ER: I, 1 don't know how to ask my question precisely from . 6 here but the question is, O.K. what's the finished elevation 7 of the building,'Unished grade of the portion of the property' 8 outside the (can't decipher)? g MR McCOOL: I 1. don;t know. This is preliminary data and we don't 10 have an as built" totals, here we only have an as built" plan 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 survey. - , MR. BAKER: I see. There's no indication there of finished grade of the floor line, MR. McCOOL: No. Only preliminary and it's, not accurate enough. to to display that. -I don't know what you're getting • at and I don't know what this is without looking at it..well,, we haveconstruction documents here' that would help some because that has the final survey on it. MR. BAKER: Now the thing that occurs to me is that that in looking at the site it appears that the toe of the.slope or the flow pn.Rezahof or that bank does not significantly extend into the, into the building area, MR, McCOOL: Well, (can't decipher) preliminary data. Vertically it (can't decipher) the building, (can not decipher' this part as Mr. McCool was not in the area of the microphone), this of the building. Here you can see approximately what's happening there. MR. BAKER: Were you restricted from distrubing that, that toe? MR, McCOOL-: Yes, by a physical restraint. The rock (can't decipher) just at about this 5' setback line along this (can't decipher) • property line. They did strike rock as a matter of fact ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (Can't decipher, again Mr. McCool.has his back to the mike). MR. BAKER: But the state didn't Mpose any restrictions as to how far back into that slope you can go. MR. McCOOL: No. MR. BAKER: In other words, you could have excavated that toe of the slope and gone back level with the rest of the lot in that area? MR, McCOOL; Well, if you.wanted to blast rock, yes. MR. BAKER; Yes. Well, rock is a common occurance in Kodiak, of course. • MR. McCOOL: But the state didn't impose anything within the property zone. MR. BAKER: There was no constraint imposed by the state? MR: McCOOL: No, within the property. MR. BAKER: That was my question: CHAIRMAN BUSCH.: Did you have any statement you'd like to make, Mr. McCool? 18 MR. McCOOL: Uh, I have no no statement. The drawing, 1 think 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 answers most of the physical constraints of the site. I'd be glad to answer any any questions but'uh.. MR. BAKER: Based on your knowledge of the building and the site, what would you say was an approximate side yard clearance in the area in question? RR. McCOOL: To. the west. MR, BAKER; Um-uhm. MR, McCOOL: To my recollection it's it's approximately 1.6' to 2' to that particular point. Of course this, but because of the irregular site shape it's 'hard to define what really is the west property line. Here you have it'and here you have it and here you have it all in.. this is in a a northwesterly - direction. The property line is actually irregular at that 1 2 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 point, as is the building line. For instance, tnis west property line is somewhat (can't decipher), but uh, the northern part of the building approaches the property line at its closest point to V, at th.is,at thiS. pointonly for about MR. BAKER: As architect were you aware of this side yard problem based on Kodiak ordinances? M .'McCOOL: Yes I was, The business zoning, it was my under- standing that there. was (0) setback. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor or suPPor-t *Of:this Nariance request? Anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this yariance request? AN UNIDENTIFIABLE VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE (THE VOICE IS BARELY INTELLIGIBLE) STATES SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT "THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE LEFT OVER FROM ..." 17 CHAIRMAN.BU$CH; O.K. 18 MR. VANORDEN: Yes, my name is Bill Vanorden, I live at 321 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Erskine and I, the only reason why I'm here tonight is Lorraine walkednextdoor and said 'Hey, there's a meeting tonight why don't you walk up here". I'm not prepared to say anything.. in particular other than, I've been in Kodiak for about a year. March of this year I purchased a home at 321 Erskine. Had a beautiful view of the bay, that was all taken into consideration when I paid what for me was a very large sum of money. Now, this'monstrosity's built and I'm told by an appraiser from Anchorage that Pm, suffer to lose 10,000 to $15,00.0. I have no -choice because when I get transferred I have to sell my home. So to me, this materially affects me and I'm, Pm surprised that there are not, everybody that lives along Erskine, their their property values are ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 4837 63 •• ■ 1 t2 3 4 . ..5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 • • "..t • • ,," directly affected -by' this structure. Now nobody's:going to argue against housing for the elderly. That doesn't make' sense. However, when you go around, circumvent, what appears to me to be a purely financial matter. Now, people are talki,n9 about various sums of money.. Six per cent per year they're limited to. Well, six per cent per year in- eight years, that's — 50 per cent. That's 11/2 million dollars on three million ,dollars, To me, that's bia:money pushing little money and that's what these codes and zoning is for. So, what, I was • a civil engineer before I went in the Coast Guard and these people are saying that.uh well...the companies that I worked for if you made mistakes like :this you bought them. And you , • could not go back and say well-we're going to get a variance, or after the fact- get an approval at the expense.af all these ' other, property owners. And that's all I have to say. 16 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any.questions? Mr. Ball? 17 MR. BALL: Yes, you do you consider, do you believe, I mean you 18 don't know exactly. Is your property within 300' of the 19 building, do you think? 201 MR. VANORDEN: I was told by Mrs.. Dayton that she is within two 21 or three feet and my house is next one down, closer to the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 .. ...... . ..- •.., ,...) ., , ,, ,, , „....„4„..„..-......%,,,N.,,,:,A.y ' ',,,. -4.4"...-,"4.4,,,.,55,,,.....i.,..:",,'. ''‘'.44. +4•:::,','..`,.„ , •,,,,,"■G......ilt;fit'",,f....■•%t.,*,r,),:r.,...."1.•'••4•,':•:;i•;*.;,,,,,,`,7.=.;',-,;.(4.:44,'"•.;.•,,Zo.:Y.4...;•..1.e,.4. • 't 'r'"4" ••,•i,,- ',. .4 •• ' '•....,, ' -. . .. • . ", .. , , - . Property. There might have,been a problem Icause.1, our mailing address As at the air station, and of course with the Kodiak nailing system the way it is maybe they couldn't, they couldn't get one to me but. MR'. BALL: uh, did you receive notice, do you believe? MR. VANORDEN: Na.. I haven't, I haven't received anything-. The only information I have is likel say. Lorraine walked . next door said "there's a meeting, why don't you come on up" and uh.. MR. BALL: And what is, what is your last name?' ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 64 • • • , • .. 1 1, . • , ,, • . 1":.--.1': 1 2 3 4 "511 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181 191 201 211 22 23 241 25' 26 27 28 29 30 31 1Th MR. VANORDEN: Bill Vanorden. KR. BALL: Vanorden. So you can check and see •if. MR.VANORDEN: And I'm rather, I'm, it just appalls me that sa-y, yes maybe legally. 300 is the limit, but where somebody or all these people are materially effected and'particularly in my particular case, I can't afford to lose a bunch of money ' and uh that's why I'm speaking out against it. Now to me, when it's big dollars against little dollars, they either me my view back or, restore my, the property value which like, I say I paid for or physical (can't decipher). That's all I have to say. ISP—here.anY questions? MR. BALL: Did, did you indicate that you had an appraisal done on your property? MR. VANORDEN: I didn't-have an appraisal done, there was a, there's a house two doors down that was for sale and a man from Anchorage called me up and he identified himself as a, as an appraiser for the the people's property and I, it's kind of a (can't decipher). I can't give you names right now but I directed the question to him. I said "are these property values being effected by this" and he said "definitely definitely".- And to get aspercentage or an amount of money uh you're just.grasping at straws without...everything in Kodiak kind of, the valuation is up and down but it it definitely, you're talking about uh, like I say $15,000 just on the view alone. The but what isn't here. So,: To say it 10,000, housing is over priced doesn't materially ' effect me would be pretty ridiculous. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. MR. SHOAF: My name is Rob Schoff. I'm a law clerk in George Dickson's law firm. By virtue of an Interim Perrnit issued to • „.. -•„4 ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 • •• 65 '5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 f7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. 28 29 30 31 me by the Supreme Court of the State Of Alaska, I'm permitted to appear at public meetings of this type under the supervision of Mr. Dickson with the permission of our client and that's what I would like to do this evening. As Mr, Dickson stated we represent.Lorraine Dayton. In examining whether or not this side yard variance should be issued, I think the first question we should determine is approximately what the encroachment is on the required 61 side yard. I'm not at all certain at this point what the general figures are we're *. discussing and would"like a clarification before L proceed. Are you talking about a 2' .side yard that's left now. Is that correct? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: That's what we asked for (can't decipher) so you know it was never specifically answered. MR. SHOAF: Right. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: You know, what the exact encroachment was. MR. .SHOAF.:: Well 15 it, is it, just in terms of rough figures is it two feet, ten feet, fifteen, twenty? MR. BAKER: I believe that it probably was, it was in the order of 2' at one point. MR. SHOAF.:: O.K. So, they in effect have gone over, or they're asking for you to to grant a variance for 59' of the required side yard. In evaluating whether or not that request should be granted, I'think it's important for us to bear in mind what side yards are designed to do. In this instance, in correla- ting the side yard to the size of the Project the number of units whi:ch the Kodiak Code does for multi-familyunits it seems'apparant that as a legislative decision someone has decided that a .side yard_uh that when a multi family unit is going in it is going to have impacts both in the visual nature of the neighborhood and on the types of uses made and ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 -4837 66 . , • • - ,--4;".•••t2'4' • •••. - •• • • • • ',MI. • • • ;IV • , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 26 •27 the amount of traffic, that sort of stuff. And it seems • that the side:yard has been put in at least for one reason-- to protect that visual environment of the 'neighborhood. Another reason typicallk.'sited for side yard requirements is "- to protect the privacy Of adjoining. neighbors. Lorraine isn't an adjoining neighbor but htere is one there.' And in I terms of that interest, undoubtedly, the invasion of privacy, . when you have a 2' side yard as opposed to a 61' side yard is substantially different and substantially greater. In addi-. tional consideration ih.terms o, the'purpoSe of side yard • , requirements is', —iS What Is provided for the tenants of the building? Again we have a situation where there maybe 55 units or 40 units when this project is finally occupied. In providing for side yards it seems that the Kodiak Code provides is attempting. to provide some sort of open-space around the entirety of the Project. Obviously that would benefit the residents of the Project and the neighbors alike. Certainly, you can see although there is an extensive side yard on the other side of the property, again in terms of total environ- ment for the tenants we feel that the side yard should be Protected on both sides. 1 would like to address myself more specifically to:the requirements of the Code apart from these general statements Again, as Mr. Dougherty (Is that correct , in pronunciation)? has stated, his reading of the Code, is that you can grant a variance to protect an intended use. From a legal point of view, we would object to that. And the obvious reason is, that variances from the general terms of the law are to be granted only warily when there are indeed' unique hardships involved. As we've seen, by virtue of the questioning to Mr. McCool, the hardships imposed by the slope, the toe of the slope specifically do not seem to be ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0, BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 that great and do not seem to be the type of hardship that cannot be overcome. If we were to permit an intended use, provide a means of changing the intent and purpose of. the .Kodiak .Code, then sooner or later the Code would be without reason. For.instance, anyone could come in and plan a home, a building or 'a business that would violate virtually all of the code requirements whether they be side yard or -otherwise and argue to you that as an intended use, their lot being not large enough to accommodate that use, they should be granted a variance. And we would disagree with that interpretation of whatAs,appropriate analysis for granting a side yard variance. We feel that you should focus primarily on what the physical hardships of the property are...O.K, Harry is that going again? Thank you. Given the approach I suggested in that we look at the unique physical hardships of the property in the area, it seems that if for the sake of discussion at this point we're looking at this commercial use, then we should wonder if other commercial uses are not feasible on the same property. Again, that'Swhy we, we're telling you and suggesting that the hardship indeed self created. In that one of an entire spectrum of.uses has been selected and if we are to believe the developers that (can't decipher) can only be fit on the lot as it is now. However we feel that.a.variance hOuld:beAranted only if the physical conditions of the property will permit any commercial 'use. Again we would like to stress on behalf of Lorraine Dayton that we feel that the side yard encroachment affects her property values by virtue of the general visual impact on her neighborhood. And I don't think that you would disagree that visual aesthetics is. one of the things that affects property values. My final Comment is to say that the Kodiak ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 .68 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 • 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 •••• *•:• 17\ Code and the-Comprehensive Plan seems to intend that commer- cial and residential structures blend together well to protect both, interests. And here we suggest -that with a 2' side yard: that does not occur. Thank you., CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any, Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: O.K. Uh, O.K. uh, you were you were stating that -this uh app.roximate 59' exception that the propertys-in, the pro- perty in question, one of the reason's for side yard require- ments is uh preserve the privacy of the uh people living An the adjoining property and you stated that there is,-.was an adjoining proRe,rtYOWO.r.::ATthOh you weren't representing them, do you know who that adjoining property owner is? MR. SH.OAF No. That's just based on on what I. saw this afternoon,.. and once earlieron a visit to Kodiak. . MR. PUGH: O.K. And uh then •the uh the next question, maybe for for an interpretation for me, you were stating that one of the reasons for tile Kodiak Comprehensive Plan and ZOntno Ordinances Was for the harmony of commercial and residential uses in districts. What do you consider the uh the uh proposed senior •citizens building? Is that a'residential use or is that a business use even though its on property zoned business? MR. SHOAF:' I'think it's not a question of what 1' consider it to... be but it would be a question of what the Code considers it to. ' be. Since the property is zoned business, I would argue that that's what it is. And I would also note that there are peculiar requirements for multi-family units in the terms of the side yard requirements in the Code and.it seems that the Code's agreeing that although this may in fact have people living in it and be in that sense a residence, in another sense because of the intensity of the use it should be consid- ered apart from the normal standards for a residence. Thank 2, '7175:47.5":7417117.57,77.q:',., - ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 • • 69? 30. 31 • .•472'• you. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in support of this variance request? MR. PUGH: Uh, Lou, Could I ask you a couple questions.. Maybe you could or.couldn't answer them. Uh,.do you happen to know who owns the lot next door?.. MR. (Can't decipher) MR. PUGH: O.K. Uh then part of the part of the testimony or part.• of the uh evidence presented by Mrs.. Dayton's attorneys uh is the the effect that the physical hardships on the lot weren't all that great. and that.-the building could have been brought down to a lower level Now, knowing that you have been an employee of Brechan Enterprises for some time and there was some comment-made that the area could have been "blasted". Do you have uh, maybe'maybe.you caa°t_answer this but, could you possibly.: speculate from the line of the rock and whatnot what possibly the effect of blasting in that area might have had on the adjoining property owners, had blasting had occurred in that area? MR. IANI: I don't think it would be speculation. I don't think the state would have let us touch that slope of the road and if you changed it,they would-have changed the slope of the road. That belongs to the state property, that d6esn't belong to us. So if you made the, in other words, if you made the hole deeper the slope undoubtedly had to go somewhere. IR,. PUGH: Then, then blasting could not have occurred on that site? MR. -Well, I I don't think so, I don't think the state would have 'allowed us.. Any other questions? MR. BAKER: Uh would the uh, that alludes back to my earlier • question, the toe of the slope as it extends onto the property ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 70 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 •14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • in question, uh is there an encroachment there, on your proper- ty? MR. IANI: You mean as far as on the state land? MR. BAKER: No, as far as the slope an your property. MR. IANI: I I, I can't really answer that completely Don, but I ' pretty sure that it.'s awful close to none. Because the state acquired, I'm familiar with that when they built Rezanof the State acquired all the property governing the Slope except in my particular area ,where I live personally and they had to build a retaining Wall.- And on all the rest of it, I'm sure they picked up,a11-,the propertas far as the slope is con- cerned. R. BAKER: ' In other words, it would appear based on your state- ment if I understand you correctly that the toe of the slope on Rezanof did not, in-fact, extend to your property? IANI: I, I'm very sure it didn't. BAKER: But they had made adequate provision for what they needed for slope there when they acquired the property? BAKER:‘ I imagine, I don't see why they wouldn't have Don. None none of that property was occupied when they did buy all of it. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. MR. JANI:. Thank you. (Pause) Excuse me, there's one thing I'd like to clarify. This 6 per cent that was mentioned about as far as profit is concerned. That 6 per cent is based on the factor of replacement cost against the amount of the loan. It's not the total amount of the money of the Project or the total amount of the money that we put in the Project. And:. you're talkina•right now the loan is 2.395 million and the replacement cost that HUD figures which is their one, the one they decided is at 2.664 million. So you're not talking about MR. MR. MR. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE • P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 71 1 2 3 4 5 6- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 the astronomical amount of money that the gentlemen mentioned earlier. I just wanted to clarify that point, Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this variance request? If not, then at this time well close the public hearing on the variance re- quest io permit continued construction and use of building which encroaches into required side yards. Any discussion or comments by the Commission members? If not, we'll go on to the next item. The request for a variance to permit the continued use and the construction of a building which . provides only Ra9415--,.Pff,-: eet parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance, Sunset Development. Mr. Milligan, do you have comments or a staff report you'd like to address at this time? MR. MILLIGAN: Not at this time., CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any coMmissioners comments or questions? 17 1 MR, PUGH: No. 18 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: If not then at this time well close the regular 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 meeting and open the public hearing on a request for a variance to permit the continued use and construction of a building which provides only 28 of the 55 off'street parking spaces re- quired by the Zoning Ordinance, Sunset.Development. Is there 2 ,anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of this variance request? THOSE IN:FAyOR OF,THE ABOVE REQUEST: MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes Mr. Chairman, my name is Bernard Dougherty, attorney for Sunset Development. The first I would like to point out is that the notice indicates 28 parking spaces. There are only 26 parking spaces currently provided for, which is in all the in- formation which. we provided to the Commission, not 28.. Uh, there is sufficient room on the property to provide the required 55 ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 72 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 parking spaces. This comes down to a very simple decis on for the Board to make of whether you want parking spaces or you want a park. - Uh, our testimony which ve.presented earlier from Mr. Murray; from Mr. Smoody indicate that the 26 parking spaces is more than adequate as the first 25 applicants have 5 automobiles. The location of the park—is to the east of the parking that's immediately adjacent to the building. The design has been submitted to you in that black package. And • the design has been prepared by Mr. McCool.: It provides a park and also an area where gardening plots are available for the occupants of the building. .Tbe'only other thing I'd like to. add to that is that, in addition to the evidence we have pre- sented, courts have recognized our testimony to be valid as to 14 the. likelihood that elderly persons will have a far lower inci- 15 dence of automobiles than the g:eneral public. Are there any 16 questions that I can answer? 17 MR. PUGH: I have. 18 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Pugh? 19 MR. PUGH: Several. O.K. I 20 be uh either offices set 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30' 31 assume in this up, facilities Senior Citizens Group or will there not building there will set up for the uh be? MR. DOUGHERTY Yes, In addition to the living units. there is • Community ROOM on the first floor of the building. M.R. PUGH: O.K. O.K. now, realizing and uh I consider the fact that you have a valid point, that senior citizens living in the, building per se may not be driving automobiles, I am wondering if the, if anybody has considered the possibility that the' senior'citizens living in .the building might not have visitors in the way of friends or family who might be driving cars. I'm wondering if the fact that the uh Senior Citizens Group itself might not generate a certain amount of traffic possibly ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 CS,i' ' • * % • ' . . . . . .., - ■ .....,V ■ ,,,,,,,, • {1.44,4", a . • ., . .., ..„....c,*„.14 ,,•.,k,,9 1;4...9: . -:e..7.#...g.i.,;-...:•,?...:*,i..-.e.:4•-7,4.*...?..,,:,:...:4.1...,.....,..!;-„,,,,x,....4,,„,...a.,„,..c.,,,..,.,.........,, • ;:f.,....;.,,,,„... , . __.... .,...., ,,, . • : ..... , ..- , . ,-..: . ,.... • ...• • ...., ,...•,..!,.-., . - A • 4,..7.e.k• . . 73-, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 three, four cars, I don't now what. But for the noon lunch- eons. And I'm also wondering, due to the fact that we have mentioned that uh handicapped people uh are eligible to live in this building and also the fact that if the building itself does not you know, generate enough occupancy by senior citi- zens, liandicapped people and/or mentally retarded people that then uh the rest of the uh citizenry of Kodiak would then be 8 . eligible to move into uh any leftover apartments, that those 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 people per-se might not generate automobiles? MR. DOUGHERTY: Mr. Murray has addressed this point as to the • noon luncheons_ That most of that transportation iS in groups. Of course it,would generate probably 5 or 6 additional auto.: . mobiles. I think if if we have an incidence of 5 over 25: and even say. 15. over 55 that stillleaves 11 additional spaces; MR. PUGH: Well, I was wondering if maybe uh, I'm not arguing with uh shall we say, the number of parking spaces that are set up right now for.the tenants in the building or the proposed ten- ants in the building.' I'm just wondering if there is anywhere, in yoursite plan or whatnot where shall we say parking spaces to the tune of maybe 4 to 10 might not be provided for visitor to the camplex? 22 MR. DOUGHERTY: Not in'addition tathe 26 that are presently de 23 signed. 24 MR. PUGH: .Thank you. 25 MR. PEREZ: What kind of staff uh would we anticipate in this . 26 building? 27 MR..DOUGHERTY: I can not answer that, .1 think well have to defer 28 Mr. Iani to that. 29. MR, RERE/: You show your garden uh, your park area over there the 30 31. yau.show.a parking area in between that and the building. Uh, are you proposing a walk or someway across there so, a secure • • • • ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 74 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 walk for the elderly. I I see no evidence of any walk across there. MR. DOUGHERTY; To my knowledge there is no separate walk across there. • -MR, PEREZ; The elderly will just be (can't decipher) along that asphalt over the garden spot then? MR. I think they, if I.may without being fecicious, . they might even have a larger incidence of that if we pave the entire thing, MR, PEREZ: Ya. This is just a thought, you know„ CHAIRMAN BUSCH: 'Mr.;.;84llf5 MR. BALL: -I don't know if you could answer the question or not but if in the future, you the Project owners, found that-you' did not have adequate parking, would they do you think they Would consider providing more parking if it was needed? Uhl 16 I don't believe I mean I don't knowWho you would address the 17 question to, I imagine Mr. Tani. 18 MR. DOUGHERTY: I don't know believe that that questioned has been 19 addressed but certainly if he can shed some light on it I 20 would be glad for him to: 21 MR. BALL: If it was found that it was, needed in the future. I 22 23 24 25 26 27 MR. 28 29 .MR. 30 MR. 31 mean in other words, if we: find that 26 is adequate, fine. But we find 26 is not adequate two years from now would they be willing to provide four or five more out of the park area or some other area that is already designated for the Project itself? PUGH.: I don't know that this is fair to ask you or whether. I should uh,.. BALL: As I said it was for you or for Iahi or for .. PUGH: Or whether I should ask this of the architect but if let's say an additional 10 or 15 parking spaces were added ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 30 31 to the parking lot, uh do you know how much of the proposed uh park would shall we say be eaten up by the increased park.. MR. DOUGHERTY: Perhaps Mr. -McCool might be answer, be able to answer that and Mr. Perez's question with regard to a walkway. better than I, if that's feasible. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other questions? Sure, we will take Mr. McCool. MR. McCOOL: The question regarding parking spaces, additional. Well 9' by 20' plus of•course the driveway associated with it could be done much the same fashion as as you see the parking lot s'tarttng tothe dast of.the.building there. That could be continued. Each parking spot would take approximate- ly 9' by 20' plus the drive. You could almost scale it there, depending on a number of additional spaces. MR. PUGH: Well, do you feel it would be uh shall we say detri- mental if let's say uh the space taking up by the park let's say, half of that space were taken up by more parking and uh, I mean, would would .the park or proposed recreation area there uh be usable if it were only half the size that it's • now planned for or would it be too small to, to get anything . done? MR. McCOOL: This area, I believe presently is about 160' of the proposed park area. So that it (can't decipher) speculation, but certainly half of that would work. Uh, obviously it costs less to pave the lot than to do a park so I'm sure that the developers be happy to put the whole thing in paving. if that's what it really amounts to but half of it would still make a reasonable park. After that, 1 think you're getting to such a small parcial it's it's not really too usable. MR. BALL: That's why, that's why I asked the question, if they'd be willing to uh turn into parking at some future date if they ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 907-486.4837 76 ; - • 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 the number of.. .1 , • • ; found that it was necessary. I thinkif you need this, park now, you're better off. R. McCOOL: I think maybe one thing that could could. be considere put the tenant gardens immediately adjacent to the parking arqa as now'proposed, and that wouldn't inVolve.:any expensive . tree planting and and in that way you could expand it. Maybe that's a solution. to the, to the dilemna. MR. BAKER: Uh, your calculations indicate though that it is . feasible to provide the required 55 spaces if that ever became necessary. R. McCOOL: 'Yes.f-you.,.wanted:Ado all the way out, certainly. .Ya, there's a 160' remaining there. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wishing .:. to speak in support of this variance request? MR. MURRAY: *I would just like to answer Mr. Bakers question as 17 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Please state your name. 18 MR MURRAY: Dennis.Murray. Uh, you asked the q.uestion, how many, 19 how many personnel there would be, this would this would 20 necessitate? 21 MR. BAKER:. Uh staff. 22 IMR. MURRAY: I think it would generate about four cars. You're 23 looking at the manager who would have a car and there's just, 24 that's one person who's a a full-time manager and maintenance. 25 And uh our operation would generate uh at the most three cars 26 at the present time. I I feel that the parking is adequate ' 27 at this time. You know, there's a lot of unknowns. Uhm, all 28 we can really gauge by is is is what was stated earlier that, 29 that of 25 applicants to date, uh, five had cars. I would not 30 suspect that we're looking at more than ten cars, assuming 31 55 you know, units uh rented uh to the senior citizens and ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907.486-4837 " • 77 1 2 3 4' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30' 31 handicapped. So that, that would leave 16 spaces and assuming 4 to 6 for staffing, still gives you 10 spaces uh of you know, available parking for visitors and other people. . As far •as the amount of trafficand the amount of vehicles that our operation generates, at any one time I would think we would have uh in addition to staff cars, uh probably six to eight automobiles. YOU know, uh for something. It could overflow that you know. on a special occasion when you would have a large,number of people but uh that would be a a rare occasion. MR. BAKER: Uh Dennis, are you familiar with the proposed traffic circulation in_thera?--. 1.shouldy"have asked the earlier witness but uh Someone pulling up to the front of the building there uh, how would they.... An example;:telephone installer comes up to the building to work. What would the traffic pattern be that he exited that area. How does he maneuver in there? Does he go through the, to the back parking lot area and circl or... MR. MURRAY: No, I think he can, I think there's adequate space for him to circle., .Right in front of the building there is . a a circle type set up. • Ism't.that right, correct, Mr. McCool So he could: come up and do a turn about right, in front of the building. MR. BAKER: In other words, there's adequate space uh something in the order of 40', then in that area. Is that correct? MR.—MURRAY: Ya. I I think as as an organization we mould, we would counsel that, that I think it be desirable to to have a park. It certainly would be both on that side and. as you can • see by the, by the plans that there's, there's space on the other side for, in fact, it already has concrete down:for a patio on the other side of the 'building too But uh, uh garde plots are a desirable thing and have been successful in some ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 - 78 30. 31 areas for people to get out and uh, and make something. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in support of this yariance request? Mr, Pugh? MR. PUGH: Mr. McCool, could I ask you another question, if I may?. And this is uh getting back to uh thequestion that Mr. Perez asked a little earlier and it's something that I hadn't consid- ered and I am 4 little concerned about it now, And uh, being ashow this complex has been designed for the elderly and the handicapped, I'm kind of wondering 1.111 you know, what provisions • have been :made Shall we say .in_the, in the paved parking lot area to.you know delineate or protect people shall we say in wheelchairs or people on crutches Or people who uh just due to age and- arthritis don't move very fast from shall we say having a safe path- from their, their •ehicle into the building you • know without, uh possibly running the risk of getting hit by a car. I. mean, is there anytying:in the HUD regulations that re-. quire this in a Project like this or is it,. MR. McCOOL: The the door that's right here (can't decipher) park- ing lot goes, goes directly into the, to the building and the elevator. Also the front; the front door right here goes directly into on the lower floor. And the idea being that there's a there's a eight car parking spot hereland.thereks' • a fourteen car parking.spot here and then there's a passenger unload with a pretty big potential. It's equivalent of five car parking units in its radius. So that it presents two possibilities to unload. Now, the.HUD regulations basically have preference to this passenger unload zone. And, there's going to be two ways into the building.. MR. PUGH: Well, well just I guess from the viewpoint of safety an whatnot, I can envision:and that you know, during the winter ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 79 30 31 a� • j the roads. in Kodiak become extremely icy and uh unfortunately it's one of the facts.of life that the older we get the slower our reaction times become and I can possibly envision someone in a wheelchair or something.uh getting out of you know his car, and wheeling himself across the parking lot to get to a door and having another car come in and due to reaction times, rain, ice and ever.yth.i.ng else, have someone not be able.to avoid hittin.g this person and you know I was. just... MR. McCOOL: Right. Pm sure they'd assign parking places and obviously you wouldn't assign one of the tenant handicaps.. They would have command of ;thos.e,, those, in fact a canopy comes over that, about two of those parking places. MR. PUGH: Ya, but I think.this is what Mr. Perez's concern was. MR.•Mc000L: Sure. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. MR.. BAKER: Uh, this is a, rather 4 minor point. Is there a dumpster arrangement at the. site? MR. McCOOL: There is an enclosed trash. room just adjacent to this pick up point. It's a ventilated, enclosed, fire - sprinker trash room inside.. MR., BAKER: Where,.where did it appear on the, in the building itself? MR. McCOOL: It is inside the building, yes, It appears right here on your floor plan. It's labeled trash on that. •So the elderly'•s do not have to go outside to take care of this function. MR. BAKER: I I. was curious about circulation pattern in there for something like a a dumpster. MR. McCOOL: Right. No, it's completely enclosed. There's quite a large room, in the order of 15' square to handle that. KR. BAKER: Well, again concerned about removal. How does it,... ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 -4837 80 `.• 1 2 4 5 6 7 - 8 9 10 11 12 MR. McCOOL: Right. It's right adjacent. to the drive. It's on your hand out on your floor plan. See the double doors at that.. CHAIRMAN. BUSCH: Oh, where the arrow is. MR. ERWIN: The garbage truck backs right into this. room? MR. McCOOL: It backs right •adjacent to it, yes. It's, did you notice (tape was turned over at this point, lostapproximately 5 seconds). And when the trash collection.is picked up it goes- out through a pair of double doors right out to the driveway. MR. BAKER: Oh, Pm obviously hung up on this point of traffic circulation her I just wondered how this truck would 13 manuever in this area. Uh, first of all there's, there's 14 enough of a hill coming up uh Erskine to that the site that 15 16 17 18 19 20 -21 22 uh, it could present a problem with the truck getting-in. - there if it's icy and that's paved. And then how .does the truck manipulate and what iasthep1an in circulation for that truck in there. R. McCOOL: Well, all the truck has to do is present itself at about 12' - 15' from the building at this point and he can roll the.dumpster out and hook onto it-or he,:can.use the *manualmmethod,. whichever. Either way would 'work. 23 MR. BAKER: O.K. 24 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other questions for Mr. McCool at this time? 25 Thank you. 26 I MR. 'McCOOL: Thank you.. 27 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in 28 29 30. 31 support of this variance request? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in opposition to this variance request? THOSE OPPOSED TO THE ABOVE REQUEST: MR. SHOAF: Again, my name is Rob Schoff. I'm working for ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 81 • • 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11' 12 13 14 15 1,6 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30* 31 • George Dickson, representing Lorraine Dayton. Our opposition is is simply asking you to look and'examine carefully what's reasonable parking provision for this project. .In. the uh . letter requesting -this action by yourselves,it was pointed out that a survey in 1974 had found that 38% of the elderly citizens of. Kodiak owned' cars. 'And as pointed out by by Lorraine Dayton and George Dickson in their letter to you, that 'that meant that even if only one half of the people, one half of the unit of 55 were occupied by couples. That Would:mean 30 parking spaces will be required. Admittedly, we've heard testimony toilight:th4144,e 'O-f,r't'he first twenty-five appli.- cants, only, five of:the first twenty-five applicants have had cars. But, it's important to bear in mind that 1.) We don't know if all of those applicants are eligible or will be accepted. 2.):Ne don't know that they'll live there for all time. So the consideration, the appropriate consideration we feel, is that you protect not only today's interest but tomorrow's. And in looking at that, it does seem that at soMe point 26, 32 or however many spaces you may decide would be appropriate at this time, we feel that the full complement of 55 spaces as required by the ordinance would be appropriat . But again if you decide that a lesser number would be adequate, we would urge you to consider in making that deci- sion how you can protect this Commission or the Borough's power in the future to require additional parking. As illus- trated by the current dispute over the 1974 height limitation for the property which I'll not address (can't decipher). Whenever a body' such as this agrees or decides that in the future something might be appropriate. It's best at that point to be very careful in protecting your ability to to enforce that agreement. For instance, here if you reach some ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 • 4,..1,t.,,,q;;;, • +1` 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 5: 1. sort of agreement'that you'll permit less than 55 parking spaces with the understanding that more would be added if need- ed youshould write or enter into some kind of agreement that bind not only this owner but subsequent owners. In terms of why is Lorraine Dayton addressing you on this topic at all again,.there's always a. potential problem once the parking becomes overcrowded that people will attempt to park along 'Erskine and along Rezanof Drive. Again, there's a potential problem of traffic safety. . As you know, neither of those streets are really prepared or laid out for pedestrian traffic. So I think the-haz-ardjobViOV5 And that's all I have to say unless there are questions. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Ball? MR. BALL: What did you uh, or where did the 38% of the elderly having cars uh figure come from? MR. SCHOBB: Well, we got that figure from the letter or the . petition from uh Cole, Hartijg, Norman, Rhodes & Mahoney to you requesting—the parking variance. In that letterit stated that a 1974 survey found that 38% of the elderly in Kodiak .owned cars. And again when when you have a figure like that .it it means of.all.the people and not just households. At least that's the way I read it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in opposition to this variance request? If not,at this time we'll close the public meeting and reopen the regular meeting. And discussion, questions, comments by the Commission members? • Mr. Pugh? . MR. PUGH: Well uh two things. First of all is that uh I'd like to Suggest that we postpone any action on any of these matters until tomorrow evening, give us a chance to think about Mr. Pugh.moved that tomorrow.at.NOON, the.Commission hold an ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mg% executive session with the borough attorney, and members of the staff, to answer any questions that we might have RE: to point of law, RE: any decisions that we might make in this case.. Seconded by Mr. Baker. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any discussion? Let me backtrack just one second, we we still have a summary and uh closing comments by both • sides which I neglected to uh call upon s� would you like to ' hear them first or shall we go on with the motion? MR. BALL: Mr. Chair, don't we have a motion on the floor though? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: We do have one on the floor. MR. PEREZ: Unless.he wants:,toWittdraw it and we can. MR. BALL: He could withdraw it, couldn't he and then.. CHAIRMAN • BUSCH:. With the O.K. of the second, MR. PUGH: I'll withdraw it. MR. BAKER: You do withdraw it? 16 MR. PUGH: Ya. 17 MR. BAKER: Second withdraw. 18 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: We mentioned this afternoon that we'd give each 19 20 21 • • .22 23 24 25 side opportunity to give a closing statement or summary. and Sunset Development will have the first ten minutes and Mrs. Dayton's representative the next fifteen minutes and then -. five-minute rebuttal time for-the Sunset %Development Corpora- tion. So, Sunset will have the first ten minutes-. SUMMARY: MR. DOUGHERTY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that I will need the first ten minutes but 1 would like to save five minutes for a rebuttal. The, I would like to.call the • Commission's attention to a number of the documents which we have submitted, which number 10. In particular, the letter which is signed by Mr. Iani dated July 28, 1976. The letter • of Mr: Barnett which is dated August 13, 1976. In which he 26 27 28 . 29 30 31 • -.:.^:.-0.0.».••••.•,,k^z...t,4•.-.,F., *41" ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 7•0'74,$,;46cr,..e.,:;:::::',‘1,7c5„Q:defff:UF"/X1 • 84 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 • 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3U 31 states and this is a quote "The proposed project is in full compliance.with all applicable zoning requirements and restric- tions." That is not any kind of a shaded statement. It's. about as clear statement as could be made that a member of the public can rely on One further letter in particular, is a letter dated September 2, 1977 from Mr. Milligan which also states that the actionto vacate easements cOnStitutes.the last approval from the Borough-necessary preparatory to con- struction: Now, when members of the public deal with a body_: of your type or the Borough Assembly, they, they are not technical experts in this area. Uh, Mr. Iani and Mr. Brechan came very openly to the Borough Staff after the Borough Assembly had approved both'rezoning ordinances and said "We do not know what we need further, what-do we need?" The Plan- ning Staff then drafted, they didn't help them to draft, but • they.drafted the letter which requested which what were mislabeled exceptions whichftwe all know should have been label- ed variances. But not only did they mislabel it, they also failed to present the other variances which were required. Now, in addition to that action of the Borough on which Mr. Iani and Mr. Brechan relied in good faith as I think any one of us may have relied in the same situation,' this drawing, this schematic drawing which you have before you and which we exam-_ ined tonight was presented at the same time. . It shows every single measurement which could possibly be considered. The the property, the property borders, the setback, the height, the number of units, the square footage of the Project. And in addition, the construction drawings which are on the table in front of Mr. Milligan were reviewed numerous times by the Planning Staff. I have to go back to the statement of Mrs. Dayton's council that these difficulties were self created. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I just do not see how that position can be maintained. I do not see what further burden a member of the public could be put through to meet zoning requirements. We believe that even though': these issues we feel, were, .or should have been properly addressed in 1976 that we still continued to meet the burden necessary to grant variances which you might feel have not been properly granted. Shortly I'd like to, or quickly I.'d like to go, make a couple comments on Mrs. Dayton's letter dated October 11 of this year which is in your package df. - materials. Uh, briefly she relates a section 17.21.010 - 11 which she states requires an office use or business use in a 12 building of this type. Now, this is in our opinian, an 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ifr incorrect interpretation and the.Borough has also received an opinion to this effect from other legal counsel, Mr. Mark Copeland, to the effect that this interpretation is incorrect. The issue of notice is one which has been (can't decipher) about .a lot. And I think that everyone who has appeared here has not been able to say that they have not .had actual notice of this hearing. Uh, and I think if they have had actual notice, that no one has been prejudice by any other failures to mail notice if people are within 300'. Relying on Borough representations, of letters, three different letters in particu lar and repeated meetings with. the Borough Staff, Mr. Iani and Brechan (Sunset Development Company) have incurred gigantic financial liabilities and for the Borough .to reneg on previous approvals., I think would be an act that would not be accept- able. The possibility of ripping off two stories of this building is-an impossibility both from a standpoint of cost —to rip that construction off and the economic feasibility with the lesser units. We've had multiple testimony that the Project could not go with less than 55 units. One further ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907•486-4837 86 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 27 28 29. 30 31 clarification on an issue that just came up as to traffic flow and parking on uh Rezanof and Erskine Avenue north of the building: There is no access from-Rezanof Drive to the :. Project, either by road or by foot. There was probably a pro- posal for .a walkway from Rezanof to the building but this uh • is not going to be in the Project so I don't think that there. has to be any fear of traffic congestion on Rezanof. Its a physical impossibility. I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for a rebuttal. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Dickson? MR. DICKSON: A bt,tWri,g, 4;ektsthich according to the plans, upon which building permit was erroneously issued. If it was not erroneously issued, there would have been no request for the variances which you've considered. tonight. The result of this, this erroneous issue of the building permit and the re- fusel of the Borough to recind it after notice by Mrs. Dayton that it'was violating- various aspects of the Borough , Code, the result of this has allowed the height ofthe'build- ing.to rise more than one story above.Rezanof Drive with the.accompanying valuation of property values to those long standing homes in that area above Rezanof Drive. Now it was certainly a recognition of this height problem that prompted Mr. Tani in a previous hearing to state that he would not build more than one story above Rezanof. In view of this certainly astonished to hear Mr. McCool testify that he'inten- tionally designed the building to rise above Rezanof Drive - because, and I believe this is a direct quotation, "there was no chance otherwise to obtain a view without raising the building above 'Rezanof". In other words, they raised the building above Rezanof to obtain a view from the building without regard to the views that they were destroying in the , • ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 87 , • • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 •17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31 above Rezanof, and you can find that in.the record. After buildings constructed, and I know from experience 'cause I've handled cases like this before, there's a natural great reluc- tance on the part of Commissions and assemblies, sometimes even judges to order. such building permits revoked and require the building to be modified to meet the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. But we must consider that Mr. Tani and Sunset Dev- elopment was presumed to know the law, an excuse that you didn't know the law, that he was naive iri this matter despite the fact that Sunset Development is an experienced development Company, I think,is somewbat:.wea.:kened by the fact that before he ever began to build, before he began to build, HUD was aware of what was happening and presumably informed him of certain zoning factors which were not resolved prior to building. And, that he had in his employ an experienced architect, we have to presume he certainly knew or should have' known or been aware of the zoning limitations upon which he was dealing. Now Sunset Development should- have to modify the building. because it's, if they're not granted the variances then they have recourse to those who advise them. Including, presumably the Kodiak Borough. I know that you recognize that because that's one of the things that you want to talk to Mr. Garnett in executive session before the hearing. I'm going to speak to that in a minute. But if Sunset should not have to modify this building, if you should ,allow these variances simply because you think there's a great hardship in having to modify the building or because you think that the Kodiak Borough is going to be sued, then my clients are going to suf- fer. And they'll suffer because the law was not enforced. We ask you to consider these 'variance requests as if the building had not yet been. constructed. That's the only fair ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 88 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • way to-do it. We ask you to further consider the variances with- . out regard to any pending or possible suits against the Borough.-. You're not here to protect the Borough. You're not here to pro- tect them from possible litigation. You're here .to fairly ad- ministera zoning ordinance. And we trust that you'll perform that function which •ou've endedicated yourself. And you'll not be prejudice in your judgement by extremist factors. MR. DOUGHERTY.: Mr. Chairman, my rebuttal will be short. First of all, I think if you look at the record, if it is transcribed that Mr. Dickson has severely misquoted Mr. McCool as to the testimony that he said_he—clay,e. -Afid i wish that you would look at that carefully. Also, with regard to the 1974 ordinance and. the restriction not to build more than one story above Rezanof, I think that that is very easily explained from theProject that was contemplated at that time which was subsequently abandoned and also I think if you would request an opinion from the Borough attorney on that matter uh'I think that issue would beclarified to, in the favor of Sunset Development. The testi- mony of the gentlemen who lives at 321 Erskine uh who's name I did not catch, I would like to comment on briefly. I have a very difficult time understanding how he can state that the valuation, ,of his property is affected from when he bought it. Because he bought it in February of this year when the fifth story of that 24 building..was already framed. In other words, he clearly knew. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 that that building was as high as it was going to be when he bought the property. I fail to see how that can effect his val ue. The one condition or criterion from the section of 17.66.090 of the Code, I would like to emphasize an interpretation of, and that is that it is not only physical circumstances of the lot that you can look at but you can also look at conditions applica- ble to the property or its intended use. Now, I think We have ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 • r•io, 'al .1., ••• • • 89 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 2.4 25 26 27 28 29 31 established its intended use and why 55 units is necessary to . everyone's satisfaction but I just want to bring that to your attention. The zoning laws of a community are meant to protect • and to provide general welfare and to protect the overall development of the community. Zoning laws are not meant to enforce one persons view. Our feeling is that Mrs. Dayton is using the zoning laws to satisfy her own position. Now, we have.done exhaustive legal research on this question and • - 'again'wed request that you ask your council for the same type _opinion, that there is no Tight in the United States to an. easement fur.view. Mrs. Dayton.has no recourse against anyone for her view being taken from her if that has been done. Uh, we are trying to resolve this issue as quickly as possible and that's why we have come here today. Now, this issue as you all know has been in the courts and will -continue to be. There is one very easy way that this thing could have been settled by the courts.a long time ago, and that is, if when the suit was filed Mrs. Dayton would have posted a bond the court could have gone right then to decide whether they should issue an injunction against further building of this building. This relief was not requested by Mrs. Dayton. And I urge you to consider carefully what an additional delay in this Project • would'mean and to resolve these issues as soon as you, after you have considered all the issues, feel that you can. I 'thank you all very much for your patience tonight, it'srbeen a very—tong evening. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: O.K. Mr. Chairman, aoain, and only in light of the fact that tomorrow I feel that the Commission is going to have to meet with its, with the Borough attorney—to discuss legal matters possibly with implications pertaining to law suits tha ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 90 '31 the Borough is currently a defendant in and I would request that at noon tomorrow we hold an executive-session. Motion was seconded by Mr. Baker and approved unanimously.by the commission members. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: We will then tomorrow noon reconvene this meeting after adjournment this evening and once that meeting. has re- convened, we will recess into executive session. So at this time we.will recess this meeting until tomorrow noon and tomorrow's noon meeting will further be recessed until tomorrow evening at which time we will continue on with our agenda and take any other.,_. a -c tiro :n,, -c.o,n.c,er,ni.ng_,.Sunset Development and also. consider the other .. requests for subdivision and any other new,,. business. The location of tomorrow's meeting will'be, where.. Mr. Milligan? MR. MILLIGAN: Uh, Mr. Chairman we're attempting to uh make arrange -, ments for the high school library which is the location for the 'City Council meetings, uh I`'m sorry where the School Board meetings are held and the radio station does-have. remote. capability and uh recording capability. Now, there's a parall -1 meeting that will be going on in this room tomorrow night put. on by the, being conducted by the Federal Aviation,Administra -. tion... And tomorrow nights Planning Commission meeting will, probably not be broadcasted. I don't know which meeting the radio station will carry but whichever one they do carry, the other will be recorded for rebroadcast at a later time. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Tomorrow's nights meeting will be then in the school library and tomorrow noon we will reconvene in`this location here. MR. MILLIGAN: Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge it will be in the school library, we will have a definite location and will report to you at noon tomorrow when you reconvene this ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907- 486 -4837 91 1 2 3 4 this... CHAIRMAN BUSCH: 0.kay, but tomorrows meeting will be reconvened a noon in this location. AR. DOUGHERTY: Mr. Chair, may I ask a question please?. 5 FHAIRMAN. BUSCH: Yes. 6 kR. DOUGHERTY: Will there be any further testimony taken on the 7111 Sunset issue tomorrow night,: or will it just b.e an 8 • of the.Commission's decision? 9 10 11 12 announcement CHAIRMAN BUSCH: The only...unless we have questions, there will not I • I . 13 MR. 14 15 CHA 16 17 18 -19 20 21 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30' 31 be public hearing or testimony„no. The only thing that will be given will be in response to .questions that the Commission may have. DOUGHERTY: It will be necessary for everyone to be available for those questions, then? RMAN BUSCH: Someone'representing uh each side I would think should be here in case we do have.some questions. This meet- ing is then recessed until tomorrow. (Meeting adjourned). * ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 "70486 - -4837 • • 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21, • 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31 IN THE SUPERIOD COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT KODIAK -7-o0o--7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SESSION A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S: COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dan Busch, Chairman — M orrBaker- Mr. Gene Erwin . Mr. Tony Perez Mr. John Pugh Mr, Ron Ball ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Bryce Gordon Mr. Stu Denslow Mr. Harry Milligan Mr. Richard Garnett;I I - .." The EXecutive meeting .of thePlanning and Zoning.Commis- sion was held in the Borough. Assembly Chambers, noon, October 19, 1978. Chairman Busch called the meeting to order. Mr. - Milligan, P & Z secretary took the roll call, and established that, there was a quorum. (Phil Anderson was excused). ' The Commission then went into executive session, during which time no electronic recording was made. The following i5 the ver- batim translation of the this meeting prior to and following the actual discussions between the Commission and the Borough attorney and staff present, which was taken by electronic recording, as follows: ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 • 486 - 4837 93 .,„ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -10 11 12 13 14 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '26 27 28 29 30• 31 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: At this time we will reconvene the meeting October-I8th Of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. MR. MILLIGAN:. Took roll tall and established that there was a quorum. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: With the motion that closed last evenings meeting, directed us to hold an executive session this noon, concerning possible legal litigation with Sunset Development and the Borough, and at'this time then we will recess this meeting and go-into executive session concerning uh Sunset Development's requests. * * * EXECUTIVE SESSION *'*.* HAIRMAN BUSCH: At: this time we will reconvene the regular meet- ing, and.during the executive session the legal issues were discussed with our borough attorney. Do any of the Commission members have any comments, in general,'anything that they'd like to say at this time? (pause) If not, then this meeting is recessed until 7:30 this evening in the High School Library. * * *'* * * * * * ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 94 171, 18 19 20 21 22 23 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT KODIAK --- o0o - -- The following is 'a continuation of the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of October .18, 1978, which was reconvened at 7:45. P.M., October 19, 1978, and held in the High School Library, located on Rezanoff Drive, Kodiak. An electr.onic recording was made of the meeting, and at a later time was heard over KMXT,FM radio. . A- P- P- E- A- R- A- N- C -E -S: IN FAVOR OF: BERNARD DOUGHERTY, Attorney I'N OPPOSITION OF: ROBERT SHOAF, Law Clerk HOWARD LANGEVELD, Resident COMMISSION MEMBERS'PRESENT.: Mr. Dan Busch, Chairman Mr. Don Baker Mr. Gene Erwin Mr. Tony Perez Mr. John Pugh P4r. Ron Ball "ALSO.'PRESENT: Harry.Milligan, Secretary 24. Chairman Busch called the meeting to order and asked that 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 roll call be taken. Harry Milligan, P & Z secretary took the roll call, and established that there was a quorum. (Mr. Phil Anderson was excused). The meeting then went as follows: ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907- 486 -4837 95 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30* 31 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIRMAN DAN BUSCH: Last evening's meeting was devoted to public hearing concering Sunset Development's request for a number of variances and also rezoning, and uh we did take in the public hearings, and had limited amount of discussion con- cerning this the requests by the Commission at that time. And to- night, first of all, we will take under consideration any action concerning these requests. But first of all, could we have a staff report on the analysis that the Plannin.g Department did find concerning these requests for variances? STAFF REPORT BY MR. HARRY MILLIGAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in response to your request uh, of last evening, staff attempted to spend uh a good portion of today reviewing the records from the 1976 hearing, and to develop findings in support of the requests that were presented, and an analysis uh based upon that '76 action and the further continued testimony for clarification and preservation of record heard last evening. And this is a rather lengthy memorandum, Mr. Chairman. Copies have been pro- vided to uh Mrs. Dayton's representative and representative of the Sunset Development Company. And if you like Mr. Chairman, I can either paraphrase, or I can read the report in it's en- tirety. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Whatever you wish. MR. MILLIGAN: I think for the benefit of those that are here and not having a great number of copies, in response to your re- quest and during your regular meeting held on October 18, '78, Mr. Dickson, attorney-at-law, pointed out to the Commission that no investigation of the requested variances had been con- ducted as required by Section 17.66.120 of the Borough Code, with specific attention given to analysis of the variance re- quested from Section 17.21.040, Lot area, Section 17.18.040, ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 96 1 2 3 4 - 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 which is referenced in Section 17.21.050, establishing yard re- quirements in the business district, and Section 17..57.010, which establishes. the offstreet parking requirements for'resi- dential dwellings. The thrust of the request was to clarify any procedural or technical errors associated with previous approvals granted by a former Planning. -an,d Zoning Commission in August, 1976. In the absence of clearly defined findings sup -' por'tive of that 1976 decision, staff finds there are "certain. basic facts associated with this request which we feel have been, would have equally applied at that time. The site loca- tion and onsite "ammenitjr requirements for an elderly housing 'Project are definitely thos_e.-'which would or could be applied to a conventional apartment building. While many of the site cations selection criteria for multi- family dwellings are sim 15 lar, some site location requirements are more critical than •16 . others in selecting a site for an elderly housing development. 17 The subject location is ideally suited for it's intended use. 18 It's proximity to community services is excellent. It's proxi- 19 mity to medical, dental and related professional services is 20 difficult, if not impossible, to find at any other location in 21 the.Kodiak area. One of th.e requirements of the code is that 22 uh, in considering a variance, what is unique or particular 23 about the intended use or development of the property, and ex- 24 amining the lands, in and around the metropolitan area of 25 Kodiak, and associatedly close to desireable facilities; police 26 fire, ambulance, medical, shopping and other related and ne- 27 28 29 30 3.1 cessary services, this site uniquely lends .itself to all of the necessary requirements that you would particularly find asso- ciated and necessary for an elderly development as opposed to. a development for more conventional /residential occupants. Uh, people who can walk greater distances, people who have the ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486"- 4837 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ability to drive, get around, people who can somewhat more readily fend for themselves in case of emergency than can the elderly and the handicapped. The :handicapped are just that,„ they'are handicapped, and they are people who require assist::; ance in many instances to help themselves. They physically cannot help themselves. The fire :chief tells me that this par- ticular site is less than one minute, in response time, away from the central fire station, so that in ohe minute of receit of a request they can have equipment on site, and we feel that that's a critcaT need for this particular type of a of a fa- cility. CertaiAl„vjt,e0Ta,10,0:,:-:to have the fire department that close to any facility, but we feel that more so is it critical to this type of a facility. We,also find that uh, the proximity of medical and dental services to this particular use, and we find that historically the records -show that the elderly have a greater need for medical and dental services than does the average family or the average person. It's. not to say that there aren't exceptions, but the average, and there medi- cal clinic being able to provide all of those basic services fore, if you are within one block, walking distance, of a medi- to ambulatory type people. The site lends itself readily to ,,• emergency services. Emergency services can access the site from at least two locations. That was part of the criteria that the staff looked at in analysing a particular site, or an alternate site where this type of facility would desirably be able to be placed. To the specifics of the variances, Mr. Chairman, we found in response to the variance request from Section uh 17.21.040, Lot area requirements; Section 17.66.070 (B) sets out four (4) conditions that must be found to be met before a variance can be granted. In a staff review, we found that there were exceptional physical circumstances and condi- ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 , 98 r.tet...,•140 tit; ?." . .'"4": • 4 ' v 4.. No c.' • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 II 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 •-•' ;. tions applicable to the land, its intended development, which do not apply to other lands or developments in the business district. (Some of those poi.nts I just covered.) That is the topography of the site limits how it can be developed, it's location is within close walking distance to medical and dental' services, and convenient shopping for the elderly; the physical site of the proposed dwe ling units are similar to, the physi- cal site of the proposed dwelling units are similar than more conventional apartments; i.e. efficiency an.d one-room uses; verses two and three, and. I point that out Mr. Chairman, be- cause it'gets -0:the Uh, the density intensity from a typical two-three bedroom apartment is .going to generate more dwelling unit occupants than will a dwelling unit designed as an efficiency or a one-bedroom unit, so that your occupant load within the building in smaller units is going to be less than could be allowed in a more conventionally designed multi- fmily structure. The elderly housing requires quick response from community services, ambulance and fire, due to the nature of the elderly and their physical ability to react in case of emergency. We feel that this site meets the requirement for those considerations set forth in item 1, under consideration for variance. We agree that strict application of the regula- tions in this case would result in unnecessary hardship, in that it would require this unique, badly needed facility for the elderly to be relocated on some less convenient and far less desirable site for the occupants than is offered by the petitioned property. We feel that hardship which would be born by the elderly, is unnecessary and without justification. As to the third requirement for consideration under lot area, staff finds that granting this request will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vi- ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 99 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • cinity. While there may be some loss of view from adjacent properties, there is no provision for view preservation within the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances at this time, nor' were those provisions available in August of 1976, so there has been no change. And to the fourth required finding, Mr. Chair.- man, staff finds that granting this lot area variance request will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, nor will it result in 'a defacto rezoning of land result'- in 6 from any density increases, in that the business district allows our most intense residential density. -With. this a busi- . ness building there wldbe no limitation on lot coverage, and bulk or height r'atio's, could conceivably'allow five stories constructed, propertyline to property.line. The second vari,- ance that we were asked. to analyze was a request for a variance from requirements of Section 17.18.040, which sets forth the residential yard setback requirements. And in Section 17.21.05 of the business zone it-refers you to 17.18.040, when the use of the building is for •residential purRoses. And we find that a minimum that this request is •tantamount to a total abatement of a seventy-five foot (75') side yard. We found one, that the finding for the first condition as we previously stated in the lot area variance request, 'would-be the same in this instance... We find for second item, that the requirements for any use of land in the business zone resulting in a 75' minimum setback for open spaced purposes is excessive, particularly when the land is adjacent to the communities central business district,'., This setback serves no fire/life safety requirement or other requirements imposed. Staff finds that the shape of the site and the building location provide a much more useable and func- tional site utilization plan than that required by strict application of the regulations. That uh to expand on that, Mr. ”"•••,.4,••••••‘ •-••• , • ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 10(r;',: 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • Chairman, the with the limited site that's available and the particular design of that site, that by abating one side and shifting the building to one side of the property, you gain mor total useable space in one consolidated area than by dividing that and providing and seventy-five (75) strip down one side and a smaller, less homogenous area on the other, that we feel that you get •a more cohesive area in this case than you would by setting the building over seventy-five feet (75'). To the third item, Mr. Chairman, staff finds that granting this vari- ance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicirrity nor,will it be detrimental to pub- lic health, safety or welfare. We see no material damage re- sulting from this variance. The intended use is not one that be that could be construed to be noxious, injurious or hazard- ous. The exterior wall of the building in the area that is en- croaching into the side yard, has been designed to meet a two hour fire resistive rating, and it complies with the fire re- sistive construction requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and the business district has a high, has the, the business district has the highest requirement for fire resistive con- struction within this community, &: to the fourth finding, staff finds that granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. It will consolidate the open space on •the site, thus creating a more useful area for the building occupants. In a more conventional building, with children and younger people, they require more outdoor activity whereas the elderly do not have some of those same needs. And the third variance that you've asked us to analyze, Mr. Chair- man, was a request from the requirements from Section 17.57.010 offstreet parking requirements, which requires that a re- dential structure provide at least one offstreet parking space ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486. 4837 • , , ‘..±` -•„-• ••••irt • , , • • • 101 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • !I; 41' per dwelling unit. We found, 1) that the intended use of the building is to provide housing for the elderly. The elderly historically, do not own cars at the same ratio as do young people. In 1974, a survey of the Kodiak ar elderly indicated that only 38% owned a vehicle. While this site plan only in- dicates twenty-six (26) parking spaces, staff feels that 26 spaces may not be sufficient. 2) Staff finds that the re- quired fifty-five (55) parking spaces, when it can be proven a lesser number satisfies the need, could be interpreted as an unnecessary hardship. 3) We find no material hardship or dam- age to adjacent property will result from a granting of the variance to reduce the amount of parking required for this Pro- ject. Based on our review, we found that thirty-seven (37) parking spaces and one (1) loading birth, should accomodate and serve the needs of this project. And 4), we found that grant- ing this request would not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan when it Gan be proven that a particular min mum standard is not applicable in a specific •nstance. In summary, Mr. Chairman, while we find that original action of the Planning Commission may have been clouded through a request improperly couched, the record is abundantly clear as to the developers request and the Commission's action. .That is, the Commission intended to grant that which had been requested, in order to allow the Project to go forward as presented, for their review and approval in August of 1976. We feel the fore- going findings will serve to clarify the technical errors in that original record which fail to provide findings supportive of the action taken. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you Mr. Milligan. Any of the Commission members have any questions or comments to direct to Mr. Milli- gan at this time? (Long pause). Since the staff did not have 7 • ..7„.•-•••• • 1:- ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907.486-4837 • 102 ,.,„. • .„ . •fn T•1_7".$7., . • ;;I:47,,, • • - 0:X.41.„ AK •■• • . •,4. 7 4:•7..„•:..1•• pftigessee.4;0-,. 1 • ,. • • ,.•• • - • „,. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 a report last night, consequently the public hearing, the peopl speak at the public hearing now have an opportunity to respond to Mr.. Milligan's comments or his staff report. So at this time then, I will reopen the public hearing, and give the pub- lic an opportunity to respond to Mr. Milligan's staff report, and only to that re, only to his comments. So at this time the public hearing, or is open concerning the variance requests, all three (3) variance requests, concerning Sunset Developement If there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak concern-. ing these requests in response to Mr. Milligan's uh, staff re- port, please come forward at this time then, and make a presen- tation. MR. ROB SHOAF::: Dan, are we going to go just in favor of verses opposed, exactly the way that we did last evening?. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: I don't know if there is going to be, if you'd prefer, I guess we'd, let's go with Sunset Development's re- . quest first. MR. BERNARD*DOUGHERTY:- Mr. Chairman, we have no comments on Mr. Milligan's report.- CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. MAN & WOMAN's VOICES: Yes, I. think that the microphone is not picking up what's being said very good by the Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in favor, or for the Sunset Development Project in re- sponse to Mr. Milligan's report? (Short pause). Is there any- one in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this variance request in regard to Mr. MilligaOs staff report? Would you please come forward and speak into the mike? Pull up a chair. R. ROB SHOAF::; 0.k., thanks. First of all, uh, to begin with, I'm a little bit perturbed about the shortness of the time • ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 • KODIAK,. ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 4837 which we've been permitted to assess the staff report. (there was some problem with people hearing. Mr. Schoff was asked to speak right into the mike). MR. MILLIGAN: Mr. Chairman, we were advised that the accoustics in this room are intolerable, at best. If you want to hear, you're simply going to have to move up and fill up the front seats instead of sitting where you do in church. MR. ROB SCHOFF: To begin with, again, I would like to reiterate that that I am, as ,a representative of Lorraine Dayton, upset, uh by the shortness of time that we've been permitted to pre- pare on this staff .repoAt— J.eel,:that one of the purposes of the staff report is to permit a full hearing of views in a pub lic hearing, and obviously for an .evaluation of this type of a report, it requires more than ten (10) minutes of ... that's been given tonight. However, I will recede, and I ask that you bear with me, the times that I have to flip through the code or read back through the letter in order to try to respond direct- ly to it. ...that particular delay. To begin with, I think that it's important that we understand the history of this, and also understand what's involved in tongiht's request for vari- ance. Mr. Milligan's letter or staff memorandum indicates that these variances have been ... previous, and I'll strenuously disagree with that. To begin with, the letter in 1976 that was perportedly cleared with the borough Planning staff, requested only two things. Those were exceptions from heighth variance, or exceptions from height requirements and side yard require- ments. At no time in that letter, or in any of the discussions of the meetings pursuant to that letter, were the lot area or the parking requirements of the Kodiak Island Borough, mention- ed. I think that's important to bear in mind, because it means that tonight's request to you come to view, do not in any sense ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 104 • • . • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 • clarify in previous actions. We are acting on a new request. A little bit more on the'history of that, I think, is :important to consider It it seems apparent to me, and I would hope it's apparent to everyone, that in fact, no variance or lot area re,, quirements, or parking, have been granted, and it is our conten- tion that no variance for a side yard requirements have been granted. That of course, is a point that is debated between ourselves and Sunset Development. What this mean S is that, a' building has been erected that does not comply with the re- quirements of the code. We feel that the general principal, that because the building has been erected we cannot simply let that influence your decision tonight. The law in most juris- dictions that are considered the question, and the law of this jurisdiction of the Kodiak Island Borough is that a building permit, such as we have-here,:jssued eroneously does not bind the city to continue to let the building stand. I would like to refer you to the code itself, I think this was mentioned las night, and I would like to read this applicable provision of the code. It's Section 17.75.060. It begins with the caption 'Violationnot condoned by permit issuance or plan approval. The issuance or granting of a building permit or approval of plans or specifications under the authority of the building code shall not be deemed or construed to be a permit for or an approval of anyof violations Of any of the provisions of this title or any amendment thereto. No permit presuming to give • authority to' violate or 'cancel any of the-provi5ions of this' title shall be valid except insofar as the work or use which is authorized is lawful and permitted." Our contention is that the use, or that the construction, the violation of lot area requirements, the parking requirements, as we said, side yard requirements, is neither lawful nor permitted. Therefore, 71: -1•.: ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 4837 •. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the building permit is void, you are not bound by it. There are other provisions in the code that say the same thing (can't decipher.) ...simply that the building permit is null and void • The building is in violation of the provisions of the code., Well, that raises •the question now of what's going on? and who should be responsible for that? As you know there's a uh, an • old maxim in law, that ignorance of the law,is no excuse. I' think it's no where more applicable than here. In this type-of ' • situation the burden is on the person building,.attempting to use the land, to go out and be sure that he. is complied with the requirements of the law. In this case, the lot area re- 'quirements,.theia-rd—reqtlirements, and the parking re- quirements. So, representing Lorraine Dayton, her basic con- tention is ydu can't let someone build a building that adverse ly affects her properties and other properties.:near by, and then simply because the presence of that building, .grant vari- ances from the ... of the code. With that in mind, I would like to address the, points raised in the letter, or the staff memorandum. (Excuse me). The first, on page two, Mr. Milligan addresses the issue of lot area requirement.: His first, (exous • me), his first statement la) reads "The ... of the site limits ... of the developer." I think you'll agree that-that!,s.:true of any .,...- You May have slope conditions,-you may have (can'..t'::: decipher), you may have a street running through it, it may be a narrow lot, it may be (can't decipher) lot. It's just that • — ,..... in any'lot that's going to be true. (can't decipher). it's 27 going to be more than that. The purpose of the requirements in 28 the code is to develop rational systems of land use that will - 29 guide each person when they use their property, so that each 30 person abides by the same rules; that it protects not only the 31 developer but the surrounding properties. Lorraine Dayton ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 106 1 2 , 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 pointed out to you last night that she is (can't decipher), and she expects that ... do the same. The next (3) things mentiOn- -ed, which are. IB, C, & D, might be true, but they're not.really, involved here. Again, perhaps we should refer to the codeft s•elf. As you know last night we had a debate, or a discussion about how to read parts out of the code. Here we've left to what is 17.66.090 (D) 1, and these are four criteria which must, exist before a variance .can be granted. In this B-1 reads..,';.:. "That there are•exceptional physical circumstances of condition applicable to the property or to its intended use or developmen which do not apply generally to the other properties in the sam land use district.” Again we'd like to make the ... how to rea ..•, that particular provision. ... that it reads "physical circum,-. stance circumstances or conditions, that meaning physical con-„ ditions rather than simply other conditions created by the..de-..:: veloper or otherwise. Therefore, we do not feel that. B, C, and D as listed on 'page two are app1icab1e here. Also, you might note that none of the factors mentioned in B, C, & D or have and D, have anything to do with lot area. What we're discuss- 20 ing here is whether or.not the building should be forty 21 ,units or fifty-five (55) units. Uh, true, that they're only 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 sup (can't decipher), that type of thing,..those services the people occupying 40 units as well as-they would benefit benefit the people occupying the additional fifteen (15). The additional 15 is what we are talking about, and there is no- thing in this that would justify violating or granting a vari7, ance to those lot area requirements. Again you might wonder why we object so strenuously to a deviation from the lot area requirements. As we pointed out last night, permitting an additional 15 units permits the additional height in the struc- ture, which is objected to by Lorraine. Here is third point,: ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 .* 907-486-4837 107 • • .. • -• • " 1 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10 11 • 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 I think says that uh views are not protected by the Kodiak Island Borough Code. That statement was made by Bernie Dougherty last night also, and that's another thing that would object to most strenuously. I think to begin with our analysis, we can all, or I hope we can conclude that a view from a piece of property with a home on it certainly ... the value of that property. Undoubtedly affects the use of the ... of that property, which use of adjoiner is a crucial factor in what the value ... of that property is. So you can see that the property value is directly correlated to view, and the code does protect property value. That's one of the fundamental tenants of zoning, beginning with the early years of 1920. Uh, ...to the Kodiak Island Borough Code to justify ... use, that this code also protects property values. In discussing vari- ances in Section 17.66.140, the code reads, this is discussing the four criteria that Harry is addressing: "If however, such facts and conditions do not4)revail nor apply, or if the grant- ing of the variance will adversely affect the property of per- sons in the vicinity of the applicant's property, or for any other valid reason, the commission shall deny the application." Two things are noteworthy there. First, the terminology "ad- versely affect the property of persons in the vicinity", that can only mean property value. And I think that it's ... that the property value is (can't decipher), for the view's ob- struction. The second thing that I would like you to note is that the words of that particular provision of the code are mandatory. It reads, "...the Commission shall deny the appli- cation." It does not say the Commission may deny. That brings me to one uh aside that I would like to make. It seems to me that alot of Mr. Milligan's comments are not addressing the criteria of the code, or in a sense amending the code, or say-. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 108 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ‘.:22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ing that the uh the requirements of the code are not good. An • example of that, I think (can't decipher) , and 1 thihk it's . stated directly in your discussion of the uh side yard re- quirements, which I will discUss'in a minute, but I would like to make that that objection clear of your analysis. Other • things that we might look at in terms of whether or not the Code does permit you to perserve a view, apart from this very 'obvious thing of property value is to look at (can't decipher):: itself. Obviously-on this parcel of property the lot.area.re-: quirement is going to limit the height of the building propos- ed, but we feel that's a valid function of a lot'area require-. ment. Another thing you'll note that the Kodiak Island Borough Code has height restrictions. Whether or not the height re- striction violated by this building, the only thing we can re- fer by the height restriction itself is that it's meant to-pre-,. serve views. Perhaps there May be some (can't decipher) that would be obstructed by tall :buildings, but I don't think that the case. I think those height restrictions that are... are meant to preserve views.. Going back to Mr. Milligan's letter, down in #4 he states, "whether this a," (this is the last ' sentence of #4 on page two), he makes the statement, "where • there's a business building there will be no limitations .on lot coverage, et cetera. I would suggest to you that that . irrelevant. It's not a business building',It's a proposed, it's not a business building sits on the lot. - It is a business zone. The Code is very specific in making requirements for side yards, uhm lot area requirements, for multi-family dwelling business on a commercial lot, and in this case it says that there can be 40 units there. So, this what might be allowed for business building is irrelevant at this time. Now I would like to discuss for just a moment, Mr. Milligan's analysis of the ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907.486 - 4837 109 • 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 second variance. Uh, one thing that confuses me, he says this request is tantamount to a total abatement of a seventy -five foot (75') required side yard, and I'm not sure what you mean by that. As I understood it last night, the requirements of the Code were sixty -one feet (61') in this particular instance. MR. MILLIGAN: Mr. Chairman, I went back into the Ordinance this afternoon in looking at that particular request, and uhm found that the side yard can be interpreted as being a seventy - five,.; foot (75') side yard. The R -3. district requires that a side of ten percent (10 %) of the width of the lot, or an amount-not to exceed twenty -five feet (25'). And then for multi- family dwellings it says that there should be side yards shall be in -_ creased one foot (1') for each unit in excess of. four, and uhm from 55 we extracted four which was 51, and we added 25, and I`' believe it comes out to 76', and that's how we computed the side yard to be 76', a building that projects to within all but three feet (3') of the property line or some 74' or some 731/2' into 76, is tantamount to a total abatement. MR. ROB SHOAF: O.k., I would disagree with the tantamount to the total abatement, and I do appreciate that clarification of what's required. Uh, ...the result of that new analysis is that the deviation from the requirements of the Code is more.- grieveous now than before. In looking at this type of analysis rather than ... Mr. Milligan's. analysis, I would like to say that generally the analysis focuses only on the property itself and I don't think that's appropriate. 'I don't think that we need to take it out to surrounding properties, and I mentioned last night that includes the type of view, the type of visual environment protected, and also the interest of the property owners. Last night I mentioned that there is a house adjacent to that, uh. As you know the person who occupies that house ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 -4837 110 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 did not show up last night to object. And I think it's im- portant to remember that that property is to be protected by the Code as is the rights of the developer. In this case, ob- viously the low cost of property isn't going to stay in one persons hands... Even if one property owner does not object, and I don't know that that's the proper inference here and it may be the politics or just confusion about the issues kept him or her away. I think it's important that we understand that that parcel of property apart from the building needs to be protected. As I mentioned last night there's a ... about the ... of the individual, and here apparently is also con- cerned about the size of the building when it's a multi-family, building, and the the interference with the large building coming close to the lot in terms of what's to the property owners of the area. And again you must consider that ... to that adjacent ... If that house catches fire, it will in affect a building that's three (3') away from the property line more than it would affect a multi-family building that's 75' away. Or visa versa, if, the large building catches fire, how will that affect the nearby building and house? Obviously we feel that it has a detrimental affect, and we feel that the. . side yard requirements should be enforced. Another thing that I might note in terms of the parking requirements ..., as I pointed out last night, I feel that this requires a reasonable- ness, and that the main concern is that offstreet or excuse me . onstreet parking not be generated, by any other parking spot. As you know, we're contending that the Project should be 40 units, ..., and for 40 units 37 parking spaces probably would be adequate. If you'll permit me a moment to review my history notes, to save time for concluding remarks I'd appreciate it. Going back to, the lot area requirements, I do have one addi- ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 111 tional thought. In discussing in Harry's approach, it seems to be accepting the building as is, and then correcting the - hardships involved. I'll suggest to you that that is something that the court should resolve. For instance, we hope, that you will deny the request and then if a court of law feels that you've decided improperly about the hardships, then it's on legal principles: They can reverse your decision. We feel that the provisions of the Code, as they stand, and the geo- graphic features of the lot, require you to deny. the variance, for lot area. Unless,there are any questions I think that's all I would like to say this evening. Uh, one other point, again, I would like to stress that we're not, part of Harry's analysis seems to be saying that we're going to or that we would ask you to,tear down the building completely. Again, that's not what we're asking.. We're asking that you remove the obstruction from view that adversely affects Mrs. Dayton's property. We do feel that the housing project is a good one, and that the 40 units should be there. And now, if there are no questions I would like to. MR. ERWIN: If that was'strictly a business building and it went up as high as they wanted to, you would have no leagl objection then, would you? MR. ROB SHOAF: Well, we would, if that was the case, and again remember it's not, we would at the offset ask you to consider what's appropriate for Kodiak? and ask you to look at the height of the building. As you know, in 1974 there was a pro-., mise made, what exactly that promise is is ... Again, 1,11 not ... to merit that, but in 1974 when the Planning and Zoning Commission considered this and then subsequently when the Borough Assembly considered this, there was a good amount of concern expressed about'the height of the building, and it was ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 - 4837 112 Zt..Fg4?"?'./titte 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 finally agreed that at least at that time, that the height ' of those imposed buildings would be remedied-to one story above Rezanoff. • We feel that that's an appropriate response for a Planning and Zoning Commission and for the.Assembly itself. So this (can't decipher) you concerning the use of the particu- lar property, and then try to reach some sort of compromise. That's in,oUr minds and in our clients minds that's where the problem originally.arose. She, Mrs. Dayton, knew that height:._ limitation, as did others in the neighborhood and they simply relied on that. They did not find about out about the addi- tional height of the building until the fourth and subsequent fifth floor were fr'amee. And I would, in discussing with you what should be done I would also like to point out as we did in our letter that once notified of the legality of the build- ing, then the building proceeds at the develop developer's risk Mr. _Dougherty suggested last night that we could have done in the court, posted what would, have been a ... bond, and litigat- ed the issue at •that point. However, we advised quite frankly we advised our client that because of the violations of the Code were obvious, she need not take that financial risk. • ERWIN: The previous Commission didn't believe there was any violations. They agreed wholeheartedly that with all the stipu lations CHAIRMAN •BUSCH: Mr. Erwin could you speak into the microphone...? R. ERWIN: The previous Commission didn't believe there was any violations. They agreed with the plans and everything else. • ROB •SHOAF:. With all respect, I would submit that the decision was not brought to their attention, ... • ERWIN: I don't like to disagree with you, I happened to be a member at that time, and it was brought up to us, I recall it. I examined the plans and the lot. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 • 907- 486 - 4837 .••• • . • • • 4 ■,-> • W'se,.e.^...i.0"W",S*.Z., • , 7 • 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • MR. ROB SHOAF: And you discussed the lot area requirements as required by the. code? MR. ERWIN: I'm quite certain we studied it thoroughly. MR. ROB SHOAF: Well, again, I would disagree with that, and we have listened to the tapes for all of those meetings. I would, agree that my recollection is that neither a lot ar, excuse me, the lot area variance nor the parking place variance was appli- ed for, nor granted. IR. ERWIN: Well, it's probably a lack of ignorant or it was ig- norance on the part of the Commission that didn't know it was needed, if it had been asked for it would have been given. Thi same'plan that we'Ve had before us so long were on the board at the time. There's. no reason anyone shouldn't have known what it 'was. . ROB SHOAF:- Yes, sir, I think there is a reason in that uh one of the provisions of the •code is that a public hearing be held on these matters, and the reason a public hearing is to be held is so that property owners in that area can come and re- spond to it, and I-I think that apart from our agreement about taxes I think that it's clear that that a public hearing as advertised, was not advertised for a lot area or a parking .place variance, and it does not advertise for .a side yard variance, it was advertised I guess as a side yard, exception. We feel that without that sort of public notice then any tacid approval that you suggest was given to the lot area requirement deviation from the lot area requirements does not (can't deci- pher) act more on the Planning and Zoning Commission. And I think the Code itself is is very clear in setting up the steps that need to be taken, and I also I would suggest to you that the responsibility is on the builder to make it very clear what the request and and go through the procedures required. Again, ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ■ rk' that seems to be desinged to protect owners. As we pointed out last night, it .seems both Mr. Smody and perhaps Mr. McCool, at some point were aware of the problem of the lot area require- ments, and it's-not clear whether or not they brought the prob7,., lem to the attention of the developers. Mr. Dickson suggested to you last night that that should be presumed, given the amount of detailed attention that went into the Project. I would agree with that presumption, arid suggest to you that'once it became clear, then-they had certainly-they had a duty to - make that expressed to you that they were wanting to construct a building that did not comply with these requirements. In any event, the law does require that (can't decipher) under this Code and under a Code An..any other city familiarize themselves:: with the Code and then comply with the provisions of the Code, . and that's riit.position on that particular issue. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Is there any reason why Mrs. Dayton didn't appeal to the Borough Assembly ... the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendation? MR. ROB SHOAF: Well, again, were saying that she wasn't aware of the 1974 problem related to haighth. That issue of-heighth in-terms of lotarea requirements was not addressed specifically at the meeting. So, , (can't,decipher-tape not working right),: appeal on the; lot • area requirements. .. it was not requested in the letter, it wasn't published in the notice for public hear- ing. HAIRMAN BUSCH: But yet she was aware of Commission's recommenda7:. tions. Correct? MR. ROB SHOAF:: Aware, it what sense? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Of what the recommendations were of the Commission to the Borough Assembly regarding the requests for variances? 1R. ROB SHOAF:, Well, I don't know that she was. She didn!t, as I ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907:486 4837 115 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 understand it what happened in that 1976 meeting is the de- veloper's at some point decided that.that they were in compli- ance with the heighth variance, withdrew their request. for a heighth exception .and the meeting proceeded to. discuss utility. easements and then to discuss the side yard requirements in the manner of an exception. So again, there was no.heighth variance granted, and it was not debated. So again there was. nothing to appeal. The only thing that was discussed was the side yard exception. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Just for the record could you state your name and (,can't decipher ). MR. ROB SHOAF,: Excuse me. My name is Rob Schoff,. I work with the Taw firm Dickson, Evans,. Esche & Capas, We'represent Lor- raine-Dayton. Thank you for the opportunity to ... CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Anyoneelse in the audience that wishes to speak at this time in opposition to the Sunset Development's request for variance in response to Mr. Milligan's analysis? HOWARD LANGEVELD: My name is Howard Langeveld, and I just moved up to Kodiak about four months ago, and this uh heard about ,-- this on the radio, and it let me just state the way I think the zoning commission wOrks, on how how ,this goes. A person who wants to build something, gods ahead and submits the plans,: to-a group or committee or an individual, and it's approved.. And at that point, the person goes ahead and starts to build and at various times there's people that come in and uh make inspections and make sure that this person is following his plans to a "T". Is that correct? MR. ERWIN: It's correct except in one thing, it has to be approved by the Assembly after we, all we can do is make recommendation • to the borough or the Assembly—,....variance or exception. MR. LANGEVELD: 0.kay, so in other words, the plans were as the ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 116 .; • ' ."- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 •1 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 building is built right now; and they were approved .with the a violations of the Zoning board, of the zones :that are in existence, is that correct? IR. ERWIN: I believe they are approved as, they weren't violations they were exceptions. R. LANGEVELD: Uh, what's the difference? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: What is, just make your statement that you, you know here to respond to Mr. Milligan's analysis and'findings, so if you'll respond to those items, that's what the public hearingis,dt this time, so we'd appreciate it if you'd just respond to those items. F. LANGEVELD: 0.kay, well all I have to say is that I agree with the gentleman that ,spoke earlier on all these items, but it seems like that the zoning.board should have long ago given SumMerset-Homes, Ibelieve the name is the corporation is,.uh • opportunity to know that they were violating the law prior to to doing any construction, and putting stop work orders on the building, uh prior to :letting complete the building. Now. the building . is complete and if the variances are not approved uh someone stands to to lose a great deal of money. That's all I have to say. HAIRMANBUSCH: :Thank you. Anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to Sunset Developments request for a variance in response to Mr. Milligan's staff report? If not, at this time we'll close the public hearing and reopen the regular meeting. Any questions or discussion? Mr. Dougherty, could you come forward, I have a couple of questions for you please? BERNARD DOUGHERTY: Yes sir. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Could you, in I guess simple terms, state why you, came back and asked for these variances? ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 117 ■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 BERNARD DOUGHERTY: Yes, sir, for one reason. The law suit which was filed by Mrs. Dayton has threatened to stop completion of the Project and occupancy of the elderly housing Project, and we felt that coming back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and if necessary to the Assembly, was the shortest and most efficient way to deal with the threat over the Project. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: But yes, but yet supposedly you are asking for a variances that, you know you believe were granted at one time is that correct? BERNARD DOUGHERTY: We believe that they were granted, or at least dealt with by the Commission, but they obviously are not they are not clearly given in the records from 1976, and the the doubt as to it is what has caused the law suit, and that's why we felt that coming back to the Commission for clarifica- tion on these issues, or if the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Assembly felt that further action was necessary, that that action will be taken, any doubt would be removed, that this public hearing or other public hearings would be held, and the public would have an opportunity to be held, to be heard, and that the matter would be disposed of. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Then you're coming to is in the same light as you came to the Commisssion uh in April not April,'August it :Was August 13th,' 1976, with •a plan ... the piece of property. BERNARD DOUGHERTY: Well, I can see the point that youlare making, but I mean, the property is not empty. I mean we have rustled with the same conceptual difficulty that you are having, and it's just not possible for us to say that the building is not there. It is there. I-I don't have a I'm not trying to side step your question, I don't have a better answer for it. If If I may, and I realize that this may be not the proper time, I would like to respond to a number of things that Mr. Schoff ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 118 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 said. 1 realize that 1 did not comment pn.-Mr. Milligan's re- . port, CHAIRMAN BUSCH: No, the.public hearing is closed. BERNARD DOUWRTY: •Alright, CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other questions for Mr, Dougherty? (,There* was no response) Thank you. BERNARD-DOUGHERTY: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN BUSCH.: _ Discussion by the commission?' MR. BALL: I think' I think all three items should be taken separ- • ...I ately. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Let's first of all address the first request, request for a variance,to permit,th.e continued construction ' and use of a building containing 55 dwelling units on a'site, which only accomodates 40,7 units, and address that variance request-First. MR. PUGH: Are you. looking for a motion? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: I think it's appropriate to have some discussion. MR. BALL: 'Couldn't we make a motion and then have a discussion afterwards? CHAIRMAN BUSCH: If you wish. (Long pause) MR. PUGH: Do you want to make your.comments first? MR. BAKER: Go ahead and make the motion I'll make the comment MR. PUGH: May, Mr. Chairman, I'll move that Planning & Zoning 'Commission grant a request for a variance to permit the con- tinued construction and use of a building containing 55 dwell- !. ing units on a site which'll only accomodate 40.7 units with the stipulation that that portion of Lot 30, Block 1, which is now owned by Mr. Lou Iani, and Mr. Fred Brechan, consisting of approximatley 1631' be sold to Sunset Development and included in the total lot size within the next 30 days: ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 -4837 119 . • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 rA RMAN BUSCH: Do you have. the survey of that? 8 MR. PUGH: It-it, I don't have any survey numbers. I've got a des- g by uh North 41.04, East 34.08, South 35, and West 10 55.57, uh there's no legal description on the tax (can't de-: 11 .cipher). 12 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: The lot owned by? 13 MR. PUGH: Mr. Brechan and Mr. Iani.. 14 'CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Brechan and Mr. Iani;.of approximately 1631. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: May I repeat the motion so we have it clear? You are moving to grant the variance request for the continued con struction and use of a building containing 55' dwelling units on, a site which will only accomodate 40.7 units, with the stipulation that Lot '30, Block' 1, . R. PUGH: A portion, this portion of it. 15 16: 17 18 IR. square feet, be included in the total lot size of this Project and be sold within to this corporation, to Sunset Development within thirty (30) days. PUGH: Within 30 days. lg HAIRMAN BUSCH: Or be purchased by Sunset Development within 30 20 days. Is there any question on the motion? Is there asecond 21 MR. BALL: Second it. 22 23 24 25 (There's some mumbling and scuffling) CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Discussion? AR. ERWIN: I'd like to ask one question. Is this lot already zon- ed business or does it have to be rezoned? 26 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Milligan? 27 MR. MILLIGAN: I'm sorry. 28 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: This lot that Mr. Pugh •is referring to, what is 29 the is current zoning of that lot? 30 MR. PUGH: R-3. 31 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: R-3? ...?•■••04,-;!?....,,,-",...„%v' - " - ".•• ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 120 1• 2 4 5 6 MILLIGAN: I believe it is R-3, I don't don't have a zoning map handy, but I think it is R-3. • PEREZ: Uh, Mr. Chairman, as long as I believe as long as Mr. Iani and Mr. Brechan are here, I believe we'should ask them if they would like, what their intent is on this, I'd rather • ask them (can't decipher). 7 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Ball. 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 AR. BALL:' I don't uh, if they would like (can't decipher), I think that uh motion is clear to what we want uh, I don't think that we should uh we have to have discussion from the CHAIRMAN BUSCH: I don't think it's necessary. MR. BALL:. I don't think it's necessary either. (Long pause, with scuffling of papers) CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Baker. R. BAKER: The question of how we view this piece of property is presented several confirmations of the members of this com- mission, and for the record I would like to state my position on this prior to any voting. I take the position that we have been asked-for clarification. We cannot provide that clarifi- cation except through the authority granted us as Planning and Zoning to act on Planning and Zoning matters',- in this instance on the variances before.us. The'requett.for the variances then, I.have to assume that we are day one. And 1 have to view,this Project in light of any similar project coming be- fore us with similar circumstances, a sinarial. A developer with a set of plans, a proposal, and. an undeveloped lot, the plans call for construction of a 55 unit apartment complex, not a Senior Citizen's project, just an apartment complex, oft a tract which is irregular and its difficult to site a large building on. The developer provides us with a site plan that suggests that 55 units will be constructed on approximately ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907- 486 - 4837 121 -;-• • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 t • • 40,000 square feet, which would at a ratio of 15 over the • allOwable density, that 'the building' is situated off-centereA, on the lot to the point that is encroached by the figures I was working from, 59 into a side yard, that he proposes to provide' only 26 of the required 55 parking spaces,'and that • we're also aware of a potential problem with a height restric- tion generally accepted in the community. Now, with these givens and in .a normal cour:.course of planning andzoning re-. .view, and uncharged and unemotional atmosphere, I submit that I would personally find it difficult to recommend this Project to the Assembly favorably. I feel that in reviewing this that I would probably conclude and probably suggest that either .a) that the building be redesigned, or b) that possibly the property itself was unsuitable for that project. This is the: position I find myself in at this time. It is a very diffi-, cult position. We obviously do not wish to in any way cause harm to the developer. We wish to respond to the needs of the Senior Citizens. However, what I find we have before us is a clear cut legal issue, as to whether or not we feel in our in- terpretation of the requirements for variance-that these con- ditions have been met. I have great difficulty myself with this issue.' CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other discussion from? Mr. 'Ball (can't de-- ' 24 cipher)? 25 MR. BALL: Call for question. 26 HAIRMAN BUSCH: Question's-been called for. Roll call please. 27 28 29 30 31 AR. MILLIGAN: Mr. Ball, (yes); Mr. Baker, (No); Mr Busch, (Yes);- • Mr. Erwin, (Yes); Mr. Perez, (Yes); Mr. Pugh, (Yes). Motion carries; 5 Yes and one No. :HAIRMAN BUSCH: Next item, the request for a variance to permit th continued constrftction and use.....of a building which encroaches ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 •KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907486 -4837 122- t . ^!.:004.94("1,1".4•7.1".•,,Y".‘r,Z.'• •rer"../•,F;:ir:',,,■••••••••:,,g, • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31. into required yards. (Long pause.) Any discussion on this request? MR. PUGH: HMr. Chairman, I'll move that we grant a request for ,variances to permit the continued construction and use of a building which encroaches into the required yards, of approxi- mately seventy-five (75') feet. MR. BALL: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: The motion is to grant the variance request to ,. permit the continued construction and use of a building which encroaches into the side into required side yards of approxir mately 75'. Is there any discussion on this by the Commission members? MR. PEREZ: Call for question. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Question has been called for, could we have the roll call please? MR. MILLIGAN: Mr. Baker, (No); Mr. Busch, (Yes); Mr. Erwin, (.Yes) Mr. Perez, (Yes); Mr. Pugh (Yes); Mr. Ball, (Yes). Motion carries, 5 Yes and one No. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: The next item, a request for variance to permit the continued use and construction of a building which provide only twenty-eight (28) of the fifty-five (55) off-street park- ing spaces required by zoning ordinance. MR. MILLIGAN: Mr. Chairman, that should be corrected, it only provides twenty-six (26), that.'s a typing error. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Provides 26 of the 55 off-street parking spaces. Discussion or comments on this request? MR. BALL: Uh, I'd like to ask Mr. Milligan on this. We can put the stipulation in regard to parking for, future use, can't we? MR. MILLIGAN: Mr. Chairman, you can apply any conditions that you feel are necessary and appropriate in granting an action that. has been requested. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. 7----., 7--, • BALL: In other words, the stipulation to put on that if at any time in the future they find they need more parking will be provided uh from the park area or (can't decipher)? MILLIGAN: You can apply such a condition if you felt it was':,.: appropriate. PUGH: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that we grant a variance to per mit the continued use and construction of a building which doe not provide all of the required off-street parking spaces with the following stipulation: First stipulation be, that they 1 provide thirty-seven (37) parking spaces; the Stecond the Second stipulation shall be that the designated zoning author agent of the Borough shall from time to time check the building to see that the required number of parking spaces is adequate, and that if at any time he deems it necessary that more park- ing spaces be added, that he so inform the developer, and that the developer must then provide the additional parking spaces but he does have the right 'of appeal to the Planning and Zon- ing Commission. BALL: I'll second the motion. MILLIGAN: Mr. Mr. Chairman? If I could make a comment? A portion of Mr., Pugh's motion, I think creates an administrativ- enforcement problem. I don't think that any administrative : official should have the authority to just on his own volition make a determination that someone should suddenly change some- thing that is somewhat arbitrary, that a report should be pro- vided to the Planning Commission and if the Planning Commissio deems it necessary that additional parking be provided that the Planning Commission should take appropriate action by amending this variance request to require additional parking. I think it would be more appropriate that that action come from the appointed body rather than from an arbitrary administrator. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 . KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 124 1 2 3 4 MR. PUGH: 0.kay, then Mr. Chairman I would,. Mr. Chairman I would like to amend my motion with the consent of my second and strike the last portion and change it that the Planning offi- cial . shall uh make a report to the Commission and that if the... 5 Commission deems that more parking spaces are necessary it 6 shall so change th.e this variance request. 7 MR. BALL: .Then I'll approve. 8 CHAIRMAN BUSCH: .Then your. motion is to grant the variance request 9 to permit the continued use and construction of a building:. 10 which provides 37'of the 55 off-street parking spaces required 11 by the zoning ordinance,and uh (can't decipher), would you 12 rephrase the continuation of the motion? 13 MR. PUGH: 0.kay, for.the record uh, that the. that the Borough 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Planning Department shall from time to time check the parking requirements of the building. If they should find that the parking is inadequate they shall make a report to the Commis- sion, and the Commission shall then take action to amend this variance to require more parking if it is deemed necessary. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any discussion on the parking? I kind of have to • go along with Mr. Milligan what he stated.- I still think that it's too arbitrary of uh in more of a criteria place concern- ing the parking. I think either you know, the parking vari-1 ance should be granted without the stipulation or the required parking should be granted. I really do think that the requir- ed should be should be required even though you know it's been stated that the elderly housing or the elderly do not have that many vehicles that uh it's not necessary to have the 55 parking spaces uh, with visitors I'm sure that with a communi hall or a-a central meeting in this facility which will prob ably would possibly be used by other non-profit organizations, uh, could create a number of vehicles in this area, but I ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 9077486 - 4837 125 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27' 28 29 30 31 • ., , • . , • ;';`,„„ really do think that uh required off-street parking spaces should be be required, in these 55 units. MR. BALL: I uh have a tendency to agree with you except for uh one thing. - I would I would not want to see them require 55 • parking spaces and then a year from now go up there and find that they are using 20 of these parking places and there are 30 parking sp parking places not being used whatsoever that they could use for other purposes (can't decipher) or •whatever it might be, and I-I agree with his motion does leave it up in the air. I think that it should be that uh one year, or eighteen months from now that discussion will be made and at that time it wil if they.are needed and if they (can't decipher). I think that in eighteen months you would be able to find out exactly how many parking places there should be done at one particular time, looked at, taken care of and done away with. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: But that may not be necessary to have additional parking spaces eighteen months from now, but 3 or 4 years from now it may be, or 5 years from now, but I think that the re- quired parking spaces are provided now then you know, we-we won't continually have a problem every few years from now or every few months from now or whatever might become (can't de- cipher). MR. BAKER: Is anyone familiar with the topography of the lot uh adjacent to this that we specified would be included? MR. PEREZ: Yes, flat. MR. BAKER: Flat. It is flat? Possibility of moving the par park ing area into that, utilizing that and provide the parking? I would be agreeable to that. MR. PUGH: I think (can't decipher). MR. BALL: Asking the, how many parking places do you believe that • ISLAND SECRETARIAL'SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 486 4837 • 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (can't decipher) you think we should go for 55? MR. ERWIN: No. MR. BALL: What do you think it should be to take care of at a at definite future date? MR. BAKER: I could give you a guess vote on 55. (Snickering) CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other discussion? Call for question. MR. PUGH: Question. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Question's been called for. Could we have a roll call, please? MR. MILLIGAN: Mr. Busch, (No); Mr. Erwin, (Yes); Mr. Perez, (Yes) Mr. Pugh, (Yes); Mr. Ball, (Yes); Mr. Baker, (No)? Motion carries 4 Yes, 2 No. (Shuffling around) CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Take a five (5) minute recess at this time before we take another item. (Five minute recess taken) CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Since we did have uh a decision concerning Sunset since we did have a decision concerning Sunset, Mr. Erwin, MR. ERWIN: What happened? (Snickering) CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Calling the meeting back to order. MR. ERWIN: Oh, good. , CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Since we did have a finding concerning the Sunset Development's request, uh, for the record, I would like to ask the findings of facts as to why you know, everyone did vote the way they did so we have uh a criteria for for reference. So uh, Mr. Perez, concerning the first item, the variance re- quest for 55 units, uh on a piece of property that is suitable for 40.7, would you state your reasons why you voted the way you did? ' MR. PEREZ: Mr. Chairman, the reason that I voted in favor of this was, that these units are more like, uh they're small units, ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 they're uh efficiency/apartment-type uh units, and only one •bedroom on the whole. The building, having been constructed and designed in this manner, I couldn't see where not going along with it, where it is already in it's present state, I - don't think that anything would have been gained had we gone to the (can't decipher). And I'm uh very much uh in favor that the variance could be granted on the ground that here we are with smaller units than is ordinarily found in a regular apartment building as such, and this is one of the reasons that I voted the way I did. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: 0.kay, uh, the reasons uh, why I went for the variance, on the 55 units in the area only allowing 40.7, were among other things, that I felt that the density factor, due to the fact that this complex was desinged for senior citizens, was not that major a factor with 15 more units being provided. I also felt that the topography of the site limited the develop ment of the building, that the location of the building was excellent as far as the uh use of the building by senior citi- znes, to be within the close walking distance to the doctor's uh, dentists, library, services that they might need; shopping That the uh location of the complex was within quick response, of both the fire and the police department needed, and also the ambulance. I felt that this •facility was needed in this community and I have always felt that the views of the adjacen property owners, although Kodiak has some of the most beautifu views in the world, that it cannot prevent a person from build ing on his property just because it will lessen the view of a neighbor, and that I felt that this request was not contrary to the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Ball? ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 • 486 4837 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 MR. BALL: I voted the way I did uh on uh the issue of uh 55 units over the 44 . CHAIRMAN BUSCH: 40.7 MR. BALL: 47. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: 40.7 MR. BALL: 40.7, for the same reason on all three issues. Uh, I uh would include parking and the side yard variance. My rea- son was the same on all three, and it was that we were just verifying the voting of the previous Commission. Also, in looking at the record, all of the data in regards to the 55 units, the side yards, un the parking, everything, was present ed to that Commission as it was to us, and that is the reason. I voted the way I did, just verifying the previous Commissions findings. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Erwin? MR. ERWIN: The way I voted was uh similar to the way I voted back in No when it first came up back in August of '76. During tha time I see no reason for any change. I was in favor of all these exceptions granted at that time. They should have been variances, I don't know. They were granted in the feeling tha we were doing right. The building has been needed extremely the past four or five years. (Last part lost in changing. tapes ... any other draw back that it might of had. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Baker? MR. BAKER: Well, I won't go through my disertation last time, but the the item that I•guess I hung up on was finding exceptional physical circumstances which would cause us to grant a vari- ance, that I believe this property could have been developed, could have . been utilized. I believe that it is. possible that an architect could have designed the building which better suited the property. I also felt that there was prejudice to:, ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907- 486.4837 129 other properties in the vicinity, in that I believe that, as a result of this structure we have affected property values in the surrounding area, particularly in the area up where the uh view was impaired. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: I voted the way I did for several of the reasons that Mr. Pugh mentioned. Also, particularly, the one that's concerning the apartment size or the unit size. Since they are single unit dwellings, you'll probably have less residents in this complex, then if it were a uh a 35 multi-family dwell- ing unit. So the density is still going to be uh less than if it were perhaps, an ,R73,ayea, where or or family two or three bedroom dwellings. So I felt that this variance could be granted for these reasons. Any other reasons anyone would like to state at this time? Second item was the request for a variance to permit the continued construction and use of a . building which encroaches into required yards. Mr. Perez, would you like to uh? 1 MR. PEREZ: Here again we have to go back to day one, when the first request uh for the setback was asked for. The uh pro- perty being zoned business, you can go from lot line to lot line and I think this is what they were more or less thinking about. There, and I can see no-nothing to be gained by going • back and asking for the 60 some feet setback, whereas, the way the building is set, and it's locale, it is not injurious to other buildings around it. I believe that they tried to do the best they could with what they had at the time. CH IRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: Well, the reason I voted for the second variance, is basically I was trying to affirm or reaffirm the decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1976, uh and just clear up the terminology between the word exception, which was ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (Th granted then, and the variance, which is the proper thing that should have been granted. I also personally felt that by allowing the building to go the 75 to the side, encroach into the side lot yard requirement that this allowed a better desig on the lot for the placement of the building., for the placing of the parking and for the placing of the proposed park and/or garden area. I also felt that the topography on the land and felt to uh place the building in the position that it was and, uh that's it. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Ball? MR. BALL: I've stated my reasons. Uh, mainly just reconfirming what was voted on in 1976. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr.. Erwin? MR. ERWIN: No reasons I can think of. They already spoke, I al- ready agreed with all of them. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: I think my reasons would be to primarily also to reconfirm the action of the P & 2 in 1976, and to also it cer- tainly did allow for a better placement of this building on the lot. The last item, was a request for a variance to per- mit the continued use and construction of .a building which pro vides only, Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Baker. MR. MILLIGAN: He can't have much to say... MR. BALL: He did have a no vote. MR. BAKER: I was hoping to avoid this. (Snickering).. The proble I had was again, I-I guess I'm on the architect here, but it would just appear to me that it was strange a situation where in one side of this ,property, (.and I'm searching here for a dimension on this •(can't decipher) I fail to find, but I be- lieve I recall a dimension in excess of 100' at one end of thi property, no building/parking area, and yet at the other end we're within two foot (2') of the property line. I will admit ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. O. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 131 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 that there are some unusual circumstances with the particular . lot layout, however, I again feel that properly designed, this building could have been situated on the lot in such a. manner that the, at least the extent of the encroachment would not have been so great. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: The next item then, was the request for a vari- ance to permit a continued use and construction of a building which provides only 26 •of the 55 off off-street parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Perez? MR. PEREZ: Here again, we're dealing with senior citizens, and a highly proportion of 'em don't have automobiles. The uh Senio Citizen uh Company or whatever it is that takes care fo this,' have -a couple of cars and they chauffeur the people around,. so there's no really no need for them to have cars, and T couldn' see where a full force on the parking requirements would gain 16 anything here, but as was amended, uh well, we'll look at it 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 later on, and see how the parking is and if it requires more we'll CHAIRMAN BUSCH: You felt that 37 was adequate? MR. PEREZ: Yes. (can't decipher) CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: Mr. Chairman, I felt that 37 parking spaces are ade aquate at this time due to the fact that I feel that the Senio Citizens, living in the building themselves would not own that many vehicles, and that the extra parking spaces will probably be there for whatever community uh interest uh are generated and uh coming to that building to attend functions. However, I did put the stipulation in uh, and I feel strongly that if proves that we were wrong on this point, that we do have a chance to put in uh 55 parking spaces. I feel that this time that to have asked for 55 parking spaces would have proved an ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907-486-4837 132 , .! • •-•-^"" '1r • ,. • • . , . 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 unnecessary hardship on the pot on the possibly the residents of the building who would probably have been deprived of the proposed park. But I feel that they have more of a therapeuti value for the residents of the building than perhaps looking; at an asphalt parking area. I feel that this wouldn't cause any damaging affects to the uh to the uh surrounding neighbors because due to the configuration of the land uh, people will not be parking on Rezanoff Drive or uh Ers upper Erskin road uh to go to this building there's no-access to the building from that side and I don't think that it will be that the building will generate any excessive uh off-street parking, and I felt that this was uh not detrimental to the uh occu- pants... CHAIRMAN BUSCH.: Mr. Ball? MR. BALL: On this issue uh, I might doubt about vot voting for the 37 parking spaces and it's for the same reason that uh I be- uh that the original 'Commission went with 25 uh 26 units, uhm, but I did vote for 37 uh, to get uh the Project moving, uh, but I-I would have rather voted on 26, and I would have included that also, but‘as I say, everything I did was based, on I believe all this information was before uh previous P & in 1976, and I believe they'Noted that way at that time, and I was trying to confirm what they had voted. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Thank you. Mr. Erwin? MR. ERWIN: The way I voted here was possibly because I've been been uh more or less associated with the Senior Citizens than, most of them. At the various functions we have, there's very few cars. Practically all the transportation is furnished by the two buses that the Senior Citizens operate. At uh, one of our largest, one of the largest uh turnouts that we had, I think there was possibly ten (10) cars total, that was count- ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 133 1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 'ing our two buses, that was held over at that low housing uh. So I could see no reason for_extra parking space. It wasn't necessary. • CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Mr. Baker? MR. BAKER.: Well my'concern for the parking is, at this point, I guess, I'm not convinced that we're going.to.see only.senior citizens in there. Uh, I hope the building is used for that, but I recognize that we have economic constraints and that it it were to develop that perhaps the building wouldn't be fully occupied by.senior citizens or handicapped, and I can see an eventuality where other people would be using the parking area, •and uh, other people renting the building, we might find a situation where they Own several cars. Uh, the other thing was the fact that uh the the parking uh is a problem in Kodiak I would have liked to have seen that provided at the outset. I would have been no future issue on the thing. It would have been dispensed with, the parking would have been there forever. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: • I also felt that this unit will be used more for or not more for, but also for other activities other than those as. related .to the elderly residents of the of this Project. s, With uh, the meeting room that's there, I feel that it will be probably perbpas available to other non-profit organizations: in the community or.could be rented, which could create a num- ber of vehicles there. And also, it was stated that the elder- ly housing association or the elderly people have an organi- zation of 300 members, and now they do have a place where they can have dinners or have social events or whatever type of organization they may need or whatever they may have. And uh, I would think that it could generate .a considerable amount of vehicles in this area. So, I was opposed to this variance, and felt that the required parking should be required. Any ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486-4837 134 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • ...i.i.-' ■ other comments that any of the Commissioners might like to make? MR. ERWIN: Mr. Chairman, on your comment of 300 members, this is, this uh is people from around the island, this isn't all local people: CHAIRMAN BUSCH:: I see. Any other'cOmments that any of the,Com- missioners would like to make? 'Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: Just one comment on parking, and this is for informa- tion we'll use for the Commissiwonly, uh, I talked to Mr. Iani after the meeting, and I don't know if, this.was just a discussion that 1 had:with. Harry in his office this morning requesting information, and what-not, but there was a question raisedby either.members of the Commission or members of the staff, as to whether the parking lot itself was going to be paved, and the answer is yes. -That the uh housing uh HUD re- quires that the total parking lot for this Project uh be paved and it will be paved. CHAIRMAN BUSCH: Any other comments? Mr. Milligan? Going on then to the agenda. (NOTE: This.is.all that.was covered concerning Sunset Develop- ment for the October 18, 1978 meeting, which continued to November 1; 1978. This/ends the verbatim translation of the October 18 & 19 which covered Sunset .Development portion of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.), * * * * * * * * * * * * * ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 -486 - 4837 135 I-N-D-E-X XHIBIT: EXPLANATION: PAGE NO.: :::No. 1 Reduced copy of Site Plan -- 4 No. 2 Plat of effected property *LI No. 3 Parking Lots Area Arrangement 4 No. 4 Proposed Park Site Plan 4 No. 5 Typical Unit Floor Plan 4 No. 6 Letter of Application, Dated 8/21/78 No. 7 Construction Plans 6 No. 8 Large Brown Line Site Plan 6 No. 9 Letter of July 28, 1976, from Mr. Iani 6 No. 10 Letter from Harry Milligan, Dated 8/30/77 6 No, 11 Letter from Mrs. Dayton, Dated 10/11/78 8 No. 12 Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance #74-5-0 14 No. .13 Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance #76-17-0 14 No. 14 Letter from Gordon Barnett, Dated 8/13/76 26 No. 15 Copy of Site plan showing topography 61 No. 16 Letter from Kodiak Island Borough to City Dated 9/2/77 85 No. 17 Planning & Zoning Staff memo to P & Z Commission, Dated 10/19/78 96 No. 18 Public Hearing Notice for October 18, 1978 No. 19 Map showing area of notice (300') No. 20 List of names & addresses of property owners living within 300' of property in question No. 21 P & Z Resolution, #V-78-056 No. 22 P & Z Resolution, #V-78-057 No. 23 P & Z Resolution, #V-78-058 * NOTE: These items are too large to reduce. The Planning. Department will have these items available for review and will present them at the Board of Adjustment.Hear- ing. ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 466 - 4837 r�. (I) 0 l % \ •o ° I \\. \d \ •. i�- D .0 fU 0 0 U In nl n U L 0 —7—n t U i•y uL U A • 0 -I Al • m n ) m n 1 o O 1 0 C 7 11 II I • (1' 1' 11 A •• 11 1. 1 U A 1.11 Y i t.`1 IiV I. 0 A /- A �S A (FI••.. DC ; . .. ....1••N0' •` CC:G°. LL A:" :1 ' � u N . t. A NORrx -3 v EST DESIGN ASSOCIATES TIIINII A t'Y: I ta7VItf - �1 I.. \v I .1.71111 1; I1(1111`.11.. /I. /.IIUII.�I.A 1,11. AIA /..1.111 ...'071•11 ,. ERSKINE SUBDIVISION R EZLNOF • I\ 11 DRIVE 111114•0 41.1 1.• 1-1,3C C0.4 Col*. •44 S SURVEY 562 3 03•11.. pi, 3,2 .1/1600 2500, • 6 I • I hi Iti ....0 o.,,, ri-, , sr-, TRP A, C-T 1 _ G _J__ i 1 _ 1---•10:...24' • 1:•:•■ , a. I Lego, CoPpo• ; -3 eonpr• •0 1.• 113 I I o .0vt 4.-•• '.-•••,•-•-••"^ 00'l • ' ""-"' • 'f%"7 • N'..1 • 3, f 03$10 e, 001 Co 0.0 woopot%1S •It0V1•30. 0 04. ...moo, ,1-. • • uNit1100 Cu toCon000rs o1CCrefotO. seer POLL - WV' ?G. • 1 • . , . • ' ...•••••• ,1•44 LEGAL. DESCRIPTION 10, 90, kec. 0, """"" 10001401,04, V it 30100 • 40 DC/ .0 T.D7 v 1 10.1•1 /160•0 • 001, 100141, $1. se,.0 r.t,Cotao, 01$001010 041"0.0* se41...00 co.”.c• 4. u s Sot: $.• 1(00'' /Of *3000! *MD 30*3 300000060 pr 03 sporty $1p, 1.1.11 11,• 00'• I. OD 30(0 */,f/ove •• """"" 111, •■• 44••• 17> 7.10 349444( 33,0 30.110*C 00 3131 10 $ rope, oft .1 30141001,4 O. 0 0 0., s.o.cr sos• so ro 00 *ter 44t.00.4 ss,o co..r: Lca ss, cr, •111 4000 1.43 1,131 001.33.. Or $01 39 10 fol 100.134, • 0 • 0, •17.$0130.•f. lotoCt $0...Loopore 1.000$13. +to., *0• 333' So' 00' f *00 40 100*. 10 OD ,,,,, 111 • 04 00', 00 00 0111 fo •0.1 0. • 00.1 a• .Ic. not ...cu., 00. N." 0013.11 110 15 /1.C1 11040 7.01,1 CIA. 10 4..4 L441 w.f. ••01. 01 ,2111 00 flf toopp.p■ aoott 0, ,f or' 44,* 00043 0, 3*4 1443 tj 4 woo., 040, 00441w III1 10 1100. 111110•1101. CO•,$,MS .0,/01 1100.1 21110 01 0 113 AMA. 1.1041 CO 0111 • CI 10 a.: 4431101 .11111130 .• 1.11.3 ••■••131 ,,,,, C. to rof 3000• 041 •44400 po 3. 00000? 40 444 .00•11 0tSC.111100 441.0 i4 00.C. 1.64 4. 1.0 014.4 040 .0.411 40.3 • (.4'0; 401 • 101000 4141114•10 1.$ $0.310. 14.41..11111.1103 111311.1 6, PO. 1 CC/14.40 .44,0.110.4 *09*.. 144 •.14 4•11,5 SUNSET DEVELOPMENT CO. P.O. Box 1275, Kodiak, Alaska • Survey of LOT 39, BLOCK 2, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION, U.S. SURVEY 562 and TRACT u . S. SURVEY 2537.B AND U.S. SURVEY 562 4.4 flf 1.%0 "•'1of porr I !Pr." I 21 ( • • • • • CO1/44.:In re\TiO • • . . —f:•.)-R I r • . • . • GRAVCI., Y . . •*. . \ tr .—u —tr n ••■ e . • . • 1 • • . AgL,,,.: . ft_ - 147.02' 0 • l'0••0011- LY WALK., 1•Y? • entscrtt f. \/ 1■' •/ / //• " 'v ••(..,,I.,14'.5 (40-) 1O•••••014..., ' • •1...k*Et? TV CMS ' • • . • . • . . • • •TV,ICokl•- N01 b7 •• re- • 152.55(1) TEZFES„: snn.../c OncE,", 5'TC•••'") '="t• H.Crireare_c: Crs....,Gr.. ,,,Le..•.-Lit,171/,..silk) — l-C.KA.,L.L'Y Owe., 04.L-1... I. r.t.f4J—A•sr OS. ,/"..›. e).-14 -'C-1 . frA 41,4 HIC,I-I 1.,,-/ we c..44...trLat, ' r,.ts.5;:itFet:A7.41; ffi'".,...5414 7.."4:....'.4...‘",-.:— . . 0 1-03A1)-LIPA . R 1.-ANDCA1'iNp PLAN 11-ot , • • • '. • N • ( rrt,1/4=p rn 12EZANor Iva cA`i 1®/Q Ail A? No ,6GAC.E E Lt7Ef2LY SAM 5 03/ 4120UN©c-4:UGK. v5k2G ytcc1,) 6I-IA 06 McCOOL & McDONALD t:0,7TITINEST DESIGN AS:tATES ARCHITECTS 637 Virst Northern Lichte Ethed. Anchorage, Ala aka 99503 907/274.1116 907 /274 -7104 5Ep'T. Coy 19 78 9'woop p/' GI-f, 1 V P TENANT FLoWEg 4A,WExi evEg.Gt2E/-1 TizEE/ -gyp. clzu -5I4e-p 4 RA vEL o PA VED 4 5eArmi4 PATHS a REAs PRoPQ5P-Z:j F2A c»J a G r p.V _ P4nclJ T cc }Cap /AK, ,4 A5gA 11/ ?_O!©�/ vae cy. P,_AST10 LAMONATr.- wp.1PR. CTOP EPQE ENOd 0P2..., • <ITCHN LVATION NK WALL-) 1 1 1 K•-:"CHEN ve_ a•c' PI-Yr/C..0Z 4.-2..1; Y. I I i•s. 70 0... MA' 1O 0D .._AMNATE 0/ P1.-',./1/000 ""`.. -4! ' e•-c), ' Sefie.cy. W/NOC -- • • eAcceA-A•a4 L. Wei c.c •_:? e' t• • t x ty.yry I)) KITCHEN .ELEVATiON .1•2: CP-ANGE, kEF-: WALL) G!, 124,4C-,! 41044C11 KITC;HEN .A.3 /m00 9cACCI ace . ey — 6...A.41114.1.• Pt, •■■■■ G00¢- I KG NV, TLIII% I F... PLY.J.0 00 cNo •. - ' 5uP0" 1/41'5 s QLD • WALL. • .7., LI 31-5, -M- x 24.024. BAR . Scol, „,..4••eoeem,...AsH 45ACK,b)1-1-4`c, k74 ".(1 ;,:e.„.(i w“-s.c,5:-,, ,,x :e .41A,A t 00-) 4,1 ,,ccss eNo i INrettme-1,cre PANIC'? HNIDCP KITCHEN HNOCP ti KITCHaN R • ) HNOCP. KITCHEN er-A-e te• OT5.: TyPiCAL u,cr FOR 0 E20 0T 6.00.7-1 HNOCP. BATH 04.ALe. ,:64.1%ca' 1.,04175 05- 0,07 "•• 102c7 • al • !73*._ CE0C7CP0 CER N.0c Ta.e 2:3 , BATH:7-0)9M SATHQOOM yor- V-0• 50.. 4. LiviNG/nr-11r-ic.4 scAT 111111011110111111111 - ECZ2 OM t5 t)::. Fi'7.07LV 1 rc GCF- Q -t 11L": KrroE.0.1 ; lj 1 • 0,7w VC/ 11111114MS — Lj AG WM 1641, • TYPICAL UNIT PL AN % • •r0 PACES 0R PAAA[P40 uNs..c0.) 0'7 HCR.,11501 0 H 290) 0 1111 !• 1 1 111 I 11,111I I/1 I . 11 Alt ”■11,111 P.,1111 It. Ii.1./111/%/1 111 .1. NI/ 1)I(itlf "1 /MAIM 1, trOttt.tti 111 Y MIC)IAI.I. W. SIIA/10/4 1/001•41.Y 1(1,11 01 IIN J PO 0.11A1.1. 1M11111NS 1/01.1 11 11. 111.A 1 Y `.■ /1:1•111 14 1). 11001-14 WeV w. S1leA or comysr.t.- G. Well 1' cuwAvros A 1,1/011..1111,11A1 1 11141.1144A141144 A 11144/10 V•. A I 1 A AN /1 / 41 •. I 4 Li: ANC1101tA(•1 , A 1,,,A..1t A 99•.01 (90/) /4 :IS /I. August 2.L, 1978 Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Kodiak, AK 99615 Gentlemen: y 1t0 411A w 011111 0111A1 wi.A / A , 1.1414 1401)1AW, AL00,01A 99015 1911/) 491,•,1141 0071 400•3144 1/11/1_Y To: Anchorage Re: Kodiak Elderly Housing Project Petition for Clarification of Zones and Variances Our File No. 1993-2 Our principals, Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak, have endeavored for several years to construct a 55-unit eLderlY housing project on property they own at Erskine Avenue and Rezanof Drive, known as Lots 39, Block 2, Erskine Sutdivi- sion, U.S. Survey 562; and Tract "A", U.S. Surveys 2537-8 and 562 (formerly described as Lots 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision, U.S. Survey 562 and Lot 12, Block 3, Original Townsite of Kodiak! U.S. Survey 2537-8). A major portion of the property, Lots 40-45 and Lot 1:?, was rezoned from R-3 to "commercial" by the Assembly in March, 1974. This action was taken before the elderly housing project was conceived and in anticipation of a projecf:. that was later abandoned. The preamble of the ordinance contained a stipulation that. any structure would not extend more than' one story above Rezanof Drive. (Ordinance. 74-5-0). Discussions with the developer about the feasibility of an elderly housing project first started in the fall of 1974 and finally during the spring of 1976 the concept began to Lake shape. In May, 1976, it was learned that HUD funding was available, if an application was submitted be for the end or the fiscal year. In order Ao comply with HUD's requiyements, Lot: 39 was rezoned from R-3 Lo busines:; on July 1, 1976. 1, Kodiak Island be-rough Frio No 1993-2 August 21, 197U Page 2 • I • The developers then requested "exceptions" frou the strict application of the zoning ordinance because the exceptionally narrow and sloping conditions of the property's terrain created great practical.difficulty,in siting the proposed structure. On August 10, 1976, the Planning and Zoning COmmission granted the requested "exceptions" for height and side yard. Following .that action, the city stated that the project was in compliance with all applicable zoning require- ments and restrictions, and issued a building permit. Actual.construction of the project began last fall. Though a .number of years have elapsed since the above events Look place and the project is now close to completion, a. Complaint was recently filed in Anchorage Superior. Court seeking to enjoin the project. The complainant .alleged,. . among other things, that: the.re2oning of Lot 39 is void because of failure to give adequate notice for the public hearing; the Planning and Zoning Commission did not effect-, iv1y grant side yard or height: variances on August 10, 1976 Lhe structure exceeds the height restrictions for a business district and .a R-3 district; the structure exceeds . the height restrict:len contained- in the 1974 ordinance; the.. lot area is insufficient; and, the number of 'planned parking spaCes is inadequate. Sunset Development Co. and the Kodiak. island Borough have answered the Complaint, raising numerous defenses against Lhe relief sought,- and intend to fully.; litigate the matter.. In an effort to prevent any unnecessary delay in theoccupancy oE the project by Kodiak's elderly who need, housing, we are petitioning the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly for clarification of the project's current status. This petition is presented as a means of removing any questions regarding the effect of earlier Commission and Assembly actions or the legality of the project. It is not Lo be construed as .a waiver of any,. defenses or causes of action .now existing or hereafter arising against any individual, corporation, city or borough regarding Lhis project. Kodiak 1 1 onn r" )t:oug File No. August. 2.1; 1976 Page 3 ZONING: .Sunset Development: Co . , as owner: oC the property known .as ,Lots 39, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision, U.S. Survey 532,' and Trac L "A", U.S. Surveys 2537 -13 and 562, requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission - recommend to the Borough Assembly that said property he zoned business with the use restricted to the 55-unit elderly housing project: "now being constructed. The following information is presented in support of the foregoing request: (1) The housing situation for the senior citizens of Kodiak has been inadequate for some time. In 197,4, as many as 100 units were considered necessary to meet- the community's requirements. The unavailability of low income housing was considered particularly critical as many elderly on fixed incomes were living in sub - standard conditions. 1 The availability of housing has not improved appreciably over t:he last four years. Yet, during the sane period, our population of senior citizens has' increased steadily, thereby, aggravating an already .serious condition. The elderly housing project would help alleviate the housing shortage of Kodiak' s elder! y , and, in partic- ular, low income elderly by (a) providing 55 housing units for the elderly and (b) qualifying for section 1.3 rent subsisLence funds. (2) (lousing constructed for occupancy b.y•• the elderly -should respond to the special needs of older people. The project has been specifically designed to accommodate elderly residents.. . For example, the build - ing has .incorporated• the following features: an elevator serves all floor:,; handraililly s are present in the hallways; the bathrooms arc equipped with special handholds; and, a meeting room with kitchen facilities is available on the ground floor. Also, ,several units have bean designed. for occupancy by the handicapped. Kodiak I i I e No. ,1.O'):, _ nuqu:; I. 2J; 10.1(3 Page 'AI °rough (3) Traffic conditions. on I l: l :olllld.l.11q streets are not expected to be noticeably affected by the project. 7'11i:; is true primarily 'Lol: Lwo reasons. First, the property's location close to the downtown district will reduce Lhe• need for the occupants to own all automobile, an expense that is burdensome Lo'many elderly. .Second,. the number of automobiles owned by the occupants of the project. •is expected to be .lower because characteristi- cally senior citizens own fewer automobiles. (4) The project's locution and concentration of elderly would facilitate tile, provision of emergency service. It will also promote fire safeLy.because the buildings are constructed with modern materials and. in accordance with all applicable building codes. And, as noted above, the building's special design features; . make it safer for occupancy by L11e.elderly. .(0) The elderly housing project would be compati- ble with surrounding a ses . it. would neither disturb. the harmony of the neighborhood nor violate the integrity of the district. As (Iiscused, there is a clear need for additional elderly housing in Kodiak. Construction of the project would llel.p the community meet its obligation to provide for the welfare of its elderly and would benefit the community as a whole. Rezoning of this properly would constitute good zoning practice. In summary, the clear existence of a public need for addi- tional elderly housing in Kodiak, the building's special design features for the elderly and the proposed site's unique location in close proximity to the downtown business district establish that the public necessity,. convenience and general welfare fare would best-be served by enacting a new ordinance zoning the above described property as business. we also request the (;r.a' Ling of variances or the clarifica- tion of variances previously granted from the strict applica- )(1 i Is] ,..).rough 1 No. August 2.1., J.9711 L'age 5 Lion of Lhe following sections o the Kodiak Borough Zoning Code: (1) §17.21.040, lot arca, which requires 1,000 square feet of area per dwelling unit; (2) §17.10.040 and §17.2L050, :yards; and, ( ) §17.57.010, parking. spaces, which. requires' one parking space for each dweOing unit. The lot area variance is requested to allow construction of 55 dwellingc‘ units on a total land area.of.40,717 square feet. The side yard variance is requested for. the west side of the building only, The parking space variance.is requested to limit the number of parking spaces to 26 and is conditioned upon . construction of the planned mini-park. The property is described as Lots '39, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision, U.S. Survey 562; and Tract "AB, U.S- Surveys-. 2537-B and 562.• The plot plans showing the location. of all proposed buildings, elevations or such baildings, and other data regarding the slope hnd shape of the property- will be submitted under. - separate cover Lo tile commission. The requests for side yard and loCarea variances will be discussed together because the applicable conditions that. make the request necessary are similar. The property's physical characteristics have placed an extrodinary restric- tion on building placement and elevation which unless the requested variances are granted, would deprive Lhe owners of property rights and uses possessed by others in the- Same-'- district, The architects have advised us that the excep-. tionally narrow and sloping conditions of the terrain have created great practical difficulties 111 siting the proposed structure. Highway construction on Rezanof Drive accentu- ated an already difficult terrain situation.by creating a downward slope condition of 25 feel-. in a horizontal distance of 40 feel: from curb to building face. The intended development or the prOperty as an elderly - housing project created additionaL circumstances which do not generally apply to other properties in the same business district. The construction of the project was dependent upon obtaining HUD financing and qualifying for section 8 rental subsistence funds. Therefore, it was necessary. that i 1 °ugh Fill! No. iY93- L 21, 1978 Page G the 'project's design and size comply with the agency's guidelines and directives. To help decide how many units should be built, HUD conducted an .economic analysis of the project's financial feasibility and a market survey of the community's need. Their studies indicated that the optimum number of revenue producing units . was 54 for a total project of 55 units. Also, .a project of this size qualified for priority of section 8 rental subsis-. tence funds. 1.-UP1E'IC To N 2\ review of the proposed site .bytlyn determined that a'55 unit project would have a land use -intensity number of 5.6, which was well within the agency's requirements. The land use intensity number relates the number of livinci units by floor area to a recommended amount of site area according to location and the type and size of housing. The site's close proximity to the downtown business district was also an important factor in HUD's approval of the site,for-elderly: housing. HUD found the proposed project Lo be in compliance with its .stringent requirements for elderly housing and approved disbursement of construction financing. Thereafter, in reliance on the assurances received from the City and Borough that all zoning requirement's and restrictions were satisfied and believing in good faith that they had complied with all zoning requirements and restrictions, Sunset Development Co'. began construction of the project and has now expended in excess of $1,000,000. Obviously, such a scenario of'events occurs rarely and, therefore, are truly exceptional.circuM-. -stances which do not apply generally to other properties in the same land district. The strict application of the code's side yard .restrictions would cause practical difficulties in locating the buildings on the property; and, the strict application of the code's lot area requirements, necessitating the cowItruction of a .111aller projyct, would present practical difficulties in obLaining and retaining HUD financing for. the project. Finally, strict application of the code would result in unnecessary financial hardship for the developers and would . probably prevent the completion of the project. r ,. 1.')') Au,l)r :; t. 21, •i J /U Page 7 c,ranl.i ncl , they side yard and lot ;11 :ear vi11:L111e :e would not result t .in material clam,rcle: to other properties in the vicinity. The planned- height of the r; Lruc trr r 0 complies with the code's .restrictions for a business district acid the project would be compatible with surrounding uuc: :s. l rrtthcrmore, the requested variances would neither ;be dot ri- mental too the public health, safety or welfare, nor contrary to the objective:: of the comprehensive plan. In fact construc- tion of the project would further those objectives. '1'Irerclor :e, . we are asking for Variances from full side yard requirements for the west gable end of the building and from lot: area requirements to allow construction of 55 'dwelling units on the property. Regarding parking, the site plan now provides for the con= ;tr.uct:ion of 26 parking spaces to serve the 65 unit complex. HUD reviewed 'this proposal and approved the-plan as provid- ing adequate 1)rrrl:iny for an elderly 11ouc;.i.ng project. HUD's apps :oval was based primarily on two factor :rs : (1j- the pro- jest's close proximity to the downtown bus.inc:ss district• ',.h.ich would reduce the need of owning an automobile and (2) the reduced :incidence of automobile ownership by elderly people (a factor: 'considered Particularly applicable to I:odiak because of the community's size and location). A ;utvcy oC persons interested in'elder.1.y housing conducted in 10741 determined that only 3U owned automobiles. Present plans call for construction of a mini -park on the project site Lo the east of the planned parking n1 :ea.. The park would provide the elderly i :e:• ;.idcuts a readily access- ible outdoor area and .would he esthetically pleasing to the surrounding. neiylrbo hood. However, if required, the area could be paved and utilized as additional parking. 'I'hc: ell ;1n1.in,j or a parking variance would not conflict with the comprehensive p1 an no.r would it be detrimental Lo the : :urroun(.liny property, public: health, .safety or welfare. Actually, 1 ly, the use of the land as a park would inure to the. hcneCi.L of the surrounding property owners and the community in general. 'Therefore, it is-requested that the Project-be holmuuh File No. 199:1-2 Amo;1... 21, 1 T/B Pagc granLed a variance from providing more Lhan thu 2G parking Lipaces now p1a1nud. . Your cooperaLion and undeu:;Landing in reviewing this peti7 Lion is yrcaLly appreciaLed. . RespccLfully, ' COIX„ HARTIG, RHODES, NORMAN & MAHONEY /r) C\ • Bernard J. CWE:BjD:kjb IJC:- Dougherty ii 11 ' `-0 July 28, 1976 Kodiak Istand Borough Planning 6 Zoning Commission Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Request for Exception Gentlemen: Acting on behalf of Sunset Development Corporation, owners of property at Erskine Avenue and Rezanof Drive, otherwise known as U. S. Survey 2537B' Tract Aand Lot 39, Erskine Subdivision, U. S. Survey 562, | do hereby request the granting of an exception from the strict application of the zoning ordinance under terms of Section 17.66.010 of said Ordinance. Sunset Development Corporation proposes to construct 55 units of elderly housing on the commercially zoned property and have been advised by our architects that the exceptionally narrow and sloping conditions of the terrain have created great practical difficulties in siting the proposed structure. Recent highway con- struction on Rezanof Drive have accentuated an already difficult terrain situation by creating a downward slope condition of 25 feet in a horizontal distance of 40 feet from curb to building face. This condition has ptaced an extraordinary re- striction on building placement and elevation which would deprive us of property rights and uses possessed by others in the same district. We therefore request this granting of an exception of the strict interpretation of Section 17.21.030 of Chapter 17.21 respecting building heights of three stories. We ask that the building height be measured from mean slope position rather than at the footing level below grade. Such an exception would provide a building height that was only twenty-two feet above grade on Rezanof Drive and .allow a more attractive architectural profile. Further, we are requesting the granting of an exception of the strict interpretation of Section 17'Zl'U5UoyChapter 17,21 respecting side yards. Side yards are not normally required in the business zone except when bordering a residential district. Slope conditions being as described in the previous section would deprive us from use of the property as enjoyed by other property owners in the same district if strict interpretations • are applied. Therefore, we are asking for an exception from full side yard requirements for the west gable end of the building only. Your cooperation and understanding in the granting of these exceptions will enable us to meet the final submittal requirements for project construction. Louis/P' lani for: Sunset Development Cor ion Ex A.1 1 ••••.- /M./—�` ` Kodiak Island Borougt,_/ Case No. §3_A____ PLANNING & ZONING REQUEST APPLICATION Date Final Disposition Application Fee paid $20.00 -Paid Type of Request Exception Remarks � Description of Land Erskine Subdivision, Tract Addition Survey 562 Block Lot Person Submitting application Mailing Address Fred C. Brechan and Louis P. iani P. Q. Box 1275, Kodiak, AK 99615 Covering Letter Submitted July 20, 1976 Plat Submitted P.erson or Representative to attend meeting Mr. lani Present Zoning Business Proposed zoning Reason for Request Narrow and sloping terrain Approved Remarks Not approved Remarks Borough Assembly Approval Remarks 97 , \ s^~~ie -�� z�. � - �� kLm�tm � �.*�'/ , [ � /y 4-74- " �� +�'�� ~�~~= �^,�' v,./,, , ( �v,z+'~~~-~~/ ' ~ 441-- r ( ; KODIAK ISLAND BOIV(.;(' August 30, 1977 Mr. John Slagle Building Official CITY OF KODIAK P. O. Box 1'397- Kodiak AK 99615 Dear Mr., Slagle: This departmeqt has had an opportunity to review the development plans submitted by Sunset Development Corporation for elderly housing. Our records indicate that on August 10, 1976,.the Kodiak Island Borough P & Z Commission granted an exception to Sunset Development Corporation for an elderly housing project. In our review we found the site plans for this project consistant with the one previously approved. Therefore, this department has no object- ion to the issuance of the necessary building permits from a planning standpoint. If you have any questions regarding this matter please advise. Sincerely, Harry Milligan, Planning Direct() HM:rc Enclosure P & Z Special Meeting August 10, 1976 cc Borough Manager P & Z Commission Borough Assembly Sunset Development Corporation gtitiL,',A.- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH August 10, 1976 • CALLTOORDER The meeting was caIed to order by Acting Chairman B}|| Williams at 2:45 p.nn. in the Borough Meeting Room. U ROLL CALL Present: Donald Brenteson Gene Erwin Dan Ogg Bill Williams /\bsen : Dan Busch Tom Hayden Harold Heglin There were siX people in the audience. III ITEM OF BUSINESS: Request for Exception; USS I537 B, Tract A and Lot 39, Erskine Subdivision, USS 562 (sunset Development Co.) as presented on the agenda of P & Z Commission meeting of August 4, 1976. Further consideration was given to a request for exception on behalfof Sunset Development Corporation, ovvners.o[ property known as USS 2537 A, Tract A and Lot 39, Erskine Subdivision, USS 562. During the regular Planning & Zoning meeting of August 4, 1978 certain technical issues were raised with respect to the applicant's request. The Planning & Zoning Commission further requested that the planning staff and the building official clarify the technical issues prior to a decision by the Planning & Zoning Commission. In pursuit of that objective the staff requested legal opinions of counsel on the matter of building across lot lines and the owner's use of negotiated easements, A copy of the opinion was presented to the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Barnett provided interpretations mf`the ordinance with. respect to the building height and the fire safety. With the technical issues clarified Acting Chairman Williams convened the meeting to formal session. Mr. Erwin moved that the exception be granted for properties otherwise known as USS 2537 B, Tract A and Lot 39, Erskine Subdivision, USS 562. Mr. Ogg seconded. Question called. Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Borough Secretary , Chairman October 11, 1978 Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Kodiak Elderly Housing Project Petition for Rezoning and for Variances. Dear Commission Member: It has come to our attention that attorneys for the Sunset Development Company, the partnership which is building the Kodiak Elderly Housing Project, are requesting that you rezone the site of that project to "Business" and that you approve variances to the side yard, lot area and parking space requirements of the Borough Land Use Code. As explained. below, I oppose the request made for rezoning and variances. With the assistance of my attorneys, Dickson, Evans, Esch & Papas, I am writing you to state my position in regard to the elderly housing project and to request that you protect my property rights by rejecting the requested changes and by ordering removal of the fourth and fifth floors of the project. I have lived at my present address on Erskine Avenue for fourteen years. Like other residents in the neighborhood, one of the reasons my husband and I chose this area for our home was the magnificent scenic view of the harbor, with the Roman Orthodox Church in the foreground. As you know, I am suing the Borough and the project because the project destroys the scenic view, which contributes sub- stantially to my enjoyment of my home and to my property value. The essence of my position in the suit to protect my. property is that, as a result of a breach of the developers' 1974 promise to limit the height of the buildings on the project site to one story above Rezanof, and because of violation of numerous Borough Land Use rules, Sunset Development Company has taken license to construct an illegal building which destroys my view and damages the value of my prop- erty. This effect is not limited to me alone. All the residents of my neighborhood suffer similar deprivation. At the outset, I hope you understand that I am not opposed to provision of modern, safe housing for Kodiak's elderly citizens. Further, I do not wish to suggest that Mr. Iani, Mr. Brechan and the others interested in the project are bad characters. We should applaud their entrepreneurial efforts to provide housing units for the elderly. However, we must also insist that the investors abide by the land use ExtAitAt. /1 TO: Commiss?"ThMemberS RE: Kodiak EA: y Housing Project DA: October L, 1978 PA: 2 rules, which protect all the residents of Kodiak and which help mold our growing community into the type of place which maximizes every- one's enjoyment of our unique physical environment. In the remainder of this letter, I would like to discuss the general nature of Sunset Development Company's request, and then discuss the technical requirements of granting rezoning and variance. Thank you , for your close attention to my views. A. The General Nature of Sunset Development Company's Request for Rezoning and Variances. The essence of Sunset Development Company's request is that you engage in a fiction by ignoring my valid questions as to the current zoning status of the project site and clarify the land use classification of the property in their favor. They request that you do this without potential prejudice to them--Sunset Development Company does not wish to waive any defenses against me in my suit. In other words, if you reject the request, Sunset wishes to be able to litigate the question on the current status of the land use classification of the housing project site. I object to this one-sided approach on the grounds of fundamental fairness. Local ordinances do not empower you to exercise zoning powers in the vacuum of legal fiction. If you do not grant Sunset's request, then necessarily you must find that the height restrictions promised in 1974 are binding, and that the building is in violation of local land use regulations. Once you undertake the consideration for rezoning and variances, you must be prepared to find facts against the developers--otherwise your proceeding is inherently • unfair. This approach is not to say you must decide the issues raised in my pending lawsuit. On the contrary, you must ignore that action and treat Sunset's request anew as if there is no building underway, and as if the site is zoned residential, with no variances granted. As an alternative, the Commission can determine at the outset that my objections to the zoning of the building are without merit and the petition for rezoning and variances does not need your consideration. I submit that this type of decision is more appropriate for a court of law. Fairness suggests that your analysis begin anew, as if there were no building underway; the law supports this approach. Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code provides that building permits issued contrary to requirements of land use regulation do not condone violation of the Land Use Code (Section 17.75.060) and are null and void (17.03.060(c)). Courts in other jurisdictions have held that when developers commence construction in violation of zoning ordinances, they run the extreme and very real risk of losing their investment. See, e.g., Board of Zoning of City of Whiting v. McFadden, 337 N.E.2d 576, 580 (Ind. App.1975). The burden of discovering and complying with applicable land use regulations is on the developer. Otherwise, it would permit illegal construction to serve as a basis for undermining the rational planning process designed to protect the character of our community. • TO: Commissi(Members RE: Kodiak E. Housing Project DA: October 1,, 1978 PA: 3 Admittedly your task is difficult. It will be tough to ignore the five-story presence near here. That much I have learned since the framing of the fourth floor began in December, 1977. Perhaps it will help you to accept this difficult conceptual ap- proach, required by law, if you will understand that I relied on the 1974 promise to limit the height of the building. When construction .began, I had no reason to believe my view would be impaired. I did not become aware of the problem until framing of the fourth floor began and the height exceeded the earlier promised limitation of one story above Rezanoff. When the framing of the fourth floor began, I immediately notified the Borough and the developers that I intended to protect my property rights and my view. My requests for action were ignored and con- struction continued to raise the fourth and fifth floors and a roof, all at the developers' risk. B. Variances - Lot Area I do not ask you to deny Sunset's request altogether. I only ask that you limit the height of the project to one story above Rezanof, , as promised. This limit will probably allow three stories, and require the removal of the fourth and fifth floors. This is 'a fair compromise, accommodating both my rights and those of the developer. You have the power to limit the height of the building. The developers' violation of the Kodiak code and their continuation of construction after notice of my objection squarely places the risk on them. My lawsuit objects to the project violation of the side yard, lot area and parking space requirements, not only because those violations are flagrant, but also because those requirements relate to my basic objection that the project is oversized and out of character with the area. If the lot area requirements are adhered to, the project could have only forty dwelling units. Removal of the excess fifteen units, if from the northern building, would reduce its height from five stories to three stories and thus protect my view. If Sunset Development Com- pany had adhered. to the dictates of the Kodiak land use regulations, we probably would not have our current height problems. In deciding whether or not to grant a lot area variance, you are not permitted to consider the economic problems that Sunset Develop- ment Company has created for itself. Because of the importance of systematic land use planning, and because variances permit deviation from that planning, variances usually are only rarely granted. You should not permit HUD's conclusions as to the optimum size or the availability of financing usurp your duty to abide by the land use rules established for Kodiak and embodied in Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. Variances are to be granted only when unique physical conditions affect an individual parcel unlike they affect other properties in the immediate area. Obviously the slope conditions that Sunset complains of affect other property in the area. Both residential and a variety of TO: Commissi(Members. RE: Kodiak Ei ly Housing Project DA: October 1_, 1978 PA: 4 types of commercial uses are feasible on the project site. It is not a geographic hardship that limits the use of the property; rather, a financial hardship in the form of the available financing and rent assist- ance have led Sunset to conclude that it must violate the lot area re- quirements. Unfortunately for Sunset, your power to grant a variance is only based on geographic hardship and not on self-created financial problems. stemming from the nature of one project chosen out of a tremendous range of possible uses of the land. The Kodiak Island Borough code requires that your analysis of an application for a variance determine whether unique geographic condi- tions on the project site prohibit uses available in similar, .adjacent land use zones. If you agree that the re-zoning request in effect estab- lishes a residential classification of the site, surely the variance must be denied because similarly situated surrounding property is developed residential, illustrating the availabilty of the project site for that type of use. If you grant a business rezoning and then consider the vari- ances, there are no similarly situated business zones to provide a basis for comparison. In that case, you must ask whether the character of the property prohibits all business uses. It is obvious that the geo- graphic character of the property does not prohibit all business uses. The hardships complained of are self-created by Sunset's choice of project. Self-created hardship is not a proper basis for granting a variance: the application must be denied. Section 17.66.140, Kodiak Island Borough Code provides that variances shall be denied if they adversely affect property of persons in vicinity of the applicant's property. As I previously explained, permitting 15 extra dwelling units above the requirements of the lot area restrictions effectively permits a violation of the 1974 height agree- ment. If Sunset had abided by the lot area requirements, the project would be smaller, the height lower and there would be •no need to impair my view. If you grant the variance, the adverse affect on my neighborhood is apparent. C. Variances - Parking Because of the length of this 'letter, I will try to be brief in my remarks about the parking space. If only 38% of elderly people have cars (as stated by the developers), and if half of the 54 elderly units are occupied by couples, then there will be approximately 80 elderly residents in the project, 30 of whom (38% of 80) will own cars. Add in one car for the manager and one service vehicle, and there is a mini- mum requirement of 32 parking spaces, 6 more than provided. Of course staff and visitors, whether family, preachers, or church groups, will need parking spaces. The wisdom of requiring one parking space per unit is apparent. Is it really in the interest of the elderly resi- dents to create a situation where they may return from a trip, find no parking space, and be forced to park on the street and walk back to their homes? Is this same situation fair to visitors, to the project or to neighboring residents? Again, if the lot area requirements are adhered to, the project will have only 40 units, and vacant space on the site will more nearly accommodate the parking space requirements of the project. TO: Commissi ,-_Member RE: Kodiak E., ly Housing Project DA: October 1---, 1978 PA: 5 ID. Rezoning In regard to the developers' request for rezoning, I would simply like to mention that Alaska Statute 29.33.090 specifically provides you with the power to agree by contract to limit uses of property so it is compatible with surrounding uses. You can rezone and limit height as before to one story above Rezanof. .This is appropriate because of the prior promise to limit the height and because Sunset's request neces- sarily asks you to consider the Merits afresh, despite urgings of Sunset to the contrary. Also the fourth and fifth stories were built at the developers' risk. It is within your power to order them removed. While you are considering rezoning to business, I hope you will address the language of Kodiak Island Borough Code Section 17.21.010, which has been previously interpreted in the Borough to require busi- ness uses on the ground floor of apartment houses in a business dis- trict. There is no business usage in the subject apartment house. Therefore, the building is illegal. E. Conclusion I am pleased that Sunset has chosen to defer to your judgment. I feel as a commission you are well rounded and capable of developing a fair solution which will protect the property interest on homes north of the project and permit completion of about 40 units. Perhaps the best solution would be to approve the rezoning with a height limitation and deny the requested variances, thereby ensuring the project will be an appropriate size, compatible with the historic development patterns of Kodiak and our neighborhood. I hope you will not be coerced by Sunset's thinly veiled threat of a lawsuit contained in the last paragraph of Page 2 of the request for rezoning and variances. Threat of legal action is never an appropriate reason for rezoning or granting a variance. Your duty of neutrality in weighing the merits of Sunset's request is not affected by your status as defendant in my lawsuit. I have not meant to tell you how to exercise your power. I only wish to express my views as to what those powers are. Thank you for your full attention to this letter. I look forward to presenting my views further at the public hearing. orra ne 'ayton GAD/LD/Irh KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ORDINANCE NUMBER 74-5-0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH REZONING OF LOTS 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, AND 45, BLGCK 2, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION AND LOT 12, BLOCK 1, KODIAK TOWNSITE, U. S. SURVEY 2537-B FROM R-3 TO COMMERCIAL. WHEREAS, ALASKA STATUTES 29.33.090 empowers the Borough to enact a Zoning Ordinance and provide for its administration, enforcement and amendment, and 1 - WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough has pursuant thereto ladopted Chapter 5of its Code of Ordinances and Resolutions, 1 which provided for planning and zoning provisions and procedures nd WHEREAS, according*t0 the Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Map adopted by the Kodiak Island Borough, Lots 40, 41, 42, 143, 44, and 45, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision and Lot 12, Block 1, 1Kodiak Townsite, U. S. Survey 2537-B has been zoned R-3 and, WHE-ITAS a petition has been received from FRED BRECHAN/ r LOUIS IANI requesting same be rezoned from R-3 to Commercial for 1 further development of the area, and 1 WHEREAS, the Petition was considered and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 23rd day of February, 1974, after a public hearing was held thereon and concern was expressed regarding the height above Resanof , the builders were agreeable to the stipulation that the building above Rezanof Would be no more than one story; and said body has recommended the reclassification of said property to Commerical and no other objections were voiced at the public hearing; it having been determined that the public necessity, convenience and good, zoning practice require such reclassification, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED hy the Borough Assembly Kodiak Island Borough that the property described as: of the Lots 40, 41,.42, 43, 44, and 45, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision and Lot 12, Block 1, Kodiak Townsite, U. S. Survey 2537-B Be and the same are hereby reclassified as Commercial and that notice of this Ordinance be given by publication in the•Kodiak Mirror seven (7)days prior to the second reading and that a public hearing be held thereon the date of the second reading and that this Ordinance become effective at expiration of thirty (30) days, after its adoption. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BY BY ATTEST: Borough Clerk PAGE TWO of Ordinance 74-5-0 ' Borough Mayor, Presiding,Officer 41.■01110 LJ KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ORDINANCE NUMBER 76-17-0 AN ORDINANCE. OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY EXPANDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ENCOMPASS LOT 39, BLOCK 2, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, ALASKA STATUTES 29.33.090 empowers the Borough to enact a Zoning Ordinance and provide for its administration, enforcement and amendments, and WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough has pursuant thereto adopted Chapter 17, of its Code of Ordinances and Resolutions which provides for planning and zoning provisions and procedures,.and WHEREAS, According to the Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Map adopted by the Kodiak Island Borough, Lot 39; Block 2, Erskine Subdivision has been zoned R-3, and WHEREAS, a petition has been received from the property owners of Lot 39, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision.requesting same to be rezoned to Business-for future' —deVeTopment of a Senior Citizens' Project, and WHEREAS, the.Petition was considered and approved by the Planning and Zoning .Commission on the 16th day of June, 1976, and said body has recommended the reclassification of said property from R-3 to Business. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the Borough Assembly of the Kodiak Island Borough that the property described as: Lot 39, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision BE AND THE SAME is hereby reclassified as Business and that notice of this ordinance be given by publication in the Kodiak MIRROR seven days prior to the second reading and public hearing; that the public hearing be held thereon on the date of the second reading and that this ordinance shall be in full effect at the time of adoption. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ATTEST: s.2.7../ Borough Clerk BY 76 //( , Borough Mayor / BY • presidi(gOf cer Fist Reading, ApprVval Date: June 17, 1976 ecoDd Reading, Public Hearing, Passage Date: July 1, 1976 Effective Oato; July 1, 1976 Page TWO, ORDINANCE N0. 76-17-0 ,., • •• , , ..i....---..e"."•-• r,..; 1.0 ,r‘ . •k-- ........*Y.-c'' r ......::::.!:.1.1" ...,.t'LIL.-=*--- •':?- X 3 .': ."..V" ----. 4..".1%->/'` • z.-- ,-. -. • . -.‘,:--....;-----s::::,3„;... ••••••,:_;_•....s...r.... :-.. — ---1 :1-.:"..f!..:.Z.L:4=-KorDIAK •-....:;.......,\7.., Sunset Develuoment, Inc. P. O. Box 1275 . Kodiak, Alaska 59615 SUBJECT: /f• y 1"."-A [i II k PRUNE (907) 486.3224 -11.:LEX 253,15 P.O. BOX 1397 KOD1A:.( ALASKA 99615 August 13, 1976 Senior Citizens Home • U. S. S. 2537 B, Tract A Erskine Subdivision, Lot 39, Block 2 Gentlemen: 7 Use permit is hereby granted to Sunset Development, Incorporated for construction of a Senior Citizens Home on the above indicated lots in the City of Kodiak, Alaska. The proposed project is in full compliance with all ap- plicable zoning requirements and restrictions. • A Building Permit will he issued subject to approval of plans by the State Fire Marshall and this office. GB/lkg : Very truly yours, r Gordon Barnett Building Inspector 11; 6; -I-- 44 4 KODJA September 2, 1977 Mr. Fred Brechan Sunset Development Corp. P.O. Box 1275 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. Brechan: BOROILIGH Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 O1112 On Friday, September 2, 1977, the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approved the replat of previously vacated utility ea ements within the limits of your proposed elderly housing develop:rent. This action by the Assembly constitutes the last approval from the Borough necessary preparatory to construction. If this department can assist you further during the course of construction,. please advise. Sincerely, • 1, Pknning Dii.ector H: ckw Exh;t;i- KODIAK ISLAND BOR011'-i DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJ: MEMORANDUM 19 October 78 Planning & Zoning Commission Department of Planning & Community Development Information Report Variance's Requested by the Sunset Development Company During your regular meeting held on 18 October 78, Mr. George Dixon, attorney at law, pointed out to the Commission that no investigation of the requested variances requried by Section 17.66.120 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordin- ances had been made. Following the meeting Chairman Busch asked that the staff conduct the required application review. The variances sought are from 1) Sections 17.21.040, lot area, which required a minimum lot area of 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit in the Business Zoning District. 2) 17.18.040 and 17.21.050 minimum yard requirements. 3) 17.57.010, which requires one (1) off street parking space per dwelling unit. The thrust of the request is to clarify any procedural and/or technical errors associated with previous approvals grant- ed by a former Planning & Zoning Commission in August, 1976. In the absence of clearly defined finding supportive of the 1976 de- cisions, staff finds there are-certain basic facts associated with this request which we feel would have been equally applicable at that time.. The site location and on site ammenity requirements for an elderly housing project are different than those which would or could be applied to a conventional apartment complex. While many of the site location selection criteria for multi-family dwellings are similar, some site location requirements are more critical than others when selecting a site for elderly housing. The subject location is ideally suited for its intended use. It's proximity & access to community services is excellent. It's proximity to medical, dental & related professional services is difficult if not impossible to find at any other location in Kodiak. It is less than one minute, in response time, for fire and emergency service assistance. /1; KODIAK ISLAND BOROL -I MEMORANDUM, 18 October 78 Page 2 In addressing the four conditions for a variance set forth in Section 17.66.070 B, the Zoning staff offers the follow- ing findings for your consideration of the variance requested from Section 17.21.040: 1) Staff finds there are exception physical cir- cumstances and conditions applicable to the land and its intended development which do not apply to other lands and developments in the Business Zoning District. a) The topography of the site limits how it can be developed. b) Its location is within close walking dis- tance of medical, dental, social services and convenience shopping for the elderly. c) The physical site of the proposed dwelling units are smaller than more conventional apartments i.e. effeciency and one (1) bedroom units vs. one (1) to three (3) bedroom units. d) Elderly housing requires quick responses from community service ambulance and fire to the nature of the occupants and their physical ability to react in case of emergency. 2) Staff agrees that strict application of the regulations in this case would result in unnecessary hardship in that it would require this unique and badly needed facility for the elderly be relocated on some less convenient and far less desireable site for the occupants than is offered by the petitioned property. We feel that hardship which would have to be born by the elderly is unnecessary and without justification. 3) Staff finds that granting this request will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity. While there may le',some loss of view from adjacent properties there is no provision for view plain preservation within the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances at this time, nor were there such provisions in August, 1976. 4) Staff finds granting this lot area variance request will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Nor will it result in a defacto rezoning of the land resulting from any density increase. The business district allows our most intense residential density. Were this a business building, there would be no limitation on lot coverage and the bulk to height ratio could conceivably allow 5 stories, property line to property line. Variance request-Sunset Development-continued Page 3 October 19, 1978 SECOND VARIANCE This analysis deals with the variance requested from Section 17.18.040 and 17.21.050 minimum yard requirements. This request is tantamount to a total abatement of a 75' required side yard. . The following reflects our analysis of therequired findings in Section 17.66.090 B. 1) Our findings for this condition are the same as previously stated on Page 2, of this report. 2) Staff finds that the requirement for any use of land in the business zone resulting in a 75' minimum setback for open space purposes is excessive. Part- icularly when the land is located adjacent to the communities central business district. This setback services no fire life safety or other required purpose. Staff finds that the shape of the site and the building location provide a much more usable and functional site utilization plan, than that required by strict application of the regulations. 3) Staff finds granting this variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity. Nor will it be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. We see no material damage resulting from this variance. The intended use is not one that could be considered noxious, injurious, or hazardous. The exterior wall has been designed to meet a two hour fire resistive rating. It complies with the fire resistive construction requirements of the U.B.C. The business district has the highest requirement for fire resistive construction. 4) Staff finds granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive Plan. It will consolidate the openspace on this site. Thus creating a more usable area for the building occupants. In a more conventional building with children and younger people, they require more outdoor activity area. Whereas, the elderly don't have these same needs. Variance request- Sunsent Development- continued Page 4 October 19, 1978 THIRD VARIANCE This analysis deals with the variance requested from Section 17.57.010 off - street parking and requires one off - street parking space per dwelling unit. The following reflects our ana_lysis_-the required findings in Section 17.66.090 B. 1) The intended use of the building is to provide housing for the elderly. The elderly historically do not own cars at the same ratio as younger people. In 1974, a survey of Kodiak's elderly indicated only 38% owned a vehicle. While this site plan indicates only 26 parking spaces, Staff feel 26. spaces may not be sufficient. 2) Staff finds that to require 55 parking spaces when it can be proven a lesser number satisfies the need could be interpreted as an unnecessary. hardship. 3) Staff finds no material hardship or damage to adjacent property will result from a granting a variance to reduce the amount of parking required for this project. Based on our review, we find that 37 parking spaces and one loading berth should be adequate to serve the needs of this project. 4) Staff finds granting this request would not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, when it can be proven that a particular minimum stand- ard is not applicable in a specific instance. STAFF SUMMARY While we find that the original action of the Commission may have been clouded through a request inproperly couched. The record is abundantly clear as to the developers request and the Commissions action. That is the Commission intended to grant that which had been requested. In order to allow this project to go forward as presented to them for their approval in August, 1976. We feel the foregoing finding will serve to clarify the technical error in that the original record which failed to provide finding supportive„ of the action taken. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Box 1246 Kodisk, l‘Isska 99613 FIRST CLASS MAIL 1,0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission has received a, peitition from SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY requesting 1) Rezoning of Lot 39, Block 2, Ersking Subdivision, USS 562 and Tract "A". USS 2537 and USS 562 (formerly Lots 40-45, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision, USS 562 and., Lot 12, Block 3, original Townsite, USS 2537 B. 2) A request for a variance to permit the continued construction & use of a building containing 55 dwelling units on a site which will only accommodate 40.7 units; 3) A request for LIM.riknges9 to permit the continued construction & use of a building which encroaches into required yards, and, 4) A request for a variance to permit the continued use and construction of a building which provides only 28 of the 55 offstre'et parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on this matter at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 18, 1978 in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 700 Upper Mill Bay Road, Kodiak. You are being' notified because you are either the property owner of the above-referenced lots:,. or . an owner of property within 300 feet of the above-referenced property. This will be the only Public Hearing before the Planning:and Zoning Commission on this petition, and you are invited to appear and voice your opinion. If you cannot attend, yoia'mai submit a written opinion that can be read into the minutes of the Public Hearing. If you would like to comment on the petition proposal, this form may be used for your convenience, and returned to the Planning Department. Further information is available from the Planning Department, telephone 486-5736. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Department of Planning and Community Development Name Legal Description Comments Address 46/8'..• I* tik oftititstairr- Is 41.444A 444: ill% 444'4 I , I I 171Y • 411;i1, 4 4 4'4 • 414 4 1 1 444,1,1 4444 144i ,,4 14444 4,1,1 ,44 444, 44 kW 45 1, 4 11- T 41 • 11,1% u'oe?PEvA , 1, , 4 4 ! 4 4 $4 ' 444 a 4-4.4, t & I. , , • At'a 4 • 4 • R ZANOFF RIVE n6 1,1 32 SS 444 Tr A- unt4,214f Tr r Ea' A US'S /995- USS 2537 B— r121,, N 21 Sunset Devel p ent CASE it 78 -075 & 78 -076 Sunset Development Erskine Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 39, USS 2537, Tract A and USS 562 Public Notices were mailed out October 11, (of which there were 63 in all) NEW KODIAK TOWNSITE Block 17: Lot 2A Lot 3 A.S.H.A. State of Alaska Dept. of Public Works KODIAK TOWNSITE ' Block 1: Lot 18A & B Lot 19 & 20 Lot Pt. 21 Lot Pt. 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Lot Lot Lot Larry Shaw Phillip E. Ferris Mervin Brun v Fred & Alex Zharof John Rogers Cecil Hartman 24. - East Point Seafoods 25 John & Mary Chya 26 William Hartman Lots 30, -30A, 30E Emil Christofferson Lot 30 B Steven R. Carvalho Lot 30 C Otto G. Mahle Lot 30 D Louis Iani & Fred Block 2: Lot 2 & 3 George Borsody Lot 3 A City of Kodiak Block 3: Lot Pt. 8 Charles Nims Lot Pt. 8 Community Baptist Lot 9 Rosita Agarin Lots 10, 10 A Dave Bean Lot 11 Craig J. Bishop Block 8: Lot 7 Wilton White U.S.S. 444, TRACT C William Simeonoff William Hartman Bert & Sue Lee Walter Muller St. Hermans - Pastoral George Torgramsen Russian Orthodox Church U.S.S. 444, TRACT A Lot'A Lot B Lot C Lot D 1978 to the following persons: Box 80 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Pouch Z Juneau, Alaska ox 1441 Box 331 Box 1662 Box 405 Box 252 Box 1123 Box 1637 Box 994 Box 2787 Box Box Box Brechan Box 196 2552 2016 1275 Box 1251 Box 1397 Box 701 Church Box 887 Gen. Del. Box 2161 Ralph Papetti Box 753 Kodiak, Kodiak, Kodiak, Kodiak; Kodiak, Kodiak, Kodiak, Kodiak, Kodiak, Kodiak; Kodiak, Kodiak; Kodiak; Kodiak; Kodiak; Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska .Alaska Alaska Alaska . Alaska Alaska Alaska ll l : t rd Alaska 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 Alaska 99615 Alaska 99615 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak; Alaska 99615 Kodiak; Alaska 99615 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 254 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 53 Box 2787 Box 1001 Box 313 School Box 55 Box 1192 Box 55 Russian Church Box 55 Kodiak, Alaska Kodiak, Alaska Kodiak, Alaska Kodiak, Alaska Kodiak, Alaska Kodiak, Alaska Kodiak, Alaska 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 99615 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Standard Oil of California Box 3498 San Francisco, Ca. 94120 State of Alaska • Juneau, Alaska Standard Oil of California Box 3498 San Francisco,'Ca. 94120 U.S.S. 2537 B - TRACT A Sunset Development Company U.S.S. 2538, Pt. TRACT B United States Fish & Wildlife Box 1275 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 825 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 I/ 7 01-4;A: t ERSKINE SUBDIVISION. Block 2: Lot 23 & 24 Peter Ramaglia Lot 25 Phillip V. Bigson Lot 39 Sunset Development Co. Block 3: Lot 26 John Waller Lot 27 & 28.Mike Fitzgerald Lot 29 William & Jean Schwaab Block 5: Lot 15 Timothy Abena C Lots 16, 17 & 18 Edith Wiley Lot 19 B Knox N. Christie Block 6: Lot 8 & 9 Lorraine T. Dayton bey,7'.71 Lot 10 William J. Van Ardent Gary G. Poll 11 Stanley Nelson 12 Delores Padilla c/o Mrs. Tom Gallagher 13 Bertha Thomson Pratt 14 June Wilson 15 Gary Stevens 86 William Mackeyiv ,7v/ 87 August Heitman 88 Richard Snyder B.E. Nachtweih c/o 14 (new owner) Washburn Lot Lot 11 Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot tt Lot Block 7: Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot 54 Neil Sargin 55 Community Baptist Ch. 56 & 57 Jack Mann 152 Lloyd Cannon 153 Lawrence M. Malloy & Nancy R. Frost Pt. Block 7 Mrs. Kenneth Andrews Box 335 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 1005 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 1275 Kodiak, Alaska0615 . - Box 1651 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 447 Kodiak, Alaska_99615: Box 2812 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 1457 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 446 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 801 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 3115 Princeton Way Anchorage,Alaska 99504 Box Box Box Box Box Box Box Gen. Box Box Box Box 33 Kodiak, Alaska 99619 324 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 734 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 734 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 242 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 257 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 201 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Del. Kodiak, Alaska99615 356 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 2021 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 2021 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 2151 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 121 Box 887 Box 245 Box 585 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Box 2034 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 25 DeWolfe St, Cambridge, Mass. 02138 Robert Mahoney Cole, Hartig, Rhodes, Norman & Mahoney Suite 201, 717 "K" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. V -78 -056 A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE OFF- STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF SEC- TION 17.57.010 OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CODE OF ORDINANCES ( SUNSET DE- VELOPMENT COMPANY). WHEREAS, a petition was received from Sunset Development Company requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 17.57.010 (off- street parking requirements) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances to pro- vide only 26 of the 55 required parking spaces, and, WHEREAS, notice was published, notices were mailed and a public hearing was held, and, WHEREAS, the Commission found approximately 34% of the elderly and handicapped persons residing in the Borough own a motor vehicle, and, WHEREAS, the Commission found the Senior Citizens of Kodiak Asso- ciation own's and operates two mini -buses for the exclusive purpose of provid- ing transportation for the elderly, and, WHEREAS, the Commission found the off - street parking need of the proposed use were sufficiently different to warrant a variance, and, . WHEREAS, the Commission found reducing the parking requirements from 55 to 37 spaces would be consistent with the needs of the occupants, and the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission that a variance to reduce the off - street parking require- ment from 55 to 37 spaces is hereby granted subject to the following condition: 1. The Planning Official shall from time to time check the site to insure that 37 spaces are adequate. If it is found that additional spaces are needed, he shall report the need to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission may then if they deem it necessary, change the variance to require all or part of the parking spaces required. ADOPTED this 19th day of November 1978. ATTEST: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By hairman KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. V-78-057 A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 17.18.040 AND 17.21.050, TO PERMIT A BUILDING TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY-FIVE (75') FEET INTO A REQUIRED SIDE YARD. (SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY). WHEREAS, a petition was received from Sunset Development Company requesting a variance from the requirements of Sections 17.18.040 and 17.21.050 (minimum side yards of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances), to permit a building to encroach approximately seventy-flve‘(75!):feet into.required side yard, and WHEREAS, notice was published, notices were mailed and a public hearing was held, and WHEREAS, the Commission found the site design and building location for this use provided the best utilization of the lands, thus eliminating the need for a 75' side yard on the west side of the building, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that granting this request was con- sistent with the actions the Commission felt it had taken in 1976, and WHEREAS, the Commission found the proposed use consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning.Commission that the request for a variance is approved. ADOPTED this 19th day of November , 1978. ATTEST: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION / 1 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. V-78-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COM- MISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 55 ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED DWELLING UNITS ON A SITE WHICH WOULD ACCOMODATE 40.7 CONVENTIONAL DWELLING UNITS.. (SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY). WHEREAS, a petition was received from Sunset Development Company requesting a variarice from the requirements of Section 17.21.040, minimum lot area, of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances, and use of a building containing 55 dwelling units for elderly and handicapped persons on a site which will accomodate 40.7 conventional dwelling units. And, WHEREAS, notice was published, notices were mailed and a public hearing was held, and WHEREAS, the Commission found the individual dwelling unit design required to meet federal elderly and handicapped housing needs limits the num- ber of persons per dwelling unit to less persons than would be allowed in a more conventional apartment building, and WHEREAS, the Commission found the proposed site is.ideally located to provide the community services and facilities necessary to support the hous- ing needs of elderly and handicapped persons, and WHEREAS, the Commission found the total site density generated by 55 dwelling units would be equal to or less than that generated by 40.7 con- ventional dwelling units, and WHEREAS, the Commission found the petitioners owned a 1,600 + square foot parcel of land immediately adjacent to Tract "A" which could be in- corporated into the proposed site. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission that this request for a variance is granted subject to the following condition: 1. That the 1,631 square foot portion of Lot 30, Block 1, Erskine Subdivision, owned by Mr. Fred Brechan and Mr. Lou Iani, be sold to Sunset De- . velopment Corporation and included into Tract "A" within 30 days. ADOPTED this 19th day of ATTEST: & Z Secretary November , 1978. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZO NG COMMISSION 1.11. Chairman 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 30 31 I have read this foregoing verbatim translation, consisting of pages 1 through 135, inclusive, and the same is true and correct, excepting as I have made notations of corrections. DATED at Kodiak., Alaska, this 6th day of December STATE OF ALASKA Third Judicial District 1978. )) • • • SUBSCRIBED TO before me this 6th day of December , 1978. Not --rY Public in and o Alaska My commission expires My Cornrniss;on Explre,i April 28, 1932 ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907 - 486 - 4837 iv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 '15 16 17 18 19 20 21 '22 '23 I -, Anita 'Newell, ,Notary Public in and'for the State of Alaska, and Court Reporter-,for. Island Secretarial Servi Lox 26B4, Kodiak,; Alaska, 99615, do hereby certify: That on this 6th day of December, 1978, the verbatim translation of'the Planning and Zoning Commission -, meeting dealing with the-v.ariance'requests of the Sunset Development Company verses, Lorraine Dayton, was completed and submitted to George'Dickscin, attorney -at -law, and to Harry Milligan, Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary, and-to the City. of :Kodiak, and Bernard Doughe.rty, attorney-at-law with Cole, Hartig, Rhodes,.•Norman and Mahoney. That the' "foregoi;rig' was transcribed into , typewr.i teen. form and is a true and correct translation of the proceeding s, had'in the aforementioned' matter.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF .,,.I have hereunto set. my hand and affixed my notarial seal this µ 6th day of December 1978. 24 25 26 27- 28 29 30 31 AN TA NEWELL My Commission expires: ISLAND SECRETARIAL SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2684 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 907. 486 -4837 hY Wiw:3:1M i:xdrl: (sapµ Grp BACKGROUND MATERIALS I-N-D-E-X ITEM NO.: EXPLANATION: A. Letter from Walter Ebell to P & Z Commission, Dated 11/15/7.8 B. Letter from Roy Ecklun to Sunset Development, Dated 10/31/78. C. Letter from Mark Copeland to George Dickson, Dated 3/24/78 D. Affidavit by Lou Tani concerning Sunset Development in regards to the Elderly Housing Project E. Building Permit issued 8/30/77 F. First page of minutes from P & Z Commission meeting held August 17, 1977 G. Letter from Leon Johnson to Sunset Development Co., Dated 1/4/77 H. Letter from Michael Sharon to Stu Denslow, Dated 8/17/76 1. Minutes from Special P & Z Commission meeting held 8/10/76 J. First page of minutes from P & Z Commission meeting held 8/4/76 K. Letter from Robert Craig to Sunset Development Co., Dated 7/6/76 L. Second page of minutes from K.I.B. Assembly meeting held 7/1/76 M. Letter from Robert Craig to Raymond Estess, Dated 6/22/76 N. Minutes from K.I.B. Assembly Special meeting hdld 6/19/76 O. Third page from minutes of K.I.B. Assembly Special meeting held 6/17/76 P. Memorandum to the Planning Commission, Dated 5/27/76 Q. Letter from Norma Holt to Lou Iani, Dated 5/20/76 R. Letter from Robert Mahoney to Norma Holt; Dated 12/7/73 te. HOYT M. COLE ROBERT L. HARTIG JAMES D. RHODES JOHN K. NORMAN ROBERT J. MAHONEY BERNARD J. DOUGHERTY MICHAEL W. SHARON - - G. ROONEY KLEEDEHN J. MICHAEL ROBBINS ROGER H. BEATY STEPHEN D. ROUTH WEV W. SHEA EDGAR R. LOCKE ANDREW M. FIEMENWAY OF COUNSEL: G. KENT EDWARDS COLE, HARTIG, RHODES, NORMAN & MAHONEY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 201 717 K STREET ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 (907) 274-3576 November 15, 1978 Planning and Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough P.O. Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Gentlemen: KODIAK OFFICE: 202 CENTER AVE., BOX 503 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 ' (907) 486-3143 (907) 486-3144 MICHAEL W. SHARON REPLY TO: it.odia1; Wgid. Boroup KODIAK, ALA! 6A 7.F.rrIVF,) 1g9 er4; • •- • 42, RE: Kodiak Elderly Housing Projeet. Our File No. 1993-2 As you may remember, during the hearing on October 18, 1978, regarding this matter a question arose as to the distance between Mrs. Dayton's property and the property owned by Sunset Development Company. Mr. Dougherty stated that a land survey established that the distance exceeded 300 feet. A letter confirming the surveyor's verbal report is enclosed for your review. It should be noted that the measured distance is between the closest points and that lot 39 is located even further from Mrs. Dayton's property. If you have any questions regarding this matter or require further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours C. Walter Ebell CWE:ad cc: Sunset Development Company Richard Garnett, III, Esq. George Dickson, Esq. enclosure Kodiak ROY A. ECKL UNE) P.O. Box 146 Kodiak, Alaska Professional Land Surveyor October 31, 1978 99615 tel. 907 486. 3198 Sunset Development Company P. O. Box 1275 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Horizontal distance between Lot 9, Block 6, Erskine Subdivision, U. S. Survey No. 562, and Tract "A", U. S. Survey 562, U. S. Survey 2537-B. Gentlemen: The shortest horizontal distance between Lot 9, Block 6, Erskine Subdivision, U. S. Survey 562, and Tract "A", U. S. Survey 562 and U. S. Survey 2537-B, based on an electronic field measurement, is 303.9 feet. If you have any questions, please feel free to call at any time. Sincerely, Roy A. Ecklund Registered Land Surveyor • DAVID WOLF RESIDENT PARTNER • LAW OFFICES OF KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND . 909 WEST 9,. AVENUE SUITE 140 ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE (9071 276-5152 March 24, 1978 George A. Dicksdn, Esq. Dickson, Evans, Each & Papas 880 "H" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Kodiak Elderly Project Dear Mr. Dickson: OREGON OFFICE 3500 FIRST•NATIONAL TOWER PORTLAN D, OR EGO N 97201 TELEPHONE 1503) 224-4100 J. DAVID BENNETT MARK G. COPELAND' CHARLES A. °ALFORD DAVID W. HARPER GORDON H. KEANE THOMAS M. LANDYE DIARMUID F. O'SCANN LAIN DONALD H. PEARLMAN RANDALL L. DUNN ROBERT B. HOPKINS RICHARD L. SADLER ALSO ADMITTED IN ALASKA We have reviewed and researched the issues raised by your letter of January 20, 1978 submitted on behalf of your client, Lorraine Dayton, regarding the Kodiak Elderly Project. Although we are prepared to discuss the matter further with you, our client, the Kodiak Island Borough, presently does not anticipate taking any action in this matter as your client did not timely exhaust her administrative remedies. Sincerely yours, KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN and COPELAND Mark G. Copeland MGC/j1p cc. Mr. Stewart Denslow, Manager, Kodiak Island Borough Harry Milligan, Director, Planning & Zoning, Kodiak Island Borough S.; • — . • 7--2\ r•""k AFFIDAVIT State of Alaska )ss. Third Judicial District ) cfl I, Louis P. Iani, Managing partner of Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak, being first duly sworn depose and say: Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak, involved in the F.H.A. project . #176-35012, Kodiak Elderly, is a limited partnership owned by Fred C. Brechan at 24.75%, Ruth S. Brechan at 24.75%, Louis P. Tani at 24.75% , Frances S. Tani at 24.75% and Paul Neal III at 1%. Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak feels that there was and is a need 4,T) for Senior Citizen Housing. We, with the complete approval of the Senior Citizens of Kodiak, on 4/15/76 received from Northwest Design • Associates, 839 W. Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, Ak, a design plan, job #4144, design: Becker, Drawn: Becker, Dated 4/15/76. This design plan showing elevations and set back from lot lines, was on display at Planning'and Zoning meetings, Kodiak City Council meetings, Kodiak Island Borough meetings, and numerous public'hear- ings called by these regulatory bodies, pertaining to this elderly development whidh was finally approved with the issuance of use permit dated 13 Aug 1976. The need for Kodiak Senior Citizen Housing increases each year. We have been waging an uphill battle to achieve this housing. We started with normal bank financing, but the debit service was too high. Then we turned to Farmer Home Administration and were led down a different • _L, A • AIL MEL __ -2- path with the same results. -In February of 1976, with the en- couragement of the Senior Citizens we went to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Anchorage office, with our project. Using their formula it would take a minimum of 55 units to make this project economically feasible. The location of the land on which this project is being built lends itself completely to what our elderly would like and need. This project is being built under section 221(d), National Housing Act. This is a Section 8 Rent Subsidy program. Even with the rent subsidy program for the elderly, the project could not be built because of rising cost of building. We approached Neal & Co., a contractor from Homer, Alaska. He lowered his price to a break even situation in return for an interest in the project. Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak has invested in the project cash and land value of $195,000.00, plus other supplimental agreements to contractor of $52,000.00 as additional payment to build the build- ing. Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak is responsible for all addi- tional costs of the building above the contract price, which under normal conditions could be a large sum. We are also obligated for off -site costs pertaining to the moving of power lines, estimated at $75,000.00 but could increase to over $100,000.00.. We also at our own expense have to do the paving of the parking area estimated at $3.5,000.00. Land Value $ 110,000.00 H.U.D. Approved Cash 85,720.00 On Issuance of Advances. Cash 47,900.00 Letter of Credit N.B.A. • -3- .Mortgage Funds already advanced $ 657,638.29 Through 12/15/77 to Contracto 10% retainage to contractor 39,581.00 100,000.00 Off-site Costs owed but not paid 100,000.00 Construction from 12/15/77 to 1/15/78 $ 1,140,839.29 This figure is a true cost of actual monies in the project to this date. It would cost the contractor, Neal & Co. a minimum of $3',500.00 per day for a shuting down of the job. Reasoning, penalty clause in construction contract of $862.20 per day, and most of Neal & Co. personnel are from other areas (Homer mainly), loss of the good personnel due to the factor of no work, and loss of credit rating due to not paying of current bills, payment to Neal & Co. by H.U.D. on percentage of completion, of project. The effect of a shutdown of the Kodiak Elderly project, Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak would not be able to continue with the building. We are on a very strict budget as seen on the issuance of advances and on FHA Form #2264. A work stoppage would in most probability put the cost of the building way above what Sunset Development Co. of,Kodiak would be able to pay. This building is being built on the factor that this project is 100% rent subsidized program if the Section 8 funds are withdrawn any time prior to final completion the project would not survive. We have the Section 8 funds now needed to make this project feasible. The cash loss to -4- this project would be over one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). STATE OF ALASKA )ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally appeared LOUIS P, IANI, Managing Partner of Sunset Develop- ment Co. of Kodiak, a limited partnership, to me known to be the identical individual named in and who executed the above and foregoing affidavit, and who acknowledged to me that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my officia seal this llth day of January, 1978. Notary Pub' icbln and for Alaska My commission expires: p.ppliGdM tO in uetween heavy Iine r LIVE s_. d NG, W.AI.S5 Erskine Ave. ,Rezanof CLASS or WORK NEW DEMoLISH LOC AL 1 1 7' ALTERATION REPAIR NEAREST CROSS ST. A 01710N MOV E Onset Dev. Company MAR. A'"RESS Box 1275 . USE OF BUILDING poRIP for P1clprly 13F4 "EIGHT 491 sizr. OF BUILDING N . OF ROOMS 6 NO.OF FLOOR co,s, TEL NO. Kodiak 6-3215 NO. OF U$ G NAVE '!-ng,si*c-rn A s. u AD'or,Ess.. P19 W. No Lighfc ccrv, z ' Anchoraae, AK NO. Or BUILOINGS NOW ON LOT NO. OF FAMILIES SIZE OF LOT 'PI 1 1.flt: OF BLDG. NOW ON LOT 7174 $1,274,136 DATE ISSUED 3/3017 BLDG. FEE PLAN crIK. FEE TOTAL PL um81NG 4. ROUGH ROUG 5 PTiC TANK iMSH EWE R Pesjence FLuEs SPECIFICATIONS STATE LICENSE NO. 151A-A FOUNDATION R 1 rnmnp n't? MATERIAL OCILMOR, PIERS WIDTH OF TOP "Sox 393 IryTH OF ROTOM E z Zomer, Alaska 3 574TE LICE NSF NO 76-77-1656 OCPTH IN CROUrI R W PLATL ;SILL) SIZE SPA_ SPAN z Z Orskine Subdivision - 39 2 • GIRDERS JOIST 1 tI. FL. JOIST 2do L. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE ""act A, USS.2537-13&562 y Type of Construction ' HI IV V • ! • • VI ''roe V-1 21(-1c."B" Type V -Hr. ,i 2. Occupancy Group A, 9, C, D, E, F. G. H,1, J Div. 1, 2, 3, 4, . ,:..._. .... • . • . .. . ._ . 3. Fire Zone 13 4 JOIST CEILING EXTERIOR STUDS INTERIOR ST UD' ROOF RAF TERS BEARING WALLS COVERING exiEwoR WALLS Boor INTERIOR WALLS 14 ROOFING FLUES FIREPLACE F FuRNACE KITCHEU V1ACR HCATR Full ACE AS OIL' hereby acknowledge that 1 have read this application and state that the above is correct and agree to comply with all City Ordinances and State Lays regulting building cons,truotion. AnaIicant GAS m07 ORS ifilSH FINAL. • - _ 0 PLOT" PLAN rn Buildings now on Lot will be removed by owners. Building Plans on file this-offit:e. Approved: CHIEF BUILDING OFFICAL //1 SETBACK kia3dOti PLANrriNG A ZONING INFO. ZONING DISTRICT T TYPE OF OCCUPANCY NUMBER Or STORIES TOTAL HT. AREA or tot HONT YARD SETBACK FROM FHOP, LINE SIDE YARD SI TBACm FROM PILOP LINE REAR YARD Approved: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' ( ' KODIAK PLANNING AND ZONING CONFUSSION MEETING AUGUST 17, 1977 . CALL 110 ORDER Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Mr. Bill Williams at 7:45 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Meeting Room. II. ROLL CALL Present . Mr. Ron Ball Mr. Dan Busch Mr. Tom Logan . Mr. John Pugh Mr. Bill Williams Phil Anderson Mr. Gene Erwin III. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS P & Z June 15, 1977; P .& Z June 29, 1977 - Special Meeting, Minutes. of this meeting are b : questioned; P & Z July 20, 1977; P & Z.July 27, 1977 - Special Meeting. Mr. Logan moved to delay the approval.of the minutes until further study. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. Unanimous voice vote. IV. OLD BUSINESS - None V. SUBDIVISIONS A. Preliminary - None Final: .1.. Lots 39-40 USS 562, Sunset Development Company. Mr. MUlitalo stated that on March 16, 1977) the Commission approved the vacation of a utility easement on Lot 39, Block 2, Erskine SubdivisiOn USS 562 and TractA USS 2537 B with i stipulation that 1) the developer provide an alternative easement, and 2) that the developer be responsible for all relocation costs incurred by the Glacier State Telephone Company utility. In a letter dated June 6, 1977, the developer agreed to the above stipulations. Mr. Busch moved to af+rove the utilit easement re slat submitted b Sunset Development for Lots 39- 0-USS 5.2. Mr. Anderson secondecrthe-motion.. • Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. t 4iwtopiv. • 2. A replat of new and vacated. utility easements in a. portion of Block 10, Erskine Subdivision and Block 8, Aleutian Homes,:Inc.'Subdiieien.- U.S. ' . General Services Administration. Mr. Milligan reported that the property . involved is the site of the new Post Office. There are a number of requests for the 'vacation of existing easements and the creation.of,neweasements necessary to support this development. This came beforethe-CoMmission early . in 1977. This replat will satisfy all utility. system reCiuirements: ' Mr. Pu: moved to acce t the re • lat Showin new and vaaated-eaiements with the portion of Block 10,. Erskine Subdivision and Block Aleutian Homes, Inc. Subdivision presented by the U.S. General Services Administration for the new Post Office. Mr. Logan seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous -; roll call vote. VI. REZONING APPLICATIONS A. Lots 6 & 7, Block 1, Southeast Addition (Wolkoff and White) f:rom R-1 to R-2. Air. Milligan advised the Commission that this petition for rezdningyas .* initiated by the Borough Assembly at the time that they rezoned theGallaghe property. There are two parcels of property between,thepallagher property'. and the land to the east that were not included in the original petition. Mr. Busch moved to rezone Lots 6 & 7, Block 1, Southeast Addition (Wolkoff and White) from R-1 to R--2. Mr. Logan seconded the motion. Motion passed - 6 to 1 with Mr. Pugh casting the NO vote. Mr. Logan commented that Lt 6 & 7 are more or less spot zoning in reverse. January 4, 1977 Sunset Development P.O. Box 1275 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 'Gentlemen: Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. hereby agrees to abandon its existing .easement on the common boundary of Lots 39 and 40, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision, U. S. Survey 562; and Lot 12, Block 3, U. S. Survey 2537-B. This abandonment is expressly given to permit construction of Elderly Housing Units on said lots. The existing distribution system, located on the easement, will be relocated underground jointly by the contractor and KEA over a route mutually agreeable to both parties. Sincerely, Leon H. Johnson Manager LHJ/lap_ hor(Pugh KOMAX ttAA ts. M/Aft 1 1 1977 1/2,3141M ANCHORAGE: HOYT M. COLE ROBERT L HARTIG . JAMES D. RHODES JOHN K. NORMAN ROBERT J. MAHONEY BERNARD J. DOUGHERTY -- - G. RODNEY KLEEDEHN KODIAK: MICHAEL W. SHARON COLE, HARTIG, RHODES, NORMAN & MAHONEY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 201 717 K STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) 274-3576 Kodiak Island Borough P.O. Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 August 17, 1976 Attn: Stuart Denslow, Director of Planning KODIAK OFFICE: KODIAK PLAZA KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 486-3143 486-3144 REPLY TO: Kodiak Re: Utilization of. Utility Easements Our File No. 101-K28 Dear Mr. Denslow: I am in receipt of your August 6, 1976 memorandum requesting a legal opinion on the above-referenced matter. As I understand the situation there appears to be some question on the minds of Planning and Zoning Commission members of a land owner's right to build across an easement that he granted to the Kodiak Electrical Association for the purpose of the placement of above-ground or underground electrical wiring. In a situation where an individual land owner has granted an easement to the Kodiak Electric Association the only parties in privity to the grant of easement are the land owner and the Association. Therefore, either party may interpret the grant of easement and utilize the easement premises for whatever purpose they mutually feel is con- sistent with the original grant. The only reason the borough would have an interest in a land owner's utilization of the easement premises for purposes that may be outside the original grant of the easement would be for the purposes of issuing building permits. However, if a land owner seeks to construe a particular easement, or if he is the grantor and another private entity, such as the Association, is the grantee, the borough lacks standing to intervene in the grantor's and grantee's relationship despite the fact it appears that the grantor seems to be in violation of the easement. This means that the borough may not use the lever of the issuance or non-issuance of a building permit to compel Mr. Denslow Page 2 . August 17, 1976 a land owner to comply with what the borough believes to be the provisions of a grant of easement between a land owner and a private entity. This does not mean, however, that the borough-has no standing to object to an unintended or expanded use of easement where the easement premises have been dedicate8 to the borough such as would follow from the recording of a subdivision plat reflecting various easements. The prerequisites to a legal dedication of any easement, whether it is reflected on a subdivision plat are not, are that the dedicator have the intent to dedicate that easement to a municipality and that the municipality accept the dedication of the easement. Therefore, if an easement is reflected on a recorded plat, and that easement is for some public purpose, and the dedicator intended to dedicate the easement to the borough and the borough has accepted dedication of that easement,the borough in effect is the holder-or the grantee of the easement and has standing to enforce the terms of the easement grant. I hope the foregoing answers your questions as proposed to me in your memorandum. All the foregoing means is that if the borough is a grantee of the easement it has standing to see that the easement is used con- sistent with the grant; and if the borough is in a position of an uninterested intervenor, wherein the grantor and the grantee are both private entities, it has no standing to enforce the provisions of the private easement. Very truly yours, COLE, HARTIG, RHODES NORMAN & MAHONEY By: 1/ VLf Michael W. Sharon MWS:ad PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETINC, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH August 10, 1976 • CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Bill Williams at 2:45 p.m. in the Borough Meeting Room. � U ROLL CALL Present: Donald Brenteson Gene Erwin Dan Ogg 011 Williams Absent: Dan Busch Tom Hayden Harold Heg|in There were six people in the audience. 111 ITEM OF BUSINESS: Request for Exception; USS 2537 B. Tract A and Lot 39, Erskine Subdivision, USS 562 (sunset Develo ent Co.) as presented on the agenda of P & Z Commission meeting of August 4, 1976. Further consideration was given to a request for exception on behalf of Sunset Development Corporadon, owners of property known as USS 2537 A, Tract A and Lot 39, Erskine Subdivision, USS 562. During the regular Planning C Zoning meeting of August 4, 1976 certain technical issues were raised with respect to the applicant's request. The Planning & Zoning Commission further requested that the planning staff and the building official clarify the technical issues prior to a decision by the Planning & Zoning Commission. In pursuit of that objective the staff requested legal opinions of counsel on the matter of building across lot lines and the owner's use of negotiated easements. A copy of the opinion was presented to the members of. the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Barnett provided intcrprctadmna'o[the ordinance with respect to the building height and the fire safety. With the technical issues clarified Acting Chairman Williams convened the meeting to formal session. Mr. Erwin moved that the exception be granted for properties otherwise known as USS 2537 B. Tract A and Lot 39, Erskine Subdivision, USS 562. Mr. Ogg seconded. Question called. Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: BorouQh5ecrutary Chairman • ; PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH August 4, 1976' CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Bill Williams at 7: 42 p.m. in the Borough Meeting Room. II ROLL CALL , Present: Donald Brenteson Absent: Dan Busch (excused) 1 Gene Erwin . ' Tom Hayden (excused) Dan Ogg Harold Heglin (excused) Bill Williams There were twenty people in the audience. III MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS A. Mr. Ogg moved to accept the minutes of the previous regular meetings of June 16, 1976 and July 21, 1976. Seconded by Mr. Brenteson. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. IV MINUTES OF OTHER MEETINGS A. Minutes of the regular Assembly Meeting, July 1, 1976; minutes of the special Assembly Meetings June 17, June 19, July 22, and July 31, 1976. Minutes of 0.C.S. meetings of May 19, May 26, June 1, June 9, June 16, June 30, July 7, and July 14, 1976. No comment made by Commission members. V COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE A. Preparation of Townhouse Ordinance for KIB. No comment. B. Comprehensive Plan, Port Lions. Can up date their own with the help of the Borough Planning Director. C. Purchase of 20' street easement from KIB (Duane Freeman). Discussion. Mr. Ogg suggested contacting the Borough Planning Director for advise as to best procedure. D. Purchase of 25' for access to proposed road (James Pearson). Mr. Ogg recommends going to Code before making formal request. VI PUBLIC HEARING None VII ZONING ITEMS E. Taken out of order due to Mr. Pages's previous appointment. Request for zbhin tb ■-116),Nr Kd TSGbidivis6h (Roger Pa e) Requests rezoning from R3. Will be living quarters in building. Mr. Brenteson recommended a public hearing. Mr. Ogg moved to rezone property commercial from R3. Mr. Brenteson seconded. Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. Request for Exception; Erskine Subdivision, Tract A, USS 562 (Sunset evelopment Co.) Asking for easement on west gable side only. Question of utilities lines crossing property raised by Mr. Brenteson. Mr. Brechan states they have satisfied Federal requirements. Mr. Erwin moved that exceptions be granted. Mr. Brenteson seconded. Question called. Motion failed with the following roll call vote: Jr. Erwin YES; Mr. Ogg NO; Mr. Brenteson NO; Mr. Wiiliams YES. Referred to public hearing. B. Request for Exemption (changed to additional use for a 2-year permit); Lots 36 & 3.7, Block 12, Aleutian Homes Subdivision, (Sandra T. Kavanaugh). Wishes to July 6, 1976 Sunset Development Company Box 1275 Kodiak, Ak., 99615 Dear Sirs: This is to advise that the Assembly at the regular meeting of July 1st, 1676, passed Ordinance Number 76- 17 -.0. Effective immediately Lot 39, Block 2, Erskine Sub- division has been reclassigied to BUSINESS to coincide with the other lots proposed for the 55 unit housing for the elderly. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance pleaee do not hesitate to contact this 6ffice. Sincerely, 7/..‹.4-,/ j,7 A-Tr Robert B. Craig Borough Mayor • • KIB ASSEMBLY METING JULY i,197'6 Page 2 : VI and final approval ofthe plans Shouldlie ferthOoming•within 'week'.' Approval of the plans were also ndted.froth-the Regional ,ire:1■./car'shal's Offce :••.• .; . - • , • In reply to the question as'to whether or not he would.have:the'tatai * financial picture by August Ist,''Mr.::"BraSie-replied.that'he .*.hoped: that he."would have the final finfOrMatiOn needed .• • Mr 'Anderson mOved.tO.delaY action 'Lind 1 •SePtember“rneeting to allow ' :Mr.,•13toSie;time to get everything " toettier,r.secOnded by Mrs:• Kavanaugh: .Mr Brasie indicated . that he had been Werki kg" on ti2iS:6rojeCefor'iiiree' ' 'years;' that the and is „Oleared 't*6 the overburden and can be completely cleared ready forthe'gi'avel-Witinin'tWO weeks once be. has ever'-ything,else ' ' done.- The cost of the sewer Ssisteni.iS'1$30', 000:and "the.well wi11;Cost • $10•;006 is it °will be'neceSsaryCfo fully incase the well Mr. Brasie indicated:that the furniture for the project • has not yet been ordered, however he has placed his residence on'th'e land-as that was the firat,pa'rtof the project that had to be done. There was discussion on the conditions of the lease and.on,the requirements as established by the BOrough Code, which indicated that 50% of the project Must be:completed within the three year period and 100% complete within a five year period. .• n: .• The question was called andlailed by the following rail call vote: Mr. PeOtter NO; Dr. Emmick NO; Mrs. Kavanaugh NO; Mr. Anderson YES; Mrs; Wallin'YES. • After further discussion on the procedures, whether or not Mr. Brasie, would be allowed to seek renewal of the lease once cancelled, Mr. Anderson moved that the Assembly direct the Borough Clerk to send written notice to Mr: Eugene Brasie stating that the terms of the 55-years* lease are in default and because of this tt:i.eleaselails, seconded by Mr. Peotter. Motion passed by'unanimous voice vote. C. Letter from Community & Regional Affairs re Public Hearing July 7, -** 1976 to be held 3:00 p.m. on Regulations Governing State Municipal Services Revenue Sharing Program, read by the Mayor for information purposes. The assembly requested copies of the proposed regulations D. Letter from Mental Health Center Groverning Board requesting Work Session With the Assembly. Contact will be made with the Center, suggesting July 19th'; 1976, at 6:30.p.M.Iin the Mental Health Center. PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. Second Reading and Public Hearing No. 76-16-0 Regarding Platting and 0.' Minimum Street Requirements within 'Subdivisions, read in full by the Mayor. ;• 'MrS.. Kavanaugh moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 76-16-0, seconded by Mr: Peotter. The regular meeting was closed and public heaing opened. .• ..• There"were several' comments from members of the audience questioning the * necessity and desirability of requiring the twenty-four ..inch fill for the roads'. It was suggested that this should be •something left.to the discretion of the'engineer. The question was also raised as to future costs that might be incurred to extend the road width and pointed out.that areas within the city are currently only the 214 foot width and are in fact too narrow for the traffic and density. The public hearing was closed and the regular meeting reconvened. 'Question called, motion failed by unanimous roll call vote. • ' • • . Second Reading and,•PtiblIO Heating .0rdinance:No. 76-17-0 Expanding usiness:District to include Lots 23, 25, 26 and 39, Block 2, Erskine Subd., Lcits.8,' 9, 10; 10k; II and MB; Block 3, Kodiak Townsite an°d Lotsul, 2A,, and 3, Block 17, New Kodiak Subd., to allow for construction of Kodiak Elderly Project and future expansion of downtown business district; read in .•. full by the Borough Mayor.- Dr. Emmick moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 76-17-0 in second reading, seconded by Mr. Peotter. Regular meeting closed and public hearing opened on the matter. re 0 June 22, 1976 Mr. Raymond W. Estess State-Federal Coordinator Policy Development & Planning Pouch AD Juneau, Ak., 99611 Subject:, Kodiak Elderly State I.D. No. 76060904 Dear Mr. Estess: • This posvject was reviewed by the Assembly and the Borough Administration. Although the Kodiak Island Borough does not have housing authority and can only regulate land use through the Planning Commission, the Assembly members expressed the feeling that this was a much needed project. The Assembly was in full agreement with the concept this housing project encompasses and favors strongly the building of this puuject. Sincerely, Robert B. Craig Borough Mayor ' KODIAK ISLAND BOodOGH ASSEMBLY MEETING JUNE 19,.1976 - SPECIAL CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Presiding Officer Betty Wallin, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Meeting Room, Borough Building, Kodiak, II ROLL CALL Present Mayor Robert Craig Betty Wallin, Presiding Officer Sandra Kavanaugh James Peotter Dr. Michael Emmick Absent Hal Lincoln, (excused) Leslie Anderson (excused) Frank Peterson Also present: Members of the OCS Council. III ITEMS OF BUSINESS A. (deferred until later in the meeting, when OCS Members were present) B. Review of Pro. Dr. Emmick moved to voice no objections to the proect seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh. It was noted during discussion that the Borough approves of the concept and approves of this project. The question was called, motion passed by unanimous voice vote. osed Hous Pro .ect "Kodiak Eld C. Review of Pro D osed Drafting of Townhouse Ordinance. advisement ick moved ha e ake th s matter under • on until we have other in ut an. re er ut defer any decis his to the Planning Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Peotter.H Zonin. Commission, seconded b Mr. Item A was taken up at this point. Review and Award of Contract for OCS Impact Study. The Presiding Officer declared a recess to discuss the matter with members of the OCS Advisory Council. The meeting reconvened at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Peotter moved to award the contract for the im act stud to the firm of Sim son, Usher and Jones, seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. IV ADJOURNMENT • The special meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. ATTEST: Borough Clerk Borough Mayor KIB SPECIAL Abs--sMBLY MEETING - JUNE 17, 16sorZ Page 3 Mrs. Kavanaugh.requested that the resolution be amended as follows: Delte the sentence starting with "lists of Candidates.. and ending with "Support Center Kodiak". Change the paragraph beginning with "the composition'of.the'OCS .Council" to reads.."The composition of the OCS Advisory Council is hereby revised as follows: Said Council shall . consist of thirteen members, appointed by the Borough Mayor to gain the greatest expertise available, to include a member of the United Fishermen's Marketing Association, Shrimp Trawlers' Association, Coast Guard Support Center, ..and Kodiak Borough Planning & Zoning Commission. The - Borough Planner shall act as the 14th Member of-the council.." Further to delete the words "in addition" at the beginning of the last sentence. Mrs. Kavanaugh so moved, seconded by Mr. Peotter. In reply to Mrs. Wailin's question Mr. Craig • replied, "No, I am not ready to appcint anyone from the -- Fishermens' Association or the Shrimp Trawlers. I. sent each organization a letter requesting a li§t of names and I received one name only from each organization." Mrs. Wallin. stated that she would contact both the Fishermen's Association and ' the Shrimp Trawlers Association to ask them to submit a list of at least five names to the Mayor so' that he may make a selection for appointment to the OCS Committee. Question was called on. the amendment, motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Question then called on the original motion as amended, passed by unanimous voice vote. Copies of the Amended resolution will be available as soon'as retyped. B. Award of Contract for OCS Impact Stud x - This item was postponed until a work session on Saturday, June 19, 1976, at 6:00 p.m. to meet with the representatives from Tryck, Nyman and Hayes. Noted that Mr. Greg Jones of Simpson, Usher and Jones was present and would be available after the meeting for any questions. VIII NEW BUSINESS .A.- Proposal from Kodiak Sanitation to Provide Dumpiter 7: Service for Borough Residents Outside City of Kodiak, read in full* by the Mayor., There was discussion on the present -"-,-' service and whether or not the borough had the power to enter into such a contract. Mrs. Kavanaugh moved that.e'letter be written to Mr. Bulen staTing that the Borough does not want to get involved in this proposal at this time, however if the residents do, contact should be.made with them and they. could go together and pay for the services..indiVidually, seconded by Mr. Peotter. Question called, motion passed .... b unanimous voice vote. . C B . . 1st Reading Ordinance No. 76-17-0 Extending Business Zone include R-3 Property Lots 23, 24, 26 and 39,'Block.2;-- Erskine Subdivision, Lots 8, 9, 10, 10A, 11 and 11B, Block 3, Kodiak Tcwnsite and Lots 1,' 2A and 3, Block 17, New Kodiak Sub.,. for purpose of proposed Elderly housing project and expansion of the business district, read by title only. Mr. Peotter moved fcr acceptance of Ordinance No. 76-17-0 in the first reading, seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. The Clerk noted that the Mill Levy portion of the Ordinance had not been placed on record and requested a motion to that effect; Dr. Eunick moved that the Borers.' Mill Le for the 1976/77 Fiscal Year set at 7.23 Mills, seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh. . tion pass =4 by unanimous voice vote. ' • "" Mr. Peotter moved that the Mill Levy for Fire Service District No. 1 be set at .:O.59 Nills, seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Peotter moved that the Road Service District Bells Flats Mill Levy be set at 1.57 Mills, seconded by Mr. Peterson. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH • MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 1976 TO : Planning Commission RE: Rezoning Mr. Lou Iani called this date and indicated that in order to apply for funding for the elderly housing project - Lot 39 of Erskin will have to be rezoned from present zoning to Business. This lot is adjacent to several lots already zoned Business and owned by Mr. Iani and Mr. Brechan. The lots were zoned for the particular purpose, housing. The plan is to apply to HUD and they need to have the letter in'by the end of June. Apparently there is money left in this fiscal year's budget for housing for the elderly and they wish to apply for the funds. HUD people were here today and have looked over the area - from the layout drawings it would be a good thing for Kodiak. Is is possible for you to make a decision at your next regular meeting - June 16th, 1976 and if the Assembly has a special meeting on the 17th we could request first reading of the ordinance. Please take a look at the area indicated on the zoning map. A request will be forthcoming from Mr. Iani soon. AK ISLAND BOROUGH Tclephones 486-5736 - '136-5737 — 13o>.: 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 May 20, 1976 Mr. Lou Tani Box 1275 Kodiak, Ak., 99615 Re: Tract A, U. S. Survey 2537-B & U. S. Survey 562 Dear Mr. Iani: This is to certify that the above-referenced land is currently zoned "Commercial" and such zoning was effective March 7, 1974, as passed by Ordinance No. 74-5-0. A copy of the plat is enclosed for your information and files- Sincerely, • Norma L. Holt Borough Clerk • HOYT M. COLE ROBERT L. HARTIG • JAMES D. RHODES JOHN K. NORMAN ROBERT .1 MAHONEY KEITH A. GOLTZ JOHN G. GISSBERG COLE, HARTIG, RHODES & NORMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 201 717 K STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) 274-3076 Mrs. Norma L. Holt Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough P.O. Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska, 99615 Dear Norma: December 7, 1973 OF COUNSEL: J. MAX HARDING 300 NSEA BUILDING 14TH & J STREETS LINCOLN. NEBRASKA 60501 Re: Brechan - Iani Housing Project Our File 101-13 This is in response to your request of November 26th, 1973, for an opinion concerning the lot area requirements of chapter five, subchapter two, section 5C of the Kodiak Island Code of Ordinances as those requirements relate to the above-referenced housing project. The contemplated housing project consists of eleven four-plex units and one single family dwelling to be located on Lot 40, Block Two, Lots 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 of Block One, U.S. Survey 562 and Lot 12, Block Three of the Kodiak Townsite. The exact area contained in the project site is not clear because the consulting engineer estimates that the area contains approximately 45,000 square feet and the records of. the Kodiak Island Borough, which are maintained for tax purposes, reflect a total area of approximately 35,000 square feet within the project. The ordinance in question provides in pertinent part, as follows: Lot Area. 1. The minimum lot area shall be 7,200 square feet and the minimum lot width shall be 60 feet. 2. The minimum lot area for dwellings shall be: (a) For a one-family dwelling 7,200 square feet per dwelling unit. Mrs. Norma Holt -2- December 7, 1973 (c) For a multiple family dwelling with three or foui dwelling units 2,400 square feet . for dwelling unit. (e) For a multiple family dwelling with eight or more dwelling units 1,600 square feet per dwelling unit. It is my opinion that the lot area requirements applicable to each four-plex are those specified in C 2 (c) above. That opinion is based on the definitions contained in section 9 of the ordinance. In.those definitions, "dwelling, multiple- family" is defined as "any building containing three or more dwelling units." The term "building" is defined to mean "any structure built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind," and "dwelling unit," is defined as one or more rooms and a single kitchen in a dwelling designed as a unit for occupancy by not more than one family for living or sleeping purposes, and in which not more than two persons are lodged for hire. It appears, from a review of the property map of the Brechan - Iani Housing Project submitted for my review, that the project consists of twelve individual "buildings" rather than a single building. We are not, therefore, dealing with a multiple-family dwelling with eight or more dwelling units; rather, we are dealing for the most part with individual buildings containing a total of four dwelling units each. While I do not purport to.possess any qualifications as an architect or engineer, it appears from the map that the two units located on Lots 43 and 44 as well as two of the units located on Lot 12 are in fact connected and might be considered by the Planning Commission as a single building. In that event, the lower lot area requirement might be applied to those two buildings. Mrs. Norma Holt December 7,1973 Regarding the request for an opinion as to whether the Planning Commission can grant a variance relating to .lot' size, it is my opinion that the Planning Commission possesses that authority under the terms and conditions set forth in section 21 of subchapter 2. Variance from the strict appli- cation of the regulations may be granted: in the case of an exceptionally irregular narrow, shallow or sloping lot, or other -exceptional physical condition where strict application would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that would deprive the property concerned of rights possessed by other properties in the same district, but in no other case. Prior to granting the variance, the Planning Commission must determine that all of the four conditions set forth in C 1(b) of section 21 are satisfied. When applying those conditions, the commission must be guided by the provisions of AS 29.33.110(c) which provides in part that A variance shall not be granted because of special conditions caused by actions of the person seeking the relief or for reasons of pecuniary hardship or in- convenience. While your written communication requested opinions only as to the minimum lot requirements per dwelling unit and the availability of variance procedures, our subsequent telephone conversations have brought to light several other problems that should be considered by the Planning Commission when reviewing this application. Initially, the lot area requirement of section 5 C 1, quoted above, is also applicable to the project. That requirement establishes a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet. Subsection D 5 of section 10 requires every building to be located on a lot. While that provision permits a building to be located on more than one lot, it does not permit several buildings to be located or partially located on a single lot. Mrs.. Norma Holt -47 December 7, 1973 • Similarly, the plan appears to conflict with the provisions of subsection F of section 10 which prohibits a detached dwelling or other main building from being located within • twenty feet of any other detached dwelling or main building on these same building sites. While the term "detached dwelling" is not defined in the ordinance, my research. in Anderson, Vol. Two, American Law of Zoning (1968) indicates that a dwelling or main building would be detached unless the buildings or dwellings haVe a common wall or walls joining them together. Thus, this requirement would be applicable even though the buildings might be attached by fences, privacy walls or some other device. Since this project will not qualify as a group housing development under the provisions of section 11 A18 for the reason that it does not contain the requisite 75,000 square feet, variances would be required for each of the assets discussed above that are in violation of the zoning requirements. Please advise if I can be of further assistance in this matter. Very truly yours,. COLE, HARTIG, RHODES & NORMAN By: Robert J Mahoney RJM/gh A.-0,01...A., • 6 AI 4 I •....41 44—. 1 1 S IAA • Applicant to fill in between heavy lines. A 144.4.011 V VA N. • • 40. • •-•• ■■ • OF OCCUPANCY 6 • • IA.-. BUILDING ADDRESS sk[l.p 914S 1 'Otk LOCALITY CLASS OF WORK NEW ALTERATION NEAREST CROSS ST, 0 hit S te'n • NAME v ADDITION USE OF BUILDING SIZE OF BUILDING DEMOLISH REPAIR MOVE 6 HEIGHT BUILDING PERMIT NO. 7/21 DATE ISSUED MAIL ADDRESS NO. OF ROOMS CITY ,}z„ TEL. N NO. OF FLOORS NO. OF BUILDINGS VALUATION' ex9. BLDG. FEE PLAN CHK. FEE TOTAL e./ • w z z NAME (tip lfsv, gr)) NO. OF BUILDINGS NOW ON LOT BUILDING PLUM ING NO, OF FAMILIES FOUNDATION ROUG ADDRE5 CITY 1 .14<s, STATE LICENSE: NO. SIZE OF LOT USE OF BLDG. NOW ON SPECIFICATIONS FRAME SEPTIC TANK PLASTER SEWER FLUES GAS FOUNDATION FINAL FINIS ELECTRIC ROUGH FINISH FIXTURES MOTORS FINAL 0 NAME ?)-k5 Xc,r€Pt. MATERIAL EXTERIOR, PIERS WIDTH OF TOP A . EIRL SS I DTH OF BOTTOM CITY DEPTH IN GROUN at, R.W. PLATE (SI STATE LICENSE. NO, SIZE. SPA., SPAN z SUBDIVISI ON 0 /vat' A ) Aigs LOT NO. 1,...7.14gx()Lus " *JOIST HI. FL. JOIST 2nd. EL. BLK. JOIST CEILING DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE . Type of Construction " 1, 11, 111,1V, VI 2, Occupancy Group A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H J Div. 1, 2, 3, 4, 3. Fire Zone 1 264 EXTERIOR STUDS INTERIOR STUDS ROOF RAFTERS BEARING WALLS COVERING EXTERIOR WALLS II 1100F A „PM INTERIOR WALLS REROOFING FLUE -P ACE F :FURNACE KITCHEN WATER HEATER FURNACE GAS 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 regulati g buiidig construction. >e)T5.-- eZ co° Approve . C F BUILDING OFFICAL PLANNING & ZONING INFO. ZONING DISTRICT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY NUMBER OF STORIES de ITAL HT. AREA OF LOT 4'2_ en550 FRONT YARD SETBAC FROM PROP. LINE 2,5".71- t—te41; SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE REAR YARD Approved: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPIS.V. REZAI,I0 ,_,-- , ...---- -,. •, rk.,9,041.41: u •C, -_. 1 ...._........"--. _.....-- ,............ ..._____,..-... ■ ....,,,, .^ ....." 1 i _......,............. ..........- r----I • I 1 ...a, 7:1Z,Z.,.y.'-' -"-----------..4-:—.=-:,-• . ,. ...T....7; 1'.,, .' ..;,:: .,.. :..:,... .... "n,"14.7:k;,4....r.'r.: ' ' 1-.1 -I I I I I I 1 __......, 7 1 1-- .-1--- — • --- • t-1----r ----T—I r-I • 1 1 1 I I-I—I 1-----1--- • 1 . . i_.:4 1,-----.1 ...rem CAA0,....r.,.: EL- 4:.., 4,6 :0- r:s • arZ = SITE S: 16T -PL_COR -PLAN 2,40 FLO,DIC ,6ax,,...r...‘t..EXcza7 • ePAC35 .7V7:“-.ACU.:.■ 8V 4 Laa-ra • ;:rtred dr;!' C2.4TAT.1, : • UNIT COUNT 55 cr4s PAFZ:NL", ' 9rac so < x I a' •.; x. 41X Z:FAIRY.8' _,,,,.-crAarsavcz.s.seAtt. F/./. • • r.mivs• SOUTH ELEVATION ,. • - • • (117-..11--1,170EtKE:fg+Alar- - EAST E..•:',..Lay.A.-noN • MK1',3TING c,RAE:a TYR ONE E-3E-YZ00,1A, UNIT ec.AL.r. 1,ex l'-o•