The URL can be used to link to this page

USS 2537B & USS 562 TR A-1 - Exception(odiak Island Borough 'LANNING & ZONING REQUEST APPLICATION Npplication Fee Paid Type of Request Description of land Person Submitting application Mailing Address Case No. 3 93- Date Final Disposition Remarks: dx„,/ Addition Survey Block . Lot 37 Covering Letter Submitted Person or Representative to attend meeting Present Zoning Proposed Zoning Reason for Request • Approved Remarks Not approved Remarks Plat Submitted v� Borough Assembly Approval Remarks Jam` d,iti. zza- 11-4-"") 0-4-01k jOr't e7eit:e4,A- fet,__4 eL-ft C774b a(1-4T4,4_ a_aG6c_ec 8 gd /! °i a® e / 1669 /k at P. gi la* 7' - 17 e) - 4)7A4-(--" rearliri.r a y r� efr,„ite ". /9u7; -) 9 /0 It 9,,t,ty, 1, 874 'in P ___ 9,,tp pi Zrn y,e 7 q 1_40_6„j ,Ley,/ „0-3.4 t-t' /✓ 6 6- .=' fit ' ; tr t -r A a /7 s2.1..®3c) r / Zx tl` :Sc- 7 so '± 1 el /c. /.., _...„„..a,;„ ei,2,a___ .. va_ .,;, ,./.‘ . /-,) 6,2 3 ''' _ � '"- ' ! %r `` 4 .r_".v »a'l!t�✓ =1�- ;,Jsy'1 _ ; .- � m-- {!its ,,,vii.4 - -__ . G.-0y,1 - al -01 G /get, 5,t,b 7 g ‘7Ll crY\ . . • Ed.41( r 6 C.. flf" ) .41—(---`' (7"/ / / / / — 6 / :re - .1 7./5 6 7'3 /1 41-r 1-1Yel4 ' er# / ' o , r f 1. ,r„, ." IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT Koalukblamiboamgb KODIAK, ALA:KA RECEIVO LORRAINE DAYTON, ) )• Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, and ) LOUIS IANI and FRED BRECHAN, ) d/b/a SUNSET DEVELOPMENT ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) ) AUG 7 1978 Art 718,9110,11:12,11213141516 No. 3AN-78-3988 Civil RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ' The City of Kodiak, not the Boroughthas legal responsibility for issuing building permits in general, and particularly the permit at issue in this case. Defendant, Kodiak Island Borough, nevertheless will permit plaintiff's counsel to review all relevant material in its possession. •Defendant objects to the request that material be produced at the office of plaintiff's counsel in Anchorage, on the ground that the request is unduly burdensome. Defendant will permit inspection in Kodiak during business hours by appointment with Harry Milligan, Acting Borough Manager. DATED this Alaska. LAW OFFICES OF HARD W. GARNETT 111 SUITE 101 /09 W. 9TH STREET HOR AGE, AK. 99501 (907) 279.8731 day of August 1978 at Anchorage, Richard W. Garnett III Attorney.for Kodiak Island Borough _111•11111111111111111•_= MARK G. COPELAND* DAVID WOLF ALSO ADMITTED IN OREGON JAMES S. CRANE LAW OFFICES OF KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND 909 WEST 9,“ AVENUE SUITE 140 ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE (907) 276-5152 July 22, 1978 OREGON OFFICE 3500 FIRST NATIONAL TOWER PORTLAN D, OREGON 97201 TELEPHONE 1503) 224-4100 J. DAVID BENNETT CHARLES A. GALFORD DAVID W. HARPER Kodiak Island Borough GORDON H. KEANE KODIAK, ALA4(A THOMAS M. LANDYE PEARLMAN RECEP,/0 DONALD H. RANDALL L. DUNN ROBERT B. HOPKINS JUL2 6 1978 RICHARD L. SAD LER AM P. Mr. Harry Miligan .718191101iiri2111213141516 Kodiak Island Borough Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Dayton v. Kodiak Island Borough, et al Dear Harry: I have filed an answer to the Dayton complaint for the Kodiak Island Borough in accordance with our telephone conversation of July 19. As you know, I relied on what you could find out about each of the factual allegations in the complaint in drafting this answer. Would you please review the answer carefully and if, for any reason, I misunderstood anything please let me know immediately so we can amend the answer. Also, I look forward to receiving copies of the minutes of the meetings and zoning ordinances which are referred to in the complaint. As you know, the Borough has been served with a Request for Production on July 7. The response has to be made by August 7. The production request asks for all materi- als including the final site plan submitted to the Borough pursuant to the issuance of the building permit. Is there any way you can tell what those materials would be since the building permit was issued by the City. Were there any materials submitted to the Borough that have anything to do with the issuance of the building permit. Also, George is asking that the materials be delivered to his office for him to examine and I would suggest taking the position that he has to come to Kodiak to see them. What do you think? Sincerely yours, KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN and COPELAND David/ DW:kh Enclosures 0 z L u IC: :15 0 Z etuJ w tu z uJ et z •ct 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 31 32 Page IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT LORRAINE DAYTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, and ) LOUIS IANI and FRED BRECHAN, ) d/b/a SUNSET DEVELOPMENT ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. 3AN-78-3988 Civil. ANSWER OF DEFENDANT KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH For its answer to plaintiff's complaint, defendant KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH alleges as follows: 1. As to the "averments:" (a) It is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations con- tained in paragraphs I, III, XVII, XVIII, and XIX, and therefore denies the same; (b) It denies the allegations of paragraphs VIII, IX, X, XII, XV, XVI, and XX. (c) It denies that the zoning and police powers are conferred upon it by Title 19 of the Alaska Statutes but admits the remaining allegations of paragraph II. (d) It admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph IV and alleges that Mr. Louis Iani made a statement about the height of buildings but denies each and every remaining allegation contained in paragraph IV. (e) It admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph V and does not know what the term 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 26 -0 - 27 0 .s 7 ,c 28 < :f6 z g 2-- 29 o c o 2 "" 30 04 31 32 IL21 Page "significant factor" means and therefore denies each and every remaining allegation contained in paragraph V. (f) It denies the allegations of paragraph VI and further alleges that it in fact did zone Lot 39, Block 2, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION from R-3 to B. (g) It admits that Louis Iani on July 28, 1976 for Sunset Development Corporation wrote a letter to the Borough making certain requests concerning side yard and height requirements, among other things, and denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph VII, and further alleges that the letter may be examined by the court and the contents of the letter will speak for themselves rather than being included as specific allegations as quotes in the pleadings. (h) 'The allegations of paragraph XI do not state which public hearing the plaintiff is referring to and therefore the allegations of paragraph XI are denied. (i) The actual height of the elderly housing pro- ject as it will exist when completed is not known at . this time and therefore the allegations of paragraph XIII are denied. (j) It admits that at the August 10, 1976'meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission granted an exception or variance of the side yard requirements but denies each and every remaining allegation of para- graph XIV. 2. As to the First Cause of Action: (a) Defendant Kodiak Island Borough realleges its answers above to the "averments". -2- ■ ■ • ■ - • _ • - • _ •, ^: ".41W415.‘et 'be fat...41* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 w. . 0 26 l) ° c 27 o 7 t V g -51‘ 4: 0 29 ui ° (7,.. - c ,"7i 41 -5 2 0 1 30 31 32 i(.1 Page "Fr4.,-, • (b) Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs II and IV. (c) Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph III, but alleges that the Borough in fact rezoned . Lot 39, Block 1, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION on July 1, 1976 from R-3 to B. • As to the Second Cause of Action: (a) For its answer to paragraph I, defendant realleges it answers to the "averments" and the previous Cause of . Action. (b) Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs II and III. 4. As to the Third Cause of Action: (a) In answer to paragraph I, defendant realleges its answers to the "averments" and the allegations of the previous Causes of Action. (b) The allegations of paragraph II are not clear since there is no block description for Lot 39 and there is no date for the day in July of 1976, and therefore . all of the allegations of paragraph II are denied. (c) Defendant does not need to answer the allegations of paragraph III because they are conclusions of law. (d) Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs IV, V, and VI. 5. As to the Fourth Cause of Action: (a) In answer to paragraph I, defendant realleges its answers above to.the "averments" and the allegations of the previous Causes of Action. (b) Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph II and further alleges that height restrictions are measured from the average grade. (c) Defendant denies the allegations contained in -3- 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 LI! (tt 26 -T3 - 27 Z•( .3 g .2 '5 28 > < Ltj 29 g < ‘6' < 30 g 124 31 32 Page 7 paragraph III. 6. As to the Fifth Cause of Action: (a) In answer to paragraph I, defendant realleges its answers above to the "averments", and the allegations of the previous Causes of Action. (b) The term "unit" is not defined in the alle- gations of paragraph II and therefore the allegations of paragraph II are denied. (c) The allegations of paragraph III are conclusions of law and do not require responsive pleading. (d) Admits the allegations of paragraph IV. (e) Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph v. 7. As to the Sixth Cause of Action: (a) In answer to paragraph I, defendant realleges its answers above to the "averments", and to the previous Causes of Action. (b) The term "unit" is not defined in the allegations of paragraph II and therefore the allegations of paragraph II are denied. (c) The allegations of paragraph III are conclusions of law, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. (d) Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph IV. (e) Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph v. 8. As to the Seventh Cause of Action: (a) In answer to paragraph I, realleges its answers above to the "averments" and to the previous Causes of Action. (b) Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs II, III, and IV. -4 ,-,IEMLOW..9).>ars ir*War'‘ ' 1^,••• 11;i74.1.4,:,-- • :• • • • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 u 26 o Z 3 'a 28 < >- > n < 0 29 4.1 0 0 c o < (1-ti 30 Q o 0 27 1 31 32 6 Page AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The complaint fails to state a claim against answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to bring the suit. 3. Plaintiff has failed to include a party required under Rule 19 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. There is improper venue. 5. Plaintiff's claims are barred by laches. 6. Plaintiff has waived her claims. 7. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Statute of Limitations. 8. Plaintiff is estopped from bringing her claims. WHEREFORE, answering defendant prays that the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that the answering defendant be awarded its costs and attorney's fees and such other and further relief as the court may deem just. DATED this 18th day of July, 1978. KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN and COPELAND By c' David Wol I certify that on this :2C)-` day of July, 1978, copies of the foregoing were mailed to Bernard J. Dougherty, 717 K Street, Suite 201, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501. -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 a 25 5 26 27 28 r 4 29 gt = f`T.V- 30 ; g 31 P 32 Page IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT LORRAINE DAYTON, Plaintiff, VS. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, and LOUIS IANI and FRED BRECHAN, d/b/a SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Defendants. No. 3AN-78-3988 Civil MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR INSPECTION Plaintiff Lorraine Dayton has filed a motion for production of documents for inspection. If this motion is to be treated as a motion, then the Kodiak Island Borough opposes it as it does not conform with the rules. Rather, the Kodiak Island Borough will treat the motion as a request for production under the Rules of Civil Procedure and will file a response to it as if it was a request for production within the thirty day requirement of the existing Rules of Civil Procedure. DATED this day of July, 1978. KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN and COPELAND Attorneys for Kodiak Island Borough By David Wolf I hereby certify that on the day of July, 1978, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed to Bernard Dougherty, 717 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501, and to George Dickson, 880 H Street, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501. David Wolf k '1(441* IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA # 0 THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE JUL A4 7 19 io ORRAINE DAYTON, ) • 491 fq 0; Plaintiff,:. y vs. ). ) ODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH,. ) and.LOUIS IANI and FRED ) BRECHAN,-d/b/a SUNSET 1 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, . ) Defendants. ) ) STATE OF ALASKA AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) :ss. ) APRIL N. GRASTORF, being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: 1. I am employed in the law offices of Dickson, Evans, Esch Papas, attorneys for Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. 2. On June 22, 1978, Postal Form 3811 was received in this office, showing service was effected on Defendant LOUIS IANI on June 20, 1978. 3. On June 22 1978, Postal Form 3811 was received in this office, showing service was effected on Defendant FRED BRECHAN on June 20, 1978. 4. On June 22, 1978, Postal Form 3811 was received in this office, showing service was effected on Defendant KOD/AK ISLAND BOROUGH on June 20, 1978. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. ACKSON. EVANS. ESCH & PAPAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 H STREET ICHORAGE. AK 99501 (907) 276-2272 APRIL N. GRASTORF SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 6th day of July, 1978. Notary Public, State of Alaska My commission expires: T certify'that copies of the foregoing were sent to Bernard J. Dougherty, 717 K Street, Suite 201, Anchorage, AN 99501; and to Kodiak Island Borough, Box 1246, Kodiak, AK 99615, this Gth day of July, 1978. George A. Dickson )ICKSON. EVANS, ESCH & PAPAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 880 H STREET 1CHORAGE. AK 99501 (907) 276.2272 SENDER _ INSTRUCT! NS.:;? •, Print your name, address; and ZIP Code In a apace belay • • Complete items 1, 2, and 3 on rererst„,•ei b∎• •r, ••Moisten gummed ends and attach to bacrot-art •. c'RETURN TO" space on rice is ed (check one) x ant date delivered 150 &address of delivery_ 350 D DELIVERY. Sho to whom and date delivered. -_: --- - - -• =• -65f E RESTRICTED DELIVERY., .:.: Show to whom,•date,.and address of delivery,850 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: Kodiak Island Boro , ugh .•':` • -� - Box •146- • 99615 Kodiak, .AK 3. ARTICLE 'DESCRIPTION: INSURED NO. REGISTERED.NO. CERTIFIED NO. - 695044 . . (Always obtain signature of addresses or agent) I have received the article described above. veized agent SIGNATURE 0 Addressee 6: UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: ^•r SENDER 1NSTRUC IONSPII'V • Print your name, address, and ZIP Code thy, pace l - • Complete items 1, 2, and 3 on re vie olldgj`7 :- -j -•; Moisten gummed ends and attach to Eaaf�.oi Ice. e SENDER: Com, i g • • e a m • 0 MI m m N -i m m 0 z to C m m 0 z . .. O g 1 . T • m O . ;l Add your aaaress ID tae_ isniut )Q- -io .akr...e ua reverse. 1. The following service is requested (check one). • Show to wh9m and date delivered 15? • Show,to whom, date, & address of delivery.. 35? • RESTRICTED DELIV.ERY.. -. — .. — Show: to_whom and date l•delivcr dd 65e • R1 STRICTED.•DELIVERY: •;:.. , :. �, _.. Show to,whom;- date;'and " address of delivery 854. ; ice". •- t•i` •-5+' =' -:,a;i,..: . • . rw;,t \ .. 2. ARTICLE 'ADDRESSED TO: ' '' •' ' ' - -- - - • Fred Brechan Sunset`- 'Development Co. .. Kodiak,.. AK 99615.:,..t: , =` ' (P.o.` Box 1275) 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: REGISTERED NO. - CERTIFIED NNO. 0 7 tJ�W INSURED_NO. I _ (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) I have received the article described above. •• _ SIGNATUR NI Addrsssee' ;-,; ❑ Authorized agent 4. � kill% DATE OF LIVERY _• - POSTMARK 5. ADDR Complete only If raquostsd) 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE . '_• ..,:-,1.•-,-.4 .,i a, • L 1 S * GPO: 197s-- 0-58e -o UNITED'STATES PO- STAL ti -L uv ;y: r -OFFICIAL BUSINES'r .;,jU�1,•03• • •.'.-.-SENDER''INSTRUCT ONS• 97 .. Ig7d'.; °. • Print your name, address, and ZIP Code In e¢pau • Complete Items 1, 2, and ,3 on reverse, a1de = '•: Moisten gummed ends and attach to back a article. Jr tT .J= �.^-.. �.��• �i _... rr r.. � -.. .t.: 't`?�✓5'tii74S�'p�i\. • z • • m r) m — A SENDER: Compkte items 102, and 3. ...•._,.. A,,1r� your addscs} the 'RETURN TO ":space on" 1 • h ' r' g servi% is requested (check one). :; •. : ", �• '• o to whoa d date delivered 15¢ (�• how t t m, date, & address of 4elivery.. 35¢ . •._NI TED DELIVERY. ]ho T" o whom and date delivered_ 65¢ ' RESTRICTED DELIVERY. • ' ., Show to whom, date, and address of delivery 85¢ 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: ._ Louis Iani . •- - _ Suns Development Company P.O. Box 1275 3. AR ICL DESCRrIPTION: REGISTERED NO - CERTIFIED NNO. ii p ...'• .• INSURED NO.:' (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) I have received the article described above. .• SIGNATUR ❑ Addressee .. -0 Authorized agent •'• J/ / . DATE OV/"..ALIVERY li..-.ct/ POSTMARK 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if roqueatod) 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE CLERK'J a c z m 5 m z ca Xl )1. z 0 R: Complete items 1. 2, and I. Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse..,__,, --4, . 1. The following service is requested (checr7,one) 11 Show to whom and date delivered 150 0 Show to whom, date, & address of delivery350 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom and date delivered 65O 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom, date, and address of delivery 850 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: eicel) al-4/1 87 ( 3. ARTICIft DESCRIPTION: REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) have received the article de cribed above. SIGN RE 0 Addr ss 0 Authorized agent DATE OF DE IVERY 44 — POSTMARK 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BE USE: CLERK'S INITIALS 090: 19 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-300 (plus postage), SE . TO . , e POSTMARK' OR DATE • : • . .. ,. . .. P.O., ST TE AND- CODE - . - PTIOPdAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN RECEIPT SERVICES 1. Shows to whom and' date delivered With delivery to addressee only - ' ' ' 2. Shows to whom,,date and where delivered With delivery to addressee only 150 650 350 850 DELIVER'TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ' 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY ( extra -fee require PS Form II UN Sumer IAVfRAGF PROVO n .01,fifie got, hos e;rial I M NOT -FOR-INTERNATIONAL -MAIL 551454 RECEIPTFOR CERTIFIED MAIL-3O (pli 3. ARTICLE D CRIPTION: REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. • SENDER: Complete items 1.2. and 3. MCI your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. 1. The following service is requested (check one). Show to whom and date delivered 150 El Show to whom, date, & address of delivery.. 350 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whoin and date delivered. ..... ....... 650 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. - Show to whom, date, and address of delivery 850 2. ARTICLE ADDRE ED T 3 7 /$,17 P.O., ATE AND ZIP CODE uPTIONL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES - RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered Bo' With delivery to addressee only 650 RECEIPT - 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 350 SERVICES' With delivery to addressee only 850 O DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 504 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) Z P5 Form NFINSURANCE COVERAGE- Apr. 1971 3"° 140T FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ,m, amP INSURED NO. Always obtain signature of addressee or agent I have received the article described above. SIGNATURE 0 Addressee 0 Authorized agent cn POSTMARK 5. ADDRESS (Complet only if requested) m 6. UNABLE TO DELIV R BECAUSE; CLERK'S INITIALS GPO: 1975--0-568-047 • ,ICKSON. EVANS. ESCH & PAPAS ,TTORNEYS AT LAW 800 H STREET .CHORAGE. AK 99501 (907) 276.2272 Kodiak 181=4 Burougb WYWW. MAT:P4 RECEIVE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA JUL 7 1978 TFIIRD JUDICIAL .DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE, 111819081111121162191416/6 LORRAINE DAYTON, ) ) Plaintiff,: ) vs. ) ) KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, ) and LOUIS IANI and FRED ) BRECHAN, d/b/a SUNSET -) DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 3AN-78-1988 Civil MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR INSPECTIff COMES NOW Plaintiff LORRAINE DAYTON, by and through counsel, and moves this Court, pursuant to Civil Rule 34, for an Order requiring Defendant KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH to do the following: 1. To produce and permit her attorney, George A. Dickson, to inspect and copy the following documents: all materials, including final site plan; submitted to the Kodiak Island • Borough by Sunset Development Company pursuant to,the issuance of the building permit for the Kodiak Elderly Housing Project. The building permit was issued August 30, 1977 in relation to the housing project to be built on Lots Thirty-nine (39) through Forty-five (43), Block Two (2); and Lot Twelve (12), Block One (1), ERSKINE SUBDIVISION, Kodiak. 2. To produce these documents during business hours, n Anchorage, Alaska, at the law offices of Dickson, Evans, Esch & Papas, 880 H Street, Suite 200, within thirty (30) days after service of this Request. • ACKSON. EVANS, ESCH & PAPAS NTTORNEYS AT LAW 860 0 STREET (CHORAGE. AK 99501 (907) 276-2272 Kodiak Island Borough has possession, custody, or control ofeach of the foregoing items, and each of them constitutes or contains evidence material to this action, as shown by the affidavit annexed hereto. DATED this Gth day of July, 1978. DICKSON, EVANS, ESCH & PAPAS By: George A. Dickson Attorney for Plaintiff certify that copies of the foregoing were sent to Bernard J. Doughtrty, 717 St., Ste 201, Anchorage, AK 99501; and to Kodiak Island Borough, Box 1246, Kodiak, AK 99615, this Gth day of July, 1978. George A. Dickson .17 . • ' IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA . , THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE NE DAYTON, 1 ) Plaintiff,: ) ) vs. ) ) KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, ) and LOUIS IANI and FRED ) BRECHAN, d/b/a SUNSET ) DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. 3AN-78-3988 Civil STATE OF ALASKA AFFIDAVIT OF COTJNSEL THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) :SS. ) GEORGE A. DICKSON, being first duly sworn, upon oath poses and says: 1. I am counsel for Plaintiff in the above-captioned r. 2. I wish to inspect and copy all materials submitted to Defendant Kodiak Island Borough by Defendant Supset Develop- ment Company having to do with the Kodiak Elderly Housing Project building permit. 3. The materials requested are within the scope of dis- covery, as set forth in Civil Rule 26(b)(1); the matter is not privileged, and is relevant to the subject matter in this case, in that it relates to the claim and cause of action of Plaintiff Lorraine Dayton. )ICKSON. EVANS, ESCH & PAPAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 880 8 STREET 4CH0RAGE. AK 99501 (907) 276-2272 4. The requested,documents relate to a central assertion of the cause of action: that the building permit is not in compliance with the Kodiak Island Borough Code. George A. Dickson SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ;kh day of July, 1978. 11.•■••••■•■•••■■■•••••••100.00•10•0.1 Notary -fall State of Alaska My commission expires: • DICKSON, EVANS, ESCH & PAPAS ,ATTORNEYS AT LAW 880 H STREET 1NCHORAGE.AK99501 (907) 276 -2272 I: certify that a copy of the foregoing Affidavit of Counsel was sent to Bernard J.' Dougherty at 717 K Street, Suite 201, Anchorage, Alaska 99501; and to Kodiak Island Borough, Box 1246, Kodiak,,AK 99615, this 6th day of July, 1978. George A. Dickson 9 •1 { kis.sipgiun3H -114. 19-7 a- - — - - --- sulaSsaT rx ca4ik y _ (Sea_ __150ectosgld}J_l _DAT4,__ wd5_ CO_ P_A 4111SZ t1e5Coz..0 _ 'ta _Me G _Dicx.5v,.3) - _Ant 1_,_ _T_c4ts __t. 7 _ — C�?za(Rei _Sue y Fta,..L• iaa 5 J. t6Fr 2[�' -- _7/4"117(0..1 - i. 9 7 � �IC.l.r3e__.Mww7�s -- -- 1 - - t i _ z c o ` _ — t , 1 c m u r e s , _ f _ ' . _ r -4 _ 4 - 1_7_ _e=s. 41005 _, _P_ t = 2 a- /4J_ -K.r a__LituUTes- , -_P.. 4 _ t - 2/24.74 + P. 5c- kr�� , P_. 2 _ 1- 3- c(2/_i4: H«Auzs.,P -. -' -- - cm/7Gj -.dos .__Mt ._t _.-_aP_Ft.tciU Taribt- DAVID WOLF RESIDENT PARTNER LAW OFFICES OF KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND 909 WEST 9Te. AVENUE SUITE 140 ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 9 95 0 1 TELEPHONE (907) 276-5152 March 24, 1978 George A. Dickson, Esq. Dickson, Evans, Esch & Papas 880 "H" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Kodiak Elderly Project Dear Mr. Dickson: OREGON OFFICE 3500 FIRST NATIONAL TOWER PORTLAND,OREGON 97201 TELEPHONE (5031 224-4100 J. DAVID BENNETT MARK G. COPELAND. CHARLES A. GALFORD DAVID W. HARPER GORDON H. KEANE THOMAS M. LANDYE DIARMUID F. CeSCANNLAIN 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 , kr' MARK G.COPELAND* DAVID WOLF ALSO ADMITTED IN OREGON • LAW OFFICES OF KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND • 909 WEST 91.11 AVENUE SUITE 140 ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE 1907) 276-5152 March 24, 1978 Mr. Harry Milligan, Director Planning & Zoning Department Kodiak Island Borough P. 0. Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Kodiak Elderly Project Dear Mr. Milligan: OREGON-OFFICE 3500 FIRST NATIONAL TOWER PORTLAN D, OREGON 97201 TELEPHONE (5031 224-4100 J. DAVID BENNETT CHARLES A. GALFORD DAVID W. HARPER GORDON H. KEANE THOMAS M. LANOYE D1ARMUID Fi OSCANNLAIN DONALD H. PEARLMAN RANDALL L. DUNN ROBERT B. HOPKINS RICHARD L. SAD LER We have reviewed the issues raised in Mr. George A. Dickson's letter of January 20, 1978 to the Kodiak Island Borough and have come to the following conclusions: 1. Whether the Kodiak Borough Planning Commission was dealing with a situation requiring a variance or an exception for the Elderly Project building, Lorraine Dayton had ten days from the date of action or decision of the Planning Commission approving the project to take an appeal pursuant to ¶1[17.66.060 and/or 17.66.180 of the Zoning Code. Since she did not bring any appeal within the required time period, she has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies and arguably has no standing to bring a lawsuit against the Borough. 2. Because Ms. Dayton has waited so long to raise her claims, it is arguable that any lawsuit filed in her be- half would be barred by laches -- an equitable doctrine that would foreclose a party from bringing suit who has sat on their rights for too long. 3. Mr. Dickson's argument that the Eldery Project is not a "business building" appears to be make-weight unless the Borough previously has taken a different position in this matter. Chapter 17.21 of the Zoning Code (Business (B) Zones) includes among permitted uses "[a]partment houses on one or more apartment units when built in a business building." Nothing in the Zoning Code suggests that an apartment house must be contained within a business building. If the draftsmen intended that an apartment house would have to a part of a business building, no purpose would be served in differenti- ating between an "apartment house" and "one or more apartment units" in the code language? • KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND Mr. Harry Milligan, Director Planning & Zoning Department Kodiak Island Borough Page Two 4. If the Elderly Project building violates height and side-yard restrictions, it appears that the problems should be dealt with by the City of Kodiak rather than the Borough. In any case, there is a very plausible argument that the Elderly Project building does not exceed the height restrictions as defined in the Zoning Code if the height is measured from mean grade, except to the extent the building was not built in conformity with the plans. (See §§17.06.130 and 17.06.300.) 5. In approving a building more than "one story above Rezanoff Drive" in height, the Planning Commission's consistency may be faulted, but there is nothing in the Zoning Code or in the substance of planning ordinances requiring the Planning Commission to limit building height on Rezanoff Drive. 6. In relation to the requirements for obtaining a var- iance, Mr. Dickson may have a point in arguing that a height variance would result in "material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity." However, whether such an argument would succeed a lawsuit is certainly not clear, par- ticularly when Ms. Dayton had her opportunity to claim potential material damage or prejudice to her property before the Planning Commission. 7. If the facts stated in Mr. Maloney's letter are correct, Ms. Dayton was not entitled to written notice of the Planning Commission meeting as provided for by 5§17.66.050 and/or 17.66.100 of the Zoning Code because she was not a landowner within the specified geographic area covered by the code sections. Accordingly, she would have no standing to raise the issue of lateness of mailed notice. The published notice of June 25, 1976 arguably gave seven days' notice of the time and place of the July 1st meeting as required by §17.72.070 of the Zoning Code. However, because the meeting date and the date of publication must both be counted to complete the seven days, there remains a question as to the adequacy of notice. - KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND Mr. Harry Milligan, Director Planning & Zoning Department Kodiak Island Borough Page Three 8. As it appears that a person must apply for a variance or exception under the Zoning Code and as no provision is made for the Planning Commission to consider a variance or exception on its own motion, the Planning Commission may be prevented from reconsidering the variance or exception without a specific request from the builder. Arguably, however, such request also could be deemed to have been made in 1977. 9. It is not clear from the ordinances or case law that the Borough has the authority to order a termination of the project at this date. To do so without court order could subject the Borough to action by the developer. In light of the foregoing, we would advise the Borough that, at present, it should do nothing with regard to the Kodiak Elderly Project. MGC/ps Very truly yours, KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN & COPELAND DAVI D WOLF RESIDENT PARTNER LAW OFFICES OF KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND 909 WEST 9- AVENUE SUITE 140 AN CH 0 RAG E, ALAS KA 99501 TELEPHONE (907) 276-5152 March 24, 1978 George A. Dickson, Esq. Dickson, Evans, Esch & Papas 880 "H" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Kodiak Elderly Project Dear Mr. Dickson: OREGON OFFICE 3500 FIRST NATIONAL TOWER PORTLAND,OREGON 97261 TELEPHONE 1503) 224-4100 J. DAVID BENNETT MARK G. COPELAND. CHARLES A. GALFORD DAVID W. HARPER GORDON H. KEANE THOMAS M. LANDYE DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN DONALD H. PEARLMAN RANDALL L. DUNN ROBERT B. HOPKINS RIC/4AR0 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/jlp cc. Mr. Stewart Denslow, Manager, Kodiak Island Borough 4.61 Harry Milligan, Director, Planning & Zoning, Kodiak Island Borough HOYT M. COLE ROBERT L HARTIG JAMES D. RHODES JOHN K. NORMAN ROBERT J. MAHONEV BERNARD J. DOUGHERTY MICHAEL W. SHARON G. RODNEY KLEEDEHN J. MICHAEL. ROBBINS ROGER H. BEATY, STEPHEN D. ROUTH WEV W. SHEA 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 ,February 8, 1978 Harry Milligan, Director Planning & Zoning Department Kodiakl Island Borough Box 1246 Kodiak!, AK 99615 1 KODIAK OFFICE: KODIAK PLAZA. BOX 503 KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 (907) 486-3143 (907) 486-3144 KrItialk Island Borough KODAK. ALA (A RECEIVED F iag9q10182 it2131415.16 Re: Kodiak Elderly Project Our File 1993-2 Dear Mr. Milligan: Our firm represents Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak, the owner of the Kodiak Elderly Housing Project which is currently under lconstruction in the City of Kodiak. In that capacity, we received a courtesy photocopy of the letter dated January 20, 1978, from Mr. George A. Dickson to the Kodiak Island Borough, requesting that you issue a.stop work order against the project and commence action necessary to remove any portion of the buildiJng that does not conform to the zoning code. It is the purpose of this letter to respond to the various allegations that have been made regarding the failure of the projedt to comply with specified provisions of the planning and zoning ordinances or other applicable statutes. It is our position that the Kodiak Island Borough would not be authorized to rTroke" the building permit or take other action to prohibit continuance of construction on the Kodiak Elderly project. To facilitate your review, I will conform the responses to the numbered objec- tions lin Mr. Dickson's letter. 1. Authorized Use Within Business District. It is the contention of Lorraine Dayton, Mr.. Dickson's client, that an apartrrnt house cannot be built in a business district except in a business building. That allegation is contrary to the clear and unambiguous language of the pertinent ordinance section. 1 1 Section 17.21.010 of the Code of Ordinances for the KodiaksIsland Borough enumerates the uses that are permitted within a business zone. Subsection B of that provision includes as a permitted Harry l Milligan, Director ' •• , February 8, 1978 . Page Two use'"apartment houses and one or more apartment units when built in a business building." The term "apartment house" is defined by Section 17.06.040 to be synonymous with "dwelling, multiple-family" which is defined to mean "any building containing three or more dwelling units. "Building" is also defined, and under §17.06.060 that term means any structure built for the 4,- " support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind. Since the definition of "apartment house"' is defined to include the structure in which the dwelling units are;enclosed, it appears that portion of the defined permitted use;can stand by itself and must be read in,the disjunctive rattier than being included with apartment units that may be contained in a business building. , The alpove interpretation, which would permit apartment buildings separate and apart from business buildings, is further supported by a Common rule of statutory construction. That rule'is that the;intention of the municipal legislative body is to be deter- minediby considering the ordinance in its entirety, so as to give effect to every part thereof, if possible. "The court:should not holdany part to be meaningless•or 'absurd unless the language used will admit of, no other conclusion." 62 CJS, Municipal Corporations §442 h, .p. 849. The interpretation proposed by Lorraine, Dayton. • whichlwould construe "apartment houses" to mean the-saMe.thing.. as "one or more'apartment units" would make One or the other of • thosejterms superfluous to.the ordinance. A court will not • ' accept that type of construction, which would dePrive,portion6 of the 'ordinance of any meaning. • 2. Building Height and Side Yard Restrictions. The lette of July 28, 1976, from Louis P. •ani to the Kodiak Island: Borough Planning & Zoning Commission requested "exceptions!' to the • building height and side yard requirements in2the. business distfict. However, the presentation by the property ownetat the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of August 4, 1976,.reflected.'.abelief, by the Developer that the project would meet the applicable height restrictions and that an exception would be necessary only for the side yard restrictions. At that meeting discussions also took placewith regard to the requirements for vacating lot lines and easements. • A review of the applicable height restriction contained in S17.121.030 in fact demonstrates thatthe building is in compliance. That section states as follows: Harry Milligan, Director February 8, 1978 Page Three The maximum building height shall be three stories or 50 feet; provided, that a building or structure hereafter erected, added to or otherwise constructed may be increased in height, provided the gross cubicle content of such building or structure does not exceed the sum total of the area of the lot upon which it is erected multiplied by 50. Building height is defined by §17.06.130 to mean the vertical distance from the "grade" to the highest po±nt of the roof and "grade" is defined by §17.06.300 as follows: 'Grade (ground level)' means the average level of the finished ground at the center of all walls to a building. In case walls are 1 parallel to and within five feet of a public sidewalk, the ground level shall be measured at the sidewalk. I have discussed this matter with Mr. John McCool of the architec- tural firm of Northwest Design Associates, and he assured me that the Kodiak Elderly Housing Project is within the building. height limitations outlined above. Tha'n?xt obvious question is whether. the developer is restricted by the rezoning ordinance to a building "not over one story' abolie.Rezanoff Drive" as set forth in 'the letter from Norma Holt I r that was attached to Mr. Dickson's letter. In.analyzing that quethtion I have reviewed the provisions of Ordinance 74-5-0 which wasladopted on April 7, 1974, to rezone Lots 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and45 of Block 2, Erskine Subdivision and Lot 12, Block 1, Kodiak Townsite, U.S. Survey 2537-B from R-3 to Commercial (business). The operative provisions of that ordinance reclassi- fie the property but do not establish a height restriction. Rather, the limitation referred to by Mr. Dickson is found in one of the "Whereas" clauses which states: 1 WHEREAS, the petition was considered and approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on the-23rd day of.February, 1974, after a public hearing was held thereon and concern was expressed regarding the height above Resanoff, the builders were agreeable to the stipulation that the building above Rezanoff would be no more than one story; . and said body was recommended the reclassification of said property to commercial and no other objections were voiced at the public hearing; it having been determined, that the public necessity, ;,; Harry Milligan, Director February 8, 1978 Page Four convenience and good zoning practice required such reclassification. As aigeneral rule, language contained in prefatory clauses is not a portion of the ordinance and may only be used for purposes of . interpreting the operative provisions of the ordinance. A statement of this general rule is found in 62 CJS, Municipal Corporations §442 h, p. 849 where the author states: Although a preamble is not an essential part of an ordinance, reference thereto may be had in aid of interpretation of the ordinance for the purpose of clarify- ing, or to assist in clarifying, ambiguities. Thus, where the enacting portion of an ordinance is ambiguous, resort may be had to the preamble for the purpose of construing the ordinance, but not otherwise. Where the enacting portion is not ambiguous, its mean- ing will not be controlled or effected by the preamble. [Emphasis added.] Obviously, the enacting portion of the ordinance in question which ordains that the referenced property shall be reclassified to commercial is not ambiguous. If the ordinance in question would have established a separate height restriction for the particular property in question that was different from the height restriction generally imposed in business districts, that ordinance would have been in violation of AS 29.33.090(a) relating to zoning regulations which provides in part that: Regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building, structure, land or water area within each district . . . In support of that contention I would refer you to §5.22 of the American Law of Zoning. In a discussion of the applicability of the "uniformity" requirement the author includes these observations: Some, though not many zoning ordinances have . been held invalid for failure to comply with the requirement that regulation shall be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout any district. An ordinance which imposes a 25-foot setback throughout a business • district, but which requires a 67-foot setback in one block thereof, is invalid for lack of Harry Milligan, Director February 8, 1978 Page Five uniformity. The same result was reached where the ordinance was so worded so as to make possible the requirements of a discriminatory setback line, and where a setback ordinance was applied to one lot in an area where the requirement was not observed by other property owners. Applying this reasoning, an ordinance which imposed a special height restriction on one lot or group of lots within a business district would be invalid. With 'regard to the side year requirements, Mr. Dickson has asserted that an "exception" rather than a "variance" was requested and that an exception cannot vary the strict applica- tion of the zoning requirements. It is my opinion, however, that the request submitted by the developer can properly be considered as a request for a variance which was duly considered and,granted after it was determined to meet all applicable requirements. In that regard, 1 would direct your attention to the similarity of the language in the letter of Mr. Iani requesting the "exception" and the language of §17.66.010, theordinance relating to variances and exceptions. The request wasfOr an exception "from the strict application of the zoning ordinance" which is almost identical with the authorizing language of the ordinance which provides that the Planning Commission "may vary the strict application of these regulations." Further, theletter justifies the request for an exception based upon exceptionally narrow and sloping conditions of the terrain which woulqcreate great practical difficulties in siting the proposed struclure. The letter asserts that because of highway construc tion accentuating the downward slope condition, an extraordinary restriction on building placement and elevation'would deprive theoWners of property rights and uses possessed ,by others in the same district. In comparing that language with §17.66.010 we find that the ordinance authorizes variances: ' In the case of exceptionally irregular, narrow or sloping lot or other exceptional physical condition where strict application will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that would deprive the property concerned of /rights possessed by other properties in the „--'same district . . . Obviously, the developer was not requesting an additional use in .thle1district and it was clear, therefore, that he was not seeking 1 an exception. While the request was mistakenly identified as i Harry Milligan, Director February 8, 1978 Page Six an exception, both the applicant and the commission utilized the criteria applicable to a variance in evaluating and passing upon that request. The misnomer is therefore of no substance and 'would not justify any action determining the variance to be invalid. 1 - If Lorraine Dayton was agrieved by the decision of the Planning • Commission granting a variance as to the setback and/or height restrictions, she is required by §17.66.180 to appeal that decision within ten days. Since she did not appeal the decision, she has waived her right to appeal or contest the validity of that action. 1 3., Adequacy of Notice at Time of 1976 Rezoning. In support of a contention that notice of an assembly meeting on rezoning was not adequate, Mr. Dickson enclosed as Exhibit C a notice letter sent to property owners dated June •29 for a meeting to belheld on July 1st. Applying generally held beliefs regarding delivery time for mail, the conclusion was reached that the notice was inadequate. Initially, it should be noted that Lorraine Dayton is not within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of th6 parcel of land described and was not entitled to receive an individual notice of the time and place of the hearing. She would not, therefore, have standing to raise this issue. Of equal significance is the fact that §17.66.100 does not establish a time limit within which the notices must be mailed. It isktly understanding, based upon conversations with individuals in Kodiak that when mail is received in the post office it is generally placed immediately into the boxes of the designated recipients. Thus, a letter dated June 29th may well have been placed in the appropriate box and picked up by the intended recipient on that same day. Since notice of the meeting was also published, it would appear that reasonable notice of the meeting was given to all interested parties pursuant to generally accepted standards within the community of Kodiak. 4. Participation of Fred Brechan in-Rezoning. It is the- contention of Mr. Dickson that Fred Brechan participated in the discu4sion and seconded the motion to approve for first reading an ordinance rezoning property in which he had an interest, and that therefore the ordinance is invalid. If it is assumed that the 'facts as related by Mr. Dickson are correct, these circumstances wouldlnot support his position that the ordinance would therefore , 1 Harry Milligan, Director February 8, 1978 Page Seven be invalid. It should be noted that the conduct complained of does not consist of voting at the first meeting. Similarily, no improper conduct is alleged at the second meeting at which a public hearing was held on the matter, the ordinance was discussed by the assembly members and the assembly members voted to pass the ordinance. Mr. Brechan's participation was therefore minimal and the ordinance should not be invalidated based on that parti- cipation. ' This is particular true with regard to a zoning ordinance which has.first been recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Brechan was, as a member of the public and a person,interested in the rezoning authorized to participate fully in the proceedings before the Planning & Zoning Commission. The recommendation by that body was not based upon any of his actions as a public official, and similarly, the vote of the assembly at both the first and second readings of the ordinance did not depend in any wayon affirmative action by Mr. Brechan. As a general matter, it would appear that Mr. Dickson is requesting on behalf of Lorraine Dayton that some officer in the Kodiak Island Borough review all of the actions of the planning commission and,the assembly with regard to this matter and determinine those actions to be invalid, so that a building permit or other authori- zation for construction could be terminated. Obviously, the executive branch of the Borough does not possess theauthority to review the actions of the assembly and declare those'actions to be unlawful. Similarly, neither the assembly nor the administration could declare the actions of the planning commission to be invalid. It is therefore doubtful whether the Borough is in a position to take the action requested by Mr. Dickson in the absence of a court determination on one or , more of the issues raised in his.letter, unless each of the bodies has reviewed and reconsidered the actions previously taken. Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak has made substantial commitments based,upon the actions and representations by the Kodiak Planning Commission, the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly and the Planning • Zoning staff. Assurances have been given to the-developer that the project was in full compliance with the.applicabl'e provisions of the zoning law. The Borough should, therefore, be estopped from reviewing and rescinding any of the action necessary for the continuance of the project, absent some misrepresentation 0 Harry Milligan, Director February 8, 1978 Page Eight or other fraudulent conduct on the part of Sunset Development Co. of Kodiak. I would, therefore, request that the Borough decline the request to issue a stop work order and further refuse to initiate any action designed or intended to restrict or impede the completion of construction of the Kodiak Elderly Housing Project. Kindest regards. Very truly yours, COLE, HARTIG,,RHODES, NORMAN & MAHONEY By: Robert Mahoney RJM:bad cc: 9eorge Dickson, Esq. Mr. Louis Iani 1111111111111111 ®1111111111111111 11111:111.1MIEMENOIRI S E11111 ISTIMININUMMORIPERNMIIII 11M 11111111s1111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 nopossimompeconaull 11111111Ca11111MINISE EEN 11111111111M1 7 311111111111111 1111111111111EMMEMINTRICHIIIIII 11�111i�Illnlnllnll 11 111111 1 l !!c11111111111111n1 n111In1a11I11 ®1111111111111111 111111In ■11111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 • r z z t 3, MMEMEMMENNUMMNOMM ENNEMEMMMEMMMMMMN MINIM lUMNIIMMMIIMMI I mmeng IMEMEMM•MMMIN IIIMNINI IMMEMMEMMMON EMMEN FINIMMMMOMMIN immormommunmon MIMI I MOMUNNEMOM MMMMI MMENNINIMOM MONO! IilHhIIIHHhIflhII IIMUNit ONOMMUNNUM MIIMMU UIIHIII1UHhII1IIII MENEM NMENOMMIKIMM MINSM• AMENNOMMOM MIMEO •EMPIREMMUMN ••t= ImmEhmomounnu MUM I IMMMOMINAMMM WW MMOMMUMNON NMNINW 1 IIMMEMINIONON MEN0111 minummummin IIlHhlHuiiiiIIIIHHIHIIHHII ONEMMMMOMPIIMMENN MMINIMMMINAMMENUMN NENNIIMMEMMENNIONIN UMMMOMMMUNNEMMININ , . ATS . . .-.. /oe,oRe,r) '.47,clge ec 1 T ' 4.25' I 104.25 ' • • 1 , . 6'375' 97,58 Ed5e of I .. - • i Pt. 4 • A345 702,9 1 Tisp.5-1 , . . , . . . , . . : . , . . . , . z z t 3, MMEMEMMENNUMMNOMM ENNEMEMMMEMMMMMMN MINIM lUMNIIMMMIIMMI I mmeng IMEMEMM•MMMIN IIIMNINI IMMEMMEMMMON EMMEN FINIMMMMOMMIN immormommunmon MIMI I MOMUNNEMOM MMMMI MMENNINIMOM MONO! IilHhIIIHHhIflhII IIMUNit ONOMMUNNUM MIIMMU UIIHIII1UHhII1IIII MENEM NMENOMMIKIMM MINSM• AMENNOMMOM MIMEO •EMPIREMMUMN ••t= ImmEhmomounnu MUM I IMMMOMINAMMM WW MMOMMUMNON NMNINW 1 IIMMEMINIONON MEN0111 minummummin IIlHhlHuiiiiIIIIHHIHIIHHII ONEMMMMOMPIIMMENN MMINIMMMINAMMENUMN NENNIIMMEMMENNIONIN UMMMOMMMUNNEMMININ 4. A-gar.? CoNsT-Rt/ cr. /( )/1) /°44 £/ELT 4 /2 op-- 2/ L-‘40 eo,JAN-7-7:3 - As' or This DAT'g CON,177WMcr/ OA) 1-1;ld NOT 12/006"4-12&di ..e&yo;Vn The witli../... oi=17-hi 1 -,- L5-7W 171,o01e.) ibA's dkr)00}--.' Cols4 (14, 7-) eyv :iiil_ ! iVor ,66--1'14/1. If co/vstwucTio/i) 4/G /024 rN • 4vL TH I, ,I ! , 1 1 'roe or !R/i0G--, /5 e4,38' 'Mon : FLOOR . ' 1 • i i I I As' or This DAT'g CON,177WMcr/ OA) 1-1;ld NOT 12/006"4-12&di ..e&yo;Vn The witli../... oi=17-hi 1 -,- L5-7W 171,o01e.) ibA's dkr)00}--.' Cols4 (14, 7-) eyv :iiil_ ! iVor ,66--1'14/1. If co/vstwucTio/i) 4/G /024 rN • 4vL TH 1' c 0 z z 1- 0 r, s, 0 mp 1, 1 2 7,2 4 5TF FL oR eel _3p,0 rt.° )2 ,cac 1. 14 ;!‘ k/e5-1- T )19 oit) , 71g R040 CURFA161:- Di/U.:se-7V ,ries0/11-r O/ 'TN a— .t9L.136 ,1 /A/ IMINIVAIrd* EIMPBRIMINIV i plWAEAff, • 2.. • 1' c 0 z z 1- 0 r, s, 0 mp 1, 1 2 7,2 4 5TF FL oR eel _3p,0 rt.° )2 ,cac 1. 14 ;!‘ k/e5-1- T )19 Telephones 486 -5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 January 25, 1978 Mr. John Slagel P. 0. Box 1246 CITY OF KODIAK Kodiak AK 99615 Dear John: The Kodiak Island Borough has received an inquiry concerning the Sunset Development Corporation Senior Citizen's Construction Project. The attorney making the inquiry has questioned several aspects of the project, demanding all construction activity be stopped until his questions have been resolved. Before suggesting the City take such action, we would appreciate your investigating the approved construction plans against the activities of the contractor, Neal and Company, as now under way and copies of the development plan approved by the P & Z Commission on file with this department. Your', cooperation and immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated and we in turn will keep you informed of any new developments arising from this situation. Sincerely, Harry l igan, Planning Director H`1: rc cc P & Z Case File .`q16414, W,e4,&-j,j aa// 7 7 afrtgje Ce9'W,■/4) 77/--z-1/) e3. 17721-art/ 1611/ 1L-0 a.b ., bo w l ock erg i •Buildin By STACIE PETERSON Staff writer of the. Kodiak Daily Mirror A city resident is demanding that the borough issue a stop work order and revoke the building permit for a $2.3 million senior citizens apartment building under construction on Rezanof Drive. Lorraine Dayton of 323 Erskine Drive contends that the building reduces the value of her per Tuesday, January 24, 1978 it conteste property by obstructing her view of St. Paul's Harbor and of the scenic Russian, Orthodox church. "I don't want to be com- pensated for the loss of value," Mrs. Dayton told the Mirror yesterday, "I want the top floors and the rootto come off Of that building." "I'm not against the building's being there," she explained, "I'm against the height of the building." , , Mrs. Dayton •Subcommittee reiects McKinley land cutbacks ----•- • WASHINGTON (AP) — The -- -House Interior Alaska lands subcommittee_ rejected on Monday a proposal to reduce - sadditions to •Mt. McKinley National Park by some 190,000 - acres. • The chief proposed reductions in: the 3.8 million-acre additions would have left out of the park no more than $3 million and the claim holders could be bought out if need he. _ - The additions, as they now stand, would bring the total park area to 5.7 million. • — - The legislation would rename the park Denali National Park, applying the native name for the mountain to the park. - declared that the borough's planning and zoning commission has an obligation to protect the interest of residents, as well as -to regulate new building. Mrs. Dayton and her attorney, George Dickson of Anchorage, spent ,Monday of last week discussing the problem with zoning administrator Lutenna Mulitalo. Mulitalo declined to discuss the issue yesterday. Dickson told - the Mirror yesterday by phone that "a cursory examination of the records regal-cling the building clearly indicate four areas in which it is illegal." "The uphill- neighbors from where this building is being constructed have. expressed constant concern over, the years that a building in thtit location would Obstruct their views," Dickson said. He reported that the borough itself recognized this concern and assured citizens that they _ would "restrict the developer not to build over one story above (Continbed on Page 2) • AP Photo • - - Vance, Sadat hold oppoSing_views - Egypt's President Anwar Sadat, right, addresses reporter); during a news conference in Calio,FrIday as U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance looks in the opposite direction. Vance .-_ apparently failed in his effort to persuade Sadat to resume the stalled Israell-Egyptian peace talks. - _ • some 115,000 acre-s to the north .• . which are coveted by the State • , griculturat,deNelopment -htu.94,64.44.,opJfklesr,v. „„ . 4 Page 2—KODIAK DAILY MIRROR —Tue'sday, January 24, 1978 ■ Buildingpermi • Rezanof Drive." "It•seems like a poor showing for them to turn around and allow the very evil they pledged themselves to prevent," Dickson declared. Although a court suit has been filed, the matter is expected to come before the planning and zoing commission. Commission chairman Dan Busch, reached it his office this morning, Said the cominission has not as yet- received any correspondence from either Mrs. Dayton or her attorney on the Matter. Discussing the feu areas in which Dickson claims the permit was issued illegally, Dickson said the building is in a commercially zoned area: The code provides, he explained "that apartment houses in the commerical area must be built in a commerical building." Dickson says the building also "violates the height and side: yard rostrictions a the building code, and that the developer was granted an exception in that area when, according to procedure, he should have been granted a variance. The attorney also contends that neighbors of the project did not receive notice of the changes in zoning regulations in time to attend the meetings. "The borough mailed out letters on June 29 for meetings to be held on July 1st." Dickson said. "Even if they did get the letter the next day, which is doubtful considering the mail service, how they could expect anyone-to prepare arguments is beyond ine." The 55-unit building is con- tracted by Neal and Co. of Horner, the contractor Which is currently involved in a $60,O00 litigation with the borough over the Kodiak Island hospital's extended care addition. The building is owned by Sunset Development Corp. of Kodiak headed by Louis lani. Tani declined to make comment on the matter this morning. Wayne Evans, project manager for Neal and Co., said today that his firm had not yet received any legal notice of any action, and was not aware of any pending. Crab pots vanish in Kiliyda Bay City proposes home mail delve Home postal delivery has been recommended to the U.S. Postal Services to avert traffic congestion on South Benson Avenue, according to city manage Ivan Widom. "Due to the traffic problems that are coming up, we should seriously consider home and business delivery of mail," Widom said. "The city has a lot of im- portant functions to operate off Benson Avenue," Widom said, "The more congested it is, the harder it is for us to serve the citizens." emergecy calls with all the traffic that will be generated by the new location , of the post office: • • Benson, Rezanof and Center Street is what Widom calls a "bad intersection," and he said with increased automobile and pedestrian 'traffic to the new post office, thetdanger will be multiplied. Widom said he has written to Gordon D. Hamitic, director of customer services in Anchorage, about the problem and suggested home and business delivery of mail to avert it:- ' Homme's office in Anchorage. He said the Postal Service response to the request will 1 for further inquiries to be mae by the department. He said thi. he expects that investigation be conducted when Homme an Peter Razo, district manager ft customer services, come Kodiak to accept the new pa office building -for the degas merit: Mellin.said the preliminat acceptance date on the buiidh has been set back until Feb. 91 the contractor's request. GEORGE A. DICKSON M. P. EVANS BEN J. ESCH M. GREGORY PAPAS DICKS ON, EVANS & ESCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 880 H STREET, SUITE 200 "• ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 9'9501 • Kodiak Island Borough Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 January .20, 1978 Re: Kodiak Elderly:Project. I represent Lorraine Dayton,_whose 9, Block 6, Erskine..Subdivision. Ms..Dayton objects tt •the.Kodiak Elderly Project . building,: which . she. believes to, beillegal . for reasons given below. Lots 8 & r; r TELEPHOINI5 • AREA CODE 9`O 276 -2272 residence is on proceed lowing: By•this.letter we.are'formally requesting you to under 17.75.04.0 .of :.your' zoning,. code to do the fol- a) Issue a stop -work '`'order:on the building immediately. b) Commence such action as necessary to remove so much of the building as does not conform to the . zoning code. ..Considering.the violations as they exist at the present time,• this would be the total building. The reasons for our request are as follows: 1). No part of the building is intended for a "business use ".: Section 17..21.010 of your. zoning ,code enu-- ' 'aerates the permitted uses. in 'the business' dis� trict... Subsection "B" permits. "Apartment houses and one. or more., apartment, units when built in a business`building ". There'seems,.to be no. question but that the .building is an apartment house within the meaning of.,the code.. An apartment house in a business building has previously,been interpreted in the Borouq t9 require business usage on the around floor.. ;There is no business usage what- soever in the aubject,apartment.house. Therefore the building is' illegal . The5dilding'Aiiolatei the height (17.21.030) and side yard. (17.21.050) .restriction of the zoning:code. I attach,,as Exhibit "A", a'letter to the Borough from the Developer, In that letter the Developer requests an exception to the zoning code. ApparantlTneither.the Developer nor the Borough staffunderStOod that an "exception".was an inappropriate request. To gain the end that the Developer. wanted, a "variance" was needed. An exception addresses "uses", a variance addresses "area" i.e. things like setbacks and height. Since no variance was granted the building must either be madeto comply or be removed. I would note that if the Developer had ap- - , plied for, a variance it would have been very, ' difficult for him to show that a "height" variance would "not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity". This show- ing must be made according ,to 17.66.090 B (3). The uphill neighbors have expressed constant trepidation that a building would rise above Rezonof Drive and obliterate their view of the Orthodox Roman.Church and the water. In fact the Borough itself recognized this problem during a rezoning of the, subject property in 1974. I am enclosing, as Exhibit "B", a letter written by the Borough to an absentee neighbor who could not attend the zoning hearing. The letter states that Borough officials restricted the Developer "not to build over one ,story above Rezonof Drive". After such reassurances by the Borough it seams a poor showing for them to turn around and grant illegal building permits which allow the very evil they pledged themselves to prevent. , • , , 3) Inadequate: notice was :given at the time of the 1976 rezoning. I enclose,as Exhibit "C" a Notice Letter sent to property owners. The letter is dated June 29th for a meeting to be held July 1st. ,The meeting was to be held .only two days after the letter was written: Thisjs inadequate notice by any stan- ,dard. If the mails in Kodiak are anything like those in the rest of the United States, the meeting would be over by the time the notice is received. This clearly does not comply with the requirements of 17.72.070 and 17.66.100. TO: Kodiak Island Borough Kodiak Elderly Project DA: January 20, 1978 PA: 3 4) Fred Brechan's "participation in the 1974 rezoning of his own property invalidates the rezoning. ... ' In 1974 Fred `Brechan" was a member of the Borough. Assembly. At the first meeting .(Feb. 7th) of the zoning ordinance which would rezone his property from xesidentia1 to. business, he parti- cipated in the.,discussion and seconded the motion to approve the first reading and forwarded the matter for public hearing. He did not vote on the motion. Clear,case law requires an assemblyman in such a position to not participate in the matter at all as an "assemblyman. .He could, of course, participateas,a member of the public or as owner of the property,. In ' conclusion 1. would =like-,to point out that the above irregularities were,discovered by..only.a cursory.. . examination of the Borough records.pertaining to the subject property. I am certain:.that,a close examination would reveal others. ,. I would further note that .17.03.060(c) provides that "Any .permit issued,.&n.conflict with this.title shall be null and void" and 17.75..060 reads,:. "The issuance or grant- ing of a building permit.or approval of plans Cr specifi- cations .under, the . authority, of the,,.building code shall not be deemed or construed to, be a permit,:for.or an approval of any violation 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 provisions of :this title shall be valid except as insofar as the..work.or use ,which is authorized is lawful and..permitted." letter. request prompt action .on ..the contents of this GEORGE A. DICKSON cc: -Bob Mahoney c/o Bernard Dougherty,. Lorraine Dayton 4 Milt Souter GAD :jmh Kodiak Island Borough Planning & 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 25378, , Tract A and Lot 39, Erskine Subdivision, U. S. Survey 562, l do hereby request the granting of an exception from the strict application of the Zoning ordinance uncle' 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 highwaycon- 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 placed 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 reiquest_this granting ofldr:Mqptrairaf the strict Interpretation of Sectiori.",11:721-430 _..cEthapter 17 21 kejcirii-g*fiiiLil417..i-Er. F41 tyzasozw.vgarg. We ask that the building height be measured from mean slope position rather thari • 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. tErtitith6e7ve arexpq0,Wirgtlle,j9 ranting)? ' • vCali:lekt'eptib07, of *tile -strjk,..,iplerplptpt ten. As ectiql Otti,,,.(irdhaPiei'l*7721 respecti—nFild$WI;i—.SiCf6"`ca'r:as ;;a 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. Respectfu ef/ Louis for: 10, P. Ian' sunset Development Corporation 13, t A 4; '7,71'1.* • r • , Mr.; L� bndall 2050 Freemont South Pasadena, California 91030 March 22, 1974 Re: Rezoning of Lots 40 -45 Block 2, Erskine Subdivision & Lot 12, Block 1, Kodiak Townsite Dear Mr.,/ bnda1I The above referenced Tots were rezoned from R -3 to Business. They were also vacated and replatted into one parcel for proper development. The purpose of the above Is so that the owners can put an apartment complex on the lot without violating the building regulations. We did however, restrict them not to build over one story above Rezanof Drive. They are'proposing a total of Twenty -four units within four buildings. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate of contact this office. The reason for the late answering is that we have been in the process of moving and haven't completely settled yet. NLH /dt Very truly yours,. Norma L. Holt, Borough Clerk ODIAK ISLIKND BOROUGIII! Telephones 486.5736 - 486-5737 —.Sax 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 June 29, 1976 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE 4, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: Second Reading Public Hearing Ordinance 76717-0 - Expanding business district to include Lots 23, 24, 26 and 39, Block 2, Erskirte Subdivision, Lots 8, 9, 10, 10A, 11 & 11B, Block 3, Kodiak Townsite and Lots 1, 2A and 3, Block 17, New Kodiak Subdivision to allow construction of Kodiak Elderly Project and future expansion of downtown business district.. (This includes the area of the Community Baptist Church and the Department of Fish and Game) You are being notified because you are either the property owner a the above refe;.enced lots, or a property owner living within 300 feet of the above men- tioned lots. • • , , You may voice your opinion at the time of the Public Hearing, or a written opinion that can be read into the minutes of the Public Hearing, you cannot attend. I ' KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE MEETING ROOM OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH OFFICE BUILDING ON JULY 1,.1976, Thursday, at 7:30 p.m. 4 + KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO. 77-41-R A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH APPROVING THE VACATION AND REPLAT OF UTILITY ASEMENTS OF LOTS 39 AND 40 USS 562 (Sunset Development Company) WHEREAS, Title 16,12.050 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances and Resolutions provides that a final plat shall be approved by the Borough Assembly by Resolution, which Resolution shall provide for the acceptances of all streets, alleys and easements, and other open spaces dedicated to public purposes, and, WHEREAS, the final plat has been presented for approval by SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval of said final plat on August 17, 1977. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly grant approval to the final plat presented by SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY as shown on the plat prepared by Roy A. Ecklund, Registered Land Surveyor, dated July 27, 1977 and that all streets, alleys, easements, and other open spaces shown on the same plat are hereby accepted. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 1st DAY OF September 1977. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH TTEST: Borough C e By By esiding Officer PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING, 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. II ROLL CALL Present: Donald Brenteson Gene Erwin Dan Ogg Bill Williams Absent: Dan Busch Tom Hayden Harold Heglin There were six people in the audience. III ITEM OF BUSINESS: Request for Exception; USS 2537 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 behalf of Sunset Development Corporation, owners of property known as USS 2537 A, Tract A and Lot 39, Erskine Subdivision, USS 562. During the regular Planning & 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 interpretations of 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 Kodiak ISland Borough Case No. • ' PLANNING & ZONING REQUEST APPLICATION 1 Date Application Fee paid $20 00 -Pajcl Type of Request Description of Land Exception 393-A July 29, 1976 Final Disposition Remarks Erskine Subdivision. Tract A Addition Person" Submitting application • SurV'ey. '562. Block Lot Fred C. Briechan and Louis P. lani • Mailing Address P 0. Box 1275. Kodiak. AK 99615 Covering Letter Submitted july-'28; 1976 Plat Submitted Person or Representative to attend meeting Present Zoning Business Mr. lani Proposed zoning Reason for Request Nareclw,and sloping terrain Approved Remarks Not approved •Remarks Borough Assembly Approval. Remarks 211 c't LL a`ril-irlf I 61d .11044- 4:32- July 28, 1976. Kodiak Island Borough Planning & 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 A and Lot 39,,Erskine Subdivision, U. S. Survey 562, I 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 placed 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 cept1&idf the strict interpretation of Section._ l'7.2oOff Chapter 17.21especting-baldIng heights of three stories We ask that the building height be measurednean 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. CEur_therwe areirequesting-th-e—grailling 2 i of an exceptiori-of the strict-interpretation of-Section-1-7:'21-.0501fChWt-ei- 1171.1 respectingrsideyardsi. aidl-acare not normalry.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. Respectful I Louis P. lani for: Sunset Development Corporation July 27, 1976 Mr. Ike D. Waits, Associate Planner Kenai Peninsula Borough Box 850 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Dear Mr. Waits: We are pleased to respond to your request for information on the ' recent zoning case before the Kodiak Borough Planning & Zoning Commission wherein the issue of "spot zonigg" was alleged. Please be advised at theroutset that the Borough of Kodiak does not knowingly condone spot zoning, as the concept is patently forbidden under law and considerable legal precedent has accumulated. In the recent case of your reference the property owner controlled parcels that were adjacent and contiguous but in separate zoning districts. The predominate portion of the property was within a business B-1 district and the smaller portion lay within an R-3 high density residential district. The owner petitioned for rezoning of the smaller portion of the property to B-1 business so that his holdings were alt within one zoning classification that would enable him to construct a 55 unit elderly housing complex. The project was considered a busniness by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development which was providing the financing. Opponents of the rezoning charged that the proposal was "spot zoning" and therefore illegal. We sought the opinion of counsel before taking any action. A copy of the opinion is enclosed as part of the proceed- ings. I trust that this information clarifies the matter and assists you in your study. ,Sincerely, Robert B. Craig Borough Mayor RBC/SOD/mdd Enclosure 1 • 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, 1876, passed Ordinance Number 76-17-0. Effective immediately Lot 39, Block 2, Erskine Sub- division has been reclassiSied 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 dffice. Sincerely, Robert B. Craig Borough Mayor KODIAK, ISLAND BOROUG,;SEMBLY MEETING JULY 1, 1976 - As of June 28, 1976 I CALL TO ORDER ' r II ROLL CALL III MINUTES.FROM PRUNUS MEETINGS 1 A. Assembly - Regular - June 3, 1976 B. Assembly - Special - June 17, 1976 C. Assembly - Special - June 19, 1976 IV MINUTES FROM OTHER MEETINGS az,/.10z1.,2 A. Planning & Zoning - Regular - June 16, 1976 B. Health Resources - June 21, 1976 C. Bicentennial - June 19, 1976 D. OCS Council - May 19, May 26, June 2 and June 9, 1976 V COMMUNICATIONS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS A. 1 Presentation of Bicentennial Award Letter 1 B. Review of Request for Extension of Improvement Deadline, Brasie - 55-yr. Lease C. 1Letter from Community & Regional Affairs re Public Hearing July 7, 1976 - 3:00 p.m., on Regulations Governing State Municipal Services Revenue Sharing D. Letter from Mental Health Center requesting Work Session with Assembly VI PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2nd Reading and Public Hearing Ord. No. 76-16-0Rpgarding Platting and Minimum Street Requirements within Subdivisions 2 B. 2nd Reading Public Hearing Ord. 76-17-0, Expanding Business District to include Lots 23, 24, 26 and 39, Block 2, Erskine Subd., lots 8, 9, 10, 10A, 11 & 11B, Block 3,Ktdiak Townsite and Lots 1, 2A and 3, Blk 17, New Kodiak Subd., To allow construction of Kodiak Elderly Project and future expansion of downtown business district 1 VII OLD BUSINESS A. Letter from AG's Office and Comm. & Regional Affairs Re: Constitutionality of Sales Tax as levied by City of Kodiak iga B. Set Date for Board of Adjustment to Hear Majdi Appeal (zoning) 7-1/f-7 C. Resolution No. 76-33-R Calling for Question of Manager Plan to be Placed on October Ballot D. Review of Proposal to City of Kodiak on Adoption of.Parks & Recreation Power and Authorization for Drafting of Resolution E. Review of Draft Ordinance, Sales Tax Borough Wide, Assembly Requestftelzh--' F. Review of Information on "spot zoning" G. Letter from Bob Hartig re: Citizen Action Group letter 4/28/76, H. 'Presentation of "State of Borough Message" - Mayor Craig VIII NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution No, 76-32-R Approving Final Plat Mountain View 2nd Add., Russell B. Resolution No. 76-34-R Establishing Due and Delinquent Dates Supplemental '76 C. Resolution No. 76-36-R Establishing BOE Date for 1976 Supplemental Tax Roll D. Resolution No. 76-35-R Review and Approval of 1976 Overall Economic Plan • Le-r, IX MAYOR'S REPORT 6 ' F. 9L copLk-LA, 4-40,--4‘.4e24 X ASSEMBLY COMMENTS XI AUDIENCE COMMENTS XII ADJOURNMENT 1 KIB ASSEMBLY MEETING - JULY 1;1976 Page and final approval of the plans should be forthcoming within a wmek/ Approval of the plans were also-noted from.tbe Regional' Fire Marshal's Office.. ' ^= In reply to the question as to whether or not he would have�the',=i"| financial picture by/�uQust !st' Mr. 'Brasie re�\|ied that he sincete1y hoped that he. would definite|''have the final information needed. Mr. Anderson moved to delay action und|•Soptember meeting toa||ovv :Mr. Brasie time to get ever 'thing to'gether' •.seoonded by Mrs. KaVanaugh' .Mr '.Brasie indicated that he` had beenWorking on this. pr 'ectfOtthree 'years, that the land is.cleared ' to the overburden and be �drn' |ete|y � � i' '' cleared ready for the gra«a[wifhih two weeks once he has everything else ' done. The cost of the sewer system iS`13O'0OO.and the.vvm|| vvi/l'cmst $10,000 as it will be necess ary Ulfu||' incase the well. Mr. [. r^a. s. ie Indicated that th furniture for the roi ha � however he has placed his residencenn'the land as dhat:was the Vrafpa'rtqftha project that had to be done. There was discussion on the conditions of the lease and �h requirements b th B"� M ' � � � eea�an on, the requ rem�n sas � e mr u� '~o �, -which indicated, that 50% of the project niust be:completed within the three /� year period and |UO% complete within a five year period. . .. • The question was called and �fai|cd by the following roll call vote: ` Mr. Peotter NO; D.r. Emmick NO; Mrs. Kavanaugh NO; Mr. Anderson YES; K4rs. 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 Assernbly 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 ofdhiS the !ease'fai|s, seconded by Mr. Peotter. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. C. Letter from Community& Regional Affairs re PubIic Hearing July 7, 1976 to be held 3:0O p.m. pn Regulations Governing State Municipal Services Revenue Sharing Program, read by the Mayor for information purposes. The assembly requested copies of the proposed r�gulati�ns'' ' Q. 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. in the Mental Health Center. VI PUBLIC HEARINGS • `/ ` �.' A. Second Reading and Public Hearing No. 76-16-0 Regarding Platting and Minimum Street Requirements within Subdivisions, read in full by the Mayor. YNrS.' Kavanaugh moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 76-16-0, seconded by Mr: Peotter. The regular meeting was closed and public heaimgmpened.- There were several comments from members of the audience questioning the necessity and desirability of requiring the twenty-four'inchfiU.for the roads. It was suggested that this should be .something ' 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 24 foot width and are in fact too narrow for the traffic and dens\ty. The public hearing was closed and the regular nneetlng reconvened. Question called, motion failed by unanimous roll call vote. '. . Second Reading and Publc HearingOrdinanceNo. 76-170 Expanding usiness District to include Lots 23, 25, 26 and 39, Block), E )me �� ^, Lots'0, 9, 10, 10A, 11 and ||B' Block 3, Kodiak O slteand LotS | 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. `-' ' `-' Father Kreta was present an d questioned the advisability for • business without a plan for development. He indicated that there would be no objection to the zoning of Lot 39, which would be a part of the 'Kodiak Elderly Project, but wouid object to zoning without proposed development. The Russian Church had recently built a dorm and was . in ,the process of upgrading the area with a school project under way. He further suggested that this area be left as presently zoned R-3 and . ' that should it be noceasary to grant an exception for a townhouse that this be done. Mr. Ken Creamer, property. owner within the proposed ^' zoning area, also voiced objection to the inclusion of the entire block . and noted that he would have no objection to the zoning change for Lot 39, Block 2 Erskine as part of the Kodiak Elderly Project. It was noted that Lot 39, is currently bordered by usiness zoned area. The public hearing was closed and regular meeting reconvened. Mr. Peotter moved to amend the motion to strike all references to all lots with the exception of Lot 39, Block 2, Erskine subdivision, seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh, Question called on the amendment, motion pa d by unanimous voice vote. The question was called on the main motionas amended, motion passed by unanimous vote. VII OLD BUSINESS Letter from AG's Office and Community & Regional Affairs re: Constitutionality of Sales Tax as levied by City of Kodiak, read in full by the Borough Mayor. Noted that neither th�/\G!��[]fMce nor Community . and Regional Affairs would offer an opinion on this matter and suggested that the borough's legal counsel would bathe proper person to reply to .Xhe question. • B. Set Date for Board of Adjustment to Hear Majdic Appeal on Zoning . Decision. The Assembiy agreed to meet at 7: 30 p`.n\., July 19, 1976, in the Borough Meeting Room. Mr, Majdic and his legal counsel will be so advised. , C. Resolution No. 76-33-R Calling for Question of Manager Plan to be Placed on October a:lot, read in full by the Borough Mayor. The resolution noted .that the question "Shah Sha|}thekodiakisa}nd Borough adopt a manager l whereby a hired manager shall be the chief administrative officr of the -Borough and shall be empowered with duties and responsibilities currently ,executed by the Borough Mayor' would be placed before the voters at the October 5th General Election. Mrs. Kavanaugh moved for adoptio f' .Resolution No. 76-33-R, seconded by Dr. Emmick. Mr., Peotter Moved ` to amend the motion to words "chief administrative and to insert "as provided by Alaska Statutes 29.23.450", secondedby,Mrs. Kavanaugh. The question was called on the amendment,' motion paiSed by unanimous voice vote, Question then called on the motion to adopt the resolution as amended, motion passed by unanimous Voice vote. ' Q. Review of Proposal to City of Kodiak on Adoption ofParhs & Recreation Power and Authorization for Dro0rio of Resolution. There.was discussion on the manner in vvhlchth/s power should be adopted. Mr; Peotter moved to direct the clerk to draw up a resolution requesting non-a eavvidepmvvmrs for parks and recreation, seconded by Dr. Emmick. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. �E. Review of Draft Ordinance, Sales Tax BmroughVVic{a. Tha:dreft Was available for review. Mrs. Kavanaugh moved thatanyaction-on this ordinance be tabled until future work sessions with the assembly and the city council can be scheduled, seconded by Mr. Peotter. During the discussion it was noted that the Assembly had not expected this type of KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Telephones 486 -5736 - 486 -5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 June 29, 1976 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: Second Reading Public Hearing Ordinance 76 -17 -0 - Expanding business district to include Lots 23, 24, 26 and 39, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision, Lots 8, 9, 10, 10A, 11 & 11B, Block 3, Kodiak Townsite and Lots 1,, 2A and 3, Block 17, New Kodiak Subdivision to allow construction of Kodiak Elderly Project and future expansion of downtown business district. (This includes the area of the Community Baptist Church and the Department of Fish and Game) You are being notified because you are either the property owner of the above referenced Tots, or a property owner living within 300 feet of the above men- tioned lots. You may voice your opinion at the time of the Public Hearing, or a written opinion that can be read into the minutes of the Public Hearing, if you cannot attend. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE MEETING ROOM OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH OFFICE BUILDING ON JULY 1, 1976, Thursday, at 7: 30 p.m. ITED STATES OF AMERICA State of Alaska SS: �4 al No es LUTic .Gi',PUIILICHEARING i! ggisiters Ida t ti NOTICE;y'• lS GIVEN; .THAT THE •: ASS1;MI3I ;y WILL';I {OT D'''A - „PUBLIC III EA RING • ON 'TILE', FOLLOWING OR. 'I)1NANCES,:JULY lst, 1978, AT 6:00 p.m. IN TILE HOROUGH ,BUILDING, SIOKOU{;,SI MEETING. ROOM:. • DI {IIIN)ANG1°: • NO. ;6.16.0 relating , to 'PI ttLiitg uncl minimum street requirements • wilhio subdivisions: • ORDINANCE NO. 76.17 -0 expanding the Inisimha district Lo 'encompass Lots 23, 24, 116 and :19 ief IRock 2, Erskine and Lois 8, 9,''' lo;: 10A:'.'1 J and :118, block a,. Kodiak Towlisilwand Issls.:1, ;2A end 3, (:lock 17, Kodiek'SubdMJision. Current zoning R- ' • :t• Copies ,of the isrdinances are available• ,at. ! the' Ilumugli Office. All interested • parties.. will be given an opportunity to be heafd.l ' • KODIAK Is1:ANb BOROUGH ;•, NOI{AtA L. Hour - I10I0111; 11 ('1J:RK • " " l'll1{I.ISIl: June 25, 1976 • I, Jack C. Clark, being first duly sworn, depose and say: 1 am editor and publisher of the Kodiak MIRROR, a daily newspaper published at Kodiak, Third Judicial DM- sion, State of Alaska, and that the annexed printed notice was published in said news- paper in issues of the following dates: 7G Jack C. Clark SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this / - day of _., _ < :�,•::..., 19_ -. � __. c NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Alaska. My Commission expires " X June 22, 1976-. ?'1r. Raymond W. Estess State- Federal Coordinator Policy Development.• &•Planning Pouch. AD ' Juneau, - Ak. , . 99811 Subject: Kodiak Elderly State : I.D.- No. 76060904 Dear Mr. Estess: This p©mject 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 povject. Sincerely,. Robert: B. _.Craig• Borough Mayor _ • itz, SITO kUSEn,= OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 'STATE POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING June 15,.1976 The Honorable C. Ross Wood Mayor Kodiak Island Borough P.O. Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Subject: Kodiak Elderly State I.D. No. 76060904 Dear Mayor Wood: JAY S. HAMMOND _ - GOVERNOR . • POUCIPAD---JUNEAU 09811: PHONE 4954512 Kopf!: . 5 fi ty 11,r;, UN 1- ior - The subject project has been submitted to-the State Clearinghouse for review. Your agency is invited to review and comment on the attached information concerning the project. Pertinent comments might include. how the project could affect your - agency's present and future operations, and the project I s,potential impact on those environmental concerns that fall within the respon- sibilities and expertise of your agency. - The Clearinghouse has-assigned:State T.D.-No.76060904 to the project. Please use this number in all future correspondence concerning this project. To be considered, your-cothmentsshould reach this office-by June 25, 1976. Sincerely, - - Raymond W. Estess State-Federal Coordinator Attachments REGION X Arcade Plaza Building 1321 Second Avenue ;eattle, Washington 98101 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION ANCHORAGE INSURING OFFICE 334 WEST FIFTH AVENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 May 28, 1976 Mr. Raymond W. Estess - State.Federal Coordinator State'Policy Development and Planning Pouch AD Juneau, AK 99811 Dear Mr. Estess: IN REPLY REFER TO: 10.3U We are submitting.for your review, subject tcrthe provisions of 0i0 Circular A-95, appropriate application documents for housing projects in the communities of Kodiak and Fairbanks, Alaska. Both of these projects contemplate utilizing a current supply of long-term, low interest rate ' financing provided through GNMA/FNMA Tandem Plan No. 23. This source uf long-term secondary mortgage financing will expire on 30 June 1976, and the mortgagee must secure a telephonic commitment of these funds prior to that deadline. To enable us to complete our processing and issue our required approval documentation, which is a prerequisite to the mortgagee for obtaining Tandem Plan funding, we hereby request that you do all you can to expedite the Clearinghouse Review of these projects; specifically, we would request, if possible, that you indicate the results of your review by telephone to this office as soon as possible with written confirmation to follow. Should you require further information to make your determination or should there be any reason that the full Clearinghouse Review period will be necessary, please inform our office so that we may plan accordingly or assist you,in any way possible. Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Roger A. Riddell Director ' 14 FHA FOAM t'1 2013 Rev. July4.975 LENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN Dip.ENT r ERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION a,c-- APPLICATION;- PROJECT MORTGAGE INSURANCE - Form Approved OMB No. 63-R0676 Project Name Kodiak Elderly 11'6° 35012 TO: Washington Mortgage Co., Inc. and the FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER. 2,160,000.00 F-/-1' 9utici5riaigned hereby requests a loan in the principal amount of t to be inured under the provisions of Section of the National Housing Act, said loan to be secured by a first mortgage on the property hereinafter described. Insurance of advances during construction pc is, r is not desired 0 Feasibility (Rehab.) ISAMA 0 Conditional 0 Firm Type ol Mortgagor: 1.1-"C; PI LD 1111 B-S NP Permanent ,Nlortgage Interest Rat' 7.5 F-a 9% Const. A. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: 1. Street Nos. 2 2. Street 3 3. Municipal ty 4 4. Census Tract 5 5. County 6 6. State and ZIP Code 7. Type of Project: r--X E Elevator = Walkup 8 8.No. Stories 9 9. Foundation: 5.1ab on r-T Full . Partial Crawl 9 9.a Basement Floor: fliarubCtural (-)--cilraabdeon 10. • 1 11. Number of Units 1 12.No.131:1gs. 1 13. List Accessory Bldgs. and Area 113. a a List Recreation Facilities and Area Revenue N Non-Rev. 55 n SITE INFORMATION . . ... BUILDING INFORMATION 14. Dimensions: . 1 16,Yr.Built - 1 16.a Ej Manufactured Housing Conventionally 15. Zoning: (It recently chengea submit evidence) 1 16.a8e3lar Finish vigoayturalAIREn 1 17.1 Floor System 1 18. Heating.-A/C A/C B. INFORMATION CONCERNING LAND OR PROPERTY: Date Ac. fired 20. Purchase Price 21, Additional Costs Pai d or Accrued 23.a Total Cost May,1969 $45,000 25. Utilities:- Public Community Water . Sewers C. ESTIMATE OF INCOME: lattonship- usiriess. Per- sonal or Other Between Seller and Buyer •Busirress Distance From Site on 26. Unusual Site Features- fl curs- E Fills 0 Rock Formations El Poor Drainage 0 High Water Table Other (Speci/y) 0 Erosion ri Retaining Walls In Off Site ' Improvements None . Imam • 27d No. of Each Family Type Unit Living Area (Sq. Ft.) Composition of Units . Unit Rent Per Month Total Monthly Rent For Unit Type 55 460' One Bedroom Units s 490 .3 26 950.00 28. - • TOTAL ESTIMATED RENTALS FOR ALL FAMILY UNITS 5 26,950 29. No. Parking paces- 1 1 Attended Self Park Open Spaces 26 -0- per month Covered Spaces -0-- s S per month 30. Commercial Coin-operated Laundry at $ 5 PUPM none Level Sq. Ft. Other Levels Sq. Ft. per sq. itimo. 2 5 per sq. ft./rno. 275 31. TOTAL ESTIMATED GROSS PROJECT INCOME AT 100% OCCUPANCY' .3 27,225 32. 326,700 -TOTAL ANNUA-6 -RENT (hem 37 1. /2-months) „ _ 33. Gros• Floor Area- 37 , 800 36. 34. Net Rentable Residentlal Area- Sq. Ft. Type o Oyce No. 25,300 Sq. Et. NON-REVENUE PRODUCING SPACE •Composition of [nit 35- Net Rentable Commercial Area- -0- Sq. F. n oE 1.nil in Pr 'e 1 1 _Jaedroom rentraly D. EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN RENT: 'Check Appropriate Item.) 37. EQUIPMENT )12( Ranges (Oars or Elec.) >OCRefrig. (MiXor Elec.) O Air Cond. (Equip. Only) >MKitchen Exhaust Fan )la Lau n g3rffil • Dispo.ial O Dishwasher kkCarpet Z(Drapes O Swimming Pool o Tennis Court O Other (Specify) 38. SERVICES GAS: 1 I IIea r1 llot Water r1 Cooking Air Conditioning ri Heat ' Hot 11ater 6,7)i Cooking 7-1 Air Conditioning Lights, Etc.,. in Fnit OTHER FUEL: Oil Heat ilot Water r IIATErt OTHER _G_arj-ra_ EL EC.. 39. Special Assessments: NONE KNOWN a• Ef Prepityabli• L1.1 b. Principal Balance S c. Annual Payment S d. Remaining. Term .:i{ �..�3..5.w`+�.ay:.�u. +�Z4w�� Y41 ."^�i�."�'"- ab•�."d+irifi..�a6• -- +ti1' �_t41Y1ci'i` �� • - -2- E. ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL EXPENSE: ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Advertising 2. Management 3. Other 4. TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE $ • - OPERATING: Elevator Maintenance Expense. 3 - 6. Fuel (Heating and Domestic Hot Water 7. Lighting & Misc. Power 8. Water • 9. Gas 10: Garb. &Trash Removal 11. Payroll 12. Other 13. TOTAL OPERATING MAINTENANCE: 14. Decorating .3 15. Repairs 16. Exterminating 17. Insurance - 18. Ground Expense 19. Other 20. TOTAL MAINTENANCE 3 21. Replacement Reserve (0.0060 x Total for .Structures, Line 41) $ 22. TOTAL EXPENSE $ TAXES: 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Real Estate: Estimated Assessed Valuation 3 3 per $1000..$ Personal Property: Est. Assessed Valuation S per $1000.. $ Employee Payroll Tax Other Other TOTAL TAXES $ 29: TOTAL EXPENSE AND TAXES A50... $ 96,250 F. INCOME COMPUTATIONS: 30. Estimated Project Gross Income (Line C32, Page 1) 3 326,700 31. Occupancy (Entire Project) Percentage. 93 32. Effective Gross Income (Line 30 x 31) S 303'81 33. Total Project Expenses (Line 29) $ 96,250 34. Net Income to Project (Line 32 - 33) $ 207,581 35.. Expense Ratio. (Line 29 =by Line 32) 3 % H. TOTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SETTLEMENT: 1. DEVELOPMENT COSTS (Line 72) 2. LAND INDEBTEDNESS (or Cash required for Land Acquisition) 3. SUBTOTAL (Line 1 + Line 2) 4. Mortgage Amount $2,160,000 5. Fees Paid by Other than Cash3 198.777 6. Line 4 + Line 5 Subtotal 7. CASH INVESTMENT REQUIRED (Line 3 Line 6) 8. INITIAL OPERATING DEFICIT 9. ANTICIPATED DISCOUNT .3.5 10. Working Cap. (2% of Mtge. Amount) 11. Off -site Construction Costs 3 12. TOTAL ESTIMATED CASH REQUIREMENT s2,186,55C $ -0- s2,186,55C 32,358,77 (172,227 3 $ 75,600 s 43,200 (Lines 7+8 +4• +10 +11) S (53427) G. ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST: 36a. Unusual Land Improvements 3 36b. Other Land Improvements 3 . 36c. Total Land Improvements STRUCTURES: 37. Main Buildings 38. Accessory Buildings 39. Garage 40. All Other Buildings 41. TOTAL S IIRUCIURES 3 • 42. General Requirements - $ FEES: 43. Builder's General Overhead 44. Builder's Profit - Architect's Fee - Design @ . % 3 $- 45. 1 46. Architect's Fee- Supervisory • @ % $ 47. Bond Premium 48. Other Fees $ 49. TOTAL FEES - • $ 50. TOTAL for All Improvements (Lines 36c + 41 +42 +49) $1,762,093 51. Cost per Gross Square Foot . $ 46 . 52. Estimated Construction Time Months. CARRYING CHARGES AND FINANCING: 53. Interest on $ Months @ $ 100,000 $ 3,000 $ . 5,000 10,800 6,480 54. Taxes 55. Insurance 56. FHA Mtg. Ins. Pre. (0.5 %) . . 57. FHA Exam. Fee (0.3%) 58. FHA Inspec. Fee.(0.5%) 59. Financing Fee ( 2 %) 60. AMPO ( --To) 61. FNMA /GNMA Fee (1.5) 62. Title and Recording 63. TOTAL CARRYING CHARGES & FIN. $ 217,680 LEGAL, ORGANIZATION & AUDIT FEE: 64. Legal $ . 65. Organization $ - 66. Cost Certification Audit Fee $ 8 000 67. TOTAL LEGAL, ORGANIZATION & AUDIT FEE S 68. Builder & Sponsor Profit and Risk s198,777 . 69. Consultant Fee 3 70. Supplemental Management Fund $ 71. Contingency Reserve 3 72. TOTAL ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COST (Excluding Land or Off -site Cost) (Lines 50+63+67 + 68 + 69 +70 +71) 73. LAND (Estimated Market Price of Site ) 43 T O 0 sq. ft. @ 5 4_ 95 Per sq.ft 52-1- 3-,-445 0 74. TOTAL ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST OF PROJECT (Line 71+ Line 72) $ 2,400,00( 43,200 -0- 32,400 6,000 $2,186,550 Source of Cash to meet Requirements Amount 3 3 3 TOTAL.. ' ADDRESSES & TELEPI MBERS OF THE FOLLOWING:` . SPONSOR(S140, Name, Address & ZIP Code Sunset•Development Co. P.O. Box 1275 Kodiak,Alaska 99615 Telephone Number (907) 486 3 215 2. CONTRACTOR: Name, Address Ic"e 3 5 t 1-2- Mur -Cor Construction P.O. Box 145 Kodiak,Alaska 99615' Telephone Number (907) 486 5 9 8 3 a. Name, Address & ZIP Code Fred C. & Ruth S. Brechan P.O. 1275,Kodiak,Alaska 99615 Louis P. & Frances S. Iani P.O. Box 177,Kodiak,Alaska99615 Telephone Number (9 0 7) 48 6 486 5247 3 6 4 6 (9071 b. Name, Address & ZIP Code Murl C. & Phyllis J. Estes P.O. Box 145,Kodiak,Alaska99615 Telephone Number (907) 486 5 9 8 3 SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY. Name, Address & ZIP Code Ben L. Hancock. P.O. Box Kodiak,Alaska 99615 L-- Telephone Numbez (9 0 7) 486 5 7 6 9 4. `ARCHITECT: Name, Address & ZIP Code John McCool Northwest Design Associates 839 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Telephone Number (907) 274 1115 . CERTIFICATION: The undersigned, as the principal sponsor of the proposed mortgagor, certifies that he is farniliar with the provisions of the Regulations of ie Federal Housing Commissioner under the above identified Section of the National Housing Act and that to the best of his knowledge and be- ef the mortgagor has complied, or will'be able to comply, with all of the requirements thereof which are prerequisite to insurance of the mort- to 7ge under such Section. The undersigned further certifies that to the best of his knowledge and belief no information or data contained herein •or it the exhibits or I itachmertts listed herein are in any way false or incorrect and that they are truly descriptive of the project or property which is intended as the :curity for the proposed mortgage and that the proposed construction will not violate zoning ordinances or restrictions of record. The undersigned agrees with the Federal Housing Administration that pursuant to the requirements of the FHA Regulations, (a) neither e nor anyone authorized to act for him will decline to sell, rent or otherwise make available any of the property or housing in the multifamily roject to a prospective purchaser or tenant because of his race, color, religion or national origin; (b) he will comply with federal, state and local :ws and ordinances prohibiting discrimination; and (c) his failure or refusal to comply with the requirements of either (a) or (b) shall be a pro - er basis for the Commissioner to reject requests for future business with which the sponsor is identified or to take any other corrective action e may deem necessary. ate May 2, 1976 Su t D el pment Co. Signed 43 Murl C. stes (Sponsor) President REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT; ❑ CONDITIONAL ❑ FIRM TO: FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to the provisions of the Section of the National Housing Act identified in the foregoing application and FHA Regulations. f;plicable thereto, request is hereby made for the issuance of a commitment to insure a mortgage covering the property described above. After . xarnination of the application and the proposed security, the undersigned considers the project to be desirable and is interested in making a ,en in the principal amount of $ which will bear interest at %, will require repayment principal over a period of months according to amortization plan to be agreed .upon. Insurance of advances during construction ❑ is, ❑ is not desired. . It is understood that the financing expense, in the amount of 3 of exceed _ _ _ % KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY SPECIAL MEETING - JUNE 19, 1976 I II CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ITEMS OF BUSINESS A. Review and Award of Contract for OCS Impact Study B. Review of Proposed Housing Project "Kodiak Elderly" { C. Review of Proposed Drafting of Townhouse Ordinance IV1 ADJOURNMENT ' KODIAK ISLAND BOR6A,-A 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 Proposed Housing Project "Kodiak Elderly" Dr. Emmick moved to voice no objections to the project, 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. C. Review of Proposed Drafting of Townhouse Ordinance. Dr. Emmick moved that we take this matter under advisement but defer any decision until we have other input and refer this to the Planning & Zoning Commission, seconded by Mr. Peotter.;-Motion Paseedlay unanimPug voice vote:- ,, 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 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY MEETING - June 17, 1976 - CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL i MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 0. A. AsseMbly - Regular Meeting - June 3, 1976 IV MINUTES OF OTHER.MEETINGS j,1. School Board - May 24 and June 9, 1976 COMMUNICATIONS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS , 439.1/fia 4'9ff A. Appeal- from P&Z Action - Julius Majdic ' Request for .Rezoning from Unclassified to Business I , woe. Review of, Chamber of Commerce Proposal for . Leasing Office Space and Local Contributions, Ratification of Action Taken at Work Session PUBLIC HEARING A. 2nd Reading and Public Hearing Ordinance No. 76-15-0, Proposed 1976/77 Budget VII OLD BUSINESS VA. Resolution-No. 76-31-R Revising Composition of OCS- , Council reSiat*e el B. Award of ContraCt for OCS Impact Study Ji CVIII NEW BUSINESS Proposal from Kodiak Sanitation To Provide I; Dempster Service for Borough Residents Outside City of Kodiak. !A. 1st Reading Ordinance No. 76-17-0'Rezoning R-3 to Business, IX /MAYORS REPORT X ASSEMBLY COMMENTS XI AUDIENCE COMMENTS XII ADJOURNMENT ;!, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH -TCThL ASSEMBLY MEETING JUNE 17, 1976 . . I CALI, TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Presiding Officer Betty Wallin, at 7:35 p.m., in the Borough Meeting Room, Borough Building, Kodiak. II ROLL CALL Present Mayor Robert Craig, Presiding Officer Betty Wallin Sandra_Kavanadgh Frank Peterson Dr Michael Emmick James Peotter Approximately 15-20 people in the audience. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING A. Assembly - Regular - June 3, 1976 - approval of the minutes delayed until July 1 meeting. IV MINUTES OF OTHER MEETINGS Absent Hal Lincoln (excused) Les Anderson (escused) A. 'School Board - May 24 and June 9, 1976. Dr. Emmick moved to accept the minutes, seconded by Mr. Peotter. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. IV COMMUNICATIONS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS A. Board of Appeals was not conducted as Mr. Majdic had requested a delay. Another date will be set at the next regular meeting. B. Review of the Chamber of Commerce Lease Proposal. The proposal was submitted to the members of the Assembly noting a request for three offices and contributions for the Borough and City for the Tourist Information Strvices. Dr. Emmick moved to defer the decision on this until the Chamber has their plans completed, in the meantime they would be allowed to use the space they are currently using, seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh. Under discussion it was noted that the Chamber may be able to use the space above the Harbormaster's office and that some arrangements are being worked out. The Council on Alcoholism is currently in those offices,but does plan to move to the Borough Building: Dr. Emmick withdrew his motion with the permission of the. second. Mrs. Kavanaugh moved to'allow the Chamber of Commerce the three - rooms that were noted in the memorandum, plus giving a contribution of $1200, seconded.by. Dr. Emmick. It was pointed out that this woad be on a month to month basis until the Chamber of Commerce was able to firm up their plans. The question was called and motion passed by unanimous voice vote. V PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Heating and Second Reading, Ordinance No. 76-15-0 Proposed Budget for 1976/77. Copies of the proposed budget were available to the public. Mrs. Kavanaugh moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 76-15-0, seconded by Mr. Peterson. The regular meeting was closed and public hearing opened on the proposed. budget. Mr. Harry Clowse asked to speak on three particular items: (1) he questioned the assembly's action on the increase of the school budget and the inclusion of the debt service in the borough's budget. (2) He asked that the Presiding Officer taken note that he would challange and enter a protest in having a school teacher vote on this amendment. Mr. Clowse noted that the Statutes are very clear that anyone having a direct financial interest should disqualify themselves. The negotiations are still under way with the teachers and he felt this was in direct conflict. Mr. Clowse asked that the PresidingnOfficer direct the Borough Clerk to take particular note of this intention of :a formal protest if this man votes on this matter. KIB SPECIAL A SEMBLY MEETING - JUNE 17, 1;76 Page 2 • Mr. Clowse continued that he was sure Community & Regional , Affairs read.the minutes and would make comment on this. ' e Mr. Clowse's third point was on the Fire Service District, , .noting he felt this was much too high, that additional negotation should be conducted with the City of Kodiak for. a.loWer cost to the people in the Fire Service District.. Mr. Wilton White spoke on the school district portion of the .budgets noting that at the last meetina, the Assembly had not granted the money as reauested by the School District. That at this meeting several members of the public had been present voicing opposition- Further he did not feel that this budget was a bare bones •as presented by the School and did not _feel that the Assemblv'eehouldchange inmidstream.- Previously the Assembly. had granted $550,000 in the past budget and. this • included:debtiservice also and at the last meeting had agreed to $611,000 Which also'included debt service. Mr. Wamser stated that he did not feel the Borough should include the debt service. Mr..Fred Gaffney was:in the audience and that that a..Parkt and Recreation•Committee had been formed and that. they were hoping the Borough would include this in their budget. Noted that this .question will be eon the general ballot in October. Mr, Matt Jamin spoke. as a representative of KANA and REB and '. was in favor of .the additional money for debt service being' carried . in the Borough's budget as this would alloweadditional money in the school budget to be used for educational programs within the villages. A statement of the Kodiak Island Regional Education Beard dated'June 11, 1976, in support of the-additional money for Old Harbor, was read into the record. Mr. Wilton Whito-ashed what --as ths dministration's position on the School Bud4et. • Mr. Craig repliedethat the "State Statute Title 29 specifically states that the Borough Mayor has no vote and no power of veto on the school budget and that accordingly 1 have made the decision to take a hands off attitude. as relates to tha school budget, this in deference to state law." Mrs. Kavanaugh rasied,the question of the OCS Program Coordinator being,carried as a Borough Employee rather than on a contract basis. The clerk was asked to check on whether or not the Borough is required to pay the FICA and ESC on a contracted employment basis. The teeling was expressed thatnthe inclusion of the .debt service .within the Borough's budget wouldegivea truer picture of ,the cost for school operation. -TheemeMbers of the .assembly were questioned as to whether or not they would request Mr. Peotter to abstain from voting and all were in agreement that Mr, Peotter should vote on this budget. Mrs. .Kavanaugh amended the original motion to subtract $.359.00 from the Budget under Account 105.05A and that it be replaced in Account 150.032 seconded by Mr. Peterson. The question was called on the amendment, motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. The question was then called on the motion as amended and-motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. Mrs. Kavanaugh commented that she did not feel this was a bare bones budget as far as the school was concerned, however did not feel that the Borough Assembly could get rid of the waste, this is up to the voters. She did voted on this, however because, the money will be going to upgrade the programs in the villages. Mrs. Wallin stated that the Assembly had questioned the School Board' on the programs that were to be returned to the schedule and noted that they would be expecting these programs to be re-instated. VII OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 76-31-R Revising Composition of OCS Council read in full by the Mayor, Mrs. Kavanaugh moved for the adoption of Resolution No.. 76-31-R seconded by Mr. Poetter. J' KIB SPECIAL ASSEP ,r MEETING - JUNE 17, 1976- 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 read,.. "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. Wallin's question Mr. Craig `replied, "No, I am not ready to appoint anyone from the Fishermens' Association or the Shrimp Trawlers. I sent each organization a letter requesting a list 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. postponed at 6 :00 p. Nyman and and Jones for any q Award of Contract for OCS Impact Study - This item was until a work session on Saturday, June 19, 1976, m. to meet with the representatives from Tryck, Hayes. Noted that Mr. Greg Jones of Simpson, Usher was present and would be available after the meeting uestions. VIII NEW BUSINESS A.. Proposal from Kodiak Sanitation to Provide Dumpster 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 a 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 by unanimous voice vote. 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 for 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. Errnnick. moved that the Borough Mill Levy for the 1976/77 Fiscal Year be set at 7.23 Mills, secon3ed by Mrs. Kavanaugh. Motion passed by unanimous' voice vote. Mr. Peotter moved that the Mill Levy for Fire Service District No. 1 be set at .2.59 Mills, 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. KIB SPECIAL ASSEMBLY iEETING - JUNE 17, 1976 Page 4 IX MAYOR'S REPORT N. Proposal for Townhouse Ordinance, read by the Mayor. The Assembly Members were in agreement that this should be taken up in a work session at the end of the meeting. B. Building Permit, Art Zimmer. The Mayor reported that the use of this buildine would be in violation of the zoning code and a stab work order -would be issued and the building permit revoked. C. Elderly Housing Project. The Mayor noted that a letter from A-95 'Clearinghouse had been received this date requesting comments on the project. The Assembly requested copies for the work session of the 19th and that this be placed on the agenda for the speCial meeting of the 19th. X ASSWBLY COMNWLS A. Mts. Kavanaugh asked if temporary permits were needed for trailers at construction sites. Neted that there permits required, these are obtained through the building official. B. Mr. Peterson referred co a letter from Mr. Chandler concerning the Board of Equalizations end asked that the information be made available to him. The Clerk was instructed to have all available information - ready for the work seesion on the 19th of Jane. C. Mm,.; Kavanaugh requested a work session for the Assembly to establish eoals and oblectives. (no date set at this time) D. Mrs. Kavanaugh asked about the status of the Planner's position. . The Mayor noted that Community & Regional Affairs was interviewing people and should have a decision for us by the 25th of this month. It was requested someone be hired as soon as possible. Mts. Kavanaugh asked if the Borough had advertised for consultants to update the Comprehensive. Plan. The Mayor stated that this had not been done, he had talked with Cbmmunity & Regional Affairs and they felt that an updating before the , • Planner was hired woeld make it difficult if the Planner had to work with a: plan that he had apt part. in preparing...-. .. • -' E. Mrs. Kavanaugh noted that ender the Appeal by Mr. Majdic, the Planning Commission had indicated that this would be spot zcning and spot zoning had been declared unconstitutional. She requested a copy of the ruling on thiematter. F. Mrs. WzUin noted severe]. items that will be placed on the October ballot., i,e parks and recreation power, manager plan and sales tax. Mrs. lallin staeed that she had been contacted by the new FM Station EMT with a request to tape the assembly meetings, and she felt this, would be good to have the meetings available to the residents. Further a request has been made to have members of the assembly sit on a panel discussion prograne Ali members indicated agreement with both requests. AVOIENCE CONVENTS A. Mr. Okey Chandler asked if the Clerk of the Borough had received the Declaration of Candidaney forms and if not he felt that a letter should be sent to the State voicing a complaint. It appeared that because of confusion on the filing requirements, some of the candidates had been disqualified. • • B. Mr. Hank Eaton spoke on the urgency of hiring a planner and he did not feel that the Borough should compromise. The best available person should be hired. Mr. Greg Jones indicated that he had a listing of the members of the Planners' Asscciation and would be wiling to make it available for contact by the Porou:lh. XII ADJOURNMENT. There being no fra,..-riat business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. • els APPRO as IS Sunset Development Co. Box 1275 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 May 28, 1976 Mrs. Norma Holt, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Attention: Planning & Zoning Dear Mrs, Holt: We are requesting to have Lot 39 (thirty nine) Block 2 (two) Erskine Subdivision rezoned to Business. The purpose for this rezoning is so that we can proceed with plans and financing of 55 units for Elderly Housing. 'We own tract A, U.S. Survey 2537-B & U.S. Survey 562, which is now zoned business. This property adjoins Lot 39 on two of its four sides. These lots will be the site of the proposed development. We are in the process of achieving the financial backing through U.S. Housing & Urban Development. Very truly yours, SUNSET DEVELOPMENT CO. U P /7 - 6- a - t 4 rre v . ` )/5 2�%i/�G�j ie, frp,e4C -f . 14.> Q l3 v ,e e'r 1`.� ACC,ezeis V2/;9 1.77 CA/le/2/2, 11=/7 C'.srz✓s- - �4bc URe;i,9 ,Qc.`tr.`c l j2 ,'C'Z /75 Al e3 J``v/3S- 'p• /= b A 6.- yy G e'rs• 1'!_s i 1q v / ?" f /:5 ©,c. .C/ -�,•*. /2 D _ / %i ∎4e 2 `P /O /4 b 7- is •e ■s5 ' •rc#ea ?°-7Y ,''p/ /S,S7 ,ea °V.' „el k1:8 A. 7v /5 7:&› Qw.. c,4;1 $ 0/.2— `.yA.•A` x-3 4 - r •o /7/. l'o/z o fldv- '�./ni'a..; -Y 4.4•P ',weaver /'rs i )Z.re �.r. 8v !v pc. /7vve`C) �I #c rj ✓ is S. ',S •'f Iry "9....4 or `T G.-/i$.+> 012 .a...t 4 4/zSN • %� ,7 ipK y° o,= ji`+ : r4 4 • 5 C ` ZdC rL /•":74 Pe: R.47• 4,:#r, /�► v. = A/4 so 5v44,5r r- /' /27 Ses 147 c,v_ . do P4 /4lo4),:9.fr. /%f es s3 /z 4 . - L, - /t6 /4-• . . f • PUNNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH June 16, 1976 CALL TO ORDER •„, .„- • • • . - - •:: The meeting Was,Called--ta•order by,Cheirreen.Tom'HaVden•.•at-7:32.-p.M-.•In • the Borough Meeting _RoOM: - • 1- • • . - : • " . • : • . • • ..- II ; ROLL CALL . ...,:.;•, . , , • =, . • - ; ; .•, ....•-•;: . . Present Tom ayaen. , - '' Absent, Donald Brenteson (excused) ,.., , ,-• arold Heglin . Paul Lowe (excused) •Dan Ogg - --, - . Dan Busch ,.,- . • -.. •• •,. ,„ .>: .. .. ' Bill Williams • III There were twelve people in the audience. „MINUTES OF THE 'PREVIOUS MEETING A. Mr. Ogg Moved to accept the minutes of Re previous regular meeting of May 19, 1976. Seconded by Mr. Heglin. Motion passed with a. unanimous voice vote. • • • " • IV - MINUTES OF OTHER:MEETINGS, ;, ; • : A. 'Minutes of the regular Assembly Meeting, June 3, 1976. No comment made by Commission members. = •.. V - - • • . • olt.t COMMUNLCATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE_ A. A letter was presented by Carolyn M. Brisca with seven signatures for the naming,of the road that runs along the front side of Island Lake, adjacent to the lake, suggesting the name "Arctic Tern". A motion was made by Mr. Ogg that a letter be written to these people suggesting they get together with the other people in the area to name the ,two cross streets as Well. Seconded by Mr. Busch. Motion passed with a -unaitimous voice vof Commission members stated they would check 'on street signs., VI PUBLIC HEARING , , • ,./ , • • : A. Public hearing was opened on a request to construct a building in an unclassified zone for the purpose of a delivery-only baked goods ,shop on Lot 3A, Block 2, Uss 1843, Mission Subdivision by Wm. T. Wever. No comments were received by the audience; public hearing was closed and meeting recon- vened. Mr. Ogg made a motion to grant Mr. Wever an additional permit for wholesale business only for a period of one year. Seconded by Mr. Heglin. Motion passed with a unanimous. roll _call vote'. , VII . .• ZONING ITEMS - • A. Request for rezoning from R-1 R-2 for piirposePf adciitiohal ho1ng in Leite Addition, 2nd Addition and East 'Addition, Blocks 45 6 51 by As Beehler. Mr. He lin made a motion to den the re uest because lots in • uesticift would • have to be rezoned for duplex housing which would be spot zoning and against policy. It would be unconstitutional and not in compliance with the Cothierehen- , sive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Ogg. Motion‘passed by unanimous eoli call vote. . . . • • • , • a:_-,,-RodettfarT-teielhina':•fe businesi for Purpoi-e---of a2proposedclevelopihent of 55:Unita foe-EldeeITHousing on Lot 39, Block- 2,- Erskine ,SUbd-Wfaioh7by Sunset . '.2 DeVel-op-enehttCenipahy. . mthe _request-foe- eezi5hihg the:-P422.. Cbfilili i SS ibil decided-thaCa_large:Chuhk7should:be..takeii tindee.consideration _Mr.;:Ogg-moved • .that-that'ProPeety-clesighated.as Lot 23, 24 8 26, tot 39 of Block 2-, Erskine:.Sule- diVitiOn;:'L-6t-a-8; -1-,=1-1-0.1-10A-;---1-1- and 1-1B-;- Bleck--3,--kodiak_Townsite; --Lot4',1‘2A P & Z MEETING -- June 16, 1976 Page 2 and 3, Block 17 New Kodiak Subdivision be rezoned from-R-3 to business. Mr. Busch secOrided the motion. Motion passed with a unanimous roll call vote. , C. Request for Vacation & Replatfor deletion of utility easements, Block .4,• •., • island Vista Subdivision by Charles Davidson & property oWner•S'. At this time, Mr. Ogg WaS excused.: Two letters were.received pertaining to this request; one froM.K:.E.A.., Inc.., of nonobjectipn if reasonable utility access can be pro- vided for the adjacent Mountain View Subdivision-,, First Addition; the other .• from Glacier-State.Telephone company finding thes,requestaCceptable provided that in .conjunction with the replat action the Kodiak tslarid Borough act to. .• • insure that .the 'subdivision util,ity:easements be amended to inciUde:',...(1) in the island Vista Subdivision: an easement to permit Public Utilities . to be'plaCed • • • Within,the."Marmot Street" right of way, and (2) in the Mountain VieWsSubdivi-, siori: an easement to permit Public Utilities to be placed within the "Marmot Street" era "Three Sister Drive" right,of way. The request was deferred until a work session could be held. • VIII SUBDIVISIONS, PRELIMINARY REVIEW.* .. .*(•. • • . • •,]. A , ,17 A SUbcriVision of Tract "B" 'and a,pOrtion of Tract "C", USS Giynn'. Motion. made by mr. Busch to accept the preliminary. Seconded by.. Mr. Williams. Motion passed with a. Unanimous•roll call. Vote. , B. Stliodivision of Lot 18, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision - Omar Stratmtin':'.• Motion made by Mr. Busch to reject the preliminary since one of . the lots.:616enot previde.access. (16.24.020) Seconded by Mr. Ogg. Motion passed .by. unanimous roll call vote. •: . IX SUBDIVISION, FINAL • • • , :. - . .. ... : ; . •. . . . . , . . . . , . . . A:- •Su.bdivision of Lot 4, Russian Creek, Alaska Subdivision - (Preliminary,&•*, . •i. „ •• • Final) - Robert Blair. Mr. Heglin made a motion accePt'ilie iubdivision as a • ..... ..- '* pretithinary with p.stipulation that the utility easements be shown on the final Seconded by Mr. Ogg: iVibtidri passed by. unanimous roll call vote. f:. , " • . • . ;MoUntain-,View, Subdivision, 'Second Addition, a portion of USS 1678 - L. Russell Mr.. Ogg was excused at-this time. Mr. Efelin moved to accept the?iubdivision.. Seconded by.Mr. Busch. Motion passed by unanimous :roll call Vote, Mr. Ogg being excused. C. :Subdivision of Lot SA, Block 4,, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision --Arthur W. &:LoHaMa W Schaeffer':. (Peeliminary'&.Final).. Motion was made by Mr., Williams t� acceptas a preliminary wittfthe Stipulation that all •paSernents be inciuded-on . , their-brit: Seconded by Mr. Busch.. Motion passed with'a Unanimous- rollcall vote: • X OLD BUSINESS A. On the request for setback variance on Block 1, Lot 1, USS 1822 by the Frontier Southern Baptist Church at the May 19, 1976 meeting, a formal vote was. required. Mr. Ogg moved to deny the setback variance. Seconded by 'Me*. Busch. Motion sassed with a unanimous roll call vote. XI -PLANNING AND STAFF ITEMS '2A. Motion y,fas made by Mr. Busch to name Mr. Williams acting chairman in Mr. Hayden's absence during his summer vacation. Seconded by Mr. Ogg. Motion passed with a unanimous voce \mate. KIB SPECIAL ASE MEETING - JUNE 17, 19 '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 read°.. "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. Wallin's question Mr. Craig replied, "No, I.am not ready to „appoint anyone from the Fishermens° Association or the Shrimp Trawlers.' "I sent each organization a letter requesting a list 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 vo-ie vote... Copies of the amended resolution will be available as soon as retyped. B. Award of Contract for OCS Impact Study - 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 ProvideDUmpster 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 a 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 by unanimous voice vote. B. = 1st Reading.Ordinance_ -No. 76 -17 -0 Extendin• Business Zone to :include R -3 Property-Lots " 23, 2', 26- and 39, Block Erskine Subdivision,- Lots .8, 9,-10, - 10A, 11 and 11B4 - Block 3, Kodiak Townsite 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- -for 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. Enniick moved that the Borough Mill Levy for the 1976/77 Fiscal Year be set at 7.23 Mills, seconded by Mrs. Kavanaugh. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. - Mr. Peotter moved that the Mill Levy for Fire Service District No. 1 be set at 2.59 Mills, 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. KIB SPECIAL ASSEMBLY MEETING - JUNE 17, 1976 Page 4 IX MAYORS REPORT - . . . A. Proposal for Townhouse Ordinance; read by the Mayor. The Assembly Members were in agreement that this should be taken up in a work session at the end of the meeting. : B. Building Permit, Art Zimmer. The Mayor reported that the use of this building would be in violation of the zoning code and a stop work orderwould be issued. and the building permit revoked.: • C. Elderly Housing Project. The Mayor noted that a letter from A-95 Clearinghouse had been received this date requesting =Merits on the. project. The AsseMbly requested copies for the work- session of the 19th and that this be placed en the agenda for the special meeting of the 19th. • X ASSEMBLY COMMENTS . A. Mrs. Kavanaugh asked if temporary permits were needed for trailers at construction sites. Noted that there permits required, these are obtained through the building official. • B. Mr. Peterson referred to a letter from Mr. Chandler concerning the .e. Board, of Equalizations and asked that the information be made avni1able to him The Clerk was instructed to have all available information ready for the work session the 19th of June. C. Mrs.,; Kavanaugh'requested;a work session for the Assembly -to -e, establish goals and objectives. OM date set at this time). D. Mrs. Kavanaugh asked bout the status of the Planner's position. The Mayor noted that Community '& Regional Affairs was interviewing people and should have a decision for us by the 25th of this month.- It was requested someone be hired as soon as possible. Mrs. Kavanaugh asked : if the Borough had advertised for consultants to update ,the Comprehensive Plan. The Mayor stated that this had not been done, he had talked with Community & Regional Affairs and they felt that an updating before the Planner was hired would make it difficult if the Planner had to work with a plan that he had not part in preparing. E. Mrs. Kavanaugh noted that under the Appeal bleMr. Majdic, the • Planning Commission had indicated that this would be spot zoning and. spot zoning,hadleen declared Unconstitutional. Sheerequested a copy , of the ruling on this matter: • .: F. Mrs. Wallin noted several items that will be placed on the October. . r. ballot, i.e., parks and recreation power, manager plan and sales tax. Mrs. 1611in stated that she had been contacted by the new FM Station KIANT with a request to tape the assembly meetings, and she felt this would be good to have the meetings available to the residents. Further a request has been made to have members of the assembly sit. on .a panel . discussion program. All members indicated agreement with both requests. XI APOIENCE COMMENTS A. Mr. Okey chandler asked if the Clerk of the Borough had received the Declaration. Of Candidancy forms and if not he felt that a letter should be sent to the State voicing a complaint. It appeared that because ofe confusion on the filing requirements, some of the candidates had beene disqualified. . B. Mr. Hank Eaton spoke.on the urgency of hiring a,pIanner'and he,did not feel that...the Borough should compromise. The best.available:person should be hired. Mr. Greg Jones indicated that he had a listing of-the members of the Planners' Association and would be .willing to Make it e available for contact by.. the Borough. . XII ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned ,at 9:15 p.nne ATTEST: -11c/%4fiee-A,e tec • APPROVED: ' KODIAK ISLAND BORZAT011 MEMORANDUM DATE: 1 TO : RE: May 27, 1976 Planning Commission Rezohing 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. Tklis 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. •Tvm.f.S,',05.■ ■■ . , , 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, BLOCK 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 WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough has pursuant thereto adopted Chapter 5 of its Code of Ordinances and Resolutions, which provided for planning and zoning provisions and procedures and WHEREAS, according to the Comprehensive Planning and ZoningMap adopted by the Kodiak Island Borough, Lots 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45, Block 2, Erskine Subdivision and Lot 12, Block 1, Kodiak Townsite, U. S. Survey 2537-B has been zoned R-3 and, WHEREAS, a petition has been received from FRED BRECHAN/ LOUIS IANI requesting same be rezoned from R-3 to Commercial for further development of the area, and. 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 by the Borough Assembly of the Kodiak Island Borough that the property described as:. 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 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY RATIFYING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONE OF LOT 39, BLOCK 2, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION, U.S. SURVEY 562 AND CLARIFYING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONE, TRACT "A ", U.S. SURVEYS 2537 -B AND 562. WHEREAS, Alaska Statutes 29.33.090 empowers the Borough to enact zoning plans and to provide for its adminis- tration, enforcement and amendment, and WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough has pursuant thereto adopted Chapter 17 of its Code of Ordinances and Resolutions which contains planning and zoning provisions and procedures, and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 74 -5 -0, adopted March 7, 1974, rezoned Lots 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45, Block 2, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION, U.S. Survey 562, and Lot 12, Block 1, KODIAK' TOWNSITE, U.S. Survey '537-B (replatted as Tract "A ", U.S. Surveys 2537 -B and 562) from R -3 to Commercial, and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 76 -17 -0, adopted July 1, 1976, rezoned Lot 39,.B1ock 2, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION, U.S. Survey 562 from R -3 to Business, and WHEREAS, a complaint has been filed in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, at Anchorage, contesting the effect, propriety and legality of the above ordinances, and WHEREAS, a petition has been received from the property owner of Lot 39, Block 2, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION, U.S. Survey 562 and Tract "A ", U.S. Surveys 2537 -B and 562 requesting that the zone of the property be ratified as Business with the use restricted to the 55 -unit elderly housing project now being constructed, and .•s Ordinance No. Page One WHEREAS, the petition was considered and approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on the 18th day of October, 1978, and said body has recommended the ratification of the Business Zone applicable to the property with the use restricted to the 55 -unit elderly housing project now being constructed, and 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, U.S. Survey 562 and Tract "A ", U.S. Surveys 2537 -B and 562. BE AND THE SAME IS declared to be zoned as Business with the use restricted to the 55 -unit elderly housing project now being constructed thereon 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 a reading and that this ordinance shall be in full effect at the time of adoption. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH By: Presiding Officer: Mayor Ordinance No. Page Two 9 • March 22, 19714 r. ; LV la ndall 2050 Freemont South Pasadena, California 91030 Re: Rezoning of Lots 40-45 Block 2, Erskine Subdivision & Lot 12, Block I, Kodiak Townslte Ilear Mr.,/ bndalf : — The above referenced lots were rezoned from R-3 to uslness, They were also vacated and repiatted into one arcel for proper development. The purpose of the above Is so that the owners can put an apartment complex•on the lot without violating the building regulations. WedIdIhowever, restrlctthem not to build, over one story above Rezanof Drive., They are proposing a total of Twenty-four units within four buildings. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate ot contact this office. The reason for the late answering is that we have been in the process of moving and haven't completely settled yet. • NLH/dt Verytruly yours,. Norma L. Holt, Borough Clerk 410 •I''' ...'r'. , . COLE, HARTIG, RHODES & NORMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LNN HOYT M. COLE ROBERT L. HARTIG JAMES D. RHODES JOHN K. NORMAN ROBERT J. MAHONEY KEITH A. GOLTZ JOHN G. GISSBERG SUITE 201 717 K STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) 274-3576 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 68501 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, reflec t 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 four 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 -4- 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 OW7 i f . 023 gtm_ 1-4Waa ' - Y9,5-2_ ,i_4036 - - 4rezi 4 ii as- , le,,,,,, 1 ‘%___e_e__Ote/6,4.,,,,, , 08,,,,,.., S‘„,,,,,____ li qs- 44d1-e/ .__. • Ad ' • d-X___/_6,56 ii 927 Y • I/ q 0—e6e,et:/C 5 — 3 erer -71r 1, o9 LL4r I , .1 Vi td,42e.Cid I/ / I 4 / ' • ,53 / 9 8 3a d074-A- 63/ 16 i q 0 at Y '9 /067(-16 71 ■ • A. 1 5:7 7- , kL q g / 1 9 , . . i / • / w , . 5-90 .? Mg ZfLii,e,ta-)1 73_g / & __02s_iare.,ac, • ,_________/d_i2/zerm__. ir, , 4a-4_0Da, 7.3_Th frac, _e5vez.e ___Zert__Lo • o/440,ae-___VsLam.e. • (fi/3 ki.-6&4i.ib 5 76' l , ' c:W /4---dz,ac • (._ 6,6 . 1 A , y a&(-0-v_A t°a.6eZZI, if-ete..44.2 • (54 0/ 6 L' _a7g1q, Z(Lilzivityu vi_ M./1z_ ' /, J / / (1470Z5' 1 (o1/ 7 7 SC 1- _toe/AA) a'a / 3 lif_7_____ ,_/td , /5/xertte., J-ias- ____-ey--xeglic2 - /T., 1 - / ,75 gg )__}11e..Lb • 42,(22.itreAtari.,_ • ' • J-_-_/&5- _____0/ r_Zezziazir2 • 1 (.)o 7®r /7 b l5 __ 7d5 53 3 5 :.�`' 5- / voei/, f ,� 1/ . `/ / 8 63 6G IA SO . .4, , / , 21 . az -,,, 1/ _____3 erite2, 11 • , / '0 „ . 1 I 4w_o___c„, c 30D cl,(2,,eca Q ' /11/1-Ve6e)C-" /3/ --.7,'? 1 / :el' 4 0 fi ./ - ao,' , (55' f.__9 .. A OF I !,/ r P / 7 74-e A 2, 56 707 i _141,-61:1C/__ -41) zrz4t,,,,,A44_,A;& 04 ' (3_,Zref f,(4.?0 / Z42_,,,e______ ,21irpte_cierzn___,_01 39 P 6&6 ,P,ot / , /%573;/% 11//4 ---, o'■ ,--- ---; / or lit _if V i it — _ e&I-- 4. 5- Law/ _,, /- - 7:./ 96:2- f . „Q . . 10 ri _ it i - ,, __:±_ii, Vol (5— 6 ' i./ , .' 7 /4( ' i ' /4 / lidetti " /5 ZaZhAtZt:a _6121, • A9 - , / ...,,d..ei - / - A,--,/ /r„d„,...„6 . ,,.., "5- . • of2:}19_ l 4._5„,.3)_1_____ 7 . . . . / 1 _______i / 4ii-. 07 ' / , ,, ' . /4.2J/61 Jig , /9 5, 7v, /9_ .. - J 70) 3 -kite& afAdedc- 47r, - / ,. - / c i,(414,0 - • Rs.577,30.2- . 1P.-ke.____... ,, ' fo ..&,,l . . ' . V-e_ 2( o 5 () % ,I- f G e5-into, l y 1C,� 6-4,A_ f�L,c- t- Pt"/-. = E-GGL {k yt / 7e ' 2— l c 64- C) 7, 5 , , �7 6 gib- C/ F (JA' 2 efe 7/7 • J'" /7 ' -( - rdv-rt.4.--t-Ly L Arms, yei: t 0 4 " " 0.1 , irO7 .,2•Z • fs.4 „ . 47- z7_5. 5L/RV,/ 56-; 0,40,00..p0 0.74'.06a7.0.(069711, 0.1. 0ray kid ■ .lo .", , r , ',.,,,,,,,... VA C AT •■•■.6 04 06 46, 03, 00, is, At/oa 4 6.-5.6.or -7,4 .e.fS 5.514-7: ,..../ /of /X, ll/.ack /, 4%0.4 71.,1/1/i Swory es.s,,,,c;,..a . RE PLAT -re,./ ." tr. Roy A. ECXLUND ROUND A. JONES CONSULTING ENGINEER SOX 378 KODIAK. ALASKA COIN. 0 REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR WA ME KODAK. ALASKA .0.0.0 eXIICT ty•.2., Y3 ERSKINE SUBDIVISION II REZANQE mphaII • - -- E.° FCC CURB NI 4'GRAVEL *ALA 36° 41. S.SURVEY 562 IIj L.42. or 7e• 7 6° 1228.00 B9. 5 ' E 142.62 82.62 r8 P 0 j/ I II Ia 9a 4 • 3 2. F 80,00 .11118 6..5.03 v7 1 Legal DawfMlm N B9. 56\ 302.53 55 8 6K4P 1` a + Le r 3e \ Bi OCK • \ EK° 55 20 LEGEND ® ILIA OR GLO 606064NT5 RECOVERED. O ALUMINUM CAP MOIIU,IENTS SET. O ALUMINUM CAP MONUMENTS RECOVERED. LEGAL DESCRIPTION _OT 39, BLOCH 2, 783449E SU0DIV.SI974, U B.SONV£T N0. 592 AN0 TRACT 'A °,4 4.3089(29 2537 -8 6 562, 000402 ALASKA MORE PART:OU1ARLT 0(52X1403 AS FOLLOWS, BEOINK440 AT CORNER I, U.E.9URVEY 562; THENCE N69• 56'00 "W 302.53 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY CT U.S.684080 562; THENCE 517°12'00'W 169.05 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY 9.0 W. OF ER6KINE AVENUE, THENCE 835° 41'40 "W ITT 39 FEET; THENCE 304. 30'00"2 20.64 FEES TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF U.S.SURVEY 562; THENCE 569° 55'00'2 24.02 FEET ALON9 SAID BOUNDARY TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 107 394 THENCE NORTH 74.0. FEET 310440 1114 WEST 00830090 OF LOT 39 TO THE SOUTHERLY R 0 0 OF 0020507 CR42E, 0HEYCE THE FOLLOWING COURSES ALONG SA10 R.O.W ; 389°75•00°E 142 62 FEET; SOUTH 20.40 FEET; 509° 55' 001E 25.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE AT WHICH THE URGENT DEARS 409• 06' 39'•E; 259.55 FEET ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING 0.RADIUS OF 1225.00 FEET, THROUGH A 26NT82.1. ANGLE OF 12 °07'48 TO A POINT ON THE (030 00050827 OF U.S. SURVEY 562: THENCE SOUTH 86.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF 050739490. CONTAINS 40,717 50UARE FEET.00 0.935 ACRE9, MORE OR LESS. JANUARY 7,1977 I CERTIFY TO ALL PARTIES 103E11E91E0 IN TITLE TO PREMISES SURVEYED, THAT THE 9UHVEY WAS ACT-1AL., Y.)E ON THE GROUND AS PER RECORD DE5CR1111081 ANO 15 CORRECT THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS EITHER WAY ACROSS PROPERTY LINES. ROY A. ECKLUND REGISTERED L0HO 5008ETOR ALASKA REGISTRAT,ON N0. 1636 -5 R.0iI.164 LA.4 SW.pW P.O. Bo. 146 04109, 810560 99615 Pr.AOa4 400 SUNSET DEVELOPMENT {:C P.O. Box 1275, Kodiak, Alaska • Survey of LOT 39, BLOCK 2, ERSKINE SUBDIVISION, U.S. SURVEY 562 Or1d TRACT NAB, U.S. SURVEY 2537 AND U.S. SURVEY 562 Dmp snn••. E 0 ENT I JPV. 7, 1977 I •]E !