Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
ELDERBERRY HGTS 4TH BK 5 LT 6 - Variance
K0DlAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CASE FILE CHECK LIST Case File No. Assigned Da?" Date Application Received t/ �� -- ^/�/x�~' �,� Type of Application °'��'*��'(.15 Date Site Plan Received Date Fee Paid Amount " �� ' . Receipt Number Person Accepting Appl. Use Z for Zoning, Variances and Exceptions CUP for Conditional Use Permit LL for Land Leases V for Violations 0 for all Other cases ��. � Name of Applicant ����7—� ,` �..,1)c— Mailing Address Bi-Dx 5'57 Phone 4: -324457 Name of Legal Owner Mailing Address Legal description of Property: Phone Lot(s) Block •-5- Subdivision Square Footage or Acreage of Property is 72I 47j4 P & Z Public Hearing Date S.-/S="6-- Public Notices Mailed on �~� /- ~- How Many? 3'J +" CIr� �� �/JP Applicant Notified of P & Z Action on `^//� Action Summary P & Z Assembly Ordinance No. Date Date Approved Denied Ordinance Effective Date Date Tabled Date Date 1st Reading 2nd Reading Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 r Kodiak IslandBorough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 =6340 PHONE (907) 486 -5736 June 4, 1990 Re: Case 85 -031. Request for a two (2) year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in a. R2 - -Two- family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three to one (3:1) dept to width ration on Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. Dear Scott: The Planning and Zoning Commission granted the above -cited request for an extension on April 20, 1988. Section 17.66.080 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code specifies that failure to utilize an approved variance within twelve (12) months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. Since more than twelve (12) months have elapsed since the above -cited variance was approved and because zoning compliance and/or a building permit have not been issued for the proposed development, the variance is no longer effective. If you still desire to pursue your proposed development, it is necessary for you to apply for another variance from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This means that a new public hearing will be held on the request and that an additional fee is required. If you desire further clarification, please contact Duane Dvorak of the Community Development Department (extension 255). Sincerely, Patricia Miley, -cretary Community Development Department Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak IslandBorough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 486.5736 February 2, 1990 Re: Case 85-031. Request for a two (2) year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2 -- Two - family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the .three to one (3 :1) depth to width ratio on Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lyndon Way. Dear Scott: The Planning and Zoning Commission granted the extension for the approved variance cited above on April 20, 1988. Section 17.66.060 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code specifies that failure to utilize an approved variance within twelve (12) months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. The variance cited above will expire on April 20,1990. If zoning compliance and/or a building permit forr the development has not been issued on or before the expiration date, the variance will be cancelled. Since the expiration date is quickly approaching, please contact the Community Development Department as soon as possible so that we may assist you in applying for the necessary permits. If you desire further clarification, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 719 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 April 21, 1988 Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, Alaska 9615 RE: CASE 85-031. Request for a two (2) year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in a R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three to one depth to width ratio on Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Sco;t Arndt) Dear Scott: The Kodiak Island Borough 20, 1988, granted your req Failure to utilize this ext. cause its cancellation. into our office to obtain zon. If you have any questions about Sincerely, .:,ng and Zoning Commission at their meeting on April the extension cited above. Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department within 24 months after its effective date shall ring this letter with you if you need to come mpliance for any construction on your lot. action of the Commission, please contact me. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 20, 1988 I. CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Steve Rennell en April 20, 1988 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Steve Rennell, Chairman Mike Anderson Jon Hartt Robin Heinrichs Tom Hendel Mary Lou Knudsen Others Present: Linda Freed, Director, Community Development Department Patricia Miley, Secretary, COmmunity Development Department Commissioners Absent: Others Absent: Scott Thompson, Excused A quorum was established. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff reported the following additions to the agenda: IX COMMUNICATIONS Dave Crowe, Borough Engineer D) Letter dated April 7, 1988, to Terrie and Craig Johnson from Linda Freed, re: Land Use of Tract S-4A, U.S. Survey 3218 (Safeway) E) March 29, 1988 Minutes of the Womens Bay Comprehensive Planning Committee Meeting (with map). F) Update on Case 87-068 ACMP review and consistency determination (extraction activities on Sitkinak Island/Yoram Palkovitch). COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda with the additions reported by staff. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the March 16, 1988, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. APPEARANCE REQUESTS AND AUDIENCE COMMENTS _ - A) CASE 85-031. Request for a two (2) year extension for a previously - approved- variance that permitted the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in a R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three to one depth to width ratio on Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT a request for an additional two year extension for a previously approved variance (Case 85-031) to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in the R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition and to reaffirm the findings contained in the staff report dated May 8, 1985 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. Planning & Zoning Commission 1 April 20, 1988 Minutes I ' /Oa cc I 'F.) /? Y-6" _ • 2 0- ;.? mAp )5 _ / Aq.6/1 Ko /14 ; ire _; .A /945 ..19 - a idoic",_co • Reta e5/ /J) _ ge 1 /6/5 214 /9e4/) A 0 r . - 'le a .5 ct,C_e 901, 16, r r e r: /elf 0_4 _ 4- %v I / g 0 10,c. Co /7 5)641-4 4 o _on Y TA4 ,1 /44 /9k 9 ri/5— Kodiak Island Borough M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 31, 1988 SUBJ.: Information for the April 20, 1988 Regular Meeting ITEM V -A RE: CASE 85 -031. Request for a two (2) year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero - lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2 -- Two - Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three to one depth to width ratio on Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) BACKGROUND The applicant in this case is requesting a third extension for a variance originally granted on May 15, 1985. One year extensions were granted by the Commission on April 16, 1986 and February 18, 1987. This variance permitted a zero - lot -line structure to be built on this lot. The lot does not meet the maximum three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. To date, the structure has not been built, but the applicant does intend to build it within the next year. Conditions in the area have not changed substantially since the first extension was approved. In a staff report dated May 8, 1985, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the variance and proposed the following findings of -fact for this case: 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. This lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two- thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to construct a zero - lot -line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant to build a duplex structure on the lot. Case 85 -031 1 April 20, 1988 P &Z ITEM V -A The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right -of -way. The variance should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use, the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. None of the reasons for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2-- Two - Family Residential Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION Based on an April 1, 1988 site inspection, staff concurs with the findings above and recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission grant a third extension for this variance. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: Move to grant a request for an additional two year extension for a previously approved variance (Case 85 -031) to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in the R2 - -Two- Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition and to reaffirm the findings contained in the staff report dated May 8, 1985 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. Case 85 -031 2 April 20, 1988 P &Z • ••. ••. ••. •.••••'• •. • • : V*�... a.r...•... .'.. w• ••••:'.'.•::•.':'.•.'.': . :•.•••4 • • . • .'••• •'.•f'.'.•:•.•... •• .•...•••. •.''•.•O'.i •�.•♦ •• ••.• •♦ 1.•. .•••••„•,:•••••••••••.•••-.4 • ••••.•♦ .4• • .•• . .•.•.•, ••.000•4 . ♦•• •.• 4 • : • :.:.:.:•:••:.. • ....0.0.0.O.40.0...0.11. '1�. . . • •: %. • • • • I •: • • .•••0 •._• '• 0 • tWitifiEfEd STREET E'SIQEN'rIAL. RESID _,NT RES.(DENTI`A: ,.14z =34 `'' RURAL,,;RESIDENT'IAL .BUSINESS :INDUSTRIAL ANNE I. WIkr0•a °•a a • • 4 742 1111:31110 ShME01 F zXC, .". . - • V �•• , • 4 D4 4 0 4 D • 4 • G ♦ P D D p 4iC4t.e( (y.pQ0 { 21ia1,Vya� aJ�y,"�4�p o� aka v 4OVi�QIYPa "4.4p,• • p ,4 . 4 o o 4, • • a• • 4i 0 ° • Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 -6340 PHONE (907) 486 -5736 April 8, 1988 RE: CASE 85 -031. Request for a two (2) year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2 - -Two- Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three to one depth to width ratio on Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) Dear Scott: Please be advised that the above - referenced request has been scheduled for review and action by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their April 20, 1988 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Your attendance at this meeting is recommended. The week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, April 13, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough conference room, the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet material for the regular meeting. You are invited to attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, please call the Community Development Department at 486 -5736, extension 255. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Skretary Community Development Department Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kothak IslandBorough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 -6340 PHONE (907) 486 -5736 February 19, 1987 RE: CASE 85 -031. Request for a second one -year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero - lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2-- Two - Family Residential District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. Dear Scott: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 18, 1987, granted your request for the extension cited above and reaffirmed the following findings of fact in support of their decision: 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. This lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two- thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the .rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to construct a zero -lot -line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant to build a duplex structure on the lot. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right -of -way. The variance Kodiak Island Borough Scott Arndt February 19, 1987 Page Two should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use, the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. None of the reason a for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. An appeal of this decision may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effective until ten days following the decision. Failure to utilize this extension within 12 months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. Please bring this letter with you if you Kodiak Island Borough Scott Arndt February 19, 1987 Page Three need to come into our office to construction on your lot. If you have any questions about contact me. Sincerely, obtain zoning the action of obert H. Pederson, Associate Planner Community Development Department cc: Case File compliance for any the Commission, please KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 18, 1987 I. CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :30 p.m. by Chairman Steve Rennell on February 18, 1987 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Steve Rennell, Chairman Mike Anderson Robin Heinrichs Mary Lou Knudsen Scott Thompson Commissioners Absent: Tom Handel, Excused D.L. Smedley, Excused Others Present: Linda Freed, Director, Community Development Department Bob Pederson, Associate Planner, Community Development Department Dave Crowe, Borough Engineer Patricia Miley, Secretary, Community Development Department A quorum was established. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff reported the following additions to the agenda: IX COMMUNICATIONS C) Letter dated February 18, 1987, from Jerome Selby to Bill H. Lamoreaux, ADEC, re: Brechan Solid Waste Permit Application No. 8621 -BA019 D) Memo dated February 18, 1987, from Linda Freed to Jerome Selby, re: Nonconforming Lots of Record and noted the inclusion of a revised, proposed ordinance for glide and side slopes (Item VI -A) as well as a worksession with the City Council scheduled for Thursday, February 19, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Conference Room. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda with the additions presented by staff. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the January 21, 1987 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. APPEARANCE REQUESTS AND AUDIENCE COMMENTS A) CASE 85 -031. Request for a second one -year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2 -- Two - Family Residential District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT a request for an additional one -year extension for a previously approved variance (Case P & Z MINUTES 1 FEBRUARY 18, 1987 . 85 -031) to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in the R2 -- Two - Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition and to reaffirm the findings contained in the staff report dated May 8, 1985 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Community Development Department staff. The question was called and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. This lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two- thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to construct a zero -lot -line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant to build a duplex structure on the lot. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right -of -way. The variance should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use, the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. None of the reasons for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the aranting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2-- Two - Family Residential Zoning District. P & Z MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 18, 1987 Kodiak Island Borough M E M O R A N D U M ITEM V -A TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 5, 1987 SUBJ: Information for the February 18, 1987 Regular Meeting RE: CASE 85 -031. Request for a second one -year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2 -- Two - Family Residential District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) BACKGROUND The applicant in this case is requesting a second one -year extension for a variance granted on May 15, 1985. This variance permitted a zero -lot -line structure to be built on this lot. The lot does not meet the maximum three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. To date, the structure has not been built, but the applicant intends to build it within the next year. Conditions in the area have not changed substantially since the first extension was approved. In a staff report dated May 8, 1985, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the variance and proposed the following findings of fact for this case: 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. This lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two - thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to construct a zero - lot -line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant to build a duplex structure on the lot. CASE 85 -031 1 FEBRUARY 18, 1987 P &Z ITEM V -A 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right-of-way. The variance should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use, the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. None of the reasons for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION Based on an February 3, 1987 site inspection, staff concurs with the findings above and recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission grant a second one-year extension for this variance. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: Move to grant a request for an additional one-year extension for a previously approved variance (Case 85-031) to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in the R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition and to reaffirm the findings contained in the staff report dated May 8, 1985 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CASE 85-031 2 FEBRUARY 18, 1987 P&Z _ 161).01 Ts /ae-li 7 /1_;2/ 82 ka .1i /4'45L 2. e Vay ) e°/ 1/4 a cce,"/ 74/ er e 4 /-75),0 /9 a r 719/ el Jo-7 5" r el5 le V e Var;c1,02Ce , je_ 4 7 / 51.$7 J-- r_ c47i5)_lera71)a 74,1) 7.-Afr,1 Ye, ( _,/, Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak IslandBorough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 -6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 February 3, 1987 RE: CASE 85 -031. Request for a second one -year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero - lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2-- Two - Family Residential District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio., Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) Dear Scott: Please be advised that the above- referenced request has been scheduled for review and action by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their February 18, 1987 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Your attendance.at this meeting is recommended. The week prior to the regular meeting, on. Wednesday, February 11, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough conference room, the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet material for the regular meeting. You are invited to attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, please call the Community Development Department at 486 -5736, extension 255. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department cc: Case File Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 January 16, 1987 Re: Case 85-031. Variance Request: Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition Dear Scott: As you are aware, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted your request for a variance on May 15, 1985 and granted you a one year extension on April 16, 1986. Section 17.66.080 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code specifies that failure to utilize an approved variance within twelve (12) months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that zoning compliance and/or a building permit for your development must be obtained within the twelve (12) month time limit or your variance will be cancelled. Since nine (9) months have already passed from the date of approval of your variance, please contact the Community Development Department as soon as possible's° that we may assist you in applying for the necessary permits. If you desire further clarification of this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me at 710 Mill Bay Road or call 486-5736, extension 255. Sincer Robert H. Pederson, Associate Planner Community Development Department cc: Case File Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. Arndt: Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 April 17, 1986 ' RE: CASE 85-031. Request for a one-year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in a R2--Two-Family Residential District that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on April 16, 1986, granted your request for the extension cited above and adopted the following findings of fact in support of their decision: 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. This lot was subdivided prior to the zero-lot-line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two-thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of, the lot is virtually unusable. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical . difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to 'construct a zero-lot-line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant to build a duplex structure on the lot. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties In the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right-of-way. The variance Kodiak Island Borough Scott Arndt April 17, 1986 Page Two should not result-in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. • 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use; the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of. the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5.. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. None of the reasons for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. An appeal of this decision may be initiated by any person or.party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the 'City Clerk within ten days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and.effective until ten days following the decision. Failure to utilize this extension within 12 months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. Please bring this letter with you if you need to come into our office to obtain zoning compliance for any • construction on your lot. • Kodiak Island Borough Scott Arndt April 17, 1986 Page Three If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact me. Sincerely, • Robert H. Pederson, Assistant Planner Community Development Department Pm cc: Case File 1 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 16, 1986 I. CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Acting Chairman Dan James on April 16, 1986 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Others Present: Dan James, Acting Chairman Mike Anderson Robin Heinrichs Marlin Knight Mary Lou Knudsen Scott Thompson Bud Cassidy, Borough Resource Management Officer Bob Pederson, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department Dave Crowe, Borough Engineer Patricia Miley, Secretary, Community Development Department Commissioners Absent: Others Absent: Steve Rennell, Excused Linda Freed, Director, Community Development Department A quorum was established. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the March 19, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. APPEARANCE REQUESTS AND AUDIENCE COMMENTS Appearance Requests: A) CASE 85 -031: Request for a one -year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2 - -Two- Family Residential District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commission to answer questions. The Commission had no questions for Mr. Arndt. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT A RE VEST FOR A ONE -YEAR EXTENSION for a previously approved variance (Case 85 -031) to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in the R2 - -Two- Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated May 8, 1985 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which P & Z REGULAR MEETING 1 APRIL 16, 1986 generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. This lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two - thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to construct a zero -lot -line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant t� build a duplex structure on the lot. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right -of -way. The variance should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use, the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. None of the reasons for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2 - -Two- Family Residential Zoning District. B) CASE 84 -110. Request for a five -year extension for a condition of approval for a previously approved exception (that permitted a temporary storage warehouse in a R1-- Single- Family Residential Zoning District); specifically the condition requiring that the temporary warehouse and any vans located on the property must be removed by April 1, 1986. Lot 26, U.S. Survey 3099; 2756 Spruce Cape Road. (Ken Forster) COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR A FIVE -YEAR EXTENSION for a condition of approval of a previously approved exception (Case 84 -110), specifically the condition requiring that the temporary warehouse and any vans currently located on the property must be removed from the property by April 1, 1986. Lot 26, U.S. Survey 3099. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: P & Z REGULAR MEETING 2 APRIL 16, 1986 Kodiak Island Borough M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 2, 1986 SUBJ: Information for the April 16, 1986 Regular Meeting RE: BACKGROUND ITEM V -A CASE 85 -031. Request for a one -year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in a R2 -- Two- Family Residential District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) The applicant in this case is requesting a one -year extension for a variance granted on May 15, 1985. This variance permitted a zero - lot -line structure to be built on this lot. The lot does not meet the maximum three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. To date, the structure has not been built, but the applicant intends to build it within the next year. Construction was delayed last year from May to August because the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to grant this variance was appealed to the City Council. The Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. In a staff report dated May 8, 1985, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the variance and proposed the following findings of fact for this case: 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. This lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two - thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. CASE 85 -031 1 APRIL 16, 1986 P &Z ITEM V -A The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to construct a zero-lot-line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant to build a duplex structure on the lot. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right-of-way. The variance should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use, the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. None of the reasons for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION Based on an April 1, 1986 site inspection, staff concurs with the findings above and recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission grant a one-year extension for this variance. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: Move to grant a request for a one-year extension for a previously approved variance (Case 85-031) to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in the R2--Two-Family Residential Zoning District that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated May 8, 1985 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CASE 85-031 2 APRIL 16, 1986 P&Z Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (907) 486-5736 April 1, 1986 RE:. CASE 85-031. Request for a one-year extension for a previously approved variance that permitted the construction of'a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in a R2--Two-Family Residential District that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. • Lot 6, Block 5,"Elderberry Heights . 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. Dear Mr. Arndt: Please be advised that the above-referenced request has been scheduled for review and action by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their April 16, 1986 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Your attendance at this meeting is recommended. The week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, April 9, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough conference room, the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet material for the regular meeting. You are invited to attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, please call the Community Development Department at 486-5736, extension 255. Sincerely, Patricia Miley Secretary Community Deve opment Department cc: Case File / a ccA ,O1/ g'F‘ e Cis e E% 4_ F57 03 /_ eau e a fh (E, _ / BQ� �/oC�SS_. 6� i c �i 0'"1 e - e a�jace� -,f /DIV er_i, Q -wry, �dccP -7- - - / a s - -71 7L,% o pp"- / l to e 74 a n 5.)ea so e Gf cl t ) ar ru f eu �r / a arse VG: I'i a h -c e / e4 v' LC:X / ,7_5"%ei_W 754-,r<gli /(0 .046. c t t ro sc fr r le /^J te uvir- A / -‘6402 k Kr- 5,i5ecvJ. Warms �� a� ©li )Q/ Al is AN/ FS cF Pt p&f-pu ^0E- t' F C) Appeal of CASE 85-031. The gianting of a variance from Section 17.34.030B (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in an R2--Two-family Residential District that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Applicant: Scott Arndt) -•- ■-frv. COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of a letter from Marcella H. Dalke, CMC, City Clerk, datedAugust_6, 1985, addressed to Linda Freed. The motion was seconded and CABRIED,by unanimous voice vote. _ . D) Appeal of CASE 85-004. The granting of an exception from Section 17.24.010 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit a hotel in an I--Industrial District, legally described as City Tidelands Tract N-18. (Applicant: The Kazim Company/Dischner-Mathisen Partnership) COMMISSION JAMES MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of a letter from Marcella H. Dalke, CMC, City Clerk, dated August 7, 1985, addressed to Linda Freed. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. X REPORTS A) Status Report from the Community Development Department. 9) COMMISSIONER HILL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE 85-050. Request for a variance from Section 17.19.030 (Area Requirements) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling to be located on a lot that does not meet the minimum area requirements of 3,600 square feet per dwelling unit; and Request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling to be located on a nonconforming lot of record instead of a single-family residence only in an R2--Two-family Residential District. Lot 3 of the resubdivision of Lot 3, Paul's Subdivision; 1120 Mission Road. (Marlin Knight) A for the request for construction of a duplex on a nonconforming-lot of record, and for the request for variance to the minimum lot size for a two-family dwelling unit, as follows: 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. A -- This substandard lot is the smallest in Paul's Subdivision. Even with a purchase of a portion of the "Rabbit Reserve," the size of the lot would be ±4,985 square feet, which is still below the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size for a duplex. B -- This substandard lot is the smallest in Paul's Subdivision. Even with a,purchase of a portion of the "Rabbit Reserve," the size of the lot would be ±4,985 square feet, which is still below the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size for a duplex. 2. Strict *application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. A -- The strict application of the zoning ordinance would only allow a dingle-family residence to be constructed on the lot. This is not an unnecessary hardship because the lot is 2,215 square feet less than the minimum required lot size. B -- The strict application of the zoning ordinance would only allow a single-family residence to be constructed on the lot. This is not an unnecessary hardship P & Z Regular Meeting -17- August 21, 1985 August 6, 1985 — — Cr's'"" Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska -99615 ITEM ix—: RE: Variance Request Approval, CASE 85-031 - Scott Ardnt. Quaccia Appeal of Decision Dear Linda: At the August 6, 1985, Board of Adjustment Hearing, the Council, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, made the following finding in the above case: The record reflects substantial evidence supporting each of the findings-upon which the Planning and Zoning Commission based its decision to grant this variance. Therefore the appeal is denied. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK kxu&Sca,$),_ MARCELLA IL DALKE, CMC City Clerk MID/ms cc: Marilyn Quaccia POST OFFICE BOX 1397, KODIAK . ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 I. II. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR, RESCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF KODIAK HELD AUGUST 6, 1985 AUG 1985 DRAFT RECSVEO MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Pugh called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers Brodie, Cratty, Crowe, Ramaglia, and Stephan were present and consti- tuted a quorum. Councilmember Woodruff was absent. The Mayor asked for, and received, Council approval to amend the order of business and act on Resolution Number 44 -85 immediately.following approval of the minutes. PREVIOUS MINUTES Councilmember Brodie MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Ramaglia, to approve the minutes of the July 25, 1985, regular meeting. Council - member Brodie made a correction to the vote on New Business, item i. The roll call vote on the corrected minutes was unanimously favorable. Resolution Number 44 -85 RE: Commending the State Champion Junior American legion Baseball Team City Manager Gesko said this resolution was presented to commend the Jack Allman Post 17 Junior American Legion Baseball Team. These players had captured the title of "STATE JUNIOR AMERICAN LEGION CHAMPIONS - 1985." A sign commemorating their achievement would be placed at the entrances to town. Mayor Pugh read Resolution Number 44 -85 in its entirety. Councilmember Crowe MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Brodie, to pass and approve Resolution Number 44 -85. The roll call•vote was unanimously favorable. Mayor Pugh distributed individual presentation copies of the resolution to all the team members. III : " , PERSONS .TO BE HEARD a. Planning and Zoning Caomissioner Comnissioner Marlin Knight asked if the Council had any questions about the cases caning before the Commission at its August 21 meeting, Council - member Ramaglia asked about Case 85 -053, a Borough land disposal. Mr. Knight said the Commission was to consider a recommendation on the dis- posal of Block 5 of the proposed Lakeside Subdivision for residential use. Upon further questioning, Mr. Knight said the sale did not involve any of the lakeshore lots and could be a negotiated sale to the Kodiak Island Housing Authority. Councibmember Brodie asked about Case 85 -043, an application to rezone property on Alder Lane.•.Mr. Knight said the case had been tabled to allow the City to submit written input an the matter. Following a short discussion, the Council instructed the staff to submit a letter based on City Engineer Monroe's August 6 memorandum. .Board.of Adtustment.,Hearing ' •liE .,,C0q!pei4 AppE!al o the ebruary,2O, antis • an „l cceptian Request To'Pa itrCceista Mayor Pugh recessed the regular meeting and opened the Board of Adjust- ment hearing. City Manager Gesko said the Council was sitting as the Board of Adjustment to hear its appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commis- sion's February 20, 1985 decision granting an exception to permit con- struction of a hotel in an industrial area on City Tidelands Tract N -18. The hearing could begin with a presentation by the Community Development Department Director. Next, the Council would present its argument. Only the information available to the Planning & Zoning Commission at the time of its decision could be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Accord- ing to KCC 17.10.060(c), only one argument could be presented by or on behalf of each party. After hearing both parties, the Board of Adjustment would affirm or reverse the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission, in whole or in part, and give the reasons for its decision, Boardmember Ramaglia MOVED, seconded by Boardmaaber Cratty, to grant the relief requested by the Kodiak City Council's appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commission's February 20, 1985 decision to grant an exception co permit construction of a hotel in an industrial area on City Tidelands Tract N -18. Linda Freed, Director of the Borough Conntuiity Development Department, said her presentation had been prepared according to Kodiak City Code 17.10.060(6). The decision being appealed was the approval of an excep- tion by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. The approved exception permitted a hotel on City Tidelands Tract N -18, which is zoned industrial. The pertinent facts produced at the hearing from which the appeal was taken included: 1. The request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designated this area as part of the "central business district "; 2. Ocher businesses, notably a restaurant, had operated successfully on the propery for several years without observable conflict with other land uses in the area, specifically the adjacent seafood processing plant; and 3. There were no direct objections to the request suhxmitted at or prior to the public hearing on the request, The applicable legal principles were taken from Borough Code Section 17.65.050 which stated: "If it is the finding of the commission, after consideration of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that the use as proposed in the application, or under the appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, or be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title, and not adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighbor- hood, the commission shall approve the exception, with or without condi- tions." The Planning and Zoning Commission found the request net the requirements set out in the Borough Code, and therefore, the Commission ,1 was required by the Borough Code to approve the exception. She referred the Board to the findings of the Cormission as found in the minutes of the Countission's March 20, 1985, regular riveting. Boardmenber Ramaglia asked if the Commission addressed the danger to pub- lic health, safety, and welfare if there was a break in an eanialia line. Director Freed said the Commission felt there were mitigating design measures available to the developers that would prevent any danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. Mr. Ramaglia asked if the Commission considered the odor emanating from the adjacent seafood processor. Ms. Freed said the Commission did not consider odor a health, .safety, or wel- fare consideration. City Attorney Mel Stephens presented the City's-argument for the Council. The proposed developer was required to apply for an exception because res- idential uses were not allowed in Industrial Zones. The Planning and Zon- ing Connission had determined at its January 16, 1985, regular meeting that apartments, hotels, and motels were residential uses and therefore disal- lowed as a use in the Industrial Zone. Therefore, the proposed use was in- consistent with the existing zoning laws and required an exception. The City's position was that the record did not adequately support the findings -of fact upon which the Commission based its decision. He drew the Board's attention to Borough Code 17.65.050(8) which stated: "That if the commis- sion finds, after consideration of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that the proposed use will tend to en- danger the public's health, safety or general welfare in any way or pro- duce results inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title, or adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood, the commission shall deny the exception." It was the City's position that had the Commission reviewed the application in light of that provision, the exception would not have been warranted. Based on the record, the Commission found that the exception would not have endangered the public's health, safety, or general welfare, however, two out of the three written comments submitted to the Commission conditionally opposed the exception, in fact one expressed concern over offensive odors, loud noises, and bright lights emanating from the adjacent seafood processing plant, The staff report to the Commission, while recommending approval of the exception, noted many inherent problem with use of the site for a hotel, including "not just the smell of seafood but possible ammonia used for cleaning and diesel fuel." The record contained a finding that there were mitigat- ing measures, such as buffering and screening, which would mitigate this problem but there was no evidence of testimony or other evidence as to what these mitigating factors were. This finding did not result in any conditions predicated on the approval of the exception. Apparently one of the reasons the Commission felt this exception was warranted was the weak demand for industrial-zoned land in the Kodiak area because of the current economic downturn in the fishing industry. That was not a rele- vant consideration in an application for an exception. The finding that there was an under-utilization of Industrial-zoned land was not substan- tiated. In viewing the record as a whole there wasn't substantial evi- dence to support the findings of the Commission and that there was sub- stantial evidence in the record to support the position that the proposed use would tend to endanger the public's health, safety, and general wel- fare in sore way and that this particular use in an Industrial Zone was 2 inconsistent with the general intent and purposes of Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. Boardmember Crafty was opposed to turning scarce waterfront property over to business uses rather than industrial. Boardmember Stephan said the City Attorney illustrated a number of his concerns. He felt the March 21, 1985, letter from the Borough Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer to the Dischner-Mathisen Partnership did not give valid reasons for the granting of the exception. He also drew the Board's attention to the July 5, 1985, letter from Mayor Pugh which stated the facts supporting the Council's appeal, including the proximity of the site to the St. Paul Harbor spit with its many uses which a hotel may impede. Boardmenber Brodie said an area that wasn't addressed at any length was the adjacent float plane ramp. Many commercial float planes use the Channel to take off at 500 a.m. Historically, in other airport areas, development takes place adjacent to an airport and a few years later the new development conducts drives to close the airport, sometimes successfully. The roll call vote on the motion to 'grant relief to the appellant was Boardmembers Brodie, Crotty, Ramaglia, and Stephan in favor, and Board- member Crowe opposed. The notion passed. Boardmember Brodie MOVED, seconded by Boardmember Stephan, to adopt the following findings of fact in support of its decision to grant relief to the appellant: 1. The record fails to reflect substantial evidence supporting the Planning and Zoning Commission's finding that approval of this re- quest will not endanger the public's health, safety, and general wel- fare. In particular: A. Two out of three written comments submitted to the Commission opposed or conditionally opposed the exception. One of those comments (Alaska Fresh Seafoods) indicated concern that offensive smells, loud noises, and bright lights emanating from its adjoining seafood proces- sing plant would be offensive to customers of the proposed hotel. B. The staff report presented to the Commission, while recommend- ing approval of the exception, acknowledged "many inherent problems associated with use of the site for a hotel" including "not just the smell of seafood but possible ammonia used for cleaning and diesel fuel." 2. The record fails to reflect substantial evidence supporting the Commission's finding that "There are mitigating measures such as buffer- ing, screening, and positioning of the structure on the lot that will les- sen potential conflicts between the existing industrial uses in the area and the proposed development." Not only is it unclear how any such miti- gating measures would address problems such as offensive odors, but this exception was granted withoUt any conditions requiring such measures. 3. The Coumission's finding that "presently, there is a weak demand for industrial-zoned land because of the economic downturn of the fish- ing industry" is not only unsuppported by substantial evidence in the record, but it is of questionable relevance to the present application which seeks an exception to the zoning laws, not a rezoning of this property. Temporary fluctuations in the economic cycles associated with different industries should not be used to justify the granting of exceptions to the zoning laws. 4. The record fails to contain substantial evidence supporting the Commision's finding that "There .. exists under-utilized industrial-zoned waterfront property." May 15, 1985 decision to grant a variance to permit zero-lot line devel- opment on Lot 6, Block 7, 1617 Lynden Way, Elderberry Heights Alaska Sub- division Fourth Addition. The roll call vote was Boardmember Stephan in favor, and BoardmeMbers Brodie, Cratty, and Crowe opposed. The motion failed. Boardmember Crone MOVED, seconded by Boardmember Brodie, to adopt the following finding of fact: The record reflects substantial evidence supporting the basis upon which the Planning and Zoning Commission based its decision to grant this exception; therefore, the appeal is denied. Boardmember Brodie said the only reason the variance was needed was the ambiguity in the 3 -to -1 ratio requirements. He hoped the current revi- sion of the Borough zoning and subdivision laws would correct this and other problems in the Code. The roll call vote was Boardrembers Brodie, Cratty, Crowe, and Stephan in favor. Mayor Pugh closed the Board of Adjustment hearing and reopened the regular •meeting. IV. OLD BUSINESS a. Second Reading and Public Hearing, Ordinance Number 772 RE: Provid- ing Designated Handicapped - Parking Spaces and the Regulation Thereof Mayor Pugh read Ordinance Number 772 by title. City Manager Gesko said this ordinance was presented at the request of the Police Department to allow regulation of handicapped- parking spaces in the City of Kodiak. The provision to paint the handicapped symbol on the parking space was to discourage parking in those handicapped spaces that had had the signs removed or destroyed by vandals. Only those vehicles displaying a State issued sticker, license plate, or permit would be allowed to park in designated- handicapped parking spaces. The State initiated the desig- nated- handicapped parking program and left it to the municipalities to regulate. At this time there was no authority to cite anyone misusing the signed spaces. Ordinance [Amber 772 would require painting the symbol on the spaces now signed. The Council passed this ordinance in the first reading July 25, 1985. Counciinenber Cratty 113VED, seconded by CouncilmeMber Brodie, to approve Ordinance bhamber 772 in the second reading, The Mayor closed the regular meeting, opened and closed the public hearing when no one came forward to testify, and reopened the regular meeting. Councilmember Brodie asked how many new handicapped spaces would be estab- lished and where they would be installed. Mayor Pugh said this would be considered by the Council at a later date. The roll call vote was unanimously favorable. b. Second Reading and Public Hearing, Ordinance [limber 773 RE: Ar:iend- ing Chapter 16 of -tlie Personnel Rules and Regulations Relating to Fire Department Shift Personnel V. Mayor Pugh read Ordinance Number 773 by title. The City Manager said this ordinance was presented to clarify the regulations for Fire Depart- ment Personnel in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court's February 19, 1985, decision Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Court held the Fair Labor Standards Act minion wage and overtime provisions- applicable to states and mnicipalities. Ordinance Number 773 was amended and approved in the first reading July 25, 1985. Councilmember Cratty MOVED, seconded by Counciluember Stephan, to approve Ordinance Number 773 in the second reading. Councilmember Crowe MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Cratty, to w1 i Ordinance Number 773 by the addition of a new Section 6, Schedule of Pay Ranges for 68 Hours in Any 9 -Day Gbrk Period, and renumbering the subsequent section. The roll call vote on the amendment was unanimously favorable. The Mayor announced that copies of the amendment were available to the audience. He then closed the regular meeting, opened and closed the public hearing when no one can forward to testify, and reopened the regular meeting. The roll call vote on the main notion, as amended, was taiarwnously favor- able. [EW BUSINESS a. Resolution Nimnber 44 -85 RE: Commending the State Champion Junior American Legion Baseball Team This agenda item had been acted upon earlier in the meeting following the approval of the minutes. b. Resolution Number 45 -85 RE: Rescinding Resolution Nuiiber 73 -83 and Resolution Number 05 -84 and Abolishing the Tourism Advisory Board Mayor Pugh read Resolution Number 45 -85 by title. City Manager Gesko said this resolution was presented at the request of the Council following the incorporation of the Kodiak Island Convention and Visitors Bureau. The Council wished to thank the citizens who volunteered and served on the Tourism Advisory Board for their services. Councilmember Crowe MOVED,. seconded by Councilmember Cratty, to pass and approve Resolution Irnber 45 -35. The Council invited Wayne Heerer, Chairman of the Tourism Advisory Board, to speak to the resolution. lir, Haerer said the Board was not taking a position on the resolution but wished the Council to be aware of the fact that the Board had been nominated for two State Alaska Visitor Associa- tion awards. The awards, if received, would be presented at the AVA Convention in late October. The Board expressed its appreciation to the Council and City staff, particularly City Clerk Delke, for the cooperation afforded the Board throughout the process, and for the confidence placed in the Boardmanbers. 5. Viewing the record as a whole, we find that granting this excep- tion, so as to permit a residential use of industrially -zoned land in an area which is immediately adjacent to properties which have actually been developed for industrial use, will tend to endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare. 6. We also find that granting this exception would be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code in that it would be contrary to the orderly development of. the limited amount of waterfront property in the downtown area,' The roll call vote on the findings of fact was Boardmermbers Brodie, Cratty, Ramaglia, and Stephan in favor, and Boardmember Crowe opposed. The nation passed. Mayor Pugh closed the Board of Adjustment hearing and reconvened the regular meeting. merit c..Board.of Adjusent Hearings RK: Qiad ie Appeal,o..the May 15, 1985, Decision Granting a Variance Request To Permit Zero -lot Line Development on Lot 6,. Block 7:;='1716 :Lynden Way,: Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision }Fourth,Addition Mayor Pugh recessed the regular meeting and opened the Board of Adjustment hearing. Councilmember Ramaglia declared a conflict of interest in this matter as he owned two lots in the immediate vicinity of the property in question. The City Manager said the Council was sitting as the Board of Adjustment to hear Marilyn Quaccia's appeal of the Planning & Zoning Com- mission's May 15, 1985 decision granting a variance to permit zero -lot line development at 1617 Lynden Way, as requested by Scott Arndt. The hearing would begin with a presentation by the Community Development De- partment Director. Next, Ms. Quaccia would present her argument, Only the information available to the Planning & Zoning Commission at the time of its decision could be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Accord- ing to KCC 17.10.060(c), only one argument could be presented by or on behalf of each party. After hearing both parties, the Board of Adjustment would affirm or reverse the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission, in whole or in part, and give the reasons for its decision. Linda Freed, Director of the Borough Community Development Deparurut, said her presentation was prepared according to Kodiak City Code 17.10,060(b). The decision being appealed was the approval of a variance by the Kodiak Island Planning and Zoning Commission granting relief from the maximum lot depth to width ratio contained in Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.34.030B. The pertinent facts produced at the hearing from which this appeal was taken included: 1. Zero -lot line development was a permitted use in this zoning dis- trict; 2. The granting of this variance would not increase the allowed density in this zoning district; and 3. The granting of this variance did not decrease any of the required building setbacks in this zoning district. The applicable legal principals were taken from Borough Code Section 17.66.050 which stated: "If it is the finding of the commission, after consideration of the investi- gator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that the use proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or re- strictions, meets all of the following, the variance shall be granted." The Commission determined that the request met all six conditions set out in the Borough Code. Therefore, the Commission was required by the Code to grant the variance. She referred the Board to the findings of the Commission as found in the minutes of the Commission's May 8, 1985, regular meeting. Board Chairman Pugh asked for and received an explana- tion of the apparent ambiguity of the Commission granting the variance and later, in the same meeting, approving a subdivision of the lot in ' question. Boardmember Brodie received clarification of the timing of th` original subdivision plat and the rezone to,.R2, and of the minimum lot width and 3 -to -1 ratio requirements. Marilyn Quaccia, the appellant, said she would respond to the six points required for approval of a variance. 1. In order to comply with the 3 -to -1 ration, an imaginary line was drawn across the back of the lot making it a rectangle instead of a trapezoid and thereby making it conform to the width to length ratio. In her opinion this did not constitute a "physical condition" to support the evidence. 2. It was stated that "strict application of the' provisions" of the Borough Zoning Title would create a hardship on the applicant, but Mrs. Quaccia felt it was time the strict applications of the Code were enforced. She said it was as easy to get a variance as it is to predict rain." She said some zero -lot line developments were completed and sold prior to re- ceiving approval. This fostered a confidence in the Code loopholes for approval of whatever the developers and builders were developing. The R2 zone on Lynden Way allowed duplexes. A duplex could be built on the property providing the sane number of units without a zero -lot line devel- opment. The only reason the developer wanted a zero -lot line approval was because there was not a big market for duplexes. He was only interested in a quick profit. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission believed that granting the variance would not result in damage or prejudice to other properties in area. She stated that zero -lot line developments were geared to margin., buyers. She was a sociology, economics major in college and understood need for affordable housing, however, she didn't feel that zero -lot line development should be scattered all over town. She said her neighbors were already having a hard time selling their homes below appraisal and people in a marginal housing market did not expend cash for upkeep and painting. This devalued a neighborhood. 4. She said it was hard to say just what the objectives of the Com- prehensive Plan were. R2 and zero -lot line development had very liberal interpretations. Even the May 15 Commission meeting had discussion on the "last minute" changes in the zero -lot line ordinance. This type of development needed to be looked at at some length. She personally felt that zero -lot line development should be restricted to separate zones. 5. and 6. There was implied consent that the applicant had not caused special conditions from which relief was being sought and that the variance did not permit a prohibited use in the district involved. RECESS There was a short recess. Boardmember Crowe MOVED, seconded by Boardmember Cratty, to grant the re- lief requested by Ms. quaccia's appeal of the Planning & Zoning Cornnission's '3 VIII. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmenber Ramaglia asked for a report on the status of developing Lot 2, Block 17, into a public parking lot. Mr. Gesko said the engi- neering staff was working up cost estimates. Resolution Number 44 -85 RE: Rescheduling Consideration Councilmember Ramaglia MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Stephan, to re- schedule consideration of Resolution Number 44 -85 at the first regular meeting in November. The roll call vote was Councilmanbers Stephan and Ramaglia .in favor, and Councilmembers Brodie, Cratty, and Crowe opposed. The motion failed. Rescind Prior Action RE: Port of Kodiak Stevedoring Operations and Lease of Pier II Warehouse Councilmanber Ramaglia MOVED, seconded by Councilmanber Brodie, to rescind the July 25 Council action awarding Alternate f3 to Sea -Land Service, Inc. for the Port of Kodiak stevedoring operations and the lease of the Pier II warehouse. Mayor Pugh passed the gavel to Deputy Mayor Ramaglia as he had a conflict of interest on this topic. The roll call vote was Brodie, Ramaglia, and Stephan in favor, and Coun- cilmembers Cratty and Crowe opposed, The motion failed, Deputy Mayor Ramaglia returned the gavel to Mayor Pugh, Councilmenber Cratty asked for a status report on City computerization. Mr. Gesko said that Price, Waterhouse had completed a needs assessmrnit the prior week and he anticipated the report within the next few weeks. Councilmenber Brodie said he thought the City should be represented at the Southeast Conference Advisory Board to the Alaska Marine Highway System meeting in Juneau on September 18. He also suggested the City develop a comprehensive plan for cemetery improvements so that as the various civic organizations express an interest in contributing labor, etc., an orderly course of action could be followed. He suggested signs listing City population be placed at the street entrances to town and plaques be installed on the streets named after local individuals de- scribing the individuals' accomplishments. Rescind Prior Action RE: Wastewater Treatment Plant Screening Design Councilmemmber Brodie NOVED, seconded by Cbncilmanber Stephan, to rescind the July 25 Council action awarding a professional services agreement to Arctic Engineers for the design of the screening facility at the Sewage Treatment Plant in an amount not to exceed $87,000, within a time frame not to exceed eight weeks; with funds coming from Sewage Treatment Plant - Plant I•bdification Step II account 41.52.31 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. The roll call vote was Councilmembers Brodie and Stephan in favor, and 6 IX. X. Councilmembers Cratty, Crowe, and Ramaglia opposed. The motion failed. Counciblemiber Ramaglia commented on the recent "Market Basket Survey" printed in Council Information. He asked that the continuation of the local pricing be placed on the worksession schedule. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Joe Perrozzi spoke on the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the Dischner/ Mathisen exception for construction of a hotel on City Tidelands Tract N -18. He said he operated a restaurant every day on the property and never had any problem with ammonia or other noxious odors fran the adjoining seafood processing plant. He said the hotel project might be a moot point with Dischner /Mathisen's dropping the project, but a lot of money had been spent pursuing the concept. The Council responded that a day -time business use (restaurant) was different from a 24 -hour resi- dential use like a hotel. It was the Council's considered opinion that a residential use was not compatible to industrial uses and did not be- long in an Industrial Zone. Following additional discussion, It'. Perrozzi asked what the City's plans were for the St. Paul Harbor spit area. He requested the Council's feedback. Linda Freed said she wanted to clarify the answer to Councilmeber Ramaglia's question on the Planning and Zoning Commission's considera- tion of Case 85 -053, land disposal. She said the consideration was on recommending disposal of four blocks in the preliminary Lakeside Subdivi- sion. None of the blocks bordered Beaver Lake. The blocks consisted of approximately 40 residential and 11 or 12 industrial lots. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. ATTEST: CITY CLERK IIAYOR The Council commended the Board for its work on behalf of the City and community. It was clarified, should any one have thought otherwise, that the abolishment of the Board was only because of the fine work it had done and the fact that it had completed its task. Several Councilman- bers expressed concern over abolishing the Board while the awards were pending. Councilmember Ramaglia MOVED, seconded by CouncilmeMber Stephan, to table action on Resolution Number 45-85 until the first meeting in November. The roll call vote was Gouncihnonbers Ramaglia and Stephan in favor, and CounciLmembers Brodie, Cratty, and Crowe opposed, The notion failed. The roll call vote on the main motion was Councihnembers Brodie, Cratty, and Crowe in favor, and Councihnambers Ramaglia and Stephan opposed. The motion failed. c. Resolution Number 46-85 RE: Rescinding Resolution Number 58-84 Which Created a Special Assessment District for Improvements on Selig Street The Mayor read Resolution Number 46-85 by title. City Manager Gesko said this resolution was presented at Council request following deletion of the FY86 budget line item for Selig Street Improvments because the prop- erty owners on Selig Street petitioned not to proceed with the planned improvements. Resolution Number 46-85 would rescind the creation of the Selig Street Assessment District approved by Resolution Number 58-84. This resolution, should it pass, would be recorded so as to remove the notation from the property titles, CounciLMember Cratty MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Crowe, to pass and approve Resolution Number 46-85. The roll call vote was unanimously favorable. d. Renewal of Lease and Dock License Agreement RE: Pier I - Ferry Terminal The City Manager said this annual Lease and Dock License Agreement had been modified to provide additional rental for the increased, improved ferry terminal offices in the new building at Pier I, Other than that * change to Section 4, and correction of the legal description and deletion of a stevedoring company by name, the agreement was identical to prior years. At the time of packet publication, the State had not indicated its concurrence with the increase in rent. Councilmember Brodie MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Crowe, to approve the FY86 Lease and Dock License Agreement between the City and the State of Alaska, Alaska Marine Highway System, for the Pier I Ferry Terminal and to authorize the City Manager to execute same on behalf of the City. There was considerable discussion on various points of the agreement. The understanding was that if the State Marine Highway System did not agree with the increase, the matter would be brought back to the Council. A number of suggestions for succeeding agreements were made, including charg- ing each vehicle crossing the dock when loading or unloading from a ferry, and revising Section 5 on parking requirerents. VI. The roll call vote was unanimously favorable. e. Consideration of Funding Request RE: Alaska Legal Services Mr. Gesko said representatives from Alaska Legal Services Corporation presented a $6,000 funding request at the Hay 23, 1985, Federal Revenue Sharing public hearing. The allocation of contributions to community service organizations, approved in conjunction with the FY86 budget, did not include Alaska Legal Services. The organization then net with the , Council at the July 9 worksession. Consideration of Alaska Legal Servic request for funding was scheduled for this meeting when all CounciLmeMbe could be present. Councilmember Brodie MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Cratty, to contri- bute $3,000 to the Alaska Legal Services Corporation for an estimated 10% of the cost to serve City residents, with funds coming from General Fund Non-Departmental account 20.51.74 CONTRIBUTIONS. The Council invited Alan Schmitt to present the Alaska Legal Services Cor- poration request. He reviewed the statistical summary of cases for resi- dents of the City and explanatory notes dated August 5: 1935. He also reviewed the eligibility income guidelines, eligibility information, and case acceptance prioities (as of June 1, 1935), Councilmether Stephan, while acknowledging the service provided to the community by the organi- zation, asked why it was the responsibility of the City to partially fund the Legal Services. Mr. Schmitt recounted the history of the organiza- tion from formation by the U.S. Congress and the shortfall funding under the present administration. He said that many cities in Alaska were rec- cognizing their obligation and funding the offices in their communities. The roll call vote was unanimously favorable. f. Games of Chance and Contests of Skill Applications RE: Filipino- American Association of Kodiak and Kodiak Rotary Club Under the applicable State Statutes, the City was given the opportunity to object to applications for games of chance and contests of skill per- mits. The City had received permit applications for raffles and lotteries from the Filipino-American Association of Kodiak and the Kodiak Rotary Club. Councilmember Cratty MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Crowe, to voice non- objection to the 1985 Games of Chance and Contests of Skill permit appli- cations submitted by the Filipino-American Association of-Kodiak and the Kodiak Rotary Club. The roll call vote was unanimously favorable. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. VII. MAYOR'S CUIENRS Mayor Pugh requested worksessions be scheduled for dismission on the Police Advisory Board's recommendation on loading zones and on Senator Edna B. DeVries letter on election campaign reporting. 5 �;i� ,� �•�;'��":�C h,�"sE'v? � ty�gk- yii'I"�,.T. � n.•..� �,i, r+y'' > ^ti ^a2?a: ti�ir d'�l � yi��,�jci•:ti c. Board of Adrjustment Hearing RE: Quaccia Appeal of the May 15, 1985, SUBJECT: Decision Granting a Variance Request To Permit Zero -Lot Line Development on Lot 6, Block 7, 1716 Lynden Way, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition SUMMARY: The Council is sitting as the Board of Adjustment to hear Marilyn Quaccia's appeal of the Planning & Zoning Cuu,uission's May 15, 1985 decision grant- ing a variance to permit zero -lot line development requested by Scott Arndt at 1617 Lynden Way. The hearing will begin with a presentation by the Cormamity Development Deaprtment Director, Next, Ms. Quaccia will present her argument. Only the information available to the Planning & Zoning Commission at the time of its decision may be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Ac- cording to KCC 17.10.060(c), only one argument can be presented by or on behalf of each party. After hearing both parties, the Board of Adjustment may affirm'or reverse the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission, in whole or in part, and must give the reasons for its decision. Pertinent sections of the Kodiak Island Borough Code are included for the Board's convenience. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROPRIATE COUNCIL MOTION PURSUANT TO RECOMMENDATION: Move to grant the relief requested by Ms. Quaccia's appeal of the Plan- ning & Zoning Commission's May 15, 1985 decision to grant a variance to permit zero -lot line development on Lot 6, Block 7, 1617 Lynden Way, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition. NEXT AGENDA ITEM PAGE NO, Ut fsC e411dt L1Ko s W7'1ti'N o,:;: SSW170lt..`.' ."? 3."'+/rri' it ,: .'11, fiadii vifltsA 1 . "fi,`,44 QUACCIA APPEAL OF KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION'S MAY 15, 1985, DECISION GRANTING VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT ZERO -LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT ON LOT 6, BLOCK 7, 1617 LYNDEN WAY ELDERBERRY HEIGHTS ALASKA SUBDIVISION FOURTH ADDITION TABLE OF CONTENTS KIB 17.66.050 KIB 17.34.030B 58 59 Board of Adjustment Procedures 60 Notice of Appeal KCC 17.10.020(a) 63 Record on Appeal KCC 17.10.030 Decision of 05 -15 -85 64 Verbatim & Minutes - 05 -15 -85 Meeting 65 General Staff Report - 05 -08 -85 69 Public Hearing Notices & Responses 73 Application for Variance 75 Written Statement (Appellant) KCC 17.10.040 76 Written Statement (Borough) KCC 17.10.040 77 Notice of Hearing KCC 17.10.050 78 g BOROUGH CODE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS 17.66.050--17.66.060 owner shown on the latest tax assessment roll. Notice shall also be provided in accordance with state law by legal publi- cation in local newspapers. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). .17.66.050 Approval or denial. Within forty days after the filing of an application, the planning commission shall render its decision, unless such time limit has been extended by common consent and agreement of the applicant and the commission. A. Approval. If it is the finding of the commission, after consideration of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that the use proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, meets all of the following, the variance shall be granted: 1. That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to its intended use or development which do not apply generally to other properties in the same land use district; 2. That the strict application of the provisions of this title would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; 3. That the granting of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety or general welfare; 4. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan; . 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship or inconvenience from which relief is being sought by a variance; and 6. That granting the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. B. Denial. If the commission finds, after consideration . of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that it cannot make all of the required findings in Section 17.66.050(A) it shall deny the variance. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). 17.66.060 Conditions. The commission, in granting the variance, may establish conditions under which a lot or parcel of land may be used or a building constructed or altered; make requirements as to architecture, height of building or structure, open spaces or parking areas; require conditions of operations of an enterprise; or make any other conditions, requirements. or safeguards that it may consider necessary to prevent damage or prejudice to adjacent properties or detrimental to the borough. When necessary, thc comniSsion may require guarantees in such form as deemed proper under the circumstances to insure that the conditions designated will be complied with. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). . 130 (Kodiak Island Borough 9/83) ZERO-LOT LINE REGULATIONS ()Borough 'Code) 17.33.060--17.34.020 C. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard required is twenty- five percent of the lot's depth but need not exceed twenty- five feet. (Ord. 83-18-0 §2(part), 1983). 17.33.060 Building height limit. The maximum building height is fifty feet. (Ord. 83-18-0 §2(part), 1983). Chapter 17.34 ZERO-LOT-LINE DEVELOPMENT Sections: 17.34.010 Description and intent. 17.34.020 Districts where permitted. 17.34.030 Area requirements. 17.34.040 Yards. 17.34.050 Building height. 17.34.060 Maximum lot coverage. 17.34.070 Accessory building. 17.34.080 Special agreements. 17.34.090 Site plan requirement. 17.34.010 Description and intent. Common-wall develop- ment standards are established to permit the construction of single-family attached dwellings where one common wall is shared by adjacent dwelling units. The shared wall also corresponds to a side lot line. The land under each unit is in separate ownership. In creating these standards, the specific intentions of this chapter are: A. To reduce the area required for construction of a single-family dwelling; B. To make available needed housing at an affordable price; C. To provide and encourage an alternative housing style; and D. To maximize the use of energy and public service. (Ord. 84-32-0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.020 Districts where permitted. Zero-lot-line development is permitted in R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. Where regulations included herein conflict with regulations included in the individual zoning districts or other sections of Title 17, the regulations included herein shall apply. (Ord. 84-32-0 §1(part), 1984). 114 (Kodiak Island Borough 12/84) ("N ("1 17.34.030--17.34.090 17.34.030 Area requirements. A. Lot Area. The minimum lot area required is four thousand square feet per dwelling unit, not including water bodies or private roads. -7PP' B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width is thirty feet per dwelling unit, with a depth-to-width ratio not to exceed three-to-one. (Ord. 84-32-0 Sl(part), 1984). 17.34.040 Yards. The required setbacks for front and rear yards are identical to those found in the specific zoning district in which the zero-lot-line development is located. The common-wall side yard setback is abated, with the opposite side yard setback being a minimum of ten feet. (Ord. 84-32-0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.050 Building height. The maximum building height permitted is two-and-one-half stories or thirty-five feet. (Ord. 84-32-0 Sl(part), 1984). 17.34.060 Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage. allowed (including accessory buildings) is fifty percent. (Ord. 84-32-0 Sl(part), 1984). 17.34.070 Accessory building. One accessory building per dwelling unit is permitted. (Ord. 84-32-0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.080 Special agreements. A. A common-wall agree- ment running with the land shall be placed as a note on the plat. ' B. Construction shall be performed in pairs with no future enlargement or additions of the principal structure allOwed. (Ord. 84-32-0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.090 Site plan requirement. Developments of more than three common-wall structures shall provide a site plan containing the information required by Section 17.67.030. Said site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission prior to issuance of a building permit. (Ord. 84-32-0 §1(part), 1984). 114-1 (Kodiak Island Borough 12/84) TITLE 17 ZONING Chapter 17.10 Board of adjustment procedures Section 17.10.010 17.10.020 17.10.030 17.10.040 17.10.050 17.10.060 17.10.070 17.10.080 17.10.090 17.10.100 17.10.110 CHAPTER 17.10 Appeals to the board of adjustment Notice of appeal Record on appeal Written statements Notice of hearing Hearing New evidence or changed circumstances Scope of review Decision Judicial review Definitions BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES 17.10.010 - -17.10.020 17.10.010 peals to the board of ad'ustment. The city council, sitting as a board of adjustment, shall hear an. decide the following matters arising within the city: (a) Appeals regarding alleged errors in enforcement of zoning ordinances and building codes; (b) Appeals from decisions of the planning commission regarding concept or final approval of requests for special exceptions or conditional uses; or (c) Appeals fran the decisions of the planning commissions on requests for variances from the terns of the zoning ordinance which are not contrary to the public interest, when a literal enforcement would deprive a property owner of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district. (Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17.10.020 Notice of appeal. (a) An interested person may initiate an appeal to the board-O-f-5-1justment by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten days after the action or decision appealed fran and paying a filing fee of $50.00. (b) The city clerk shall transmit a copy of each notice of appeal re- ceived to the borough clerk and the planning department or other administra- tive officer of the borough involved in the action appealed within five work- ing days of the receipt of the appeal. At the time of transmitting such notice, the city clerk shall request the borough to prepare the record on appeal which shall be prepared within forty-five days of the date of the notice. 17-01 (Kodiak 07/84) 17.10.030 - -17.10.050 (c) The notice of appeal shall identify the action appealed, shall con- tain a clear and concise statement of the grounds alleged for the appeal, and shall state appellant's name and address. (d) If a charge or bond is required by the borough of Kodiak Island for the preparation of the record, appellant shall be notified of that charge, fee, or bond, and appellant shall be responsible for satisfying any such borough requirements. (Ord. 720 §1, 1984: Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17.10.030 Record on appeal. (a) The record on appeal shall consist of the following: (1) A verbatim transcript of the proceedings before the administrative body from which an appeal has been taken, if those proceedings were taped or otherwise recorded in their entirety. If the proceedings were not re- corded, copies of any approved minutes, summaries or other records of the proceedings; (2) Copies of all nemoranda, exhibits, correspondence, recommendations, analyses, maps, drawings, and other documents submitted to the administra- tive body prior to the decision from which the appeal is taken; (3) A copy of the written decision of the administrative body, includ- ing its findings and conclusions; and (4) A list of the'nares and addresses of all persons appearing as wit- nesses at the hearing. (b) When the record has been completed, it shall be transmitted from the borough to the city clerk. Upon receipt of the record, the city clerk shall, within five working days, send a copy of the notice of appeal, by regular mail, to all persons appearing as witnesses in the hearing of the administrative action being appealed, and advise them that the record has been prepared. The city clerk shall, within five working days, also notify appellant of receipt of the record and make the record available to the appellant and any other interested persons for review. A copy of the rec- ord shall be provided to any person on request upon payment of reproduction costs.* (Ord. 720 §2 & §3, 1984: Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17.10.040 Written statement. The appellant may file a written statement summarizing the facts and setting forth pertinent points and authorities in support of the allegations contained in the notice of appeal not nore than fifteen days after the clerk has given notice of conpletion of t record. The borough staff and any interested party wishing to file a writ ten statement in opposition to the appeal may do so within fifteen days after expiration of the time for the filing of appellant's statement. Statements filed by any person shall be available for inspection in the city clerk's office. (Ord. 720 §4, 1984: Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17.10.050 Notice of hearing. The clerk shall set a date for the hearing of the appeal at a regular or special meeting of the council, or at a meeting of the council sitting as a board of adjustment, to be held not less than ten nor more than twenty-one days after expiration of the time for filing 17-02 (Kodiak 07/84) 17.10.060 -- 17.10.030 of briefs. Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation, and shall be mailed by regular mail to the appellant and all other persons filing statements or appearing at the hearing of the administrative action being appealed, not less than five days before the hearing date. (Ord. 720 §5, 1984: Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17.10.060 Hearing. (a) The board of adjustment hearing may be conducted at any regular or special meeting of the council, by meeting as a board of adjustment or by recessing the council meeting and convening the council as a board of adjustment to hear the appeal. The meeting of the board of ad- justment, including any deliberations, shall be open to the public and a record shall be made of the meeting. (b) The hearing shall be commenced with a presentation by the staff of the borough planning department summarizing the nature of the decision being appealed to the board of adjustment, the pertinent facts produced at the hearing from which the appeal is taken, and applicable legal principles. Arguments shall then be presented by the appellant, if the appellant is a party other than the borough, and any other person submitting a brief within the time limits prescribed by section 17.10.040 of this chapter. The argu- ments shall discuss the facts in the record and the application of those facts to applicable provisions of law, but shall not be in the form of testi- mony, and persons making such presentations shall not be under oath. (c) Only one argument shall be presented by or on behalf of each party or interested person, and the council may establish a time limit for each argument to be presented. (d) If a transcript of all substantial portions of the record is not . available and the council determines that the available summary of that tes- timony is not adequate, the council may elect to receive testimony relating to any issue specified on the appeal for which the record is deficient. Such testimony shall be received only from persons who presented similar testimony at the hearing from which the decision is being appealed. The testimony shall be limited to matters discussed at the previous hearing, and no new evidence will be received. (e) The hearing of the board of adjustment may be recessed and recon- vened from time to time as determined to be necessary by the board. (Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17.10.070 New evidence or changed circumstances. Appeals alleging new evidence or changed circumstances shall not be heard by the board of adjust- ment. A notice of appeal based upon new evidence or changed circumstances shall be transmitted by the clerk to the borough planning staff for possible rehearing. (Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17.10.080 Scope of review. (a) The board of adjustment shall hear appeals solely on the basis of the record established before the lower administrative body, the notice of appeal, briefs submitted prior to the hearing, and argu- ments at the hearing. 17 -03 (Kodiak 07/84) 17.10.090 -- 17.10.110 (b) The board of adjustment may exercise its independent judgment on legal issues raised by the appeal. Legal issues are those matters that re- late to the interpretation or construction of ordinances or other provisions of the law, or the application of case law to the facts as presented. (c) Action of the board of adjustment on the appeal shall be based upon facts which are supported in the record by substantial evidence. "Substan- tial evidence" means the record provides a substantial basis from which the fact in issue might be reasonably inferred. (Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17.10.090 Decision. (a) The board of adjustment may affirm or reverse the decision of the lower administrative body in whole or in part. (b) Any variance granted by the board of adjustment shall be the mini- mum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, build- ing, or structure which is equivalent to, but not exceeding, the use of similar lands, buildings or structures permitted generally in the same use district. The board of adjustment may reduce the extent of a variance re- quested or previously granted. (c) The board of adjustment may not grant a variance because of special conditions caused by actions of the person seeking relief or for reasons of pecuniary hardship or inconvenience, nor may the board grant a variance which would permit a land use in a district in which that use is prohibited. (d) A decision of the board of adjustment to affirm or reverse action of a lower administrative body shall be based upon findings and conclusions adopted by the board. Such findings shall be reasonably specific so as to provide the community, and, where appropriate, reviewing authorities, a clear and precise understanding of the reasons for the board's decision. The findings, conclusions, and decision shall be reduced to writing, either during or subsequent to the hearing, signed by the mayor, and filed with the city clerk. (e) A decision shall be based on a motion to grant the relief requested by the appealing party, and the concurring vote of four members of the board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirements, decision, or deter- mination of the planning commission. (Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17.10.100 Judicial review. A decision or order of the board of adjustment may be appealed to the superior court by a municipal officer, a taxpayer, or a person jointly or severally aggrieved, pursuant to the provisions of rule 45 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure of the state of Alaska. Notice of appeal shall be filed in the superior court within thirty days from the date that the order or decision appealed from is mailed or delivered to the appealing party. The order or decision of the board of adjustment shall not be reversed if the findings upon which that order or decision is made are supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Ord. 528 41 (part), 1978) 17.10.110 Definitions. As used in this Chapter: (a) "Interested person' means a municipal officer or other person di- rectly or indirectly affected by the decision being appealed. 17 -04 (Kodiak 07/84) (b) "Party" means a person who has filed notice of appeal or a brief in the appeal under consideration by the board of adjustment. (Ord. 528 §1 (part), 1978) 17 -05 (Kodiak 07/84) fc;e1, 2z) -`) g 4 /r-c,$_- ke,cw a -/4) ze, ( (:3 /7 ,3L- 3 ./E eeT .66 74, ,(ct - 3 c2(4(?(,)A.e iA -_-,1,-;(t- _ex, x24. -? ,_/ 4 e:( ic<!X 1 24/d 1" ---(. ,,ce,e ,e_ 7--g-2-L, s 2-7i,--4,7r, -t--,--L 24/4, C "(/ ajra 77 . 22 .--/-7t., ,..., -z__. • &,- 44;) _ 4' ,,x,e-_, • 1 -77-M d /776( -,7Z 4 47(6. Scott Arndt P.O. Box 489 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Arndt: —."-"-rIt- Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.1246 PHONE (907) 406.5736 May 16, 1985 1— Re: Case 85-031. Request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(8) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in an R2--Two-family Residential district that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on May 15, 1985, granted your request for the exception cited above. An appeal of this decision may be taken by any person or party aggrieved within ten days of the date of the Commission's decision. Therefore, the decision of the Commission becomes final and effective ten (10) days following the decision. Failure to utilize this exception within twelve (12) months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. Please bring this letter with you if you need to come into our office to obtain zoning compliance for any construction on your lot. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact me. Sincerely, Linda Freed Director Community Development Department pb cc: Case No. 85-031 Public Hearing Notice Respondents Marcella Dalke, City Clerk., Richard Holzshu P.O. Box 1202 USCG Kodiak, AK 99619 Kermit & Sharon Roppond Box 327 USCG Kodiak, AK 99619 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 85 -031, A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 17.34.030B (LOT WIDTH) OF THE BOROUGH CODE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ZERO -LOT -LINE DWELLING ON A LOT IN AN R2 - -T11O- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT EXCEEDS THE THREE -TO -ONE DEPTH -TO -WIDTH RATIO. LOT 6, BLOCK 5, ELDERBERRY HEIGHTS ALASKA SUBDIVISION FOURTH ADDITION; 1617 LYNDEN WAY (SCOTT ARNDT) The above -sited hearing was held on May 15, 1985 in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Hill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The hearing was conducted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, Mr: Ken Gregg, Chairman. C E R T I F I C A T E THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: The Public Hearing in the matter of: CASE 85 -031, A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 17.34.0308 (LOT WIDTH) OF THE BOROUGH CODE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ZERO- LOT -LINE DWELLING ON A LOT IN AN R2 - -TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT EXCEEDS THE THREE -TO -ONE DEPTH -TO -WIDTH RATIO. LOT 6, BLOCK 5, ELDERBERRY HEIGHTS ALASKA SUBDIVISION FOURTH ADDITION; 1617 LYNDEN WAY (SCOTT ARNDT) was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Pamela Barr, Secretary CHAIRMAN GREGG: Item L, Case 85 -031, request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(8) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in an R2, Two- Family Residential, district that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio on Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition, 1617 Lynden Way. LINDA FREED: We sent out 37 public hearing notices on this case. We had two returned objecting to the request. In addition, subdivision ..um for this particular request is also on the agenda tonight under Item Q, and there was one additional public hearing notice returned for that subdivi- sion that wasn't returned for the public hearing notice ..um on the actual variance request, but it does relate, and it also voiced objec- tion. You basically have the same public hearing notices for both cases. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Seeing none. Recess the regular meeting; open public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against? SCOTT ARNDT: Evening. My name is Scott Arndt, the applicant. ..Um, basically I'm requesting the ..oh variance on this for to allow a zero - lot -line construction in an R2 district. ..Um, I'm aware of the ..um complaints. I don't really understand exactly where they're coming from, but some of them were related to the density in the area. I'm not proposing to increase the density any greater than what's allowed under the existing zoning regulations. I'd like to know if there's any.. if you have any questions or comments on it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none. Close public hearing; reconvene the regular meeting. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: I move to grant a request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(0) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in an R2, Two- family Residential, district that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lyndon Way. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any discussions? Verbatim '1'c;,nscriht ] Case 05 -031 COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Yeah. It seems like ..uh each one of these zero -lot- lines that come forth for variance are all the same lot to uh.. width -lot ratio ... three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. It seems to me that we either need to modify that ..um I don't know how many ..uh ... it seems like we've had a high percentage in comparison to the zero -lot -lines that are coming forward. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Like a hundred percent? CHAIRMAN GREGG: No. I know of two of them that went without it in Mr. Hill's subdivision. The lots just happened to be wide enough and not too deep. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I was wondering if it was the purpose of the Commission ... whether or not we ought to (garbled) reconsideration or ..um COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: How do we act? Maybe, I'm kind of ... I'm not confused here, but I wanted to know, exactly how do you ... where do you measure, Linda, when you determine a depth -to -width ratio? This has an odd ( ?) on the back of it. LINDA FREED: On this one, for example, what we've done is we've averaged the front and the rear lot line and come up with an average width figure, and we've averaged the two side lot lines and come up with an average depth figure, and come up with a ratio based on those two average distances. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I see. LINDA FREED: So, for example, Lot 6B meets the requirement but Lot 6A does not. And 60 just barely makes it. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: But, actually, Lot 6A is ..um about 700 more square feet. LINDA FREED: Right. That's the reason it doesn't make it is it's long and skinny. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Mr. Patterson. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: I really don't have any problems with the three -to- one ratio. I think that we discussed it fairly thoroughly, and ..uh I don't know if it's just a matter of the developers happening to have the ..uh lots that don't meet the criteria ... I don't feel uncomfortable with three -to -one at all. I don't know where to ..uh -- probably a good discussion item -- where do you stop? Do you stop at three- and -a -half to one, or four -and -a -half to one, or four to one, or three- point -one to one? We got a three - and -a -half to one. Verbatim Transcript 2 Case 85 -031 CHAIRMAN GREGG: The problems comes from the fact that at the last minutes we changed the zero-lot-line ordinance to accommodate standard 60-foot-wide lots that were existing, and now we're getting all these existing 60-foot-wide lots that are being subdivided. This one, for example, to 36.8 feet. And ..uh we didn't adjust the rest of the ordinance to the fact that these lots were 7,200 square feet or more and ..uh you get 60 foot and that square footage, you had a deeper lot. (garbled) COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Maybe they shouldn't go through (undiscernible). CHAIRMAN GREGG: I am inclined to believe that perhaps the ordinance should be changed. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: But that's the one we got right now. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Uh huh. Which is the result of a last-minute change. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I can't see a way to really change it myself. We'll probably just have to keep ..uh having it come before us or else ... how could we change it? COMMISSIONER HILL: Well, one time we had it where, when we were discussing it, ..uh 7,200 was the minimum, and then we were up to like 5,000 or 8,000 square feet. Then at the last minute we just changed it to the ratio. Well, you know, if you go ..uh say that an 8,000 square foot, this would not be in here before us because it's over 9,000, but because of the ratio it's in here before us. So I think ..um maybe what we'll have to do if we approve this is go back and look at the ordinance again and try to work that out so that it's not a problem. We've got people coming in that have greater than the 8,000 square foot lots that are coming in before us requesting variances. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Another point I might like ... I'd like to make is the fact that when we approve subdivisions in the future that would be ..um R2, which would be ..um available for zero-lot-line, that we consider the ..uh the subdivisions for zero-lot-line, and some lots don't ... do not lend themselves because of the terrain to zero-lot-line development, and we should consider ..um maybe stating in the subdivision that certain lots should not be zero-lot-line. The one case I can think of is —um if you have a real steep lot and it's narrow, to get a decent driveway you have to switch back or go at an angle quite often times, and if you zero-lot-line, you just cut your width that much and it makes the Verbatim Transcript 3 Case 05-031 driveway steeper and it just ... it does create problems. It's something to consider, I think. COMMISSIONER HILL: Well, this one here I really don't have a problem with, mainly because it's ..uh it is larger than 9,000 square feet, larger than nine, but yet does not meet the ratio. (garbled) CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER HILL: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Motion is on the floor. COMMISSIONER HILL: Oh, excuse me. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Could we have a roll call vote please? PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Anderson. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Gregg. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: 'Mr. Knight. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Patterson. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: No. PATRICIA MILEY: Motion carries. Verbatim Transcript 4 Case 05-031 g 7 L) CASE 85 -031. Request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(B) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero - lot -line dwelling on an R2 -- Two - family Residential lot that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) The motion was seconded. LINDA FREED indicated that 37 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and that two were returned objecting to the request. Also, one additional public hearing notice was returned voicing objection to Item Q, Case S -85 -018, which relates to this case. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the variance. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened.: COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.34.030(8) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on an R2 - -Two- family Residential lot that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Community Development Department staff. The motion CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Patterson cast the dissenting vote. M) CASE 85 -032. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050(C) (Rear Yards) of the Borough Code to permit the reconstruction of a fire - damaged residence that will encroach eleven (11) feet into the required twenty -five (25) foot rear yard setback. Lot 7A, Block 1, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision First Addition; 595 Lilly Drive. (Orlo T. Andrews) Kodiak Island Borough M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 8, 1985 TO: ' Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Department :Al-. SUBJECT: Information for the May 15, 1985 Regular Meeting ITEM VI(L) RE: CASE 85 -031: Request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(8) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero - lot -line dwelling on an R2 - -Two- family Residential lot that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) Thirty -seven (37) public hearing notices were mailed on May 1, 1985. 1. Applicant: Scott Arndt, P.O. Box 489, Kodiak, AK 99615. 2. Land Owner: Same as above. 3. Request: Request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(8) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on an R2--Two-family Residential lot that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. 4. Purpose: To permit the construction of a zero -lot -line structure on a lot that fails to meet the three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. 5. Existing Zoning: R2. 6. Zoning History: The 1968 Comprehensive Plan indicates the zoning of this lot as "Residential -- Unclassified." In 1980 Ordinance 80 -9 -0 redesig- nated all "Unclassified" land to RR- -Rural Residential. In 1981 Ordinance 81 -26 -0 rezoned this area from RR to R2 -- Two - family Residential. 7. Location: 1617 Lynden Way. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition. 8. Lot Size: 9,440 square feet. 9. Existing Land Use: Vacant. CASE 85 -032 May 8, 1985 10. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning.: North: South: East: Went: Lot 10;'Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Third Addition. Zoning: R2; Use: R1. Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition. Zoning: R2; Use: Vacant. Lot 7, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition. Zoning: R2; Use: Vacant. Lot 5, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition. Zoning: R2; Use: Vacant. 11. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this lot for "Public and Open Space" use. 12. Applicable Regulations: Chapter 17.34 (Zero -lot -line Development), Section 17.34.030(8) (Lot Width), states: "The minimum lot width is thirty feet per duelling unit, with a depth - to -width ratio not to exceed three to one." COMMENTS: In order to grant a variance, the Commission must find that the use proposed in the application meets all of the following: 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or,intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. As stated earlier, this lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two- thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to construct a zero -lot -line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant to build a duplex structure on the lot. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right -of -way. The variance should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. CASE 85 -032 May 8, 1985 % 70 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensivu,Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use, the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. None of the reasons for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2 - -Two- family Residential district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this request meets the standards for a variance and recommends the Commission grant this request. APPROPRIATE MOTION: Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is specified below. Move to grant a request for a variance from Section 11.34.030(8) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on a lot in an R2-- Two - family Residential district that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) CASE 85 -032 May 8, 1985 ALDERW000 SUBDIVISION I..•.•••••• •• • • •• •.:•:.:..:.:. .'.' .•.•••••.••••••••••e.'••••.• • • • • . ♦ . . • . .'• .'.'. • ••• •••O..•... •'•'• • .•.••.• •.•. .•.•. .•. .•. . .•.•.•.•.•. .. •.•.•.• St& Mill!, 411 :I STREE1 LILLY LAKE jitP RK SUSCIEVISION • _ • • • • • 4111=.. ....... .... .............. .......... ...... • J r .. i r., J,„ / s.,/,'t .. / .. /, /' / ✓ / /i \ t `\ ter:\�\/ /._ /•_ \ /. 1,. .. J„ ! r . !: \ /i\��t\ ./ \\`/2\T /S\ /t ,i = \ \ /,\ri \/, ,. r.. Jjr / / /r /..,,z /..., .. / \.- /\,1/\--/\.--/\.-./ \-./ W --/N7/>7/N, / % /i \/tr /i \ /i \ /.- /1< 1\ 1\ t\ \• / \-- / \- t /\.../ \.../ \4/ \-. /{ • f f\ikN /�' / \\ ft\ /t.. t•1•• j4... / \- } / \-- / \r' / \•- • / \--/ p,:. \ \ \/ :„ / .. \ /\ \ji \,_ ..,.• . ,, ; /.p7 \A /; /W > -� . ' \r\\ /( \ /i \/i /i /r� - --` .. S PME 0NOF r.:7, �(/ \i/Ni / / \/ \ /\ \ / \` / / \I ,,,,....„,,,,..„....,w_ ‘,/,‘,.„..., / \`..\`..ii''��'•\f �l 'mil\ i`Z!-:,‘L'. \I,r.\1 1l♦ '..1`�/ \.� /`` /..1,i'> war .....•. • `•' aaaNOF AVE R.0A• erls 440•4 • • • • • •• 3/466b.• D • • • • t • • ► • • •• •• • • • •, . • TRACT • • e. • ;♦, •• • �• ti , • -i? .�i.:R:iP:�� It) :iia:i.r.. :r.ziti\ \ / CTREE T41 \\ / \i /.\ ••\/V.-/ \ -?:-: •• 404 .VV 0711 • I • • • • • xx a • • . • i A • • • • f • • i f • I �• • • . • • • • .• a f • W 1 • • • • ; • • • l= • • • • • • • • . • • • •I Z • > • • a t 1: -- / Ci4fC ��REZANOF 0 ••i DRI VE T. , a Ep'y� Nai PR! P_T IQN_ Lot G. block. 5. ,E/elerbe..-r-ti /-/aight5 54.4E•c6v/sic2/-2, A-72t-Of-e/7 ../ .5. .54.rvvy kracheyk. .1./ere7c/ eorcq-ign,.5tara ALa..5.ke. P431 P2Lin-lbe- 84- e3, Kodiak_ Rec.o.-.44..29 C../1-0C1". Con ea.ns : 4 4 a .Si141.0/%2 "7-74v-e or / • KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH G...unity Development Department 710 Hill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -L LIC HEARING NOTICE .-- NOTICZ DATE: May 1, 1985 CASE NUMBER: 85 -031 An application for a variance vas filed with the Kodiak Leland Borough Community Development Department by: Scott Arndt The application requests: a variance from Section 17.34.030(8)(Lot Width) of. the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero - lot -line dwelling on an R- 2 - -Two- Family Residential lot that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to- width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition) 1617 Lynden Way. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this request at their regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Maw 15, 1985 in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The Commieaion will also review all items on their agenda for the regular meeting on the preceding Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough, Conference Room. This meeting is open to the public. You are being notified because you are a property owner in the area of the request. This is the only scheduled PUBLIC HEARING on the request at this time, and you are invited to appear before the Commlaalon to express your opinion. If you cannot attend this PUBLIC HEARING and wish to comment on the request, r0`•'O. fill in the bottom of this notice and return it to the Community Development 1. °uo ode Department, 710 Hill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, 99615. Your returned comment should be received PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE. ':+ 1 y ;Q 1 A vicinity map showing the property involved to included on the back of tfiiq, 31g8 form. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call out''_) `� office, the Community Development Department, at 486 -5736. /A /-q / ' 1/ YOUR NAME: R(cN►4r -D t�tJ 74NC,y ADDRESS: /6 (% A-1412-c-1-1 ST /' YOUR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: .I.OT 3 Six C...K 3 j2 LSSLT7 8E71-4..7&' COMMENTS: TVVIE RE1,9 Nome one �t 42CiLj r wp T L -" N)CE R =S t+ G.C. NL=j& io2Na, -T m g e-x PFNsG 02..KS T H4i/LC E 01 itrruT .$7►9 — 11 t is , t3o►ZUcr)D CTN6)R 11v&. WG 'RG moST r?0 'M w _.. i_ ...-o 17-z_.ei.7 tIR s— RS -O /P • Kermit D. Reppond 1616 Selief Lane Kodiak, AK 99615 Planning and Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 re: Case -!-# S- 65- 018 /85'71 Dear Commissioners: I request that this variance not be granted because it would be counter to the single family type housing situation that is well established in our area. Even more important, the resulting lots once would be surrounding lots other personal crowded personal property are in place. Both of thes these sfacfactors rstcouldjhaveoanof the adverse affect on exsisting, variance should not have an undue loss of income to the builder as he has several other lots under development in this area. I tovmakewthisa decision hbased lony what tIe feel i builder's smy best but nterest. ITEMS VI -L & Q May 15,1965 Sincerely, Kermit D. Reppond 7a •V• i?• :•:•:•A3ri+AFI?'x• •;• ALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION •: • • • • • :•.•.•.'••.•: :.•.•. ••••••••• • •••••• • • i •••• ••••1 • ••• •• • •• •• •• •• •• • • • • .•.••.•• • . • •i . •••••• •••••* • • •••• •••••• •••••••••••••••••••. •i•••••••.•••.•••••• • • • ••••• •••••• JD FF F�4. \�• • • •a • • • j• i•. LOT 6, BLK 5, ELDERBERRY HEIGHTS 4th ADDITION Scott Arndt ILLY L LAKE sw OMVON ,i- •;}•.1i\ • �•�TlL. •911▪ 0••'"••.•♦ ••• •'• :11.1:•44„••••••••7 • • a A• - 4 w • w 4 • .. ♦ - -• . f• i AY R04 • ••• er ..•3. • } ..r - • .. - ,• • •► 29:1!:;,4..7A1;• . " _ ' !6�7 •."5i •,�;x • y"" TI�1�C�I•!• • • r: • • • • • • a a • • ' • ' • •• • • • w • • • •+ w w . 'r • e !' •+! �[ • •. '�• i1 �a���jM'��r Y`•..rir .3. :;IT A.•. a••• /O..1••'W •0 •61 • SE !G • I/145Div a• • • • • • • • • �• • M.�. •. • • *a. • • F . ^.••_ •, • - ••••••• >• y t• �• • a • • • a is • • - . • • * . • • a • �.� HI r4 N JIIE sc• ::i:::::ir�c' :E`:::2:ii' \ / \ \ /,.\/' \ / \ \' ;' \ /\•/ ci ::» .... S MME QHO� :'REDTW \� /\\ /�\ \\/\\'\ \- • .......... 1 ..... Iff::::::.:25REfl: 51577.3 7.,\-./ \.. / \ \.• \•./ W �, - \! r /i \ /i,Ii• /\.�j� ‘•,•,* \\ \\ \, „ \,t �, 1.• , 1\, \\ j am - \- 4/ \•.. / \-- / \.. / \'./ /\i f \ \ !1� \ / / \_ I ‘;I_ 11 - \ / \"/`�!7 \3/ \'~/ W i 1; / I ■/N....7/ eci:.: i • • • •' 1 • ■ \ \,t`/ I` �1 / w ........ ...••• DRIVE :.l.ulni. LoL. Uu a0RCUGH POST OFFICE SOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 ( ) Conditional Use Permit () Exception Variance ( ) Zoning Change: From: CODE SECTION INVOLVED: r •34,,C130 To: NOTE: The application fee for all items covered by this form is S50. Conditional Use Permits, Exceptions, and Variance Applications also require the submission of a site plan. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: J!. O// soy /„e 4 Name /, ,4 >.r % ?9 1� Address 7*?‘" .a , ,��r.fo City, State, Zip C 4L�/ 6 , /94, 5 Lot Block //5: rwty y /$7 United States Survey ; PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Y16 —37 vs- . Home Telephone So Work Telephone E /vieffeeey //e, //f 4/2 ∎4g.a.40n . Subb/div ision Name %fin. /; n Cr �4'; r /ors Section, Township, Range, S.M. ale ./E,vr.1Prc/ PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: I have been advised of the pr;ceeu :•:s i•:.,lvea with this request and have received a copy of the appropriate r :uticns. Authcrited Ase.. Cate Date Application ,:cceo,ee: A-- :9 ;a5 P:•„ ;erty O:.ner Pate VARIANCE APPLICATION The application must contain a statement showing the following conditions, all four of which must exist before a variance may be granted: The undersigned states: 1. That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, or to its intended use or development, which do not apply generally to the other properties in the same land use district. These special conditions are: 7,65 5;1(.4,:v. ,4,e, v t; ( Io A et a•/ /' f e 0 414 e Lls�n�nl e• 2. That the strict application of the zoning ordinances would result In practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship: w /J „< / W//, — e 74o elf r e ■47, /y rJ/ -Zero /0/ ;..c L/evr V'"?er/ 3. That the granting properties In the because : w,�/ nu/ 1 Inc/ of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or welfare %%i P prriOe(7 /y i/, A OL7rJ/ /1 2 L( /r rr r..11� un(/ !/pis VP ( .0 n. ePfe/ 71/ e OCn f. 17 /;, /et f/ J(i,.,•a /�• r/. IPr•L"/fr� 4. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensi, plan, for the following reasons: //9,-e, /10;w5 14,)f ,)r %rl 4./ /; r. { / NOTE: Albska Statutes Section 29.33.110(C) states: "A variance shall not be granted because of special conditions caused by actions of the person seeking relief or for reasons of pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. A variance shall not be granted which will permit a land use in a district in which that use is prohibited." Please use additional paper for additional comments. Signature of Authorized Agent -• Signature of Land Owner /9- S� flat' 75 -7‘ cCedotV., Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Variance Request Approval; CASE '85-'031 - Scott Arndt. Quaccia Appeal of Decision Dear Linda: Attached is a copy of the original appeal from Marilyn Quaccia on the above appeal. Ms. Quaccia stated she was standing on her appeal in lieu of subaitting a written statement as outlined in Kodiak City Code 17.10.040. The Department now has fifteen days in which to respond in writing if so desired. Following the expiration of that period, or upon receipt of your statement, a hearing before the City Council, acting as the Board of Adjustment, will be scheduled. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DA1KE, CMC City Clerk MHD/nj cc: Mickie Miller, CMC, Borough Clerk POST OFFICE BOA 1397. If ODIAI1 . ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3Q24 Ms. Marcella Dalke, CMC City Clerk City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1216 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (907) 486.5736 August 1, 1985 Re: Appeal of CASE 85 -031. The granting of a variance for Section 17.34.030B (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero -lot- line dwelling on a lot in an R2-- Two - family Residential District that exceeds the three -to -one depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Applicant: Scott Arndt) Dear Marcella: As permitted under Kodiak City Code Section 17.10.040, I would like to respond in writing to the statement by the appellant in the above - referenced case. I will respond to Mrs. Quaccia's statements on a point -by -point basis. 1. The Commission found that this lot does have exceptional physical circum- stances or conditions which generally do not apply to other properties in the R2-- Two - family Residential District. Specifically, the lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted; therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of the ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two - thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot appears to drop off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. This relates directly to the variance request from the required lot width -to -depth ratio. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships, since the strict application of the ordinance would not allow the applicant to construct a zero -lot -line dwelling (which is an allowed use in this district). The granting of the variance will not permit a use in the district that is not allowed. The variance grants the right to construct a zero -lot -line structure that meets all the district setback requirements on an oddly shaped lot. 3. The granting of this variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, since (as noted earlier) the variance is being granted for a use that is currently allowed in this zoning district. Marcella Dalke August 1, 1985 Page 2 In summary, the appellant states that "granting these types of variances will only open the door to other types of buildings of this sort in the area? I would just like to reiterate that this type of development' is currently an allowed use in this zoning district. If you have any questions about this written statement, please contact me. Sincerely, Linda Freed Director Community Development Department pb cc: Case File Marilyn Quaccia, Appellant Scott Arndt-, Applicant 27 July 26, 1985 Marilyn Quaccia 1620 Selief Lane Kodiak,, Alaska 99615 RE: Variance Request Approval; CASE'85-031 - Scott Arndt, Quaccia Appeal of Decision Dear Ms. Quaccia: A hearing before the Kodiak City Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for Thursday, August 8, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assem- bly Chambers. This hearing is on your appeal of the Planning and Zoning Cam- mission's approval of the above variance request. If there is any change in the scheduled date, you will be notified. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARDELLA H. MIKE. CMC City Clerk MIEVnj cc: City Manager Mickie Miller, CMC, Borough Clerk Linda Freed, Community Development Depar wait Director Melvin M. Stephens, II, City Attorney Scott Arndt 77 y POST OFFICE 130)i 1397. KODIAK . illtirkti 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 July 26, 1985 LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARING The Kodiak City Council will sit as the Board of Adjustment to hear Ms. Marilyn Quaccia's appeal of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission's May 15, 1985 decision granting a request for a variance to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition, 1617 Lynden Way. The appeal will be heard during the regular City Council meeting of August 8, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers. Publish: August 1, 1985 Marcella H. Dalke, CMC, City Clerk Publish: August 1, 1985 Kodiak Daily Mirror Publish: August 1, 1985 Kadiak Times -2- Bill to: Marcella H. Dalke, CMC, City Clerk City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 July 31, 1985 Marilyn Uccle 1620 Selief lane Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Variance Request Approval, 'CASE '85 =031 - Scott Arndt. • Quaccia Appeal of Decision Dear Ms. Quaccia: Your appeal hearing before the City Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment has been rescheduled to August 6, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELTA H. DALKE, CMC City Clerk MHD /nj cc: Samuel C. Lesko, Jr., City Manager Mickie Miller, EMC, Borough Clerk Linda Freed, Camamunity Development Director Melvin M. Stephens, II, City Attorney Scott Arndt Richard Holzhu Kermit and Sharon Reppond POST OFFICE BOX 1397. KODIAK . ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 July 31, 1985 DISPLAY AD WITH BORDER CITY COUNCIL MEETING RESCHEDULED The August 8, 1985, regular meeting of the Kodiak City Council has been rescheduled to August 6. The meeting will be held in the Borough Assembly Chambers. The agenda for the meeting will be published Ibnday, August 5. Marcella H. Dalke, EMC, City Clerk Publish: August 5, 1985 Publish: August 5, 1985 Kodiak Daily Mirror Bill to: Marcella H. Dalke, CMC, CIty Clerk City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 7 C. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard required is twenty - five percent of the lot's depth but need not exceed twenty - five feet. (Ord. 83 -18 -0 S2(part), 1983). 17.33.060 Building height limit. The maximum building height is fifty feet. (Ord. 83 -18 -0 S2(part), 1983). Chapter 17.34 ZERO -LOT -LINE DEVELOPMENT Sections: 17.34.010 Description and intent. 17.34.020 Districts where permitted. 17.34.030 Area requirements. 17.34.040 Yards. 17.34.050 Building height. 17.34.060 Maximum lot coverage. 17.34.070 Accessory building. 17.34.080 Special agreements. 17.34.090 Site Oran requirement. 17.34.010" Descriptioil and intent. Common -wall develop- ment standards are established to permit the construction of single - family attached-dwellings where one common wall is shared by adjacent dwelling units. The shared wall also corresponds to a side lot line.' The land under each unit is in separate ownership. In creating these standards, the specific intentions of this chapter are: A. To reduce the area required for construction of a single - family dwelling; B. To make available needed housing at an affordable price; - C. To provide and encourage an alternative housing style; and D. To maximize the use of energy and public service. (Ord. 84 -32 -0 §].(part), 1984). 17.34.020 Districts where permitted. Zero -lot -line development is permitted in R -2 and R -3 zoning districts. Where regulations included herein conflict with regulations included in the individual zoning districts or other sections of Title 17, the regulations included herein shall apply. (Ord. 84 -32 -0 S1(part), 1984). 114 (Kodiak Island Borough 12/84) 17.34.030 -- 17.34.090 17.34.030 Area requirements. A. Lot Area. The minimum lot area required is four thousand square feet per dwelling unit, not including water bodies or private roads. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width is thirty feet per dwelling unit, with a depth -to -width ratio not to exceed three -to -one. (Ord. 84 -32 -0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.040 Yards. The required setbacks for front and rear yards are identical to those found in the specific zoning district in which the zero- lot -line development is located. The common -wall side yard setback is abated, with the opposite side yard setback being a minimum of ten feet. (Ord. 84 -32 -0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.050 Building height. The maximum building height permitted is two - and - one -half stories or thirty -five feet. (Ord. 84 -32 -0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.060 Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage allowed (including accessory buildings) is fifty percent. (Ord. 84 -32 -0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.070 Accessory building. One . accessory building per dwelling unit is pe_rnmitted. (Ord. 84 -32 -0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.080 Special agreements. A. A common -wall agree- ment running with the land shall be placed as a note on the plat. B. Construction shall be performed in pairs with no future enlargement or additions of the principal structure allowed. (.Ord. 84 -32 -0 §1(part), 1984). 17.34.090 Site plan requirement. Developments of more than three common -wall structures shall provide a site plan containing the information required by Section 17.67.030. Said site, plan shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission prior to issuance of a building permit. (Ord. 84 -32 -0 §l(.part), 1984). 114 -1 (Kodiak Island Borough 12/84) Sections: 17.66.010 17.66.020 17.66.030 17.66.040 17.66.050 17.66.060 17.66.070 17.66.080 17.66.090 17.66.100 17.66.010-17.66.040 Chapter 17.66 VARIANCES Authority and purpose. Application. Investigation. Public hearing and notice. Approval or denial. Conditions. Effective date. Cancellation. Appeals. Stay pending appeal. 17.66.010 Authority and purpose. The planning commission shall review and act upon applications for variances. Vari- ances are provided for by the chapter for the purpose of relaxing zoning district requirements in special circum- stances. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). 17.66.020 Application. An application for a variance may be filed by a property owner or his authorized agent. The application shall be made on a form provided by the community development office and accompanied by the required fee and site plan. All applications shall be available for public inspection. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). 17.66.030 Investigation. An investigation of the Variance request shall be made and a written report provided to the planning commission by the community development office. The findings required to be made by the commission shall be specifically addressed in the report. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). 17.66.040 Public hearing and notice. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on each properly submitted application for a variance within thirty days after the filing of the application. The applicant shall be notified of the date Of such hearing. The community development office shall send to each owner. of property within a minimum distance of three hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the lot or parcel of land described in the application, notice of the time and place of the public hearing,.a description of the property involved, its street address, and the action requested by the applicant. For the purposes of this chapter, "property owner" means that land 129 (Kodiak Borougt- 17.66.050--17.66.060 • owner shown on the latest tax assessment roll. Notice, shall also be provided in accordance with.state law by legal publi- cation in local newspapers. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). 17.66.050 Approval or denial. Within 'forty days after the filing of an application, the planning commission shall . render its decision, unless such time limit has been extended by common consent and agreement of the applicant and the commission. A. Approval. If it is the finding of the commission, after consideration of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing., that the use propOsed in the application, or under.appropriate conditions or restrictions, meets all of the following,_the variance shall be granted: 1. That there are exceptional physical circumstances . or conditions applicable to the property or to its intended use or development which do not apply generally to other properties in the same land use district; 2. That the strict application of the provisions of this title would result.in practical difficulties or . unnecessary hardship; 3. That the granting of-the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety or general welfare; • 4. That the, granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan; 5. That actions of the applicant-did not cause special conditions or financial hardship or inconvenience from which relief is being sought by a variance; and 6. That granting the variance will not permit a Prohibited land use in the district involved. B. Denial. If the commission 'finds, after consideration of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that it cannot make'all of the required findings in Section 17.66.050(A) it shall deny the variance. (Ord. 83-40-0 53(part), 1983); 17.66.060 Conditions. The commission, in granting the variance, may establish conditions under which a lot or parcel of land may be used or a building constructed or altered; Make requirements as to architeCture, height of building or structure, open spaces or parking'areas; requireconditions of operations of an enterprise; or make any other conditions, requirements or safeguards that it.tay consider necessary to prevent damage or prejudice to adjacent properties or detrimental- to the borough. When necessary, the commission may require guarantees in-such form as deemed proper under the circumstances to insure that the conditions designated will be complied with. (Ord. 83-40-0 53(part), 1983). 130 (Kodiak Island Borough 9/83) 1 17.66.070 Effective date. The decision of the planning commission to approve or deny,a variance shall become final and effective ten days following such decision. (Ord. 83-40-0 S3 (part) , 1983). 17.66.080 Cancellation. Failure to utilize an approved variance within twelve months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). 17.66.090 Appeals. An appeal of the planning commission's decision to grant or deny a variance may be taken by any person or party aggrieved. Such appeal shall be taken within ten days of the date of the dommission's decision by filing with the board of adjustment through the city or borough clerk a written notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). 17.66.100 Stay pending appeal. An appeal from a decision granting a variance stays the decision appealed from until there is a final decision on the appeal. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part), 1983). Sections: 17.67.010 17.67.020 17.67.030 17.67.040 17.67.050 17.6.7.060 17.67.070 17.67.080 Chapter 17.67 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Intent. A ication and fee. Site •lan. Public eating. Standards. Stipulation Action b plan g and zoning commission. Appeal.. 17.67.010 I en t. It is recogni d that there are land uses whic are generally considered opriate in certain zoniit. districts; provided, that con ols and safeguard ,-'re applied to insure their compati ity with permittd principal uses. The conditional use pe it pro- cedu is intended to allow consideration of the imp of th proposed conditional use on surrounding property, a 131/132 (Kodiak Is' Borough r Ms. Marcella Dalke, CMC City Clerk City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (907) 486-5736 August 1, 1985 Re: Appeal of CASE 85-031. The granting of a variance for Section 17.34.03013 (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot- line dwelling on a lot in an R2--Two-family Residential District that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Applicant: Scott Arndt) Dear Marcella: As permitted under Kodiak City Code Section 17.10.040, I would like to respond in writing to the statement by the appellant in the above-referenced case. I will respond to Mrs. Quaccia's statements on a point-by-point basis. 1. The Commission found that this lot does have exceptional physical circum- stances or conditions which generally do not apply to other properties in the R2--Two-family Residential District. Specifically, the lot was subdivided prior to the zero-lot-line ordinance being enacted; therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of the ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two-thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot appears to drop off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. This relates directly to the variance request from the required lot width-to-depth ratio. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships, since the strict application of the ordinance would not allow the applicant to construct a zero-lot-line dwelling (which is an allowed use in this district). The granting of the variance will not permit a use in the district that is not allowed. The variance grants the right to construct a zero-lot-line structure that meets all the district setback requirements on an oddly shaped lot. 3. The granting of this variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, since (as noted earlier) the variance is being granted for a use that is currently allowed in this zoning district. Marcella Dalke August 1, 1985 Page 2 In summary, the appellant states that "granting these types of variances will only open the door to other types of buildings of this sort in the area:1 I would just like to reiterate that 'this type of development' is currently an allowed use in this zoning district. If you have any questions about this written statement, please contact me. Sincerely, Linda Freed Director Community Development Department pb cc: Case File Marilyn Quaccia, Appellant Scott Arndt, Applicant 414saek July 31,, 1955. Marilyn Quaccia 1620 Se lief Lane Kodiak, Alaska 99.615 RE: Variance Request Approval, 85-031 - Scott Arndt. Quaccia Appeal of Decision Dear Ms . Quaccia: Your appeal hearing before the City Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment has been rescheduled to August 6, 1985, at 7:30'p m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DALKE, CMC City Clerk MEEIN cc: SPrmel C. Gesko, Jr., City Manager. Mickie Miller, CMC, Borough Clerk Linda Freed, Community Development Director Melvin M. Stephens, II, City Attorney Scott .Arndt Richard Holzhu Kermit and Sharon Reppond POST OFFICE BOX 1397, kODIAIC ALMA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3994 Qt,a01A' July 26, 1985 Marilyn Quaccia 1620 Selief Lane Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Variance Request ApprcrVa,l; CA$E .85-0 - Scott Arndt, Quaccia Appeal of Decision Dear Ns. ccia: A haring before the Kodiak City Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for Thursday, August 8, 1985,. at 7;30 p.m. in the Borough Assem- bly Chambers. This hearing is on your appeal of the Planning and Zoning Com- mission's approval of the above variance request. If there is any change in the scheduled date, you will be notified. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DALKE. CMC City Clerk MHD/nj cc: City Manager Mickie Miller, CMC, Borough Clerk Linda Freed, Couraunity Development Department Director6/ Melvin M. Stephens, II, City Attorney Scott Arndt POST OFFICE BOA 1397, KODIAK , ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 r, QisceW'' Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough. 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Variance Request Approval, CASE 85_031: Scott Arndt, Quaccia Appeal of Decision Dear Linda: Attached is a copy of the original appeal from Marilyn Quaccia on the above appeal. Ms. Quaccia stated she was standing on her appeal in •lieu of submitting a written statement as outlined in Kodiak City Code 17.10.040. The bepartinent now has fifteen days in _which to respond in writing if so desired. Following the expiration of that period, or upon receipt of your statement, a hearing before thel City Council, acting as the Board of Adjustment, will be scheduled. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DALKE, CMC City Clerk MHD/nj cc: Mickie Miller, GC, Borough Clerk -POST OFFICE BOX 1397, KODIAK , ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 gtf June 21, 1985 QtLao4( Marilyn Quaccia 1620 Selief Lane Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Appeal of Variance Request Approval, CASE 85-031 - Scott Arndt. Quaccia Appeal of Decision Dear Ms. Quaccia: The City of Kodiak has received the Kodiak Island Borough's RECORD ON APPEAL in response to your NOTICE OF APPEAL. It is available in my of- fice for your-review. In accordance with City Code 17.10.040 Written Statements, you may file a written statement summarizing the facts and setting forth pertinent points and authorities in support of the allegations contained in your notice of appeal not more than 15 days from the date of this letter, which shall be July 6, 1985. The bill for the verbatim transcript is enclosed. Please make your check payable to the Kodiak Island Borough and remit the $44.85 directly to me. We would appreciate your timely response and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DALKE, CMC City Clerk NHL/rd cc: City Manager Borough Community Development Department Scott Arndt POST OFFICE BOA 1397,140N1 LMA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 Ms. Marcella Dalke, CMC City Clerk City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.1246 PHONE (907) 486-5736 June 20, 1985 Re: Appeal of Case 85-031: The granting of a variance from Section 17.34.030B (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in an R2--Two-Family Residential district that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way (Scott Arndt) Dear Marcella: Please find enclosed the record on appeal, as required by Kodiak City Code 17.10.030, for the case referenced above. The cost to the Borough for preparing the transcript for this case is as follows: Three hours x $14.95 per hour = $44.85 If you have any questions about the appeal record, please contact me. Sincerely, Linda Freed Director Community Development Department pb cc: Case File C E R T I F I C A T E THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: The Public Hearing in the matter of: CASE 85 -031, A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 17.34.030B (LOT WIDTH) OF THE BOROUGH CODE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ZERO -LOT -LINE DWELLING ON A LOT IN AN R2-- TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT EXCEEDS THE THREE -TO -ONE DEPTH -TO -WIDTH RATIO. LOT 6, BLOCK 5, ELDERBERRY HEIGHTS ALASKA SUBDIVISION FOURTH ADDITION; 1617 LYNDEN WAY (SCOTT ARNDT) was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH n ,62uut) Pamela Barr, Secretary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 85 -031, A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 17.34.030B (LOT WIDTH) OF THE BOROUGH CODE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ZERO - LOT - LINE DWELLING ON A LOT IN AN R2 -- TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT EXCEEDS THE THREE -TO -ONE DEPTH -TO -WIDTH RATIO. LOT 6, BLOCK 5, ELDERBERRY HEIGHTS ALASKA SUBDIVISION FOURTH FOURTH ADDITION; 1617 LYNDEN WAY (SCOTT ARNDT) The above -sited hearing was held on May 15, 1985 in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The hearing was conducted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, Mr. Ken Gregg, Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Item L, Case 85-031, request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(B) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in an R2, Two-Family Residential, district that exceeds the three-to-one lot depth-to-width ratio on Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition, 1617 Lynden Way. LINDA FREED: We sent out 37 public hearing notices on this case. We had two returned objecting to the request. In addition, subdivision ..um for this particular request is also on the agenda tonight under Item Q, and there was one additional public hearing notice returned for that subdivi- sion that wasn't returned for the public hearing notice ..um on the actual variance request, but it does relate, and it also voiced objec- tion. You basically have the same public hearing notices for both cases. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Seeing none. Recess the regular meeting; open public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against? SCOTT ARNDT: Evening. My name is Scott Arndt, the - applicant. . basically I'm requesting the ..oh variance on this for to allow a zero- lot-line construction in an R2 district. ..Um, I'm aware of the .. complaints. I don't really understand exactly where they're coming from, but some of them were related to the density in the area. I'm not proposing to increase the density any greater than what's allowed under the existing zoning regulations. I'd like to know if there's any.. if you have any questions or comments on it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none. Close public hearing; reconvene the regular meeting. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: I move to grant a request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(B) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in an R2, Two-family Residential, district that exceeds the three-to-one lot depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any discussions? Verbatim Transcript 1 Case 85-031 COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Yeah. It seems like ..uh each one of these zero -lot- lines that come forth for variance are all the same lot to uh.. width -lot ratio ... three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. It seems to me that we either need to modify that ..um I don't know how many ..uh ... it seems like we've had a high percentage in comparison to the zero -lot -lines that are coming forward. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Like a hundred percent? CHAIRMAN GREGG: No. I know of two of them that went without it in Mr. Hill's subdivision. The lots just happened to be wide enough and not too deep. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I was wondering if it was the purpose of the Commission ... whether or not we ought to (garbled) reconsideration or ..um COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: How do we act? Maybe, I'm kind of ... I'm not confused here, but I wanted to know, exactly how do you ... where do you measure, Linda, when you determine a depth -to -width ratio? This has an odd ( ?) on the back of it. LINDA FREED: On this one, for example, what we've done is we've averaged the front and the rear lot line and come up with an average width figure, and we've averaged the two side lot lines and come up with an average depth figure, and come up with a ratio based on those two average distances. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I see. LINDA FREED: So, for example, Lot 6B meets the requirement but Lot 6A does not. And 6B just barely makes it. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: But, actually, Lot 6A is ..um about 700 more square feet. LINDA FREED: Right. That's the reason it doesn't make it is it's long and skinny. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Mr. Patterson. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: I really don't have any problems with the three-to- one ratio. I think that we discussed it fairly thoroughly, and ..uh I don't know if it's just a matter of the developers happening to have the ..uh lots that don't meet the criteria ... I don't feel uncomfortable with three -to -one at all. I don't know where to ..uh -- probably a good discussion item -- where do you stop? Do you stop at three - and -a -half to one, or four- and -a -half to one, or four to one, or three - point -one to one? We got a three - and -a -half to one. Verbatim Transcript 2 Case 85 -031 CHAIRMAN GREGG: The problems comes from the fact that at the last minutes we changed the zero-lot-line ordinance to accommodate standard 60-foot-wide lots that were existing, and now we're getting all these existing 60-foot-wide lots that are being subdivided. This one, for example, to 36.8 feet. And ..uh we didn't adjust the rest of the ordinance to the fact that these lots were 7,200 square feet or more and ..uh you get 60 foot and that square footage, you had a' deeper lot. (garbled) COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Maybe they shouldn't go through (undiscernible). CHAIRMAN GREGG: I am inclined to believe that perhaps the ordinance should be changed. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: But that's the one we got right now. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Uh huh. Which is the result of a last-minute change. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I can't see a way to really change it myself. We'll probably just have to keep ..uh having it come before us or else ... how could we change it? COMMISSIONER HILL: Well, one time we had it where, when-we were discussing it, ..uh 7,200 was the minimum, and then we were up to like 5,000 or 8,000 square feet. Then at the last minute we just changed it to the ratio. Well, you know, if you go ..uh say that an 8,000 square foot, this would not be in here before us because it's over 9,000, but because of the ratio it's in here before us. So I think —um maybe what we'll have to do if we approve this is go back and look at the ordinance again and try to work that out so that it's not a problem. We've got people coming in that have greater than the 8,000 square foot lots that are coming in before us requesting variances. COMMISSIONER.ANDERSON: Another point I might like ... I'd like to make is the fact that when we approve subdivisions in the future that would be ..um R2, which would be —um available for zero-lot-line, that we consider the ..uh the subdivisions for zero-Iot-line, and some lots don't ... do not lend themselves because of the terrain to zero-lot-line development, and we should consider ..um maybe stating in the subdivision that certain lots should not be zero-lot-line. The one case I can think of is ..um if you have a real steep lot and it's narrow, to get a decent driveway you have to switch back or go at an angle quite often times, and if you zero-lot-line, you just cut your width that much and it makes the Verbatim Transcript 3 Case 85-031 driveway steeper and it just ... it does create problems. It's something to consider, I think. COMMISSIONER HILL: Well, this one here I really don't have a problem with, mainly because it's ..uh it is larger than 9,000 square feet, so... It's larger than nine, but yet does not meet the ratio. (garbled) CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER HILL: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Motion is on the floor. COMMISSIONER HILL: Oh, excuse me. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Could we have a roll call vote please? PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Anderson. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Gregg. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Yes. /PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Knight. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Patterson. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: No. PATRICIA MILEY: Motion carries. Verbatim Transcript 4 Case 85-031 L) CASE 85-031. Request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(5) (Lot Width) of the Borough C o permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on an -Two-family Residential lot that exceeds the three-to-one lot ',_,-:11-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) The motion was seconded. LINDA FREED indicated that 37 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and that two were returned objecting to the • request. Also, one additional public hearing notice was returned voicing objection to Item Q, Case S-85-018, which relates to this case. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the variance. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened: COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.34.030(8) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on an R2--Teo-family Residential lot that exceeds the three-to-one lot depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Community Development Department staff. The motion CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Patterson cast the dissenting vote. M) CASE 85-032. Request for a variance-from Section 17.18.050(C) (Rear Yards) of the Borough Coda to permit the reconstruction of a fire-damaged residence that will encroach eleven (11) feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback. Lot 7A, Block 1, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision First Addition; 595 Lilly Drive. (Orlo T. Andrews) LINDA FREED indicated that 45 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Regular Seseion Closed. Public Hearing Opened: LORNA ARNDT appeared before the Commission to express her objections to this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened: A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Mr. Baker, the builder representing the property owner. COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.18.050(C) (Rear Yards) of the Borough Code to permit the reconstruction of a fire-damaged residence that will encroach eleven (11) feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback. Lot 7A, Block 1, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision First Addition; Ptarmigan Pass Road. The motion was seconded and FAILED by majority roll call vote, with Commissioners Anderson and Knight casting assenting votes. N) CASE 85-033. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.33.030 (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code to permit a helicopter landing pad for air medical evacuations in the PL--Public Use Lands district. Lot 29, USS 3099; 2850 Spruce Cape Road. (Kodiak Island Borough) LINDA FREED indicated that 36 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and two were returned, one objecting and one not. P & Z Regular Meeting -6- May 15, 1985 May 24, 1985 Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: CASE - 85-031 Appeal of Planning and Zoning decision to grant variance permitting zero-lot-line dwelling on 'R2-two-family resi- dentiai district Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdi- vision Fourth Addition, 1617 Lynden Way Dear Linda: Marilyn Quaccia has filed an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission decision of May 15 granting the request for variance referenced above. Please prepare the record on appeal as outlined in Kodiak City Code 17.10.020(b). Thank you. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK Nancy E. Jo es Deputy City Clerk NEJ/nj. cc: Mickie Miller, CMC, Kodiak Island Borough Clerk POST OFFICE BOX 1397, KODIAK , ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 31 Scott Arndt P.O. Box 489 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Arndt: Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (907) 486-5736 May 16, 1985 Re: Case 85-031. Request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(B) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in an R2--Two-family Residential district that exceeds the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. The Kodiak Island Borough.Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on May 15, 1985, granted your request for the exception cited above.-.. An appeal of this decision may be taken by any person or party aggrieved within ten days of the date of the Commission's decision. Therefore, the decision of the Commission becomes final and effective ten (10) days following the decision. Failure to utilize this exception within twelve (12) months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. Please bring this letter with you if you need to come into our office to obtain zoning compliance for any construction on your lot. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact me. Sincerely, Linda Freed Director Community Development Department pb cc: Case No. 85-031 Public Hearing Notice Respondents Marcella Dalke, City Clerk Richard Holzshu P.O. Box 1202 USCG Kodiak, AK 99619 Kermit & Sharon Reppond Box 327 USCG Kodiak, AK 99619 Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99 5-124 40.1141.PiL e4,4% 491 Richard i1zshu P . 0 20 9961 D XI AU.S.PUS MAY 7'5 P 1;1 i.r fl 2 2 _,„ kJ KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH unity °Development Department - 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -L LIC HEARING NOTICE OT ICE - ►ATE: May 1, 1985 CASE NUMBER: 85 -031 An application for a variance was filed with the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department by: Scott Arndt The application requests: a variance from Section 17.34.030(B)(Lot Width) of. the _Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on an R- 2=- Two=Family Resi3ential lot t hat exceeds the: three to -one lot depth =to- ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this request at their regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 15, 1985 in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The Commission will also review all items on their agenda for the regular meeting on the preceding Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough, Conference Room. This meeting is open to the public. You are being notified because you are a property owner in the area of the request. This is the only scheduled PUBLIC HEARING on the request at this time, and you are invited to appear before the Commission to express your opinion. If you cannot attend this PUBLIC HEARING and 'wish to comment on the request, fill in the bottom of this notice and return it to the Community Development Department, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, 99615. Your returned comment should be received PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE. .4 A vicinity map showing the property involved is included on the back of t4iis; form. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call our' office, the Community Development Department, at 486 -5736. YOUR NAME: Rf cI -I612.D ADDRESS: lb 17 ).AQC' f 6"T- YOUR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: .LOT- 3 T3.LOC. Z 3 R(LSS( . COMMENTS: TIE R5ASo/ f w iuG Jw r awe . Nom ( AM .1. r42Cq ST WA As T pr. NICE RL -S1 or -A-1 71 /L NL=1 &H 1301241600 TNc 12SlAC,(17-1,4 t,. - 8C,NiN6. A' 2 /r ,DevcL Pe-R3 A/44 Au ).4.0&72& c.v -/4 CHI 1.1ag ALL m NJ/ 7 >' RE-pu mv6- A v el lar ramc &-) k2MIcl-I 1''719X1 7-114151 R j» 1)Zrr✓n 4 THE EX pgks6 d 'MU Poo KS TP/ T- 1-I4vG- A 136- Zrv)Alae,tr s71ewE 6. o Horn p). wC RR.r mos-- p 19.m�w� rer,wri Cfr- GrTNa1Z 8S~ 63l ar? s- 85_a/8. ALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION '.'* 0 • •••,. -: ,it •,• . . -. . -. . •• • 0 ••••••••• ••••••••••••••••• • ••••••••• ••••••••• ••••• •• y•••• •••• • :•:':':•: • 't �ooa /J 1 1 •. /`��r'- /- /- jl1 /i` /r`f,'`j`"J . --/\ r / \.. / \.r. \00 •\.../ • BAY _Mgt °1S-4 • • ' fTPwj't (�� • e :•/1 • •i 461 SELIG ST: - �i� • • ...H •.'.•.•� • • .1•0-4 - ° •A • • • -/ \ -/ -/ •• / I /t, / I /l ` I / - z /r \/_ / J \! J !i\ / "N/A � ‘,.//1/4...• /iNI> \N. •••• ter /... /..• / .•• /..,, I •• Q . • J1 \fk\f� \!�•� /•‘ /ter- /,•../�r i%.`i \„s/ �`i`,. J ::j::,... II .1 \--J \-- / \ — /i\. 7 \•g/ \-- / - �\ o,.�•p�yy!- ,-�::•t :t::4::: „ \' / \mot” /` /\ / ., / : / od':: i :l :: -1--t•-•- S1•MEQNOFc NA,/ \•04"7"V°7', \\ /\ _ ARANOF A E • ♦ F ■ • '}•• rr4V •'O • �•° r• • a. •'• • ♦ ail . • • •• } Iwo.: 3. • ••••�•• 4' •� ••P•••• ;• • •. •!a•!!•a.• • V +;Sl{,,/1� j • . *:•,*.. • ° • a O . • _ • • • . • q ..� • • • • • • • • ♦! •• P 4 • • • • t : w • • .. •..• • • • t• TC • I '•Z•. i! ^• S 4 4/r. • +! +8 • • '� 6 6 •'A �• rW ♦lam+. l ,•:^'� • • • • q • • • i • • • Z • * 41 w' a,� 4 a j ° ; a � F' r�.• . : :• -• °� ha:ic '•' ii: • i7EETw\\ \C\i �\ • •"^T.^:^,f r••�..w► 1. ( •. �„,�.•."'� /�\J ` , ` j \ I'` \ I's' J ` ,� • i \\ 0 z 0 Kermit D. Reppond 1616 Selief Lane Kodiak, AK 99615 Planning and Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 re: Case.S# S-85-018/P5 V3/ Dear Commissioners: ITEMS VI -L & Q May 15,1985 I request that this variance not be granted because it would be counter to the single family type housing situation that is well established in our area. Even more important, the resulting lots would be tiny compared to surrounding lots and quite crowded once the normal amounts of cars, boats and other personal property are in place. Both of these factors could have an adverse affect on exsisting, normal sized lots. Rejection of the variance should not have an undue loss of income to the builder as he has several other lots under development in this area. I have always admired the quality of the builder's work but I have to make this decision based on what I feel is my best interest. Kermit D. Reppond Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 1985 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Departn1entLf. SUBJECT: Information for the May 15, 1985 Regular Meeting ITEM VI(L) RE: CASE 85-031. Request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(B) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero- lot-line dwelling on an R2--Two-family Residential lot that exceeds the three-to-one lot depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) Thirty-seven (37) public hearing notices were mailed on May 1, 1985. 1. Applicant: Scott Arndt, P.O. Box 489, Kodiak, AK 99615. 2. Land Owner: Same as above. 3. Request: Request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(B) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on an R2--Two-family Residential lot that exceeds the three-to-one lot depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. 4. Purpose: To permit the construction of a zero-lot-line structure on a lot that fails to meet the three-to-one lot depth-to-width ratio. 5. Existing Zoning: R2. 6. Zoning History: The 1968 Comprehensive Plan indicates the zoning of this lot as "Residential--Unclassified." In 1980 Ordinance 80-9-0 redesig- nated all "Unclassified" land to RR--Rural Residential. In 1981 Ordinance 81-26-0 rezoned this area from RR to R2--Two-family Residential. 7. Location: 1617 Lynden Way. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition. 8. Lot Size: 9,440 square feet. 9. Existing Land Use: Vacant. CASE 85-032 -1- May 8, 1985 10. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Lot 10, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Third Addition. Zoning: R2; Use: R1. South: Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition. Zoning: R2; Use: Vacant. East: Lot 7, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition. Zoning: R2; Use: Vacant. West: Lot 5, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska Subdivision Fourth Addition. Zoning: R2; Use: Vacant. 11. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this lot for "Public and Open Space" use. 12. Applicable Regulations: Chapter 17.34 (Zero -lot -line Development), Section 17.34.030(B) (Lot Width), states: "The minimum lot width is thirty feet per dwelling unit, with a depth - to -width ratio not to exceed three to one." COMMENTS: In order to grant a variance, the Commission must find that the use proposed in the application meets all of the following: 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. As stated earlier, this lot was subdivided prior to the zero -lot -line ordinance being enacted. Therefore, it was not designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance. In addition, this lot has a large flat building area on the front two - thirds of the lot, but the back portion of the lot drops off steeply to the rear of the adjacent lots. The result is that the back portion of the lot is virtually unusable. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The strict application of this title would not allow the applicant to construct a zero -lot -line structure on this lot, although it would still allow the applicant to build a duplex structure on the lot. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed structure will meet the required setback from the public right -of -way. The variance should not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, since the variance does not allow an increase in density or relax any setback requirements. CASE 85 -032 -2- May 8, 1985 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the comprehensive plan designates this area for "public and open space" use, the plan has not been formally revised since its adoption. This area has been designated for residential development through zoning and platting decisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. None of the reasons for requesting the variance are due to the actions of the applicant. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. Granting this variance will not permit a prohibited land use in this R2--Two-family Residential district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this request meets the standards for a variance and recommends the Commission grant this request. APPROPRIATE MOTION: Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is specified below. Move to grant a request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(B) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero-lot-line dwelling on a lot in an R2--Two-family Residential district that exceeds the three-to-one lot depth-to-width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Alaska' Subdivision Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. (Scott Arndt) CASE 85-032 -3- May 8, 1985 Sueolvistoiv ER K,QO 446 -ILLY L4 KE O q ° p a. D D :4 M D,• D D D /•D D Dpi•p • 4 D p - 1` ✓�i r1--�1r f1' \�1\i \/ ss ..\..\/ —1 ....\\,/".Z. • a•D•D •.• 4a4,4p C0A, TO, ••ap o • oj�CC/J ♦ 44 a e Q• Da 4 c•IZ 1 ► • +d • C 4 D' D 41 a 4 ,'jam .c -_•^•- ).(/ "� • r rlA1 •71.._ _ n _ LEGAL. 12E5CRLPTIQN .Z.ot G, 5, Eider-berry 1-faight5 .51.-46,c-bv/5ion, 417 1'%. LI .5. .5c-irrey /3_9G, .1-racheY., eorou9h,5tat2 of "4/dvska. 4,/a eu"..-nbe, 84- E3,/,-,ncliek_ Rec,or-c.4;-29 0%6 /-,' /-. C' s', 440 ,simids./-0 feel, LEGEND Scott Arndt Box 489 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Arndt: Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 -1246 PHONE (907) 486 -5736 May 1, 1985 Re: CASE 85 -031. Request for a variance from Section 17.34.030(B) (Lot Width) of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero - lot -line dwelling on an R2 - -Two- family Residential lot that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to -width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights Fourth Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. Please be advised that your application for a variance has been scheduled for review and action by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their May 15, 1985 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Your attendance at this meeting is recommended. One week prior to the regular meeting, Wednesday, May 8, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough conference room, the Commission will hold a work session to review the packet material for the regular meeting. You are cordially invited to attend this work session in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding your request. The Community Development Department will be happy to provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Patricia Miley Planning Secretary Community Development Department cc: Case File pb LEGAL DESCRIPTION N Lot C7,, biac,k. 5, E/Sef-be.,-,--v 1--/aight.6 4elei,cior7, a 5. .54-irv-ay /3_90, /12,c./t.k.. //e./ eareedg h,..51-a/12 af Al/diska. F"/,61` 23,k2c://ak_ Rec.° t-cbi.?9 17/s/fic Cor,f6',/75 .440 leel,m.ore..c..- c 7 7 A , KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Community Development Department 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -L PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE DATE: May 1, 1985 CASE NUMBER: 85-031 An application for a variance was filed with the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department by: Scott Arndt The application requests: a variance from Section 17.34.030(B)(Lot Width) of. the Borough Code to permit the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling on an R- 2-- Two - Family Residential lot that exceeds the three -to -one lot depth -to- width ratio. Lot 6, Block 5, Elderberry Heights 4th Addition; 1617 Lynden Way. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this request at their regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 15, 1985 in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The Commission will also review all items on their agenda for the regular meeting on the preceding Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough, Conference Room. This meeting is open to the public. You are being notified because you are a property owner in the area of the request. This is the only scheduled PUBLIC HEARING on the request at this time, and you are invited to appear before the Commission to express your opinion. If you cannot attend this PUBLIC HEARING and wish to comment on the request, fill in the bottom of this notice and return it to the Community Development Department, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, 99615. Your returned comment should be received PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE. A vicinity map showing the property involved is included on the back of this form. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call our office, the Community Development Department, at 486 -5736. YOUR NAME: ADDRESS: YOUR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: COMMENTS: • • • • • • . • ••••• .•. •• 0.000.0... •••'•' •'•' • 0'0'0'0'•'•' ALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION '•'0 •'•'.'0'0'0'0'•'• • 00000.' • •••••••••••••••• 0.0 li :• :• :.A;►FNTiRTTx :•• :• y :• .•. Iu LOOP LILLY LLY LA KE *iRPoRK SuBI0N%SiON e d •' 4'• * r � • 7. • 4 v . • L b •i e 50 !.•3 • d • • 444•••4 ••••0000 L• bt. .A.A.,26' b,' ro. i:1;41) ii+S+tN :• • ° • • • • • • • ► •,•.6%4 • • • 4 • • • . • • 4 • a Ora • • •• Op • 4t• ° • • ‘ (r • s ..% •1Z) 4,90* W , i>t• •- • • • • ° `J • •I' C NrI E ♦- / r/TR-ASV7(1--/ / / f Ali \I - / — S NMI E0N0F /.•.r \''"%\'''.''\/..\%/7/ ` ; \\ /` T. «.. �.......�.......IZ :: :: �! \//\` \� iii �l \.� ERANAC evE• Zt-'-''' -j' 0 Nu: .T: ARNOT,SCOTT P.O. BOX 489 KODIAK (L_ 220.50001 AK 99615 81422050002 FELTHtROBERT A 6 DEBORAH P.O. BOX 906 —USCG KODIAK AK 99619 ARNOT,SCOTT P.O. BOX 489 KODIAK ARNDTtSCOTT P.O. BOX 489 KODIAK ARNDTt SCOTT P.O. BOX 489 KODIAK ARNDT,SCOTT . P.O. BOX 489 KODIAK 'ARNOTtSCOTT P.O. BOX 489 KODIAK R1422050003 AK 99615 R1422050004 AK 99615 R1422050005 • AK 99615 R1422050006 AK 99615 R1422050007 AK 99615 R1422050008 4UACC1A,STEPHEN M 6 M P.D. BOX 195 KODIAK AK 99615 R1422050009 BRAD COMPANYtTHE 1820 REBEL RIDGE ANCHORAGE AK 99504 R1422050010 REPPONDtKERMIT 6 SHARON P.O. BOX 327 USCG KODIAK AK 99619 R1422050011' KNIGHT,MARLIN 6 KATHLEEN P.O. BOX 197 'KODIAK AK 99615 SCHERRER,GEOt;s� P.O. BOX 1306 USCG KODIAK AK 99619 R1422050012 R1422050013 SCHULTZtJAN L 6 LISA C P.O. BOX 4010 KODIAK AK 99615 MARCONI,DEBRA A P.O. BOX 3126 KODIAK . ARNDT,SCOTT P.O. BOX 489 KODIAK R 14 2205 00 14 AK 99615 R1422050015 AK 99615 R1422040001 GOTTSCHALKtHARRY 6GUYNETH P.O. BOX 981 KODIAK AK 99615 DAVIStHARRY B P.O. BOX 2223 KODIAK R1422040002 AK 99615 R1422040003 MCDANIELtDANIEL L 6 C P.O. BOX 876 USCG KODIAK AK 99619 R1422040004 BARBERt00NALO D 6 J P.O. BOX 4145 KODIAK AK 99615 R1422040005 GUINN,RODNEY B 6 ARLENE M P.O. BOX 1005 KODIAK AK 99615 R1422040006 KILLENtMICHAEL B 6 SUSAN P.O. BOX 2868 KODIAK AK 99615 R1422040007 RAMAGLIAtJAMES 6 SUSAN RAMAGLIA,PETER 6 SALLY P.O. BOX 468 KODIAK AK 99615 ?2040000 ISLAND VALUATION St: .?ICE E.B. GARRINGTON P.O. BOX 768 KODIAK AK 99615 81422040009 STEWART,HQWARD E SHARON P.O. 30X 589 USCG KODIAK AK 99615 GROTHE,LENHART P.O. BOX 1504 KODIAK GROTHE,LENHART P.O. BOX 1504 KODIAK GROTHE,LENHART P.O. BOX 1504 KODIAK 81422040010 AK 99615 R1422040011 AK 99615 R1422040012 AK-99615 R1422040019 SHUCKEROW,NEIL DEYOUNGNIM 'P.O. 90X 2997 KODIAK AK 99615 R1422040020 OWEN,PHILLIP WE CATHERINE P.O. BOX 3092 KODIAK AK 99615 GROTHE,LENHART P.O. BOX 1504 KODIAK • R1422040000 AK 99615 R1423030010 KING,ROBERT A E ELEANOR P.O. BOX 1434 KODIAK AK 99615 R1423030020 MOORE,MICHAEL D E NANCY P.O. BOX 1071 KODIAK AK 99615 R1423030030 HOLZSHU,RICHARD E NANCY 95 -124 IKAWELAHI PLACE MILILANI TOWN HI 96789 R1423030040 ROUTZAHN,MI GRACE P.O. BOX 438 USCG KODIAK AK 99619 R1423030050 HEIKES,JAMES E JUDY P.O. BOX 2963 KODIAK AK 99615 R1423030060 LAF!SUN,H DUTCH E MARGARET P.O. BOX 2828 KODIAK AK 99615 R1423030070 RAMAGLIA,JAMES E SUSAN 0 P.O. BOX 335 KODIAK AK 99615 BISHOP,CRAIG P.O. BOX 3905 KODIAK MCCABE,INC P.O. BOX 1787 KODIAK R1423010120 AK 99615 R1422070001 AK 99615 R1422070002 SAPP.WALTER E CAROLYN P.O. BOX 738 USCG KODIAK AK 99619 R1420000009 CHURCH OF LATTER DAY ST 50 E. NO. TEMPLE STREET SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 R1422010010 STOLTENBERG,ROY E JUANITA BOX 2804 KODIAK AK 99615 R1422010011 CURRIE,JAMES E KATHRYN l P.O. 90X 2770 KODIAK AK 99615 R1422010012 OLDS,BENJAMIN E COLLEEN P.O. BOX 629 KODIAK AK 99615 • , Crrs.e 051 1-- 7 8 /0 I 1/ /5 / /5"- 0 Swooe, / :_7124v-- ei a aog 0000 3 64-614._ 13 3 v Gar- i/4 3-03 ooro 3 6, 7 ,10 se • o 70 y 3,e4 )413,0 X7-.L 473-72 ie 1g z-zoy 0001 %. Eor" Pc 14.D.3 of olo,o 2 i 42.2_07000 r. 0 4/La 000 ocx:. 7 7 /9 / 61.oce. I , Lor ID KII/-27-Di 00 P- I I it los.t) is tru) ono P1)12.-T, ■J S OF U5-5 000 000 O4s 85-031 R'32S' 111:$66 RW000 U8 rON lq L ILLY K Std A/ap s D T a a • 4 4. / 1 \/ Q /41:x. '.c. 4 A • A• p P h a.A • A ♦ .• • d 4/4 P ., O • - V A P Q }JW i a 4 '44 a C '' '••' 11771' 0 lAmi3O BOROUGH POST OFFICE BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 ( ) Conditional Use Permit .( ) Exception p4_ Variance ( ) Zoning Change: From: CODE SECTION INVOLVED: To: I —÷ NOTE: The application fee for all items Conditional Use Permits, Exceptions, and the submission of a site plan. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: 7Y- Name Address ' 1</ Jai A51 7r6j/-C CitY, State, Zip /Woe /c 5— covered by this form is $50. Variance Applications also require Lot Block v e),- /376 United States Survey PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: 51,?-6 -37 Vs Horne Telephone Work Telephone Eadeicy A),//1/3- Subdivision Name Section, Township, Range, S.M. a, .162 v d ca PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: I have been adviscd of the procedur.s i!:volveo with this request and have. reCeived a copy of the appropriate recuaticns. Authoriz*d Ac3r.: Ca:- Date Application Accted: 00" , Property Owner Date VARIANCE APPLICATION he application must contain a statement showing the following conditions, all four of which lust exist before a variance may be granted: he undersigned states: That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, or to its intended use or development, which do not apply generally to the opther properties in the same land use district. These special conditions are: rks 5;flobv;-;->„ woo- 446 re vei ;Oriel ite / 4P/ 74 ere id/ Zie Off C' That the strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difificulties or unnecessary hardship: vVa „/ /9Avy e 14 is e e e r Z0 / Z) 1PV e 0,0 AP/ frr 71 3. That the granting of the variance properties in the vicinity nor be because: TA 0 iy ra,er/N. w// /i 0 71 Lae," ea s- e 71h will not result in material damage or prejudice to other detrimental to the public's health, safety, or welfare /70 e g- 2 rt, /I/4- 0 "id ; 5 Ve 1;i1nee X) le, s ), 4. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan, for the following reasons: "re4 2ar0 4/ /95 e I/ , p r .1 NOTE: Alaska Statutes Section 29.33.11O(C) states: "A variance shall not be granted because of special conditions caused by actions of the person seeking relief or for reasons of pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. A variance shall not be granted which will permit a land use in a district in which that use is prohibited." Please use additional paper for additional comments. Signature of Authorized Agent Signature of Land Owner ()ate! CASH RECEIPT Kodiak Island Borough 700 UPPER MILL RAY ROAD P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 PHONE (w) as-ram RECEIVED FROM 4 DATE 6213 CONDITIONS OF CHECK PAYMENTS PAYMENTS TENDERED B TOTAL CHECK FOR OBUGATIONS DUE TO THE BOROUGH ARE SATISFIED ONLY UPON THE CHECK BEING HONORED. RETURNED CHECKS FOR ANY REASON RESTORES THE OBLIGATION AS UNPAID AND SUBJECTS THE PAYER TO ANY CHARGES, FEES OR OTHER LEGAL LIABILITIES AS AMY BE APPLICABLE. CASHIER es PAYOR 5_6S- c)15 3-.8•47iCe7 . 8S -oi'7 PAYMENT MADE BY: 4:1) CHECK NO. CASH EJOTHER FM08-511815 4 '7c• . Zueotolsoco.) re.a.-