Loading...
ERSKINE ADD BK 8 LT 65 - RezoneKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH • Case No. PLANNING & ZONING REQUEST APPLICATION Date / ---217 z1/91(oF Final Disposition ,do ,c, //2 f o ✓l Q Applicatio Paid Remarks Type of Request 1 W " 1 Description of Land: Addition C/^S kt Survey No. Block Lots 41. 6 —s—(3.),- �‘�� SI 7 Person Submitting Application / O 3— /1 - Mailing Address C 0 - / Cj 7L G D � Covering Letter Submitted _ Plat Submitted Person or Representative to Attend Meeting Present Zoning Proposed Zoning Reason for Request Approved Remarks Not Approved Remarks ,3/t9 7 4, 1/ Borough Assembly Approval Remarks v/0 61_-f /724_ds___, -P . _Gt l / / J I Y* INSTRUCTIONS TO DELIVERING EMPLOYEE D Show to whom, date, and Deliver ONLY address where delivered i_j to addressee (Additional charges required for these services) Received REGISTERED NO. - CE TIFIEhNoi 9 A URED NO. ) RECEIPT ilze numbered article described below. IGNATURE OR NAME OF ADDRESSEE (Muse always Wiled in) SIGNATURE OF ADDRESSEE'S AGENT, IF ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO DELIVER NG EMPLOYE 1-1 Show to whom, date, and Deliver ONLY address where delivered to addressee Additional charges reqniredfor these services) Received 'REGISTERED NO. ) CERTIFIED NO. ) 3 7 8- /3„) RECEIPT he numbered article described below. IGNATURE OR NM1E OF ADDRESSEE (Must alw ys INSURED NO; DATE OEL4VERE z efilkdin) IGNATURE OF ADDRESSEE'S SHOW WHERE DELIVERED (only if requested) KODIAK ISLAND , BOROLTGU ORDINANCE 'NUMBER 68 -7 -0 AN ORDINANCE RE7,ONING. •L ©TS' FORTY -SIX' (46) THROUGH FIFTY -TWO (52) AND FIFTY -SIX ,(56Y .THROUGH FIFTY -EIGHT (58Y OF' BLOCK SEVEN .(7,)v LOTS FIFTY -NINE" (59) THROUGU.. SIXTY-TWO (62) AND SIXTY -FIVE' (65) THROUGH • S IXTY=SFVEN , .(6 7) BLOCK. EIGT-IT, (8) • and LOTS ONE HUNDRED THREE.. (10 3) THROUGH ONE HUNDRED FIFTEEN (115) BLOCK NI F,' (9) ALL OF THE ERSYINE:. SUBDIVISION- TO. TPE `CITY OF KODIAK BEING A BART .OF U).$ SURVEY NO. 562::FROM P -2 1O R -3 owers the Borough to enact'. a . zoning ordinance : and provide; or .ts.., administration, enforcement and amendment, 'and: WHEREAS, the .Kodiak •island ` 3orouc?h has pursuant thereto. adopted Chapter ;5 of its Code of Ordinances and Resolutions, which • nrovides`..for planning, and, zoning -provisions and procedure, and, according to the oomnrehensive: plan `adopted. by the .Kodiak Island F3orough', °Irots' Forty =six (46) through Fifty - two. (52) and. Fifty -six ,(56) ,though Fifty-eight (58) :,of Block Seven (7) ;Abs Fifty-nine-(59)' through Sixty -tcao "(6 2) and Sixty -five (65) through S . ty -seven :(67) .Block Eight -(8); (8) and is One hundred three ' (103} through: One hundred fifteen (115) Block Nine (9) of the Erskine subdivision of U.S Survey 562:. have been classified as R-2-and T / E P S :S, DON SLATER, ' MIKE FITZGERALD, R. ` C . WILSON,: JOHN TUSV CLINTON F. CROW, JACK E. ' F'IANN, JOAN MA )N AND ANITA the Kodiak, MANN ACID VICTOR AND DOTTIE WILLIAMS have petitione Island Borough Planning and,-Zoning Commission to reclassify said lots from R -2- :to R -3 and pursuant thereto the Kodiak' Island. Borough Planning and • `Zoning Comru.ssi-.on held a public hearing on said ' .petition and. thereafter. recommended against •.the rezoning, .of said' lots . and Page One, ORDINANCE, .NO.. ' ; 68 -7- he- Kodiak Island Borough Assembly having having determined -that it is in the arties s concerned that 'another ,public' hear be'' held and all persons :interested-be :heard::'on'``the °':queation. 'of whether .. or not. the ahave- d.escribed:,:lots should be reclassified from R-2 '_to. R-3 in order:. that'': the Kodiak Island ; Borough Assembly'' may , : determine; 'whether the puhlic necess3.tg, convenience, genera, welfare.. ;and'; good zoning-practice ':requires said classification,',, :' IT' ORDAINED . by' .the Borough :Assembly ,Forty -six ` ,(46)1 through' 6) through .'f'ifty- eight. (58) ., y- two, (52) and, Lot- ,(7) ots Fifty -nine „ (59) .through ':Sixty- two:..(62) and sots Sixty --five (6 5 ) y -seven (67) of Block Eight; .(p'); and Lots One hundred three'. (103 ) through '- One. ,hundred fiftee': (45) of dock'' Nine : (9) : the- ='Erskine. Subdivision of U.S. 2 . now'class fied Tits, R-2. bp; and the :.same . are hereby,'' reclassified • urvey as. 'R -3' and that notice of this _Orda.nance._be.. given by publication in the Kodiak :t1irror.. seven (7) days _prior to the second reading. of. this Ordinance'' and that a :. public `:, hearing be .;held thereof on the date of the ' second ' reading of is , Ordinance and : that this Ordinance, become effective at the expiration of thirty '.(30) days after its adoption. First reading' and approval 'date: April .18,.;196$. Second reading, public heari KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH . ASSEMBLY MEETING - May 16, 1968 2. Question of Erdman and Pratt Trailer Courts: hr. Stansbury stated that the Borough has planning andzoning power, rather than the City, and that these courts are a matter for the Borough as far as the land Use is concerned. Even though they have grandfather's rights, there can be no such rights on health and safety matters. He feels that Mr. Erdman and Et. Pratt have been led to believe that as soon as they tie in the sewer line to be provided by the City that their problems would be over He feels that they should be made aware of the fact that they will also be forced to cemply with the trailer park ordinance as far as health and safety is concerned. :It was suggested that the Sanitarian write a letter to Ht. Erdman and Mr. Pratt, advising them of the details of their deficiencies and giving ,them a timetable to correct them and for hooking onto the new sewer line, and explaining what action will be taken if they do not comply with the requirements. A copy of the letter should also be sent to the City Council. The Assembly concurred in this course of action. 3. Revision of Trailer Park Ordinance. Mr. Stansbury stated that there is a loop- hole in the ordinance concerning existing sub-standard trailer spaces. Individuals are selling their trailers to new owners, in which case there is no requirement for the space to be brought up to ordinance standards. H Suggested -that it bo-in- eluded in the revised ordinance that when'a trailer is vacated, it must remain vacant until the trailer space ccmplieS With the ordinance. Mrs. Springhill mbved, seconded by Mr. Barr, that this be included in the revision of the trailer park ordinance. motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. VI PUBLIC HEARINGS De Ordinance 68-7-0 Rezoning Erskine Addition Blk 8 Lots 59-62 and 65-67 Bik 7 Lots 46-52 and 56-58; Blk 9 Lots 103-115 from R-2 to 11:-.3 - Property Owners. The Ordinance was read. Mr. Barr moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Arndt. Mrs. Hajdu recessed the meeting and a public hearing was opened. Mr. John Welch, Mr. Harry Wallace, Nes. Edith Longuire and others who attended the hearing were not in favor of rezoning. The attorney's opinion was read stating that lots must meet the proper size requirements for R-3 construction even if the lots are rezoned to R-3. Thus any buildings now on lots which would not meet the size requirements could not be converted to R-3 dwellings. Mrs. Hajdu felt that this rezoning would be logical since it would furnish apartment dwellings close to the downtown shopping area. Part of the area is planned for a business use on the Tryck, Nyman, and Hayes future land use plan, and Mr. Barr felt that R-3 zoning would be a logical move t business use and that this is one of the few areas which could be developed into R-3 zoning without first tearing other buildings down. However, part of the area is indicated as future R-2 use, and Mrs. Springhill and Ht. Bullock thought that the decision should be made based on what is best for the community as a whole. The hearing was closed and the meeting reconvened. Al vote was then taken and motion failed as follows: YES- Jo Hajdu, Don Arndt, Jim Barr, NO-- Betty Springhill, Don Bullock. A unanimously favorable vote of the Assembly was r to 0. s the ordinance due to the number of protests received. Ordinance 68-6-0 Amending Lands Disposal Ordinance to Provide for Borrow Site Leases, The Ordinance was read. It was then moved by Hr. Bullock to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Mrs, Springhill. Mrs. Hajdu recessed the meeting and a public hearing was opened. Et. Large inquired about the price to be charged for the gravel and how to go about requesting a trailer park permit in the Bell's Flats area. The hearing was closed and the meeting reconvened. A vote was taken and the Motion carried unanimous by roll call vote. VIII-. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution 68-23-R for Special Election on 2% Sales Tax: The Resolution was read. It was stated that a public notice is to be posted three weeks before election. Mts. Springhill made the motion for the adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Bullock seconded it. Mr. Preston stated that it will be possible to use the East Elementary School as a voting location. Mts. Hajdu suggested that the Borough issue a press release concerning the necessity for the tax. Hr. Chandler objected to the tax. The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. D. Resolution 69-16-R Conveying Cemetery in USS 3511 to City: The Resolution was read. Mt. Bullock made the, notion for the adoption of the resolution. It was seconded by Nes. Springhill. The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. P.O. Box 1307 Phone 486 -2227 ISLAND PUBLISHING CO. Publishers of THE KODIAK MIRROR Printers -:- Publishers -:- Stationers Kodiak, Alaska 99615 In account with r-- --1 Kodiak Island Borough Box 1246 City J Accounts payable on or before 15th May 9, 1968 Notice of Publio Hearing on Ordinance- 68-7-0 61 lines ©.25 = 15.25 PUBLISHED May 9, 1968 $15.25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SS: State of Alaska r NOTICE 00—"-- ruiLiC BARING ON ORDINANCE Afl citizens and votera.,Of •the KODIAK ISLAND BOR- OUGH, Third Judicial Dis- trict, State ..cif Alaska, are hereby notified that on the ‘0'?ct.qePt11,44,Y WY, 190,1,1, . lat selertAliiitY iiebiOck In the District Magistrate's' Courtroom, Donnelley Build- ing, Kodiak, Alaska, a public, hearing will be held on a proposed ordinance of the KODIAK ISLAND BOR- 101IGH, designated as KODI-i 1AK ISLAND BOROUGH Oft-1 DINANCE NO. 68-7-0, re- , 'classifying the following de=, scribed land from •R-2 to R-3 : Lots Forty - six (46) through Fifty-Two (52) and Fifty-Six- (56) through Fifty-Eight (58) of Block Seven (7); Lots Fifty-Nine (59) through Sixty-Two (62) and Sixty • Five ,(65). through Sixtktw, Seken (61) of ..Block 'ht ...(8); and Lots „One -hundred ,i.three (103) through ‘„- One Hundred Fourteen (114) of Elba (9), :.ealL....,;16tatea within the Erskine -., *004 of U.S. Survey irOorded Book A; -0403,4K of ,the Kodiak ReeOrclang Predine third -Indietal District, State ofAlaSka: • ' All sr. O xi* .intereited shall have an opportunity to be heard and after the hear- the BOROUGH ASSEM- BLY consider the and may adopt it With or Without • anie'ridment or fejdot • KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Douglas G. Preston Clerk/treasurer I Publish: Mak 9, 1968 li I, S. Wayne Kotula, being first duly sworn, depose and say: I am editor and publisher of the Kodiak MIRROR, a daily newspaper published at Kodiak, Third Judicial Divi- sion, State of Alaska, and that the annexed printed notice was published in said new.s- paper in issues of the following dates: 71_94 1968 S. Wayne Kotula' SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this day of .4Y2a--- e_1LA7) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Alaska. My Commission expires S- 7/ FIELARilt OPIANANCE UNICE or Puma= A1.1. citizens and voters of the KODIAK ISLikND BOROUGII Third Judi _ Distript, State of Alaska, are hereby notified that on the sixteenth day of !ray, 1968, at seven-thirty o'clock p.m. in the District ktacjiiti4 " 'Onurtrocm; Donnelley Building! Kodiak! Aiaaka, a public i,o04.1,4 041 be held on ordinance of the KODIAK Map BOROUGH, designated as PODM :SLiND POROUGII ORDINANM NO. 68-7-0, reclassifying the following described land fres R-2 to R-73: • lot.s Forty-Six (46) through Fifty-Two (52) • and Fifty-Six (56) through Fifty-Eight (58) •of Block Seven (7); Lots Fifty-Nine (59) through Sixty-Do (62) ard Sixty -Five (65) through Sixty- Seven (67) of Block Eight (8); and Lots One hundred three (103) through One Hundred Eburteen (114) of Block Nine (9), all located within the ErsJu. na Subdivision of U.S. Survey klo. 562, recce:ded February 17, 1950; in Book R, page 348, of the Kodiak rdi.ng Precinct Third Judicial District, State of Alaska- sons interests shall have Ole hearing the XCEQUal IISSEZIZ *thout ant or reject it. PUBLLTti: Flay 9, 1968 hea;%2 ,and 4ftP4 4:9PairJer the ordinance and mali adopt it wAth KODIAK ISLAND BOROLM .Kodiak',. Alaska May. 8., • 196-8 Kodiak` Island Borough Planning and Zoning Co on P;.O.. Box 1246... Kodiak., : Alaska :` In answer. to your request, for an opinion as to whether . ots which were subdivided before the zoning ordinance was. adopted could be used to construct dwellings "permitted by the zoning with- out obtaining a `.variance, even if, the lots are ' •too :small . to meet.' he ordinance requirements please be advised as follows: One, '`of the r ecognized• authorities in the law of zoning and planning is 'a text 'bye Arden Y3. Rathkopf, :, known . as Rathkopf Zoning and Planning. n a paragraph entitled Lots Substandard .'in.Area or, rontage" the author refers to :the .. case of Long Island Land Researc vs. Young for the following statement, of law:.. "When .:a, municipal legislative body divides a' town or village into districts and prescribes the minimum . land dimensions :. for particular uses in such districts, it does _ so with at 'least constructive: notice of the existance therein of every substandard parcel held, in : Single, _ separate ownership. It is under . an absolute duty to make adequate provisions for such`. parcels. While it can limit their use, it cannot render them useless." He further states that :. in recognition of the doubtfu validity of the restriction as applied to substandard lots existing the time of passageof'the ordinance, , most ordinances - specifical y, exempt lots having less than the required frontage on the effective date of the ordinance. ; , A similar exemption of .a minimum frontage is often provided; in favor of lots that are at least of a specified, although .:substandard, _:width. Where - the later provisio is meet, that is, where a ` lot,'-: while not having a frontage equivale o that set forth in the ordinance as generally required frontage, nevertheless is at least; equal to 'the :lesser ,frontage contained in the there is a .legal 'rig ht:to a permit: under ;•the terms _the' ordinances Where ` "the area of frontage is not even equal to the lesser area " or frontage provided for in the .-exception, then the caner ° s recourse is to apply for ,an 'area variance, and while the card of appeals, on, ` :such` an application' may the lot too small or.. to' irregular . `in ' shape to be . used for the purpose escribed by the ordinance and that the public.' interest requires hat such use be forbidden, such .determination would result in onfiscation of the property under the rule laid' down and the cases n the foregoing note. In another case under an ordinance requiring an area of 12,900 square feet for the construction of a one - family house where an owner' who had a ,substandard_ lot,. but after th'e. passage of the .ordinance bought an adjoining parcel so;that, the completecombined area . of the two lots was.greatly in excess of the required minimum and subsequently" sold the original lot with the result that the after - acquired lot'had an area and frontage less than'the ordinance required, the Court held that since the property owner had it with- in,her power to comply with 'the .ordinance, the :right of exemption was forfeited. It would therefore appear-,that since the area in questio is now zoned R -2, if the zoning were changed to R -3 this would only permit those persons who had an area large enough to accomodate an R -3 type dwelling and any.per•son'owning lots of smaller size would be restricted to an R -2 or R- l'type dwelling <.` R Very tr -ROY H a iA,DSEN Attorney at Law • Page Tro, OPINION ASSEMBLY DEWING - May 2, 1968 3 11:111 C. First Reading of Ordinance 68-7-0 Rezoning Erskine Addition Bik 8 Lots 59-62 and 65-67; Bik 7 Lots 46-52 and 56-58; Bik 9 Lots 103-115 from R-2 to R73 - Property Owners. The ordinance was read by title only. It was noted that the dates of the readings and adoption had to be changed, due to the lack of a quorum on April 18. Ht. Bullock moved for approval of the ordinance in the first reading, seconded by Mr. Barr. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. D. Approval of Vacation and Replat of Lots 7 and 8, Bik 1, Monashka Bay Subdivision. to Provide for Access. Mt. Best explained that no access had been provided to. the Erwin Homestead area except by the State Highway, and that since these lots had not been sold, they could be withheld from the sale until this replotting', had been accomplished, to provide for this additional access to the Erwin libmestead. The plat was studied. It was explained that the road had not been platted parallel to the lot line due to topography. Ht. Bullock moved, seconded by Mts. Springhill, that the plat be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their approval. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. VIII OLD BUSI1ESS A. First Reading of Ordinance 68-6-0 Amending Lands Disposal Ordinance to Provide for Borrow Site Leases. The ordinance was read by title only and copies were distributed to the Assemblymen. Mr. Bullock roved for approval of the ordinance in the first reading, seconded by Mr. Barr. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. IX NEW BUSINESS Approval of Tax Adjustments. Nr. Valkama explained that five of the listed adjustments had been caused by errors, and that the remainder were property that was actually inside the City instead of outside. Mr. Bullock moved for approval of the tax adjustments as presented, seconded by Mrs. Springhill. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. C. Resolution 68-19-R Recommending that the State of Alaska Include A Review of State Assistance to Boroughs Under the Forthcoming Comprehensive Study of the State Tax Program. The resolution was read. Mks. Springhill moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Barr. Mbtion carried by unanimous roll call vote. D. Request by BIA for ACS Property. Letter from BLM was read, stating that the BIA request for 3.17 acres in the ACS area for the Vocational School was being processed and that a withdrawal order would be issued if no protests or objections were received. The plat was studied. Mr. Barr moved, seconded by Hr. Bullock, that a letter be sent to BLM stating that the Borough has no objection to this withdrawal. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. X CHAIRMAN'S REPORT • A. Camper Trailer on Borough Recreational Lot in Second Addition HilleXPoint Subdivision. Mr. Best reported hat this camper had been removed as requested. EL Disposition of Lot 7, Block 7, Miller Point Subdivision. This lot has been designated for use as a historical site in connection with the old Russian Mill, but the mill lies on Borough property behind the lot. Dewitt Fields claims ownership of a building which is situated on the lot. Mr. Best read a letter to Mr. Fields advising him that use of the building is a trespass against the - Borough, requesting that the tenants of the building be evicted, the lot cleaned up, and suggesting that he apply to the Assembly for reclassification of the lot so that it might be sold by auction, giving him a chance to purchase it. Et. Best suggested that if the lot were reclassified for sale, at least 100 feet of access be provided along the creek back to the Mill site. Mr. Barr asked if the house would be occupiable even if the lot were sold. Er. Stansbury said that the building is not worth renovating and will be condemned. Mts. Springhill stated that Et. Fields still has a right to try to purchase the lot. Mt. Barr'' suggested that since the Borough owns property behind the lot and across the street from it, that the lot should be kept for recreational purposes. Mrs. Hajdu said that if the logical plan is to preserve this lot, it should be done now. It could be used as a picnic area in conjunction with the mill site. She suggested bringing the matter up again at the next meeting, and if no written - request for reclassification of the lot has been received fram Mr. Fields by then, he should be asked to remove the building from the lot. The tenants have vacated the building and the lot has been partially cleaned up. JO: STATUS OF CHRIS BERG CASE The last time the court was in town, George Vogt filed a motion to have the case dismissed due to the apts being constructed before our zoning ordinance was legal. Roy then filed an affidavit and brief in opposition to this. Since the judge was one who had not participated in the case before, he said he was not prepared ,to render any decision. He has taken the case under advisement and we are waiting for him to render a decision. In the meantime, the injunction against Chris Berg remains in effect.t Roy will let us know when we receive a decision from the Judge. TO ASSEMBLY MEETING - Apr ^1968 4 ck- Lymaa ane, 7,-;ayes eetin-, on Land Use of Comprehensive Plan Letter was read stating that they uould7IIRTto meet with the Assembly and P&Z any time after7-April 10. They will be asked tq attend the April 24 meeting. The Comprehensive Planning Committee will be asked to attend also. VI PUBLIC BEARINGS A. Ordinance 68-4-0 Amending Lands Disposal Ordinance to Permit Borough to Convey Land to Other Municipalities in the Borough. The ordinance was read. Lir. Bullock moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Barr. The meeting was recessed and public hearing opened. There were no comments and the meeting was closed and meeting reconvened. Votion carried by unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Best stated that a ROY T.74-011A FROM ISLAND BOROUGH riUS P. O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 SUBJECT: FOLD t "ZOP'" 'kik tO 1_,■-tx Si • I:111. • •70,4 47,0i:14/ 4-141C. 11V.• 44-1, t,:t 40,3 1W•,. • • II j: 10 A SIa BLIK-7,- LOTS 46-52 and 56-58; BLILE3_ICES 59-62 and 65-67;. BLK 9 WITS l0311.5 PROM R-?- TO FOR ASSEMBLY-MEETING,OF APRIL .18 PATEL 4/11/68 0 0 11 $ Z,0 241 • is in ord.er.-__TlaDlikal ZUSI OP MO et. lik• 1 SO PLEASE REPLY TO SIGNED. DATE SIGNED RETURN THIS COPY TO SENDER uie-accorney-stuay-tne case and-Jr-bake sure that all action taken was proper. Mr. Madsen pointed out that a letter had been received from Chris Berg, Inc. - stating that they had asked the tenants of their third unit to move out, but- that the unit was still occupied. Mr. Welch stated that he had brought the matter of the Chris Berg apartments to the attention of P&Z when they were being built, but that nothing was done about them. Jr; Slater stated that he had received a building permit for an R-2 dwelling, and had installed a full bathroom in the basement and rented the third unit to a school teacher because of the lack of housing. The teacher is now there rent free. Mrs. Hajdu pointed out that if the original Zoning Ordinance really was invalid, part of the triplexes have grandfather's rights and yet no one else can build them now It was pointed out that the building permits issued were for R-2 dwellings. Mr. Madsen stated that the written protests now on record would stand unless they were withdrawn. Nr. Welch asked if the rezoning is passed, can triplexes be built on lots which do not meet the size requirements. The attorney is preparing an opinion on this matter. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote, • GEORGE VOGT. ATTORNEY AT LAW. MARINE WAY . P. 0. BOX 2547 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 TELEPHONE 486.2833 April 4, 1968 Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Committee Kodiak, Alaska Gentlemen: The present hearing of the Kodiak Island Borough, Planning and Zoning Committee, is based upon the zoning ordinance which is now in existance and the underlying assumption that the prior zoning ordinance which was in effect until the 3rd day of Decem- ber, 1966. The theory of the protest is based upon the assumption that the area in question, where Mr. Slater's building is located, was zoned R-2 at the time that the basement apartment was built. The apartment in question was built prior to the date of the present zoning ordinance. The effective date of that ordinance was the 3rd day of December, 1966. The zoning ordinance, which 'existed prior to that date, was invalid by reason of the fact that no proper notice of public hearing was given. The requisite for the notice of public hearing is set out in Alaska Statutue 07.20.100. You will find attached a photostatic copy of the notice of public hearing, stating that said hearing will be held on the 7th day of August, 1964. You will also find attached the Borough minutes for August 6, 1964. Please note that the public hearing was actually held on August 6. Therefore, obviously no proper notice of public hearing was ever published. In additthon, you will note that the ordinance was amended at that time. The statute requires that a subsequent notice of public hearing and hearing be had to pass an amended ordinance. This was not done. Therefore, if we assume that the ordinance was invalid and that in fact the Kodiak Island Borough did not have a valid zoning ordinance until the 3rd day of December, 1966, then we must further assume that Mr. Slater has grandfather rights of his apartment and that the Kodiak Island Borough could not pass a valid ordinance which would affect said rights. In addition, you will note that two of the parties who have: signed the petition prabsting against the rezoning of the area in question, are members of the Kodiak Island Borough, Planning and Zoning committee. It would seem that Mi.: Slater is entitled to a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Unfortunately, on behalf of Mr. Slater, I must assert that the only proper course of action is for the two members of the Planning and Zoning Committee, who signed the petition protesting against the rezoning, should withdraw from further consideration of this matter. Sincere y your GEORGE VOGT Attorney for Mr. Slater Enclosures GV:KF 2 Kodiak Island Borough KODIAK, ALASKA RECEIVED APR A 1968 PM AM 71819110111.112111213141516 To: The Chairman, Kodiak Island Borough Assembly 14 April 1968 This letter is in reference to the Notice of Appeal to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly made by Mr. Don Slater, which appeal was received by the Borough on 29 March 1968. The appeal was in protest of the decision handed down by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the rezoning from R-2 to R-3 the following described property: Block 7, lots 46-52, 56-58, Block 8, lots 59-62, 65-67, Block 9, lots 103-114. In reply to Mr. Slaterls allegation that at least two members of the Planning and Zoning Commission circulated a petition protesting the rezoning of the above described property from R-2 to R-3 and in so doing had misinformed persons con- tacted, we wish to state that the persons contacted were given the true facts concerning rezoning as spelled out in the Ordinance governing the erection of triplex or multiple housing units in the area in question. At no time was any information given out that was not in strict accord with the said Ordinance. As'to the legality of members of the Planning and Zoning Commission circulating a petition, we have this to say: Not only is it legal to circulate such a petition; as well as it is our prerogative to do so, but it is within our rights as free American citizens to do so. It is also our duty as members of the said Planning and Zoning Commission to work for the interests of the citizens of the community which we represent. There is no conflict of interests whatsoever, since we neither seek nor make any profit, but are merely seeking to PROTECT OUR HOMES which represent our life's work and life's savings. We acted in full accord and agreement with the Constitution of the United States of America which guarantees every American "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and further guarantees our right to freedom of speech. We have the same right to protect our homes and our interests, as well as those of the citizens we represent, as Mr. Slater has, or any other property owner has for that matter. Further, speaking of legality of actions, we would like to point out that it appears to be common knowledge that the Ordinance prohibiting triplex units in the area in question has been violated for quite some time. Yet one of these violators has the audacity to suggest possible illegal actions by other citizens who are acting within their rights as free Americans. In answer to Mr. Slater's statement that four of the six members of the Planning and Zoning Commission are property owners either in the area under quest for rezoning or in abutting areas, we would like to R5:431-151 out that we were asked to represent the public and we further feel that if we must contact the people we represent on all matters pertaining to the public interest, it is not only our right, but our duty as commissioners on the Planning and Zoning Commission to do so. As we have stated before, we firmly believe that ALL members of any commission in the Borough should be property owners:within the Borough. In this, way, each member is better able to take a genuine, sincere interest in such matters as the Pagel r; one in question concerning rezoning. If a member is not a property owner, it is highly probabl, that he couldn't care less how the matter is handledi We feel that our honesty and integrity have been questioned, although since this present Commission has been set up, we have been subjected to criticism for our decisions, but this is by far the most critical allegations we have had thrown against us yet as commissioners of the Planning and Zoning Commission. We feel that quite an important item was omitted from Mr. Slater's letter; namely, that during the circulation of the first petition by those wanting the rezoning from R-2 to R-3, the majority of property owners apparently were not contacted, but rather it seems that mostly those whom they believed were in agreement with the desired rezoning. Therefore, we again reiterate and reaffirm our statement that if necessity demands that we contact those whom we represent in order to get their views, it is our right and our duty to do so in order that a true picture of the entire matter may be presented. We see nothing illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional in such procedure. As to Mr. Slater's questioning our right as commissioners on the Planning and Zoning Commission to vote on the rezoning issue in question, we not only feel that this is a ridiculous question to raise, too ridiculous in fact to be given any serious consideration, but also a most undemocratic way of thinking, partic- ularly in a country that is one of the few remaining democracies where people are still free to vote as they see fit. In closing, we again state that if it is necessary for us as Commissioners on the Planning and Zoning Comp#pion to circulate a petition to best serve the people for the betterment brhe community, we feel fully justified in doing so. We submit that no injustice Is been rendered by us in this matter. %e. • zek_e=c, • NATJACE page 2 • REPORT ON REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R -2 TO R -3 OF ERSKINE ADDITION, BLOCK 7, LOTS 46 -52, 56 -58; BLOCK 8, LOTS 59 -62, 65 -67; BLOCK 9, LOTS- 103 -114 TO: Borough Assembly FROM: Planning & Zoning Commission DATE: April 3, 1968 At their meeting on March 27, 1968, the Commission voted to recommend to the Assembly that this rezoning be denied. Those voting against the rezoning did so for the following reasons: Mrs. Longmire: After talking to the people in the area, she felt that they are definitely against the rezoning and that their feelings - should be respected. Mr.. Wallace: Mr. Wallace felt that he is on the Commission to represent the people, and he did not think that they were in favor of the rezoning. He thinks that the reason the lots have not sold is that the prices tripled overnight. He does not think that the area should be rezoned to R -3 because it • would keep the assessments and taxes high. Mr. Welch: Mr. Welch felt that the area should be left R -2 since this is the desire of the property owners.- Their desires should be considered because they are old - timers. Mr.•Waller: Mr. Waller felt that the majority of the property owners are against the rezoning. There were two votes in favor of the rezoning for the following reasons: Mr. Brothers: Rezoning would enable those already living in the area, as well as others, to construct multiple unit dwellings. Mr. Haney: Rezoning would help t� develop the land faster. There are enough people in favor of the rezoning, and not enough people against it, to warrant the change. Out of 58 notices sent, only, 18 objections were received. 4,64 iedlOr oohn Waller, Chairman /s ) REGISTERE •1 CERTIFIED 0. l 3 t78 13 1 INSURED NO. 1 DATE DELIVERED APR 4- lie 378137" INSTRUCTIONS TO DELIVERING ,"EMPLOYEE Show to whom, date, and Deliver ONLY Lj address where delivered ❑ to addressee (Additional charges required for these se rites) RECEIPT Received the numbered article described below. . SIGNATURE OR NAME OF ADDRESSEE (Mus/alwaysbe filled in) SIGNATURE OF ADDRESSEE'S AGENT, IF ANY • HOW WHERE DELIVERED (onlyi/requested) cM-10- 71548 -1© GPO INSTRUCTIONS TO DELIVERING EMPLOYEE Show to whom, date, and Deliver ONLY ❑ address whore delivered ❑ to addressee (Additional charges required for these se,trices) RECEIPT Received the numbered article described below. . TEREDNO. SIGNATURE OR NAME OF ADDRESSEE (Must always liin) rr3 ( INSURED NO. DATE DELIVERED 1 APB 4IT` O m3 0 IGNATURE OF ADDRESSEE'S AGENT, IF ANY ° HOW WHERE DELIVERED (onlyI 72 m C2 m CI—1 1 m T1 m v a INSTRUCTIONS TO DELIVERING EMPLOYEE ❑Show to whom, date, and Deliver ONLY address where delivered ❑ to addressee (Additional charges required for these services) RECEIPT Received the numbered article described below. , SIGNATUJOJ OR NAME OF ADDRESSEE (Mustalwaysbeiikdin) REGISTERED NO, CERTIFIED N0. 378 130, INSURED N0. DATE DELIVERE -APR 419 VATURE OF ADDRESSEE'S AG , IF ANY OS-15-71548-10 0 INSTRUCTIONS TO DELIVERING EMPLOYEE QShow to whom, date,,and•. Deliver ONLY address where deliveretI -1...j to addressee (Additional charges required for these-services) RECEIPT Received the numbered article. dgsiefibed below. ,. REGISTERED O. SIGNATU t E OR NAME OF ADDRESSEE (Must always bitfilie, G RTIFIED N0. I SIGNATURE OF ADDRESSEE'S AGENT, IF ANY INSURE DATE DELIVERED SHOW WHERE D IVERED (onlyif requested) { cao -1s- 71548 -10 GPO 7' rn� z -O oz . •n3, 0 'Fz _e) zm 4n 210 < Zen sx y3, 00 Zev 3+p rZ 30 s5 Ft m 0 C m E. -g z -0 0z o» z n Zee .40 XO Zm yZ 00 Ze+1 rZ 30 soe Fo 1 -, 0 m 0 o 0 h 0 0 INSTRUCTIONS TO DELIVERING EMPLOYEE ❑Show to whom, date, and Deliver ONLY address where delivered ❑ to addressee (Additional charges required for these services) RECEIPT Received the numbered article described below. REGISTERED NO. SIG M(1TURE OR NAME OF ADDRESSEE (Must always Wiled CERTIFIED NO. 3r7F /3 1 INSURED N0. 1 DATE DELIVERED RR 4; RE OF ADDRESSEE'S AGENT, IF ANY ° SHOW WHERE DELIVERED (only if requested) c56- 16- 71S4S -10 No. '378 l 4 INSTRUCTIONS TO DELIVERING EMPLOYEE (--1 Show to whom, date, and Deliver ONLY LJ address where delivered Lj to addressee (Additional charges required for these services) Received t REGISTERED NO, CERTIFI NO ‘7178 4:7 INSURED NO. RECEIPT numbered article described below. . SIGNATURF i NAME 0 ESSEf ' (Must always befifled in) SIGNATURE OF ADDRESSEE' (GE' , IF ANY 878136. W 031f11H33 z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED Al -300- SENT TO . k . , POSTMARK Oti DATE _ .. .. ..,, . • ' ' -:-"- "-- -- - --: - . . 'STREET AN13. o K .2.r. P, 0., STATE, AND ZIP COD al P, 0„ STATE, AND ZI DE - ''.: '- EXTRA SERVICES FOR DDITIONAL Return Receipt' - Shows to whom Shows to w om; - ' and date date, and where de vexed delivered 0¢ fee E3 350 fee FEES: ' - • .:. :I/Ieliver, to--- - 'Addressee Only; ' EJ 50¢ fee P00 krm 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGETROVIDED-;r(See other side) Mar. 1966 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-300' SENTV lod ) • 1 , . I 14jerrteS'!, POSTMAR , K ' . ' ' , ,', EP '' --, -- ;: - : _:.„- - , . STREET to . . , 0 I ', ;:, - -.,' '• ',', . , (000001 P, 0., STATE, AND ZIP COD al EXTRA SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL Return Receipt . Shows to whom Shows to whom,, ::: and date date, and where delivered delivered V 10¢ fee 0 35¢ fee FEES ISA - Deliver to - -; -:Addressee Only :".-- . 0 i a 0 fee - ., ,. POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE:PROVIDED-v . See other side Mar. 1966 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL fl TO RDY k A (Th FROM h Ir-IIAK ISLAND BOROUGH . • P. 0. BOX 1246 • KODIAK; ALASKA 99615 SUBJECT: FOLD + REQUEST FROM P&Z FOR OPINION ON USE OF LOTS SUBDIVIDED BEFORE THE ZONING ORDINANCE VAS ADOPTED FOR P&Z MEETING OF 4/10/68 At their me • • II_ DATE. 4/3/68 *11111 Of Z011 ". ZAP .1 00 I 00 . • AM— lots which were subdivided before the Zoning Ordinance was adnpfea could •` e.k• _1/1 •• 4 • • 4"' 111 s • the zonin u without ightimnix obtaining a variance, even if the lots are too small to meet the ordinance requirements. Shall I just give them your opinion of 11/13/64, or do you want to add anything to it? PLEASE REPLY TO SIGNED. Thanks a lot. Sally DATE SIGNED RETURN THIS COPY TO SENDER NOTICE OF APPEAL TO KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY Thie, appeal is made in protest of the decision handed down by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the rezoning from R -2 to R -3 the following described property. Block 7, lots 46 -52, 56.58, Block g, lots 59 -62, 65 -67, Block 9, lots 1O3 -114 The reasons for this appeal is as follows: / 0) 'On 13 , 196$ , a petition for the rezoning �.� p of the above described properties n was presented to the Manning and Zoning Commission. At that meeting the P & Z Commission voted to have a public hearing on the issue. Following the meeting, notices of the public hearing were sent out to the property owners in and around the area subject for rezoning. After the petition for rezoning was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and before the time of the public hearing, at least two members of the Planning and Zoning Commission set up an active campaign against the rezoning request. They circulated a petition against the rezoning in a door to door campaign, seeking signers of their petition. They also confronted people that had signed the petition, for rezoning and told them the rezoning issue had been misrepresented when presented' to them. This latter is a falsehood. It is thought their actions to be illegal but if not illegal, at least very unethical for people supposedly serving the public by holding a position on the .- P & Z Commission, to go out and.actively campaign against an issue that has already been presented to them and then be allowed ; to -sit on the Commission and cast a vote on the very issue they have been publicly,campaigning against. These members of the Planning and Zoning Commission did not wait for the Public Hearing to determine the publics attitude toward the rezoning and then vote accordingly. They made their decision prior to the public hearing and proved this by their attempts to sway the public to their way of thinking. This we feel is an injustice, This is.not an honest representation of or to the public. We would also like to point out the fact that of the six members sitting on the P & Z Commission, four of them are property owners either in the area under quest for rezoning or in abutting areas. - To you Borough Assembly Members, we also question the fairness of this;. Should these people have a right to vote on an issur such as this? Wouldn't Justice',be far better served if these people had stepped down from the Commission when this issue came to vote? They could have voiced their objections from the audience as property owners ; and left the voting to an unbiased group of people. We the petitioners for the rezoning of the described properties feel an injustice /Obeen done and appeal to you members of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly to vorrect this injustice and over rule the decision of the Planning and Zoning \ommission. o Kodiak Tsland Borough KODIAK, ALASKA RECEIVED MAR 2 9 1969 AM PM 718e911a,lli12111213141516 . att * KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANLffNG & ZONING COMMISSION - birch 27, 1968 T CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Haller in the Magistrate's Courtroom, Donnelley Building, Kodiak, Alaska. II ROLL CALL Present Absent John Waller, Chairman None Ernie Brothers Ed Haney (late arrival) Nits. Edith Longmire Harry Wallace - John-Welch Also present: Jim Stansbury, Building Inspector; and approximately 15 people in the audience III MUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - 3/13/68 Mr. Welch moved, seconded by Air. Brothers, that the minutes be accepted as written. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. IV OI'YiER MULES A. -Assembly - 3/21/68 B. Ordinance Committee 3/26/68 There were no comments. V CORK SPOND E - PEOPLE TO BE HEARD A. Letter from Dale Tubbs re Navy Stockpile of Aggregate in Bells Flats. Letter was read stating that it had been recommended to the .Navy that they apply for a Special Land Use Permit to use the area for temporary stockpiling purposes;: and that they plan to clear the area and release it within this caale, ar year, The question was raised as to whether a public hearing would be r g l+fed on this request. Action was tabled pending receipt of further information. B. Letter from Ivor Schott re Chiniak School Site The letter was read requesting a review of this site designation with the Camniission. Er. Waller said that he would discuss this matter with Mr. Schott. VI PUBLIC HEADINGS Request for Rezoning from R2 to R3 - Erskine Bik 8 Lots 59 -62, 65 -67; Blk 7 Lots 46 -52 and 56 -58; B1k.9 Lots 103 -114 - Property Owners (Case 1 -L). l3r, Brothers moved, seconded by Mc. Wallace, that it be recommended to the Assembly that the rezoning be approved. The meeting was recessed and public hearing opened. The petition received against the rezoning was read. A letter from the Saupes requesting that their name be removed from the pet.'itio win favor of the rezoning, that the assessments in the area be lowered, that a�iy further attempts to rezone the area be stopped, and that the petition was misrepresen to then by Mr. Crow, representing Chris Berg, Inc., was read. The following individuals in the audience then spoke in -favor of the rezoning:, Anita Mann for herself and Mrs. Kraft; Mr. Slater; Clint Crow for Chris Berg, In' and Mr. Tusvik. The following people spoke against the rezoning: Mr. Sargent; Airs. Welch; Mrs. Saupe. The following reasons were given in favor of the rezoning: Apartments are needed in Kodiak and progress is going to come and will cause change in all areas. This is a logical place for apartments because it is within walking distance of the City. Nom reasonable apartment rents are also needed, and it was felt that construction of fourplexes would cut costs by 10 to 15 percent. Taxes in the area are high, but rentals from apartment units would help people net the taxes. The lots are too small to allow large= multiple unit dwellings, and no high rises would be allowed because the Zoning, Ordinance restricts the height to three stories or 35 feet. Mk. Slater felt that he was being discriminated against in being requested to cease use of his third unit because other families in R-1 and R -2 zones are boarding students in their homes. Boarding houses are allowed only in R -3 zones. Even if the area were rezoned to R -3, the Chris Berg apartments would still require a variance because their lots are too small to permit R -3 dwellings. -40 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Mardi 27, 1968 2 Reasons given against the rezoning were as follows: The people in the area bought their property as R-2 and planned its use that way and feel it is unfair to them to change the zoning now. Same people have delayed building on their lots in the area because of the uncertainty of the zoning. They will not build there if the zoning changes. Some people would have built R-3 dwellings if they had known tha zoning would change. It was felt that the taxes will be even higher if the zoning is changed to R-3. During further discussion, Mr. Crow asked Mts. Welch if the Welches had planned originally to construct an R-3 dwelling. Mrs. Welch said they had considered; it but then found that the zoning was R-2. Mr. Crow asked Mts. Salve haw he and Mr. Slater had mis-represented the petition to them. He said that he and Mr. Slater called on the Saupes and showed them the map of the proposed rezoning tL reasons for it to them. Mts. Saupe asked how the rezoning 'would affect the tax structure of the area The Assessor's comments from the previous meeting were read--that the taxes on the land might go up slightly if there was a greater demand for it after the rezoning. Mr. Sargent asked Mr. Stansbury if more parking space would be required for R-3 dwellings. Mr. Stansbury replied that morewaald be required--one parking space for each dwelling unit. i{(,......a There was considerable discussion concerning the fact that the R-2 zoning came into effect after the lots had been subdivided. The question was raised as to whether the lots, which do not meet the square footage required for R-2 and R-3 dwellings, can be used for this construction without vaxiances being granted. It was thought that the lots could be used for R-2 dwellings without variances being granted if the setback requirements were met, because of the fact that the lots were subdivided before they were zoned. However, if the lots were rezoned to R-3, if was thought that they would require variances, since 2400 square feet are required per dwelling unit for Rr3 dwellings. The Ccumission requested that this be clarified by the Attorney in writing. After further discussion, the public hearing was closed and meeting reconvened. Mr. Welch stated that there were two pieces of property in the area which had, been in violation of the ordinance for two years. He said that the area has well-established homes and that it would not be doing them justice to rezone , the area. Sane people thought that he shouldn't take a stand because of his involvement in the area, but he.intended to anyway. hr. Haney felt that there were not enough objections to the rezoning to warrant disapproving it. He said that out of 58 notices which were sent, only 18 objections were received, which leaves 40feanilies who do not care. Mr. Wallace said it shouldn't be assumed that they do not care. Perhaps they are out of town. He thought that the only way in which people would be affected by the rezoning would be by the height of the new buildings, in that tbwrmight block their views, and that buildings were limited in height to 3 stories or 35 feet anyway. ' Mrs. Longmire felt that people would be affected by more than the height of new buildings if the area were rezoned. She also felt that people should check on the zoning of an area before they buy property there, and if it is not zoned to their liking, then they should look for property in another area. Mr. Brothers felt that the rezoning would help the people already in the area, since they could change their dwellings to R-3 if they wished, if they could provide the necessary parking and meet the other requirements. The question was called for, and the roll was called with each Commissioner voting as follows, with his reasons for so voting: Mr. Zrothers - Yes. Rezoning would enable those already living in the area, as well as others, to construct multiple unit dwellings. Mr. Haney - Yes. Rezoning would help to develop the land faster, and there are c,eutt penple•:r faNI,r of the rezoning, and.not enough people against it,. to warrant the change. Mts. Longmire - No. Mts. Longmire at first wished to abstain, due to her personal interest in the area Hcwever, mr. Waller felt that all Cammissioners should be willing to commit themselves, and Mrs. Longmire voted no. She stated that after talking to the people in the area, she felt that they are definitely against the rezoning and that their feelings should be respected. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - March 27, 1968 3 Er. W&llace - No. He feels that 'he is on the commission to represent the people and he thinks that the people do not want the area rezoned. He thinks that the reason the lots have not sold is that the prices tripled overnight. He does not think that the area should be rezoned t R-3 because it woullOkeep the assessments and.taxes.:Ihigh. 11r. Welch - No Mr. Welch felt that-the-area should be left R-2 since this is the desire of the property owners. Their desires should be considered since they are old-timers. Mk. Waller - No. He felt that the majority of the property owners are against the rezoning. The motion failed and it will be recammended to the Assembly that the area not be rezoned. B. Request for Vacation and Re plat of Townsite Blk 3 Lots 10 and 11 -' Brechan and Bean (Case 60-C). Mr. Haney moved, seconded by Mr. Welch, that the vacation . and replat be approved. The meeting was recessed and the public hearing opened. The petition for vacation and replat was read. The approvals of the Borough Engineer and KET4 were read. There were no other comments. The hearing was closed and meeting reconvened. Motion carried by unanimous, roll call vote. VII ZONING ITETZ - PRELLIINARY REVIEW - None VIII SUBDIVISIONS, PRELIMINARY - None IX SUBDIVISIONS, FINAL - None X OLD BUSINESS A. Recemmendation from Assembly re Public Hearing for Exception for Gravel Sites in Bells Flats. The recommendation was read requesting that this public hearing be held under Section 11-,A of the Zoning Ordinance. This request was based on the Borough Attorney's advice that a hearing would be necessary. It was reported that the Borough Chairman had called from the State Division of Lands and asked that the hearing be held on the Kodiak Land Co. site only. Et. Wallace moved, seconded by Mr. Haney, that the hearing be scheduled for' the next meeting Otion carried by unanimous voice vote. B. Recommendations from Building Inspector and Sanitarian re Request from Kodiak Disposal Co. to Incinerate Garbage. The recommendations were read stating that the proposed incinerator would not meet the necessary requirements. After same discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Stover should discuss this matter with the Sanitarian and Building Inspector. C. Recommendation from Assembly re Public Hearing for Exception for Sanitary Fill Site, The Assembly minutes of March 21 were reviewed, including their recommendation that the hearing be held by P&Z based upon advice from the attorney. Mr. Haney moved, seconded by Mr. Wallace, that the hearing be held at the next meeting. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. XI RAVING & STAFF MEN'S A. Memo from Secretary re MS 3219 Rezoning. Memo Wgead stating that the area was found to be zoned Unclassified on the original loriing map, and that an error had been made in preparing the larger zoning map by showing this property as being zoned Conservation. The map will be corrected. ■ XII AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Mr. Taylor of Bells Flats, Mr. Taylor had a question concerning the ordinance creating the Commission and the Procedures adopted by the COmmission. He was referred to the Borough Attorney. Mr. Taylor asked the Building Inspector why a building had been moved from Bells Flats without a permit. The Inspector was unaware of this situation. Mk. Taylor stated that they were presenting a petition to Maneau to disband the Borough and the Planning and Zoning COmmission, Mr. Taylor also asked that it be made a part of the record that there is no property owned in Bells Flats, and that if there is any property owned there,' it is owned by the Borough. FROM March 20, 68 79 TO ADDRESS Box 2.436 CITY Croe KCxiiak1 Alaska TERMS 13 Apt) :.. - 4 n Fee for Rezoning of Various Lots in Erskine Subdivision set for in . 1g Ordinance 20 00 . . . . . . KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska March 19, 1968 NOTICE OF PUnLTC HEARING This is to notify you that a public hearing will be helci by the Planning & Zoning Commission on a request by the property owners for a rezoning from R-2 to R-3 of the following property Erskine Subdivision Block 7, Lots 46-52; 56-58 Block 8, Lots 59-62; 65-67 Block 9, Lots 103-114 Since you are a property owner in the area, if you wish you may express your opinion on this request at that time. PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE COURTROOM. DAY Wednesday DATE March 27, 1968 TIME 730 oFCL, \ n Kodie4<ankiv+13sirgkjtni--GiA . aLLaccc. RECEIVED m„a 7 , 49 MAR 1 8 1968 AM 71819iltii1112■112131415t6 -)Le-44.4.0-co-Ld 14-4?•64. 42. n.14_ et4,4a, Ge.A.J a- t. 1.4 6d-La 4JLJ Lh L4LL .443.1.1 - 2444. aL 11. , ix.if a avid, R R 3 . 12#.4,-Ito-ota ao , a ‘2.4 Ct. -AA.411.1 ■tiasag /a-g4P-e■a4.1 .4.11.4.4. G. -041-t.:&16 , .1 b.0 AA.it.444A11 a4 c:At&c.÷.4 fari ,2,?•4q..44,4L' 4:zd,a.cL . 2 C..4#-C -14:agt ga_ -A& 0-11.e44 .4A4A4J,44.4 -4fAx.t,o ev-e J ded4A. .4e,%4f •Za04.4.4.4j ■•1•0 da 41.4 C4;i4.IL Z■ ■t/C4&&.4 .4AXAt4t4C:Z44..i Ca::&Atolk..4 -Li/cc el-tA.ga,.. .1)--A..0e.,./ oz1.44. 1&141t14 cw-.t Aria ca40 //424,-(,‘.&4ee. ual _avaa..4 Qd _zza_f_ez. p tALe - .■tiCa 04. 14414,a44.°1 gc7.0 04 a. c .d.42..443 4,.&.4.z _eh czel --T•Ltl 4L4L4.1 .t4xxA, CLIIta4-c4 AA, -14%-0-%+.4 4a-4 60 Zr ZLd GL.. -744t.CLA2.4 _Sc.ripL_J cerL&,„„q1 4.144.;_y , c4 _4.; ca. -Z/€42..e ,GLIO.ae-dat d-ik.tre CoArkAr_Le -Z1 GLcfo • 7-742—A Arh4‘J R4L ,t4tdclebt x ike PETITION 15 March 1968 Request for denying the petition to rezone certain properties located within the Erskine Sub- Division of U. S. Survey No. 562, recorded February 17, 1950, in Book R, Page 348, of the Kodiak Recording Precinct, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska. - • The undersigned propety owners hereby petition the Kodiak Planning and Zoning Commission and the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly to deny the petition to rezone from R2 to R3 the following described properties: Lot 52, Block 7 Lot 51, Block 7 Lot 107, Block 9 Lot 108, Block 9 Lot 113, Block 9 Lot 11h, Block 9 16-tI 7 ,-o 1'_ L ,t% Harold & Shirley L. .Heg Harold & Shirley L. Heg John & Florence Welch John & Florence Welch Harry & Mary Wallace Harry & Mary Wallace 414 akzut. e. 'o 1Z0 Air AleowL--Z_ � 6 1 � � •• • Ga E 4 • `r• VIEWSIM 49 A r1 S7a1►s_•ro+ir In answer to the allegation made in the petition for rezoning that at the time �f previous zoning of these lots, the area was still in the process of change and, growth and was not a fully developed residential section, we submit that these lots were held back for many years when they belonged to the Erskine Estate. Had they been released, they would. have been developed before now, and probably long before the Chris Berg Apartments were built. With reference to Mr. Gagnon's statement to the Borough Assembly regarding rezoning all of the area to R -3, he was speaking of newly developed areas, not areas that already had been zoned. Page 1 of 2 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING & ZONING CONAISSION - March 13, 1968 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7;30 p.m. in the Pagistrate's Courtroom Donnelley Building, Kodiak, Alaska, by Chairman John Waller. II ROLL= Present Absent John Wa11cr, Chairman None Ernie Brothers Ed Haney Mrs. Edith Longmire Harry Wallace John Welch Also present4 Sam Best, Borough Chairman; Jim Stansbury, Building Inspector; and 3 people in the audience. III MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - 2/21/68 Mr. Haney moved, seconded by er. Welch, that the minutes be approved as written. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. IV OTHERNMUTES A. Assembly 1. Special - 2/29/68 2. RegWar - 3/7/68 There were no comments. V CORRESPONDENCE - PEOPLE TO BE HEARD Letter from Mr. Chapman re Economic Base and Population Study. Letter was read stating that this study hdd been completed. Copies are available in the Borough Office for review. B. Letter from Mr. Stansbury re Slater Apartments. Letter to Mr. Slater was read stating that his 3-unit building is in violation of the zoning ordinance and requesting him to discontinue use of the third apartment to comply with the i ordinance. C. Letter from Marie Chandler re Fire Protection in Trailer Courts. Letter was read by the members of the Commission individually. It was pointed out that fire protection for the trailer courts 'would be included in the trailer park ordinance revision. D. Letter from Theodore Smith of Parks and Recreation re Info on Recreation Land Development. Letter was read stating that this information is available. Copies have been ordered for the commissioners. VI PUBLIC HEARINGS - None VII ZONING ITEMS - PIRELLUITIEY REVIEW Illigisssumnig." . Request for Rezoning from R2 to R3 - Erskine Blk 8 Lots 59-62, 65-67; Blk 7 petition was read. After discussion, Mr. Haney moved, seconded by Mr.Wallace, Lots 46-52 and 56-58, Blk 9 Lots 103-114 - Property Owners (Case 1-L). The that a public hearing be held on the rezoning at the next meeting. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. -, B. Request from Kodiak Disposal Co. to Incinerate Garbage. Letter was read outlining__ the requested proposal. Mr. Best explained that this is a land use which is not covered in the Kodiak Disposal Co.'s lease, and that an exception would have to be granted for it. The map was studied. Hr. Haney asked how much of a fire hazard would be involved. It was thought there would be none at all with the proposed arrangement. Mr. Haney moved, seconded by nr. Wallace, to table action on this request until Mr. Stover arrived. Emotion carried by unanimous voice vote. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - Nardi 132 1968 legislature before private recreational lands could be Sold. Mr. Best felt that both of these bills, if passed, would hinder the Bbrough lands program. Ph% Haney disagreed. He feels that people should obtain land on a first come, first serve basis, and that the auction program only hikes prices and is not satisfactory. Mr. best felt that S13 363 would eliminate the control and planning of Borough lands, and that SD 364 would delay sane sales considerably. Mr. Weller suggested that the Commissioners study the bills and bring them up at a later date for more discussion if they wish. VII B. Request from Kodiak Disposal Co. to Incinerate Garbage (continued). Pk% Stover arrived and described the proposed incineration. There would be a . concreteburning pit, 30 feet square. It could later be built up into a regulation incinerator with a screen and dust collector. It will be oil fired and have a forced draft. Burning garbage as it canes in will help the rat problem considerably, since it will eliminate the rats which come in with the garbage, and will eliminate a source of food for them. There would be no fire hazard. After discussion, Mr. Haney moved, seconded by Mr. Wallace, that it be recommended to the Assembly that Mr. Stover be permitted to install the incinerator as planned for the future. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. XI F. Correspondence File. Mr. Best stated that a file of all incoming and outgoing correspondence is availble in the Borough Office for review. G. Assessor re Rezoning in Erskine Addition. Mr. Welch asked the Assessor rezoning to R-3 would affect the area tax-wise. Mr. Valkama stated that the effect would be minimal. There might be a slight increase in valuation if th demand for the property increased. XII AUDIENCE COMMITS A. Mr. Stansbury re Lack of Housing. Nr. Stansbury felt that the lack of housing and of new construction is caused by lack of mortgage money, and not by zoning problems. He cited several examples of building plans which were abadoned din to lack of financing. B. Mr. Stansbury re Case Against William Damery. Mr. Stansbury reported that iMr. Damery had received a suspended fine for violation of the exception granted him for a warehouse building which he used as a residence. The judge has ordered; the building to be vacated. XIII ADJOURNEOT - The meeting adjourned at 9:55 pan. APPROVED: Respectfully submitted John Wailer, thaixznan Sally Hendrix, Secretary PETITION bruary 27, ].96 REQUEST FOR REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPEZTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE ERSKINE SUB - DIVISION OF U.S. SURVEY No.gb RECORDED FEBRUARY 17, 1950, IN BOOK R, PAGE348, OF THE KODIAK RECORDING PRECINCT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF ALASKA. WHERE- AS : The undersigned property owners here -byr petition the Kodiak Planning and Zoning Commission and the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly to grant and or approve the rezoning from R2 to R3 the following described properties. Lot 67, Block 8 Lot 66, Block 8 Lot 65, Block 8 Lot 62, Block 8 Lot 61, Block 8 Lot 60, Block 8 Lot 59, Block 8 Lot 52, Block 7 Lot 51, Block 7 Lot 50, Block 7 Lot 49, Block 7 Lot 48, Block 7 Lot 103, Block 9 Lot 104, Block 9 Lot 105, Block 9 Lot 106; Block 9 Lot 107, Block 9 Lot 108, Block 9, Lot 109, _Block. 9_. Lot 110, Block 9 Lot 111, Block 9 Lot 112, Block 9 Lot 113, Block 9 Lat 114, Flock 9 Lot 56, Block 7 Lot 57 Block 7 Lot 58 Block 7 Lot 46 Block 7 Lot 47 Block 7 Don & Bonnie Slater Don & Bonnie Slater Don & Bonnie Slater Mike & Maryann Fitzgerald Mike & Maryann Fitzgerald R.C. & June S. Wilson R.C. & June S. Wilson Harold & Shirley L. Heglin Harold & Shirley L. Heglin Mrs. Edna Kraft Mrs. Edna Kraft Mrs. Edna Kraft John Tusvik John Tusvik Chris Berg Inc. Chris Berg Inc. John & Florence Welch John & Florence Welch Lynn & Gretchen Saupe Lynn: & Gretchen Saupe Victor & Dottie Williams Victor & Dottie Williams Harry & Mary Wallace Harry & Mary Wallace Jack, Jon & Anita Mann Jack, Joan & Anita Mann Jack, Joan & Anita Mann Christian Science Christian Science e 1,4 1 �� lc-" 9eLa 1. �� • i q,a,„,a -.„-w, Basis for this petition would show that at the time of previous zoning of these lots, the area taco still in the process of change and growth and as rot a fully developed residential section. Change and growth is still predominant, throughout the'entire Kodiak area. As a result of these changes and continued growth, the need to increase the limited quantity of land zoned for multiple purpose units prevails. It is common knowledge that a multiple duelling area best serves the community when it is within walking distance of the down town business district. The importance of this was expounded by FHA's Mr. Gagnon during his recent trip to Kodiak and mooting with the Kodiak Borough Assembly. The above described lots are so situated. --The-tracts-of-land covored by Chic . petition. -ar-o still _ largely undeveloped and__are situated in such proximity to other property's classified R-3, that the rezoning could only be considered and extension of ane existing R -3 area. Many people have been consulted and mach thought and consideration have been given to this plan for rezoning and its adaptability to the established zoning ordinance. It is firmly believed that the granting of this change would be in the best interest of public necessity, convenience and general welfare and in accordance with good zoning practices. PLEASE WE There are three copies of signatures of this petition. This was necessary as copies had to be mailed out of state for pxlperty owners signatures.. The three copies combined provide the original signatures of all petitioners. 4_r. L 4,1_1 (� _ I- '1 _' r - r . The:1ot' dy ed in__ ed gene render -- Est` o r rezn t . 1__t. __ E those r i r 'r 1 t • REQUEST FOR REZONING OP CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE ERSK.I E SUB -DIVISION OF U.S. SURVEY.No. 61, RECORDED FEBRUARY 17, 1950, IN BOOK R, PAGE348, OF THE KODIAK RECORDING PRECINCT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT; STATE OF ALASKA. WHERE- The undersigned property owners here byr,;petition the Kodiak Planning .. .and Zoning Commission and the Kodiak Island Borou*h Assembly to grant and or approve the rezoning from R2 to R3 the following described properties. Lot 67, Block 8 Lot 66,. Block 8 Lot 65, Block 8 Lot 62, Block 8 Lot .61, Block 8 Lot 60, Block 8 Lot 59, Block 8 Lot 52, Block 7 Lot 51, Block 7 Lot 50, Block 7 Lot 49, Block 7 Lot 48, Block 7 Lot 103, Block 9 'Lot 104, Block 9 Lot 105, Block 9 Lot 106, Black 9 YLot 107 bock — 9 -- Lot 108, Block 9 Lot 109, Block 9 Lot-1 iO Block 9— Lot 111, Block 9 Lot_112,_Block Lot 113, 113, Block 9 Lot 114, dock 9 Lot 56, -Block 7 J Lot 57 ,Block 7 Lot 58 Block 7 Lot 46 Block 7 Lot 47 Block 7 _Don & Bonnie Slater__ _______ Don & Bonnie Slater Don & Bonnie Slater Mike & Maryann Fitzgerald Mike & Maryann Fitzgerald R.C. & June S. Wilson R.Q. & June S. Wilson Harold & Shirley L. Heglin Harold & Shirley L. Heglin Mrs. Edna Kraft Mrs. Edna Kraft Mrs. Edna Kraft John Tusvik John Tusvik Chris Berg Inc. Chris Berg Inc. John & Florence Welch- John & Florence Welch Lynn & Gretchen Saupe `Lynn & Gretoheri - Saupe " Victor & Dottie Williams Victor - &- =Dottie -W 1i isms - - Harry & Mary Wallace Harry & Mary Wallace Jack, Joan & Anita Mann Jack, Joan & Anita Mann Jack, Joan & Anita Mann Christian Science Christian Science Basis fo r thdo gaetitic n v uld shots- that at tID tm of previous zoning of these lots, to € arca vp,,e the process of change_` niri growth and was not a fully developed residential section, Change and growth 1s ate predeminant, C3116 tno era tire Kodiak s:- .: As a result of the chimes end confirmed g et Z, the weed to increase the Limited quantity of land zoned for multiple purpose uni It le coon ImE t cdgo that a multiple) dwellin g area best sorves the it is within milking distance of the down tom business district, Tho Qg this was expounded by IRA's lir. Gagnon during hie .race trip to Kodiak and mooting. with �the�Kodiak Dorough Assembly. a o ho abc described loto aro so cite The tracts of land covered by this petition are still largely undeveloped a.nd are 3t i - fn ©t e i to .'other; prepertiys -clasSified R =6, that the z enif `- could may be considered and (=tension of arLe .eti R -3 area. Many people have been consulted end arch thought and consideration tavc been given to this plan for rezoning and its edaptebility to the established zoning a ' firely believed that the ;tuning a this charge would be in tho best interest of public necessity, convenience) and general. welfare and in accordance with good zoning pxactiae0. 'Fhe re aro throe copes of signatures of ary as copies had to be mailed out of stag , o e a aturec. The three Copies combined provide the s os all Tx it .onei0.e is tip ebruary 27, 1968 1.1..buEST FOR REZONING 0' CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE ERSKINE-SUB-DIVISION OF U.S. SURVEY No.`562$ RECORDED FEBRUARY 17, 1950, IN BOOK R, PAGE348, OF THE KODIAK RECORDING PRECINCT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF ALASKA. WHERE-AS: The undersigned property owners here -byr petition the Kodiak Planning and Zoning Commission and the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly to grant and or approve the rezoning from R2 to R3 the following described properties* \Lot 67, Block 8 Don & Bonnie Slater ` Lot 66, Block 8 Don & Bonnie Slater Lot 65, Block 8 Don & Bonnie Slater Lot 62, Block 8 Mike & Maryann Fitzgerald Lot 61, Block 8 Mike & Maryann Fitzgerald Lot 60, Block 8 ReC. & June S. Wilson Lot 59, Block 8 R.C. & June S. Wilson eTiot5 lin 20 Block 7 Harold & Shirley L. Hegl Lot 51, Flock 7 Harold & Shirley Le Heg342., Lot 50, Block 7 'Mrs. Edna Kraft Lot 49, Block 7 Mrs. Edna Kraft Lot 48, Block 7 Mrs, Edna Kraft Lot 103, Block 9 John Tusvik Lot 104, Block 9 'John Tusvik Lot 105: Block 9 Chris Berg Inc. Lot 106, Block 9 Chris Berg Inc. Lot, 107, Block 9 John & Florence Welch Lot 108, Block 9 John & Flcvnce Welch Lot 109, Block 9 Lynn & GretChen Sau Lcit-I10,-BIOCk 9 - LYnnikGre-tChea Sauji0- Lot. 111, Block .9 Lot 112, Block 9 Lot 113, Block 9 Lot 114, aock 9 Lot 56, Block 7 Lot 57 Block 7 Lot 58 Block 7 ot 46 Block 7 Lot 47 Block 7 Victor & Dottie Williams Victor & Dottie Williams Harry- & Mary Wallace Harry & Mary Wallace Jack, Joan & Anita ann Jack, Joan & Anita Mann Jack, Joan & Anita Mann Christian Science -- /VI:- Christian Science Basis for this petition would show that at the time of previous zoning of these- lots, the area was still in the process of change and growth and'was not a fully developed residential section. Change and growth is still predominant. throughout thesentire Kodiak area. As a result of these changes and continued growth, the noed to increase the limited quantity of land zoned for multiple purpose units Prevails. It is common knowledge that a multiple .dwelling area best serves the communitylAthen it is within walking distance of the doWri town business district. The importance of this was expounded by FHA's Mr. Gagnon daring his recent trip to Kodiak and meeting with the Kodiak Borough Assembly. •The above described lots are so situated. ----The tracts of land-covered-by this still largely undeveloped and are--- - situated in such proximity to other propertys classified R-3, that the rezoning could only be considered and extension of andexisting R-3 area. Many people have been consulted and much thought and consideration have been-given to this plan for rezoning and its adaptability to the established zoning ordinance. It is firmly believed that the granting of this change would be in the best interest of public necessity, convenience and general welfare and in accordance with good zoning practices, PLEASE NOTE There are three copies of signatures of this petition. This was necessary as copies had to be mailed out of state for pilerty owners signatures.. The three copies combined provide the original signatures of all petitioners. ICoe Alaska Novena er ::13 v 1964 Mr Charles .A. Powell Chairman Kodiak Island ,Borough Post ,Office Box `.1246 Kodiak, Alaska Dear Mr. Powcil In af'Ewer to your : -.req eat .for 'an o ° n3a" ,tq .the of of ng question: ?'Cana person : build on a lot ,ii the city which was legally ,subdivided and - individualJ!y owned before enactment of .current" .ordinances - even„ If ' the lot were- smaller than the required .mi.nimuM now set by the City or Borough ordinance ?.1. ,ala.ti es With re Please be advised as follows The ,gcrieral rule: of law seems te',be that 'nunicip- MO* validly proniulga,te' reasonableeriening regielations: newt to . Minimum: area or lot sites .:1 `141CJS 759 However, . this general'. rule ,of .: 'law is subject to certain limitations. - . There must be proper balance' .between. welfare and rights. ‘of private-' owner, and ' °zoning regulatiolvmay neither deprive individual owner of . all `beneficial use of his property,., nor impose upon him special hardships unnecessarily and unreasonably. The concept of zoning, . embodies ,a `clash of conflicting, es compromising -on , °: the one :. hand the, common law right of a to use his land' as he pleases provided it does' not.. create.' a` nuisance and on .the ethers hand the effort of the law making: .body, acting wider the police power', to limit the.iuse in order to promote,., the 'health ' safety, niorals and general welfare'; of he ' community. on ehe landownere, (?,) Their' effeet ;elf' any,, tin those to be e residential streets n r eSidentJ.alcdiitriCtS ; 'and-. (3 ) Their', effect on the public. More . specifically, this balancing of interests is • manifested °,relative to non-conforming uses in exi t!ence when zoning goes- into effect,` which, are protected against the public interest . in conformity. Not ; only with respect _ to non - conforming uses, but with respect to variances and exceptions,: the nature zoning as a balancing of public and. 'private interests is':illus tedo These variances and exceptions are to be permitted, generally . peaIcing, to prevent unique and unnecessary hardships or diffic- ulties in exceptional cases, consequent upon .enforcement , of the letter but not. in consonance with the spirit of zoning. ` . In other words a .the purpose of ` variance is to make more reasonable and hence, constitutional, the ,balance , struck between the public ` .. interest and zoning and opposing private interests. In. Volume 8, McQuillx n on municipal, corporations, Section 25.45, it is stated.- that it is a general rule that zoning cannot render private property valueless. The burdens °of govern- ment . must be equal. In other t, words,if the application of a zoning ordinance has the effect of completely depriving an owner of the beneficial use of his `property by precluding all practical uses or the 'only use to which it ia, reasonably adapted, the ordinance is invalid. Where it ,:ap pears ".that - that under existing . zoning r ctions , prope: Cy Lust . rep }lain for an unpredietable future, unimproved, unproductive and a . source of expense to the owners from having . taxes, . the zoning ordinance: is unreasonable as to such property. A zoning land for residential 'purposes is unreas- onable and confiscatory and therefore illegal where it is practic- ally impossible. tea . .se` the land in .,question, for residential .purposes, In the case of Long Island Research Bureau, Inc., vs. Young, 159 N S 2nd. 414, the Court said "On dividing = minicipality into districts` and prescribing minimum land dimensions for partic- ular .uses in such districtscruiu.cipal legislative bodies acts with constructive notice of existence thereon of evenesubstandard parcel held in a single, separate' ownership and has an absolute duty to rake adequate provisions for such par,ce1s ` and cannot snake them useless in limiting their use. And in the . case of Milano . v.' `Town "of Patterson, 93 NYS 2nd 419, the Court said "Where frontage of Plaintiff's land was aFproximately 234,` and ' zoning ordinance prohibited erection of building on land in zoning district in which Plaintiff's land was located, on, less than a 60' frontage, that Plaintiff's could never erect a building ' on land under ordinance, ordinance was invalid as .a` taking of land without just compensation, even though Board of Appeals could grant relief . so that some use of land could be made." tWhile there is a growing tendency to restric•t, in the .conceived interest of the commun ity, theuses of property and 17 le the Courts are disposed to sustain. those restrictions where they are reasonable, it must be remembered that those adversely affected naturally regard zoning restrictions and pro- hibitions as an unjust and unwarranted 'interference with their property rights. In this century there has been a disposition greather than ever before to use the police power to secure objects s rongiy 'h s atti.tude ' m ' is rights,. and assumes the . et iiralent " o sere i :g. ea' long and" n "eg i t , ',guaran ee9 , aY' :3e en .Y:a peri,ence 'as 'denier 4 e tzse cf the. �e ee. pow h "t ie c r.4.4 lats: c :the. • it every..v.ai e°.,of ,papula. t Oide _ and .ign r ; • ar�re "de!uanding 'Such': cants ggres er ona : lib ert.y `aid . iro ► stf ug and' pers.iste tal aid ed pe1.1..ng, public . necd, veriacii .ng. the constitui ionel: x d eff :eet as. des g edo truggle a ad' sacrifice; atental process;,. Acing re ctions` m eat . dor n, .that.:those charged airs -may net 9 ,:.: "n ci sregard . ` th'e r the government. despotic , sce a I.de 'or wiped rout tt�e r uclh , d1 spv s,it on he t ere "' a:; apular. J: Barr I3ox•792- A. Box 254,- City P. R2amaglia :Box 335 City Ch'ristian.Science:Society :Brix. 1697 .lutin. . Grothe.: Hegln'`: _ Box 1.1043: `.Potty- Hobbs I y Director, ".I It7D_ ion ;111 Northaest Area`' 50:Federal Office Bldg. �at11 ' Wash.. 98104. J. aller Box 1656 254' N. Sargent. J. Dwight. Box 121 _ Lox. 2487 City .. -City+ x. D. : $1ater Box "651 r. D.:Eields. C. =Nuns Box:, 25 Box 701 City= City L. Wittich Brix 46 .- •Panamaroff Wilton rT. White ; ; I 4ft 6, 2.- 23 51 39 6, 4- ) , s 8 7- 3 3 C;\--z- a=, . t 0 — t 2-q-7 -5 z R Lli-o 1357 • Gun vt" 4-1 S - Pck.vdNo+ 1 gl-f- 3 0 mo.te, v\ 07 1-1 gei b,A? .79 11141-51- Y3— .1eAL4- 710Z ` 116 " o-ra /sot — /e) — Lo 7— -3: s waus/0 r ‘‘ vk /act z_, / 0