The URL can be used to link to this page

KODIAK TWNST BK 8 LT 6A,B,C - Parking Plan Review (5)CITY CLERIC POST OFFICE DOA 1397, KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 June 6, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Kurt LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 TELEPHONE (907) 486-8636 REcEI- FD7) 486-8600 JUN6 890 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT RE: Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1989, Decision Denying a Request to Permit Five of the Seven Required Off -Street Parking Spaces To Be Located on Another Lot (Case 87-058) Dear Mr. and Mrs. LeDoux: The Kodiak City Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment heard the above case on June 5, 1990, and denied your appeal. The Board of Adjustment made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supporting that decision. Findings of Fact 1. In 1987, appellants purchased Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C of Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (219 Mill Bay Road), with the intention of converting the house which is on that property into a law office and an upstairs apartment. A variance permitting this change of use despite the fact that the house was too big for the lot(s) was sought and obtained by the appellants based in part upon their submission of a diagram showing that they intended to comply with the off-street parking requirements of Chapter 17.57 of the Borough Code by constructing a parking lot with space for up to eight vehicles in the back yard. 2. Appellants have converted the house to office use but have neither constructed the parking lot nor applied for a variance from the off-street parking requirements of the Borough Code. Those requirements mandate that appellants provide at least seven off-street parking spaces in order to use their property as an office. 3. On November 10, 1989, appellants requested that they be permitted to locate seven of the required parking spaces on property owned by Dr. Bob Johnson. The lots in question (Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision) are within 600 feet of appellants' property but not within line of sight of it. This request was later modified so as to apply to only five of the required seven off-street parking spaces. Mr. and Mrs. Kurt LeDoux June 6, 1990 Page 2 of 4 4. An unexecuted copy of a proposed lease between appel- lants and Dr. Johnson accompanied their November 10, 1989 request. The term of that proposed lease was "'year to year with the right of either party to terminate [it], upon six months notice to the other party." 5. The Community Baptist Church maintains a parking lot across Mill Bay Road from appellants' property. A post script to appellants' November 10, 1989 request concerning the reloca- tion of their off-street parking spaces suggests that they were considering the possibility of utilizing the church parking lot for these spaces but appellants have never produced any evidence demonstrating that the church was willing ,to enter into a binding agreement to permit its property to be used for this purpose. 6. Appellants' request was considered at the December 20, 1989 meeting of the Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. At that time appellant Kurt LeDoux stated his property was within 600 feet of the public parking lot adjacent to the intersection of Upper Mill Bay Road and Center Avenue and he requested that the Commission consider whether appellants could "use the down- town parking lot." This testimony is in conflict with a diagram submitted by the Borough staff, which shows. no part of that parking lot to be within 600 feet of appellants' property. 7. On December 20, 1989 the Planning and,Zoning Commission found that it was impractical for appellants to construct a park- ing lot in the back yard of their property. This finding, which is a prerequisite to consideration of appellants' request that they be permitted to located some of their required off-street parking spaces on property other than Lots 6A through 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that appellants may encoun- ter certain difficulties in constructing such 'a parking lot but none of them are insurmountable. In particular, it is to be noted the appellants themselves proposed the construction of such a parking lot as a condition to their obtaining the vari- ance permitting them to convert their property to office use. Furthermore, at the December 20, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting appellant Kurt LeDoux stated that, if required to do so, appellants could build the parking lot in question for between $3,000 and $4,000. 8. Before voting on whether or not to permit appellants to utilize Dr. Johnson's property for some of, their off-street parking requirements, the Planning and Zoning. Commission first discussed and imposed several conditions to any such arrange- ment, one of which was that appellants procure from Dr. Johnson Mr. and Mrs. Kurt LeDoux June 6, 1990 Page 3 of 4 an easement establishing appellants' permanent right to utilize this property for the required parking. Appellant Kurt LeDoux stated that appellants "could not possibly get easements from" Dr. Johnson or, impliedly, the Community Baptist Church for such a purpose. 9. The Planning and Zoning Commission acted reasonably in imposing the condition that appellants obtained a permanent easement encumbering Dr. Johnson's property or any other prop- erty they sought to use to meet their off-street parking obliga- tions. Neither, a lease revocable upon six months' notice, such as appellants proposed to obtain from Dr. Johnson, nor an unenforceable "gentlemen's agreement" such as they felt they had or could obtain from the Baptist Church, would promote the goal of assuring adequate off-street parking to support appellants' conversion of their property from residential to office use. 10. Likewise, permitting appellants to "use" the public parking lot at Center Street and Mill Bay Road to meet their off-street parking requirements would be illogical and anoma- lous. By proposing that they be relieved from their obligation to construct off-street parking on their own property because part of a public parking lot may lie within' 600 feet of it, appellants are essentially suggesting they be given a variance from the Borough's off-street parking ordinances. They have not applied for a variance, however; they have merely requested the right to locate the required parking spaces on a lot other than that upon which their office sits. "Using" parking available in a public parking lot no more meets appellants' off-street parking obligations than would a proposal to "use" on -street parking to meet those obligations. 11. Even after imposing a requirement'that appellants secure a permanent easement establishing their parking rights on Dr. Johnson's property, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny appellants' request to relocate five of the required off-street parking spaces to Dr. Johnson's property. The Com- mission found the property was not within the line of sight of appellants' offices, that the proposed parking would notviable even,?with adequate identification of the individual spaces, and that Mr. LeDoux indicated the proposed conditions of approval could not be met. There is substantial evidence in the record to support these findings and these findings adequately support the Commission's decision. 12. On February 21, 1990 at appellants' request the Commis- sion adopted further findings regarding appellants' use of the Baptist Church property and the downtown public parking lot. It found that appellants had not obtained permission of the Commun- ity Baptist Church to submit its property as, a viable parking alternative for Commission review. That finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Mr. and Mrs. Kurt LeDoux June 6, 1990 Page 4 of 4 13. The Commission also found that appellants had not for- mally requested the downtown parking lot be investigated as an alternative parking site and that appellants' property was not within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. These findings are also supported by substantial evidence in the record. They need not be relied upon, however, as permitting appellants or their clients to use the downtown public parking lot would do nothing to create the additional off-street parking contemplated by chapter 17.57 of the Borough Code. We further find that no substantial portion of the downtown public parking lot is within 600 feet of appellants' property. The most credible evidence on this issue appears to be the drawing found at page 36 of the record. Conclusions of Law 1. There is substantial evidence in the ,record supporting the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny appel- lants' request to relocate onto another lot five of the off- street parking spaces required in connection' with appellants' use of the building at 219 Mill Bay Road as an office and that decision should, therefore, be affirmed. 2. Appellants' appeal is denied. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DALKE, CMC/AAE City Clerk MHD/ms co: KIB Community Development Department Joel H. Bolger a II. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF TIIE CITY OF KODIAK HELD JUNE 5, 1990 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Brodie called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. Coun- cilmembers Ballad, Blackburn, Crowe, Gilbert, Iani, and Thompson were present and constituted a quorum. NOTICE OF MEETING Notice of the special meeting was published in the Kodiak Daily Mirror June 1, 1990. 111. PURPOSE OF MEETING Board of Adjustment Hearing RE: LeDoux Appeal of December 20, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission Decision The Council was sitting as the Board of Adjustment to hear Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux's appeal of the December 20, 1989, Xodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission deci- sion denying their request to permit five of the seven required off-street parking spaces to be located on another lot (Case 87-058). Mayor Brodie recessed the special meeting and opened the Board of Adjustment hearing. Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner, Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department, stated the Planning and Zoning Commission found it impractical to locate five of the seven required off-street parking spaces for the office/ apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite as it was unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public because a. the ingress and egress to the parking area was unsafe due to its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Mi11 Bay Road; b. construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to increased drainage; c. the location of the parking lot made it unlikely the public would utilize it; and d. the topography was such that construction would under- mine the adjacent lot. The Commission also found the relocation of five off-street parking spaces would not be effective in meeting the parking requirement for use on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Special City Council Meeting 1 June 5, 1990 Townsite because a. the proposed parking was not located within the line of eight of the uses to be served; b. the proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate identification of tho individual spaces and their location; and c. the applicant indicated the proposed conditions of -- approval -could not -be met even before the decision was - -- made by the Commission. At the request of the appellants, the Commission made the following additional findings at its February 21, 1990 meeting: a. the applicant did not obtain the permission of the Community Baptist Church to submit its property as a viable parking alternative for Commission review; b. when the applicant converted the property from a single-family dwelling to a professional office and apartment, no variance was requested to alleviate all ornt; some of the additional off-street parking require - c. the applicant did not formally request the downtown parking area be investigated as an alternative parking site in a timely fashion which would have permitted staff to prepare a report for the appearance request; and d. even though a variance would still be required for any additional off-street parking requirement created in the downtown area, the applicants' property was not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Dvorak went on to say each Commissioner had indicated it was impractical, but not impossible, to construct the park- ing behind the existing structure and in lieu of that a permanent parking agreement would be required. Therefore, the Community Development Department staff asked the Board of Adjustment to rely an the written record in arriving at its decision. Kurt LeDoux, appellant, said the case was adequately repre- sented by the record. He said it was unreasonable to require him to construct a parking lot he could not and would not use. He intended to continue to use the Community Baptist Church parking lot. In 1987 he requested a variance to put his office where it was presently located. Borough staf£member Bob Pederson visited the site and agreed a parking lot adequate for the proposed use could be built behind the structure. The variance was granted on that basis. Mr. LeDoux said when he hired a contractor to build the lot it became obvious it was not feasible. There were drainage problems, the fence next door was too close, and the parking lot would not comply with the Borough Code. If he had to, he would build the parking lot, but he would have to sign it as dangerous to use. He claimed there were more parking spaces available than he needed. There were two on Special City Council Meeting 2 June 5, 1990 his property and the entire parking lot at the Baptist Church. However, he was unable to obtain permanent ease- ments from either the Baptist Church or Dr. Bob Johnson. Under the Borough Code he could relocate the required off- street parking within 600 feet of his business. He claimed the public parking lot on Center Avenue at the foot of Mill Bay Road was within that radius. He felt the only practical solution was to continue parking at the Community Baptist Church. He suggested he be required to notify the City if his "gentlemen's agreement" with the Church changed in the future. In response to a question from Boardmember Iani, Mr. LeDoux could not remember whether he acquired the property before - or after the variance was granted. No other party had submitted a brief within the time limits prescribed by KCC 17.10.040. In response to a question from Boardmember Thompson, Mr. Dvorak said it was unusual, but not unheard of, to have required off-street parking on property owned by another party. In all such cases, the dedicated parking had a permanent easement. Mayor Brodie verified that the original variance had been granted on the assumption the required off-street parking would be constructed in the back yard. Mr. Dvorak said the Planning and Zoning Commission had subsequently determined it was impractical. The original acceptance of the parking plan submitted by Mr. LeDoux was based on a superficial survey of the parking sketched on an as -built survey. The determination of the impracticality was based on physical circumstances rather than cost. Responding to Boardmember Thompson, Mr. LeDoux said his course of action, if the appeal process had not been available to him, was to construct the parking lot. Boardmember lani MOVED, seconded by Boardmember Blackburn, to grant the relief requested by the appellants and reverse the Planning and Zoning Commission decision denying their request to permit five of the seven required off-street parking spaces to be located on another lot (Case 87-058). Boardmember Crowe MOVED to amend the motion by designating the required five off-street parking spaces to be located on the Community Baptist Church property contingent on execution of a permanent parking agreement with the Church. Mr. LeDoux immediately said the Church refused to grant a parking agreement because it did not want to tie up the property. The motion died for lack of a second. Special City Council Meeting 3 June 5, 1990 There was a short general discussion on what, if any, condi- tions should be attached to granting the appeal. There was a strong feeling that any agreement had to provide for a permanent parking easement in the event of sale of either property involved. There was a suggestion the appellant purchase part of the neighboring property to allow for adequate, safe ingress and egress to the area behind his building. Dr. Johnson's parking lot might not be a viably solution as the property had recently been sold. An; easement would require the parking spaces to be specificall: designated. The Board was concerned the original variance had been granted without an in-depth analysis of the parking plan. Mr. LeDoux admitted he had not submitted the parking plan to a contractor to determine its feasibility. Mr. LeDoux said his change in the use of the structure had not impacted the neighborhood or increased traffic to the area. The roll call vote on granting the appeal was Boardmembers Ballao and Thompson in favor and Boardmembers Blackburn, Crowe, Gilbert, and lani opposed. The motion failed and the appeal was denied. Boardmember Crowe MOVED, seconded by Boardmember Blackburn, to adopt the following: Findings of Fact 1. In 1987, appellants purchased Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C of Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (219 Mill Say Road), with the intention of converting the house which is on that property into a law office and an upstairs apartment. A variance permitting this change of use despite the fact that the house was too big for the lot(s) was sought and obtained by the appellants based in part upon their submission of a diagram showing that they intended to comply with the` - off -street parking requirements of Chapter 17.57 of the Borough Code by constructing a parking lot with space for up to eight vehicles in the back yard. 2. Appellants have converted the house to office use but have neither constructed the parking lot nor applied for a variance from the off-street parking requirements of the Borough Code. Those requirements mandate that appellants provide at least seven off-street parking spaces in order to use their property as an office. 3. On November 10, 1989, appellants requested that they be permitted to locate seven of the required parking spaces on property owned by Dr. Bob Johnson. The lots in question (Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision) are within 600 feet of appellants' property but not within line of sight of it. This request was later modified so as to apply to only five of the required seven off-street parking spaces. Special City Council Meeting 4 June 5, 1990 4. An unexecuted copy of a proposed lease between appellants and Dr. Johnson accompanied their November 10, 1989 request. The term of that proposed lease was "year to year with the right of either party to terminate [it) upon six months notice to the other party." 5. The Community Baptist Church maintains a parking lot across -Mill Bay Road from appellants "property. A post-" -- script to appellants' November 10, 1989 request concerning the relocation of their off-street parking spaces suggests that they were considering the possibility of utilizing the church parking lot for these spaces but appellants have never produced any evidence demonstrating that the church was willing to enter into a binding agreement to permit its property to be used for this purpose. 6. Appellants' request was considered at the December 20, 1989 meeting of the Borough Planning and Zoning Commis- sion. At that time appellant Kurt LeDoux stated his prop- erty was within 600 feet of the public parking lot adjacent to the intersection of Upper MS11 Bay Road and Center Avenue and he requested that the Commission consider whether appel- lants could "use the downtown parking lot." This testimony is in conflict with a diagram submitted by the Borough staff, which shows no part of that parking lot to be within 600 feet of appellants' property. 7. On December 20, 1989 the Planning and Zoning Com- mission found that it was impractical for appellants to construct a parking lot in the back yard of their property. This finding, which is a prerequisite to consideration of appellants' request that they be permitted to locate some of their required off-street parking spaces on property other than Lots 6A through 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that appellants may encounter certain difficulties in constructing such a parking lot but none of them are insurmountable. In particular, it is to be noted the appellants themselves proposed the construction of such a parking lot as a condition to their obtaining the variance permitting them to convert their property to office use. Furthermore, at the December 20, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission mooting appellant Kurt LeDoux stated that, if required to do so, appellants could build the parking lot in question for between 83,000 and 84,000. 8. Before voting on whether or not to permit appel- lants to utilize Dr. Johnson's property for some of their off-street parking requirements, the Planning and Zoning Commission first discussed and imposed several conditions to any such arrangement, one of which was that appellants procure from Dr. Johnson an easement establishing appel- lants' permanent right to utilize this property for the Special City Council Meeting 5 Juno 5, 1990 required parking. Appellant Kurt LeDOux stated that appel- lants could not possibly get easements from Dr. Johnson or, impliedly, the Community Baptist Church for such a purpose. 9. The Planning and Zoning Commission acted reason- ably in imposing the condition that appellants obtain a permanent -easement encumbering Dr. Johnson's property or any other property they sought to use to meet their off-street parking obligations. Neither a lease revocable upon eix months' notice, such as appellants proposed to obtain from Dr. Johnson, nor an unenforceable "gentlemen's agreement" such as they felt they had or could obtain from the Baptist Church, would promote the goal of assuring adequate off-street parking to support appellants' conversion of their property from residential to office use. 10. Likewise, permitting appellants to "use" the public parking lot at Center Avenue and Mill Bay Road to meet their off-street parking requirements would be illogi- cal and anomalous. By proposing they be relieved from their obligation to construct off-street parking on their own property because part of a public parking lot may lie within 600 feet of it, appellants are essentially suggesting they be given a variance from the Borough's off-street parking ordinances. They have not applied for a variance, however; they have merely requested the right to locate the required parking spaces on a lot other than that upon which their office sits. "Using" parking available in a public parking lot no more meets appellants' off-street parking obligations than would a proposal to "use" on -street parking to meet those obligations. 11. Even after imposing a requirement that appellants secure a permanent easement establishing their parking rights on Dr. Johnson's property, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny appellants' request to relocate five of the required off-street parking spaces to Dr. Johnson's property. The Commission found the property was not within the line of sight of appellants' offices, that the proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate identification of the individual spaces, and that Mr. LODeux indicated the proposed conditions of approval could not be met. There is substantial evidence in the record to support these findings and these finding adequately support the Commission's decision. 12. On February 21, 1990 at appellants' request the Commission adopted further findings regarding appellants' use of the Baptist Church property and the downtown public parking lot. It found that appellants had not obtained permission of the Community baptist Church to submit its property as a viable parking alternative for Commission review. That finding is supported by substantial evidence Special City Council Meeting 6 June 5, 1990 in the record. 13. The Commission also found that appellants had not formally requested the downtown parking lot be investigated as an alternative parking site and that appellants' property was not within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. These findings are also supported by substan- tial evidence in the record. They need not be relied upon, however, as permitting appellants or their clients to use tho downtown public parking lot would do nothing to create the additional off-street parking contemplated by chapter 17.57 of the Borough Code. We further find that no sub- stantial portion of the downtown public parking lot is within 600 feet of appellants' property. The most credible evidence on this issue appears to be the drawing found at page 36 of the record. Conclusions of Law 1. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny appellants' request to relocate onto another lot five of the off-street parking spaces required in connection with appellants' use of the building at 219 Mill Bay Road as an office and that decision should, therefore, be affirmed. 2. Appellants' appeal is denied. The roll call vote was Boardmembers Ballao, Blackburn, Crowe, Gilbert, and Iani in favor and Boardmember Thompson opposed. The motion carried. Boardmember Blackburn suggested the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend an amendment to KIB 17.57.030 making it clear the regulation referred to additional parking spaces. Mayor Brodie closed the Board of Adjustment hearing and reopened the special Council meeting. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Special City Council Meeting 7 June 5, 1990 Iro J1 CITY OF KODIAK AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1990 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Roll Call II. MEETING NOTICE Notice of the special meeting was published in the newspaper June 1, 1990 III. PURPOSE OF MEETING Hoard of Adjustment RE: LeDoux Appeal IV. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT V. MAYOR'S COMMENTS VI. COUNCIL COMMENTS VII. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED MAY 31 990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT M � ¶fill° SUBJECT: "'MARY: AGENDA SUMMARY Board of Adjustment Hearing RE: LeDoux Appeal of - December- 20, -1989-Planning and -Zoning -Commission Decision The Council is sitting as the Board of Adjustment to hear Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux'8 appeal of the December 20, 1989, Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission decision denying their request to permit five of the seven required off-street parking spaces to be located on another lot (Case 87-058). The hearing will begin with a presentation by the Com- munity Development Department. Next, the appellant's argument will be presented, followed by any other person submitting a brief within the time limits prescribed by section 17.10.040. According to KCC 17.10.060(c), only one argument can be presented by or on behalf of each party or interested person. The Board of Adjustment shall hear appeals solely on the basis of the record established before the lower admin- istrative body, the notice of appeal, briefs submitted prior to the hearing, and arguments at the hearing. After hearing all parties, the Board of Adjustment may affirm or reverse the decision of the Planning 6 Zoning Commission, in whole or in part, and must give the reasons for its decision. The Board's decision must be based on a motion to grant the relief requested by the appealing party. SUGGESTED COUNCIL MOTION: Move to grant tho relief requested by tho appellant and reverse the Planning and Zoning Conunission decision deny- ing their request to pormit five of the seven required off-utrucL parking upncau to 110 Zoon Lod on nnal.hur lot. (Casa 87-050). Move to adopt the following Findings of Fact ... LEDOUX APPEAL OF KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S DECEMBER 20, 1989 DECISION DENYING CASE 87-058 REQUEST FOR RELOCATION OF THE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED BY K/8 17.57.030 OFF-STREET PARKING --LOCATION LOTS 6A, 68, AND 6C, BLOCK 8, KODIAK TOWNS/TE 219 MILL BAY ROAD JUNE 5, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page KIB 17.68.010 (Appeals) 2 KIB 17.65 (Exceptions) 3 KIS 17.57.030 (Off -Street Parking --Location) 5 Board of Adjustment Procedures KCC Title 17 6 Notice of Appeal KCC 17.10.020(a) 9 Request To Continue Appeal 10 Record on Appeal KCC 17.10.030 Decision of 12/20/89 11 Additional Findings of 02/21/90 13 verbatim Transcript - 12/20/89 Meeting 14 Verbatim Transcript - 02/21/90 Meeting 31 Staff Report - 12/19/89 34 Regnant for Finding on Parking Variance 42 Written Statement (Appellant) KCC 17.10.040 47 Written Statement (Borough) KCC 17.10.040 57 Notice of Rearing KCC 17.10.050 62 r 17.68.010--17.68.020 Chanter 17.68 (APPEALS Sectionq: 17.68.010 Appeals from planning commission decisions. 17.68.020 Appeals from administrative decision. 17.68.010 Appeals from planning commission decisions. A. Appeal Initiation. An appeal from any action or decision of the planning commission may be taken by any person or party aggrieved. Such appeal shall be taken within ten days of the date of such action or decision by filing with the board of adjustment through the city or borough clerk a written notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. B. Report. A report concerning each case appealed to the board of adjustment shall be prepared by the community development office and filed with the appropriate clerk. Such report shall state the decision and recommendation of the commission together with the reasons for each decision and recommendation. All data pertaining to the case shall accompany the report. C. Stay. An appeal from a decision of the zoning officer stays the decision appealed from until there is a final decision on the appeal. (Ord. 83-40-0 §4(part), 1983). 17.68,020 Appeals from administrative decision. A. Decisions Appealable. The following decisions of the zoning officer are subject to appeal to the planning commission: 1. The denial of a building permit based on a lack of zoning compliance; 2. The issuance of an order under Section 17.75.010 (A) of this title. 8. Appeal Initiation. A decision described in subsection A of this section is final unless appealed to the planning commission within ten days of the mailing of notice of the decision. An appeal is commenced by filing with the community development department a written notice of appeal, specifically stating the reason for the appeal and the relief sought. An appeal under this section may be brought by any person aggrieved by the decision appealed. C. Public Hearing. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on each appeal. At the hearing, the commission shall review the appeal record and hear evidence and arguments presented by persons interested in the appeal. D. Decision. The planning commission shall either affirm or reverse the zoning officer's decision in whole or in part. E. Findings. Every decision of the planning commission on an appeal shall be based upon findings and conclusions adopted by the commission. The findings must be reasonably specific so as to provide the community, and where appropriate, reviewing authorities, a clear and precise understanding of the reason for the decision. 17-75 (KIB 1/90) 17.68.020--17.72.030 F. Stay. An appeal from a decision of the zoning officer eTh stays the decision appealed from until there is final decision on the appeal. (Ord. 83-40-0 §4(pert), 1983). Sections; 17.72.010 17.72.020 17.72.030 17.72.040 17.72.050 17.72.055 17.72.060 17.72.070 17.72.080 Chapter 17.72 AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES" Authority. Report from planning commission. Manner of initiation. Hearing an boundary change. Boundary change may include additional property. Submission to assembly. Hearing determination. Hearing--Required--Notice. Boundary change --Protest. 7.7 .010 Authority. Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice requires, the borough assembly may, by ordinance and after report thereon by the planning commission and public hearing as required by law, amend, /-‘ supplement, modify, repeal or otherwise change these regulations and the boundaries of the districts. (Ord. 83-58-0 §1(part), 1983). 17.72.020 Report from planning commission: The planning commission shall report in writing to the borough assembly on any proposed change or amendment regardless of the manner in which such, change is initiated and such report shall find: A. Findings as to need and justification for a change or amendments; B. Findings as to the effect a change or amendment would have on the objectives of the comprehensive plan; C. Recommendations as to the approval or disapproval of the change or amendment. (Ord. 83-58-0 §1(part), 1983). 17.72.030 Manner of initiation. Changes in this title may be initiated in the following manner: A. The borough assembly upon its own motion; B. The planning commission upon its own motion; " Prior history: Prior code Ch. 5 subch. 2 §§24A --24I; and Ord. 81-12-0 §7. 17-76 (KIB 1/90) 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 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--17.66.040 17.66.010 Authority and purpose. The planning commission shall review and act upon applications for variances. Variances are provided for by the chapter for the purpose of relaxing zoning district requirements in special circumstances (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 tha purposes of this chapter, property owner" means that land owner shown on the latest tax assessment roll. Notice shall also be provided in accordance with state law by legal publication in local newspapers. (Ord. 83- 40-0 53(part). 1983). 17-71 (KIS 1/90) 17.66.050--17.66.080 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. 8. 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, 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 §3(part). 1983). 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 §3(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). 17-72 (XI0 1/90) 17.66.090--17.67.030 /117.66.090 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 commission'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). Chapter 17.67 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Sections: 17.67.010 Intent. 17.67.020 Application and fee. 17.67.030 Site plan. 17.67.040 Public hearing. 17.67.050 Standards. 17.67.060 Stipulations. 17.67.070 Action by planning and zoning commission. 17.67.080 Appeals. 17.67.010 Intent. It is recognized that there are land uses which are generally considered appropriate in certain zoning districts; provided, that controls and safeguards are applied to insure their compatibility with permitted principal uses. The conditional use permit procedure is intended to allow consideration of the impact of the proposed conditional use on surrounding property, and the application of controls and safeguards to assure that the conditional use will be compatible with the surrounding area. (Ord. 81-31-0 §2(part), 1981). 17.67.020 Application and feq. A. An application to the community development department for a conditional use or modification of an existing conditional use may be initiated by a property owner or his authorized agent. B. An applicaiton from a conditional use shall be filed with the department on a form provided. The application for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by a filing fee of fifty dollars, payable to the Kodiak Island Borough. (Ord. 81- 31-0 §2(part), 1981). 17.67 030 Site plan. A detailed site plan showing the proposed location of all buildings and structures on the site, access points, drainage, vehicular and pedestrian circulation ("'\ patterns, parking areas, and the specific location of the use or uses to be made of the development shall be submitted with the 17-73 (KIS 1/90) 17.57.020--17.57.040 g. General auditorium, high school or college auditorium, theater, or eating and drinking establishment: one parking space for each three seats, based on maximum seating capacity; - h. Hospital: one parking space for each bed based on maximum capacity: - - - 1. Hotel: one parking space for each dwelling unit and one parking space for every three guest rooms; j. Industrial or manufacturing establishment: one parking space for each three employees during the maximum employee shift and one space for each company vehicle; k. Launderette: one parking space for each two washing machines; 1. Motel or boardinghouse: one parking space for each dwelling unit or guest room; m. Retail store or service shop: one parking space for each three hundred square feet of gross floor area; n. Warehouses and storage buildings: one parking space for each employee, but not less than seven spaces: o. Mini -warehouses: one parking space for each storage unit. 8. The off-street parking requirement fora use not specified in this section shall be the requirement for the use specified in this section whose parking demand characteristics the community development department finds to be most similar to those of the unspecified use. C. Where a principal building contains more than one use, the parking required for that building shall be the sum of the parking required for each such use. D. A parking space may meet the minimum parking require- ments for more than one use so long as it otherwise conforms to the requirements of this chapter for each such use and no hours of operation of any such use overlap the hours of operation of any other such use. (Ord. 84-60-0 §1(part), 1984: Ord. 80-18-0 §l(part), 1980). 17.57.030 Off-street parking--Locatiq . All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020 shall be on the same lot as, or a lot adjacent to, the principal building that they service; provided, that if the planning commission finds that it is impractical to locate the spaces on such a lot, it may permit them to be located on any lot within six hundred feet of the principal building. All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020 shall be located in a use district permitting the use which they serve. (Ord. 84-60-0 §1(part), 1984: Ord. 80-18-0 §1(p art), 1980). 17.57.040 parking area development standards. A. Any parking area, including any area on a lot that is used for vehicular circulation, storage, parking spaces, aisles, turning and maneuvering areas, driveways, and ingress and egress areas, shall be developed in accordance with this section. B. Surfacing and Drainage. 1. publicly owned parking areas that are open to the public shall be paved with concrete or asphaltic compound. 17-63 (KIB 1/90) 17.10.010--17.10.020 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 17.10.010 Appeals to tho board of adjustment. Tho city council, sitting as a board of adjustment, shall hear and decide the fol- lowing matters arising within the city: (a) Appeals iegacding alleged urrotu in enletcomuil el zoning ordinances and building codes; (b) Appeals trait decisions oI Lhu planning commission regard- ing concept or final approval of requests for special exceptions or conditional uses; or (c) Appeals from the decisions of tho planning commission on requests for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance which aro 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 S1 (part), 1978) 17.10.020 Notice of appeal. (a) An interested person may initi- ate an appeal to the board of adjustment by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ton days after tho action or decision appealed from and paying a filing fee of $50.00. (b) The city clerk shall transmit a copy of each notice of appeal received to the borough clerk and the planning department or other administrative officer of the borough involved in the action appealed within fivo working days of the receipt of the 17-01 (Kodiak 12/87) 17.10.030--17.10.040 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. (c) The notice of appeal shall identify the action appealed, shall contain a clear and concise statement of the grounds alleged for the appeal, and shall state appellant's name ;-. address. (d) If a charge or bond is required by the borough of Kodn. Island for the preparation of the record, appellant shall ., notified of that charge, fee, or bond, and appellant shall be responsible for satisfying any such borough requirements. (Ord. 720 51, 1984: Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.030 Record on appeal. (a) The record on appeal shall con- sist of the following: (1) A verbatim transcript of the proceedings before the admin- istrative body from which an appeal has been taken, if those proceedings were taped or otherwise recorded in their entirety. If the proceedings were not recorded, copies of any approved minutes, summaries or other records of the proceedings; (2) Copies of all memoranda, exhibits, correspondence, recom- mendations, analyses, maps, drawings, and other documents submit- ted to the administrative body prior to tho decision from which the appeal is taken; (3) A copy of the written decision of the administrative body, including les findings and conclusions; and (4) A list of the names and addresses of all persons appear- ing an witnesses at the hearing. (b) When tho record has boon completed, it shall be transmit- ted from the borough to tho city clerk. Upon receipt of the record, the city clerk shall, within five working days, send copy of the notice of appeal, by regular mail, to all persc appearing au witnesses in the hearing of tho administrate 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 record shall be provided to any person on request upon payment of reproduction costs. (Ord. 720 52 S 53, 1984: Ord. 528 S1 (part), 1978) 17.10.040 Written statement. The appellant may file a written statement summarizing tho facts and setting forth pertinent points and authorities in support of the allegations contained in tho notice of appeal not more than fifteen days after the clerk has given notice of completion of the record. The borough -staff and any interested party wishing to filo a written statement in opposition to tho appeal nay do so within fifteen days after 17-02 (Kodiak 12/87) 17.10.050--17.10.060 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 54, 1984: Ord. 528 51 (part)_ 1978)_.___ 17.10.050 Notice of hearinq_ The clerk shall set a date for the hearing of the appeal at a regular or special meeting of the coun- cil, or at a meeting of the council sitting as a board of adjust- ment, to be held not less than ten nor more than twenty-one days after expiration of the timo for filing 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 tho administrative action being appealed, not loss than five days before the hearing date. (Ord. 720 55, 1984: Ord. S28 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.060 Nearing. (a) The board of adjustment )roaring may be conducted at any regular or special meeting of the council, by mooting as a board of adjustment or by recessing the council meeting and convening the council as a board of adjustment to hoar tho appeal. Tho mooting of tho board of adjustment, in- cluding any deliberations, shall bo 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 arguments 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 testimony, 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 testimony 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 tho decision is being appealed. Tho testimony shall be limited to matters discussed at the previous hearing, and no new evidence will be received. (e) Tho hearing of the board of adjustment may be recessed 17-03 (Kodiak 12/87) 17.10.070--17.10.090 and reconvened from time to time as determined to be necessary by - . the_board. (Ord._528 51_(part), 1978) ---"17.10.070'New-evidence-or-changed-circumstances.- -Appeals-alleg-- — ing new evidence or changed circumstances shall not be heard by the board of adjustment. 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 51 (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 arguments at the hearing. (b) The board of adjustment may exorcise its independent judg- ment on legal issues raised by the appeal. Legal issues aro those matters that relate to the interpretation or construction of ordinances or other provisions of the law, or the application of case iaw to the facts as presented. (c) Action of tho board of adjustment on the appeal shall bo based upon facts which are supported in the record by substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence" means the record provides a sub- stantial basis from which the fact in issue might bo reasonably inforred. (Ord. 528 5f (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 minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, 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 requested or previously granted. (0) 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 bo 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 find- ings, conclusions, and decision shall be reduced to writing, either during or subsequent to the hearing, signed by the mayor, 17-04 (Kodiak 12/87) 4'i 17.10.100--17.10.110 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 determination of the planning commission. (Ord. 528 51 (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 part 6, rule 95, 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 y1 (part), 1978) 17.10.110 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (a) "Interested person" means a municipal officer or other person directly or indirectly affected by the decision being appealed. (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 51 (part), 1978) 17-05 (Kodiak 12/87) - -CITY—OF- $ODIA7K 5I In the matter of Appeal of decision 6 of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning Iand Zoning Commission concerning Kurt 7 1 and Gabrielle LeDoux, d/b/a/ LeDoux & 8 LeDoux 9'1 10I 11 12 13 14 Appellants. Board of Adjustment Case No. Planning and Zoning Commission Case No. 87-058 NOTICE OF APPEAL COMES NOW, Appellants, Kurt M. Leboux and Gabrielle LeDoux, d/b/a LeDoux & LeDoux, and they hereby give notice of their appeal of the decision of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning 15 and Zoning (P&Z) Commission decision, dated December 21, 1989, 16: a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 171 GROUNDS OF APPEAT 18' 1. The P&Z Commission acted in excess of its authority in 1191 deciding the issue of alternative parking for Appellant's place 20 1 of business located at 219 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. 21 1 2. The P&Z Commission abused its discretion in refusing 22 to permit Plaintiff to use as alternative parking property owned 23 by Dr. Bob Johnson, M.D., and/or the property owned by Community 24 Baptist Church, and/or the downtown parking lot owned by the 26' City of Kodiak. 20' 27 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2) 28 3. The P&Z Commission failed to make findings of fact as to the possible use of Community Baptist's parking lot and the down -town parking lot owned by -the City -of --------- 4.-- - 4. The P&Z Commission acted ,in an arbitrary and capricious manner in denying Appellants' application to use alternative parking for their place of business. RELIEF SOUGHT 1. A reversal of P&Z's decision denying them the use of reasonable alternative parking for their place of business. 2. Requiring the P&Z to make any needed additional findings of fact as why the Community Baptist parking lot and the downtown parking lot are not reasonable parking alternatives for Appellants' place of business. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this C ledoux.3\notice dry of December, 1989. LeDOUX & LeDOUX ATTORNEYS AT LAW BY& Kukt '--D"x,ttorney £oriAppellants t cortlg_nil a lff ie; at r7rMn,,,f eetved a Irue 'ma correct ted; of the above oe eaee eitatne1 ai ttettr4I ON manta'? jt,'l 14tv';t 0:7V0q NOTICE OF APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 i COMES NOW, Appellants through their attorney, Hurt M. 11 LeDoux, of LeDoux & LeDoux, Attorneys at Law, and they request 12 that their appeal be continued and/or held in abeyance pending 13 additional factual findings by the Kodiak Borough Planning and 14 Zoning commission. 15 16 Zoning Commission to make additional findings as to possible use 17 of alternative parking for their property located at 219 Mill 18 Bay Road. A copy of the letter to the Kodiak Planning and 19 Zoning Commission is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 20 A granting of this motion will save possible piece -meal 21 appeals, and will result in a savings of�time to all parties. .3w -dam 22 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this - �J -day of January, 1990. CITY OF KODIAK In the matter of Appeal of decision of tho Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission concerning Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux, d/b/a/ LeDoux & LeDoux ) Appellants. ) ) REQUEST TO CONTINUE APPEAL Planning and Zoning Commission Case No. B7-058 Appellants have requested the Kodiak Borough Planning and 23 24 25 26 27 r 01111111111 SA le In 11 3-209`9191 t IORt ,trued a true end cerree4 tope of the above 1e tad ettofeee et wort 1a At f5,04".. fella mni� 6-4 o.eep r.q 1wk. B LeDOUX & LeDOUX ATTORNEYS AT LAW 28 ledoux.3\cont.app I I tKUX & 14s{)otJX ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 MILL BAY ItoA) KOa1AK. ALASKA 99615 09071 486.4082 FAA 19071 4002004 January 17, 1990 Ms. Linda Freed Community Development Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Re: Appeal of P&Z decision on parking variance 219 Mill Bay Road owned by Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux Areoa Ira a.r., sane' Yom e1 Dear Ms. Freed: I am requesting that the P&Z make formal findings as why my request to use the Kodiak Community Baptist Church parking lot or the City of Kodiak down -town parking lot was denied by the P&Z commission. I am requesting these findings so the Kodiak City Council can rule on my appeal concerning all reasonable alternative parking solutions. Thank you. Very tru a/yours, rtVM. LeDoux KM'/keo enc c.c. Joel Bolger Mel Stephens II ledoux.7\ltr.10 Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL RAV ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 666-5716 December2l, 1989 Re: Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (00 -street parking -Location) of the Borough Code to: find that 11 Is Impractical to locale any of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 6, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate an another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 MITI Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on December20, 1989: A. Adopted finding number one (1) contained In the staff report dated December 19, 1989, pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that it is impractical to locate at least live (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. FINDINQ OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is Impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux - December 21, 1989 Page Two office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 68, and 60 would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public because of the following: a. the ingress and egress to the panting area Is unsafe due to Its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Upper Mill Bay Road; b construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to the increased drainage; c. the location of the parking lot makes it unlikely that the public would utilize the parking lot; and rL the topography is such That it would undermine the adjacent lot Adopted the following finding in support of their decision, pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to deny relocation of the off-street parking required for Lots BA, 68, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision: 1. The relocation of five (5) off-street parking spaces would not be effective In meeting the parking requirement for uses on Lots 6A, 68, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite because of the following: a. the proposed parking is not located within the line of sight of the uses to be served; b. the proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate Identification of the Individual spaces and their location; and a the applicant indicated that the proposed conditions of approval could not be met even before the decision was made by the Commission. I/ Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December 21, 1989 Page Three An appeal of these decisions may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal, the relief sought by the appellant, and be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effective until ten (10) days following the decision. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, S Community Development Department cc: Joel Bolger, Jamin Ebell Bolger & Gentry Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 MVI Bay Road Kodiak Alaska 99615 KodlakIslandBorough 710 MILL SAY ROAD KODAK; ALASKA 97615.634 _-- PHONE (907) 46.5736- - February 22, 1990 Re: Ease 87-058. Request for additional 'Findings of Fact' for the denial of a request for Planning aid Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking–Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking Is Intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 8C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte; 219 Mill Bay Road (The Commission dented this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 21, 1990, adopted the following additional 'Findings of Fad' for the request cited above: The applicant did not obtain the permission of the property owner, the Community Baptist Church, to submit the property as a viable parking alternative for Commission review. 2. When the applicant converted the property from a single-tarrtliy dwelling to a processional office and apartment, no variance was requested to alleviate all or some of the additional off-street parking requirement. 3. The applicant did not formally request the downtown parking area to be Investigated as an alternative parking site In a timely fashion which would have permitted staff to respond to the Commission In the staff report that was prepared for the appearance request. Kodiak IslandBomugh ,_-- -- —Kurt and GabdWe t-6Doux -- February 22, 1990 Page Two 4. Even though a variance would still be required for any additional off-street parking requirement created In the downtown area, the applicants' property Is not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department Sincerely, Pa dcia Maley, 5 Community Development Department cc: Joel Bolger, JAMIN EBELL BOLGER & GENTRY /3 Kodiak Island Borough CERTIFICATE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: the Appearance Request in the matter of: Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking—Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the seven (7) required oft -street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 613, and 80. Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot: and 2. to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required of( - street parking spaces to Locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is Intended to serve. Lots 6A, 60, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Patricia ' it , Secretary Community Development Department r!9 Kodiak Island Borough PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPEARANCE REQUEST ITEM C Case 87.058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Ott -street parking --Location) of the Borough Code lo: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure cn the lot; and 2. to permit five (6) of the seven (7) required off- street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is Intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) The above-cited Appearance Request was heard on December 20, 1989, In the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The meeting was conducted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, Robin Heinrichs. Kodiak Island .8o rough TOM HENDEL: [indecipherable] TOM HENDEL: (indecipherable] KURT LEDOUX: TOM HENDEL: KURT LEDOUX: Vete n, Transalpl Appearance Roquost Rom C We are now at Audience Comments and Appearance Requests. This Is the time where anyone wishing to speak on any matter that Is not scheduled for a public hearing • please come lanyard, sign In, and slate your name. Duane, but he's not scheduled for a public hearing I'll just try to be brief on my variance. Please state your name and sign in. I'm Kurt LeDoux and I guess this is Case number 87- 058. I've read the memorandum that Duane has prepared. He's done a very nice job. The only problem I stili have is that I could not possibly get easements from these people. They are willing to - Doctor Johnson wanted to lease me the property; the church Is willing to let me have the property permanently, but they are not going to give me a permanent easement on It. I have a rather low profile law firm. I have space. I can build two (2) parking spaces. Most of my clients don't even live in Kodiak. We filter our clients; we never have more than one (1) client visit us. I can park my car across the street at the church; 1 can park it at Doctor Johnson's place, I can rent 11 there; and i think you should also consider whether I can use the downtown parking lot. 1 am within six hundred (600) feat of the downtown parking lot. Mr. Sullivan says it's no problem with me using it. Pope 1 of 32 P 8 2: December 20, 1939 TOM HENDEL: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: KURT LEDOUX: TOM HENDEL: So I think there is reasonable alternatives available to mei -I see other -businesses in town such as The Bakery - they have a lack of proper, adequate parking spaces and they are allowed to do this. 1 am a small business person. it I am required to, t'11 build a parking lot, but I don't see any need for it. It would be an expensive, useless parking lot. If that's what you want me to do, I will do it; but I think there is reasonable alternatives available. You have any questions? Mary Lou. I havea comment. rm still kind of undecided of what I am going to do, but I know when you came In for your variance to convert the house into your law office that one (1) of the requirements was the parking; and we were concerned at that time about the parking; and you said there was no problem; and, that was, we based our decision on that because you were going to be providing off-street parking. I agree and i went out there, went out there, - I can't remember, was it Bob Shuttlesworth or who was it - went out there and we both looked at it and we agreed it could be built. Then I got contractors out to look at it and they said no it would be rather difficult. I mean I can build it, but it has drainage problems that we did not foresee at the time. It would be cheaper for me to build the parking lot than to pay Doctor Johnson ninety dollars ($90) a month forever. I can probably build it for three - four thousand dollars ($3,000 - $4,000) but I am going to end up with a parking lot that is not really usable and I am looking for, proposing a reasonable alternative to building that parking tot which would not have much use. Jon. Verbatim Tmnealpt Appomnnao Request Ilam C Popo 2 o139 P & 2: December 20, 1009 (5 JON HABIT: What II you later on take on a partner and you do need the use of more parking. KURT LEDOUX: TOM HENDEL: WAYNE COLEMAN: KURT LEDOUX: TOM HENDEL: KURT LEDOUX: TOM HENDEL: V.,bum Traaalq Appia n:a Plaguing 11em C Welt, t still have the church available to me; I still have the downtown parking available to me; I still have Doctor Johnson's space that he would rent me; and I have also talked to Craig Bishop, over the hillside, he said he would lease me spaces too. I do not anticipate taking on a partner, if I do I'll probably put him in my Anchorage office because most of my clients fight now live in Anchorage. Any further questions? Go ahead. It's not what we personally want to see happen, but it is a Code requirement and regardless of what has transpired in the past, a certain number of off-street parking spaces are requiredfor such an activity and that is basically the way we see it. Well that is why I think there Is reasonable alternatives where I can find enough adequate parking spaces • I have Doctor Johnson; I have the downtown parking lot; and I have the church who has just agreed to let me use their parking without cost. When this case is up for tonight's Casa C, here under Appearance Requests, so if there aren't any, if you have no further comments, I am sure you will be available for questions at that time. Is that is this going to • 1 don't understand the procedure here. Okay, this is not a public hearing so unless you have further comments at this time then the Commissioners could ask you questions at the time that your case comes up even though Page 3 o132 P 1 2: Dacombar 20, 1080 KURT LEDOUX: TOM HEN DEL: TOM HENDEL: DUANE DVORAK: TOM HENDEL: DUANE DVORAK: TOM HENDEL: ... I don't understand, oh excuse me. We have not even gotten to Case A; you are CaSe C and If, unless you have any further comments at this time then they could ask you questions at that time. So anyone else in the audience wishing to comment on anything not scheduled for a public hearing? Seeing none we'll go on to Case A. (The Commission conducted other business.) ... Case C. This is Case 87-058. A request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57,030 of the Borough Code to: t. find that it Is impractical to locale any of the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 68, and 5C, Block 6, Kodiak Townsile due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces - Duane that should be less? What's That? Is that Tess than eight (8) now? If you noticed in the other staff report I had determined that, based on new Information from the Assessing Department, that it is rounded down to seven (7) rather than rounded up to aigM (8). Okay. and to permit the seven (7) required off•street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which Vorballm Transalpt Appaorann noquoet Isom a Pogo 4 o132 Pa Z: conmbot 20, 'sae WAYNE COLEMAN: TOM HENDEL: WAYNE COLEMAN: BRUCE BARRETT: TOM HENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: TOM HENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: vorbab,n Tmmc'pt AppearanW request Item o permits the same land use as the required _ parking,is Intended to serve., _ - __ Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsile; 219 Mill Bay Road. And I would like the Commission to decide whether I have a conflict of Interest In thls case as I am the immediate next door neighbor and I did step down when the case first came before the Commission. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I do not believe that there is an intense conflict of Interest involved; however, If you would feel more comfortable about It I would certainly think perhaps you could be excused on that basis. I think you are a little too close to the project site. Okay. Robin. I guess I feel that even though, maybe, the strict test for conflict of interest is not mel, I Think you are going to give the impression of lack of impartiality. Okay, I agree. I will pass the gavel to the Vice Chairman and step down. This Is Case 87-059. Request for Planning and Zoning review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57,030 (Off-street parking—Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite Page 5 of 32 P 8 Z; December 20, 1989 JON HARTT: ROBIN HEINRIGHS: DUANE DVORAK: due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and - - - - 2. to permit the eight (8) off-street required, the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feat of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking Is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsile; 219 Mill Bay Road. What Is the wish of the Commission on this? Would you like about five (5) minutes to read the new memo? Yes, please. 1'11 recess the meeting for five (5) minutes. [Recess.] I'll convene the regular meeting. Duane did you have anything to add to the report that is before us? You have the additional memorandum that staff has prepared. Basically, 10 sum up, based on the observation by the Commission at the packet review, the Code was reviewed. The Code is permissive on whether or not the parking would be required to be relocated if the finding was that there was an impracticality in locating the parking behind the existing office building. So, the motion was separated to address the impracticality of the parking and the relocation of the parking separately, as well as the separation of the findings In support of the recommendation. In addition, there was a vicinity map Included which has a six hundred (600) foot Verbatim Transcript Appearance RequestItem C Page 6o132 P8Z December 20, 1919 /7 ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: Verbatim Tatucapl Appennoo Request Item C circle centered on the right rear corner of the subject lot to give the Commission an idea of what the relative location of the properties being reviewed are. Thank you, Duane. What is the wish of the Commission on the matter before us? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barrett. I move to adopt finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that it is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Mary Lou. I have a question of staff. If this Is no longer, if this is just an office building, does That change any of the parking requirements? 1 am not sure I understand the question. It says here for the office and apartment. Now he needs two (2) spaces for that apartment. Coned. But if it was all office The apartment would have to be addressed separately. In other words, if it were alt considered to Page 7 32 P & Z: December 20, 1989 MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: be office, we would have to go on the gross Boor area of the whole structure which would still require a couple of additional spaces even though That apartment area would be reclassified as part of the business structure. So the same amount of parking would be required whether or not there was II would probably be pretty close; 1 do not have an exact figure, but it would be pretty close to the same as it Is now. Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman, I have been to look at this site and I tend to agree that it is impractical; it probably should have been addressed when this project originally came up. I do see the need for parking and t guess I am leaning toward going along with this, that it is impractical and that that does not negate the responsibility of the party to provide off-street parking and I will probably address the distance for that off- street parking in the second proposal here. But I guess my main concern is that the - between the fence and the structure there is approximately nine (9) feet - I think it was nine point four (9.4) feet and with the icy road conditions and restricted visibility I can see cars actually sliding Into the building and the desirability of parking back there in terms of attracting the clientele into that parking lot - well, it might not be very realistic - they would probably end up parking on the street anyway and just avoiding that, so I am leaning towards voting that this thing is impractical. Mr. LeDoux did you want to address the motion before us? Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Ilam C Page 90132 P & 2: December 20. 1989 KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: Vortadm Transcript Appoamnm Roquosi Imm 0 I do not know I1 there Is anything to add except that I . measured- off- of a tape measure the downtown packing lot is within six hundred (600) feet of my office. 1 had to go about fifty (50) feat inside the parking lot - by the First National Bank of Anchorage there. So I do have alternative parking space downtown that is available to me. Mr. LeDoux - Mr. Chairman Yes. Mr. Barrett. I have been down to that parking lot almost every day and it seems to be quite crowded. I assume you have been down there recently - It is congested already to the best of my knowledge - and there is already several people who have Issued complaints to me that maybe there was some poor planning in the downtown area in terms of providing parking space and this is not just in the Christmas period and so I guess personalty I do not really see it as a real viable option. 1 mean people are not going to walk six hundred (600) feet to your business from a practical perspective. Whoever wrote the Borough Code decided that six hundred (600) feet was a reasonable distance to walk. I feel like I should have the same rights every other small businessman In Kodiak has; and I am a small businessman and I am Just trying to make a living; I have got space available to me at the church; I have got space available to me at Doctor Johnson's offices; and I really do not need all that space. I have got a big building but I do not use very much of it. Is there an option - that IM that Is Just down slope Irom the church • I guess It Ls Lot 2 across from the Flsh and Game Building - who owns that? Is it a Borough lot or a City lot? Papa 00102 a P62: Docombor 20,1000 KURT LEDOUX: DUANE DVORAK: BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: Vo0 elm TmmPlpt Appoomn0a Ruquast Rom C That Is a City lot. That is a City lot. Is thal an option for you? I asked the City to lease that and They said no because Fish and Game may want to expand there some day although Flsh and Game had no objection to me leasing that property. You know what they might do and what they are going to do Is not necessarily - I find that hard to understand why the City would not lease it for a parking lot. What about the church. You said In one statement that they would provide you permanent use of that however they would not give you a permanent easement. That is right. They do not want their land lied up and I have to agree with that, it I were their lawyer I would have to recommend against that. Then They cannot really give you permanent use of it. They have said they would let me park my car there; it Is Just a neighbor to neighbor thing and I am sure If there is, would be some, they would revoke it. There would be some procedure where they could notify you that I no longer have a right to park there. I can put two (2) cars along the side of my house still; there is space there. I can tell you how may cars our total office uses - my wife has a car; I have a car: my secretary has a car - I am out of town one to two (t to 2) weeks a month and it is not really a high Impact here. I think my neighbor, Wilton White, has commented that he sees no increased use or increased parking since t moved in there. Papa 100102 P62: Docanber 20, 1000 /7 BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: KURT LEDOUX: WAYNE COLEMAN: 2 A Verbatim . pr(,I Appearance AMUMI Ilam C Yes, I Just wonder what the assurance that your business won't grow and you won't sell your business and change ownership and get a business In there that would generate more traffic. I do not see any - I do not have any plans to expand my business. III expand It Is going to be towards Seattle or Anchorage where I have got quite a few clients rigid now. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Wayne. The absence of any written document that would allow you to use parking space elsewhere - I cannot see much of any supporting criteria for this. Going way back to the original granting of a variance to convert that residential area to business that was a condition at that time, was it not? That Is right. Of course, by your own words too you know you could build a parking lot in the back of your business building cheaper in the long run than renting space from Holmes Johnson Clinic. in fact the pay back, it t heard my numbers right, the pay back would be less than three (3) years which is quite a phenomenal short term pay back. And again, without some paper - some firm criteria and the proper parties being the signatory thereto, t just cannot see the supporting evidence. Pape 110132 P 6 2: December 20, 1989 KURT LEDOUX: WAYNE COLEMAN: KURT LEDOUX: ROBIN HEINRICHS: JON HARTT: KURT LEDOUX: Verbatim Tronsclpt Appearance Request Item 0 • But Doctor Johnson was going to give me a written lease, but it was not a permanent easement, where he could give me notice that I would have to vacate the property and I guess at that point I would have to find alternative parking spaces such as from Mr. Cralg Bishop. Now he has the property that is just over the hill; but he is not going to give me a permanent easement either. But you know ii Is all well and good and I am sure there is a tot of good, well Intentioned people Involved In this thing - the church saying yes you can use the space, and somebody else proposing this and that and everything - but without something to attach to this file there would not be anything binding In the future to require that and sure things have gone on in the past that have created parking problems and everything and we did not have the Code as enforced at that time or we did not even have the Code to enforce it In some cases, but in this day and age it is Just - it seems like a very real necessity to ascribe to, you know the guidelines that they set down for whatever criteria - in this case, off-street parking. All I have got to say is that Doctor Johnson will give me a written lease for it and t would have to find alternative parking if the lease expired. I do not see any reason why (indecipherable) to be honest with you he would be making ninety dollars ($90) for five (5) spaces that I probably would not need to - would only use one or two (1 or 2) spaces of that. Mr. Ham. Mr. LeDoux, what would happen if you sold your business property to a real estate company. A real estate company? Page 12 8132 P62: Docombor2o, 1989 JON HARTT: KURT LEDOUX: JON HARTT: KURT LEDOUX: JON HARTT: KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: VONatlm Trwvlpt Appoereaoe Roquoat Item C Yes, or say something like that who would actually need those six (6) spaces, where would they go? - — I, it I sold the I mean we have to think about this you know five (5) years from now, ten (10) years. You mean the space I lease from Doctor Johnson? No, f mean the business property. What if you sold it to a real estate company, where would they park? I suppose that they would make the same arrangements that I did, I do not have any plans of selling the property. (indecipherable) Mr. LeDoux, can you obtain a lease from the church? (indecipherable) Cart you have something in writing from the church regardless if it is at zero (0) cost or as you say, Indefinite? Can you have something in writing from the church that gives you a legal lease on that property for some sort of timeframe? I seriously do not think I can go back and ask them - but their feeling was that they did not want to get tied down to anything legal. As their neighbor, they said I could use 11 and they had no problem with that. But they felt that there might be problems at the First Baptist Church, the Frontier Baptist had entered into some kind of lease arrangement. Papo 19 0132 P & 2: Docambor 20, 1939 ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: KURT LEDOUX: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: KURT LEDOUX: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: KURT LEDOUX: ROBIN HEINRICHS: Verbatim Trov taipl Appooranca Request Dom C Okay, the motion before us has to do with the -practicality of these parking spaces, is there any other discussion on that? Mary Lou. Mr. LeDoux. Yes. The impracticality ol, I am correct In assuming That, the Impracticallly of constructing these parking spaces is the narrow driveway, the site, and the drainage which would affect the downhill property. I think that Duane, here, listed a whole lot of other facts that I had never even thought of. Okay and you, has the contractor said that they could do it or They can do it, they can go in there and flatten it out, it will cause water to drain under my house. t have measured it, I mean I can clear my car through there. We start getting Ice and I suspect to be sliding down towards the house; it can be done, it is just not a really practical solution and I mean I will, if you want me to build 0, 1 will build the parking lot. But 1 am just trying to offer some reasonable alternative to I guess 1 would point out to the Commission, too, that I think, at this time, the motion is adoption of a finding of fact; and after our discussion last night, I would suggest we make sure the finding of fact Is what we want, if we are going to adopt this part of the motion. As I read the finding of fact, it talks about - this is right on page four of four (4 of 4) - it talks about the parking, it would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public. Now I do not know if we want to go further to say in what way it would be unsafe so that it Is clear In the motion that we vote. it is a matter Page 14 cl 32 P A 2: December 20, 1309 4}2, MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: VoltaOm Transcript p2Appoutnm Raquel*, Itgn C of, if you want to do further findings of tact, then we should do That until after the motion. Mr. Chairman. Ms. Knudsen. 1 would like to defer the finding until after the motion. has been voted on. Like it I would be amending the motion. I would suggest since the finding is the motion, that we clarify the finding of fact if we are not happy with It and then in the form of an amendment, vote on it and then take a look at it that way. Are there any comments on the finding? Mary Lou 1 would like to amend the finding by adding an "A" and a "B". The "A" would be this parking lot, the egress and entrance of this parking lot would be unsafe due to the narrow width and the steepness of the street and "B" construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent tots as it would cause a drainage problem onto their lots and there should be, how to word this, I want to word to someway bring in that people would not use the parking lot if it was constructed, I do not know how to word that, somebody could help me. Practicality of use would be non-existent. Okay, we have an amendment before us. Is there a second to the amendment? Second. Any discussion on the amendment? I am not sure I have any problem with the drainage on the finding o1 tact. It certainly Is a concern, I think Pogo 15 o132 P a 2: Dorombur 20, 100 ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: Vorbaem Transcript Appowanm Ro{uasl Isom C when you have a parking tot anywhere that you are going to have, that you are going to change the drainage pattern. I think the width of that driveway, recognizing that the road is pretty slick during the winter time, and that house being right adjacent to that one (1) edge of the driveway, that you will end up with vehicles hitting the house eventually, and I think the finding of fact on the issue of use of that parking lot, I tend to agree that it is not a real practical to draw traffic into there or to draw clientele Into there to park - they would be more likely to park either across the street or on the street. I guess 1 support them all, the drainage is not a big concern to myself. Any other discussion for the amendment? I wonder if mention should be made to the drain [indecipherable] I think we were talking about a cut bank up against Wilton's house being necessary and that would destabilize the fence. Is that an issue? Yes. Could that go along with "C" and the steepness of the street? Or was that "B" that I had, no. Make another a "D" the topography of the lot is such that it would undermine the adjacent lot to make the cut. Does the second concur with that? Yes. Mr. Chairman. Wayne All these problems that we have now included in this could alt be overcome constmction wise - drainage, slopes, narrow width of access to preclude vehicles from colliding with the building - so I just do not see where his beneficial to state these conditions to add these conditions to the finding of fact. Pogo 16 o132 P 8 2: Dommbor 20, 1009 _ _ BRUCE.BARRETT: __ _— _ - Mr. Chairman.---- — ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: DUANE DVORAK: BRUCE BARRETT: WAYNE COLEMAN: BRUCE BARRETT: WAYNE COLEMAN: vematlm Tmmalpt Appomanoe Request !tom C Bruce Just to ask Wayne - We have nine point four (9.4) feat between the building and that fence Right. One way to stretch that out to any further distance - I do not know the engineering feat that would be accomplished 10 preclude vehicles from hitting the building - I may be missing something, but I do not see what could be done engineering wise • Install a rolling curb or something like that concrete there that would positively prevent 11 and yel something that Is not jeopardizing the vehicle or its wheel either so Do we have any examples in town where we have got reasonable access to a parking lot that Is nine (9) feet in clearance - nine and a half (9.5) feel in clearance? Say if it is nine (9) - It has to be less than nine point lour (9.4) reel from the rolled berm In there or something so may be eight and a hall (8.5) feet That is down at the wheel widths that would be the vehicle could still with its side view mirrors and everything could still extend above them. Admittedly nine point four (9,4) feet is - you know I looked at how that fits through there - it is narrow, it would be nicer if it were ten (10) or twelve (12) Leet, but there are spaces around where vehicles have to get into that are probably limited even more severely than that especially with barriers that protect other facilities, comers of buildings, fire hydrants, et cetera. Page 17 al 32 P A 2: December 20. 1969 BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: WAYNE COLEMAN: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: BRUCE BARRETT: PATRICIA MILEY: JON HARTT: PATRICIA MILEY: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: PATRICIA MILEY: WAYNE COLEMAN: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Yes, I guess, I understand that right. Any further discussion on the amendment? Mary Lou. Do you know what the width of the, between the two (2) curbs of the parking lot out here is? Anybody know off -hand? The one out back. I would guess twelve (12) test, pretty narrow. Because I have !rouble getting in and out of Thal and I have a very small car and I usually hit the curb when I go In and out. Shall we vote on the amendment? Roll call vote please. Mn Barrett Yes. Mr. Hartt Yes. Ms. Knudsen Yea. Mr. Coleman No. Mr. Heinrichs Yes. Amendment carries. Page 18 of 32 P32:D 1969 0Z3 ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: WAYNE COLEMAN: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: BRUCE BARRETT: PATRICIA MILEY: JON HARTT: PATRICIA MILEY: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: VNM4m Transcript Nance Request IINn 0 Okay, we have the motion as amended before us, do we have any further discussion on that? Roll call vote please. Mr. Coleman Yes. Mr. Heinrichs Yes. Mr. Barrell Yes. Mr. Hast Yes. Ms. Knudsen Yes. Motion as amended carries. All right, we have before us a second question. What is the wish of the Commission? Ms. Knudsen I move that we approve finding number two (2) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to permit the off-street parking required for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite to be relocated to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989. Page 19 0132 P d 2: December 20, 1989 ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Would you like me to read those? Yes, please. 1. A parking plan for the Holmes Johnson Clinic ' located at Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, showing all off-street parking spaces and those off-street parking spaces designated for the office of LeDoux and LeDoux will be submitted to the Community Development Department within ten (10) days of this decision. Condition number 2, A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (the Holmes Johnson Clinic) in favor of Lots 6A, 66, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux offices) for five (5) oft -street parking spaces. The easement shall run with the land until the use of Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off- street street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission Is provided. (3.) Adequate signage to identify the designated spaces as the parking lot for LeDoux and LeDoux law offices will be specified by the Community Development Department. And number 4. The oll-street parking developed for the LeDoux and LeDoux professional office muss comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 (Parking Lot Development Standards) oil the Kodiak Island Borough Code. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? WAYNE COLEMAN: Second. Vorbeem Transcript Appearance Rogues) glom C Pogo 20 01 32 P 8 2: December 20, 1939 ROBIN HEINRICHS: We have a motion before us, any discussion on the inotioh?Mary Lou MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: Verbatim Tmma(pt Appuamnm RMuest itemC Mr. LeDoux has Indicated he could not get an easement and I cannot approve or vote for this without an easement requirement because that building could be sold and somebody else could come in and without knowing it they would not be able to use the property. We have to look at the long term and not just what is happening right now today - somebody else - he could rent out space in his building, we cannot tell him no you cannot do this or no you cannot sell your property. We are looking at the long term, we have to have an easement that will run with the property. Any other discussion? Mr. Chairman, I just, I support everything that Mary Lou mentioned. I think that it Is necessary that we have a dedicated parking and 1 am not real comfortable with the lease arrangement. I think that there are some alternatives other than the Holmes Johnson Clinic and I think this allows some latitude for that. I think there Is still the church and maybe the City owned land at the corner Is still an option. But I guess I am going to go along with this - I think that itis essential that every business have parking and there is a parking problem already in the general downtown area that is going to be exacerbated here. It is already a problem so I do not see It getting any better. t think it is a requirement should be a requirement of everybody to provide parking for businesses. Okay, any other discussion? I think that parking would be required whether or not this is approved, this Is just approval of one (1) scheme to provide that parking. Well, I guess [indecipherable] number two Pogo 21 of 32 P 8 Z: Decombor 20,1989 MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: vortawn Tmnsaipt Appoomnco Rogues) Item C (2) to allow for an alternate approved by the Planning .andZoning. Commission._ (Indecipherable' before us is the Holmes Johnson Clinic. Any more comments? Mary Lou. I have one that I probably should put Into the record. It has been brought up that downtown offices or downtown businesses do not have the parking. That is all, most of that is part of the Urban Renewal and twenty (20) years ago or whenever that was done people did not realize there was going to be that many people in Kodak and tam sure if they had known that they would have provided more parking but those things are, part of the Urban Renewal that Is an altogether different thing than an outside office. I guess my comments on it would be that I think that the framework set up here is the frameirork, the question would be selection of the Holmes Johnson Clinic as being a reasonable place to take care of that parking. Indeed, 1 wonder how clear it is going to be to people looking for LeDoux and L@Ddux firm or any other business that were in there that they would obviously they would have to go down and cross one (1) street and into another area and park there, the signage identified really does not really say whether or not that signage would be on LeDoux and LeDoux to indicate where they have to go or whether the spaces themselves would be signed as being set aside for LeDoux and LeDoux. 1 think It is worrisome I would find it worrisome as a client to pull into another business parking lot for fear of being towed away unless it is specifically signed that way. That is all 1 have. Should that be an amendment? I just raised the issue. Pogo 22o132 PBZ: Docembor 20, 1989 �� MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Mr. Chairman. ROBIN HEINRICHS: We have an amended motion In front of us now. Any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Mary Lou PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Coleman MARY LOU KNUDSEN: I would like to amend condition number three (3) to state that signage on the offices of LeDoux and WAYNE COLEMAN: Yes. LeDoux saying where the parking Is located and signage on the parking spaces themselves. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Barrett ROBIN HEINRICHS: Is there a second? BRUCE BARRETT: ' Yes. BRUCE BARRETT: Second. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Helnrichs ROBIN HEINRICHS: Is it clear (indecipherable'? Any discussion? Roll call ROBIN HEINRICHS: No. vote on the amendment. PATRICIA MILEY: Ms. Knudsen PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Barrett MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Yes. BRUCE BARRETT: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Ham PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Hartt JON HARTT: No. JON HARTT: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Motion fails. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Heinrlchs ROBIN HEINRICHS: Okay, at this point, I think we need to have findings of ROBIN HEINRICHS: Yes. fact [indecipherable] PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Coleman MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Do we need findings? This was approval of the findings and I do not think we need to have findings WAYNE COLEMAN: Yes. ROBIN HEINRICHS: 1 think we ought to leave a trail PATRICIA MILEY: Ms. Knudsen MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Okay. MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Yes. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Do you want to postpone to the end of the meeting? PATRICIA MILEY: Amendment carries. (Unknown] Okay. 6 Verbatim T`omalpt Vmbatim Transalpt Appearance Roqumtltom C Page 29 o132 P 6 Z: December 20,1009 Appoarono3 Roquoet Item C Pape 24 o132 P s 2: December 20, 1289 �,)TOM HENDEL: DUANE DVORAK: TOM HENDEL: Vrbedm Treasurer Appouanco Request Itom C (The Commission conducted other business.) [Addressed under Commissioners' Comments( ... I have got - I was Just chomping at the bit there during the LeDoux thing because 1 wanted to give you some Information but when there is not a public hearing it is hard to call on any body especially when you see your chairman sitting out there almost ants but I want to give you some Information and maybe a suggestion or two now then let you think about reconsidering and I had a hard time in the audience deciding exactly what happened and I do not know 11 you guys did either. I know you found it impractical to locate the parking In the rear, but what happened after that with the next finding. (indecipherable) As was written in the revised stall report, the property owner has, I would say, I am not sure if he has the option exactly, it would be a good way to determine - he is still in violation of - he has the option to build the parking in the rear yard even though the Commission has found it to be impracficat. He would technically be In compliance if he were to do so, and whether or not people would actually use it, as long as he is in compliance then that would be one (1) way to solve his problem. The other option, If you want to call It that, Is to discontinue the use of the property as a professional office. Okay, now that is what I thought happened and If I can make a suggestion and give you some background Information which Is what 1 really wanted to do at that time as being a resident next door and power of attorney, and I have Just sold the property. The person that bought that has Immediate plans on developing that properly as multifamily residential with on - with parking on the lot, oll-street parking. LeDoux's are right, They do not have a lot of drive up Papp 25 0l 32 P a 2: December 20, 0089 Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C business, I mean If they did they would have to park some place else because LeDoux's themselves park In front. Often times almost blocking my entrance. They keep two (2) cars in'front and one (1) or two (2) In the side lot. I - My thought is that it is not impractical to make a lot for the employees, drop the parking requirement down to five (5) spaces, put it in the back, a vehicle that is six (6) foot or less wide, we have got nine four (9.4), it would be a certain amount of expense to do that if you find it practical that they could locate it; they would have to cut down and build a retaining wall. The access is level, the concern of exiting onto a street would be mitigated In part by making that nomparkable area in front of the business, because there Is a fire hydrant two (2) spaces up - it you made that a red zone with no parking all the way to the comer of where the entrance is to the lot next door which was just sold by me, you would mitigate some of that problem. There is a tot of parking on the other side of the street up and down and across the street where visitors, customers, whatever - if that is developed on that comer, there is also a plan that the house on the lower corner is going to be turned into a bed and breakfast and also you all remember that it is R-3 property - I know ono (1) person that is Interested fn buying that whole corner and redeveloping the whole corner. You are going to see a certain amount of on - street congestion so I think that you have to give some serious consideration and I wish I could have told you this earlier on whether - I mean - I guess it Is going to work out about the same because he has got two (2) choices - you know one (1) is to sell and move out or whatever or abate the use and the other is to put the parking in the back. 1 just wonder which finding would have been stronger - finding it Impractical or finding it practical to locate a smaller amount of parking in the rear. There is really some of the things they said about the topography are reatty az7 Pape 280132 P a 2: December. 20, 1999 ROBIN HEINRICHS: *deft Tnt.olpt Aprwvm Ropo1 turn 0 not valid; there Is drainage problems already - they are piping all their drainage down - the previous owner did this not LeDoux's - from underneath the house and Into my back yard which Is always wet whenever It rains. So the drainage problem is caused already, it could be possibly mitigated in fact by putting that driveway along side the house at a lower levet, draining it into the back yard. So that what I am just saying is that you have got two (2) possibilities for findings - one (1) is going to be stronger possibly than the other. And it Is up to you since I was not a part of It. Robin. Okay, I think it comes down virtually the same either way. My personal opinion was I think it Is Impractical to develop the parking in the back; it is not Impossible and it certainly does not preclude them from doing that. They could certainly develop it - In tact the original proposal, the original variance or exception or whatever was granted, was contingent upon their plan to develop a back parking lot and at that time it was not impractical because they made all kinds of assurances that it was not. So that issue really has nothing to do with it, it is just our opinion that whether or not parking back there is practical or not - it Is not that we prohibit parking back there, it is Just a statement that it is either practical or impractical. The second part is the part that I guess I could not agree with and that was that the Holmes Johnson Clinic was specifically slated as one (1) of the sites - we have got to - according to the framework of this you have got to take it at face value that if he did get an easement on that piece of property that those would have to be considered as good of parking or adequate parking compared to having it on site and I just think that is not reasonable, I think that parking in another block is not a reasonable solution to a commercial parking for a building to take care of its parking needs. 1 could buy parking at the church, it is right across the street Page 270132 P e 2: 000embor20. 19B9 TOM HENDEL: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: TOM HENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: THE COMMISSION: ROBIN HEINRICHS: • Var[ofm Transcript Appoaranm Roquosl Item C even though you have to cross the street It is real obvious. Every other time that we have looked at a remote parking location it has been within line of sight of the building that it was benefiting - to the best of my knowledge - and my reason for voting against the Second proposal, the second finding, was that I did not find the Holmes Johnson Clinic a viable place to supply this parking even if you sign it. Now I think that the findings come down to whether we approve that or i1 we did not approve it, it comes down to the same thing. He has got to find parking that is acceptable to us or build it on his lot. Well I think at this point I will excuse myself and let you determine the findings of tact and I will pass the gavel and you can adjourn the meeting when you are done. I have no further comments. You cannot go home now. No, I will stick around. Okay, we are in a position now where we have as a Commission to agree on the findings or decide what to do. What are the comments? First we have to extend the meeting beyond eleven o'clock (11:00 pm). Mr. Chairman, I move we go past eleven (11). second. Alt those in favor indicate by saying "aye." Aye. All those opposed. Carries. Page 20 0132 P 8 2: 00wmppr20, 1909 MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: 'MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: DUANE DVORAK: garbsdm Transcript Appoaranm Raquest Item 0 Mr. Chairman. Mary Lou. Yes, I agree with you. I think I voted for it which I guess it was a better of two (2) evils - using downtown lot or Holmes Johnson • I Thought well 11 They have signage then somebody may use That but I think a finding could be I do not know exactly how to word It but the Commission felt that parking nol within line of sight of the building was not appropriate. Are there any other comments? Torn suggested a motion to reconsider. Anybody have any feelings on that Issue? Mary Lou Well If we reconsidered it would probably be going back to (indecipherable] court case you know it would be much cleaner. But 1- when you separate the two (2) we find it is impractical to locate the parking in there If you stuck by what we had said when we had granted his exception or - t do not know 11 he got a variance or an exception - we said you put the parking in back there - that was a condition of approval. He no longer has that then if he did not meet that condition of approval. Duane When I was researching the case that he put the parking In was never a condition of approval of his variance - it was just another requirement of the Code which was questioned under the case and he came back with the site plan showing the parking and mado the assurance that he could meet the parking requirement. it was never a condition of approval. It was just another Code requirement, it just happened to be brought up in the course of the case. Pogo 200132 P a 2: Ducomber 20, 1000 MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: Okay, so still Violation Right, okay He should not have been allowed to convert the office use before he put in the adequate parking for that use. Okay, so he should move out until he supplies the parking. So either way 1 do not think that reconsidering it would make any difference - I do not know. Any comments Wayne? I have got a real problem with this whole situation. It seems to be dragging out tor an indefinite period of time. We have had other parties that have gotten into parking problems, oft -street packing problems, only because they were not real familiar with their development - we had one (1) over on Mission Road, and they came back and the owner strived very hard to accommodate the Code - and we have had them other places here and there - and in every instance, every other instance virtually, they tried - they may not have always been able to make all in every detail but they tried - and here I do not see much of any trying except a lot of verbiage. Ido not - I have not yet seen a viable plan. I agree with you that remote parking, not readily visible to a business is not a good plan, Non-contiguous parking has been approved In the past for several situations, but In virtualty every case it Is readily visible to the business that It serves. So I do not know; I (indecipherable] ROBIN HEINRICHS: • Do we have any additions to findings of tact that ought to be considered? Vmbann Transcript '"� t'"j Appoaranw Roquoallium 0 Pogo 30 al 32 P a 2: Dacambor 20, 1000 C71- WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: JON HARTT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: (indecipherable) MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: DUANE DVORAK: VerWtlm Trrnaipt 30 Appearance Raquestllam C Could we recap those findings? Mary Lou suggested that the proximity of the Holmes Johnson proposal, not within line of sight nor very close but certainly to the heart of some of what I fell. The problem is we had considered this for oh some time - it has been out an the table for a couple of months, a while any way, this Is the first that anybody has brought it up, this here not readily visible, not line of sight situation of the business. I agree with the need to have that but you know it is something we should have pounced on early on - the first lime around. Yes, Jon. Yes, Robin, how about a recorded easement. Should not that have been on? It was on tho original proposal. I think it was voted you and I voted against - and I agreed with that, I think that was important. I guess the part that i could not buy and which forced me to vote against was the specific location. I think that is important. (ndecipherableJ was one o1 the reasons I voted for it because that was a condition and [indecipherable]. We just have one (1), I think we need to have more. Duane I understand the Commission's desire to come up with their findings of fact here, but 1 think I have got some language here that might kind of speed things a tong Page 310132 P d Z: December 20, 1989 WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: THE COMMISSION: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: a little bit. t would suggest maybe something like the relocation of five (5) off-street parking spaces would not effectively meet the parking requirement for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite and the office located there because the proposed parking is not located within the line of sight of the offices to be served; the parking would not be viable even with adequate identification of the spaces and the location; and the applicant indicated that he could not meet the conditions of approval as far as the easement is concerned even before getting into the actual (indecipherabteJ. I think those are (indecipherable) the basic statement and then listing your three (3) reasons why the live (5) spaces could not be met In the other lot. Sounds like good language. Do you want to vote on that? Somebody make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we find as finding of fact for Case, I guess it is C, 87-058, no that is not our case, our case is Appearance Request C that findings that , Duane has just or that staff has just submitted. Second? Second. All those in favor say 'aye? Aye Opposed? Motion to adjourn. So moved. Verbutlm Transcript Appearance Request Item C Pape 38 a132 P & Z: December 20, 1989 Kodiak Island Borough CERTIFICATE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: the Old Business In the matter of: Planning and Zoning Commission Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaoes to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking Is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 613, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1969 regular meeting) was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH '�itcon )Ly, Patricia Miley, a retary Community Development D p rtmont Kodiak Island Borough PLANNING AND ZONIN OLD BUSINESS REQ 0 COMMISSION UEST ITEM A Planning and Zoning Commission Case 87-058. Request for additional `Findings of Fac" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Cif -street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking Is Intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDcux) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Tho above-cited Old Business Request was heard on February 21, 1990, in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 MW Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Tho meeting was conducted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, Robin Heinrichs. 3/ Kodiak Island Borough ROBIN HEINRICHS: TOM MENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: TOM HENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: DUANE DVORAK: 3} Verbatim Tnnwtpt p,A,- OW BeainoulamA That concludes the public hearing portion of the agenda; we'll move onto Old Business. Case A. This is Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 66, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Mr. Charman. Mr. Handel. I stepped down at the last meeting due to a conflict of interest, would you like me to step down at this time? I think that would be appropriate. Duane, do you have some guidance on this for us? Staff contacted the Borough Attorney. Unfortunately, he was out of town last week and was not able to respond with his comments, but he only had two (2) suggestions [indecipherable] summed up. He suggested that the findings reflect that the applicant had not properly presented the alternative parking locations, whether those locations would be Popo 1 oI4 P 8 2: February 21, 1990 ROBIN HEINRICHS: JODY HODGINS: ROBIN HEINRICHS: UNKNOWN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: JON HARTT: JON ASPGREN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: JODY HODGINS: ROBIN HEINRICHS: appropriate; and second, he suggested that the Community Baptist Church could not be considered as an adequate location unless the owners were willing to commit to a written agreement. It is apparent that they were not willing to commit themselves. Those were his suggestions. If you feel that those are covered adequately by the suggested findings (indocipherablej approve them as presented, or if you feel that they need to be modified to reflect the view of the Commission (indecipherable;. Okay. What do we want to do In regards to these findings? Well, these are all pretty well laid out. I think we should adopt the recommendations as presented. 171 put that in the form of a motion unless someone has some problem with them. Alright, Is that a motion? Second. We have a motion and a second. Jon, did you have No, that is okay. Could we have the motion restated. Yes, I am a little fuzzy on the first part, can you restate the motion, Jody. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to adopt the findings of fact contained in the staff report memorandum dated February 10, 1990, as "Findings of Fact" for the Case 87-058. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Duane. Verbatim Trnnrcipt OW Butinon Item A Pogo 2 oto P 82: February 21, 1990 DUANE DVORAK: 1 have just been looking at the motion, the motion stated just now,.fl might be preferable to.change the -- -- - - - - - PATRICIA MILEY: - - - Mr. Barrett - - - -- - wording slightly to (indecipherable] as additional findings of tact since the Commission should make BRUCE BARRETT: Yes. clear that these are not superseding your findings of tact on the previous decision but that these am PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Coleman additional findings In response to the applicants' request. WAYNE COLEMAN: Yes. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Is That agreeable, Jody? PATRICIA MILEY: Motion passes. JODY HODGINS: You bet. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Okay, that concludes Old Business. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Second? UNKNOWN: Yes. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Has everybody had time to glance through thls memo? UNKNOWN: No. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Any discussion? Roll call vote please. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Aspgren JON ASPGREN: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Hartt JON HARTT: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Helnrichs ROBIN HEINRICHS: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Ms. Hodgins JODY HODGINS: Yes. Ve,Ea2m Aaneaipt Vodxidm Tronndpt Old &moon Item A Pape3 ofd P n Z: Fobruary 21, 1009 Old euelnoee Iran A Pogo 4of4 P62: Fobuary 21, 1009 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM December 19, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Department Information for the December 20, 1989 regular meeting ITEM V4 RE: Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Ott -street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1, find that it Is impractical to locate any of the elght (8) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot: and 2. to permit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 66, end 6C, Block 6, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) BACKGROUND At the worksession on December 13, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that staff review Section 17.57.030 (Oft -street Parking -- Location) to see whether the Commission was bound by the code to allow an alternate Location if it was found to be impractical to locate the existing parking requirement in the rear yard of Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Staff reviewed the section in question, and it does appear that the code is permissive and the Commission is not required to allow the relocation of the parking upon the finding that it Is impractical to locate the parking in the rear yard of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, 39 Appearance Request 0 Page 1 of 4 P d E. eemmber 20, 1989 ITEM V4 Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Staff has, therefore, rewritten the motion so that each applicable code section Is provided an Individual motion. I1 the Commission finds that It is impractical to locate the oil -street parking on Lots 6A,1 6B, and 60, the Commission will have to consider an alternative site. If the Commission finds that it is Impractical to relocate the parking to another lot, or, if the Commission finds that it is not impractical to locate the parking on Lots 6A, 66, and 60, the properly owner will have to either construct the parking or abate the use of the structure for commercial purposes and retum It to the residential use that previously existed. Staff has Included with this revised staff report a vlcinity map showing the Location of the lots under consideration. In addition, a 600 loot circle shown for scale Is centered on the tight rear corner of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the required seven (7) off- street parking spaces on the Lots 6A, 68, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the fact that it would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to do so. In addition, staff recommends that the live (5) required oft -street parking spaces be permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak; subject to conditions of approval to insure consistency with Title 17 of the Borough Code. Provision of the five (5) off-street spaces on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (the Holmes Johnson Clinic) in a 6 -Business Zoning District is a reasonable alternative Location for the use in question. Utilization of an alternative parking lot would require the following actions: 1. A finding pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking --Location) of the Borough Code that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 68, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. 2. A finding pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking --Location) of the Borough Code that the Commission finds relocating the required parking to Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision a reasonable alternative. Appearance Request P899 2 o14 P t 2: December 20, 1989 ITEM VC 3. A parking plan for the Holmes Johnson Clinic showing all off-street parking spaces and those off-street parking spaces designated for the professional office 'of LeDoux and LeDoux. 4. A recorded easement on Lots 8 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, (Holmes Johnson Clinic) In favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux processional offices) for the five (5) off-street parking spaces. The easement must run with the land until the use(s) of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission Is provided. Should the Holmes Johnson Clinic property be used for parking as provided for above, only one (1) additional parking space for the residential apartment on Lots 6A, 68, and 6C would need to be developed In order to satisfy all off-street parking requirements. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motions are: Move to adopt finding number one (1) contained In the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant 10 Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that It Is Impractical to locate at least live (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Move to adopt finding number two (2) contained In the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to permit the off-street parking required for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite to be relocated to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision; subject to the conditions of approval contained In the staff report dated December 19, 1989, APPenuice Roquosi pep e of 4 P 62:Oecomber 20. ISI ITEM VC CONDITIONS QF APPROVAL 1. A parking plan for the Holmes Johnson Clinic located at Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, showing all off-street parking spaces and those off- street parking spaces designated for the office of LeDoux and LeDoux will be submitted to the Community Development Department within ten (10) days o1 thls decision. 2 A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic) in favor of Lots 6A, 68, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux offices) for five (5) off-street packing spaces. The easement shall run with the land until the use(s) of Lets 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is provided. 3. Adequate signage to Identify the designated spaces as the parking lot for LeDoux and LeDoux law offices will be as specified by the Community Development Department. 4. The off-street parking developed for the LeDoux and LeDoux profession office must comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 (Parking Lot Devetopment Standards) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission tincts that It Is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots GA, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public. 2. Five (5) of the required off-street parking spaces for Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, should be permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, because even though these spaces are not adjacent to the office which they are Intended to serve, they would be safer and most likely used more by clients of the law office than would spaces developed in the rear yard where the office is located. Appearance Roquork C Papa a of 4 P \ 2: December 20, IDN ..--------_ 1a DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RE: ITEM V.0 Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM December 12, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Depanme Information for Iha December 20, 1989 Case 87.058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Olt -street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the eight (8) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) BACKGROUND The purpose of this request is to consider the practicality of locating eight (8) off-street parking spaces In the rear yard of Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. 11 the Commission finds that it Is impractical to locate the parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, the Commission will also need to address the conditions under which it would permit the parking to be located on another parking lot within six hundred (600) feat of the structure located on Lots 6A, 68, and 80 and which also permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Appall MO Roquul0 Popo 1 of 8 P 8 2: Coombe( 20, 1009 ITEM VC On the advice of the Borough Attorney, staff was persuaded to treat this request separately_ from ortgoing_titigation.between.the Kodiak island Borough.and.the.property _ _ owner. Staff has, therefore, tried to be objective in the assessment of this case and, at one point, requested technical assistance from the Kodiak island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department regarding an assessment of the subject property (see attachment). To summarize the comments of the Engineering and Facilities Department, It was determined that the development of parking in the rear yard of Lots 6A, 60, and 6C would result in an impractical and unsafe parking configuration. This assessment Is supported by the following observations: 1. The line of site for drivers exiting the proposed driveway onto the oncoming traffic lane of Mill Bay Road is blocked by a board fence on the adjacent. property. 2. The proposed driveway passes between the LeDoux building and the neighbors board fence. The plat shows the width of the driveway as 9.4 feet. Minimum driveway width required by the City Code is 14 feet; the minimum driveway width required by the Borough Code is 12 feet. Regardless of either code, 9.4 feet Is Inadequate. 3. Mill Bay Road traffic is downhill at the proposed driveway entrance further compounding the hazard, particularly when slippery road conditions exist 4. The proposed driveway passes directly over a buried fuel tank. The fuel tank would have to be relocated. 5. Topography of the proposed parking lot site wilt drain the lot to adjacent properties. If sod and topsoil are removed to construct a parking lot, surface water runoff will Increase. 6 A sharp grade change exists at the rear property line; the earth is unrestrained and sloughing is evident. It would be necessary to construct a retaining wall to correct this condition. 7. The proposed parking lot site is currently a lawn area. To convert ihls area to a parking lot and driveway would require removal of the sod and Importallon of crushed rock. It Is unlikely construction costs can be justified by the benefits. Appoaranoo naquon Popo 2 o10 P e 2: Q10MnGr 20, iteO ITEM WC The report by the Engineering and Facilities Department does indicate that the parking lot can be constructed, but only at great expense and questionable benefit to the public. The Commission has Iwo (2) choices In this case: 1. 11 the Commission finds that it is impractical to locate the off-street parking on Lots 6,4, 68, and 60, then the Commission will have to consider an alternative site proposed by the applicant. 2. if the Commission finds that it is not impractical to locate the parking on Lots 6A, 66, and 6C, then the property owner will have to either: (a) construct the parking; or (b) abate the use of the structure for commercial purposes and return It to the residential use that previously existed. The applicants have stated that it is impractical to locate the eight (8) required parking spaces on the lot in the manner originally shown at the time the variance was granted. Therefore, the applicant requests the Commission to find that It is Impractical to locate the off-street parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, and to allow the off-street parking to be located on a suitable lot within six hundred (600) feet. To replace these spaces, the applicant proposes to acquire eight (8) off-street parking spaces in the packing lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (site of the Holmes Johnson Clinic located down the street from the subject property). This action requires Planning and Zoning Commission approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 or the Borough Code which states: 17.57.030 Off-street parking --Location. All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020 shad be on the same tot as, or a lot adjacent to, the principal building that they service; provided, that if the planning commission finds that It is impractical to locate the spaces on such a lot, it may permit them to be located on any lot within six hundred feet of the principal building. All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020 shall be Located in a use district permitting the use which they serve. 38 AppaarnaRequest Page 3ot6 P62;December 20,1989 ITEM Vc Staff has determined that the Holmes Johnson Clinic does not have an additional eight (8) off-street parking spaces to provide for the use of LeDoux and LeDoux. The original parking determination for this lot Indicated that six (6) spaces were required for the professional office and two (2) spaces were required for the residential portion of the structure. However staff has reevaluated the original parking requirement and determined that, based on new Information from the Borough Assessing Department, the professional office use at LeDoux and LeDoux only requires five (5) off-street parking spaces rather the previously calculated six (6) off-street parking spaces. The reason for this Is the Assessor had previously included a ninety-six (96) square foot uncovered and unenclosed deck as part of the total floor area for the structure. This additional floor area made the calculation for parking just over five and one-half (5.5), therefore the calculation was rounded up to the next whole number six (6). Without counting this additional floor area however, the calculation Is less than five and one-half (5.5), therefore the figure Is now rounded down. Staff has determined that the previously proposed driveway access to the rear yard could conceivably handle the two (2) required oft -street parking spaces associated with the residential unit 11 the driveway was not required to access the back yard for additional parking. In addition, the Holmes Johnson Clinic has an additional six (6) off-street parking spaces by staffs calculation. Therefore, the Clinic tot has more than enough space to accommodate the parking needs of LeDoux and LeDoux if the owner so chooses. Staff, therefore, recommends that It is impractical to Locate five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. In addition, staff recognizes the difficulty in assuring that the public will use the designated spaces 0 they are located so far from the professional officesthey would serve. For this reason, staff recommends that adequate signage be required to insure that the designated spaces are used only by the clients of LeDoux and LeDoux and not by other members of the public. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the required seven (7) off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the fact that it would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public, and that the five (5) required off-street parking spaces be permitted to relocate to Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak, subject to conditions of approval to Insure consistency with Title 17 of the Borough Code. Provision of the five (5) off-street spaces down the street at the Holmes Johnson Clinic In a B --Business Zoning District Is a reasonable alternative location for Appearance Request Page 4 o16 P 6 2: bocember 213, 1081 ITEM VC the use In question. Utilization of an alternative parking lot would require the following - actions-- - -- -- -- - ------- - - - - - - 1. A finding from the Commission pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking- -Location) of the Borough Code that It Is Impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 6, Kodiak Townsite. 2. A parking plan of the Holmes Johnson Clinic parking lot showing all spaces and those designated for the professional office of LeDoux and LeDoux must be submitted to the Community Development Department. 3. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic), in favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux professional office building) tor the five (6) off- street parking spaces. The easement must run with the land until the uses of Lots 6A, 613, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change andtor alternative off- street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission Is provided. Should the Holmes Johnson Clinic property be used for parking as provided for above, only one (1) additional off-street parking space for the residential apartment on Lots 6A, 68, and 60 would need to be developed in order to satisfy all off-street parking requirements. ..,-..,"4PPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion Is: Move to adopt the finding contained In the staff report dated December 12, 1989 as the 'Finding of Fact" for this case pursuant to Section 1157.030 of the Borough Code; and to permit five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office and apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, to be relocated to the parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision subject to the conditions of approval contained In the staff report dated December 12, 1989. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Appearance Requeer Pape 6 ol 6 P a 2: December 20, 1089 ITEM VC _A parking plan of Ihe.Holmes Johnson.Clinic parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10. Block 14, New Kodak Townsite, showing all off-street parking spaces and those off-street parking spaces designated for the LeDoux and LeDoux office must be submitted to the Community Development Department within _ days of the date of this decision and prior to the Issuance of a zoning compliance permit. 2. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Btock 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic) In favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux professional office) for five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces. The easement must run with the land until the uses of Lots 6A, 68, and 60, Block 8. Kodiak Townsite change andfor alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission Is provided. 3. Adequate signage to Identify the designated off-street parking spaces as the parking for LeDoux and LeDoux protessionat offices will be provided as specified by the Community Development Department. 4. The off-street parking developed for the LeDoux and LeDoux professional office must comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 (Parking Lot Development Standards) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office and apartment located on Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public. The five (5) required off-street parking spaces are permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval contained In the staff report dated December 12, 1989. Appearance Request Papa 6 016 P a 2: December 20. ISM 7 /410 k. 26.1 rf�il7J ar -17/i6er •• op ,rAI' SflC air cry / rer Eced GG S e O 7 re ca / Fro? er 71i/ „� o/r/� corrn,a/%ca /l /Ge QMc Shy s 45 of ' hlo e; 1 (art,/ 00ux G al)e 4oce £ Ge"DLo eek AS • BUILT SURVEY 1 hereby away gni 1 bate wneyed the (tio.ug described property: Q PC,9r/uMof Ldr6. Ate 044- 4 1-17/7/at” rgk-w nrs sear 4!37.:537-,5 wad that the i .pro.®mu dwaledthareon an within the propnry lines arta do not a.nlap or canna m the promo/ lyinF adjacent therm. that no bmpm.ernmtr on money lying *Anna thereto snceo.d vas the premia is tomo, and tint there an no saner., tramm'r dare Lina or other eldbie eamnta on acid racy except as arid: card hn.as /S/ Y Mord di ,r day t�"=/ Ia 74 ROY A. p4XLUND R. ialered Land Surveyor scala:. /0 = 20' Dsatm Y: tDatc: vrti/4r-/-078 urn», rl1LNIu. La,. u$t OrJ4 H . LS .vitt., .. -- -• -- -- £at'aTit.4 trhICSOrt.S 'Ova r£VSL-.. 4U'4113.4 (La tr4i, Kai q> <ur CC'i) s r x0 1. . liElgial kb'.M.^.,"i J3a..SOM Q twtG PuiT FPR• ?p.• -'Y -t CDtCM.M4-. IAM. -5 P. 5 Ai.Pq C3PsSULIiNG ENGi1.Tr ro.m. ..Dow, uwr ramw«n r`.�L74:'s ..nr:.r Kna.0. JT' a 4r pN4nq 1-0112111, • .,/ C. TI* [WALL JOEL H. •OLGE•r JAMIN, EBELL. BOLDER & GENTRY A .gre•v0..t Co.rout:or ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3239.9009 Kodak, ALASKA 99e10 tioeceLlt: LOOa.ae-04.21 rtLAP$ 0Nt I80'I .Ge -em. RELY 70 ROWAN Ornce October 9, 1989 SEATTLE. Orncc: AO non anew. souTo• wc,L0.11•113.5ei * LE .9O,na.:..... JOEL e, COLGLF Linda Freed Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Kodiak Island Borough v. Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux Our file: 4095-87 Dear Linda: Kurt LeDoux called on the afternoon of October 5, 1989, with a proposal for settlement. He said that Bernie Lindsey had told him that it wee impractical to build a parking lot in the back yard. He said that Bernie said that a concrete retaining wall between LeDoux'& yard and White's yard would be required. He also said that Dr. Robert Johnson was willing to allow Kurt to use seven parking spaces at the Holmes -Johnson Clinic. I said that I would pass this information along to you. I talked to Kurt again on October 6. I told him that I did not have an answer for him and did not have authority to settle in the manner he suggested. Please let me know if you want to take any further action on Mr. LeDoux'& proposal. T.„LL cat rt. lam..... JHB:cav :q.,.L "o.9.4 Sincerely yours, JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY 4095\87L.001 WED O� t 779 LEDOUX L4[ LEDOUX ATTORNEYS AT LAW 219 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 ia071 486-4082 Eat 1007 466-2854 November 10, 1989 Ms. Linda Freed Planning and Community Development Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Parking variance; 219 Mill Bay Road Dear Ms. Freed: ANCH0110.01 ,OOT 37 SLAM' a0m eviYll RECEIVED NOV 1 3 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRPT Pursuant to 17.50.030 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code I am requesting that the Kodiak Island Borough Planning Commission make a factual finding thatit is impractical to locate eight parking spaces on my property located at 219 Mill Bay Road. I am further requesting the right to use Dr. Bob Johnson's parking lot to fulfill seven of my parking requirements. I already have one off street parking space at my office. Dr. Johnson's parking lot is approximately two hundred feet from my office. I am making this request based upon the difficulty in constructil a parking lot behind my property and the fact that such parking lc would be impractical to use, especially in winter. As is set fort in the affidavit of Bernie Lindsey, a local contractor, it would be impractical to build such parking lot. There would be drainage problems and the opening would be quite narrow after shoring up the property next to my parking lot. There are no formal plats of Dr. Johnson's parking lot. I have obtained copies of the plans for Dr. Johnson office and have put in the measurements of the parking areas as is shown in what is marked as "A" attached hereto. As is shown on the plan there currently exist three separate parking areas around Dr. Johnson's office building. These spaces have been used for over twenty years and there is sufficient turning space in all three lots for total off-street parking. Dr. Johnson also has ten parking spaces on the back side of his property against the fence along the property line with the ASHA apartments. There are log stops for these parking spaces. There is a large turning area for these parking spaces. Ms. Linda Freed Planning and Community Development November 10, 1989 page 2 Altogether, Dr. Johnson has 13 designated parking spaces based on spaces being 8' x 20'. Dr. Johnson's building, according to the �...,../' information provided by Craig Johnson, has a total area of 7050 square feet (4890 square feet for the main level and 2160 square feet for the basement level). Based on the Borough code, requiring one parking space for every 300 square feet of building space, Dr. Johnson only needs 24 parking spaces leaving a surplus of nine parking spaces. I am also enclosing a copy of my lease with Dr. Johnson, showing the spaces that he is going to lease to me. I will be glad to produce any additional information that you need. Thank you. Very truly ;yours, u E"F% Le0oux KML/keo enc c.c. Joel Bolger /.6d , ai,J-c Ccn &KIP ,r/ ice 21,2,2A7/.n�.rJ/' 7 a office\1 r.189 TTTTTw O. J.NIN C.WALT{w Ce TLL ,OCL N. GOLGae. ALAN NTT JAMIN, EDELL, BOLGER & GENTRY TNCTuueN.L ouNro.mON ATTORNEYS AT LAW e.a c.wovN eTNsn KOOIAK. ALISMA 8 015 .r.cmNn.:NOONAWLE i TnOo»ONo ISOTI 4ee-ae24 IMPLY TO .ODA.* OT,iCC November 21, 1989 Linda Freed Community Development Dept. Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Kodiak Island Borough v. LeDoux Our File No. 4095-87 Dear Linda: Ire Par anal .OwN C/O.na mo. m m[. aaSOLGT.»a, The court has postponed the hearing on the motion for summary judgment in our case against Kurt and Gabrille LODoux until December 29, 1989 at 2:30 P.M. Please keep me advised about the LoDoux's pending application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. JHB:1s 87L.004 Sincerely yours, JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY Joel H. olger RECEIVED NOV 2 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN DEPT 4/ 3 r::/.Li7 CFI i%retJ 1 Et Tor or ger //7.) 4 Til JAN VW. AR. 7.:. 17 9110 0 CR 440.1 n>..a, ) ,sa a $TOM rC 014 rlA) J 0 net Ne � or1.155 t NG < orr.c4 NAS OfFlCG Na. i 200 I-1 HOLMES - JOHNSON CLINIC. bASEMEHT FLOOR,pLAgl�/) 7 9 1 p k6' N23165 96 rjYlsU E 19398.9 • s� .55.1 75 N 23026.56 E 19529.29 —1 1 206, 256,39' Lease made on the day of November, 1989, between Dr. Bob Johnson H.D. (Lessor) and Kurt M. LeDoux of LeDoux 8 LeDoux, Attorneys at Law (Lessee). Lessor hereby agrees to lease to Lessee seven (7) parking spaces at his professional office building at 115 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, The seven parking spaces are shown on Exhibit "A", which is hereby incorporated into this lease. Lessee shall pay as rental to Lessor the sum of Ninety Dollars ($90.00) per month due on the First day of each month. The rents may be increased yearly with a six months notice of any increase. The term of the lease shall be year to year with the right of either party to terminate this lease upon six months notice to the other party. This lease is subject to the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission's approval to permit Lessee to use Lessor's parking lot to meet Lessee's parking space obligations. Date Dr. Bob Johnson, M.D. Lessor Date Kurt M. LeDoux Lessee office\park.les Kodiak Island Borough NENPRANDUM T0: Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner Community Development Department FE: Lee Beauman, Construction Inspecto Engineering/Facilities Department DT: December 7, 1989 RE: Your Case 1187-058, Proposed Parking Behind the LeDoux Law Office RECFni DEC 8 - 1989 COMMUNITY DEVEL0PMER' rrr., I visited the LeDoux property with you on December reviewing the owners proposal to construct an eight to evaluate the feasibility of this proposal. From a practical perspective, the following facts proposal was not based on sound engineering, principles: 6, 1989 for the purpose of (8) space parking area and readily indicate that the construction or safety 1. The site line of drivers exiting the proposed driveway into the an coming traffic lane of Mill Bay Road is blocked by a board fence on the adjacent property. 2. The proposed driveway passes between the LeDoux Building and the neighbors board fence. Plat shows the width to be 9.4 feet. City code requires 14 feet; Borough code requires 12 feet minimum driveway widths. Irregardless of code, 9.4 feet is inadequate. 3. Hill Bay Road traffic is downhill at the proposed driveway entrance further compounding the hazard particularly when slippery road conditions exist. 4. Proposed driveway passes directly over a buried fuel tank. The fuel tank would have to relocate. 5. Topography of the proposed parking lot site will drain the lot to adjacent properties. If sod and topsoil is removed to construct a parking lot, surface water run-off will increase. 6. A sharp grade change exists at the rear property line, the earth is unrestrained and sloughing is evident. It would be necessary to construct a retaining wall to correct this condition. 7. The proposed parking lot site is currently a lawn area. To convert to a parking+area/driveway would require removal of the sod and importation of crushed rock. It is unlikely construction costs can be justified by the benefits. Duane Dvorak December 7, 1989 Page 2 - " If lack of parking space is a problem in the vicinity of the LeDour offica, it is not apparent to the casual observer. It is my suggestion that common sense be considered when seeking a solution to this dispute. It appears that the applicant for variance agreed to construct parking spaces in an impractical and unsafe configuration. The grantor of the variance accepted this flawed proposal. Both parties erred. 'Parking can not be a significant problem as a result of traffic to this small law office. Call it a wash. I/7 CITY or KODIAK In the matter of Appeal of decision of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission concerning Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux, d/b/a/ LeDoux & LeDoux Appellants. Planning and Zoning Commission Case No. 87-058 STATEMENT ON APPEAL Appellants, Kurt M. LeDoux and Gabrielle LeDoux, d/b/a LeDoux & LeDoux, hereinafter referred to as "the LeDouxs" purchased the residence of Joel and Carolyn Davis located at 219 Mill Bay Road for use as a law office. The property was zoned for uses such as a law office, but a variance was required because the house was too big for the lot. The initial plans were to construct eight parking spaces in the back yard.1 The number of spaces was determined by the square footage of the building, utilizing the upstairs for an apartment.2 The LeDouxs' main law practice consists of maritime personal injury cases, with perhaps three fourth of their clients not even living in Kodiak. The office has little traffic. The staff consists of two attorneys, a full-time secretary, and a part- time file clerk. At the time the variance was granted both the I It was later determined that only seven spaces were required. 2 Utilizing the upstairs for an apartment turned out to be impracticable. The upstairs is now used mainly for storage purposes and occasional non-profit community activities. Borough and the LeDouxs knew that there might by problems in 4 constructing an on -premises parking lot because of the relatively narrow space between the building and the fence next door where the drive -way would be. The variance was neverthele granted. However, as is shown by the affidavit of Bernie Lindsey of Spruce Cape Excavation, Inc. (Exhibit" A"), for all practical purposes it would be impossible to construct an on -premises 'T parking lot. There is too high of a slope in the ground where the planned drive -way was to be built between the law office ' building and the house next door to it.3 Building a drive -way 1 would require cutting down the slope. However, this would cause drainage problems. Moreover, it would require the shoring up of the neighbor's fence, which would cause the driveway to be I! too narrow for practical use.' The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning CommissioI (P&Z) made the same conclusion in its findings dated Decembe. 21, 1989 (Exhibit "B") wherein it stated: "The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 68 and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 3 This house is owned by the Le0ouxs' neighbor, Wilton , White. The opening now is only a little over nine feet. { STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 2 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of euesti benefit to the public .. Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner for KIS did a study on the_ proposed parking lot. Mr. Dvorak's findings are contained in his report dated December 7, 1989 (Exhibit "C"). Highlights of he report are that the proposed use of the LeDouxs' back yard as a parking lot was not based on "sound engineering, construction or safety principles" because: 1. The sight lino of drivers on Mill Bay Road lu blocked by a fence. 2. The opening to the back yard is too narrow. 3. Mill Bay Road is downhill at the proposed driveway entrance. 4. There is a buried fuel tank in the back yard. 5. There are drainage problems. 6. A retaining wall must be built. 7. Construction costs are not justified by the ,benefits. Mr. Dvorak concludes with some recommendations that can be Helpful to this forum in deciding the issues before it: "If lack of parking space is a problem in the vicinity of the LeDouxs' office, it is not apparent to the casual observer. It is my suggestion that common sense be considered when seeking a solution to this dispute. It appears that applicant for variance agreed to construct parking spaces in an impractical and unsafe configuration. The grantor of the variance STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 3 accepted this flawed proposal. Both parties erred. Parking can not be a significant problem as a'result - of traffic to_this small_law_office. Call_it a wash.!_ .-- INTTIAL PROPOSED ALTERNATE PARKING LOT The Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.57.030 provides relief when it is impracticable to build on a particular lot wherein it states: "All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020 shall bo on the same lot as, or a lot adjacent to, the principal building that they service; provided, that if the planning commission finds that it is impracticable to locate the spaces on such a lot, it may permit them to be located on any lot within six hundred feet of the principal building. All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020 shall be located in a use district permitting the use which they serve." Appellants proposed that they be allowed to use Dr. Bob Johnson's parking lot and they requested a variance to use his parking lot for five spaces.' Dr. Johnson had agreed to lease the LeDouxs' seven parking spaces at $90.00 a month. Dr. Johnson's parking lot is less than 200 feet from the LeDouxs' office. ' The LeDouxs already have two parking spaces available on their property. STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 4 In its decision dated December 21, 1989, P&Z rejected the use of Dr. Johnson's parking spaces. The reasoning given was: 1. The proposed parking is not located within line of sight of the law office; 2. The proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate identification of individual parking spaces. 3. The proposed conditions of use, i.e., a permanent easement to the property, could not be obtained. THE LeDOUXS' POSITION The "line of sight" requirement is not required under the code, nor could the LeDouxs find any case law where such condition was ever required. This is a frivolous reason for rejection. There is no reason given why the proposed parking would not be viable with adequate marking of spaces. Why do the spaces need to be identified at all? Dr. Johnson has a large surplus of spaces. The proposed condition of use, i.e., a permanent easement to the property, was apparently the idea of the Borough attorney. There is no known case law or requirement that there needs to be a permanent easement on someone else's property in order to use it for parking lot. This is an unreasonable requirement and one that no rational property owner would agree to. A permanent easement would unreasonably tic up the ownership of someone else's property, causing a hardship when the owner tries to sell the property. A simple requirement that STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 5 the Borough be notified if the lease is not renewed should be sufficient. SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED PARKING LOTS The LeDouxs then in good faith sought to obtain tl permission of the P&Z to use the Community Baptist Church parking lot or alternatively to use the downtown parking lot. P&2 rejected both of these alternatives. The basis for rejection is contained in P&Z's February 22, 1990 decision (Exhibit 0). The basis was as follows: (1) The use of the church parking lot was rejected because the LeDouxs did not obtain the permission of the owners, (2) the Lebouxs did not in their original application request a variance from P&2 to alleviate all or some of the additional off-street parking requirements, (3) the LeDouxs did not request the use of the downtown area in a timely manner which would have permitted staff to investigate it further, and (4) the office is not in the UR -19 Urban Renewa] Plan. THE LeDOUXS' POSITION The LeDouxs NAVE the permission of the Community Baptist Church to use its parking lot. The LeDouxs park their cars every business day of the week on the Community Baptist lot. What the LeDouxs do not have is a formal agreement with the Community Baptist Church. The Church does not want to get into a legal nightmare over the use of its parking lot. The Church's position is entirely proper and reasonable. The LeDouxs hardly could have made their request sooner STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 6 when previously ovoryono ausumod that the construction of the parking lot was practicable. As to timeliness of the request to use the downtown parking lSt, P&Z could have continued the hearing on such application. However, it is obvious that P&Z would not now, in the future, or ever, approve of the use of the downtown parking lot, much less any other location. Finally, it is immaterial that the LeDouxs are not in the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. The lot is within 600 feet of the Le0ouxs' business which is all that is required under the code. The lot, as has been confirmed by discussions with City of Kodiak employees, 1s open to everyone in Kodiak. LAW The Lo0ouxs would generally agree that the decision of the P&Z should be given some deference. However, the discretion of the P&Z has been abused whereby it is requiring the LeDouxs to do something which it agrees is unsafe and of questionable benefit to the property. It is a legal truism that the law does not require a person to do a foolish thing. A foolish thing is what the Borough wants the Lebouxs to do. The Courts will not enforce zoning regulations which are needless or oppressive. See )Jobbn vs,t Saab, 493 P.2d 1352, 1355 (Colo. 1972), Gilpin vs Jacob Fills Realties, 135 A.2d 204 (N.J.Sup. 1957), Yenrner vs. AbouE_i_, 397 P.2d 494 (Okl. 1964), fovt vs. Geist 364 S.W.2d 461 (Tex.Civ.App. 1963) The reasonable alternative is to allow the TATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 7 LeDouxo to use one of the three proposed alternate parking space°. Zoning cannot be uood to deprive an awnor of tho use of his property. Egg City of Omaha vs. Cutchall, 114 N.,W.2d 6, 12 (Neb. 1962). CONCLUSION The LeDouxs request the City Counsel to overturn the decision of the P&Z commission and permit the Lebouxs to meet their parking requirements by using the Community Baptist parking lot as they are now doing, or alternatively to be able to use the downtown parking area or Dr. Bob Johnson's parking lot. The only thing that needs to be accomplished is that the Lebouxs have parking spaces. There is no need for the Lebouxs to have to jump through hoops. This Council could put reasonable restrictions on the use of such alternative parking lots as Dr. Johnson's office or tho Community Baptist church and require notification of P&Z if the Lebouxs are no longer permitted to use these places. Formal contracts and/or easements are simply unnecessary. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3/'.Pday of May, 1990. z*h. {efsi fn.M1 f wood t 40 ane wend net of Ibe above an eves afhnet N tltar{-+a al..}zh.0- Ibla mallet. by vs,t PAy`'t 4fuo.0 f19,40fte. ledoux.3\app. stm LeDOUX & LeDOUX ATTORNEYSS AT�' LAW //ja. ,�(j�/, �y By: 1; " 'JL r/' Kurt M. Leroux, Attorney( for Appellants G STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 8 SI 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 •` ...:�:' 23 24 25 3. In my opinion, such a parking lot would be, for all practical'purposes, unusable. Attorneys for Defendants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT KODIAK KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Plaintiff, vs. URT M. LeDOUX and ABRIELLE LeDOUX, Defendants. KO -89-210 Civil AFFIDAVIT OF BERNIE LINDSEY COMES NOW Bernie Lindsey, being first duly sworn, and he deposeth and sayeth, under penalty of perjury, that: 1. I am the owner of Spruce Cape Excavation, Inc., a local orporation which performs such work as constructing drive -ways and parking lots. 2. I was asked by Kurt M. LeDoux to construct a parking lot back yard of his law offices at 219 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. 26 27 2 S E>thl bt t A 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 tor ij »,oAt pm, 24 2B 26 27 28 r' 4. There is a slope in the ground where the drive -way would be built. 5. while I could alleviate most of the slope problem, in my opinion doing so would cause drainage problems to the building. 6. I would also need to shore up the fence along the side of the driveway. In doing this, I would have to build a wall that would substantially reduce the opening of the drive way. 7. While it may be possible to get a car through the drive -way, it will be very difficult, especially when the ground has snow on it. 9'he foregoing is true to the best of my memory, knowledge and belief. /Ji �r Ai""'YF"..J L.S Bernie Lindsey � SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN To before me this 6.; October, 1989. ar�y e b1id, Ste Hy commission Expi Iertify that on the /4 '-'clay of fit'lfjtt¢'" , 1989, I served a true and correct copy of the above on each attorney of record ity this matter by ( ) hand or (l() mail. iedottx.3\aff.spc AFFIDAVIT OF BERNIE LINDSEY; Case No. 3K0-89-210 Civil; page 2 Kurt and Gabdeffe LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 DEC. D 1969 1( to( fjh •1', Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 97615-6340 PHONE 1907) 406.5736 December 21, 1989 Re: Case 87-050. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17,57.030 (011 -street parking --Location) of the Borough Code 10: 1, Ilnd that it Is Impractical to locate any of the seven (7) required oil -street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 6, Kodiak Townsile due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 60, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on December 20, 1989: A. Adopted finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989, pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that it Is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 0, Kodiak Townsite. FINDING OF FACT 1. Thu Planning and Zoning Commission finds that It is impractical to locate five (5) or the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for tho c%h;b; E Kodialc Island Borough _Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December 21, 1989 Page Two office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 6, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public because of the following: a. the ingress and egress to the parking area is unsafe due to its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Upper Mill Bay Road, b. construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to the Increased drainage; c. the location of the parking lot makes it unlikely that the public would utilize the parking lot; and d. the topography is such that it would undermine the adjacent lot. B. Adopted the following finding in support of their decision, pursuant to Section 17,57.030 of the Borough Code, to deny relocation of the off-street parking required for Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite to the oil -street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision: 1. The relocation of livo (5) oft -street parking paces would not bo effective in mooting the parking requirement for uses on Lots 6A, 60, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite because of the following: a. the proposed parking is not located within the line of sight of the uses to be served; b. the proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate Identification of the individual spaces and their location; and c. the applicant indicated that the proposed conditions of approval could not be met even before the decision was made by the Commission, 5 3 Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December 21, 1989 Page Three An appeal of these decisions may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date of the Commission's decision, The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal, the relief sought by the appellant, and be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effective until ten (10) days following the decision. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, (.141x1 at Jt — Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department cc: Joel Bolger, Jamin Emil Bolger 8 Gentry Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM TO: Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner Community Development Department FRt Lcu Boatman, Construction Inspect Engineering/Facilities Department DT: December 7, 1989 RP.: Your Case 887-058, Proposed Parking Behind the LeDoux Law Office L4 i lvv) 114.99 ayllib,f- L trartatini DEC 8— Mu COMMUNITY DE'JELOPMEN: rr P, I visited the LeDoux property with you on December reviewing the owners proposal to construct an eight to evaluate the feasibility of this proposal. From a practical perspective, the following facts proposal was not based on sound engineering, principles: 1. The site line of drivers exiting the proposed driveway into the on coming traffic lane of Mill Bay Read is blocked by a board fence on the adjacent property. 6, 1989 for the purpose of (8) space parking area and readily indicate that the construction or safety 2. The proposed driveway passes between the LeDoux Building and the neighbors board Fence. Plat shows the width to be 9.4 feet. City coda requires 14 fent{ Borough code requires 12 feat minimum driveway widths. Irrugardiess of code, 9.4 feet is inadequate. 3. 11111 Bay Road traffic is downhill at the proposed driveway entrance further compounding the hazard particularly when slippery road conditions exist:. 4. Proposed driveway passes directly over a buried fuel tank. The fool tank would have to relocate. 5. Topography of the proposed parking lot site will drain the lot to adjacent properties. If sod and topsoil is removed to construct a parking lot, surface water run-off will increase. 5. A sharp grade change exists at the rear property line, the earth is unrestrained and sloughing is evident. It would be necessary to construct a retaining wall to correct this condition. 7. The proposed parking lot site is currently a lawn area. To convert to a parking area/driveway would require removal of the sod and importation of crushed rock. It is unlikely construction costs can be justified by the benefits. & 'i10 tt 0_ • • _Duane Dvorak December 7, 1989 Page 2 If lack of parking space is a problem in the vicinity of the LeDoux office, it is not apparent to the casual observer. It is my suggestion that common sense be considered when seeking a solution to this dispute. It appears that the applicant for variance agreed to construct parking spaces in an impractical and unsafe configuration. The grantor of the variance accepted this flawed proposal. Both parties erred. Parking can not be a significant problem as a result of traffic to this small law office. Call it a wash. Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 1B u>d �utoy( urr FEB. ea lap,8 Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mal BAY ROAD KODIAK. ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 186.5736 February 22, 1990 Re: Case 87-058. Request for additional 'Findings of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking -Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) ol,the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within:six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is Intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 21, 1990, adopted the following additional "Findings of Fact -for the request cited above: 1. The applicant did not obtain the permission of the property owner, the Community Baptist Church, to submit the properly as a viable parking alternative for Commission review. 2. When the applicant converted the properly from a single-family dwelling to a professional office and apartment, no variance was requested to alleviate all or some of the additional off-street parking requirement. 3. Tho applicant did not formally request the downtown parking area to be Investigated as an alternative parking silo In a timely fashion which would have permitted staff to respond to the Commission in the staff report that was prepared for the appearance request. Ss Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux February 22, 1990 Page Two 4. Even though a variance would still be required for any additional oft -street parking requirement created in the downtown area, the applicants' property is not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, tkliet4 Patricia Miley, Se Community Development Department cc: Joel Bolger, JAMIN EBELL BOLGER & GENTRY 56 Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough - 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK. ALASKA 97615-6340 PHONE {907) 406,5736 May 18, 1990 Re: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Case 87.058. An appeal of the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (011 -street parking—Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) (The Commission denied thls request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Dear Ms. Dalke: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department's written statement in opposition to the appeal referenced above. The Department's response to the appellants' written statement follows. In reviewing the Statement on Appeal submitted by the appellants, Community Development Department staff (hereinafter referred to as "staff") notes what appear to be inaccuracies and/or cols -statements of fact which tend to cloud the issue that was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20, 1989. While this statement is referred to as being in opposition to the appeal, it is more correct to think of this statement as a tetter of clarification as staff believes that the Commission's decision will stand on its own merits, and stall does not Intend by this statement to speak for the Planning and Zoning Commission, Regarding the appellants' "Statement on Appeal," staff would like to make the following clarifications. Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE - Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Two Footnote 01: Footnote 02: Stall revised the oil -sl reel panting requirement to seven (7) spaces during the investigation. This calculation was based on recently developed information from the Borough Assessing Department. This calculation has not been officially recorded in the appellants' properly file and will not be so recorded until the appellants request and sign a revised zoning compliance permit. The appellants' assertion of the change in use of the second floor dwelling unit to a conference room or office area is similarly undocumented In the Borough's property file. Anytime a change in use is proposed for a property, it is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain a zoning compliance permit prior to the change. At that time staff documents any changes in the off-street parking requirements due to changes In the structure or use of the structure, and the property owner is required to attest the information contained on the zoning compliance permit prior to inclusion in the official property file. The effect of low client traffic on the off-street parking requirement for the site has no bearing on this case (page 1 at the appellants' Statement on Appeal). The Zoning Code establishes the criteria for off-street parking requirements. These requirements must be enforced uniformly on all properties located in the applicable zoning district (in this case, the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District). if there are conditions unique to the lot or use of the property which would affect one or more of the standards of development specified in the Zoning Code, then those conditions might provide justification for a variance from the applicable development standards, A variance is the only way that the Zoning Code may take these unique conditions into consideration. The Commission determined (on December 20, 1989) that development of off-street parking on this site was impractical. However, the variance which permitted the professional office to locate on a nonconforming lot of record (nonconforming due to insufficient lot area and lot width) was granted (on November 18, 1987) based upon the 57 Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Three property owners' assurance that the off-street parking would be constructed prior to the conversion of the residence to a professional office. In arriving at this decision, the Commission recognized the potential problems associated with the development of the required off-street parking. The Commission in reaching its decision (on December 20, 1989) to deny the relocation 01 the required oft -street parking was based on a belief that regardless of how Impractical or costly the development of the required off-street parking might be, it was certainly not "impossible" to construct a parking area that would meet the requirements of the Zoning Code even though it might be impractical. With this in mind, it seems that the appellants' statement on page 2 of their Statement on Appeal: "However, as is shown by the affidavit of Bernie Lindsey of Spruce Cape Excavation, Inc. (Exhibit "A"), for all practical purposes It would be Impossible to construct an on - premises parking lot' (emphasis added) is an exaggeration and is evidenced by Bernie Lindsey's Affidavit (Exhibit A): "In my opinion, such a parking lot would be, for all practical purposes, unusable." Page 3 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal, slates: "Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner for KIB did a study on the proposed parking lot. Mr. Dvorak's findings are contained in his report dated December 7, 1989 (Exhibit "C").._` This study was conducted by a Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department staff person and not by Duane Dvorak. This study was requested by cg Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Four Community Development Department staff In order to provide an Independent assessment of the physical characteristics of the proposed parking lot behind the LeDouxs law office. The opinions stated in this study are not those of Community Development Department staff. This information was intended to provide a qualified, technical evaluation only. The Community Development Department's staff report recommendations were based on other sources of information of which this study was only a part. Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking - Location) does not necessarily provide relief when it is impractical to build oft -street parking on a particular lot. Section 17.57.030 provides relief only when the Commission finds that: - 1. it is impractical to locate the required spaces on such a lot; and 2. the Commission determines that a proposed parking alternative is more practical, then it may permit some or all of the required off-street parking spaces to be relocated to another lot within six hundred (600) feet of the principal building. On December 20, 1909, the Commission determined that the original unconstructed off- street parking plan was impractical (not to be contused with Impossible). In addition, the Commission determined that the proposed off-street parking alternative was not more practical and denied this portion of the LeDouxs request on that basis. Requests initiated under Section 17.57.030 are not variances as stated on page 4 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal; "Appellants proposed that they be allowed to use Dr. Bob Johnson's parking lot and they requested a variance to use his parking lot for five spaces...." Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE _ Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Five Requests brought betore the Commission under Section 17.57.030 are scheduled as appearance requests only. A variance requires a public hearing which would involve the notification of every property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the exterior property lines of the subject property. In addition, the criteria for a variance, as set forth in Section 17.66 (Variance) of the Zoning Code and Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes, requires a much more stringent standard of review, as well as setting forth six (6) criteria for which the Commission must make positive findings of fact in order to grant a variance. While the property owner in this case is not prohibited from requesting a variance, a variance (by law) cannot be granted to provide relief from a situation the property owner created, On page 5 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal, "line of sight" is discussed. The Commission's finding of fad that: "the proposed parking Is not located within the line of sight of the uses to be served ..." explains, In part, the Commission's decision that the alterative parking plan proposed by the LeDouxs would not successfully meet the off-street parking requirements of the professional office use. It was the opinion of the Commission that if the parking area was located out -of -sight of the business being served, the parking spaces would not be used by the business's patrons, Also on page 5 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal, the "permanent easement" condition Is discussed. The requirement of a permanent easement has been used in the past by the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to resolve parking situations where adequate room to locate the required off-street parking was not available on a particular property. However, in these other cases, the request to relocate the required off-street parking was addressed and decided by the Commission prior to changing or enlarging the land use which required the additional off-street parking. An agreement to provide parking spaces that can be broken or that will expire, will most likely result in a recurrence of the parking violation that required the relocation in the first place. Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke. CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Six Experience has shown that atter the passage of time, in urban settings such as the one In which the appellant's property is located, the chances of finding another suitable, alternative parking site will be reduced as time goes on. A recorded easement provides a verifiable public record that a portion of the lot where the parking was relocated is dedicated to serving the parking requirements of another lot. While it is recognized that the practice of requiring an easement has some negative aspects, it is for this reason that the practice of relocating parking is not encouraged and In fact requires a review by the Commission. Other temporary agreements had been discussed by the Commission as potential options to resolve this case; however, the Commission determined that, in this instance, it was best to require the most permanent form of solution. Other alternative parking locations are discussed on pages 6 and 7 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal. The other locations noted by the appellants were not property requested for review by the Commission. The Community Baptist Church would not sign an application for inclusion in the staff investigation as did Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision's property owner. It is the policy of the Commission not to accept appearance requests for lots or properties not controlled by the applicant. There is no documentation on file with the Community Development Department that the appellants have the authority to represent the owner(s) of the Community Baptist Church property. In this case, the Church Board was contacted by staff in time to include the site in the investigation for the appearance request. The Church Board voted not to submit an application to be included in the investigation. It would have been unethical for staff and a waste of staff and Commission time to further pursue this Issue after becoming aware of the Church Board's decision. Staff has no other documentation that the appellants have received any approval whatsoever for locating their off-street parking on the Church's properly. Use of the public parking lot in the downtown area was not considered because the applicant made no mention of this as a possible alternative until the Planning and 57 Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Daike, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Seven Zoning Commission's meeting on December 20, 1989. Staff, therefore, had no time to investigate this option. However, in considering additional findings of fact as requested by the appellants, staff and the Commission tried to address the fact that such an option was not feasible and would not meet the off-street parking requirements of the appellants' professional office use at 219 Mill Bay Road. Staff believes that it Is improper to say that the Church lot and the downtown lot were rejected as alternative parking sites by the Commission, It is apparent that these alternatives were not propedy considered due to the inadequacy of the appellants' original application. Use of the downtown parking area is open to public use as noted by the appellants. Public ownership of the lots, however, does not in fact confer any parking rights to the properties within a certain distance for the purpose of meeting the Zoning Ordinance's off-street parking requirements. As noted previously, ail new or expanded businesses which must rely on the public parking facilities available downtown are required to seek and obtain a variance from the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to Initiation of any change In, or expansion of, the land use. This is due to the fact that it is not possible to expand the existing downtown parking facilities to accommodate additional or expanded parking demand. Even it the appellants' property was entitled to use the public parking areas downtown, a variance for the additional parking would have to be obtained prior to conversion of the residence to an office use. The Borough Attorney has supplied additional comments (copy attached( regarding the appellants' legal citations and analysis. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the above clarifications regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and the appellants' Statement on Appeal. Sincerely, Duane Dvorak, A socciate Planner Community Development Department 6 C. ".•uL JOEL .1..06e..• Ae a,,.. " o""n.r L e et VIA FArsrmIr,r JAMIN, ESELL, BOLGER & GENTRY ATTORNCYS AT LAW ao C.44101" 1100,.9., ALASKA 226,3 n,t.l(ao',..a e,,* nu."a"0 ;e0e.ee00l4 AVL., TO XOCl.K OrriCC MEMORANDUM TO Duane Dvorak Planning Department Kodiak Island Boroug FROM : Joel M. Bolger JAMIN, EBELL, DATE May 16, 1990 RE LeDoux Appeal Statement on Appeal - Our File No. 4702-67 C CAM t orrmu RECEIVED MAY17sal - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT I recommend the following language be added to your comments in response to the Statement on Appeal submitted by Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux. STATFMFNT IN OPPOSTTION TO APPFA7. On October 13, 1987, Toby Cook submitted an application for a variance on behalf of Joel Davis, with respect to Lot 6, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, proposing the use of the existing single family residence on the property as a professional office and upstairs apartment. In support of the variance application, Kurt M. LeDoux, ofLetoox and LeDoux, submitted an as -built survey labeled "Proposed Use of Real Property for Combination Office and Upstairs Apartment.' The proposal included a plan for a driveway along the northeast boundary of the. property and a parking area in the western most corner of the property, including 'eight 8• X 20' parking spaces." In a letter in support of his variance request, Mr. LeDoux stated that he had requested the Community Baptist Church to grant a parking easement and that request was being considered by the church. He stated he, therefore, needed to go forward with the proposed parking behind the house. The variance application was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in reliance on the as -built survey and the parking plan which had been submitted by Mr. LeDoux. Mr. Cook stated at the public hearing on the application that the alternative of using the church lot for parking was not possible. Mr. Duane Dvorak J,ennex Anneal May 16, 1990 Page 2 The Kodiak Island Borough was required to initiate court proceedings in order to obtain compliance with the parking requirement. In response to the Borough's request, Mr. and Mrs. LeDoux submitted this application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an alternate parking location. The zoning ordinances permit, but do not require, the Commission to allow parking spaces on a lot which is not adjacent to the principal building that they service. RtRC 17 47 010 Off-street Parkin J.onatt,n_ All parking space required under Section 17.57.020 shall be on the same lot as, or a lot adjacent to, the principal building that they service; provided, that it the Planning Commission finds that it is impractical to locate the spaces on such a lot, it may permit them to be located on any lot within 600 feet of the principal building.... The Planning Commission found in this case that is was impractical to locate the parking spaces for the LeDoux office at the Holmes -Johnson Clinic which is over a block away. On Mr. LeDoux's request, the Planning and Zoning Commission made additional findings that the applicant did not obtain the permission of the property owner, the Community Baptist Church, to submit the property as a viable parking alternative for Commisaion review, that the applicant did not formally request the downtown parking area to be investigated, and that the use of the downtown parking area for additional off-street parking should not be allowed because the applicant's property is not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. The findings of the Planning and Commission concerning the suitability of the alternative locations proposed by the applicant should be upheld if the Board finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to support them. Kodiak City Code 17.10.080(c). In this regard, the Board should note that the applicant has not submitted any formal easement or lease, designating his right to use the parking spaces proposed at the Holmes -Johnson Clinic or at the Community Baptist Church. The applicants imply in their legal argument that the Board of Adjustment can disregard the zoning ordinances which require adequate off-street parking to be provided. There is nothing in the Kodiak Island Borough ordinances concerning off-Btreet parking to support this argument. See KIBC 17.57.010 - 040. In addition, none of the cases which are cited by the applicant for this Mr. Duane Dvorak 7,enoux Anneal -- May 16, 1990 Page 3 proposition even concern the enforcement of zoning ordinances) The applicant does cite a familiar proposition that a zoning ordinance cannot arbitrarily deprive a landowner of all beneficial use of his property. City of Omaha v Cutchall 114 N.W. 2d 6 (Neb. 1962). This proposition, however, does not apply to the present situation, where the premises were legally used for residential purposes for many years. A variance was allowed to Mr. and Mrs. LeDoux for business use, upon their solemn promise to construct an adequate parking lot. Residential use will continue to be a legally adequate alternative under the zoning ordinances, even if Mr. and Mrs. LeDoux continue to refuse to construct or provide adequate parking to support a professional office. JHB:dlm AMMAN 013 1111/12115—fl-With 493 P.2d 1352, 1355 (Colo. 1972), does not concern a zoning violation. It holds that a private landowner may not recover against his neighbor under a nuisance theory for a lecai nonconforming use of property. Diipin v. aarob Filie Realties 135 A.2d 204 (N.J.Sup. 1957). allows a private landowner to recover damages rather than an injunction for breach of a private restrictive covenant between neighboring landowners, yarn r_ r v_ Ab_uasie 397 P.2d 494 (Okla. 1964), also refused an injunction to restrain violation of a private restrictive covenant between neighboring landowners where the complaining party had suffered no damage. )lhvt v Meier, 364 S.W. 24 461 (Tex.Civ.App. 1963), likewise refused an injunction to enforce a restrictive subdivision covenant forbidding the business use of premises, where the court found that the business use for merely incidental to residential use. 61 CITY CLERK POST OFFICE DOR 1397. KODIAR. ALARA 99615 May 21, 1990 Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Case 87-058 Appeal of December sion decision TELEPHONE (907) 486-8636 FAR (907) 486-8600 20, 1989 Commis - Dear Mr. and Mrs. LeDoux: At a special City Council meeting on June 5, 1990, the City Council will sit as the Board of Adjustment to hear your appeal. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers. If you have any questions, tact me. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIA NANCY E. JONE , CMC Deputy City Clerk please do not hesitate to con- NEJ/nj cc: Gordon J. Gould, City Manager Mayor and Council Melvin M. Stephens II, City Attorney Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner, Community Development Department, Kodiak Island Borough 6 May 29, 1990 ATTN: ANNE GERTZ DISPLAY AD WITH BORDER AND CITY LOGO NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The Kodiak City Council will sit as the Board of Adjustment to hear Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux's appeal of the December 20, 1989, Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission decision denying their request to permit five of the seven required off-street parking spaces to be located on another lot (Case 87-058). The appeal will be heard during the special City Council meeting of June 5, 1990. Interested persons are invited to attend the meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road. Publish: June 1, 1990 Kodiak Daily Mirror Bill: Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 CITY CLEW POST OFFICE DOX 1397. KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 TELEPHONE (907) 486-8636 FAX (907) 486-8600 May 21, 1990 Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Case 87-058 Appeal of December 20, 1989 Commis- sion decision Dear Mr. and Mrs. LeDoux: At a special City Council meeting on June 5, 1990, the City Council will sit as the Board of Adjustment to hear your appeal. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to con- tact me. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIA NANCY E. ONE CMC Deputy City Clerk NEJ/nj cc: Gordon J. Gould, City Manager Mayor and Council Melvin M. Stephens II, City Attorney Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner, Community Development Department, Kodiak Island Borough/ RECEIVED MAY 2 2 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT .5 1. J._ 1 fti,.*'+**'?k>FW..f.*****,I * TRANSMISSION REPO!:T :KODIAK ISLAND BOR. ( MAY 18 '90 1455 ) ********************1,* :K?kW%kNok�K>K:R:k>kN:N::I:N<W.:kW.'X.N.'�:�K :1 DATE START' REMOTE TERMINAL MODE TIME RESULTS%TOTAL DEPT. * TIME IDENTIFICATION 'd rRGES CODE * ` * * • MAY 18 14:48 907 486 6112 G3ST 67'33" OK i 11. * * ! * * * * * * * * 1 * * i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * i i * * * * ! * * * * * ************Ni************WOK*****:****%:N;A.***i.:K***** *********h V:>I:#:#::k****WWF***-Y:N:******* *** 1 DATE: TIME: CHARGE TO: Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340' PHONE (907) 486-5736 GOD * * * * * * * * * * * * TRANSMITTED TO TELECOPY NO.: Irina 1r a ATTENTION: Qoi_geat FIRM: 5itw,,o0 EPrbu FROM: Y3flNL Auavw�e_ CJ i KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH TOTAL PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: REMARKS: Pc - I Zoog. wor 4-5 C*005, y 1 o0 `ro 0.1agwm.-. We are transmitting to you from Telecopy Number (907) 486-886 (NEW NUMBER), If you are not receiving properly, or should for some reason not receive all pages, please telephone the undersigned at (907) 486-5736. Thank you. Transmitter Marcella H. Daike, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD ' KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 4864736 May 18, 1990 Re: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Case 87-058. An appeal of the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 611, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle` LeDoux) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regul r meeting) Dear Ms. Daike: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department's written statement in opposition to the; appeal referenced above. The Department's response to the appellants' written statement follows. In reviewing the Statement on Appeal submitted by the appellants, Community Development Department staff (hereinafter referred to as "staff") noteel what appear to be inaccuracies and/or mis-statements of fact which tend to cloud the issue that was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20, 1989. While this statement is referred to as being in opposition to the appeal, it is more correct to think of this statement as a letter of clarification as staff believes that the Commission's decision will stand on its own merits,,and staff does not intend by this statement to speak for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Regarding the appellants' "Statement on Appeal," staff would like to make the following clarifications. Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Two Footnote #1: Staff revised the off-street parking requirement to seven (7) spaces during the investigation. This calculation was based on recently developed information from the Borough Assessing Department. This calculation has not been officially recorded in the appellants' property file and will not be so recorded until the appellants request and sign a revised zoning compliance permit. } Footnote #2: The appellants' assertion of the change in use! of the second floor dwelling unit to a conference room or office area is similarly undocumented in the Borough's property fife. Anytime a change in use is proposed for a property, it is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain a zoning compliance permit prior to the change. At that time staff documents any changes in the off-street parking requirements due to changes in the structure or use of the structure, and the property owner is required to attest the information contained on the zoning compliance; permit prior to inclusion in the official property file. The effect of low client traffic on the off-street parking requirement for; the site has no bearing on this case (page 1 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal). The Zoning Code establishes the criteria for off-street parking requirements. These requirements must be enforced uniformly on all properties located in the applicable zoning district (in this case, the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District). If there are conditions unique to the lot or use of the property which would affect one or more of the standards of development specified in the Zoning Code, then those conditions might provide justification for a variance from the applicable development standards. A variance is the only way that the Zoning Code may take these unique conditions into consideration. The Commission determined (on December 20, 1989) that development of off-street parking on this site was impractical. However, the variance which permitted the professional office to locate on a nonconforming lot of record (nonconforming due to insufficient lot area and lot width) was granted (on November 18, 1987) based upon the Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Three property owners' assurance that the off-street parking would be constructed prior to the conversion of the residence to a professional office. In arriving' at this decision, the Commission recognized the potential problems associated with the', development of the required off-street parking. The Commission in reaching its decision (on December 20, 1989) to deny the relocation of the required off-street parking was based on a belief that i regardless of how impractical or costly the development of the required off-street parging'might be, it was certainly not "impossible" to construct a parking area that would meet the requirements of the Zoning Code even though it might be impractical. With this in mind, it seems that the appellants' statement on page 2 of their Statement on Appeal: "However, as is shown by the affidavit of Bernie Lindsey of Spruce Cape Excavation, Inc. (Exhibit "A"), for all practical purposes It would be impossible to construct an on - premises parking lot." [emphasis added] is an exaggeration and is evidenced by Bernie Lindsey's Affidavit (Exhibit A): "In my opinion, such a parking lot would be, for all practical purposes, unusable." Page 3 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal, states: "Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner for KIB did a study ,on the proposed parking lot. Mr. Dvorak's findings are contained in his report dated December 7, 1989 (Exhibit "C")...." This study was conducted by a Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department staff person and not by Duane Dvorak. This study wasfrequested by Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Four Community Development Department staff in order to provide an independent assessment of the physical characteristics of the proposed parking lot behind the LeDouxs law office. The opinions stated in this study are not those of Community Development Department staff. This information was intended to :provide a qualified, technical evaluation only. The Community Development Department's staff report recommendations were based on other sources of information of Which this study was only a part. Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking - Location) does not necessarily provide relief when it is impractical to build off-street parking on a particular lot. i Section 17.57.030 provides relief only when the Commission finds that: 1 1 1. it is Impractical to locate the required spaces on such a lot; and 2. the Commission determines that a proposed parking alternative is more practical, then it may permit some or all of the required off-street parking spaces to be relocated to another lot within six hundred (600) feet 'of the principal building. On December 20, 1989, the Commission determined that the original unconstructed off- street parking plan was impractical (not to be confused with impossible): In addition, the Commission determined that the proposed off-street parking alternative was not more practical and denied this portion of the LeDouxs request on that basis. Requests initiated under Section 17.57.030 are not variances as stated on page 4 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal: "Appellants proposed that they be allowed to use Dr. Bob Johnson's parking lot and they requested a variance to use his parking lot for five spaces...." Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Five Requests brought before the Commission under Section 17.57.030 are scheduled as appearance requests only. A variance requires a public hearing which would involve the notification of every property owner within three hundred (300), feet of the exterior property lines of the subject property. In addition, the criteria for a variance, as set forth in Section 17.66 (Variance) of the Zoning Code and Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes, requires a much more stringent standard of review, as well as setting forth six (6) criteria for which the Commission must make positive findings of fact in order to grant a variance. While the property owner in this case is not prohibited from requesting a variance, a variance (by law) cannot be granted to provide relief from a situation the property owner created. On page 5 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal, "line of sight" i is discussed. The Commission's finding of fact that: "the proposed parking is not located within the line of sight of the uses to be served ..." • explains, in part, the Commission's decision that the alterative parking plan proposed by the LeDouxs would not successfully meet the off-street parking requirements of the professional office use. It was the opinion of the Commission that if the parking area was located out -of -sight of the business being served, the parking spaces would not be used by the business's patrons. Also on page 5 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal, the "permanent easement" condition is discussed. The requirement of a permanent easement has been used in the past by the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to resolve parking situations where adequate room to locate the required off-street parking was not available on a particular property. However, in these other cases, the request to relocate the required off-street parking was addressed and decided by the Commission prior to changing or enlarging the land use which required the additional off-street parking. An agreement to provide parking spaces that can be broken or that will expire, will Most likely result in a recurrence of the parking violation that required the relocation in the first; place. Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Six Experience has shown that after the passage of time, in urban settings such as the one in which the appellant's property is located, the chances of finding another suitable, alternative parking site will be reduced as time goes on. A recorded easement provides a verifiable public record that a portion of the lot where the parking was relocated is dedicated to serving the parking requirements of another lot. While 'it id recognized that the practice of requiring an easement has some negative aspects, it is for this reason that the practice of relocating parking is not encouraged and in fact requires a review by the Commission. Other temporary agreements had been discussed by the Commission as potential options to resolve this case; however, the Commission determined that; in this instance, it was best to require the most permanent form of solution. Other alternative parking locations are discussed on pages 6 and '7 of the appellants' Statement on Appeal. The other locations noted by the appellants were not properly requested for review by the Commission. The Community Baptist Church would not sign an application for inclusion in the staff investigation as did Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision's property owner. It is the policy of the Commission not to accept appearance requests for lots or propertiesnot controlled by the applicant. There is no documentation' on file with the Community bevelopment Department that the appellants have the authority to represent the owner(s) of the Community Baptist Church property. In this cath, the Church Board was contacted by staff in time to include the site in the investigation for the appearance request. The Church Board voted not to submit an application to be included in the investigation. It would have been unethical for staff and a waste of staff and Commission time to further pursue this issue after becoming aware of the Church Board's decision. Staff has no other documentation that the appellants have received any approval whatsoever for locating their off-street parking on the Church's property. Use of the public parking lot in the downtown area was not considered because the applicant made no mention of this as a possible alternative until the Planning and Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC/AAE Clerk, City of Kodiak May 18, 1990 Page Seven - i .' Zoning Commission's meeting on December 20, 1989. Staff, therefore, had no time to investigate this option. However, in considering additional findings of fact as requested by the appellants, staff and the Commission tried to address the fact that such an option was not feasible and would not' meet the off-street parking requirements of the appellants' professional office use at 219 Mill Bay Road. Staff, believes that it is improper to say that the Church lot and the downtown lot were rejected as alternative parking sites by the Commission. It is apparent that these alternatives were not properly considered due to the inadequacy of the appellants' original; application. Use of the downtown parking area is open to public use as noted by the appellants. Public ownership of the lots, however, does not in fact confer any parking rights to the properties within a certain distance for the purpose of meeting the Zoning Ordinance's off-street parking requirements. As noted previously, all new or expanded businesses which must rely on the public parking facilities available downtown are required to seek and obtain a variance from the Planning and Zoning Commission iprior to initiation of any change in, or expansion of, the land use. This is due to th'e fact that it is not possible to expand the existing downtown parking facilities to accommodate additional or expanded parking demand. Even if the appellants' property was entitled to use the public parking areas downtown, a variance for the additional parking would have to be obtained prlor to conversion of the residence to an office use. The Borough Attorney has supplied additional comments (copy attached) regarding the appellants' legal citations and analysis. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the above clarifications regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and the appellants' Statement ori Appeal. Sincerely, Duane Dvorak, Aociate Planner Community Development Department MATTHEW D. JAMIN C. WALTER EBELL JOEL H. DOLGERn DIANNA R. GENTRY ALAN L. SCHMITT WALTER W. MASON'P DUNCAN S. FIELDS •ADMITT90 TO WASHINGTON AND PLASMA OARS • iTE6 TO M, NNUOTA 9AR ALL iERS ADMITTED TO ALASKA BAR VIA FACSIMILE TO FROM : JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 323 CAROLYN STREET KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 FACSIMILE: (907) 486-6112 TELEPHONE: (907) 486-6024 REPLY TO KODIAK OFFICE MEMORANDUM Duane Dvorak . Planning Department Kodiak Island Borough Joel H. Bolger JAMIN, EBELL, DATE : May 16, 1990 RE TRY 'SEATTLE OFFICE: 119 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 460, MAYNARD BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 FACSIMILE; (208) 823.7521 TELEPHONE: (206) 622.7834 RECEIVED MAY 1 71990 COMMUNITY DEDEVELOPMENT. PT LeDoux Appeal Statement on Appeal - Our File No. 4702T67 I recommend the following language be added to your comments in response to the Statement on Appeal submitted by Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux. STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAII» On October 13, 1987, Toby Cook submitted an application for a variance on behalf of Joel Davis, with respect to;Lot 6, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, proposing the use of the existing single fathily residence on the property as a professional office and upstairs apartment. In support of the.variance application,: Kurt M. LeDoux, or-LtDycax , and LeDoux, submitted Jan as -built )survey. labeled "Proposed Use of Real Property for Combination Office and Upstairs Apartment." The proposal included a plan for a driveway along the northeast boundary of 'the property and a parking,area in the western most corner of the property, including "eight 8' X.20' parking spaces." In a letter in support of his variance request, Mr. LeDoux stated that he had requested the Community Baptist Church to grant a parking easement and that request was being considered by the church. He stated he, therefore, needed to go forward with the proposed parking behind the house. The variance application was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in reliance on the as -built 'survey and the parking plan which had been submitted by Mr. LeDoux. Mr. Cook stated at the public hearing on the application that the alternative of using the church lot for parking was not possible. Mr. Duane Dvorak LeDoux Appeal May 16, 1990 Page 2 The Kodiak Island Borough was required to, initiate court proceedings in orderto obtain compliance with the parking requirement. In response, to the Borough's request, 'Mr. and Mrs. LeDoux submitted• this application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an alternate parking location. The zoning ordinances permit, but do not require, the Commission to allow parking spaces on a lot which;is not adjacent to the principal building that they service. KIBC 17.57.030 Off -Street Parking Location. All parking space required under Section 17.57.020 shall be on the same lot as» or a lot adjacent to, the principal building that they service; provided, that if the Planning Commission finds that it is impractical,to locate the spaces on such a lot, it may permit them to be located on any lot within 600 feet of the principal building.... The Planning Commission found in this case that is was impractical to locate the parking spaces for the LeDoux office at the Holmes -Johnson Clinic which is ,over a block away. On Mr. LeDoux's request, 'the Planning and Zoning Commission made additional findings that the applicant did riot obtain the permission of the property owner, the Community Baptist Church, to submit the property as a viable parking alternative for Commission review, that the applicant did not formally request; the downtown parking area to be investigated, and that the use of the downtown parking area for additional off-street parking, should not be allowed because the applicant's property is not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. The. findings of the Planning and Commission' concerning the suitability of the alternative locations proposed by the applicant should be upheld if the Board finds that there'is' substantial evidence in the record to support them. Kodiak City Code 17.10.080(c). In this regard, the Board should' note that the applicant has not submitted any formal easement or lease, designating his right to use the parking spaces proposed at the Holmes -Johnson Clinic or at the Community Baptist Church. The applicants imply in their legal argument that the Board of Adjustment can disregard the zoning ordinancesi which require adequate off-street parking to be provided. There is nothing in the Kodiak Island Borough ordinances concerning off-street parking to support this argument. See KIBC 17.57.010 - 040. In addition, none of the cases which are cited by the applicant for this Mr. Duane Dvorak LeDoux Appeal May 16, 1990 Page 3 proposition even concern the enforcement of zoning ordinances.1 The applicant does cite a familiar proposition that a zoning ordinance cannot arbitrarily deprive a landowner of all beneficial use of, his property. City of Omaha v. Cutchall, 114 N.W. 2d 6 (Neb. 1962). This proposition, however, does not apply to the present situation, where the premises were legally used for residential purposes for many years. A variance was allowed to Mr. and Mrs. LeDoux for business use, upon their solemn promise to construct an adequate parking lot. Residential use will continue to be a legally adequate alternative under the zoning ordinances, even if Mr. and Mrs. LeDoux continue to refuse to construct or provide adequate parking to support a professional office. JHB:dlm 4702\67M.003 1Hobbs v. Smith, 493 P.2d 1352, 1355 (Colo. '1972), does not concern a zoning violation. It holds that a private landowner may not recover against his neighbor under a nuisance theory' for a legs nonconforming use of property. Gilpin v. Jacob Ellis Realties, 135 A.2d 204 (N.J.Sup. 1957), allows a private landowner to recover damages rather than an injunction for breach of a private restrictive covenant between neighboring landowners. Varner v. Aboussie, 397 P.2d 494 (Okla. 1964), also refused an injunction to restrain violation of a private restrictive covenant between neighboring,landowners where the complaining party had suffered no damage. Hoy v. Geist, 364 S.W. 2d 461 (Tex.Civ.App. 1963), likewise refused an injunction to enforce a restrictive subdivision covenant forbidding the business use of,premises, where the court found that the business use for merely incidental to residential use. May 4, 1990 Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 CITY CLERK POST OFFICE BOA 1397, KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 TELEPHONE (907) 486-8636 FAA (907) 486-8600 RE: Case 87-058 Appeal of December 20, 1989 Com- mission decision Dear Linda: The City of Kodiak has received the appellant's written statement. In accordance with City Code 17.10.040, you may file a written statement in opposition to the appeal within fifteen days after the expiration of the time for the filing of appellant's statement which will be May 18; 1990. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DALKE, CMC/AAE City Clerk MHD/nj cc: Gordon J. Gould, City Manager Mayor and Council Melvin M. Stephens II, City Attorney RECEIVED MAY or IMO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 DEPT CITY OF KODIAK In the matter of Appeal of decision of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. concerning Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux, d/b/a/ LeDoux & LeDoux Appellants. iPlanning and Zoning ,Commission Case No. 871;-058 . STATEMENT ON APPEAL Appellants, Kurt M. LeDoux and Gabrielle; LeDoux, d/b/a LeDoux & LeDoux, hereinafter referred to 'as "the LeDouxs" purchased the residence of Joel and Carolyn Davis located at 219 Mill Bay Road for use as a law office. The property was zoned " for uses such as a law office, but a variance was required because the house was too big for the lot. The initial plans were to construct eight parking spaces in the back yard.1 The number of spaces was determined by the square footage of the building, utilizing the upstairs for an apartment ! The LeDouxs' main law practice consists of maritime personal injury cases, with perhaps three fourth of their ;clients not even living in Kodiak. The office has little traffic. The staff consists of two attorneys, a full-time secretary, and a part- time file clerk. At the time the variance was granted both the 1 It was later determined that only seven spaces were required. 2 Utilizing the upstairs for an apartment: turned out to be impracticable. The upstairs is now used mainly for storage purposes and occasional non-profit community activities. Borough and the LeDouxs knew that there might:by problems in 1 constructing an on -premises parking lot because of the relatively narrow space between the building and the fence next ' door where the drive -way would be. The variance was nevertheless granted. 1 However, as is shown by the affidavit of'Bernie Lindsey of Spruce Cape Excavation, Inc. (Exhibit" A"), for all practical 6 purposes it would be impossible to construct 'an on -premises parking lot. There is too high of a slope in ttie ground where the planned drive -way was to be built between the law office building and the house next door to it.3 Building a drive -way would require cutting down the slope. However, this would cause drainage problems. Moreover, it would require the shoring up of the neighbor's fence, which would cause the 'driveway to be too narrow for practical use.4 The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, (P&Z) made the same conclusion in its findings dated December 21, 1989 (Exhibit "B") wherein it stated: "The Planning and Zoning Commission finds €hat it is impractical to locate five (5) of the jeven (7) required off-street parking spaces! 'for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B and16C, Block I � 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 3 This house is owned by the LeDouxs' ,neighbor, Wilton 4 The opening now is only a little over nine fee • STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 2 White. 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of:ouestionable penefit.to the public ... for KIB did a study on the findings ate contained in hibit "C").j Highlights of r of the LeDouxs' back yard i 4 "sound engineering, Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner proposed parking lot. Mr. Dvorak's his report dated December 7, 1989 (Ex the report are that the proposed.use as a parking lot was not based on construction or safety principles" because: 1. The sight line of drivers on Mill Bay Road is blocked by a fence. 2. The opening to the back yard is too narrow. 3. Mill Bay Road is downhill at the proposed driveway entrance. 4. There is a buried fuel tank in the backyard. 5. There are drainage problems. 6. A retaining wall must be built. 7. Construction costs are not justified by'the benefits. Mr. Dvorak concludes with some recommendations that can be helpful to this forum in deciding the issues before it: is a problem in ;the vicinity it is not apparent to the "If lack of parking space of the LeDouxs' office, casual observer. It is sense be considered when dispute. my suggestion:that common seeking a solution to this It appears that applicant for^ variance agreed to construct parking spaces in ani impractical and unsafe configuration. The grantor of,the variance STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page J accepted this flawed proposal. Both parties erred. Parking can not be a significant problem as a result of traffic to this small law office. Call it a wash." INITIAL PROPOSED ALTERNATE PARKING LOT The Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.57.030 provides relief , when it is impracticable to build on a particular lot wherein it states: "All parking spaces required under Section; 17.57.020 shall be on the same lot as, or a lot .adjacent to, the principal building that they servicre;tprovided, that if the planning commission finds that it is impracticable to locate the spaces on such a lot, it may permit them to be located on any lot within six hundred feet of the principal building. All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020; shall be located in a use district permitting the "use which they serve." Appellants proposed that they be allowed to use Dr. Bob Johnson's parking lot and they requested a variance to use his parking lot for five spaces.5 Dr. Johnson had agreed to lease the LeDouxs' seven parking spaces at $90.00 a month. Dr. Johnson's parking lot is less than 200 feet from the LeDouxs' office. 5 The LeDouxs already have two parking spaces available on their property. STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 4 ; In its decision dated December 21, 1989; 13,&Z rejected the use of Dr. Johnson's parking spaces. The reasoning given was: f � 1. The proposed parking is not located within line of sight of the law office; 2. The proposed parking would not be viable; even with adequate identification of individual parking spaces. 3. The proposed conditions of use, i.e.; a.'permanent easement to the property, could not be obtained. r THE LeDOUXS' POSITION The "line of sight" requirement is not required under the code, nor could the LeDouxs find any case law where such condition was ever required. This is a frivolous reason for rejection. There is no reason given why the proposed; parking would not be viable with adequate marking of spaces'. Why do the spaces need to be identified at all? surplus of spaces. The proposed condition of use, to the property, was apparently attorney. There is no known case la needs to be a permanent easement on order to use it for parking lot. Dr. Johnson has a large i.e., a permanent easement the ideal of the Borough w or requirement that there someone els's property in K This is; all unreasonable requirement and one that no rational propertyowaer would agree to. A permanent easement would unreasonably tie up the ownership 'of someone else's property, causing a. hardship when the owner tries to sell the property. A simple requirement that 4 STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 5 the Borough be notified if the lease is not renewed should be sufficient. SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED PARKING' LOTS The LeDouxs then in good faith sought ,to obtain the permission of the P&Z to use the Community 'Baptist Church parking lot or alternatively to use the downtown parking lot. P&Z rejected both of these alternatives., 'The basis for rejection is contained in P&Z's February 22,' 1990 decision (Exhibit D). The basis was as follows; (1) The use of the church parking lot was rejected because the LeDouxs did not obtain the permission of the owners, (2) the LeDouxs 'did not in their original application request a variance from P&Z to alleviate all or some of the additional off-street parking requirements, i (3) the LeDouxs did not request the use of the downtown area in a timely manner which would have permitted staffito investigate it further, and (4) the office is not in the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. THE LeDOUXS' POSITION The LeDouxs HAVE the permission of the Community Baptist Church to use its parking lot. The LeDouxs park their cars every business day of the week on the Community Baptist:lot. What the LeDouxs do not have is a formal agreement withi the Community Baptist Church. The Church does not want to get into a legal nightmare over the use of its parking lot. The Church's position is entirely proper and reasonable. The LeDouxs hardly could have made their request sooner STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 6 when previously everyone assumed that the construction of the parking lot was practicable. As to timeliness of the request to use the downtown parking lot, P&Z could have continued the hearing onisuch application. However, it is obvious that P&Z would not now,;in the future, or ever, approve of the use of the downtownIparking lot, much less any other location. Finally, it is immaterial that the LeDo\xs,are not in the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. The lot is within 600 feet of the LeDouxs' business which is all that is required under the code. The lot, as has been confirmed by discussions with City of Kodiak employees, is open to everyone in Kodiak. LAW The LeDouxs would generally agree that the decision of the P&Z should be given some deference. However,Sthe discretion of the P&Z has been abused whereby it is requiring:the LeDouxs to do something which it agrees is unsafe and of questionable benefit to the property. It is a legal truism that the law does not require a person to do a foolish thing. A foolish -thing is.what the Borough wants the LeDouxs to do. The Courts will not "enforce zoning regulations which are needless or oppressive., See Hobbs vs. Smith, 493 P.2d 1352, 1355 (Colo. 1972), Gilpin vs. Jacob Ellis Realties, 135 A.2d 204 (N.J.Sup. 1957), Varner'vs. Aboussie, 397 P.2d 494 (Okl. 1964), Hoyt vs. Geist, 36(4 S.W.2d 461 I • (Tex.Civ.App. 1963) The reasonable alternative is to allow the STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 7 LeDouxs to use one of the three proposed 'alternate parking spaces. Zoning cannot be used to deprive an owner of the use of his property. See City of Omaha vs. Cutchal1,114 N.,W.2d 6, 12 (Neb. 1962). CONCLUSION The LeDouxs request the City Counsel; to overturn the 1 decision of the P&Z commission and permit the LeDouxs to meet their parking requirements by using the Community Baptist 1 parking lot as they are now doing, or alternatively to be able to use the downtown parking area or Dr. Bob0ohnson's parking lot. The only thing that needs to be accomplished is that the LeDouxs have parking spaces. There is' no need tor the LeDouxs to have to jump through hoops. This Council could put reasonable restrictions on the use 1 of such alternative parking lots as Dr. Johnson's office or the Community Baptist church and require notification of P&Z if the LeDouxs are no longer permitted to use these places. ,Formai contracts and/or easements are simply unnecesary. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ✓ n�day ofd May, 1990. + o,Nttt tacit a f ' Hn of mewl{ ssusl a trei ena correct' eorI of the above so nee attorssn of more In 5 4, Itis mattoviti Mni4 46ronn ()Ate -- ledoux.3\app.stm LeDOUX & LeDOUX ATTORNEYS AT LAW BY: Kurt M. LeDoUxA, Attorney for Appellants' STATEMENT ON APPEAL; Case No. 87-058; page 8 1 2 3 4. 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 OIINETS AT LAW MILL DAY ROAD 23 OAK. AK 09615 �D'!1 406-4032 24 25 26 2.7 28 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT KODIAK , KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ) Plaintiff, ) vs.. ) KURT M. LeDOUX and ) GABRIELLE LeDOUX, ) Defendants. ) 3K0-89-210 Civil AFFIDAVIT OF BERNIE LINDSEY COMES NOW Bernie Lindsey, being first duly sworn, and he deposeth and sayeth, under penalty of perjury/ that: 1. I am the owner of Spruce Cape Excavation,jInc., a local corporation which performs such work as constructing drive -ways and parking lots. 2. I was asked by Kurt M. LeDoux to construct a parking lot in the back yard of his law offices at 219+ Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. e 3. In my opinion, such a parking lot would be, for all practical purposes, unusable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 '15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 IA:I1OU%A LE,Xl[IX FnoONEY5 AT LAW 219 MLL BAY ROAD. 23 6.409: 24 25 26 27 28 4. There is' a slope in the ground where the drive -way i B e would be built. 5. While I could alleviate most of the'slppe problem, in 1 my opinion doing so would cause drainage; problems to the a 1, building. 6. I would also need to shore up the fence along the side of the driveway. In doing this, I would hate Mto build a wall that would substantially reduce the openingof! the drive way. V 7. While it may be possible to get a ear through the Y drive -way, it will be very difficult, especiallywhen the ground has snow on it. 1. The foregoing is true to the best of my; memory, knowledge I and belief. i 1 Berni SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before October, 1989. day of Noeat$I7IQbiic) Stat of�.Ala4ka My Commission ! Expires:t)—L...,/ y that on the (p �"day of 1989, I served a true an• correct copy of the above on each attorney of record i this matter by ( ) hand or ( ) mail. mpAt at,�. ledoux.3\aff.spe 1 V AFFIDAVIT OF BERNIE LINDSEY; Case No. 3K0-89-210 Civil; page 2 i Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 DEC. Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 December 21, 1989 Re: Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: find that it is impractical to locate any of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay•Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission !at their meeting on December 20, 1989: A. Adopted finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989, pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough ,'Code, that it is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven X7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is, impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the &xh;%Dk 6 Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December 21, 1989 Page Two office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public because of the following: a. the ingress and egress to the parking area is unsafe due to its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Lipper Mill Bay Road; b. construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to the increased drainage; c. the location of the parking lot makes it unlikely that the public would utilize the parking lot; and d. the topography is such that it would undermine the;adjacent lot. B. Adopted the following finding in support of their decision,.pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to deny relocation of the bff-street parking required for .Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision: 1. The relocation of five (5) off-street parking spaces would not be effective in meeting the parking requirement for uses on Lots 6A, ,6B4 and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite because of the following: a. the proposed parking is not located within the line of sight of the uses to be served; b. the proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate identification of the individual spaces and their Location; and c. the applicant indicated that the proposed conditions of approval could not be met even before the decision was made by the Commission. Kodiak Jsiand Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December 21, 1989 Page Three An appeal of these decisions may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific' grounds for the appeal, the relief sought by the appellant, and be accompanied by1the' appropriate fee. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effective until ten (10) days following the decision: If you have any questions about the action of the Commission,, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, l Lh J Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department cc: Joel Bolger, Jamin Ebell Bolger & Gentry TO: FR: DT: RE: Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner Community Development Department Lee Beauman, Construction Inspecto Engineering/Facilities Department December 7, 1989 tvg rargLfiQ-fi"tLi OEC 8-1989 COMMUNITY DE'JELOPM Your Case 1187-058, Proposed Parking Behind the LeDoux Law Office I visited the LeDoux property with you on December reviewing the owners proposal to construct an eight to evaluate the feasibility of this proposal. From a practical perspective, the following facts proposal was not based on sound engineering, principles: 6, 1989 for the purpose of (8) space parking area and readily indicate that the construction or safety 1. The site line of drivers exiting the proposed driveway into the on coming traffic lane of Mill Bay Road is blocked by a board fence on the adjacent property. 2. The proposed driveway passes between the LeDouxiBuilding and the neighbors board fence. Plat shows the width to be 9.4 feet. City code requires 14 feet; Borough code requires 12 feet minimum driveway widths. Irregardless of code, 9.4 feet is inadequate. 3. Mill Bay Road traffic is downhill at the proposed;driveway entrance further compounding the hazard particularly when slippery road conditions exist. 4. Proposed driveway passes directly over a buried fuel tank. The fuel tank would have to relocate. I 5. Topography of the proposed parking lot site will drain the lot to adjacent properties. If sod and topsoil is removed to construct a parking lot, surface water run-off will increase. 6. A sharp grade change exists at the rear property line, the earth is unrestrained and sloughing is evident. It would be necessary to construct a retaining wall to correct this condition. ' 7. The proposed parking lot site is currently a lawn:area. To convert to a parking area/driveway would require removal of the sod and importation of crushed rock. It is unlikely construction costs can be justified by the benefits. •1 Duane Dvorak December 7, 1989 Page 2 If lack of parking space is a problem in the vicinity of the LeDoux office, it is not apparent to the casual observer. It is my suggestion that common sense be considered when seeking a solution to this dispute. Itdappears that the applicant for variance agreed to construct parking, spaces in an impractical and unsafe configuration. The grantor of the variance accepted this flawed proposal. Both parties erred. Parking can not be a significant problem as a result of traffic to this small law office. ' Call it a wash. a k?C (a S)) Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 February 22, 1990 Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" fpr the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to: Iodate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits:the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 21, 1990, adopted the following additional "Findings of Fact" for the request cited above: The applicant did not obtain the permission of the property owner, the Community Baptist Church, to submit the property as a viable parking alternative for Commission. review. 2. When the applicant converted the property from a single-family dwelling to a professional office and apartment, no variance was requested to; alleviate all or some of the additional off-street parking requirement. The applicant did not* formally request the downtown parking area to be investigated as an alternative parking site in a timely fashion 'which would have permitted staff to respond to the Commission in the staff report'.that was prepared for the appearance request. Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux February 22, 1990 Page Two 4. Even though a variance would still be required for any'' additional off-street parking requirement created in the downtown area, the applicants' property is not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission,, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, aced\ Patricia Miley, Sebr ry Community Development Department cc: Joel Bolger, JAMIN EBELL BOLGER & GENTRY MATTHEW D. JAM IN' C. WALTER EBELL JOEL H. BOLGER* DIANNA R. GENTRY ALAN L. SCHMITT •ADMITTED TO WASHINGTON ANO ALASKA 6AAS ALL COMAS AOMITTED TO ALAGnA DAR JAMIN, EBELL BOLGER & GENTRY A PROPE$SIONAL CORPORATION ATTO NEYS AT LAW 323 (ROLYN STREET KO DIA , ALASKA 99610 ILE: (907) 486.6112 NE: (907) 486-6024 I' FACISI I TELEP REPLY Kurth\9k`telle LeDoux 219 Bay Road Kodiak, AK 996151 RE: Board of Planning Our File 0 KOOIAK OFFICE h 26, 1990 Adjustment Appeal and Zoning Commission No. 4702767 Dear Mr. and Mrs'. LeDoux: We have been informed ,Jb to post the deposit necessar appeal for hearing. The Bor of the court's order of Jari prosecute the appeal with d' advise us if youdo not inte JHB:dlm cc: Mr. Duane Dvorak Kodiak Island Borough 710X11 Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 4702\671; 0D3 Case 87-1.058 the City Clerk that you have failed to calendar your Board)of•Adjustment ugh feels this delay; is in violation ary 12, 1990, which)reequires you to ligence. Please pay the deposit or d to. prosecute this (appeal. ( I ( Sincerely yours, SEATTLE OFFICE: 09 met AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 320, MAYNARD BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINOTON 98104 FACSIMILE: (206) 623.5018 TELEPHONE: (200) 022.7634 JOEL H. BOLDER JAMIN, EBELL, Joel H. Bolger BOLGER & GENTRY POVED ' MAR 2 199U, , I COMMUNITY D,EVELOPMEN1 DEPT r I Kodiak Island B, orough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486.5736 Nancy E. Jones, CMC Deputy City Clerk City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 I March 22, 1990 Re: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot! within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use'as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) 'I' Dear Ms. Jones: Enclosed please find the additional record on appeal, as required by Kodiak City Code 17.10.030, for the case referenced above. Specifically, the appeal record consists of the following. 1. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission from which the additional findings of fact have been taken. This includes a transcript of the hearing and decisional meeting h'eldson February 21, 1990, and a copy of the approved minutes from the February 21, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 2. Copies of all memoranda, exhibits, correspondence, recommendations, analyses, maps, drawings, and other documents submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the decision from which the additional findings of fact were taken. . Kodiak Island Borough Nancy E. Jones, CMC Deputy City Clerk City of Kodiak March 22, 1990 Page Two 3. A copy of the written decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission, including its additional findings and conclusions. 4. A list of the names and address of all persons appearing as witnesses at the hearing. The cost to the Kodiak Island Borough for preparing the transcript ;for this case is $37.50. If you have any questions about the appeal record, please contact Duarte Dvorak. 1 Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Sec Community Development Department Attachments cc: Joel Bolger, Jamin Ebell Bolger & Gentry Kodiak Island Borough PLANNING AND ZONING COM.M'1SSION OLD BUSINESS REQUEST (ITEM A Planning and Zoning Commission Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission reviewand approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven '(7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 68, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) The above-cited Old Business Request was heard on February 21,1 1990, in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The meeting was conducted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, Robin Heinrichs. Kodiak Island Borough CERTIFICATE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: the Old Business in the matter of: Planning and Zoning Commission Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" for the denial of a requestlfor Planning and Zoning Commission review and apprdval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seVen (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) Leet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) ' was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PatriciaMiley, Community Development Drtment Kodiak Island Borough ROBIN HEINRICHS: TOM HENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: TOM HENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: DUANE DVORAK: Verbadm Transcript Old Business Item A That concludes the public hearing;) portion of the agenda; we'll move onto Old Business. Case A. This is Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within siz hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDow) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hendel. I stepped down at the last meeting due to a conflict of interest, would you like me to step:down at this time? I think that would be appropriate. i !' Duane, do you have some guidance on this for us? , 1 Staff contacted the Borough Attorney: Unfortunately, he was out of town last week and was not able to respond with his comments, but he only had two (2) suggestions [indecipherable] summed up. He suggested that the findings reflect that the applicant had not properly presented the lalt4rnative parking locations, whether those locations would be Page 1 at 4 ; PBZ February 21, 1990 ROBIN HEINRICHS: JODY HODGINS: ROBIN HEINRICHS: UNKNOWN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: JON HARTT: JON ASPGREN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: JODY HODGINS: ROBIN HEINRICHS: Verbatim Transcript Old Business Item A appropriate; and second, he suggested that the Community Baptist Church could not be considered as an adequate location unless the owners were willing to commit to a written s agreement. It is apparent that they were not willing to commit themselves. Those were his suggestions. If you feel that those are covered adequately by the suggested findings (indecipherable) approve:the'm as presented, or if you feel that they need to be modified to reflect the view of the Commission (indecipherable). Okay. What do we want to do in regards to these findings? Well, these are all pretty well Iaid out. I think we should adopt the recommendations as presented. I'll put that in the form of a motion unless someone has some problem with them. Alright, is that a motion? Second. We have a motion and a second. Jon; did you have 1 A. d C No, that is okay. Could we have the motion restated. Yes, I am a little fuzzy on the :firth part, can you 1 p restate the motion, Jody. • Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to move to adopt the findings of fact contained in' the staff report memorandum dated February 10,;1990, as "Findings of Fact" for the Case 87-058. ' , Is, there any further discussion on the motion? Duane. Page 2 of 4 P°& Z: February 21, 1990 DUANE DVORAK: I have just been looking at the motion, the motion stated just now, it might be preferable to change the wording slightly to (indecipherable] as additional findings of fact since the Commission should make clear that these are not superseding lyour findings of fact on the previous decision but ;that these are additional findings in response i to ithe applicants' request. i I ROBIN HEINRICHS: Is that agreeable, Jody? JODY HODGINS: You bet. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Second? UNKNOWN: Yes. y ; ROBIN HEINRICHS: Has everybody had time to glance through this memo? UNKNOWN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: JON ASPGREN: PATRICIA MILEY: JON HARTT: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: JODY HODGINS: Verbatim Transcript Old Business Item A No. Any discussion? Roll call vote please. Mr. Aspgren Yes. Mr. Hartt Yes. Mr. Heinrichs Yes. Ms. Hodgins Yes. Page 3 of 4 P 8 Z: February 21, 1990 PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Barrett BRUCE BARRETT: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Coleman WAYNE COLEMAN: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Motion passes. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Okay, that concludes Old Business. Verbatim Transcript Old Business Item A Page 4 of 4 KODIAK ISLAND BOROOGH' e PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 21, 1990 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairperson Robin Heinrichs on February 21, 1990 In the Borough Assembly Chambers. IL ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Robin Heinrichs, Chairperson Jon Aspgren Bruce Barrett Wayne Coleman Jon Hartt Tom Handel Jody Hodgins A quorum was established. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff reported the following additions to the agenda: AGENDA CHANGES ! a Others Present: Duane Dvorak; Acting Director Community Development Department Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department ' VI PUBLIC HEARINGS The applicant has requested that item D be moved to the end of D) Case 90.006. Request for al conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17,21.030 D and E (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code to permit one or more warehouses with an apartment (single-family residence), to locate in a Business Zoning District. Lot 1, Block 3, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision - 4673 Rezanof Drive East. (Alaska Seafood, et al; C.L Lowenberg) AGENDA ADDITIONS i public hearings: IX COMMUNICATIONS B) Letter dated February 9, 1990, from Bob Scholze to Gary and Stacie Peterson, re: Lot 34A, Block 1', Airpark First Addition 1321 Mill Bay Road (Island Auto). • l COMMISSIONER BARRETT MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda with the changes and additions reported by staff. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. ' Page 1 023 P B t: Minutes: February 21, 1993 IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the January 17, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by uIy aniritous voice vote. V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments. t Y VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Case 90-002. Request for an exception;; from Section 17.13.020 (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code for ;conceptual approval of a residential community development for a maximum of seventeen (17) single-family residences (and other ancillary structures and activities associated with residential uses) in the Conservation Zoning District on two (2) tracts of land totalling approximately 274 acres. Tracts A and B, Township 25 South, Range 22 West, Seward Meridian, as shown on Plats 89 -6 -RS, 88 -4 -RS, and 87.39'RS. Generally located on Raspberry Strait Narrows, Afognak Island. (Aleneva Joint Venture; Fred Reutov; Mike and Enola Mullan) 1(Postponed from the January 1990 regular meeting) I • DUANE DVORAK indicated 18 public hearing notices were mailed and 2 were retumed, stating non-objecton to this request. Staff recommended approval of thls request, subject to conditions. I I I Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. ; t Regular Session Opened. I • COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO GRANT an exception from Section 17.13.020 of the Borough Code for'conceptual approval of a residential community development fora maximum of seventeen (17) single-family residences (and other ancillary, structures and activities associated with residential uses) in the Conservation Zoning District on two (2) tracts of land totalling approximately 274 acres. Tracts A and B, Township 25 South, Range 22 West, Seward Meridian, as shown on Plats 89 -8 -RS, 88.4 -RS, and 87 -39 -RS, generally located on Raspberry Strait Narrows, Afognak Island, subject' to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated Febniary 6, 1990; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report, dated February 6, 1990 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Until such time as the property isi subdivided into lots of appropriate size for the applicable zoning district, the maximum number of single-family dwelling units} permitted on this site is seventeen (17). j I, I Pape 2 01 23 P 8 Z 1Anutes: Fetruery 21, 1990 2. Aleneva Joint Venture will submit a site plan for review with each request for zoning compliance. The site plan will show the approximate location of each new structure in relation to the outer tract boundaries and other structures in the area so that staff is assured that adequate area [two to five (2 - 5) acres] is maintained around each dwelling. The Aleneva Joint Venture must obtain the required permit(s) from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for individual, on-site wastewater ;treatment facilities and/or a sanitary landfill, and shall submit a copy of the permit(s) to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of zoning compliance, FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the use as proposed in the application, or. under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not (A) endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, (B) be inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title and (C) adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. A. It appears that the proposed use will not endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare. Logging base camps and hunting and fishing lodges have previously located on Afognak Island and nearby Raspberry Island, Departmental records do not indicate that these existing developments have posed any danger to public health, safety, or welfare. In addition, stipulations required by the sales agreement, as well as those of State and federal agencies will help to assure that the development of the residential structures will 'not degrade land and water quality and important marine resources. The applicant has indicated that each residential structure will have an on-site wastewater disposal system. In addition, the applicant has indicated that although the property cannot be subdivided at this time, the plan is to provide a two to five (2 - 5) acre "lot" for each structure as the topography and soil conditions of the land permit. [While the Aleneva Joint Venture agreement stipulated a two (2) acre minimum "lot" size, when the Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Code requirement of a five (5) acre minimum lot size was discussed with the applicant, no objection was expressed regarding this requirement. However, since the applicant has had some time now to become familiar with the site, it seems that the applicant would like some flexibility in this regard as the site seems to have some limitations due to topography and soil conditions.] The applicant stated that it was too early to be able to say whether there will ever be any community structures requiring institutional types of support (Le., bulk fuel storage facilities, etc.). ,The applicant indicated that domestic refuse will be brought to Kodiak until an appropriate site is identified near the residential development, subject to the approval of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Pape 3 of 23 P d 2 Nieuwe: February 21, 1990 According to the applicant, vegetation will be maintained to the extent feasible and prudent. The conditions of the sales agreement limit the harvest of trees only to those required for cabin construction and for firewood. In order to harvest additional trees the Aleneva Joint Venture would have to obtain the approval of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. The Aleneva Joint Venture cannot engage in forest management harvesting of timber until title has been transferred to the Aleneva Joint Venture. If the conditions suggested in the preceding paragraphs and those contained in the attached sales agreements and joint venture agreements are adhered to, and if all other zoning, and sanitation codes are substantially complied with, the proposed use should not endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare. These conditions should be included in any zoning compliance issued for this development to Insure that the applicant is aware and understands the conditions fully. The applicant has provided staff with a general site plan for the development. Staff will work with the applicant to update the site plan as needed so that the limitations of this exception are not exceeded. A site plan review should be required at the time zoning compliance is requested for each new development on this property. B. The proposed use will b9 consistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and with the specific description of Chapter 17.13 (Conservation Zoning District) of the Borough Code. Only residential activities are permitted in the Conservation Zoning District. C. The proposed use does not appear to adversely impact other properties in the area. The tracts of property are large enough that, i1 the minimum setbacks for the C— Conservation Zoning District are observed, there will be no conflict with future uses which might adjoin the property. Because the use,will continue to be residential, there will be no change in the basic character of the area, only an increase in the amount of use. Due to the existing pattern of property ownership and the location of other existing land uses, there will be a separation of uses that is well in excess of Borough' Code requirements. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. B) Case 90-003. Request for the rezoning o1 Lots 1 through 13, Block 1, Elderberry Heights Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Elderberry Heights Subdivision Third Addition, and an Unsubdivided Portion of U.S. Survey 1396 from RR1--Rural Residential One to R -1 --Single- family Residential in accordance with Section 17.72.030 (Manner of Initiation) of the Borough Code. Generally located on the north side of Selief Lane between Mylark Lane and Selief Court. (Lee Russell; Planning and Zoning Commission) (Postponed from the January 1990 regular meeting) Peps 4 0123 P 8 Z Mnulee: February 21, 1990 DUANE DVORAK indicated 94 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 6 were returned, 5 opposing and 1 stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended the Commission forward this request to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly recommending approval. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: GEORGE GRIFFING, owner of Lot 8, Block 1, Elderberry Heights Subdivision, appeared before the iCommisslon and expressed opposition to the rezoning of Lots 1 tliroudh 13, Block 1, Elderberry Heights Subdivision. BOB SATTERWAITE, owner of Lot 5, Block 1, Elderberry Heights Subdivision, appeared before the ,Commission and expressed opposition to the rezoning of Lots 1 through 13, Block 1, Elderberry Heights Subdivision. GEORGE GRIFFING, reappeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. The Commission discussed the rezoning of Lots 1 through 13, Block 1, Edlerberry Heights Subdivision. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Elderberry Heights Subdivision Third Addition, and an Unsubdivided Portion of U.S. Survey 1396 from RRl Rural Residential One to R1 -- Single-family Residential in accordance.with Section 17.72.030 of the Borough Code and to defer adoption of "Findings of Fact" until the March 21, 1990 regular meeting. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Hodgins voted "no.' C) Case 90-005. An appeal of an Administrative Decision in accordance with Section 17.66.0208 (Appeals from Administrative Decisions) of the Borough Code of a decision: (a) ordering the discontinuation of an unlawful use of land (outdoor fishing gear storage where no owner - occupied dwelling is located) in an RR1-,-Rural Residential One Zoning District; and (b) removal of all items classified as outdoor fishing gear storage within thirty (30) days. The appellant seeks the following relief: An exception from Section 17.171.020D (Permitted Uses) of the Borough Code to permit the location of outdoor fishing gear storage on a lot where there is no owner - occupied dwelling in an RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. Lot 1A-2, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision - 4050 Rezanol Drive East. (Jock Bevis) Pepe 5 of 23 P&ZMnutae: Penury 21,1950 DUANE DVORAK indicated 28 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was retumed, stating ;non -objection to the exception request. Staff recommended affirmation of the Administrative Decision and denial of the exception request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened - JOCK BEVIS, appellant, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for the exception request. GABE McKILLY appeared before the' Commission and expressed support for the exception request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO AFFIRM the administrative decision that the outdoor storage of fishing gear on Lot 1A-2, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision without an owner occupied main structure, is an unlawful use of land and that the outdoor storage of all items identified as fishing gear on the lot must be removed from the property by March 20, 1990. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO GRANT an exception from Section 17.17.020 of the Borough Code to permit the location of outdoor storage of commercial fishing gear on Lot 1A•2, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision, where there is, no owner occupied main structure in an RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District, subject to the following condition: 1. This exception expires when the 'owner of record for Lot 1A-2 changes. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. The Commission deferred adoption of "Findings of Fact" until the end of the meeting. D) Case 90-007. Request for the rezoning of Lots 4 through 11, Block 3, Lakeside Subdivision from I --Industrial ig R2 --Two-family Residential in accordance with Section 17.72.030C (Manner of Initiation) of the Borough Code. 2095 - 2323 Seliel Lane and 443 Von Scheele Way; generally surrounded by Beaver Lake Drive, Seliel Lane, and Von Scheele Way. (Kodiak Island Borough) DUANE DVORAK indicated 19 public hearing, notices were mailed and 1 was retumed, opposing the rezoning 'of Lot 10 (greenbelt). Staff recommended postponing this request until the March regular meeting and expanding the rezone to include all of Block 3, Lakeside Subdivision. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Pape 60123 P & Z Mame: February 21, 1990 SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HARTT MOVED TO POSTPONE action on Case 90- 007 until the March 21, 1990 regular meeting and to reschedule this case for another public hearing at that time. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. E) Case S-90-001. Request for preliminary approval of the subdivision of Tract E, U.S. Survey 1682 creating Lots 1 through 10, Block 12, and Lots 1 through 27, Block 13, Woodland Acres Eighth Addition. (Len Grothe; Lee Russell) (Postponed from the January 1990 regular meeting) DUANE DVORAK indicated 93 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 3 were returned, 1 opposing and 2 stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. The Commission discussed the flag stem width variance. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 16.40.050C1 of the Borough Code to permit the creation of flag stem lot access on Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7, Block 12, Woodland Acres Eighth Addition, which is only twenty (20) feet in width rather than the thirty (30) feet required by Borough Code, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Thirty (30) foot flag stem access to the four (4) flag lots proposed on Tract E, U.S. Survey 1602, will, significantly reduce the usable lot area available for development of single-family and duplex dwellings on the sites. 2. Smaller buildable lot area in this subdivision may encourage future property owners to infill the existing wetlands and drainage areas in order to expand the size" of structures and usable yard space. This plat, if a variance is granted for the twenty (20) foot wide flag stems on Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7, Block 12, Woodland Acres Eighth Addition, is generally consistent with adopted Borough Pape 7 023 P d Z Peanuts,: February 21, 1990 plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of Traci E, U.S. Survey 1682, creating Lots 1 through 10, Block 12, and Lots 1 through 27, Block 13, Woodland Acres Eighth Addition; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, adding condition of approval number six (6) to read "6. The final plat shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to final approval; ,and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated January 6, 1990, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITION$ OF APPROVAL 1. Place a note on the final plat stating: "The front yard setback for Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7, Block 12; and Lot 15, Block 13, Woodland Acres 8th Addition, will be calculated from the rear lot lines of Lots 1, 4, 5, and 8, Block 12; and Lot 14, Block 13, Woodland Acres Subdivision 8th Addition as applicable." 2. Obtain approval from the Alaska. Department of Environmental Conservation for the engineered drawings of the community sewer system proposed for this subdivision. 3. The applicant is advised that this property may be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is recommended that the applicant obtaima wetlands determination for the site from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to final approval of the subdivision. A narrative drainage plan for the site must be submitted to the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department prior to final approval of the plat. 4. Dedicate a five (5) foot wide utility easement along the frontage of all lots created by this survey. 5. Dedicate a ten (10) foot wide utility easement along the common boundary with Block 6, Woodland Acres Subdivision Fourth Addition and Blocks 7 and 8, Woodlands Acres Subdivision Fifth Addition. 6. The final plat shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to final approval. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. 2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code. Paps 8or2] PdZMnums: February 21, 1990 3. This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. 4. Approval of this plat by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission does not ' excuse the subdivider from compliance with applicable State and federal regulations. The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION by deleting condition of approval number,Nve (5). The AMENDMENT was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. The question was called and the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Place a note on the final plat stating: "The front yard setback for Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7, Block 12; and Lot 15, Block 13, Woodland Acres 8th Addition, will be calculated from the rear lot lines of Lots 1, 4, 5, and B, Block 12; and Lot 14, Block 13, Woodland Acres Subdivision 8th Addition as applicable.' 2. Obtain approval from the Alaska 'Department of Environmental Conservation for the engineered, drawings of the community sewer system proposed for this subdivision. The applicant is advised that this property may be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is recommended that the applicant obtain a wetlands determination for the site from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to final approval of the subdivision. A narrative drainage plan for the site must be submitted to the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department prior to final approval of the plat. 4. Dedicate a five (5) foot wide utility easement along the frontage of all lots created by this survey. 5 Deleted. 6. The final plat shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to final approval. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. Page of 23 PMnutec: FaMaary210990 2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code. 3. This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. 4. Approval of this plat by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission does not excuse the subdivider from compliance with applicable State and federal regulations. 9 Case 5-90-002. Request for preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot 2B, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision creating Lots 28-1 and 2B-2, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision. 3695 Sunset Drive (Dennis and Wilma Cox) (Postponed from the January 1990 regular meeting) BRUCE BARRETT declared that he had,,a potential 'conflict of interest" due to the fact that he Ilved In Woodland Acres First Addition. CHAIRPERSON HEINRICHS ruled that Commissioner Barrett had no conflict of interest. DUANE DVORAK indicated 26 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, opposing this request. Staff recommended approval of this request subject to conditions. Staff noted that the Alaska Department of Transportation had reviewed the preliminary plat and that staffs recommended condition of approval number two (2) was no longer applicable: Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot 2B, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision, creating Lots 28.1 and 28-2, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision; subject to the conditions of approval numbered 1, 3, and 4, contained In the staff report dated February 12, 1990; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated Febniary 12, 1990 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Change the proposed ten (10) toot wide water service easement on Lot 28-1 for the benefit of Lot 2B-2 from a ten (10) foot wide water easement to a twenty-five (25) foot wide utility easement. 2. Deleted. 3. Obtain a waiver from the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department for the creation of the utility easements specified in condition of approval number one (1) above prior to final approval of the plat. Page 10 of 23 P 3 Z M nutea: Featuary21, 1990 4. Obtain approval for the plat from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) by providing ADEC with a copy of the engineered drawings of the community sewer system serving the lots. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. 2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code. 3. This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. G) Case S-90-003. Request for preliminary, approval of the subdivision of ' Lot 4, Block 3, Woodland Acres Subdivision Second Addition, creating Lots 4A and 413, Block 3, Woodland Acre's Subdivision Second Addition. (Patricia Jacobson) COMMISSIONER BARRETT declared that he had a "conflict of interest" and stepped down from the Commission. CHAIRPERSON HEINRICHS noted that COMMISSIONER BARRETT should step down to avoid "the appearance of something less than objectivity." DUANE DVORAK indicated 18 public hearing, notices were mailed and 4 were retumed, 3 opposing and 1 stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: PAT JACOBSON, applicant, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. JANE ERVIN appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. BRUCE BARRETT appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to the access to the proposed lots. PAT JACOBSON reappeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HARTT MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 16.40.050E of the Borough Code to permit the creation of a restricted utility and roadway easement for the sole use of Lots 4A and 4B, subject to the condition of approval contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. Page 11 023 P d2 !Arm Fo&very 21, 1 CONDITION QF APPROVAL 1. The restrictive utility and roadway easement shall be created utilizing the procedures set forth in the Borough Code for the creation of a private roadway (except for Section 16.80.020E relating to easement width). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Due to the topographical features located at the front of proposed Lot 4A, it is necessary for proposed Lots 4A and 413 to share one access, which is already existing, in order to provide adequate access to both lots. 2. A variance to permit a restrictive utility and roadway easement is required in order to permit the creation of an easement on Lot 4A, for the exclusive use of Lots 4A and Lot 4B. Conditions of approval, as deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission, will be included as part of this variance to insure compliance with the Borough Code as well as to delineate the responsibility for construction, maintenance, and use of the easement. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HARTT MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot 4, Block 3, Woodland Acres 2nd Addition, creating Lots 4A and 4B, Block 3, Woodland Acres 2nd Addition, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990 as "Findings of Fact' for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The subdivider must obtain waivers from the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department for water and sewer line Installation prior to final approval of the plat. 2. The subdivider must install water and sewer stubouts to Lot 48 prior to final approval of the plat, subject to review and approval by the Kodiak Island Borough, Engineering and Facilities Department. 3. The subdivider must obtain approval from the Alaska Department of Conservation (ADEC) for the subdivision by providing ADEC with a copy of the existing engineering design for the community sewer system serving these lots. 4. Correct note number one (1) on the plat to indicate that the RR - 1 --Rural Residential One Zoning District was the former zoning district which was rezoned to Rural Residential by Ordinance 69- 32-0 effective January 4, 1990. 5. Place a note on the plat stating: Papp 120123 P d 2 Ainutas: Fe lwary 2i, 1990 "The front yard setback of Lot 48 shall be measured from the rear lot line of Lot 4A." FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. 2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code as specified for the previously applicable RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. ' 3. This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land thatisupports those plans. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER BARRETT returned ,to the Planning and Zoning Commission. H) Casa S-90-004. Request for preliminary, approval of the subdivision of Lot 13E, U.S. Survey 3100, creating Lots 13E-1 and 13E-2, U.S. Survey 3100. (Darlene Hall) DUANE DVORAK indicated 19 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 2 were returned, stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: JIM POULOS appeared before the Commission and expressed concem about the drainage, stating that he was not opposed to the request. TEENA CHATTY, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission, expressed support for this request, and requested that condition of approval number two (2) be removed: "2. Reconstruct the access drive to Lot 13E-1 which does not encroach on the flag stem access of Lot 13E-2 prior to final approval of the plat." JIM POULOS reappeared before the Commission and expressed concern about the drainage. The Commission and Mr. Poulos discussed the drainage. MIKE ANDERSON appeared before the' Commission and stated that the drainage was well addressed as is. Public Hearing Closed. >gular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO:GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot 13E, U.S. Survey 3100, creating Lots 13E-1 and 13E-2, U.S. Survey 3100, subject to the conditions of approval numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, contained in the staff report dated Page 13 of 23 P B Z Mnutes: February 21, 1990 February 13, 1990; and to adopt the ,findings contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Remove the accessory building from the flag stem access of Lot 13E-2 and relocate to a legal location prior to final approval of the plat. 2. Deleted. 3. Obtain a waiver from the Kodiak Island. Borough Engineering and Facilities Department for the creation of the sewer easement on Lot 13E-2 for the benefit of the existing sewer service connection for Lot 13E-1 prior to final approval of the plat. 4. Provide the Community Development Department with a copy of a drainage plan for Lot 13E-2 prior to final approval of the plat. 5. Submit a document to the Community Development Department prior to approval of the final plat that describes the proposed water supply for the subdivision as required by Section 16.40.04082 (Data Required) of the Borough Code. 6. Identify the flag stem access for Lot 13E-2 as a utility easement to serve Lot 13E-2 prior to final approval of the plat. 7. Obtain approval from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for the engineered drawings of the community sewer system located near Lots 13E-1 and 13E-2 prior to final approval of the plat. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. 2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code. 3. This plat Is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. CHAIRPERSON HEINRICHS recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. CHAIRPERSON HEINRICHS reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. I) Case S-90-005. Request for preliminary approval of the vacation of a portion of a utility easement. Lot 12, Block 4, Island Vista Subdivision and Lot 8, Block 4, Mountain View Subdivision Second Addition. (Peter Bollenbacher) DUANE DVORAK indicated 46 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, opposing this request. Staff recommended denial of this request and approval of the redesignation Page 14 of 23 P & 2 65wtss: Febwary 21, 1980 of portions of a utility easement on Lot 12, Block 4, Island Vista Subdivision and Lot 8, Block 4, Mountain 'View Subdivision Second Addition, creating designated "Public Sewer and Water Easements.' Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: TOM EVERITT, representing Peter Bollenbacher, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for the redesignation of the utility easement. MARY RELYEA, owner of Lot 7, Block '4, appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to the vacation of the easement on Lot 8. MIKE ANDERSON, representing Peter Bollenbacher, appeared before the Commission and expressed support tor` the redesignatlon of the utility easement. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the vacation of a portion of a utility easement on Lot 12, Block 4, Island Vista Subdivision and Lot 8, Block 4, Mountain View Subdivision Second Addition. The motion was seconded and FAILED by majority -roll call vote. Commissibners Hodgins, Hartt, Aspgren, Coleman, Heinrichs, and Handel voted "no." COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the redesignation of portions of a utility easement on Lot 12, Block 4, Island Vista Subdivision and Lot 8, Block 4, Mountain View Subdivision Second Addition, creating designated "Public Sewer and Water Easements," and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, as 'Findings of Fact' for this case. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. 2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code. 3. This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. J) Case S-90-006. Request for preliminaryapproval of the subdivision of a Portion of Tract B, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite, creating Tract 13-1, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite. (City of Old Harbor; Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.) PIT 15 of 23 P Q 2 Mower February 21, 1990 Page 16 of 23 DUANE DVORAK Indicated 52 public hearing notices were mailed and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of a Portion of Tract 8, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite, creating Tract B-1, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite, subject to the condition of approval contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Designate the remaining portions of Tract B, U.S. Survey 4793, Old Harbor Townsite as Tracts B-2 and B-3. 2. Submit the required Engineers Report to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation prior to approval of the final plat. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code. 3. This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. K) Case S-90-007. Request for preliminary approval of the vacation of Lot 10, Block 2, Lakeside Subdivision and;reptat to Lots 10A and 10B, Block 2, Lakeside Subdivision. (Kodiak Island Borough) DUANE DVORAK indicated 67 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 2 were returned, opposing this request. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions. f Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: YOLANDA JONES, co-owner of Lot 4, Block 2, appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to,this request. ELLEN CLOUDY, co-owner of Lot 6, Block 2, appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. P d Z !Mutes: Februay 21, 1990 FRED ROBERTS, co-owner of Lot 5, !Block 2, Commission and expressed support for this rettque GARY GREEN, co-owner of Lot 1, Tack! 2, Commission and expressed opposition to thisireq I GABE McKILLY, co-owner of Lot 4, Block 2, Commission and expressed opposition to thisheq DAVE AUSMAN, co-owner of Lot 3, Blocks 2, Commission and expressed support for this roque r appeared before the st. appeared before the uest. appeared before the uest. appeared before the st. YOLANDA JONES reappeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. GABE McKILLY reappeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. f Public Heating Closed. 1, Regular Session Opened. The Commission discussed the subdivision request' I I. COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO GRANT a variance from Section 16.40.050A of the Borough Code, toi permit a lot width of fifty (50) feet for Lots 10A (greenbelt) and 1,0B, Block 2, Lakeside Subdivision, rather than the sixty (60) that lot;width required by Section 17.33.0408 of the Borough Code, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 13, 19901, as ;Findings of Fact" for this case. t. The motion was seconded and FAILED by unanimous roll call vote. Commissioners Hendel, Barrett, Hartt, Hodgins, Heinrichs, Coleman, and Aspgren voted"no." COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot 10, Block 2, Iiakeside Subdivision, creating Lots 10A (greenbelt) and 10B, Block 2, Lakeside Subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1990, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and FAILED; by unanimous roll call vote. Commissioners Handel, Barrett, Hartt, Hodgins, Heinrichs, Coleman, and Aspgren voted "no." I The Commission deferred "Findings of Fact" until the end of the meeting. L) Case 90-006. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.21.030 D and E (Conditional fuses) of the Borough Code to permit one or more warehouses with j an 'apartment (single-family residence), to locate in a Business Zoning District. Lot 1, Block 3, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision • 4673 Rezanof,Drive East. (Alaska Seafood, et al; C.L. Lowenberg) I ) Paw 17 of 23 P 32 hMnubs: FeSuary 21, 1990 DUANE DVORAK indicated 31 public hearing notices weremailed for this case and 2 were returned, stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO GRANT a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.21.030E of the Borough Code to permit one or more warehouses to locate, in a B --Business Zoning District on Lot 1, Block 3, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision; subject to the condition of approval contained in the 'stag report dated February 2, 1990; and to adopt findings "A", contained in the staff report dated February 2, 1990, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. Uses listed in Section 1724.020 (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code are specifically prohibited unless an exception has been granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission for such use. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by'unanlmous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO GRANT a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.21.0300 of the Borough Code to permit the construction of a single-family dwelling inside a commercial structure, where the single-family dwelling will not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the area of the structure in a 2B --Business Zoning District on Lot 1, Block 3, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision; and to adopt findings "B", contained in the staff report dated February 2, 1990, as "Findings of Fact" for thls case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT A - the request for warehouse uses; and , B - the apartment. 1. That the conditional use will preserve the value, spirit. character and integrity of the surrounding area. A. It appears that the proposed use will preserve the value, spirit, character, and integrity 'of the surrounding area. The construction of one or more warehouses for private or leased storage located on a !136,788 square foot lot should not be detrimental Ito the surrounding land uses which are predominantly outdoor storage. The use of this lot for a warehouse should not be detrimental to the future development of this area. This is Page 18 a123 P & 2 A9nutes: February 21, 1990 evidenced by the existing amount of outdoor storage in the vicinity that is in suppdit of local industrial and business land uses. Providing more efficient and desirable storage space by; building one or more warehouses may actually 'result in a better appearance in the community if the warehouses displace some of the storage currently taking place outside on other business and industrial properties. I B. Based on a review of the applicable codes by the applicant, the applicant has no reservation about being• able to meet all of the istaridards for a single-family residence within a commercial)stnrcture. The residence will occupy no more than fifty (50) percent of the total floor area of the structure In which it will be located. In tact, jt will probably be much less than fifty (50) percent. A residence which meets the code criteria oI the B— Business Zoning District should not detract from the business use of this land, or surrounding properties. A residence used for the onsite management or security of the warehouse and mint -warehouse storage is an appropriate use of land inithis district. The value, spirit, character, and integrity of, the!surrounding area will be maintalned. 1 2. That the conditional use fulfills all other reauirements of this chapter pertaining to the conditional use In question. I. A. Atter reviewing the applicable',codes, the applicant has indicated that the proposed use of the property tor one or more warehouses will fulfill all other requirements of the B --Business Zoning District such as height of structure, off-street parking, etc. Adherence to the applicable performance standards (Section 17.21.050) of the 8 -- Business Zoning District during the zoning compliance and building permit process will insure that this conditional use is consistent with thejcharacter of the B—Business Zoning District and also protects nearby highways and residential uses from off-site impacts. B. After reviewing the applicable 'codes, the applicant has , indicated that the proposed use of the property for a residential apartment located in;.a business structure will fulfill all other requirements of Chapter 17.21 (B --Business Zoning District) of the Borough Code. Staff notes that there is sufficient room for, the!development of required oft -street parking on the lot atterlall proposed warehouses and the apartment have been developed. 3. That granting the conditional use permit will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and comfort. A. Granting the conditional use permit for a warehouse should not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience, or comfort. I Adherence to the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations for building construction should, Insure protection of the public ( F i I Pape 19 of 23 i P 8Z PAnutes: February 21, 1090 health and safety. In addition, because a warehouse is classified by Title 17 (Zoning) as an Industrial land use, it should be made clear that although the structure is permitted by the conditional use, some industrial activities, defined in Section 17.24.020 (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code are prohibited. Therefore, a condition should be placed on the permit for the proposed warehouse(s) prohibiting the use of the structure(s) for the above referenced industrial activities unless prior approval is obtained through the exception process. Regarding public convenience, and comfort, it can be argued that a warehouse can potentially detract from public convenience and comfort if there are any residential land uses in the vicinity. In this case, however, the surrounding area has long been established as a business and institutional area. The characteristics of the proposed warehouse use do not appear to be any more detrimental to public convenience and comfort than a number of permitted business land uses that already occur In the community (e.g., Intensive retail uses generating large amounts of traffic, machine shops, outdoor storage, etc.). B. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience, or comfort if all building, fire, and plumbing codes are met in the construction of the proposed residence Inside a commercial structure. 4.. The sufficient setbacks, lot area, buffers or other safeguards are being provided to meet the conditions listed in subsections A through C of this section. A. The 136,788 square foot lot contains sufficient lot area for the proposed use, required off-street parking, and any buffer that may be determined to be appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission. B. Same as above. VII. OLD BUSINESS A) Case 87-058. Request for additional "Finding's of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Boroughtode to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 6, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) COMMISSIONER HENDEL declared' a "conflict of interest" CHAIRPERSON HEINRICHS excused COMMISSIONER HENDEL. Pepe 200123 P a 2 A5nutes: February 21, 1990 COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO ADOPT the additional findings of fact contained in the staff memorandum dated February 10, 1990, as "Findings of Fact" for Case 87-058.; FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant did not obtain the permission of the property owner, the Community Baptist Church'; to submit the property as a viable parking alternative for Commission review. 2. When the applicant converted the property from a single-family dwelling to a professional office and apartment, no variance was requested to alleviate all or some of the additional off-street parking requirement. 1 � 3. The applicant did not formally request the downtown parking area to be Investigated as an alternative parking site in a timely fashion which would have permitted, staff to respond to the Commission in the staff report that was prepared for the appearance request. 1 I 4. Even though a variance would still be 'required for any additional off-street parking requirement created in the downtown area, the applicants' property Is not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Mar). 1: - The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. • COMMISSIONER HENDEL returned to tf;e Planning and Zoning Commission. There was no further old business. VIII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS 1 I COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A and B of communications. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by • unanimous voice vote. A) Letter dated January 25, 1990, to John Ryan from Bob Schoize, re: Lot 21, Sublot 6, U.S. Survey 3099 - 2593 Metrokin Way. B) Letter dated February 9, 1990, from Bob Scholze to Gary and Stacie Peterson, re: Lot 34A, Block 1, Airpark!First` Addition - 1321 MIII Bay Road (Island Auto). 1 There were no further communications. X. REPORTS Paps 21 of 23 COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A and B of reports. The motion was seconded /and,CARRIED by unanimous • voice vote. I , P & Z Minutes: February 21, 1990 A) Community Development Department Status Report. B) Community Development Department Plat Activity Report. There were no further reports. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS BARRY STILL, resident of Woodland Acres, appeared before the Commission and discussed with the Commission off-street, road -level parking along Woodland Drive. There were no further audience comments. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO ADOPT the following "Findings of Fact" for Case 90-005: 1. That the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, will not (A) endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, (B) be Inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title and (C) adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. A. It appears that the proposed use will not endanger the public's health, safety, or general wellare because the use of this property (Lot 1A-2, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision) for fishing gear storage will be limited to the time that the land Is in contiguous ownership with the adjacent lot (Lot 1A-1, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision), 'where the property owner maintains a residence. B. The proposed use will be consistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and the specific description and intent of Chapter 17.17, the RR1--Rural Residential One Zoning District. This is due to the fact that the. property owner maintains a residence on a contiguous lot and because the property owner has asserted an historical use of Lot 1A-2 for fishing gear storage which preceded the subdivision of the property. Chapter 17.17 permits fishing gear storage when an owner -occupied dwelling is located on the lot. The property owners dwelling is located close enough to be consistent with the Intent of this chapter. The Commission believes that this fishing gear storage will be consistent with the Borough Code as long as Lots 1A-1 and 1A-2 are in contiguous ownership. C. The proposed use will not have adverse impacts on other properties in the area due to the limited use of the land by the adjacent property owner only as long as the land is in contiguous ownership. Since the fishing gear storage is adjacent to the property owner's home, it is assumed every effort will be made to Insure that the fishing gear does not become a nuisance. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO ADOPT the following "Findings of Fact" for Case S-90-007: Pape 22 0123 Paz Minuets: Feduary 21, 1990 1. The Commission recognizes the value of the "greenbelt" as an integral part of Lakeside Subdivision. 2. The "greenbelt" provides an effective butler, a neutral area between two (2) incompatible land uses such as industrial and residential. 3. The adjacent owners of residential land purchased their property from the Borough based upon the existence of the "greenbelt" and the assumption that the "greenbelt" would remain in place to provide a buffer zone between their lots and the nearby'alrport land uses. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HENDEL MOVED TO RECONSIDER Case S-90-003 in order to add a condition of approval requiringoff-street, street -level parking. The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER BARRETT declared a "conflict of Interest." CHAIRPERSON HEINRICHS excused COMMISSIONER BARRETT. COMMISSIONER ASPGREN declared that he had worked on both Jacobson's and Ervin's property. CHAIRPERSON HEINRICHS declared COMMISSIONER ASPGREN to have no conflict of interest. The question was called and the motion FAILED by unanimous roll call vote. Commissioners Coleman, Heinrichs, Hodgins; Hartt, Aspgren, and Hendel voted "no? COMMISSIONER BARRETT returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission directed staff to compose a memorandum thanking the Engineering and Facilities Department for their timely comments on the subdivision reviews for the month of February. 'Staff was directed to copy the memorandum to the Mayor. XIII. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRPERSON HEINRICHS adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: `7COt2ew dic.v a:44 ' Robin Heinrichs, Chairperson ATTEST By: Patricia Miley, Sars,Ar tary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: March 21, 1990 Pape 23 of 23 P d 2 PAnuuea: February 21, 1930 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RE: Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM February 10, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Department G+ -J Information for the February 21, 1990 Regular Meeting Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which perrnits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. • Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) ITEM VII -A BACKGROUND The above referenced case was heard as an appearance request before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission on December 29, 1989. It was the finding of the Commission that it is impractical for the owner of Lots 6A, 6B and 60, Block 6, Kodiak Townsite, to locate seven .(7) parking spaces in the rear yard of the property. However, the Commission also found that it was impractical for the property owner to relocate five (5) of the required seven (7) parking spaces to a lot within six hundred (600) feet. (See attached staff report and'action letter for further information.) The property owner has now asked for additional findings of fact conceming the denial of the request to relocate the required parking spaces across the street at the Community Baptist Church parking lot or at the bottom of Mill Bay Road where the City of Kodiak down -town parking lot is located. Old Business Item A Page 1 of 4 P'& Z: February 21, 1920 ITEM VII -A COMMENTS It is the policy of the Community Development Department to obtain' approval of the property owner of record before initiating an investigation into the possible use of private property by another party. In this particular case, the applicant requested to relocate the required off-street parking spaces to a property described as Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, located down the street from the applicants' property. In accordance with departmental policy, an application signed by the owner of the property was obtained prior to evaluating the feasibility of the request. 1 At the time the applicant delivered the letter requesting this investigation, the applicant wrote into the margin of the letter that he also wanted findings for the parking lot of the Community Baptist Church, located across the street (Lot 1, Block 17, New Kodiak Subdivision and Lot 8, Block 3, Kodiak Townsite). Staff placed information relating to the church property in the file and contacted the pastor of the church to see if the property owner of record was aware of the request and would sign an application per departmental policy. Staff was informed by the pastor of the church that the church's Board of Directors would be meeting on December 5, 1989, to consider the applicants' request. Contact with the pastor after the Board of Directors' meeting indicated that the Board declined to offer the property for the applicants' use on a pe'rmaanent, time share basis as they did not want to encumber the property. i Based on a review of other similar cases, it appeared that only a recorded easement on another similar property within six hundred (600) feet, in favor ofd, the applicants' property, would provide a permanent solution for relocating the applicants' required off- street parking. It was made clear to staff that the church's Board of; Directors would not consider such a requirement. Staff, therefore, did not investigate this request further. At the December 20, 1989, regular meeting, the applicant made several references to a right to use the public parking lots owned by the City of Kodiak and located along Center Street at the lower end of Mill Bay Road. Apparently, the applicant, was referringto this parking area because the lot is within the six hundred (600) foot radius of his property and because it provides parking for land uses similar to the applicants' use. This option was not investigated by staff for a number of reasons: 1. The applicants' original request on November 13, 1989, did not list thls site as a potential altemative site for the relocation of the required off-street parking. 1 Old Business Item A Page 2 of 4 P,& 2: February 21, 1990 e ' ITEM VII -A 2. All available public parking located in the downtown area, es,identified in the UR - 19 Urban Renewal Plan, is exceeded by the combined parking requirements of the businesses located there. In addition, all of the businesses in the downtown area that have expanded in the Last few years have obtained a parking variance before being allowed to expand. I i 3. The applicants' property is not located in the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan area, and even if it were, while both the Urban Renewal Plan and the Borough Zoning Code are applicable to downtown properties, clearly the Borough Zoning Code takes precedence over the plan. While the applicant has the option of requesting a parking variance at any time, it is unlikely that a variance would be granted by the Commission;due primarily to the fact that the variance should have been requested before the property was converted to a professional office. Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes and the Borough Zoning Code both prohibit the granting of a variance when the property owner has created the hardship from which relief is requested byvariance. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above information, staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following additional findings of fact in support of the Commission's :decision at the December 20, 1989 regular meeting. Findinos of Fact The applicant did not obtain the permission of the property owner, the Community Baptist Church, to submit the property as a viable parking alternative for Commission review. 2. When the applicant converted the property from a single-family dwelling to a professional office and apartment, no variance was requested to alleviate all or some of the additional off-street parking requirement. The applicant did not formally request the downtown parking area to be investigated as an alternative parking site in a timely fashion which would have permitted staff to respond to the Commission in the staff report that was prepared for the appearance request. Old Business liem A Page 3 of 4 P & Z: February 21, 1990 ITEM VII -A , I 4. Even though a variance would still be required for any ;additional off-street parking requirement created In the downtown area, the applicant's' property is not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan, APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: Move to adopt the findings of fact contained in the staff memorandum dated February 10, 1990, as "Findings:: of Fact" for Case 87-058. Findings of Fact 1. The applicant did not obtain the permission of the property owner, the Community Baptist Church, to submit the property as a viable parking alternative for Commission review. • 2. When the applicant converted the property from a single-family dwelling to a professional office and apartment, no variance was requested to alleviate all or some of the additional off-street parking requirement. i 3. The applicant did not formally request the downtown parking area to be investigated as an alternative parking site In a timely fashioh which would have permitted staff to respond to the Commission in the staff report that was prepared for the appearance request. 4. Even though a variance would still be required for any ;additional off-street parking requirement created in the downtown area, the applicants' property is not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Rdneviral Plan. I Old Business Item A Page 4 of 4 Pp& Z: February 21, 1990 I T,Fnovx & LEnoux ATTORNEYS AT LAW 219 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 (907) 486-4082 FAX: (907) 486-2684 November 10, 1989 Ms. Linda Freed Planning and Community Development Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 9961 Re: Parking variance; 219 Mill Bay Road ANCHORAGE OFFICE: 1907) 272-6868 SEATTLE OFFICE: 1208) 624.6771 RECEIVED NOV 131989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DRPT Dear Ms. Freed: Pursuant to 17.50.030 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code I am requesting that the Kodiak Island Borough Planning.Commission make a factual finding that it is impractical to locate eight parking spaces on my property located at 219 Mill Bay Road. I am further requesting the right to use Dr. Bob Johnson's parking lot to fulfill seven of my parking requirements. I already have one off street parking space at my office. Dr. Johnson's parking lot is approximately two hundred feet from my office. I am making this request based upon the difficulty,in constructing a parking lot behind my property and the fact that such parking lot would be impractical to use, especially in winter. As is set forth in the affidavit of Bernie Lindsey, a local contractor', it would be impractical to build such parking lot. There would be drainage problems and the opening would be quite narrow after shoring up the property next to my parking lot. There are no formal plats of Dr. Johnson's parking lot. I have obtained copies of 'the plans for Dr. Johnson office and have put in the measurements of the parking areas as is shown in what is marked as "A" attached hereto. As is shown on the plan there currently exist three separate parking areas around Dr. Johnson's office building. These spaces have been used for over twenty years and there is sufficient turning Apace in all three lots for total off-street parking. Dr. Johnson also has ten parking spaces on the back side of his property against the fence along the property line with the ASHA apartments. There are log stops for these parking spaces. There is a large turning area for these parking spaces. Ms. Linda Freed Planning and Community Development November 10, 1989 page 2 Altogether, Dr. Johnson has 33 designated parking spaces based on spaces being 8' x 20'. Dr. Johnson's building, according to the information provided by Craig Johnson, has a total 'area of 7050 square feet (4890 square feet for the main level and 2160 square feet for the basement level). Based on the Borough code, requiring one parking space for every 300 square feet of building space, Dr. Johnson only needs 24 parking spaces leaving a surplus of nine parking spaces. I am also enclosing a copy of my lease with Dr. Johnson, showing the spaces that he is going to lease to me. I will be glad to produce any additional information that you need. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ku. "t`TM.LeDoux KML/keo enc c.c. Joel Bolger see office r.189 52 r"1: *Frit; Or1.1C. Nal Mo t sre«.et (II.i • 14) 16 O.Fsct Na. see HOLMES - JOHNSON CLIN4IG BASEMEMT FiDoRPL�A){A// - 6 354.96 aq ft.. 256.39' b fc°)Y LEASE OF PARKING SPACES Lease made on the day of November, 1989, between Dr. Bob Johnson M.D. (Lessor) and Kurt M. LeDoux of LeDoux & LeDoux, Attorneys •at Law (Lessee) . Lessor hereby agrees to lease to Lessee severe (7) parking spaces at his professional office building at 115 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The seven parking spaces are shown on Exhibit "A", which is hereby incorporated into this lease. Lessee shall pay as rental to Lessor the sum of Ninety Dollars ($90.00) per month due on the First day of each month. The rents may be increased yearly with a six months notice of any increase. The term of the lease shall be year to year with the right of either party to terminate this lease upon six months notice to the other party. This lease is subject to the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission's approval to permit Lessee to use'Lessor's parking lot to meet Lessee's parking space obligations. Date Date officetpark.les Dr. Bob Johnson, M.D. Lessor Kurt M. LeDoux Lessee KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ( COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 730 MILL BAY ROAD, ROOM 204, KODIAK ALASKA 99816.6340, (907) 4ee3736i rhe appM eean lee for el hems eorered by this lone is fifty dollar. (360.00), exempt n athewlse noted Conditional Use Permits, Eroepdonr, and Valence sppllesdons fin requite the subtle len of et site plan. ! Applicant Information 1 Property owner's name: R. . (-WA," e.s (NI cw-t.,,,. Lnv. sa+. , Property owner's mailing address: l i S inn: U let deem-c02ir City: k.r'e :e,.44. State: 4(.c- Zip: ties Home phone: 4fl' 5 I �- I Work phone: V 8ro — ,32-33 au n If applicably name nar3 (Go r - Le- cu ens,c I r Agent's mailing address: c2 i \ trot. i Ll Ru Q City: t(ncQt1NL State: al -k_ Zip: 194,4 j Home phone' , Work phone: LtSf(o *r 40 $Z_ Property Information. 1 ' !. Legal Description: L.“ --s (0 0.,�1 10 dlo 14 f342.43 k0Jl4-. if- turi.. Present use of property: 1?rnes ss)w-..-Q tJcedc e. ! Proposed use of property: To 'pvmncL .p)lc,ess pcw-(.4.., a..v-cc. te, Swwa., emcees ha......Q ,,p� 4A, Ltsc..- '. D ties-(-04-s'Lk 613 C6•41)GaC., IC OCA -4.1C lowti LA'S P Sac. ior- IR-. 51-. 03D '( — 3hsae4- t'e vt—il, - Loc t ) 61,- `-C•vz— j,ocv Cat -L.. 1 Applicant Certification 4 the applkandauthestred pant, haste been adrind of the procedures Involved with this require:and hen ncieved a Dopy of the appropriate • , , • iv/i‘ Its•., Authorized Agent's Signature Date Property Own . 2nalure Date STAFF USE ONLY ! Code Section(s) Involved: II-. 51-. 030 C Occ — rr e -e- ?r ,7k k. .—.- Locidw..) . (j Conditional Use Permit Exception , Variance . Title 18 Review . X Other (e.g., a earners nequesrs, eta.) non -tee nen I ' 5 . Zoning a e from to Applicatbn accepted: 1/4-0-- 7 _ ' 1 n /7 S Stall signature ale accepted DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:; RE: I1 EM V -C Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM December 19, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Department Information for the December 20, 1989 regular meeting Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commissionreview and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the eight (8) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location' of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to perrnit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking, is Intended to serve.. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle) LeDoux) BACKGROUND At the worksession on December 13, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that staff review Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking -- Location) to see whether the Commission was bound by the code to allow an alternate location if it was found to be impractical to locate the existing parking requirement in the rear yard of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Staff reviewed the section in question, and it does appear that the code is permissive and the Commission Is not required to allow the relocation of the' parking upon the finding that it is impractical to locate the parking In the rear yard of Lots 6A, 66, and 6C, Appearance Request C Page 1 al 4 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Staff has, therefore, rewritten the motion so that each applicable code section is provided an Individual motion. I1 the Commission finds theft it is impractical to locate the off-street parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, the Commission will have to consider an alternative site: I ' If the Commission finds that it is impractical to relocate the parking to another lot, or, if the Commission finds that It is not impractical to locate the parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, the property owner will have to either construct the parking or abate the use of the structure for commercial purposes and return it to the residential use that previously existed. Staff has included with this revised staff report a vicinity map showing the location of the lots under consideration. In addition, a 600 foot circle shown for scale is centered on the right rear corner of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the required seven (7) off- street parking spaces on the Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the fact that it would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to do so. ' In addition, staff recommends that the five (5) required off-street parking spaces be permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak; subject to conditions of approval to insure consistency with Title 17 of the Borough Code. Provision of the five (5) off-street spaces on trots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (the Holmes Johnson Clinic) in a B--BVsiness Zoning District is a reasonable alternative location for the use in question. Utilization of an alternative parking lot would require the following actions: 1. A finding pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking --Location) of the Borough Code that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. 2. A finding pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking --Location) of the Borough Code that the Commission finds relocating the required parking to Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision a reasonable alternative. Appearance Request 0 Page 2 of 4 P & Z: December 20, 1909 ITEM V -G 3. A parking plan for the Holmes Johnson Clinic showing all off-street parking spaces and those off-street parking spaces designated for the professional office of LeDoux and Letoux. 4. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, (Holmes Johnson Clinic) In favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 69, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux professional offices) for the five (5) off-street parking spaces. The easement must run with the land until the use(s) of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is provided. Should the Holmes Johnson Clinic property be used for parking as provided for above, only one (1) additional wising space for the residential apartment on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would need to be developed In order to satisfy all off-street parking requirements. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motions are: Move to adopt finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough. Code, that it is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Move to adopt finding number two (2) contained In the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to permit the off-street parking required for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite to be relocated to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989. Appearance Request C Page 3ot4 P & Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ' E 1. A parking plan for the Holmes Johnson Clinic located at Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, showing all off-street parking spaces"I:and those off- street parking spaces designated for the office of LeDoux and ;LeDoux will be submitted to the Community Development Department within ten (10) days of this decision. 2. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic) in favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Biock 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux offices) for five (5) off-street parking spaces. The easement shall run with the land until the use(s) of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is provided. MM 3. Adequate signage to Identify the designated spaces as the parking lot for LeDoux and LeDoux law offices will be as specified by the Community Development Department. 1 � I 4. The off-street parking developed for the LeDoux and LeDoux profession office must ' comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 1 (Parking Lot Development Standards) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that It is Impractical to locate. five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, 'and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60 would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public. 1 " � t 2. Five (5) of the required off-street parking spaces for Lots 6A, 6B, 'and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, should be permitted to locate on Lots 6 and, 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, because even though these spaces are pot adjacent to the office which they are intended to serve, they would be safer and most likely used more by clients of the law office than would spaces developed in the rear yard where the office Is located. I 1 1 Appearance Request 0 Page 4 of 4 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 :I DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RE: ITEM V -C Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDU December 12, 1989 Planning anct Zoning Commission Community Development Department Information for the December 20, 1989 Regular Meeting Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that It is impractical to locate any of the eight (8) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking: is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) BACKGROUND The purpose of this request Is to consider the practicality of locating eight (8) off-street parking spaces in the rear yard of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. If the Commission finds that it Is impractical to locate the parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, the Commission will also need to address the conditions under which it would permit the parking to be located on another parking lot within six hundred (600) feet of the structure located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C and which also permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Appearance Request Page 1 of 6 P & Z: December 20, 1989 REM V -C 1 On the advice of the Borough Attorney, staff was persuaded to (treat this request separately from ongoing litigation between the Kodiak Island Borough and the property owner. Staff has, therefore, tried to be objective in the assessment of thjs case and, at , one point, requested technical assistance from the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department regarding an assessment of the subject property (see attachment). To summarize the comments of the Engineering and Facilities department, it was determined that the development of parking in the rear yard of Lotp 6A, 6B, and 6C would result In an Impractical and unsafe parking configuration. This assessment is supported by the following observations: ! , 1. The line of site for drivers exiting the proposed driveway onto the dncomIng traffic lane of Mill Bay Road Is blocked by a board fence on the adjacent property. 2. The proposed driveway passes between the LeDoux building 'and.; the neighbors board fence. The plat shows the width of the driveway as 9.4 feet. Minimum driveway width required by the City Code Is 14 feet; the minimum driveway width required by the Borough Code is 12 feet. Regardless of either code, 9.4 feet Is inadequate. 3. Mill Bay Road traffic is downhill at the proposed driveway eritrance further compounding the hazard, particularly when slippery road conditions exist. 4. The proposed driveway passes directly over a buried fuel talk. The fuel tank would have to be relocated. Topography of the proposed parking lot site will drain the lot to adjacent properties. If sod and topsoil are removed to construct a parking lot, surface water runoff will increase. A sharp grade change exists at the rear property line; the earth is unrestrained and sloughing is evident. It would be necessary to construct a retaining wall to correct this condition. 7. The proposed parking lot site Is currently a lawn area. To convert'this area to a parking lot and driveway would require removal of the sod and importation of crushed rock. It is unlikely construction costs can be justified by the benefits. Appearance Request Page 2 or B i & Z:' December 20, 1989 I I 0 ITEM V -C The report by the Engineering and Facilities Department does indicate that the parking lot can be constructed, but only at great expense and questionable benefit to the public. The Commission has two (2) choices in this case: If the Commission finds that it Is impractical to locate the off-street parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, then the Commission will have to consider` an alternative site proposed by the applicant. 2. If the Commission finds that it is not impractical to locate the parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, then the property owner will have to either: (a) construct the parking; or (b) abate the use of the structure for commercial purposes and, return it to the residential use that previously existed. The applicants have stated that it is impractical to locate the eight (8) required parking spaces on the lot in the manner originally shown at the time the variance was granted. Therefore, the applicant requests the Commission to find that it is Impractical to locate the off-street parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, and to allow the off-street parking to be located on a suitable lot within six hundred (600) feet. To replace these spaces, the applicant proposes to acquire eight (8) off-street parking spaces in the parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (site of the Holmes Johnson Clinic located down the street from the subject property). This action requires Planning and Zoning Commission approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 or the Borough Code which states: 17.57.030 Off-street parkino--Location. All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020 shall be on the same lot as, or a lot adjacent to, the principal building that 'they service; provided, that if the planning commission finds that it Is impractical to locate the spaces on such a lot, it may permit them to be located on any lot within six hundred feet of the principal building. All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020 shall be located in a use district permitting the use which they serve. Appearance Request Page 3 of 6 P & Z: December 20, 1969 ITEM V -C Staff has determined that the Holmes Johnson Clinic does not have an additional eight (8) off-street parking spaces to provide for the use of LeDoux and LeDoux. The original parking determination for this lot Indicated that six (6) spaces were required for the professional office and two (2) spaces were required for the residential portion of the structure. However staff has reevaluated the original parking, requirement and determined that, based on new information from the Borough Assessing Department, the professional office use at LeDoux and LeDoux only requires five (5) off-street parking spaces rather the previously calculated six (6) off-street parking spaces. The reason for'this is the Assessor had previously included a ninety-six (96) square foot uncovered and unenclosed deck as part of the total floor area for the structure. This additional floor area made the calculation for parking just over five and one-half (5.5), therefore the calculation was rounded up to the next whole number six (6). Without counting this additional floor area however, the calculation is less than five and one-half (5.5), therefore the figure Is now rounded down. Staff has determined that the previously proposed driveway access to the rear yard could conceivably handle the two (2) required off-street parking spaces associated with the residential unit if the driveway was not required to access the back yard for additional parking. In addition, the Holmes Johnson Clinic has an additional six (6) off-street parking spaces by staff's calculation. Therefore, the Clinic lot has more than enough space to accommodate the parking needs of LeDoux and LeDoux if the owner so chooses. Staff, therefore, recommends that It Is Impractical to locate five (5) of the 'required seven (7) off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. In addition, staff recognizes the difficulty in assuring that the public will use the designated spaces If they are located so far from the professional offices they would serve. For this reason, staff recommends that adequate signage be required to insure that the designated spaces are used only by the clients of LeDoux and LeDoux and not by other members of the public. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that it is Impractical to locate five (5) of the required seven (7) off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 66, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the fact that It would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public, and that the five (5) required off-street parking spaces be permitted to relocate to Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak, subject to conditions of approval to Insure consistency with Title 17 of the Borough Code. Provision of the five (5) off-street spaces down the street at the Holmes Johnson Clinic In a B --Business Zoning District Is a reasonable alternative location for Appearance Request Page 4 of 8 P & Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C the use in question. Utilization of an alternative parking lot would require the following actions: 1. A finding from the Commission pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking- -Location) of the Borough Code that it is Impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. 2. A parking plan of the Holmes Johnson Clinic parking lot showing all spaces and those designated for the professional office of LeDoux and LeDoux must be submitted to the Community Development Department. 3. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic), in favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux professional office building) for the five (5) off- street parking spaces. The easement must run with the land until the uses of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off- street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is provided. Should the Holmes Johnson Clinic property be used for parking as provided for above, only one (1) additional off-street parking space for the residential apartment on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would need to be developed in order to satisfy all off-street parking requirements. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion Is: Move to adopt the finding contained in the staff report dated December 12, 1989 as the "Finding of Fact" for this case pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code; and to permit five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office and apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, to be relocated to the parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated December 12, 1989. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Appearance Request Pepe 5 of 6 P & Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C ' 1. A parking plan of the Holmes Johnson Clinic parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Townsite, showing all off-street parking spaces and those off-street parking spaces designated for the LeDoux and LeDoux office must be submitted to the Community Development Department within days of the date of this decision and prior to the issuance of a zoning compliance permit. 2. A recorded easement an Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic) in favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux professional office) for five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces. The easement must run with the land until the uses of Lots GA, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is provided. 3. Adequate signage to identify the designated off-street parking spaces as the parking for LeDoux and LeDoux professional offices will be provided as specified by the Community Development Department. 4. The off-street parking developed for the LeDoux and LeDoux professional office must comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 (Parking Lot Development Standards) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code.' FINDING OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office and apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public. The five (5) required off-street parking spaces are permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated December 12, 1989. Appearance Request Page 6 of 6 P a Z: December 20, 1989 PCC/ -/-1307%, aar.G1 V AOtl �'—,r d61 rrx^ , "P up talaq . vpm w adorn Auadod ppo na aka..gm, sopa P amt non -:vasa Oaianrea wan man sap part uona ; an.eaaad ap Nit aaoan ovap mann* 4 ,{mend m ammadm on nip *alai aoAdR 2.44.1Aanuoas,p O au. l a P alas° inn op part a nnus zip awn. anuananpnmop maanaa sip al l pm :S.7 a'' 796 e .5a7IJG N0/124:14/ 7' ;nnfinaa papaap a,..°n w""- aaaq 1 pp Atom Zqaw t • nam !1Al2 SY 1S 77 CZ,7 Anctz "j7 4 Ua cG/j.,/r�%, -7Vt2 ate/ /SCP ey fv✓242do/ `O'J O a3 77 r.F; 0 o f .1\-R2d5 , o J -f elms dic 141- C.1 9 z a,/o.dd4' d ± Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM TO: Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner Community Development Department FR: Lee Beauman, Construction Inspecto Engineering/Facilities Department ,1 rr wh IvS.99 NT: December 7, 1989 RE: Your Case 1187-058, proposed Parking Behind the I visited the LeDoux property with you on December reviewing the owners proposal to construct an eight to evaluate the feasibility of this proposal. From a practical perspective, the following facts proposal was not based on sound engineering, principles: DECRECFIVED 8 -1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CFpT LeDoux Law Office 6, 1989 for, the purpose of (8) space parking area and readily indicate that the construction or safety 1. The site line of drivers exiting the proposed driveway into the on coming traffic lane of Mill Bay Road is blocked by a board fence on the adjacent property. 2. The proposed driveway passes between the LeDoux Building and the neighbors board fence. Plat shows the width to be 9.4 feet. City code requires 14 feet; Borough code requires 12 feet minimum driveway widths. Irregardless of code, 9.4 feet is inadequate. 3. Mill Bay Road traffic is downhill at the proposed driveway entrance further compounding the hazard particularly when slippery road conditions exist. 4. Proposed driveway passes directly over a buried fuel tank. The fuel tank would have to relocate. 5. Topography of the proposed parking lot site will drain adjacent properties. If sod and topsoil is removed to parking lot, surface water run-off will increase. the lot to onstruct a 6. A sharp grade change exists at the rear property line, the earth is unrestrained and ploughing is evident. It would be. necessary to construct a retaining wall to correct this condition. i 7. Theproposed parking lot site is currently a lawn area. To convert to a parking area/driveway would require removal of the sod and importation of crushed rock. It is unlikely construction costs can be justified by the benefits. Duane Dvorak December 7:1989 Page 2 1 If lack of parking space is a problem in the vicinity of the LeDoux office, it is not apparent to the casual observer. It is my suggestion that common sense be considered when seeking a solution to this dispute. It appears that the applicant for variance agreed to construct parking spaces in an impractical and unsafe configuration. The grantor of the variance accepted this flawed proposal. Both parties erred. Parking can not .,be a significant problem as a result of traffic to this small law office. Call it a wash. 1 Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 OM 26 1989 Kodiak IslandBorough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 4865736 December 21,1989 Re: Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57,030 (Off-street parking --Location), of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street plarking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay' Gabrielle LeDoux) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission 'at December 20, 1989: Road (Kurt and heir meeting on A. Adopted finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989, pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that It Is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. FINDING OF FACT The .Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is Impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the i. Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December21, 1989 Page Two ; ' office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public because of the following: a. the ingress and egress to the parking area is unsafe due to its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Upper Mill Bay Road; b. construction of the parking lot would-be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to the increased drainage; c. the location of the parking lot makes it unlikely that the public would utilize the parking lot; and d. the topography is such that It would undermine the adjacent lot. B. Adopted the following finding in support of their decision, purs I,ant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to deny relocation of the' off-street parking required for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision: 1. The relocation of fivo (5) off-street parking spaces would not be effective in meeting the parking requirement for uses on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite because of the following: a. the proposed parking is not located within the line 'of sight of the uses to be served; the proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate identification of the individual spaces and their location; and c. the applicant Indicated that the proposed conditions of approval could not be met even before the decision was made by the Commission. Kodiak iaiand Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December 21, 1989 Page Three` l An appeal of these decisions may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) day's of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the sPecific grounds for the appeal, the relief sought by the appellant, and be accompanied byithe appropriate fee. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effective until ten (10) days. following the decision. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission„ please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secr@yt ry Community Development Department cc: Joel Bolger, Jamin tEbeil Bolger & Gentry H) Letter dated December 19, 1989 :to J m Wheeler from Bob Schulze, re: Lot 3, Block 1, Russell!. Estates Subdivision '- 1113 Sellet. I) Letter dated December 19, 1989 to John Parker from Joel H. Bolger, re: Tract D-1, U.S. Survey 3218.3215 Mill Bay Road. 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 HEINRICHS MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the December 20, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimousvoice vote. V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS, , 11 KURT LEDOUX appeared before the Commission, and expressed support for Appearance Request' C.' The Commission and Mr. LeDoux discussed the history of the request. It was noted that et the time of the original valiance request, Mr. LeDoux had no objection to providing the off-street parking on Lots 6A 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte; that subsequent to the granting o the variance, during consultation with contractors, 11 became apparent that providing the off-street parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C was impractical; that Mr. LeDoux had been unable to obtain easements from other property owners In the area for the off- street parking but that he could obtain a lease; and tha Mr. LeDoux believed That there were reasonable alternatives for providing off-street parking other than on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C. The Commission expressed concern about the future of the building Including expansion of the professional uses, selling the building, and providing the off-street parking required by the Borough Code. There were no further audience comments. A) Case 68-083. Planning and Zoning Commission annual review of a variance from Sections 17.03.100(1) (Airport Regulations) end 17.06.162 (Clear Zone) and 17.06.450 (Parking Zone) of the Borough Code which permitted a six (6) foot fence and outdoor storage to encroach fifteen (15) feet into the municipal airport clear and parking zones where the fence and stored items are,not Higher than the ground elevation of the runway In a Business Zoning District. Lots 6A-1 and 842, U.S. Survey 3098; 2025 and 2075 MTI Bay Road (Harold Jones) COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO1ACCEPT the staff report dated December 7, 1989, as the Commission's annual review for Case 88-063: a variance which permits the erection of a six (6) foot fence and outdoor storage 10 encroach fifteen (15) feet Into the municipal airport clear and parking zones where the fence]and stored items are not higher than the ground elevation of the runway In a B --Business Zoning District on Lots 6A-1 and 642, U.S. Survey 3098, and to adopt the findings contained In the staff report dated December 7, .1989, as "Findings of Fact" for this review. P & Z Warman: December 20, 1009 2. The transmission lines and access roadway are Integral parts of the entire Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project and are essential to the operation and maintenance of the facility. 3. Tracts G, H, J, K, and M of the proposed subdivision are contiguous to lands owned by the Kodak island Borough, Afognak Native Corporation, and Ouzlnkle Native Corporation.( 4. The contiguity extends the entire length of easements across lands owned by the Kodiak Island Borough, Afognak Native Corporation, and Ouzlnkle Native Corporation, since there are no Intervening ownerships not encumbered by easements. 5. Lands within the City of Port Lions, across which the transmission line passes, are contiguous to either Afognak Native Corporation land or to each other as the transmission line progresses Into Port Lions. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. C) Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking— Location) of the Borough Code to: 1.. find that itis impractical to locate any ofythe eigtrt (8) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing 1 structure on the lot; and 2. to permit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as) the required parking Is Intended to serve. ) Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) CHAIRMAN HENDEL requested that a deterrninaton be made by the Commission regarding a potential "conflict of Interest." The Commission ruled that Mr. Handel had iia conflict of Interest. CHAIRMAN HENDEL PASSED THE GAVEL TO COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS. 'I CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS recessed the meeting at 7:45 p.m. In order for the Commission to read the "additional handouts" presented to the Commission priorto the meeting. CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. COMMISSIONER HARTT MOVED TO ADOPT finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that It Is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte. A IP a 2 Minutes: December 20, 1989 • Pe9e 5 d 21 FINDING OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it Is Impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7)1, required otf-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, becausei`parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 610 would be unsafe and o1 questlonabie benefit to the public. The motion was seconded. The Commission, with Input from Mr. LeDoux, di cussed the motion. , , COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED 170 MOTION, changing the finding of fact to read: n FINDING OF FACT The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that It Is Impractical to locate five. (5) of the seven (7)1 required ott-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Black 8, Kodiak Townsite, because4park ng developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public because of the following: 1 a. the Ingress and egress to thelparking meals unsafe due to Its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Upper Mill Bay Road; b. construction of the parking lot'would be detrimental to the adJacent properties due to the increased drainage; - r c. the location of the parking lot makes it unlikely that the public would utilize the parking' lot; and AMEND THE MAIN d. the topography is such that it. would undermine the adjacent lot. 1 The AMENDMENT was seconded and CARRIED by majority roil call vote. Commissioner Coleman voted "no." The question was called and THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. } COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ADOPT finding number two (2) contained In the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to permit the off-street parking required for Lots BA, 6B, and 6C, Block 18, Kodiak Townsite to be relocated to the off-street- parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision; subject to the conditions of approval contained In the staff report dated Decembei 19, 1969. FINDING OF FACT IV 2. Five (5) of the required off-street parking spaces for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, should be permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, because p Z rinutee: December 20„1989 1 Pepe 6 al 21 even though these spaces are not adjacent to the office which they are intended to serve, they would be safer and most likely used more by clients of the law;office than would spaces developed In the rear yard where theeirce Is located. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 11, 1 A parking pian for the Holmes Johnson Clinic located at Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdi'visiori, showing all off-street parking spaces and those off-street "parking spaces designated for the office of LeDoux and LeDoux will be submitted to the Community Development Department within ten (10) days of this decision. 2. A recorded easement on Lots 6 andj10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic) In favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDo'ux and LeDoux offices) for five (5) off-street parking spaces. Tfle easement shall run with the land until the use(s) 01 Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte change and/or alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission Is provided. 3. Adequate signage to Identify the designated spaces as the parking lot for LeDoux and LeDoux law offices will be as spedfred by the Community Development Department. 4. The off-street parking developed for: the LeDoux and LeDoux profession office must comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 (Parking Lot DevelopmentStandards) 01 the Kodiak Island Borough Code.. The motion was seconded. The Commission discussed the motion. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO AMEND condition number three (3) to read: 3 Adequate signage on the face of the LeDoux and LeDoux law offices shall state where the off-street parking Is located and adequate signage on the designated spaces shall specify the parking for LeDoux and LeDoux law offices parking exclusively. The amendment was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. The question was called and the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED by roll call vote. Commissioners Heinrichs and Hartt voted "no.* The Commission deferred adoption of flndinds of fact In support of their decision untii the end of the meeting. CHAIRMAN HENDEL returned to the Commission D) ' Case 84-061. Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval of a list of items to be excluded from an Administrative Decision upheld P i Z Knutee: December 20, 1989 { B) Community Development Department Plat Activity Report. There were no further reports. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING BEYOND 11 P.M. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimo s voice vote. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commisslon. Mr. Arndt and the Commisslon discussed wetlands Issues. MIKE ANDERSON appeared before the Commission. Commission discussed drainage plans. There were no further audience comments. Mr. Anderson and the XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS CHAIRMAN HENDEL expressed appreciation to Commissioners Helntchs and Knudsen whose terms expire on December 31, 1989. The Commission also: (1) expressed appreciation to staff for the work involved in developing the Rural Development Zoning District; (2) decided to attend the Assembly packet review worksession prior to appeals from Commission decisions; and (3) noted that the Assembly and Commission had decided to meet quarterly In Joint worksession. The Commission discussed findings of fact for Case 87-058. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ADOPT the following findings of fact for Case 87-058: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that It is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required offstreet parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to ;the public because of the following: a. the ingress and egress to the parking area Is unsafe due to Its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Upper Mill Bay Road; � I b. construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to the increased drainage; c. the location of the parking lot makes It unlikely that the public would utilize the parking lot; and d. the topography is such that it would ,undermine the adjacent lot. Pepe 20 of 21 P & Z Minutes: December 20, 1989 2. The relocation of five (5) off-street parking spaces would not be effective In meeting the parking requirement for uses on Lots 8A, BB, . and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite because'of the following: a. the proposed parking is not located within the line of sight of the uses to be served; b. the proposed parking would not bej viable even with adequate Identification of the individual spacesland , heir location; and c. the applicant indicated that the proposed conditions of approval could not be met even before the (decision was made by the Commission. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. XIII. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN HENDEL adjourned the meeting at 11°:15 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ATTEST By: Patricia Miley, 'S retary Community Development De DATE APPROVED: January 17, 1990 By: ment Robin Heinrichs, Vice Chairman Paye 219121 P & Z Minutes: Do99mbor 20,1189 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 February 22, 1990 Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking—Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is Intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8; Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 21, 1990, adopted the following additional "Findings of Fact" for the request cited above: • 1. The applicant did not obtain the permission of the property owner, the Community Baptist Church, to submit the property as a viable parking altemative for Commission review. 2. When the applicant converted the property from a single-family dwelling to a professional office and apartment, no variance was requested to alleviate all or some of the additional off-street parking requirement. 3. The applicant did not formally request the downtown parking area to be investigated as an alternative parking site in a timely fashion which would have permitted staff to respond to the Commission in the staff report that was prepared for the appearance request. Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gab"rielle-LeDoux February 22, 1990 Page Two 4. Even though a variance would still be required for any iP additional off-street parking requirement created in the downtown area, the applicants' property is not located within the area encompassed by the UR -19 Urban Renewal Plan. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission,,, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Se ry Community Development Department Joel Bolger, JAMIN EBELL BOLGER & GENTRY Kodiak Island Borough PERSONS TESTIFYING AT THE OLD BUSINESS REQUEST FEBRUARY 21, 1990 CASE 87-058 None. Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615„634 PHONE (907) 406.5736 February 15, 1990 Re: Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact” for t e denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking—Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces toiIocate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which perniits the same land use as the required parking is Intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: Enclosed please find a copy of the materials, conceming the above referenced item, reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their regularlyscheduled packet review worksession held Wednesday, February 14, 1990. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secr Community Development Department enclosures cc: Joel Bolger, JAMIN EBELL BOLGER & GENTRY 'Icc- Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486.5736 ebruary 1, 1990 Re: Case 87-058. Request for additional "Findings of Fact" for the denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Milt Bay Road (The Commission denied this request at the December 1989 regular meeting) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: Please be advised that the request referenced above has been scheduled for review and action by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their February 21, 1990 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Attendance at this meeting is recommended. The week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, February 14, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Conference Room (#121), the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet material for the regular meeting. You are invited to attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, please call the Community Development Department at 486- 5736, extension 255. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, S Community Development Department :Copy i—(? Nancy E. Jones, CMC Deputy City Clerk City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 January 23, 1990 Re: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Case 87-058. The denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to', locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) Dear Ms. Jones: This letter Is a follow-up to our letter dated January 18, 1990, transmitting to you the appeal record for the case referenced above. Due to a request (attached) from the appellant for additional findings of fact by the Planning and Zoning Commission, we request that any action by the City Council on this appeal be postponed until the Planning and Zoning Commission has had an opportunity to consider the appellant's request. We have scheduled this matter for the Commission's regular meeting on February 21, 1990. Sincerely, /1,4 [Li Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner Community Development Department attachment cc: Joel Bolger, Jamin Ebell Bolger & Gentry Kurt LeDoux MATTHEW D. JAMIN C. WALTER EBELL JOEL H.'BOLGER• OIANNA R. GENTRY ALAN L. SCHMITT WALTER W. MASON•• DUNCAN S. FIELDS ••DMITTED TO WASHINGTON AND KA BARS • DMRTED TO MINNESOTA BAR ALL OTHERS ADMITTED TO ALASKA BAR JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY A,PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 323 CAROLYN STREET KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 ' FACSIMILE: (907) 486-6112 -TELEPHONE: (907) 486-6024 ' REPLY TO KODIAK OFFICE , January 19,'1990 Mr. Duane Dvorak Community Development. Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak,• Alaska 99615 Re: LeDoux appeal'-- - Our File No. 4702-67 Dear Duane: I received a copy of Kurt's letter of talk this over before responding. Give convenience. JHB:lcs 67L, 002 SEATTLE OFFICE: 119 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH • SUITE 480. MAYNARD BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 . FACSIMILE:1206) 623.7521 TELEPHONE: (206)622-7634., January 17th. Let us me ''a call at your Sincerely yours,', JAMIN, EBELt, BOLGER & GENTRY Joel $. Bolger IL RECFIRIED , I ,m,) G 'G" i9yU COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEn DPPT - - Nancy E. Jones, CMC Deputy City Clerk City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 anuary 18, 1990 Re: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Case 87458. The denial of a request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and :findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of; the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) Dear Nancy: Enclosed please find the record on appeal, as required by Kodiak City for the case referenced above. Specifically, the appeal record consists Code 17.10.030, of the following. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission from which the appeal has been taken. This includes a transcript of the hearing and decisional meeting held on December 20, 1989, and a copy of the approved minutes from the December 20, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 2. Copies, of all memoranda, exhibits, correspondence, recommendations, analyses, maps, drawings, and other documents submittedito the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the decision from which the appeal is taken. Kodiak Island Borough Nancy E. Jones, CMC Deputy City Clerk City of Kodiak January 18, 1990 Page Two A copy of the written decision of the Planning and Zoning Co its findings and conclusions. 4. A list of the names and address of all persons appearing, as hearing. ission, including witnesses at the The cost to the Kodiak Island Borough for preparing the transcript for this case is $375. If you have any questions about the appeal record, please contact Duane Dvorak. Sincerely, Pao Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department Attachments Kodiak Island Borough CERTIFICATE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: the Appearance Request in the matter of: Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1, find that it is impractical to locate any of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces ori Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off- street parking spaces to locate on another lot; within six hundred (600) feet of the structure: which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) ay was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Patricia it Community Development Secretary Department Kodiak Island Borough PLANNING AND ZONING COMM ISSION APPEARANCE REQUEST ITEM C Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it Is impractical to locate any of the seven (7) required -off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size, of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit five. (5) of the seven (7) required off- street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure; which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte; 219 Mi Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) Bay The above-cited Appearance Request was heard on December 20; 1989, in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The meeting was conducted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, Robin Heinrichs. Kodiak Island Borough TOM HENDEL: (indecipherable] TOM HENDEL: (indecipherable] KURT LEDOUX: TOM HENDEL: KURT LEDOUX: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item 0 it If We are now at Audience Comments and Appearance Requests. This Is the time where anyone wishing to speak on any matter that is not scheduled for a public hearing - please come forward, sign in, and state your name. Duane, but he's not scheduled for a public hearing I'll Just try to be brief on my variance. Please state your name and sign in. I'm Kurt LeDoux and I guess thisis Case number 87- 058. I've read the memorandum that Duane has prepared. He's done a very nice job. The only problem I still have is that I could not possibly get easements from these people. They are willing to - Doctor Johnson wanted to lease the the property; the church is willing to let me lhave the property permanently, but they are not going to give me a permanent easement on it. I have a 'rather low profile law firm. I have space. I can build two (2) parking spaces. Most of my clients don't.even live in Kodiak. We filter our clients; we never have more than one (1) client visit us. I can park my car across the street at the church; I can park it at Doctor Johnson's place, I can rent it there; and I think you should also consider whether I can use the downtown parking lot. I am within six hundred (600) feet of the downtown parking lot. Mr. Sullivan says it's no problem with me using it. Page 1 of 32 P & Z: December 20, 1989 TOM HENDEL: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: KURT LEDOUX: So I think there is reasonable alternatives available to me. I see other businesses in town such as The Bakery - they have a lack of proper, adequate parking spaces and they are allowed to do this. I am a small business person. If I am required to, I'll build a parking lot, but I don', see any need for it. It would be an expensive, useless parking lot. If that's what you want me to do, I will do it; but I think there Is reasonable alternatives available. You have any questions? Mary Lou. I have a comment. I'm still kind of undecided of what I am going to do, but I know when you came in for your variance to convert the house into your law office that one (1) of the requirements was the ;parking; and we were concerned at that time about the parking; and you said there was no problem;, and, that was, we based our decision on that because you were going to be providing off-street parking. I agree and I went out there, went out there, - I can't remember, was it Bob Shuttlesworth or who was it - went out there and we both looked at it and we agreed it could be built. Then I got contractors out to look at it and they said no it would bellwether difficult. I mean I can build it, but it has drainage problems that we did not foresee at the time. It would be cheaper for me to build the parking lot than to pay Doctor Johnson ninety dollars ($90) a month forever. I can probably build it for three - four thousand dollars ($3,000 - $4,000) but I am going to end up with a parking lot that is not really usable and I am looking for, proposing a reasonable altemative to building that parking lot which would not have much use. TOM HENDEL: Jon. Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Page 2 oI82 , P & Z: December 20, 1989 JON HAR1T: KURT LEDOUX: What if you later on take on a partner and you do need the use of more parking. Well, I still have the church available to me; I still have the downtown parking availableto I me; I still have Doctor Johnson's space that he would rent me; and I have also talked to Craig Bishop; over the hillside, he said he would lease me spaces too. I do not anticipate taking on a partner, if I do I'll probably put him in my Anchorage office because most of my clients right now live in Anchorage. TOM HENDEL: Any further questions? Go ahead; WAYNE COLEMAN: KURT LEDOUX: TOM HENDEL: It's not what we personally want to see happen, but it is a Code requirement and regardless of what has transpired in the past, a certain number of off-street parking spaces are required for such an activity and that is basically the way we see it.: Well that is why I think there is reasonable alternatives where I can find enough adequate parking spaces - 1 have Doctor Johnson; 1 have the downtown parking lot; and I have thejchurch who has just agreed to let me use their parking without cost. When this case is up for tonight's (Case C, here under Appearance Requests, so if there aren't any, if you have no further comments, I am sure you will be available for questions at that time. ISI that KURT LEDOUX: Is this going to - I don't understand the procedure here. TOM HENDEL: Okay, this is not a public hearing so unless you have further comments at this time then, the Commissioners could ask you questions at the time that your case comes up even though Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Page3of32 1 P Z: Deoamber20, 1989 KURT LEDOUX: ... I don't understand, oh excuse me. TOM HENDEL: TOM HENDEL: DUANE DVORAK: TOM HENDEL: DUANE DVORAK: We have not even gotten to Case A you are Case C and if, unless you have any further comments at this time then they could ask you questions at that time. So anyone else in the audience wishing to comment on anything not scheduled for a public hearing? Seeing none we'll go on to Case A. (The Commission conducted other business.] ' ... Case C. This is Case 87-058. A request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 613, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; anis 2. to permit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces - Duane that should be less? What's that? Is that less than eight (8) now? If you noticed in the other staff report I had determined that, based on new information from the Assessing Department, that it is rounded down to seven (7) rather than rounded up to e'ght (8). TOM HENDEL: Okay. Verbatim TrarcaIpt Appearance Request Item C and to permit the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which Page 4 of 32 P b Z: December 20, 1989 WAYNE COLEMAN: TOM HENDEL: WAYNE COLEMAN: BRUCE BARRETT: TOM HENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: TOM HENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C permits the same land use parking is intended to serve. as the required Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mi il Bay Road. And I would like the Commission to decide whether I have a conflict of Interest in this case as I am the immediate next door neighbor and I did step down when the case first came before the Commission. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I do not believe that there is an intense conflict of interest involved; however, if you would feel more comfortable about it I would certain y think perhaps you`could be excused on that basis. I think you are a little too close to the Okay. Robin. roject site. I guess I feel that even though, maybe, the strict test for conflict of interest is not met, [think you are going to give the impression of lack of impartiality. Okay, I agree. I will pass the gavel to the Vice Chairman and step down. This is Case 87-058. Request for' Planning and Zoning review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block8, Kodiak Townslte Page 5of32 • PBZ: December 20, 1800 JON HARTT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: DUANE DVORAK: Verbatim Transalpt Appearance Request Item C due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit the eight (8) off-street required, the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within s'x hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. • Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road. What is the wish of the Commission on this? Would you like about five (5) minutes to read the new memo? Yes, please. I'll recess the meeting for five (5) minutes. (Recess.] 111 convene the regular meeting. Duane did you have anything to add to the report that is before us? You have the additional memorandum that staff has prepared. Basically, to sum. up, , based on the observation by the Commission at the packet review, the Code was reviewed. The Code is permissive on whether or not the parking would be required to be relocated if the finding was that 1there was an impracticality in locating the parking behind the existing office building. So, the motion was separated to address the impracticality of the parking and the relocation of the parking separately, as well as the separation of the findings in, support of the recommendation. In addition, there was a vicinity map included which has a six hundred (600) foot Page 6 of 32 P & Z: December 20, 1989 ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Rem C circle centered on the right rear corner of the subject lot to give the Commission an idea of what the relative location of the properties being reviewed are. Thank you, Duane. What is the wish of the Commission on the matter before'us? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barrett. I move to adopt finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that it is impractical to locate at least five' (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Mary Lou. I have a question of staff. If this is nol longer, If thls is just an office building, does that ,change any of the parking requirements? I am not sure I understand the question. It says here for the office and apartment. Now he needs two (2) spaces for that apartment. Correct. But if it was all office The apartment would have to be addressed separately. In other words, if it were all considered to Page 70132 P 8 Z December 24, MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C ( be office, we would have to go on the gross floor area of the whole structure which would still require a couple of additional spaces seven though that apartment area would be reclassified as part of the business structure. So the same amount of parking would be required whether or not there was It would probably be pretty close; I do not have an exact figure, but it would be pretty close to the same as it is now. Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman, I have been to look at this site and I tend -to agree that it is impractical; it probably should have been addressed when this project originally carne up. I do see the need for parking and I guess I am leaning toward going along with this, that it is impractical and that that does not negate the responsibility of the party to provide off-street parking and I will probably address the distance for that off- street parking in the second prdposal here. But I guess my main concem is that 'thel - between the fence and the structure there is approximately nine (9) feet - I think it was nine point four, (9.4) feet and with the Icy road conditions and restricted visibility I can see cars actually sliding into the building and the desirability of parking back there in terms of attracting the clientele into that parking lot - well, it might not be very realistic - they would probably end up parking on the street anyway and just avoiding that, so I am leaning towards voting that this thing is impractical. Mr. LeDoux did you want to address the motion before us? Page 8 of 32 P a Z: December 20, 1989 KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Ram C I do not know if there is anything to add except that I measured off of a tape measure the downtown parking lot is within six hundred (600) feet of my office. I had to go about fifty (50) feet inside the parking lot - by the First National,Bank of Anchorage there. So I do have alternative parking space downtown that is available to me. Mr. LeDoux - Mr. Chairman Yes. Mr. Barrett. I have been down to that parking lot almost every day and it seems to be quite crowded.11 assume you have been down there recently - it is congested already to the best of my knowledge - and there is already several people who have issued complaints to me that maybe there was some poor planning in the downtown area in terms of providing parking space and this is not just in the Christmas period and so I guess personally I do not really see it as a real viable option. I mean people are not gong to walk six hundred (600) feet to your business from a practical perspective. Whoever wrote the Borough Code decided that six hundred (600) feet was a reasonable distance to walk. I feel like 1 should have the same rights every other small businessman in Kodiak has; and I am a small businessman and I am just trying to make a living; I have got space available to me abthe church; I have got space available to me at Doctor Johnson's offices; and I really do not need all that space. I have got a big building but I do not use very much of it. Is there an option - that lot that is just down slope from the church - I guess it is Lot 2 across from the Fish and Game Building - who owns that? Is it a Borough lot ora City lot? Page 9 oI 32 ' P & Z December 20, 1999 KURT LEDOUX: DUANE DVORAK: BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C That is a City lot. That is a City lot. Is that an option for you? 1 asked the City to lease that , and they said no because Fish and Game may want to expand there some day although Fish and Game had no objection to me leasing that property. You know what they might do and what they are going to do is not necessarily - I find that hard to understand why the City would not lease it fora parking lot. What about the church. You said in one statement that they would provide you permanent use of that however they would not give you a permanent easement. That is right. They do not want their land tied up and I have to agree with that, if I were their lawyer I would have to recommend against that. i Then they cannot really give you permanent use of it. They have said they would let me park my car there; it is just a neighbor to neighbor thing and I am sure if there is, would be some, they would revoke it. There would be some procedure where they could notify you that I no longer have a right to park there. I can put two (2) cars along the side of my ,house still; there is space there. I can tell you how :may cars our total office uses - my wife has a car; I have a car; my secretary has a car - I am out of town one to two (1 to 2) weeks a month and it is not really a high Impact here. I think my neighbor, Wilton White, has commented that he sees no increased use or increased parking since I moved in there. Page 10 of 32 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: KURT LEDOUX: WAYNE COLEMAN: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Yes, I just wonder what the assurance that your business won't grow and you wori't sell your business and change ownership and get a business in there that would generate more traffic. I do not see any - I do not have any plans to expand my business. If I expand it is going to be towards Seattle or Anchorage where I have got quite a few clients right now. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Wayne. The absence of any written document that would allow you to use parking space elsewhere - I cannot see much of any supporting criteria for this. Going way back to the original granting of a variance to convert that residential area to business that was a condition at that time, was it not? , That Is right. Of course, by your own words too you know you could build a parking lot in the back of your business building cheaper in the long run ;than renting space from Holmes Johnson Clinic, in fact the pay back, if I heard my numbers right, the pay back would be less than three (3) years which is quite a phenomenal short term pay back. And again, without some paper - some firm criteria and the proper parties being the signatory thereto, I just cannot see! the supporting evidence. Page 11 of 32 P 8'Z: December 20,1989 KURT LEDOUX: WAYNE COLEMAN: KURT LEDOUX: But Doctor Johnson was going to give me a written lease, but it was not a permanent easement, where he could give me notice that I would have to vacate the property and I guess at that point I would have to find alternative parking spaces such as from Mr. Craig Bishop, Now he has the property:that is just over the hill; but he is not going to give me a permanent easement either. But you know it is all well and good and I am sure there is a lot of good, well intentioned people involved in this thing - the church saying y'es you can use the space, and somebody else proposing this and that and everything - but without something to attach to this file there would not be anything binding in the future to require that and sure things have gone on in the past that have created parking problems and everything and we did not have the Code as enforced at that time or we did not even* have the Code to enforce it in some cases, but in this day and age it is just - It seems like a very real necessity to ascribe to, you know the guidelines that they set down for whatever criteria - in this case, off -'street parking. All I have got to say is that Doctor Johnson will give me a written lease for it and I would have to find alternative parking if the lease expired. I do not see any reason why (indecipherable] to be honest with you he would be making ninety dollars ($90) for five (5) spaces that I probably would not need to - would only use one or two (1 or 2) spaces of that. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Mr. Hartt. JON HARTT: Mr. LeDoux, what would happen if you sold your business property to a real estate company. KURT LEDOUX: A real estate company? Verbatim Transaipt Appearance Request Item C Page 12 of 32 P & Z: December 20, 1989 JON HARTT: KURT LEDOUX: JON HAR1T: KURT LEDOUX: JON HARTT: KURT LEDOUX: Yes, or say something like that who would actually need those six (6) spaces, where;would they go? I, If I sold the I mean we have to think about this you know five (5) years from now, ten (10) years. You mean the space I lease from Doctor Johnson? No, I mean the business property. What if you sold it. to a real estate company, where would they park? I suppose that they would make the same arrangements that I did, I do not have any plans of selling the property. [indecipherable] BRUCE BARRETT: Mr. LeDoux, can you obtain a lease from the church? BRUCE BARRETT: KURT LEDOUX: (indecipherable] Can you have something In wriling from the church regardless if it Is at zero (0) cost or as you say, indefinite? Can you have something in writing from the church that gives you a legal lease on that property for some sort of timeframe? I seriously do not think I can go back and ask them - but their feeling was that they did not want to get tied down to anything legal. As their neighbor, they said I could use it and they had no problem with that. But they felt that there might be problems at the First Baptist Church, the Frontier Baptist had entered into some kind of lease arrangement. Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Page 13 of 32 P & Z: December 20, 1989 ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: KURT LEDOUX: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: KURT LEDOUX: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: KURT LEDOUX: ROBIN HEINRICHS: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Okay, the motion before us has to do with the practicality of these parking spaces, is there any other discussion on that? Mary Lou. Mr. LeDoux. Yes. The impracticality of, I am correct in assuming that, the impracticality of constructing these parking spaces is the narrow driveway, the site, and the drainage which would affect the downhill property. 1 think that Duane, here, listed a whole lot of other facts that I had never even thought of. • Okay and you, has the contractor said that they could do it or They can do it, they can go in there and flatten it out, it will cause water to drain under my house. I have measured it, I mean I can clear niy car through there. We start getting ice and I suspect td be sliding down towards the house; it can be done; it is Just not a really practical solution and I mean I, will, if you want me to build it, I will build the parking Ilot. But I am just trying to offer some reasonable altemative to it. I guess I would point out to the Commission, too, that I think, at this time, the motion is adoption of a finding of fact; and after our discussion last night, I would suggest we make sure the finding of fact is what we want, if we are going to adopt this part of the motion. As I read the finding of fact, it talks about - this is right on page four of four (4 of 4) 7 it talks about the parking, it would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public. Now I do not know if we want to go further to say in what way it would be unsafe so that it is clear in the motion that we vote. It Is a matter Page 14 of 32 { 1 P & Z: December 20, 1989 MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: Verbatim Ttansaipt Appearance Request Item C of, if you want to do further findings should do that until after the motion. Mr. Chairman. Ms. Knudsen. of fact, then we I would like to defer the finding until after the motion has been voted on. Like if I would be amending the motion. I would suggest since the finding is the motion, that we clarify the finding of fact if we rare not happy with it and then in the form of an amendment, vote on it and then take a look at it that way. Are there any comments on the finding? Mary Lou I would like to amend the finding by adding an "A" and a "B". The "A" would be this parking lot, the egress and entrance of this parking lot would be unsafe due to the narrow width and the steepness of the street and "B" construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent lots as it would cause a drainage problem onto their lots and'there should be, how to word this, I want to word to someway bring In that people would not use the parking lot ifit was constructed, I do not know ,how to word that, somebody could help me. Practicality of use would be non-existent. Okay, we have an amendment before us. Is there a second to the amendment? Second. Any discussion on the amendment? I am not sure I have any problem with the drainage on the finding of fact. It certainly is a concern, I think Page 15of32 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: Verbatim Trensaipt Appearance Request Item C when you have a parking lot anywhere that youare going to have, that you are going to change the drainage pattern. l think the width of that driveway, recognizing that the road is pretty slick during the winter time, and that house being right adjacent to that one (1) edge of the driveway, that you will end up with vehicles hitting the house eventually, and I think the finding of fact on the issue of use of that parking lot, I tend to agree that it is not a teal practical to draw traffic into there or to draw clientele into there to park - they would be more likely to park either across the street or on the street. I guess I support them all, the drainage is not a big concem to myself. Any other discussion for the amendment? I wonder if mention should be made to the drain (indecipherable] I think we were talking about a cut lbank up against Wilton's house being necessary and that would destabilize the fence. Is that an issue? Yes. Could that go along with "C" and the steepness of the street? Or was that "B" that I had, no. Make another a "D" the topography of the lot is such that it would undermine the adjacent lot make the cut. Does the second concur with that? Yes. Mr. Chairman. Wayne All these problems that we have now included in this could all be overcome construction wise - drainage, slopes, narrow width of access to preclude vehicles from colliding with the building - so just do not see where it is beneficial to state these conditions to add these conditions to the finding of fact. Page 16 of 32 Z: December20, 1989 BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: DUANE DVORAK: BRUCE BARRETT: WAYNE COLEMAN: BRUCE BARRETT: WAYNE COLEMAN: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Mr. Chairman. Bruce Just to ask Wayne - We have nine point four (9.4) feet between the building and that fence Right. One way to stretch that out to any further distance - I do not know the engineering ',feat that would be accomplishedto preclude vehicles from hitting the building - I may be missing something, but I do not see what could be done engineering wise Install a rolling curb or something like that concrete there that would positively prevent it and yet something that is not jeopardizing the vehicle or its wheel either so Do we have any examples in town where we have got reasonable access to a parking lot that is nine (9) feet in clearance - nine and a half (9.5) feet in clearance? Say if it is nine (9) - it has to be ;less than nine point four (9.4) feet from the rolled berm in there or something so may be eight and a half (8.5) feet That is down at the wheel widths that would be the vehicle could still with its side view mirrors and everything could still extend above them. Admittedly nine point four (9.4) feet is - you know I looked at how that fits through there - it is narrow, it ;would be nicer if it were ten (10) or twelve (12) ;feet, but there are spaces around where vehicles have to get Into that are probably limited even more, severely than that especially with barriers that protect other facilities, comers of buildings, fire hydrants,1et cetera. Page 17 of 32 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: WAYNE COLEMAN: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: BRUCE BARRETT: PATRICIA MILEY: JON HARTT: PATRICIA MILEY: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: PATRICIA MILEY: WAYNE COLEMAN: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C r - Yes, I guess, I understand that right. Any further discussion on the amendment? Mary Lou. Do you know what the width of the, between the two (2) curbs of the parking lot out' here is? Anybody know off -hand? The one out back. I would guess twelve (12) feet, pretty narrow. Because I have trouble getting in:and out of that and I have a very small car and I usually hit the curb when I go in and out. Shall we vote on the amendment? Roll call vote please. Mr. Barrett Yes. Mr. Hartt Yes. Ms. Knudsen Yes. Mr. Coleman No. Mr. Heinrichs Yes. Amendment carries. Page 18 o132 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: WAYNE COLEMAN: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: BRUCE BARRETT: PATRICIA MILEY: JON HARTT: PATRICIA MILEY: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Okay, we have the motion as amended before us, do we have any further discussion on that? Roll call vote please. Mr. Coleman Yes. Mr. Heinrichs • Yes. Mr. Barrett Yes. Mr. Hartt Yes. Ms. Knudsen Yes. Motion as amended carries. All right, we have before us a second question. What is the wish of the Commission? Ms. Knudsen I move that we approve finding number two (2) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to permit the off-street parking requ'red for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak•Townsite to be relocated to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision subject to the conditions of .approval contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989. Page 19 of 32 P & Z: December 20, 1989 Would you like me to read those? ROBIN HEINRICHS: Yes, please. MARY LOU KNUDSEN: 1. A parking plan for the Holmes Johnson Clinic located at Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, showing all off-street parking spaces and those off-street parking spaces designated for the office of LeDoux and LeDoux will be submitted to the Community Development Department within ten (10) days of this decision. Condition number 2. A recordeddeasement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (the Holmes Johnson Clinic) in favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux offices) for five (5) off-street parking spaces. The easement shall run with the land until the use of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off- street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is provided. Adequate signage to identify the designated spaces as the parking ICA for LeDoux and LeDoux law offices will be specified by the Community Development , Department. And number 4. The off-street parking developed for the LeDoux and LeDoux professional office must comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 (Parking Lot Development Standards) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? WAYNE COLEMAN: Second. Verbatim Transaipt Appearance Request Item C Page 20 of 32 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C We have a motion before us, any discussion on the motion? Mary Lou Mr. LeDoux has indicated hel could not get an easement and I cannot approve Cr vote for this without an easement requirement because that building could be sold and someb'odyi else could come in and without knowing it they would not be able to use the property. We have to look at the long term and not just what Is happening right now today - somebody else - he could rent ()Ft space in his building, we cannot tell him no you cannot do this or no you cannot sell your property We are looking at the long term, we have to have an easement that will run with the property. Any other discussion? Mr. Chairman, I just, I support everything that Mary Lou mentioned. I think that it is necessary that we have a dedicated parking and I am not real comfortable with the lease arrangement. I think that there are some alternatives other than the Holmes Johnson Clinic and I think this allows some latitude for that. I think there is still the church and maybe the City owned land at the corner is still an option. But I guess I am going to go along with this'- I think that it is essential that every business have parking and there is a parking problem already in the general downtown area that is going to be exacerbated here. It is already a problem so I do not see It getting any better. I think it is a requirement should be a requirement of everybody to provide parking for businesses. Okay, any other discussion? I think that parking would be required whether or not this is approved, this is just approval of one (1) scheme to provide that parking. Well, I guess (indecipherable) number two Page 21 of 32 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: (2) to allow for an altemate approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. [indecipherable] before us is the Holmes Johnson Clinic. Any more comments? Mary Lou. I have one that I probably should put into the record. It has been brought up that downtown offices or downtown businesses do not have the parking. That is all, most of that is part of the iUrban Renewal and twenty (20) years ago or whenever that was done people did not realize there was going to be that many people in Kodiak and I am sure if,they had known that they would have provided more parking but those things are, part of the Urban ';Renewal that is an altogether different thing than an Outside office. I I guess my comments on it would be that I think that the framework set up here is ithe framework, the question would be selection of the Holmes Johnson Clinic as being a reasonable place to take care of that parking. Indeed, I wonder how clear, it is going to be to people looking for LeDoux and LeDoux firm or any other business that were in there that they would obviously they would have to go ;down and cross one (1) street and into another area!and park there, the signage identified really does not really say whether or not that signage would be on LeDoux and LeDoux to indicate where they have to go or whether the spaces themselves would be signed as being set aside for LeDoux and LeDoux. I think it is worrisome I would find it worrisome as a client to pull into another business parking lot for fear of being towed away unless it is specifically signed that way. That is all I have. MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Should that be an amendment? ROBIN HEINRICHS: I just raised the issue. Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Page 22 of 32 P 2: December20, 1989 MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: BRUCE BARRETT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: BRUCE BARRETT: PATRICIA MILEY: JON HARTT: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: WAYNE COLEMAN: PATRICIA MILEY: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: PATRICIA MILEY: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Mr. Chairman. Mary Lou I would like to amend condition number three (3) to state that signage on the offices of LeDoux and LeDoux saying where the parking is located and signage on the parking spaces themselves. Is there a second? Second. Is It clear (indecipherable)? Any discussion? Roll call vote on the amendment. Mr. Barrett Yes. Mr. Hartt Yes. Mr. Heinrichs Yes. Mr. Coleman Yes. Ms. Knudsen Yes. Amendment carries. Page 23 of 32 P Z: December 20, 1989 ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: WAYNE COLEMAN: PATRICIA MILEY: BRUCE BARRETT: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: MARY LOUKNUDSEN: PATRICIA MILEY: JON HARD: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: [Unknown] Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C We have an amended motion in fron further discussion? Roll call vote: Mr. Coleman Yes. Mr. Barrett Yes. Mr. Heinrichs No. Ms. Knudsen Yes. Mr. Hartt No. Motion fails. Okay, at this point, I think we need t fact (indecipherable] Do we need findings? This was findings and I do not think we need tl I think we ought to leave a trail Okay. Do you want to postpone to the end o Okay. of us now. Any have findings of approval of the have findings the meeting? Page 24 of 32 'S P & Z: December 20, 1989 TOM HENDEL: DUANE DVORAK: TOM HENDEL: (The Commission conducted other business.) (Addressed under Commissioners' Comments) ... I have got - I was just chomping at the bit there during the LeDoux thing because,I wanted to give you some information but when there is not a public hearing it is hard to call on any body especially when you see your chairman sitting out, there almost "antsy" but I want to give you some information and maybe a suggestion or two now then let you think about reconsidering and I had a hard time, in the audience deciding exactly what happened Land I do not know if you guys did either. I know you found it impractical to locate the parking in the rear, but what happened after that with the next finding. CndecipherableJ As was written in the revised staff, report, the property owner has, I would say, I am not sure if he has the option exactly, it would be a good way to determine - he is still in violation of - he has the option to build the parking in the rear yard even though the Commission has found it to be impractical. He would technically be in compliance if he were to do sod, and whether or not people would actually use it,; as liong as he is in compliance then that would be one (1) way to solve his problem. The other option, if you want to call it that, is to discontinue the use of the property as a professional office. Okay,, now that is what I thought happened and if I can make a suggestion and give you some background information which is what I really wanted to do at that time as being a resident next door and power of attorney, and I have just sold the property. The person that bought that has ,immediate plans on developing that property as multifamily residential with on - with parking on the lot„ off-street parking. LeDoux's are right, they do not have a lot of drive up Verbatim Transcript Appearanai Request Item 0 Page 25 of 32 P d Z: December 20, 1989 business, I mean if they did they would have to park some place else because LeDoux's themselves park in front. Often times almost blocking my entrance. They keep two (2) cars In front and one (1) or two (2) in the side lot. I - My thought is that it is not impractical to make a lot for the 'employees, drop the parking requirement down to five (5) spaces, put it in the back, a vehicle that is six (6) foot or Tess wide, we have got nine four (9.4), it would'be a certain amount of expense to do that if you find' it practical that they could locate it; they would have to cut down and build a retaining wall. The access is level, the concern of exiting onto a street would be mitigated in part by making that non-parkable area 'n front of the business, because there is a fire hydrant two (2) spaces up - if you made that a red zone with no parking all the way to the comer of where the entrance is to the lot next door which was just sold by me, you would mitigate some of that problem. There Is a lot of parking on the other side of the street up and down and across the street where visitors, customers, whatever - If that is developed on that comer, there is also a plan that the house on the lower corner is going to be turned into a bed and breakfast and also you all remember that it is R-3 property - I know one (1) person, that is interested in buying that whole corner and redeveloping the whole comer. You are going to see a certain amount of on - street congestion so I think that you have to give some serious consideration and I wish I could have told you this earlier on whether - I mean - I guess it Is going to work out about the same because he has got two (2) choices - you know one (1) is to sell and move out or whatever or abate the use and the other is to put the parking in the back. I, just wonder which finding would have been stronger - finding it impractical or finding it practical to ocate a smaller amount of parking in the rear. There is really some of the things they said about the topography are really Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Page 26 of 32 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 ROBIN HEINRICHS: not valid; there is drainage problems already - they are piping all their drainage down - the previous owner did this not LeDoux's - from undemeath the house and into my back yard which is always wet whenever it rains. So the drainage problem is caused already, it could be possibly mitigated in fact by putting that driveway along side the house at a lower level, draining it into the back yard. So that what I am just saying is that you have got two (2) possibilities for findings - one (1) is going to be stronger possibly than the other. And it is up to you since I was not a part of it. Robin. Okay, I think it comes down virtually the same either way. My personal opinion was I think it is impractical to develop the parking in the back; it s not Impossible and it certainly does not preclude them from doing that. They could certainly develop it - in fact the original proposal, the original variance or exception or whatever was granted, was contingent upon their plan to develop a back parking lot and at that time it was not impractical because they made all kinds of assurances that it was not. So that issue really has nothing to do with it, it is just our opinion that whether or not parking back there is practical or not - it is not that we prohibit parking back there, it Is just a statement that it is either practical, or mpractical. The second part is the part that I guess I could not agree with and that was that the Holmes Johnson Clinic was specifically slated as one (1) of the sites - we have got to - according to the framework of this you have got to take it at face value that if he did get an easement on that piece of property that those would have to be considered as good of parking Cr adequate parking compared to having it on site and I ust think that is not reasonable, I think that parking in another block is not a reasonable solution to a commercial parking for a building to take care of its parking needs. I could buy parking at the church, it Is right across the street Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item o Page 27 of 32 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 TOM HENDEL: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: TOM MENDEL: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: THE COMMISSION: ROBIN HEINRICHS: , Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C even though you have to cross the street it is real obvious. Every other time that we have looked at a remote parking location it has been within line of sight of the building that it was benefiting - to the best of my knowledge - and my reason for voting against the second proposal, the second finding, was that I did not find the Holmes Johnson Clinic a viable place to supply this parking even if you sign it. Now I think that the findings come down to whether we approve that or if we did not approve it, it comes down to the same thing. He has got to find parking;that is acceptable to us or build it on his lot. Well I think at this point I will excuse myself and let you determine the findings of fact and I will pass the gavel and you can adjourn the meeting when you are done. I have no further comments. You cannot go home now. No, I will stick around. Okay, we are in a position now where we have as a Commission to agree on the findings or decide what to do. What are the comments? i First we have to extend the meeting beyond eleven o'clock (11:00 pm). Mr. Chairman, I move we go past eleven (11). I'll second. All those in favor indicate by saying "aye." Aye. All those opposed. Carries. Page 28 of 32 Z: Decem 20 MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: Mr. Chairman. Mary Lou. Yes, I agree with you. I think I voted for It which I guess it was a better of two (2) evils - using downtown lot or Holmes Johnson - I thought well if they have signage then somebody may use that but I think a finding could be I do not know exactly how to word It but the Commission felt that parking not within line of sight of the building was not appropriate. Are there any other comments? Tom suggested a motion to reconsider. Anybody have any feelings on that issue? Mary Lou MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Well if we reconsidered it would probably be going back to [indecipherable] court case you know it would be much cleaner. But I - when you separate the two (2) we find it is impractical to locate the parking in there if you stuck by what we had said when we had granted his exception or - I do not know if he got a variance or an exception - we said you put the parking in back there - that was a condition of approval. He no longer has that then if he did not meet that condition of approval. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Duane DUANE DVORAK: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item 0 When I was researching the case that he put the parking in was never a condition of approval of his variance - it was just another requirement of the Code which was questioned under the, case and he came back with the site plan showing the parking and made the assurance that he could j meet the parking requirement. It was never a condition of approval. It was just another Code requirement, it just happened to be brought up in the course of the case. MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: DUANE DVORAK: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Okay, so still Violation Right, okay He should not have been allowed to convert the office use before he put in the adequate parking for that use. Okay, so he should move out until he supplies the parking. So either way I 'do not think that reconsidering it would make any ldifference - I do not know. Any comments Wayne? have got a real problem with this whole situation. It seems to be dragging out for art indefinite period of time. We have had other parties that have gotten into parking problems, off-street parking problems, only because they were not real ' familiar with their development - we had one (1) over on Mission Road, and they came back and the owner strived very hard to accommodate. the Code - and we have had them other places here and there - and in every instance, every other instance virtually, they tried - they may not have always been able to make all in every detail but they tried - and here 1. do not see much of any trying except a lot of verbiage. I do not '- I have not yet seen a viable plan. I agree with you that remote parking, not readily visible to a business ?s not a good plan. Non-contiguous parking has been approved in the past for several situations, but in virtually every case it is readily visible to the business that it serves. So I do not know; I [indecipherable] Do we have any additions to findings of fact that ought to be considered? Page 30 of 32 ; P & Z: December 20, 1989 WAYNE COLEMAN: Could we recap those findings. ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: JON HARTT: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: [indecipherable] MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: DUANE DVORAK: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C Mary Lou suggested that the prozim ty of the Holmes Johnson proposal, not within lirie of sight nor very close but certainly to the heart of some of what I felt. The problem is we had considered this for oh some time - it has been out on the table for a couple of months, a while any way, this is the first that anybody has brought it up, this here not readily visible, not line of sight situation of the business. I agree with the need to have that but you know it 's something we should have pounced on early; on - the first time around. Yes, Jon. Yes, Robin, how about a recorded easement. Should not that have been on? It was on the original proposal. 1 think it was voted - you and I voted against - and I, agreed with that, I think that was important. I guess` the part that I could not buy and which forced me to vote against was the specific location. I think that is important. (indecipherable] was one of the reasons I voted for it because that was a condition andl(indecipherable]. We just have one (1), I think we need Duane to have more. I understand the Commission's desire to come up with their findings of fact here, but I think I have got some language here that might kind of "speed things a long Page 31 of 32 p Z: December 20, 1989 WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: WAYNE COLEMAN: ROBIN HEINRICHS: THE COMMISSION: ROBIN HEINRICHS: MARY LOU KNUDSEN: Verbatim Transcript Appearance Request Item C a little bit. I would suggest maybe something like the relocation of five (5) off-street parking spaces would not effectively meet the parking ;requirement for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite and the office located there because the: proposed parking is not located within the line of sight of the offices to be served; the parking would not be viable even with adequate identification of the spaces and the location; and the applicant indicated that he could not meet the conditions of approval as far as the easement is concerned even before getting into the actual (indecipherable]. I think those are (indecipherable) the basic statement and then listing your three (3) reasons why the five (5) spaces:could not be met in the other lot. Sounds like good language. Do you want to vote on that? ! So' motion. ebody make a Mr. Chairman, I move that we find, as finding of fact for Case, I guess it is C, 87-058, no pat is not our case, our case is Appearance Request C that findings that Duane has just or that staff has just submitted. Second? Second. All those in favor say "aye." Aye Opposed? Motion to adjourn. So moved. Page 32 of 32 P Z: December 20, 1989 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 20, 1989 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Tom.Handel' on Borough Assembly Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Tom Hendel, Chairman Bruce Barrett Wayne Coleman Jon Hertt Robin Heinrichs Mary Lou Knudsen Commissioners Absent: Jody Hodgins, Excused A quorum was established: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff reported the following additions to the agenda: AGENDA ADDITIONS IX COMMUNICATIONS C) 'Recommendations for Zoning Hearings' from the October 1989 Zonlno Newt. Pa l of 2t Commission was called to December 20, 1989 in the Others Present: Duane Dvorak, Acting Director Community Development Department Bob Scholze, Associate Planner Community Development Department Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department D) E) F) Letter dated December 1, 1989 to Byron Pierce from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 8A, Block 1, Southeast Addition - 1214 Father Herman. Letter dated December 6, 1989 to Patty Blelawskl, OMB-DGC from Linda Freed, re: Woodland 'Acres Subdivision Fourth and Fifty Additions. Letter dated December 14, 1989 to Mark White from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 3, Block 4, Mountain View 2nd Addition - 1855 Three Sisters. 0) Letter dated December 15, 1989 to Patty Bielawski, OMB -DOC, from Duane Dvorak, re: Koncor 8 g Sandy Lake Camp - Afognak Island. Pe ZJ,t, : December 20, los 11) Letter dated December 19, 1989 to Jim Wheeler from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 3, Block 1, Russell Estates Subdivision - 1113 Seiief. I) Letter dated December 19, 1989 to John Parker from Joel H. Bolger, re: Tract D-1, U.S. Survey 3218.3215 Mill Bay Road. 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 HEINRICHS MOVED TO' ACCEPT the minutes of the December 20, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS Pap 2 at 21 KURT LEDOUX appeared before the Commission and expressed support for Appearance Request "C' The Commission and Mr. LeDoux discussed the history of the request. It was noted that at the time of the original variance request, Mr. LeDoux had no objection to providing the off-street parking ori Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; that subsequent to the granting of the variance, during consultation with contractors, it became apparent that providing the off-street parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C was impractical; that Mr. LeDoux had been unable to obtain easements from other property owners In the area for the of - street perking but that he could obtain a lease; and that Mr. LeDoux believed that there were reasonable alternatives for providing off-street parking other than on Lots 6A, 8B, and 6C. The Commission expressed concern about the future of the building Inducting expansiop of the professional uses, selling the building, and providing the off-street parking required by the Borough Code. There were no further audience comments. A) Cass 88.089. Planning and Zoning Commission annual review of a variance from Sections 17.03.100(1,) (Airport Regulations) and 17.06.162 (Clear Zone) and 17.06.450 (Parking Zone) of the Borough Code which permitted a six (6) foot fence and outdoor storage to encroach fifteen (15) feet into the municipal airport dear and parking zones where the fence and stored 'Rema are not higher than the ground elevation of the runway In a Business Zoning District Lots 6A-1 and 6A-2, U.S. Survey 3098; 2025 and 2075 Mill Bay Road (Harold Jones) COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED *TO (ACCEPT the staff report dated December 7, 1989, as the Commission's annual review for Case 88-063: a variance which permits the erection of a six (6) foot fence and outdoor storage to encroach fifteen (15) feet Into the municipal airport dear and parking zones where the fence and stored items are not higher than the ground elevation of the runway in a B—Business Zoning DistrkR on Lots 6A-1 and 6A-2, U.S. Survey 3098, and to adopt the findings contained In the staff report dated December 7, 1989, as 'Findings of Fact' for this review. P d Z Mini: DWarnbr 20,1269 Ppstl21 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. No violations were documented and no complaints were received by staff during the first year of this variance. 2. The location of the fences and storage items in the municipal airport dear and parking zones has not affected airport operatlorss. 3. Annual review of this variance; by the Planning and Zoning Commission will assure continued compliance with the requirements of this variance. r The motion was seconded and CARRIED by ;unanimous roll call vote. I B) Cate 847430. • Request for a ane (1) year extension of preliminary plat approval (to January 21, 1991). Alaska State Land Survey 86-136, Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project (State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources) j COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED, TO GRANT a one (1) year extension of the preliminary plat approval period (to January 21, 1991) for the subdivision identified as Alaska State Land Survey No. 86-136, Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project; and to confirm the findings of fact and conditions of approval contained in the original approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Redesign Tract G to Indude all or none of the powerhouse; in conformance with Title 17 of the Borough Code. 2. Indude all transmission line easements across Kodak Island Borough owned land, Afognak Native Corporation land, Ouzinkle Native Corporation land, and any parcels within the Port Uons city limits - the ownership of which cannot be identified from the vldnity map, sheet 1 of 5. I 3. Indude the Borough owned proplerty necessary for the powerhouse area and other areas necessary for the maintenance and operation of the hydro) project. 4. Indude the easement for the access road from Kizhuyak Bay to Terror Lake where it Iles outside the tracts shown on thls application. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Unless transmission line and ac ass roadway easements are platted, no record Is on file with the Kodak Island Borough which would provide the necessary Information for review of requests for zoning compliance during the building permit issuance process. Therefore, If the easements are not platted, buildings with valid Kodiak Island Borough ;permits could be constructed within easements. P f Z!Ynuta: Docenbr 2D,1684 Pa901o121 2 The transmission lines and access roadway are integral parts of the entire Tenor Lake Hydroelectric Project and are essential to the operation and maintenance of the facility. 3. Tracts O, H, J, K, and M of the proposed subdivision are contiguous to lands owned by the Kodiak Island Borough, Afognak Native Corporation, and Ouzlnkie Native Corporation. 4. The contiguity ektends the entire length of easements across lands owned by the Kodak Island Borough, Afognak Native Corporation, and Ouzinkie Native/Corporation, since there are no intervening ownerships not encumbered by easements. 5. Lands within the City of Port Lions, across which the transmission line passes, are contiguous to either Afognak Native Corporation land or to each other as the transmission line progresses into Port Lions. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. C) Case 67-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking— Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that It Is Impractical to locate any of the eight (6) required oft - street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B and 6C, Block 8, Kodak Townsite due to the size of the lotand the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking Is Intended to serve. Lots BA, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) CHAIRMAN HENDEL requested that a determination be made by the Commission regarding a potentlai 'conflict of Interest.' The Commission Haled that Mr. Handel had a conflict of interest. CHAIRMAN HENDEL PASSED THE GAVEL TO COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS. • CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS recessed the meeting at 7:45 p.m. In order for the Commission to read the 'additional handouts' presented to the Commission prior to the meeting. ' CHAIRMAN HEINRICHS reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. COMMISSIONER HARTT MOVED TO ADOPT finding number one (1) contained In the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Secti0n 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that it Is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte. P a z Mae: Dorn 20, 1902 Pp 5121 FINDING OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is Impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public. The motion was seconded. The Commission, with Input from Mr. LeDoux, discussed the motion. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION, changing the finding of fact to read: FINDING OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment Ideated on Lots 6A, 613, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, becarise parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public because of the following: a. the Ingress and egress to the parking area is unsafe due to its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Upper Mill Bay Road; b. construction of the parking'lot would be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to the Increased drainage; a the location of the parking lot Intakes It unlikely that the pudic would utilize the parking lot; and d. the topography is such that it would undermine the adjacent lot. The AMENDMENT was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote, Commissioner Coleman voted "no.' 1 The question was called and THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. - COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ADOPT finding number two (2) contained In the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to permit the off-street parking required for Lots 8A, 68, and 6C, Block 81, Kodiak Townslte to be relocated to the off-street parking lot iodatedlon Lots 8 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision; subject to the conditions of approval contained In the staff report dated December 19, 1989. FINDING OF FACT 2. Five (5) of the required off-street parking spaces for Lots 6A, 68, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte, should be permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New, Kodiak Subdivision, because P 8 Z rArrIIa: December 20, 10ea Pp E d 21 even though these spaces are not adjacent to the office which they am Intended to serve, they'would be safer and most likely used more by clients of the law office than would spaces developed In the rear yard where the office Is located. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A parking plan for the Holmes Johnson Clinic located at Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodlak Subdivision, showing all off-street parking spaces and those off-street parking spaces designated for the office of LeDoux and LeDoux will be submitted to the Community Development Department' within ten (10) days of this decision. 2. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic) In favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte (LeDoux and LeDoux offices) for five (5) off-street parking spaces. The easement shall run with the land until the use(s) of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or attemative ott-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is provided. 3. Adequate signage to identify the designated spaces as the parking lot for LeDoux and LeDoux law offices will be as spedfled by the Community Development Department. 4. The off-street parking developed for the LeDoux and LeDoux profession office must comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 (Parking Lot Development Standards) of the Kodiak island Borough Code. The motion was seconded. The Commission discussed the motion. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO AMEND condition number three (3) to reed: • 3. Adequate signage on the face o1 the LeDoux and LeDoux law offices shall state where the off-street parking Is located and adequate signage on the designated ;spaces shall specify the. paddng for LeDoux and LeDoux law offices parking exclusively. The amendment was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. The question was called and the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED by mil loll vote. Commissioners Heinrichs and Haat voted .no.. The Commission deferred adoption of findings of fact in support of th decision until the end of the meeting. CHAIRMAN HENDEL.retumed to the Commission. D) Case 89-061. Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval of a list of items to be excluded from an Administrative Dedslon upheld P i Z lamAss: Dare PA 159 Pp 7d 21 In accordance with Section 17.68.0208 (Appeals from Administrative Dedatone) of the Borough Code which orders the discontinuation of an unlawful use of land (maintaining a junk yard In a 8 -Business Zoning District) and requires the removal of all items classified as junk by May 1, 1990. Lot 8, Block 1, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision - 777 Cottonwood Circle. (Doug Deplezes) DUANE DVORAK reported that Mr. Deplazes did not submit a list of items to be excluded from the Administrative Decision cited above. The Commission took no action on this item. There were no further appearance requests. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Case 69-017. Rural Development Zoning District Implementation. The Planning and Zoning Commission is considering the creation of a new zoning district, the Rural Development (RD) Zoning District. The purpose of this zoning district is 'to provide opportunities for development In remote areas of the Borough and to recognize the importance of the balanced utilization of nears' resources. This zoning district Is also designed to: (1) allow tratlitlonai commercial activities on remote land; and (2) provide a review mechanism for intensive development activities. A eighth (8th) draft of the regulations implementing this district are the subject of this public hearing. (Planning and Zoning Commission) (Postponed from the November 1989 regular meeting.) COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO REMOVE CASE 89-017 FROM THE TABLE- The ABLEThe motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. DUANE DVORAK indicated 4 public hearing notices were mailed. Staff noted a letter dated December 15, 1989, from Akhiok Kaguyak, Inc. was distributed to the Commission as part of the 'additional handouts' for the meeting. Staff recommended, after any changes or amendments to this draft are made, the Commission forward this request to the Borough Assembly recommending adoption of the Rural Development Zoning District. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: TONY DRABECK, representing NATIVES OF KODIAK, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for Akhlok Kaguyelk's comments regarding this request. Mr. Drabedk expressed appreciation to the Commission for their exhaustive review and consideration of public comments during the development of the Rural Development Zoning District. COMMISSIONER BARRETT and Mr. [Rebook briefly discussed the Alaska Forest Practices Act as it applies to the Kodiak Archipelago. P & 2linea: Derby 20, 1950 Pae d 21 STAN NESS, commercial fishemran, appealed before the Commission and asked how the new zoning district would affect existing structures If it were Implemented. DUANE DVORAK explained that the Rural Development Zoning District Is more permissive than the current Conservation Zoning District and that existing structures would become 'nonconforming "grandfathered' structures. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. The Commission discussed the comments submitted by Akhiok Kaguyak. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED;TO1AMEND the eighth (0th) draft of the Rural Development Zoning District regulations adding 17.14.110 Nonconformitles 1. Nonconforming lots are limited uses allowed. as to the permitted o. Setbacks from , property lines for nonconforming lots of one half (1/2) acre or less. I. There Is a required tilde yard end rev yard (landward) setback of ten (10) - feet. II. There Is s required front yard (marine or landward) setback of fifteen (15) feet. Water dependent Is defined as a use, activity. or structure which can be carried out only on, In, or adjacent to water areas because the use, activity, and/or, structure requires access to the water body (e.g., water Intake tedlfNes, micro -hydro projects, docks, piers) boat launching fadlhles, setnst cabins and related structures, etc.). and by adding to the end of Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) the following: Nothing In this tole shall be construed to prohibit the creation of nonconforming Iota which are federally mandated. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly adopt, the eighth (8th) draft of the P i Z 'Inuit Danby 20, 10.19 Pp 9ar 21 regulations, as amended, to implement the District. Rural Development Zoning The motion was seconded and CARRIED by, unanimous roll call vote. B) Case 88084. Request for a variance from Sections 17.18.050 (Yards) and 17.38.040 (Nonconforming structures) and 17.40.010 (Projections Into required yards) of the Borough Code: 1. to allow an additional three (3) foot projection Into the existing six (6) foot rear yard setback on a lot in the R1- SIngle-family Residential Zoning District; and 2 to permit the extensive remodeling/reconstruction of an existing single-family residence which Coll permit the value of the reconstruction to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the replacement value of the structure; and 3. to allow a deck in the front yard to encroach two and one-half (2.5) feet Into the existing five and one-half (5.5) foot front yard setback and one and one-half (1.5) feet Into the required two and a half (2.5) foot side yard setback. Lot 13C, Block 16, Kodiak Townsite; 113 Natalia (Jim Koob) DUANE DVORAK Indicated 33 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. , Staff noted that a revised memorandum had been distributed as part of the 'additional handouts' Staff recommended approval of this request subject to conditions. CHAIRMAN HENDEL recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m. In order to read the revised staff report. CHAIRMAN HENDEL reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Regular Session Closed. Pudic Hearing Opened: KEN VAN DYKE, contractor, appeared before the Commission expressed support for this request. The Commission and Mr. Van Dyke, with input from Community Development Department staff, discussed the recommended conditions of approval. JIM KOOB, applicant, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for thls request. The Commission and Mr. Koob, wlth Development Department staff, discussed the of approval. Input from Community recommended conditions TONY DRABECK, adjacent neighbor, appeared before the Commission and expressed concem with the timeframe for this project. Mr. Drabeck stated that it has been a five year project to this point. Mr. Drabeck expressed support for condition of approval number three. • P a Z Arabi: Norte m, 1989 Papp 10o121 The Commission and staff discussed approval number three. Public Hearing Closed Regular Session Opened. enforceability of condition of COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Sections 17.18.050 and 17.36.040 and 17.40.010 of the Borough Code: (1) to allow an addltlonal three (3) foot protection Into the existing six (6) foot rear yard setback on;a lot in the R1 --Single-family Residential Zoning District; and (2) to permit the extensive remodeling/reconstruction of an existing single-family residence which will permit the value of the reccnstructlon to exceed fitly percent (50%) of the replacement value of the structure; and (3) to allow a deck In the front yard to encroach two and one-half (2.5) feet Into the existing five and one-half (5.5) foot front yard setback and one and one-half (1.5) feet into the required two and a hent (2.5) foot side yard setback on Lot 13C, Block 16, Kodiak Townsite; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated December 20, 1989; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated December 20, 1989 as "Findings of Fact for this case. , CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant must obtain and record an easement for Lot 13A, Block 18, Kodiak Townsite for the benefit of Lot 13C, Block 16, Kodiak Townsite, to show that aaequate legal access exists to the proposed oft -street parking area totbe developed as a part of this varitnoe. A copy of the ;recorded easement must be submitted to the Kodiak Inland Borough Community Development Department prior to Issuance of zoning compliance. 2. The applicant must obtain certification from the City of Kodiak Flre Chief that the location of the stricture to be renovated on Lot 13C, Block 16, Kodiak Townsite has adequate access for fire apparatus as required by the Uniform Fire' Code and that an adequate water supply exists in the vicinity. This certification must be submitted to the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department prior to Issuance of zoning compliance. 3. Completion of the project shall not exceed one (1) year from the data of zoning compliance Issuance, unless an extension has been requested and obtained from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. P i 2 Pines: Derby 20, 11119 Pp 110121 C) Cass 89-065. Request for review ;by the Planning and Zoning Commission In a000niance with Sections 18.20.030 (Review by planning commission—Assembly approval) and 18.20.100 (Disposal for fair market value) of the Borough Code of s disposal of Borough land for less than fair market value to the Kodak Public Broadcasting Corporation: 1. by lease for an area previously leased for a satellite dish; and 2. by easement for an existing cable which connects the satellite dish to the broadcast facilities. A portion of Lot 5A, U.S. Survey 2538; 623 - 815 Rezanof (Kodak Island Borough and Kodiak Public Broadcasting Corporation dba KMXT-FM) DUANE DVORAK'Indicated 146 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, stating noniobJectlon to this request. Staff recommended the Commission ; forward this request to the Borough Assembly recommending approval. ' Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: KELLY LAW, Executive Director of KMXT, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED' TO AMEND Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 89-10-R by adding a clause stating: WHEREAS, Kodak Publ c Broadcasting Corporation presently utilizes this property. The AMENDMENT DIED for the lads of a second. . - COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO ADOPT Planning and Zoning Resolution 89-10-R in accordance with Sections 18.20.030A and 18.20.100B of the Borough Code, recommending that the Kodak Island Borough Assembly dispose of a hundred twenty-five (625) square foot parcel of Borough land by lease for less than fair market value; and, that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly dispose of a ten (10) by two hundred fifty-five (255) foot easement for less than fair market value; and to adopt the finding of fad, as amended, contained In the staff report dated December 12, 1989,: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.89.10-R A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE 14 2 Minn: Deets 20, I9 DISPOSAL OF BOROUGH PROPERTY FOR LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE BY LEASE AND BY EASEMENT. WHEREAS, Section 18.20.030A of the Borough Code requires the review of each disposal of Borough real property by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.20.170„of the Borough Code defines 'disposal' as any disposals of real property including leases; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held an advertised and noticed public hearing on this disposal by lease; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that this proposal Is conslstent with the Borough Code, spedtically Titles 17 and 18, and the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commieslonlhas determined that a six hundred twentydive (625) square foot Portion of Lot 5A, U.S. Survey 2538 Is presently surplus to the Borough's needs and recommends to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly'thatl it be made available for disposal by lease for less than fair market value to the Kodak Public Broadcasting Corporation, a nonprofit organiiatlon. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Kodak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that a two thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) square foot Portion of Lots 5A and 7A, U.S. Survey 2538 Is presently_ surplus to the Borough's needs and recommends 10 the Kodak Island Borough 'Assembly That It be made avalleble for disposal by easement for less than fair market value to the Kodak Public Broadcasting Corporation: a nonprofit organization. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1989. FINDING QF FACT The disposal Is consistent with• both Title 17 (Zoning) of the Kodak Island Borough Code and the Kodak ilaland Borough Coastal Management Program. Since the Kodiak Island Borough has no Immediate plane for this property and since the length of the lease is relatively short Iten (10) years], this, property can reasonably be considered to be surplus to the Borough's present needs. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. D) Cane S$4042. Request for preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lots 6 and 7, U.S. Survey 3100 and replat to Lots 1 through 10, Perez Estates Subdivision, U.S. Survey 3100. 3123 and 3163 Spruce Cape Road (Anthony Perez) DUANE DVORAK Indicated 23 public hearing notices were mailed and 1 was returned, objecting to mobile horns residences being placed on these lots. Staff noted that a revised staff report was distributed as part of the 'additional handouts.” ' Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Pp12d21 P E Z Was: OnTIbar Z0, ICED Pop 19021 MARTHA RANDOLPH, adjacent property owner, appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to thi 1 request. SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. TONY PEREZ appeared before the, Commission and expressed support for this request. The Commission and Mr. Perez discussed the proposed conditions of approval. Public Heading Closed. Regular Session Opened. 1 COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lots 6 and 7, U.S. Survey 3100 and replat to Lots 1 through 10, Perez Estates Subdivislon subject to the conditions of approval, as amended, contained In the staff report dated December 20, 1989 and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated December 20, 1989 as'Findings of Fact' for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Relocate or remove any structures which will encroach a proposed lot line to a legal location In accordance with Title 17 of the Borough Code. 2 Designate the Indicated private road easement on the plat as a private road and utility easement. 3. Show the ten (10) foot utility easement created by Piet 83-9 located along the northeast boundary of the subdivision. (At the rear of tote 8, 7, 8, and along the side Of Lot 104 4. Place notes on the plat as follows:, 'The front yard and side yard setback for Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,-7, 8, and 10, shall' be calculated from the edge of the private road easement.' "Access to Lots 1 and 9 will be limited to the private road." The subdivider will provide a drainage plan for the site that Is satisfactory to the Kodak Island Borough Engineering and Fadlities Department prior to final approval. The title block shall be modified to read Wacatlon of Lots 6 and 7, U.SJ Survey 3100 per plat 83-9, and replat to Lots 1 through 10, Perez Estates Subdivision.' 7.. Provide a written deed, suitable for recording, conveying a perpetual easement for a private road right-of-way to the owners of Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 7, 8, and 9, within the subdivision. The deed P S Z tAnuts: D.aT!bt20.19a Pp 140121 shall expressly state that the easement shall run with the land for the benefit of the designated parcels. The easement shall be adequate to satisfy the right-of-way. 8. The subdivider shall Include with the final plat a written agreement which requires the subdivider to Include a covenant or condition In each deed conveying each lot or parcel in the subdivision. The covenant or condition shall require the landowner to share in the payment for any necessary construction and maintenance ' of the private road to the standards specified by Title 16 of the Borough Code. 9. The subdivider will provide a written covenant providing for the payment of real property taxes for the right-of-way area as set forth In Section 16.40.070 of the Borough Code prior to final approval of the plat. Section 16.40.070 states In part: '... No land within a subdivision may be reserved as a common use area to the owners of parcels within the subdivision unless the subdivider provides a covenant approved by the Commission and the Borough attomeyowhlch provides for the payment of real property taxes on the parcel to be reserved (e.g., the covenant could provide that the adjacent property owners :would be assessed a prorated amount of the real property taxeson the parcel to be reserved).' 10. If the subdivider- decides to dedicate the private roadway easement for a public road right;ol-way (as suggested by the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department), then conditions of approval 7, 8, 9,, and 10, are not applicable. 11. Provide on the final plat a cul-de-sac or hammerhead turn satIsfactory to the Bayside Fire Chief. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This plat meets the minimum standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required In Title 16 of the Borough Code. 2. This plat meets all the regiiIremerits o Code. e 17 of the Borough a, This plat is generally consistent with adopted Borough plans and provides a subdivision of land that supports those plans. 4. Approval of this plat by the Kodiakcilsl Id Borough Planning and Zoning Commission does not excuse the applicant from compliance with applicable State and federal regulations. The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION, changing the conditions of approval to read: P ZMuss: Dasmbar 20.11* Paw 16{421 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Relocate or remove any structures which will encroach a proposed lot line to a legal location In accordance with Title 17 of the Borough Code. 2. Designate the Indicated private road easement on the plat as a private road and utility easement., 3. Show the ten (10) toot utility easement created by Plat 83.9 located along the northeast boundary of the subdivision. (At the rear of Lots 6, 7, 8, and along the'side of Lot 10.) 4. Place the following note on the final plat: 'The front yard and side yard setback for Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, shall be calculated from the edge of the private road easement.' 5. The appllcaM Is advised that this property may be under the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Army 'Corps of Engineers. tt la recommended that the applicant obtain a wetlandsdetermination for the site from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to final approval of the subdivision. A narrative drainage plan for the site must be submitted to the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department prior to final approval. 6. The title block shall be modified to read: 'Vacation of Lots 6 and 7, U.S. Survey 3100 per plat 83-9, and replat to Lots 1 through 10, Perez Estates Subdivision 7. Provide a written deed, suitable for recording, conveying a perpetual easement for a prtvate road right-of-wayto the owners of Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, within the subdivision. The deed shall expressly state that the easement shall run with the land for the benefit of the designated parcels.' The easement shall be adequate to satisfy the right-of-way. 6. The subdivider shall include with the final plat a written agreement which requires the subdMder to include a covenant or condition In each deed conveying each lot or parcel in the subdivision. The covenant or' cond'Non shall require the landowner to share in the payment for any necessary construction and maintenance of ttie private road to the standards specified by Title 16 of the Borough Code. 9. The subdivider will provide a written covenant providing for the payment of real property taxes for the] right-of-way area as set forth In Section 16.40.070 of the; Borough Code prior to final approval of the plat. Section 16.40.070 states in part: ( No land within a subdivision may be reserved as a common use area to ;the owners of parcels within the subdivision unless the subdivider provides a covenant approved by the Commission P e z Minus: Dwm0I20, 1989 and the Borough attorney which provides for the payment of real property taxes on the parcel to be reserved (e.g., the covenant could provide that the adjacent property owners would be assessed a prorated amount of the real property taxes on the parcel to be reserved)." 10. If the subdivider decides to dedicate the private roadway easement for a public road right-of-way (as suggested by the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department), then conditions of approval 7, 8, 9, and 10, are not applicable. 11. Provide on the final plat a cul-de-sac or hammerhead tum satisfactory to the Bayside Fire Chief. The AMENDMENT was seconded and\CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioner Knudsen voted "not" The question was called and the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. E) Case 89.068. An appeal of an extended Administrative Decision In accordance with Section 17.68.0208 "(Appeals from Administrative Decisions) of the Borough Code of a derision ordering the discontinuation of an unlawful use of land (maintaining a junk yen! In a Business Zoning District) and removal of al items classified as junk within ten (10) days. The appellant seeks the following relief: 1. an extension of time until January 1, 1990, for cleanup of junk, scrap, wire, drums, and salvage auto parts; and 2. a determination by the Commission that the nature of the auto body repair business requires the storage of wrecked cats, owned by customers and with current registration, for period of up to sixty (60) days awaiting Insurance determinations and ordering ropiacemerrt parts. (To mitigate any perceived unsightliness of wrecked vehldes stored temporarily for repair, screening will be provided in the form of a fenced containment area at the side of the shop.) Lot 15A, U.S. Survey 3098; 1950 Mill Bay Road. (Thomas Terry and Wayne Sargent) DUANE DVORAK Indicated 21 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 2 were returned, opposing the exception. Staff recommended upholding the Administrative Decision. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: WAYNE SARGENT appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. The Commission and Mr. Sargent discussed the proposed conditions of approval. Public Hearing Closed. Pep 104021 P42'. 20.1900 Pap 17 of 21 Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HARTT MOVED TO DETERMINE that the storage of customer vehicles for up to sixty (60) days, while awaiting Insurance adjustments and parts ordered from outside, is a necessary part of the auto body repair business In Kodiak and that the storage is permitted to take place on Lot 15A, U.S. Survey 3098; subject to the conditions of approval contained In the shah report dated December 12, 1989; and to adopt the findings contained In the staff report dated December 12, 1989 as 'Findings of Fact' for this case., CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All vehicles In storage must have current registration and vehicle licenses. 2. On or before March 1, 1990, the; fen I around the storage area must be repaired and slats installed to create at least fifty percent (50%) sight -obscuring screening. I 3. This storage area will be reviewed annually by staff for two (2) years (December 1990 and ( 1991) to Insure continued compliance with Title 17 of the Borough Code and with the conditions of this determination. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The storage of customer vehicles awaiting Insurance adjustments and parts on order for periods of up to sixty (60) days la consistent with the nature of the auto body repair business In Kodiak and Is also consistent with Title 17 of the Borough Code. 2. H the fence on Lot 15A is repaired and slats added to the fence to provide at least fifty (50%) sight -obscuring screening, the area wig be acceptable for the storage of customer vehicles awaiting repair for up to sixty (60) days. ' 3. This determination will be reviewed annually by the Borough staff for the next two (2) years (December 1990 and December 1991) to Insure compliance with Title 17 of the Borough Code and with the conditions of approval for this determination. The motion was seconded. The Commission discussed the conditions of;approval and the findings of fact. ft was the consensus of the Corilmisslon to revise condition of approval number two and finding of fact number two. COMMISSIONER HARTT, with the concurrence of the second, ADOPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. , CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, 1. All vehicles In storage must have current registration and vehicle licenses. P&ZWow: Dante 20.1084 2. On or before March 1, 1990, a minimum six (6) foot high fence, at least seventy-five percent (75%) sigh -obscuring, must be Installed around the storage area 3. ThIs storage area will be reviewed annually by stall for two (2) years (December 1990 and 1991) to Insure continued compllance with Tule 17 of the Borough Code and with the conditions of this determination. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The storage of customer vehicles awaiting insurance adjustments and parts on order; for periods of up to sixty (60) days Is consistent with the nature jot the auto body repair business In Kodiak and is also consistent with Title 17 of the Borough Code. 2. If a minimum six (8) foot high fence, at least seventy-five percent (75%) sight -obscuring, is installed around the storage area on Lot 15A, the area will be acceptable for the storage of customer vehicles awaiting repair for up to sixty (60) days. 3. This determination will be reviewed annually by the Borough staff for the next two (2) years (December 1990 and December 1991) to Insure compliance with Title 171of the Borough Code and with the conditions of approval for this determination. The question was called and the MAIN unanimous roll call vote. VII. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Vttt. NEW BUSINESS P410ct31 MOTION CARRIED by A) Case 969441. Request for an exception in accordance with Section 16.10.050 (Exceptions) of the Borough Code to permit the waiver of the submission of a plat for approval by the Kodiak Island Borough. Alaska State Cadastral Survey 890212; generally located in Kupreanof Strait. (State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources) COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT an exception in accordance with Section 16:10.050 of the Borough Code to waive the submission of a plat for approval by the 'Kodiak Island Borough Code; commonly known as Alaska State Cadastral Survey 890212, and to adopt the finding contained In the staff report dated December 8, 1989 as the "Finding of Fac? for Case 5-89-041. FINDING OF FACT In granting an exception to waive the submission for approval of a plat proposed In accordance with the requirements' of Title 16 of the Kodak Island Borough Code for Alaska State Cadastrai Survey 890212, the Kodak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the survey submitted substantially complies with Section 16.10.050 (Exceptions) of the Borough Code. • PMmlW: Dombr041000 The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. There was no further new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS P419 of 21 COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A through I of communications. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Enforcement Policy second (2nd) draft dated December 1989. B) Memorandum to the file dated November 22, 1989, from Bob Scholze, re: Lots 6 and 7, L.S. Survey 3100 - Compile' nce Schedule. C) "Recommendations for Zoning Hearings' from the October 1989 Zoning News. 1 I D) Letter dated December 1, 1989 to Byron Pierce from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 8A, Block 1, Southeast Addition - 1214 Father Herman, E) Letter dated December 6, 1989 to Patty Bieiawski, OMB-DGC from Linda Freed, re: Woodland Acres 'Subdlvision Fourth and Fifty Additions. ` F) Letter dated December 14, 1989 to Mark White from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 3, Block 4, Mountain View 2nd Addition -1655 Three Slaters. G) Letter dated December 15, 1989 to Patty Blelawakf, OMB-DGC, from Duane Dvorak, re: Koncor Big Sandy Lake Camp - Afognak Island. H) Letter dated December 19, 1989 to Jim Wheeler from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 3, Block 1, Russell Estates Subdivislon -1113 Setief. I) Letter dated December 19, 1989 to John Parker from Joel H. Bolger, re: Tract D-1, U.S. Survey 3218 - 321,5 MW Bay Road. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS complimented Bob Scholz° on the development of a Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Enforcement Policy. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND that the Borough Assembly adopt the Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Enforcement Policy second (2nd) draft dated December 1989. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. There were no further communications. REPORTS COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A and B of reports. The motion was ;seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Community Development Department Status Report. P d Z Minutes: Dooambwr29. 1989 B) Community Development Department Plat Activity Report, There were no further reports. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO1 CONTINUE THE MEETING BEYOND 11 P.M. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS SCOTT ARNDT appeared before the Commisson. Mr. Arndt and the Commission discussed wetlands issues. MIKE ANDERSON appeared before the Commission. Mr. Anderson and the Commission discussed drainage plans. There were no further audience comments. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Pap 20 m21 CHAIRMAN HENDEL expressed appreciation to Commissioners Heinrlchs and Knudsen whose terms expire on December 31, 1989. The Commission also: (1) expressed appreciation to staff for the work involved in developing the Rural DevelopmentZoning District; (2) decided to attend the Assembly packet review worksession prior to appeals from Commission decisions; and (3) noted that the Assembly and Commission had decided to meet quarterly in jolts worksesslon. The Commission discussed findings of fact for Case 7-058. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ADOPT the following findings of fact for Case 87-058: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission lflnds that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 613, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots'6A, 69, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to, the, public because of the following: a. the Ingress and egress to the parking area is unsafe due to its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Upper Mill Bay Road; b. construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to the increased drainage; c. the location of the parking lot makes it unlikely that the public would utilize the parking lot; and d. the topography is such that it would undermine the adjacent lot. P e Z MMutm: DImmbv20,1989 The relocation of five (5) off-street parking spaces would nal be effective In meeting the parking requirement for uses on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite because of the following: a. the proposed parking is not located within the line of sight of the uses to be served; b. the proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate Identification of the individual spaces and their location; and c. the applicant indicated that the proposed conditions of approval could not be met even before the decision was made by the Commission. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. XIII. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN HENDEI. adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ATTEST By: By: Robin Heinrichs, Vice Chairman Patriciailey,te.retary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: January 17. 1990 Pap 21 of 21 P & 2 mutes: December 20, 1969 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RE: ITEM VC Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM December 19, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Department Information for the December 20, 1989 regular meetirig Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the eight (8) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600),feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to - serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 MiII Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) BACKGROUND At the worksession on December 13, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that staff review Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking -- Location) to see whether the Commission was bound by the code to allow an alternate location if it was found to be impractical to locate the existing parking requirement in the rear yard of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Staff reviewed the section in question, and it does appear that the code is permissive and the Commission is not required to allow the relocation of the parking upon the finding that It is impractical to locate the parking in the rear yard of LotsI6A, 6B, and 6C, Appearance Request C Page 1 o14 P,8 Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C I � Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Staff has, therefore, rewritten the motion so that each applicable code section is provided an individual motion. If the Commission finds that it is impractical to locate the off-street parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, the Commission will have to consider an alternative site. If the Commission finds that it is impractical to relocate the parking to: another lot, or, if the Commission finds that it is not Impractical to locate the parking on1Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, the property owner will have to either construct the parking or, abate the use of the structure for commercial purposes and retum it to the residential u that previously existed. Staff has included with this revised staff report a vicinity map showing the location of the lots under consideration. In addition, a 600 foot circle shown for'scale is centered on the right rear corner of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Towns,ite. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the required seven (7) off- street parking spaces on the Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the fact that it would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to do so. In addition, staff recommends that the five (5) required off-street parking spaces be permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14; New Kodiak; subject to conditions of approval to insure consistency with Title 17 of the Borough Code.';Provision of the five (5) off-street spaces on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (the -Holmes Johnson Clinic) in a B --Business Zoning District is a reasonable alternative location for the use In question. Utilization of an alternative parking lot would °require the following actions: 1 ' I 1. A finding pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking—Location) of the Borough Code that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the sever; (7) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townslte. 2. A finding pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking --Location) of the Borough Code that the Commission finds relocating the required parking to Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision a reasonable alternative. Appearance Request C Page 2 of 4 P & Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C 3. A parking plan for the Holmes Johnson Clinic showing ell off-street parking spaces and those off-street parking spaces designated for the professional office of LeDoux and LeDoux. 4. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, (Holmes Johnson Clinic) in favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux professional offices) for the five (5) off-street parking spaces. The easement must run with the land until the use(s) of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is, provided. Should the Holmes Johnson Clinic property be used for parking ad provided for above, only one (1) additional parking space for the residential apartment on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would need to be developed in order to satisfy all off-street parking requirements. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the ;appropriate motions are: Move to adopt finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that it is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. Move to adopt finding number two (2) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989 pursuant to Sect' Ion 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to permit the off-street parking required for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite to be relocated to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff 'report dated December 19, 1989. Appearance Request 0 Page 3 of 4 1 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A parking plan for the Holmes Johnson Clinic located at Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, showing all off-street parking spaces and those off- street parking spaces designated for the office of LeDouk and LeDoux will be submitted to the Community Development Department within ten (10) days of this decision. , 2. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic) in favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux offices) for five (5) off-street parking spaces. The easement shall run with the land until the use(s) of Lots 6A, 6B,iand 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is provided. Adequate signage to identify the designated spaces as the parking lot for LeDoux and LeDoux law offices will be as specified by the Community Development Department. The off-street parking developed for the LeDoux and LeDoux profession office must comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 (Parking Lot Development Standards) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it Is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on -Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public. Five (5) of the required off-street parking spaces for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, should be permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, because even though these spaces are not adjacent to the office which they are intended to serve, they would be safer and most likely used more by clients of the law office than would spaces dove oped in the rear yard where the office is located. Appearance Request C Page 4 of 4 P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 1e 22 N '1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RE: Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM; December 12, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Department Information for the December 20, 1989 Regular Meeting Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: ITEM V -C 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the eight (8) required off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, IBlock 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit the eight (8) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 60, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) BACKGROUND The purpose of this request is to consider the practicality of locating eight (8) off-street parking spaces in the rear yard of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, KodiakiTownsite. If the Commission finds that it is impractical to locate the parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, the Commission will also need to address the conditions underi which it would permit the parking to be located on another parking lot within six hundred (600) feet of the structure located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C and which also permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Appearance Request Page 1 of 6 P 8 2: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C On the advice of the Borough Attorney, staff was persuaded to treat this request separately from ongoing litigation between the Kodiak Island Borough and the property owner. Staff has, therefore, tried to be objective in the assessment of this case and, at one point, requested technical assistance from the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department regarding an assessment of the subject property (see attachment). To summarize the comments of the Engineering and Facilities Department, it was determined that the development of parking in the rear yard of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would result in an impractical and unsafe parking configuration. Th s assessment is supported by the following observations: 1. The line of site for drivers exiting the proposed driveway onto the oncoming traffic lane of Mill Bay Road is blocked by a board fence on the adjacent property. 2. The proposed driveway passes between the LeDoux building and the neighbors board fence. The plat shows the width of the driveway as 9.4 feet. Minimum driveway.width required by the City Code is 14 feet; the minimum driveway width required by the Borough Code is 12 feet. Regardless of eithericode, 9.4 feet is inadequate. 3. Mill Bay Road traffic is downhill at the proposed driveway entrance further compounding the hazard, particularly when slippery road conditions exist. 4. The proposed driveway passes directly over a buried fuel tank. The fuel tank would have to be relocated. 5. Topography of the proposed parking lot site will drain the' lot to adjacent properties. If sod and topsoil are removed to construct a parking lot, surface water runoff will increase. 6 A sharp grade change exists at the rear property line; the earth is unrestrained and sloughing is evident. It would be necessary to construct a'retaining wall to correct this condition. 7. The proposed parking lot site is currently a lawn area. To convert this area to a parking lot and driveway would require removal of the sod and importation of crushed rock. It is unlikely construction costs can be justified,by the benefits. Appearance Request Page 2 of 6 P & Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C The report by the Engineering and Facilities Department does indicate that the parking lot can be constructed, but only at great expense and questionable benefit to the public. The Commission has two (2) choices in this case: 1. If the Commission finds that it is impractical to locate the off-street parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, then the Commission will have to consider an alternative site proposed by the applicant. 2. If the Commission finds that it is not impractical to locate the parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, then the property owner will have to either: 1 (a) construct the parking; or (b) abate the use of the structure for commercial purposes and return it to the residential use that previously existed. The applicants have stated that it is impractical to locate the eight, (8) required parking spaces on the lot in the manner originally shown at the time the variance was granted. Therefore, the applicant requests the Commission to find that it is impractical to locate the off-street parking on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, and to allow the off-street parking to be located on a suitable lot within six hundred (600) feet. To replace these spaces, the applicant proposes to acquire eight (8) off-street parking spaces in the parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (site of the Holmes Johnson Clinic located down the street from the subject property). This action requires Planning and Zoning Commission approval pursuant to Section 17.57.030 or the Borough Code which states: 17.57.030 Off-street parking --Location. All parking spaces required under Section 17.57.020 shall be on the same]lot as, or a lot adjacent to, the principal building that they service; provided, that if the planning commission finds that it is impractical to locate the spaces on such a lot, it may permit them to be located on any lot within six hundred feet of the principal building. All parking spaces required.under Section 17.57.020 shall be located in a use district permitting the use which they serve. Appearance Request Page 3 of 6 , P 8 Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C Staff has determined that the Holmes Johnson Clinic does not have en additional eight (8) off-street parking spaces to provide for the use of LeDoux and LeDoux. The original parking determination for thislot indicated that six (6) spaces were required for the professional office and two (2) spaces were required for the residential portion of the structure. However staff has reevaluated the original parking 'requirement and determined that, based on new information from the Borough Assessing Department, the professional office use at LeDoux and LeDoux only requires five (5) off-street parking spaces rather the previously calculated six (6) off-street parking spaces. The reason for this is the Assessor had previously included a ninety-six (96) square foot uncovered and unenclosed deck as part of the total floor area for the structure. This additional floor area made the calculation for parking just over five and one-half (5.5), therefore the calculation was rounded up to the next whole number six (6). Without counting this additional floor area however, the calculation is less than five and one-half (5.5), therefore the figure is now rounded down. Staff has determined that the previouslyproposed driveway access to the rear yard could conceivably handle the two (2) required off-street parking spaces associated with the residential unit if the driveway was not required to access the back yard for additional parking. In 'addition, the Holmes Johnson Clinic has an additional six (6) off-street parking spaces by staffs calculation. Therefore, the Clinic lot has more than enough space to accommodate the parking needs of LeDoux and LeDoux if the owner so chooses. Staff, therefore, recommends that it is Impractical to locate five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. In addition, staff recognizes the difficulty in assuring that the public will use the designated spaces if they are located so far from the professional offices they would serve. For this reason, staff recommends that adequate signage be required to !insure that the designated spaces are used only by the clients of LeDoux and LeDoux!and not by other members of the public. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the required seven (7) off- street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the fact that it would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public, and (that the five (5) required off-street parking spaces be permitted to relocate to Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak, subject to conditions of approval to insure consistency with Title 17 of the Borough Code. Provision of the five (5) off-street spaces down the street at the Holmes Johnson Clinic in a B --Business Zoning District is a reasonable alternative location for Appearance Request Page 4 of 6 P 8' Z: December 20, 1989 ITEM V -C I the use in question. Utilization of an alternative parking lot would 'require the following actions: 1. A finding from the Commission pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street Parking- -Location) of the Borough Code that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. 2. A parking plan of the Holmes Johnson Clinic parking lot showing all spaces and those designated for the professional office of LeDoux and LeDoux must be submitted to the Community Development Department. 3. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, Newl Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic), in favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux professional office building) for the five (5) off- street parking spaces. The easement must run with the land until the uses of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite change and/or alternative off- street parking approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission is provided. Should the Holmes Johnson Clinic property be used for parking as; provided for above, only one (1) additional off-street parking space for the residential apartment on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would need to be developed in order to satisfy all off-street parking requirements. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: I Move to adopt the finding contained in the staff report, dated December 12, 1989 as the "Finding of Fact" for this case pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code; andl to permit five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office and apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, to be relocated 10 the parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated December 12, 1989. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Appearance Request Page 5 of 6 P B;Z: December 20, 1969 ITEM V -C A parking plan of the Holmes Johnson Clinic parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Townsite, showing all off-street parking spaces and those off-street parking spaces designated for the LeDoux and LeDoux office must be submitted to the Community Development Department within days of the date of this decision and prior to the issuance of a zoning compl ance permit. 2. A recorded easement on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision (Holmes Johnson Clinic) in favor of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, !Block 8, Kodiak Townsite (LeDoux and LeDoux professional office) for five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces. The easement must run with the land until the uses of Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Towhsite change and/or alternative off-street parking approved by the Planning and' Zoning Commission is provided. Adequate signage to identify the designated off-street parking spaces as the parking for LeDoux and LeDoux professional offices will be provided as specified by the Community Development Department. The off-street parking developed for the LeDoux and LeDoux professional office must comply with the requirements of Section 17.57.040 (Parking Lot Development Standards) of the Kodiak Island Borough Code FINDING OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the office and apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public. The five (5) required off-street parking spaces are permitted to locate on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated December 12, 1989. Appearance Request I Page 6 of 6 • P 8 2: December 20, 1989 _c, 7it/14./ Gar oG er- fogr,�in5 SP4cec' / rocoe 0 7 res / fir oyser7L/ r com4Jija7/ark a71 ca aMc Gc�S/41 S Vari17er2/ ,U 7UJ Le�ecoe Z-ZaaSe AS - BUILT SURVEY Stakt. /••,=zQ' I baeby cauly that 1 ba.r amay.d the fuiwe.6 &scribed p,opaae: c02TON pf'Ler‘.. giacr e /510'AC rohvNS/T_f }-vel/St. U552'5,7-5 and that the vnprwevenu situated rharonaa cfehi. roperty fin and do not gentian a cm -mach on the pmperty hint adjacent Aerate. that no hnproamenu an prapercy lying adjacent thaew menisci/ no the pusi.a is grcadm and un tort ate no mdcaea, mnonia dm Una or Atha cubic AAA .nu CO add property Aar et inta eased hnm Sef • Da th' /—' day of "✓YU U 19 7q ROY A EOCLUND Registered Land Rueryor —1Dawa by: 78 .-• ... • _ . . .- • . .\- . . , ...... •, •- • .• . - • • • • • • • '.7.:7117.1.-.2"ZZEr - .. • I- „ ... • ! • -- 'Si • 57 1 ./ ri 447 i 1'1 al • i .1 I •71. '-77::-.M--), :yr.--; .:7 , .. , --- x4,1 z .- . : *:'•,1k,..t....- x k r*,-..::--__ . _____. _ ., -:.;:::::"..`•*•;:•:‘.:..:- .-f .....-i i'lq 1 I. ...„);1/41.9,..? --Z.,?,-- -- - • -. - -J : .ft.:1-.7.,C.k.,Z••it. !Hindi .-",- e.D".2:. ':::*; '.'" ..:....., ;;('-' Li' • ” e!aie. seeeneek -t- • . • • ..... 1. • • 1 • . . • • • • UrfFe. Feettlde.L. LOT llea.0 . .." --... Oftl&II4e.1. err !-‘"C ....,...:..! I . - - - - - - - - • EXI•al-InCe SITUCTURSV - N • - . , 121 - S4. tRtesel leEM.W.S. tLEC-ZTONS Cr.,.‘ ...,..f.‘„ migt. no. tug tc•&) • . 55.4.TNO 1 . ' R. tA.01.1,,,a5 ..1.:AA1:50$ , K•Sp. r..=$.,K , i --(,W. 'o -Nr jouetSaty cs..1.4‘c. ::, ---r PI ;-,I4 - `:‘`T.FJC.., Cpe..TtDt.Y?S- i,......,-.,. J A,M.a5 P.,.. 5 Ar.PZ, C3NSUTiNG EN Gi 1: nr . =err. . ‘0Gteg, seise,. . c., .. j •flerszett! C-`.:570 • !!":"-e-,...• • - el"alteoCe• JOK *zee: 1011.41 lee leiletEV • . ..! - "........0 Yee4.• iD • \ - 0 VI JC iar, %Ora! 14.7.e.:Ty....A.tr• MATTHEW 0. JAMIN C. WALTER ESCLL. JOEL H. BOLGER, OIANNA R. GENTRY ALAN L. SCHMITT **OMITTED TO WASHInGTON AND EARS ALL OTHERS ADMITTED TO ALAD*A EAR JAMIN, ESELL, BOLGER & GENTRY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 323 CAROLYN STREET KOOIAK, ALASKA 99613 Linda Freed Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 FACSIMILE: (907) 466.0112 TELEPHONE: (907) 466.6024 REPLY TO KODIAK OFFICE October 9, 1989 Re: Kodiak Island Borough Our file: 4095-87 Dear Linda: SEATTLE OFFICE: IIR FIRST AVENUE SOUTH SUIT 320. MAYNARD SUILOINO SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 90104 FACSIMILE: (206) 623•66'0 TELEPHONE: (toe) 622'7624 JOEL H. BOLGER v. Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux Kurt LeDoux called on the afternoon of October 5, 1989, with a proposal for settlement. He said that Bernie,Lindsey had told him that it was impractical to build a parking i lo't in the back yard. He said that Bernie said that a concrete retaining wall between LeDoux's yard and White's yard would be required. He also said that Dr. Robert Johnson was willing to allow Kurt to use seven parking spaces at the Holmes -Johnson Clinic. I said that i would pass this information along to you. I talked to Kurt again on October 6. I told him that I did not have an answer for him and did not have authority to settle in the manner he suggested. Please let me know if you want to take any further action on Mr. LeDoux's proposal. Tits_ L. +U T4s,-( 17,. 0 --Pc 11- , 19 ?'t - aEc 11-a- ear- .DC Ln-- _T... tza._...Ja.,_,:sk JHB:cav 4095\87L.001 1t1_4.�(.I CC Sincerely yours,' JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY oel H. OCTECtsThiEci � "M9 LEDOUX & LEDOUX ATTORNEYS AT LAW 219 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 (907) 486-4082 FAX: (907) 486-2664 November 10, 1989 Ms. Linda Freed Planning and Community Development Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Parking variance; 219 Mill Bay Road Dear Ms. Freed: ANCHORAGE OFFICE: (9071 272-6868 SEATTLE OFFICE: 12061 624-6771 RECEIVED NOV 131989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' I DF -PT Pursuant to 17.50.030 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code I am requesting that the Kodiak Island Borough Planning Commission make a factual finding that it is impractical to locate eight parking spaces on my property located at 219 Mill Bay Road. I am further requesting the right to use Dr. Bob Johnson's parking lot to fulfill seven of my parking requirements. I already have lone off street parking space at my office. Dr. Johnson'sparking lot is approximately two hundred feet from my office. I am making this request based upon the difficulty in constructing a parking lot behind my property and the fact that such parking lot would be impractical to use, especially in winter. As is set forth in the affidavit of Bernie Lindsey, a local contractor, it would be impractical to build such parking lot. There would be drainage problems and the opening would be quite narrow afterlshoring up the property next to my parking lot. There are no formal plats of. Dr. Johnson's parking lot. I have obtained copies of the plans for Dr. Johnson office and have put in the measurements of the parking areas as is shown:in:what is marked as "A" attached hereto. As is shown on the plan there currently exist three separate parking areas around Dr. Johnson's office building. These spaces have been used for over twenty years and there is sufficient turning space in all three lots for total off-street parking. Dr. Johnson also has ten parking spaces on the back side of his property against the fence along the property linelwith the ASHA apartments. There are log stops for these parking spaces. There is a large turning area for these parking spaces. Ms. Linda Freed Planning and Community Development November 10, 1989 page 2 Altogether, Dr. Johnson has 33 designated parking spaces based on spaces being 8' x 20'. Dr. Johnson's building, according to the information provided by Craig Johnson, has a total area of 7050 square feet (4890 square feet for the main level and 2160 square feet for the basement level). Based on the Borough code, requiring one parking space for every 300 square feet of building space, Dr. Johnson only needs 24 parking spaces leaving a surplus of nine parking spaces. I am also enclosing a copy of my lease with Dr. Johnson, showing the spaces that he is going to lease to me. I will be glad to produce any additional information that you need. Thank you. Very truly yours, � *R. `LeDoux KML/keo enc c.c. Joel Bolger ela Tc 447 CD77-J / •-Y 377 see:/ / j— £,'/72a office\ltr.189 '27eZ,2j/ 1. � / / -- d,ir �/, MATTHEW D.JAMIN C. WALTER EBELL JOEL H. BOLGER• DIANNA R. GENTRY ALAN L. SCHMITT .ADMITTED TO WAVRINDTON AND ALASKA BARS ALL OTHERS ADMITTED TO MASK* BAR JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 323 CAROLYN STREET KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 FACSIMILE: (9073 498.0112 TELEPHONE: (9o7)'49e-eo24 REPLY TO KODIAK OFFICE November 21, 1989 Linda Freed Community Development Dept. Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Kodiak Island Borough Our File No. 4095-87 Dear Linda: The judgment December LeDoux's JHB:ls 87L.004 v. LeDoux SEATTLE OFFICE: 119 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 320. MAYNARO BUILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 90104 PACSIMILE: (2015) 023.5010 TELEPHONE: (200} e22.7034 JOEL H. BOLGER court has postponed the hearing on the motion for summary in- our case against Kurt and Gabrille LeDoux until 29, 1989 at 2:30 P.M. Please keep me advised about the pending application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sincerely yours, JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY oel H. Solger RECEIVED NOV 2 1 I1, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'. DEPT rron 11 EL TGr of CLAD LOW - t JAN I TOY! AFT. 2]s 17 ToRae4 (Iii 14) 168 )7.) 10 Ni IC <i. STawa. (11.5 0 Caret taa evnie eta .i .Cas 0 Of Fitt Ne• 1200 40 i 1 1 w' HOLMES - JOHNSON CLINIC. BASEMENT FLOOR PLA)4 JI 754 V c iv% 7 rn 235.00 N 23026.56 E %9529.29 1 0 zt ct OS 206.39' 256.39 b /ppb/. LEASE OF PARKING SPACES Lease made on the day of November, 11989, between Dr. Bob Johnson M.D. (Lessor) and Kurt M. LeDoux Of 'LeDoux & LeDoux, Attorneys at Law (Lessee). Lessor hereby agrees to lease to Lessee seven:(7) parking spaces. at his professional office building at 115 Mill Bay Road; Kodiak, Alaska. The/seven parking spaces are shown on Exhibit "A", which is hereby incorporated into this lease. Lessee shall pay as rental to Lessor the slum of Ninety Dollars ($90.00) per month due on the First day of each Month. The rents may be increased yearly with a six months notice of; any increase. The term of the lease shall be year to year with the right of either party to terminate this lease upon six months notice to the other party. This lease is subject to the Kodiak IslandBorough Planning and Zoning Commission's approval to permit Lessee toluse Lessor's parking lot to meet Lessee's parking space obligations.) Date Dr. BobiJOhnson, M.D. Lessor Date office\park.les ti Kurt M.JLeDoux Lessee Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM TO: Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner Community Development Department FR: Lee Beauman, Construction Inspecto Engineering/Facilities Department, DT: December 7, 1989 RE: Your Case 1187-058, Proposed Parking Behind the tivhonsivin tit 99 I visited the LeDoux property with you on December reviewing the owners proposal to construct an eight to evaluate the feasibility of this proposal. From a practical perspective, the following facts proposal was not based on sound engineering, 'RECEQ/Ed DEC 8- 1989 i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FPP`. LeDoux Law Office { 6, 1989 for the purpose of (8) space parking area and readily indicate that the construction or safety principles: ' 1. The site line of drivers exiting the proposed driveway into the on coming traffic lane of Mill Bay Road is blocked by a board fence on the adjacent property. 2.. The proposed driveway passes between the LeDoux ;Building and the neighbors board fence. Plat shows the width to be 9.4, feet. City code requires 14 feet; Borough code requires 12 feet minimum driveway widths. Irregardless of code, 9.4 feet is inadequate. 3. Mill Bay Road traffic is downhill at the proposed driveway entrance further compounding the hazard particularly when slippery road conditions exist. 4. Proposed driveway passes directly over a buried fuel tank. The fuel tank would have to relocate. 5. Topography of the proposed parking lot site will 'drain the lot to adjacent properties. If sod and topsoil is removed; to construct a parking lot, surface water run-off will increase. 6. A. sharp grade change exists at the rear property line, the earth is unrestrained and sloughing is evident. It would be necessary to construct a retaining wall to correct this condition. l 7. The proposed parking lot site is currently a lawn area. To convert to a parking area/driveway would require removal of ,the sod and importation of crushed rock. It is unlikely construction costs can be justified by the benefits. Duane Dvorak December 7, 1989 Page 2 If lack of parking space is a problem in the vicinity of the LeDoux office, it is not apparent to the casual observer. It is my suggestion that common sense be considered when seeking a solution to this dispute. It appears that the applicant for variance agreed to construct .parking spaces in an impractical and unsafe configuration. The grantor of the variance accepted this flawed proposal. Both parties erred. Parking can not be a significant problem as a result of traffic to this small law office. Call it a wash. Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 486.5736 December21, 1989 Re: Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet of.the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission M their meeting on December 20, 1989: A. Adopted finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989, pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that it is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C,,Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the . Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December 21, 1989 Page Two office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 69, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public because of the following: a. the ingress and egress to the parking area is unsafe due to its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Upper Mill Bay Road; b. construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to the increased drainage; c. the location of the parking lot makes it unlikely that the public would utilize the parking lot; and d. the topography is such that it would undermine the adjacent lot. B. Adopted the following finding in support of their decision, pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to deny relocation of the off-street parking required for Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision: 1. The relocation of five (5) off-street parking spaces would not be effective in meeting the parking requirement for uses on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite because of the following: a. the proposed parking is not located within thel line of sight of the uses to be served; b. the proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate identification of the individual spaces and their location; and c. the applicant indicated that the proposed conditions of approval could not be met even before the decision was made by the Commission. Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December2l, 1989 Page Three An appeal of these decisions may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal, the relief sought by the appellant, and be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effective until ten (10) days following the decision. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission; please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, h Patricia Miley, Sec Community Development Department cc: Joel Bolger, Jamin Ebell Bolger & Gentry Kodiak Island Borough PERSONS TESTIFYING AT THE APPEARANCE REQUEST DECEMBER 20,1989 CASE 87-058 Kurt LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 LEDOux & LEDOUX ATTORNEYS AT LAW 219 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 (907) 486-4082 FAX: (9071 486.2664 January 17, 1990 Ms. Linda Freed ---Community Development - Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Re: Appeal of P&Z decision on parking variance 219 Mill Bay Road owned by Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux Dear Ms. Freed: ANCHORAGE OFFICE: (907) 272-6868 SEATTLE OFFICE: (206) 624-6771 I am requesting that the P&Z make formal findings as why my request to use the Kodiak Community Baptist Church parking lot or the City of Kodiak down -town parking lot was denied by the P&Z commission. I am requesting these findings so the Kodiak City ICountil can rule on my appeal concerning all reasonable alternative parking solutions. Thank you, Very tru ./yours, M. LeDoux KM /keo enc c.c. Joel Bolger Mel Stephens II ledoux.3\ltr.10 CO RECFJVE JAN 2 :ffi iJyU UNITY DEVELOPMEN`, Dr•vT JAMIN, MATTHEW D. JAMIN C. WALTER EBELL JOEL H. BOLGER- DIANNA R. GENTRY ALAN L. SCHMITT WALTER W. MASON" DUNCAN 5. FIELDS nowiTED To wASMINGTON 4513 .94A NAPS •TAOHTTEC NN CSaTA 949 TOL Fr.E SS SM+TTEO TO ALNSTA Elan Marcella Dalke, Clerk City of Kodiak 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: EBELLJ BOLGER & GENTRY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 323 CAROLYN STREET KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 FACSIMILE: (907) n 86'6112 TELEPHONE: (907) 466.6024 REPLY TO KODIAK OFFICE January 5, 1990 SEATTLE OFFICE: Iib FIRST AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 460, MAYNARD BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 99104 EACSIMILE: (209) 623'7521 TELEPHONE: (208) 022'7634 Board of Adjustment Appeal of Decision of Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission concerning Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux d/b/a LeDoux & LeDoux P&Z Commission Case No.: 87-058 Our File No.: 470-67 Dear Ms. Dalke: Please accept this letter as my notice of appearance on behalf of the Kodiak Island Borough in the above referenced Board of Adjustment proceedings. I request a copy of the record on appeal when it is prepared. Further correspondence and documents can be served on me at the above address. JHB:lcs cc: Kurt LeDoux Duane Dvorak 67L.001 Sincerely yours, JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY JAN 8 _ 1990 COMMUNIT DF E ELD 1 January 2, 1990 Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ICE BOX 1397, KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 TELEPHONE (907) 486-3224 FAX (907) 486-4009 RE: Case 87-058 Appeal of December 20, 1989 Commission decision Dear Patricia: On December 29, 1989, Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux filed an appeal of the December 20, 1989 Kodiak Island Borough Plan- ning and Zoning Commission decision denying a request to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to be located on another lot. Please prepare the record on appeal as required by Kodiak City Code 17.10.020(b). Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK NANCY E. JONES, MC Deputy City Clerk NEJ/nj Enc: Appeal RECE!vED JAN 1• 5990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT LEDOUX & LEDOUX ATTORNEYS AT LAW 219 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 (907) 486-4082 FAX: (907) 486-2664 January 17, 1990 Ms. Linda Freed ---Community Development Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road .Kodiak, AK 99615 Re: Appeal of P&Z decision on parking variance 219 Mill Bay Road owned by Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux Dear Ms. Freed: ( I am requesting that the P&Z make formal findings as why my request to use the Kodiak Community Baptist Church parking lot or the City of Kodiak down -town parking lot was denied by the P&Z! commission. ANCHORAGE OFFICE: (907) 272-6868 SEATTLE OFFICE: (2O6) 624.6771 I am requesting these findings so the Kodiak City#Council can rule on my appeal concerning all reasonable alternative parking solutions. Thank you. Very truly yours, M. LeDoux KM /keo enc c.c. Joel Bolger Mel Stephens II ledoux.3\ltr.10 RECFovE �j .J A N 2 2 1JYU COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i. DFPT JAMIN, MATTHEW D. JAMIN C. WALTER EBELL JOEL H. BOLGER• DIANNA R. GENTRY ALAN L. SCHMITT WALTER W. MASON" OUNCAN 5. FIELDS • OmTTEO TO WASHINGTON •.AOM AMID ALASKA NNCSOTA BAR AL ALL OSHA BAR NITTEO TO Marcella Dalke, Clerk City of Kodiak 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: EBELL BOLGER & GENTRY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 323 CAROLYN STREET KODIAK ALASKA 99615 FACSIMILE: (907) 466-6112 TELEPHONE: 007)4a8.6024 REPLY TO KODIAK OFFICE January 5, 1990 ( SEATTLE OFFICE: 119 FIRST AVENUE SOuTn SUITE 450. MAYNARD BUILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 90104 FACSIMILE: (206) 623-7521 TELEPRONE: (206) 622.7634 Board of Adjustment Appeal of Decision of Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission concerning Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux d/b/a LeDoux & LeDoux P&Z Commission Case No.: 87-058 Our File No.: 4702-67 Dear Ms. Dalke: Please accept this letter as my notice of appearance on behalf of the Kodiak Island Borough in the above referenced Board of Adjustment proceedings. I request a copy of the record on appeal when it is prepared. Further correspondence and documents can be served on me at the above address. JHB:los cc: Kurt LeDoux Duane Dvorak 67L.001 Sincerely yours, JAMIN, EBELL, BOLJGER & GENTRY i RECFrikliED JAM 8. 1990 COMMUNITY DEDFPELOPMEN'. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES POST OFFICE DOM 1397. KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 TELEPHONE (907) 486-3224 FAM (907) 486-4009 January 2, 1990 Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Case 87-058 Appeal of December 20, 1989 Commission decision Dear Patricia: On December 29, 1989, Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux filed an appeal of the December 20, 1989 Kodiak Island Borough Plan- ning and Zoning Commission decision denying a request to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to be located on another lot. Please prepare the record on appeal as required by Kodiak City Code 17.10.020(b). Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK NANCY E. J• ES, MC Deputy City Clerk NEJ/nj Enc: Appeal RECEIVED JAN I t990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL 12 COMES NOW, Appellants, Kurt M. LeDoux and Gabrielle LeDoux, 13 d/b/a LeDoux & LeDoux, and they hereby give notice of their 14 .appeal of the decision of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning 15 and Zoning (P&Z) Commission decision, dated December 21, 1989, 16 a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 17 GROUNDS OF APPEAL 18 1. The P&Z Commission acted in excess of its authority in CITY OF KODIAK In the matter of Appeal of decision ) of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning ) and Zoning Commission concerning Kurt ) and Gabrielle LeDoux, d/b/a/ LeDoux & ) LeDoux ) ) Appellants. ) ) Board of Adjustment Case No. Planning and Zoning Commission Case No. 87-058 19 deciding the issue of alternative parking for Appellant's place 20 of business located at 219 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. 21 2. The P&Z Commission abused its discretion in refusing 22 to permit Plaintiff to use as alternative parking property owned 23 by Dr. Bob Johnson, M.D., and/or the property owned by Community 24 Baptist Church, and/or the downtown parking lot owned by the 25 26 f 27 28, City of Kodiak. 1 3. The P&Z Commission failed to make findings of fact as 2 to the possible use of Community Baptist's parking lot and the 3 down town parking lot owned by the City of Kodiak. 4 ' 4. The P&Z Commission acted in an arbitrary and 5 capricious manner in denying Appellants' application to use 6 alternative parking for their place of business. 7 8 1. A reversal of P&Z's decision denying them the use of RELIEF SOUGHT 9 reasonable alternative parking for their place of business. 10 2. Requiring the P&Z to make any needed additional 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 findings of fact as why the Community Baptist parking lot and the downtown parking lot are not reasonable parking alternatives for Appellants' place of business. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ledoux.3\notice soffit? that der of served a tea; of the above on each etlorneY of record /n ibla mattel.124/ ,_kmd .irjalfrenjj ay of December, 1989. LeDOUX & LeDOUX ATTORNEYS AT LAW BY Ku x, Attorney for Appellants --- NOTICE OF APPEAL; Case No, 87-058; page 2 ti Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux 219 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 DEC. 261989 Kodiak Island t3orough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 9961516340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 becember2l, 1989 Re: Case 87-058. Request for Planning and Zoning Commission review and findings. pursuant to Section 17.57.030 (Off-street parking --Location) of the Borough Code to: 1. find that it is impractical to locate any of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite due to the size of: the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot; and 2. to permit five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces to locate on another lot, within six hundred (600) feet,of the structure, which permits the same land use as the required parking is intended to serve. Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite; 219 Mill Bay Road (Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux) Dear Mr. and Ms. LeDoux: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on December 20, 1989:- A. Adopted finding number one (1) contained in the staff report dated December 19, 1989, pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, that it is impractical to locate at least five (5) of the required seven (7) off-street parking spaces for the office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and tC, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that it is impractical to locate five (5) of the seven (7) required off-street parking spaces for the _ J Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December 21, 1989 Page Two office/apartment located on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite, because parking developed on Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C would be unsafe and of questionable benefit to the public because of the following: a. the ingress and egress to the parking area is unsafe due to its narrow width (9.4 feet) and the steepness of Upper Mill Bay Road; b. construction of the parking lot would be detrimental to the adjacent properties due to the increased drainage; c. the location of the parking lot makes it unlikely"that the public would utilize the parking lot; and d, the topography is such that it would undermine;the adjacent lot. B. Adopted the following finding in support of their decision,' pursuant to Section 17.57.030 of the Borough Code, to deny relocation of the off-street parking required for Lots 6A, 66, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite', to the off-street parking lot located on Lots 6 and 10, Block 14, New Kodiak Subdivision: 1. The relocation of five (5) off-street parking spaces would not be effective in meeting the parking requirement for uses on Lots 6A, ;6 B, and 6C, Block 8, Kodiak Townsite because of the following: a. the proposed parking is not located within the line of sight of the uses to be served; b. the proposed parking would not be viable even with adequate identification of the individual spaces and their ISocation; and c. the applicant indicated that the proposed colndit ons of approval could not be met even before the decision was made by the Commission. Kodiak Island Borough Kurt and Gabrielle LeDoux December 21, 1989 Page Three An appeal of these decisions may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days; of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal, the relief sought by the appellant, and be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effectiveuntil ten (10) days following the decision. - If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, "please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secrat ry Community Development Department cc: Joel Bolger, Jamin Ebell Bolger & Gentry c3s‘%:> f A t • 13 aL.-LC - L.L, tp • • • ; - - - _ " • • • t r • - 111 •