The URL can be used to link to this page

KODIAK TWNST BK 19 LT 30 & 32 - VarianceKODIAK ISLAND DL,MGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CASE FILE CHECK LIST Case File No. Assigned SN -102 Date Application Received \i-�`w�\ Type of Application y(lIKE.. Date Site Plan Received | / Date Fee Paid �1/_�[ (0J Receipt Number ^- � Amount'r Person Accepting Use Z for Zoning, Variances and Exceptions CUP for Conditional Use Permit LL for Land Leases V for Violations 0 for all Other cases 16kt-Ap__ Name of Applicant Mailing Address 30C._ C?Q_CX-022:1 cl ' -�foc L~ Name of Legal Owner Mailing Address Phone S Phone - U�r�v/z— ��\��A�c�� / .Legal description of Property: Lot(s) ,Y) cem,32 Block \q Subdivision aNyilc,V_I—Pucoike..: Square Footage or Acreage of Property is Lot 30 — Lot %4 P & Z Public Hearing Date Public Notices Mailed on ��Y//u�� `VJ '�(��\` ` ` (4 Applicant Notified of P & Z Action on How Many? UU • //�J )�d \(--/�'1 `'"( /~`/ /�//^� Date Date Date Date Date ' Action Summary Approved Denied T4b-l-e-E1 lst—Reeg 2nd Reading J d~�l •f� ry FOF P & Z U/)~7/kd cl /14/0 \\ 1.)) b'S4 Assembly Ordinance No. Ordinance Effective Date Kodiak‘islandBorough FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET Date: 513 ( From: Phone: (907) (907) 486- 9:31-'3 Total pages (including cover page) 3 Community Development Department Fax: (907) 486-9374 or Original will be mailed: YES TO FAX # '11(-1/5 13T (36/144- -5681 E;ifs 3o 3a Lock Lvectiak_ MESSAGE c) ci% ti3L 19±tar (-[40( Clastce-h ataza S/r (9E4 ) -Etc• -hx_su PttaD cr-A_c_t,cao_S Lo a coc-)-il -h&s2_ oDeAAA;wt tiutsz_c) U\ia.r <c -Dc 1 6,c(Aaoat k9+ff, ccezt uyA)_ "LAY- 2-90 THU 13:48 FNBA INVESTOR LOANS APR -04-•96 THU 09145 -10 OF EAGLE41I1Ari• FAX NO. 19072735081 FAX NO. 9076980214 Pl pc'1.1eG1eE0 and UP -P.47 r #JAft4Y ;wow pktic: , 1',uµ f,u.ne, wqyamere.v' MIriV7i,A11/) `,♦ P.01 P. na/n7 JI A IULJFIJ�' 1D 1.580.. 4.11,- lig7LrG' i' . •l' f 1'r/♦`J Trkttt7 ARB') ,1 'r' Irpa' ,,*-, rte, hSplaPµ1` • riO f� :y.� AI%� ``� ,r T r uwCg./ . ♦' 4p i� `r� ,tom. �.'.r'' i�.ik 4efie ,�3r ;' 9.ovii.� ti /r ,rte 1'r Ns • • 1, 41 1.0.11 rs-( A S44 ;"Q% Awe` fiord— ....... rt..- A7711. es A. [.kiund +.,,.l;• N9. fiis•f ,1rfA1'r~sgdyr0-400, vow ksm,n, �4Lyro Scale: .1" v f 1. , YA erirt I AS - BUILT SURVEY 1 hereby certify that I have i wnp�ed the following pi x deetrtind M?! 62 7 :sC) ami :1$s 171t?GC I3.p h'odiak �'Ftrl.?Sl.?'�. �ta•f71IY.a �f.q. +4�,.�/.n�J.-.e37m� .Jj£,r%'d.F - ♦C�a'Dy ti:�,. ...-rte .._ ... and that the irnprortmonia dfuaredthttcOn He within drf pVBpHty Itnfe .ud do nor neerio at encto.ch au Ilk pone IN lvirtc adinaent 11.0910. rh,a Ito haproventou at. propevr therclo tricmath t]n rhr tlirnawiin gn#trlan .nd due there arc cc midways. vomit .ion hal, t1' nrhrr riYl}I. 1u,mmenrs an said pn)prr4 1'14{10 14 in/r. cared 6r.n,n. /f� bawd TN it f qe ROY A. I:CCKwwn 146at,14 Lod E.r.syPr Cate: ! aN/! .7 BUILDING DEPARTMENT — CITY / BOROUGH OF KODIAK Applicant to fill in between heavy lines. BUILDING ADDRESS '2 LOCALITY - • CLASS' OF WORK NEW. DEMOLISH, ALTERATION REPAI-R NEAREST CROSS ST. ADDITION. MOVE USE OF BUILDING 4.7.4...4.4(4,_,77,3- W 0 NAM7F �E 7424 L MAIL ADDRESS. SIZE OF BUILDING 'V HEIGFjT /WI/ NO. OF ROOMS3% NO. OF FLOORS CITY TEL. NO. NAME • NO. OF BUILDINGS NO. OF BUILDINGS NOWT ON LOT / NO. OF FAMILIES ADDRESS SIZE OF LOT CITY .. USE OF BLDG. NOW ON LOT 'j/ SPECIFICATIONS STATE LICENSE NO. - FOUNDATION NAME. MATERIAL EXTERIOR, PIERS WIDTH OF TOP ADDRESS WIDTH OF BOTTOM • CITY. DEPTH IN GROUND - R.W. PLATE (SILL) • STATE LICENSE NO.' SIZE SPA._ SPAN z SUBDIVISION O � E. U , O LOT NO. BLK. GIRDERS JOIST lst. FL. hYln. JOIST 2nd. FL. 3a /� DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 2. Occupancy Group A, B, C, D, E; F, G, H, I, J Div: 1, 21, 4, JOIST CEILING EXTERIOR STUDS INTERIOR STUDS ROOF RAFTERS. BEARING WALLS EXTERIOR WALLS COVERING L4D C,42r.TOOF �f;�s 111 o RL INTERIOR WALLS .C4..sw ix"(L REROOFING FLUES FIREPLACE FL. FURNACE -KITCHEN WATER HEATER - FURNACE' GAS ' OIL. T hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and statethat the above is correct and agree to comply with all City Ordinances and State Laws regulating building construction. Applicant /-,pix' �.1 APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BUILDING PERMIT NO.. DATE ISSUED. VALUATION BUILDING FOUNDATION FRAME • PLASTER FLUES FINAL ROUGH BLDG. FEE PLAN CHK. FEE TOTAL PLUMBING SEPTIC.TANK SEWER GAS FINISH, s_ti ELECTRIC ROUGH FINISH FIXTURES MOTORS FINAL /6/e. et, z> /65 : //6/,✓ (:- - e. C_ A4L e-6 C//di s✓k/; '� 4 4794?/776/./ — / #0,6--- A--"( 0,6- " (z/ :. /f/c c4-,/4 /-6,61 r✓c �v moi " t✓ c�(�r <'-�r�!./ Zz_ C —t> ;(c_ a vl'lL+ Approved: CHIEF BUILDING OFFICAL PLANNING & ZONINGINFO. • ZONING DISTRICT �� ''�� •.��„�� TYPE ,OF OCCUPANCY . .‹,62 `/ /2{//)furl (.7/4-2c.9s1(.7-?6_ NUMBER OF STORIES • - TOTAL HT. �LI4, AREA OF LOT%S2 /Cr►' - FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM PROP: LINE' SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE i. 42E1'4 ( r” --_REAR YARD.///) i Approved: ZONING ADMINISTRATORl23 The proposed developmex`y__ ovides an opportunity to expand and diversify the local economic base. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. 8) CASE 5-85-006. Final Subdivision of Tracts B-2 and 8-3, Woodland Acres Subdivision Third Addition. U.S. Survey 1682 to Woodland Acres Subdivision Sixth Addition, Lots 9-13. Block 4; Lots 1-9. Block 5; and Raven Circle. (John F. Rauwolf) A discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and the Engineering Department staff. COMMISSIONER HILL MOVED TO GRANT FINAL SUBDIVISION of Tracts 8-2 and B-3, Woodland Acres Subdivision Third Addition, U.S. Survey 1682 to Woodland Acres Subdivision Sixth Addition, Lots 9-13, Block 4; Lots 1-9, Block 5; and Raven Circle, with the following conditions: 1. that the applicant submit roadway and utility improvement plans and specifications for review and approval by the Borough Engineer and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; and 2. that a note be placed on the plat limiting access to Lots 1 through 4, Block 5, either to Patrick Court or Puffin Drive. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. VIII NEW BUSINESS LINDA FREED indicated there had been a request to investigate the rezoning of Hiller Point Alaska Subdivision 1st Addition. COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED THAT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE REZONING of Miller Point Alaska Subdivision let Addition be undertaken by the Community Development Department staff and presented to the Commission at their Regular Meeting on May 15, 1985. The motion vas seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. IX COMMUNICATIONS X REPORTS A) The February Status Report from the Community Development Department. B) LINDA FREED announced that Bud Cassidy has been hired as the new Resource Management Officer, beginning April 1, 1985. C) LINDA FREED indicated the City Council with a 3 to 2 vote did not uphold the appellant in the. Hill Appeal of the Planning and Zoning case variance £or,Perrozzi.7 At the same time the City Council did affirm the Commission'"s decision but did not uphold the Commission's reasons for granting the variance, by a vote of 3 to 2. XI AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. 'XII COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS P 6 2 Regular Meeting March 20, 1985 (III ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN GREGG adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ATTEST BY: • c4i Patricia Miley, Planning Secretary DATE APPROVED: 4-17• fs A VERBATIM RECORD I5 ON FILE AT THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT P & Z Ragular Meeting March 20. 1985 L) —KODIAK DAILY MIRROR—Friday, March 15, 1985 council (Continued from Page 1) you're picking on Cablevision:' 'Ray Williams, a Cablevision employee, said he had seen no problem . with the company's service 'or the quality of the picture: • "The whole thing seems kind of " outrageous, because It's a private business," he said. "If you're • thinking about regulating this business, you'd better think about regulating all the other businesses." Mayor John Pugh, who said he was personally opposed to the franchising 'of a business that already existed, said the public hearing was meant only to get input from the community on the matter: The council tentatively set a work session on April 9 to discuss franchising in general, rThe=council° also=denied-an appeal.of;an Oct. 17 -Planning and Zoning" -Commission==decision approving: a -variance -on =two -lots owned by Joe Perrozzi: " Tim- Hill made the appeal, ,.- claiming,that it was made only to '``en§uretlia6Perrbizi retained three off•street.parking places In front of the Dope ..Street. 'lots. - The .varlance-.ivaS: made-junder the condition that the three •parking spots remain. In. other' actions,. the City Council: —Created a road maintenance district, which enables the city to receive funds for municipal road improvements. l —Passed resolutions opposing Senate bills that would appoint state employees to supervise the safety of darns and reservoirs throughout Alaska; require . all contracts awarded' by municipalities over. $10,000 be passed by ordina,nce; and require cash performance and payment bonds for construction projects and all change orders to be put out for competitive bids. —Awarded a contract to Nor- thern. Exposure and Equipment to renovate.the second floor of the Erskine House Museum. —Awarded a ' contract to Sweeney Motors to provide a van to transport people from the jail to the courthouse. —And rehired City Manager San Gesko for the period of one year. When Gesko was asked to present the council report on the measure, he said "I can sum it up in one word: please?" Weather A few snow flurries tonight with NW winds from 15 to 25 mph. Low temperature tonight In the mid 20's, high tomorrow in the mid 30's. Chance of snow by tomorrow' evening. Record high and to f thisd are 53, set 'in 1967, and zero, set in 1971. Sunset tonight, 7:13 p.m., sunrise tomorrow, 7:24 a.m. the w or ate odiak daily mirror VOL.45 NO.53 FRIDAY, MARCH 15,1985 KODIAK. ALASKA 16 PAGES 35 CENTS Council hears compaints over Cablevision changes By GORDON WEEKS Staff Writer Cablevision viewers and em- ployees squared off overthe network's recent changes in a public hearing last night, but the City Council seemed reluctant to endorse suggestions that the business be franchised. Cablevision's recent price hikes . and decision to drop MTV from its service came under fire from several local viewers. Cablevision viewer Jim Kennedy claimed that Cablevision was "gouging this city" by dropping the popular musical., television station, which plays music videos 24 hours a day. • "I believe it was unfair (to drop MTV),", he said. "It was because of the complaints they received; the people who didn'tcomplain' had no input." Kennedy also asserted that the quality of the picture had decreased since Cablevision changed its dish In early February, and that the rates had remained the same. Several speakers complained that Cablevision's prices were too high, citing lower costs in other cities in Alaska. Wilton White said he didn't miss MTV, but saki he was disturbed by the idea that a cable network could decide which channels would be offered. Cablevision owner Greg Stevens claimed that MTV was dropped because of consumer response, but that if a future survey indicated that people wanted the channel back, it would be reinstated: He said the city had no business franchising a business. "We're an entertainment source, only slightly considered a utility," he said. "We are not a necessity." Stevens said it was unfair Co compare Cableyision costs with other cities because "we're stuck on .an Island, and rates are a lot higher here." He also pointed out the benefits Cablevision gives to Kodiak, including $52,000 a year in sales taxes and the employment of five full-time workers. Darlene Williams also dismissed the idea that Cablevision should be franchised by the city. "The city should not be inyolved in free enterprise," she said. "TV is optional ... 1 don't know ,why (Please turn to Page 4) 1 J V V V t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL mecrn43 OF THE CITY OF KODIAK }D MARDI 14, 1985 MITIN3 CALLED TO ORDER tf;c Mayor Pugh called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. CounciJi ±err Brodi .h 1nrt,- Crowe, Pamaglia, Stephan, and 4bodruff were present and constituted a quo PREVIOUS MINUTES Cosucilmaanber Parasite AAVtD, seconded by Councili,nher Crowe, to'approve the min- utes of the regular February 28, 1985 meting. PA r 3606 The roll call vote was unanimously favorable. Addition to Agenda RE: New Business, Inn t With the concurrence of the Council, Mayor Pugh added a new item to the agenda un- der New Business. The item dealt with the renewal of the City Manager's employ- ment agreement. PERSONS 1D BE HEARD a. Planning and Zoning Commissioner Since no Commissioner was available, Borough Community Develolmrant Department Direc- tor Linda Freed reported on the Planning and Zoning Commission's March 20 agenda. Of interest to the City was an application for a Conditional Use Perrd.t for a home business at 1516 Ismailov Street and a variance request for the construction of a zero -lot -line dwelling at 1116 Madsen. b. Nancy R. Frost RE: Kodiak Garden Club Nancy Frost had requested this opportunity to address the Council on the Kodiak Garden Club's plans for Spring planting in the downtown area. She presented a request for $1,653 to purchase the necessary materials to plant St. Paul Plaza, the planters around the Mall, and the rock wall at the Museum. She said the Club would make an effort to purchase as many perennials as possible, thereby lessening the need for annual contributions as much as possible. She also asked the Council to rebudget the seasonal employee to maintain the downtown area during the coming summer. Several Councilmembers expressed appreciation for the Garden Club's efforts in beautifying the commercial area. Councilmember Ramaglia PINED, seconded by Councilnember Cratty, to authorize the expenditure of $1,650 to the Kodiak Garden Club for the purpose of purchasing Spring planting materials for the St. Paul Plaza, Mall planters, and the MMUsei.n rock wall; funds to be expended from Nan -Departmental Miscellaneous account 20.51.74 CONTRIBUTIONS. The roll call vote was unanimously favorable. c. Public Hearing RE: Cable Television.• .. Mayor Pugh said the staff, earlier in the year, had suggested the Council consider franchising utilities. As the information presented to the Council on utility fran- chising was very sketchy, the Council asked the matter be rescheduled Following receipt of adequate material. The item was rescheduled for a worksession on March 7 at which time it became obvious that the public was interested in the possible con- trolling of cable television programming and rates. Due to this public interest in cable television service, programming, and rates, the Council scheduled this forum for citizen comments. He stressed that no action would be taken following the public input. Mayor Pugh closed the regular meeting a:d opened the public hearing. Grey Stevens, Cablevision's local Ilnnager, distributed selected portions of the Alaska Statutes dealing with municipal government franchises and permits, and on public utilities and carriers. he reviewed the sections for the benefit of the Council and listening audience. (Clerk's note: AS 29.48.050 which sets the MARCH 14, 1985 parameters for municipalities granting franchises and which was quoted by Mr. Stevens does not apply to Home Rule cities.) Mr. Stevens said that cable tele- vision was not actually an utility and was certainly not a necessity, He said programming costs were 20'h of the service revenues with personnel expenses and interest payments on loans another 637.. He stated that operating expenses on the island were higher than the lower 48 states. He also said the 2,400 subscribers paid $24 a month for the basic service and $89 for the full service rate which did not include stero music. He spoke to the public concern over the recent de- letion of the MTV channel and said it was due to customer complaints. In response to Council questioning, Mr. Stevens said the additional .charge(s) for more than one television hookup per customer was due to the company's stand that the extra service was worth the extra expense. Because of the public outcry over the dele- tion of MIV, Mr. Stevens indicated he would poll the subscribers within the next • few months and, if the survey results so indicated, MN :would be reinstated. He indicated strong objections to franchising, in fact stated it was illegal, but did state the company was willing to pay a service charge for use of the City rights-of-way (as long as the charge was considered reasonable by the Alaska Public Utility Commission). A Councilnember had requested -h. Stevenslook into the rates charged by other Alaskan communities of similar size and ;dr. Stevens said it was almost impossible to draw direct parallels as each cable company had different services; e.g., in some areas the basic rate was higher while the addi- tional channels were lower and vice versa in other communities. Vickie L. (Sam) Leslie expressed concern over the deletion of ;RV without customer input. She, personally, wanted it reinstated. She said that Unalaska and Dutch Harbor, through Interior Telephone Company. subsidiary ICC11, provided ten -channel basic service for $29 per month. She felt Cablevision's rates were excessive. Jim Kennedy also wanted MW and stated it was unfair for the company to drop the music channel based on customer complaints without polling all the subscribers. He said the quality of the broadcast had deteriorated since the receiver dish antenna was changed earlier in the year. He felt the City should regulate cable television. Darlene Williams said that everyone paid higher prices for everything once they arrived in Kodiak. She said cable television was an optional service operating under the, free enterprise system. She felt the City was "picking" on Cablevision. The Mayor explained that any utility could be franchised and that, in fact, the City had franchised Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. in the past, and could do so again. Wilton White said he did not miss MN but was concerned with Cablevision's philos- ophy of arbitrarily removing it from the services offered. He questioned why the City was involved. The Mayor explained that the staff had raised the question of utility franchising and the subject grew from there. Randy Williams said he worked for Cablevision and felt the company was providing more than adequate service. He could renumber when the rural Alaska channel was the only one available and no one had any input on itsProgramming. He felt the City should not regulate private business. • Greg Stevens said the company was attempting to correct the degradation of picture quality mentioned by Mr. Kennedy. He stated that even if the company was under a franchise, the City could not regulate service rates. Councilnember Ramaglia said he was not necessarily in favor of regulation but sug- gested that if the citizens were really concerned they should contact the Alaska Public Utility Commission. A worksession to consider the public input was tenta- tively scheduled for April 9, and the staff was directed to compile information on franchising for the Council's review. There being no further testimony, the Mayor closed the public hearing. RECESS There was a short recess. rd. Board of Addusttnt Hearing RE: HillA0peal—of'the October U 1984,, Planing/ land Zoning Commission's Decision Approving Perrozzi's Request _for a Variance on 'Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Toumsite Alaska Subdivision J City Manager Cesko said the Council was sitting as the Board of Adjustment to hear an appeal filed by Tim Hill. Mr. (till was appealing the Planning & Zoning Commis- siim decision of October 17. 1984. approving Joe I'onrozzi's request for a variance 1 J 1 MARCH 14, 1985 JOU: on lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision. The hearing would begin with a presentation by the Carnality Development repartee= staff. Next, FY. Hill would present his argument. Cray the information available to the Planning & Zoning Commission at the time of its decision could be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Per KCC 17.10.060(c), only one argaent could be presented by or on behalf of each party. After hearing both parties, the Board of Adjustmnt could affirm or reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission, in whole or in part, and oust give the reasons for its decision. Dae to possible -conflicts of interest, Mayor Pugh relinquished the gavel to Deputy Mayor Ramaglia and joined the audience. Because he was an adjoining property owner, Councilmmber Brodie disqualified himself and also joined the audience. Deputy Mayor Ramaglia closed the regular meeting and opened the Board of Adjust- ment hearing. Linda Freed, Director of the Kodiak Island Borough Commnity Development Depart- ment, presented the pertinent facts produced at the hearing from which the appeal was taken and the applicable legal principles. The variance was required.. as the existing structure was non -conforming and the Borough code did not permit additions to non -conforming buildings. -At the September 19, 1984 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission gave Mr. Perrozzi permission to amend his application to include a garage. The Comnission approved his application followed by action to reconsider it at the subsequent October 17 nesting. At that meeting, the Cenmission again approved the variance, and the findings of fact were adopted at the November 21, 1985, meeting. Cotncilmenber Crowe questioned why the findings of fact did not address condition requirements (4) and (5) that mist be net before granting a variance. Ms. Freed said that she could not state for sure why they were not addressed, however, the staff would not accept an application for processing unless those two conditions were met. Corncilnwml,er Ramaglia questioned the terrain of the lot and Ms. Freed said it was steep and fronted on Cope Street. Council:member Woodruff asked how many other variances had been granted on Cope Street. Ms. Freed said only one other one for the same lot, but that two had been granted on Hillside Drive. Tim Hill, appellant, said the accessory structure was not a garage as stated on the application because it was two feet short of the dimensions necessary for a garage. lie was also concerned that the existing three off-street parking spaces be retained. • Counciluember Crowe questioned City Attorney Stephens about the possibility that item (5) of the conditions necessary for a variance had in fact not been fret. That item stated that the need for a variance may not be caused by actions of the appli- cant. Mr. Stephens said that the existing conditions listed on the application did not indicate they were caused by the applicant. Cotncilmember Woodruff MOVED, seconded by Cou cilmember Cratty, to affirm the October 17, 1984, Planning & Zoning Commission decision approving Joe Perrozzi's request for a variance on lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdi- vision, provided that the three existing off-street parking spaces were retained. CoulcilmPrter Crowe stated he was opposed to the motion as the structure was an existing non -conforming building not meeting Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.66.050 (A)(1) which neant it did not conform to KIB 17.66.0500)(5) either. Councilm®mber Crafty also spoke against the notion because it would increase the cubical content of a non -conforming building, however, he had no objection to the garage. I To correct the form of Che oxiEion; Ceuncilnember Stephan MOVED, seconded by Council- member Crowe, as a substitute notion, that the Board of Adjustment iphold.the.appeal subject to retention of the [tree_off_street_parking spaces. Rhe roll call Vote -on the mfion to substitute was Councilnembers (Tatty, cr>we;; RamagLia, and Stephan.in favor. and Councilmanber Woodruff oppgsed._.'Rte notion_! passed, j .. . The roll call 'vote on the substituted motion was Councilnenbers Cratty, Crowe, and Stephan in favor and Counciimerbers Ramaglia and Woodruff opposed. This action affirned the Planning and Zoning Commission's October 17 granting of the variance. `Couicilhanber lyodruff MOVE0. seconded"by'Councibmerber'Cratty,`to-find'that-the' variance apoli.cation was insubstantial conformance with Kodiak Island Borough ,l wu sf do U�U :tilil-ULL -inl' yii i—&ja riniutu that m-vsE Ce mimic iambs granting o T a variance had been satisfied.. _ _ _- _ _ _ - __ _ , - • Councibminber Crowe reiterated his concern about the Planning and Zoning founis- sion not addressing KIB 17.66.050(A)(1) and (5) in its findings of fact. the roll call vete-was Councibnmibers-Ramaglia and-Woddruff-in favor and Council=;- imembers Cratty,,. Crowe, and Stephan -opposed. The notion failed.__-_ The City Attorney corn rented on the failure of the prior notion, which would have established the Board of Adjustment's findings of tact, by stating that the need ao-mifor such findings was not as -important when the Board upheld the Comtdssion's decision. The Board's upholding the Commission's decision implied that the Com- mission's ssion's findings of fact were correct. RECESS There was a short recess. IV. OLD BUSINESS a. Second Reading and Public Hearing Ordinance Mather 758 BE: Amending Kodiak City Code Chapter 3.12 to Extend the Exceptions to Competitive Bidding Requirements Mayor Pugh read Ordinance Number 758 by title. City Manager Gesko said this ordi- nance was presented at Finance Director Deebel's request to amend KCC 3.12.070 by allowing the City to participate in cooperative agreements with other government units to effect cost savings on purchases. The ordinance was approved in the first reading February 28, at which time Cotncilmeaber Crowe indicated his intention to amend it by deleting subsection (d). Couucilnember Crowe IAVED, seconded by Coumcilr tuber Cratty, to approve Ordinance Number 758 in the second reading. . Mayor Pugh closed the regular meeting, opened and closed the public hearing when no one cane forward to testify, and reopened the regular nreeting. Councilmember Crowe MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Cratty, CO amend Ordinance Number 758 by deleting subsection (d). Councihtember Crewe said his major objection was to the last sentence, which uvula exempt cooperative purchases from the local bidder's preference. The roll call vote on the amendment was unanimously favorable. The roll call vote on the main motion, as amended, was tmanirrously favorable. b. First Reading. Ordinance amber 754 RE: Amending the Kodiak City Code to Pro- vide the Option of Retch -Card Voting in himicipal Elections Mayor Pugh read Ordinance Nunber 754 by title. Mr. Lesko said this ordinance was drafted following the recommendations in City Attorney Stephens' October 31, 1984, letter. Section 2.24.100 had been divided into lettered subsections and (a) was reworded to coincide with the format used by the State on its punch -card ballots, hence "Vote for not more than one" became "Vote.for one". A reference to ballot measures was also included. Subsection (b) was substantially the sane, but a pro- vision for multiple ballots was added. Subsection (c) was new and made provision for nodifying (b) in the event punch -card ballots were used. Section 2.24.160 was amended by lettering the two paragraphs and amending (a) to include references to ballot measures and path -card ballots. It remained substantially the same. Section 2.24.225 was new and self explanatory. A memorandum, dated March 7, from the City Clerk reca,,,euded arrnding this ordinance by adding a new section 1 and renumbering the subsequent sections. The appropriate aeendi g notion was provide' Following such amendment, the Clerk rem:mended passage of this ordinance and Ord nance Number 756 as the State had completely changed to push -card ballots and tc. Borough was in the process of changing this year. Ordinance Narber 754 was tabled at the January 27 meeting to allow the full Council to discuss it at the February 26 worksession. Cotncilnr„d,er Crowe 1TNED, seconded by Councilxntbe' r Ramaglia, to remove Ordinance Number 754 from the table. The roll call vote was Cotncilxnmibers Brodie, Cratty, Crowe, Panaglia, and Stephan in favor and Councibrenber lbodruff opposed. The notion passed. February 28, 1985 Tim Hill P.O. Box 2249 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Appeal of Variance Request Approval, CASE 84-108 - Perrozzi. Hill Appeal of Decision Dear Mr. Hill: The Kodiak City Council will sit as the Board of Adjustment to hear your appeal of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission's October 17, 1984, approval of Perrozzi's variance request on Dots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak To*ansite Alaska Subdivision. The appeal will be heard during the regular. City Council meeting of March 14, 1985, at 7;30 p.m..in the Borough Assembly Chambers. If you have any questions, please contact me at 486-3224. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK NARCELLA H. DA1KE, CMC City Clerk MEET/nj cc: Mayor and Council City Manager Fnrn,gh rrmrmmi.ty Development Department/ Joe Perrozzi POST OFHCE BOX 1397. KODIAK . ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Marcella Dalke, CMC City Clerk City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (901) 406.5736 February 27, 1985 Re: Appeal of Variance Request Approval, Case 84-108 (Perrozzi) Hill Appeal of Decision Dear Marcella: The Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department does not feel that it is necessary to file an additional written statement on this appeal. The record on appeal fully reflects the department's position on this case. Thank you for the opportunity to file an additional statement in opposition to this appeal. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Linda Freed Director pb cc: Case File 84-108 evaLroo February 20, 1985 Linda Freed, Director Conmun ty Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 - RE: Appeal of Variance Request Approval, CASE 84=108 - Perozzi Hill Appeal of Decision Dear Linda: The time -period for filing of the appellant's written statement ended February 12,1985. &. Hill did not choose to file any additional comments. - In accordance with Kodiak City Code 17.10.040 the Borough staff may now file a written statement in opposition to the appeal. You will have until -February 27, 1985, to si+hrn1t your statement. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELTA H. DALKE, CMC City Clerk MBD/nj POST 0FFICE BOX 1397, KODIAK , ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 January 21, 1985 Tim Hill P.O. Box 746 'Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Appeal of Variance Request Approval, CASE 84-108 - Perrozzi. Hill Appeal of Decision Dear Mr. Hill: The City of Kodiak has received the Kodiak Island Borough's RECORD ON APPEAL in response to your NOTICE OF APPEAL. It is available in uy of- fice for your review. In accordance with City Code 17.10.040 Written Statements, you may file a written statement summarizing the facts and setting forth pertinent points and authorities in support of the allegations contained in your notice of appeal not more than 15 days from the date of this letter, which shall be February 5, 1985. The bill for the three verbatim transcripts is enclosed. Please make your check payable to the Kodiak Island Borough and remit the $125.04 directly to me. We would appreciate your timely response and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELL9 DALKE, GMC City Clerk Mk3D/nj CC: City Manager Mayor and Council Borough Couuunity Development Department POST OFFICE DO)S 1397, KODIAk , ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3994 Ms. Marcella Dalke, CMC City Clerk City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Marcella: Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (907) 486-5736 January 18, 1985 Re: Case 84-108. Appeal for Approval of a Variance Request - Perrozzi., Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision First, let me apologize for taking so long to get this appeal record to you. In the past month and a half we have been short of staff and therefore we did not have the ability to prepare all the transcripts required by City Code. As requested in your letter of October 25, 1984 and required by Section 17.10.020(b) of the Kodiak City Code, enclosed is the appeal record for Case 84-108. The charge for the preparation of the three verbatim tran- scripts required for this case is $125.04. That is twelve hours of clerical time at $10.42 per hour. If you have any questions about this appeal record please contact me. LF/pm enclosures cc: Case 84-108 Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C_ - Linda Freed, Director Ms. Marcella Dalke, CMC City Clerk City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Marcella: Re: Kodiak Island Borough Case 84-108. Appeal l'errozzi. Lots 30 and Subdivision. om P.O, BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (907) 486-5736 December • 3.9-1- 44 1,--t{Gnc.4.1.04- -Tay. e cu.� ti k 0-. It F ,fi l .3L -c. c_c=„ L. k I•ti•g's. al of a ariance Reque•- - Bl. 19, Kodiak Townsi - Alaska As requested by your letter of October 25, '1984 and required by Section 17.10.020(b) of the Kodiak City Code, enclosed is the appeal record for Case 84-108. The appeal record is complete with the exception of the Planning and Zoning Commission's approved minutes for their meeting of November 21, 1984 and the verbatim transcript of the relevant portion of this meeting. At this meeting the Commission approved findings of fact for Case 84-108. The minutes for this meeting will be approved at the December 19, 1984/meeting of the Commission. ; The charge for the preparation of the verbatim transcript for the October 17, 1984 and November 21, 1984 meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission is as follows: 11.0 hours @ $10.42/hour/= $114.62 As soon as the minutes and the verba meeting are approved and completed w with the cost of preparation to your Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Linda L. Freed Director pb Attachment im of the November 21 will forward them along office. Ms. Marcella Da1ke, CMC City Clerk City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Marcella: Kodiak Island Borough P.O. Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (907) 486.5736 December 19, 1984 Re: Case 84-108. Appeal from Approval of a Variance Request 15errozzi. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision. As requested by your letter of October 25, 1984 and required by Section 17.10.020(b) of the Kodiak City Code, enclosed is the appeal record for Case 84-108. The appeal record is complete with the exception of the Planning and Zoning Commission's approved minutes for their meeting of November 21, 1984 and the verbatim transcript of the relevant portion of this meeting. At this meeting the Commission approved findings of fact for Case 84-108. The minutes for this meeting will be approved at the December 19, 1984 meeting of the Commission. The charge for the preparation of the verbatim transcript for the October 17, 1984 and November 21, 1984 meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission is as follows: 11.0 hours @ $10.42/hour = $114.62 As soon as the minutes and the verbatim of the November 21 meeting are approved and completed we will forward them along with the cost of preparation to your office. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT \�1�G Linda L. Freed Director pb Attachment .0 November 27, 1984 Mr. Joe Perrozzi Box 3696 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Perrozzi: Kodiak Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (907) 486-5736 Re: Case 84-108. Findings of fact for the approval of a variance request from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) of the Borough Code to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that increases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission at its November 21, 1984 meeting adopted as findings of fact on Case 84-108 the following: 1. All the conditions in granting a variance as specified in Chapter 17.66 (Variance) have been met. These include: A. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The lot sits above the road approximately 10 feet and is separated from the road by a retaining wall. The lot has a steep slope between Cope Street and Rezanof. B. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The house sits on the west side of the lot leaving a large vacant area east of the house. The addition is proposed for this vacant area. Although the existing structure is nonconforming, the proposed addition will meet the required front, rear, and side yard setbacks. C. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or r prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare. The addition will not be detrimental to other properties by interrupting views or encroaching into required setbacks if the height of the addition is limited. Mr. Joe Perrozzi November 27, 1984 Page Two The addition will not be detrimental to other properties by inter- rupting views or encroaching into the required setbacks. D. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed addition is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Mixed testimony at the public bearing demonstrated there was no clear consensus by the public on the proposal; 3. The proposed addition would be constructed insi3e the required setbacks; and 4. The construction of the proposed accessory building would eliminate an existing accessory building that currently encroaches onto an adjacent property. Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT dieee -144:2/ Bud Cassidy Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer pds cc: Case 84-108 Tim Hill r RI le -Family Residential to R2 -Two -Family h,ntial. (Planning and Zoning Commission) Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: JACK BUNTING spoke in opposition of this case. He felt that there was not enough density for duplexes. Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST TO REZONE Blocks 36 and 44, East Addition in accordance with Chapter 17.72 (Amendments and Changes) from R1 -Single -Family Residential to R2 -Two -Family Residential. The motion was seconded and FAILED by unanimous roll call vote. K) CASE S-84-051. Preliminary Subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision; to Lots 2A, 28, 2C, and 2D. (Gary Wilson) Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: NO COMMENTS ' COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of the subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision; to Lots 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D subject to the following conditions: 1. That signature lines be placed under the Ownership Affidavit for both owners of record. Gary K.Wilson Darlene E. Wilson; 2. That a Notary's Acknowledgment be added for the second owner, and that the owner's name be added to each's Acknowledgement; 3. That the address of the applicant be shown in the Prepared For section of the plat: P.O. Box 2297, Kodiak, AK 99615; 4. That the applicant obtain the required sanitary approval from the Alaska Department of Environment Conservation; 5. That vicinity map details be added to the plat; 6. That 10-footwide utility easements be provided along side and rear lot lines of Lots 2A, 26, and 2C; 7. That the applicant relocate the existing electrical service to Lot 2A; and 8. That the existing driveway be relocated into the flagstem of Lot 2D and constructed in accordance with Kodiak Island Borough Code Chapter 15.26. The motion was seconded and CARRIED with Commissioner Knight voting no. VII OLD BUSINESS r A) ;CASE 84-108. Reconsideration of a request for a variance from Section -17.3 .070 (General Provisions), to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that in- creases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision. (Joe Perrozzi) COMMISSIONER HILL requested and was excused due to a possible conflict of interest in Case 84-108. COMMISSIONER JAMES,MOVEU TO APPROVE AS FINDINGS OF FACT:,7 1. All the conditions in granting a variance as specified in Chapter 17.66 (Variance) have been met. These include: A. That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to its intended use Regular Meeting November 21, 1984 r development, which generally do not a - o other "properties in the same land use district. B. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. C. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare. The addition will not be detrimental to other properties by interrupting views because of the condition placed by the Commission on the approval. D. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the oh ectives of the Com.rehensive Plane 2. Mixed testimony at the public hearing demonstrated there was no clear consensus by the public on the proposal; 3. The proposed addition would be constructed inside the required setbacks; and 4. The construction of the proposed addition would eliminate an existing accessory building that currently encroaches onto an adjacent property. \The -motion w'asxseconded and CARRIED with Commissioners Anderson and B) CASE 83-133. Consideration of an appeal from an administrative decision based on a decision by The Board of Adjustment on July 26, 1984 to vacate and remand the Planning and Zoning Com- mission's decision for this case. Lot Pt. 18B, Block 2, Leite Addition, 1515 Mission Road. (Rasmus Anderson) COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE that there was a violation in Case 83-133 but because of the circumstances involved, the zoning ordinance should not be enforced. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO ADOPT AS FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Mr. Anderson's building is 18 feet in height; 2. The accessory building is 760 square feet; 3. The lot is 3,746 square feet in area; 4. Therefore, Mr. Anderson's structure violates KIBC 17.51.040 and RIBC 17.51.050; 5. A building permit was issued to Mr. Rasmus Anderson to allow construction of an accessory building on his property on 6/6/83; 6. The building permit authorized the construction of a storage shed 16'x25', a focal of 400 square feet; 7. The actual building constructed was two-story, 18 feet in height, 16'6" wide. by 25'6" long; 8. Mr. Anderson completed construction of the accessory building before discussion was brought up on the Planning and Zoning level; 9. Mr. Anderson was never informed by a responsible official during construction that his permit was invalid; 10. Mr. Anderson was never told by a zoning officer or another official responsible for enforcement of zoning ordinances that his construction could not continue; 11. Mr. Anderson did rely on the validity of the building permit to his detriment and that he did buy materials and construct the structure in reliance on that building permit; 12. Construction was completed prior to a stop work order; 13. The Commission has determined that this structure does not violate health or safety regulations or the building code. 14. In the interest of justice the zoning ordinances should not be enforced for Mr. Anderson's accessory building. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. C) CASE S-84-049. Final vacation of Lots 20A and 20B-1, Phillips resubdivision, U.B. Survey 3100; and replat to Lots 20A-1, 20A-2, 20A-3, 204-4, 20A-5, and 20B-2, Phillips Resubdivision, U.S. Survey 3100. (Nick Goossen and W. R. Heinrichs) COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL to vacation of Lots 20A and 20B-1, Phillips Resubdivision, U.S. Survey 3100; and replat to Lots 20A-1, 204-2, 20A-3, 20A-4 and 208-2, Phillips Resubdivision, Regular Meeting November 21, 1984 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ON AN APPEAL FROM A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION ON A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, LOTS 30 AND 32, BLOCK 19, KODIAK TOWNSITE ALASKA SUBDIVISION JOE PERROZZI The above-cited regular meeting was held on cNovember'�.2t C]984 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, Mr. Ken Gregg, Chairman. CERT I F I CAT E THIS IS TO CERTIFY: That the regular meeting in the matter of: AN APPEAL FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, LOTS 30 AND 32, BLOCK 19, KODIAK TOWNSITE SUBDIVISION JOE PERROZZI was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Pamela Barr, Secretary III Page 2 Case 84-108 Verbatim PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH STAFF Commission: KEN GREGG, CHAIRMAN FRED PATTERSON STEVE RENNELL TIM HILL DAN JAMES MARLIN KNIGHT MIKE ANDERSON Staff: LINDA FREED, Director, Community Development Department BUD CASSIDY, Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer, Community Development Department DAVE CROWE, Borough Engineer, Engineering Department PATTY SPENCER, Secretary, Community Development Department Page 3 Case 84-108 Verbatim PROCEED I N G S CHAIRMAN GREGG: Old Business. Item A. Case 84-108, Findings of Fact for approval of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.070 to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that increases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GREGG: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: I move that in Case 84-108 we approve the Findings of Facts submitted by the Couuuunity Development Department. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN GREGG: I.. Do we want to mention anything pertaining to our condition that it not exceed 14 feet in height? It was one of the reasons that we reconsidered it. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Are you willing to add that as a fifth condition in my motion or the fifth Finding of Fact? COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I won't second it, then. CHAIRMAN GREGG: You won't second it then? COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I stated my opposition with uh.. the um.. idea that this was um.. had anything with interrupting views was the reason for this thing being approved or disapproved, in my mind. Um.. I don't want that to be a criteria. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Mr. Patterson. Page 4 Case 84-108 Verbatim COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Wasn't this a uh.. wasn't that 14 foot condition passed originally, last time, or are we just now looking just at Findings of Fact? CHAIRMAN GREGG: Yes. No, we're not putting conditions on it, because I was saying that uh.. I don't know, I would.. it was a consideration, but then again I'd have to.. have to agree with Marlin that it wasn't perhaps a finding that.. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Well, it is a finding. It doesn't necessarily have to be one that you agree with, just as long as somebody else on the Commission felt that way. Uh.. you could only agree with two of these findings if you wanted, but they are findings that, between all of us on the Commission, we came up with, but um.. I don't know.. I understand. MS. FREED: I think the point being made is that under Item C of the Findings of Fact it could just be um.. illustrated a little bit better by saying the addition will not be detrimental to other property by interrupting views because of the condition placed by the Commission on the approval. It could be extended to say that, rather than saying that,that was another Finding of Fact, that's one of the reasons that, that finding there comes into place because you could, in fact, place that condition on it. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: So move. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Is there a second? ??: Second. CHAIRMAN GREGG: May we have a roll call vote please? MS. SPENCER: Mr. James. Page 5 Case 84-108 Verbatim COMMISSIONER MS. SPENCER: COMMISSIONER MS. SPENCER: COMMISSIONER MS. SPENCER: COMMISSIONER MS. SPENCER: COMMISSIONER JAMES: Yes. Mr. Knight. KNIGHT: Yes. Mr. Patterson. PATTERSON: Yes. Mr. Rennell. RENNELL: Yes. Mr. Anderson. ANDERSON: I wasn't here. I.. I'm sorry, not all that sure what's going on. I'I1 abstain. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Gregg. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: Abstain. MS. SPENCER: Motion carried. Page 6 Case 84-108 Verbatim KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MEM 0 R A N D U M DATE: November 14, 1984 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Departmen SUBJ: Information for the November 21, 1984 Regular Meeting ITEM VII(A) RE: CASE 84-108. Findings of fact for the approvalof a variance request from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) of the Borough Code to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that increases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Sub- division. (Joe Perrozzi) The Planning and Zoning Commission first heard this request at its Sep- tember 19, 1984 regular meeting. The request was approved but was later voted to reconsider at the October 17, 1984 regular meeting. The request was again approved at the October meeting. Because of the chance the Commission's approval would be appealedf. to the City Council, the Commission directed Staff to prepare findings of fact for the November 21, 1984 regular meeting. The following findings of fact were derived from comments made by the Com- missioners at the October meeting. Findings of Fact 1. All the conditions in granting a variance as specified in Chapter 17.66 (Variance) have been met. These include: A. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The lot sits above the road approximately 10 feet and is separated from the road by a retaining wall. The lot has a steep slope between Cope Street and Rezanof. B. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The house sits on the west side of the lot leaving a large vacant area east of the house. The addition is proposed for this vacant area. Although the existing structure is nonconforming, the proposed addition will meet the required front, rear, and side yard setbacks. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to.other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare. The addition will not be detrimental to other properties by interrupting views or encroaching. into required setbacks if the height of the addition is limited. The addiiton will not be detrimental to other properties by inter- rupting views or encroaching into the required setbacks. D:. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed addition is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Mixed testimony at,the public hearing demonstrated there was no clear consensus by the public on the proposal; 3. The proposed addition would be constructed inside the required setbacks; and 4. The construction of the proposed accessory building would eliminate an existing accessory building that currently encroaches onto an adjacent property. Case 84-108 November 14, 1984 October 25, 1984 Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island -Borough -710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Case 84-108. Appeal from Approval of. Variance Request - Perozzi, Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision Dear Linda: - - Timothy Hill bas filed, an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Cotnmission's October 17, 1984, approval of the referenced variance_ application. Please prepare the record on appeal as required by Kodiak City Code -sub -- section 17.10.020(b). - Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELL4 DALKE, CMC City Clerk NHD/ms cc: Joe Perrozzi Mickie Miller, CMC - Mayor and Councilmembers City Manager POST OFFICE BOX 1397, WODIAI(. ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 9YLe.m4 22-ty )) _ 16-4-� ,.yr— rittro talui-*r-f;i0d 4 €gyp i/c+ . 70 v4c -batife_S _ c-.�.Q4_ �`t.�ti` �c ' • 6 �h.r�' �c �• , :kb . CL(.L d+� A _Atuct 41,-- /Ler(,edz Lai /14-r. A _ - Yirn a u 1,Q yrn. Fafrpet electwr:-Ltata( _710 l.Lk41-1 60_ ca� G -n e & &cA,/_-Ont -r- a, caw. �z ar��L m rzcL a-- fr- .--c O . .(4tC t -.,.4i,c) .a cA4._-)J �vn�i-n-r o- t man. C� -4>tc.-c te., Lo -L 2. L4:— G.4 G _ALVWCV __6(e• (ntelithcltAntel dva_ _VO4? • _Vec.4 errt-r1/4-t-a7 "71-0 atr_ ad atArtZtig e _ 46,,i-eitAr r -- L cLawwr4r rt tt ;La \1t/3c_&14zec__Aaca4--ct vninczttylom-r-c--,1, Jo• ttc;‘-)._eAda-c;a_47-./La-i,ru ads,- _tk_ri ,4ca?a-a/v.-cat-tin rirtt-t-e-d_ht4 14,L,na _ raze& X-fnetaLet-c-ittfay_ oie adarg-a-e, - fte4c_ deo_ t/114-1"4tL ve we's_ Eizt,fr-c. _ant ratai4) . • October 18, 1984 Mr. Joe Perrozzi P. 0. Box 3696 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Perrozzi: Kodiak ,Island Borough P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.1246 PHONE (907) 486-5736 Re: Case 84-108. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions), to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwell- ing on the east side that increases the cubic content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission at its October 17, 1984 meeting made the following motion: "Move to approve a variance from Section 17.36.070 of the Borough Code for Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision to permit a fourteen (14) foot by fifteen (15) foot addition to the east side and sixteen (16) foot by eighteen (18) foot garage addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling that will increase the cubical content of the structure, subject to a height limitation of fourteen (14) feet total." Findings of fact on this case will be formalized at the November meeting. This action becomes final ten (10) days following the Commission's decision to allow any aggrieved party the opportunity to appeal this decision to the City Council. A variance also remains effective for a period of twelve months and will be cancelled if not utilized during this time period. Please bring this letter with you when applying for your building permit. Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Bud Cassidy Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer pds cc: Case 84-108 Tim Hill KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING - COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - October 17, 1984 7:30 p.m. MINUTES I CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Gregg on October 17, 1984 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. II ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Ken Gregg, Chairman Tim Hill Dan James Marlin Knight Steve Rennell Fred Patterson Virginia Crowe III APPROVAL OF AGENDA Others Present: Bud Cassidy, Assistant Planner/ Zoning Officer, Community Development Department Dave Crowe, Borough Engineer Engineering Department Patty Spencer, Secretary Community Development Department COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. IV MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: COMMISSIONER KNIGHT requested deleting the extra "and" on page 2, and changing "denied" to "deny". COMMISSIONER HILL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES of September 19, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission as amended. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V APPEARANCE REQUESTS AND AUDIENCE COMMENTS A) Don Rounsaville - Request for finding by the Commission under Section 17.36.050 of the Borough Code. Mr. Rounsaville, representing Mr. Ernest Edwards, is in the process of selling Mr. Edwards' property located at U.S. Survey 3099, Lot 23B. He requested that the Commission make a finding that a refrigeration and appliance repair shop is equally appropriate or more appropriate to ' the district than the existing nonconforming use. COMMISSIONER CROWE MOVED TO MAKE A FINDING that a refrigeration and appliance repair shop is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming bus storage building and vehicle repair shop located on Lot 23B, U.S. Survey 3099; with the condition that before related outside storage is allowed, Staff review and approve the storage plan. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. B) Audience Comments JOB PERROZZL ekplained to the Commission why he felt his request for a --variance-should be heard under New Business rather than Old Business. He expressed concerns about delaying this decision any longer, stating that delays were creating a hardship as the winter months approach. DOUG BABROCK, adjacent property owner, stated that he has no objection to this variance request as long as the legal requirements were met. COMMISSIONER HILL requested and was excused from sitting with the Commission at this time. TIM HP. idjacent property owner, stated he doesn't aa.ee with any- thing Mr. Perrozzi has done. He talked with all the property owners and found that none of them had been contacted by Mr. Perrozzi in regards to their opinion of his garage. He feels that Mr. Perrozzi is a detriment to the neighborhood. VI PUBLIC HEARINGS A) CASE 84-119. Larsen Bay Comprehensive Plan (Community Development Department) Staff had no additional comments. Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: NO COMMENTS Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: COIRIISSIONER CROWE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly the City of Larsen Bay Comprehensive Development and Capital Improvement Plan to be adopted by resolution and amend Chapter 17.02 Comprehensive Plan of the Borough Code to include this plan. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. B) CASE 84-120. Ouzinkie Comprehensive Plan (Planning and Zoning Commission) Staff had no additional comments. Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: DUKE DELGADO, Vice -President Ouzinkie City Council, stated that the city of Ouzinkie was happy with this plan and recommended approval. Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: COMMISSIONER HILL MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly the City of Ouzinkie Comprehensive Development and Capital Improvement Plan to be adopted by resolution and amend Chapter 17.02 Comprehensive Plan of the Borough Code to include this plan. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. C) CASE 84-121. Capital Improvement Program, 1985-1990 Roads Priority. (Kodiak Island Borough) No additional information from Staff. Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: NO COMMENTS COMMISSIONER CROWE MOVED TO ACCEPT the Kodiak Island Boro Improvement Program for the Road Priorities as was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call h C ita presented. The motion vote. D) CASE 84-117. Request to rezone the remaining portion of Tract 'G', U.S. Survey 444 from R3 -Multi -Family Residential to B -Business in accordance with Chapter 17.72 (Amendments and Changes). Generally located on upper Alder Lane behind the Kodiak Mirror office. (Russian Orthodox Church) Staff had no additional comments. Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: FATHER JOSEPH KRETA stated that business property in the downtown area is in short supply and there is a limited amount of space that you can increase the business zoning in that area. He feels that no development in the downtown area would be conducive without increased traffic flow adding to congestion and driving hazards. The Church didn't realize that the Tract wasn't all zoned Business. It Regular Meeting October 17, 1984 3. ,„< the spelling Gammen be corrected in thf".� -.±pared for" section of the plat; 4. That a ten -foot -wide utility easement be placed along the westerly boundary of Lots 3A and 3D; 5. That the applicant coordinate any relocation of KEA facilities necessitated by the proposed excavation; and 6. That the applicant obtain permission from the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for any excavation within the Otmeloi Way right-of-way. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. H) CASE S-84-049. Preliminary vacation and replat of Lots 20A and 203-I, U.S. Survey 3100; to Lots 20A-1 through 20A-5 and Lot 203 -IA, U.S. Survey 3100. (Nick Goossen - W. R. Heinrichs) The Engineering Department had no further information. Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: WILLIE HEINRICHS spoke in favor of granting approval of thio subdivision. SCOTT ARNDT expressed that the Service District was concerned about the road. The code states that roads will be a minimum of sixty (60) feet wide, and currently the road is only thirty (30) feet wide. He understands that it is proposed to bring the road to forty- five (45) feet wide and at some time in the future take an additional fifteen (15) feet off the other unsuhdividod Iot. He feels that the road should be laid out now at sixty (60) feet and not create a substandard road in the beginning. TONY PEREZ had no objections to replatting, but he is concerned about the road. He feels that a thirty (30) foot wide road through this small subdivision is more than adequate. DAN MERRIGAN stated that he was not opposed to this subdivision, but he doesn't feel there is a need for a sixty (60) foot road. MIKE OLSON, property owner, wasn't aware that he would have a choice in the width of the road. He would prefer to have the thirty (30) foot wide road. LARRY GRABER concurred with the previous testimonies. Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: COMMISSIONER HILL MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval for the vacation and replat of Lots 20A and 20B-1, U.S. Survey 3100; to Lots 20A-1 through 20A-5 and Lot 20B -1A, U.S. Survey 3100 subject to the following conditions: 1. That Lot 20A-2 be revised to widen the Bunnell Way right-of-way to sixty (60) feet and that a curved right-of-way with a minimum radium of seventy-five (75) feet be provided while still meeting the 7,200 square foot lot area requirement; 2. That Lot 20A-1 be revised to widen the Bunnell Way to right-of- way to forty-five (45) feet and to accommodate the required change to Lot 20A-2; 3. That the title block be changed to show that this is a vacation of Lot 20B-1, not 20B, and that the replat is to Lot 2082, not 20B-1* 4. That a covenant be placed on the final plat stating that Lots 20A -I, 20A-2, 20A-4, and 20A-5 will be included In a future improvement district for the improvement of existing Bunnell Way; S. That construction plans and specifications for road and utility improvements be submitted for approval by Che Bnrough Engineer, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Utilities; and 6. That signature lines and Notary's Acknowledgments be provided with owners' names as follows: Regular Meeting October 17, 1984 20A Nick Goosen Lot 20B-1 Olga Goosen Chester Nagel Carol Hegel. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. I) CASE S-84-050. Preliminary vacation and replat of Lots 16. 17. and 18, U.S. Survey 3101; to Lots 1 through 15, Block 1, U.S. Survey 3101. (Anthony Perez). There was no additional information. Regular Session closed: Public Nearing opened: TONY PEREZ spoke in favor of preliminary vacation and replat. He felt that Item 62 of the 10/9/84 memo from the Engineering Department, referring to the name of the portion of Tona Circle, should be deleted. Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: For the record, Mr. Crowe read a letter dated 10/4/84 from Nick Coarsen, Chet Hegel, Knox Christie, and Donald Erdman stating that they were in favor of extending Bunnell Way northward along the newly installed sewer with a sixty (60) foot right-of-way following the sewer easement. COMMISSIONER RENNELL MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval for the vacation and replat of Lots 16, 17, and 18, U.S. Survey 3101; to Lots 1 through 15, Block 1, U.S. Survey 3101 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the title block be changed to show a subdivision name in addition to the vacation and replat data; 2. That the name of the portion of Tona Circle which coincides with the future extension of Bunnell Way be changed to Bunnell Way in accordance with KI8 Sections 16.16.02001 and 16.20.010; 3. That the name of the portion of Tona Circle adjacent to Lot ISA be changed to a name of local or Alaskan historical note in accordance with K1B Section 16.16.020D.1; 4. That the proposed roadway be shifted so that the right-of-way coincides with the boundary of Lot 15A and the existing sewer manhole is on the extended centerline of the portion of the roadway which crosses Lots 16, 17, and 18; 5. That a roadway easement to be provided across Lots 9 and 10 for the possible future extension of Bunnell Way to serve Lot 19, U.S. Survey 3101; and 6. That roadway and utility construction plans be submitted to the Borough Engineer for review prior to or with the final plat. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. VII OLD BUSINESS A) CASE 84-108. jReconsideration of a request for a variance from "'- Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions), to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that in- creases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision. (Joe Perrozzi) COMMISSIONER HILL requested and was excused due to a possible conflict of interest in Case 84-108. COMMISSIONER CROWE ROVED TO TABLE THE MOTION of 9/19/84 'to approve a variance from Section 17.36.070 of the Borou:h Code for Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision, to permit and addition on the east side of a nonconformin, two-famil d increase the cubical content of the structure with thechanges stated by Mr. Perrozzi on the evening of 9/19/84'. The motion was seconded and FAILED with Commissioners Crowe and Rennell voting Yes, and Commissioner Hill abstaining. Regular Meeting October 17, 1984 COMMISS] HILL MOVED TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL of tl,_ ration of a portion dr Spruce Street, Lots 7 through 9 of Block 8, and Lots 2 through 4 of Block 9, and repiat to Tract J; and subdivision of an unsubdivided portion of Tract E, creating Lots 1 and 2 of Block 11, Lots 1 throuyit 8 of Block 12 Elderberry Street and the extension of Third Street; all within Old Harbor Townsite, U.S. Survey 4793, Alaska. The motion was seconded and CARRIED with Commissioner Knight abstaining. G) CASE 5-84-032. Sitkalidak Strait View Subdivision, Old Harbor Townsite: a portion of Tract E, U.S. Survey 4793, creating a park tract, Lots 1 through 8 of Block 1, Lots I through 10 of Block 2, Sitkalidak Drive and the extension of Elderberry Street. (Kodiak Island Housing Authority) COMMISSIONER CROWE MOVED TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL of Sitkalidak Strait View Subdivision, Old Harbor Townsite; a portion of Tract E, U.S. 4793, creating a park tract, Lots 1 through 8 of Block 1, Lots 1 through 10 of Block 2, Sitkalidak Drive and the extension of Elderberry Street with the following corrections to be made: 1. The Vicinity Map needs to be revised to show clearl the location of .this subdivision with relation to Old Harbor. 2. The Legal Description needs to be revised to define by metes and bounds the exterior boundary of the subdivision, in accordance with KIB 16.16.02011. 3. Provide slope easements on the final plat as necessary for for the construction of Elderberry. In addition, the following items need to be completed before the final plat is recorded: 1. Utility construction pious must be submitted for approval by the Borough Engineer and ADEC. 2. Final roadway construction plans must be submitted for approval by the Borough Engineer. 3. State Plane Coordinates be shown on the final plat for all primary subdivision monuments in accordance with KIR 16.16.020C. The motion was seconded and CARRIED unanimous roll call vote with Commissioner Knight abstaining. VIII NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. IX COMMUNICATIONS A. COMMISSIONER CROWE MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of Case 83-133, Rasmus Anderson, Record on Appeal. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. B. Mr. Cassidy explained the'review of Timber Harvest on Marmot Island is for consistency with Borough Code and the Coastal Management Program. COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED THAT TIIE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ADOPT the viewpoint of voicing ob eclion to the lo In of Marmot Island. The motion was seconded and CARRIEII with Commissioner Patterson voting no. COMMISSIONER CROWE MOVE TO REFER THIS ITEM to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly noting that the subject proposal appears to be consistent with the Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Code and with the Kodiak Island Borou:h Coastal Mana.ement Pro_ram sub ect to the following policies: 1. Sustained Yield; and 2. Habitat Protection. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. X REPORTS There were no reports. Regular Meeting October 17, 1984 XI AUDLENI ., IMENTS TOM PETERSON introduced himself and informed the Commissioners that he looked forward to working with them this upcoming year, and supported them in their efforts in their duties as Planning and Zoning Commissioners. He stated that his personal agenda as Borough Mayor, in order to support this Commission, as well as other advisory boards and committees to the Borough, is to assist in the developments in regards to updating the comprehensive plan, developing a Borough land management program; things that will help them in the long run to keep up with consistency in planning and zoning for the community. SCOTT ARNDT expressed ill feelings on two of the subdivisions. He doesn't agree with the proposal to connect Bunnell Way and carry it on down to Mr. Perez's property; he doesn't believe the Borough should try to force this subdivision on different people who may not want it. He also does not concur with the way the road is going to be widened, taking fifteen feet now, and another fifteen feet from another subdivision later. TONY PEREZ doesn't feel that he has to supply access to anyone else's subdivisions but his own; and he objects to being told he has to move his lot line for a road that doesn't even exist. He feels that Mr. Christie should also contribute to the widening of Bunnell. Way. Mt. Perez believes that Tons Circle is a historical name, and wants proof if it isn't historically correct. TIM HILL commented on Case 84-108 (Joe Perrozzi).1 claiming that the addition will -"interrupt° views; it Cook away 5GZ of his view, devalued his property and is detrimental to the hillside. X11 COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS The Commissioners expressed their pleasure in working with Mrs. Crowe for the past several years. XIII ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN GREGG adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. ATTEST BY KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE APPROVED: Ken Gregg, Cha Regular Meeting -ID- October 17. 1984 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ON AN APPEAL FROM A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION ON A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, LOTS 30 AND 32, BLOCK 19, KODIAK TOWNSITE ALASKA SUBDIVISION JOE PERROZZI The above-cited regular meeting was held oneOdtober 17; 198-4' 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, Mr. Ken Gregg, Chairman. r - THIS IS TO CERTIFY: Page 2 CERT I F I CAT E That the regular meeting in the matter of: AN APPEAL FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, LOTS 30 AND 32, BLOCK 19, KODIAK TOWNSITE SUBDIVISION JOE PERROZZI was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ZvAY Pamela Barr, Secretary III Case 84-108 Verbatim PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH STAFF Commission: KEN GREGG, CHAIRMAN STEVE RENNELL VIRGINIA CROWE DAN JAMES TIM HILL MARLIN KNIGHT FRED PATTERSON Staff: BUD CASSIDY, Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer Community Development Department DAVE CROWE, Borough Engineer,Engineering Department PATTY SPENCER, Acting Secretary, Community Development Department Page 3 Case 84-108 Verbatim PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any other appearance requests or audience comments? Mr. Perrozzi. MR. PERROZZI: Yes, uh.. at the last regular meeting I had a variance request for putting an addition off the side of my house, and there was some discrepancy as to what the actual height would be and what the conditions were, and the request was granted at that time and there was no objection er.. evidently there was no objection, and at the end of the meeting, I guess one Commissioner who didn't have an opportunity to speak at that time, voiced an objection, and uh.. it was tabled. Uh.. I don't really have.. didn't have any problem with the tabling because I think it should have been clear as to what was going to be done. I cleared up those facts with uh.. the staff over here, and there's a favorable staff recommendation for this request. Uh.. I missed the packet review because I was out of town. I regret that. And now I see it's under old business, whereas my feeling would be it should be on there for new business and should be on a vote either yay or nay on this issue. To table it again is going to be a further inconvenience to me and a considerable hardship. Uh.. it's going to push it past further into winter where I cannot work on it. I mentioned at the last meeting.. regular meeting that my service panel.. electrical service panel is exposed outside. This is.. this addition was part of the house at one time, was torn down when work had begun, and was planned to put back on. Obviously, there was.. at that time there was.. Page 4 Case 84-108 Verbatim I was on an understanding there was no need for a variance to put this back up. But my reason for speaking now is that I would like this to be.. um.. this variance to be passed and approved and voted on and not tabled. Uh.. at the last time I was here it was approved and um.. the setbacks were going to be met and that seemed to be all that needed to be said. So I kind of feel um.. that, you know, everything's being done behind my back or after I'd already left when there was a fact, and you wanted to get more audience or more neighborhood input into it, but you're not really making any effort to get any more neighborhood input into it. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Excuse me, Mr. Perrozzi. Uh.. I was just wondering, we might clarify that this wasn't a tabling. It was a motion to reconsider, which is the prerogative of the Commission. Uh.. it is on the agenda, and I think it could be discussed at that time. Um.. should probably have.. I'm not an attorney.. could tell you what reconsideration means, but in my mind is that the motion that was originally made is still in effect. I believe it was in your favor. The motion to recon- sider just allows the Commission an opportunity to just do that --reconsider the facts at the next agenda meeting, and um.. it's basically the only legal um.. ability we do have. We had to make a decision that evening uh.. to reconsider it or else forever hold our peace. So uh.. from the Commission's stand- point, it was our legal prerogative to make that motion, and I don't believe it's really had any effect on your particular uh,.. Page 5 Case 84-108 Verbatim MR. PERROZZI: No, I understand, you know, the reconsidera- tion aspect of it, and, like I said, I told Bud I agree with that and uh.. you should.. if you want to reconsider or look into it that's fine, but you have to have some determination as to what you're using for your reasons for reconsidering, I guess, would be my point. Whether it's reconsidering or tabling, you know, um.. basically it's kind of either a yay or a nay, and what are you looking for tor, you know, more facts, and since you are reconsidering, you have to have a reason or why that you're reconsidering, and um.. I think there was some discussion that there was not enough neighborhood input that the.. what was published was not giving adequate information to the neighborhood to respond and that they wanted a little more input into it, or, you know, perhaps some other reasons, and, you know, I think the thing is getting a little out of.. going a little overboard because it is creating a hardship because if you do continue to reconsider, reconsider, reconsider, it's taking a month each time uh.. and that doesn't leave me in a very good situation. If it was June or July it would be different, but now we're into October going into November. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Okay, as I understand the.. there may have been multiple reasons for reconsideration. Uh.. the primary reason as I recall was to get more input from you, and just for the Commission, Mr. Perrozzi asked how he could add input to this, and seeing as how it was not under a public hearing, I did suggest that he uh.. speak under audience comments. I do feel it Page 6 Case 84-108 Verbatim is an appropriate time to address it, seeing as how it is not open to a public hearing. You had a question? COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Is it uh.. procedure correct for a member of the audience to request a uh.. rescinding a decision by the Commission and then have it placed back into old business? MR. CASSIDY: I'm not well versed at Robert's Rules of Order, but uh.. it would be up to the Commission to decide if they want to reconsider that request. Uh.. I don't know if it does make a difference who initiated the comment, either someone from the audience or someone.. someone up at the table there. But the fact was the Commission did move to reconsider. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: I notice that I was not at that particular meeting, and I notice that uh.. Mr. Hill had uh.. excused due to possible conflict, but he was the one that requested it to be reconsidered, and I'm wondering if we don't have a problem right there. CHAIRMAN GREGG: I would rule that even if a member of the audience were to point out uh.. a potential conflict or an error or something in one of the Commission's actions they could point it out and could get permission to decide whether or not to reconsider. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Okay, because that was not brought out in the notes. MR. CASSIDY: Right. I believe it's the Commission's prerogative to address it if they want it or not. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Anything further, Mr. Perrozzi? Page 7 Case 84-108 Verbatim MR. PERROZZI: Well, that's essentially it. I'd like to get some feedback from you on it, you know. Like I say, I didn't have no objection to you reconsidering, and if you want to look at some things more closely that's fine. You should look at it very closely, but you shouldn't take sixty -ninety days to do it and hold somebody up in the process. Now Tim knows he had an opportunity to speak at the last regular meeting and he chose not to do so, and I personally thought he was going to say something, and when he didn't I thought his silence was a statement of that he went along with it. I thought he excused himself so he could talk, and when he didn't say nothing I was, you know, as much aghast as anybody else. So, who knows why he didn't talk, but uh.. and, you know, reconsideration's fine, but when you're holding someone up, it is a cause for concern. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Well, I just wanted to comment. I guess you are under an appeal right now still with the City, so under the other variance request, so I'm not sure.. is that really a hold up? MR. PERROZZI: Well, I don't think uh.. the other variance request is something pretty much on a different level, and, you know, if that's a part of the reconsideration, then you'd almost have to say, as far as I'm concerned, you know, then.. uh.. make some type of determination well after that appeal is heard, then it's either yay or nay because then you're, you know.. what bearing that will have on your request or your vote, I can't see where it would have. It is a separate issue. Page 8 Case 84-108 Verbatim r MS. CROWE: Well, to to the cubical content original variance request appeal that, which, of Council. Um.. and now cubical uh.. increase. MR. PERROZZI: Only to me, you were denied the except by changing the before us, and you have course, ability to add roof in your chosen to uh.. is your right, to the City you're coming back with replace what was an additional there before, and.. but they're different findings of facts in regards to this. other findings of facts were different compared to this. You what I'm saying? You're using other findings of facts, so The see you cannot er.. evidently you're not using the same ones to recon- sider this one. Whether that appeal.. I don't see where that's going to have any bearing issue. on what is done I think it's clouded it. on this particular COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Well, in the minds of a lot of the Commissioners that that particular appeal, since it's so closely related, has not been decided upon has clouded, and that's where the reconsideration has come in. MR. PERROZZI: Okay, perhaps maybe you'd feel more comfor- table saying that, you know, after this.. then um.. upon the appeal being heard at the City Council this request will be granted or denied. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I think that's what we're going to look at tonight. Page 9 Case 84-108 Verbatim MR. PERROZZI: Well, you see you put it under old business which means it's basically closed to public testimony, so this is why I had to get up at this time to speak. So.. ??: I do have one question. That is your original request as advertised last week was to replace the entry, whatever it was, that you'd had removed in preparing or in previous construction. Uh.. the motion, and I was looking for it here, that was made was based on the modified request at that meeting to build a garage, and reconsideration was to nail down your plans a little more specific before we.. Would you prefer that you be granted a variance to replace what was there and not increase the size of that anymore, or to go with with your modified request of the garage? MR. PERROZZI: Okay, well, the reason at the last meeting where I did bring up that modified request was because, you know, I don't really care to be beating a path back here, and since I'm doing a considerable amount of work up there in improvements, I'd like to get it all done at one time. Now, by.. evidently the garage can be put on without a variance as long as it's not attached to the main structure. It'd be a lot more convenience to attach it and put that on then to not and to leave two feet or a foot or whatever they want in between that and the house. That's up to you. It's, you know, I almost.. If you're asking me what I want or what you're going to go with yourselves, I don't see where it would make any bit of difference to attach it as to not attach it. This is what I talked over with Bud and.. as to what, you know, what was required, what needed a variance, and Page 10 Case 84-108 Verbatim what did not. So, I answered your question --I'd rather go with the specific request that we've got on there now, which is clarified, which has the height limitations, which does meet setback requirements, and the only part that needs the variance is for the cubical content. And, you know, I may add prior to this other situation with cubical content, you know, you must realize that cubical content has never been an issue before this Commission before ever. There's never been a variance request for increase of cubical content in Kodiak as far as anybody can remember. Something totally unique to me and my situation. So, you know, to basically replace what's there, you have to look at what, you know, what you're doing to the situation, what type of input is there, and so forth. You know, I've put a lot of time and effort into getting neighborhood input into the situation which has been favorable. Um.. you know, and I think if we hadn't ran that last thing through a special meeting, we would have had more input, everybody could have had a better look at what the situation was. Uh.. I begged Bud and I begged them down there to take a look at this thing before anybody gets, you know, way out of hand, before we start digging trenches, and start slinging mud. That wasn't my objective. There was some detriment done to me, and evidently Mr. Hill felt there was detriment done to him, which I don't deny, but we were not able to bring it out in the light and try to solve the problem, and before things get out of hand on this, I'd like to get the thing settled. Thank you. Page 11 Case 84-108 Verbatim CHAIRMAN GREGG: Anyone else wishing to speak under Audience Comments? MR. BABROCK: My name's Doug Babrock. I'm a neighbor of Tim's and of Joe's, and I don't know all the details on why the permit was issued in the first place, but if in fact everything meets the legal requirements, although I am losing part of my view, that's the way the law is stated, I have no objection to what Joe is doing. I'm not going to fight on the grounds that he's blocking my view if he's meeting the legal requirements. And, in regards to the garage specifically, I have no objection to the garage. And that's about all I have to say unless you have any questions of me. ??: Uh.. Mr. Babrock. Have you heard any negative comments from the other people in the neighborhood with regard to Mr. Perrozzi adding onto the side of his building? MR. BABROCK: Well, the one other property that is most directly affected, the fellow that owns that house is mostly gone. But apparently Joe's talked to him and he has given support. That's uh.. what the heck's that guy's name? Woodley. Mike Woodley. And Tim and I are probably the people most directly affected by it. And uh.. I personally would just as soon see him complete the project and clean the place up and get it all sealed up before the winter comes in and it's just going to lay like that all winter long. And as I say, if it's all legal, now I don't know because I haven't sat with the people at the Borough here. I haven't looked at their requirements. I've never heard of anything like this cubic content deal before, but Page 12 Case 84-108 Verbatim if, you know, if it's legal, I have no objection to it on any grounds. I'd do the same, I imagine, if I was in his position. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILL: I'd like to be excused to speak under Audience Comments. CHAIRMAN GREGG: So excused. COMMISSIONER HILL: My name is Tim Hill. I'm an adjacent property owner, and at.. last month uh.. we, the Commission, I understood, would more than likely go ahead and table this situation because of the prior situation and so I made no comment during the public hearing, and then Mr. Perrozzi comes up and he wants- a garage, and, you know, I'm really tired of doing battle with Mr. Perrozzi. I don't agree with anything that he's done. Uh.. he made a comment that he had gone around and asked all the property owners uh.. that said 'I'm going to put up this garage. Do you have any problem with it?' And I went around the.. and they all said 'No, no problem. Great for the neighborhood, looks beautiful.' So, I went around the next morning and I contacted all the neighbors, all the property owners, and talked to two of them till later on that evening, and Mr. Perrozzi hadn't asked one of them about his garage.. if they cared about his garage. Not one. So um.. you know, I was a little put out of Mr. Perrozzi here, and we're supposed to .be.. the idea of the nonconforming lots.. nonconforming structures is to safeguard them and not to increase them and to.. you can go ahead and uh.. put new roofs on, reside them, and put new foundations in, but uh.. not to go ahead and increase the cubical content and Page 13 Case 84-108 Verbatim eventually those structures are going to die out, you know. Those are all like 3,000 3,500 square foot lots up there. A few of them now are 5,000. The ones behind Mr. Perrozzi are probably about 1,500 or 2,000 and when you got.. when you keep increasing cubical content, all you're going to do is uh.. abut the buildings side by side or, you know, impact the area, and he feels that by putting a garage on --I don't know how he'll get into this garage --but um.. by putting on this garage it'll look really nice. The question has never been brought up except when I made the audience comment about reconsideration because he does have a duplex and if he wants to meet with all these conformities by having his garage meet all the setbacks and that.. nothing was ever brought up about his two off-street parking, which would be then required for his apartment. In other words, he'd have to have four off-street parking spaces on his little 3,600 square foot lot. So, if we're going to bring him up to conformity, I think we ought to bring him up to conformity all the way, if that's what the Commission is going to do. Uh.. I feel he's a real detriment to the neighborhood. Uh.. he brings in maybe a neighbor or so, but I know a couple of other neighbors.. they just don't care because it hasn't affected them yet, but, you know, if the third story is allowed, you know, if you've got enough space to meet your setbacks, you allow a garage, fine. You know, it's going to be a big domino effect up there, and the whole hillside will then be impacted and everybody's going to take away from everybody else. Page 14 Case 84-108 Verbatim CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any questions? Do we allow this to get into a full-scale debate? Okay, very briefly. MR. PERROZZI: You know, I believe Mr. Hill's a bit of a dichotomy himself. You know, he's constructed an addition onto his own house, even though yet he sits there and tells you that we're not to increase the cubical content of our own. COMMISSIONER RENNELL: That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. MR. PERROZZI: It's got everything to do with what we're talking about because we're talking about additions to noncomforming structures. He added to his own nonconforming structure and neither did he get a building permit nor a variance. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Okay. MR. PERROZZI: You know, if the law is for one person, .it's for everybody, not just PAZ Commissioners. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any other audience comments? OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN GREGG: Case 84-108, reconsideration of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.070, permitting an addition to a nonconforming family dwelling on the east side that increases the cubical content of the structure, Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision. COMMISSIONER HILL: Mr. Chairman, I have to abstain. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Ms. Crowe, one thing I do want to point out that there is a motion from the table, a motion in consideration. Page 15 Case 84-108 Verbatim I would like to restate the motion. It is moved to approve a variance from Section 17.36.070 of the Borough Code for Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision, to permit an addition to the east side of a nonconforming two-family dwelling that will increase the cubical content of the structure with the changes stated by Mr. Perrozzi on the evening of September 19, 1984. Any discussion on the motion? There is a motion under consideration. I move to reconsider. that motion. And that is where we are right now. We have a motion on the floor. MS. CROWE: Mr. Chairman, I move to table that motion. ??: Second. CHAIRMAN GREGG: May we have a roll call vote please? MS. SPENCER: Mrs. Crowe. COMMISSIONER CROWE: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Gregg. CHAIRMAN GREGG; No. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: Abstain. MS. SPENCER: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: No. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Knight. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: No. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Patterson. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: No. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Rennell. COMMISSIONER RENNELL: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Motion failed. Page 16 Case 84-108 Verbatim CHAIRMAN GREGG: Okay, we have a motion on the table er.. on the floor. ??: Can we discuss this at this point? CHAIRMAN GREGG: Yes. It is under.. open for discussion. Um.. we have received in the meantime, I thought, development plans showing a 13.5 -foot by 15 -foot addition plus a 16 -foot by 18 -foot garage indicates the maximum height including a roof of 14 foot.. maximum height of the garage, 14 foot; maximum height on the addition of 12 foot. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Was this.. a major objection to this last month, since I wasn't there, was due to the fact that we didn't have this information, is that correct? CHAIRMAN GREGG: Essentially. What we had was a request to replace this, which was previously removed, and that request was changed to--quote--be allowed to build a garage. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: This building? CHAIRMAN GREGG: That building has been removed. COMMISSIONER CROWE: There's no garage there. CHAIRMAN GREGG: This is what he wants to build to replace this. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: This would be the garage? COMMISSIONER CROWE: The garage is attached? CHAIRMAN GREGG: Yes. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I guess I need some clarification. We're still talking about a variance of increasing the cubical content of the structure. Um.. I'm not opposed to that idea; Page 17 Case 84-108 Verbatim however, I would.. hoped that we had some legal input on how this issue may affect the thing that's.. the other appeal. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Legally, the City is not allowed to look at anything except record on appeal, which is that case. They're not allowed to consider.. technically they're sitting like a court, and they have to hear it based on the facts rather than taking additional information, and this would be additional information. We can only trust that they will act in,that manner. Okay? I trust we not get us into a position where it's opened up for an entire public hearing again? ??: No. I had one question that had been asked earlier, and that was concerning.. I know that that's steep from the road down to where you propose to put the garage. Is that going to be, you know, is that just drive straight off from Cope Street? Or what kind of a slope are we speaking of? - MR. PERROZZI: Mainly be north of the hill coming down Cope. (undiscernible) It's too steep here, and there's a utility pole there with guy wires, so it needs to be coming in at this grade here. I also can provide two off-street parking spaces. COMMISSIONER CROWE: You have to have four. MR. PERROZZI: Well, I'll have two in the garage. That's off-street. MR. CASSIDY: Parking is grandfathered anyway in that... COMMISSIONER CROWE: The entrance to this garage facing this way is going to be this way? MR. PERROZZI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any other discussion? Page 18 Case 84-108 Verbatim COMMISSIONER CROWE: One of the things that we have to determine in granting a variance is that the criteria has to be met, and I don't happen to agree with the staff on the fact that there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to this property, which do not apply to other property. The same things apply to the other properties in the area. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Are you saying (undiscernible) land -use district? COMMISSIONER CROWE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I think there's exceptional in all those nonconforming lots. They're all, what is that, R-2? COMMISSIONER CROWE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I don't think that a uh.. common, that particular physical, the whole hillside, is common to R-2 uh.. you know, in most cases. I think there are extremely physical circumstances in that whole area. COMMISSIONER CROWE: But they've all.. they've all uh.. adjusted to them. And the new ones that have been built (undiscernible). COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Meet all the criteria? COMMISSIONER CROWE: Um-hmm. (undiscernible) COMMISSIONER RENNELL (?): I have a question that, Mr. Chairman, that maybe you can answer. Is there any way we could tie a motion so that this variance is not granted or doesn't take effect until atter dealing with the one that's on appeal with the City Council is settled? Page 19 Case 84-108 Verbatim COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: What's the purpose of that? COMMISSIONER RENNELL(?): The purpose is so that they remain.. so that the City Council decides that one case on its own merits, and all of the sudden we're granting this other.. possibly granting this other variance. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: You just said they're supposed to be deciding that on its.. without this case. MR. CASSIDY: The code reads that no matter which direction the vote should go, the other.. opposing party has ten days to appeal it, so I would think that there wouldn't be any stipulation like.. the other party has ten days either way, so I'd say it would have to be yay or nay or tabled. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Motion to amend. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amend the motion. I'd like to move to approve a variance from Section 17.36.070 of the Borough Code for Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Township, Alaska Subdivision, to permit a 14 -foot by 15 -foot addition to the east side and a 16 -foot by 18 -foot addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling that will increase the cubical content of the structure subject to the height limitation of 14 feet total, and I'd like to hold that right there. There's another 12 -foot limitation on this fact that had been discussed apparently. ??: (garble) CHAIRMAN GREGG: The motion is to amend by substitution the original motion to read as he stated. Is there a second? ??: Second. Page 20 Case 84-108 Verbatim CHAIRMAN GREGG: Any discussion? There's no discussion; can we have a roll call vote please? MS. SPENCER: Mr. Gregg. COMMISSIONER GREGG: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: Abstain. MS. SPENCER: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Knight. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Patterson. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Rennell. COMMISSIONER RENNELL: No. MS. SPENCER: Mrs. Crowe. COMMISSIONER CROWE: No. MS. SPENCER: Uh.. the amendment carried. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Okay. We now need to vote on the original motion. If there's no further discussion (undiscernible). Can we have a roll call vote on the original motion please? MS. SPENCER: Mr. Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: Abstain. MS. SPENCER• Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Knight. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Patterson. Page 21 Case 84-108 Verbatim COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Rennell. COMMISSIONER RENNELL: No. MS. SPENCER: Mrs. Crowe. COMMISSIONER CROWE: No. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Gregg. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Carried. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: Uh.. Mr. Chairman... CHAIRMAN GREGG: Pertaining to Findings of Fact? Make your statement or ask your question. I would like to either decide to defer Findings of Fact or find Findings of Fact this evening, one or the other. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: I'll wait until after this case (undiscernible) COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I'll go ahead and state Findings of Fact. Um.. the Commission's granting of variance have been met as spelled out by the uh.. some planning.. planner. Uh.. I think uh.. as far as testimony it's been mixed. Uh.. generally been two parties here that have given all the testimony except for the individual who came in tonight. Uh.. so 1 don't uh.. have a lot of reliance on the testimony, and I think uh.. it'll be an improvement to the community to allow Mr. Perrozzi to complete that project and get it enclosed before winter. CHAIRMAN GREGG: I would like to see some more specifics. I feel if this case could also go as far as the courts, you know, that we should have very, very specific Findings of Fact. I Page 22 Case 84-108 Verbatim would like to have staff to prepare Findings of Fact for our next regular meeting based on the preceding and perhaps following discussion. Anybody have any other suggestions. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Meets the setback requirements. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Essentially, it would not be detrimental to other properties by interrupting views or encroaching other required setbacks with the 14 -foot height limitation. There's nothing else? I have the concurrence of the Commission that we defer the actual decision on Findings of Fact? Okay. Moving on... Page 23 Case 84-108 Verbatim KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MEMORANDUM DATE: October 9, 1984 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Department:W.4. SUBJ: Information for the October 17, 1984 Regular Meeting ITEM VII(A) RE: Case 84-108. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions), to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that increases the cubic content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision. (Joe Perrozzi) Background This request was before the Commission for consideration at the September 19, 1984 regular meeting. During the public hearing Mr. Perrozzi indicated he would also like to build a garage on his property. It was not clear if he wanted to build the garage in addition to or instead of the proposed 12' x 15' addition to the house. After the public hearing a motion was made to approve the request as discussed during the meeting. This motion was approved by the Commission. Subsequently, as a result of testimony during audience comments later in the meeting, the Commission voted to reconsider its action on this case. This case is now before the Commission as Old Business. Mr. Perrozzi has clari- fied his request. A diagram showing his proposal is attached to this memo. Mr. Perrozzi's request for a variance is essentially the same as was presented at the September meeting, although it does include the garage. The proposal, as Mr. Perrozzi stated at'- the previous meeting, will meet all the setback require- ments. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission review this request in light of the Staff report provided for the September regular meeting. The only thing that should be revised is the statement made under COMMENTS #3: "The addition will not be detrimental to other properties by interrupting views or encroaching into the required setbacks, if the height of the addition is limited. If the Commission agrees with the previous staff conclusion, and the condition noted above, the following motion should be made: Move to approve a variance from Section 17.36.070 of the Borough Code for Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision to permit a fourteen (14) foot by fifteen (15) foot addition to the east side and sixteen (16) foot by eighteen (18) foot garage addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling that will increase the cubical content of the structure, subject to a height limitation of fourteen (14) feet total. (G+00 .;I—,.P nd) ,Z. (d4.a 1 -coo -fl'a't s ah1341 ' 1.nn'Ay n ,00'11 M ,£1 .69 ^� Pat �I'1bM !"%I�IfJI`Y1'9'^`J 'VNO7 (Gwzo yM+'ovp "p1) .htAtritali ricsn.,wrt-'-'--r- 1 -T .1 1 / September 21, 1984 Mr. Joe Perrozzi P. 0. Box 3696 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Perrozzi: Kodiak Island Borough P.C. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-1246 PHONE (907) 486-5736 Re: Case 84-108. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwell- ing on the east side that increases the cubical content of the struc- ture. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission at their September 19, 1984 meeting approved "an addition on the east side of the nonconforming,, two-family dwelling that would increase the cubical content of the struc- ture with the changes stated by Mr. Perrozzi." These changes as stated by you, include an attached garage that would meet all the required setbacks and an existing accessory building would be re- moved. Findings of fact were stated by the Commission in approving this action. They include: 1. All criteria to grant a variance as specified by Chapter 17.66 of the Borough Code have been met; 2. The structure would meet all the required setbacks; and 3. Construction of the addition and the removal of the accessory building will eliminate an encroachment on an adjacent property, and alleviate the general clutter of the neighborhood. Because of the lack of any formal size and height restrictions and in an effort to better inform the neighborhood of the proposal, the Commission reversed their approval and will reconsider your request at the October 17, 1984 meeting. } Mr. Joe Perrozzi September 21, 1984 Page Two A decision of the Commission may be appealed by any party aggrieved. An appeal shall be made within ten (10) days subsequent to the Commission's decision. Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (cal `77'G2:..ev (e Bud Cassidy Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer pds cc: Case 84-108 Tim Hill City Clerk COMMISSIONER HILL MOVED TO GRANT A VAP\ : from Section 17.19.040C to permit the construction of a main dwelling` that encroaches 13.5 feet into the required 25 foot setback. Lot 8B, Block 1, Shahafka Acres Subdivision. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER HILL stated that the reason he voted yes was that the rear yard adjoins industrial property and there is therefore no conflict with existing residential uses. H) CASE 84-106. Request for a Variance from Section 17.18.0508 (Side Yards), and Section 17.36.040C (Nonconforming Structures) to permit an existing grandfathered accessory building to be moved 4.8 feet to the south that will encroach 4.5 feet into the required 6 foot side yard setback. Lot 4, Block 1, Island Lake Subdivision, U.S. Survey 3219, 3025 Arctic Tern. (Jim and Carolyn Briscoe) Ms. Freed indicated that the structure will actually encroach 5.5 feet into the side yard setback rather than the specified 4.5 feet. Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: LORNA ARNDT questioned the validity of the building being referred to as "Grandfathered". She feels the building should be removed because it Originally was built up to the road right-of-way. CRAIG JOHNSON, representing the Briscoes in the sale of their property, spoke in favor of the variance. The neighbors he spoke to were also in agreement with the approval of the side yard variance since it would allow the building to be moved off their property. Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: COMMISSIONER RENNELL MOVED TO GRANT A VARIANCE from Section 17.18.0508 (Side Yards), and Section 17.36.040C (Nonconforming Structures) of the Borough Code for Lot 4, Block 1, Island Lake Subdivision, U.S. Survey 3219, to permit an existing grandfathered accessory building to be moved 4.8 feet to the south that will encroach 5.5 feet into the required 6 foot side yard setback. The motion was seconded and CARRIED with Commissioner Gregg voting NO. I) CASE 84-107. Request for a Variance from Section 17.18.050A (Front Yards), to permit the construction of an entry way 6 feet into the required 16 foot front yard set back. Lot 9, Block 9, Aleutian Homes Subdivision, 912 Hemlock. (Tom Emerson) Staff reported that one public hearing notice had been received and had been copied for the Commission's review. Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: SUSAN EMERSON explained why she and her husband requested this variance, adding that five other homes on the block have similar entry ways. Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: COMMISSIONER RENNELL MOVED TO GRANT A VARIANCE from Section 17.L8.050A (Front Yards), of the Borough Code, for Lot 9, Block 9, Aleutian Homes Subdivision, to permit the construction of an entry way 6 feet into the required 16 foot front yard setback. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. J) CASE 84-108. Request for a Variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Pro4isions) to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that increases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision, 310 West Rezanof and 307 Cope Street. (Joe Perrozzi) Regular Meeting September 19, 1984 COMMISSIONER HILL requested and was exA due to a possible conflict of interest in this case. Staff had no additional report. Regular Session closed; Public Hearing opened: JOE PERROZZI stated that his original intent was to replace the arctic entry that was removed previously. His current plan is to remove an existing shed on Lot 32 that actually infringes on the neighbor's lot, and add on a garage to the existing structure and meet the setback requirements, side yard and rear yard, therefore eliminating the shed. By doing so he would be upgrading the neighborhood and property values. Public Hearing closed: Regular Session opened: Ms. Freed informed the Commission that the Public Hearing Notices only stated that the request was for a variance to grant an addition that increased cubical content, nothing identifies specifically what that addition would be or where it,would be located. Staff has not received any calls for any additional information on this particular request. COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO APPROVE A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.070 of the Borough Code for Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Tawnsite Subdivision, to permit an addition on the east side of a nonconforming' two-family dwelling that will increase the cubical content of the structure with the changes stated by Mr. Perrozzi this evening. The motion was seconded and CARRIED with Commissioner Rennell voting NO. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO ADOPT AS FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. That variance meets all criteria for a variance as spelled out by the recommendation of staff; 2. That all the proper setbacks will be met; and 3. The construction of the addition by the removal of the accessory building will eliminate an encroachment and decrease the clutter. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. K) CASE 84-109. Request for a Variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) to permit the construction of a duplex on a lot that fails to meet the area requirements for duplex construction. Lot 3, Block 36, East Addition, 1221 Ismailov Street. (Sam Gesko) Staff reported that no additional public hearing notices had been returned. Two phone calls were received, one objecting, and one in favor of the request for the variance. Regular Session closed: Public Hearing opened: BEN HANCOCK commented that building being constructed by Hr. Ceske is a beautiful building and strictly is an addition to the neighborhood. His objection is that this is an exception from RI, he feels that the area should be rezoned R2 to eliminate these piece by piece changes. CHAIRMAN CRECC reported that the "official zoning map" of the Borough indicates that area is zoned R2; Hr. Lesko bought the property under the assumption that it was R2. It wasn't until recently that it was discovered that the property was not zoned R2. SAM GESKO presented the Commission with a site plan and petition from 11 owners representing 29 lots that have indicated that they have no objection to the granting of a variance or an exception for this case. He also stated that he bought his property under the assumption that it was zoned R2. MATTHEW MALPIS, property owner, stated that he wasn't sure that the lots should be zoned R2 because the lots are eo small. Regular Meeting September 19, 1984 meeting. She noted that the Assen'L, ould be looking for 1) local service roads and trails program, 'S2casse that is something that has an impact on long range planning, and 2) if the Commission feels that it is appropriate, for them to make recommendations on the projects in the overall priority list. B) & C) Ouzinkie and Larsen Bay Comprehensive Development & Capital Improvement Plan Staff reported that these plans will be scheduled as public hearings for the October 1984 regular meeting. Representatives from each village will be invited to attend. IX COMMUNICATIONS Staff reported that Items A, 8, D, E, and G are for information. A) Letter from Kodiak Contractors. Appeal of administration decision. B) Letter from Arnie Tweten. Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission decision. C) Letter from the Borough attorney concerning Rasmus Anderson appeal. 0) McDonald's Corporation - Parking Variance, City Council action. E) Lee FSlmore - Side Yard Setback Variance, City Council action. F) Proposed ordinance No. 84-55-0 - Street Names. Staff requests direction from the Commission regarding Items C and F. COMMISSIONER RENNELL MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of all communications. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. COMMISSIONER RENNELL MOVED TO USE THE RECORD as the basis of deciding the Rasmus Anderson Case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. Staff will copy the entire Rasmus Anderson file for each Commissioner for their review. COMMISSIONER RENNELL MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE proposed Ordinance 84-55-0, Street Names and recommended that Borough Assembly pass this ordinance. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. X REPORTS Ms. Freed reported that there had been a Joint Parks Board Meeting involving the State Parks, City Parks, and Borough Parks on Monday, Septebember 17, 1984. The main topic of discussion was RV Campsites. All groups agreed that they felt a campsite was badly needed in the urban area. Ms. Freed informed the Commission that approval had been given to advertise for a full time Enforcement Officer in the department. Those advertisements should be out in October. The State of Alaska has awarded the Kodiak Island Borough $40,000 through the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The main purpose of the money is to implement the Coastal Management Program which can include updating both the subdivision and the zoning codes. XI AUDIENCE COMMENTS 'Mit-TIM HILL requested that the Commission rescind their decision on Case 84-108 (Joe Perrozzi). He felt that Mr. Perrozzi's intentions were completely misleading, and that he is a detriment to the hillside. Regular Meeting -13- September 19, 1984 COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO RECONSI ;ASE 84-108 at the next ` regular meeting. The motion was sec .. 1 and CARRIED by roll call vote with Commissioner Hill abstaining. XII COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS COMMISSIONERS KNIGHT AND JAMES complimented Bud Cassidy on the his preparation of the cases. CHAIRMAN GREGG commented on the reasons for his vote on Case 84-116 (Wilton White). He feels that maybe staff should be given the opportunity to bend a little in granting building permits. There seems to be a lot of discontent and maybe if the community realized that staff does bend, the ill feelings would ease up. Ms. Freed stated it was important to be consistent in interpreting the regulations. Commissioner Knight feels that it's important to come out with the Findings of Fact, and that the new format that has been provided for the variances will help provide consistency. XIII ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN GREGG adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. ATTEST BY:Pa� ty Sp nceri Secretary DATE APPROVED: 1011i 1P)4 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI BY Ken Gregg Regular Meeting -14- . September 19, 1984 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL FROM A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION ON A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, LOTS 30 AND 32, BLOCK 19, KODIAK TOWNSITE ALASKA SUBDIVISION JOE PERROZZI The above-cited public hearing was held on (84-temberIJ19', c198 -4 -'in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The hearing was conducted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, Mr. Ken Gregg, Chairman. THIS IS TO CERTIFY: Page 2 CERTIFICATE That the public hearing in the matter of: AN APPEAL FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, LOTS 30 AND 32, BLOCK 19, KODIAK TOWNSITE SUBDIVISION JOE PERROZZI was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Pamela Barr, Secretary III Case 84-108 Verbatim PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH STAFF Commission: KEN GREGG, CHAIRMAN STEVE RENNELL DAN JAMES TIM HILL MARLIN KNIGHT Staff: LINDA FREED, Director, Community Development Department BUD CASSIDY, Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer Community Development Department DAVE CROWE, Borough Engineer, Engineering Department PATTY SPENCER, Acting Secretary, Community Development Department CATHY KESTER, Assisting Secretary, General Administration Page 3 Case 84-108 Verbatim PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN GREGG: Case 84-108, Request for Variance from Section 17.36.070 to permit the addition of a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that increases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision, 810 West Rezanof and 307 Cope Street. COMMISSIONER HILL: Under the circumstances of a prior case I wish to step down because I have a conflict of interest. MR. PERROZZI: My name's Joe Perrozzi. I'm the one that requested the variance uh.. initially what was stated on this was that we wanted to replace an arctic entry that was on the house that was taken off when uh.. there didn't seem to be information as long as it (undiscernible) nonconformity that it could be put back on. Uh.. I recently just talked to Bud and said uh.. a kind of another plan, what I'd like to do with the place and didn't know if it was appropriate or not, and he said to bring it up anyways, and there's an existing shed on Lot 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite that actually infringes on Tim's lot. What I'd like to do is remove that and then add on a garage to the existing structure and meet the setback requirements, side yard and rear, and therefore eliminating the shed and getting it off of his lot and removing it. It's in bad need of repair, and uh.. it either has to be repaired or eliminated at this point. Uh.. the consensus of the neighborhood, and I have been talking to the neighbors to see what type of.. what their viewpoints are on what's going to happen to Cope Street, and the majority of them Page 4 Case 84-108 Verbatim are in favor of any type of improvements that could be made so as to upgrade the neighborhood and therefore upgrading property values. Uh.. I sketched out a little area there. We're just not sure exactly what the setbacks are and what the scale is here at this point, but we believe that the garage itself could be scaled down to meet those proper setbacks, and therefore make a more attractive -looking building and more or less fit into the neighborhood a lot better and remove a.. more or less an eyesore and a nonconforming structure that's actually on another lot, you know, as it is right now. I got ..hmm.. these little sketches here (undiscernible) hand out or not. Okay, you see what I'm talking about then? Okay. Uh.. that's all I have to say. I could bring over the finer details to Bud as far as, you know, exact setbacks, but he didn't seem to know, and my reason for bringing it up now is that we're here, you know, the variance procedure, rather than trying to go through this again, you know, is to save a little time. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Anyone else wishing to speak? COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Ah, yes, I have a question. Are you saying this is going to be a garage, an accessory building, connected to the existing unit? MR. PERROZZI: Correct. Yes, it wouldn't be on top. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Anyone else wishing to speak? (undiscernible) My question is ... Something that varies this far from the request ... MS. FREED: Well, that was my thought except that, if you look at what was said on the public hearing notice, it just says Page 5 Case 84-108 Verbatim a variance to grant an addition to increase the cubical content. No maps were sent out to any of the people in the notice area that identified specifically what that addition would be. One thing that I'm trying to calculate very quickly here is what indeed the setback requirement would be for this particular addition, but I think we should go back and look at what the notice said, the public hearing notice said, and what the advertisement said. It does not reference specifically the type of addition and where it would be. We can only put so much information in the public hearing notices. In this case that specificity wasn't implied. Now, I haven't received any calls about this particular request for additional information. I do not know whether Bud has. CHAIRMAN GREGG: The setbacks would have to be to that rear lot line in Lot 32 and not necessarily taken into account. MS. FREED: It would be to your lot line, Lot 32. It's clear that the intent is to build over the lot lines, and that's allowed. In the nonconforming A section wing, you've got lots that are smaller than the lot manual. And I.. from the plan that I just briefly saw it looks like they might be scaled so that it could meet the side yard and the year yard lot setbacks, but right now I can't tell you what those are. I didn't bring my calculator with me, so I'm doing it longhand. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: I would move to approve a variance from Section 17.03.070 of the Borough Code for Lots 30 and 32, Block Page 6 Case 84-108 Verbatim 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision, to permit an addition on the east side of a nonconforming two-family dwelling that will increase the cubical content of the structure uh.. with the changes uh.. stated by Mr. Perrozzi this evening. CHAIRMAN GREGG: End of discussion. May we have a roll call vote please? MS. SPENCER: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Knight. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Rennell. COMMISSIONER RENNELL: No. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Gregg. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Motion carries. CHAIRMAN GREGG: That's what I was going to say. I would like to adopt as Findings of Fact in this. The City Council in hearing their appeals have been known to consider information other than the case records, and in the event that they should consider this a matter of appeal to them I would uh... MS. FREED: This should not have any bearing whatsoever on the appeal. CHAIRMAN GREGG: However, I would like to have Findings of Fact in the event that they reconsider. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I think one of those meets that I would support adopting is finding the facts that it meets all the Page 7 Case 84-108 Verbatim criteria for a variance as spelled out by the recommendation of the staff. ??: I agree. CHAIRMAN GREGG: And all the proper setbacks? COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: With the exception of the setbacks, which we're not real sure of, but they appear to have been met. CHAIRMAN GREGG: The applicant has agreed that they will be met. I'd also like to include that the construction of the addition by the removal of the accessory building will eliminate an encroachment and generally decrease the congestion and clutter. CHAIRMAN GREGG: (undiscernible) COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: So moved. COMMISSIONER RENNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN GREGG: All in favor signify by saying aye. ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN GREGG: All opposed same sign. AUDIENCE COMMENTS MR. TIM HILL: I would like to have the Commission rescind their action on Item J, Case 84-108, on Perrozzi. I'm sorry I didn't get up and speak. I'm tired of throwing knives back and forth with Perrozzi, and I thought that the Commission was going to table him... the structure. I didn't get up, you know, it's a great state of depression that I've been in for months, and I continue to confront Perrozzi--he is extremely difficult --and so when I sat out there I got off the table so that, you know, there Page 8 Case 84-108 Verbatim is no visual contact with me sitting up here and being, you know, commissioner, even though I've stepped down. I guess I didn't say anything because I thought it was going to get tabled. Um.. there's a lot here, you know. According to Bud, you know, Perrozzi did not come in and tell him what he was going to do. You know, it's completely misleading what Perrozzi has been doing. He wants to put a little structure back up and then comes in with a big garage, you know? [Something, something] that said they wanted to put a two-story dwelling up. Well, a garage is not a dwelling, yet it's still a structure, and the Commission said no. Um., what Perrozzi said before. He said, 'well, I'd like to, you know, go to the north with a structure, you know, an existing.. add-on, and then he told me no, he didn't want to do that, that he would rather build up,' which he did, so as not to take away the view of the person directly behind him, and now he's going to put in a garage which is going to wipe out the view anyway --100 percent from the person behind him. He's already wiped out 50 percent of my view. You know, they say you can't litigate a view; however, all the realtors, you know, they do say, you know, you pay premium dollar for your view. You advertise in the paper 'view property.' I can't call Perrozzi a liar, uh.. the people that he's polled in the neighborhood would have to be myself, who he never told, you know, never asked me, never confronted me and said 'Listen, I'm going to put a garage in.' And then there's Dwane McConnell, my neighbor on the other side of me, uh.. Bob Brodie on the other side of Perrozzi, and Doug Babrock who lives in the little blue house, and (?) Birch. Page 9 Case 84-108 Verbatim All the rest of the houses are rentals, and they don't have a say in it at all. They're not the property owners. So I don't know who he's been polling, but he says he polls everybody, and the last time he said he polled everybody he only polled one person and that was John Craddy, who owned the property directly behind him. So, uh.. I think he's trying to pull off a lot of stuff here. He's uh.. I think he's a detriment to the neighborhood. You might think he's really nice to put a garage up with a new structure and get to reside it and improve the appearance of the neighborhood, when in all actuality it's extremely detrimental to all the neighbors because everything behind him, the lots might be 1,600 to 2,000 square feet--Perozzi's got a 3,600 square foot lot; I have a 3 thousand 2. By lot, actually they might be about 1,500 square feet, the lots behind him, because they're all tiny structures, and what are these tiny structures going to do when Perrozzi starts, you know, putting on everything that he's doing. I mean, I think that's detrimental. It's, you know, to him, it's uh.. it's a piece of cake, but he's completely ruined the hillside. And the hillside has not changed in 46 years if you go down and look at the uh.. uh.. picture that they have in the museum, you know. In 1938 my house wasn't on there, but some other houses were, and all the houses have been all the same, and you take what, you know, what Perrozzi says, you know, the one structure is sitting on my lot, the house in front of me is on my lot, you know, he's four feet from my lot, you know, it's just a big bunch of mish-mash and, you know, it's completely nonconforming up there, you know, you couldn't do anything in Page 10 Case 84-108 Verbatim '77--I couldn't do anything in '78, and now.. then you go ahead and.. he walks in and say 'Well, instead of putting on a little shack I'm going to put on a.. I mean a little addition I'm going to put a big garage up. It'll make, you know, everything conform.' And another thing is that he's got an apartment in there and.. and the issue was never even brought up about having him provide off-street parking spaces. You know, if he wants to be conforming tell him to put in more off-street parking spaces. But, I would really like to have the Commission rescind the decision. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: What would be the purpose of tabling it? COMMISSIONER, HILL: We were, you know.. in the work session we were talking about tabling it till after the City Council makes a decision because it does increase the cubical content of the structure which is already done and is appealed to the uh.. Planning and Zoning decision when the Commission told him to take the third story off and just put on a (?). So that's saying.. the Commission is saying 'No, you can't increase the cubical content of the structure. We're going to go ahead and table it until the City Council has made a decision.' And then he can come back in and, you know, apply for a variance other than that. Then he's coming in and applying for a variance when he's got another one going here (undiscernible). I think he's a detriment to the hillside and so do the realtors. I'm speaking to both real estate agents --Island Realty and Associated (?). That's all right. You go to buy a piece of property, view property, and you Page 11 Case 84-108 Verbatim pay top dollar for it, too. But I think what Perrozzi is doing is completely wrong. So it has to be one (garbled). You voted no. COMMISSIONER RENNELL: I voted no. He's making a mess over there. COMMISSIONER HILL: I implore you to rescind your decision. And like I say, you know, when he came up with the garage and I was thinking, well, and I still can't.. I'm not going to say anything because we're going to table it, so I don't mean to keep knives going back and forth. MS. FREED: I think 'if you're going to do it, Tim, you should move to reconsider and then revote it. You really didn't place a whole lot of restrictions on him. You told him he could build what he wanted as long as he met the setback requirements. COMMISSIONER HILL: And the neighborhood doesn't know he's building a garage. He comes in tonight and says, 'I'm going to build a garage.' What's the neighborhood going to say? MR. CASSIDY: I asked about the propriety... MS. FREED: No, no. That's right, no. I don't think that's a problem because what was on the Public Hearing Notice is indeed what he's doing. I just want to point out to you that you didn't set a limit on the size of that cubical content increase. We had a plan that says 12 by 15 before. I don't recall him saying how big he wanted that garage. (garble) COMMISSIONER HILL: When he came up with the 12 by 15, you know... Page 12 Case 84-108 Verbatim COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: I'll move to reconsider. CHAIRMAN GREGG: I would ask that the motion to reconsider not necessarily be considered this evening but moved to reconsider at perhaps the next regular meeting. Mr. Perrozzi can be contacted; he can be here.. detailed plan. MS. FREED: Yeah, you don't have to vote on a reconsidera- tion tonight. CHAIRMAN GREGG: It does have to be moved --I've learned from experience, it has to be moved and seconded. MS FREED: And voted on. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Okay. It's been voted on, but I got quite... COMMISSIONER HILL: Shall I second it? CHAIRMAN GREGG: Uh.. the motion is made to reconsider with somebody who voted on the prevailing side. I assume that it can be seconded by... MS FREED: Anyone, I think. ??: I will second the motion. CHAIRMAN GREGG: The motion has been seconded to reconsider uh.. at the next regular meeting. All in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN GREGG: All opposed same sign. MS. FREED: It probably would be advisable to have a roll call vote on that. CHAIRMAN GREGG: It's unanimous. Would you take it? MS. SPENCER: Mr. Gregg. Page 13 Case 84-108 Verbatim COMMISSIONER GREGG: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Hill. COMMISSIONER HILL: I have to abstain. MS. SPENCER: Mr. James. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Knight. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Mr. Rennell. COMMISSIONER RENNELL: Yes. MS. SPENCER: Motion carried. CHAIRMAN GREGG: Thank you. Page 14 Case 84-108 Verbatim 5 /• -rr9 {?y ry SEP 1984 N c, u V_ LIC HEARING NOTICE ONCE DATE: August 31, 1984 CASE NUMBER: 84-108 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 'amenity Development Departments 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 An application for a Variance was filed with the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department by: Joe Perrozzi The application requests: a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) to permit the addition to a nonconforming single-family dwelling that increases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision, 310 West Rezanof and 307 Cope Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this request at their regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 19. 1984 , in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The Commission will also review all items on their agenda for the regular meeting on the preceding. Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough,Conference Room. This meeting is open to the public. You are being notified'•because you are a property owner in the area of the request. This is the only scheduled PUBLIC HEARING on the request at this time, and you are invited to appear before the Commission to express your opinion. If you cannot attend this PUBLIC HEARING and 'wish to comment on the request, fill in the bottom of this notice and'return it to the Community Development Department, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, 99615. Your returned comment should be received PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE. A vicinity map showing the property involved is included on the back of this ford. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call our Zoning Officer, Bud Cassidy, at 486-5736, extension 258. YOUR NAME: A -VC Y6:DMrfOxf ADDRESS: LAS (C jrnoc`t 69 YOUR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: LAPAS COMMENTS: No 0z7era),rAlnf CASE 84-108. medius = 325' KODIAK TOWNSITE Lots 30 and Kd1k� s �, 51k19 te from lot's edge US SURVEY 444- Tr G • 1 S 1534 ---/ 7 SEP 1984 w RECEIV KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ",®unity Development Departments - J10 Mill Bay Road -Eodiak, Alaska 99615 BLIC HEARING NOTICE CE DATE: August 31, 1984 CASE NUMBER: 84-108 An application for a Variance was filed with the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department by: Joe Perrozzi The application requests: a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) to permit the addition to a nonconforming single-family dwelling that increases the_cubical content of the structure. Loto 30 and_32,-Block-19-,-ICodiak-Tawnsite— Subdivision, 310 West Rezanof and 307 Cope Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this request at their regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 19. 1984 , in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The Commission will also review all items on their agenda for the regular meeting on the preceding. Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. in .the Borough, Conference Room. This meeting is open to the public. You are being notified because you are a property owner in the area of the.request. This is the only scheduled PUBLIC HEARING on the request at this time, and you are invited to appear before the Commission to express your opinion. If you cannot attend this PUBLIC HEARING and 'wish to comment on the request, f111 in the bottom of this notice and return it to the Community Development Department, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, 99615. Your returned comment should be received PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE. A vicinity map showing the property involved is included on the back of this form. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call our Zoning Officer, Bud Cassidy, .at 486-557736,/extension 258. YOUR NAME: &eqn DIG/ • Pt--t?);;WhA»ZDRESB:II nJ,AYE f I/ iter 7' - YOUR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: J ot /3 Bloc , 17 New Kaci Sw2Dty' COMMENTS: !i! 6 p s.r :rv, CASE 84-108. Lots 30 and 32, Blk 19 Kodiak Toansite Radius = 325' from lot's edge KODIAK TOWNSITE US SURVEY 44.E TrG • / USS /837' 00 5u N 31 N 41 1.1 C%it V"..• ITEM VI(J) MEMORANDUM DATE: September 11, 1984 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJ: Information for the September 19, 1984 Regular Meeting RE: CASE 84-108. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that increases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision. (Joe Perrozzi) Forty-four (44) public hearing notices were mailed on August 31, 1984. 1. Applicant: Joe Perrozzi, Box 3696, Kodiak, AK 99615 2. Land Owner: Same as applicant. 3. Request: For a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) to permit an addition to a nonconforming two-family dwelling on the east side that increases the cubical content of the structure. 4. Purpose: To build a 12 x 15 one-story addition to the east side of the existing structure. 5. Existing Zoning: R2 Two -Family Residential. 6. Zoning History: The 1966 Comprehensive Plan designates the zoning of this lot as R2. In 1977, Case 479, the Commission denied a request for a variance to allow the construction of a two-story addition on the east side of the existing building. The reasons for denial include the following: A. In 1977, a section of the Borough Code prohibited additions to nonconforming structures and prohibited the altering or enlarging beyond what was necessary to protect the property's original interest; and B. The code also stated that the petitioner must show evidence of his ability and intention to proceed in accordance with submitted plans within a six-month time limit for a variance (these code sections no longer. exist). These reasons for denial were extracted from the recommendations of the then zoning administrator, since no findings of fact for the denial were specified by the Planning and Zoning Commission. No paperwork exists to indicate whether this request for a variance met the criteria then existing for granting a variance. In 1984, (Case 84-098) the Commission upheld on appeal an adminis- trative decision ordering the discontinuance of construction or other preparatory activity leading to an unlawful structure or:an unlawful ;- use of land and structure, and denied a variance request to allow the construction of a third story addition that would increase the cubical content of a nonconforming structure (as relief from the adminis- trative decision). The Commission did approve as part of Case 84-098, a variance that permits the construction of a pitched roof to be added to the roofline of the existing structure with a 4 to 12 pitch ratio. The applicant has appealed the Commission's decision to the City Council and at this time the appeal is pending. 7. Location: Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision, 310 WestRezanof-and 307 Cope Street. 8. Lot Size: Lot 30 = 3,135 sq.ft:,--Lot 32 = 846 sq. ft. 9. Existing Land Use: Lot 30 contains a duplex, Lot 32 contains an accessory building and a portion of the main structure. 10. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Lot 33, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision. Zoning -R2, Use -R1. South: Rezanof Drive. East: Lot 31, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision. Zoning -R2, Use -R1. West: Lot 29, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Alaska Subdivision. Zoning -R2, Use -R1. 11. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates these lots for "High Density Residential" development. 12. Applicable Regulations: Chapter 17.36 (Existing Nonconforming Uses and Structures) Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) states that general maintenance and repairs may be performed on a nonconforming structure "provided that the cubical content of the building.... shall not be increased." COMMENTS: _ � The applicant proposes to build a one-story:12'xl5! addition onto the east side of the existing structure. Because the current�___structure does not meet proper setbacks, it is nonconforming. Construction will take place on both Lots 30 and 32 and thereafter are considered a single lot for the purpose of determining the setback requirements. Case 84-108 September 11, 1984 In granting a variance the following critieria must exist: 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The lot sits above the road approximately 10 feet and is separated from the raod by a retaining wall. The lot has a steep slope between Cope Street and Rezanof. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The house sits to the west side of the lot leaving a large vacant area east of the house. The addition is proposed for this vacant area, Although the existing structure is nonconforming, the proposed addition will meet the required front, rear, and side yard setbacks. 3. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare. The addition will not be detrimental to other properties by interrupt- ing views or encroaching into the required setbacks. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed addition is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request as it meets the requirements of Chapter 17.66 of Borough Code on Variances. APPROPRIATE MOTION: Move to approve a variance from Section 17.36.070 of the Borough Code for Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision, to permit an addition on the east side of a nonconforming two-family;dwelling_•that will increase the cubical content of the structure. Case 84-108 -3- September 11, 1984 ezi�85-/6g /6Z 2433- ,S*al 73c%s7 /t fl L 0 .P?J� a 4, N"94 L T Wql Tp,INlt--1� .• l'�.�►3u gmc 14' ) Lovt -51 5g� 43+ w 71. OO' .,...0, ?r�VIDu�L.`1 L2 kk i r.du'4 yAVsT �'P- "Ca'► e ;) ) C FLA Ck:41 CACe0 1'% CC:4• ) GONG. R.E. t1,4ING WALL KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 19, 1984 DRAFT AGENDA I APPEARANCE REQUESTS Monashka Bay Planning. Group Draft Neighborhood Plan II: PUBLIC HEARINGS A) CASE 84-076. Request to Rezone State Airport (Planning and Zoning Commission) B) CASE 84-085. Request to Rezone ADL44355 (sawmill site) (Planning and Zoning Commission) C) CASE 84-101. Request for a Variance, Lot 1B, Blk 13, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision (Jill and Alan Skaw) D) CASE 84-102. Request for an Exception, Lot 51, 52, and 53, Aleutian Homes (Sam Graber) E) CASE 84-103. Request for a Variance, Lot 5, Blk 8, Port Lions, Alaska Subdivision (City of Port Lions) F) CASE 84-104. Ordinance of KIB, Amending Off.. Street Parking and Loading (Planning and Zoning Commission) G) CASE 84-105. Request for a Variance, Lot 8B, Block 1, Shahafka Acres Subdivision (Craig Johnson) H) CASE 84-106. Request for a Variance, Lot 4, Blk 1, Island Lake Subdivision (Jim and Carolyn Briscoe) I) CASE 84-107. Request for a Variance, Lot 9, Blk 9, Aleutian Homes Subdivision (Tom Emerson) J) CASE 84-108: Request for a Variance, Lots 30 and 32, Kodiak Townsite (Joe Perrozzi) K) CASE 84-109. Request for a Variance, Lot 3, Blk 36, East Addition (Sam Gesko) L) CASE 84-110. Request for an Exception, Lot 26, U.S. Survey 3099 (Ken Forster) g'2� NzmA C.o 1(Ytov\,&.ko- REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 19, 1984 DRAFT AGENDA - CONTINUED II PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) M) CASE 84-111. Changes and Amendments Planning and Zoning Commission, By laws N) CASE 84-112. Proposed Revisions to the Uniform Building Code Chapter 70 (Excavation and Grading) 0) CASE 84-113. Ordinance of the KIB amending Chapter 17.17 (Rural Residential District) III OLD BUSINESS A) Findings of Fact for CASE 84-083 - Exception Request Lot 2, Blk 3, Monashka Bay Alaska Subdivision (Arnie Tweten) B) Sheffield House - Required Screening IV NEW BUSINESS A) Capital Improvement Program B) Ouzinkie Comprehensive Development and Capital Improvements Plan C) Larsen Bay Comprehensive Development and Capital Improvements Plan V COMMUNICATIONS A) Letter from Kodiak Contractors (Appeal of administration decision B) Letter from Arnie Tweten (Appeal of Planning and Zoning decision) KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH mmunity Development Departmen 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE DATE: August 31, 1984 CASE NUMBER: 84-108 An application for a Variance was filed with the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department by: Joe Perrozzi The application requests: a variance from Section 17.36.070 (General Provisions) to permit the addition to a nonconforming single-family dwelling that increases the cubical content of the structure. Lots 30 and 32, Block 19, Kodiak Townsite Subdivision, 310 West Rezanof and 307 Cope Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this request at their regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 19, 1984 , in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The Commission will also review all items on their agenda for the regular meeting on the preceding Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough, Conference Room. This meeting is open tothe public. You are being notified'because you are a property owner in the area of the request. This is the only scheduled PUBLIC HEARING on the request at this time, and you are invited to appear before the Commission to express your opinion. If you cannot attend this PUBLIC HEARING and ±wish to comment onthe request, fill in the bottom of this notice and return it to the Community Development Department, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, 99615. Your returned comment should be received PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE. A vicinity map showing the property involved is included on the back of this ford. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call our Zoning Officer, Bud Cassidy, at 486-5736, extension 258. YOUR NAME: ADDRESS: YOUR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: COMMENTS: (ODS AK TOWNSITE Lots 30 e .ta.'si e -1-.- e 325, Vzom dot s � ed� SURVEY 444 •' USSTr G 1 x534. USS 18 7 - St 80P:r --101101100 '34 -',40140011 FRANCISCO,LEON I MH P.O. BOX 483 KODIAK AK 99615 R1340140012 KILLEN.MICHAEL 6, SUSAN P.O. BOX 2868 KODIAK AK 99615 R1340140020 3ONGEN,JEROME & ELIZABETH P.O. 90X 3523 KODIAK AK 99615 P1340140030. JAEGER.MARY 0 MICHELLE PO HOX 3064 SAN DIEGO CA 92103 R1340140040 JAEGER.MARY D MICHELLE P.O.BOX 14 DT ANCHORAGE AK 99510 R1340140050 ROOT,VINCENT & MARY P.O. BOX 541 KODIAK AK 99615 R1340190100 KINNEAR,BLAKE KATHRYN P.O. BOX 2743 KODIAK AK 99615 R1340190111 UGANIK INC SHEFFIELD ENTERPRISES P.O. BOX 10-2960 ANCHORAGE AK 99510 R1340190151 GREGORY.JOY P.O. 30X 307 USCS KODIAK AK 99619 THOMPSON.DAVID W P.O. BOX 75 KODIAK R1340190160 AK 99615 R1100000160 LARMAN CONSTRUCTION CO P.O. C-17705 SEATTLE WA 98107 KODIAK.C1TY OF P.O. 30X 1397 KODIAK R1456000001 AK 99515 R1340190191 J9NES,OUKF R DONNA P.O. BOX 1604 KOOIAK AK 99615 R1340190201 PERRY.GARY LEE P.O. '40X 165 USCG KODIAK AK 99619 3R00KS.IRIS M P.0.• BOX 2829 KODIAK R1340190202 AK 99615 R1340190210 VAVROCH.JOSEPH 6 MICHAEL P.O. BOX 2914 KODIAK AK 99615 HANNAH, PETER M P.0. BOX 3808 KODIAK R t3L\ x.----340190270 AK 99615 R1340190280. KVAS NIKOFF,W ILL IAM P.O. BOX 137 KODIAK AK 99615 3R00IE,ROBERT P.O. 30X 296 KODIAK R1340190290 AK 99615 R1340190300 PERROZZI,JOSEPH & JANE P.O. BOX 3696 KODIAK AK 99615 R1220030090 ERIKSSON. - , iR1K & L SR 30X 2049 ANCHORAGE AK 99507 R1220030100 KAZIM COMPANY THE P 0 BOX 746 KODIAK AK 99615 R1340190330 HILL,TIMOTHY & JULIE P.O. B0X 2249 KODIAK AK 99515 ZHAROFF•FRED P.0. BOX 405 KODIAK 81340190310 AK. 99615 R1220030130 DICK, GLENN & VIRGINIA B P.0. 30X 2182 KODIAK AK 99615 P1220030140 D! CK, GL ENN R VIRGINIA B P.O. BOX 2182 KODIAK AK 99615 P1 22.0030 150 TURNER,SAJDAK & GERDEN P.O. SOX 1679 ANCHORAGE AK 99510 ABENA.TIM P.O. °OX 2287 KODIAK R1220030160 AK 99615 R t2Z 220030190 JAMES,LELAND P 3116 ILIAMNA .AVE. ANCHORAGE AK 99503 DAMON,HI YONG P.O. PDX 1784 KODIAK R1340190231 AK 99615 81340190232 W00DLEY,MICHAEL & DIANE P.O. I30X 3272 KODIAK AK 99615 R1220030180 SHARRATT,GARY C LINDA P.O. BOX 673 KODIAK AK 99615 SHORT, ROSE P.O. 30X 4 KODIAK R1340190234 AK 99615 R1340190240 COFFLAND,KENNETH E SUSAN P.D. BOX 1571 USCq KODIAK AK 99519 R1340190250 BBURCH,ORAL & CHERIE P.O. BOX 2203 KODIAK AK 99615 R 1 2200 301.70 :]ML 1D,S/AN DR EW, L/ FUR IN,G/ ANOREW,JOY/HAL TER,LOREN P.O. BOX 1700 KODIAK AK 99615 R 1340 190 342 i MCCONNELL,I �_AE W P.O. BOX 928 KODIAK AK 99615 R1340190351 CR ISTALDI,ANTHONY CR ISTALDI,E3ARBARA P.O. 30X 332 USCG KODIAK AK 99619 R1340190352 JENSEN,STEVF & JERI P.O. mix 3970 KODIAK AK 99615 R1340190360 ;,OTTSCH4LK.HARRY & GUYN P.O. BOX 981. KODIAK AK 99615 THREINtN°,C W JP, 0.0, 99X 930 KODIAK PUGH,JOHN '.0. BOX 685 KODIAK R1340190371 AK 99515 P1340190372 AK 99615 R1340190381 GOTTSCHALK,HARRY & GUYN P.O. BOX 981 KODIAK AK 99615 R1340190382 NESETH,HENRY & EUNICE <HETTMAN,CHARLES P.O. BOX 2056 KODIAK AK 99615 5 tcS 53.1,1 -103 R= 325 m 6t`s Qdc6(2, bats �p ckksld.2 S3k _ 1Ubd.c_) ou-sT\SIL t R 13� OM 0011 I� l2 2 20 - 30 1©- R13.4 o Aa otos 1lt Pfi.35 R 13y -o IA 035i 35P‘ 3Cf:) 5-1A 38 30 fi 9 R i?2. 003_ ooq o _15 _151 (b Ido 1(0 -(4,C) 11 16 '70 12 l3 91_ _. Pt 20 201 �S 2.0 1€c, 22 o. lB 2332 xp 2_3c k 2 � -3Lt V a.nA s= `-1 ' v i Q -D.-o._ 10 ua_ 50 -OcAS Job. -t S- -(0c)o c d2 Q66 25 2 2q 3c 31_ 32_ 33 _3L N_ 20 _ (o KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH POST OFFICE BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) xception Variance ( ) Zoning Change: From: To: CODE SECTION INVOLVED: /7 ,T4'7, 6116 NOTE: The application fee for all items covered by this form is $50. Conditional Use Permits, Exceptions, and Variance Applications also require the submission of a site plan. APPLICANT: 74:5 -On teda.,O&Ei Name Home Telephone — ,S3176 Address Work Telephone ieedlaL /7$ 96 City, State, Zip PROPERTY: c3Z / 9 Cot Block Subdivision Name United States Survey # Section, Township, Range, S.M. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: ,407/6 I have been advised of the procedures involved with t request and have received a copy of the appropriate regulations. Authorized Agent Date Application Accepted: Date Property 0 BY: .116-6P4.42t Date VARIANCE APPLICATION - j The application must contain a statement showing the following conditions, all four of which must exist before a variance may be granted: The undersigned states: 1. That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, or to its intended use or development, which do not apply generally to the other properties in the same land use district. These special conditions are: eebai(e. 1/- E40e6_01(.4 2. That the strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship: . 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 welfare because: /4-0f; ,erio4 L/444,4t-/ a..T"( 4. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan, for the following reasons: /7,eyt e&i-cl/zAz -16 NOTE: Alaska Statutes Section 29.33.110(C) states: "A variance shall not be granted because of special conditions caused by actions of:the person seeking relief or for reasons of pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. A variance shall not be granted which will permit a land use in a district in which that use is prohibited." • Please use additional paper for additional comments. Signature of Authorized Agent Date Sign re f Land Swner RECEIVED FROM • CASH RECEIPT Kodiak Island Borough 700 UPPER MILL BAY ROAD P.O. BOX 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615, PHONE (907) 486-5736 Jo - di ,16-1A,t_49 16,27„, 'ii,i-4) cifEZ-M;,•.-.j.. 010 - 000 - 101 - 10 - 00 ',;.-,'WZr: 'f,. -ITEM- — ' ;'-:-.,' ::...; CASH ' Ifi,W.tiEbitli '-. ,:. 2.! 1 ..; . Akyt;42.6 ,cciEtiii...,:., ;q -z.,),,,‘• I 010 - 000 - 322 - 11 - 00 BUILDING PERMITS I 010 - 000 - 322 - 90 - 00 ZONING PERMITS 1 I 010 - 000 - 341 - 50 - 00 SALE OF MAPS 1 I 010 - 000 - 341 - 51 - 00 SALE OF COPIES I I PROPERTY TAX I LAND'SALE PAYMENT PER ATTACHED I .. 1 1 1 -.5-0 1 - •11.-Iet,,c,d,--e-- i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I CONDITIONS OF CHECK PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYMENTS TENDERED BY CHECK FOR OBLIGATIONS DUE TO SO T 1 THE BOROUGH ARE SATISFIED ONLY UPON THE CHECK BEING HONORED. RETURNED CHECKS FOR ANY REASON RESTORES THE OBLIGATION AS UNPAID AND SUBJECTS THE PAYER TO ANY CHARGES, FEES OR OTHER LEGAL LIABILITIES AS MAY BE APPLICABLE. CASHIER Os PAYMENT MADE BY: CA CHECK NO 13 0 CASH 0 OTHER FM08-511815