Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
LEITE LT 13 - Variance
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Community Development 710 Mill Bay Road (Rm 205), Kodiak, Alaska 99615-6340 - Phone: (907) 486-9362 Property Owner/Applicant: Mailing Address: Legal Desc Street Address: r 'a Box ption: 7 / , 2D 5 4 ,/;i /t3// /'-'rl`�SiO4L% Rand ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT Phone:fetAi ssln ' Tax Code #: Description of Existing Propertylcurrentzoning: R ( sca r— r Minimum Required Lot Area: Actual Lot Area: (065 Minimum Required Setbacks: Sides: Front: -—� Maximum Building Height: Use and size of existing structures on the lot: Width: rr Width: J (VCvA)Gfi) Rear: (� t. (it C 2t_ Sri FEE: 0 Permit #: C.1-4 71 Number and size of parking spaces required (onsite identification of parkin spaces is required - Yes: No: Off-street loading requirement: Plat related requirements (e.g., plat notes, easements, subdivision conditions, etc.): Other requirements (e.g., zero lot line, additional setbacks, projections into yards, screening, etc.): s Coastal Management Program Applicable Polices (check appropriate category) - Residential: Business: Other (list): Industrial: Is the proposed action consistent with the KIB Coastal Management Program? - Yes: No: If the proposed action conflicts with the Coastal Management Program policies, attach a sheet that notes the policy(ies), N describes the conflict(s), and specifies conditions to mitigate the conflict(s). Attachment - Yes: � Description of proposed action (attach site plan): /�!-CLLvtctt� t.Qe(� iivaes / ft 2 - THIS FORM DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED Expiration: A zoning compliance permit will become null and void if the building or use authorized by such permit is not commenced with 180 days from the date of issuance, or, if the building construction or use is abandoned at any time, after the work is commenced, for a period of 180 days. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so. (Sec. 303 (d) Expiration, 1991 Uniform Building Code) per KIBC 17.03.060 Applicant Certification: I hereby certify that I will comply with the provisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Code and that I have the authority to certify this as the property owner, or as a representative of the property owner. I agree to have identifiable corner markers in place in the field for verification of setbacks. By:A I I I I Supporting documents attached (check): Site plan: Community Development staff for zoning, by: I rt t surve Date: Other (list): Title: ,45 . /�G�Ls zz/ Date: Fire Chief (City of Kodiak, Fire District #1 (Bayside), Womens Bay Fire District] approval for UFC (Sections 10.207 and 10.301C) by: Date: Driveway Permit (State, City of Kodiak, Borough) issued by: Date: 8. Septic system PLAN approved by: Date: Distribution: File (original) / Building Official / Applicant / Assessing January, 1994 Robert and Meea Murphy P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 March 17, 1994 RE: Case 94-001. Findings of fact in support of a variance granted from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area (Deferred from the February 16, 1994 regular meeting). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Murphy; The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on March 16, 1994, adopted the following findings of fact in support of their February 16, 1994 decision granting the variance request cited above: 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 Commission believes that the exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property is the nonconforming lot area of 4,669 square feet and lot width of 50 feet. Other conditions compounding the exceptional circumstances is the location of the main structure on, the property and the location of a retaining wall in the front yard which limits the amount of off-street parking available on the site. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties' or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning code would require the removal of the rearmost 8.2 feet from the garage addition. This is an unnecessary hardship because the garage addition was inspected by the City Building Official when it was originally constructed 10 years ago and there is no mention of the encroachment in the property file. In addition, the illegal status of the encroaching garage may make the KodiaKisland Borough Robert and Meesha Murphy March 17, 1994 Page Two property hard to finance in the future should the applicants decide to sell the property. To leave the current property owners in this situation would also constitute an unnecessary hardship. Conditions of approval will place limitations on the variance so that the encroaching portion of the garage will be viewed as nonconforming. This will ensure that the house and garage will be reconstructed in strict compliance with the zoning ordinances should the structure ever be moved or destroyed by more than 50% of its replacement cost. The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice toi other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health safety and welfare. Granting the variance will not prejudice other properties in the vicinity of Lot 13; Leite Subdivision. Many of the older structures in Leite Subdivision 'and Leite Addition are nonconforming due to insufficient lot width, lot area, parking and structural encroachments. Conditions of approval will be placed on the variance to ensure that the approval does not prejudice existing nonconforming developments or establish a precedent that would encourage similar requests. The Commission particularly notes that the addition has encroached the rear setback of Lot 13 for nearly 10 years and there have been no complaints or other documentation of the encroachment until the applicants provided an as -built survey to the Borough staff. Specific conditions of approval for this variance are summarized as follows: The garage addition must remain available to provide adequate off-street parking, the variance is limited to the life of the structure, no expansion of the existing building footprint will be permitted. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, k Kodiak island Borough Robert and Meesha Murphy March 17, 1994 Page Three The comprehensive plan identifies this area for medium density residential development. Granting of this variance will have no effect on the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. The actions of the applicant did not cause the special conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The applicants unknowingly assumed the liability for the illegal garage addition when they acquired the property. Because the encroaching addition was constructed by a previous property owner and inspected by the City Building Official, the Commission finds that the existing owners should not be held accountable for the actions of the previous owner. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. The existing 'residence will continue to be used for permitted residential uses whether the variance is granted or not. By adopting these findings, the Commission completed the decision to grant the variance that was considered at the February 16, 1994 regular meeting. This action validates the conditions of approval as follows: 1. The integrity of the garage will be maintained, requiring 320 square feet of area to be reserved for two parking places. 2. No further expansion of the building footprint of the existing structure on the subject property will be permitted. If the structure is moved or destroyed by more than 50% of the replacement cost, then any new structure must be rebuilt in conformity with the current building codes, and the rear setback must be ten feet, or to current code, whichever is less. Kodiaklsland Borough Robert and Meesha Murphy March 17, 1994 Page Four THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT ALLOW ANY CONSTRUCTION TO BEGIN. Zoning compliance and/or a building permit must first be obtained. Failure to utilize an approved variance within twelve (12) months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. Please contact this office for further details. An appeal of this ;decision may be initiated by; 1) the applicant, or 2) any person who was sent a written notice or submitted timely written comments or gave oral testimony at the public hearing before the Commission, by filing a written notice of appeal with the Borough Clerk within ten (10) working days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific:, grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant, and be accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effective until ten (10) working days following the decision. This letter shall constitute the variance. Please bring it when you come to our office to obtain zoning compliance for any construction on the pro perty. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department at 486-9362. Sincerely, uane Dvorak, Associate Planner Community Development Department 2. The vacation of the identified easements, as permitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, will not reduce or eliminate the traditional access utilized by surrounding land owners unless an equal or superior alternative is provided by the applicant and this alternative is acceptable to the land owners affected. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. H) Case S94-005. Request for preliminary approval of the vacation of a 20 foot utility easement on Lot 9D, and the creation of a 20 foot utility easement between Lots 9A & 9D. and 9B & 9C, U.S. Survey 3099. 2726 & 2736, Rezanof Drive East, and 2695 & 2679 Spruce Cape Road. This request was deleted from the agenda upon the request of the applicant I) Case S94-006. Request for preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot 2, U.S. Survey 3103, creating Lots 2A and 2B, U.S. Survey 3103. 2895 Island Lake/Backside Road. DUANE DVORAK indicated 30 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff issued a revised memorandum addressing some of the questions raised at the packet review worksession. Staff recommended a waiver from lot width requirements be granted prior to consideration of preliminary approval. Staff recommended preliminary approval of this request, subject to the 4 conditions in the revised memorandum dated March 20, 1994, one of which addresses lot width, and 3 which address the private road easement/driveway. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Dale Pruitt, applirant, appeared before the Commission and expressed his desire to postpone this request until the April Commission meeting, to allow more time for him to discuss the suggested conditions of approval with staff. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER BONNEY MOVED TO POSTPONE action on Case 594-006 until the April 20. 1994 regular meeting, and to rechedule it for another public hearing at that time. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. VII. OLD BUSINESS Case 94-001.! Findings of fact in support of a variance - granted -from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet P & Z Minutes: March 16. 1994 Page 16 of 20 It into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4.669 square feet of area (Deferred from the February 16, 1994 regular meeting). COMMISSIONER ASUNCION MOVED TO ADOPT the findings of fact in the staff report dated February 17. 1994 as findings of fact for Case 94-001. FINDINGS OF' FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the nroperty or intended use of development, which generally do not aunty to other properties in the same land use district. The Commission believes that the exceptional circumstances or conditions appllcable to the property is the nonconforming lot area of 4,669 square feet and lot width of 50 feet. Other conditions compounding the exceptional circumstances is the location of the main structure on the property and the Location of a retaining wall in the front yard which limits the amount of off- street parking available on the site. .' +.1l . •.n +f h •r• _ woui+ r salt in nracttcal difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning code would require the removal of the rearmost 8.2 feet from the garage addition. This is an unnecessary hardship because the garage addition was inspected by the City Building Official when it was originally constructed 10 years ago and there is no 'mention of the encroachment in the property file. In addition, the illegal status of the encroaching garage may make the property hard to finance in the future should the appllcants decide to sell the property. To leave the current property owners in this situation would also constitute an unnecessary hardship. Conditions of approval place limitations on the variance so that the encroaching portion of the garage will be viewed as nonconforming. This ensures that the house and garage will be reconstructed in strict compliance with the zoning ordinances should the structure ever be moved or destroyed by more than 50% of its replacement cost. 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 Granting the variance will not prejudice other propertirs in the vicinity of Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. Many of the older structures in Leite Subdivision and Leite Addition are nonconforming due to insufficient lot width, lot area. parking and structural encroachments. Conditions of approval will be placed on the variance to ensure that the P & 2 Minutes: March 16. 1964 Page 17 of 20 approval does not prejudice existing nonconforming developments or establish a precedent that would encourage similar requests. The Commission particularly notes that the addition has encroached the rear setback of Lot 13 for nearly 10 years and there have been no complaints or other documentation of the encroachment until the applicants provided an as -built survey to the Borough staff. Specific conditions of approval for this variance are summarized as follows: The garage addition rnust remain available to provide adequate off-street parking, the variance is limited to the Life of the structure, no expansion of the existing building footprint will be permitted. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan The comprehensive plan identifies this area for medium density residential development. Granting of this variance will have no effect on the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. That actions of the applicant did not cause snecial conditions or financial hardship from which relief 'is being sought by the variance. The actions of the applicant did not cause the special conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The applicants unknowingly assumed the liability for the illegal garage addition when they acquired the property. Because the encroaching addition was constructed by a previous- property owner and inspected by the City Building Official, the Commission finds that the existing owners should not be held accountable for the actions of the previous owner. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved, The existing residence will continue to be used for permitted residential uses whether the variance is granted or not. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. B) Case 93-061. Investigation of the possible rezone of Lots 1- 11, Block 3, Lakeside Subdivision, in accordance with Section 17.72.030 B (Manner of Initiation) of the Borough Code, to B -- Business, or UNC --Urban Neighborhood Commercial, or RB -- Retail Business, and the possible revision of the Lakeside/Safeway Sub Area Land Use Plan (Postponed and revised from the October 20, 1993 meeting, and postponed from the November 17, 1993 regular meeting) P & Z Minutes: March 18. 1994 Page 18 or 20 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kodiak Island Borough CASE: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: Old Business Item VII -A MEMORANDUM February 17, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Department/ Information for the March 16, 1994 Regu ar Meeting 94-001 Robert and Meesha Murphy Findings of fact in support of a variance to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area (Deferred from the February 16, 1994 regular meeting). Lot 13, Leite Subdivision, 1311 Mission Road R 1 --Single-family Residential BACKGROUND The above referenced variance was granted by the Commission at the February 16, 1994 regular meeting. The adoption of findings of fact was deferred until the March 16, 1994 regular meeting in order to permit the staff time to prepare findings in support of the variance. Staff has developed the following findings for the Commission's consideration regarding this case. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The Commission believes that the exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property is the nonconforming lot area of 4,669 square feet and lot width of 50 feet. Other conditions compounding the exceptional circumstances is the location of the main structure on the property and the location of a retaining wall in the front yard which limits the amount of off-street parking available on the site. Case 94-001 Page 1 of S P & Z: March 16, 1994 Old Business Item VII -A 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning code would require the removal of the rearmost 8.2 feet from the garage addition. This is an unnecessary hardship because the garage addition was inspected by the City Building Official when it was originally constructed 10 years ago and there is no mention of the encroachment in the property file. In addition, the illegal status of the encroaching garage may make the property hard to fmance in the future should the applicants decide to sell the property. To leave the current property owners in this situation would also constitute an unnecessary hardship. Conditions of approval will place limitations on the variance so that the encroaching portion of the garage will be viewed as nonconforming. This will ensure that the house and garage will be reconstructed in strict compliance with the zoning ordinances should the structure ever be moved or destroyed by more than 50% of its replacement cost. 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. Granting the variance will not prejudice other properties in the vicinity of Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. Many of the older structures in Leite Subdivision and Leite Addition are nonconforming due to insufficient lot width, lot area, parking and structural encroachments. Conditions of approval will be placed on the variance to ensure that the approval does not prejudice existing nonconforming developments or establish a precedent that would encourage similar requests. The Commission particularly notes that the addition has encroached the rear setback of Lot 13 for nearly 10 years and there have been no complaints or other documentation of the encroachment until the applicants provided an as -built survey to the Borough staff. Specific conditions of approval for this variance are summarized as follows: The garage addition must remain available to provide adequate off-street parking, the variance is limited to the life of the structure, no expansion of the existing building footprint will be permitted. Case 94-001 Page 2 of 3 P & 2: March 16, 1994 Old Business Item VII -A 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan identifies this area for medium density residential development. Granting of this variance will have no effect on the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. The actions of the applicant did not cause the special conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The applicants unknowingly assumed the liability for the illegal garage addition when they acquired the property. Because the encroaching addition was constructed by a previous property owner and inspected by the City Building Official, the Commission finds that the existing owners should not be held accountable for the actions of the previous owner. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. The existing residence will continue to be used for permitted residential uses whether the variance is granted or not. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission adopt findings of fact in support of the variance that was granted. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the sta ff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: Move to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated February 17, 1994 as "Findings of Fact" for Case 94-004. Case 94.001 Page 3 of 3 P & Z; March 16, 1994 Robert and Meesha Murphy P.O. Box Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (SS February 25, 1994 RE: Case 94-001. Findings of fact in support of a variance granted from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area (Deferred from the February 16, 1994 regular meeting). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Murphy; Please be advised that the request referenced above has been scheduled for review and action by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their March 16, 1994 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Attendance at this meeting is recommended. The week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, March 9, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Conference Room (#121), the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet material for the regular meeting. You are invited to attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, please call the Community Development Department at 486-9363. Sincerely, &Lac-- Eileen Probasco, Secretary Community Development Department Robert and Meesha Murphy P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, Alaska 99615-4187 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE 01111111S February 17, 1994 RE: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2. feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. (Postponed from the January 19, 1994 regular meeting). Dear Mr. & Mrs. Murphy: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 16, 1994, granted the variance request cited above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The integrity of the garage will be maintained, requiring 320 square feet of area to be reserved for two parking places. 2. No further expansion of the building footprint of the existing structure on the subject property will be permitted. If the structure is moved or destroyed by more than 50% of the replacement cost, then any new structure must be rebuilt in conformity with the current building codes, and the rear setback must be ten feet, or to current code, whichever is less. The Commission deferred findings of fact until the March 16, 1994 regular meeting. As a result, this decision is not final until the findings of fact are adopted. The appeal period and the 12 month approval period during which you may obtain zoning compliance does not begin until the decision is final. KodiaK Island Borough Robert and Meesha Murphy February 17, 1994 Page Two If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department at 486-9362. Sincerely, Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner Community Development Department F) Letter dated February 16, 1994 to Tony Perez from Bob Scholze, RE: Non compliance with minimum separation distance between trailers on Lot 13, U.S. Survey 3098. G) Thank you note to Linda Freed from Sue Blott, Kodiak High School Teacher, RE: Presentation to classes about planning and zoning. and the purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission. DELETIONS D) CASE: S94 -O01 APPLICANT: Michael Anderson AGENT: Ecklund Surveying REQUEST: Preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot 4, Block 1, Kadlak Alaska Subdivision, 1st Addition. creating Lots 4A, 45, 4C and 4D, Block 1, Kadiak Alaska Subdivision. 1st Addition. LOCATION: 3420 Rezanof Drive ZONING: B --Business This case was deleted from the agenda upon request from the applicant. COMMISSIONER SZABO MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda with the revisions reported by staff. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. ' IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER SZABO MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the January 19, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Case 94.001.. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. (Postponed from the January 19, 1994 regular meeting). r t P & Z eE DUANE DVORAK indicated 50 public hearing notices were mailed for this case this month and 2 were returned stating non -objection to this request. Staff recommended denial of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Page 2 of 12' G • Bob Murphy. applicant, appeared before the Commission to express support for this request and to answer questions. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER BARRETT MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: The integrity of the garage will be maintained, requiring 300 square feet of area to be reserved for two parking places. 2. No further expansion of the building footprint of the existing structure on the subject property will be permitted. 3. If the structure is moved or destroyed by more than 50% of the replacement cost. then any new structure must be rebuilt in conformity with the current building codes. and the rear setback must be ten feet, or to current code, whichever is less The motion was seconded. COMMISSIONERS BONNEY expressed his opinion that the variance request should be approved because strict application of the code would cause unnecessary hardship and difficulty to the property owner. that the addition has been in existence for over ten years without any complaints from neighboring property owners, and that the addition was constructed by someone else. He felt that granting this variance with the suggested conditions, would not give the applicants any special property rights, which neighboring property owners do not have. COMMISSIONER SZABO stated that, although she Wed to justify granting this variance, she felt that it should only be granted if it met all of the required findings. She could not vote to approve the request because she agreed with staffs suggested finding #1, that there were NOT 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. She was also concerned that approving this request would set a precedent. COMMISSIONERS BARRETT and FRIEND expressed their concurrence with COMMISSIONER BONNEY'S comments. The question was called and motion CARRIED by a roll call vote of 41. COMMISSIONER SZABO voted no. P & Z Minutes: February 16, 1994 Page 3 of 12 COMMISSIONER BARRETT MOVED TO POSTPONE findings of fact until the March 16, 1994 regular meeting. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. B) Case 94-003. Request for a conditional use permit, in accordance with Section 17.14.040 (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code to permit a lodge complex with provisions for up to forty (40) clients, including associated accessory structures. an airstrip, seafood processing facility, timber product processing facility. and roadway to be located on an RD --Rural Development parcel consisting of 25.33 acres. U.S. Survey 1450, generally located in Portage Bay. on the Alaska Peninsula. COMMISSIONER KNAUF declared he had a conflict of interest, as he was the applicant for this case. CHAIR FRIEND determined there was a conflict and COMMISSIONER KNAUF was excused from the Commission. DUANE DVORAK indicated 10 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 1 was returned, expressing concern for the impact the proposed development would have on archaeological resources in the area. ' Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions. Regular Session Closed. - Public Hearing Opened: Jeff Knauf, applicant, appeared before the Commission to express support for this request and to answer questions. COMMISSIONER BARRETT asked Mr. Knauf about his proposed timber product processing facility. Mr. Knauf stated that he had inadvertently added that phrase. as his intentions were strictly for a small scale operation, something adequate for construction projects contained on the property. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER BONNEY MOVED TO GRANT a request for a conditional use permit, in accordance with Section 17.14,040 (Conditional Uses) of the Borough Code to permit a lodge - complex with provisions for up to forty (40) clients, including associated accessory structures, an airstrip, seafood processing facility, and a roadway to be located on U.S. Survey 1450, on a 25.33 acre parcel of land generally located along Portage Bay on the Alaska Peninsula; subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated January 31, 1994; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated January 31, 1994 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P & Z Minutes: February 16, 1994 Page 4 of 12 Robert L. & Meesha Elayne Murphy 1311 Mission Road P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 907-486-8707 ATTN: Planning &: Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 205 Kodiak, Alaska 99615-6398 Subject: Case 94-001 Leite Subdivision, Lot 13 ( 1311 Mission Road ) This is Supplement #3, to be attached to our application for a variance, dated December 15, 1993. We would like to expand our interpretation of the six requirements to show how we believe we qualify for this variance. 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. In paragraph one, of the Planning & Zoning offices' report to the Commission, it states: A variance is intended to allow a property owner to deviate :(vary) from dimensional requirements... to provide for the fact that all lots in a particular zoning district are not equally developable according to a single set of development standards. The standard R1 lot in the borough is 7,200 sq. ft. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision, is only 4,669 sq. ft. The difference being 2,551 sq. ft. less than the standard R1 lot. Also, the front of the property has a retaining wall, built by the City in the mid -1970's while widening Mission'Road. The combination of the retaining wall, and the lot being 35% smaller than the standard R1 lot, we feel these are "Exceptional physical circurristances", and therefore, meets the above requirement. We would like tO note the physical characteristics of this property has not changed since 1984, when it met the above requirement and others which allowed a variance to be granted for an encroachment into the froeit:setback. 2 2) Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the zoning code would require the removal of the rearmost 8.2 feet of the garage addition. This reduction would be a major construction project, as it would involve rearranging electrical items such as lights & outlets, large windows, garage doors and walls, as well as the roof. By code, any reduction of the present two car garage would turn it into a single car garage, forcing one vehicle onto the street. (Current parking width is 17 feet, one foot larger than the 1984 code.) On paper, it might appear that a reduction would create a parking spot behind the garage. It would be impossible to be straight enough to maneuver between the garage, fence, Spruce tree, and the neighbors' planter boxes. To sum up, reducing the garage would be a major construction project which creates an "unnecessary hardship" for,three reasons: 1) It would force a veh,icle onto the street. 2) No one has filed a complaint in its 10 year standing. 3) The Borough is not enforcing the reduction, and has chosen to treat the garage addition as a nonconforming structure. 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. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision faces Mission Road. Parked cars on this section of Mission Road can be dangerous, as they might block the view of the road. (See Supplement #1, exhibit LT) A few months ago, a motor vehicle parked off the road about 75 yards from this lot, was smashed by on -coming traffic. Our neighbors are also concerned about extra parked vehicles, as seen in a written public testimony by Lot 5, Oceanview Subdivision - "I would encourage more people to provide for off Street parking!!!." This garage addition adds to the "public's health, safety and welfare in our vicinity" by keeping two vehicles off the narrow and busy Mission Road. Many of the structures on the lots in our vicinity are nonconforming. Shortly before the garage addition was built, these nonconforming structures were protected by a variance, and became "grandfathered". On our request for a variance, we make the recommendation that this variance be for a nonconforming structure. Since some of these protected nonconforming structures on other properties may have been built shortly before the mentioned garage addition, we feelthis type of variance will not be "prejudice to other properties in the vicinity". To conclude, this variance will not be "prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare." 4) The granting of the variance will not be objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. contrary to the In the report to :the Commission by the Planning & Zoning office, 3 dated December 27, 1993, it states: "The comprehensive plan identifies this area for medium density residential development. Granting of this,variance will have no effect on the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5) That the actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. The "applicant", Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Murphy, purchased the said property seven ears after the construction of the garage addition. Since the construction, they are the third owners of the said property. After the Murphy's sought information regarding building pe mits which may be needed for some interior remodeling, the rear setback violation was recorded. (November 1993, by an office memorandum from Mr. Bob Schultz, of the Borough's Planning & Zoning office.) After the Borough's attorney, Mr. Joel H. Bolger, reviewed our file, he states in paragraph three on page two in the letter to Ms. Freed, dated December 8, 1993, " the length of time since the Murphy's garage was constructed, and the number of subsequent inspections of the property, provide evidence which the Murphy's will rely on to urge a court to deny enforcement of the setback requirement. Considering all the factors, I would recommend against bringing an enforcement action requiring the Murphy's to demolish the garage in order to come into compliance with the setback requirements." AS stated in the Planning & Zoning offices' report to the Commission, dated December 27, 1993, on page three, paragraph one itistates: H The attorney's recommendation against enforcement action would avoid the estoppel issue, to the benefit of both parties." The Borough has decided to compromise, and treat this garage addition as a nonconforming structure. One might suggest that with the Borough's attempt to compromise, it accepts some form of responsibility. We accept this compromise, but need legal documentation in order to sell our house in the future. As stated in the last paragraph on page three, of the Borough's Planning & Zoning's office report to the Commission: "The variance procedure provides the only mechanism to legalize the encroachment." Thus, since we are not the party which built the addition, and with the Borough's indirect admittance of some responsibility, "the actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance." Therefore, meeting the above requirement. 6) That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the t district involved. In the report to brie Commission by the Planning & Zoning office, it states: " The existing residence may continue to be used for permitted residential use whether the variance is granted or not." We have shown that this request for variance meet b the six requirements. If the report to the Commission, by the Planing & Zoning office, had been written after the on site visit, then 4 perhaps they would have seen our point of view as well. (Note: Page one of the report, DATE: December 27, 1993; Date of site visit: December 29, 1993) In conclusion, we still recommend the following conditions to be placed an the variance: 1) The integrity of the garage will be maintained, requiring 320 sq. ft. of area to be reserved for two parking places. (This is the code for 1984). 2) No further expansion of the building footprint of the existing structure on the subjectAwill be permitted. 3) If the structure is moved or destroyed by more than 50% of the replacement cost, then any new structure must be rebuilt in confoLmity with the current building codes, and the rear setback must be ten feet,' or to current code, whichever is,less. Robert and Meesha Murphy P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, Alaska 99615-4187 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 January 24, 1994 RE: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the !Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot tear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. ,1311 Mission Road. (Postponed from the January 19, 1994 regular meeting). Dear Mr. & Mrs. Murphy: Please be advised that the request referenced above has been scheduled for review and action by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their February 16, 1994 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. :in the Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Attendance at this meeting is recommended. The week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, February 9, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Conference Room (#121), the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet material for the regular meeting. You are invited to attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, please call the Community Development Department at 486-9363. Sincerely, Atha - Eileen Probasco, Secretary Community Development Department Planning and Zoning Commission Kodiak, AK 99615 January 12, 1994 Robert and Meesha Murphy P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, AK 99615 Below are comments regarding our request for a variance dated December 16, 1993 for Lot 13 of the Leite Subdivision. I. HISTORY OF THE LOT. The house was built in 1938 with a quonset hut (similar to Exhibit A) behind the house. Houses with a detached garage/storage building are common to the immediate area surrounding this property. The lot was originally 5,169 sq. ft. but in the mid -1970's, 500 sq. ft. was deeded to the City as a Right -of -Way for the widening of Mission Road. The lot is presently 4,669 sq. ft., 2,531 sq. ft. below minimum lot requirements. II. HISTORY OF THE HOUSE. On May 4, 1984 a building permit was applied for and granted (Building Permit 5222, Exhibit B). This is the earliest information regarding any City/Borough planning and zoning subjects. On June 12, 1984 a Conditional Use Permit was applied for and granted (Case 84-063, Exhibit C). On June 22, 1984 Building Permit 5262 (Exhibit D) was granted for the construction of the garage addition, which is the subject of this variance. Information we feel pertinent on this building permit application is: 1) written by; a Planning and Zoning official on the application is "property corners with I.D. must be in place and available for verification of setbacks", and 2) on September 24, 1984 the Chief Building Official approved the structure. On July 18, 1984 a variance was granted for the construction of a greenhouse in the front of the yard (Exhibit E). A building peLmit (#86004) was issued for the construction of the greenhouse on January 16, 1986 (Exhibit F). Building Permit 87008 (EXHIBIT G) was granted on January 30, 1987 for the construction of a peaked roof from a flat roof on the garage addition. An Access Easement was granted by the previous owners of our property and the owners of Lot 12 to provide legal access to both properties on the driveway, which has always been shared by both properties. The Murphy's are the third owners of the property since the additions have been constructed. III. A PREVIOUS VARIANCE? We have reason to believe there maybe a variance for the garage addition already because of the following: 1) The previous owners had the proper paperwork for all building projects, variance, access easement, and conditional use permit for a business. -continued- P&Z Commission, page 2 of 3 2) A letter from Mr. Paul J. Anderson (Exhibit H), who was a neighbor (Lot 12) from 1975-93, stating that he remembers receiving a variance notice and that the rear setback markers were in place. 3) The Chief Building Official approved of the new garage addition, and three years later the construction of a peaked roof when the rear setbacks were 25', yet the garage violates the set back by over 23' (according to 1984 code). The fence surrounding the property (Exhibit I) was in place at the time and it would be impossible for anybody not to see that the garage was only 1.8' away from the fence, versus the required 25'. 4) There have never been any complaints about the garage. The old quonset hut was an eyesore, and the addition of a garage removed two vehicles from the street where a parking problem exists. Exhibit 3 shows one of the problems with parking. Without the garage, the owners of Lot 12, the neighbors with whom the driveway is shared, faced a very dangerous situation on exiting the driveway onto Mission Road. The parked cars block the view onto Mission Road. The previous owners appeared to apply for all necessary building permits, variance, easement, and a conditional use permit for the property to improve the property from a 1930's structure and building codes to 1980's structure and codes. Although no record of a variance has been found at the Borough, we believe that the evidence and personal testimony from Mr. Paul J. Anderson (Exhibit H) suggest a variance was applied for and granted. In our interpretation of the six requirements for the variance (Exhibit K, see letter to P&Z Commission dated December 13, 1993) we qualify for the variance. Also attached (Exhibit L) is a letter from Borough Attorney Mr. Joel Bolger to Director Linda Freed dated December 8, 1993 regarding this subject. On page 2, paragraph 3 Mr. Bolger states "Considering all of these factors, I would recommend against bringing an enforcement action requiring the Murphy's to demolish the garage in order to come into compliance with the setback requirements." The Borough is treating the garage as a non -conforming structure with no plans on enforcement. We knew of the attorneys letter recommending no enforcement prior to applying for the variance. We are interested in making our property legal for resale and not interested in obtaining "a particular advantage over other properties in the area which have nonconforming structures" as stated in the Community Development Department Memorandum to the P&Z Commission. Even though there is evidence suggesting the garage already has a variance, we are willing to compromise with the borough, and request a variance on a non -conforming structure. There is a small percentage of lots with less than 5,000 sq. ft. in the borough. This type of variance will not be prejudicial to these types of lots, plus allows us to have the legal documentation whenever we sell the house. -continued- 2 P&Z Commission, page 3 of 3 In conclusion, as stated in the publics response and personal communication regarding our application for this variance, the immediate neighbors (nor any other party) have no objection to the garage. Lot 5,the property which the garage borders has no objection to the variance (Personal Communication with Pastor Minyard from the:, Berean Baptist Church who gave us permission to state they have no problem with the garage or variance). In consideration ,of this request, we recommend the following conditions: 1) The integriEy, of the garage will be maintained, requiring 320 sq. ft. of the area to be reserved for two parking places. 2) No further expansion of the building footprint of the existing structure on the subject will be permitted. 3) If the structure is moved or destroyed by more than 50% of the replacement cost, then any new structure must be rebuild in confoimity with the current zoning code and the rear setback marker must be 10' from the structure, or to current zoning code whichever is less. EXHIBIT A BUILDING DEPARTMENT — CITY / BOROUGH OF KODIAK Applicant to fill in between heavy lines. APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY . TNG ADDRESS •'// .41 /Ss/ 04/- /1/� LHY Xe5D1 F /f ' EST CROSS ST. CLASS OF WORK DEMOLISH ALTERATION ADDITION REPAIR MOVE X BUILDING PERMIT NO, S 2-- 2-7_. NA713u/j/ (49, ER "YrtrE55no-r /o a q "4-16 am K, y8(-°YPi/ us BUILDING DU' nu iv o_ SIZE CF BUILDING 3 D X /f O HEIGHT / 4/1 NO.OF ROOMS t NO. OF FLOORS / NO. OF BUILDINGS VALUATION /V 00OJ DATE ISSUED CAMS e LOG. FEE 5 PLAN CIA. FEE OTAL NAME NO. OF BUILDINGS NOW ON LOT. NO.OF FAMILIES OUILDING FOUNDATION PLUMBING ROUGH ELECTRIC ROUGH ADDRESS SIZE OF LOT FRAME SEPTIC TANK FINISH GSV USE OF BLDG. NOW ON Lor S/Fs fk6E SPECIFICATIONS PLASTER SEWER FIXTURES FLUES GAS MOTORS STATE LICENSE NO. ADDRESS FOUNDATION FINAL FINISH FINAL MATERIAL EXTERIOR, PIERS WIDTH OF TOP WIDTH OF BOTTOM EIIT DEPTH IN GROUND R.W. PLATE (51.11 STAIE LICENSE 6 1 / i7 SIZE SPA, SUBDIVISION LOT NG. BLIT. t3 °Ens OIST IR. FL. JOIST NG. EL. JO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Type of Construction 1,11,111, IV Q V) VI Occupancy Group A, (3, C, 0, E, F, G, H, I, J Div. 1, 2,tsr4, . Fire Zone 10' JOIST CEILING EXTERIOR MOS INTERIOR STUDS TE BEARING WALLS COVERING EXTERIOR WALLS ROOF 1NTERIORWALLS REROOFING FLUES FIREPLACE / KITCHEN ( WATER HEATER FURNACE GAS OIL T hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the above is correct and agree to comply with all City Ordinances and Slate Laws regulatingatib//}s❑d' g construction. Annlicant if.X•fA.7iU�11�t'TT. FLopsjc__, "Fie - EXHIBIT B A ruled: CHIEF BUILDING OFFICAL �1A K. C n n PLANNING B QNING INPQ. ZONING °ISTNICT OF OCC NUMBER OFSTO AREA OF L TOTAL 111. 00 ,SC BACK OM PROP VA c PR REAR VARD Approved: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH MEMORANDUM ITEM VI (1) DATE: June 12, 1984 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development DepartmentPj.• SUBJ: Information for the June 20, 1984 Regular Meeting RE: CASE 84-063. Request for a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 17.18.030 Conditional Uses to allow an electrical repair shop as a home occupation in a Single-family Residential District on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision; 1311 Mission Road (Burl Clymer). Forty (40) public hearing notices were mailed on June 5, 1984. 1. Applicant: Mr. Burl Clymer, P.O. Box 1024, Kodiak, AK 99615. 2. Land Owner: Same as applicant. 3. Request: Request for a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 17.18.030 Conditional Uses. 4. Purpose: The purpose of this request is to allow an electrical repair shop as a home occupation in a Single-family Residential District (R1) on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 5. Existing Zoning: The existing zoning is Single-family Residential District (R1), 6. Zoning History: The 1968 Comprehensive Plan indicates the zoning of this lot as Single-family Residential District (R1). 7. Location: Lot 13, Leite Subdivision (1311 Mission Road). 8. Lot Size: The lot size is 4,669 square feet. 9. Existing Land Use: ' The exsiting, land use is RI. 10. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Lot 5, Leite Subdivision is zoned R1 and is vacant; South: Mission Road; East: Lot 12, Leite Subdivision is zoned R1 and is vacant; West: Lot 14, Leite Subdivision is zoned R1 and has an RI use. 11. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Pian indicates this area for "Medium -Density Residential." 12. Applicable Regulations: Chapter 17.18, Single-family Residential District (R1), Section 17.18.030 Conditional Uses lists home occupations as a conditional use. EXHIBIT C COMMENTS: The applicant is retired and would like to start a home occupation, repairing primarily televisions, but he does not rule out other forms of electrical repair. Some new or repaired televisions may also be sold at his home, or used as "loaners." The applicant will also serve as a distributer of televisions to be sold by a local merchant. The applicant's lot has ample area around the residence to accomodate additional parking, although little increase in traffic is expected. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request because it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not impact the area adversely. APPROPRIATE MOTION: Move to grant a, Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 17.18.030 Conditional Uses to permit an electrical repair shop as a home occupation in the Single-family Residential District (R1) on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. CASE 84-063. - 2 - June 12, 1984 H) CASE 84-062• Request for aril- :ion from Section 17.17.020 (Permstted Uses) to allow th ;.caval of rock and gravel from Lot 10A, Block 4, Monashka B>'j :desks Subdivision, a rural resi- dential lot; 2680 Otmeloi Point Road (Tary & Denise Middlesworth). COMMISSIONER CROWE declared a conflict of interest regarding Case 84-062, and the other Commissioners concurred that she should abstain from participation in this case. MR. CASSIDY presented the Commissioners with photographs of the subject property. There being no further staff report, the Chairman recessed the Regular Meeting and opened the Public Hearing. MS, DENISE MIDDLESWORTH, applicant, spoke in favor of granting the request for the following reasons: a legitimate site plan had been submitted and the applicants are in earnest to develop a nice, level site. MR. ERIC GOOSSEN, adjacent property owner, spoke in favor on granting the exception. Mr. Goossen felt the rock removal would make the lot more accessible. MR. DAN MACIAK, Gravel Extraction Task Force Chairman, spoke in favor of granting the request. Mr. Racial; urged the Commission to review the position paper that was prepared by the Gravel Extraction Task Force in order to facilitate the issue of gravel extraction. MR. SCOTT ARNDT spoke in favor of granting the exception. Mr. Arndt asked staff why this case was before the Commission for consideration. MR. CASSIDY responded that: 1) the applicant had requested an exception; and 2) the Borough Assembly's decision on gravel extraction was basically to continue handling the issue as had been done in the past. Mr. Cassidy noted that it had been determined by the Borough Engineer that the amount of gravel proposed to be removed by the property owner required an exception, and that was why it was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission. MR. ARNDT felt there were no reasons for denying the request. There being no further public testimony, CHAIRMAN GRECO closed the Public Rearing and reconvened the Regular meeting. COMMISSIONER RENNELL MOVED TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION from Section 17.17.020 (Permitted Uses) to alloy the removal of 1,500 cubic yards of rock and gravel on a rural residential lot for the construction of a driveway and preparation of a building site on Lot 10A, Block 4, Monashka Bay Alaska Subdivision. The motion vas seconded. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT raised the issue of enforcement for the stipulation of "removal of 1,500 cubic yards of rock and gravel." He felt that no stipulation should be set unless there was a provision for measurement of the rock. Commissioners Patterson and Hill responded that "good faith" by the applicant would have to suffice for enforcement purposes. They also believed that the surrounding property owners would notify staff if it appeared that excessive amounts of gravel were being removed from the property. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION to state "that no extraction be allowed other than during the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m." The amendment vas seconded and CARRIED by unanimous vote. CHAIRMAN GREGG called for a roll call vote on the main motion as amended. The main motion as amended CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote (Commissioner Crowe abstaining). I) CASE 84-063. Request for a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 17.18.030 (Conditional Uses) to allow an electrical repair shop as a home occupation in a Single-family Residential District on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision; 1311 Mission Rd (Burl Clymer). As there were no additional staff information or Commissioner comments, CHAIRMAN GREGG recessed the Regular Meeting and opened the Public Hearing. MR. BURL CLYMER, applicant, requested that the Commission grant the conditional use permit. Regular Meeting June 20, 1984 There being no further public :=askag, the Chairman closed the public hearing and reconvened the Reguat racing. COMMISSIONER CRONE MOM TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT in accordance with Section 17.18,030 (Conditional Uses) to allow an electrical repair shop as a home occupation in the Single-family Residential District (R1) on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. J) CASE 84-064. Request for a Variance from Section 17.20.0408 (Side Yards) to construct an addition onto a tri -plea that would encroach three (3) feet into the required side yard setback on Lot 8, Block 8, Leite Addition; 1526 Kouskov Street (Lee Fillmore). MR. CASSIDY reported an additional public hearing notice had been received objecting to the variance request. CHAIRMAN GREGG recessed the Regular Meeting and opened the Public Hearing. There being no public testimony, CHAIRMAN GREGG closed the public hearing and reconvened the Regular Meeting. COMMISSIONER HILL MOVED TO APPROVED A VARIANCE from Section 17.20.0408 (Side Yards) to construct an addition onto a tri-plex that would encroach three (3) feet into the required side yard setback on Lot 8, Block 8, Leite Addition, 1526 Kouskov Street. The motion was seconded and FAILED by unanimous roll call vote. COMMISSIONER CROWE MOVED TO ADOPT AS FINDINGS OF FACT AND AND REASONS FOR DENIAL: 1. The request does not meet all the conditions for granting a variance as stated in Kodiak Island Borough Code Section 17.66.050 (Variances); 2. The granting of the variance may create a fire hazard and hinder the mobility of fire equipment around the building; and 3. Adverse written testimony. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. K) CASE 84-065. Request for an Exception from 17.18.020 (Permitted Uses) to allow construction of an automated switching station in a Single-family Residential District (RI) on Lots 4 and 5. Block 11, Aleutian Homes Subdivision; 1113 and 1117 Mill Bay Road (Cantel Telephone Company/Island Realty, Inc.). As there vas no additional staff report, the Chairman recessed the Regular Meeting andopened the Public Hearing. MR. GEORGE GODFREY, local manager for Glacier State Telephone Company, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Godfrey explained that the modern, rambling -type building would house a $3.5 million switching machine. Chairman Gregg reported that a public hearing notice had been received from an adjacent property owner requesting an eight -foot high wood fence on the outside of the proposed six-foot high cyclone fence. Mr. Godfrey voice no objection to this request. MR. KEN VAN DYKE stated that the "eight -foot fence condition might be a fire condition that might be looked into rather for accessibility for fire equipment and hoses, and stuff" and six-foot high is normal fence height in most cities. He did not speak in favor or against the request. There being not further audience comments, CHAIRMAN GREGG closed the Public Hearing and reconvened the Regular Meeting. COMIISSIONER KNIGHT MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION from 17.18.020 (Permitted Uses) to allow construction of an automated switching station in a Single-family Residential District (R1) on Lots 4 and 5, Block 11, Aleutian Homes Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. the exterior siding of the building shall be low -maintenance siding compatible to residential construction; 2. the parking lot and surrounding grounds shall be landscaped with Regular Meeting June 20, 1984 KODIA..K ISII_.,ND BOROUGw- Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 June 25, 1984 Mr. Burl Clymer P.O. Box 1024 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Clymer: RE: Case 84-063. Request for a Conditional Use Permit Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. On June 20, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved ;your request for a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 17.18.030 Conditional Uses to permit:anelectrical repair shop as a home occupation. This decision becomes effective ten days from the date of the Commission's action. Should ,you have any questions, please call. Sincerely,, \hd okaeddi Bud Cassidy Assistant Planner/Zoning Officer Community, Development Department cc: VCase 84-063. City; Clerk JJg BUILDING DEPARTMENT — CITY / BOROUGH OF KODIAK Applicant to till in between heavy lines. RLOING ADDRESS 's// 4i/tsyo4/ /T. CALITV AR ST CROSS ST. CLASS OF WORK NEW ALTERATION ADDITION DEMOLISH REPAIR• MOVE 0 a 2 0 NAME& (r) CZ, a r4g MAIL nooOf6e/ ©Zs 44. CIT/700//9/t/, NAME USE OF BUILDING S F't_. SIZE OF BUILDING ?O L3 HEIGHT i q ' NO.OF ROOMS C,I` NO OF FLOORS t NO. OF BUILDINGS NO. OF BUILDINGS NOW ON LOT42_ ADDRESS CITY NO. OF FAMILIES / SIZE OF LOT USE OF BLDG. NOW ON LOT Rel. •J s,t, ,. _ 1 SPECIFICATIONS LICENSE NO. FOUNDATION tr, ADDRESS MATERIAL EXTERIOR, PIERS WIDTH Or TOP WIDTH OF BOTTOM CITY DEPTH IN GROUND R.W. PLATE (SILL) ATE LICENSE N Qa /f 51ZE SPA., SPAN 0 0 1. C 0. Ja il O UBDI V ISION eire LOT NO., L3 GIRDERS JOIST Iii. FL. JOIST Zna. FL. BLK. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE. 1. Type of Construction 11 111 VI 2. Occupancy Group A, B, C, 0, E, F, G, H, II,J Div, 1, 2, 4, Iet• M 3. Fire Zone I(2`S,4 JOIST CEILING EXTERIOR STUDS INTERIOR STUDS ROOF RAFTERS BEARING WALLS COVERING EXTERIOR WALLS ROOF INTERIOR WALLS REROOFING FLUES FIREPLACE FL FURNACE KITCHEN WATER HEATER FURNACE GAS OIL I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the above is correct and agree to comply with all City Ordinances and State Laws regulating buildjng construction. AnnlicantidS APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BUILDING PERMIT N • VALUATION.... BUILDING FOUNDATION PLASTER FLUES FINAL DATE ISSUED BLDG, FEE PLAN CHK. FEE TOTAL PLUMBING ROUGH-- 57 SEPTIC TAN SEWER /LA GAS nl i FINISH -c1 ELECTRIC vey ROUFINISH 7• INIS FIXTURES MOTORS FINAL LJ / yxo y «c4 d' .AJ( . /o,v6r/y ?).i'-1Ci._//tii� g✓4,///%2/' 4rvet( 4G46#/ .( EXHIBIT D Ap roved: CHIEF BUILDING OFFICAL nn PLANNING & ZONING INFO. /7.1gZONING DISTRICT 4,017 +j- /�� TYPE OF OCCUPANCY /(UQC //OA/ CrV G /74. 4 U NUMBER OF STORIES/ / TOTAL HT. 4D y ..."AREA OF LOT ijr(;/p Gf (j fl a•d-o FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE as/ /7 /8-0,4",..1 \•y SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE 4.1 REAR YARD • Approved: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 6-4-1(Cr'Y i` trz Burl Clymer Box 1024 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Isla. I Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615.6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 January 14, 1986 RE: Case 84-088 - Variance Request. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision Dear Mr. Clymer: As you are aware, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted your request for a variance to construct a greenhouse on July 18, 1984. This variance allowed the greenhouse to encroach seven (7) feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback. As we discussed on January 10, 1986, the Borough records do not show that zoning compliance or a building permit have been issued for the greenhouse even though it has been built. As agreed in our conversation, please come in to the Community Development Department to obtain zoning compliance and a building permit. This will complete this variance file and hopefully eliminate any future confusion. If you have any !further questions, please contact me at 486-5736. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely,, Obert H. Pederson, Assistant Planner Community Development Department pm cc: Case 84-088 EXHIBIT E BUILDING DEPARTMENT — CITY / BOROUGH OF KODIAK Applicant to fill in between heavy lines. BUILDING ADDRESS CLASS OF WORK APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IILMOLISI I LOCALITY ALTERATION REPAIR NEAREST CROSS ST. ADDITION MOVE BUILDING PERMIT NO. DATE ISSUED USE OF BUILDING(' F - z 0 NAME ('J)LIL) L SIZE OF BUILDING r ..� HEIGHT EZ- MAIL Z MNL ADDRESS p1774 NO. OF 00 NO.OEFL0011S CITY WC D •QC - TEL. NO. H K U N M W E 0 0 L_ F ADORE Q NAME NO. OF BUILDINGS ta8.4 t T, Ant NO. OF DIJIL DINGS NOW ON LOT VALUATION BLDG. FEE //1e18(0 opCn PLAN CHK. FEE TOTAL BUILDING NO, OF FAMILIES 1. FOUNDATION PLUMBING ROUGH ELECTRIC ROUGH ADDRESS SIZE. OF LOT <4(.1„,-, FRAME CITU USE OF BLDG. NOW ON LOT 7 PLASTER SEPTIC TANK SEWER FINISH FIXTURES SPECIFICATIONS FLUES GAS MOTORS STATE LICENSE NO. FOUNDATION FINAL FINISH FINAL it F z U CIIV MATERIAL EXTERIOR, PIERS (S,YG5r i r_s t N311, WIDTH Or TOP WIDTH OF BOTTOM DEPTH tN GROUND R.W. PLATE (SILL( STATE LICENSE NO. ZC SPAN O SUDOI V ISI ON 14 -6 -Ce: SLAB JOIST 10. FL. JOIST 2nD. FL. OT NO. BLK. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE NI 1.Type of Construction 1, 11, III, I 2, Occupancy Group A, 8, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,,, J Div. 1, 2, G4, 3. Fire Zone 1 2 CEILING XTERIOR STUDS INTERIOR STUDS ROOF RAFTERS td - REARING WALLS COVERING EXTERIOR WALLS ROOF 1NTERIOR WALLS REROOFING FLOES FIREPLACE FL, FURNACE. 11HC11EN WATER (HEATER GAS OIL I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the above is correct and agree to comply with all City Ordinances and State Laws regu�gbt Idis}gg.ponstruction. Applica 11-4-(s 1" e2 r L5 tEe .4 c5 .j - 6k:1-fes.:+kn rr uAeLv%Te 4``1-€J)7E, AUG -0 Ac it, Fi2cvr c4 -F) EAJcee-1t-tc&Jry- wAS aTit&5 S`;' p±i )d -71 L &f _ 17-1-tS 2M' lS ( C(sco t 2IeaLs- vAg.t, a M/ C{4 ;tam. rcs 114.A.,E 89E -A-• 660./3s -c evc-r-f o J 4.46:oc. oNJ (o(1 i6 C 0I PLOT PLAN r z m STREET L EXHIBIT -F A ved: CHIEF BUILDING OFFICAL c Rv� PLANNING & ZONING INFO. ZONING DISTRICT /a / .+�,.- TYPE OF OCCUPANCY . j: X.32/ 6WEE- ' CL( ++^- NUMBER OF STORIESIE�{TOTAL HT.. -51/1t" 1 ''-r AREA OF LOT ,, (�i/' 4. FRONT VAR() SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE (8. X17 /A) 510E VAR() SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE REAR VARO Approve (ZNING/D P.Z./f NING DEPARTMENT - KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ANT TO FILL IN ALL INFORMATION WITHIN HEAVY LINES. PLEASE PRINT, USE BALL-POINT PEN, AND PRESS FIRMLY,) VISION/SURVEY :ITE - saa, CLASS AND SCOPE OF WORK NEW DEMOLISH BLOCK NO. ALTERATION REPAIR ADDITION MOVE T ADDRESS lC CROSS S CRO EST SS STREET USE OF BUILDING CIF.,,} SIZE OF BUILDING y, 1 x b--0 HGT BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER VALUATION: (BASIS) AcT AMOUNT FROOMS he, A FLOORS NO. OF FAMILIES A.M AME NO. OF BUILDINGS NOW ON LOT ; $ L,_510 0 DATE ISSUED PLAN CNK FEE TOTAL USE OF BUILDINGS ?+0y," AILING ADDRESS SIZE OF LOT tJ ) BUILDING INSPECTION SCHEDULE PLUMBING ELECTRICAL WATER: PUBLIC PRIVATE FOUNDATION ROUGH ROUGH TY, STATE C. k fdAM! DDRESS TELEPHONE SEWER: PUBLIC PRIVATE FRAME SEPTIC TANK SPECIFICATIONS PLASTER/8D SEWER FINISH FIXTURES FOUNDATION EXT PIERS FLUES GAS MOTORS TYPE DEPTH IN GND MGT FIN GRADE FINAL FINISH FINAL ITT, STATE P.T. PLATE (SILL) EACH OF TME ABOVE INSPECTIONS MUST RE REQUESTED AND THAT WORK APPROVED PRIOR TO ANY ADDITIONAL WORK PROGRESSING BEYOND THAT POINT. AS REQUIRED OV UDC SECTION 109. FOR EACH INSPECTION, 24 HOURS NOTICE 15 REQUIRED. TELEPHONE THE KODIAK BLAND BOROUGH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 4665726 EXT. 271. TATE LICENSE NO. STRUCTURAL GIRDERS SIZE SPA. SPAN JOISTS 1ST FLR. NOTES: INSTALLATION OF (MINIMUM/ IS -INCH BY SPFOOT CULVERT 15 REQUIRED AT EACH ORIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. AME 9CT/vN rSL(IC.DI/ta Com, DDRESS ISo)c ¥a 4' JOISTS 2ND FLR. JOISTS CLG SANITATION PLAN APPROVAL BY AN ADEC.CERTIFIED INSTALLER 15 IiEQUIREO PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING. PERMIT WHERE PUOLIC WATER ANDJOR SEWER I5 NOT RVAILARLE FROM A CERTIFICATED MUNICIPAL SYSTEM. EXT STUDS INT STUDS PLOT PLAN (A SITE PLAN MAY ALSO BE REOUI REAR PROPERTY LI FRONT PROPERTY LINE STREET INSTALLER'S PLAN APPROVAL RECEIVED NOTE: APPLICANT SHALL SHOW BUILDING S INSTALLER FROM PROPERTY LINES, AS PERPENDICULAI FROM PROPERTY LINES TO BUILDING. DIMS STRUCTURE SHALL BE SHOWN DN THE PLAN 1TV, STATE 'Cobs 4k, ROOF RAFTERS TRUSSES aY .. ().(-1” 9 / TATE LICENSE NO. BEARING WALLS INSULATION, FNDN POR OFFICE USE ONLY: CIRCLE) OC, ,1NCY GROUP A 0 E 11 1 M 10" DIVISION 1 2 Cc 4 5 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 1 I! III IV 0 FR I'HR. b H.T. WALLS ROOF/CLG SHEATHING, WALLS/EXT ROOF I,P-F2000 FINISH, EXLS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT. EITHER THE OWNED OF THE PROPERTY OR HIS AUTHORIZED AGENT MUST 5100 11415 APPLICATION OR GRANT OTHER WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR THE DESCRIBED WORK TO BE PERFORMED. TAX LOT NO DATE OWNER������PER fl O ...>>>ERSNIP TRANSFERRED, IN PROCE59, T0: PER ROOF ELVES, FI REAL W000 HTR KITCHEN WATER HTR FURNACE, TYPE 1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION, THAT IT 15 CORRECT, AND THAT I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL ORDINANCES AND LAWS REGULATING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. APPLICANT CLOSING DATE, OECD RECORDED (BVI EXHIBIT G APPROVED BUILDING OFFICIAL c-1,. J. � nI ZONING CODE COMPLIAN( ZONING DISTRICT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY NO. OF STORIES TOTAL HO AREA OF LOT SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINES: FRONT REAR SIDE (L) SIDE (0) REG'D OFF-STREET PARKING C.U.P. OR VARIANCE APPROVED, ZONING OFFICER G-�c� Pais' '- Anderson P,.__'Box 1561 Kodiak, Alaska 99615-1561 December 31, 1993 To Whorn It May Concern: I lived next door (1315 Mission RD) to the residence at 1311 Mission Road during the remodel and reconstruction work that was done by the Clymer's. Before initiation of the construction project the community planning department sent around a notice concerning the variances required for that project. My recollection of the facts is that there was a front -yard and a rear -yard variance required. We had no objections to our neighbors planned project. Before, during, and after the above mentioned construction on the house at 1311 Mission the rear -yard survey pins were clearly visible. In fact after the excavation of the foundation for the garage I went out and removed excavated soil from around the pin so that the demarkation between our properties remained visible. These are the facts as I remember and recall them during the construction period back in the early 1980's when this work was done. Sincerely aul Jonathan Anderson EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT J 1 Robert L. & Mee'sha Elayne Murphy 1311 Mission Road P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 907-486-8707 13 December 1993 ATTN: Planning & Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 205 Kodiak, Alaska 99615-6398 Dear Sirs: Subject: Leite Subdivision, Lot 13 ( 1311 Mission Road ) Request for a variance to sanction the two car garage on the above cited single family residential lot. The purpose of this letter is to solicit approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission for a variance covering an existing garage located on the subject lot. The said structure was built in non-compliance with the Borough code, approximately 7 years prior to our purchase. The brief history of this structure, and other salient points are: A) In mid -1984, Mr. Burl Clymer, the property owner at the time, applied for a building permit to extend the house, plus adding an attached garage. Building permit number 5262 was issued. B) On September 24, 1984, the chief building official, Mr. John Sullivan,'approved the framing, plumbing, and electrical. Although the rear site markers were in place, the garage was built two feet away from the property line. Mr. Sullivan made no mention of the rear set back violation. ( An affidavit from Mr. Paul Anderson, the property owner of lots 11 & 12 in the Leite Subdivision from 1975 - mid 1993, stating the rear site markers were in place, will be provided for the hearing on January 17, 1994. ) C) When the roof on this new addition began to leak in January 1987, the chief building official approved the reconstruction of the flat roof to a peaked roof. Once again, there was no mention of the rear set back violation. D) Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Murphy ( the applicant ) purchased the subject property on December 31, 1991. At the time of purchase, the Murphy's were totally unaware the garage was non -conforming. EXHIBIT K 2 E) During October 1993, the Murphy's seeking information on converting, approximately 20% of the garage into a nursery for their impending child, were told by the Community Development Department that their garage was non -conforming, due to a rear set back violation. In support of our request, we find that our case is in compliance with the six requirements for an approval of a variance. (Borough code'17.66.050) These are: 1) There are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable Lot 13, Leite Subdivision, is a non -conforming lot, being 4669 sq. ft. The front of the lot has a ten foot retaining wall, which limits off-street parking. 2) Strict application of the provisions would result in difficulties or unnecessary hardship. To tear down or relocating the garage will be costly. Secondly, without a variance, we may have a problem with a future sale of the house, and/or bank financing. 3) Granting of a variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's safety. The structure was built in 1984, and to date, it has not been the subject of a complaint, nor has it been detrimental to the public's health, safety or general welfare. 4) Granting a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan. This variance will provide off-street parking, without changing the zoning, or the integrity of the neighborhood. Lot would remain a single family dwelling. 5) Actions'from the applicant did not cause special conditions The'subject property has sold twice after the Clymers added the garage. (We purchased the property seven years after the garage was built. After owning it for two years', were we notified of the problem - October 1993.) 6) Granting a variance will not permit a prohibited land use. The structure will be maintained primarily for parking two vehicles. No business use of the structure will occur, nor any other case contrary to the zoning code. J In consideration of this request, we recommend the following conditions: 1) The integrity of the garage will be maintained, requiring 360 sq. ft. (18x20) of the area be reserved for two parking places. 2) No futureexpansion of the building footprint of the existing structure on the subject lot will be permitted. Yours very truly, Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Murphy Attachments: 1) As -built survey 2) Building permit addition 3) Building permit # on the bedroom & # 5262 - bedroom & garage 87008 - roof reconstruction garage addition. f/¢j:ss/oAJ Rn, CLASS 0r W0 Itt sI, slcnuSSSr AO l0 1 , 11,N ?i) /010 '"'G''' ( q IAq A0li9I ,/o. (Jt LLIXoo//w/!. AX »'i. n or ROOMS S BUILDING omLDING nenln IT NO VALUATION OAT C 155UCn IILnn rl AN LNn. 11.1 0 A 14001 RUIInINO Now WW1 L LCD IC AOUP1A ,1 G. ./ 46,7 a nl uLBO Now 014101 O_a. 'J c.t-SA. FOVI,IIAIION rn,Lve-97t:rt- PAS,IR 0U z 40 SIAMI IC 140 FO PATIO, 1/4 AL 11110 AN. 1 10rnn nnn 151LL1 SIAN 111151 ND in 51,1 SPAN eL 0,51 NI. r L. 10151 t^I111. CC 1 If 10 5101 0 NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE rype 01 Construction 4, II, 111, I1> VI Occupancy Group A, 0, C. O, E, F, 0, 11, I, J Olv. 1, 24,,%1,IZ— M . Fire Zone 1 1001 11 111 AWINGDA 0v 111110 wp m0n 11 ANAL 115111 Z hereby acknowledge that 1 have read this application and state that the above i; correct and agree to comply with alt City Ordinances and State Laws regulating build/ill construction. hnnllrant Clill.� daft/. [/'-t /.l Cj t.e'F11 lG •t,> [.ftdi, "NR- /f%vU 1%6:L .7'11fc:•'4Cf 5.4-c -C 64c' e S AApp`ved: CHIEF BUILDING OFFICAL -' nn vn:' bI- f„/ /ted/a.J G.Y r 7 rT 49(itztv' CT - PLANNING 0 ZONING 6010 /7. / 1S( 3'lONlNGOeftnit .ef tsar OI OCCUPANCY //Ye. Cf/.,5/ C.✓'C. /4.+n C• !) ,>J I; 1 NUM111. RU15T011I-L`S / Tolnun ao y mAnrAOf LOT YG:/t #/.. G /1fVAI',;'ylnoNT vALDsr1unct 11101A PROP, 5,1N1 ,.ls/ f% !!f CJZS11N VABUSI!SACK I nom POOP ONE 4 e yynl An VALID ,t - Approved: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ei2/4ty v✓ !t. 1 PPLICANI 10 TILL IN ALL INFORMATION WITHIN HEAVY LINES PLEASE PRINT. USE BALL-POINT PEN. AND PRESS FIRMLY.) U BOIV 151ON/SUR VEV L. a - sues D T NO, BLOCK NO. i I'An IA�OMO�AESS 31LU1RO SFOM EAREST CROSS STREET CLASS ANO SCOPE OF WORK 2 3 O u u NAME MAILING ADDRESS NEW DEMOLISH ALTERATION ' REPAIR ADDITION MOVE USE OP BUILDING _ Rc",[_ __- SIZE OF BUI LOINC' 4 X ‘...0HGT NO. OF ROOMS NAA FLOORS NO. OF FAMILIES AJ NO. OF BUILDINGS NOW ON LOT USE OF BUILDINGS a, SIfl OP LOT ;p BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER GATE 155050 VALUATION: (BASIS) r E.I AMOUNT (oJSpo BLOC PER IT FEE,/s1 434 PLAN CHIC FEE TOTAL 4.S INSPECTION SCHEDULE BU1LDING PLUMBING WATERI PUBLIC PRIVATE FOUNDATION 000011 ELECTRICAL ROUGH CITY. ST ATE TELEPHONE RI PUBLIC PRIVATE FRAME SEPTIC TANK _KOP/ASIC �cl SPECIFICATIONS NAME FOUNDATION . ARDDESSS CITY, STATE PLASTER/BD SEWER TYPE DEPTH IN GNG NGT IN GRADE P,T.PLATE (SILL) STRUCTURAL SIZE SPA GIRDERS FLUES FINAL OAS FINISH FINISH FIXTURES MOTORS FINAL PP " I.ICEN5E NO. 1) IOC r/OJy_/3IVO/ tt6 CoR!Y7. O MUORESS < BPS[ AC?3G__._.__.___ F CIT V. STATE V STATE LICENSE NO. /GOtol i0[I 0CH [avut0 TELEPHONE [n[ 4001•A • alio 00nOUCH ENGINEERING SPA JOISTS 1ST FL0. JOISTS 2ND PLR. NOTES: ISOVA`ON • wr'HOwnc[Pe a0ICCEA PIE0 1 a OF • EILOLOINO MINT opine ' wl[n • 0 S[x[R is NOT AOAILA[L[ room A C[0NNCA110 JOISTS CLO EXT STUDS __ - IN1 SSTUDS ROOF RAFTERS TRUSSES .iY (. P oing To Ito ISSUANCE OF • PIANO. EITHER ENE PROPIEFITY On HIS A ANNA LIGATION O O RATE O nHT[N r[RMNS:ON ran TN[ OCECAIe[o wonn TO r[ BEARING WALLS INSULATION. FN ON 3 0 0 Dort (FOR OFFICE 055 ONLY: CIRCL I. OCCUPANCY CROUP A 0 5 11 1 M DIVISION 1 2 FVA S 2. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION I II III IV FR 1`HR. WALLS ROOF/CLO k Ln SHEATHING. WALLS/EXT ROOF g-F20OR O nann t[Ancr[0A[0. In rwec[u. c0: • PLOT PLAN CA SITE PLAN MAV ALSO BE REQUIRED) REAR PROPERTY LINE w Y O O O FRONT PROPERTY LINE f—� 510E PROPERTY LINE STREET FINISH. EXT WALLS 1300F FLUES. FIREPL WOOD HTR KITCHEN WATER HTR FURNACE, TYPE 1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION, THAT IT 15 CORRECT. AND THAT I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL ORDINANCES ANO LAWS REGULATING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. (Pe' 1WFACNTJ f APPUCANT CLOslna ow1C. OLEO n[COPOCO Mel APPROVED. BUILDING OFFICIAL C1F9. m OTCo APPLICANT SHALL SHOW OUILOINO s[IOPC KS 1004 PROPERTY LINES. AS Penn NOICULAO DISTANCES LeNF TO STRUCTURE SHALLOE SNOwNIONINSION301 THE PLAN ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE ZONING DISTRICT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY NO. OF STORIES TOTAL HOT AREA OF LOT SETBACKS PROM PROPERTY 1.114E51 FRONT REAR 5105(L) 510E(01 REO.O OFF•STREET PARKING C.U.P. OR VARIANCE APPROVED. ZONING OFFICER - .jnMIN, EB ELL, BOLGER, & GE1 I A A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KAREN E. BENDIER JOELH. BOIGER* 0. WALTER ®ELL• DUNCAN V. PIELOS DIANNA R. GENTRY YAWNER; 0. .JAMW WALTER W. MASON' ALAN 1.. SCNMr17 •ADMjtTL 1D M—A Ano WVIIMINOTal wm nu. m+mx5AaHT1EO :O Juan M R VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 323 CAROLYN STREET KODAK, ALASKA 99615 TOSPHONE: (11117)4116.13/124. FACSIMILE: (9c7) 480-61 1$ REPLY TO KOMAR OrTTCc December 8, 1993 Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Re: Robert and Meesha Murphy Setback Encroachment Our File No. 4702-476 Dear Linda: ANCHORAGE CMG& 12.00 1 ernEEr, Sunt 704 ANcnUAAuS.ALASNA996611 T4EFNQNEANO FAM (907) SWIM) SEATTLE OFFCEt UO0 NUTUAL UFERUILWNO $CZ PUWT AVEKUS alATtLE. WASHINGTON 9M04 TELCPKONE:(209) 622.7834 FACSIMILE (RCM 822-7521 I reviewed your administrative file in this matter and the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak dated March 1, 1964, The MOA provides that in the field it will be the responsibility of the City Building Inspector to enforce the provisions of the written zoning authorization including setback requirements prior to the foundation being In place. During the time when this Memorandum of Agreement was in effect, the Borough issued a building permit and zoning compliance certificate to allow the construction of a garage on the subject property. Tho date that the building permit was issued was June 22, 1984. It was approved by Bud Cassidy on behalf of the Borough and John Sullivan on behalf of the City. The building permit does show a 25 ft. setback from the rear property line. John Sullivan conducted'a building inspection report on September 24, 1984. The inspection report made comments concerning the electrical, plumbing and wiring systems. It is apparent from a current as built survey that there is only about a 2 ft. setback from the rear property line. As I read it, the required setback in the single family residential district Is 10 ft. Mr. and Mrs.; Murphy will likely argue that the Kodiak Island Borough is barred from enforcing the setback requirement by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. There are four factors which must be considered when a party attempts to invoke an estoppel defense against a municipality in a zoning case. EXHIBIT )i -8 I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Frzsd n.rez3 ..YSr ra ? 2 1) !^ssA on by cord,..7.-.Z or word, res'.:ith rs@nce inereen. (3) resuiung prejudice. and (4) estoppel will be enforced only to the extent that justice so requires. The application of these factors is illustrated by the case of Jackson v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 733 P.2d 1038 (Alaska 1987). In that case Mr. Jackson operated an automobile repair business in a' residential zone. In 1977 he applied for a building permit to construct a garage. There was no indication on the permit that the garage was to be used for commercial purposes, but many people on the city staff knew that Jackson operated an automobile repair business there. Six years after the construction of the garage, the building inspector notified Jackson that the business was In violation of the zoning ordinance and the city brought an enforcement action. Tho Suprcmc Court recognized that courts impose estoppel against the governmental bodies seeking to enforce a zoning ordinance only upon a showing that the responsible municipal officials undertook positive acts which Induced the action of the defendant. Applying this standard, the court found that there was no assertion by word or conduct that Jackson's business was exempt from the city zoning ordinance, and therefore declined to apply the doctrine of estoppel. The Murphy case may be similar to the Jackson situation. The building permit clearly required a 35 ft. setback from the rear property line. The inspection report from John Sullivan does:not refer to the setback requirement but only approves other details of construction. On the other hand, the length of lime since the Murphys' garage was constructed, and the number of subsequent inspections of the property, provide evidence which the Murphys will rely on to urge a court to deny enforcement of the setback requirement. Considering all of these factors, I would recommend against bringing an enforcement action; requiring the Murphys to demolish the garage in order to come into compliance with the setback requirements. The second question you posed concerns the Murphys' pending application for a building permit in order to convert the garage addition to a bedroom. The Borough is probably not required to Issue such a permit, since the doctrine of estoppel which the Murphys would rely'on to allow the garage to continue 'will be enforced only to the extent that justice so requires.' On the other hand, there is nothing in the nonconforming use chapter, KIBC 17.36 or the setback chapter KIE3C 17.40 which would forbid a change in use of a structure which is already in violation of the setback requirements. therefore conclude that you can issue a building permit to Mr. and Mrs. Murphy for conversion of the garage addition to a bedroom if you determine that the permit is otherwise in compliance with the zoning and building codes. If you choose to do so, you may want to add clarifying language to a cover letter or to the permit to make it clear that sr+G^ -rid : acr-rnh,or 8. 10.3 this new permit should not form The basis for another estoppel claim. Here is some Fiease note that the gsrage addition to your resIdencs presently violates the required rear yard settrac< provisions of the kociait ran ^.rough ..i'r'e. This p9^..' dos not �y"tute M estoppel cern .� i of Sii'lu:�v�t_ $r!V waiver v. � J�,...i C.rw ....r..:.i�.t12 enforcement of ~nE -ear "yard‘setback :?ouir93iieaFSL You .'urr'32G :cKe r%ili account the fatrat tro garage addition exienes Into #he 'reouired rear yard setbac ,:ln. making any 2xpsnd tufe s to convert tte C^• nki aritinn to 'n '.ar,t, . eal free o..,;mil if y u have any questions. Sincerely ;sem. Selgv Jsc McFari nd Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6398 SHIRLI= !._TON - 14070G AK 'i'i` 14 r, -x P/1"34.�f 5 .ice Ir KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Public Hearing Item VI -A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 16, 1994. The meeting will begin) at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following re quest: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. :1311 Mission Road. (Postponed from the January 19, 1994 jregular meeting). This notice is being sent to you because ow records indicate you are a property owner in the area of the request. If you do not wish to testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below or in a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. If you would like to fax your comments to us, our fax number is: (907) 486-9374. One week prior to the ;regular meeting, on Wednesday, February 9, 1994 a work session will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room (#121), to review the packet material forthe case. Kodiak Island Borough Code provides you with specific appeal rights if you disagree with the Commission's decision on this request. If you have any questions about the request or your appeal rights, please feel free to call us at 486-9362. Your Name: Mailing Address: Your property description: Comments: CASA 94-001 LOT 13, LSITS SUBDIVISION PUBLIC NOTICE AREA 350 FEET FROM EXTERIOR LOT LINES rid Sot Qu'h AI_ IVEo: .0361) 010 HI1G0.60 _•-- R1 120360 1 1 0 20:i40150 I'rI7' otm....21 FORM LETTER tf: FORA LEVIER DESC 1 BASED PROPERTY PROPERTY GROUP L.iSTING IN VENUE 1 OWNER NAME PROPERTY f.tI MAI THEW F'•IALPASS 1225 ISMAILOV ST KODIAK SEH -1 ARPIDT 1SI'4AILOV Si' Ub�.AR & FE6GY DYSON L.Si"' R P 6G'TYSON RAYMOND & PEARL SPAAiNOLA rMAL.I._ WORLD INC BILL & MADEL.YN POLAND PARW1N & KAY RENt4EW* NZ I'U 721I r441)U:�U GYNIHIiA LlULF1A. !9 1219 ISMAILOV ST KODIAK AK 99615 AK 99615 AIC 99615 VENUL -: L uPOUF ui. 0 !II 4 14144. I MALPASS. MATTHEW W.U. BOX 4055 KODIAK BEIM ARNDT 122I- ISMAILOV ST. KODIAK AK 99615 AK 99615 DYSON, OSCAR E, PEOGY P.O. BOX 1728 KODIAK 1214 REZANOF DR E KODIAK AK 99615 1220 REZANOF' DR E -KODIAK 1373 ISMr uuv bt KODIAK HK 9,961:7 AK 99615 1321 ISM UV SI KODIAK AK 9961'5 1,119 1WIMILOV 61 KULrtT4It -Hl. j36IR� DANIEL -: MARVnNN SEATON "- _ ." 1013 I9mArLOV'o'f-'-'».-"_._`".__._. KODIAK. AK 99615 FR1SCILLA BRAN 1310 REZANOF DR E KLIDIAIC AK 99@_15 99615 SPAIiNOLA, RAYMOND & PEARL 1214 E REZANOF DR K.ODIAK AK 99615 SMALL WORLD INC v.u. BtJX Ib3L KODIAK AI< 99615 POLANt,BILL Q< MADELYN P.O. BOX 64 KODIAK' AK 99617 RENNEWANZ, DARWIN & KAY. P.O. BOx 1852 KOLFIRK AY 99615 KOZAK, CYNTHIA . fl- iSMFTItOV KODIAK AK -99615 SEATON,PANIEL_& MARYiANN .... .-- 1313 1SMi-ILOV KODIAK - AK 99615 BRANSCIN, PRISCILLA 1310 REZANOF -KODIAK AK 99615 • • - — - - 31:10).-.1j ).130-A3O),IS-- - — 0;-:1 • Z.4.4-• A g I94 . _ ..• Ann '117:3110d (D.:1 NO SS gZC'T 113(1O- 31•3i A n1-:.1 • •06 AT 110117V1 :19.6 AV AV I COA al AVE( 111.14 619 -A11V3.1 AVd0AC 0/0 -1314U I 71:14.4 HU -I -M34 T966 >IV g.1•966 00 >I T- 1 N 01 SS AVIOON •8c.la_ _ _ _ ___, ..1.1...N1\1-38 3 T. ?.:1:A N 0 I S LAI • • • T9 `:.:11-,-) • • • VT tIOA • - • -•-•• c; SO X I:)0 "11' 1 66 >IV AVTOOA HTWOIIA'OIO-IVA IS AOlIVWST 9ZCI gT968 AV AUTanA IS AOlIVWSI IC 1 1966 AV _ — l.IJiZ NI -IO 966 A k..-1 AUTWA ,atI XOEJ "0:d VIT.l'ONO1A:7.13 AUT1OA .IS AO-IIVHST :1117.....h.1.413Dli n C T96 AV AVIa0A IS AO1TVWS1. iawutAz.\-/-A, AVICOA C890 X.00 ° Q d .• I.Tral.m .4 -In 3 c•:; >I1-) A V I (10)1 .NO I SS IN I TIT X00. °O ITTIM (1.00M T966 *A V • T -0/I0I-0407.04 T.Cfilinr)n7.DA 9S A Ge: IV 'SY ty.Q.0.:111 afaz4J_v_ ..• .`,.- ON niA:-174 V i T 1-n7:.nni. ON -171M AVIO0A Iq ACCITHW,;i 2ILI AA02_VLINVOr !;"..; 9E6 V AVIOOA MANOISSIN 0721 • gT966 AV ' AVI1OA 'IS NVT0:13H 1A3HIV3 OZZ.T ..NOS I 113 31‘,11: VW:101 javo T 966 vdTacm ______ZkeZ ONV1>dVA314 NNA1AAVN 2T966 AV AVICOA T 966 AO OCIOM NV1 i ---i M NO1I113 .31\11. k1'117.11 AVTara OH NQT.STIA OW1)11;:l.DN NWiAWW '..2,T966 Nt' . _ AUP:10).! . -, _ __ ______ _ • LgIT X00 "0"d g1966 AV AVIO0'..4 1,MviiDAVR/clioNOVNVW,OHNTZSONVTTA t.“T:T - 11 k.:11.,.I-F.11.,.1 I,.I T. 7 1;..,'IVIPIV0 0 1 '•-•1! ‘,100. ca 0:IL00fizn1. 01..,000009f. nNT1IMM c5S7.F.N.101....! AP,'.4-!1.-.1.M.:1A . 3NVN -171MMA :-•17.47.41JnN „. ...•....••,• ........_,.• •• • ....... . ;:NOLIAT>210S11 ).:•111.I11 11. 10A , AII0 .'.31 -It • .•.., ....... •• _• • . ••.•__. .. _ . • _ • _ ___ • ••... . __ .•..-----------------. .' : ....11. ):1711.±I'11.. W):111...;..4 . ' . C;.. ;4-7-;---..:1117;1:11[.:2Y TTI10.k ..1.1. don:,*1 2NTLST1 .7100):19 ADA3d0).7.1.....! I !Al :::1 1.• '-'.: )... 7,:.: 11, .1 .:1 3 d 0 ?.7,! d (I 3 E' V 0 0 P *3A Il * 1.11 .rof4 I-, 1 J',,:? T .7',I 'IR T P 0 A 9 a a .e LI Eri 6 A` 4 _i niLai 04.4-11; 1M FORM LEil itk x; 1 i-UHPI LE.TII::.Fi ✓k. ,I.Fi i.t I'r I=fiUYEr; 46. NJ OBER OWNER MANE WILL 1k FRANCES CULES LEJJ 1:04 l:.AU .JFC L:.NLI 111 Jut. V 1LIiLVM MfALLNLC Ci 6 L. I- FY .:: i! 1 1 : ; 1011.1611 BL.i(LAN 6APl061 LFILIR.ri 910071 1130 4,4110 1322 MISSION RF KODIAK 141;1) MISSION HD KODIAK i. •gad r'I.1 c:.:.o LUN RV 't LI]'IFIh 1412 SPRUCE ST KUUTAL 1,31!1 N KUIM KUV kCLID I MK 11:; PI16: OLIN RI) AD 99:1.17 AK 99615 AI; 9'9815 TiTI-:795'1.1 A1( 99615 AK '99X15 RONALD 'AINTER ,1114 ISMAILOV ST - _..- KODIAK AK 99615 JOHN 3 JANE NUTTALL i1HIHUh .g.; IL1.1ACA.`'R1._11N 13'41.M1 611.441 RD - KODIAK _ KODIAK i I'JULHC :J; i IEE: H(.jFI'RPHY 4341 1I 4..431. A, COLES,WILL 2 FRY"r4CE. P.O. BOX 1263 KODIAK LEO BOURDEAI_I JR. 1410 MISSION RD. KOLIAK F'IMEN TEL, ESI'JEN 1 A F.O.- OCC 1801 KODIAI.. HATCHER, ROBERT P.O. BOX 57 KODIAK JOE V GENEVA MAC INKS 1310 KOUSK:OV ST KODIAK AK 99611, AK 99613 AK '99615 AK 996.15 AK 9 BEREAN BAP -1161 CHURCH F.O. BOX 1065 KODIAK HK 99615 PAINTER,RONALD P.U. BOX 3137 KODIAK: AK 99815 1316 ISMA ILOV ST KODIAK 14+INILK A SHE1L-. LAKL:6oN Ii1217,111'410,;1 IMMANOAL V ALICL BENIiLE 1's:2';:;; rift ?•I LIN- 1(17._ U D 1 A AK 99615 9-361 AK 99 JOHN V JANE NLA -FALL F.O. BOX 2554 Kon1AK. AK 99615 AR1 FIUH 1,1 ALMA LAW N 416 CLARA-5T. FAIRBANKS AK 997011 ROBERT V "MEESIiA MURPHY P 0 BOX 4187 KODIAK '1e:19 MISSION -RV -A- 3J612 AK zwt.;• CARLSUN,PATRIC.K & SHEILA ----P.O.BOX 3913 _ _ KODIAK AK 99615 BER@EE, IMMANUAL t AL c'h 4 6 .k1.1ciI.j hcirough *LIVE.* ! m • , IML.- F ORM LE; 1ER :II:. 1 FORM LE 1 'ER DESERIP T1 LIN: 1.• HI.111.:±;1 Nombah OWKIEH NAME 21 ?I ..R I 274:0 f<1 24 IJ L' Liu u3ii R1240IJUUIPKi R1240000U50 R124001A106U R12400DULtil M.240UUUUCU ------- • • R12.40UUU1'..,0 241)1.101U:61 ITI:4MU000162 1 C1440011016J 131280131.0092 • G .6 A E. L. D FROFERTz'YS1LIij PROPER -I e a/431JF LIEd I 141.:4 KODIAK AK 9961:i VFNUE., fir. P.O. BOX 1945 KODIAK AK DENN13 Z4 JULIE KNAaIN 1224 MISSION RD KNAUIN,DEMIS JULIE KODIAK AK 99615 1224 MISSION RD KODIAK AK 99615 .•. IEMPL DERESIONF 1226 MISSION RD BERESTOFFIFEMPE KCWIAK AK 99615 P.O. BOX 2196 KODIPE AK 39615 DANIEL. NORAKAM1 1310 M1 ::s8o_IN RD DANIEL MURAKAMI KODIAK g. 1J P.O. BOX 4.382 KODIAK AK 99615 LEE & LUCINDA NEEL. 1312 'MISS IONRD ' LEE & LUCINDA NEEL KODIAK AK 99613 P.O. BOX 671 KODIAK AK 996121 _ •__ NEAL. bERIRAM 1314 MISSION RD BERTRAM,NEAL KODIAK AK 99615 F.O. BOX 2512 • _ KODIAK AK 99615 y a ALUOSO EIAL .116 KilSolON RD ALGLISO ElAL,V E KODIA Ok 61. 1316 MISSION RD. KODIAK AK 99615 OLJUB'i FENTON ISIS MISSION RD BOBBY FENTON KoDIAK AK 99615 P.u. BOX 143 MAYWOOD NB 691.1Sb aAki DDWARDS 1228 FATHER HERMAN RD GARY EDWARDS KODIAK AK 99615 P 0 BOX 81.01 _ • • _ _.• _ ____________ - KODIAK AK 99615 .SANOEL CiRABER 1226-1-01HEk HERMAN.RO SAMUEL EiRABEF( KODIAK AK 99615 - • - DONALD F OSIER BRADLEY & ANNET KUTYNA 1221 -FATHER -HERMAN -RD • KODIAK AK 99615 DONALD FOSTER' • P 0 BOX 804 KODIAK AK 99615 122:2 FATHER HERMAN RD KODIAK AK 99615 DENNIS & CAROLY HUEY - 1216 FATHER HERMAN -RD --"-- .J BRADLEY & ANNETTE KOTYNA P 0 BOX 8525 KODIAK AK 99610 1T 1(.91.14.,LAic DENNIS c CAROLNN HUEY 4l 19 L. b.Jdti ':LIVE* ii:i Li U L ri S L L I- I•. C r E. ur II•1t5 fOl:il L.k.•I it': Ac 1 rFl.1i°L-,.RI Mk OUP L.I;: I1Ni t-i'i111`clti r tJl u,Ju 0 011 F'L'hlL L.ie.l ltii t+b_bl.till E i,I_tbh. KOI IAK Al< 99615 STEVEN ;;: MPiRY 1212 HIS_; I0N RA }O ILS 1 Ml-. RI:2WJiUUIJU_ D I EVEN ut SHARON FIUFRN 1:210 MIES1fON RD KIJD I AK 1 LII AL. LL. I i't.ii AK 99615 i'I1*IL. J111/ UI. F.II BO X 4.94 KLID 1 AK STEVEN D I'IARY STRAY R HO ICUD 1 Al; AK 99615 FIOFtN,STEVEN fv SHARON 1210 MISSION RD KODIiAK AK 99615 Robert and Meesha Murphy P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, Alaska 99615-4187 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486.5736 January 20, 1994 RE: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Murphy: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on January 19, 1994, postponed action on the request cited above until their February 16, 1994 regular meeting. If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department at 486-9362. Sincerely, Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner Community Development Departrnent E) Letter dated January 13, 1994 to Rick Bundy from Bob Scholze, RE: Illegal dwellings on Lot 15, Block 7, Monashka Bay Subdivision. COMMISSIONER ASPGREN MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda with the additions reported by staff. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER SZABO MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the December 15, 1993 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments or appearance requests. VI PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 94-001." Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an, existing garage addition to protect 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. DUANE DVORAK indicated 50 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and 5 were returned, 1 opposing, 3 stating non -objection and 1 requesting further information on this request. Staff reported that the applicants had submitted a letter requesting postponement of this case until the February 16, 1994 meeting to allow for a full commission to hear their request. Staff concurred, and recommended postponement of this case. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Seeing and hearing none. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER SZABO MOVED TO POSTPONE action on Case 94-001 until the February 16, 1994 regular meeting and to schedule it for another public hearing at that time. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. Case 94-002. Planning and Zoning Commission review, in accordance with Section 18.20.030 A. (Review by Commission) of the Borough Code, of the disposal for fair market value of all Borough lands on Shuyak Island as described in the State of Alaska final decision document dated May 4. 1982 -mil amended by ADL 37988, dated September 27, 1985. Generally located on Shuyak Island. P & ZMlnuter January 19, 1984 Pape 2 of 9 y Kodiak Island Borough DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CASE: APPLICANT: REQUEST: MEMORANDUM December 27, 1993 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Development Department Information for the January 19, 1994 Regul 94-001 Robert and Meesha Murphy Public Hearing Item V1 -A A variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a; nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. LOCATION: Lot 13, Leite Subdivision, 1311 Mission Road ZONING: R1 --Single-family Residential Fifty (50) public hearing notices were distributed on December 29, 1993. Date of site visit: December 29, 1993 1. Zoning History: The 1968 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as R1 --Single-family Residential. 2. Lot Size: 3. Existing Land Use: 4. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: 4,669 square feet Single-family Residential North: Lot 5, Leite Subdivision Use: Church Zoning: R1 --Single-family Residential South: Lots 3 and 4, Oceanview Subdivision Use: Single-family Residence, Single-family Residence Zoning: R1 --Single-family Residential East: Lot 12, Leite Subdivision Use: Single-family Residence Zoning: R1 --Single-family Residential Case 94-001 Page 1 of 7 P & Z: January 19, 1994 y Public Hearing Item VI -A West: Lot 14, Leite Subdivision Use: Single-family Residence Zoning: R1 --Single-family Residential 5. Comprehensive Plan: The 1968 Comprehensive Plan depicts this area as Medium Density Residential. 6. Applicable Regulations: The following sections of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Borough Code and the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program are applicable to this request: 17.18.050 Yards. C. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard required is ten feet. (Ord. 87- 14-0 6, 1987; Ord. 83-17-0 2(part), 1983). COASTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICABLE POLICIES The KIBCMP does not apply to pre-existing residential additions which do not alter the permitted use or density of development. COMMENTS This request is intended to legalize the encroachment of an existing garage addition to the rear of a single-family residence which encroaches 8.2 feet into the 10 foot rear yard setback on a lot in the R1 --Single-family Residential zoning district. The lot is nonconforming with only 4,669 square feet of area, 2,241 square feet less than the 7,200 square feet minimum lot area that is standard for the zone. The addition was constructed about 10 years ago according to department files. At that time, the rear setback was much greater than the present code requires. The addition was inspected by the building official at the time of construction, however, no mention was made in the file regarding the encroachment into the setback. The current property owner was not the owner of the property at the time the encroachment was constructed. In an opinion dated December 8, 1993, (attached) the Borough Attorney reviewed the applicable files and concluded that because the encroachment is not mentioned in any inspection report, the fact of the inspection by a municipal official does not constitute a positive act on which the original property owner relied when building the garage addition. Because the facts Case 94-001 Page 2 of 7 P & Z: January 19. 1994 y Public Hearing Item VI -A are limited, the Borough Attorney recommends that no enforcement action be initiated by the Borough unless a complaint is received from the public in accordance with the current enforcement policies and procedures. An estoppel defense is appropriate only after an actual enforcement action has been initiated. A decision that an enforcement action is barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel can only be made by a court of law. The Borough should reserve its ability to do enforcement against the violation until such time as it becomes necessary, if ever. The applicant would have the opportunity to argue the merits of an estoppel defense against an enforcement action by the Borough if such action is taken by the Borough. The attorney's recommendation against enforcement action would avoid the estoppel issue, to the benefit of both parties. This would allow the garage addition to remain, so long as no complaints are received regarding its encroachment. The owners could continue to use the addition until a complaint is received or until its life expectancy is reached. Neither the Borough nor the applicant would then have to bear the expense of arguing the estoppel issue in court. Based on the advice of the Borough Attorney, staff will not initiate an enforcement action if this variance is denied. The Borough will continue to treat this garage encroachment as nonconforming, even though it is not, for the life of the structure or until a complaint from the public is received. Strict enforcement of the code would only be initiated in the event of a complaint, in accordance with the applicable enforcement policies and procedures. While this may never happen, the applicants must acknowledge that any improvements made to the encroaching portion of the garage will be done at their risk. The Borough Attorney has also suggested language to insure that future permits to upgrade the addition do not constitute an affirmative act to legitimize the addition, now that the violation has been documented for the record. Further improvements to the encroaching part of the structure will be at the owners risk of enforcement action, including possible removal of the encroachment, should a complaint be received regarding the location of the addition. The applicant would like to legalize the addition in order to eliminate the liability of possible enforcement action. The variance procedure provides the only mechanism to legalize the encroachment. If the variance is granted, the encroachment would be legal in perpetuity. If the structure were moved or destroyed, the property owners could then rebuild in the exact same location. Case 94.002 Page 3 of 7 P & Z: January 19. 1994 y Public Hearing Item VLA This is a particular advantage over other properties in the area which have nonconforming structures. If a nonconforming structure is destroyed, and there is not sufficient grounds for a variance, then that property owner must rebuild in accordance with the existing zoning requirements. The Commission must find that all of the following criteria are satisfied in order to grant a variance according to Chapter 17.66 (Variances) of the Borough Code. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use distri t. The Commission finds that the history of the structure and salient points presented the variance application does not address exceptional physical circumstances or conditions on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. The above criteria refers to those circumstances or conditions arising from the natural condition of the land which limits reasonable development, which would likely be permitted to develop on other lots in the same zoning district. A variance is intended to allow a property owner to deviate (vary) from the development standards and dimensional requirements that other property owners are required to follow. Variances provide for the fact that all lots in a particular zoning district are not equally developable according to a single set of development standards. The Commission believes that circumstances or conditions arising from property owner actions are not considered to be exceptional physical circumstances or conditions. The actions of other non -owners such as the City Building Inspectors or the staff of the Community Development Department, are also insufficient to meet this criteria. Nonconforming lot size, placement of the original structure or structures and lack of adequate off-street parking are all examples of development standards that the property owner and any subsequent owners are responsible to comply with. When zoning codes are changed to provide a different set of development standards for structures or uses, then those structures or uses that were legally developed under prior codes become nonconforming. This is commonly referred to as "grandfather" rights. Case 94001 Page 4 of 7 P & Z: January 19, 1994 y Public Hearing Item VIA When ownership of a nonconforming structure, use or lot passes from one person to another, the nonconforming status is not affected because this right runs with the land. An illegal structure, use or lot, does not acquire any rights over time. Similar to the way in which "grandfather" rights run with the land, the liability implied by possible zoning enforcement action runs with the violation until it is remedied or eliminated. The Commission believes that subsequent acquisition of property with a zoning violation does not constitute an exceptional circumstance or condition for the purpose of a variance. There is a reasonable responsibility on the part of subsequent property owners to determine that the land, structures, etc., they acquire are free from zoning violations. The fact that the illegal addition was inspected by a municipal official does not constitute a variance or waiver of the zoning code requirements. While the applicants may argue that the Borough is estopped from enforcing the setback requirements, this is not an issue for the Commission to address in this request. This is an issue that can only be determined in a court of law, and it must stem from a zoning enforcement action. No such action is pending at the present time. This circumstance, like previous examples, is not a naturally occurring physical circumstance or condition. The Commission must determine whether a variance is appropriate based on the criteria set forth for such determinations in Chapter 17.66 (Variances) of the Borough Code. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, Strict application of the zoning code would require the removal of the rearmost 8.2 feet from the garage addition. While this would be an inconvenience, the Commission feels that it could be done in a way that preserves the off-street parking at the same level of parking that was provided when the house was originally constructed. The minimum size of an off-street parking space is 9 feet by 18 feet, however the size of a parking space used to be 8 feet by 20 feet prior to 1991. Clearing the rear setback would leave a minimum of 10 feet clear from the back of the building to the property line. Turning and maneuvering room is minimal, but it appears to be minimal for the current parking arrangement as well (based on the as -built survey dated 13 DEC 1991). The parking requirement for the original nonconforming structure is 2 spaces, with minimum dimensions of 8 feet by 20 feet. Case 94-001 Page 5 of 7 P & Z: January 19, 1994 y Public Hearing Item VI -A The Commission notes under item E in the applicant's letter supporting this request, a plan was submitted to reduce the size of the interior of the garage by 20%. This is an indication that the overall size of the garage can be successfully reduced and still maintain adequate off- street parking. A reduction of 8.2 feet from the rear of the garage would reduce the overall size of the garage addition by about 30% or less. 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 Commission believes that granting the variance will prejudice other properties in the vicinity of Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. Many of the older structures in Leite Subdivision and Leite Addition are nonconforming due to insufficient lot width, lot area, parking and structural encroachments. Under the present code, most of these developments* are "grandfathered" for the life of the structures. If the structures are moved or destroyed by more than 50% of the replacement cost, then they must be rebuilt in conformity with the current zoning code. If the Commission grants a variance for an illegal addition for reasons other than those set forth in Chapter 17.66 (Variance) of the Borough Code, then it would be difficult to deny a variance for any similar addition that was legally constructed and is nonconforming or "grandfathered". If the illegal addition is made legal by variance, then it can be rebuilt on the same location if moved or destroyed. The Commission feels this as a substantial advantage over other nonconforming developments in the vicinity of Lott 13, that would have to be rebuilt in accordance with the current zoning district standards if they were similarly moved or destroyed. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan identifies this area for medium density residential development. Granting of this variance will have no effect on the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. Case 94-001 Page 6 of 7 P & Z: January 19, 1994 y Public Hearing Item VI -A The actions of the applicant did not directly cause the special conditions ' from which relief is being sought by variance. The applicants assumed the liability for the illegal garage addition when they acquired the property. The Commission finds that granting of "after the fact" variances are inappropriate because they weaken the standards by which variances are evaluated and approved. If property owners are granted "after the fact" variances where there is no compelling evidence of physical constraint and unnecessary hardship, then the Commission can expect requests to review similar variance requests in the future. In addition, some individuals might be encouraged to create new zoning violations if there is a chance of getting a variance to make the violation legal after the fact. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. The existing , residence may continue to be used for permitted residential use whether the variance is granted or not. RECOMMENDATION Staff fmds that this request does not meet all the conditions necessary for a variance to be granted under Chapter 17.66 (Variance) of the Borough Code. APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: Move to grant a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision, a lot in the R1 --Single-family Residential zoning district with only 4,669 square feet of area. Staff recommends that the preceding motion be denied and the following motion be adopted: Move to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated December 27, 1993, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. Case 94.001 Page 7 of 7 P & Z: January 19, 1994 1 Robert L. & Meesha Elayne Murphy 1311 Mission Road P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 907-486-8707 13 December 1993 ATTN: Planning &;Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 205 Kodiak, Alaska 99615-6398 Dear Sirs: Subject: Leite Subdivision, Lot 13 ( 1311 Mission Road ) Request for a variance to sanction the two car garage on the above cited single family residential lot. The purpose of this letter is to solicit approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission for a variance covering an existing garage located 'on the subject lot. The said structure was built in non-compliance with the Borough code, approximately 7 years prior to our purchase. The brief history of this structure, and other salient points are: A) In mid -1984, Mr. Burl Clymer, the property owner at the time, applied for a building permit to extend the house, plus adding an,attached garage. Building permit number 5262 was issued. B) On September 24, 1984, the chief building official, Mr. John Sullivan, approved the framing, plumbing, and electrical. Although the rear site markers were in place, the garage was built two feet away from the property line. Mr. Sullivan made no mention of the rear set back violation. ( An affidavit from Mr. Paul Anderson, the property owner of lots 11 & 12 in the Leite Subdivision from 1975 - mid 1993, stating the rear site markers were in place, will be provided for the hearing on January 17, 1994. ) C) When the roof on this new addition began to leak in January 1987, the chief building official approved the reconstruction of the flatiroof to a peaked roof. Once again, there was no mention of the rear set back violation. D) Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Murphy ( the applicant ) purchased the subjectiproperty on December 31, 1991. At the time of purchase, the Murphy's were totally unaware the garage was non -conforming. 2 E) During October 1993, the Murphy's seeking information on converting approximately 20% of the garage into a nursery for their impending child, were told by the Community Development Department that their garage was non -conforming, due to a rear set back vidlation. In support of our request, we find that our case is in compliance with the six requirements for an approval of a variance. (Borough code 17:.66.050) These are: 1) There are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable Lot 13, Leite Subdivision, is a non -conforming lot, being 4669 sq. ft:. The front of the lot has a ten foot retaining wall, which:limits off-street parking. 2) Strict:application of the provisions would result in difficulties or unnecessary hardship. To tear down or relocating the garage will be costly. Secondly, without a variance, we may have a problem with a future sale of the house, and/or bank financing. 3) Granting,of a variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's safety. , The structure was built in 1984, and to date, it has not been the subject of a complaint, nor has it been detrimental to the public's health, safety or general welfare. 4) Granting a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan. This variance will provide off-street parking, without changing the zoning, or the integrity of the neighbdrhood. Lot would remain a single family dwelling. 5) Actions from the applicant did not cause special conditions The subject property has sold twice after the Clymers added the garage. (We purchased the property seven years after the garage was built. After owning it for two years, were we notified of the problem - October 1993.) 6) Granting a variance will not peiiuit a prohibited land use. The structure will be maintained primarily for parking two vehicles. No business use of the structure will occur, nor any other case contrary to the zoning code. 3 In consideration of this request, we recommend the following conditions:' 1) The integrity of the garage will be maintained, requiring 360 sq. ft. (18x20) of the area be reserved for two parking places. 2) No future expansion of the building footprint of the existing structure on the subject lot will be permitted. Yours very truly, Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Murphy Attachments: 1) As -built survey 2) Building permit addition 3) Building permit # on the bedroom & # 5262 - bedroom & garage 87008 - roof reconstruction garage addition. 5 rr4ccsss F4Stm Nr,VR Ldrs it /3, BOON 94, PAGES 464 HI TANK tL� Z 14 N•`. _ as 9a, Q\ (qOo\y r \3S 0 1 d .4,x, "co W D3 5 -euEe' R d / \e 0 31 12 'j0 I ��r/FPEEECMHBKEnARaEP AS - BUILT SURVEY 1144.. Atten A 1) Roy A. fcldnd talPtESS 7 NO. 16154 11111 �••.rw•'� 1. 1`` S`: t� 1 hereby certify that 1 bare surveyed the following d<uribcd progeny: -# its St' -e ' . U.S. ,o/,het no. 49—) and that the improvements situated thereonare within the property lines and do not overlap or encroach an the property lying adjacent thereto. Jur no improvement. on property lying adjacent thereto encroach on the premise. in question and that there are no roadway*. transmis- sion linea or other visible easements on said property except n iadi. sated hereon. Dated thindray of DEC 19 9/ / ROY .A.ECKLUND Registered Land Surveyor Salt: /et= to feat I/Naar] by: 5. AUslruman l Dam: /4 ..Ta/y /989 BUILDING DEPARTMENT — CITY / BOROUGH OF KODIAK Applicant to fill in between heavy lines. APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BUILDING AOC/RISS /s//41 •ac/p e/ Rn, LOCALITY CLASS OF WORK NEW DEMOLISH ALTERATION REPAIR NEAREST CROSSST. 0 MW EI Sw NAME�LLL r/ 8A,1 f'R MAIL ADDVS 4 / fl Z. rat EITYI/"Mir' � :}, /WS— NtO.OF OUILDINBS , NAME �• NO.OF BUILDINGS NOW ON LOT >4 USC Or BUILDING � ri re sac 0r BULDIN ?O x vi.) HEICHT / y NO. Of ROOMS No Or FLOORS / Al) 10 MOVE BUILDING PERMIT NO VALUATION 5 �T DATE ISSUCO LIT iz_zy/ S V BLDG, EEE S / li SI PLAN CHK. rEE TOTAL L0 BUILDING NO. OF FAMILIES ADORE5S CITY SIZE OFLOr st , 1, USE or BLDG. NOwON LOT Pe 4 PLASTER C'h-1.a�fL SPECIFICATIONS FOUNDATION FRASIYq/s-Y-hr wJJ tt PLUMBING ROUGE.. 772 SEPTIC TAN ELECTRIC FINISH ii�� SEWER /tJ/j FIXTURES FLUES GAS .IJ}I MOTORS STATE LICENSE NO. FOUNDATION INAL 00111311 MIA. ' D AM MATERIAL EXTERIOR, FORS WIDTH or TOP ADD WIMP Or BOT TOM T z DEPT N GROUND RM.PLATE (SILL) V I -V, LICENSEO. S� • OC( 3 /Q 2:VI1 .TVISION ILOiNLe;rt BLK, 1 SIZE GIRDERS JOIST I,1. FL JOIST 20.1. FL. JOIST CEILING EXTERIOR STUDS DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 1. Type of Construction`�4 II, III, IVI 2. Occupancy Group A, B, C. D, E, F, G, H, 1. J Div. 1, 2,'01314, M 3. Fire Zone I GG9 4 TERIO s LIDS ROOF RAFTERS BEARING WALLS COVERING EXTERIOR WALLS R000 INTERIOR WALLS REROOFING FLUES FIREPLACE EL. runNACE KITCHEN WATER 0CATFR FURNACE GAS 011. I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the above is correct and agree to comply with all City Ordinances and State Laws regulating build' ng_construction.- AnnlieantSCA //!n #.-- </-I (ccJ-e,, C✓r'('h r.9. /JIO=1r h� p/✓ /4-b Nr 7;C4/o../ Cf"' ,l-l(L /A -iJ fid: 64a-, PLANNING e ZONING INFO, /7• /1" 'ZONING DISTRICT 41/ TYPE Or OCCUPANCY dot: C/GAT/ G.✓ -G //Got t /7 /542// NUMBER OF STORIES/ 7 TOTAL HT.a.o V y »AREA Of LOT qY't `t t /1..' 01 G,.22 FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE j,$/ /d.' ASIDE VARO SET BACK FROM PROF. LINE F REARYARD .J. Aproved: CHIEF BUILDING OFFICAL_ _ _Approved: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR_ ‘, / r 70y Lt C --nn /,. BUILDING DEPARTMENT - KOOIAK ISLAND BOROUGH APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (APPLICANT TO FILL IN ALL INFORMATION WITHIN HEAVY LINES. PLEASE PRINT. USE BALL-POINT PEN, AND PRESS FIRMLY.) SUBDIVISION/SURVEY L. CLASS AND SCOPE OF WORK !WILDING PERMIT NUMBER O p� DATE ISSUED 1(z� PLOT PLAN IA SITE PLAN MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED) 1 �� E/rE - NEW DEMOLISH LOT t3 NO. BLOCK NO. BLOCK ALTERATION REPAIR Lt—ZJ VALUATION: (BASIS) /^� Ate -4 ftj BL06 PERM TFEE 4.17 - ADDITION MOVE REAR PROPERTY m 2 U ). Y 4. u 0 N FRONT LINE STREET ADDRESS 731E Huss,' ahl USE OF BUILDING SIZEOFBUILOINO.�*O HGT AMOUNT (0 S oo PLAN CHK FEE NEAREST CROSS STREET NO. OF ROOMS l•.%A FLOORS TOTAL NO. OF FAMILIES Ai)", G Z O NAME thou. C l,Mf- . NO. OF BUILDINGS NOW ON LOT ` ) • �+ INSPECTION SCHEDULE USE OF BUILDINGS ES, to SIZE OF LOT F�1. BUILDING PLUMBING ELECTRICAL MAILING ADDRESS FOUNDATION ROUGH ROUGH WATERS PUBLIC PRIVATE FRAME SEPTIC TANK FINISH SIO PROPERTY LINE CITY, STATE E TELEPHONE KoPto#C. ) Ak, PRIVATE SPECIFIC PLASTER/BD SEWER FIXTURES TIO SPECIFICATIONS FOUNDATION EXT PIERS Flus GAS MOTORS b' t; (r 2 Z,� Q. NAME FINAL FINISH FINAL TYPE DEPTH IN GNO � ADDRESS - w or °oIap5Hyp1AMv w w0NR'ao446zNGT 47 l 41044'4 ° c SCh ICK DD. a E Inner: wao c atHerta sa ETARTMENT oP °4 Ei Kanux N4a5CT, r tn6Dit G ° ox N HOT FIN GRADE PROPERTY LINE C1TY•SiATE KT. PLATE (SILL) STRUCTURAL SIZE SPA. SPAN NOTES INz,ALLAn0N0 xMVMI u+ncx av 2a.Foor CUtV44w14EGVIatO M „NE LICENSE HO. GIRDERS JOISTS 1ST FLR. pxMAnon r n a 444 o nT0 I45V*NN1 a Mia `�.:c°'i nR 1twt4 5 NOT In1TAUEa z PLAN A1011(W L5CCENEO 'PAT rnSO Ixtuµto V BUILDINGPERMITWHERE PV p B AVAILAELE P°o CSAIIPI ATED STREET B o H E NAME p ''' /+_�,u5 Ac'r/o-q IJ LSI Nr. V/LESAst JOISTS 2ND RLR, JOISTS CLG EXT STUDS NGGTE, F FROM STOUCTVRE APPLICANT SHALL SHOW BUILDING SETBACKS OM PROPERTY LINES. AS PERPENDICULAR DISTANCES PROPERTY LINES TO MOLDING. DIMENSIONS OF SHALL 04 SHOWN ON THE FLAK. ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE ADDRESS Bog I' r} Cp INT STUDS TQ..P CITY, STATE.yLl,., koen4k, RO0F RAFTERS , y LI a w, [� -J / A MANNA AUTINDI E0 ACIENIION ER rNlt N N SIGN TN* AW 11457.AD BC BATE TRUSSES Ptn404010 TEL 0 STATE LICENSE NO. C 0 (o 1 BEARING WALLS INSULATION, FNON (FOR OFFICE USE ONLYt CIRCLE) 1. OCCUPANCY GROUP �F A B E MI M ( (E/ "�} DIVISION 1 2 Ey t S 2. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION I I I III I V O 'R I•HR. ( H.T. WALLS ROOF/CLG y cty 0 /IPI c PSR ZONING DISTRICT y SHEATHING, WALLS/EXT I *Norms. IN PRocns,TO. TYPE OF OCCUPANCY ROOF /EyL�/ E,,f00OR NO. OF STORIES TOTAL NOT FINISH. EXT WALLS CLOSING DATE DECO 01100080 14v1 AREA OF LOT ROOF SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LIMESt FLUES. FIREPL WOOD HTR FRONT REAR KITCHEN WATER MTq BIDE(.) SIDE(!) FURNACE. TYPE RE/MD OFF-STREET PARKING C.U.P. OR VARIANCE 1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION. THAT IT IS CORRECT. AND THAT I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL ORDINANCES AND LAWS HREEGULATING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. {,.R 17. +F4r9+��tiftllO if ✓Yt j AFPOVED.' OFFICIALn) APPROVED, ZONINGOFFICER -APPLICANT " ' �ILOING JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER, & GENTRY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KAREN E. BENDLER -.-' JOEL H. BOLGER C. WALTER EBELL* DUNCAN S. FIELDS DIANNA R. GENTRY MATTHEW D. JAMIN WALTER W. MASON* ALAN L. SCHMITT *ADMITTED TO ALASKA AND WASHINGTON BARS ALL OTHERS ADMITS) TO ALASKA BAR VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL ATTORNEYS AT LAW 929 CAROLYN STREET' KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 TELEPHONE: (907)486.6024 FACSIMILE: (907) 486-6112 REPLY TO KODIAK OFFICE December 8, 1993 Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Re: Robert and Meesha Murphy Setback Encroachment Our File No. 4702-476 Dear Linda: ANCHORAGE OFFICE: 12001 STREET. SURE 704 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONEAND FAX (907) 278-6100 SEATTLE OFFICE: 300 MUTUAL LIFE BUILDING 605 FIRST AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 622.7894 FACSIMILE: (206) 829-7521 I reviewed your administrative file in this matter and the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak dated March 1, 1984. The MOA provides that in the field it will be the responsibility of the City Building Inspector to enforce the provisions of the written zoning authorization including setback requirements prior to the foundation being in place. During the time when this Memorandum of Agreement was in effect, the Borough issued a building permit and zoning compliance certificate to allow the construction of a garage on the subject property. The date that the building permit was issued was June 22, 1984. It was approved by Bud Cassidy on behalf of the Borough and John Sullivan on behalf of the City. The building permit does show a 25 ft. setback from the rear property line. John Sullivan conducted a building inspection report on September 24, 1984. The inspection report made comments concerning the electrical, plumbing and wiring systems. It is apparent from a current as built survey that there is only about a 2 ft. setback from the rear property line. As I read it, the required setback in the single family residential district is 10 ft. Mr. and Mrs. Murphy will likely argue that the Kodiak Island Borough is barred from enforcing the setback requirement by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. There are four factors which must be considered when a party attempts to invoke an estoppel defense against a municipality in a zoning case. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J� Linda Freed December 8, 1993 Page 2 (1) Assertion by conduct or word, (2) resulting reliance thereon, (3) resulting prejudice, and (4) estoppel will be enforced only to the extent that justice so requires. The application of these factors is illustrated by the case of Jackson v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 733 P.2d 1038 (Alaska 1987). In that case Mr. Jackson operated an automobile repair business in a residential zone. In 1977 he applied for a building permit to construct a garage. There was no indication on the permit that the garage was to be used for commercial purposes; but many people on the city staff knew that Jackson operated an automobile repair business there. Six years after the construction of the garage, the building inspector notified Jackson that the business was in violation of the zoning ordinance and the city brought an enforcement action. The Supreme Court recognized that courts impose estoppel against the govemmental bodies seeking to enforce a zoning ordinance only upon a showing that the responsible municipal officials undertook positive acts which induced the action of the defendant. Applying this standard, the court found that there was no assertion by word or conduct that Jackson's business was exempt from the city zoning ordinance, and therefore declined to apply the doctrine of estoppel. The Murphy case may be similar to the Jackson situation. The building permit clearly required a 35 ft. setback from the rear property line. The inspection report from John Sullivan does not refer to the setback requirement but only approves other details of construction. On the other hand, the length of time since the Murphys' garage was constructed, and the number of subsequent inspections of the property, provide evidence which the Murphys will rely on to urge a court to deny enforcement of the setback requirement. Considering all of these factors, I would recommend against bringing an enforcement action requiring the Murphys to demolish the garage in order to come into compliance with the setback requirements. The second question you posed concerns the Murphys' pending application for a building permit in order to convert the garage addition to a bedroom. The Borough is probably not required to issue such a permit, since the doctrine of estoppel which the Murphys would rely on to allow the garage to continue °will be enforced only to the extent that justice so requires." On the other hand, there Is nothing in the nonconforming use chapter, KIBC 17.36 or the setback chapter KIBC 17.40 which would forbid a change in use of a structure which is already in violation of the setback requirements. I therefore conclude that you can issue a building permit to Mr. and Mrs. Murphy for conversion of the garage addition to a bedroom if you determine that the permit is otherwise in compliance with the zoning and building codes. If you choose to do so, you may want to add clarifying language to a cover letter or to the permit to make it clear that Linda Freed December 8, 1993 Page 3 this new permit should not form the basis for another estoppel claim. Here is some suggested language: Please note that the garage addition to your residence presently violates the required rear yard setback provisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Code. This permit does not constitute any waiver or estoppel concerning the enforcement of the rear yard setback requirement. You should take into account the fact that the garage addition extends into the required rear yard setback, in making any expenditures to convert the garage addition to a bedroom. Feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTRY JHB:srp cc: Jerome Selby Jack McFarland 47021476L.001 Ed.2d S.Ct, Il, J„ con- itute, !.roc - 244, city the • ble the Arg+ r: sst is & the give .'e ::;8 570 tee - in ;IT PS -ire Jay on FIELDS v, KODIAK CITY COUNCIL Cite as, Alaska, 626 P.2d 927 [5, 6] We are convinced that the notice afforded Breeden did not satisfy the re- quirements of due process. There is 110 evidence in the record that Breeden ever received notice of the charges against him which evidently were the basis for his dis- missal. Notice must not only be "reason- ably calculated ... to apprise interested parties of thel pendency of the action," Mul- lane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657, 94 L.Ed. at 873, it must also "reasonably con- vey the required information." Id. Here, the required information was the basis for the council's consideration of Breeden's dis- missal. That information was not con- veyed. [7] We' Mao think that the notice was inadequate id that it demanded either an immediate, appearance to answer unnamed charges (on April 16th) or an appearance within twenty-four hours (on April 17th), a time period not justified by the urgency of the city's interests involved. See Mathews v, Eldridge, 424 U.S, 319, 334-05, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902-03, 47 L.Ed,2d 18, 33 (1976). We are not holding that the city would be completely unable to discharge Breeden without providing him with its reasons and an opportunity to be heard. The very con- tract whichhere establishes his property interest also indicates that, if the city com- plies with the thirty -day notice provision, it can discharge Breeden for any valid reason, or for no reason at ati.5 • Also, we doi not intend to imply that the city could not under any circumstances dis- charge Breeden without complying with the contractual provision calling for thirty days' notice. There are circumstances under which adequate reasons could exist for by- passing the provision; but, under such cir- cumstances; the city should provide Breeden with some opportunity to respond to its reasons for,ehdosing not to comply with the contractual, clause. As noted, thle extent of the property in- terest involved is only twenty-seven days. 5. This assumes that there is no other contractu- al provision, statute. ordinance, or tenure sys- tem from which Breeden could derive a proper- ty interest: This also asst - - Alaska 927 The city can remove any prejudice resulting from its denial of due process by restoring the property interest in toto. Thus, on re- mand, the city should be given its choice of (1) allowing Breeden the compensation which he would have been due for that time or (2) holding a hearing, following reasona- ble notice, at which Breeden must be given an opportunity to respond to the city's rea- sons for discharging him without regard to the thirty -day notice provision. Affirmed in part, revered in part, and remanded for further proceedings in ac- cordance with this opinion. T Duncan FIELDS, Appellant, v. KODIAK CITY COUNCIL, sitting as the Board of Adjustment for the Kodiak Island Borough, Appellee. No. 4948. Supreme Court of Alaska. June 5, 1981. Property owner sought variance from local zoning ordinance and the city council, sitting as board of adjustment, denied re- quest, and property owner appealed. The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Victor D. Carlson, J., found that "clean hands" doctrine precluded property owner from ob- taining relief sought and, alternatively, that board's denial was supported by substantial evidence, and property owner appealed. The Supreme Court, Connor, J., held that: (1) board of adjustment's function was to charge is not made in retaliation for Breeden exercising some protected right, e. g, his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. EX -:TS 928 , Alaska 628 PACIFIC REPORTER. 2d SERIES determine whether requirements for vari- ance were met and, if so, to grant the variance and it was notits function to consider matters such as estoppel in deter- mining whether variance would he granted, and (2) regardless of whether local ordi- nance requires findings, hoard of adjust- ment rulings on variance requests must ren- der findings sufficient both to enable par- ties to determine whether and on what ba- sis they should seek review and, in event of review, to apprise the reviewing court of basis for board's action and, accordingly, case would be remanded to superior court with directions that it he remanded to board of adjustment for purpose of provid- ing findings of fact relevant to each condi- tion required for variance. Remanded. 1. Zoning and Planning 4=762 1mzoning context, estoppel is defensive claim raised to prevent enforcement of zon- ing ordinance which defense typically ap- plies where property owner receives permit that was beyond power of administrative officer'to grant, owner detrimentally relies on validity of permit, and local government attempts to revoke permit and to enforce the ordinance. 2. Zoning and Planning 4=485 It is not the function of board of ad- justment to consider matters such as estop- pel in determining whether variance should be granted; nor is hoard to decide equitable questions of "clean hands" and, rather, board'si power is restricted to that provided by zoning ordinance and its enabling legis- lation. 3. Zoning and Planning 4=542 Board of adjustment's function in hear- ing request for variance from local zoning ordinance was to determine whether re- quirements for variance were met and, if so, to grant the variance. AS 29.33.110. 4. Zoning and Planning 4=536 Burden is on party seeking variance under zoning ordinance to provide evidence showing that necessary conditions were met. AS 29.33.110. 5. Zoning and Planning 4=703 Duty of court reviewing decision of hoard of adjustment on application for vari- ance is to determine whether substantial evidence supported decision on variance re- quest. AS 29.33.110(c). 6. Administrative Law and Procedure X676 Threshold question in administrative appeal is whether record sufficiently re- flects basis for board's decision so as to enable meaningful judicial review. 7. Zoning and Planning 4=726 Where basis of board of adjustment's zoning -related determination is unclear, re- mand is necessary. 8. Zoning and Planning 4=544 Regardless of whether local ordinance raquires findings, board of adjustment rul- ing on variance request must render find- ings sufficient both to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise reviewing court,of basis for board's action. 9. Zoning and Planning 4=749 Where court, on present record, could not determine why board of adjustment denied variance request, where hoard did not set forth findings but, rather, simply voted to deny the request, it was impossible to determine whether denial was based on appropriate factors, and, absent clear indi- cation of board's reasoning supporting the denial, superior court erred in ruling that denial was supported by substantial evi- dence and case would be remanded for pur- pose of directing board of adjustment to set forth findings relevant to conditions re- quired for granting a variance. AS 29.33.- 110. 9.33:110. William D. Artus, Artus & Choquette, P. C., Anchorage, for appellant. Wev W. Shea and Robert J. Mahoney, Cole, Hartig, Rhodes, Norman & Mahoney, Anchorage, for appellee. ?ion of -or vari- itantial nce re- eedure trative tly ye- as to ment's Ir, re- inance .1 rel- - r::d- • es to they ':t of basis could 'runt :lid imply isible on thet sat re•- aney, :ney, FIELDS v. KODIAK CITY COUNCIL Alaska 929 Cite as, Alaska, 628 P.2d 927 used an architect's scale to calculate the sethack measurements from a lot plat dated April 3, 1960. Mulitalo contends that Fields provided the setback information. The ap- plication states that the left side lot setback is 15 feet when, in fact, it ranges from slightly less than one and one-half feet at OPINION Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., CONNOR, and BURKE, JJ., and MOODY and COOKE; Superior Court Judges. CONNOR, Justice. This is an appeal from a decision of the Kodiak city council, sitting as a hoard of the junction of the original house and the adjustment, which denied appellant's re- addition to approximately two and one-half , quest fora variance from a local zoning feet at the rear of the addition. The appli- ordinance.t The superior court ruled that's cation correctly states that the front yard the "clean hands" doctrine precluded appel- setback is seven and one-half feet, lant from obtaining the relief sought and, alternatively, that the board's denial was supported by substantial evidence. We dis- agree, and remand the case so that specific findings of fact may be made by the hoard of adjustment. In 1972, Duncan Fields purchased the property giving rise to this dispute. At that time the land was improved with a single family residence. The house was nonconforming, but was "grandfathered in" under the local zoning ordinance. Kodiak Island Borough Code (hereafter KIBC) 17.- 36.010. ' Because of an expanding family, Fields decided to increase the size and height of the original structure. In August of 1977, Fields obtained a blank application for a building !permit from a Mr. Mulitalo, the borough's zoning adtninistrator. After par- tially completing the application, Fields presented both the application and the plans for the addition to Mr. Slagle, a city building 'inspector. Mr. Slagle and Fields then completed the specifications portion of the application together. After completing the application, Fields left the plans with Mr. Slagle and paid the permit fee. Fields then went back to see Mr. Mulita- lo. When reviewing the application, Muli- tato noticed that the plot plan portion of the application was not completed. Although Mulitalo completed the application, there is a dispute as to who supplied the figures reflecting the distance the house and the addition were set back from the front and side property lines. Fields claims Mulitalo 1. Although a borough zoning ordinance is in- volved. the ,Kodiak city council acts as the Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code contains the zoning requirements ap- plicable to fields' property. Section 17.13.- 040 requires a front yard sethack of twenty- five feet and side yard setbacks of twenty- five feet or ten percent of the width of the lot, whichever is less. Any nonconforming use existing prior to the effective date of the code may he continued; such noncon- forming use, however, may not be altered or enlarged in any way. KIBC 17.36.010. Section 17,45.030 gives the planning depart- ment discretion to approve permits where the front yard setback is less than twenty- five feet if seventy-five percent of the buildings in the area are also situated less than twenty-five feet from the front lot line. The code does not confer similar dis- cretion on the department with respect to side setbacks. There is some evidence, how- ever, that the department did, in fact, exer- cise such discretion in the past with respect to side yard setbacks. Fields' lot is approxi- mately forty-four feet wide, so the required side lot sethack is about four and four - tenths feet. The actual side setback is ap- proximately one and one-half feet to two and one-half feet. Because Fields' front yard setback was less than twenty-five feet, it was necessary for Mulitalo to conduct an on-site inspection to determine whether seventy-five percent of the buildings in the area had similar front setbacks. After measuring Fields' front yard and the front yards of several of the houses in the neighborhood, Mulitalo hoard of adjustment for the area within the city's boundaries. AS 29.33.110. 1 4 930 Alaska 628 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES approved the permit. Mulitalo did not measure the side setbacks. At the time of the inspection, there was a fence approxi- mately two and one-half feet from the left side of Fields' existing house. It was thus apparent that the existing sidelot setback was nonconforming, but this assertedly went unnoticed, When he atpproved the building permit, Mulitalo wrote on its face that no variance was required for the addi- tion, In December of 1977, Fields began con- struction of the addition. In April of 1978, Mr. White, a neighboring landowner and a member of the Kodiak city council, in- formed Mr. Harry Milligan, the borough planning director, that Fields' addition was in violation of the borough's zoning ordi- nances. On Muy 31, 1978, Milligan advised Fields that his residence and addition were in violation of the side setback requirement. On June 7, 1978, Fields requested a vari- ance. Fields filed a completion notice on June 14, 1977, stating that the structure had been completed on June 4, 1977. At the time of completion, Fields had incurred approximately $60,000 in construction costs. On June 26, 1978, the borough's planning and zoning commission issued a stop work order. On July 3, 1978, that commission denied Fields' variance request, despite the planning staff's recommendation that a variance he granted. Fields appealed the commission's denial to the hoard of adjual- menl. Fields' appeal stayed the stop work order issued on June 26, 1977. AS 29.33.- 120. 9.33-120. On August 24, 1978, the city council, sit- ting as the Kodiak board of adjustment, held a hearing to consider Fields' request for a variance. Mr. Artus, Fields' attorney, argued that the four requirements for the 2. None of the estoppel cases that appellant cites are applicable here. Many fall within the category described above: estoppel was raised as a defense in an enforcement proceeding. See City of Marseilles v. Hustis. 27 III.App.3d 454. 325 N.E.2c1 767 (1975); City of Chicago r. Grendrs Bldg. Corp., 4 III.App.3d 634, 281 N.E.2d 708 (1972); City or Evanston v. Rob- bins, 117 III.App.2d 278, 254 N.E.2d 536 (1969); State ex rel. May v. Hanson, 167 Mont. 441, 539 9.2d 376 (1975); Rosenthal v, City of Dal - granting of a variance under KIBC 17.66.- 09003) 7.66:090(6) had been met. Mr. Artus also ar- gued that regardless of whether Fields sat- isfied the four requirements, a variance should be granted under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. At the close of the hearing, the board voted to deny Fields a variance. The board did not issue findings of fact. White testified at the hearing, but' did not vote. Fields then appealed the board's decision to the superior court. The appeal stayed enforcement proceedings. AS 29.33.130. The borough has not indicated what action, if any, will be taken with respect to the sidelot setback violation, Fields asked the superior court to hold Kodiak estopped from denying him a vari- ance and, alternatively, to limit any sanc- tion imposed for the violation of the ordi- nance to $500.00. The superior court did not take additional testimony; its review was based on the record. The court held that Fields was precluded from seeking eq- uitable relief by the "clean hands" doctrine, and that there was substantial evidence to support the board's decision. [I-3) An initial observation must be made The parties have argued at length about whether the board of adjustment was estopped from denying Fields a variance for the setback violation. Fields' estoppel claim is premised upon his detrimental re- liance on the validity of the building permit, and on the inspector's written statement onv the permit that no variance was required. In the present posture of this case, however, estoppel is not an issue. In the zoning context, estoppel is a defensive claim raised to prevent enforcement of a zoning ordi- nance? 4 A. Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning las. 211 S.W.2d 279 (Tex.Civ.App.1948). One applied estoppel against complaining adjacent landowners who were seeking to have a vari- ance revoked. Hilt v. Board of Adjustment, 122 N.J.Super. 156, 299 A.2d 737 (App.Dly. 1972). Another refused to enjoin a zoning vio- lation on the ground that the equities did not warrant injunctive relief. Grand Haven Tenni- ship v. Brummel, 87 Mich.App, 442. 274 V,W.2d 814 (1978). KJBC 17.66.- rtus also ar- t':r Fields sat- , a variance e doctrine of close of the ieny Fields a issue findings, but'. ard's decision appeal stayed kS 29.33.130. what action, spect to the ^ourt to hold g him a vari- nit any sane - of the ordi- !Dr court did its review to court held n seeking eq - Ids" doctrine, ! evidence to on must be �sd at length ustment was variance for :is' estoppel :rimental re- Iding permit, 4„,, one '7s required. se. however, the zoning c!_im raised toning ordi- w of Zoning 11948). One ting adjacent have a vari- Adjustment, 37 (App.Div. a zoning vio- tities did not laven Town- . 442, 274 FIELDS v. KODIAK CITY COUNCIL Alaska 931 Cite as. Alaska, 828 P.2d 927 and planning § 67-1 (41h ed. 1980). The P.2d 406, 411 (Alaska 1963). Questions of defense typically applies where a property estoppel and "clean hands" are not relevant owner receives a permit that was beyond to this question.3 the power of an administrative officer to grant) the owner detrimentally relies on the [4] In order to obtain a variance under validity of the permit, and the local govern -4,, the zoning ordinance, Fields was required to ment attempts to revoke the permit and establish the following: then enforce the ordinance. But "[i]t is not "1. That there are exceptional physi- the function of ... [the board of adjust- ment] to consider matters such as estoppel in determining whether a variance should be granted." Carini v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 164 Conn. 169, 319 A.2d 390, 393 (1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 831, 94 S.Ct, 64, 38 LEd.2d 66 (1973). Nor is the board to decide equitable questions of "clean hands:" Rather, the hoard's power is re- stricted to that provided by the zoning ordi- cal circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to its intended use or development which do not apply general- ly to the other properties in the same land use district; 2. That the strict application of the provisions of this title would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hard- ship; nonce and its enabling legislation. City & 3. That the granting of the variance Borough of Juneau v. Thibodeau, 595 P.2d will not result in material damage or 626, 635 n.31 (Alaska 1979). Thus the Rod/ prejudice to other properties in the vicini- iak hoard of adjustment's function was to ty nor be detrimental to the public determine whether the requirements for a health, safety or welfare; variance were met and, if so, to grant the 4. That the granting of the variance variance. See AS 29.33.110; KIBC 17.66: will not be contrary to the objectives of 090, 17.69.020. The only proper issue on appeal is wheth- er the board's denial of the variance is supported by substantial' evidence. Galt v. Stanton, 591 P.2d 960, 962-63 (Alaska 1979); Keiner v. City of Anchorage, 378 Others stand for the proposition that once a benefit is conferred upon a landowner who subsequently relies on it. the local government can be estopped from denying the initial validi- ty of its act. See Wocdie v. Byrom, 132 Cal. App.2d 651, 282 P.2d 920 (1955) (where city issues series of business licenses notwithstand- ing business' violation of zoning ordinance. city is estopped from denying renewal of license on ground that business was previously in viola- tion;of zoning ordinance); Bregar v. Britton. 75 So.2d 753 (Fla.1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 972, 75 S.Ct. 534, 99 L.Ed. 757 0955) (city estopped. on facts, from revoking particular zoning clas- sification as applied to plaintiffs land): King County v. Commercial Waterway Dist., 42 Wash.2d 391, 255 P.2d 539 (1953) (govemmem tal agency estopped. as between it and pur• chaser. from denying validity of sale of its land). Under these latter cases, appellee may have been estopped from revoking the building permit, or from revoking a variance had one been granted. but the proper procedural vehicle for asserting this claim would have been by way, of either a defense in an enforcement pro- ceeding or in an action for declaratory relief. the comprehensive plan." KIBC 17.66.090(B). The burden was ons Fields to provide evidence showing that these conditions were met. City & Borough of Juneau v. Thibodeau, 595 P.2d at 635; Kelly Supply Co. v. City of Anchorage, 516 For previous discussions in our case law re- garding claims of estoppel in general, see Jami- son v. Consul Utits., Inc., 576 P.2d 97, 102-03 (Alaska 1978); Arctic Contractors, Inc. v. State, 564 P.2d 30, 40 (Alaska 1977); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Foss Launch & Tug Ca, 560 P.2d 393, 396 (Alaska 1977). 3, We do not mean to imply, however, that Fields is not entitled to estop the city or bor- ough from actually enforcing the zoning ordi- nance against his nonconforming use. Indeed, on the limited record before us it appears that Fields may have a strong claim for estoppel. That claim, however, should be raised as a defense to an enforcement action or as a claim for declaratory relief. Our disposition of this case is without prejudice to Fields' right to raise estoppel in an appropriate proceeding. For example, in our recent opinion in Pioneer Sand & Gravel v. Municipality of Anchorage, 627 P.2d 651 (Alaska 1981), we held that an action for inverse condemnation and declarato- ry relief should be remanded for consolidation with an administrative appeal. 932 Alaska 628 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES P.2d 1206, 1211 (Alaska 1973); Boyajian v. Board of Appeals, 6 Mass.App. 283, 374 N.E.2d 1237, 1237--38 (1978). The lack of countervailing evidence does not alone es- tablish that this burden has been met. Ha- zelton v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 48 11i. App.3d 348, 6 Itl.Dec. 515, 363 N.E.2d 44, 48 (1977). As a final limitation on when a variance may be obtained, state law pro- vides that "[a] variance shall not be granted because of special conditions caused by ac- tions of the person seeking relief or for reasons of pecuniary hardship or inconven- ience." AS 29.33.110(c). [5] The duty of the board of adjustment was to reach a decision on the variance request that is supported by substantial evi- dence. Substantial evidence is "such rele- vant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Keiner, 378 P.2d at 411. The duty of this court, and that of the superior court below, is to determine whether such evidence sup- ports the board's conclusions. Fulfilling that duty is difficult where, as here, the board fails to make findings regarding the conditions for a variance. Although our prior cases have clearly articulated the sub- stantial evidence test, they have failed to clarify whether local zoning or adjustment boards must always set forth findings, nor have they illuminated the proper relation- ship between the evidence, findings, and ultimate agency action. [6] The threshold question in an admin- istrative appeal is whether the record suffi- ciently reflects the basis for the board's decision so as to enable meaningful judicial review. In previous administrative appeals we have declined to impose a specific re- quirement that findings be prepared when we were able to determine the basis for the 4. The author of this opinion dissented in Moore from the holding that the case be remanded for a record more reflective of the basis for the administrative decision. Moore, 553 P.2d at 22 n.23. Moore, however, is distinguishable on numerous grounds. The challenged decision in Moore was whether the leasing of certain lands for resource development was in the "best in- terests" of the state. In the author's view, that decision was committed to broad agency dis• cretion, and involved the "formulation of public challenged decision. Thus in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Commission, 518 P.2d 92 (Alaska 1974), challenging the ad- ministrative approval of the incorporation of the North Slope Borough, we rejected the argument that the boundary commis- sion was required to issue findings because no statute required findings and we were able to determine from the record the basis for the commission's decision. Id. at 97. But we explicitly noted that "in the usual case findings of fact would he required even in the absence of a statutory duty in order to facilitate judi- cial review, insure careful administrative deliberation, assist the parties in prepar- - ing for review, and restrain agencies within the bounds of their jurisdiction." Id. at 97 n.11. See K & L Distributors, Inc. v. Murkowski, 486 P.2d 351, 359-60 (Alaska 1971) (findings not required where basis of decision clear). Where the basis of an ad- ministrative decision is unclear, however, we have remanded for preparation of a record reflecting the agency's reasoning process. See Moore v. State, 553 P.2d 8, 36 (Alaska 1976)! [7] Appeals from zoning -related deter- minations should be treated in the same way. At least two of our prior cases con- cerning zoning appeals did include adminis- trative findings, and thus the issue of re- quiring findings was not addressed. See City & Borough of Juneau v. Thibodeau, 595 P.2d 626, 632 n.19 (Alaska 1979); Kein- er v. City of Anchorage, 378 P.2d 406, 411 (Alaska 1963). In others, the issues were such that, based on the record, detailed findings were not necessary for this court to understand the agency's reasoning proc- ess. See Gall v. Stanton, 591 P.2d 960, 962-65 (Alaska 1979); Kelly Supply Co. v. City of Anchorage, 516 P.2d 1206, 1208, policy on the basis of highly technical scientific and economic information which we are poorly equipped to appraise." In the instant case. on the other hand, specific criteria for a variance exist against which the evidence can be meas- ured. The sphere of administrative discretion in granting a variance is limited. Further, in Moore the governmental agency was engaged in the conduct of public proprietary business, rather than, as here, in the regulation of private , interests. in Mobil Oil )mmission, 518 :aging the ad - incorporation t, we rejected Irdery commis - ',dings because and we were '^ord the basis h. Id. at 97. lof fact would r_bsence of a I eilitate judi- ilministrative + in prepar- tn agencies (jurisdiction," iributors, Inc. 19-60 (Alaska ;ere basis of 4•1s of an ad - ,j.:, however, •#r^tion of a 3 reasoning `r 3 P.2d 8, 36 1 .jlated deter - i:: the same cases con- a,lc adminis- :tltsue of re- 'sessed, See i Thibodeau, 3979); Kein- 12d 406, 411 Issues were detailed this court. '-ping prop• 1 R2d 960, "oply Co. v. :16, 1208, =.al scientific are poorly ;.at case, on a variance +n be meas. 'a discretion Further, in ;as engaged ly business, of private 3 FIELDS v. KODIAK CITY COUNCIL Alaska 933 Clte as, Alaska. 628 P34927 1210-11 (Alaska 1973). Where the basis of the board's decision is unclear, however, a remand is necessary. See Kenai Peninsula Borough v. Ryherd, 628 P.2d 557 (Alaska 1981) (remanding case to planning commis- sion for statement of reasons supporting its decision to deny the requested plat). (8,9] The statute governing appeals from decisions of the board of adjustment states that appeals are heard "upon the record" AS 29.33.130(d). The statute re- quires an aggrieved party seeking review to specify the grounds for the appeal. AS 29.33.130(b).5 This requirement is also found' in the governing local ordinance. KIBC 17.69.030. A board's failure to pro- vide findings, that is, to clearly articulate the basis of its decision, precludes an appli- cant from making the required specification and thus can deny meaningful judicial re- view. Alcorn v. Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment, 114 N.H. 491, 322 A.2d 608, 610 (1974)., We believe that implicit in AS 29.- 33,130(b) 9:33,130(b) is the requirement that the agency rendering the challenged decision set forth findings to bridge the analytical gap be- tween the raw evidence and the ultimate decision or order. Only by focusing on the relationship between evidence and findings, and between findings and ultimate action, can we determine whether the board's ac- tion is !supported by substantial evidence. See Topanga Association for a Scenic Com - 5. AS 29.33.130(b) states: "A municipal officer, a taxpayer, or a per- son, jointly or severally aggrieved, may ap- peal an action of the board to the superior court by filing with the borough clerk within the time fixed by ordinance, a notice of ap- peal specifying grounds. When the notice of appeal Is filed, the board shall at once trans- mit to the superior court clerk copies of all papers constituting the record in the case." (emphasis added). 6. The Kodiak Borough ordinance governing variance requests provides that a variance may be granted "where it is found that all four of the specified conditions exist." K1BC 17.69.- 020(B). 7.69:020(B). We do not, however, rest our ruling upon this provision. 7. Professor Anderson explains the importance of findings: "Given express findings, the court can deter- mine whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence, and whether the find- munity v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Ca1.3d 506, 113 Cal.Rptr. 896, 840, 522 P.2d 12, 17 (1974). Thus we hold that regardless of whether a local ordinance requires find- ings,5 a hoard of adjustment ruling on a variance request must render findings "suf- ficient both to enable the parties to deter- mine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the board's action." Id., 113 Cal. Rptr. at 840, 522 P.2d at 16. Accordingly, the case must, be remanded to the superior court with directions that it be remanded to the Kodiak board of adjustment for the purpose of providing findings of fact rele- vant to each condition required for a vari- ance. Our ruling finds support in persuasive policy considerations r and in other jurisdic- tions. See Topanga Association for a Sce- nic Community, 113 Cal.Rptr. at 840-842, 522 R2d at 16-19; Carlton v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 252 Ind. 56, 245 N,E.2d 337, 343-44 (1969); TiremanJoy-Chicago Im- provement Association v. Chernick, 361 Mich. 211, 105 N.W.2d 57, 61 (1960); Alcorn, 322 A.2d at 610; Packer v. Hornsby, 221 Va. 117, 267 S.E7d 140, 142 (1980); Par- kridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wash.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359, 365 (1978); Harding v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 219 S.E.2d 324, 329-31 (W.Va.1975); 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 14.21, at 102, § 14.22, ings warrant the decision of the board. If no findings are made, and if the court elects not to remand, its clumsy alternative is to read the record, speculate upon the portions which probably were believed by the board, guess at the conclusions drawn from credited portions. construct a basis for decision, and try to determine whether a decision thus ar- rived at should be sustained. In the process, the court is required to do much that is assigned to the board, and the latter becomes a relatively inefficient instrument for the con- struction of a record." (footnote omitted). 3 R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 20.41. at 540 (2d ed. 1977). Professor Davis notes that the requirement that administrative agencies provide findings supporting their decisions historically derived from the common law. 3 K. Davis. Adminis- trative Law Treatise § 14.21, at 102-03, § 14.24 (2d ed. 1980). A 934 Alaska 628 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES § 14.26 (2d ed. 1980); 3 R. Anderson, Amer- ican Law of Zoning §§ 20.32. 20.41 (2d ed. 1977). As the court in Topanga Association noted, a findings requirement forces the administrative body to draw legally rele- vant subconclusions that are supportive of its ultimate decision. Topanga Association, 113 Ca1.Rptr. at 842, 522 P.2d at 18. This facilitates orderly analysis on the part of the board and "minimize[s] the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions." Id. More importantly, findings enable the re- viewing court to meaningfully examine e the agency's mode of analysis. Absent findings, a court is forced into "unguided and resource -consuming explorations," id. 113 Cal.Rptr. at 842, 522 P.2d at 18; grop- ing through the record to determine "whether some combination of credible evi- dentiary items which supported some line of factual and legal conclusions supported the ultimate order or decision" of the board. Id. Finally, as previously noted, findings enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review? On the present record, we cannot deter- mine why the board denied the variance request. It did not set forth findings; rather, it simply voted to deny the request. It is impossible to determine whether the denial is based on appropriate- factors. A b- 8. Judicial review of grants of variances plays an important role in protecting both the inter- ests of the applicant and the interests of nearby property owners. As the court in Topanga Assn noted: "A zoning scheme, after all. ,s similar ,n some respects to a contract; each party fore- goes rights to use its land as it wishes in return for the assurance that the use of neighboring property will be similarly re- stricted, the rationale being that such mutual restriction can enhance total community wel- fare If the interest of these parties in preventing unjustified variance awards for neighboring land is not sufficiently protected. the consequence will be subversion of the critical reciprocity upon which zoning regula- tion rests. Abdication by the judiciary of its responsi- bility to examine variance board decision- making when called upon to do so could very well lead to such subversion. Significantly, many zoning boards employ adjudicatory procedures that may be characterized as cas- ual.... The availability of careful judicial sent a clearer indication of the board's rea- soning supporting the denial, the superior court erred in ruling that the denial is sup- ported by substantial evidence. The case is remanded for the purpose of directing the Kodiak board of adjustment to set forth findings relevant to the conditions required for granting a variance. REMANDED. MATTHEWS, J., not participating. mow♦ 0 f NETNUMBERSYSIEM,> lir ^ JAPAN AIR LINES CO., LTD., and the Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co, Ltd., and other co-insurers under Air- craft Insurance Policy No. 75091101, Pe- titioners, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent. No. 5027. Supreme Court of Alaska. June 5, 1981. Airline petitioned for review of deci- sion of the Superior Court, Third Judicial review may help conduce these boards to insure that ail parties have an opportunity fully to present their evidence and argu- ments. Further, . the membership of some zoning hoards may he inadequately in- sulated from the interests whose advocates most frequently seek variances.... Vigor- ous judicial review thus can serve to mitigate the effects of insufficiently independent deci- sion-making." (citations and footnote omit- ted). Topanga A.ss'n. 113 Ca1.Rptr. at 843. 522 P.2d at 19. 9. We agree with the California court that the board's findings need not be stated as formally as is required in a judicial proceeding. Topan- ga Assn, 113 Cai.Rptr. at 842 n.16, 522 P.2d at 18 n.16. The Findings, however. must be suffi- cient to expose the board's mode of analysis. Thus we disapprove of setting forth findings solely in the language of the applicable legisla- tion or ordinance. December 28, 1993 Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Refer: Case # 94-001, Robert and Meesha Murphy. Dear Commissioners: We are writing in respect to the requested variance of the rear yard setback requirements for the existing structure located on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. We are opposed to the granting of this variance. We are not proposing that the existing structure be brought into conformance, but we certainly don't like the concept of approving in perpetuity a violation of the setback requirements. In our opinion it is poor public policy to sanction a violation of the requirements that the rest of the citizens are required to follow, especially in light of how far this building is into the setback. It is our understanding that should the building be destroyed, any future building would have to be brought into compliance. If you allow the variance however, the property setback would be permanently adjusted to 2 feet which is unacceptably close. Our home is surrounded with a myriad of violations of the current codes:and the only hope we have of rectifying the situation is that they must be corrected down the road. If you allow this variance, then how can you ever say no to anyone else who has violated the building requirements? Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed variance and please allow this letter to become part of the record. /Sincerely yours, �c Com_ Pat & Sheila Carlson 1221 Mission Road P.O. Box 3913 Kodiak, AK. 99615 KVsIIAK ISLAND BOR'- JGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Public Hearing Item VI -A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 19, 1994. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following request: RE: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050, C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. COMMUDEPARTMENTP I This notice is being sent to you because our records Indicate you are a property owner in the area of the request. If you do not wish to testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, or in a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. If you would like to fax your comments to us, our fax number is: (907) 486.9374. One week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, January 12, 1994 a work. session will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room (#121), to review the packet material for the case. Kodiak Island Borough Code provides you with specific appeal rights if you disagree with the Commission's decision on this request. If you have any questions about the request or your appeal rights; please feel free to call us at 486-9362. (jo, ,(/�e K 3/3 7 Your Name: / 0/I0 /0I 4. i ,n /c/r/ Mailing Address: /3 /7 .1Srh Q/ / U Your property description: /3/7 YSm4// tl Comments: G720C Q /�0/7CO/7 407/4 A i <I ear P �`0-#77‘14 J5 .bili /G4 c/'m�-7 7t- /7,7 ,�U�*!(7 /c7/Q 7'Li1r1 / <crr -5C74,4 oc . c 5 �o c II) rC j�i / ci7 , f�Ou1C%t 1107 2 t COT not o,000sCof --fa 7‘25 &Girt'anct fka74' alcua akee o 5ce� /1,� nl c (015/..51-c n C fo 04-C15/0 66 lacer- / /f S/ ocif>/4 //Mlle ( rl f 7 /(5 QS 7i% l C9 ., cs (CC; 4 (/or/art c c CASE 94=001 LOT 13, LEITH SUBDIVISION PUBLIC NOTICE AREA 350 FEET FROM EXTERIOR LOT LINES KU,AAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Public hearing Item VI -A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 19, 1994. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road,, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following request: RE: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from - Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. UNITY ?MENT UtrAttunut1 • �.. This notice Is being sent to you because our records indicate you are a property o e'rn'Ebe area of the request 1f you do not wishto testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, or in a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. If you would like to fax your comments to us, our fax number is: (907) 486.9374. One week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, January 12, 1994 a work session will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room (#121), to review the packet material for the case. Kodiak Island Borough Code provides you with specific appeal rights if you disagree with the Commission's decision on this request. If you have any questions about the request or your appeal rights. please feel feel free to call us at 486-9362. �/yj Your Name: 6u y `' / €241C11�! Mailing Adddrreea: et,,jjr eta 8*r /J Your property descrriiption: Le /TP ASO( [J' � / F / .�O 4. 2 n A' Comments:� ' r •11 it L it / /' /� Lt% crlau.// it/e to /*oene %n/1/',4K io../ /,r✓ efl4r / 7� a../ i••� /e/%y'q�7" c%s/cn/ . /moor re a my//e DGL/c /� �// / T IX e,e.s kft 9",--e A c71/4n// 1JAs/l/ec.✓ //ei'c Yui y .0 ears /Ai. go Q va7 40st /LW A/T+ i��r©. Or : /a ,ofci /Itc laee,,7 A'- ud�Tio✓, -rs a -�i7 ., e- Ycwtce orF c✓.a/// "eta 4 .'A wed/ d e accp//aa..I/ _17 adq' .✓ /, , r in ce/// 6 a rrs.9P+n4L it �07 r4 c. ee el 42 V -,..Grp//e /c✓ /l//FFi�©en L N7ue' e..1o�d 4v e. 1+� ?4I •2 do* o et4br-f Dclit a' re -et Gird , prate /O 0 It.,N 0CK/� 0ed 46ecr t t/ ;1C p �p+lorel-/y y�/ie fad & ['.7U f f /lee e /owe// CASE 94-00t LOT 13, LEITH SUBDIVISION PUBLIC NOTICE AREA 350 FEET FROM EXTERIOR LOT LINES K(,, IAK ISLAND BORiv OGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Public Hearing Item VI -A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 19, 1994. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following request: RE: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.0501C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8,2 feet into the required 10 Toot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. , Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. .IDN - 7 1° COMMUDEPARTk ENT iAENT This notice is being sent to you because our records indicate you are a property owner in the area of the requett. If you do not wish to; testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, or in a letter to the 'Community Development Department prior to the meeting. If you would like to fax your comments to us, our fax number is: (907) 486-9374. One week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, January 12, 1994 a work session will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room (#121), to review the packet material for the case. Kodiak Island Borough Code provides you with specific appeal rights if you disagree with the Commission's decision on this request. If you have any questions about the request or your appeal rights; please feel freeto call us at 486-9362. (j /_ , / / Your Name: �rG�t�tit t fJ` Ake/ Address: AX�W�71 -KQC IW[J n oMaa,uing Your property d acription::_k 5 Ogef`7� in Pd 4. .J/i�v,%.Slot-// "T Comments: YS+t Jn NO oh� 5 4 - hid 1 , ttit-td.Y -{fir' Van anis ci - 1N(r.r ,fw ?riche r'G ,c, M �� go provt O 9 7Z fl9 5frec G Y/� CASE 94=001 LOT 13, MITE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC NOTICE AREA 350 FEET FROM EXTERIOR LOT LINES I 1 . C�� �d JAN 1 219940(1g l /a Al. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , D /3/y 1 S/%l a// d i DEPARTMENT I� ?02- /VSA -039 1 /// 1 41/2 gnni/7 y 9- Zon, Ca ,nm /,55/c4 - M/` 9- Mrs . • J4o ,lJc-- /Vary Confacfed 4ye i/7 re uqro/ - 7 / ?ler .to rcr 0571 7/26 fh . 1Lt7 . Vic /7? C.t//J CGS! - /Iv 4o c itotri/ ,7) 1 1/' i .�m r ' _1 <%� C tCLQ4 o i1 /5 ct I o c /'7"=cam-arn�/.. of -. ��- - Con) Ain 1..7 c_" �sl _____ �+h4� � 1 /- cr / CI /Jcr - 7Ljc nq i Acfr C// C%lOc,sa '71 j C_ 7,-7, /.5 /!0 co/�f/r1uty i - ©r- 0//ic/ (\ frccecgo..rc -from 0 4 c co/0miss/o✓) %a ftic /jek7L. , Ma 'a%( 74. c)6mcr ,ssa it. Ac„ag 1 etflirt ..- So6..a w,//pouf Q 1 �o� f YQ/'/ /CIC. l/1 C l/.. 1 �Q. 4C c4 -o ///5�•�0 /?C . 4a.G( 0Ge� d *4/45 ti P/6 // �r-/9c- 0)0 S r%/oA fo/l �7 -Coo _ h - / cd 71/C o/l11 Y f I //s J0 Q40/ /.ssCIco 7fe ACil . n 5- on,9 r7G . OU f 8 f /94ot cin c " c/j • Ac `_d /2 4_ e/c/ j/4_ ;60 rO4 /1 ' .�h_�bt // QCC/Dcol / q c - .jamco4c 07 tie_ ibt 1qI . 4Ro7 ice GIDl2//S e r o / •e�a/ .S e i'2Uc / / � � . �/cl C t/acc,(� 1 f . /420c' . i� 04/4c- ' '1 -71-X S /SSI/ c �eic4// Gcf we can C/04 c tic- a 57 li /Q�I� So a/ e_ /fla/6 12 GYe4/OO 71 //' uJ-r ,/ co id 7e cslfu4 7/071 07‘/4/zc/ A / .J /20 ,' c?so, ,5'ec lc'4n5o-eckr [// -4077 '/c ///GI/ 0 I/ S 5 Oce/ �Je fi e/7G�Zeof / �c // toct iS 4745A/4_2 Qui' St 7K' pc3or i z�C/' �/I?gi'j c e c 74c . �' V. a/c/ LCIci/' C /CC cans Zg4ce5 / Ccm f //Y1qcir1 c Q7 fh//c2 S' AU -74/ Ci/ /j r;r:k 71L� 1/GT/I9n c 7`/ c �/ `gtJc /'c q q c.574 ' e / ir i Al / , q G CViCc qqc ../ 1 tc.ott A/__ 'hccrc ' 4O Q 71 _rS_J 1 O N /s'/fl `7' G✓9s/ fe ap e/e /oa{S. /c� /t 47 A- 4/cf C o`(R a by ' 71 / 22cit /55U c- ,1 /11v S to COU/1- 6//4 7/ZS , u UL cQrO c Ql U/✓l c /4 l 1 14-74// -6y , CC/11/2n45s ijar q c e: // dict. Cd ` 1O D e/l 71//c food 5 �o r o7rc.r- . 1 X /4 - �c/ 5'QMC o-r/. ,5///I/�- - -ria = �q/•'Gt 5 / fcra /dtl S�_, r-` . / �.. _^ i/� am' / dcAavc �c �/au�/') Cc((of /01/e hot-7L b4noh eCI 700 4n1 ! //72/'e s /7 J fc�/ IC/C , 'oMconc //eccS 7i> /O<Sc 7Lies c , CC/047 /.04Q / tO/O(e dfic cGC - A /Je °LA- L 4= ,r� tas-6/ q/o . .�LlJ G.laa o>' 71 i�74 l/ �/s /icri'uc.3'( /c. /' IOsconc' a4/'f- .57( 7f?c�i ...coto/ CQSc # 9y-oo/. /71q,/eo it �� o2r . -tiro c 44b( y COMS,�e, crlyon. • S/Wier / ) 14 .2a.Arn Item A Robert L. & Meesha Elayne Murphy 1311 Mission Road P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 907-486-8707 18 January 1994 ATTN: Planning & Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 205 Kodiak, Alaska 99615-6398 Dear Sirs: Subject: Case 94-001 Leite Subdivision, Lot 13 ( 1311 Mission Road ) Due to a 40% seat vacancy on the January Planning & Zoning Commission, we are requesting a postponement of our hearing, until the February session. Please attached this to our application for a variance, dated 15 December 1993. From now on, this will be referred to as supplement #2. (Supplement #1 is the package to the Commission on January 12, 1994) Yours very truly, Robert L. Murphy 7 Meesha Elayne Murphy Kk,IIAK ISLAND EORILAGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak. Alaska 99615 Public Hearing Item VI -A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 16, 1994. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following request: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13. Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. (Postponed from the January 19, 1994 regular meeting). FEB - 81994 COMM DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM This notice is being sent to you because our records indicate you are a property owner in the aiea of the request If you do not wish to testify verbally. you may provide your comments in the space below, or in a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. If you would like to fax your comments to us, our fax number is: (907) 486-9374. One week prior to the regular meeting. on Wednesday. February 9, 1994 a work session will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room (#121), to review the packet material for the case. Kodiak Island Borough Code provides you with specific appeal rights if you disagree with the Commission's decision on this request. If you have any questions about the request or your appeal rights, please feel free to call us at 486-9362. / �// Your Name: /1RMli z I JfZsil Meiling Address: J 302 1WA S/D iY RZ2, ,,:// Your property description: 99`%� / Comments: L�..0^G��`U'�'�^i iii ��qq /�, SIt1 w balk.12 13 1 ro ISOdOa® STREET ma 1212 1218 tSi2 111211,1114 iD29 1]22 . ROA n 8 6 5 4 3 2. 1 1211 1215 1219 1221 1223 1225 �E 94.001 1' IS► 0 113'ISOSUBDIVISION PUBLIC NOTICE ARM M 350 FEET O FROM EXTERIOR ISMAI LOV ST KOUSKOV STREET cVN 2 2 MI1+,s EA s 31 9 KOJI4AK ISLAND BORGuGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Public Hearing Item VI -A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearingwill be held on Wednesday. February 16, 1994. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments,., if any, on the following request: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.21feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision.' 1311 Mission Road. (Postponed from the January 19, 1994 regular meeting). MNEBNixit :FEB - 81994 1OMM NIT RT V OP MENT DE This notice Is being sent to you because our records Indicate you are a property owner in the arca of the request If you do not wish 'to'testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, or in a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. If you would like to fax your comments to us, our fax number is: (907) 486-9374. One week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, February 9, 1994 a work session will be held at 7:30 'Sim. in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room (#121), to review the packet material for the case. Kodiak Island Borough Code provides you with specific appeal rights if you disagree with the Commission's decision on this request. If you have any questions about the request or your appeal rights, please feel free to rail us at 486-9362. /� Your Name: V vein L/.).r % i e Mat/lllln�g Addreee: /2(J. . 677 / xa `�/) Your property deaeripticm7: JiIC / "/ e5se(//CJ ����`� n' //q , ' Q Comments:. di arAn �� �iadiry ( ikeJ I 'tcvL lya.ItAn /Y1.1 - L/.fwo/�,no ViLefi i ret ett, AKA Li c , -Att p iA EZANOF DR. EAST gang D MEN 6 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.� 1211 1215 , 1219 1221 1223 1225 ISMAILOV w 8 STREET 1320 322 13 14 15 4 21 1A 18 1212 r- t27p 4 tzte 72,8 2 1A 9A 3A 4 co a 10 1 166 220 1222 1211 1213 12 1214 1 6 1314 1318 18 1320 1322 1324 3 4 5 6 4 8 1 2 3 t A 13 111920 • ' NI 122, 131, ; MISS 1321 323 ®J,iion�� ROAQ ® � 1318 1312 14 4 5 CITY \PARK ST KOUSKOV STREET 1217 12 13 13 2 w 4 1410 1 20 1412 2A 3A 141 4 it 7,1 flL AREA PUOLI-- C NOTICE FOM EXTERIOR 35p FEETQT LINES 1 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Public Hearing Item VI -A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 19, 1994. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following request: RE: Case 94-001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. This notice is being sent to you because our records indicate you are a property owner in the area of the request. If you do not wish to testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, or in a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. If you would like to fax your comments to us, our fax number is: (907) 486-9374. One week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, January 12, 1994 a work session will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room (#121), to review the packet material for the case. Kodiak Island Borough Code provides you with specific appeal rights if you disagree with the Commission's decision on this request. If you have any questions about the request or your appeal rights, please feel free to call us at 486-9362. Your Name: Mailing .Address: Your property description: Comments: m t'IRN Lul11h 1 1 EURO LE. I I h,k L+i ,L FU U. F' I JLIN: 1111,1 1i 1 V NUN.DEl4 OWNED NAME 1-11121.K? .0 I {IU %1,1 .'44UU9Q Iw L 1- b U F' L F FRVFI NCI OR(1..1F i.1 dlJi. Nii"I"IIIL^W MAL.RAS6 1225 1SMAILOV 1..1T Ktt' I. AF.. UL.11-1 ANND 1 U3l.AR NECGrf DYSON Lrc AK 99615 1224 1SFIA1LUV SI - KODIAK - AI RAYMUND :as PEARL 6F'AUNULA .6MAL.L- WORLD IFI 121'3 ASNAILUV ST 1(01)1 IK AK 99615 11K 161.5 1214 REZANOF DR E KODIAK ___ __AK 99615 1220 NEL ONO(' KOD I AK - R E \'I rtoi ` 1 I r4 iLt I4 :sit F .Lt_ LiUn KODLAK BETH ARNDT 1221 "ISNAILOV- ST: KO1?IAK ET 1T BILL & MADELYN POLAND 132:9 ISMRILOV ST DYSON,OSCAR & PEIaY P.O. BOX 1728 KODIAK AF ?'9615 AK '39613 AK 99625 `9501 K_ 11IFd: _ PIKS•":"'. • SPALiNCILA, RAYFILIIJD & PEARL 1214 E REZANCIF DR KODIAK AK 99615 SMALL WORLD INC: P: -C. BOX -1632 KODIAK POLAND.BILL & MADELYN KODIAK AK 99615 P.O. BOX 64 KODIAK AK 99615 AK 99615 DARWIN D hili NE.NIII:::WI1iN[ 13921 [ NP.I .OV 81 HE:NN[WFiNZ,DARW.IN .1) IY(IY KODIAK AF; 99615 P.O.- BOX 1852 - .. - _- _ _ KODIAK-- —_ -- _ - -AK 99615 NIA II:0 AK 1319 1SMii1 LLIV ST KCIZAK, CYIJ'I H1A KOD1AN Al: 9361Zi 1t1-9--I-SMRItOV KODIAK AK 99615 DANIEL. 7 MAt',YANN SEATON' 1815 ISMAILOV-"t-.__ _. _�_". --- - SEATON,DANIEL & MARYANFI KODIAK AK 99615 1315 ISFIAILOV KODIAK AK 99615 Pk11L1LILLM BRANSON 1810 REZANOF DR E BRANSON, PRISSCILLA KODIAK AK 99615 1310 REZANOF KODIAK AK 99x-15 rll 4 Iy.oJAak .Lslai id khncuyI '4L1VE'r. PANT., -12/22/93 W1ML- ..1':51:2.4 FORA LEI IE.F( 0: 1 FORM LEITER DESCRIPVICN: f RUP'EKI , r UNDER U 1<116130001120 13000030 ,rt1'zut0101 /U OWNER NAME G E'O HASED PROPERTY S i S F E M FF(OF•ERlY GROUP LISTING FROI'E:NTY (1I>DRESS 1314 REZANOF DR E KODIAK _ ;IAM.. S: P1i5F21LYNt4 ML:F-ARLAND 1216 MISSIU 'KODIAK— CARL & LURRAINE ELLISON WILLIAM WOOD WILLIAM B JUANITA EOFF L11 A ECLLLIND ,JOHN A -30 Vi JUM1R LYN Lk)1 Emir KALL 1 L BENWE41' DELILAH WILLIAMS AK 99615 AK 99615 VENUE: CITY taF(OLF> 14; 40011 MAIL1N1, ALDItG.6s FADE L80.20 LIMMERMAN, DOtNALL/BARBARA P.O. BOX 1157 KODIAK AK 99615 3AUK & MARYL'iNN MCFARLAND P"O"BOX 2342' - - KODIAK AIC 9615 CARL & LORRAINE ELLISON 1220 FATHER HERMAN ST. KODIAK AK 99615 1220 MISSION RD KODIAK 53 KODIA 1322 KOD1 SNFt1LU'V SI WOOD,WILLIAM AK 99615 P.O. BOX 111 1220 MISSION ROAD KODIAK AK 99615 EYtFF,TW1LLiAM & 'JUANITA AK 99615 P.O. BOX 3683 KODIAK AK 95615 1331 MISSION RD KODIAK— AK 99615 tiUY & MERLE POWELL 1325 r -i1 ,S1ON RG •KODtAK ROEERT DRECKHERIi - - - 12T20 -M.L _'. AK 996 'AK -996I5 AK 99615 ECKLUND, LITtA P".O. BOX 146 KODIAK AI. 99615 JOHN J'OLELYN ZBITNOFF 1324 ISMAILOV ST KODIAK AK 99615 KALCI C, V I TCPA I R P.O. BOX 2065 KODIAK- A' 99615 ERIC BENNETT P 0 BOX 368 KODIAK AK 99615 DELIL€H WIEDIAPIB'-' C/O DVORAK REALTY 619 MILL BAY RD KODIAK POWELL, GUY & MERLE P.O. BOX 2235 KODIAK 5RECKBER6,ROBERT AK 99615 AK 95615 n, 1 tr I'friE. gl F I_NM LE.1IER li 1 'r VHM LII ILk 1.01o..-.L.I jF ilLM: NLU 'ktt i NUMb4_Fi UVdr,LI NdIi4E i(I2Un Ult1U11U WILL Mi RAN':;ES COLE`: R1<71003'JIJ1U LEO 1+OURBEAU YR' ft 11.001 U_.0 0..1 tl1 E_t1EN1i r4ENTEL ' ,f i+ L 1: i- F. 0 is t:: 6. I % F RI:;F LER1 \ In r(OLII- I t,,:t1H Nle 122'3 P1 KODIAK ON RD 14111 K1185I0N RD KODIAK 1412 M1$SION RD KODIAK- _ __ _ RU1'Eht FIAi1_HER 1412 SPRUCE ST KODIAK RIXUUU/`WISL JUL & IuhlIEV14 S+ir.t.114},0 812100111071 1 00:=0 01.0110 1310 W KOUSK1)V ST KODIAK 6-_L.r_r,N 130D'i'1:iI I-,HLRiL..H£ .la M1to1.LIN HD KODIAK RLINALD fA1N1'ER KODIAK AK 99615 AK 99615 AK 99615 AK 99615 131.1 ISMAILOV ST" -- - AK 9961.'01 E. I: 14.18 41 KUU8KUV KOp1HL COLES.WIL7.. & FRANCES P.O. BOX 1.263 KODIAK AK 89615 LEO BOUREIEALI JR. 1410 MISSION RD. KODIAK AF: 99613 PI MENTEL., ESMEN TA - P.O.-BOX 1801 KODIAK AK 99615 HATCHER, ROBERT P.U. BOX 57 KODIAK AK 99615 JOE & CEr4EVA MAOI W1:0 1310 KOUSKOV ST KODIAK AK: 99645 BEREAN BAPTIST CHURCH P.O. BOX 11065 KODIAK AK 99615 PAINTER,RONALD F.O. BOX 3137 KODIAK AK 99615 JOHN & JANE NUTTALL 1316 ISMAILOV ST KODIAK 4il-(1 -U K & 6tLAR ti -i CARL.SCN KODIAK-- t321 MISSION RD ROBERT 5 MEE8HH MURPHY - 1315 MISSION RD KODIAK AK 99615 AK 99615 0 1MM!-1NUAL & ALICE BERk EE 12::1 1,116'3 Ki1D 110:- • 1219 lel I S ION -RD -- -- JOHN & JANE NUTTALL F.O. BOX 2554 KAD1Frt: AK 99615 ARTHUR 5 GLORIA CARLSON 416 CLARA ST. FAIRBANKS Pi 9970i ROBERT & MEESHA ,MURPHY P 0 BOX 4187 K.ODIAK AK 996.15 ROB -�>•„ rnEE: ,IUR Y CAHLSUN, PATRIC.FC & SHEILA Pr0rc BOX -3913 -.. KOD1AI: AI: V9615 BER6EE.1MMANUAL 5 ALICE . , Kud 1 k 11,..-tAd bOt L -49h *1- I VEJK GEO BASED F ROPER T 11. SYSTEM PAGE 4 . - -DAIE 12,Ze2/9:3 VENUE: CITY LB0220 , .. 1-.1 1INE UgL124 FC'RM LEITER 114 1 PROPERlY RCUP LJSTING GROLF U; 40011 FUM1 LETTER DESCRIPTION4 . f i-RLIFtkil NUMBER OWNER NAME CCUPEREY ADDRESS MAILING ADDRES 1 . Q1'211_1000021_1 R14:40000030 R.1.1‘..401331)04 i.,e.1100..11) zitt k12401Juuu6u 1..d.'44uU1_11J011 R1240000080 k12400001b0 ,lIJU13L' 161 RI .&11.01001e R124000016o R12E10010092 DENNIS JULIE KNAGIN IEMFE. BEREjTOFF DANIEL MURAKAM1 LEE .1.. LUANDA NEEL NEAL BER1RAM & E ALGOSO ETAL BOBBY FEN1ON GARr EDWARDS HLIEL UhABER DONALX. POSFER SHIRLEY WAL1ON DENNIS & CARULY HUEY KODIAK AK 99613 F.O. BOX 1945 KODIAK AK 99615 1224 MISCION.RD. KNAGIN,DENNIS & JULIE KUP1AK AK 99613 1224 MISSION RD KODIAK Al: 99613 - - ----------__- _ _ . 1226 MISSION RD BERESTOFF,TENFE: KODIAK AK 99615 P.O. BOX 2196 - - KODIAK AK 99615 1.310 MISSION RD DANIEL MURAKAMI KODIAK Pr... 9961J F.O. BOX. 286.‘ KODIAK AK 99615 1312 MISSION RD - LEE & LUCINDA NEEL. KODIAK AK 99615 P.O. BOX 671 KODIAK AK 99613 ------- 1314 MISSION RD BER1RAN.NEAL KODIAK AK 99615 P.O. BOX 2512 KODIAK AK 99615 1316 MISSION FW ALGOSO ETAL.V & a KODIAK- 1316 MISSION RD. KODIP,K AK 99615 1318 MISSION -RD BOBBY FENtON KODIAK AK 99615 P.O. BOX 143 MAYWOOD NB 69038 1223 FAIRER HERMAN RD GARY EDWARDS KODIAK AK 99613 P 0 BOX 8101 KODIAK. ' AK 99617 1226 FAIFIEN HERMAN RP SAMUEL GRABER KODIAK-- - At 109&tt-- P '.3 BOX 706 ' -KODIAK . AK 99615 - 1224 FA1HER HERMAN RD - , DONALD FOSTER . - KODIAK AK 99615 P 0 BOX 804 KODIAK AK '99615 - - 1222 FAIRER HERMAN RD SHIRLEY WALTON KODIAK AK 99615 P 0 BOX 1413706 - • - — ANCHORA6E AK 99514 4:41157 -11 - EL ,W1.11:31 -reg. 12%2S-FA-THEIrFTD 1-4iDlge 99(i1.5 1216 FATHER -HERMAN RD - - DENNIS & CAROLYN HUEY r 1 r 1 (1, 4 4 Liz, i Ctr oorrcr, •[0111 e. 714 i I.IL L Lihm LEI !Li; it: r- I i Ek L / liKLIRLKi: NURSER OWNEh KAHL k I .1200000:11 1 1<16Le.0000644. 14.1 i AL LE f I Eh 7.: SiEVEN & MARY GRAY IEVE14 SHARON iiORN Li E. 1-1 L) R PROPER I OROLIR L. 161 i NG Et_W ER11. AUL:KI6S6 KOD1iLIK. AK 99615 1212 MISSION RD 1210 M I GS I ON RD KOD I AR: AK, 99611'1 rg 99615 VMNUb,..1 oriOLIF 4: 'RIR!, MAILIMO ADDRE/L, O. ROX 494 KODIAK STEVEN & MARY GRAY F' U BO )1 3687 KOD I AK . " HORN. SIEVEN & SHARON 1210 MISSION RD KOC.I AK AK 99615 AK.99615 • I _ ill+ a Q3tc,© GI c� COil MAL.?Fa— j_MAiTFIE13_ �Av {r,o PvAl___, L©\3-4,llo ��\2 a310 I50 atf\k-'- \' ��, L. _ c`010 O1l t3� p r1 bA?nST c+N1/4stzcK - kNvRorIAL. i? %0 ) SiM f'!6 1(1, ©lC� -yam 1�iiLL Av�t c5uA:ati?LF Co IJRt�1. STM _ 1CUS�,.-1�ll�LiAM. tLLAsorl, CjaL . LoZ?-P‘ NE. N his $ C��kfs LEA TE_ E .1-.d* 0000 0,3,C3 o OS .ka.or ccc L560 L_O- 15 OCM 1 V--.1,‘[NG ktT...kNI(\itS FelAA0o , (--f--% A k_oT Oan 1 r-,-7 (:)\ K\a.,3 004-0 0\0 OLk Lo O' Cr 0 1:soC) \_csK. 0 \ 00-0 Cx ciss \ k. LC5-V LA 1 Co •Fa,km.c_E:_s AO . 5 7 6 5 4, 3 2 1 1315`1319 1321 23 1325 c3c\\ CAS 94OOJ LOT 11 LOTS sum PUBLIC NOTICE AREA 350 FEET FROM SINES EXTERIOR c.o Robert and Meesha Murphy P.O. Box 4187 Kodiak, AK 99615-4187 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 December 20, 1993 RE: Case 94,001. Request for a variance from Section 17.18.050 C. (Rear Yard) of the Borough Code to permit an existing garage addition, to project 8.2 feet into the required 10 foot rear setback on a nonconforming lot with only 4,669 square feet of lot area. Lot 13, Leite Subdivision. 1311 Mission Road. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Murphy: Please be advised that the request referenced above has been scheduled for review and action by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their January 19, 1994 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Attendance at this meeting is recommended. The week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, January 12, 1994, at 730 p.m. in the, Borough Conference Room (#121), the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet material for the regular meeting; You are invited to attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, please call the Community Development Department at 486-9363. Sincerely, \\, Jennifer Dannewitz, Secretary Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough AUTHORIZATION TO TO REQUEST LEGAL OPINION Date: November 16, 1993 Department: Community Development Department Attorney: Joel Bolger Jamin, Ebell, Bolger & Gentry 323 Carolyn Ave. Kodiak, AK 99615 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 13, Leite Subdivision DESCRIPTION, OF REQUEST NEEDED: As soon as possible. The purpose of this request is_ two -fold: First, to obtain an opinion about the present legal status of a garage addition (building permit #5262 - dated 6/22/84) to the residence located on Lot 13, Leite Subdivision; and second, to obtain an opinion about the appropriateness of issuing a permit that would allow the conversion of a portion of the garage into additional residential living area. BACKGROUND SUMMARY Please see attached documents. For additional information please call. Linda Freed at 486-9360, Please also be aware that the Community Development Department has issued zoning compliance to allow the property owner of Lot 13, Leite Subdivision to do interior remodeling in the original residential portion of the structure. Please also note that the current property owners are two owners removed from those who constructed the garage addition. REQUESTED BY: Linda L. d, Director Community Development Dept. REVIEWED BY: e M. Selby, Boro AUTHORIZED BY: Purchasing Agent cc: Two (2) signed copies of the form to the Community Development Department KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 MILL BAY ROAD, ROOM 205, KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6398, (907) 486-9362 The application fee for items covered by this form is $200.00, except as otherwise noted. Conditional Use Permits, and Variance applications also require the submission of a site plan. Property owner's name: Applicant Information Robert L. & Meesha Elayne Murphy Property owner's mailing address: P .0 . Box 4187, Kodiak, AK 9961 5--4187 City: State: Zip: Home phone: 907-486-8707 Work phone: 907-486-1850 If applicable, Agent's name: Agent's mailing address: City: State: Zip: Home phone: Work phone: Property Information Legal Description: Leite _.Subdivision. Lot 13 Present use of property: Single family residentjal Proposed use of property: Fo-vqa-e49"- vexAr No change - see attached letter Applicant Certification /, the applicant/authorized agent, have been advised of the procedures involved with this request and have recieved a copy of the appropriate regulations. Authorized Agent's Signature Date Property Owner's Signature U Date STAFF USE ONLY PAYMENT Code Section(s) involved: IT, ( OS -6 C gaol. yc,, VERIFICATION Variance Conditional Use Permit Title 18 Review Other (appearance e uests, etc.) $ ,.00 0000030 000067483 12/15/93 15:54:41 Duane Zoning chang frm ' to P A I D TREE FORI4 LINE D1 D2 Application received by:/hL�_,e--/ #3 taff signatur D to July, 1993