The URL can be used to link to this page

LEITE ADD BK 5 LT 10 - AppealThere t ' zo further old business. I .I VIII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of Items A through G of communications. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Letter dated April 27, 1989 from John Merrick, Koniag, Inc., to Unda Freed, re: Proposed Rural Development Zoning District. B) 1 Letter dated April 28, 1989 from Bob Scholz° to Don Arndt, re: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Miller Point 1st Addition - 3103 and 3201 Balika Lane. C) I Handout from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, re: Wetlands. D) I Gear Storage Taskforce: Minutes - March 29, 1989 Minutes - April 19, 1969 E) An article from the March 1989 American Planning Association entitled: "Filling a Wetland Is a Crime.' F) Letter dated May 15, 1989 to Scott Bonney from Marcella Calks, City 3 Clerk, re: Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's January .18, 1989 Decision Granting a Variance on Lot 10, Block 5, Lane Addition (Findings of Fact)_ .! G) j Violations Status Log FY89 dated May 17, 1989. There were no further communications. ( X: REPORTS COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A and B of reports. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vole. A) ' Status Report from the Community Development Department • March 1989. B) Engineer's Report of Abbreviated and Final Plats Approved. There were no further reports. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. Page 25 of 26 • P&Z Minutes: May 17, 1989 May 15, 1989 Scott Bonney P.O. Box 461 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 IE MAY 15 19'•+• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT RE: Appeal of the P&Z Commission's January 18, 1989, Deci- sion Granting a Variance on Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition Dear Mr. Bonney: The Kodiak City Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment heard the above case on May 11, 1989, and granted your appeal. At that time the Board of Adjustment made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supporting its decision. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition (1512 Mission Road) is 5,966 square ',feet in area and 49.79 feet in width. It is in an R-3 zoning district. 2. The owner of this property, Remegio Marasigan, wishes to construct a duplex dwelling on the lot by modifying or con- verting an existing single-family dwelling which has already been constructed. Section 17.20.030 of the Borough Code man- dates a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet for the construction of a duplex on appropri- ately -zoned property. 3. The Planning & Zoning Commission found there are excep- tional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to Mr. Marasigan's property or his intended use or development of it which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The record on appeal fails to contain sub- stantial evidence supporting this finding. The fact that Mr. Marasigan's lot is substandard in area and width is not an excep- tional physical circumstance or condition within the meaning of section 17.66.050(A)(1) of the Borough Code. 4. The Commission also found the strict application of the Borough's zoning ordinances would result in practical difficul- ties or unnecessary hardship to Mr. Marasigan. The record on appeal also fails to contain substantial evidence supporting this finding. Section 17.36.030 of the Borough Code permits Mr. POST OFFICE BOX 1397, KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 Scott Bonney May 15, 1989 Page 2 of 2 RF Marasigan to maintain a single-family dwelling on this lot in spite of the fact that it is nonconforming as to both lot area and lot width. This is a fair and substantial use for the property. Therefore, strictly applying the Borough zoning ordinances so as to deny Mr. Marasigan the right to construct a duplex on his property will not impose upon him either practical difficulties pr unnecessary hardship within the meaning of KIBC 17.66.05O(A)(2). CONCLUSIONS OF.LAW 1. The record on appeal suggests that Mr. Marasigan was seeking a variance from KIBC 17.36.030, entitled "Non -Conforming Lots of Record." In point of fact, this is not the case. Mr. Marasigan is precluded from constructing a duplex on his lot by KIBC 17.20.030 and, therefore, it was a variance from this provision which Mr. Marasigan was seeking. Section 17.36.030 merely establishes an exception to the requirements of KIBC 17.20.030 with respect to the construction of a single-family dwelling on la lot such as this one. That provision is not relevant to this case, however, because Mr. Marasigan is seeking authority to (construct a duplex, not a single-family dwelling, on his property. 2. The Planning & Zoning Commission erred in granting Mr. Marasigan a variance to construct a duplex on his property be- cause two outlof the six findings which it made were unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 17.66.050(2) mandates the; denial of a variance unless all six findings can be made. Therefore, the Commission's decision granting this vari- ance is REVERSED and the variance is DENIED. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DALKE, CMC/AAE City Clerk cc: Remegio T. Marasigan Co -Appellants Linda Freed, Director, Community Development Department II. RECFI €D MAY 3 01988 COMMUNITY DEVELOEMEN; DEPT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF KODIAK HELD MAY 11, 1989 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Brodie called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m. Coun- cilmembers Cratty, Iani, Perrozzi, Ramaglia, and Thompson were present and constituted a quorum. Councilmember Black- burn was absent. PREVIOUS MINUTES Councilmember Cratty MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Thomp- son, to approve the minutes of the April 25, 1989, regular meeting. The roll call vote was Councilmembers Cratty, Iani, Perroz- zi, Ramaglia, and Thompson in favor and Councilmember Black- burn absent. The motion carried. III. PERSONS TO BE HEARD a. Planning and Zoning Commission Councilmember Cratty questioned Community Development Director Freed on Case 89-029. Ms. Freed said this property was a small lot next to the Daily Mirror building. The variance would allow the structure to be converted from an existing nonconforming residential use to a planned craft/ tourist shop. A variance was needed because the lot could accommodate only one off-street parking space when the Zoning Code specified two spaces. b. Board of Adjustment Hearing RE: Appeal of January 18, 1989, Planning and Zoning Commission Decision on Case 89-007 City Manager Gould said the Council would be sitting as the Board of Adjustment to hear the Bonney, et al, appeal of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission's deci- sion granting a variance to permit a two-family dwelling unit to locate on a nonconforming lot of record in an R3 -- Multifamily Residential Zoning District (Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 1512 Mission Road). Mayor Brodie closed the regular meeting and opened the Board of Adjustment hearing. He indicated for the benefit of the audience, that the .Council, sitting as a Board of Adjust- ment, must comply with certain specific procedures set forth City Council Meeting 1 May 11, 1989 in the City Code. Those procedures specified who could speak and what issues the Board of Adjustment could consider in connection with this appeal. Linda Freed Director of the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department, presented the following in conform- ance with Xodiak City Code 17.1O.060(b): At its January 18, 1989, meeting, the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission approved a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that was substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in an R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District (Lot 10, Block 1, Leite Addition, 1512 Mission Road) The Kodiak Island Planning and Zoning Commission at its February 15, 1989, adopted findings of fact in support of this decision. Following the criteria specified in Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.66.050 the Commission found: 1. "An exceptional physical circumstance of the property is the fact that the lot is nonconforming due to its area of 5,981 square feet. This is 1,219 square feet (17 percent) less than the minimum lot area required by current zoning regulations for the development of a two-family residence. Additionally, the lot does not meet the minimum width requirement of 60 feet as it is only 49.79 feet wide. Another exceptional physical circumstance of this property is the fact that the lot is located on a corner of the block. Therefore, this lot is required to have a ten (10) foot side yard setback along Delarof Street compared to the normal five (5) feet side yard setback required for an interior lot." 2. "Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would only permit.the..construction_of_a_single-family residence -on -this nonconforming lot of record. The applicant does not require any additional variances in order to convert the existing single-family residence into a two-family residence for off- street parking, setbacks, height of structures, etc., even though the lot is nonconforming in both area and width. Therefore, strict application of the Zoning Code is en unnecessary hardship when the lot is zoned R3 --Multifamily Residential and the proposed use of the lot for two-family residential is specifically permitted in the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District." 3. "Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. A decision to grant a variance will slightly increase the density of de- velopment in this area. However, the requirement of a solid fence that is six feet tall (located along the property City Council Meeting 2 May 11, 1989 lines where the lot is adjacent to existing single- family dwellings) should ensure that the character of the surrounding neighborhood will not be affected in any way by this change. In addition, a parking plan is required to be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of zoning compliance to ensure that adequate room for the required off-street parking is available on site." 4. "After investigating a rezone of Block 5, Leite Addi- tion, from R3 --Multifamily Residential to R1 --Single Family Residential in September, 1988, the Commission adopted the findings listed below: a. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or Amendment. A rezone from R3 --Multifamily Residen- tial to R1 --Single Family Residential is neither needed nor justified because the R3 --Multifamily Residential zoning District permits development that: 1) is consistent with the comprehensive plan; 2) can be suitable for the existing lots, given the prevailing lot sizes, widths and placement of existing structures, if each request for higher density development is fairly evaluated and appropriate conditions are required to mitigate any potential adverse impacts; 3) will not create any nonconforming land uses on the nineteen lots in the block. b. Findings as to the Effect a Change or Amendment would have on the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The 1968 Comprehensive Plan shows this block as a transi- tion zone . with designations for both Medium and High Density Residential Development. The zoning of Block 5, Leite Addition as R3 --Multifamily Residential has, in effect, determined this area to be a High Density Residential area. This designation clarifies the Comprehensive Plan's "split designation." nue to the current zoning, it would be inconsistent for the commission to downzone the area when it appears to be showing signs of redevelopment to the prescribed density. Denial of a recommendation to rezone Block 5, Leite Addition is therefore consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the above findings, the Commission finds that granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies this area for High Density Residential Development." 5. "In this case, the actions of the applicant have not caused conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The variance will be decided before the applicant takes any action." 6. "The R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District per- mits a much higher density of development than that which would result from the development of a two-family residence. City Council Meeting 3 May 11, 1989 .V'1 j'4flt4V.') It should be noted that this variance request is not related to the zoning district or permitted uses therein. This variance concerns whether or not the requested two-family dwelling, which is specifically permitted in the R3 --Multi- family Zoning District, should be permitted to locate on a lot that is 17% smaller than the zoning code requires. The Commission also noted that the granting of this variance would be consistent with the description and intent of the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District." Scott Bonney thanked the Board for the opportunity to make e presentation on behalf of the appellants saying the appeal was filed because of what they felt were errors in the en- forcement of the zoning ordinances. He drew the Board's attention to the appellants' April 3rd written statement. He said under Kodiak Island Borough Code (KIBC) 17.66.050 (A)(1) there were exceptional conditions not brought into account by the Planning and Zoning Commission which were applicable to the property and proposed development (spe- cifically, the 1984 variance (Case 84-075) which allowed eight contiguous nonconforming lots to be developed as eight single family dwellings). Mr. Bonney said the Borough's written statement alleged the 1984 variance was no longer applicable as the KIBC section no longer existed. He said RISC section 17.36.030 was applicable to the 1984 variance and was applicable in the present case specifically that nonconforming uses could not be 'enlarged upon, expanded or extended" which in concept was what Mr. Marasigan wished to do. He felt .the intent of KIBC section 17.67.010 single family residences on contiguous nonconforming lots violated the spirit and intent of the section and was specifically prohibited in the second paragraph of KIBC section 17.36.030. Mr. Bonney refuted the Borough's written statement regardir the rezoning proposal in 1988, saying the testimony was no_ overwhelmingly in opposition. He quoted Commissioner Barrett's comments from the January 18, 1989, meeting, "one of the qualms is that you have conflicting messages from the public. At least, that is how we are perceiving them. I think we are wrongly perceiving them. The public was op- posed to classifying the areas or zoning the areas R1 mainly because there was a fair number of people who had property that was zoned R3 and could easily develop it within the guidelines. Not only could they provide adequate parking, there was water and sewer, there was setbacks. But their lots were large enough. And, Z guess it is real clear when one of the individuals spoke that he opposed the rezoning because he didn't want to take the development rights away from somebody else who was in full compliance with all potential zoning regulations." Mr. Bonney asked the Board if it was unreasonable for a home owner to count on zoning regulations to limit nonconforming City Council Meeting 4 May 11, 1989 high-density development. He disagreed with the Borough's contention the variance would not prejudice other properties in the area and result in only a "slight" increase in the density. He said it would be a large increase in the specif- ic lot density "A yard and associated improvements would be gone, replaced by cars, gravel, and increased noise." He said this was prejudicial in a neighborhood of primarily single-family homes with grass yards. He said upholding the variance would limit potential beautification of the neighborhood and open the door to other nonconforming lots requesting variances. He also contended the Comprehensive Plan was outdated and did' not reflect the tone of the neighborhood. Pat Reiland, representing Remegio Marasigan, owner of the property seeking the variance, drew the Board's attention to Mr. Marasigan's April 4th letter. He said Mr. Marasigan only wished to finish his basement creating an apartment. Mr. Marasigan had originally applied for a variance in 1988 and it was denied. Subsequently, the neighborhood had op- posed a rezone from R3 to R1 citing its desire to remain R3. Since the property owners in the area seemed to prefer the multifamily designation, Mr. Marasigan had decided to apply for a variance again. This time the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the application only to have It appealed. Mr. Reiland, who was Mr. Marasigan's contractor, said there was adequate parking on the front and back of the lot. Ken Lester said there was more history than could be told under the Board of Adjustment procedure. He said Mr. Marasigan had been aware he was purchasing a nonconforming lot and this condition should not be used to prove that strict application of zoning regulations would result in practical difficulties. He felt allowing a duplex on the lot would result in material damages to other properties in the vicinity. He said the 1968 Comprehensive Plan was out of date and not followed much of the time. He said the "transition_zone_designationr_was_not-in_the-best..interests— - -- of the neighborhood because,of the number of nonconforming lots. He also felt the Planning and Zoning Commission had not taken the feelings of the:neighborhood into account when making the decision. He said the difference in Mr. Marasi- gan's lot size and the size required for a duplex was a significant difference. Theresa Bonney said the 1988 rezone from R3 to R1 had originally included only the eight nonconforming lots in the block. The Planning and Zoning Commission increased the area to be rezoned to include R3 lots of regulation size and the neighborhood had objected because it felt it was unfair to downzone those lots. Boardmember Thompson MOVED, seconded by Boardmember Cratty, to grantthe relief reque"sted by the appellants and reverse City Council Meeting 5 May 11, 1989 the Planning and Zoning Commission's January 18, 1989 deci- sion to approve Case 89-007 granting a variance to permit a two-family dwelling unit to locate on a nonconforming lot of record in an R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District (Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 1512 Mission Road). The roll call vote was Boardmembers Cratty, Iani, Perrozzi, Ramaglia, _and Thompson in favor and Boardmember Blackburn absent. The motion passed. RECESS There was a short recess. Boardmember Perrozzi MOVED, seconded by Boardmember Cratty, to adopt the following in support of the Board's decision: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition (1512 Mission Road) is 5,966 square feet in area and 49.79 feet in width. It is in an R-3 zoning district. 2. The owner of this property, Remegio Marasigan, wishes to construct a duplex dwelling on the lot by modifying or converting an existing single-family dwelling which has already been constructed. Section 17.20.030 of the Borough Code mandates a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet for the construction of a dup- lex on appropriately zoned property. 3. The Planning S Zoning Commission found that there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to Mr. Marasigan's property or his intended use or develop- ment of it which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. The record on appeal fails to contain substantial evidence supporting this finding. The fact that Mr. Marasigan's lot is substandard in area and width is not an exceptional physical circumstance or condi- tion within the meaning of section 17.66.050(A)(1) of the Borough Code. 4. The Commission also found that the strict application of -the -Borough's -zoning ordinances -would -result -in -practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship to Mr. Marasigan. The record on appeal also fails to contain substantial evidence supporting this finding. Section 17.36.030 of the Borough Code permits Mr. Marasigan to maintain a single-family dwell- ing on this lot in spite of the fact that it is nonconform- ing as to both lot area and lot width. This is a fair and substantial use for the property. Therefore, strictly applying the Borough zoning ordinances so as to deny Mr. Marasigan the right to construct a duplex on his property will not impose upon him either practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship within the meaning of KIBC 17.66.050 (A)(2). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The record on appeal suggests that Mr. Marasigan was seeking a variance from K18C 17.36.030, entitled "Non -Con- forming Lots of Record." In point of fact, this is not the City Council Meeting 6 May 11, 1989 IV. v. case. Mr. Marasigan 1s precluded from constructing a duplex on his lot by XIBC 17.20.030 and, therefore, it was a vari- ance from this provision which Mr. Marasigan was seeking. Section 17.36.030 merely establishes an exception to the re- quirements of KIBC 17.20.030 with respect to the construc- tion of a single-family dwelling on a lot such as this one. That provision is not relevant to this case, however, be- cause Mr. Marasigan is seeking authority to construct a du- plex, not a single-family dwelling, on his property. 2. The Planning & Zoning Commission erred in granting Mr. Marasigan a variance to construct a duplex on his property because two out of the six findings which it made were unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 17.66.050(B) mandates the denial of a variance unless all six findings can be made. Therefore, the Commission's deci- sion granting this variance is REVERSED and the variance is DENIED. The roll call vote was Boardmembers Cratty, Iani, Perrozzi, Ramaglia, and Thompson in favor, Boardmember Blackburn absent, and the motion carried. Boardmember Thompson expressed concern over this type of appeal and referred to the issue of zoning which implied a use which was unsuitable for the neighborhood or could not be exercised for other reasons. She said the public should not be forced to deal with these types of inconsistencies. The- Mayor -closed the Board of Adjustment hearing and re- opened the regular meeting. ./ c. Public Comments None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS a. First Reading Ordinance Number 861 RE: Amending Kodiak City Code Title 13 Relating to Water Usage Rates, Connection Fees, and Disconnect Fees Mayor Brodie read Ordinance Number 861 by title. City Manager Gould said this ordinance was presented in compli- ance with the City Charter provision which required utility rates to be self supporting. The water utility had been operated at a loss for a number of years and usage rates had not been adjusted since 1983. Ordinance Number 861 would allocate ten percent of the funds collected to be used solely for capital improvements to the City water system. The effective date of the ordinance would coincide with the beginning of the new fiscal year, July 1, 1989, and would not be reflected on Customer utility bills until August 1. City Council Meeting 7 May 11, 1989 Councilmember Cratty MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Ramaglia, to approve Ordinance Number 861 in the first reading. The roll call vote was Counoilmembers Cratty, Iani, Perrozzi, Ramaglia, and Thompson in favor, Councilmember Blackburn absent, and the motion carried. b. First Reading, Ordinance Number 862 RE: Amendinn Kodiak City Code Title 13 Relating to Sewer Usage Rates a Connection Fees Mayor Brodie read Ordinance Number 862 by title. City Manager Gould said this ordinance was presented following the completion of a rate study. Ordinance Number 862 would allocate ten percent of the funds collected to be used only for capital improvements to the City sewer system. The pro- posed rate changes would comply with City Charter regula- tions that utility funds be self supporting. The sewer usage rates were last adjusted in 1983. The effective date would coincide with the beginning of the new fiscal year, July 1, 1989. Councilmember Cratty MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Thompson, to approve Ordinance Number 862 in the first reading. The roll call vote was Councilmembers Cratty, Iani, Perrozzi, Ramaglia, and Thompson in favor and Councilmember Blackburn absent. The motion passed. c. Resolution Number 10-89 RE: Authorizing the City Clerk to Dispose of Certain City Records Mayor Brodie read Resolution Number 10-89 by title. Th resolution was presented at the request of Police Chi. Marshall to authorize destruction of certain Police Depar.. ment files which were permanent, but nonhistorieal, and which had been microfilmed. Councilmember Thompson MOVED, seconded by Councilmember Cratty, to pass and approve Resolution Number 10-89. The roll call vote was Councilmembers Cratty, Iani, Perrozzi, Ramaglia, and Thompson in favor and Councilmember Blackburn absent. The motion carried. d. Resolution Number 11-89 RE: Requesting Congress Reject the Plan Presented by the National Weather Service Mayor Brodie read Resolution Number 11-89 by title. City Manager Gould said this resolution was a request that the City's Congressional representatives reject the plan pre- sented by National Weather Service which would eliminate personal services now available locally. The plan would City Council Meeting 8 May 11, 1999 CITY OF KODIAK AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 11, 1989 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Roll Call II. MINUTES Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 25, 1989 III. PERSONS TO BE HEARD (Pink) IV. V. a. Planning and Zoning Commissioner (1) b. Board of Adjustment Hearing c. Public Comments (46) OLD BUSINESS (Blue) None NEW BUSINESS (Yellow) a. First Reading, Ordinance Number 861 b. First Reading.,__Ordinance_Number _862_ c. Resolution Number 10-89 d. Resolution Number 11-89 e. Declaring Equipment Surplus f. g. h. Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 1 Professional Services Agreement RE: Appeal of January 18, 1989, P&Z Decision on Case 89-007 (6) RE: Amending the City Code Relating to Water Usage Rates, Connection Fees, and Discon- nect Fees (1) RE• Amending -the -City -Code -Relating to-Sewer— Usage Rates and Connection Fees (6) RE: Authorizing the City Clerk to Dispose of Certain City Records (9) RE: Requesting Congress Reject the Plan Pre- sented by the National Weather Service (11) RE: Waterwater Treatment Plant Centrifuge (12) RE: Near Island Access Road (14) RE: Harbor Public Restrooms (16) RE: St. Herman Harbor Ramp Design (18) VI. MANAGER'S REPORT VII. MAYOR'S COMMENTS VIII. COUNCIL COMMENTS IX. AUDIENCE COMMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT: ;,JMMARY: AGENDA SUMMARY b. Board of Adjustment Hearing 18, 1989, Planning and Zoning Case 89-007 The Council is sitting as the hear the Bonney, et al, appea Borough Planning and Zoning Co ing a variance to permit a tw locate on a nonconforming lot of record in an R3 -Multi- family Residential Zoning 'istrict (Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 1512 Mission ' oad). RECEIVED MAY 101989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE \)6t1. `L c . RE: A, sal of January Comma=.ion Decision on 410. —0, 5. -rd of Adjustment to of the Kodiak Island ssion's decision grant- -family '�,^ •. 1 dwelling unit to y- a l sA+4 1 The hearing will begin wi. a presentation by the Com- munity Development Depar ment. Next, the appellant's argument will be present d, followed by Mr. Marasigan, and any other person sub itting a brief. According to KCC 17.10.060(c), only o e argument can be presented by or on behalf of each partor interested person. After hearing all parti.s, the Board of Adjustment may affirm or reverse the dsion of the Planning & Zoning Commission, in whole or n part, 'and must give the rea- sons for its decision. Only the information available to the Planning 6 Zoning Commission at the time of its decision may be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Pertinent sections of thJ Kodiak Island Borough Code are included for the Board's Convenience. BONNEY, ET AL, APPEAL OF KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S JANUARY 18, 1989 DECISION GRANTING CASE 89-007 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM RIB 17.36.030 (NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD) TO PERMIT A DUPLEX TO LOCATE ON A NONCONFORMING LOT OF RECORD LOT 10, BLOCK 5, LEITE ADDITION 1512 MISSION ROAD SUGGESTED COUNCIL MOTION: �� {..a....f- t Move to nff4r0% the Planning and Zoning Commission's January 18, 1989 decision to approve Case 89-007 grant- ing a variance to permit a two-family dwelling unit to locate on a nonconforming lot of record in an R3 -Multi- family Residential Zoning District (Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 1512 Mission Road). Move to adopt the following Findings of Fact ... b MAY 11, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page KIB 17.66.090 (Appeals) 7 KIB 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) 7 KIS 17.66.050 (Criteria for Granting Variance) 6 9 12 Board of Adjustment Procedures KCC Title 17 Notice of Alal KCC 17.10.020(a) Record on Appeal KCC 17.10.030 Decision of 01-18-89 13 Findings of Fact 14 Verbatim Transcript - 01-18-89 Meeting 16 Verbatim Transcript - 02-15-89 Meeting 25 Staff Report - 01-08-89 27 Public Rearing Notices & Responses 31 Written Statement (Appellants) KCC 17.10.040 Written Statement (Borough) KCC 17.10.040 44 Notice of Rearing KCC 17.10.050 45 38 17.66.060=-17.67.010 detrimental to the borough. When necessary, the commission may require guarantees in such form as deemed proper under the circumstances to insure that the conditions designated will be complied with. (Ord. 83-40-0 53(part). 1983). 17.66.070 Effective date. The decision of the planning commission to approve or deny a variance shall become final and effective ten days following such decision. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part). 1983). 17.66.080 Cancellation. Failure to utilize an approved variance within twelve months after its effective date shall cause its cancellation. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part). 1983). 17.66.090 Appeals. An appeal of the planning commis- sion's decision to grant or deny a variance may be taken by any person or party aggrieved. Such appeal shall be taken within ten days of the date of the commission's decision by filing with the board of adjustment through the city or borough clerk a written notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part). 1983). 17.66.100 Stay pending appeal. An appeal from a deci- sion granting a variance stays the decision appealed from until there is a final decision on the appeal. (Ord. 83-40-0 53(part). 1983). Sections: 17.67.010 17.67.020 17.67.030 17.67.040 17.67.050 17.67.060 17.67.070 17.67.080 Chapter 17.67 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Intent. Applicaiton and fee. Site plan, Public hearing. Standards. Stipulations. Action by planning and zoning commission. Appeals. 17,67.010 Intent. It is recognized that there are land uses which are generally considered appropriate in certain zoning districts; provided, that controls and safeguards are applied to insure their compatibility with permitted principal uses. The conditional use permit procedure is intended to allow consideration of the impact of the proposed conditional use on surrounding property, and the application of controls and safeguards to assure that the conditional use will be compatible with the surrounding area. (Ord. 81-31-0 52(part), 1981). 17-70 (KIB 6/87) 17.36.020--17.36.040 It is the intent of this chapter that nonconforming uses shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. It is further the intent of this chapter that nonconforming structures may not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended in any way that increases the nonconformity. (Ord. 86-18-0 §2, 1986: Ord. 82-45-0 §1(part) 1982). 17.36.030 Nonconforming lots of record. In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, notwithstand- ing limitations imposed by other provisions of this title, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record existing at the effec- tive date of adoption or amendment of the ordinances codified in this title. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width or both, if the lot conforms to the other regulations for the district in which such lot is located. Variance of yard requirements and of other development requirements, except as specified above, shall be obtained only through action of the planning commission as provided in. Chapter 17.66 of this title. if two or more lots, combinations of Lots, or portions of lots with contiguous frontage in common ownership are of record at the time of passage or amendment of the ordinances codified in this title, with a structure located across the lot line or a residential structure on one lot and an accessory building on the adjoining lot, the lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title. No portion of said parcel shall be used or sold which does not meet the lot width and area requirements established by this title, nor shall any division or the parcel be made which leaves remaining any lot with width or ' area below the requirements stated in this title, except to allow the addition to abutting land to make a standard lot, providing such sale does not thereby create a substandard lot. (Ord. 87-14-0 52, 1987; Ord. 82-45-0 51(part), 1982). 17.36.040 Nonconforming structures. Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amend- ment of the ordinances codified in this title that could not be built under the existing terms of this chapter by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards, or other characteristics of the structure or its location on the lot, such structure may be continued so long as it remains other- wise lawful, subject to the following provisions: A. No such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. B. Should such structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent of its replacement cost at ,time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity to the regulations for the provisions of this title. 17-48 (KIB 6/87) 17.65.040--17.66.060 office shall send to each owner of property within a minimum distance of three hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the lot or parcel of.land described in the applicaiton, notice of the time and place of the public hearing, a description of the property involved, its street address, and the action request- ed by the applicant. For the purposes of this chapter, "property owner" means that land owner shown on the latest tax assessment roll. Notice shall also be provided in accordance with state law by legal publication in local newspapers. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part). 1983). 17.66.050 A roval or denial. Within forty days after theing o an app ication, t e planning commission shall render its decision, unless such time limit has been extended by common consent and agreement of the applicant and the commission. A. Approval. If it is the finding of the commission, after consideration of the investigator s report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that the use proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions+pr restric- tions, meets all of the following, the variance shall be granted: 1. That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to its intended use or development which do not apply generally to other properties in the same land use district; 2. That the strict application of the provisions of this title would result in practical difficulties or unneces- sary hardship; 3. That the granting of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety or general welfare; 4. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan; 5. That actions of the applicant did not_cause special conditions or financial hardship or inconvenience from which relief is being sought by a variance; and 6. That granting the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. B. Denial. If the commission finds, after consideration of the investigator's report and receipt of testimony at the public hearing, that it cannot make all of the required findings in Section 17.66.050(A) it shall deny the variance. (Ord. 83-40-0 §3(part). 1983). 17.66.060 Conditions. The commission, in granting the variance, may establish conditions under which a lot or parcel of ;and may be used or a building constructed or altered; make requirements as to architecture, height of building or structure, open spaces or parking areas; require conditions of 'operations of an enterprise; or make any other conditions, requirements or safeguards that it may consider necessary to prevent damage or prejudice to adjacent properties or 17-69 (KIB 6/87) 17.10.010--17.10:020 TITLE 17 ZONING Chapter 17.10 Board of adjustment procedures Section 17.10.010 17.10.020 17.10.030 17.10.040 17.10.050 17.10.060 17.10.070 17.10.080 17.10.090 17.10.100 17.10.110 CHAPTER 17.10 Appeals to the board of adjustment Notice of appeal Record on appeal Written statements Notice of hearing Hearing New evidence or changed circumstances Scope of review Decision Judicial review Definitions 17.10.010 Appeals to the board of adjustment. The city council, sitting as a board of adjustment, shall hear and decide the fol- lowing matters arising within the city: (a) Appeals regarding alleged errors in enforcement of zoning ordinances and building codes; (b) Appeals from decisions of the planning commission regard- ing concept or final approval of requests for special exceptions or conditional uses; or (c) Appeals from the decisions of the planning commission on requests for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance which are not contrary to the public interest, when a literal enforcement would deprive a property owner of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district. (Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.020 Notice of appeal. (a) An interested person may initi- ate an appeal to the board of adjustment by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten days after the action or decision appealed from and paying a filing fee of $50.00. (b) The city clerk shall transmit a copy of each notice of appeal received to the borough clerk and the planning department or other administrative officer of the borough involved in the action appealed within five working days of the receipt of the 17-01 (Kodiak 12/87) 17.10.030--17.10.040 appeal. At the time of transmitting such notice, the city clerk shall request the borough to prepare the record on appeal which shall be prepared within forty-five days of the date of the notice. (o) The notice of appeal shall identify the action appealed, shall contain a clear and concise statement of the grounds alleged for the appeal, and shall state appellant's name an address. (d) If a charge or bond is required by the borough of Kodiak Island for the preparation of the record, appellant shall be notified of that charge, fee, or bond, and appellant shall be responsible for satisfying any such borough requirements. (Ord. 720 51, 1984: Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.030 Record on appeal. (a) The record on appeal shall con- sist of the following: (1) A verbatim transcript of the proceedings before the admin- istrative body from which an appeal has been taken, if those proceedings were taped or otherwise recorded in their entirety. If the proceedings were not recorded, copies of any approved minutes, summaries or other records of the proceedings; (2) Copies of all memoranda, exhibits, correspondence, recom- mendations, analyses, maps, drawings, and other documents submit- ted to the administrative body prior to the decision from which the appeal is taken; (3) A copy of the written decision of the administrative body, including its findings and conclusions; and (4) A list of the names and addresses of all persons appear- ing as witnesses at the hearing. (b) When the record has been completed, it shall be transmit- ted from the borough to the city clerk. Upon receipt of th, record, the city clerk shall, within five working days, send copy of the notice of appeal, by regular mail, to all person appearing as witnesses in the hearing of the administrative action being appealed, and advise them that the record has been prepared. The city clerk shall, within five working days, also notify appellant of receipt of the record and make the record available to the appellant and any other interested persons for review. A copy of the record shall be provided to any person on request upon payment of reproduction costs. (Ord. 720 52 G. 53, 1984: Ord. 528 SI (part), 1978) 17.10.040 Written statement. The appellant may file a written statement summarizing the facts and setting forth pertinent points and authorities in support of the allegations contained in the notice of appeal not more than fifteen days after the clerk has given notice of completion of the record. The borough staff and any interested party wishing to file a written statement in opposition to the appeal may do so within fifteen days after 17-02 (Kodiak 12/87) 9 17.10.050--17.10.060 expiration of the time for the filing of appellant's statement. Statements filed by any person shall be available for inspection in the city clerk's office. (Ord. 720 54, 1984; Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.050 Notice of hearing. The clerk shall set a date for the hearing of the appeal at a regular or special meeting of the coun- cil, or at a meeting of the council sitting as a board of adjust- ment, to be held not less than ten nor more than twenty-one days after expiration of the time for filing of briefs. Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation, and shall be mailed by regular mall to the appellant and all other persons filing statements or appearing at the hearing of the administrative action being appealed, not less than five days before the hearing date. (Ord. 720 55, 1984: Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.060 Hearing. (a) The board of adjustment hearing may be conducted at any regular or special meeting of the council, by meeting as a board of adjustment or by recessing the council meeting and convening the council as a board of adjustment to hear the appeal. The meeting of the board of adjustment, in- cluding any deliberations, shall be open to the public and a record shall be made of the,meeting. (b) The hearing shall be commenced with a presentation by the staff of the borough planning department summarizing the nature of the decision being appealed to the board of adjustment, the pertinent facts produced at the hearing from which the appeal is taken, and applicable legal principles. Arguments shall then be presented by the appellant, if the appellant is a party other than the borough, and any other'person submitting a brief within the time limits prescribed by section 17.10.040 of this chapter. The arguments shall discuss the facts in the record and the application of those facts to applicable provisions of law, but _—shail.not-be-in-the-form-of--testimony—end-parsons-making- such" presentations shall not be under oath. (o) Only one argument shall be presented by or on behalf of each party or interested person,•and the council may establish a time limit for each argument to be presented. (d) If a transcript of all substantial portions of the record is not available and the council determines that the available summary of that testimony is not adequate, the council may elect to receive testimony relating to any issue specified on the appeal for which the record is deficient. Such testimony shall be received only from persons who presented similar testimony at the hearing from which the decision is being appealed. The testimony shall be limited to matters discussed at the previous hearing, and no new evidence will be received. (e) The hearing of the board of adjustment may be recessed 17-03 (Kodiak 12/87) I0 17.10.070--17.10.090 and reconvened from time to time as determined to be necessary by the board. (Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.070 New evidence or changed circumstances. Appeals alleg- ing new evidence or changed circumstances shall not be heard by the board of adjustment. A notice of appeal based upon new evidence or changed circumstances shall be transmitted by the clerk to the borough planning staff for possible rehearing. (Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.080 Scope of review. (a) The board of adjustment shall hear appeals solely on the basis of the record established before the lower administrative body, the notice of appeal, briefs submitted prior to the hearing, and arguments at the hearing. (b) The board of adjustment may exercise its independent judg- ment on legal issues raised by the appeal. Legal issues are those matters that relate to the interpretation or construction . of ordinances or other provisions of the law, or the application of caseylaw to the facts as presented. (c) Action of the board of adjustment on the appeal shall be based upon facts which are supported in the record by substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence" means the record provides a sub- stantial basis from which the fact in issue might be reasonably inferred. (Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.090 Decision. (a) The board of adjustment may affirm or reverse the decision of the lower administrative body in whole or in part. (b) Any variance granted by the board of adjustment shall be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure which is equivalent to, but not exceeding, the use of similar lands, buildings, or structures permitted generally in the same use district. The board of adjustment may reduce the extent of a variance requested or previously granted. (c) The board of adjustment may not grant a variance because of special conditions caused by actions of the person seeking relief or for reasons of pecuniary hardship or inconvenience, nor may the board grant a variance which would permit a land use in a district in which that use is prohibited. (8) A decision of the board of adjustment to affirm or reverse action of a lower administrative body shall be based upon findings and conclusions adopted by the board. Such findings shall be reasonably specific so as to provide the community, and, where appropriate, reviewing authorities, a clear and precise understanding of the reasons for the board's decision. The find- ings, conclusions, and decision shall be reduced to writing, either during or subsequent to the hearing, signed by the mayor, 17-04 (Kodiak 12/87) 17.10.100--17.10.110 and filed with the city clerk. (e) A decision shall be based on a motion to grant the relief requested by the appealing party, and the concurring vote of four members of the board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirements, decision, or determination of the planning commission. (Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.100 Judicial review. A decision or order of the board of adjustment may be appealed to the superior court by a municipal officer, a taxpayer, or a person jointly or severally aggrieved, pursuant to the provisions of part 6, rule 95, of the Rules of Appellate Procedure of the state of Alaska. Notice of appeal shall be filed in the superior court within thirty days from the date that the order or decision appealed from is mailed or delivered to the appealing party. The order or decision of the board of adjustment shall not be reversed if the findings upon which that order or decision is made are supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17.10.110 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (a) "Interested person" means a municipal officer or other person directly or indirectly affected by the decision being appealed. (b) "Party" means a person who has filed notice of appeal or a brief in the appeal under consideration by the board of adjustment. (Ord. 528 51 (part), 1978) 17-05 (Kodiak 12/87) 11 Board of Adjustment c/o City Clerk Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Attn: Marcella Balks January 25, 1989 A Jeri 1:59 BECINED r MOATS Ornet CITY Of &ODIAK You are hereby notified that the following persons listed below and on attached sheet 1 of 1, do appeal to the City of Kodiak, Zoning Board of Adjustment, the decision of the Kodiak Borough Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) to allow a variance under case 89-007 of the January 18, 1989 P&Z meeting. The variance granted would permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record in an R3 Le 12. - Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, to Addition, 1812 Mission Road. The following persons listed are appealling due to errors by the P&Z Commission in enforcement of zoning ordinances per Title 17 of the City of Kodiak Zoning Ordinances Subsection 17.10.010 (A), specifically that approval of said variance is contrary to section�/17.66.050 (A), numbers �,1�C•�,.! /5427 Xcvlxc<i -IT /4! 7a Atom:ter s7 lrzsr /Kv.a=t., t - a r cwteltX -4714) �ithA, 1919 t:e�rclv.au r I.1: 7?; l= 2h i3(u:.i.: a. y. 19 19 K:u s/, et, i /2 r1 /. 4/ /G Xi- .....-L.,-,-4 yq ,�i.«✓rmn,JeY 1), (3) and (4). Howard Stewart Sharon Stewart Fred Nass Kenneth R. Lester David 47. Buckley Donna E. Buckley Bryce W. Cordon Huth Brock rg t` (✓ 1 ATTACHMENT 1 of 1 VARIANCE APPEAL CASE 89-007 �1r>c.0 <" s�'�-u.... power of attorney) Bonnie Noreen Svea Breckberg Robert nrer4bm 1 ! r;,, 5f; >1/4. Joseph C. Spicciani i He /lc 7 /4713) Ko✓51Ca l , Jane E. Spicciani Judy Kendrick Carl Carlson Meta Carlson Marina Opheim Ed Opheim Thomas L. Beard 417 ,Strt/i,tt.. 3-/- Lona M. beard `l/I--.-.eye-,•Iye.,.._....'rsr 1,-.....,,r- ------Olive-Ruth-cordon— . .;�.�.v r..•' p.:; v_•+mcXs _ / `(r) (Y 4 -.—c -r) Paul A. Chervenak ::7s 1Le,5`7 / • iraoseed Theresa A. Barney R. Scott Bonney Remegio Marasigan 1512 Mission Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK. ALASKA 99615*6340 PHONE (907) 466.5734 January 19, 1989 Re: CASE n,007 REQUEST FORA VARIANCE from Section 17.38.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of Ike Borough Code to permit a two-family dreading unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard In tot area (5588 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence In a R3—Mueilamily Residential Zoning District. LOT fa, BLOCKS, LEITE A000ION; 1512 MISsIoN. (REUCCI° MARASIOANJ Dear Mr. Marasigan: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission al their meeting on January 18, 1989, mod the request for the variance cited above, sublec1 to the following Conditions; 1. Prior to Issuance of zoning compliance, the applicant must provide a parking plan for the she showing the location of the additional two (2) parking spaces, as well as the existing off-street parking that is available. The applicant must provide and maintain a six (8) foot solid fence for screening along the lot lines between (a) Lots 9 and 10, Block 5, We Addition, and (b) Lots 10 and 11, Block 5, Lege Addition. The Commission deferred the adoption of findings of fact in support of their decision until their February 15, 1989 Regular Meeting. 11-418 APPROVAL DOES NOT ALLOW ANY CONSTRUCTION TO BEGIN Zoning compliance andtor a building permit oust first be obtained. Please contact this office lor1unbar details. An appeal of this decision may be initialed by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within tan days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the spec4c grounds for the appeal. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and eftective until ten days following the decision. Failure to utilize this variance within Twelve (12) months after los effective date shall cause its cancellation. Please bring this fetter when you come to our office to obtain zoning compliance for any Construclon on the lot. Kodiak island Borough Romegic Marasigan January 19,1989 Page Two If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact Ouane Dvorak of the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Sec Mary Community Development Department cc: Pal Reiland /3 Remegio Marasigan Box 759 USCG Kodiak, Alaska 99619 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (407) 486.5736 February 76,1989 Re: Findings of Fact for Case 89-007 supporting approval of a request for a variance from Section 17.36030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard In at area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3- MulIlamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Lade Addriion:1512 Mission. Dear Mr. Marasigan: ahs :c....404-4 The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at (heir meeting on February 15, 1989, adopted the following findings of fact In support of their decision cited abovo: 1. That there are exceptional ptwsical Circumstances or conditions actable to the pyonerty of Intended use of development. which generally do not apply to other ar0perti05 in the same land use district. An exceptional physical circumstance of the property is the fact that the lot i5 nonconforming due to its area of 5,981 square feel. This Is 1,219 square feel (17 percent) less than the minimum lot area required by current zoning regulations for the development of a two-family residence. Adddbnally, the lot does rot meet the minimum width requirement of 60 feet as R Is only 49.79 feet wide, Another exceptional physical circumstance of this property.lsme fact thahthelotds located oma corner ormeb(dck, Therefore, this tot is required to have a ten (10) foot side yard setback along Delarof Street compared to the normal Ove (5) foot site yard setback required for an interior lot. 2. Thal IM Saki application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difflcutlies of gnne:'eaeaty hardship Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would only permit the construction of a single-family residence on this nonconforming iot of record. The applicant does not require any additional valances in order to convert the existing single-family residence into a two-family residence for o11 -street parking, setbacks, height of structures, etc., even though the lot is nonconforming in both area and width. Therefore, strict application of the Zoning Code is an unnecessary hardship when the tot Is zoned R3-MudMamily Residential and the proposed use of the tot for two-family residential is specifically permitted in the R3 -Multifamily Residential Zoning District. 47 to - #+- 4 - Kodiak Island Borough Remegio Marasigan Febniary 16, 1989 Page Two 3. That the orantina of the variance will not result In material damages or oreludice to other prooertles In the vicinity nor be detrimental to the Public's health, safety and welfare Granting of the variance wilt not be detdmenlal to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. A decision to grant a variance will slightly increase the density of devebpmem in this area. However, the requirement of a sold lance That is six (6) feet tall (located along the property lines where the lot is adjacent t0 existing single-family dwellings) should insure that the character of the surrounding neighborhood will not be affected In any way by this change. In addition, a parking plan is iequired to be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of zoning compliance to insure that adequate room for the required off-street packing is available on she. 4. Thal the (ranting of the variance will not be contrary to the oblectives of the Comprehensive Plan, After investigating a rezone of Block 5, Lade Addition, from R3 -Multifamily Residential to RI -- Single Family Residential in September, 1988. the Commission adopted the findings listed below: a. ?India's as *the Need and Justification for a Chance or Amendment A rezone from R3-Muaaamily Residential to R1• -Single -Family Residential Is neither needed nor justified because the R3--Muaaamey Residential Zoning District permits development that: 1) Is consistent with the comprehensive platy, _ _ _ ___ _ _ 2) can be suitable for that existing lots, given the prevailing lot sizes, widths and placement of existing structures, II each request for higher density development is fairy evaluated and appropriate conditions are required to mitigate any potential adverse impacts; 3) will not create any con -conforming land uses on the nineteen (19) lots in the block. Kodiak Island Borough Remegio Marasigan February 16, 1989 Page Three b. Findings as to the Effect a Chance or Amendment would have on the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan The 1968 Comprehensive Plan shows this Plod( as a transition zone with designations for both Medium and High Density Residential Development. The zoning of Block 5, Leith Addition as R3--Mulleamiy Residential has, in effect, determined this area to be a High Density Residential area. This designation clarifies the Comprehensive Plan's 'split designation.' Due to the current zoning, it would be inconsistent for the commission t0 downzone the area when it appears to be showing signs of redevelopment to the prescribed density. Denial of a recommendation to rezone Block 5, Leith Addition Is therefore consistent with the objectives et the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the above findings, the Commission finds that granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies This area for High Density Residential Development. 5. Thal actions of the applicant did riot cause special conditions or Iinancial hardship from which relief IS being 5009M by the variance. In this case, the actions of the applicant have not caused conditions from which relief Is being sought by variance. The variance will be decided before the applicant lakes any action. That the granting of the variance will 1101 permit a Drohloiled land use in the district involved The R3—Multifamily Residential Zoning District permits a much higher density of development than that which would result from the development of a two-family residence. 11 should be noted that this variance request i5 not related to the zoning district or permitted uses therein. This variance concerns whether or not the requested two-family dwelling, which is specifically permitted In the R3—MuhNamlly Zoning District, should be permitted to locate on a lot that is seventeen percent (17%) smaller than the zoning code requires. The Commission also noted that the granting of this valance would be consistent with the descript0n and Intent of the R3--Muhlamify Residential Zoning District. An appeal of this decision may be Initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Cleric within ten days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal. Therefore, 1110 Commission's decision will not be final and effective until len days following the decision. Kodiak Island Borough Remegio Marasigan February 16,1989 Page Four Failure to utlize this approval within twain (12) months atter its effective date shall cause its cancellation. Please bring this letter with you if you need to come into our office to obtain zoning compliance for any construction on the property. 11 you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secretaiyj Community Development Department cc: Pat Reiland IS CERTIFICATE 71135 I0 W Ct2,ftLY T)41T: I'tJ•Lc Hearing in the matter of: Calle 69-067. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Cute to permit two --family dwelling unit (duple;) to locate on a non- OJnr4rrarg lot of record that is sutetardard in lot area (5.966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) irsteadof only a sirijle'tamiIy residence in a R3—Multifamily Residential Zoning District, Lot 10. Block 5, Lelte Addition; 1012 Mission. :NO hold as herein appears awl this is the original verbatim transcript thereof. I( KODIAK ISLAND If)2CA]GH firer PLANNING AND 'LON111G CriVIESION 1'iiDLww IlFARING ON case. 89 607. Request fora variance from Section 17.36.030 (Noncontormirg L>ts at 1911:ord) of tha &nwgh rrsie to permit twe t,niily dwellirq unit !duplex) to locate on a r.rr- oJnfOrming lot of record ttrt is sWctardard in lot area (5,966 ::qWd': }toll “del I•il', WUltl, 119.79 t kt l iRa.:ad or only aturjto. family residence in a 23 --Multifamily Residential J•.rarg District. Int 111, block 5. Mite Addition: 1812 I4io,ur'I. '11.e ui.wil viturl ptd*lic tr`irug w;u held on January 18. 1989 in the kallak Islnrd Srough Assembly Chombrs. 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Ili•: i' rg wa' cc.ndueted ty the Kcdiak lslard Borough Plmsiirg and Gonirg ].+mminsion, 141. 'I'.a Hardcl. Cm:Jur/arsa,. TU4 HEMEL: WhNE DVORAK: 1C4 FlEiDE... SCOTT bjNNEe: Verbatim Transcript Regular Mooting We're nn.a on Case G. 1hss rs <<+ee 89-007. It's a request for a variance nrom Section 17.36,030 of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit to locate On a nonconforming lot of record that is subetardard in lot area and lot width instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 -Multifamily Residential Zoning District. This is Lot 10, block 5, Leito Addition; 1812 Mission. IU we have further staff reports? Staff sent out 76 public nearing notices in regard to this request. We received 6 responses. all not in favor. This is similar to a case we saw lest year - and nothing has changed as tar as staff can tell in terms of actual attributes of the property itself. Ari. therefore. staff has given favorable recommendations as they did last time with two conditions one to provide a parking plan and also to provide some form of screening between this proposed land use and (indecipherable). 1 would like to read one public hearing notice which was copied for the Commission bit it didn't copy very well. It was from Carl and Meta Carlson, Dex 2678, Lot 11, block 5. Kouskov, when they state that they feel that it should only be residential and not have public access. OK. Thank you Duane. I will now close the regular meeting and open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to testify in this case. please step forward. state your name and sign for the record. My name is Scott Bonney. I live close. a couple of houses away. I will give you the lot and block rioter. if need be. I've been up here three times on this and as I have been up here I begin to understand the mechanisms that you are all part of. CTN.? of the questions that I ask Linda, is "Hey. we just went through this." She says, "Well, there's nothing to stop a person to go time and time again," I think that is unfortunate. It would be nice if there was a year or two but I understand the reason for it and I think it is good. There is some new Commissioners here. I can't remember all. I know Wayne is new. When we first had this variance come up. I presented some information that was the framework of that whole development. There was originally eight Lots thpt were alt owned by one owner that had contiguous frontage. Through my learning about it. too, because being a homeowner there, I thought; well, fine. I'm a substandard lot in an R3 area. That's fine, We can't develop these into duplexes. That is not true, apparently. In fact. the staff report Page 1 January. 18, 1989 P&Z generally says you should do at. I still find that hard to understand. because I third[ that is an ordinance, something that I bought into. If you charge it. it really would bother me. I don't understand why you would change it. I'm getting off the track anyway. What I ask the Commissioners is to maybe take a look through this. Some of you already have. What happened in 1984 in the development? Would that be appropriate. Linda. te, pass cut the earlier worksheet? In a nutshell, the Assembly of God began to develop the area and it was found that they already had two or three places built and the Planning and Zoning, not the Commission. but the Department. did not realize that they were owned by ore owner. Then the thing came up and said, "Hey. you can't be developing all of these substandard lots." The variances, come up, basically to allow eight single residences to be developed in this 03 area. That was. in fact, allowed. As you lock through there you will see quite a number of comments about the people saying, "Well. we don't like it, but it's better than building one big apartment." That is what it boiled down to. Arca also by the people pushing it saying. "Hey. we're going to develop 01." OK. then I come along and I lock and I say. "Hey. here is a nice 01 house." I spent a lot of money. I bought it. So. now I'm trying to protect my neighborhood. If we make it R2, I'know one thing. It is going to set a presidence. and I know that there's going to be other people up here and it is just going to domino. So I am going to sell my house. I said it before and I will do it. I'm fighting for my house right now. so don't forget it. As I look through the finding of facts. I don't understand. this second time arourd. particularly, why the Planning Department would go about the way it is. I start asking some questions. What is the goals? Who sets the tone of the Planning Department in these things? because if I read their firdirgs of fact, I might vote for this thing and say, "Good, go for a variance." particularly if I haven't looked at it. As I went through. I would just like to touch on a couple of things. Number one. the exceptional circumstances. There is exceptional circumstances. These are the exceptional circumstances, that. in tact. if you get down into that, we created a mini R1 area. It is high density. don't believe that it's not. In fact, I got to thinking about it as I was sitting here tonight. When I lived in the Aleution homes as a kid. I had more room in my back yard than in my yard now. We don't have a whole lot more between the houses. Which isn't a real Verbatim Transcript Page 2 Regular Meeting January 18. 1909 P&Z 17 piaialum. 1 twee i live with It. I hey it, Fait it I go R2, we're Just creating that malty more people. Wo eve. In tact, developing Rab. which Anchorage hes, which as a high dcrcaity RU diva. 113.0.'s not Mat I think I would like to see there. Strict application of zoning ordinance wouldtat. in tact. consistent with the previous action of the Commission. Specifically. the 1984 variance which allowed the development of substandard R1 lots. This is. in tact, a high density area. as is. Also, I Leel that granting of this variance would, in fact. prejudice other properties in the area and 1 feel most definitely mine because I would have mare people living in my back yard. I'm getting nervous. I'm not used to you guys. Just one last) thing. We went and we tried to rezone the whole arca. The first variance the Planning and Zoning Committee said. "Hey. I don't want to go through this all the time. let's rezone this area." I thought they were talking about the eight units. 1,1'4 then summer came along and it came up and it was that whole area. In fact. I wasn't in favor of rezoning that whole area. I think it is fine. I than: if they got 7200 square teet and they can development it, develop it right and I think it will be great. But where It is substandard. I d:n't think it should change. I think, it is going to make a fine neighborhood. I think my neighborhood will develop nicely if we rezone that eight family unit, or those eight lots. to R1. It might seem kind of wierd to you to say. "Hey. Ri units sitting in the middle of R3 area." But. in fact, it is high density. And. in fact, I thine it is vary consistent with -the neighborhood. I don't want to have to come up here every month or every year and do this time and time again. Ard I guarantee it will happen; If not this lot. I think somebody else will buy a house and say "Hey -this as really a good place to develop." because. some of those horses would easily be turned into an R2. It wouldn't change the fact that they are real small but it is just going to keep happening. So. when you get done with this, if you decide not to go with the variance. I would ick that you might consider rezoning those eight lots. the last page of what you're leckirg on there. as was originally suggested that when they rezoned this with the 1984 variance and make those R1, Tho comment is. it's the last one on the page. is One Commissioner felt like. "}ley. the time is not now for sufficient adverse public testimony when somebody wants rezone R2. we will look at rezoning those eight." I really would like to do it. '1 would get out on the streets. knock on some doors. and say. "Come on Verbatim Transcript Page 3 Regular Meeting January 18, 1989 PC IU '1U4 BENDEL: MAK( Itdi KtAttt,11N: Geoff fX41U1Y: WARY LOU I(MJIt'111: :kart BONA?: GAVE) IUU(LL'; iafl9ldurs. knit, it .4a change to putt this to Ind awl we wouldn't novo ei go up tllcro every year or no." .u. 111,11.':; all nr/ nbwhuha.r, rn a nut:hra I. Questions. We tried to rezone. Yes. I realize that. But you tried to rezone the whole area ard that's where the problem came in. Yes. we had everybody was against the rezone. They didn't want duplexes tut they also didn't want the area rezoned either. TOM IQ2d)EL: Precisely. and I was one of those. The reason being. is because, they rezone the whole area. I telt it unfair to rezone the whole area because 1 think it will grow fine bat those particular eight units. there is 6200 square feet and they are close. and they are high density right now. Those are the areas I'm talking about. Not the whole flu ighbonctd. My name is David IArckley. I live at 1419 Kouskov. t pretty much agree with everything that Cdr. Bonney has said here. The lots are very small and it is crowded already with the families that are in there. A lot have teen develcped into very nice homes aid they have done nice work on the yards and so forth. I thick by puttirg more people into that small area. to ma. it is just going to degrade the place there rather than upgrade it because the lots are extremely small. 1've lived in the area since 1971 and watched it dovelcp and I was happy with that many houses in that small or an area because everything had teen kind of spread out betore and it was a quiet-neighbirhocd-but-things-are-going•to develop and co forth. Just the parking problem alone. because of the size of the lots. would be my main concern. We already have trouble with people parking on Mission Road. on the other side from there. They park out on the read and when you pull out you can't see traafic when you sake the little jog over from Re=,ant to Mission and it Just makes it extremely hard on that corner there and that's right where that house i0. I believe, as right on that corner. It's Just not enough room there for It. I feel. I hadn't thought of the idea of rezoning those eight units, bat to me it sourds like a real good idea. That is all I have to say. Thanks, Lave. Verbatim Transcript Page 4 Regular Meeting January 18, 1989 P&Z PAT REILAND: Teti itE Ua TOM IIFl1D12.: PAT REILAND: JON IIARIT: PAT REILAND: Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting My rame is Vat Reiland. I'm here tonight speaking for Mr. Marasigan where Iot is in question here. I'm a general contractor and if this did take place I would he doing the work for him. Basically. Chip's why I'm representing him hero tonight. Again. we did try and go for this variance. as some of you Members know. earlier. At the time. it was shot down. We accepted that at the time. And then again the la went luck and tried to have it rezoned and asked the neighborhood for that and, it didn't happen. So. 1n speaking with several people. we decided to come hick and see if we could try Le net this variance again is because Mr. Marasrgan has an unfinished basement and he wanted to go ahead and finish it. He has a unique lot in thatneighborhood in the sense that he has a cozener lot and he has access. I believe it is from beloraf.•from around the back. So he does have ample parking as tar as in the Iront and the rear or the structure. Again. ho couldn't make it here tonight. Ile works for the Coact Uuard and he was 00 duty tonight. so I'm basically speaking for ham. as much as I can. We're just asking that you go ahead and pass it this time. again. only on the fact that it was the general response of the nelahb rhocd that it didn't go hack to Rl. So. were asking that it be passed, That is basically what 1 have to say. hunk you. ("aeration? 1 have a question for you. We asked about the screen rcquirement and the conditions. Yes. that's right. I'm sorry. 1 wrote that down. 1t a4 did pass. 1 would like to see that the screening requirement was dropped. Primarily d.;<.:aite first of all 1 don't: know what it would entail and it would prohibly Increase the proJert tq who knows what. I'm n>t to wire that it would di, Jnytliilia. What would It do? I Just don't know. How big ot a tenni-• would you have to build to create a screen baser. I'm not sure. I think if it was in u situation where I really felt like it Would do something, you know, from my heart I would say it 13 the way to go. But I don't think it would do anythirg there. Is there any other cpu:sta ns? 1 thank it would disc'ou-age traffic through there, Put. I see. Page 5 January 18. 1989 F&? J0N MMIT: PAT REILAND: JUN INRi'r: PAT Milian 30N HMT: 1•IaDIN Iu1INRICIE: PAT REILAND: ROAIIl I RC1tfRICIU": NIT RI1IINID. IIVDIN I IEINRLJG: UEIIAND: 111,0ilbl I LL:1 NRItl E1: PAT I:I:11AtIIi: Mere is ample space in the front and also in the back to drive, it locks like. Yes. I mean when I took a 1 Yes. t I third( that's the idea of, at. I was trying to remember a past case of why we didn't discuss then, my recollection was that it was an attempt to mitigate increased density on that one lot and separate potential conflicts that resulted from that increased density from adjoining residential uses. What would these be? More kids. maybe. headlights. increased traffic. That's just my recollection of why the original idea of having the screen as one of the conditions ot approval. As we were trying to remember a week ago. at was had for me to remember. That's my recollection. Io you know even like where the screen was suggested? The current proposal suggests putting it between the lot in question and other lots that have single-family residences. which I believe would be along the back property line and the side property line. I think two property lines. So. wiuit are we talking here 03 tar as screening gars? I read atis a rend. tui don? I read 1t Us a icnco, Six fcc,t. four- toot? I mean 1 could build a two toot high fence. I don't ivdcritard what it would mean. Robin. as tar as is there a specific height to a screen WAYNE CoiflWl. We have height restriction; of nix teet on the back ot the let. PAT REILAND: I know there -are re:atrrctions as far as maximum. ROD1N IMIIIRICIt3: Typically, when a screening requirement is placed. it has to come through the Commission for approval. Verbatim Transcript Page 6 Regular Meeting January 10. 1989 P82 faolll (IEINlaLlS: LIIIDA PRIM, Tail !DOM. JOE CPICCIAMI: 'ItH I O:Tr 1 L. Tim'dLA BONNEY: Verl:atim Transcript Regular Meeting 1 than: that as between a business and a residential VRA. 'ibis proposal is put forward ant at is either approved or charged by the Commission. It's not stated that way here at all. I don't know to the variance is. I would say what you might want to do if you want to review it again. make this part of the condition or you could specify it now. If neither one of those things is done, staff would interpret it as sight obscuring. Basically, something between four and si>: feet tall. That could mean plant material bit plant material is more difficult to maintain than fences are, in Kodiak. Any further questions? CK, thanks. My name is Joe Spicciani. I think I live directly across the street from this house. This says 1812 Mission but 1 believe you are talking about 1512 Mission, I live in 1513 Mission Road and my lot is 6200 square feet and it is probably zoned R1 baaause there is only room for one family and whatever one family brirgs to a lot. number of cars. number of dogs. I believe my neighbor's lot across the street is also. right now. it is 81, I thing: it should stay that way. It is smaller than my lot. Theis is less rum on his property for the nether or cars and the number of dogs he has. We already have a problem in the neighborhood with people complaining about the dogs from acrose the street coming over to our side of the street and Iv -king all night. The dogs where people live next dear to me. I thin!: that the size of the lot and how many families you can put on it has some reasonableness ty it aid I don't believe -you should be cutting lots smaller alai putting more families on thy e lot^ I_wouldsiust_like-to-state that I live across the street from him and I would like to, see his lot stay R1 and the four cars that are on his property stay fair cars instead of eight cars ,..t• what else he could figure out putting there. Than. you. OK, Thank you. My name as Theresa Bonney and basically I oppose the variance for all the same reasons that everyone else did. We do have very small lots. I hate to see it get any more crowded than it is. We do have problems. But so far. I think, we're learning to lave with them. But I can't see it getting any - wars°. As I recall. at the last meeting Iast year. it was agreed that if this variaroe did go through, Page 7 January 16, 1989 P&Z TOM t ENDFI 817111 i iRLUN: Ti2A lie HOWARD Cf[WtJ,.I didn't, the screen would be a six foot fence. That was what the block wand be. I would just like to say that I oppose it. Thanks. My name is Ruth Gordon and I live at 1512 Ismailov. I believe that the lots were the small size and those size lots were made to accommodate so many families and if those are the rules for the health of the people. that's what we ought to have. I don't think that the yard space on those lots are already so small, where are the kids going to play? I don't like si>: feat fences. I don't think they are an addition or blend for neighborhoods that are one area. one neighborhood. They will make shade and we don't need any more shade. They don't keep the dogs obit because there is only a fence here and a'fence there. So. I don't think that fence would do that much good. It would take up a space aid when you backed up, you would back into it. It would put trash along when the wind blew. No one would probably pick it up because it wouldn't be anybody's fence. It would be a separating fence. So, I think, and I would like. that it should stay one family. I would like to not have to come up again. My husband is ill tonight so he Couldn't come. Next time it comes up. we might be on vacation and then it will pass. We can't count on that all the time. being here and being available to come up. So, I would like to have it to one family which is a healthy way to live. That would tna the eixl of it. 'bark you. My name is ibward Stewart, 1 live on Lot 13 1 am against this variance. I have teen here three times now and I think it is corgested there. There is a parking problem. My wife also is against this variance. I have a letter from her here. I think. I was at the last meeting for rezoning. and I believe the record was 5 to 4 for rezoning. However. the Commissioner went against it because it was so close. ID OPHEIM: Ili, my name is Pd Opheim, I didn't expect to be up here this scan. I just purchased a hone in this area at 1421 Kouskov. I did a little research before I bought it, because I came from 4 pretty noisy neighborhood before, and I was looking for something a Tittle quieter and a little nicer. I'm not renally tor something like this happening. because it Gree gets it, woo says the next one is Verbatim It'anscript rage 8 Regular Meeting January 16. 1989 1152 '1114 itmtlra LINDA LP*,::."D: '1'.M II171L:L: Ikiri UP&c; 1CM 101DLL: LUXE BA3RE1T; 1'Ve got some problem; with this proposal. A lot of letters, about eight tellers, and seven people lertifying in opposition to this. Nolxdy is tor it Verbatim transcript Page 9 Regular Meeting January 18. 1909 P52 gong to got it and pretty soon you end up sellirrj out and moving on again. I would kind of like to stick around this arca for a while. I'm kind of opposed to this kind of thing. I would like to see it stay :oriole family dwellings. 11rane you. Than: ytu. Linda. world you like to, either you or somcixdy else road it. if you can? 1 have two. 'ilia one that was just harried me wait from Aaron Stewart. £bo lives at 1427 kouskov. Lot 13. Block 5, Leite Suldivlsion. Her comment. nays. "1'm opposedto a building variance of single family dwelling. Scmothirg to do with parking spaces." The other ono was received from Ruth Ereckbu'g who lives at 1410 Kouskov. tlx: is representing her family. They own the following prc•pei'ties in Leite Addition: Lot 12. Block 2; Lot 10. Block 7; Lot 70, Block 7: Lot 11. Block 2; Lot 16, Block 7: Lot 1. Block 4: and Lot 9, Block 7, She comments that. "The Brecklxug family is well represented, ago iii, when it romml to t.hin, repeal pertblmanee. Wiry can't it be decided this time on a pomonont trios. We in this arca do not want this duplex on a ouletaixiard lot. I represent not only myself bit others of my family' not living in Kodiak now. We were all sont lettere and own property in this arca. We are lassie. Moreno, 9:en. Robert and Ruth Brociaxmi." Atiy 1u'thel- ccement? My time is Fed Nast. I own aid occupy u hese in the arca of question. on Yonccky Street, I would 1 Ike L•: go on record as hung against this. I testified last time it was up here. 1 thirk there has trees come very gond testimony against this time: VmighL. I would have to go along with most all ot the original understanding was Uiat these lots wore allowed to be separated only became they were only to have a one family residence on them. It was my understanding that there was a mistake wide in lettirg them lin separated initially. But. that is water unler the bridge. I wouldn't like to see that mistake compounded add make it worse. 111414: you. west night, Any ruttier ccninentst {lee and hearing none. close public hearing and reopen the regular meeting, Yes. Druco, TUM M(9JDEL: I.'CIBIN HEINRICIL: 101! I LUNDl7.: LII%JA PId:ID• Pit IIUJDPL: I:VBIN uc110tIC113; Verbatim Trarscrrpt Regular Meeting except ttie fella representing the applicant. They've mentioned parking, dcgc, noise. shading. The point is that this may be, in fact, designated a R3 lot which wrxild have Leer: developed as a single-family dwelling. 1 thirds the public is showing overwheimirg opposition to this. I can't find any support tor this proposal. 'Rank you, Rvice. I move to grant a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit to locate on a nonconform- ing lot of record that is sutctatdard in lot area ard lot width instead of only a single-family resi- dence in an R3 Multifamily Residential .;.rung Dis- trict Go lot 10, Bleck 5, leite Addition. subject Lo one cordition and to adopt the findings con- tained well. and to defer the findings to the end of the meeting. the condition Lain] prior to the is:mance of a zoning compliance, the applicant must provide a pirkug plan ot the site showing the lo• cation of the additional two parkirg spaces as well as existirg off-street parking that is available. Is there a second? Motion fails for lack of a second. Linda. do you have a comment? Yes. I gums it the group is not. going to approve the mot.lorl, we need) to still have a MO111,0 en the flnin that you con vote down. Yes, Robin. :dine we don't have a motion. 1 Can editorialize. I thin; 1 tan understand ILvce's pint because . evetytl-erg he says is tree. Ikwaver. 1 guess 1 wetild like to make soup: other 1rmmnts. I thin: that this is an P3 ening district. Conceivably this lot. this area ot town. can be developedinto a much higher density than what it has been developed into. That walla be perfectly consistent with the cede. These lots, ycu could buy uI, alt torose pieces of property, you could made property lines. I.uild apartment complex. and not have to get any kind of special permission al all. You would have much higher density than sial is being proposed hcru. Also, I don't thine that we can ignore the tact that the last Lime this came before us. we then said. "elf, if it is your clear understanding that this is suppcced to be PL property. we support that and tu'Lhermore let's investigate le:onirx7 at to lel and put this issue to mut once and for all." It teemed to be unanitsto that evetytcdy wanted Page 10 January le, 1909 P6Z 2( single-family residences on these pieces of property. If you look at the area map. these lots are not atypical in that block. In fact, there are only a few lots that are larger. than these lots. At least the way 1 look at the map. It doesn't make any sense at all to separate those eight lots for investigation of rezoning to R1 in the middle of a whole R3 zoning district. because there is nothing that makes them different than any lots further up the street until you get to the R1 zoning district. So. I don't see any compellirg reason to isolate tha-xi' particular- lots and have these rezoned R1 when everything else arcur,i it is R3. And. yet. everybody seems to want to develop this 81 property. In my mind, the water shed was a bad point. They didn't want a little bit of increased density. even though the :ening district lot allowed more density and so I guess the impression 1 got was that they wanted out of the options to retain all of the options but not allow the neighixa s to develop accordirg to the optiors that were provided by the zoning district. The way 1 see this case. we have a corner piece of property that can provide the oft -street parking, it can meet the setbacks in all instances. and the zoning district allows for much higher development. I don't understand why we don't go along with allcwanu this person who bought under these rules to develop. Especially given history that the whole neighb;rhwi was given the opportunity to change the zonarg less than a year ago. i4. Ctutrait'. Ye::. Maly Lat. MAI:? Ltu lUAll.6111, . - 1 an ee with Robin. 1 teel a year ago. tho last time when It came in, at wau voted down because ` .eryn.dy said no, no. no. to we spent three MARY IAII kM11LC1*I 1l"R1 I IENDIL: MARY LOU KNULCIII: LI/RDA PR1R)' MARY IW KNUOMt : •pp{ IIGHUIiL. chair would gladly entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Mary Lou. 1 move to grant a request for variance from Section 17.36.030 nonconforming lots of record of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (a duple:ct to locate an a nonconforming lot of record that is ai1otardard an lot area (59c6 square featr and lot width 149:79 tett) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 Multifamily Residential Zoning District on Lot 10. Block 5. mite Addition, subject to the two conditions contained in the staff report dated January 8. 1989, and to adopt the -findings container in the staff report dated Janunsy 0, 1989. as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The Iirst condition I want to stard as it is. The second condition I would like to charge that to: Mae applicant must provide screening along the lines contiguous with the lots occupied by sirgle-family residences. That would be a six foot solid fence between Lots 10 and 11. and a six foot solid fence between Lots 9 and 10 to the front set tack. I don't know how far they can go six foot? To the building line. To the building line. Because it they do go to the Tui ldarg line... To the trait of the building is all. OK. Because it ttxy go any tuith r Dare is golttJ to lei problems with night. Wo Love a main mulAcb with tau LJidlii.aci. LU we have u second? meetings. how many public hearings on the rezone, ani everybody was opposed. This is a unique lot. The other lots I might lock at a little harder. But I still thin: there needs to be some screening. The lots ere very close together and when you do odd the other cars with two families you have nights or whatever to add a little bit more impact to the neighborhood. Fetaal:s behind. is maybe it will be able to to converted into a duplex. I don't Www. The other :ales would be real iffy because of off-street parking. But the reason I didn't second as that I think we need to provide some type of screening. TCM Iw31LEL: Than: you. Mary Liu, ibrthor comments? The Verbatim Trarmscrapt 'Regular Meeting 2z Page 11 Jammy 18, 1989 P&Z ROBIN 1fl:Il IuclLs: TOM iron ;L: PATT'1CLA MILLY: WAYNE t iII?WJ: PATRICIA MIIEY: BRUCE &J72EFR: PATRICIA MIIEY: JODY IMOLNJ: Second. Aly further disc on Roll call vote. please. Mr. Coleman. No. Mr. Barrett. No. Ms. Hodgins. Yes. Verbatim Transcript Page 12 Regular Meeting January 18. 1989 F&Z I'P;Ii:1:;In M1LLr: MAIN IIEINRICIC. PATRICIA MILEY: MARY LOU IC.NUtZDD; PATRICIA MILLY: JUN MUTT: r9.1RICIA MILEY: TEM IENDEL: PATRICIA MIL.E7; O;i MI& IONffS Ca119:2183; ft:BIN IIEINRICILS: MAR'V LOU l31UWEN; TUM MENDEL: RUBIN UEINRIAG: IUM ICOIDII.: LIIZ'A IT<17D: TOM IIDDIDEL: RODItI l 1162LC15: Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting 1Ir. Heinrich:). Yes. tts. Knudsen. Yes. Mr. Merit. No. Mr. Mendel. Yes. Motion carries. I would like to move to reconsider. I don't remember the name. the number of that case. for firdirgs ... 09,007 'fiat's C. ...O. findings for the decision granting a variance. CB. so what we really have now before us is... You have to vote on it. K. all those in favor of the reconsideration of the findings of fact. please signify by saying aye. All opposed, same sign. OEC, so what we have actually before us are the findings themselves. Prom what Duan had said that this will definitely go to appeal, so it is best to incorporate our discussion into our findings to give more basis to the decision that we made. I think that is basically... We need a motion. I think it would be helpful if we would just outline the basis for the decision and then I thintc we can accumulate those into all the findings. The things that I think were important. when I considered it, were that you can't ignore the zoning. The zoning allows for much higher density than what was beirg proposed. And, so, what we Page 13 January 10. 1989 P&Z TOM I®ILFL: BRUCE CARREIT: Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting allowed was not contrary to the intents and purposes of the zoning district that that property wes involved in. with regards to density. Also, the property was a corner property. And. to demonstrate the ability to hold parking and contain all the building within the setbacks. therefore. it was not going to put an undue burden as far as cars out on the street. It can demonstrate the ability to hold the density that was contemplated. Also, the public testimony was largely to the effect that due to a prior arrangement. this area was develop as P1. to be PL in nature. even though the zoning had not teen changed, We can't. however, ignore the fact that there was a proposal for rezoning to R1 within this past year. It did not enjoy overwhelming support and so. therefore. I think that the neighborhood was given the offer to develop in this way, and chose not to support that action. Therefore. 1 thine that in my mind. I'm just speaking for m•/self. in my mini I have to. then. try to balance that with the testimony that was there. because those very same people then did not support the R1 rezoning. And, so, how serious do you take their objection. Those are my franc. honest reasons for voting the way I did I would like to hear from the rest of us and I think we can put whatever fits the test comes back in in the form of findings. Bruce. I would like to express the reason why I objected to it. I don't disagree with all that Robin says. In fact. I agree with moot of it. One of the qualms is that you have conflicting messages from the public. At least. that is how we are perceiving them. I think we are wrongly perceiving them. The public was opposed to classifying the areas or zoning the areas R1 mainly because there was a fair number of people who had property that was zoned R3 and could easily develop it within the guidelines. Not only could they provide adequate parking. there was water and sewer. there was setbacks. Bat their lots were large enough. And. I guess it is real clear when one of the individuals spoke that he opposed the rezoning because he didn't want to take the development rights away from somebody else who was in full compliance with alt potential zoning regulations. I think Robin is right when he says that this current proposal would allow adequate parking. setbacks. Dat there is more involved in that. You can lock at any subdivision acd the minimum requirements may not be quite enough. Moot people in this community have Page 14 January 10. 1989 I&Z MARY LOU EWfCSl: }oats. some people have snow uwetitines. 'flay have a lot of other recreational toys that they ord up needing storage places for and maybe the parking is not adequate on these 10 lots to arcuomalate it. They end up in the streets. they end up In areas that may to wore should be dedicated for an open area. I think the public was overwhelming support against this thing. I think we gave a wrong message to the public. It didn't meet the minimum requirements. And what they wanted. they wanted to avoid the congestion. And certainly you could fit multiplex on ttds property and meet this setback. Bit it is going to be more people. it is going to be more noise. And there is just not the lard. whether it is 1000 feet less than required. that is 1000 feet less than it should be. That is the reason I voted fol' it. Mr. Chair/can. t agree with Robin's comment tonight, also. The nmeion why I changed the motion was J felt that a six root terse along the,:ndo and the tour would help the visual Impact „t the neinhlurhood. Ikting a corner lot. there really was no to.. sit to dais it.. We allowed other multifamily residence:; on utth tandard lots. They can adequately pi ':Nide poi king and there really wasn't a raadon for it. Plus. the neigldctis didn't. wait it rezoned to RI. They made that very clear when we were investigating it. that they did nut want it rezoned. And you can't have both. TL''M I¢]lDEL: Got enough ammunition there? LINDA lhtWl 8c you want us to go ahead and write these tndirgs up and bring iL tack here for approval at the neat meeting? _ Tttl IRANDEL, Yes. Ard.leAril include MARY LW I0MkSCl1: LINDA IREID: TOM Iff2Da LINDA FREED: Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting 24 Can you do that if it 15 going to be appealed? What the city will do is they'll just tiniecipherablel by lot. Becaiue the city won't da any... My recollection. we've hid this happen once before. the city' won't accept this into record until we have it approved with findings. They won't accept us: if somebody reappealed it. It basically pits things off a month. I don't know if it is that critical. I think it is imlortant that we have these findirgs. Yea. it's probably even more critical. Page 15 January 18. 1909 P&Z CERTIFICATE THIS 15 TO CERTIFY THAT: The Findings o1 Fact in the matter of: Case 89-007. The granting of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots o1 Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that Is substandard In lot area (5,966 square loot) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-farily residence In a R3— Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition; 1512 Mission, (Remegio Marasigan) was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim hansct pt th KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Patricia Miley, Secrmary Community Development Department PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OLD BUSINESS ITEM A Flndinos of Fact for Case 69-007 supporting approval of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots o1 Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard In lot area (5,966 square feet) and tot wh (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3—Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Legs Addition: 1512 Mission. (Remegio Marasigan) The above-cited Old Business was heard on February 15, 1989 In the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mid Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The mewing was conducted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, Tom Mendel, 25 TOM HENDEL: ANN MOEN: Move on to Old Business. This Is Findings of Fact for Case 89- ,q0Z supporting approval of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in tot area and tot width instead of only a single- family residence in a R3—Multifamily Residential Zoning District This is Lot 10, Block 5, Leda Addition;1512 Mission. Any further staff report? Ann. . Just a reminder That both the Community Development and the Engineering Department last month recommended approval of this subdivision that it met all the requirements of the subdivision code as presented. 11 has been appealed to the Borough Assembly TOM HENDEL: Are we on a different one here or what? LINDA FREED: Yes. ANN MOEN: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. TOM HENDEL: Okay. Yes, Jody. JODY HODGINS: I move to adopt the findings of fact for Case 89.007 contained in the staff memorandum dated February 6, 1989 as findings of fact for this case. ROBIN HEINRICHS: Second. TOM HENDEL: Any discussion on these findings? Rolt call vote. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Mendel TOM HENDEL: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Coleman WAYNE COLEMAN: - Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Heinrichs ROBIN HEINRICHS: Yes PATRICIA MILEY: Ms. Hodgins JODY HODGINS: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Mr. Hant JON HARTT: Yes. PATRICIA MILEY: Motion carries. Verbatim Transcript Old Business Ilam A PBZ: February 15, 1989 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RE: ITEM VI'G • Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM January 8, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission Community Devetopmont Department .cp Information for the January 18, 1989 Regular Meeting CASE 89-007. REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and tot width (49.79 feet) Instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BLOCK 5, LEITE ADDITION: 1812 MISSION. (REME010 MARASIGAN) Seventy-six (76) public hearing notices were distributed on January 9, 1989. Date of site visit: 1. Militant 2. Land Owner: 3. Request' 4. Existing Zoning' 5. Zoning History' Case 89-007 January 4, 1989 Remegio Marasigan Santa, For a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots 01 Record) of the Borough Code t0 permit a Iwo- lamily dwelling unit (duplex) to locale on a nonconforming lot of record That is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single- family residence in a R3--Mutfamily Residential Zoning District. R3—Mulldamily Residential The 1968 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as R1- -Single•Family Residential. In 1973, this lot, as were all other lots in Blocks 5 through 8, Leite Subdivision (with the exclusion of Lots 1, 2, 25, and 26, Block 7) were rezoned from R1--Single•Famity Residential to R3 --Multifamily Residential by Ordinance 73.26.0. The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated an Investigation to rezone all of Block 5, Leila Addition, from R3 to RI, The Commission did not forward the request to the Assembly for approval. • Departmental files indicate no further activity. Page 1 of 8 P&Z: January 18, 1989 6. Location: Physical: Legal: 7. Lot Size' 8. Existing Land Use: 9. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: 10. Comprehensive Plan: 11. Applicable ReoulatlOnsi ITEM VI -G 1812 Mission Road Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition 5,981 square feet Singlo-Fatuity Residential Lots 19 and 20, Block 2, Leite Addition Use: Single-family residential Zoning: R1--Single-Family Residential Lot 11, Block 5, Leite Addition Use: Single-family residential Zoning: R3--Mukitamily Residential Lot IA, Block 6, Lode Addition Use: Church Zoning: R2--Two-Family Residential Lot 9, Block 5, Lede Addition Use: Single-family Residential Zoning: R3 --Multifamily Residential The 1968 Comprehensive Plan depicts this area for High Density Residential Development. The following sections 01 Title 17 (Zoning) of the Borough Code and the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program are applicable to mks request: 17.36030 Nonconforming lots of record, In any district in which single-familydvellings are permitted, notwithstanding limitations Imposed by other provisions of this title, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single tot of record existing at the effective dale of adoption or amendment of the ordinances codified in this 11010. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width or both, 6 the lot conforms to the other regulations for the district in which such lot i5 located. Variance of yard requirements and of other development requirements, except as specified above, shall be obtained onty through action of the planning commission as provided in Chapter 17.66 of this title. If two qr more lois, combinations of lots, or portions of lots with contiguous frontage in common ownership are of record at the time of passage or amendment of the ordinances codified in this title, with a structure located across the lot line or a residential structure on One lot and an accessory building on the adjoining lot, the lands invoWed shall be considered to be an undivided parcel tor the purposes of this title. No portion of said parcel shall be used or sold which does not meet the lot width and area requirements established by this tale, nor shall any division ul the parcel be made which leaves remaining any lot with width or area below the requirements stated Case 89-007 Page 2 o16 P&Z: January 18, 1989 27 29 ITEM VI -G in this title, except to allow the addition to abutting land to make a standard b6 providing such sale does not thereby create a substandard IOL COASTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICABLE POLICIES Residential Oevelopme8) 1 Logan In areas with poorly draining soils, development where feasible shall be connected to a sewer line. Where This is not feasible, on-site facilities shall be designed so as not to cause conditions that will pollute rivers, lakes, and other water bodies, including the ground water supply. Consistent: Open Space Yes. The lot Is served by public sewer. Green areas and open space shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible and prudent when land Is subdivided. Consistent: Access Not applicable. This action does not involve land subdivision. New subdivisions or other residential developments on the shoreline shall provide usable public access to and along the shoreline, extending the length of the development, to the extent feasible and pmdent. Consistent: Not applicable, This lot Is not located along the shoreline. 4. Hazardous Lands Development shalt not occur in hazardous areas such as avalanche lunout zones, active floodplain, and high.watocchannels. to.the.extent.feasibie.and,pmdent—Siting,-design, and construction measures to minimize exposure to coastal erosion, mass wasting and historic tsunami run-up shall be required 12 the extent feasible and prudent. Consistent: Not applicable. fhls lot is not located In a 'hazardous' area. Case 69-007 Wa lands Fitting and drainage of water bodies, fioodways, backshores, and natural wetlands shall be consistent with ACMP Standards 8 MC 80.070 (Energy Facilities) and 6 AAC 80.130 (Habitats). Consistent: Not applicable. This action does not involve any filling or drainage activities. Page 3,1 8 P&Z: January 18, 1989 ITEM V14 COMMENTS' The purpose of MIS request is to permit an existing single -fatuity res#encs, focaied vn a noncomcnning lot of record, to be canoe ted to a two -fatuity residence. A similar request was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 20, 1987, While the request (Case 88-037) was denied by the Commission, the Commission did initiate an investigation of a rezone for Block 5, Lode Addition. At the conclusion of the Investigation, the Commission did not find sufficient reason to forward the rezoning request to the Assembly lot approval. to order for the Commission to grant a variance, allot the following conditions must be saiisfted: FINDINGS OF FACT 1, Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or Intended use of development, Which neneraily do nOtapply to other progenies in the same land use district There are exceptional physical circumstances In that the lot Is nonconforming due to Its area of 5,981 square feet. This Is 1,219 square feet less than the minimum lot area required by current zoning regulations (7,200 square feet for RI, R2, and R3 developments up to a triplex). Add@IonaUy, the lot does not meet the minimum width requirement of 80 Met as it is only 49.79 teat wide. Strict appticall hardships s would difficultte •r _nn Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would only allow the construction of a single-family residence. This is an unnecessary hardship when the lot Is zoned R3—Multifamily Residential, the proposed use is permitted in the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District, and the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 8 all other Tale 17, requirements (such as off-street parking, setbacks, height of structures, etc,, can be met. - — —3r—The dranilnd Of Ihe'vadance Wilmot result In material damages or'preiudice to clh0f jr00Cnies In the vicinity nor 40 detrimental 101 he public's health, safety and welfare. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. A decision to grant a variance could be prejudicial to other single-family dwellings in the vicinity, 0 off-street parking and increased traffic volume to and from the site are not consistent with the character of the adjacent single-family dwellings. This potential could be mitigated by the requirement of a parking plan pilot lo development and the requirement of screening along property lines contiguous with the development. 4. The drantnd of the variance will not he contrary to the obleetives of the Comprehensive Plan, Granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which Identifies This area for High Density Residential Development. Case 69-007 Page 4 of 6 PBZ: January 18, 1989 ITEM VI -G That actions of the applicant rid of ad a special co dilions orfinancial hardship from which relief is being souoht by the variance In this case, the actions of the applicant have not caused conditions from which relief Is being sought by variance. The variance will be decided before me applicant takes any action. That the oranlino of the variance will not penult a prohibited land use in the district Involved. A two-family dwelling is a permitted use in the R3—Multifamily Residential Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this request does meet all the condtions necessary for a variance to be granted under Chapter 17.66 (Valance) of the Borough Code. APPROPRIATE MOTION. Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion Is: Move to grant a request for a variance from Section 17.36.050 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of Me Borough Code to pencil a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District on Lot 10, Block 5, Lake Addition; subject to the Iwo conditions contained in the stall report dated January 8, 1989, and to adopt the findings contained In the staff report dated January 8, 1989, as 'Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1, Prior to Issuance of zoning compliance, the applicant must provide a panting plan for the site showing the location of the additional two (2) parking spaces, as well as the existing off-street parking that Is available. 2. The applicant must provide screening along the lot lines contiguous with lots occupied by singtedamily residences. Case 89.007 Page 5 of 6 P82: January 18, 1989 (4 AS • BUILT SURVEY /F...., /melee odor GT /0__CJ 5 Z ADO/ ION '49TJ, )ry ♦ dd. dew :.rsm.,. m....J«...ru._,.M.✓MJ~i. do) d• •ei solo de totoelo do do retro, ipoz cull ..l w. Yoe ad vWe, Fwd r+oR oar uw4 JM J/7 .f Tf lrt.�Ul7e nB4- �� 7 . Kawu ..r"rJt,nJ 4..„n M: w. D.u. G.zume r9Qr z ilICI1AI:(fft-rt&t:1414),1 1ilmilitilripluitilivp?;;c2,-;;v/‘ F STREE Tw S 1•11AE ONOF ... '..)•',!,,("•%i,%.s,\.740 7;".,•1':`i ‘Kr.1,.\.•/...,.c7.\ - \.,‘I,{.• •.:x•i/ /.r/.`..j.%.v/,.2t•/.\.1 ) A..? . / ,.- ‘,.../,....- I ;•,....„ • \-./..-2. ... •1, -nt ." I -, 1,--.. .\--- W • : ARAN OF AV f.• H>U111110- aeluila 4 ail 1101illiliO REZANOF merAME NINON 5 M Al t. OV 0 / / • -"A •'\•-• "4\-\/•."c .. / SIMEONOFF ':(31: 211:UE eaBZIEEME att .1 rant. illowe DRIVE Tgritifil*ifE6ij 1 r ,\•„ .•• \ • ?Celli • / S.20. i la STREET 4 cc 4. 02•TIVIOPINIWOU .401411tAt kleelinettgial ZONING ICEI ‘,0 5::54: R aRESIDENTIIL R-2 0 RES1DEMTIM. R-3 •4URAL.RESIDENTIAL _ . sig US SURVE):// Case 89-007 Lot 10 Block 5 Leite Addition 1812 Mission PERSONS TESTIFYING AT THE PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 18, 1989 CASE 89-007 Scott Bonney Box 461 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Theresa Bonney Box 461 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 David Buckley 1419 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Ruth Gordon 1512 Ismailov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Fred Nass Bax 296 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Pal Reiland SR 9250 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Joe Splcclani Dox 4096 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Howard Stewart 1427 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 31 �okt'IDEti Ta Mc ors L Ie•B, SM Scc'n- amulLr`i nn The motion Vam eaconded and CAP104, 1 unanimous voice vote. 0) CASE 84.075. Isquest for a Variance from Section 17.36.030 (Wm - conforming Lots of Bacord) CO alloy the construction eif single- family dwell Ings on 6,000 square -loot lou In common ownaevhip with cunt:gooua frontge Lou 8. 11, 42. and 1). Block 5, Late 644111.m; 1424 Minton, and 1424,'1'26, 1420 Kouekov Street (Aeseably of God Church). MR. CASSIDY repotted the receipt of one additional public hearing notice objecting to the rouest. CHAIRMAN GREGG messed the Regula. Muting and opened the Public Hearing. M5. CAROL wnmE1S1£. resident of the new asked tM Conmbelon it therm vera future pass lbillty of the proposed dvellln8e being converted te duplexes or i[ -plans. The response by the Commbeloe was that a variance mould hive to be applied for since the lots vete ondonteed for multiple-dwellinga. PASTOR TOM SIMMONS. Assembly of Cad Church. requested gronctng the variance. Pastor Simmons summarised the history of the case and how the church had bean complying vtth the procedures requested by the Community Development Department alnce the start of the development, when the cbotch had applied for the permit for the fifth hewn. the Community Development Department informed him of the :mono, of code (11.36.030) that would not allow them t0 build on contiguous freeman loco because of common ounarship of she late. Beeau.e they had bean told over 4 year ago by rhe previous planning detector, that they could build eight houses an their eight Iota, they were completely taken by surprise by the latest doclelon of the new planning director. Pastor 5lemona leule the house. are appropriate for the iota' contigutatioaa; that limy are . ctampting to give them a pleasing sppuuncs; and the lou have adequate yard and parkin space. The Intent of the church is not to bui14 multiple -(amity dvelitng., but rather single-family homes. MS. RUTH BRECKBERC, resident of the stow expressed concern about the length of time It took to "catch the error" made by the Planning Department; but telt the church should be required to have 7.200 square feet for each lot. Me. Breekberg eapreseed regret About losing the "privacy" of the neighborhood by the addition of eight more home,. MR. KEN VAN DYKE. member of the Assembly e6 Cod Church. rogueetad granting rim variant,- Mr. Van Dyke felt the church vas 8005400. quality homes foe the price offered and noted that money would be going back Into the caomunity through M. payment of property tun, Mr. Van Dyke Mtstad that the single-family Unita would be an Improvement In the stem rather than building a multi -family neldenri.l building. Me. ROY IRY, a4Jnent property owner. wed ha would rather live nen to • angle -fully dwelling than a "motel." M. added he vould object t granting 4 vsrbnfe for duplea.ln-the-(utter.-I4r-thoar-hou.mer — MR. KEN LE5TER. resident of the neighborhood. telt is v a *bete to fill up the neighborhood." He reversed hie original .and of appouttnn to the ragout ted spoke in favor of granting the variance. nue single-family dwellings are an improvement over a multi -family dwelling. M8. GLENN DICK, member of the Aenobly of Cod Church• coked to go on r,cocd es being In favor of the single-family dvellinga. Then being no lurcher public cestlmeny. CHAIRMAN GR£CG closed the Public Heating sod reconvened the Regular Meeting. Chairman Gregg ngg.oed that a tradition be plead on the variance requiting that the henna remain es eingb-family dwellings. Commissioner Rennei1 felt It was Inappropriate at this time to piere UM. kind et rocractfvo on the vmrienca ., theca is the process of public beefiest; .vellable to the public l01 any future concent. Co.mlesinn.r Knight stated that the Commission could not "second gimes" each turbo situation and that then but not bon ouff6etsna e4verss, public testimony to determine objmulan to duplexes In the future. Regular Meting June 20. 1984 COMMISSIONER PENNELL MOVED TO *PPP4 °ThA VARIANCE from Sutton 17.36.030 (Hon-con70N1n4 Lets of Record) to alley the construction of single. featly dwellings on 6,000 equan-lool lots in c01mo0 owntnhlp with continua fronts.. Lots 7 through 14 of Bleck 5, Lalte Add02nn, atcording to the submitted plan by the sppileent and the following stall rec0mmend.1i0a.: 1. that the dwelling. mut all the other mottle:ble code requtmmns: and 2. that adequate o!! -street parking be provided for the church while the development Ls in progress. The motion yea ascended and CARRIED BY unanimous toll cell vote. CHAIRMAN CMS called fora five-minute roue. afar which the muting reconvened et 11:32 p.m. 1) CASE S-84-025. PRELIMINARY Subdivision of an Unnbdtvided Portion of U.S. Survey 5099 into Port Liens Alaska Subdivision, Second Addition. creating Tract A and Lau 1-5. Block It Tract B an4 Lots 1-7..lockrp.)2: Leta 1-10. block 3; and Loc* 1-10. Block 4 (Ates..k 00.tive Co. MR. CRONE reported that 106 public hearing notice* had been yelled out and them none had been returned. There was no public testimony. c0HMI5Sl0N£R HILL MOVED TO CRANI PRELIMINARY 5VB91VIS00N of an Unaub- divided Partton of U.S. Survey 5099 ince Port Lieu Alaska Subdivision. Second Addition, creating Tract A and Lots 1-S, Block I; Tract 6 and Lots 1-7. Block 2; Lots 1.10, Bleck 1; and Leu 1-10. Slack 4 0471nc 10 the following condition.: 1. Thu the applicant obtain .nlutlon approval from the Alen. Department at Environmentei Conservation; 2. that the property 1e tanned from Conservation to Rural Residential 000 at the July 10, 1984 regular meeting of she Planning and Zoning Commission; I. Ther the access rod to the boat bather be shown as a dedicated right-of-way; 4. That the designation for chm width of the electrical easement along Airport Road be changed to i5 feet to urea with the existing easement which K£A obtained from the Afognak Native Corporation; and 5. That flu -toot wide electrical easements be provided along both aide. of Marina Street and along one old. of Merin. Loop. Of the request of OA. The motion vu seconded and CARRIC0 by unanimous fall call vote. 5) CASE 5-84-02k. PRELIMINARY Subdivblon ei Lot g. Block 2. Shandg._ _ Aetee-Subdivleton-Inn tocm-2#-and-211 Block -2: 5hahalk,'AMeit SUb- div/cion. 0.5, Survey 3218 (Helen C. Heil). MR. CROWD reported thin 30 public hearing notices had bun sailed vith none returned. CHAIRMAN GRECO recessed the Regular Muting .n4 opened she Public Haareng. MRS. HELEN C. HALL. applicant, regoeeted granting * variance ban the required embank and ehm a0., r.quarsd u.ags *1 the trailer whlah currently alt. 00 the lot for no longe than two you Mlle . new hem. la being 4,011. Then being no further public tuclmony, CHAIRMAN GREGG closed the Public Hearing and reconvened the Regular Muting. COMMISSIONER JAMES M0UM TO CRANE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of the PRELIMINARY Subdivision of Lot 2. Block 2. Shahan:A Acres 5,4divf.lon into Lou 2A and 28, block 2. Sh,hdka Acres Subdlvtelon. U.S. Survey 3218 subject to the subsequent approval of \ variants allowing th..64s yard encroachment. The motion use mooned and the motion CARRIED by unanimous toil call vet.. Regular Mooting 10 - Jude 20, 1904 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 MIS Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99815 ITEM VBG PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A pubib hearing will be hold on Wednesday, January 18, 1989, The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. In the Borough Assembly Chambem, 710 MIII Bay Road, Kodiak. Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, O any, on the following request: CASE *002 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.38.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Cale to permit a two-family deserting unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record That Is substandard m lot area (5,988 square feet) and tot width 149.79 feel) Instead of only a single-famty residence In a R3--Muh6amiy Resktentlal Zoning District. Lor r0, CLOCK 5, LEITEAeornou; 1112 MISSION. (REMEQ#MARASMANf 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 Iho meeting. Thi. NM !giving end nyw WI", ma rvmt Indus yes an •property err In thrum of the reganL Il you Mw any %melons about 3.. recan/t please (feel free to call us al 4665736, extension 255. � / j Your Name: ---.74 /In i L //-: Addr s' 9 / /V ,.4, ,77der Jit / /Usluq Tow properlydeMpgon; '. i� '-) Lel 4 5,8 (4 9.2h/ Comm.ile: 70 {(/nirn„r_n Chic? J. a. -/d% --tic I r2, --ed ,71/ !%t. rr'a [rr-C tide /1-4;11 -o->-, c v$ /:.1 k c/ Pane r#rr>.'J /.J el y'7rar/y-/"h,,,' h,- cam/ r'✓rr, tr. -Zi /n,hn.o Li f /nri-I ,r r //. err :in' %n d r err, //v,, 4.r-/ L]/ 0 t ,4c1 V /r el r,-; 4S- "-rte 1{. ,n r7eu-(ren, cc -J -,`hr, tory,, aj//,a%Trr .e.-/ 9 ,j .el /I.trd/1' r9,i` ,,S dnr✓/�J r, /,/1-t- 'e / .nr'n.7 4-5 W'%/r - (%7C n7..y4A r! /) tCC.4e KI A, 6narer o / % ndrree ' /1?4,7,1,,/Oa �"� -,6,/ /rt Ger /' J. <, id.; r/... . Me /c 4' lrr,M-/ !L nrr 49,A novi .7Y/iAde 1�1 r'7 !_itr-inulC'/ ' clM/; (2:rr✓, P .0 � r7.rat nn 711 r, /J )(puska' Kodiak, AAK 996901! — RECEIVED JAN 25 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Za.a- c••a.+•-4 I . l8 -d9 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 MIS Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public heating will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. ma meeting will begin at 7:30 pm. In the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 MIS Say Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, O any, on the following request: c1SE 81 407. REQUEST FORA VARIANCE from Seclbn 17.36.030 (Nonconfonning Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family &eking unit (duplex) to locale on a nonconforming lot of record that Is subsiandatd in lol area (5,968 square Meg and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence In a R3-Mullfamly Residential Zoning DSUbt. LOT fa, Stoc* 1, LEiTEAOWION; 1012 'NSSICG, (REMECAo NARA910AM) If you do Tot wish to tesilty verbal*, you may provide your comments In the space below, or to a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. Ms node. le Wry unto you beaus our lunge ideas you re• properly o.nrin lM rM 0l Tereynt Il you Mw Any quaemna *boa Pansnt please feet free to call us at 486-5738, extension 255. 5:.,. 61 rr. e''b::.0 ren Name: ferb:, r ar.:. n.,J Menbq Agdlna:l`•f/1'%_: e,., ✓J,1,..� Jar o7pnpj, deodpibm�lltr,. Te Ail .4.. Air tJ hi ,r- „2 Ir / to F •r 7 /d'/ ^n },is 7 Y°7071-717 of I.6/c 1„n, A.no#e./•rf./. Cernmenu: 7!, fj .,: r,a sr .�. y/..�f .. a,. !I 7.,! rr - ,..,(.. :/-:.y.-. >~ .... .,,./.ter -.-„_,..r,:. J.,/, 7 /v r, 'r . r /t ,,i,.. / r,/ 77'. • .. 7'. r.- _ {e.,v....r A v ✓.. I 77', r , ,-r , r/ . . f A.....c •v el - ,, r'r t re, .. r .Z.t :.. X . y ler‘ - w. /- - a7” ..L .•( /.-2' ' ..,t✓- - ✓ .) <<,i, tr„ ,-- r+-/✓, -t!...,•.-7.•e/ /. r rite t. f_.,7- e / m.Y /- •. Z� ,.::^ Z r j,/ r r A , ray .1RIITN BRECKHERG )(puska' Kodiak, AAK 996901! — C -0--.s1 I. 16• et' KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mia Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A pudb hearing w0 be hale on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. The meeting wad begin al 7:30 p.m. In the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 MITI Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, belore the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear cOmmenIS, II any. on the following request: oast eng r. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36,030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) or the Borough Code to permit a iwo4amlly dwelling una (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming 0t of record that is substandard In lot area (5,966 square feet) and 0t width (49.79 feet) Instead o1 only a single-family residence In a R3—Muadamily Residennai Zoning District. tOT to, arras, tS7EAOORhiN; 3412 MISSION. (REMEaIO MARASIOAN) 11 you do not wish to testify venially, you may provide your comments In the space mo Conmvnky Development Depanmem prior to the meeting. Thlo nota h big sent to you becam our records Indaw you w. property awns in eco Ma oast,.. aaearepast please teal t, roto callus at 486-5736, extension 255. Your Motet I AV, 7/• M.elneAddddr..: /Y/� below, or in a tenor to el to ,atu.t If you two any ixt Your Mw /o ICS r thee ;41 £46 . -�-• propydlptlon: `%fit dammonn: ,•. x '„r• l . I Lac�G`.+ .f Olt —f',2.. .C41r7 (t 4' r-IL,,,,I < ' t e /1IIj'9 ,9%1 *d . / KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 MIO Bay Road. Kodiak, Alaska 99915 ITEM VI•G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be head on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. The mooting will begin at 7:30 p.m. In the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 MITI Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, O any, on the following request: SASE nOOT. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE Item Section 17.38.030 {Nonoonlomeng LOIS of Record) Of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that Is substandard in fol area (5966 square lest) and lot width 149.79 feet) instead o1 only a single-family residence in a R3—Muttttamity Resklemial Zoning District. tor to, atoCKI, teltAODMON; (912 WSswN. (RENEW RARASIWR) If you do not w(sh to testily verbally, you may provide your commems in the space below, or In a letter to the Comrrnntiy Development Department gfQj to the meeting. mfrnodeo Is WAN toot toyar b«.us@ our mord* Ndtos you ro A property owner In the coo of T.spuria II you low any combos +asp ea reµrent please feel free to call us at 486.5736, extension 255. your Nucor Mabee Aridness'' Your propertyd.dpUan COMMON111 .t.i..:ea5 �. 2F.2'i KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mia Bay Road, Kodiak Alaska 99615 • ITEM VIG PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A pudic headrg will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. Tire meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. In the Bough Assembly Gnancem, 710 MO Bay Road. Kodak. Naska, before the Kodiak Islart Bough Planning and Zartlq Ccr *tsbn, to hear torments. a any, on the lo0nving request: OASE xpaQU REOOEST FOR MAmn cE from Sedkn 17.38.030 (Nonconforming Lots d Recon 01 the Borough Code to pemtt a twoaamey etwesirg urlt (duplex) re locate an a n0rcantomnag lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,968 squab feet) and bt kid h149.79 feet) Instead of only a single -fancily residence In a R3-Mullaamay Residential Zoning Distkl LOT 70, DLDO( S, 4EOFILO MON; 71x2 IOSSICOL (RENEGIONARASKCAN) h you do not wish to testay vetaty, you may provido your lm Comnunly Devokpmart Depanmerr prior to the T a„®ww reno.sn torn n drank ow mad Sloop rouse Working .tout me resat please feel free to cal us at 4865738, Yew in: '7ttInc x.1)) Tkci, L u.akg meelbg. a pmpwry colunoia N the space below, or In a Ieler to .. mow 1, re into et es reartt /yew is»ar extension 255. r.n: I41'7 Thai Your propertyd.odp0en: Comments: LIl 1 I r f 1 cu}?"t.:.(CA they should not be allowed to be anything except R-1 usage. I hope once again that the P62 Commission will turn down this request and then put this behind us. Why do we have to go through this on a continuing basis? iffy can't this `i)�i'P{' it, /l "iu,ii kna1ti. dAru{ii4+lbk Cu and remain against any use other than R-1. Lots are too small - R-2 or greater iid'Cf i. AI•1;m4 r,vei-- LaiI•. 0 .t L.71\2071141%4 A. ,+2tl1.4.x.1;,, 7 .IAA COMMUNITY me., l Et' KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 MIU Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI.D ?•PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be hold on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 MR Bay Road, Kodiak Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments. if any, on the following request: CASE 82-001 REQUEST FOR A VARL.NCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots 01 Record) 0f the Borough Code to pent a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to beats on a nonconforming told record that is substandard In 0t area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49,79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence In a R3-Mullamiy Residential Zoning District. Los 70, BLOC( 5, 4a?EADdfON; 1872 u$SJON. (RE11E010 MARAS.fAN) If you do not wish to testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, 0r in a letter to the Community Development Depanmomgdor to the meeting. Two reran babe sen lard 20n ow roCOros ides you tree prepsfy owner in tram etAt'twat Ityou haw an moolees .tataarawest please feel free to callus at 4865738, extension 255. your In. Kenneth Lester NON Melton: Box 373 yougp,ppwydcpep,,;Lot 8 Block 6 Liete Add. Conmom: Here we 50 again! Row many times are we going CO have CO explain that we feel that these lots are to small to be used as R-2 or 3. Once again I will state that when these lots were being developed the surrounding owners were against them being used for anything except R-1. Substandard in size, they should not be allowed to be anything except R-1 usage. I hope once again that the P62 Commission will turn down this request and then put this behind us. Why do we have to go through this on a continuing basis? iffy can't this request be laid to rest? If it is possible to run this through the paper mill immediately after it has been turned down each time there is something wrong with the system. Are these owners figuring on wearing down the other owners and the PSC by requesting and re -requesting? Probably) I for one have been and remain against any use other than R-1. Lots are too small - R-2 or greater will not allow any use other than parking and all gravel lots are not that nic. in R developed neighborhoods - parking will overflow to the the streets - etc. 3S KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. In the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 MITI Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, If any, on 111e following request: CASE X07 RXXUEJ7FOS A VARIANCE from Section 17.38.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to porton a Iwo -family dwelling unit (duplex) to locale on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard In fat area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence In a R3-Mulfamiy Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, BLOCK 5 LITE ADDITION; tell MISSION. (RENEW.: II you do not wish to testily verbally, you may provide your comments In the space below, or in a letter to the Comnunly Development Department prior to the meeting. Trois rota N bay win ywbnms. o,t rent iotas yw ails croperty aril In tern ort.. locant It you have any guidon. Mastswail.please fool free to call us at 486.5738, extension 255. Nam Your Ne?MAI.- ,1. CO LWWE.04t.' marling Addrn.: 'SOK 3111 ,goo, At< Your properly d.alpfbn• LOT L1_ BLOCK .1 LC. re ,gd5,7nA..) Commwts: .r rim "pane_, r C 4,-) &'o -r iTTIT1V,) frn40JRtc Y St,, r tact.a4 Like— Tb .cr VC: L4 K.A.mJ -rmki' r A -n,. Ata•444.J>r 7xm5 VICKI MJCF nE AOM 4tL .)e -D. 7 A ,hl7 44.274 M. MLCI& T. COOL_ C.2.6LJ t)) *41 oAJ A- 4 ..KK f✓AL ILC Am'-' ,IP- inc GAL TeX 4I•N4 4245 . --1-Titc2.e /s .-.eau Aacr For. Ares lb Pun' ar.'1se- , EXCr-r de -0 .m,ss, ,A) ttt " IkRE yn.so too:,.LO A(IT Z -C243 /, iz.c14 Fat P*Osis, aF . ally 44C5; ETC. G6u,4USLY 711114.0 c.Jo,..t..i ,C lob sra PP/n.)4, onus rAJ faLa AIL E-4 For, 40/AJ4. ME 5 ANS i., W 7N/Mc: 71i.S Liu 'at OA)LY Ae- R Pa4;IL LMt4 Mak) 4,')17 1,-/Atts=BC= lin OIL n.KG" LO? y1 Int P, LL& ernf+J f5 ,hg.(: pc styA.Js-r0 Fee NtI$S,ails /Katt OELLTIcu Sufi / 7s.+. en_ 01/ 27. .1 A: =7 i?:•a COMMUNITY L. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 MITI Bay Road, Kodak. Alaska SEM ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assemby Chambers, 710 Mie Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following request: "1. C4S1 fatal. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ham Section 17.38.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) al the Borough Code to permit a Iwo -family dwoiling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record That Is substandard m Mt area (5,968 square feet) and tot width 149.79 feet) instead et only a single-family residence In a R3 -Multifamily Residential Zoning District, Lot 10, BLOCK S, COTEADOQWN;t1tl MISSION. (REMEGIOMARASX:AN) /s—y2. 7 11 you do not wish to testily vertally, you may provide your comments In the space beim, or In a letter to the Community Development Department Ydgs to the meeting. Tei Now bbYq MI myw boa,ea our Amb 'mica yta we s prefely ape,. N is area a M win. IIrw nee arty ms. ,. Masts //nw.L please feel tree to call us at 486-5738, extension 255. /n� (,J1:—.=,,,4 rrJA-,a JP1`c L4n., /C/?, %1,33.0.. Ea Yob Haw.YYDry Addreaa: ro,o aopwrydwlpeon: Lo-,' , 9 €/ F_ 2 LL:J Cat;. caen.,s, "'Ale 4<.c. /en eL K -t Co gar. 5.; 61.x.¢ 61.<..2i, a. -,,,a Le:r 2,. , l4- E.t- *c_ e-3 .,1 ii•e—7.—....,.=.:—. 66.....L Jw. 0.<4.,-,....1 iii.....0 , .2.-.(a.ci_.r.,-(4- £.'.- L^ -.'G -- jF"..4_ TK. -LS rye//.'/._ ,, �- L.. 4)t .l . [-l-p( AA a -P" ,e-1a.::AQ t 2-3 G. d 1t or„ge „:.ism .I-,...0 g4, &t7-. di. ,..4, Z- ,+-E- P 4-44- .L_..-; ant( _5 , Ssr s SQ U.(-Lati RE.c74Vi9 _.i. .JAN 1 Wag COMMUNITY CE✓i KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -0 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public healing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. In the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mi1I Bay Road, Kodiak Alaska, before the Kodiak island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following request: CASE a407. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Noncontonning Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a Iwo4amlly dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot 01 record That Is substandard In lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) Instead of only a single-family residence In a 113'-Mu#aam y Residential Zoning District. for 10, CLOCK 3, LUTEADDRtON; 9102 MISSION. (REMEGI) MANASIQAN) It you do not wish to testily verbally, you may provide your comments the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. in the space below, or In a letter to owner In the wee al the requeet If you hew eV 255. / i,Y '7 IM ml. nodesh being sant to you because owremrds Ind cam you quo a property questions about the nigquestjplease feel Tree to call us at 486-5736, °Mansion Your Name, I kicti' ((_ Address: / '�Mullin'g Yourpropsrry decrtption: .1-tt i7 IK/L : Iit: 4^Y1'7T4N � lL. E Qommatn 'r- rf C'r 0 471 )1 ", 4'< nn6 //( �1'JI t)re;tr/ I Itt7 rNNon' bin' '(/'7l( . e (,r^� 4r en-/S/(P/ ic'tn (k IY�ynJY, /JJ f/QQr7Grcc .• -rt.( r -Iry tC /36-1 0A4,,'r -�/�. �ti a tri tlfS,trUia, \ fir t`�-tr(�L[rintrt hr,iyer -f,ch,r -504,-6I,r„iolt, halrtc- M Ardis. 1,,lir-�r,� - .,1,',,tt_ 1(tn 1,tf .F) ' -gut Ll r" qo, d s t L)Ateir! bc. it� r ing Seer into i 4 f.,1t,rc"j. f 11t1F A Ic,neiufloc, i II CDNe,.r. 37 r March 30, 1989 Board of Adjustment c/o City Clerk Box 1397 Xodiak, Alaska Attn: Marcella Dalke Dear Sirs or Madame; I received a notice in January of this year informing me that the owner of the house across Mission road from my house was requesting a variance to allow his substandard size lot to be used as a multi -family dwelling (89-007) and invited my comments. I responded both in writing and by attending the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and personally voicing my objections. .1 After listening to an almost unanimous public testimony against the variance ( a building contractor gave testimony for), S was shocked to watch P & Z pass the variance. I went to the borough planning office the next day to find out how this could have happened. Dwayne Dvorak explained to me that the request for variance had come up before P & Z twice before and had been defeated. Then P & Z tried to pass an ordinance that would rezone the whole area R-1. The public response to this was mostly against. (What did they expect from people who owned multi -family dwellings on conforming lots?) Dwayne said that P & Z were probably saying by granting the 89-007 variance to those who objected to the R-1 rezoning that "you can't have your cake and eat it too." If this is their motivation for passing the variance, then this was very poor judgement an the part of P &`Z. In 1984 when the developer was allowed to build eight single family dwellings on two sets of four contiguous non -conforming lots, P & 2 should have rezoned those particular lots as A -l. Allowing this variance (89-007) to pass would allow a multi -family dwelling to exist on a substandard size Jot, would add congestion to an already congested Brun, aol redurc ibt' desi renhi l ily of my property. I sincerely hope You do not allow this variance (89-007) to pass. Sincerely, mph C. Splcc iani, Jane E. Spice:eel 1513 Mission Rood Kodiak, Alaska 4-7-71.;/_ ca.L4 4 k iT9 1999 P.CCTIIITO CITY Lws . MIT OfX _ V 4 I .770 .l 4,-gni/ .A_ $ -{��'•}'"',G' ,',.4- ,4! . ,taro+-. Jr. a E8Z._ _p&rfl - pc`a t - Q -3.--Q--1 . — 4 N 0) 7%+ wZ /1-cg.."ra- /nice -o -+—b' ... ©w� o //r-5 �,,r2� Q/lirv�yu�.n.�-�cv� „uta4 curd �-0 /25. ;eh f fi L7t tet. afra ,�t- /-/r' ,r -q z..a.2y • Board of Adjustment c/o City Clerk Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Attn: Marcella Dalke +SJ Cao Ci EF`; Ouic E CITY OF M1OuL;(• April 3, 1989 The following is a Written Statement per City of Kodiak Code 17.10.040 summarizing facts and pertinent points in support of the January 25, 1989 Notice of Appeal regarding Case 89-007. The variance granted would permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record in an R3 Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 1812 Mission Road. The undersigned contend the Planning and Zoning Commission made errors in enforcement of zoning ordinances under Sub- section 17.66.050(A), (subsections 1,3 and 4) which requires all of 6 subsections to be met for a variance to be granted, as follows: I. 17.66.050(A) (1) Contrary to the ruling of the P8Z Commission, there are exceptional conditions applicable to the property and developement which do not apply generally to other properties in the same land use district, Specifically the 1984 variance (case 84-075) which allowed 8 Contiguous nonconforming lots to be developed_as_single-family-dwe1Lingsr--- As brought to the attention of the P8Z Commission both verbally and by submitted copy of the Memorandum and Finding of Fact, regarding said variance 84-075; 1. The area was originally platted for developement of single family dwellings on what became nonconforming lots of record when Title 17 was adopted. The lots in the Variance are 6000 square ft. with 50 ft. lot width. Subsection 17.20.030 requires 7200 sq. ft. and lot width of 60 ft. — k-Ot v DoT Page2 2. The Developer sought in 1984 to develope 2 sets of 4 contiguous back to back lots as single family dwellings, contrary to subsection 17.36.020 which notes, "It is the intent of this chapter that nonconforming uses shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended." And, "If two or more lots, combinations of lots, or portions of lots with contiguous frontage in common ownership are of record... No portion of said parcel shall be used or sold which does not meet the lot width and area requirements..." 3. A variance was granted contrary to the spirit and intent of 17.36.020, despite considerable neighborhood opposi- tion and concern. Instrumental in minimizing neighbor- hood opposition was the Developer's specific intent to provide single family dwellings and understanding that the nonconforming lots would require a variance to permit multifamily use. Of specific interest and relevance under the meeting minutes is the following, "Chairman Gregg suggested that a condition be placed on the variance requiring that the houses remain as single-family dwellings. Commissioner Pennell felt it was inappropriate at this time to place this kind of restriction on the variance as there is the process of-public-hearings-avai-Table-to-the-public-for any - future concerns. Commissioner Knight stated that the Commission could not 'second guess' each future situation and that there had not been sufficient adverse, public testimony to determine objection to duplexes in the future." As evidenced in the variance 89-007 being appealed, considerable adverse public testimony was submitted and given; testimony urging the P8Z Commission to protect our neighborhood. Page 3 II. 17.66.050 (A)(3) Contrary to the ruling of the P&Z Commission, granting of the variance 89-007 does result in prejudice to other properties in the area. 1. Allowing higher density developement than allowed for under code (17.20.030) will create and encourage non -conforming activities, specifically increased living densities and the inherent undesirable effects therein, such as noise, auto traffic, and reduced yard space. 2. Allowing this variance will set a precedence that all homes in the area need not meet lot size and lot width requirements to become multifamily. This will effectively prejudice the single family home owners in the area who count on the zoning regulations to maintain living densities on the small non -conforming lots. 3. Allowing this variance will prejudice property owners in general by signalling the public that variances are easy to obtain, therebye causing homeowners to hesitate when investing life earnings into an unknown zoning environment. 111. 17.66.050 (A)(4) Contrary to the ruling of the P&Z Commission, granting the variance does permit prohibited land use in the district involved. As noted by Borough Mayor Selby, although the Comprehensive Plan is Outdated, the Plan is a 'Living Comprehensive Plan' reflecting information updating the other- wise obsolete plan. The P&Z Commission failed to incorporate the 1984 variance 84-075 information refered to previously. This information was critical in evaluating the variance under appeal. Furthermore the nonconforming lots of the area'have resulted in developement of a Bingle family residence type area apparently not reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 4 Attachment to Written Statement of April 3, 1989. Re: Appeal of variance 1189-007 Frecl L. nlass /4zs Ya.,avgkr 2 �L: n . /ail / k ,n c. ,;. `12:5 .Iccc•_:. 3/27 triltY /'::c .d b. Nrq "/� i 7 144 tai II ?4114.. A. C4Li&V gum_1t '1 IY11.61cM it -0015 )r t: .l e 6r. Psnn;r h'rrc.•;o. A. r,;n _keit /26e/4�r'K /3;� L/. lac%ter=, a ilr 4 2 - /4a9 it E,v td e,.Q�L i 4t •2.7 /telas ko4/ idedw 7)fr.',/(417 ?Ca eV rq OFc.� / •O. .:z%o,/ /.r.2 9 4I�as / 5- 3 ( o / �-,,,,µms 3(a/�89 /_M, c.C/< t fat. /..5 +1 Rn ss,:o . /s u:J...7.,,, L./. . 41* Mid -Mk j �Jj A y etilerZ 04/ CZ-Cersu";:t. 119 haran Sic Wart- N3o�e� FlawQ>-c9 STewner ..1''o(8y lug: nu&ai'ty /417arxa..Ltidn)Y,_ NI. i3ewtL .3rj?' c / p479.4,7 17,- -\tx:r % C.. I?eard- Zo7'7 rna Aue.E2e,tt /4/9 ' 1 4(,zn f- •�l 1419 o7Lak ov:.dt • } Bs"-Dauid 0,Uu&.MQ9'Ws r 41 42 We the undersigned agree with the Written Statement of April 3, 1989 filed as part of the appeal regarding case 89-007. We were unable to attend the January 18, 1989 P&Z meeting which resulted in the granting of a variance but wish the Board of Appeals to consider the Written Statement care- fully so as to protect our neighborhood. W Cdia I\ 1-i '> 'V2 i/aL• i Office of the Mayor City Council 710 Hill Bay Road Kodiak,AK.,99615 Re: Case #89-007 Kodiak Island Borough P.O. Box 759 USCGSC todiak,AK „ 99619 April 4,1989 23456 4 y. d ER 1989 ,W RECEIVED A al/ OF KODIAK . Y N CRY CLERK'S OFFICE +' t'Ztzote To whom it may concern. I am writing in response to the appeal on case 989-007 concerning the granting of a Variance to build an apartment (duplex) on a non confor- ming Lot -single family dwelling situated in an area zoned R-3,1ot 10, block 5 leite addition,1512 mission road,Kodiak,Ak. In July 1988,1 applied for a variance to permit building an apartment in the lower part of a two story home located at I512 mission road. The variance was needed due to the lot"non conforming"at only 5,981 eq. feet,otherwise no variance is needed,for the entire subdivision is zoned R-3. After lenghty investigation on the feasibility of rezoning to make the area an R-1,the same group of people who protested the granting of the said variance to me also protested on the subject of rezoning. It is felt that since the zoning at this particular area remained R-3 and still is to date,/ should get the variance that I asked for which the borough approved of and go on ahead with the building of the said apartment project. It should be noted that when I bought the said pro- perty, it wan on an area where the zoning in in fact R-3, that the real intentions of the developer and builder was to allow the prospective homeowner to build down underneath to allow for a two family duelling instead of just one,alao to allow the owner to build the rest of the house at affordable cost. These were the real reasons why the bottom part of the house was left unfinished. Enclosed are lettere from the Kodiak Island Borough -Planning 6 Zoning commission with their support for and approval of this request. I feel that I have done all that I can to do this right using the proper channel,therefore I think its only fair that this Variance request be granted to me at this time. Please read the borough's findings of facts and their recommendation so as to put an end to this case. I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. 43 44 Marcella H. Dalko, CMC City Clerk, City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mitt BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 406.5736 osr „ N 4 '‘''''m ' !PR 1999 RECE VED I:" Cl1'F men OFRCE len CITY OF Kean Li Re: Appeal of January18,1989 Planning and Zoning Commission de Dear Marcella: Apr1120, 1989 The purpose of this letter is to fan a written statement In opposition to the appeal referenced above as provided for in City Code. SpecBically, this letter responds ID the points hi the appellants' wrieen statement dated April 3, 1989. As you are aware, in order to grant a variance, the Planning and Zoning Commission rust find that Rhe use proposed In the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, mauls..' the six (6) criteria spelled out in Borough Code (Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.66.050). Each of the findings made by the Commission in support of their decision are clearly outlined in the appeal record. However as noted earlier, the purpose of ibis letter Is to respond specifically to the points raised in the appellants' written statement as it relates to these findings. The first criteria addressed by the appellants is: 'that (here are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or Intended_use.oLdevelopmom,-which generally do not apply to other properties In the same land use district.' Contrary to the statement of the appellants, the Planning and Zoning Commission lig find That (here are exceptional physical cirnimstances applicable to this property. 11 should be recognized that the 1984 variance noted In the appellants' statement has no applicability to this case. In tact, the Borough Code section that required the 1984 variance no longer exists. 11 should also be noted that this block of properties has been zoned R-3--Mua9amity Residential since 1973, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiated rezoning the block to R -1. -Single -Family Residential In September of 1988. This rezoning was not forwarded to the Assembly for approval due to overwhelming public opposition. Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Date, CMC City Clerk, City o1 Kodiak April 20, 1989 Page Two Another criteria used in granting variances Is that the: 'granting of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, %safety, or general welfare.' Specifically with regards to this criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the granting of the variance will Lgjbe detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. The decision to grant the variance will only bllghtlyjncreasq the densly In this area, Additionally, the Commission anached two (2) conditions of approval to the request In order to further protect properly owners In the neighborhood from any possible detrimental Impacts. The last criteria for a variance cited by the appellants Is that the: 'granting of the variance will not permit a enchanted land use In the district involved? Clearly, the Commission In granting 1110 variance conformed with this criteria. The zoning district In which the lot In question Is located i5 zoned R-3—Muititamily Residential, and not only permit% duplexes but also multifamily dwellings and limited business uses. As noted earlier, the variance granted In 1984 for the development of these lots does not have any relationship to the permitted uses In this zoning.district. Interestingly -enough, -the zoning of the property in question Is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for this area. The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to provide general guidelines for the application of specific regulations. I hope that this statement wilt assist the Board of Adjustment in their task of coming to a decision on this appeal. Sincerely, Linda L. Freed, Director Community Development Department April 24, 1909 LEGAL AD NOTICE OF HEARING The Kodiak City Council will sit as the Board of Adjustment to hear the Bonney, et al, appeal of the January 18, 1989 Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission decision granting a variance to permit a two-family dwelling unit to locate on a nonconforming lot of record in an R3 -Multifamily Residential Zoning District (Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 1512 Mission Road). The appeal will be heard during the regular City Council meeting of May 11, 1989. Interested persons are invited to attend the meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road. Publish: May 4, 1989 Kodiak Daily Mirror Bill: Marcella H. Balks, CMC/AAE City of Kodiak P.O. Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Scott Bonney P.O. Box 461 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. David Buckley 1419 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Bryce Gordon 1512 Ismailov Xodiak, Alaska 99615 Fred Nass P.O. Box 298 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Spicoiani P.O. Box 4096 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Howard Stewart 1427 Kouskov East Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Lester P.O. Box 373 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Ruth Breckberg 1418 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Judy Kendrick P.O. Box 3081 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Carl Carlson P.O. Box 2687 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Remegio T. Marasigan P.O. Box 759 USCGSC Kodiak, Alaska 99619 Pat Reiland SR 9250 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Ed Opheim 1421 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Beard P.O. Box 974 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Paul Chervenak P.O. Box 3911 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Christine Holland 1530 Kouskov East P.O. Box 608 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. 6 Mrs Wilber Carlson 1426 Kouskov East P.O. Box 2844 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Gene Mueller 1513 Kouskov East Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Vaun R. La0ent 1519 Yanovsky P.O. Box 1234 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Joe Mocinko 1310 Kouskov West P.O. fax 3315 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Jeremiah Myers 1515 Yanovsky P.O. Box 1948 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 { 4S Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 DUPREE••MIC P.O. BOX 344 KODIAK R1:200010080 & DAWN AK 99615 box C!o REce,VED MAY2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT d-N.oOrdar April 25, 1989 4 St ©aoa Linda Freed!, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Appeal of January 18, 1989, Planning and Zoning Commission decision on Case 89-007 Dear Linda:1 At the regular City Council meeting of May 11, 1989, the City Counciil will sit as the Board of Adjustment to hear the Bonney,j et al, appeal of the January 18, 1989 Kodiak island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission decision granting a variance to permit a two-family dwelling unit to locate on 1a nonconforming lot of record in _an R3 -Multi- family Residential Zoning District (Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 11512 Mission Road). The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers and the appeal hearing will be shortly after the meeting opens. 1- - If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to con- tact me. Sincerely, ITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. City Clerk MHD/nj DALKE, CMC/AAE SIE APR 2 5 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT POST OFFICE DOH 1397. KODIAK . ALASKA 99615 PHONE(907)486-3224 L_ Marcella H. Daike, CMC City Clerk, City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Appeal of January Dear Marcella: Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 996154340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 AprIl 20, 1989 8, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission decision on Case 89-007. The purpose of this letter is to file a written statement in opposition to the appeal referenced above as provided for in City Code. Specifically, this letter responds to the points in the appellants' written statement dated April 3, 1989. As you are aware, in orderllo grant a variance, the Planning and Zoning Commission must find that "the use proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restrictions, meets..." the six (6) criteria spelled out In Borough Code (Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.66.050). Each of the findings made by the Commission In support of their decision are clearly outlined in the appeal record. However as noted earlier, the purpose ;of this letter is to respond specifically to the points raised In the appellants' written statement as it relates to these findings. The first criteria addressed by the appellants is: 'That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable ito the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district." Contrary to the statement of the appellants, the Planning and Zoning Commission did find that there are exceptional physical circumstances applicable to this property. It should be recognized that the 1984 variance noted in the appellants' statement has no applicability to this case. In fact, the Borough Code section that required the 1984 variance no longer exists. It should also be noted that this block of properties has been zoned R-3--Mullifamily Residential since 1973, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiated rezoning the block to R-1--Single-Family Residential in September o1 1988. This rezoning was not forwarded to the Assembly for approval due to overwhelming public opposition. Kodiak Island Borough Marcella H. Dalke, CMC City Clerk, Cly of Kodiak April 20, 1989 Page Two Another criteria used in granting variances is that the: "granting of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties In the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare." Specifically with regards to this criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safely, or general welfare. The decision to grant the variance will only slightly increase the density in this area. Additionally, the Commission attached two (2) conditions of approval to the request in order to further protect property owners In the neighborhood from any possible detrimental Impacts. The last criteria for a variance cited by the appellants is that the: "granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use In the district involved." Clearly, the Commission in granting the variance conformed with this criteria. The zoning district in which the lot in question is located IIs zoned R -3 --Multifamily Residential, and not only permits duplexes but also multifamily dwellings and limited business uses. As noted earlier, the variance granted In 1984 for the development of these lots does not have any relationship to the permitted uses In this zoning district. Interestingly enough, the zoning of the property in question Is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for this area. Thee purpose of the comprehensive plan is to provide general guidelines for the application of specific regulations. I hope that this statement will assist the Board of Adjustment In their task of coming to a decision on this appeal. Sincerely, Linda L. Freed, Director Community Development Department April 5, 1989 Linda Freed, Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Appeal of January 18, 1989, Planning and Zoning 1Commission decision on Case 89-007 Dear Linda' The City of Kodiak has received the appellants' written statements) In accordance with City Code 17.10.040, you may file a written statement in opposition to the appeal within fifteen days after the date of this letter which will be April 20, 1989. If you have any this office',. Sincerely, , CCITY OF KODIAK questions, please do not hesitate to contact MARCELLA H.11-DALKE, CMC/AAE City Clerk i. MHD/nj cc: Gordon J. Mayor and Melvin M. Gould, City Manager Council Stephens, II, City Attorney RECEIVED APR 5 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT POST OFFICE BOX 1397, KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 Board of Adjustment c/o City Clerk Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Attn: Marcella Dalke Cfry CL9 C C7,CE cloy OF KOG14 j( April 3, 1989 The following is a Written Statement per City of Kodiak Code 17.10.040 summarizing facts and pertinent points in support of the January 25, 1989 Notice of Appeal regarding Case 89-007. The variance granted would permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record.in an R3 Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 1812 Mission Road. The undersigned contend the Planning and Zoning Commission made errors in enforcement of zoning ordinances under Sub- section 17.66.0150(A), (subsections 1,3 and 4) which requires all of 6 subsections to be met for a variance to be granted, as follows: 17.66.050(A) (1) Contrary to the ruling of the P&Z Commission, there are exceptional conditions applicable to the property and developement which do not apply generally to other properties in the same land use district, Specifically the 1984 variance (case 84-075) which allowed 8 Contiguous nonconforming lots to be developed as As brought verbally and by single family dweblirigs. to the attention of the P&Z Commission both submitted copy of the Memorandum and Finding of Fact regarding said variance 84-075; 1. The area was originally platted for developement of single family dwellings on what became nonconforming lots of record when Title 17 was adopted. The lots in the Variance are 6000 square ft. with 50 ft. lot width. Subsection 17.20.030 requires 7200 sq. ft. and lot width of 60 ft. °e2 2. The Developer sought in 1984 to develope 2 sets of 4 contiguous back to back lots as single family dwellings, contrary to subsection 17.36.020 which notes, "It is the intent of this chapter that nonconforming uses shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended." And, "If two or more lots, combinations of lots, or portions of lots with contiguous frontage in common ownership are of record... No portion of said parcel shall be used or sold which does not meet the lot width and area requirements..." 3 A variance was granted contrary to the spirit and intent of 17.36.020, despite considerable neighborhood opposi- tion and concern. Instrumental in minimizing neighbor- hood opposition was the Developer's specific intent to provide single family dwellings and understanding that the nonconforming lots would require a variance to permit multifamily use. Of specific interest and relevance under the meeting minutes is the following, "Chairman Gregg suggested that a condition be placed on the variance requiring that the houses remain as single-family dwellings. Commissioner Rennell felt it was inappropriate at this time to place this kind of restriction on the variance as there is the process of public hearings available to the public for any future concerns. Commissioner Knight stated that the Commission could not 'second guess' each future situation and that there had not been sufficient adverse public testimony to determine objection to duplexes in the future." As evidenced in the variance 89-007 being appealed, considerable adverse public testimony was submitted and given; testimony urging the P&Z Commission to protect our neighborhood. Page 3 IT^ 17.66.050 (A)(r) Contrary to the ruling of the P&Z Commission, granting of tb variance 89-007 does result in prejudice to other properties in the area. 1. Allowing higher density developement than allowed for under code (I7.2 ^U30) will create and encourage non -conforming activities, specifically increased living densities and the inherent undesirable effects therein, such as noise, auto traffic, and reduced yard space. 2. Allowing this variance will set a precedence that all homes in the area need not meet lot size and lot width requirements to become multifamily. This will effectively prejudice the single family home owners in the area who count on the zoning regulations to maintain living densities on the small non -conforming lots. 3. Allowing this variance will prejudice property owners in general by !signalling the public that variances are easy to obtain, ' bezebye causing homeowners to hesitate when investing life earnings into an unknown zoning environment. ITT. 17.66.050 (A)(4) Contrary to the ruling of the P&Z Commission, granting the variance does permit prohibited land use in the district involved. As noted by Borough Mayor Selby, although the Comprehensive Plan is Outdated, the Plan is a 'Living Comprehensive Plan' reflecting information updating the other- wise obsolete plan. The P&Z Commission failed to incorporate the 1984 variao'e 84-075 information refered to previously. This information was critical in evaluating the variance under appeal. Furthermore the nonconforming lots of the area have resulted in dev lupement of a single family residence type area appareutl not reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 4 Attachments to Written Statement of April 3, 1989. Re: Appel of variance #89-007 Fred L. Mass heye.scLO, L'Orn� r" ' /42. YeLoovsky !'4d,`✓ c)tLSko/Cv'(�l'lea_c(. /4Z. Kce's,c" Pt f4 _ Ct4u2V W r P o 7` larecru . d e_ (>'rt c ,c be j ,2 M 33 ,e120,4-4--- /7. e10r 4--- / 5- 3 / s s;o,• , /' o..9 •P P407 A .on 0E%RLCzsee3/a5_-231 sham?, S7£c Art 313o[✓ No ktQ -VEcuPrel 3(3o(8, 5on77;e brecu5e, Aid ree at — �/`ia 9 /gy pu/ SP &J l4e.9 eelSkat( fiag27 41/7 %Gou.S,:c�' I14,1 IY1.S5IOt\ KCI:5ra✓ ;' 4:� 6l. e i�✓ 'i 2 1., 7 1 e 3/.2,/r7 siat /V,a-7 ,J a7 ,v ken/ /417 /7r oZC O-nnt a_ 'Ju cFz 2 v� /41-19 KortukeillAgt 41L %q 141 13r1T ,'d, c ,1` tI / 4,A.6rU 16 $77.1.:( 11/07 We the undersigned agree with the Written Statement of April 3, 1989 filed as part of the appeal regarding case 89-007. We were unable to attend the January 18, 1989 P&Z meeting which resulted in the granting of a variance but wish the Board of Appeals to consider the Written Statement care- fully so as to protect our neighborhood. Gs NAV /1 th cpv (& l ,, a ;,cr ?7 �C - 17"° /64^1/41k lS (5 1(04 S bac e4'c — )Si I yemzcv,5it al, aeO t1 6 t l 2 . 'Ya7 %Oar/cart S'r kouskoV 5 /7/0 Ct/e st A. tr 5 k,„ S� Board of Adjustment c/o City Clerk 1 Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska Attn: Marcella Dalke March 30, 1989 Dear Sirs or Madame; I receive+ notice in January of this year informing me that the owner of the house across Mission road from my house was requesting a variance to allow his substandard size lot to be used as a multi -family dwelling (89-007) and invited my comments. I responded both in writing and by attending the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and personally voicing my objections. After listening to an almost unanimous public testimony against the variance ( a building contractor gave testimony for), I was shocked to watch P & Z pass the variance. I went to the borough planning office the next day to find out how this could have happened. Dwayne Dvorak explained to me that the request for variance had come up before P & Z twice before and had been defeated. Then P & Z tried to pass an ordinance that would rezone the whole area R-1. The public response to this was mostly against. (What did they expect from people who owned multi -family dwellings on conforming lots?) Dwayne said that P & Z were probably saying by granting the 89-007 variance to those who objected to the R-1 rezoning that "you can't have your cake and eat it too." If this isItheir motivation for passing the variance, then this was very poor judgement on the part of P & Z. In 1984 when the developer was allowed to build eight single family dwellings on two sets of four contiguous non -conforming lots, P & Z should have rezoned those particular lots as R-1. Allowing this variance (89-007) to pass would allow a multi -family dwelling to exist on a substandard size lot, would add congestion to an already congested area, and reduce the desireability of my property. I sincerely hope you do not allow this variance (89-007) to pass. /;: s:r� 19b9 ..lti; i 1 :; Sincerely, 1,1' � axeV�'� Joseph C. Spicciani, Jane E. Spicciani fT2 �LSLL+ aV'71 1513 Mission Road Kodiak, Alaska -3 — den 7 0 I C14-4-0 e • errtitoem___ y -e OWL- S (47e._ 4n124;22 - /Ur _ri4W-4-c: CZ—3 An-4- il-e-tilrena- l•ra- /71 -Ac4f-tc-e- g— 3 desiC pl-te1 r ‘4,0 04et- Ankr-e,,t_ o,„4 4 t /flfl/ LC ite —3,4.4 r- 0-tt/e G _ 1 - / Office of the Mayor City Council 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak,AK.,99615 Re: Case 1189-007 Kodiak Island Borough P.O. 759 USCGSC Kodiak,AK., 99619 April 4,1989 tin 1989 W RECEIVED -< CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF KODIAK . To whom it may concern, I am writing in response to the appeal on case #89-007 concerning the granting of a Variance to build an apartment (duplex) on a non confor- ming Lot -single family dwelling situated in an area zoned R-3,lot 10, block 5 leite addition,1512 mission road,Kodlak,Ak. In July 1988,I applied for a variance to permit building an apartment in the lower part of a two story home located at 1512 mission road. The variance was needed due to the lot"non conforming"at only 5,981 sq. feet,otherwise no variance is needed,for the entire subdivision is zoned R-3. After lenghty investigation on the feasibility of rezoning to make the area an R-1,the same group of people who protested the granting of the said variancel to •me also protested on the subject of rezoning. It is felt that since the zoning at this particular area remained R-3 and still is to date,I should get the variance that I asked for which the borough approved of and go on ahead with the building of the said apartment project. It should be noted that when I bought the said pro- perty, it was on an area where the zoning is in fact R-3, that the real intentions of theldeveloper and builder was to allow the prospective homeowner to build down underneath to allow for a two family dwelling instead of just one,also to allow the owner to build the rest of the house at affordable cost. These were the real reasons why the bottom part of the house' was left unfinished. Enclosed are letters from the Kodiak Island Borough -Planning & Zoning commission with their support for and approval of this request. I feel that I have done all that I can to do this right using the proper channel,thereforel1 think its only fair that this Variance request be granted to me at this time. Please read the borough's findings of facts and their recommendation so as to put an end to this case. I'd really appreciate it. Thenk you. March 20 1989 Scott Bonney P.O. Box 461 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RECEIVED MAR 2 01989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT RE: Appeal of January 18, 1989, Planning and Zoning Commission decision on Case 89-007 Dear Mr. Bonney: The City of Kodiak has received the Kodiak Island Borough's RECORD ON APPEAL in response to your NOTICE OF APPEAL, and it is available in the City Clerk's office for review. The charge for the verbatim transcript is $150. Please send me your check for $150 payable to the Kodiak Island Borough. In accordance with City Code 17.10.040 Written Statement, you have 15 days in which to file a written statement sum- marizing the facts and setting forth pertinent points and authorities in support of the allegations contained in the notice of appeal. The deadline for this statement is April 4, 1989. We would appreciate your timely response. If you have any questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, I CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H1 DALKE, CMC/AAE City Clerk MHD/nj cc: Gordon J. Gould, City Manager Mayor and Council Borough Community Development Department Melviin M. Stephens, II, City Attorney POST OFFICE BOX 1397. KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 March 20, 1989 Pat Reiland SR 9250 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Appeal of January 18, 1989, Planning and Zoning Commission decision on. Case 89-007 Dear Pat Reiland: The City of Kodiak has received the Kodiak Island Borough's RECORD ON APPEAL in response to the Scott Bonney, et al, NOTICE OF APPEAL, and it is available in the City Clerk's office for review. In accordance with City Code 17.10.040 Written Statement, you have 15 days in which to file a written statement sum- marizing the facts and setting forth pertinent points and authorities in support of the allegations contained in the notice of appeal. The deadline for this statement is April 4, 1989. We would appreciate your timely response. If you have any questions, 'please contact this office. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DALKE, CMC/AAE City Clerk MHD/nj cc: Gordon J. Gould, City Manager Mayor'and Council Borough Community Development Department Melvin M. Stephens, II, City Attorney POST OFFICE DOA 1397, KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3994 THIS LETTER SENT TO NAMES ON ATTACHED LIST March 20, 1989 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear RE: Appeal of January 18, 1989, Planning and Zoning Commission decision on Case 89-007 * ; The City of Kodiak has received .the Kodiak Island Borough's RECORD ON APPEAL in response to your NOTICE OF APPEAL, and it is available in the City Clerk's office for review. In accordance with City Code 17.10.040 Written Statement, you have 15 days in which to file a written statement sum- marizing the facts and setting forth pertinent points and authorities in support of the allegations contained in the notice of appeal. The deadline for this statement is April 4, 1989. We would appreciate your timely response. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. City Clerk MHD/nj DALKE, CMC/AAE cc: Gordon J. Gould, City Manager Mayoriand Council Borough Community Development Department Melvin M. Stephens, II, City Attorney Mr. & Mrs. Scott Bonney P.O. Box 461 Kodiak, Alaiska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. David Buckley 1419 Kouskoy Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Bryce Gordon 1512 Ismailbv Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Fred Nass P.O. Box 298 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Spicciani P.O. Box 4096 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Howard Stewart 1427 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kenneth Lester P.O. Box 373 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Ruth Breckberg 1418 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Judy Kendrick P.O. Box 3081 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Carl Carlson P.O. Box 2687 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Ed Opheim 1421 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Beard P.O. Box 974 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Paul Chervenak P.O. Box 3911 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Marcella Dalke, CM , City Clerk, City of Kodi k Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ' Re: Appeal of Case 80.007. The granting of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nbnconforming lot of record that is substandard in tot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Leila Addition; 1512 Mission. (Remegio Marasigan) Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 March 16, 1989 Dear Marcella: Please find enclosed the record on appeal, as required by Kodiak City Code 17.10.030, for the case referenced above. Specifically, the appeal record consists of the following. 1. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission from which the appeal has been taken. This includes (a) a transcript of the hearing and decisional meeting held on January 18, 1989, (b) a transcript of the meeting on February 15, 1989 at which the "Findings of Fact" for the case were adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and (c) a copy of the approved minutes from the January 18 and February 15, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. 2. Copies of all }memoranda, exhibits, correspondence, recommendations, analyses, maps, drawings, and other documents submitted to the administrative body prior to the decision from which the appeal is taken. 3. A copy of the written decision of the administrative body, including its findings and conclusions. 4. A fist of the names and address of all persons appearing as witnesses at the hearing. The cost to the Kodiak Island Borough for preparing the transcript for this case is $150.00. if you have any questio Is about the appeal record, please contact me. Sincerely, Linda L. Freed, Director Community Development Department Attachments 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: The Public Heailinc in the matter c'T: Case 89-007. Request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (tionco@rormang Lots of Record) ct the BVrcuah Code to permit a two --family" dwelling unit (duple:) to locate on a non— conforthancr lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5.966 !square feet) and lct width (49.79 feet) instead or only a,sirgle-•Tamil'% residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zonincx District. Lot 10. Blocs: 5. Leite Addition: 1812 Mission. was held as heein: appears and this _s the origins verbatim transcript thereof. .ODIAP ISLAND ECE[Ut:H it 1 Che r:1 M. Finer 1 rI :NG AND Ric :&G Case 89-007. Rest a — e f« Section 17.36.030 (Nonc4forming s y ac ± 2 the BnrGuahCo# to permit a two-family dweliina unit .We a, to locate on an - f- &1c « record that Is substandard 2!« area i5.966m efeeU and !« s— t49.79 teet3 instead of only a a9' ca » residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zonina:District. Lot 10. Block 5. Leate Addition; 1812 y< atove «. p:« was y 2 » 3n 2 18. 1989 m. AssemlblyCnnml-ers 5: Az Bay y6. Kodian. Alaska. 2» heallna wagc: a=ed ty the Kodiak Island Borpugh Pi ag and Zoning Commission. Mr. y:Mendel. Chairperson. TOM HENDEL. DUANE DVORAK: TOM i€NDEL: Verbatim Transcript . Regular Meeting rT, We're now on Case G. This is Case 89-OQ7. It's a '-quest for a variance from Section 17.3b.030 0_ Percugh Code to permit a twos -family dwenirc unit to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area and lot wn_dtr: instead cf only a single-family residence _n R3-Multitamily Residential Zoning District. This is 10. Block 5. Leite Addition, 1s:: Mission. ..h.: re have further staff reports: Staff sent out 75 public nearing notices iIi regard zre this request. We received 6 responses, all not in favor. This is similar to a case we saw last year and nothing has charaed as far as staff can tell in ms of actual attributes of the property itself. therefore, staff has given favorable ecommendations as they did last time with two nnditic$ns one to provide a parking pian and also providesome form of screening between this posed lard use and (indecipherable). I auld like to read one public hearing notice hich was copied for the Commission but it an't c:p'y very well. It was from Carl and Meta Carlson. Box 2678. lot 11. Block 5. Kouskov. when they to that they feel that it should only be esidential ..and not nave public access. OK, Thank you ;plane. I will now close the reuuiar seting and open the public 'heararg. Anyone ishiix to testify in this case. '_Tease step 'wai:. state your name and sign for the record. y name is bcc''tt Bonney. I live close. a couple of houses away. t will give you the lot and block number. if need be. I've .been up here three times n this and as I have been UD here I ;gin to understand the mechanisms that you are all part of. e of the questions that I ask Linda, is "Hey. we went through this." She says. "Well. there's nothing to stop a person to go time and time again." I think that is unfortunate. It would be nice if there was a year or two but I understard he reason for it and I think it is good. There is ome new Commissioners here. I can . remem er alio know Wayne is new. When we first had this variance come un. I presented some information that was the framework of that whole development. There originally eight lots that were all owned by one owner that had continuous frontage. Tnr'ouah my learning about it, tool because being a homeowner there. I thought: well. fine, I'm a substandard lot in an R3 area. That's fine. We can't develop these into duplexes. That is not true. apparently. In fact. the staff report Page 1 January 18, 1989 P&Z Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting generally says you should do it. I still find that hard to understand. Because I think that is an ordinance. something that I bought into. If you change It. it really would ..Tier me. don't understand why you would _nanTe It. i m getting off the track anyway. 'What _ asic the COmmissiatels -Jake a look through this. Some ..f you eady nave. What happened in 1284 in the —velopment?Would that be appropriate. Linda. to pass out the earlier worksheet? In a nutshe i i . tte Assembly of God beg to develop the area and it was found that they already had two- or three places built and the Planning and coning. not the Commissa n, but the Department. did not realize that they were owned by one owTLer. Then the thin, care up and said. -He: You 'cant be developing ail of these substandard rats." The variances. come up. basically to allow eight single residences to be developed in this R3 area. That was. in fact. -_lowed. you look through there you will see quite a number of comments about the people saying. "Well. we ::don't rile it, 'rut it's better than building one big apartment." That is what it bodied down to. And also by the people pushing it aging. "Hey. we're going to develop RI." OK. then 1 come alcrng and 1 look and I say. "Hey. here 1s a nice Rl house.' 1 spent a lot of money. I bought yt. &:. now I ' m trying to protect qty neighborhood. :f we make it R2. I know one thin{:. It is going to set a presidence. .and I know that be other people :a here and it is just going to eomrno. So I am going to sell my. house. I said it before and I will do it. I'm iatc1ncz for my house right now. 3« don't forget t. As 1 look through the finding of facts. I don't understand. chis second time around, particularly. wily the Planning Department would go about the way it is. I start asking some questions. What is the goals? Who sets the tone of the Planning Department in these things? Because if I read their findings of fact. I might vote for this thing and say. "Good. go for a variance." particularly if I haven't looked at it. As I went through. I would just like to touch on a couple of things. Number one. the exceptional ircumstances. There 1's exceptional circumstances. These are the exceptional circumstances. that. in fact. if you get down into that. we created a mini RI area. It is high density. don't believe that it's not. In fact. I got to thinking about it as I was sitting here tonight. When I lived in the Aleution homes as a kid. I had more room in my back yard than in my yard now. We don't have a whole lot more between the houses. Which isn't a real Page 2 January 18. 1989 P&Z Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting problem. I mean I live with it. I buy it. But if o R2, we're hist creating that many more people. We are. in fact. developing R._ll. which Anchorage has, whim 1s 1 high density R8 area. That's not what I tn:rc I would like to see zriere . Strict application or `.Crilria •'rd Trance wJuid i.- .n foe _. consistent wi:.n the pl-evlcus action „_tne LCmmissio^,. Geri flea. I". -1 yarianca WG_-.. allowed the development if substandard Ri hots. This 15. in fact. a rain density area . ' 5 is. Iso. I teei tna granting of anis variance would.. t prejudice •other properties in the area a na itely min' because I would have a'iinT In my tack yard. I'm getting nerrot_us. I m not used to you 'guys. Just cane last thing. We went and we tried to rezone the whole area. The first variance tne Planning and :oning ' _mmitte e eaici. 'Hey. I don t wart to go through this all the time. Let s riezione this area." thought trey were talking atc.Ut the eight units. And tnen summer came along and it came up and it was that whole area. In fact, I wasn't in favor of rezoning tnat wnoie area. I think it is fine. I think It they got 7200 square feet and they can development it. develop it right and I think it will be ij eat. `:_?it where 1t is substandard. t don't thank it should change. 1 think it is golr .: ry_ tmake a fine lahfo1"hoca. I think my neigntornood will develop nicely :f we rezone tnar eight ramily unit. or those eight :lit:. to ni. It might seem kind of wierd to you 1.', say. "Hey. R1 units sitting in the middle of R8 area." But. in fact. it is high density. And. in fa_'t. I think it ' is very consistent with tate neightcrhiocd. i don't want to have to come up here every month or every -;ear ani. do this time and time again. And 1 guarantee it will happen. If not this lot. 1 think: somebody else will buy a house and say. "Hey, this is really a good place to develop.' Because. some of those houses would easily be turned into an R2. It wouldn't change the fact that they are real small but it is just acing to keep happening. So. when you get done with this, if you decide not to go with the variance. I would ask that you might consider rezoning those eight lots. the last page of what you're lookinz on there. as was originally suggested that when trey rezoned this with the 1984 variance and make those Rl. The comment is. it's the last one on the page. is one Commissioner felt like. "Hey. the time is not now for sufficient adverse public testimony when somebody wants rezone R2. we will look at rezoning those eight." I really would like to do it. 'I would get out on the streets. knock on some doors, and say. "Come on Page 3 January 18. 1989 P&Z TUM HENDEL: MAR jil) KNJOSEN: neighbors. here is our chance to put this to bed and we wouldn't have to go up there every year or u." SQ. that s all my comments in a nutshell. stivr+.S. trifid LL. rezone. TT .- !EA, . 1 realize that. But you tried to rezone the le area and that's where the pr blem came in. MARY LOU KNUDSEN : SCOTT EONNEY : DAVID BUCYd.EY. TOM HENDEL: Verbatim Transcript Reauiar" Meeting we had everybody was ,.iaainst the rezone. They didn't want c+uplevs tut they also didn't want the rezoned either. _cicely. and i was one of those. The reason ing, is because. they rezone the whole area. I .it It unfair to rezone the whole area because I think it will grow fine but those particular eight [here is t200 square feet and they are £LJse. ane they are neat density right now. Those are the areas I'm talking about. Not the whole ighb,rrs,a . My name is David Bickley, I live at 1419 Kouskov. 1 pretty much agree with everything that Mr. Bonney said here. The lots are very small and it is cl•owded already with the families that are in tteze. A lot have been developed into very nice homes and they have done nice worn: on the yards and forth. I think by putting more people into that 11 area. to me. it is just goira7 to degrade the :ace there rather than upgrade it because the lots extremely small. I've lived in the area since 1 and watched it develop and I was happy with t many houses in that small of ars area because everything had been kind of spread out before and it was a quiet neighborhood but things are going to develop and so forth. Just the parking problem alone, because of the size of the lots, would be my main concern. We already have trouble with people parking on Mission Road, on the other side from there. They park out on the road and when you pull out you can't see traffic when you make the little jog over from Rezanaf to Mission and it Just makes it extremely hard on that corner there and that's i-laht where that house is, I believe. is right on that corner. It's Just not enough room there for it. I feel. I hadn't thought of the idea of rezoning those eight units, but to me it sounds like a real good idea. That is all I have to say. Thanks. Dave. Page 4 January 18. 1989 P6Z PAT REILANID: TCM i l'.L'IL TOM F NDEL: PAT REILAN): JON HAt'l r : PAT REILAND: Reiland. I'm here tonight speaking aslaan whose lot is in question here.. 1 a .. enera1 contractor and if this did tcil< place I Howl( he dcircr the work for rim. basic jai l'r. that's why - 1. . epr esent it:c dim he:- t:nicint . Acixri. we did 7.1-7 and r; [ ;;'tha.2 'aarlcth as or you mirmrei know. -::! l•t, . Az ire 7.1A73.a w.L_ sh_t .digin. We accepted ed th t a; the time. And zneh i1C";.t;h ::he Pee:_. wenttack and tried to have _t rezoned and asked the i elchh rho':d for that didn'tt:1Zpuen. ',:ti. In speaking wath sev+_.a. caned __ came back ara see if we CC•tii.�. this variance again Is because :e Mr. Maiasagaii has an unfinished basement_ and he wanted • ao arlead and ranash it. He has a unique lot ih that neighborh•:ixd in the sense that he has a collier 1:.t and he has access. I believe __ Is from De:crof. from around the back.So he does have amc .e parking as tis' as in the front and the rear ::f the .stricture. Again. he couidn t make It here b. night. He, work:; tot the Coast Ward and he was or: duty tonight. scI'm basically speaking for him. as much as I can. We're Just asking that you go ahead and pias It this time. again. only on the ct Lhat it was the general response of the neighborhood t (at It didn't go tack to R'1. So. WE: re int>rJ!sU thet It be passed. That as bd.ically wI-._.t I have t..c say. Thank you. Queetion? ave a question for you. We asked about the sc :ert requirement and the Condit i:ins. Yes. that's x'iclht. I'm son-:. I wrote that down. Das.^-... i wGilid ! ake '.O ee that the screening requirement was dropped. Primarily. because first of all I don't know what it would entail and it would probably Increase the project by who knows what. I'm not so sure that it would do anything. What would it do? I jut don't know. How big of a fence would you have to build to create a screen barrier. I'm not sure. I think it it was in a situation where I really telt like it would do something, you know. from my neart I would say it is the way to go. But 1 don't third: it would do anything there. Is there any other qu:.st lona':' I think it would discourage traffic through there. Pat. I see. Verbatim Transcript Page 5 Regular Meeting January 18. 1989 P&Z JON IIARTT: There is ample space an the front and also in the back to drive. it looks like. PAT REIi.:FAND Yes. JON HARTT: I mean: tih:r; 1 took a tick at i:.. PAT REILAJ L. Yes. JON HARI! . r thank that's the Idea or it. ROBIN HEINRICH,: ' 1 was trvuu tc vemembtr a past case oZ why we didn't discuss then. my recollection was that It was an atterpt to mitigate increased density on that ti -Re lot 8i&: c+ -. $Ys=ii a, �'.t;�.,, �a1 CORS t i':_�_S chat. tilted tr311. that increased tensity from a.Cijcining residential uses. :'khat 'would those be: More kids. maybe. headlights. increased traffic. That's lest my r csllect acn c.r why the original idea of Q the screen as :rte at the c'oncliticros at aporovai, As we were trying to remember a week ago. at wes nam for me to remember. That's my ..icr1. PAT REILAND: IOJBIN HEINRICRTJ. Do you (know even like where the :screen was suggested? al ut=inn' it, between the LCC in auesftion and other Iet_ that have single-family residences, which believe would aic.rci tMe tack property line and the side property Line. i. think two property 1 antis PAT REILAND. Sc. wnat: are we: taikinc here as tar u'_' screenam goes? ROBIN HEINRICH'S PAT REIIAND: ROBIN HEINRICIIS: PAT REILAND: WAYNE COLEMAN. PAT REI":.AND: I read it as a fence. Pardon? tad it as a fence. Six foot. four foot? I mean I coulee build a two oot high fernce. I don't understar:d what it would mean. Robin. as far as is there a mpe: tac height to a screen? e have height restrictions of sr.: Leet on the t t the lo`. leve are restrictions as far as maximum. ROBIN HEI.NPICHS; i Typically. when a screening requirement is placed. it has tc (rime through the 'Commission for approval. Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting Page 6 January 18. 1989 P&7 ROBIN HEINPICHS: LINDA. FREED between a business and a al use. This proposal is put forward and it is eLther approved or charmed by the :onmisifl._'r:. Ii•s not stated '...^.flt. way ..._- at ,"4.1. i don't -i•J4i G__ the ;,A1.uiKd _ _ . 1 would .iiiY 'wna` you might wart t _. 'ycU iv�ti __ review It again. make ✓i c& cs_'u1d specify it now. .. ,: flei i(es one those things is done. stuff cui•_l interpret it Chs: sight obscuring. Basically. something between rout. ani Sli: feet rail. That could mean plant material tut plant material is more difficult to maintain bhan fences are. in Kodiak. TOM H NDEL. j Ary further questions? ON. JOE SCh:"CIANI: My name is C•e SpU_caar:i. 1 think 1 live directly. across the street from this Mission but :..-._eve you are Mission. 1. live In 1513 Miss This says 1`312 a about 1512 :gad and my lot is 6200 square feet and It is prcba1>ty `hied RI because theta 1s cniy room fer one family and und-er of cars. ntiil}=sr •:r u'.,_ti:3. i te1leve my neighbor's lot act .ss the ._ _ r`:r Is a!:'':' 'Ctht rioW. It is Ri. think it sh>uld stay that way. It is smaller than m, x•c , Thera is less room on hig property for the number .. ,;ti's and the number c t " _ors he has. Wc. alceau' Cit e problem in :115^' ric :hti'rhocd with sIdbialrinci about the :_io:4i from across the street. ,•.;:ming . VCU to out side vt the street_ and night. The dogs WO1e1".:. people live ne}? C<t t lot and co me. tr �:SlF: that the :'1 s:% •.>i the .ue d -4 how many :.amllies you can put on at has some reasc.nabiene s t it and 1 don t believe you s'hcuid be cutting lots smaller and putting more families on those lots. I would lust like to stats chat 1 live across the street from him and I would like t_ see his lot stay RI and the four cars that are on his property stay four cars instead of eight cars or what else he could flours cut putting there. Thank you, TOM HENDEE; f OK. "'Lahti you. THERESA eONNEY: I Theresa iriney and ::e I oppose tt:e '+al"lance for all the same reasons that everyone case di,.t. 11e do have very small lots. 1 hate to sea it get any more crowded than It la. We do have problems. But so tar. I third:, we're learning to live with Them. .But I can t see it •.retcang any worse. As I recall. at the last meeting last year. it was agreed chat if this variance did go through. Verbatim Transcript Page 7 Regular Meeting January 18. 1989 P&Z which it didn't. the screen would be a six fcct fence. That was what the block would be. I Would _lust 1ai.e ro say that I oppose it. TOM tEND> .. I U';. Thanks. RIJTfi QCRLCN: My name is Ruth _-C.i.L.,, and 1 1iV. JL 1:;ml_1 i believe that the lois were the .'Jmi.u. t ! size .xi': those size lots `dere made to c c-Jrnir dare so Mary families and if the's'e are the rules for the heaita; or the pec+pia. that's what we aught to nave. 1 don't think that the yard space •_t- those lots are already so small. where are the kids ciolrig to Clay:` I don't like si:-: foot fences. 1 don't think they are an addition or bend for nelah.tcrnoccts that are Jive area. one nei•gtJJJrhocd. They will Make shade and we don't need any more shade. They don't keep the dogs est because there is only a fence :'.ere and a fence there. So. I don't think that fence w_dlld d_ chat much good. It would tai-ze up a :'Dace and when you backed up. you would trick into it. It Would put trash along when the wirtd blew. No one prctahly oict it Up because it wouldn't be It would be a seDar a.ina-fence. should stay would like to not have to come up •_twain. My n sblhd ic ill tonight so he couldn't .,z-. Newt ._a- I- comes up. we might be or. _ at icie and. theh _ _ will pass. We can't count on that all the time. being here and being available tc c -:•me ut.i w•_uid like to nave It be one family' which is a healtny way to .:ve. That would be the end or TOM HINDEL: L Thark you. HOWARD STEWART: My name is Howard Stewart. I 1 against this variance. I have times now and 1 third: it is 13. I ate ere tree ed there. There is a parking problem. My wife also is against this variance. I have a letter from her here. I think. I was at the last meeting for rezoning., and I believe the record was 5 to 4 for rezoning. However. the Commissioner- went aaainst it because it was so close. my name is Ed Opheim. I did.: t expect to be cp s soon. 1 just purchased a Hume in this L421 Kcuskov. 1 did a little research before I bought it. because I came from a pretty noisy neighborhood before, and I was looking for something a little quieter and a little nicer. I'm nct really' ror something like this happenira. because if :!rte Sets it. who says the next vete 13 Verbatim Transcript Page 8 Regular Meeting January 18, 1989 P&Z 'A Fr` TOM Fif:.L'JDu. EP'P° MASS: going to pet It and pretty soon you eld up selling out and mi:•vind on again. I would kind of like to stack around this area for a 'while. lam kind of O%'vi,5ed to this rind of ....ins. I would like t; sett it stay tingle family dwellinjs. Thank you. Thank e_ @li ii*,ul `:'Vi_s like s..mebody else i -ea. at.it you can: have two. The one that was Just naPdded from Sharon Stewart. She Uvea at 1427 Kouskov. Lit 13. Mock 5. Beate 'Jkihii vi :ion. Her comment says. "I'm opp_,sect to a building variance of single- family inglefamily dwelling. Something to do with parking spaces. The other one was received from Ruth Blackburn who laws at 1418 Kouskov. She is representing her family. They own the following properties in Lette Addition: Lot 12. Block 2: Lot 10. Block 7: bat 7a. Bloch: 7: Lot 11, Block 2. Lot 16. Block 7: Lot 1. Block 4: and Lot 9, Block 7. She comments that. "file Breckburq family is well represented. again. when it comes to this repeat performance. Why can't it be decided this time on a permanent basis. We in this area do not want tnis duplex on a substandard lot. I represent myself tut others of my family not living ak now. We were all sent letters and own .... this area. We are Bennie. Norerie. Sven. li.:ier•f. and Ruth Breok1'&Q'o. My name is Fred rias'. 1 own and occupy a home in CHP :ilea or question. =•n Yanc5Sky Street. I would like to go on record as 1eir:g against this. I testified last time It was up here. _ think there has been some very cooed testimony against this tame tonight. I would have to go along with meet all of it. The original understanding was that these lots were allowed to be separated only because they were only to have a one -family residence on them. It was my a derstandinu that there was a mistake made in letting them b? separated initially. But. that is water under the bridge. I wouldn't like to see that mistake compounded and make it Wine, "thank you. Cocci night. TOM HENLIEL: Any further comments? See and hearing inonc. close public hearing and reopen the regular- meeting. Yes. Bruce. BRUCI Fly; I've got some problems with this proposal. A lot of letters. about eight letters. and seven people testifyirgg in c.pposlticn to tnls. Nobody is for it Verbatim Transcript 1 Pave 9 Regular Meeting January 18. 1989 P&Z pt the fella representing the apc They've mentioned parking. dew, noise. shading. Bie hint is that this may be, iii fact. desi_.natei a R3 it which would ha:;-. .. .•-pe t- as ... single-family dweiling. I Lnini. the :ii_t.:;:i . lc showing •c'verwhc iftii:.J Jppor. i' :• •r? " .. .. find any sups, . _or this or,r, .>A1 ., 'n'_:u / 'l, . Brice. 'ROBIN iEINR;HS. ran FzNEaa. LINDA F ttT TOM FEND i : RCBIN HEINRItl1S: 'verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting o grant a a nc.e tram 1736.030 of the Borough C. dwelling mit t: 1 ing lot of rFrvrd that is+substars iai l ii: icer, area and lot width Instead of only a sir7ie-farni y resi dence it an R3 Multifamily Resident L1! c.cnit:j Lias._ t: _"t on LA: 10. Block J. Leite Additir.n. 'subject t•: one condition c_tnd to adopt: Lhe rarldirngs con- tained well. and to defer the findings to the end of the meeting. the condition being prior to the issuance of a zonirrg compliance. the applicant must provide a parkinl plan of the site showing the lo- cation of the additional two parking spaces. as well as existing off street parking that is available. Ic there o second? Motion fails for lack oL a :stdd. Linda. di, /;u have a comment? x :»sz if the croup 15 rior -roingcto approve the mcticrt, we need t.,still hav- A motion •:n the 1 i:ca trb:{i_ you can vote acw t. Yes. R:>bin. Since we don't have a motion. I can editcrializs. I thank I can understand Tiruce's point because everything he says is true. However. i guess i would like to make some other points. I think that this is an R3 zoning district. Conceivably this lot. tnis area of town. can be developed Into a much higher density than what it has been developed into. That would be perfectly consistent with the code. These lots. you could buy up all those pieces of property, you could make property lines. build apartment complex. and not have to get any kind of special permission at all. cu would have much higher density than what as being r pc end here. Also. I don't think that we can ignore the fact that the last time this came before us. we then said. "OK. if it is your clear understanding that this is supposed to be Ri property. we support that and furthermore let's investigate rezoning :t to R1 and put this issueto rest once and for all." It seemed to be unanimous that even".'body wanted Page 10 January 18, 1989 PSS MARY LOU KNUDSEN: TOM FENDEL MARY LOU KNUDSEN, TOM RENDEZ: Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting single tiirnaly residences on these pieces of property. IT you look at the area map. these lots d:- net atypical ;it that block, in race. thele are only a r w lots that are iait ei . than these lots. Ar- he way _i. ..ill .:te ma;: i.. . oesn make an; sense .at .all zer separate those eecht lobs for lrl:_st ada_.can. .. _es nirr.:; to Ri in he aiudre o: a whole R3 zcntra7 district. ieck_se there Is : r_ -t...." .neat makes mem different than any lots t _a ther up the street ._Int1i yau get to the Ri zoning di tract . 3o. 1 don't :lee any omoe:hit's reason to is_late tole Cdrticuiar luta and nave Uhcse rezoned c1 when everything e...,e around :.:_ .:.. R3. And.. yet. _.eritodv seems to want to de"v=Lt this Ri property. In my mint:., the water shed was a bad point. They didn't want a little bit of Increased. derc_lt`j. even though the zoning district lot allowed more density and so 1 Guess the Impression i cot was that they wanted out of the options to retain all of the options but not allow the neighbors to develop according to the options that were provided by the zoning district. The way 1 see this case. we have a corner piece of property Se :_if^ .qtr -street parkins. It can meet the :1C .'backs in .ill instances. and the zoning divtrict •x.tows r:•r much higher development. 1 don . '.lit:"oL. .and "any we don't go along with person :iii•_ baiu,4ht under these rules .._vel ip. _ -•'! _i: 1'r Y:"ren hie'.ar'i that the ne:":.hoanoce. was given the ._.ppo tunit.y .., char's:e t: ._..:i".irki ._a than a year ago. Y�.. Cl;c:_Imurf. Maly Latt . I agree with R3hln. 1 tee' a 'year a<7,J. elle last time when it came in. it was 'sic-teCl down because everybody said no. no. no. Sc we spent three meetings. how many public hearinas on trie. rezone. and everyt!edy was oppcased. his is a unique lot. the other lots 1 might look at a little harder. But I still think there needs to be some scree nins. The lot:; are very close together and when you •:_C add the otner care with two families you have nights• or whatever to add a little Ult more Impact to ere neighborhood. Perhaps behind. is maybe it .will be able to be converted into a duplex. I don t know. The Other ones would to real iffy because of ori' -street parking. But the reason 1 didn't secicnd is that 1 think we need to provide some type of screening. Thank you. Mary Lou. Further comments? The Page 11 January 18.. 1989 P&Z MARY LOU KNUDSEN. I _,M i ENDEL . MARY LOU KIgUDSEN. LINDA FPI"':): MARY LOU KNU'DSEEN. TOM !ENDEL. ?VEIN HEINRICHS: TOM HQdDa; PATRICIA MILEY: WAYNE COLEMAN: PATRICIA MILEY: BRUCE BARRETl: PATRICIA MILEY: JODY i{OLCINS: (hair wculd gladly entertain a motion. Mi. chairman. Yes. Mary ::. I move to giant ..t rec!ue. v ._Inc-_ ti S cion 1.7..36.1i3• .iJla.._•I tl fl lli :.:.. ..... _. '1 .� Vl the bor_-uqh „'",.7c Li , -1 ui t •i 'n. '_we li - unit ta l.'1L+1C..1t: _it a ..'incl' •FIL' 3mli:c _. record that .., ctib tlti iUala la . _r_ area l L J:'c square 5 ._. feats a; lc ;•1t w1Qt.1 :-Ll.Leet: instead.or only .. slncrle-tamll: iesiae_ncc in a RJ Multitarily Residential 7.oni g District on :.J' 10. Block e. Leate Addition. s,i;:iect t., =ne ZWc condatdols contained in the start report dater! January 8. 1999. and to adopt the tincii 's contained in the stair 1 _ r Jars t 1:;09. as 'Findings of •. Fact' r1 this care. The ries_ condition I Want to stand as it is. The second condition I would like t_ chance at to. he applicant must provide u; scleelllr!cr alori{ the lilies contiguou' with the lots c cup ed by sanczie-farai1 resadences. That would Le a six icor sclid fence between Lots 10 and 11. and a si;: r.x t solid fence between Lots 9 and 10 to the frcht .. :_s_.o.te. I don't know hc•w is they can go six root:: Tc. t:!c _IDI lane. To the buidIna lane. Because __ they •do go t., the building, line... To the rrcnt of the buihdind i_. all. OK. Because It tney go, any further there in gc.ing to Le problems with siuht. We have a main motion with two conditions. Iia iti have a second: Second. Any further discussion. Roll Ja1. vote. please. Mr. Coleman. No. Mr. Barret No. Ms. Hcdcr_n . Yes. Verbatim Transcript Page 12 Regular Meeting January 18. 1989 P&E. PATRICIA MILEY: FOBIN ErEINRICHS. PATRICIA MILEY: MARY ;:J KNUDSIN: PATRICIA MILE?. JON HAnl1: PATRICIA MILEY: TOM FENDEL: PATRICIAMILE?. COM I5 ROBIN HEEINRIC_HS: LnN' COMMENT,: MARY LCU I JiUtb'EN . TOM E ENDEL: ROBIN HEINRIC'H✓. TOM fEENDEL: LINDA FRifl; TOM HENDEL Ms. Knu,.iaan. tr t t No. P Eiendel. Yes. Motion carries. would like :.t' dict e co reconsider . 1 don't reMewJet the name. the number of that case. fandiros 66 007 s .�_. rani..s for the decision •g; inting a VM 1artcai. what we really have now before us is.. You have to vote on OK. all those in favor of the reconsideration of the findings of fact. please sicrnify by saying aye. All opposed. same sign. OK. so what we have actually before us are the findings themselves. From what insane had said that this will definitely go to appeal. so it is best to incorporate our discussion into our findings to giv- more basis to the decision that we made. I think that is basically... We need a motion. ROBIN HEInk it would to helpful if we would just e the basis Ior the deCISIGn arra then I think can accumulate those into all the firadinus. The things that I thank were important. when I considered it. were that you can't lanore the zoning. The zoning allows for much higher density than what was being proposed. And. so. what we Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting Page 13 January 18, 1989 P&2 T(11 1-INDEL: BRUCE BARRET T. Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting as not contrary to the intents and purposes of the zoning distract that that property was Involved in. with regards to density. Also. the property was a corner property. And. to demonstrate the ability to held parking and contain all the f- :Lllit=lilN within the cti;ti:+5::}:.d. tf:er2i•::r'e, ic was not goitr_i t) put an undue burden as far is care cd_t on che street. It can demonstrate the abilit'r t.,. hold the density that was contemplated. Also. tte Public testimony was largely tip the effect that due to a prier arrangement,tails are t was develop as Ri. to be Ri in nature. even t<<ct.uh aha zona::g had not been charxi 1. We can't. hJwe the fact. that there was a proposal for rezonirq t R1 within this past year. It did not enjoy overwhelming support and so. therefore. I think that the rielghixrbccd was given the offer to develop in this way. and chose not to support that action. Therefore. 1 think that In my mind. I'm lust speaking for myself. an my mind I have to. then. try to balance that with the testimony that was there, because those very same people then did not support the R1 rezoning. And. so. how serious vc.0 take their objection. Those are my frank. -easons for voting the way I did. I would like to hear from the rest of us and I think we can put whatever fits the test comes back in in the form of findings. Bruce. I wculd like to express the reason why I objected to It. I dont disagree with all that Robin says. In fact. 1 aui-ee with most of It. One of the qualms is that you have conflicting messages from the public. At least. that is how we are perceiving them. I third: we are wrongly perceiving them. The public was opposed to classifying the areas or zoning the areas R1 mainly because there was a fair number of people who had property that was zoned R3 and could easily develop it within the guidelines. Not only could they provide adequate parking, there was water and sewer, there was setbacks. But their lots were targe enough. And. I guess it is real clear when one oI the individuals spoke that he opposed the rezoning because he didn't want to take the development rights away tcdy else who was in full compliance with all potential zoning regulations. I think Robin is right when he says that this current proposal would allow adequate parking. setbacks. But there is more involved in that. You can lock at any stthdivision and the minimum requirements may not be quite enough. Most people in this community have Page 14 January 18. 1989 P&Z MARY LOU ftNIffga). TCM liENDEZ; LINDA FREED: TOM HENDEL MARY LOU KNUlDSEN : LINDA FREED: boats. some people have snow machines. They have a 1•.t •.:i otter recreatacnal to'y's, that they end up needing storage places for and maybe the parking nc•t adequate on these R2 lets to ticceraniate it. They end up in Lite Streets. they end up in areas that may be rn'le shcutd to iedi:'ahem for an cien area. _ think the public was overwhelming support acair;st this thing. 1 this: we gave :. ':trona mes3ag: to the public. It didn t meet the minimum re.Talrement.c. And what they wanted, they warited to avoid the congestion. And certainly you could fit multiplex (Al this property and meet this setback. But it is going to be more people. it is going to be more noise. And there is lust not the land. whether it is 1000 feet less than required. that is 1000 feet less than it should be. That is the reason I voted for it. Mr. Chairman. I agree with Robin's comment tonight. also. The reason why I changed the motion wa3 I felt that a six foot fence along the side and the rear would help the visual impact of the neighborhood. Being a corner lot. there really was no reason to deny it. We allowed other multifamily residence:3 on substandard lots. They can adequately ptovi•de parking and there really wasn't a reason for it. Plus. the. neighbors didn't want It lesoned to RI, They made that very clear when we we. e investigating it, that th='•i did not want it rezoned. And you can't have both:. Cot enough ,,munition there? £XD you want us to go ahead and write these findings up and bring it back here for approval at the next meeting? Yes. And. you'll include Can you do that if it is going to be appealed? What the city will do is they'll just (indecipherable) by lot. Because the city won't do any... My recollection. we've had this happen once before. the city won't accept this into record until we have it approved with findings. They won't accept us if somebody reappealed it. It basically puts things off a month. TOM HENDEL: 1 don't know if it is that critical. I think it is important that we have these findings. LI A Verbatim Transcript Regular Meeting Yes. it's probably even more critical. Page 15 January 1$, 1989 P&Z CERTIFICATE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: The Findings of Fact in the matter of: Case 69-007. The granting of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3— MuRilamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition; 1512 Mission. (Remegio Marasigan) was held as herein appears and this is the original verbatim transcript thereof. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OLD BUSINESS ITEM A Findings of Fact for Case 69-007 supporting approval of a request for a variando from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a noncoriforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Leila Addition; 1512 Mission. (Remegio Marasigan) The above-clted Old Brisiness was heard on February 15, 1989 in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay', Road, Kodiak, Alaska. The meeting was co I ducted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, Tom Handel. TOM HENDEL: ANN MOEN: TOM HENDEL: LINDA FREED: ANN MOEN: TOM HENDEL: JODY HODGINS: ROBIN HEINRICHS: TOM HENDEL: PATRICIA MILEY: TOM HENDEL: PATRICIA MILEY: WAYNE COLEMAN: PATRICIA MILEY: ROBIN HEINRICHS: PATRICIA MILEY: JODY HODGINS: PATRICIA MILEY: JON HARTT: PATRICIA MILEY: Move on to Old Business. This is Findings of Fact for Case 89- 007 supporting approval of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 of the Borough Code to permit a Iwo -family dwelling unit to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area and lot width Instead of only a single- family residence In a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. This is Lot 10, Block 5, Lelte Addition; 1512 Mission. Any further staff report? Ann. Just a reminder that both the Community Development and the Engineering Department last month recommended approval of this subdivision that it met all the requirements of the subdivision code as presented. It has been appealed to the Borough Assembly Are we on a different one here or what? Yes. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Okay. Yes, Jody. I move to adopt the findings of fact for Case 89-007 contained in the staff memorandum dated February 6, 1989 as findings of fact for this case. Second. Any discussion on these findings? Roll call vote. Mr. Hendel Yes. Mr. Coleman Yes. Mr. Heinrichs Yes Ms. Hodgins Yes. Mr. Hartt Yes. Motion carries. Verbatim Transcript Old Business Item A P&Z: February 15, 1989 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 710 Mill Bay Road,.Kodiak, Alaska 99615 - ' ITEM VI -G ; PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. 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, it any, on the following request: CASE 89-007. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) 0f the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot widthl49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence In a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BLOCKS, Lem ADDIT/ON; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGIO MARASIGAN) 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 prlorto the meeting. I Thle notice Is being sem to you because our records indeate you area property owner in the area of the request 8 you have any _ questions about the req„ ef;please feel free to callus at 486-5.736,. extension 255.'_ . -. _ _. . -.__. _ . I yy // `,ynn / �7 �) /; Your Namn'-�4/1r, ' /Beta/h` -/- -MaIIIngAddreae: '77/'./(/ Jd!-f �riere14 "-� Get f8 ('4 9 24 ( Your property decriptlon: .0 r Commanw: 70 (n1/4nrc.7//:* atJeiipv,O 7074 `-/AA1 9,rd 05, � -/(ejJ/renr r/t�hia'r4--4v-, cad la d, id 4c/ ? ,,. e r-aj Ai d CL1Y /y --not hTL� cr .P .11 rt. -i -a 1--7C7---- ,-,0",-, /rinASJ / / JA.. --170/ i/ctlr/dririrl' trrh �/ /N %/'7 c9 �M/1i /fi✓ (3�fir-:/id ,4 /Co/rd.0 a /2.P ,i/. Ain c9ton rrn#,/ o--71/4-friP aJI e, ir•r! )1 J ti -a/o/ ,ctrl/" t9,-e�(a,,c-,//A, /i'hc/3r5 r- +i .en l/P) C9/yr r /An -74.77ee C% (r'] �-P C.[n Ci WLt. h.reIi [C /W / 5rPrf a -74 A fonicer r'" . tnnk oq/J#dam 94%, -7Cn. 91 Qrr line ' r1. /o/ 4' //n'ck'c/ cd-.7"A;/fha#11d#,44 h/4,0!' ter. or,henn e /rte/cza A07....... J RECEIVED JAN 2 5 1969 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT IiJ -J -J w 0 0 - nefiltua • 11 — / / / /•4‘"•./..\%‘'‘N.."S' / #' ...0.0....‘ ..' I / lc,...1'.../V. ..../ sr. i‘...../....r. ',. V../ / 1 .,1‘....IV...."/ ....../,.... ‘‘,...\\,. ‘...... , / / Ivsfy...../‘...,.../. ./ .)/.00/0....\•,,,A•-. i•••• I." t.r :.. • 1•"" .1 I•e•!. t• --1••,•'`-i\--/'-'; t AV i.:::: •,,:,1 Mang :111111 i JAMIE ZINN RE ZANOF twat 111 SIR ET ' • tea ' -J t.h*uT Kt1114:' Tik","/-\ '/'/V< SIMEONOFF ta ICHII-rIENOr S1 STREET alliERIND4 EIBIgno amptiffilE NUM DRI VE • • fow•e. • 1'1{0 ‘N. r • .3/41 •••‘., ""/""*"/ "I ........... h....A • •:.‘ \ • / •"! ./`• ,••••• •IStMAILOV STR ZONING :KEY 0 RESIDENTIAL R -I. Q RESIDENTIAL R-2., R-3 . 0 RESIDE.NTIAI- 0 'RURAL RESIDENTIAL_ ‘• BUSINESS 'ATRIAL Sou n; US,SURVEY 2873 a 0144:4- • f Case 89-007 . • 3 10 Block 5 LotteiteMditiOfl 1812 Mission .-e_c., .LA I - 13 '5 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE , A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. 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 89-007. REOUEST;FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) 01 the Borough Code to permd atwo-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. LoT 10, BLOCKS, LEITEADO ON; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGIO MARASIGAN) 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. This notice is being sent to you because our records Indicate you are a property owner in the area of the request. If you have any questions about the request, please feel free to call us at 486-5736, extension 255. 5✓et. 5recKher'J 1 ,J� YourNams: 1?°seri g reo [berg Melling Address: 11/r no rl s,so v k'»( la.,ic Oo>, n. -a. N0 rae-n R1.1_7" -A- 3 res. re b a r You prop�rtydecdptlon: ,"I_ei7`e A>#d i, Art/2, h/ r; ..2 /,, t 10 1,1K7 Ai- 7,4 h/K 7, 10-/-1/)61K�.,lo-t 4,6047./oY 1,bikv,To-F'1,6//k/7 ' / Comments': .'-1r . i7 -,o r.�.f.�P-�. �/,y-.�-�t.).7 --(� ..-N -----,-7.7'.._C -z V(.' 4 2r.., , -r -.1. .�C-/P�Trv.e/�c A.IC.-.,-�dL ��L1 /T✓ r. -131.E .�j .e -e ---7L (f -/.. 41-/ k -a % : i/. r -i . _ r /r/..e -.) .."tea &_' / -' ..-ss-t- el -r-7---7-‘7"" -F-X..Q/ /t -e [L7(i p -ti- /--' ,6t -r -a- r .2L i—, -_,/,,,_,Z _./0-L // ___42.7.9p.„2_, „—..L-,--t-Z—,---....27... 4,7L. ,--r -Q� ,ty / / I-- l /n -.e -L /_ �/)I- ! ✓ti</ nom. [ [-s./ �d' .-n ,rit �...y--f }/•f()v el U..O%Y ! I- /.lw P-r-/--n_.4_e.. 1�(J-�-l� n../ . w r� A.�-.f �.7/C-� 'Ire - 5 5 1 0 RJ P r' 'P,7 RUTH BRECKBERG O 1418 Kouskov Kodiak, AK 49615 14 01111vf 1fM .111110+, %TN $ PM E /"*/ ..'7.1/ "..0/ \ r VP] t0.1- .1 1. 2.•49`' it a e L NOF F^.4 I.!' 17 A RA N OF A V ,F4 STR E 12 • r w j 4 " • \ r -e / • / • \ '.•', • • 't • a egoIPIN; Forsollgingqg esittil&MC-112- re REZAN 0 F 211R,IMEE 1111111-2 1 S Ai L OV / \r"r"r° \\/""/ SIMEONOFF CNITHENOr MEM MIRED DRIVE =Mc STRC T nolgoltor ,1/2...../v....11,N.1"..../ N...../V...1‘,..1(1.4(\l\ \I...A ;,\S...:AS......‘ \....1‘,1\,1\,;\ :, ‘,1c...1C....,(Z.,(:„I\ 40 z / / / / / / / .4,.... e ‘, • ZONING KEY E3 ,:tas,DENT!m. Rri 0 RESIDENTIAL R rry4 RESIDENTIAL R-3 cril EN RUML ,REsiterTIAL auslNt oc2 *....Z. .rortt1 /IL nik; fastRict sou <-9/04 40Dtridt, us suRvEriar 2873 %.kt. cmci L. - I CSse 89-007 tot 10 Block 5' 1812 Mission t R tr. 325 -la-89 �i a=z)n- KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. In the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 MITI Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, it any, on the following request: CASE 89-007. ' REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from SBCtion 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that Is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence In a R3--Multdamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BLOC% 5, LE/TEADD ON; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGIO MARASIGAN) If you do not wish the Community This notice is being questions eboutthe Your Name: to testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space Development Department prior to the meeting. below, the request. or in a letter to If you have any - sent to you because our records Indicate you are a property owner in the area of request, please fr�us at 486-5736, extension 255. 0/Thfeeleel Milling Address:a / .�� / Your property decrlption: f�Q / L9/ IS rt'� -- lC%L7 ,_ / ff�� =�Tl militsa kri • • s ONO•FF ARANOF AV 3111110MIMEO IMO • \ \r"/%\i% 'CHICHENOF 511, SIMEONOFF w STREET Egger" OSEGKIENIE NI REZANOF DRIVE / AILOV STRCCT rE ZONING KEY RESIDENTIAL R -t 13 RESIDENTIAL R -Z,. Q RESIDENTIAL R,3 io RURAL RESIDENT!AI. BUSINESS" ....wont SOUTH . US SURVEYJ� .:k.71.28?3 e 9-007 R 325' Lot 10 Block. 5 Leiter 1812 Mission KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. 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 89-087."' REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.03i (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width 149.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District, LOT r8, BLOCK s, LEITH ADDITION; 1812 MISSION. (REMEG/MMARASIGAN) 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. This notice Is being sent tam because our records indoate you are a property owner in the area of the request. If you have any questions about the request, please feel free to call us at 486-5736, extension 255. Your Nah RL ti 1M:.: r 4 f -A ( el sson Melling Address: ' siC9 e -xr 0 (0 7$ Num I Your property decdptlon: C /rt f- ' l / -5 kg us/o 2/ Comments: /ib 4D/oci /EeP AG-/a/ /V724 / ,.7 o .� * tt co .� I (pn ,,r4 9-C-1,9 17/7,7....dl�ik�' A /in ..to (2,9-4 �141- / g . nIEB J AN 1 3 5989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPM1:N: PEPT W 2 2 > 4 / / /a *-_.\• Ei t A �R \�'' /i / / I�\ 4WlV►'f'.ij \I LY r$hME ONOFF • -J w 0 a a num W ARANOF AV tec • Q NE ,/ / '\t\40) A SIMEONOFF c4.1 i ii dT: aj I • CHICNENOF STI STREET • ROD - d RT. ZANO nonglie 2111 MUM yam,\.J ,,�y\,/\/\\� y. 3r ZONING KEY C3 RES1DEN1!AL R71 RESIDENTIAL Q RESIDENTIAL R'3 j. ". `URAL , RStDENT1AL E; R 9USINESS• sou rolt4s r. ,, US SURVEY,/ { 2373 ;. iroct Ilk Lot 10 Block 5 ' Leite Addition 1812 Mission Case 84-007 g 3251 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak.Alaska 99615 VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing wall be held ori'Wednesday, January 18, 1989. The meeting will begin–at 7:30 p.m. In the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 MITI°Bay Road, Kodiak Alaska, belore the Kodiak Island Borough Planking and Zoning Commission, to hear comments, if any, on the following request: • I ' CASE 88-1307. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030' (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that Is substandard in, lot area (5,968 square feet) and lot widthl49.79 feet) instead of only a-single-tamiy— residence In a R3–Multifamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 18, BLOCK 5, LErrEADDS77ON; 1812 MISSION. (RENEW HARASIGAN) 1 If you do not wish to testify verbally, }roll may provide your comments the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. in the space below, or in a letter to was In the area of the request 1t you havt3,arty extension 255..x1 Address: )41 r L&nIU I °V i This notice Is being sent to you berms ow records brdcate you wen property questions about the �,request,pieease feel free to call us at 4665736, Your Name: . ')/n 11%l— l +1 ,Rec7�rl ling �� ,BMs Your property doaiptTbn:' I41 I is,y�t`Iv 11,^, Canda' Comments: J- if b t+- `N 't u3o 1�V 1 i A n+.. it kkR LLt.-i O Un 0.1'1 &it n1/4,1 hiel. 0VCl''— ai. } ''s, • 1 1 t. Lod JAN "i 8 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOP N2 DEPT \1'+141/2F1-)V•'i Q I\ / s PME•Nor r SIR i ET? /i1/\\ ..:. -/.\r.\r d SIMEONOFF' 'CNICHENOs NEMO SIM MUM OPPOMBIrg411 -��a+ltl6]ft_t rat NE�` ARANOF AVf7• Witlill ZIENIOU R$ZANOF DUI girl NOME ISMAIL OV Nola u DRIVE 3. IMO ESN 1' t3e113 113 ./'/ \J/% IBJ/i1/i/int. ./._.1, tI•�,,. i 1 VPs" \ / OCE V [� ZONING KEY Q RESIDENTIAL R":1 Q RESIDENTIAL R-2 E:3 RESIDENTtAt. R-3 • RURAL , RESIDENTIAL 0 BUSINESS SOUT �9� uemvisKai "EAsr "o 0,4 8 rzok ft US SURVEY; 2873 ` .::; Case 89-007 Lot 101B1ock 5 Leite Addition 1812 Mission R a. 325' NECK Jek" COMMUNI j KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH I,CO�MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 !? INC) ITEM VI -G CY DEVELOPMEt P D'1 •t' JBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1 O$O. 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 89-007. REOUEST'FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width' (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence In a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BLOCKS, LEITEADDIT/ON; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGIO MARAS:GAN) 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. This notice is bung sent to you because our records indcale you are a property owner in the area of the request If you have any questions about the request, please feel free 10 call us at 486-5736, extension 255. 1 YourNamr. Kenneth Lester MaIIIngAddreaa: Box 313 Yourpropertydectiptlon: Lot 8 Block 6 Liete Add. Cemmonla: Here we go again! How many,times are we going to have to explain that we feel that these lots are to small to be used as R-2 or 3. Once again I will state that when these lots were being developed the surrounding owners were against them being used for anything except R-1. Substandard in size, they should not be allowed to be anything except R-1 usage. I hope once again that the P&Z Commission will turn down this request and then put this behind us. Why do we have to go through this on a continuing basis? Why can't this request be laid to rest? If it is possible to run this through the paper mill immediately after'it has been turned down each time there is'something wrong with the system. 'Are these owners figuring on wearing down the other owners and the P&Z by requesting and re -requesting? Probably! I for one have been and remain against.any use other than R-1. Lots are too small - R-2 or greater: will not allow any use other than parking and all gravel lots are not that nicE in R developed neighborhoods.- parking *ill overflow to the the streets - etc. •-•--/// 1:5•-i•-•/•---/` f.; iv.,1/•••••••,•• „ - • • 51-PAEONOF ii•-...‘....,•-•-).\-/-‘,/*/ • /. 's/ C/ e 1.,./‘‘,..:‘,....\\„...‘ %/,..X..;/•\ \' -.1,\t --#1("P."•-!,\:4%..,- 0 N..4••...<,‘\;:..\\, STR TW E MOM ).:/*•„‘/•••;-',•);•`';.`/•,\/`;/ ?."`V.i1/27.1/4.;/\„.%/ 9/\,2‘,.‘/ ."Vt--\•%Vf%.\-rV!--- $IMEONOFF 7171,‘.3 411 w STREET ARA N OF AV armor. onustiv ZANOF Tiffegar DRI -VE I 5 M STRrrT .... LIzablarLE r • ..••• \NA*, \',..1.0...1\•••1\, N..,.. r....., V.../V4,1 \•...1\•..1 \ C.N.1 C., C% IC:JCR., IC / //.1 / / -• /.11 7e .... \ It / de /' / / t• ./ t,/ / , .••• US SURVEY,/ 287.3 ZONING KEY 0 REs„),,N-qixt.Q RESIDENTIAL R -z44. RESIDEMTIAI- tra 'i:i.otiti...RE•StbENTIAt- ittustNEsS SOL/ 5'180. VtSlo,, N coca Gas e( g9-007 R Lot 10 Block 5 Leite Addition 1812 Mission I KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 71,01/1111Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PIJ,RLlC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. 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 f,:a-u^C7. n^E'CJFST IFC^ A VARIANCE from Sectio, 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence In a R3 -Multifamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BtOCK5, LFJTEADDmON; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGI0MARAS1GAN) i If you do not wish to testily verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, or In a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. This notice Is being sent to you because aur records indcate you ere a property owner In the area of the request. II you have any questions about the request. please feel free to call us at 486-5736, extension 255. Name: Your Nam' AUL A. eft tC.V ENA• Melling Address: .A0?C 31 t ( 4 Kopf /i Your propertydecrlptton: Lori 4-1J BLOCK 40TC A-tl-perm- Commenu: S vim e-tz,cY I r 017-, A Jo -r r} n- l Pn240O Rt -c `( Pt,_ r 1-30u..44 Lt KC- TO LEI— i You. k , Octo -Th5q'r S fins ,t ,4-1A) 7,-y 1/A, 'u mUGC 13E Auto 4u-ot e-0. rN Rf1 , Alert- A2 12-e7rt7 Y out tt C2.W &t.0 'frig cnv A- /3 cock W there- NeNE 6F- P/1- lilouse3 r l4v te,44435 miftte is s , PLACE PM_ Kit' $ 7U Pcra-1 a tSE , cxc6�''r 6A-) rm. sioA) (LA. —f' Pe- ' rt-t_s a toot.�L n 6 C ?-e7zo 4i204 FOR- PH ejcn'i o Cr Watt c/-E5/Erc, GB mitts c; 17tfEi toau.c-d , too SrePP/AJ6 otcftic5 )a.) 71t -c- The -8-4- Fdr, 40/1A-; 4, Mt `S,1vn . %1f/o/c Ttr_5 Wuucct otiLY lot A- Pe-6n,&em, t45va i"-fhens3- 77-7t Alcru.rze cots /Nott )6E 1n,,Pteoergni Eo -5' Rt --G" Qt-*Ju0+J FDiz mt$S/ate R13i -mac *` - ,,,nr-oV.'zl t EC fi JAN 1 7 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMri f. E it P MTM Minn } SPMEONOFF ; i`j � i ;1� :moi ... 0'`j % . ;§ARANOF AV£' MIRO MUM MIME R_ZANOF \i\\ j♦\,,\\/ / %\ i ‘1- ; SI MEONOFF OMNI ®mese fr w STREET gt AEU VIM :111411®`. rismotio NEMO 15..M AI LOV DRI VE z ram STRF T ,MOIMMIT a1. 3T ZONING KEY a RESIDENTIAL R -I Q REStDEN71AL Ra, RESIDENTIAL R-3 • RURAL . RgSIDENTI,AL 'gUSiNESS :: \. OCEAN if SUED SC�r n SOUTH 4S�J�o+i US SURVEY) t 2873 j 4 (40,6, Case 84-007 Rte 325' 1 Lot 10 Block 5 Leiter 1812 Mission KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ! 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. 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: • 1. CASE 89407. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Sebtion 17;36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to Ncate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BLOCKS, LEITEADDI ION; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGIOMARASIGAN) tSlz � 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. - .' i This notice Is being sent to you because our records indicate you area propeny owner in the area of the request If you ha* -. questions about the request, please Teel free to call us at 486-5736, extension 255. a/ /GC/�4n ( Your Name: 6 S�P� �P A��- 7 3� Malllnp Addrwe�: / /�`,,"��—�� Q/V/ p-�0-Sion+ • frL- Your property decrtptlon: !-^"' ` / g €/ � 7_ � ` �' Q✓�- ,- Commenta: (V.t (tux. .-... ti fa — ( Co `2O O 5.i C' -e-•--+ 61-4.4 Y La* ." W -e.. P.1.1. 5/lLc - e-3 u.ol pie. c?.c�r nw .i%t.,,e.a//...e-mo . -a-a-4� 0-4-e- ten., --y-- ¢_- -� _ _ ` nn %La ac.2 ,--htd-t1L 7' Ink -e_ , e -n et or -n-4 � ��uj- L_ I ec - *-c4 ;L. l,.i .- ,ems fe“.2 ' r-.o-oi amid_ Pe -1' el -a_ y £— 3 ,L -DP ._ , �; -' Q-4 ante , /_„r,.P � Lj7c "ti U Rt JAN 1 6 5989 COMMUNITY DEVELOP,MENi DEPT \\/\\/ i \/ C`L\ W > QURN • i hME ONOF F %� \..../‘-''') \/ :\/� / i : \ \� town/ MMMEN 811 re mmaia MMEEI -ARANOF AYE' MUM WEE iO ZANOF ss\ ♦fes\�..\�� jam\fes\�\\ SIMEONOFF 'SHIC1ENOF Sl ,L w STREET 1, ifte 9ii LOY STR«T I\\!\\I\\P\\r\\/ 1 US SURVEY) 2873 1 NOM- C k4 ZONING. KEY Q RESIDENTIAL R -I fl RESIDENTIAL R"2... RESIDENTIAL R-3 R11RA4 , RESIDENTIAL E BUSINESS Sou rEA So80.n510 ...at AI ■ a ' Case 89-007 Lot 10 Block 5 tette Addition 1612 Mission a ='325' ', KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A.pubtic hearing will bel held on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. 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 89-007. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3--Muftilamily Residential Zoning District. Lor 10, BLOCK 5, LEITE ADDITION; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGIO MARASIGAN) If you do not wish to testify verbally, the Community Development Department I This notice is being sent to you because our questions about the request, Please feel Your Name:. ) k Y v r/1,( k--- you may provide your prior to the meeting. comments in the space below, or in a letter to property owner in the area of the request If you have any extension 255./�G Address: �k' , X./0/ records indcate you are a free to call us at 486-5736, Mailing j Your property deeriptlon: L -U/7' I.R talk. 0 Gi^ V1. R Comments: on tfrO?fI 0 -'e/.„) I16}1 0 S 1 KoY�rp'nIc h // , ii g1ri f 110,1-143nu ,,F (- -/ Pur 64 r chs rOi j f l irlik- nol hi, mart; rI/ 5 od 1�1 Fnh{rti� t y� . •TF .r,../ rtrt (allot) -o Penur t� �I()ffrv)s tonhe. he_ 1 L ar)r-Jh 1•r1— -SCS In -t -i41. (Amu 4 04f -Y l (1 .4)6n,)rJdo() 1 I•T,ret b ) t3 $� 3rh.4-' .,.a, 111+• .L coon otci 10 ,..74AFiVe . to, -••••••, / I / / • 1 . / / / / / /"/•1/ „.. „,/„,/ .. \t"-• .." 1.:.‘ SI MEONOFF 5 EME ONOF /../".". hilL STREEtw 2 ./'‘N/V A RA NOF a •- •• iffiffnita 11111N111 REZANOF mearellit INIMO mer DRIVE 31,0131172 STRcri \ \ ,tA41);171tF 1/T/ / / \C \N \N. \N ZONING Kr( s . 0 REs„,,NTIAL. 1171 L il cm REsm-zprnA , 1....4 ESIDER-3 E3 FlNTIAL ,. SDENTIAL El p.pRAL.RE t;:ril 'EitistNEss:Th \U8 SURVEY; ‘‘, 2 8 7 II 3 tgolto, nttot. .) Olk CS'so139 -007 k Lot 10 Block 5 Leite Addition 1612 Mission R 325' 1 K r r 2:_r-- =Di pec — e3s `Vv'1 The motion was seconded and CA punanimous voice vote. Q) CASE 84-075. Request for a Variance from Section 17.36.030 (Non- conforming Late of Record) to allow the construction of single- family dwellings on 6,000 square -foot lots in common ownership with contiguous frontage Lots B. 11, 12, and 13, Block 5, Lelte Addition; 1424 Mission, and 1424,-1426, 1428 Kouskov Street (Assembly of God Church). MR. CASSIDY reported the receipt of one additional public hearing notice objecting to the request. CHAIRMAN GREGG recessed the Regular Meeting and opened the Public Hearing. M5. CAROL WANDERSEE, resident of the area, asked the Commission if there was a future possibility of the proposed dwellings being converted to duplexes or tri-plexes. The response by the Commission was that a variance would have to be applied for since the lots were undersized for multiple -dwellings. PASTOR TOM SIMMONS, Assembly of God Church, requested granting the variance. Pastor Simmons summarized the history of the case and how the church had been complying with the procedures requested by the Community Development Department since the start of the development. When the church had applied for the permit for the fifth house, the Community Development Department informed him of the section of code (17.36.030) that would not allow them to build on contiguous frontage lots because of common ownership of the lots. Because they had been told over a year ago by the previous planning director, that they could build eight houses on their eight lots, they were completely taken by surprise by the latest decision of the new planning director. Pastor Simmons feels the houses are appropriate for the lots' configurations; that they are attempting to give them a pleasing appearance; and the lots have adequate yard and parking space. The intent of the church is not to build multiple -family dwellings, but rather single-family homes. M5. RUTH BRECKBERG, resident of the area, expressed concern about the length of time it took to "catch the error" made by the Planning Department; but felt the church should be required to have 7,200 square feet for each lot. Ms. Breckberg expressed regret about losing the "privacy" of the neighborhood by the addition of eight more homes. MR. KEN VAN DYKE, member of the Assembly of God Church, requested granting the variance. Mr. Van Dyke felt the church was building quality homes for the price offered and noted that money would be going back into the community through the payment of property taxes. Mr. Van Dyke stated that the single-family units would be an improvement in the area rather than building a multi -family residential building. MR. ROY PRY, adjacent property owner, said he wou,td rather live next to a single-family dwelling than a "rental." He added he would object to granting a variance for a duplex in the future for these houses. MR. KEN LESTER, resident of the neighborhood, felt is was "a shame to fill up the neighborhood." He reversed his original stand of opposition to the request and spoke in favor of granting the variance, since single-family dwellings are an improvement over a multi -family dwelling. MR. GLENN DICK, member of the Assembly of God Church, asked to go on record as being in favor of the single-family dwellings. There being no further public testimony, CHAIRMAN GREGG closed the Public Hearing and reconvened the Regular Meeting. Chairman Gregg suggested that a condition be placed on the variance requiring that the houses remain as single-family dwellings. Commissioner Rennell felt it was inappropriate at this time to place this kind of restriction on the variance as there is the process of public hearings available to the public for any future concerns. Commissioner Knight stated that the Commission could not "second guess" each future situation and that there had not been sufficient adverse, public testimony to determine objection to duplexes in the future. Regular Meeting June 20, 1984 COMMISSIONER RENNELL MOVED TO APPRi c, VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Non -conforming Lots of Record) to allow the construction of single- family dwellings on 6,000 square -foot lots in common ownership with contiguous frontage Lots 7 through 14 of Block 5, Leice Addition, according to the submitted plan by the applicant and the following staff recommendations: 1. that the dwellings meet all the other applicable code requirements; and 2. that adequate off-street parking be provided for the church while the development is in progress. The motion was seconded and CARRIED BY unanimous roll call vote. CHAIRMAN GREGG called for a five-minute recess, after which the meeting reconvened at 11:32 p.m. R) CASE S-84-025. PRELIMINARY Subdivision of an Unsubdivided Portion of U.S. Survey 5099 into Port Lions Alaska Subdivision, Second Addition, creating Tract A and Lots 1-5, Block 1; Tract B and Late 1-7, Block 2; Lots 1-10, Block 3; and Lots 1-10, Block 4 (Afogoak Native Corp.). MR. CROWE reported that 105 public hearing notices had been mailed out and that none had been returned. There was no public testimony. COMMISSIONER HILL MOVED TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION of an Unsub- divided Portion of U.S. Survey 5099 into Port Lions Alaska Subdivision, Second Addition, creating Tract A and Lots 1-5, Block 1; Tract B and Lots 1-7, Block 2; Lots 1-10, Block 3; and Lots 1-10, Block 4 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant obtain sanitation approval from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; 2. That the property is rezoned from Conservation to Rural Residential One at the July 18, 1984 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission; 3. That the access road to the boat harbor be shown as a dedicated right-of-way; 4. That the designation for the width of the electrical easement along Airport Road he changed to 15 feet to agree with the existing easement which KEA obtained from the Afognak Native Corporation; and 5. That five-foot wide electrical easements be provided along both sides of Marine Street and along one side of Marine Loop, at the request of KEA. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call.vote. 5) CASE 5-84-026. PRELIMINARY Subdivision of Lot 2, Block 2, Shahafka Acres Subdivision into Lots 2A and 2B, Block 2, Shahafka Acres Sub- division. U.S. Survey 3218 (Helen C. Hall). ' MR. CROWE reported that 35 public hearing notices had been mailed with none returned. CHAIRMAN GREGG recessed the Regular Meeting and opened the Public Hearing. MRS. HELEN C. HALL, applicant, requested granting a variance from the required setback and she also requested usage of the trailer which currently sits on the lot for no longer than two years while a new home is being built. There being no further public testimony, CHAIRMAN GREGG closed the Public Hearing and reconvened the Regular Meeting. COMMISSIONER JAMES MOVED TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of the PRELIMINARY Subdivision of Lot 2, Block 2, Shahafka Acres Subdivision into Lots 2A and 28, Block 2, Shahafka Acres Subdivision, U.S. Survey 3218 subject to the subsequent approval of a variance allowing the side yard encroachment. The motion was seconded and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. Regular Meeting - 10 - June 20, 1984 Kodiak Island Borough' - • MEMORANDUM DATE: Januaryi8, 1989 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Information for the January 18, 1989 Regular Meeting RE: CASE 891007. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record)lof the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BLOCK 5, LEITE Ao01noN; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGIO MARASIGAN) ITEM VI -G Seventy-six (76) public tearing notices were distributed on January 9, 1989. Date of site visit: January 4, 1989 1. Applicant: 2. Land Owner: 3. Request: 4. Existing Zoning: 5. Zoning History: Case 89-007 Remegio Marasigan Same. For a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two- family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single- family residence in a R3—Mullifamily Residential Zoning District. R3 --Multifamily Residential The 1968 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as R1- * -Single-Family Residential. In 1973, this lot, as were all other lots in Blocks 5 through 8, Leite Subdivision (with the exclusion of Lots 1, 2, 25, and 26, Block 7) were rezoned from R1--Single-Family Residential to R3 --Multifamily Residential by Ordinance 73-26-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated an investigation to rezone all of Block 5, Leila Addition, from R3 to R1. The Commission did not forward the request to the Assembly for approval. Departmental files indicate no further activity. Page 1 of 6 P&Z: January 18, 1989 ITEM VI -G 6. Location: Physical: 1812 Mission Road Legal: Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition 7. Lot Size: 5,981 square feet 8. Existing Land Use: Single -Family Residential 9. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: 10. Comprehensive Plan: 11. Applicable Regu ations: Lots 19 and 20, Block 2, Leite Addition Use: Single-family residential Zoning: R1--Single-Family Residential Lot 11, Block 5, Leite Addition Use: Single-family residential Zoning: R3 --Multifamily Residential Lot 1A, Block 6, Leite Addition Use: Church Zoning: R2--Two-Family Residential Lot 9, Block 5, Leite Addition Use: Single-family Residential Zoning: R3 --Multifamily Residential The 1968 Comprehensive Plan depicts this area for High Density Residential Development. The following sections of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Borough Code and the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program are applicable to this request: 17.36.030 Nonconforming tots of record. In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this title, a single-family dwelling and cus omary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record existing at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the ordinances codified in this title. This provision shall apply even hough such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width or both, if the lot conforms to the other regulations for the district in which such lot is located. Variance of yard requirements and of other development requirements, except as specified above, shall be obtained only through action of the planning commission as provided in Chapter 17.66 of this title. If two or more lo's, combinations of lots, or portions of lots with contiguous frontage in common ownership are of, record at the time of passage or amendment of the ordinances codified in this title, with a structure located across the lot line or a residential structure on one lot and an accessory building on the adjoining lot, the lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title. No portion of said parcel shall be used or sold which does not meet the lot width and area requirements established by this title, nor shall any division of the parcel be made which leaves remaining any lot with width or area below the requirements stated Case 89-007 Page 2 of 6 P8Z: January 18, 1989 ITEM VI -G in this title, except to allow the addition to abutting land to make a standard lot, providing such sale does not thereby create a substandard lot. COASTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICABLE POLICIES Residential Development 1. Location In areas with poorly draining soils, development where feasible shall be connected to a sewer line. Where this is not feasible, on-site 1acililies shall be designed so as not to cause conditions that will pollute rivers, lakes, and other water bodies, including the ground water supply. Consistent: 2. Open Space Yes. The lot is served by public sewer. Green areas and open space shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible and prudent when land is subdivided. Consistent: 3. Access Not applicable. This action does not involve land subdivision. New subdivisions or other residential developments on the shoreline shall provide usable public access to and along the shoreline, extending the length of the development, to the extent feasible and prudent. Consistent: Not applicable. This lot is not located along the shoreline. 4. Hazardous Lands Development shall not occur In hazardous areas such as avalanche runout zones, active lloodplains, and high water channels to the extent feasible and prudent. Siting, design, and construction measures to minimize exposure to coastal erosion, mass wasting and historic tsunami run-up shall be required to the extent feasible and prudent. Consistent: Not applicable. This lot is not located in a "hazardous" area. 5. Wetlands Filling and drainage of water bodies, floodways, backshores, and natural wetlands shall be consistent with ACMP Standards 6 AAC 80.070 (Energy Facilities) and 6 AAC 80.130 (Habitats). Case 89-007 Consistent: Not applicable. This action does not involve any filling or drainage activities. Page 3 of 6 P&Z: January 18, 1989 ITEM VI -G COMMENTS: The purpose of this request is to permit an existing single-family residence, located on a nonconforming lot of record, to be converted to a two-family residence. A similar request was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 20, 1987. While the request (Case 88-037) was denied by the Commission, the Commission did initiate an investigation of a rezone for Block 5, Lei, Addition. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Commission did not find sufficient reason to forward the rezoning request to the Assembly for approval. In order for the Commission to grant a variance, all of the following conditions must be satisfied: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, wliich generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. There are exceptional physical circumstances in that the lot is nonconforming due to its area of 5,981 square feet. This is 1,219 square feet less than the minimum lot area required by current zoning regulations (7,200 square feet for R1, R2, and R3 developments up to a triplex). Additionally, the lot does not meet the minimum width requirement of 60 feet as it is only 49.79 feet wide. 2. Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would only allow the construction of a single-family residence. This is an unnecessary hardship when the lot is zoned R3 --Multifamily Residential, the proposed use is permitted in the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District, and the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all other Title 17, requirements (such as off-street parking, setbacks, height of structures, etc., can be met. 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 of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. A decision to grant a variance could be prejudicial to other single-family dwellings in the vicinity, if off-street parking and increased traffic volume to and from the site are not consistent with the character of the; adjacent single-family dwellings. This potential could be mitigated by the requirement of a parking plan prior to development and the requirement of screening along property lines contiguous with the development. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the obiectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies this area for High Density Residential Development. f Case 89-007 Page 4 of 6 P&Z: January 18, 1989 ITEM VI -G 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. In this case, the actions of the applicant have not caused conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The variance will be decided before the applicant takes any action. 6. That the grantin of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. A two-family dwelling is a permitted use in the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this request does 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 request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead ofonly a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District on Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition; subject to the two conditions contained in the staff report dated January 8, 1989, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated January 8, 1989, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to ssuance of zoning compliance, the applicant must provide a parking plan for the site showing the location of the additional two (2) parking spaces, as well as the existing off-street parking that is available. 2. The applicant must provide screening along the lot lines contiguous with lots occupied by single-family residences. Case 89-007 Page 5 of 6 P&Z: January 18, 1989 tis c 9 59 AS • RUILT SURVEY c..t.. / a•. 70 ' I hereby aeAfy that 1 hoe sunned the following desee hed propenyl SOT 10 51OCK 5 LS/TE ADD/i/QN .A54/fiver !48/, kb/y.4x, 4145K# and the the bnprweneon sbtnneJtheaaon arc within the property Linn and do not overlap nr encroach on the propnty lying adjacent theses°, that nu Improvements on property lying adjacent theme encroach on the pranbn in question and tot there ace no oadway,. tmmnia cion lines or other visible easement' an said property except an Snell. sated hereon. Dated this 6 rk 4 or -lune 1984- Y A. ECKW. Drgiamed Land Sornynv Drawn by: /a_ Date: le -J'uNt /96, }' w z w Q lc/ A ilk / \IN.\r\�,�\,\�\ V\i\\�\\w\1 %_\• anal ( / \ / - •- SPMEONOFt: 1/4 w '" :ARAN0 AV ft lSTREE T= wE antriai „ `\t•.\I `\J\ \\'\\ ''/ \-<\-<\-ai/ ill•.\ Isar upetip vipPrAffiggismisig t23.:naa. . 6 Z Qat - REZANOE oxiME CHICHENOF S MUM MEM w STREET 43 angiENETENEtata GNU mer�plin 1$ M A I t O V Airam DRIVE eN \\\� CEAN✓� S,S`SJO US SURVEY,/ ■ 2873 ZONING KEY Q REStDENT1AL 1171 Q RESIDENTIAL R-2, RESIDENTIALEl R 3 RURAL REStDENTtAL 0 'ausINEss L Not+ct' 14. Case89-007 Lot 10 Block 5 Leiter" -- 1812 Mission 325' rr Remegio Marasigan Box 759 USCG Kodiak, Alaska 99619 Re: Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 February 16, 1989 Findings of Fact for Case 89-007 supporting approval of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 -- Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition; 1512 Mission. Dear Mr. Marasigan: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 15, 1989, adopted the following findings of fact in support of their decision cited above: 1. That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use o development. which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. An exceptional physical circumstance of the property is the fact that the lot is nonconforming due to its area of 5,981, square feet. This is 1,219 square feet (17 percent) less than the minimum lot area required by current zoning regulations for the development of a two-family residence. Additionally, the lot does not meet the minimum width requirement of 60 feet as it is only 49.79 feet wide. Another exceptional physical circumstance of this property is the fact that the lot is located on a comer of the block: Therefore, this lot is required to have a ten (10) foot side yard setback along Delarof Street compared to the normal five (5) foot side yard setback required for an interior lot. 2. That the strict I application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would only permit the construction of a single-family residence on this nonconforming lot of record. The applicant does not require any additional variances in order to convert the existing single-family residence into a two-family residence for off-street parking, setbacks, height of structures, etc., even though the lot is nonconforming In both area and width. Therefore, strict application of the Zoning Code is an unnecessary hardship when the lot is zoned R3 --Multifamily Residential and the proposed use of the lot for two-family residential, is specifically permitted in the R3—Multifamily Residential Zoning District. r Kodiak Island Borough Remegio Marasigan February 16, 1989 Page Two 3. That the grant ng of the variance will not result in material damages or preiudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health. safety and welfare. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. A decision to grant a variance will slightly increase the density of development in this area. However, the requirement of a solid fence that is six (6) feet tall (located along the property lines where the lot is adjacent to existing single-family dwellings) should Insure that the character of the surrounding ne ghborhood will not be affected in any way by this change. In addition, a parking plan is required to be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of zoning comp lance to insure that adequate room for the required off-street parking is available on site. 4. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the obiectives of the Comprehensive Plan. After investigat ng a rezone of Block 5, Leite Addition, from R3 --Multifamily Residential to R1 -- Single Family Residential in September, 1988, the Commission adopted the findings listed below: a. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or Amendment. A rezone from R3--Multlfamily Residential to R1--Single-Family Residential is neither needed nor justified because the R3--Multlfamily Residential Zoning District permits development that: 1) 2) 3) is consistent with the comprehensive plan; can be suitable for the existing lots, given the prevailing lot sizes, widths and placement of existing structures, it each request for higher density development is fairly evaluated and appropriate conditions are required to mitigate any potential adverse impacts; will not create any non -conforming land uses on the nineteen (19) lots in the block. Kodiak Island Borough Remegio Marasigan February 16, 1989 Page Three b. Findings as to the Effect a Chance or Amendment would have on the Obiectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The 1968 Comprehensive Plan shows this block as a transition zone with designations for both Medium and High Density Residential Development. The zoning of Block 5, Leite Addition as R3 --Multifamily Residential has, in effect, determined this area to be a High Density Residential area. This designation clarifies the Comprehensive Plan's "split designation." Due to the current zoning, it would be inconsistent for the commission to downzone the area when it appears to be showing signs of redevelopment to the prescribed density. Denial of a recommendation to rezone Block 5, Leite Addition is therefore consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the above findings, the Commission finds that granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies this area for High Density Residential Development. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. In this case, the actions of the applicant have not caused conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The variance will be decided before the applicant takes any action. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. The R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District permits a much higher density of development than that which would result from the development of a two-family residence. It should be noted that this variance request is not related to the zoning district or permitted uses therein. This variance concerns whether or not the requested two-family dwelling, which is specifically permitted in the R3 --Multifamily Zoning District, should be permitted to locate on a lot that is seventeen percent (17%) smaller than the zoning code requires. The Commission also noted that the granting of this variance would be consistent with the description and intent of the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. An appeal of this decision may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effective until ten days following the decision. Kodiak Island Borough Remegio Marasigan February 16, 1989 Page Four Failure to utilize this approval within twelve (12) months atter its effective date shall cause its cancellation. Please bring this letter with you it you need to come into our office to obtain zoning compliance for any construction on the property. It you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secreta Community Development Department cc: Pat Reiland Remegio Marasigan 1512 Mission Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 January 19, 1989 Re: CASE 89.007. REODESTFOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3--Muflifamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, aLOC( 5, LEITE ADDMON; 1512 MISSION. (RENEGIO MARASIGAN) Dear Mr. Marasigan: The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on January 18, 1989, °ranted therequest for the variance cited above, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of zoning compliance, the applicant must, provide a parking plan for the site showing the location of the additional two (2) parking spaces, as well as the existing off-street parking that is available. 2., The applicant must provide and maintain a six (6) foot solid fence for screening along the lot lines between (a) Lots 9 and 10,. Block 5, Leite Addition, and (b) Lots 10 and 11, Block 5,. Leite Addition. .The Commission deferred the adoption of findings of fact in support of their decision until their February 15, 1969 Regular Meeting. THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT ALLOW ANY CONSTRUCTION TO BEGIN, Zoning compliance and/or a building permit must first be obtained. Please contact this office for further details. An appeal of this decision may be initiated by any person or party aggrieved by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten days of the date of the Commission's decision. The notice of appeal must stale the speciific grounds for the appeal. Therefore, the Commission's decision will not be final and effective until ten days following the decision. Failure to utilize this variance within twelve (12) months after Its effective date shall cause Its cancellation. Please bring this letter when you come to our office to obtain zoning compliance for any construction on the lot. Kodiak Island Borough Remeglo Marasigan January 19, 1989 Page Two If you have any questions about the action of the Commission, please contact Duane Dvorak of the Community Development Department, Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secfetary Community Development Department cc: Pat Reiland PERSONS TESTIFYING AT THE PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 18, 1989 CASE 89-007 Scott Bonney Box 461 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Theresa Bonney Box 461 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 David Buckley 1419 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Ruth Gordon 1512 Ismailov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Fred Nass Box 298 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Pat Reiland SR 9250 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Joe Spicciani Box 4096 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Howard Stewart 1427 Kouskov Kodiak, Alaska 99615 COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS mOVED TO ADOPT the following finding of fact in support of the decision: "The vacation of a portion of this easement will not adversely affect utility companies in their ability to provide adequate service to the public in this area." The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. VII. OLD BUSINESS A) Findings of Fact for Case 89-007 supporting approval of a request for a —' Variance variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) Instead of only a single-family residence_in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block • 5, Lelte Addition; 1512 Mission. (Remegio Marasigan) " COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO ADOPT the findings of fact for Case 89-007 contained in the staff memorandum dated February 6, 1989 as "Findings of Fact° for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the grope y or intended use of development. which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. An exceptional physical circumstance of the property is the fact that the lot is nonconforming due to its area of 5,961 square feet. This is 1,219 square feet (17 percent) less than the minimum lot area required by current zoning regulations for the development of a two-family residence. Additionally, the lot does not meet the minimum width requirement of 60 feel as it is only 49.79 feet wide. Another exceptional physical circumstance of this property is the fact that the lot is located on a corner of the block. Therefore, this lot is required to have a ten (10) foot side yard setback along Delarof Street compared to the normal five (5) foot side yard setback required for an interior lot. 2. That the strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would only permit the construction of a single-family residence on this nonconforming lot of record. The applicant does not require any additional variances in order to convert the existing single-family residence into a two-family residence for off-street parking, setbacks, height of structures, etc., even though the lot is nonconforming in both area and width. Therefore, strict application of the Zoning Code is an unnecessary hardship when the lot is zoned R3 -- Multifamily Residential and the proposed use of the lot tor two- family residential is specifically permitted in the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. 3. That the granting o1 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 of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. A decision to grant a variance will slightly increase the density of development in this area. However, the requirement o1 a solid fence That is six (6) feet tall (located along the property lines where the lot is adjacent to existing single-family dwellings) should insure that the character of the surrounding neighborhood will not be affected in any way by this change. In addition, a parking plan is required to be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of zoning compliance to insure that adequate room for the required off-street parking is available on site. Page 13 of 16 P&Z Minutes: February 15, 1989 Page 14 of 16 4. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. After investigating a rezone of Block 5, Leite Addition, from R3 -- Multifamily Residential to R1 --Single Family Residential in September, 1988, the Commission adopted the findings listed below: a. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or Amendment. A rezone from R3 --Multifamily Residential to R1--Single- Family Residential is neither needed nor justified because the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District permits development that: 1) is consistent with the comprehensive plan; 2) can be suitable for the existing lots, given the prevailing lot sizes, widths and placement of existing structures, if each request for higher density development is fairly evaluated and appropriate conditions are required to mitigate any potential adverse impacts; 3) will not create any non -conforming land uses on the nineteen (19) lots in the block. b. Findings as to the Effect a Change or Amendment would have on the Obiectives of the Comprehensive Plan The 1968 Comprehensive Plan shows this block as a transition zone with designations for both Medium and High Density Residential Development. The zoning of Block 5, Leite Addition as R3 --Multifamily Residential has, in effect, determined this area to be a High Density Residential area. This designation clarifies the Comprehensive Plan's "split designation." Due to the current zoning, it would be inconsistent for the commission to downzone the area when it appears to be showing signs of redevelopment to the prescribed density. Denial of a recommendation to rezone Block 5, Leite Addition Is therefore consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the above findings, the Commission finds that granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies this area for High Density Residential Development. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. In this case, the actions of the applicant have not caused conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The variance will be decided before the applicant takes any action. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. The R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District permits a much higher density of development than that which would result from the development of a two-family residence. It should be noted that this variance request is not related to the zoning district or permitted uses therein. This variance concerns whether or not the requested two-family dwelling, which is specifically permitted in the R3—Multifamily Zoning District, should be permitted to locate on a lot that is seventeen percent (17%) smaller than the zoning code requires. P&Z Minutes: February 15, 1989 The Commission also that the granting of this variance would be consistent with the description and intent of the R3— Multifamily Residential Zoning District. B) Findings of Fact for Case S-88-041 supporting approval of a preliminary Dial for the vacation and replat of Lots 1 and 2, Tract A, Woodland Acres Subdivision First Addition to Lots 1A, 1B, and 2A. 3495-3527 Woodland Drive. (Hiner and Hiner/Craig H. Johnson) A discussion ensued between the Commissioners regarding the findings of fact presented by staff. COMMISSIONER COLEMAN MOVED TO ADOPT the findings of fact for Case S-88-041 numbered 1, 2, and 4 contained in the staff memorandum dated February 6, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is inadequate drainage across existing Lot 2 to support the further subdivision of the lot into two buildable sites for residential development. 2. Development of two residential lots in the area of existing Lot 2, would increase surface water runoff which would adversely impact adjacent property. 3. Property owners in the area are, for the most part, opposed to the subdivision due to the potential drainage problems and inconsistency with the character of the neighborhood. There was no further old business. VIII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. IX. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER HODGINS MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of items A through H of communications. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A) Memo to the file dated January 20, 1989, from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 3A, U.S. Survey 3098 - Clear Zone. B) Letter dated January 23, 1989, to L. Ben Hancock from Linda Freed, re: Case 89-004. C) Letter dated January 25, 1989, to Walter O. Stieglitz, Regional Director, U.S. Fish 8 Wildlife Service, re: Revised Draft, Cabin Management Policies on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. D) Letter dated January 30, 1989, to John A. Parker from Linda Freed, re: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 1988 Decision Requiring Screening of Tract D-1, U.S. Survey 3218. E) Letter dated February 2, 1989, to ShariWick from Bob Scholze, re: Lot 5C, U.S. Survey 3099 - Commercial Fishing Gear Activity. F) Letter dated January 1989, to Municipal Officers from Roxann Beck - Foley, re: Conflict of Interest Statement • Due April 15, 1989. G) "Alaska Planning Commission Handbook" published by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, dated December 1988. 1-1) Minutes of the February 3, 1989 meeting of the Monashka Bay Road Service District. A discussion ensued between the Commissioners and Community Development Department staff regarding Communications Item H. The Commission directed staff to draft new language for a Rural Residential One Page 15 of 16 P&Z Minutes: February 15, 1989 Kodiak Island Borough DATE: February 6, 1989 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Commuhity Development Department SUBJECT: Information for the February 15, 1989 Regular Meeting RE: Findinas of Fact for Case 89-007 supporting approval of a request for a variance from Section' 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two - f amity dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3—Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition; 1512 Mission. (Remegio Marasigan) MEMORANDUM ITEM VII -A BACKGROUND At the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 18, 1989, the Commission deferred findings of fact for the approval of the variance cited above. Provided for the Commission's consideration are suggested findings of fact for this case. APPROPRIATE MOTION if the Commission agrees with these findings, the appropriate motion is: Move to adopt the findings of fact for Case 89-007 contained in the staff memorandum dated February 6, 1989 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which aenerally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. An exceptional physical circumstance of the properly Is the fact that the lot is nonconforming due to its area of 5,981 square teet. This is 1,219 square feet (17 percent) less than the minimum lot area required by current zoning regulations for the development of a two-family residence. Additionally, the lot does not meet the minimum width requirement of 60 feet as it is only 49.79 feet wide. Another excepti Inal physical circumstance of this property is the fact that the lot Is located on a corner of the block. Therefore, this lot is required to have a ten (10) foot side yard setback along Delarof Street cdmpared to the normal five (5) foot side yard setback required for an interior lot. 2. That the strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would only permit the construction of a single-family residence on this nonconforming lot of record. The applicant does not require any additional variances in order to convert the existing single-family residence into a two-family residence for off-street parking, setbacks, height of structures, etc., even though the lot is nonconforming in both area and width. Therefore, strict application of the Zoning Code is an unnecessary hardship Old Business Item (A) Page 1 of 3 P&Z: February 15, 1989 ITEM VII -A when the lot is zoned R3 --Multifamily Residential and the proposed use of the lot for two-family residential is specifically permitted in the R3—Multifamlly Residential Zoning District. That 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 of the yariance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. A decision to grant a variance will slightly increase the density of development in this area. However, the requirement of a solid fence that is six (6) feet tall (located along the property lines where the lot is adjacent to existing single-family dwellings) should Insure that the character of the surrounding neighborhood will not be affected in any way by this change. In addition, a parking plan is required to be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the Issuance of zoning compliance to insure that adequate room for the required off-street parking Is available on site. 4. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the obiectives of the Comprehensive Plan. After investigating a rezone of Block 5, Leite Addition, from R3--Multlfamily Residential to R1 -- Single Family Residential in September, 1988, the Commission adopted the findings listed below: a. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or Amendment. A rezone from R3 --Multifamily Residential to R1—Single-Family Residential is neither needed nor justified because the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District permits development that: 1) is consistent with the comprehensive plan; 2) can be suitable for the existing lots, given the prevailing lot sizes, widths and placement of existing structures, if each request for higher density development is fairly evaluated and appropriate conditions are required to mitigate any potential adverse impacts; 3) will not create any non -conforming land uses on the nineteen (19) lots in the block. b. Findings( as to the Effect a Change or Amendment would have on the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The 1968 Comprehensive Plan shows this block as a transition zone with designations for both (Medium and High Density Residential Development. The zoning of Block 5, Leite Addition as R3 --Multifamily Residential has, in effect, determined this area to be a High Density Residential area. This designation clarifies the Comprehensive Plan's "split designation." Due to the current zoning, It would be inconsistent for the commission to downzone the area when it appears to be showing signs of redevelopment to the prescribed density. Denial of a recommendation to rezone Block 5, Leite Addition is therefore) consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the above findings, the Commission finds that granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies this area for High Density Residential Development. Old Business Item (A) Page 2 of 3 P&Z: February 15, 1989 ITEM VII -A That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. In this case, the actions of the applicant have not caused conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The variance will be decided before the applicant takes any action. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. The R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District permits a much higher density of development than that which would result from the development of a two-family residence. It should be noted that this variance request is not related to the zoning district or permitted uses therein. This variance concerns whether or not the requested two-family dwelling, which is specifically permitted in the R3 --Multifamily Zoning District, should be permitted to locate on a lot that is seventeen percent (17%) smaller than the zoning code requires. The Commission also noted that the granting of thls variance would be consistent with the description and intent of the R3—MultUamily Residential Zoning District as follows: 17.20.010 Description and Intent. The multifamily residential district is established as a land use district for one -family, two-family and multifamily dwellings and limited office uses where public water and sewer services are available. For the multifamily residential district, in promoting the general purposes of this title, the specific intentions of this chapter are: r a. To encourage the construction of one -family, two-family and multifamily dwellings; b. To prohibit commercial and industrial land uses and any other use of the land which would interfere with the development or continuation of one -family, two-family and multifamily dwellings in this district; c. To encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that are not permitted under the provisions of this chapter; d. To disc lurage any use which, because of its character or size, would create requirements and costs for public services, such as police and fire protection, water supply and sewerage, before such services can adequately be provided; and e. To disco) rage any use which would generate other than normal vehicular traffic on streets serving residents on those streets. Old Business Item (A) Page 3 of 3 P&Z: February 15, 1989 .s Remegio Marasigan Box 759 USCG Kodiak, Alaska 99619 Dear Mr. Marasigan: Enclosed please find Planning and Zoning Wednesday, February Kodiak Island Borough copy of the materials, Commission at their , 1989. If you have any questions or comments, please 5736, extension 255. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secreta Community Development Department enclosures cc: Pat Reiland (w/o enclosures) 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 February 9, 1989 concerning the above referenced Rem, reviewed by the regularly scheduled packet review worksession held contact the Community Development Department at 486- Remegio Marasigan Box 759 USCG Kodiak, Alaska 99619 Re: Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 February 2, 1989 Findings of Fact for Case 89-007 supporting approval of a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3— MuBifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Lege Addition; 1512 Mission. Dear Mr. Marasigan: Please be advised that the request referenced above has been scheduled for review and action by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their February 15, 1989 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Attendance at this meeting is recommended. The week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, February 8, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough conference room, the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet material for the regular meeting. You are Invited to attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, please call the Community Development Department at 486-5736, extension 255. Sincerely, Patricia Miley, Secreta Community Development Department Pat Reiland January 27,11989 RECEIVED JAN 2 71989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Linda Freedl_Director Community Development Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Appeal of January 18, 1989, Commission Decision on Case 89-007 r Dear Linda: Scott Bonney and 23 others have filed an appeal of the January 18,11989 Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission decision granting a variance to permit a two-family dwelling unit to locate on a nonconforming lot of record in an R3 -Multifamily Residential Zoning District. (Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 1812 Mission Road). I am aware the record on appeal as required by Kodiak City Code 17.10.020(b); will not be compiled until the Findings of Fact are! adopted February 15, and the minutes of that meeting are approved in March. Sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK MARCELLA H. DALKE, CMC/AAE City Clerk MHD/nj Enc: Bonney,4 et al, Appeal POST OEEICEIBOA 1397. KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 Board of Adjustment c/o City Clerk Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Attn: Marcella Daike January 25, 1989 4 JAI.' 1999 RECEIVED CITYCICLFDCE CITY OF CLERK'S You are hereby notified that the following persons listed below and on attached sheet 1 of 1, do appeal to the City of Kodiak, Zoning Board of Adjustment, the decision of the Kodiak Borough Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) to allow a variance i under case 89-007 of the January 18, 1989 P&Z meeting. The varianie granted would permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to, locate on a nonconforming lot of record in an R3 - Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, 1812 Mission Road. The following persons listed are appealling due to errors by the P&Z Commiission in enforcement of zoning ordinances per Title 17 of the City of Kodiak Zoning Ordinances Subsection 17.10.010 (A), specifically that approval of said variance is contrary to section 17.66.050 (A), numbers (1), //c27 ko✓Jko,i `,c ` Ccw�,.�'� \4aTl 4<0 us lea, / 44 ZS /aciays43, Sj— /$ $, %4larAe-sv Si ?.919 tout/Lau-if (419 1S t C s h o'Y 'Sf /mai /crV (3) and (4). Howard Stewart Sharon Stewart Fred Nass Kenneth R. Lester David W. Buckley Tonna E. Buckley Bryce W. Gordon Ruth Breck,berg ATTACHMENT 1 of 1 VARIANCE APPEAL CASE 89-007 7 1 J L4/1,1 -e_ /L/fi,'Ll„o2x ( l,ELt&,;1 411 1e �p J�`fen� rf��jn. 1i /iS/"1/i/LCIS/ ` i s / a i� ikui wer of attorney) /7/ -'- / / f U /?a /1 o v /41.0 cc /rG' / 1 Cc( 5 it/ 011 k----81,5 K a 1 /.;/Jy/%/LJv 57--- !l / 4 2S,7u�cod Bonnie Noreen Svea Breckberg Robert Breckberg Joseph C. Spicciani Jane E. Spicciani Judy Kendrick Carl Carlson Meta Carlson Marina Opheim Ed Opheim Thomas L Paard Donna M. Beard Olive Ruth Gordon Paul A. Chervenak Theresa A. Bonney R. Scott Bonney 2—KODIAK DAILY MIRROR—TUESDAY 'ARK 24, 1989 'Tusty' won't sail for ;seven months in 1991 By CECIL RANNEY Starr Writer The Tustumcna will proba- bly be out of service for marc than seven months in 1991 for the second phase of a major overhaul. John Hallerman, System Assistant Director, said to do die work not .-uy on Xodiak's only marine highway link to the mainland would take about 30 weeks. "We could have the second phase work done in two years; he said. 'Each year would take about 26 weeks. We chose to package all the work in one sea on This year the Tustumena will undergo the first phase of the overhaul and come back an line in mid•April, a few weeks later than ural. Maltese= said $2.4 million would be spent this year. The vessel will be fitted with a complete sewagesystemt the car Disturbed abo Dear editor, One might call this letter of concern a belated one, but 1 and many othem arc disturbed about how the Kodiak Arts Council mins its Talent Shows, True enough, it has been nearly two months ago, bur it's time someone spoke out I'm not accusing them or— running a scam but 1 will say it wasn't fair, After all the advcr- thing and stressing the impor- tance of originality, talent and creativity, when it came down to the winner, none of that was taken into consideration, A very special friend of mine who entered the show worked hours preparing for it. When showtime came. she'had gone out of her way to make sure she had it down to perfection. Not only did she dress that put and have a totem pole, she also (kik, car elevator and stabilizes cabal system will be reworked and two new life boats and davits, which cost 5150,000 each, will be installed this year. Next year the ferry will get its usual annual overhaul and will be out of service for the normal period of about 12 weeks But in 1991 the plan calls for the 514.5 million second phase of the overhaul to bo completed. When she comes back in 1991 she will be completely re- furbished; said Halterman. 'The house will bo extended 22 feet' 'Hageyhadnoan said at Nm is pal Otey had not addiessed any plans put a replacement on line while the na is out of service in 1991. 1991. "The Tusk:myna is the only ocean going ferry in our fleet and it is not readily Apparent how, we could find a substitute vessel: he said. ut talent show wrote her own music. Rut did she get any recognition? No! Now even if my friend wasn't so dear, I'd speak out because anyone who puts so much Into something should gcl some award. So many people from all walks of fife have Come up to her and told hex howfeaudful her songs arc. Aller hearing It enough times, it makes one wonder. Them was a lot of talent there. who did what they were asked to, but by no fault of tholes, did they get anything, even a ribbon tsaying alent gave it my all at are talent show" To alt those people young and old, especially you lane, who did go out there and give 100 =tent. my hers off to you; you're alt winners in my eyes or pig having enough guts and ride)Io try. Never give up on our hopes and dreams! 5. L. Scott Jury finds crew guilty A jury found the skipper and crewmen of the FV Susan Gale guilty of fishing in closed wa- ters during a trial here recently. The incident occurred Sept. 1, 1988, according to Fish and Wildlife protection personnel. They said that the boat was seen cemmemiai fishing within 85 yards at the mouth of Main Creek in Amber Bay near Chignik. The arca has a regulatory closure prohibiting ' fishing within 300 yards of the stream mouth and was posted with the standard regulatory markers. The skipper Dan L. Ander- sen of Seward was fine $10,000 and sentenced to 20 days in jail.' Five thousand dollars and 10 days were suspended on the condition thedefendant have no similar violations for one year. Crewmen John E. Dialo of Seward, Victor L. Yogic of Perryville and Stephen C. Finney of Sequim, Wash. each received lints of 55,000 and 10 days in jail with $2500 and all jail time suspended , Letterr to the editor 5 t elite FtJt:$ How Brim Frost will affect Kodiak; -ii Dear editor, ' I felt a response to Mr. Stevens' letter to the editor of Ian, 17, 1989 was needed to clarify the impart the local Brim Frost 89 ex- ercise will have ,on Ko - Males residents. Briefly, from Jan. 26 to Feb. 2, our forces will re- spond to the threat of' sim- ulated terrorist actions against local Coast Guard facilities. Anyone entering the base will get a first hand view of several of our expected responses to a real terrorist threat, i.e., in- creased gate stops for identification checks, in- creased gate searches, and random stops on the base. In addition, the U. S. Army's 6th Infantry Divi- sion will be protecting our outlying units. Their de- fense plans, however, do not include traffic stops. .Ideally, everyone enter- ing the Support Center will willingly cooperate in this exercise. To achieve this goal, I feel that I need to address Mr. Stevens con- cerns about his rights on the Support Center. ' In 1961, the U. 5. Supreme Court held that a commanding officer's right to control access to a mili- tary base is within the con- stitutional powers granted to both Congress and the President. This 1961 de- cision affirmed several opinions dating back to 1837 which uniformly supported a commander's right to exclude private persons, or to "admit them under such restrictions as he may prescribe in the in- terest of good order.and military discipline." Our base regulations concerning vehicle regis- tration, gate searches, and inspections are consonant I with due process of law, and do not require probable cause to implement. However, this does not mean that citizens give up their constitutional rights upon entering the Support Center. It's just that, as recognized by the Supreme Court, a person's rights on a military base are often subject to military neces- sity, a different standard. Necessarily, our Brim Frost 89 defenses will be as real as we can make them, and may create some inconvenience. However, where cooperation is needed, I'm sure that ev- eryone involved will pro- vide it, just as if this were a teat emergency. ' - Sincerely, J. S. Blackett r; a Captain U. S. Coast Guard ,Commanding Officer " Neighbors to appeal rdecision. _To the editor, people is disregarded then On Jan. 18, 1989, the we all have lost something Planning and Zoning precious. Commission by a split de- We are appealing this cision overruled the decision. unanimous objections of ARE YOU LISTENING 23 neighbors. P & Z7 At stake we felt was the preservation of our neigh- borhood from excessive high density development, and an outdated compre- hensive plan. We believe the Planning and Zoning Commission acted irresponsibly and in error. When the will of the Nr Kodiak daily mirror Editor and Publisher Nancy Freeman Advertising Manager Cindi Shaginew Ottice Manager Donna Schmidt Circulation Manager Jean Heath News State Hen Waage, Cecil Raney. Suzanne Hancock and Amy Hatt .. Advertising Sales Lucy A y Lybarger, Amy Freeman and Karen Payne Newsatng Layout: Anne Dent and Elaine A. aubnic News Layout: authe Devonport PrinterBrianSchuttPr Typist: Eddie Pherson ..a ' Typlsc Detynn Pbersan Classifieds: Jan Murphy ' Published daffy, Monday through Friday, except holidays by Kodiak Publishing Co. (ISSN -0740.2112J. 210 W. Mutant 1 Kodiak Masks 89515. (907) 496-3227 and 48640228. Soeond-cresa postage paid at KOdiak, tasks Postmaster: Send oddness changes to Kodiak Daily Mirror. 216 W. Razenoe Kodiak, Alaskaa9615. %n I Out at Slate Stale end Local :-'pi 3 mos 539.00 3 mos 527.00 "I ^' 8 ran 578.00 ` - S mos $54.00 '" t year .... 5160.00 t year S108.00 1 Carl and Meta ' Carlson Joseph and Jane Spicciani Paul Chervenak `,l Theresa A. Bonney Ruth Breckberg Robert Breckberg , (B.B., P.O.A.) • - sl:.. Svea Breckberg (R.B., P.O.A.) Bonnie Noreen (R.B., P.O.A.) Donna Buckley David Buckley Fred L. Nass Howard Stewart Sharon Stewart Ed Opheim Marina Opheim Ruth Gordon Bryce W. Gordon ' Tom and Donna Beard , Judy n1endrick Scot KB Bonney Spread the word :. about hoax Dear editor, I am writing to warn Alaska veterans to avoid a hoax that has recently resurfaced in our State concerning veterans' insurance dividends. For years, a person or persons unknown has been circulating what appears to be official information, sometimes including forms soliciting applications, for a so-called special dividend on veterans' life insurance. The forms usually cite re- cent action by congress and direct veterans to write to a post once box in Philadel- phia. Well-meaning local newspapers and newslet- ters frequently reprint the announcement believing it to be a public service. ! • The so called special dividend is a hoax. There is no such law. Veterans who have kept participating life insurance policies in force will receive dividends due to them without appli- cation to the VA. There is no special dividend nor i5 there a dividend on lapsed ,policies. Please help me spread the word about this hoax, which can only disappoint veterans by raising false hopes for a benefit that does not exist.. Sincerely, Frank H. Murkowski Ranking Minority Member • Senate Veterans Affairs Committee r A discussion ensued between the Commissioners and Mr. Schauff regarding the location of his parent's home and its proximity to the proposed lodge. The Commission clarified that this request would not rezone any property but, if approved, would allow the use of the . applicant's property for a commerdal lodge. Mr. Schauft noted that he understood that no property would be rezoned and reiterated his request that the Commission delay their decision until the March 1989 regular meeting. STEVEN SUYDAM, a Port Vita/Port Lions resident, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO GRANT an exception from Section 17.13.020 of the Borough Code to allow a commercial hunting and fishing operation utilizing several structures to locate in the C-- Conservabon Zoning District on Tract A, U.S. Survey 2382, Raspberry Island and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated January 8, 1989, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the use as proposed in the application, or under appropriate conditions or restnctions, will not (A) endanger the public's health, safety or general welfare, (B) be Inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title and (C) adversely impact other properties or uses in the neighborhood. A. It appears that the proposed use will not endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare. Raspberry Island Is a popular location for fishing and hunting activities and many cabins on the island are rented out as base camps for these activities. If an approved septic system is utilized, the use should not endanger the public's health safety or general welfare. B. The proposed use is consistent with the general purposes and intent of Title 17 and with the specific description and intent of Section 17.13 (Conservation District). Hunting, fishing and recreational activities are all permitted uses under the Conservation Zoning District. Hunting and fishing operations of the type proposed are a commercial type of fishing, hunting and recreational activity. C. The proposed use does not appear to adversely impact other properties or uses in the area because many other properties on Raspberry Island are similarly used as a base for hunting, fishing and recreational activities. The tract size of 6.3 acres should also provide adequate separation from other properties and uses in the area. C45E89-007: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming fol of record that is substandard In lot area (5,966 square feet) and b1 width (49.79 feet) Instead of only a single-family residence in a R3—Mullifamly Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BLOCX 5, 1.28twOITION; 1812 MISSION. (REMEOIO MARASIGAN) - - DUANE DVORAK Indicated 76 public hearing notices were mailed and 6 were retumed, opposing this request. Staff recommended approval of this request subject to two (2) conditions. Staff also read a public hearing notice response received from Cad and Meta Carlson due to the illegibility of the copies provided to the Commission with the additional handouts for the meeting. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: Page 11 of 23 P&Z Minutes: January 18, 1989 SCOTT BONNEY appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. - COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN noted that the Commission had Investigated the rezoning of all of Block 5, Leila Addition, and that the community had overwhelmingly rejected the proposal. Mr. Bonney stated that he believed that the rezoning to R1 ought to have included only the eight (8) lots that were developed by the Assembly of God Church. DAVID BUCKLEY appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request, concurring with Mr. Bonney's comments. - PAT REILAND, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. A discussion ensued between the Commissioners and Mr. Reiland regarding the condition proposed by staff for screening. Mr. Reiland requested that this condition be deleted. It was the consensus of the Commission that the purpose of the screening was to mitigate impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent neighbors. At the request of the Commission, staff noted that the condition could be revised to specifically state the screening the Commission required and that the condition, as written, •would be interpreted on a staff level as "sight obscuring" screening. JOE SPICCIANI, 1513 Mission, appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. THERESA BONNEY appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. RUTH GORDON appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. HOWARD STEWART appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to thls request. Mr. Stewart noted that he had a public hearing notice response opposing this request from his wife. Mr. Stewart submitted this response to the Community Development Department staff. LINDA FREED read public hearing notice responses from Sharon Stewart and Ruth Breckburg into the record. FRED NASS appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER BARRETT explained his rationale for his planned "no" vote on this request. ISSIO&. : HEINRI HS MO ' TO GRA T a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3--Multlfamily Residential Zoning District on Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition; subject to one condition, condition number one, contained in the staff report dated January 8, 1989, and to defer "Findings of Fact' for this case until the end of the meeting. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to issuance of zoning compliance, the applicant must provide a parking plan for the site showing the location of the additional two (2) parking spaces, as well as the existing off- street parking that is available. The motion died for the lack of a second. Page 12 of 23 P&Z Minutes: January 18, 1989 COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN noted that she felt this request required both conditions, and therefore she refrained from seconding Commissioner Heinrichs motion. A discussion ensued between the Commission, with input from Community Development Department staff, regarding procedure. It was the consensus of the Commission that a new motion was necessary at this point. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO GRANT a request for a variance from Section 17.36.030 of the Borough Code to permit a two- family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 -Multifamily Residential Zoning District, Lot 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report dated January 8, 1989, and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated January 8, 1989, as "Findings of Fact" for this case. Condition number two (2) is amended to read, 'The applicant must provide and maintain a six (6) toot solid fence for screening along the lot lines between (a) Lots 9 and 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, and (b) Lots 10 and 11, Block 5, Leite Addition." The motion was seconded and CARRIED by majority roll call vote. Commissioners Coleman, Barrett, and Hartt voted "no." CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to issuance o1 zoning compliance, the applicant must provide a parking plan for the site showing the location of the additional two (2) parking spaces, as well as the existing off- street parking that is available. 2. The applicant must provide and maintain a six (6) foot solid fence for screening along the lot lines between (a) Lots 9 and 10, Block 5, Leite Addition, and (b) Lots 10 and 11, Block 5, Leite Addition. [Under Commissioner's Comments, the Commission unanimously voted to reconsider the findings of fact adopted in this motion. The Commission subsequently tabled adoption of findings of fact until their February 15, 1989 regular meeting.] 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. There are exceptional physical circumstances in that the lot is nonconforming due to its area of 5,981 square feet. This is 1,219 square feet less than the minimum lot area required by current zoning regulations (7,200 square feet for R1, R2, and R3 developments up to a triplex). Additionally, the lot does not meet the minimum width requirement of 60 feet as it is only 49.79 feet wide. 2: Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result In. 'practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would only allow the construction of a single-family residence. This is an unnecessary hardship when the lot is zoned R3 --Multifamily Residential, the proposed use Is permitted In the _R3—Multifamily Residential Zoning District, and the use Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all other Title 17, requirements (such as off-street parking, setbacks, height of structures, etc., can be met. Page 13 of 23 P&Z Minutes: January 18, 1989 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 of the variance will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare. A decision to grant a variance could be prejudicial to other single-family dwellings in the vicinity, if off-street parking and increased traffic volume to and from the site are not consistent with the character of the adjacent single- family dwellings. This potential could be mitigated by the requirement of a parking plan prior to development and the requirement of screening along property lines contiguous with the development. 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan which identifies this area for High Density Residential Development. 5. That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. In this case, the actions of the applicant have not caused conditions from which relief is being sought by variance. The variance will be decided before the applicant takes any action. 6. That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. A two-family dwelling is a permitted use in the R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. CHAIRMAN HENDEL recessed the meeting at 9:40 p.m. CHAIRMAN HENDEL reconvened the meeting at 9:52 p.m. H) Case 88-041. Request to rezone Lot 1A, Block 1, Tract M, and Trams S -4A -1A, S -4A - 1B, S -4A -1C, and S -4A-2, U.S. Survey 3218 from I—Industrial to B --Business in accordance with Chapter 1722 (Amendments and Changes) of the Borough Code. Commonly known as the Buggy Banya and Safeway Store; 2597, 2645, and 2675 Mill Bay Road. (Mill Bay Plaza Association and Atagnak, Inc.) (Tabled from the July 20, 1988 regular meeting) DUANE DVORAK indicated 31 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and none were returned. Staff recommended approval of this request. Regular Session Closed. Public Hearing Opened: TOBY COOK appeared before the Commission and expressed support for this request. CHAIRMAN HENDEL asked Mr. Cook about the warehousing activities on one of the lots in question. Mr. Cook stated that the rezone should enhance the value of the properties involved. Public Hearing Closed. Regular Session Opened. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO REMOVE Case 88-041 from the table. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. COMMISSIONER KNUDSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve the rezoning of Lot 1A, Block 1, Tract M, and Trams S -4A -1A, S -4A -1B, S -4A -1C, and S -4A-2, U.S. Survey 3218 from I—Industrial B—Business in accordance with Chapter 17.72 of the Borough Code; and to adopt the findings contained in the staff report dated January 10, 1989, as "Findings of Fact" Page 14 of 23 P&Z Minutes: January 18, 1989 LINDA FREED reported on City of Kodiak action concerning the parking for King's Diner and that the Community Development Department had issued an administrative decision (enforcement) for a business lot being used for industrial purposes in the Womens Bay area. The administrative decision has been appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A discussion ensued regarding the development of a Rural Development Zoning District. X. REPORTS There were no reports. XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. XII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS A discussion ensued between the Commissioners, with Input from Community Development Department staff, regarding findings of fact for Case S-88-041 preliminary approval of the vacation of Lots 1 and 2, Tract A, Woodland Acres Subdivision First Addition and replat to Lots 1A, 1B, and 2, subject to the conditions outlined in the memorandum from the Borough Engineer dated December 13, 1988. The intent being to create a new configuration of three lots by permitting the vacation and replat of the lot line between proposed Lots 1 A and 1B and Lot 2A with proposed Lots 2A and 2B being platted as one (1) lot. The consensus of the Commission was to direct staff to prepare findings of fact for the Commission's consideration at their February 15, 1989 regular meeting. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS.MOVEDTO RECONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE 89-007. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote: -- A discussion ensued between the Commissioners, with input from Community Development Department staff, regarding the inclusion of the following in the findings of fact: (1) the zoning district allows much higher density than that proposed by the applicant; (2) the propertyis a corner lot; and (3) public testimony primarily was concerned with a prior agreement even though the recent investigation of rezoning was not supported by the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER HEINRICHS MOVED TO TABLE the adoption of findings of fact for Case 89-007 until the February 15, 1989 regular meeting. Staff was directed to prepare draft findings for the Commission's consideration. The motion was seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. A discussion ensued between the Commissioners, with Input from Community Development Department staff, regarding the clean up of the Motes' property. Linda Freed outlined the role of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Environmental Protection Agency. XIII. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN HENDEL adjoumed the meeting at midnight. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ATTEST By: Patricia Miley, Sbcretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: rebtuarfaIS, ig el Page 23 of 23 Tom Hendel, Chairman P&Z Minutes: January 18, 1989 Kodiak Island B 710 Mal BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 9961 s Marasigan Remegio 1512 Mission Road Kodiak, AK 99615 JAN 1 9 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPML7N C'EPT hbuifi: ISLA“u aURCUGH POST OFFICE 5OX 1246 KQDIAK, ALASKA 99615 I Conditional Use Permit ).Exception Variance ( ) Zoning Change: From: CODE SECTION INVOLVED: /i-. 3�. 030 To: NOTE: The application fee for all items covered by this form is 550. Conditional Use Permits, Exceptions, and Variance Applications also require the submissionf a site plan. APPLICANT: MytSlM/Ind 6/4EZ-VD Name /5/? M/ss/a'/ 0 Address City, State, Zip PROPERTY: La ` /0 , N604 5- 46- zile/6 Home Telephone *87-3-7g Work Telephone 312- 9 2S0 Yfr�-2S'a C/T� 71-00i%1a% Lot Block Subdivision Name United States Survey Section, Township, Range, S.M. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: 501e FA/Q'4yot- = 7oAr D R-5 PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY:I w0 E444g2,9 E —�L�I LAX TO Reiriunr a 64WD F Lexnz Afegocatioo seb •• I have been advised of the prrcedur_s in.olved with this request and have received a copy of the appropriate rzcu;,:ticrs. • Authorized Aden: //�.d Gate Application ,ccepteo: /Z/ ft ///111 • Marasigan Remeglo 1512 Mission Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: 0 Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486.5736 January 9, 1989 CASE 89-007. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-family dwelling unit (duplex) to locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard In lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence In a R3--Multifamlly Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BLOCK 5, LEITE ADDITION; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGIO MARASIGAN) Please be advised that the request referenced above has been scheduled for review and action by the Planning and Zoning Commisslon al their January 18, 1989 regular meeting. This meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. In the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Attendance at this meeting is recommended. l Dear Mr. Remegio: The week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, January 11, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough conference room, the Commission will hold a worksession to review the packet material for the regular meeting. You are invited toil attend this worksession in order to respond to any questions the Commission may have regarding this request. If you have any questions, 'please call the Community Development Department at 486-5736, extension 255. Sincerely Patricia Miley, Secretary Community Development Department cc: Pat Reiland �r 0 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 ITEM VI -G PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be tield on Wednesday, January 18, 1989. 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 89-007. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE from Section 17.36.030 (Nonconforming Lots of Record) of the Borough Code to permit a two-famlly dwelling unit (duplex) to.locate on a nonconforming lot of record that is substandard in lot area (5,966 square feet) and lot width (49.79 feet) instead of only a single-family residence in a R3 --Multifamily Residential Zoning District. LOT 10, BLOCK 5, LE/TEADDmON; 1812 MISSION. (REMEGIO MARASIGAN) II you do not wish to testily verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below, or In a letter to the Community Development Department prior to the meeting. This notice Is being sent to you,hecause our records indicate you ere a property owner in the area of the request. If you have any questions about the request, please feel free to call us at 486-5736, extension 255. Your Name: Your property deorlptlon: Comments: Melling Address: z W$; / / :,R1•-•11.97 1.-1* Li bl- ''t, ' "I .....-rrc: Tmvaz Oh a • TAP. kt# er\j Cat] 4,.....:_c.„.v......V.,.:, V......\%,..As.....‘1.0,..' . .. '5 I -IME ONOFF .,...... I.v...,..s. ... / i ..... ‘‘.• .V.P.,A41.0"1 • %- v..• v..., v..- ‘......v. _‘... _*, 1"i v.. • ......./. .J.c.....1.,......-- \at\ .- ..• • -, 1,-^ I, I" -....lc.... • • . ..... .... \ / / / / / .... .-......A... .11fint1114 I / k • • - ‘ *•••, / •‘;',Ai•Ajc.... I ARAN OF A V (.7 • 57 R E ifM111111 3E1110 REZANOF 4 a 4. r 7"*. '41 r kTn'e I...rIENOF 51 • •„::: • SIMEON“. r•..‘ NOFF‘ zErREE 3111111 1 $ V DRIVE eillmore .J TRE T TRCCT "" I iSP/ / \• \•,. • VN, • Ivy, v„. .1/4 .0./ V .1; \ :/ • 0" 4\ /tc"\ / AN...AN...A\ \\ d' ‘••••• /1. 141Wr \ N. Vs / • ZONING KEY 0 RESIDENTIAL R7I 0 Resmurpat- R-2, %AL El 1,E.•SID9,47 81i8INESi US SURVEY) co, f4int.,,, 287 ,3 Case 89-007 Lot 10 Block 5 Leite Addition 1812 Mission p, = 325' Kodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615^6340 RETURN TO SENDER RUNCLAIMED REFUSED CHECKED REFUSED ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN"' INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS NO SUCH STREET ___ NI "4EER NO SUCH OFFICE IN ST'TE DO NOT REMAIL IN THIS ENVELOPE. R1200050140 WOOOCOCK.MAX M.G GLADYS M P.D. 90X 1285 USCG KODIAK AK 99619 ` p0! .ct JAN 9'89 Xodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 n .141006 1 -Cep 04/ LOWERY.LY P.O. BOX 171 KODIAK R1200020090 AK 99615 Sloe LSPUSIICE 1=0.25E f90o1 t.1 Pa ' N VA Ca C1 G s r J 'C 4odiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 icc•et, 401rED 0 r oz? • iidees, t1.42 'too 3'oSj -4 U S PUS11121: JAN- grita /rxi,smi# — 0 2 5 E:: 5.0 r3RA14; 1 0 ••• rOnblel ;71^t( 5' armtz, C6,17,‘ ( V17 COA SKADSON, MYRON 084 KODIAK AUTO REBUILD P.O. BOX 251 KODIAK :AK 99615 R12000201761 cnsre ifoo?- Nodiak Island Borough 710 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 fl SK ADSON11 MY RON, ":""•• k rnr.:= I • %77;" 0 0 I 4"te IL. A • • ir \*:v- US.ItUSIACE - — JAN -932 Pb.htftl tik r.yrIni17 • W., .4;3 DBA KODIAK AUTO REBUILD P.O. BOX 251 KODIAK -I AK 99615 fjooV 6 '/y P+z 2 2 R1Z00010131 8f o o TARR,DWEN,C 030X WAST WASILLA NANCY 876305 AK 93687 '4, Abd5 BUNNELL,DEN41S 1413 MISSION KODIAK R12b0010141 E DONNA RDAD AK 99615 1 R12D0010150 S E MARCELLA `'1223 AK 93615 SANDINa4AM P.O. BOX KODIA< R1200010161 , I HUMWS-1-1TANtY 414 M4RIVE WAY KODIAK AK 99615 R1200010170 1 2 WiLLIPOT PETERSON/RICHARD P.D. 300786 yLt Lit L SK -9961S a KODIAK-7 a 41200020010 9 o cYEnnswiELVSN P.O. 8DX 11129 KODIAK AK 93615 2 0 R1200020020 19 so Gan- N,a 7TE E OLIVE 1512 SSMAILOV KODIAK AK 99615 �. 6 • 6 70 9 10 11 12 13 14 05 16 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 R1200020030 Stili tCLc A-TUJNNA P.O. 33X11920 KODIAK AK 99615 ' R1200020040 RI ET H W$LDI1 t4 P.O. 30X.2398 KODIAK AK 99615 1<AtS349 DBA KODIAK P.O. 5oxi251 R1230020050 MYR-ON AUTO REBUILD AK 99.61'5 KOOiAK R1200020060 TORSRAMSE-Ni—IAKE`S. R S trn 1520 2SM4ILDV KODIA< AK 99615 MIIRPBY WAYN 1526 ISMAILOV KODIAK 81200020070 AK 99615 MURPHY i r:'•� 1526 ISMO KODIAK R1200020080 E • OV Alf 99615 tOWcRYitYNN P.O. 30X KODI4.< R1200020090 2171 AK 99615 40 41 42 43 4 4 4 R1200320100 FAi•RLh7JUAMLV e.flARU 4 KRAJNAK,MARY JANE 6 P.O. 3DXi605 KO AK AK 99615 6 R1200020110 7 BICE W E1F , ONNIt J 8 1418 01 KOUSKOV 9 KODIAK AK 99615 In 11 12 14 I R1200020120 16 a1 c1C S, S V 1 1418 01 1s KODIAK; T A;_ C OUSKOV AK 99615. ., 19 20 21 22. 23 2a: R1200020131 _.. 25 O ,-E7JU?1N'C 26 P.O. BOX 22 KODIAK 3228 AK 99615 20. 29 30 32 33 R1200020140 3a PL I LKUN..:NURNA 35 1525 MISSION 36. KODIAK RD AK 99615 37 38 39 40 61 ,. a2 81200020151 a3 KEWXN MECVT N J as P.D. 30X1528 as KODIAK ' AK 99615 a6 47 ae 9 50 51 1R1200020152 52 PAULL1 N t J'D:'HN L bhU R(a t I I t. _._.. . 53 771 N. SAN MARCOS RD. Sa- SANTA BARBARA CA 93111 55 I 56 57 58 59 60 81200020153 KU �t,ALL tN� 'ULUKIA 1521 MISSION RD KODIAK 1 AK 99615 6 BILK TER ACE WA 93043 R1200020154 ANSEN,PAUL R P.O. BOX -`653 KODIA;K AK 99615 o 7 R1200020170 3 < SKADSON:MYRJN DBA KODIAK AUTO REBUILD P.O. BOX 251 6. 0 KO)IAK AK 99615 0 R1200020181 2 0 •i Pg 5 P.O. .BOX KODIAK '=2746 AK 99615 7 W o R1200D20182 1 2 ANDERSO,N,RASi?''Umwr P.O. BOX KODIA;K IA 2793 AK 99615 6 a v R1200020190 o 2 S1'ICCIANI,JUSEPH P.O. 80)C4096 KODIAK E JAMt AK 99615 a 5 b 7 8 R1230020200. 6 o a HELGASON:KRISTJAN P.O. BOX KODIAK C CLARA 546 AK 99615 z A 16 0 R1230050010 s ,o 0 EO1JRBhAUrLEU" J,ft. C/O LOMAS £ NETT ETON 21907 64TH AVE. W 0303 BILK TER ACE WA 93043 J 9 2 2 z s 3 3 R1200050021 PTMEIVI tL, SME7Tla V P.D. 30X 1801 KODIAK AK 99615 a 9 81230050031 HA T'CHERTRUS1 C/0 ROBERT BOX 57 H HATCHER AK -99 b 1 S KtTDTA.S R1230350040 MAJDRTT/TMES h L 6HAR-DN P.D. 3DX 53Z KODIAK AK 99615 R1200050060 FW i EE ETT P.D. 3DX KODIAK 33c TTY 2847 AK 99515 J I 81200050070 "M 7 8 SMERM5;N3RMAN P.O. 3DX!4005 KODIAK TIE AK 99615 a .3137 R1200050080 16JENS-EtTwA,Nrr-t-anN s P.O. 30X KODIAK M AK 99615 19 il 12 s, 81230050090 5 u 5, M -r I -vi -o D T BA"STOCOMSV E—A 1510 MISSIOV RO KODIAK AK 99615 59 at R1200050100 6 RA.>>„'A iy r.GficuiJ MARASIGA.k,FELICIDAO P.O. 83X1751 JSCG I A,K -----139 3 3 R1200050110 CAWCSOV,CARL 3 P.O. BOX KODIAK SR E META M 2678 AK 99615 a 1 a 5 � R1200050120 6 r� • , 7 STEiWART,SHARON 1427 K3USKDV ' AR.D EDWARD S KAY 9 UDFAK m i AK 99615 f3 34 81200050130 35 B ONNEY ; R 36 P.O. BOX 37 KODIAK C DfT CTC'ERrS A 461 AK 93615 3E r9 3U 31 3a „ 82200050140 3c OPOCOCs., 3s P.O. 311x:'1285 36 KODIAK 1A ;� , r• USCG AK 99619 37 3E 39 40 41 ,a R1200050160 w"—""MU R K AYi O'EITNTS—G—P C, 174 TRUMPETER <5 SOLDOTVA; A I R I.1.1 A AK 99669 46 47 4 99 50 E, R1200050170 53 1419 IOU KDV ST sa KODIAK AK 99615 ss 56 57 5E 59 6o R1200050180 t3K tLKtf tK bf KUflKI 0/0 DAVID BUCKLEY 1419 KJUSK3V nuul A,. 6 AA 7Y015 i 3 ; R1200050190 A SHAUL:ARNOLD E JEAN s P.O. 30X 24 COLD BAY AK 99571 e 9 0 44 12 R12 00 13 SCHOLZ:W u P.O. BOX Is KODIAK ;IAfOHRr:HOLLY J 1859 AK 99615 e 7 10 9 29 21 R1200060010 22 JEHOVAHS 23 NELSON:FIALD:JOHNSON 2d P.O. '3 0X WITNESS KODIAK 452 25 KODIAK 75 27 AK 93615 28 29 30 R1200050030 31 INGALLIOSCDE 32 1520 MILLIDV 33 KODIAK RD j AK 99615 34 35 3e 37 33 39 ' R1200060040 do ZIMMER:A.RIHUR 41 P.O. 33X 42 KODIAK C A ''.1582. AK 99515 44 45 47 43 R1200060050 T.. C ARLENE w P.O. 5t2 51 KODIAK AK 99615 53 54 55 5a s2 R1200060071 se S1ER: `m(n( tH L ELLEN 59 P.O. 30X ?3 as KODIAK AK 99615 • 6 R1230060080 • i . ,t ,PL LILA 2 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 14 5 6 17 18 19 LESTER, KENNETH C ELLEN P.0. BOX 373 —KVO fl AK 498 R1230060090 P.O. BOX 1582 . 20 P.O. BMX 11. KODIAK 2 2 2 3 2 1397 R1200060100' AK 99615 n 81200060120 —TiiCRE;c,DA lu v G SANDRA ,M 29 P.O. BOX 3435 3a KODIAK AK 99615 2 3 3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 R1200060130 —MttEt L'E'R i EtJ-ceNtrE YtEtN 1513 KDUSKOV KODIAK AK 99615 R1230070010 —MAA-I-NK0,J0E I P.O. BOX 2860 KODIA< AK 99615 a+rPArsEY--o 96 P.D. BOX 2551 s7 KODIA'K 5a 9 60 81230070020. AK 99615 R1200070030 FEKR Ill LLAKU L Itrt t P.O. BDg 1541 KODIAK AK 99615 2 6 3 39 a0 1 as a3 as a5 /6 0 as a9 50 51 58 53 54 55 56 51 58 59 60 Fc A' P.D. BOX 541 KODIAK 81200070040 L IRENE AK 99615 R1200070051 LEDOUX,KURT M t SABRIELLE P.O. -ADX=8488 KODIA( AK 99615 R1.200070061 t3KtLKdtR69itU5tRI 1418 01 ICOUSKOV KODIAK AK 99615 R1200070071 11KtLK8tRUgHtVKY, L KU1:1'- 1418 g1 (OUSKOV 1418 41 KOUSK KODIAK R12D0070090 AK 99615 dRELK',bRb,KJt4t 1 1418 u1 )DUSKOV KOD A< R1200070100 R1200070110 LAKLSUN,Wl4 AlHER1Nt P.O. BOX 28 KODIAK AK 99615 6 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 i a a Ri230070120 9 10 zz 39 POLS .La jy T'_'TTZE F.D. 3DX 2' 4 KODIAK AK 99615 f , 2 1;. R1.200070140 3 RUGERS,RNC'4EL P.D. BOX' 1234 s KENAI I AK 99611 J e 9 81230070150 RUG E R S , R: P.D. BOX KENAI •. '..34 AK 99611 5 6 I J 5 o R1200070160 P.D. 33X 298 KODIAK AK 99615 5 a R1200070170 �r' P.D. BOX574 2 KODIAK. AK 99615 3 a 5 l 3 R1230070180 9 DNCS,4NIRDNY-1— ,J o P.D. BOX 3 KODIAK A ZI N 402 AK 99615 2 3 5 ' R1200D7O250 E"R FWIS,WILLARD 9 P.O. 3DX ,ol KODIAK c fie NE 1641 AK 99615 4 4 5 R1200080011 z ] 4 6 a 9 a 14 t5 ,e Ir la I, xo x, ax x3 x4 x5 28 29 28'�LLtit 94 90 31 9x 33 34 ar as 39 40 4, 42 43 44 45 46 a as 49 5a 51 ss=,.—ERtM sd sr ba —KtNUKiLK,YEi tK L JUUII H P.O. BOX 3081 KODIAK AK 99615 _ { ! ' R1200080031 US tNTeKPKiS P.O. BOX 101116 ANCH3RAGE AK 99510 . ,. R12000.80041 MYEKS,.rtR'CM1AH 326 CENTER AVENUE' - KODIAK AK 99615 r 1p L R1200080042 tT t'VAVU P.O. 30X 1234 KODIAK AK 99615 ' - 81200080051 i.. -. _•� C)4Y P.O. 33X 394 1 KODIAK AK 99615 I RI200080052. L*8--aEN R tE P.O. SOX 1234 KODIAK AK 99615 R1200080060 M1tSCD P.O. 30 394 KODIAKK AK 99615 411116 R1200080070 WANDERSEE.MARTIN E CAROL - 1524 KDUSKDV KODIAK • AK 99615 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 33 38 39 R120,0010010 KOD.IAK,LIFY .iT P.D. 30X11397 KODIAK AK 99615 R1200010080 0 2 DUF'REE`• P.O. BOX Kn01A;K_ MILHAEL RE DAWN '3446 ,AK.99515 43 44 45 46 47 48 R1200D10090, 1cEAD/AAYNCJ,MARGAKt1 L 14832 FACITA DRIVE LA MIRADA CA 90638 49 50 5 53 54 55 6 5 50 59 R1230010100 JHAKK A•T.i,LLUYf}•. is AYLS: P.O. BOX 891 KDDIAY j AK• 99615'. 60 R'1200010130 LHERVeVAK,t'AUL A P.O. 87X' 3911 KODIA,K { AK 99615 /1\/1\`/ a J \�•:: / / ..- /\— \� Z \ / i1 �1 \ \\ /\�/\ �Np%/1\/1/ W \\/ Q\1\` /1\1/1///� \/�\/;; \/1\%1\/1_ Q` % \ j \ Cil \i / ;� /\ /`,...,,--/\--/‘--,........,/ \/ �/ +\ et O a Mane 2111111111 mar v.vanifair piliname Sp-MEOry0F, 1\i,:/1` / /\1 / Z 1.... NOF *Enna MONDREZ NOF M ^ •• tan acir•.c;euC•. • ..• y•> Wigg • � . L .. . • • e ° O • P •• - 0 a • 11.1 •• •'3•.'1°7, • • e� v •• V a e n•'t • • • ► a • ° • • • • • a SII MEONOFF • 0'6 5-c / //\\/\\/ /1\/1\/ \/\ \\/ i+\--1\ • •J. • 54 ZONING KEY RESIDENTIAL R -I RESIDENTIAL R-2 RESIDENTIAL R-3 RURAL RESIDENTIAL. BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL Ei CONSERVATION PUBLIC USE LANDS WATERSHED US SURVEYi Powc. ��2873 11,A4.1k Case 89-007 Lot 10 Block 5 Leite Addition 1812 Mission It = 325' _01 If II II no LT - uJ 0 a. F .421-1-/I-T1-1,4:rrnTq‘ t44 f rt. r a - - $ ME ONOF F• • STREET \" C,i \ • 1H10 WON --)r--•/*••\,•-•r••• i•-• t c. S tMEZIENE ri :N; 07 •.-7\ /. IAN Lo• 4- \14 " ve I \ INN WAIF „,•• /NJ //// MEM / " ''1\'1 41MMEMIIIHI :ARANOF AV \1<\1-1 p114 ...... CI,it / / / EINWEN STREET 5110111E 31111111 MBE :111011 REZANOF 0 P41 CONN DRI VE AI LOV ........ _ •74•7,!••.7i •/` i'•/' .5. • ...-A • .:'• \ • • .:-1 • ..; ‘ •;•• \ •, •"*" • ' / • `z\--. • • --- "iv" / \`'• /• ' i • "'"/ • z ZONING KEY RESIDENTMC R -I _ - - - 1 0 tESit4i4.941- * Ck-t glit1RAL )3E.SIDEN1:114. iitiStIESS \Y: • r•Ct sti80.vpstor,,, 4000.7041__ US SURVEY 4? 8 77 3 WAG bilitiot Nu\ Case 89-007 Lot 10 Block 5 Leite Addition 1812 Mission R = 325' RECEIVED . FROM • CASH RECEIPT odiak Island Boroug ;: 710 UPPER MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, ALASKA 99615-6340 PHONE (907) 486-5736 CN DATE \'at -3198_ :CNL.0_(%1Y\(§1 4413 -000-101-10-00 010-000-105-01 -00 010-000-105-06-00 010-000-111 -61 -00 010 - 000 -107 - 00 040-000-371 - 11 -00 040-000-371 12-00 010-000-368-51 -00 010-000-322: 11 -00 010-000-319; 10-00 010-000-199'-99-00 o\c, 0( 710 3, \\,-(10 CONDITIONS OF CHECK PAYMENTS CASH PROPERTY TAX, REAL PROPERTY TAX, PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX, LIENS PERSONAL TAX, LIENS LAND SALE, PRINCIPAL LAND SALE, INTEREST SALE OF COPIES BUILDING PERMIT PENALTIES, INTEREST CLEARING PER ATTACHED TOTAL PAYMENTS TENDERED BY CHECK FOR OBLIGATIONS DUE TO THE BOROUGH ARE SATISFIED ONLY UPON THE CHECK BEING HONORED. RETURNED CHECKS FOR ANY REASON RESTORES THE OBLIGATION AS UNPAID AND SUBJECTS THE ,PAYER TO ANY CHARGES, FEES OR OTHER LEGAL LIABILITIES AS MAY BE APPLICABLE. I 1 I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PAYMEN I:' CHECK NO. I-! CASH ID OTHER DE BY: FM0B-511815