The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutT15N R1W SEC 19 Lots 96A and 96B #2-86-30 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Environmental Health Division CASE REVIEW WORKSHEET CASE NUMBER: Z-86-30 SUBDIVISION OR PROJECT TITLE: OATE RECEIVED: January 9, 1986 Lot 96A & 96B Section 19 T15N R1W Subdivision. ( ) PUBLIC WATER AVAILABLE ( ) PUBLIC SEWER AVAILABLE ( ) COMMUNITY WATER AVAILABLE COMMENTS: '~"/~/~¢ ~'-~-~'- -'~"'~'-~ ~'~ ~¥~¢~ ~' ~'"~ ~ THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE' ZONING BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND APPEALS Applicant: Address: ~ Phone Number: Legal Description of Property Involved: Lot Subdivision ~.~C. /~ 7"'?~'/¥ ~'~/~-~ ~'~ Present/Future Use of Property SITE PLAN REQUIRED. This is a request for a variance from Section~/ (~ of the Land Use Regulations Ordinance A. The existing sit uation: ~'~'~ Approved Conditions: Date of Appeal: Hearing Date: Approved Conditions: Letter Sent: Permit Issued: DISPOSITION Denied (See Minutes) Denied (See Minutes) Granting of this petition would permit: ~'~'o. f3 y~ ~._ ~n,~ ~t ~ //Z4 ,'¢' BEFORE A VARIANCE MAY BE GRANTED, THE APPLICANT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SIX CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. ANSWER EACH OF THE CONDITIONS IN DETAIL, USING ADDITIONAL SHEETS iF NECESSARY. The undersigned alleges that: 1. Special conditions exist which are peculiar to this land, structure of building involved and are not applicable to other land/structures in the same district. These special conditions are: (over) '2. Stri'ct interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the rights common- ly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Ordinance. These rights are: 3. The listed special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant and such condi- tions and circumstances do not merely constitute a pecuniary (monetary) hardship or inconvenience in that: 4. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and not injurous to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare for the following reasons: 5, Granting of the variance will not permit a use that is not otherwise permitted in the district in which the property lies in that: 6. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible a reasonable use of the land, building or structure in that: Applicant further alleges that: (Use additional sheets if necessary for additional information,) Signature of Authorized Agent Address JAMES L VERMILLION SR I BOX 2425 CHUGIAK. ALASKA gg567 Januery S, 1986 Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals Municipality of Anchorage Dear Sirs: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND CHANOE OF USE Due to several circumstancas I em threatened with the loss of r~un~bla u~ of my property. I approach the board asking that a clarification, including a statement of change of use, be issued in my favor to formally recognize Kayak Rentals, Repairs, Accessory Manufacturing, 8ales, Instruction, and Automobile Repair and Maintenance in legal non-conformity as continuing usas of my property, Lot 96B. Further, I ask that either a specific statement be issued allowing me the continuation of encroachment from Lot 96A onto 96B, for both buildings and septio; or, that the board void the subdivision of Lot 96 Into 96A and 96B, and dedications attendant to that subdivision, while simultaneously confirming all present uses of both lots as legal non-conforming uses and assigning them onto the recreated lot 96. HISTORY I have, since 1976, owned and occupied the property described as Lots 96A, and 96B of 18, T 15N, R I W, SM. Those are carried on the Municipal tax records a~ 051 - 172-'t4-000-84, and 051 - 172- 12-000-84, respectively. Prior to my purchase of this property it w~ subdivided from a 2.5 acre l~o~ Into Its present form of one small lot ( 96A - 20,700 ftz ) and one larger lot ( 96B - 74,'t 1 Ift ). My home is located on 96A, where due to the abnormally small lot size, it is impossible to have bath a well and septic system an the property simultaneously. I do not know why fha municipality approved a lot so small thet It cannot stand alone. Wbon I discovered, in 1977, that I could not locate a septic system on the lot, due to proximity to the well, and that there were other defects in the property, as subdivided, I ask that the municipality void the subdivision and allow the property to revert to the original unsubdivided form. The request wee denied. $inca my purchase of these properties I have continuously operated several businesses from both properties, treating them out of necessity as one unit. I rent a specs for mobile homes, and operate septic systems for both properties on Lot 968. I have operated an Automotive Repair and Maintenance Business on both properties sinca 1976, and continue to do so. I have u~ both a small shop located on the boundary between the properties, and the open air of both properties for this activity. 5inca 1983 I have manufactured, repaired, rented, provided instruction in, and producad accasserias for kayaks and related outdoor pursuits. I have marketed and sold these and related products from my property oantinucusly. On June 1 O, 19851 epp]ied for e Lend Use Permit to construct on Lot 96B, e building which Would consolidate mcat of my business activities. The same business activities were planned to be continued, but with the neighborhood impovement of moving all of them all indoors end out of sight. This Land Use Permit wes applied for under the zoning then in effect, Municipal Regulations 21.40.240 Unrestricted District. Construction wes begun shortly after the Issuance of the Lend Use Permit on duly 16,1985. When the municipal Assembly conducted zoning hearings in Chugiak on October 24, 1985 I appeared before the essembly. Therel clted my current uses, andconstructlon, and reduested zoning which would allow my properties to be formally rem(jnized es business and industrial properties compatible with their uses and with their physical sizes. I wes assured by the assembly that regardle~ of whether my zoning request wes approved or not, I could continue operation es a legal nonconforming user, that all my uses would be "grendfathered". On November 25th, following receipt of the Eagle River 5tar, I learned In that peper I bed bean zoned R-SA. I wes surprized to see this zoning, es Lot 96A does not meet the minimum lot size requirements for an R -..SA propertyl Municipal Regulations require that R-SA lots hove a minimum size of 43,560 ftz, and this lot has less than I/2 that amount ( See sizes in paragraph two of this letter). On November 25th I contacted the Municipal Offices in Eagle River to be certain that i had complied with ell requirements n~ry to insure I would be allowed to continue the historical uses of my property. There I learned that, due to the reasons to be cited by Zoning Enforcement at this bearing, I would Icae my historic and continued rights to activities on these properties. Mcat options to carrest these questions were unavailable due to the imminent effective date of zoning, only four days away. Making this even more difficult wes the unavailablity of half those days due to Municipal Holiday for Thanksgiving. Working wlthi,n~the Municipal system I corrected as many questions as possible, resolving these by November 27~'. P, emaininig however, are significant questions of importance to the viable continuation of my property utilization. For the boards consideration I point out that several nearby properties have received favorable consideration, or are engaged in similier activities. Lots 92 & 25 ere used intensively ca a Hee~/Duty Repair Facilities, Lot 94, which is immediately adjacent to my property is used by MTA as a heavy equipment storage yard. Lot 62, immediately adjacent to my property has a long standing machine shop, while trailer space rentals are available on the properties immediately NE, Lots 65 and 66. Lot 123 sports an approved automobile repair shop, Lot 97B just East of me contains an Elestricet Shop. These special uses, especially those such as allowed Lots 92, 94, 123, and 25 recagnize the character of the properties current use, while mine are unjustly threatened by strict interpretation. Providing the clarification requested will not be harmful to my neighbors nor the public welfare, but will in fact be beneficial Benefits include reduction of noise and visual pollution. It is to be noted that my new building is well screened and buffered, and provides significantly more parking then is required by regulation, without any use of public right-of-ways. In evaluating this request I ask that the board remember that all applications were made under the regulations in effect at the time, those of 21.40.240 Unrestricted District. Under these rules, most, if not all, of the recitations required far new permits under the new regulations were not required. I ask that the board find a remedy which allows ma the just continuation of my historical property rights, such as proposed in paragraph one, above. Scale 1:~00 (!": .=iD') Birch and Spruce Trees VehiCle areas Pedestrian Walkways 9H20 Uuhicle Pm'king [ ~ Handicapped Parking !ind. uilln Signs end merking~ to be to current c~de requirements 0 ~ ~ ~ Naturally ~oode~ O~ ~ 0 ~ Mixture of Birch and Spruce 25' 0" .......... Ditch ..................... -~ ......................... ................. A~RIAN LA~ .................... 50' 0" - .................... S~eed Umit 25 Rep~ducti~ of ~rlifi~ plot ~len, Jemes Vermillion .. C~enge I '"' $$ -30 D1