A. ROLL CALL ZONING BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND APPEALS Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska MINUTES OF May 11, 2017 6:30 PM Present Excused Staff Timothy Vig Dean Karcz Stephanie Aicher Lisa Doehl Ellen McKay Ken Ayers Tanya Hickok Dave Hale Ryan Yelle Shawn Odell Dave Whitfield B. MINUTES 1. Thursday, June 23, 2011 2. Thursday, July 14, 2011 3. Thursday October 13, 2011 4. Thursday, November 10, 2011 5. Thursday, December 8, 2011 6. Thursday, January 12, 2012 7. Thursday, February 9, 2012 8. Thursday, March 8, 2012 9. Thursday, April 12, 2012
May 11, 2017 Page 2 of 8 10. Thursday May 10, 2012 11. Thursday, September 13, 2012 12. Thursday, October 11, 2012 13. Thursday, April 13, 2017 BOARD MEMBER MCKAY moved to approve the minutes. BOARD MEMBER AICHER seconded. Vig, Karcz, Aicher, Doehl, McKay, Ayers, Hickok, Hale C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS / EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 1. Disclosures BOARD MEMBER AYERS disclosed in Case 2017-0056 that his firm represented the petitioner at the time of construction in 2002 by providing civil engineering and surveying services on that site. He can remain impartial in this case. BOARD MEMBER AICHER moved to direct Board Member Ayers to participate in Case 2017-0056. BOARD MEMBER MCKAY seconded. ABSTAIN: Hale, Hickok, Vig, Karcz, McKay, Doehl, Aicher Ayers D. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Resolutions for Approval a. Resolution: 2017-001 Related Case: 2017-0042 Purpose: APPROVAL (SMO) Dimensional Variance from AMC 21.06.020 Table 21.06-1 and AMC 21.06.030C.4.a.ii. to allow a single-family residence on a double frontage lot to encroach into the required front setback in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. BOARD MEMBER VIG moved to approve the consent agenda. BOARD MEMBER MCKAY seconded.
May 11, 2017 Page 3 of 8 BOARD MEMBER KARCZ disclosed that he was not in attendance at the April 13, 2017 meeting, but did listen to the audio and can participate on Resolution 2017-001. Vig, Karcz, Aicher, Doehl, McKay, Ayers, Hickok, Hale 2. Other E. APPEARANCE REQUEST - F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS - G. REGULAR AGENDA - 1. Resolutions for Approval 2. Other H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: 2017-0056 (RY) PETITIONER: APP, LLC REQUEST: Time Extension through December 31, 2018 to bring a legal nonconforming permanent sign into compliance with Title 21 (New Code) AMC 21.12.070. RYAN YELLE presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality's Planning Department. He read into the record a late public comment received from Mr. Jake Whittaker in opposition of the sign. The board discussed if the sign currently has nonconforming rights; the reasoning for the estimated extension date; and how staff determined that Standard 6 is partially met when signs that are 50 percent above nonconformance have a period of time to come into compliance. They also discussed the rationale behind AMC 21.12.070G and 21.11.070., and a correction to the time extension date in the Recommendation Summary on page 1 from October 31, 2018 to December 31, 2018. The board heard this case as an appeal and swore in all testimony. DON MCCLINTOCK with Ashburn & Mason represented the petitioner. Also present were Matthew Samuel, Diamond Parking Regional Manager and John Todd with Glacier Signs.
May 11, 2017 Page 4 of 8 BOARD MEMBER AICHER expressed that she understood the depreciation of the petitioner s amortization is achieved in December 2017, and the desire is to have this sign replaced during the summer season for construction. Giving the benefit of full amortization with this year and the construction season being during the summer of 2018, she asked if it would be conceivable to move the extension back to August 2018 as that would give the benefit of two summers and meet their full amortization schedule. MR. MCCLINTOCK replied that they have requested as much time as possible, but December 31st is definitely in the winter, which they want to avoid. Construction season will often go through October and November, so he does not want to curtail it. The big issues they run into is what the permitting process will look like as they move forward. Staff has agreed that December 31, 2018 is appropriate and when you look at the life of the improvement, it could certainly be justified. This sign, at a minimum, has another 20 years of useful life to it, so it is already cutting that factor down dramatically and since the goal is to move to something that is either in conformity or closer to conformity, they would appreciate the extra time. CHAIR HALE opened the hearing to public testimony. The following individuals were sworn in: MARGARET AUTH, Spenard Community Council ROBERT AUTH WILLIAM MARSH TIM POTTER In response to Chair Hale s request for clarification that it is typical to request an extension prior to something expiring and why that was not the case with this sign, MR. YELLE explained that the MOA Legal Department was consulted on this matter and had replied that a specific code provision prohibiting this board from hearing this case does not exist, and advised him to proceed with the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER AICHER asked for additional clarification that it was the MOA Attorney s opinion that ZBEA could hear this case because the request for extension was timely, and was not precluded. MR. YELLE stated that this specific code referenced in AMC 21.12.070G does not state that the petitioner has to apply prior to May 16, 2016 and because of that, there is nothing that prohibits ZBEA from hearing this case. BOARD MEMBER DOEHL believes that Mr. Potter cited a different section of the code, AMC 21.03.030, with respect to the provision that requests time extensions be made before the deadline. She asked if that code states anything different as to the Planning Department s position on the relevance of that provision with respect to requests for time extensions. MR. WHITFIELD commented that if AMC 21.03.030 is in fact correct, that would refer to administrative permits, which he does not think is relevant in this case.
May 11, 2017 Page 5 of 8 MR. POTTER concurred that it does cover administrative permits, but, he believes, it covers all processes including plats and conditional uses. He read from AMC 21.03.030.O.1 that the lapse of approval time frames established by the procedures of this title may be extended only when all of the following conditions exist: a) The provisions of the title must expressly allow the extension; b) An extension request must be filed prior to the applicable lapse-of-approval deadline; and c) The extension request must be in writing and include justification. MR. YELLE informed the board that staff was unaware of this code section and legal counsel has advised staff to proceed with this case. If the board finds the request was not timely, the board can deny the request. MR. WHITFIELD added that Mr. Potter has a good point and staff has not consulted with legal counsel with respect to this code section, but had been given direction to move forward on the case. However, if the board decides that this section is relevant and decides that the time extension request was not timely, they can make findings of such and deny the request. BOARD MEMBER DOEHL asked if the board is required to make a decision this evening or can the hearing be continued to allow additional time to get the benefit of consultation with the MOA counsel. MR. WHITFIELD noted that the board could consider listening to all testimony, close the public hearing and move to postpone the case to the next meeting. Public testimony continued. IRENE PERSSON-GAMBLE MR. MCCLINTOCK provided rebuttal testimony. BOARD MEMBER DOEHL referred to the application and understands there will be a permit review process that takes time, but she also read that the company learned of this problem a year ago in May 2016. She would like to know what steps had been taken since then to determine the plan for the sign changes. MR. MCLINTOCK replied that partly because unlike other applications, this is something that is new and staff and Mr. Samuel had spent a considerable amount of time determining what application would be submitted, and its process. A survey had to be submitted along with a large number of steps to take in order to get the application in place. It could possibly have been done faster, but he thinks everyone was learning their way through the process, which did account for some of that time. Public noticing the case also took time. The complaint was just made and he added that no one monitors this because it is on a complaint only basis. How many nonconforming signs exist in the municipality that are not inventoried at all. There was no intentional effort to delay this process. CHAIR HALE closed the public hearing.
May 11, 2017 Page 6 of 8 BOARD MEMBER MCKAY moved to postpone Case 2017-0056 to the June meeting. BOARD MEMBER AICHER seconded. BOARD MEMBER MCKAY stated that there are too many unanswered questions that need to be answered before the board can make an informed decision. BOARD MEMBER AICHER specifically would like to resolve the question of whether or not this matter is right before this board. She is concerned that if their request for an extension was not made timely that ZBEA should not be hearing this matter, and would hate to make a decision and move forward resulting in adverse consequences. For her benefit, she requested staff to consult the MOA Attorney s Office. CHAIR HALE agreed with Board Member Aicher. BOARD MEMBER DOEHL noted that in addition, she would be interested in any further feedback on the factors as to whether they compare to the variance standards and all need to be satisfied, or whether these are just factors that the board considers and weighs in on while reaching a decision. Hale, Hickok, Vig, Karcz, Ayers, McKay, Doehl, Aicher 2. CASE: 2017-0058 (SMO) PETITIONER: Donna J. Merdan REQUEST: Dimensional Variance from Table 21.06-1 to allow an existing permitted single-family residence encroaching into required side setback in the R-2A district. SHAWN ODELL presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality's Planning Department. The board discussed that the north line to the building shown on the as-built and the plot plan does not have a dimension on it, and if that is acceptable. They also discussed the fence on the adjacent property line of Lot 44 and clarified that the matter before the board is only for the structure setback, not the fence. CHAIR HALE opened the public hearing. ANNETTE DELONG represented the petitioner. Also present was the petitioner, Donna Merdan. The board pointed out that the adjacent property owner has the right to relocate the fence onto the property line. They also discussed what led to finding the error with the previous survey. CHAIR HALE opened the hearing to public testimony.
May 11, 2017 Page 7 of 8 There was no public testimony. There was no rebuttal testimony. BOARD MEMBER VIG moved in Case 2017-0058 to grant a variance from AMC Table 21.06-1 to permit an existing single-family residence encroaching into the side setback, subject to staff's Department Recommendations 1 and 2 on page 5 of the staff packet. BOARD MEMBER AYERS seconded. BOARD MEMBER VIG concurred with staff s findings on Standards A through H and addressed them as follows: a) There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. The applicant relied on previous work conducted by professional land surveyors that was later found to be an error. The applicant and the municipality should be able to rely on that information. This standard is met. b) This standard is met. Strict application of this code would create an undue or exceptional hardship on the property owner. The relocation of the residence is not economically feasible and preventing the applicant from selling the home is an undue hardship. c) He agreed with staff that this is not a self-imposed hardship. Again, the applicant relied on work provided by others to which the municipal staff relied on. This standard is met. d) This standard is met. It will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property. e) This standard is met as it would not change the character of the zoning district by granting the variance. f) This will not affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality. This standard is met. g) Agreed with staff that granting the variance would not be related to ADA accessibility. h) This is the minimum variance that will make possible a reasonable use of the land. This standard is met. He intends to support the motion. BOARD MEMBER AYERS concurred with Board Member Vig and staff. He encouraged the petitioner to report this faulty survey to the State of Alaska Licensing Board. This is not the first time they have seen this particular individual with this exact same problem and they only way it will be resolved is if people speak up. He will be supporting the motion. BOARD MEMBER DOEHL will also be supporting the motion and agreed with staff on Standards B through H. She also agreed on Standard A, but for slightly different reasons. It speaks to more of the physical characteristics of the property that warrant granting a variance, and she believes they have found in other situations that an existing building or structure on the land can be a physical particularity.
May 11, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Vig, Karcz, Aicher, Doehl, McKay, Ayers, Hickok, Hale I. REPORTS - 1. Chair 2. Secretary 3. Committee J. BOARD MEMBERS' COMMENTS BOARD MEMBER AYERS informed the board that he will not be attending the June meeting. K. ADJOURNMENT BOARD MEMBER DOEHL moved to adjourn. BOARD MEMBER KARCZ seconded. Vig, Karcz, Aicher, Doehl, McKay, Ayers, Hickok, Hale The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.