[0:06] Chambers: All right, we will call the August 25th Regular Planning Commission to order. Commissioner Wiebold, can I have the land acknowledgement?

[0:16] Chambers: We would like to acknowledge that the City and Borough of Juneau is on Klinglet land, and wish to honor the Indigenous people of this land.

[0:24] Chambers: For more than 10,000 years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community.

[0:30] Chambers: We're grateful to be in this place, a part of this community, and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Tlingit people. Gun Ashish.

[0:40] Chambers: Alright, thank you so much. Can staff note the role? It looks like we have one Commissioner absent.

[0:47] Chambers: Is there any requests for agenda changes?

[0:52] Chambers: Seeing none, we'll keep the agenda as is. Can I get an approval of minutes?

[0:57] Chambers: Commissioner Durr? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to approve the July 28, 2026 draft meeting minutes of the Regular Planning Commission, subject to any minor grammatical or spelling changes.

[1:12] Chambers: Alright, that brings us to a review of rules for public participation.

[1:17] Chambers: This meeting is being held as a hybrid meeting, both in person and via Zoom. For items before us this evening, staff will provide a short overview. The applicant will have 10 minutes to present information to the Commission.

[1:27] Chambers: And then members of the public will have the opportunity to present testimony. There's a sign-up sheet in the back of the room for those members of the public who are present in person and would like to provide testimony.

[1:38] Chambers: If you're on Zoom or on the phone and would like to provide testimony, we ask that you use the raise hand feature or hit star 9 on the phone to get in the queue. We ask that all comments are kept to the point and respectful of the commissioners and other people in the room or on Zoom.

[1:52] Chambers: After the public has had the opportunity to testify, the applicant will have 5 minutes to present any additional information, at which time public participation will close.

[2:02] Chambers: If you are on Zoom, you will notice that the chat feature has been disabled. The Q&A feature is there if you are having technical difficulties, but nothing that is in the Q&A feature will become part of the public record.

[2:14] Chambers: That brings us to public participation on non-agenda items.

[2:19] Chambers: If you are on Zoom and would like to provide testimony to the Commission on an item that's not on our agenda today, please raise your hand.

[2:32] Chambers: Okay, seeing none, we don't have any items for reconsideration, we don't have consent agenda or unfinished business, which brings us to our regular agenda.

[2:41] Chambers: PAD20260002, property disposal by CBJ for…

[2:50] Chambers: a portion of U.S. Survey 3853, Lot 1, fraction of.

[2:55] Chambers: Does staff have a… Brief, overview.

[3:02] Chambers: Yes, Mr. Chair. The applicant requests a property disposal review for the disposal of approximately .44 acres of City and Borough of Juneau-owned land. The fraction of the lot being proposed for disposal is currently undeveloped and is served by City Sewer and water.

[3:19] Chambers: The proposed disposal is in conformity with applicable adopted plans, and has a motion of support from the Assembly's, Lands, Housing.

[3:29] Chambers: Lhed Committee.

[3:31] Chambers: The staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Director's analysis and findings and approve Pad 20260002.

[3:43] Chambers: Alright, thank you so much. Is there any Commissioner questions for staff at this point?

[3:48] Chambers: Alright, seeing none, we can have the applicant.

[3:53] Chambers: You probably know the drill by now.

[3:58] Chambers: Good evening, everybody. I'm Dan Blatter, and I'm the manager of the Division of Lands and Resources, and I don't have much to add, after everything, I think, is included in the packet, but I'm glad to answer any questions, and so I think I'm pretty good with that. So, thank you.

[4:14] Chambers: All right, Commissioner, questions for the applicant?

[4:18] Chambers: Commissioner Cole.

[4:22] Chambers: Mr. Biden, I think the main issue here is access, so there's no frontage that is accessible for CBJ to… to…

[4:32] Chambers: practically develop this land, is that correct? Through the chair, yes, Ms. Cole, that's a great, explanation of the situation. And so, this property wasn't on our shortlist for disposal. It does have the designation of retained disposal in the land management plan, and so the reason why this would work is because

[4:51] Chambers: if it moves forward at the assembly level in the future, and there's still a number of steps before this is going to be a sure thing. It's not a sure thing. And so, if it moves forward, part of the disposal would be that the…

[5:01] Chambers: the adjacent property owner who's trying to acquire it would need to consolidate a piece of this property with their property, and then all the access would be routed through their driveway. So, it takes their existing property and expands it so they can have more residential units up there.

[5:15] Chambers: And that's also why, as staff, I've recommended to work with the original proposer. Generally, we like to sell city property in a competitive process. Still competitive bid is our number one way to sell property. It allows the most number of citizens to participate in a land sale. But this one wouldn't make sense because of those

[5:34] Chambers: impediments, that it doesn't have the correct access, it doesn't really have a lot of water and sewer to the… you know, it's close, but not right there.

[5:41] Chambers: And so, by working with the applicant and working towards consolidation and making their lot larger, we can kind of mooch off of their existing access and utilities to get more units up there, and

[5:53] Chambers: And in the future, this wouldn't impact the remaining city property. If anything, it makes it a little easier to develop in the future. And so, so just north of this, we're going to retain city property. That could be a future, I think, to John Street. So we're not going to impact future rights-of-way access as well.

[6:09] Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Blader, and I actually was going to…

[6:11] Chambers: ask that very thing, if in the negotiations there might be room for some right-of-way access for the

[6:18] Chambers: For the upland piece of it.

[6:20] Chambers: It sounds like that's not in the plan. Access is planned, potentially, through… the northern…

[6:29] Chambers: Bit of the parcel? Yeah, through the chair, that's, I think they're gonna, if you look at the right-of-way, we're gonna keep the piece that we dispose of just south of that, so that way… or actually north of that, downhill of that, so that way we retain any future chance to tie in to John Street there.

[6:46] Chambers: Thank you.

[6:48] Chambers: Any other Commissioner questions?

[6:56] Chambers: I guess I'll just ask a quick one, and maybe it… you don't have to answer if you don't want to. I guess we had one public comment, and it seemed like a lot of it was revolving around

[7:07] Chambers: Development of that area and… and… and drainage coming down.

[7:12] Chambers: To the condominiums, in my mind, I think all that's gonna get flushed out with,

[7:19] Chambers: the different permissions needed to actually build out the site. Did you have any comment on that public comment?

[7:27] Chambers: I think it's important to consider at all phases of development and disposal, but yeah, I think right now we don't have… you know, until the assembly's determined that this should move forward or not, there's not a lot of money invested in, like, future building permits for the site or drainage plans, but definitely when… if this goes forward, even if this doesn't go forward, the applicant's still planning on developing their property.

[7:49] Chambers: And in which case, they're going to have to really consider all that type of stuff, drainage, topography, etc.

[7:58] Chambers: Okay, commissioner Durr?

[8:01] Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here, Mr. Blydorn. On that same vein, I think one of the other public comments had to do with traffic.

[8:09] Chambers: I take it that any traffic analysis would be decided if it's necessary or not during the building process after this initial step. Yeah, I think through the chair, I think CDD would look at that, and I'm not sure if the total number of units here, you know, I'd have to check with the attorney and CDD to see if…

[8:24] Chambers: it's… we're not building an entire subdivision, it's just a single property with residential units on it, so I think it's probably below a threshold. But, you know, that being said, there's only a single access point through the entire neighborhood. It's kind of, like, in that same stuck position that most of the properties in Juneau are, where secondary emergency access

[8:42] Chambers: If this was going to be a larger development, or if the city was going to sell a larger tract of land up here, we'd likely need to think about that before we went through any disposal process to try to connect another access route. It's something that we're always considering on Douglas. A lot of these, like, neighborhoods on Douglas, they have one access point to the highway.

[9:00] Chambers: With a branching out of development up there, and it's…

[9:03] Chambers: as we move in the future, it's going to be one of our considerations and costs that we look at the large tracts of city property here. The first thing we look at is how do we get another access point, or how do we connect existing access points? And as a side note, it's not related to this, but we do think about that here, like.

[9:18] Chambers: could we eventually, in the future, somehow connect John Street or David Street up through, like, the Blueberry Hill neighborhood? Because both of those, both of these neighborhoods are adjacent to each other, have one access point at the highway, and if there's ever an emergency up there, police and fire would be limited to those access points, so it's something that we consider a lot. It's one of the first things we look at whenever we think about any type of

[9:40] Chambers: Larger scale subdivision, for sure.

[9:45] Chambers: Any other Commissioner questions?

[9:50] Chambers: Alright, thank you so much,

[9:55] Chambers: Let's see, is there any member of the public that would like to provide testimony on this item?

[10:01] Chambers: If you are on Zoom or on the phone, now would be the time to raise your hand or hit star 9.

[10:14] Chambers: Okay, seeing none,

[10:17] Chambers: Technically, you have another 5 minutes. Is there anything else you'd like to say? I'll just add that, you know, as staff.

[10:24] Chambers: trying to figure out ways to get more housing, more city land into private ownership. I kind of really enjoy the applicants that come to us as adjacent neighbors, seeing that there's a limitation to the city property adjacent to us, and working on expanding their development. So, when this first came to us, it was December of last year, the director of CDD and I met with this applicant.

[10:45] Chambers: And it's just, like, it's kind of fun when somebody comes to us and they have an idea, and we're, like, able to work on it.

[10:50] Chambers: in, like, private sector takes over after we sell them land and they build housing on it. So, I just want to say, if anybody is listening or paying attention, and they're adjacent to city property, and they have an idea, please come see me! We, like, want these types of things to happen, and it's, you know, maybe it's 4 units, maybe it's 8 units, but it all makes a difference.

[11:07] Chambers: And it's not a burden to the taxpayers, it's easy for staff to work on this type of stuff, and the Assembly is generally very favorable of it as well.

[11:16] Chambers: Yeah, no, I think it's… it looks like a great idea to me. It seems like it's… it can piggyback on existing road infrastructure and utilities that are… already exist.

[11:26] Chambers: So I think it's a great idea to get a couple more units if the person… if this entity is already going to be developing that property that they own next door.

[11:37] Chambers: One more chance for questions for the applicant.

[11:41] Chambers: Alright, seeing none, any Commissioner discussion and or a motion?

[11:46] Chambers: Commissioner Durr.

[11:49] Chambers: I move to approve PAD 20260002 to adopt the Director's analysis and findings and forward a recommendation of approval to the CBJ Assembly for the proposed land disposal.

[12:06] Chambers: So this is going to be one of those ones when I'm not… where I'm not going to do a roll call vote, so I'm going to ask for any objection. Is there any objection to the motion?

[12:13] Chambers: On the table.

[12:16] Chambers: Okay, seeing none, motion is approved, and… PAD20260002 is approved.

[12:27] Chambers: Alright, thank you so much. Thank you all for being here tonight, and hopefully you can get out and enjoy this beautiful autumn night. It's really gorgeous out there, so have a great evening. Thank you.

[12:40] Chambers: Suck the subs.

[12:49] Chambers: Okay, we don't have any other business. I think we were gonna put this under… were we gonna put it under staff reports, I believe, which brings us to staff reports, and then that's under additional materials.

[13:03] Chambers: We get to hear a little bit more about variances.

[13:10] Chambers: Mr. Chair, just a quick update from CDD about staffing. After 3 months of serving as our acting planning manager, we have hired Minta Montalvo as our permanent,

[13:23] Chambers: planning manager, so that's exciting. We actually also are… and she started yesterday, officially, and we today put out the requisition to fill her position.

[13:33] Chambers: We are… this week, we are interviewing candidates for our vacant permit tech staff and our vacant, administrative off… Administrative assistant, excuse me, staff position. So, with any luck, we will be fully staffed, within the next couple of weeks, so that's very exciting for us.

[13:53] Chambers: Awesome, yeah, thanks for that update. It's always good to hear that at least

[13:58] Chambers: Positions are getting filled, and people are applying for them, so that's great.

[14:07] Chambers: Now we get to our exciting variance training.

[14:10] Chambers: I don't know how exciting it's gonna be.

[14:13] Chambers: Let's see… Make sure I can… Move the slides.

[14:35] Chambers: There we go.

[14:39] Chambers: I'm gonna be very slow.

[14:41] Chambers: So, as you know, a person seeks a variance when they want to develop something that is prohibited by Title 49.

[14:49] Chambers: Unlike conditional use permits, that allow a use that is expressly permitted, the variance allows a development that is expressly prohibited.

[15:00] Chambers: So because a variance is permitted to… is permission to violate Title 49, and because the provisions of Title 49 are the minimum required in the interest of public health, safety, and the general welfare.

[15:14] Chambers: The variance requirements are rigorous and only warranted in very limited circumstances.

[15:20] Chambers: The touchstone concept requires some regulatory hardship that arises from the physical condition of the land that distinguishes it from other land in the general area.

[15:32] Chambers: Such a hardship is required to ensure that the variance is not arbitrarily granted, And…

[15:39] Chambers: The grant of the variance does not erode the rational basis for the Title 49 regulation in dispute.

[15:46] Chambers: So in 2018, the variance chapter was modified, through a lengthy process with the Planning Commission, to clarify the process and the criteria, because variances were being used to provide flexibility within Title 49 provisions.

[16:03] Chambers: When they, when what really needed to happen was amendment of those strict provisions instead of using variances to achieve that.

[16:18] Chambers: And as you know, there are administrative variances and non-administrative variances. Administrative variances are determined by the director. Non-administrative variances come directly before the planning commission.

[16:35] Chambers: To grant a non-administrative variance, the Planning Commission must determine that enforcement of the code would create an undue hardship due to the unusual or special circumstances of the property.

[16:46] Chambers: And that the unusual and special circumstances is not caused by the person seeking the variance.

[16:53] Chambers: That granting the variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare.

[16:58] Chambers: And that the variance is narrowly tailored to relieve the hardship.

[17:03] Chambers: This hardship, does not mean relief from financial hardship or inconvenience alone.

[17:10] Chambers: It means that without the variance, the property owner is deprived of all beneficial uses of their land.

[17:16] Chambers: So the hardship must be caused by circumstances which are unique to the property.

[17:22] Chambers: Such as a giant ravine. If it affects you but not your neighbors, that's clearly unique.

[17:29] Chambers: Unfortunately, the hardships that you will see are not as clear-cut as that.

[17:34] Chambers: Some examples, if, you know, someone can't refinance their home because the appraiser discovered that, their house doesn't meet the side yard setbacks, so they need a variance because they can't move their house, and their neighbor won't replat.

[17:51] Chambers: Or another example is if it's too expensive to plant,

[17:57] Chambers: The number of trees necessary for vegetative cover due to something unusual to the property.

[18:03] Chambers: So they'd like a variance.

[18:05] Chambers: So these are hard because your gut feeling might be that the project should be approved.

[18:12] Chambers: Yet you're struggling to draft your findings in a way that can meet that high threshold that's set by code.

[18:23] Chambers: Generally, the person… Is there… is there any questions, kind of.

[18:26] Chambers: Before I move forward, like, so we don't get too far away from that kind of initial concept.

[18:34] Chambers: Okay.

[18:35] Chambers: Sorry for the interruption. No worries.

[18:38] Chambers: Generally, the purpose of a variance is to ensure that the application of the zoning regulations do not deny all reasonable use of the property when compared to neighboring properties or properties in the same zoning district.

[18:52] Chambers: That have the same, zoning regulations, and to accommodate peculiarities with the land.

[19:05] Chambers: These are just some examples of non-qualifying reasons, for variances that happen to relate with, some court cases.

[19:14] Chambers: So, inaccurate measurements, ignorance of the law, good faith, or a subsequent buyer.

[19:22] Chambers: And then our own local example… is,

[19:28] Chambers: They wanted to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces to allow, for an enlarging the store building, into the existing parking area.

[19:44] Chambers: So when the Planning Commission approves a variance, it does have consequences. Approval of a variance on a property that is not unique, can erode the code requirements.

[19:56] Chambers: Continuous variance application on specific code sections may be an indication that Title 49 should be reviewed for deficiencies and updates.

[20:06] Chambers: And some examples of this in the past, downtown zoning in both Juneau and Douglas was modified to mixed use to better reflect the use of the area.

[20:17] Chambers: And parking waivers.

[20:20] Chambers: Many applications for variances of the parking requirements downtown resulted in both granted and denied variances, and eventually led to the addition of the parking waivers in our code. So those are no longer granted by waiver, or by variance.

[20:37] Chambers: There's a separate option for a parking waiver.

[20:44] Chambers: And it looks like we have, a question from… or a question from one of our assembly members online.

[20:53] Chambers: I'm assuming that's why your hand's raised. Can we bring them over?

[20:58] Chambers: Nope.

[21:00] Chambers: That's…

[21:02] Nano: Thank you, and, you know, sorry to interrupt, I just wanted to add that, when it comes to following the code verbatim, the city is on point with that.

[21:15] Nano: But as a regard to Title 49, there is a current process of rewriting Title 49, and, you know, it's… it's…

[21:26] Nano: might not even be halfway through, so these types of things are being addressed, as that process goes on. So, as these types of issues come up in that, interim of this rewrite, you know,

[21:44] Nano: more consideration for variances, depending on circumstance, might be more warranted. And, that's just food for thought.

[21:57] Chambers: Alright, thank you.

[21:59] Chambers: Moving on.

[22:03] Chambers: Commissioner Cole. Thanks. I appreciate our assembly, comment, and I think one of the reasons I wanted this training was because I… I believed we were not all on the same page as to why variances are…

[22:17] Chambers: When variances are appropriate, and…

[22:21] Chambers: When I first got on the commission in…

[22:23] Chambers: 2021, we had just kind of started talking a lot more about variances and applying these criteria. And there were…

[22:33] Chambers: there was pretty robust discussion about, like, what is logical, like, what feels like we should do, and then what's allowable under the variance statutes. And I think that's where, as a newer commissioner, you get tripped up, because

[22:48] Chambers: You know, if someone is… has a wonderful plan to add housing, and to subdivide their property, and, like, basically it's a win-win-win-win-win scenario, but they need 3 inches and a setback.

[23:03] Chambers: That's not likely to be

[23:06] Chambers: a reason for a variance to be granted, and that is really hard for us, because we, you know, we want these outcomes to happen, and what happens when we start making variances like that, that it's… it's 3 feet, or 3 inches into a setback, and then it's a foot into a setback, and then it's…

[23:23] Chambers: forefoot into a setback, and then it's really, does a setback mean anything? And so, that's really a little of the, like, history behind why, the variance,

[23:35] Chambers: conundrum exists, right? Like, we need to be able to hold a line somewhere, and then go back to the code, like Mr. Brooks said, as it's being rewritten, address those things in code, and not address

[23:50] Chambers: Problems that we have in, like, logic with variances only.

[23:55] Chambers: Make sense?

[23:58] Chambers: And I think, I think, like the attorney pointed out, it worked really well developing that parking waiver section and code.

[24:09] Chambers: All right, thank you for the comments. Yeah, thank you.

[24:14] Chambers: So, if a variance is denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant can either comply with Title 49, or they can appeal the Planning Commission decision to the Assembly.

[24:24] Chambers: If necessary, and they choose to, they can appeal the assembly decision to the court system.

[24:31] Chambers: And if an administrative variance is denied by the director, it would then be appealed to the Planning Commission.

[24:38] Chambers: So, in response to variance applications, whether denied or approved, CBJ can review Title 49 for potential revisions or updates. And as Assemblymember Brooks mentioned, we are in the process of that, but it's… it's a… it's a big task.

[24:56] Chambers: Both the assembly and the court system, in reviewing, appeals will be bound by the law, but they may interpret the facts of the case differently.

[25:07] Chambers: And so that's why it's really important, that the Planning Commission explain its reasoning for granting or denying variances, because either way it could be appealed. So your findings will be relied on heavily, on the matter if it's appealed.

[25:26] Chambers: And that's all I had.

[25:27] Chambers: Any more questions?

[25:31] Chambers: Commissioner Wiebold.

[25:35] Chambers: Thanks. I just wanted to clarify, you said that, a variance could be granted

[25:43] Chambers: If not granting it would deny the applicant all use of their property.

[25:49] Chambers: Not if it would deny them, like, any use. It's not, can they use it fully?

[25:55] Chambers: It's if they can use it at all.

[25:58] Chambers: Right, yeah, so… Yeah, it has to… it has to eliminate all reasonable use of that property.

[26:07] Chambers: And obviously, it would be very fact-specific.

[26:11] Chambers: I'm gonna add on to that one a little bit. I think that it probably dives a little bit deeper in there. The attorney said reasonable use of the property, and I think

[26:23] Chambers: That if you had a vacant lot in a residential subdivision where there was a house on either side, and for some reason you could not build a residential home there.

[26:33] Chambers: That would be denying you the reasonable use of that property.

[26:37] Chambers: Like, if the only thing you could do is put a parking area on it,

[26:44] Chambers: it gets into… I'm sure there's other certain concepts of it, but it's like,

[26:54] Chambers: Actually, I'm not going to comment any further on that. That digs into a different principle.

[27:01] Chambers: Commissioner Cole.

[27:05] Chambers: Right, I think there have been pretty, clear cases where variances have,

[27:10] Chambers: not been warranted, and some where they have been warranted. And for example, you know, I think one of the things that

[27:16] Chambers: we, really look at is that place where the hardship or the special condition of the land could prevent the use. And so, the places where it has been kind of, like, easier to grant a variance is, like, you're along a river, and the ordinary high water mark is… is…

[27:35] Chambers: You know, higher on your property than… you know, there's something… there's some condition of the land

[27:41] Chambers: that makes it difficult to get the same use, to build that residential house from. We've also had ones where the building of it is more expensive.

[27:51] Chambers: If you have to build it on this side versus this side. But it's possible to build it on this side, and so expense is not the reason to grant the variance. And so, nor is preference of, like, it's closer to the driveway if it's on here. If you could build it.

[28:07] Chambers: But it's closer to the driveway on the side. Again, likely not a special condition of the land.

[28:13] Chambers: You know, we… we have… we see lots of…

[28:17] Chambers: of variance requests, because the thing I want to do with this most precious, you know, possession of mine, this land that I own.

[28:26] Chambers: And I should be able to do what I need to do on it. Like, the sun is better if it's… if it's positioned this way. I mean, we all know and understand that feeling, and…

[28:38] Chambers: it's our job, according to the, you know, presentation that we just heard from Ms. Lynch, and according to our understanding of variances, is to really uphold the variance for what it is, else it becomes

[28:50] Chambers: meaningless, or worse, like, detrimental, because then we start giving variances, because this is… this was argued well, and this wasn't argued well, and that's not a reason to give… to give a variance or not give a variance. And so,

[29:03] Chambers: To just kind of really focus on that idea that if you… if you think, like, oh, this is… this is good for a variance, you've got to fit it into that definition of, like, the special hardship, not a financial hardship.

[29:16] Chambers: And so that is really where we have to articulate the reasons according to those criteria. We can't just do it because it makes sense, because it's only 3 inches, because it's only… you know, like, those are the kinds of things that, in my experience, I've wanted to grant so much, and…

[29:35] Chambers: can't.

[29:37] Chambers: Yeah, and I would… I would add that, you know, financial considerations, I mean, they can be a piece of the issue, but they cannot be the only issue. You still… you have to meet every… all four criteria within the code.

[29:53] Chambers: And then, if possible, could you bring up those four…

[29:58] Chambers: the slide with the four criteria on it. And then, Commissioner Wiebold?

[30:07] Chambers: Thank you. My question is more or less, like, I understand very well that we would want to maintain the integrity of code, and that varies would be limited to kind of a particular set of circumstances, but I guess my question is, how often is Title 59 updated, and

[30:25] Chambers: you know, if we're telling people, just wait, we could address this in another way, is that an indefinite wait? Is that a 5- or a 10-year wait? What are the chances of, like, making actionable change?

[30:37] Chambers: to Title 49.

[30:43] Chambers: That's a… that's a good question.

[30:46] Chambers: Large-scale change is not frequent. Like, the large one that we're doing right now that you all are aware of, that is infrequent.

[30:57] Chambers: Minor changes to Title 49 happen quite often. There are quite often updates that happen to small sections. It actually has been happening less recently because of we're doing this big thing, but in my 13 years, I mean, there were times where it would be monthly, we would get a new page.

[31:16] Chambers: two new pages the next time. Then the next time we'd get six pages, and then we'd come up with things like, you know, the marijuana laws came in, and we got 25 pages at that time, and then whittled that down. So, yes, large-scale change is very infrequent. I've… I've… this is, in my 13 years, this is the first time we've undergone anything like we are doing right now.

[31:35] Chambers: But minor changes have been made.

[31:37] Chambers: Quite often.

[31:41] Chambers: And I think we did have a Title 49 committee as part of the Planning Commission, and when we had that going, I think a lot more incremental change was happening.

[31:52] Chambers: But it wasn't, like, a complete rewrite. We were picking out select items that we were seeing, that there was issues.

[31:58] Chambers: And, and addressing those.

[32:02] Chambers: kind of within a subcommittee of the Planning Commission.

[32:06] Chambers: And that's what helped… that's… that created some of the problems that are being fixed by now the much larger, you know, comprehensive change that's happening.

[32:14] Chambers: Dude, also, I will say that.

[32:17] Chambers: Commissioner Gomez.

[32:19] Chambers: Alright, so… Great conversation. This is, this is really good. Good information for all of us.

[32:27] Chambers: We… our responsibility on this whole thing is we… we… we listen. We listen to the testimony, we listen to what's going on, but we're always going to have Title 49 in our hip pocket, so we need to concentrate on having that, even though we want to change a little bit.

[32:45] Chambers: that Title 49 will tell us what's going on. That will be what we're shooting for, correct?

[32:55] Chambers: Yeah, I mean, our decisions are supposed to be…

[32:58] Chambers: backed up by Title 49. We're supposed to approve things based on how the code exists.

[33:06] Chambers: Commissioner Cole? Sure. And, thank you, Chair. One of the… when we were rewriting, when we were, undertaking the rewrite, one of the things that the Commission specifically wanted to look at was the variance chapter. Like, can we make it…

[33:25] Chambers: different in some way, so that we can do some of these more, like, you know, it's logical, makes sense, it doesn't quite fit the definition kinds of changes. And so that is… that was one of the things that… that we had really kind of, like, talked about in the beginning.

[33:39] Chambers: When they get to that section of Title 49. So it's not… this… this may also, at some point, change in the rewrite.

[33:53] Chambers: Now, I could be wrong on this, but, I do… I feel like I found that those variance standards exist in state statute somewhere.

[34:04] Chambers: I… I could be wrong, but do you have any knowledge of that? I don't know. It's entirely possible. Most states have something very similar to this.

[34:15] Chambers: Yeah, because I think it actually… it's in the section that talks about becoming a, I don't know.

[34:22] Chambers: You become a, whatever, a first-class city, or whatever it is, and then you have to have a…

[34:28] Chambers: develop a code, and then variances to that code have to somehow come… they're very… it's very similar to this.

[34:37] Chambers: Do we want to go through any of these and just kind of, like, talk about them at all? Is there a want for that? Okay.

[34:45] Chambers: Yeah, so, like, the first one, enforcement of the ordinance would create an undue hardship resulting from unusual or special conditions of the property.

[35:00] Chambers: I feel like this one's… is this the… there's one that's just really hard. The… it's… B is the hardest one, I feel.

[35:12] Chambers: Because it's hard to judge, like, is it the property that's making it difficult, or is it the person wanting to do what they're wanting to do that's making…

[35:22] Chambers: It's, it's, it's like… Obviously, the person wants to build something there in general, so, like, that in itself…

[35:30] Chambers: almost knocks B up, because they're seeking to build this building.

[35:36] Chambers: But… so it's really hard to kinda…

[35:40] Chambers: But then at the same time, they should have reasonable use of their property. I think that, Attorney Lynch has kind of mentioned that a couple times. It's like, they should have reasonable use of their property,

[35:52] Chambers: That residential lot.

[35:54] Chambers: was… Intended to be built out as a residential lawn.

[35:59] Chambers: Any other… I mean… Any other… any thoughts on… Commissioner Wiebold?

[36:07] Chambers: Thanks. This is a fun conversation to have, so I'm gonna throw out a hypothetical. With A, let's say that, maybe there's, like, a pond on the property, and that takes up a lot of the buildable space, so the person's like, I'd like to have a reduced setback so I can build my

[36:24] Chambers: perfectly normal 1,500 square foot house. Would we say, no, build a 900 square foot house? Or would we say, hmm, reasonable?

[36:37] Chambers: Commissioner Cole.

[36:40] Chambers: Well, part… I think part of what we do is rely on staff's initial interpretation, and then from that… from that place, they make a recommendation. And then from here, we hear from the… the person, and then kind of…

[36:54] Chambers: figure out if the interpretation that staff made was too strict, if it's in… if it's in conflict with a person, or if

[37:02] Chambers: or if it's… it's perfectly reasonable. So there is this kind of way of… of understanding that because it's a… it's an amorphous condition, it's not like… you know, you can't test a thing to see if it's an unusual or special condition of the property. I think we still have an

[37:19] Chambers: An obligation to interpret?

[37:21] Chambers: And we listen to both sides, and then we say explicitly in our findings, we find that the special condition of the large pond on this lot prevents, you know, this person from being able to use it in congruence with their neighbors. And we articulate that, and then we're… then that… I mean, that's what

[37:41] Chambers: they want, right? We don't just say, yes, you deserve a big house.

[37:44] Chambers: we… we say… we find that there is a hardship present, right? So as long as we are… are putting…

[37:53] Chambers: The language of the standard into our reasoning.

[37:57] Chambers: then we have a place to… to work from, you know what I mean?

[38:02] Chambers: Yep, Commissioner Wiebold?

[38:04] Chambers: I think what I'm hearing here is that it's a lot more about the process, and kind of documenting the process and the thought process that goes into it, as opposed to what the actual outcome is of our decision of a variance or not.

[38:17] Chambers: Yeah, and I would totally agree on that, like, for the…

[38:21] Chambers: going back to the administrative variances versus a variance that would come to Planning Commission, you know, the director has to be extremely rigorous on, like.

[38:33] Chambers: Analyzing those, Those are making the findings to… to make sure they meet those four criteria.

[38:42] Chambers: In our discussion, you know, someone could make a motion and insert a finding.

[38:47] Chambers: And if the body of the Commission accepts that as being True.

[38:53] Chambers: then not everyone has to be in agreement with it. So, it's… it is… if… if we get a variance from staff, and it's recommended denial.

[39:03] Chambers: and we want to approve it, we have to do just like Commissioner Cole said, and make… and find a reason why

[39:11] Chambers: a finding that… of why the Nest variance would meet that criteria. And it doesn't mean that everybody has to be in unanimous consent on that, because we are a body, so there's a little bit more leeway to,

[39:25] Chambers: A finding maybe not being 100% perfect, or something like that.

[39:36] Chambers: Alright, any other questions? More discussion? Like, I feel like the A and B, they're almost… they're very similar to each other.

[39:46] Chambers: And it's… I think, Chair.

[39:54] Chambers: Peterson, if I could say that oftentimes the B is that the unusual or special condition of the property is not caused by the person seeking the variance. So, if I put the driveway on the rocky side, and then I'm like, well, I really can't build the house right here. I built the driveway already, and I need it to connect, right? Like, I already did a thing to the property to improve it.

[40:17] Chambers: And in order to do the next part, I need…

[40:20] Chambers: you know, a variance to put this thing where I wanted to. So, like, that… the thing… the condition that I caused isn't a warrant… doesn't warrant a variance, or a special condition. Like, I… I made it this way, so…

[40:36] Chambers: That's not necessarily a special condition of the property.

[40:41] Chambers: Yeah, and I've never been able to get to the threshold where

[40:45] Chambers: A person wanting to construct something on the property is… That person causing the…

[40:52] Chambers: the… the special condition. I mean, the person…

[40:57] Chambers: Wanting to build a house on there does not create the special condition.

[41:01] Chambers: So, it's kind of hard to get past that one, but I think from all my years on the Commission and all these variances that we've, heard.

[41:11] Chambers: I don't consider the person

[41:14] Chambers: Wanting to build the house as being causing a special condition, which makes the variance needed.

[41:19] Chambers: I think the last one that we heard was pretty cut and dry.

[41:25] Chambers: The applicant probably didn't look at the criteria, and I believe Commissioner Cole asked a direct question.

[41:33] Chambers: That had to… Do with the size of the building, and essentially they just said.

[41:39] Chambers: I want my building to be 10 feet wider.

[41:42] Chambers: And… that was it.

[41:45] Chambers: So, there really wasn't a way that we could write findings to meet the criteria.

[41:52] Chambers: After that question had been asked and answered.

[41:56] Chambers: So, thank you, Chair Peterson. So, as you kind of get used to variances, you start looking

[42:03] Chambers: you know, as you're questioning the applicant, you're thinking about how you would craft a finding that could meet this goal, right? So you want to ask the questions that will help you get to that finding.

[42:16] Chambers: And so, it's important, as you're kind of thinking about how you,

[42:22] Chambers: you know, if you're leaning away or not away, the first thing is to figure out, are you leaning in the way that's supported by the standards? And if you are.

[42:30] Chambers: how are you going to craft those standards, the findings, so that those standards are, clear enough to… to the rest of us that you… that we could vote for it? And or…

[42:42] Chambers: We'll stand up upon appeal.

[42:46] Chambers: And then I got one more comment on that. Yeah, I think that in the past, when findings have been developed to

[42:53] Chambers: I mean, staff almost most of the…

[42:57] Chambers: 95% of the time gives us a recommendation to deny the variance.

[43:02] Chambers: So, it is helpful if one of the commissioners actually

[43:10] Chambers: Has, like, a want to grant this variance if they have looked at, kind of, the materials and kind of written up their own findings, ahead of time.

[43:20] Chambers: And then a lot of times, we've had to take, like, an at-ease and several commissioners, you know, not more than three here.

[43:29] Chambers: can kind of draft, findings based on, kind of, commission discussion, or now that we've heard from the applicant, now I know more.

[43:39] Chambers: And so, like, a finding can be… Draft it up, and

[43:47] Chambers: Is there anything more to say on that one?

[43:49] Chambers: Thank you, Chair. I think that is absolutely true, because, especially with variances, you know.

[43:57] Chambers: Oftentimes, if we're approving or denying something, a cup or something like that, the… the… we'll let the findings that the staff has

[44:04] Chambers: put together for a stand, but I think what the chair was talking about is if… if we intend to… to…

[44:11] Chambers: Do something contrary to the recommendation of the staff.

[44:14] Chambers: then it's important to get those findings right, because we're essentially saying there's already a record that says it doesn't meet the standard. This is actually our interpretation of why it does, and we get the leeway to do that. That's why you can appeal to the Planning Commission, but we have to make sure that that's there. We can't just leave it at, you know, yes, a variance is warranted.

[44:34] Chambers: We have to kind of say the why of the variance being warranted.

[44:40] Chambers: Yeah, especially if we approved a variance, didn't modify any of staff's findings, like, any of their neighbors could appeal it, and essentially win, I would assume.

[44:49] Chambers: So there wouldn't really be much of a leg to stand on.

[44:56] Chambers: Any other thoughts? Commissioner Gomez?

[44:59] Chambers: Yeah, Commissioner Cole, I appreciate what you just gave as far as the information. So it's… when I listen to you, it's very important that we ask the correct question. Think about how you bring that question out.

[45:17] Chambers: Yeah, and it does make for a difficult motion, you know, when you've got the staff report saying to deny it, and then you might have to modify multiple findings. Usually.

[45:30] Chambers: Usually C, the community development finds that it meets that, usually D,

[45:37] Chambers: The staff reports will say that it…

[45:41] Chambers: it meets that criteria, but it's always that A and B that, always… usually our staff report says that those conditions were not met.

[45:50] Chambers: So you really have to… if you think there's a way that those can be met,

[45:55] Chambers: Yeah, it's really good to, like, game that out in your head beforehand.

[46:01] Chambers: Okay, Commissioner Simon.

[46:05] Chambers: So, I've appreciated this discussion, and I'm glad that you asked for this. Can I request that we have a cup discussion that's somewhat similar, where we can kind of talk this through? Because I think there's been some places where I've felt that

[46:22] Chambers: I would have appreciated a bit more guidance on some of the approaches, because I think it feels just as extreme at some times with variants. I understand they're different, but I definitely feel like it's still quite a commitment.

[46:34] Chambers: So, I would love us to have a similar discussion if we could.

[46:46] Chambers: Attorney Lynch, Did you have this presentation from previous, or did you have to develop it yourself?

[46:56] Chambers: Sorry, it's a Frankenstein. It's, cobbled together from… other…

[47:03] Chambers: presentations, and then I just kind of modified it to

[47:07] Chambers: Fine-tune, you know, things that you hadn't heard yet, some of the history, just to give you some more…

[47:15] Chambers: useful details.

[47:18] Chambers: I mean, I almost feel like we could just roll this variance conversation right into the cup right now.

[47:24] Chambers: I do… I want to make sure that if we go… and I really don't think it'll take that much longer, because I… like, a lot of the concepts are the same.

[47:38] Chambers: do we have any other discussion, like, on the variances? We can come back to it if we need to, but, you think we're kind of somewhat wrapped up on that? Okay.

[47:50] Chambers: So, I guess my interpretation is the cup is similar. Staff issues us a report, and there is findings, and there's usually conditions.

[48:02] Chambers: And so… Let's see, so I think, like…

[48:13] Chambers: I guess we usually don't condition variances, but they can be.

[48:18] Chambers: A lot of it.

[48:22] Chambers: I'm gonna let Commissioner Cole speak, because she's got her hand on the button. I'm struggling here, but, I do have a couple comments on that, on the cup thing, and I've been thinking about that, actually, recently. Commissioner Cole.

[48:34] Chambers: I think one of the things that's very helpful when we have a cup discussion is to just review, and maybe Ms. Lynch can make this kind of part of it. Usually in your reports, like, if you look at our report today, on the first page, it has the kind of date, and, you know, who it's to, it's to the chair, it's through the director.

[48:54] Chambers: On the right-hand side, they almost always, kind of publish what kind of case and the kind of…

[49:01] Chambers: options that we have with that case. And so, we have… we see… we sit in… in different…

[49:07] Chambers: roles for different cases. For some, we're, like, approving or denying, like, a cup.

[49:12] Chambers: And we're kind of the, the, you know.

[49:15] Chambers: arbiter of that. Like, in this case, the land disposal, we're providing a recommendation, and it tells you on that side of the… it's a quick kind of summary of Title 49, like, what our responsibilities and obligations are with this kind of case.

[49:31] Chambers: And so, I think I'd start with always checking out that little sidebar on the front side of the case, because then that will kind of let you know… you can even see at the bottom, it says the standard of review, like, what kind of review you were doing, and what

[49:48] Chambers: pieces, specific pieces of Title 49 are at issue. And so then, you know, if you're looking at this in advance when we get our packets, you can look at those actual pieces of code to see, like, okay, I'm supposed to make a decision about this. I'm supposed to make a decision about this.

[50:05] Chambers: And for a cup, I mean, oftentimes I think what we're trying to figure out is if it's eligible to get a cup, it's kind of in a gray category already. Like, it's kind of this place where the use is not

[50:17] Chambers: you know, it's not outrageous, right, not according to the code. It's not asking for a variance, it's not something that's prohibited. It's something that is… is allowed

[50:26] Chambers: but with conditions. And so then we have to look and see what,

[50:32] Chambers: what the criteria are that we're kind of measuring that cup against, and then make the findings that allow… kind of allow you to check the pieces of code that are at issue, right? So again, the health and safety is one of them.

[50:47] Chambers: the… compatible with… with surrounding…

[50:53] Chambers: uses, or what have you, congruence with the neighborhood, or some… there's a couple of standard ones.

[51:01] Chambers: And then the findings that we get basically justify why we're giving that cup. This is the reason why we think this cup is… is… is allowable. And then the conditions are it's allowable if they do these things, right? And the conditions are where we have a little bit more room.

[51:21] Chambers: So if we hear testimony from 20 neighbors that there's a big sound problem, like, we might condition a vegetative barrier or something like that, something to break the sound. Like, we have more…

[51:33] Chambers: space to add conditions to address what we hear, again, process-wise, what we hear when a person is applying for the cup.

[51:42] Chambers: But it all ties back to the reason why the cup's allowable, which is in statute.

[51:49] Chambers: Does that make sense?

[51:54] Chambers: And I'd probably say the majority of the cups that come to us is a staff recommendation for approval.

[52:00] Chambers: So a lot of times, if we want it to be approved, there's not a whole lot we have to dig into the findings for those criteria.

[52:08] Chambers: If it's a recommendation for denial, it's probably based on

[52:13] Chambers: Probably only one, maybe two findings. And so, if you felt strongly that that should be approved, it'd be another time, like, before the meeting, or to kind of game out your opinion on what you… why you think the staff's finding is inaccurate, and that your finding is better.

[52:32] Chambers: And then how to convince all of us of that as well.

[52:37] Chambers: But yeah, the conditions give quite a… and a lot of times we take conditions away that staff puts, and a lot of times we'll actually directly ask the applicant if they're okay with the conditions.

[52:49] Chambers: That staff has put in the report.

[52:53] Chambers: it's probably 50-50. A lot of them are like, yep, totally fine. And then, I usually don't even think about it anymore. But also, you know, we can add additional conditions if we think those are important to… for this specific use that's happening.

[53:11] Chambers: I feel like the marijuana establishments always have a ton of conditions.

[53:16] Chambers: But, oh, gosh, what was I gonna…

[53:22] Chambers: The, the other thing… the thing I was thinking about earlier today is when you make… when you make the initial motion on something like a cup.

[53:32] Chambers: you kind of have, a little bit of power, because, like, you could just say, okay, I want to prove this, but I want this condition.

[53:40] Chambers: in there. And so, that puts the burden on other commissioners to amend your motion, to take that condition away. So, if you feel strongly about having a condition added to, like, a cup.

[53:54] Chambers: Making the motion And including that condition in it,

[54:01] Chambers: You're going to be more successful at getting that condition to stick if you do it with the initial motion, because that puts the burden on another commissioner to

[54:10] Chambers: make an amendment to take it away. Commissioner Wiebold?

[54:15] Chambers: This power to put on some conditions is pretty interesting, and I could see…

[54:23] Chambers: Potential for us to heap conditions upon

[54:28] Chambers: a applicant, and for them to, you know, go home and afterwards go, what? That was a lot. Some of those are weird, I don't know, I thought about it over a week. How do they… do they, have the ability to appeal conditions that have been imposed upon them after we say we vote?

[54:48] Chambers: attorney might have a better idea, but, essentially, I mean, they could appeal our decision, but, yeah.

[54:59] Chambers: Yeah, I don't know… I wonder if they would go for a modification. They could reapply for a modification to their CUP at a later time. I think we're getting one from Domino's, I haven't looked at it yet.

[55:12] Chambers: So, for some reason, they're modifying their COP, and I don't know why.

[55:17] Chambers: And if I can just say that most of the time.

[55:24] Chambers: We… we are in more of a position of actually kind of taking away conditions, because sometimes staff puts, kind of.

[55:32] Chambers: M.

[55:33] Chambers: I don't know if you want to call them routine commissions, like, comply with signage requirements, you know, some things like that that they'd have to do anyway within…

[55:41] Chambers: to get their building permit, and so sometimes we strip some of those out, and that's just kind of, like, I think, preference on who's preparing the reports over the years, so sometimes we do that. But really, conditions

[55:53] Chambers: for us.

[55:54] Chambers: The reason conditions are important are not because we personally have an idea of how this project should go.

[56:01] Chambers: But it's generally the conditions that are brought up by the objections of the community that we're literally put here to listen to. So they tell us all of this stuff.

[56:11] Chambers: And we think, is there a way that we can kind of move forward with this plan, let a person do what they want to do with their property, and satisfy some of the, you know, issues that have come up today? And sometimes the issues that come up today are not things that we care to satisfy, but when they are, we put a condition on there that makes

[56:30] Chambers: sense with what we've heard. I'm pretty sure, you know, if Chair Peterson heard a motion from you that had 15 new conditions,

[56:39] Chambers: That, you know, we would…

[56:43] Chambers: not vote for that motion. We would deny that motion, and someone else would make a motion with

[56:48] Chambers: You know, the kind of conditions that mirrored what we heard in the… in the group.

[56:52] Chambers: So, it really isn't… it isn't, like a free-for-all that you can do anything with conditions. They really have to be based in the findings.

[57:02] Chambers: That makes a lot of sense. It's just that we're thinking on our feet for an hour or two, and these are folks who have to live with the decisions, so I just want to make sure that they're able to apple if they need to, or whatever the process looks like.

[57:19] Chambers: And then kind of back to what I initially said, like, adding a condition in your initial motion to approve the CUP is… so say… say if Commissioner Durr made a motion to approve the CUP and add a condition.

[57:32] Chambers: So now someone else would have to make, an amendment to remove that condition.

[57:38] Chambers: Or add another one. But,

[57:42] Chambers: like, if somebody just does a motion to just approve the COP, no extra conditions, then if someone does an amendment to add another condition, then we're just gonna vote it right then. So, it's like, it's easier to take out, or it's easier for the Commission to disagree with

[57:58] Chambers: a condition, if it's… if it's added on as an amendment, rather than… otherwise, we have to back, like, the whole… or we either have to amend the motion, remove the condition, vote that.

[58:08] Chambers: then we're back to just the… the standard, approve the project… approve the CUP. So there… there is, like, strategy if you… if you care about that sort of thing, but,

[58:20] Chambers: Anyways, Commissioner Cole.

[58:22] Chambers: Thank you, Chair. And I think, don't be afraid to do what the chair had mentioned earlier, which is request an at ease. And so, all you have to do is say, you know, Chair, be recognized and say, I'd like to request an at ease.

[58:37] Chambers: And then he'll give us 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever we need. And then you can spend some time writing, so you're not missing the conversation while you're writing findings down, so you… please do take that time. I mean, there was…

[58:51] Chambers: There was a time we would have maybe seven at-ases during one meeting, you know, like, it happens, and that's okay for you to be able to, like you said, you know, we're getting information real time, and no one expects you to be able to craft the perfect finding based on the thing you heard two seconds ago without taking a second to, like.

[59:10] Chambers: Write it down.

[59:13] Chambers: Yeah, yeah, definitely, and like, and then the audience can mill around and go to the bathroom and things like that, and other people can get water and all of that, so everybody likes an at ease, so there's nothing wrong with that.

[59:27] Chambers: Let's see… Is there any other thoughts on the conditional use permits?

[59:40] Chambers: I mean, essentially, it's a conditional use, you know, there… I think Commissioner Cole, it's not like an outright use, which would be an administrative… can be granted by just staff.

[59:52] Chambers: It's in the table of permissible uses, and it's noted that if you want to do this, you have to get a conditional use permit.

[59:59] Chambers: And it's usually for, like, larger… larger-type projects. It's, like, commercial,

[1:00:06] Chambers: childcare, nursing home, I don't know, I mean, there's a lot of examples, marijuana facility.

[1:00:12] Chambers: And so, when that table of permissible uses was developed.

[1:00:18] Chambers: whoever was writing that section of Title 49 recognized that, well, this… this is a higher impact use

[1:00:26] Chambers: So, it needs, like, a body of people to review it and see if,

[1:00:31] Chambers: Additional conditions need to be added onto it. It's a conditional use permit. We're giving you the use, but there's conditions that go along with it.

[1:00:41] Chambers: So… Commissioner Simon.

[1:00:45] Chambers: So, I'm trying to think about one of our recent situations, and…

[1:00:51] Chambers: there… and I appreciate that we have condition recommendations, or conditional recommendations.

[1:00:57] Chambers: I think there were some things in the scenario that…

[1:01:02] Chambers: and I don't know if this is something of more discussion with the planning folks, but

[1:01:07] Chambers: Especially as we were talking about it, like, Some of the…

[1:01:13] Chambers: What could possibly happen is we could have no idea about the topic, and…

[1:01:22] Chambers: We would hope that we would have recommendations specifically from, like, an urban planning type of expectations of, you know.

[1:01:30] Chambers: space usage, because I feel like there were…

[1:01:34] Chambers: what the individual was asking for was very extreme from what the city permits. And… without having…

[1:01:47] Chambers: More recommendations of how

[1:01:51] Chambers: other institutions… or other cities are framing these things, that might help, because I was a little… I found myself in a position where it was like, what could this possibly mean on a long-term scale at this level? And so, that was why I had asked…

[1:02:07] Chambers: In the meeting, if we could have, you know, what are the urban planning standards for

[1:02:14] Chambers: this… this, well, it's the urban farming. There… because there are recommendations, and there are those types of expectations, and I don't mind doing the due diligence, and I guess I have now an approach, but I do feel like…

[1:02:30] Chambers: There was a permission.

[1:02:32] Chambers: And then there was a request, and the request I thought, was way far off from what the city permits, and so it just felt very yes or no at the moment, and so I guess I'm glad that we get to rediscuss this topic, but I do feel that

[1:02:48] Chambers: There are so many standards and guidelines from the urban planning.

[1:02:52] Chambers: And so…

[1:02:55] Chambers: like, the APA. I'd like to have that, and I don't know if that's something that we can discuss.

[1:03:01] Chambers: Later, in addition, but… Commissioner Cole? Sure. Two things. One, we can't talk about any cases now, right?

[1:03:10] Chambers: But in general, what we can talk about is the ability for us to have additional information

[1:03:18] Chambers: To make a decision about a cup.

[1:03:21] Chambers: The issue is that the standards that we are obligated to consider are already named in Title 49, and so

[1:03:31] Chambers: if it's some other outside planning whatever, I mean, it can be used educationally, but it can't be used in conformity with that… that standard can't be a reason to or to not do a thing.

[1:03:44] Chambers: On its own.

[1:03:47] Chambers: Do you know what I'm saying? Because we have the comprehensive plan, which we are, you know, the… we look for the conformity with adopted plans, our adopted plans. And so, the conformity with a plan that is… or a standard that's not ours, is not a thing we can hang a decision on.

[1:04:08] Chambers: That may… you know what I'm saying? Yeah, it goes back to, say, like,

[1:04:12] Chambers: Landslide hazard maps. Those maps are not adopted, so we can't use them as a reason to deny it.

[1:04:21] Chambers: A certain thing, because it doesn't live within our…

[1:04:24] Chambers: code or adopted plans, Commissioner Simon?

[1:04:29] Chambers: So, health and safety… Would very much feel like something that has not been resolved.

[1:04:36] Chambers: Or has a potential to be impacted.

[1:04:40] Chambers: And that is… thank you, and that is a reason. You can state a reason for health and safety, absolutely. And it can be… whether it is or is not in conformance with… with another urban planning guide is…

[1:04:55] Chambers: is immaterial to that conversation. The material part is whether it's in conformance with health and… with your interpretation of health and safety for our community. Do you know what I'm saying?

[1:05:07] Chambers: Yeah. I… and sorry, I have… when I was superintendent, I had a board, and usually we would bring in recommendations, and a lot of it was grounded in the professional practices, and so I see the nuance.

[1:05:21] Chambers: But… That's kind of what I was hoping for.

[1:05:26] Chambers: Yeah, like, I don't think we could, like, modify a finding, and then, like, we decided this because,

[1:05:34] Chambers: Whatever, that this…

[1:05:36] Chambers: National Urban Standard of Planning, or some other… we wouldn't reference, like, another document that hasn't been adopted by the city.

[1:05:45] Chambers: In a finding, but you can make the finding that says, This level of… or…

[1:05:52] Chambers: This is okay, or this is not okay because of health, safety, and…

[1:05:58] Chambers: welfare, I can't remember what it is. So, did you have something else?

[1:06:03] Chambers: I just wanted to mention, you know, this came up… the reason I… this is top of mind is that there was, a plan… I don't remember what it was. It was something to do with wastewater. Jeff, do you remember? It was…

[1:06:15] Chambers: it was something we thought was adopted and wasn't adopted, and, like, we had to kind of go back and look through some decisions that we had, for the, like, the relevance of that plan… of that plan that had not actually been adopted, and we thought it was. I don't know if you remember that one. It was many years ago, but,

[1:06:34] Chambers: You know, at that time, the instruction from the attorney was to use the adopted plans that we have, and that's where we make the argument as to whether it's in congruence with those plans.

[1:06:58] Chambers: Yeah, I think, like,

[1:07:01] Chambers: like, referencing an outside source, I mean, it's similar to public testimony, like, it can help…

[1:07:11] Chambers: Form, or form your decision.

[1:07:16] Chambers: But, like, we couldn't make a finding that says, well, based on what Jeff Smith said on public testimony, we decided that there's too much traffic.

[1:07:25] Chambers: So we can't do that. So, like, it's outside information, but it doesn't really have a… how do you say… it doesn't have, like, a…

[1:07:34] Chambers: can't use it as a backup, I guess. Commissioner Wiebold?

[1:07:41] Chambers: I think this is pretty intriguing now. So, if we…

[1:07:45] Chambers: For example, had an applicant who wanted

[1:07:50] Chambers: X number of animals, and we looked at Future Farmers of America and the Urban Planning Guide, and they were both like, this is a pretty good size for an urban farm, this is what kind of works. We could use that to generally inform the parameters around which we are

[1:08:08] Chambers: putting our conditions on, like Future Farmers America and the urban planners say, really about 100 is about as many as you can have in an urban area. It's getting kind of tight. We could use that to inform our

[1:08:21] Chambers: Decision, correct?

[1:08:23] Chambers: Yeah, definitely. I mean, we're using the public testimony to inform our decision, and we can…

[1:08:32] Chambers: Like, if… if…

[1:08:36] Chambers: It just depends on how you would want to bring that information to the Commission. Like, you could submit it to staff and have it included in the packet, or you could verbally discuss it at the meeting.

[1:08:46] Chambers: What you had found.

[1:08:48] Chambers: But I don't think we would include specific references to that information within the findings.

[1:09:01] Chambers: Well, it was a good discussion. I like these good ones. Is there any other thoughts?

[1:09:10] Chambers: Commissioner Cole? Maybe we could just ask Attorney Lynch, do you want to clean up anything that we just said?

[1:09:17] Chambers: No, I'll just say that anything the Planning Commission decides can be appealed to the Assembly.

[1:09:24] Chambers: Since that was a question earlier.

[1:09:33] Chambers: Okay,

[1:09:41] Chambers: I guess we… just to, like… I'm gonna try to briefly touch on this, like, so with variances, conditional use permits, things like that, you will notice that if you, like, click around in the CBJ GIS, there's many lots that are owned by the city.

[1:09:54] Chambers: And a lot of times they're in, like, landslide areas and things like that. It's because the city basically said you can't build on that lot, and someone's like, well, I bought it.

[1:10:03] Chambers: And you're preventing me from using it, so the city kinda…

[1:10:07] Chambers: Has… it's like an inverse condemnation kind of deal, so…

[1:10:11] Chambers: the city's not coming out and condemning their property, but it's… it is kind of condemned because they can't do anything with it. So,

[1:10:20] Chambers: Anyways,

[1:10:22] Chambers: So there's a reason why there's a lot of different random lots that are owned by the city that the city probably wouldn't dispose of, like, in the landslide area, if somebody asked them for one.

[1:10:32] Chambers: So, anyways, okay, any other thoughts?

[1:10:38] Chambers: We can move along.

[1:10:44] Chambers: Okay, we got the staff report, any committee reports?

[1:10:49] Chambers: The Title 49 Rewrite Committee has not met since our last meeting.

[1:10:57] Chambers: Seeing no committee reports, can we have our liaison report? Can you bring over Deputy Mayor Smith?

[1:11:12] Greg Smith: Hello, Mr. Chair, can you hear me?

[1:11:14] Chambers: We can.

[1:11:16] Greg Smith: Very good, thank you.

[1:11:18] Greg Smith: I could… appreciate your work, of course. Thanks for the good discussion, and appreciate that, the discussion on variances and cups,

[1:11:28] Greg Smith: Definitely. I learned some things there, and also good… good reminders in there. Just a brief update since we… since I,

[1:11:38] Greg Smith: listened in your meeting two weeks ago. The Assembly met on August 17th.

[1:11:44] Greg Smith: a number of things regarding the flood, I mean, flood update, you know, impacts, damage, and that type of thing, as well as numerous, introduced another, taken actions related to restoring riverbank properties.

[1:11:57] Greg Smith: FEMA funds to repair bank armoring, amongst other kind of flood-related items on the agenda there.

[1:12:03] Greg Smith: The Assembly did also vote to approve the sale of a current… of the current City Hall building to see Alaska Heritage Institute for $1.5 million, in the… in the last,

[1:12:17] Greg Smith: item of interest, I think, for y'all was we did… we accepted an appeal from Chill Cat Vistas, that had resulted from,

[1:12:27] Greg Smith: that had been regarding an application that had been in front of the Commission on July 28th of this year.

[1:12:33] Greg Smith: Where no affirmative motions were adopted by the seven members present. What we did is we accepted the appeal, placed an immediate stay, and then directed the applicant to resubmit to the Planning Commission, so that you all may

[1:12:48] Greg Smith: assess the application within, again, within the confines of Title 49. Heard that was maybe…

[1:12:55] Greg Smith: The most expeditious way to do it, and So you'll be…

[1:13:00] Greg Smith: Well, should the applicant reapply, we'll be seeing that then.

[1:13:04] Greg Smith: That's all I had for ya.

[1:13:08] Greg Smith: Appreciate your work, happy to answer any questions.

[1:13:14] Chambers: Any questions from Commissioners?

[1:13:18] Chambers: All right, seeing none, thank you so much for joining us, and, we appreciate the information.

[1:13:27] Chambers: Okay, continuation of public participation on non-agenda items. If you're a member of the public and would like to provide testimony on something that was not on our agenda tonight, please raise your hand.

[1:13:38] Chambers: Seeing none… Planning Commissioner comments and questions?

[1:13:44] Chambers: Probably did enough of that already.

[1:13:47] Chambers: Executive session, supplemental materials, all right, brings us to adjournment.

[1:13:53] Chambers: Thank you so much.

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript