1
00:00:06,910 --> 00:00:14,820
Chambers: All right, we will call the August 25th Regular Planning Commission to order. Commissioner Wiebold, can I have the land acknowledgement?

2
00:00:16,870 --> 00:00:24,069
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.

3
00:00:24,230 --> 00:00:30,629
Chambers: For more than 10,000 years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community.

4
00:00:30,730 --> 00:00:39,030
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.

5
00:00:40,030 --> 00:00:45,759
Chambers: Alright, thank you so much. Can staff note the role? It looks like we have one Commissioner absent.

6
00:00:47,990 --> 00:00:51,550
Chambers: Is there any requests for agenda changes?

7
00:00:52,930 --> 00:00:57,380
Chambers: Seeing none, we'll keep the agenda as is. Can I get an approval of minutes?

8
00:00:57,700 --> 00:01:08,830
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.

9
00:01:12,130 --> 00:01:17,029
Chambers: Alright, that brings us to a review of rules for public participation.

10
00:01:17,110 --> 00:01:27,840
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.

11
00:01:27,840 --> 00:01:38,059
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.

12
00:01:38,420 --> 00:01:52,560
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.

13
00:01:52,800 --> 00:02:02,399
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.

14
00:02:02,430 --> 00:02:13,049
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.

15
00:02:14,660 --> 00:02:18,569
Chambers: That brings us to public participation on non-agenda items.

16
00:02:19,390 --> 00:02:29,759
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.

17
00:02:32,220 --> 00:02:41,399
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.

18
00:02:41,640 --> 00:02:49,480
Chambers: PAD20260002, property disposal by CBJ for…

19
00:02:50,130 --> 00:02:54,689
Chambers: a portion of U.S. Survey 3853, Lot 1, fraction of.

20
00:02:55,090 --> 00:03:00,480
Chambers: Does staff have a… Brief, overview.

21
00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:18,979
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.

22
00:03:19,050 --> 00:03:28,799
Chambers: The proposed disposal is in conformity with applicable adopted plans, and has a motion of support from the Assembly's, Lands, Housing.

23
00:03:29,380 --> 00:03:31,330
Chambers: Lhed Committee.

24
00:03:31,470 --> 00:03:40,189
Chambers: The staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Director's analysis and findings and approve Pad 20260002.

25
00:03:43,500 --> 00:03:47,460
Chambers: Alright, thank you so much. Is there any Commissioner questions for staff at this point?

26
00:03:48,460 --> 00:03:51,380
Chambers: Alright, seeing none, we can have the applicant.

27
00:03:53,960 --> 00:03:56,899
Chambers: You probably know the drill by now.

28
00:03:58,300 --> 00:04:13,019
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.

29
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:17,810
Chambers: All right, Commissioner, questions for the applicant?

30
00:04:18,670 --> 00:04:20,190
Chambers: Commissioner Cole.

31
00:04:22,110 --> 00:04:31,769
Chambers: Mr. Biden, I think the main issue here is access, so there's no frontage that is accessible for CBJ to… to…

32
00:04:32,820 --> 00:04:51,729
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

33
00:04:51,730 --> 00:05:01,230
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…

34
00:05:01,230 --> 00:05:15,689
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.

35
00:05:15,690 --> 00:05:34,200
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

36
00:05:34,200 --> 00:05:41,050
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.

37
00:05:41,050 --> 00:05:53,770
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

38
00:05:53,770 --> 00:06:08,470
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.

39
00:06:09,010 --> 00:06:11,709
Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Blader, and I actually was going to…

40
00:06:11,950 --> 00:06:17,999
Chambers: ask that very thing, if in the negotiations there might be room for some right-of-way access for the

41
00:06:18,130 --> 00:06:20,489
Chambers: For the upland piece of it.

42
00:06:20,680 --> 00:06:28,970
Chambers: It sounds like that's not in the plan. Access is planned, potentially, through… the northern…

43
00:06:29,540 --> 00:06:46,089
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.

44
00:06:46,380 --> 00:06:47,610
Chambers: Thank you.

45
00:06:48,950 --> 00:06:50,880
Chambers: Any other Commissioner questions?

46
00:06:56,170 --> 00:07:06,659
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

47
00:07:07,150 --> 00:07:12,159
Chambers: Development of that area and… and… and drainage coming down.

48
00:07:12,600 --> 00:07:19,189
Chambers: To the condominiums, in my mind, I think all that's gonna get flushed out with,

49
00:07:19,890 --> 00:07:26,920
Chambers: the different permissions needed to actually build out the site. Did you have any comment on that public comment?

50
00:07:27,180 --> 00:07:49,239
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.

51
00:07:49,240 --> 00:07:55,670
Chambers: And in which case, they're going to have to really consider all that type of stuff, drainage, topography, etc.

52
00:07:58,040 --> 00:08:00,790
Chambers: Okay, commissioner Durr?

53
00:08:01,740 --> 00:08:08,120
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.

54
00:08:09,370 --> 00:08:24,729
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…

55
00:08:24,940 --> 00:08:42,799
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

56
00:08:42,809 --> 00:09:00,500
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.

57
00:09:00,500 --> 00:09:03,399
Chambers: With a branching out of development up there, and it's…

58
00:09:03,530 --> 00:09:18,929
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.

59
00:09:18,930 --> 00:09:39,829
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

60
00:09:40,350 --> 00:09:42,669
Chambers: Larger scale subdivision, for sure.

61
00:09:45,870 --> 00:09:48,259
Chambers: Any other Commissioner questions?

62
00:09:50,060 --> 00:09:53,450
Chambers: Alright, thank you so much,

63
00:09:55,930 --> 00:10:01,230
Chambers: Let's see, is there any member of the public that would like to provide testimony on this item?

64
00:10:01,510 --> 00:10:07,670
Chambers: If you are on Zoom or on the phone, now would be the time to raise your hand or hit star 9.

65
00:10:14,050 --> 00:10:17,480
Chambers: Okay, seeing none,

66
00:10:17,590 --> 00:10:24,719
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.

67
00:10:24,720 --> 00:10:45,769
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.

68
00:10:45,770 --> 00:10:50,339
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.

69
00:10:50,340 --> 00:11:07,819
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.

70
00:11:07,820 --> 00:11:14,999
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.

71
00:11:16,910 --> 00:11:25,900
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.

72
00:11:26,280 --> 00:11:37,380
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.

73
00:11:37,860 --> 00:11:41,150
Chambers: One more chance for questions for the applicant.

74
00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:45,120
Chambers: Alright, seeing none, any Commissioner discussion and or a motion?

75
00:11:46,810 --> 00:11:47,970
Chambers: Commissioner Durr.

76
00:11:49,110 --> 00:12:01,659
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.

77
00:12:06,490 --> 00:12:13,719
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?

78
00:12:13,930 --> 00:12:14,980
Chambers: On the table.

79
00:12:16,320 --> 00:12:26,870
Chambers: Okay, seeing none, motion is approved, and… PAD20260002 is approved.

80
00:12:27,590 --> 00:12:34,509
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.

81
00:12:40,210 --> 00:12:41,420
Chambers: Suck the subs.

82
00:12:49,740 --> 00:13:02,589
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.

83
00:13:03,340 --> 00:13:07,090
Chambers: We get to hear a little bit more about variances.

84
00:13:10,370 --> 00:13:23,410
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,

85
00:13:23,410 --> 00:13:33,550
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.

86
00:13:33,550 --> 00:13:52,360
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.

87
00:13:53,690 --> 00:13:57,970
Chambers: Awesome, yeah, thanks for that update. It's always good to hear that at least

88
00:13:58,360 --> 00:14:02,110
Chambers: Positions are getting filled, and people are applying for them, so that's great.

89
00:14:07,050 --> 00:14:09,669
Chambers: Now we get to our exciting variance training.

90
00:14:10,690 --> 00:14:12,440
Chambers: I don't know how exciting it's gonna be.

91
00:14:13,870 --> 00:14:22,420
Chambers: Let's see… Make sure I can… Move the slides.

92
00:14:35,500 --> 00:14:36,590
Chambers: There we go.

93
00:14:39,840 --> 00:14:41,160
Chambers: I'm gonna be very slow.

94
00:14:41,920 --> 00:14:49,210
Chambers: So, as you know, a person seeks a variance when they want to develop something that is prohibited by Title 49.

95
00:14:49,350 --> 00:15:00,180
Chambers: Unlike conditional use permits, that allow a use that is expressly permitted, the variance allows a development that is expressly prohibited.

96
00:15:00,270 --> 00:15:14,330
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.

97
00:15:14,490 --> 00:15:20,270
Chambers: The variance requirements are rigorous and only warranted in very limited circumstances.

98
00:15:20,440 --> 00:15:31,810
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.

99
00:15:32,130 --> 00:15:39,180
Chambers: Such a hardship is required to ensure that the variance is not arbitrarily granted, And…

100
00:15:39,360 --> 00:15:45,789
Chambers: The grant of the variance does not erode the rational basis for the Title 49 regulation in dispute.

101
00:15:46,750 --> 00:16:03,669
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.

102
00:16:03,890 --> 00:16:14,060
Chambers: When they, when what really needed to happen was amendment of those strict provisions instead of using variances to achieve that.

103
00:16:18,890 --> 00:16:30,510
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.

104
00:16:35,330 --> 00:16:46,610
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.

105
00:16:46,940 --> 00:16:52,460
Chambers: And that the unusual and special circumstances is not caused by the person seeking the variance.

106
00:16:53,480 --> 00:16:58,469
Chambers: That granting the variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare.

107
00:16:58,620 --> 00:17:02,859
Chambers: And that the variance is narrowly tailored to relieve the hardship.

108
00:17:03,010 --> 00:17:09,549
Chambers: This hardship, does not mean relief from financial hardship or inconvenience alone.

109
00:17:10,010 --> 00:17:16,050
Chambers: It means that without the variance, the property owner is deprived of all beneficial uses of their land.

110
00:17:16,960 --> 00:17:21,590
Chambers: So the hardship must be caused by circumstances which are unique to the property.

111
00:17:22,390 --> 00:17:28,619
Chambers: Such as a giant ravine. If it affects you but not your neighbors, that's clearly unique.

112
00:17:29,160 --> 00:17:34,169
Chambers: Unfortunately, the hardships that you will see are not as clear-cut as that.

113
00:17:34,250 --> 00:17:50,540
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.

114
00:17:51,580 --> 00:17:56,900
Chambers: Or another example is if it's too expensive to plant,

115
00:17:57,040 --> 00:18:02,929
Chambers: The number of trees necessary for vegetative cover due to something unusual to the property.

116
00:18:03,060 --> 00:18:04,730
Chambers: So they'd like a variance.

117
00:18:05,630 --> 00:18:11,659
Chambers: So these are hard because your gut feeling might be that the project should be approved.

118
00:18:12,040 --> 00:18:19,070
Chambers: Yet you're struggling to draft your findings in a way that can meet that high threshold that's set by code.

119
00:18:23,080 --> 00:18:26,769
Chambers: Generally, the person… Is there… is there any questions, kind of.

120
00:18:26,940 --> 00:18:33,450
Chambers: Before I move forward, like, so we don't get too far away from that kind of initial concept.

121
00:18:34,200 --> 00:18:34,970
Chambers: Okay.

122
00:18:35,290 --> 00:18:37,460
Chambers: Sorry for the interruption. No worries.

123
00:18:38,250 --> 00:18:52,730
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.

124
00:18:52,730 --> 00:18:59,019
Chambers: That have the same, zoning regulations, and to accommodate peculiarities with the land.

125
00:19:05,010 --> 00:19:14,669
Chambers: These are just some examples of non-qualifying reasons, for variances that happen to relate with, some court cases.

126
00:19:14,930 --> 00:19:21,349
Chambers: So, inaccurate measurements, ignorance of the law, good faith, or a subsequent buyer.

127
00:19:22,110 --> 00:19:27,460
Chambers: And then our own local example… is,

128
00:19:28,970 --> 00:19:39,590
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.

129
00:19:44,750 --> 00:19:55,589
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.

130
00:19:56,110 --> 00:20:06,020
Chambers: Continuous variance application on specific code sections may be an indication that Title 49 should be reviewed for deficiencies and updates.

131
00:20:06,280 --> 00:20:16,750
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.

132
00:20:17,150 --> 00:20:20,030
Chambers: And parking waivers.

133
00:20:20,180 --> 00:20:36,829
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.

134
00:20:37,130 --> 00:20:40,349
Chambers: There's a separate option for a parking waiver.

135
00:20:44,180 --> 00:20:51,849
Chambers: And it looks like we have, a question from… or a question from one of our assembly members online.

136
00:20:53,750 --> 00:20:56,780
Chambers: I'm assuming that's why your hand's raised. Can we bring them over?

137
00:20:58,680 --> 00:20:59,340
Chambers: Nope.

138
00:21:00,220 --> 00:21:00,950
Chambers: That's…

139
00:21:02,010 --> 00:21:15,219
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.

140
00:21:15,330 --> 00:21:25,730
Nano: But as a regard to Title 49, there is a current process of rewriting Title 49, and, you know, it's… it's…

141
00:21:26,020 --> 00:21:44,199
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,

142
00:21:44,380 --> 00:21:53,779
Nano: more consideration for variances, depending on circumstance, might be more warranted. And, that's just food for thought.

143
00:21:57,640 --> 00:21:58,869
Chambers: Alright, thank you.

144
00:21:59,340 --> 00:22:01,509
Chambers: Moving on.

145
00:22:03,450 --> 00:22:17,569
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…

146
00:22:17,890 --> 00:22:21,050
Chambers: When variances are appropriate, and…

147
00:22:21,180 --> 00:22:23,380
Chambers: When I first got on the commission in…

148
00:22:23,900 --> 00:22:33,659
Chambers: 2021, we had just kind of started talking a lot more about variances and applying these criteria. And there were…

149
00:22:33,690 --> 00:22:48,779
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

150
00:22:48,900 --> 00:23:02,510
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.

151
00:23:03,930 --> 00:23:05,919
Chambers: That's not likely to be

152
00:23:06,920 --> 00:23:23,290
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…

153
00:23:23,700 --> 00:23:34,660
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,

154
00:23:35,610 --> 00:23:49,910
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

155
00:23:50,100 --> 00:23:54,790
Chambers: Problems that we have in, like, logic with variances only.

156
00:23:55,040 --> 00:23:56,010
Chambers: Make sense?

157
00:23:58,300 --> 00:24:06,769
Chambers: And I think, I think, like the attorney pointed out, it worked really well developing that parking waiver section and code.

158
00:24:09,330 --> 00:24:12,370
Chambers: All right, thank you for the comments. Yeah, thank you.

159
00:24:14,410 --> 00:24:24,419
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.

160
00:24:24,590 --> 00:24:30,540
Chambers: If necessary, and they choose to, they can appeal the assembly decision to the court system.

161
00:24:31,000 --> 00:24:37,630
Chambers: And if an administrative variance is denied by the director, it would then be appealed to the Planning Commission.

162
00:24:38,760 --> 00:24:54,869
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.

163
00:24:56,370 --> 00:25:06,710
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.

164
00:25:07,470 --> 00:25:22,530
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.

165
00:25:26,440 --> 00:25:27,740
Chambers: And that's all I had.

166
00:25:27,850 --> 00:25:29,320
Chambers: Any more questions?

167
00:25:31,780 --> 00:25:33,070
Chambers: Commissioner Wiebold.

168
00:25:35,980 --> 00:25:41,980
Chambers: Thanks. I just wanted to clarify, you said that, a variance could be granted

169
00:25:43,610 --> 00:25:49,600
Chambers: If not granting it would deny the applicant all use of their property.

170
00:25:49,730 --> 00:25:55,040
Chambers: Not if it would deny them, like, any use. It's not, can they use it fully?

171
00:25:55,610 --> 00:25:58,019
Chambers: It's if they can use it at all.

172
00:25:58,610 --> 00:26:06,720
Chambers: Right, yeah, so… Yeah, it has to… it has to eliminate all reasonable use of that property.

173
00:26:07,070 --> 00:26:10,090
Chambers: And obviously, it would be very fact-specific.

174
00:26:11,770 --> 00:26:23,019
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

175
00:26:23,330 --> 00:26:32,929
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.

176
00:26:33,450 --> 00:26:36,859
Chambers: That would be denying you the reasonable use of that property.

177
00:26:37,350 --> 00:26:42,140
Chambers: Like, if the only thing you could do is put a parking area on it,

178
00:26:44,680 --> 00:26:49,929
Chambers: it gets into… I'm sure there's other certain concepts of it, but it's like,

179
00:26:54,000 --> 00:26:59,209
Chambers: Actually, I'm not going to comment any further on that. That digs into a different principle.

180
00:27:01,200 --> 00:27:02,810
Chambers: Commissioner Cole.

181
00:27:05,220 --> 00:27:10,549
Chambers: Right, I think there have been pretty, clear cases where variances have,

182
00:27:10,620 --> 00:27:16,630
Chambers: not been warranted, and some where they have been warranted. And for example, you know, I think one of the things that

183
00:27:16,670 --> 00:27:35,699
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…

184
00:27:35,700 --> 00:27:41,069
Chambers: You know, higher on your property than… you know, there's something… there's some condition of the land

185
00:27:41,200 --> 00:27:51,550
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.

186
00:27:51,550 --> 00:28:07,039
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.

187
00:28:07,040 --> 00:28:13,179
Chambers: But it's closer to the driveway on the side. Again, likely not a special condition of the land.

188
00:28:13,200 --> 00:28:16,779
Chambers: You know, we… we have… we see lots of…

189
00:28:17,180 --> 00:28:25,829
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.

190
00:28:26,900 --> 00:28:37,310
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…

191
00:28:38,010 --> 00:28:50,559
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

192
00:28:50,770 --> 00:29:03,730
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,

193
00:29:03,730 --> 00:29:16,030
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.

194
00:29:16,280 --> 00:29:34,299
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…

195
00:29:35,160 --> 00:29:35,970
Chambers: can't.

196
00:29:37,870 --> 00:29:51,389
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.

197
00:29:53,890 --> 00:29:58,370
Chambers: And then, if possible, could you bring up those four…

198
00:29:58,600 --> 00:30:03,120
Chambers: the slide with the four criteria on it. And then, Commissioner Wiebold?

199
00:30:07,170 --> 00:30:25,049
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

200
00:30:25,550 --> 00:30:37,009
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?

201
00:30:37,290 --> 00:30:38,610
Chambers: to Title 49.

202
00:30:43,120 --> 00:30:46,370
Chambers: That's a… that's a good question.

203
00:30:46,930 --> 00:30:57,149
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.

204
00:30:57,380 --> 00:31:15,829
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.

205
00:31:16,000 --> 00:31:35,040
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.

206
00:31:35,040 --> 00:31:37,789
Chambers: But minor changes have been made.

207
00:31:37,860 --> 00:31:38,950
Chambers: Quite often.

208
00:31:41,860 --> 00:31:52,219
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.

209
00:31:52,840 --> 00:31:58,649
Chambers: But it wasn't, like, a complete rewrite. We were picking out select items that we were seeing, that there was issues.

210
00:31:58,780 --> 00:32:02,110
Chambers: And, and addressing those.

211
00:32:02,320 --> 00:32:05,499
Chambers: kind of within a subcommittee of the Planning Commission.

212
00:32:06,040 --> 00:32:14,759
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.

213
00:32:14,920 --> 00:32:16,950
Chambers: Dude, also, I will say that.

214
00:32:17,480 --> 00:32:19,610
Chambers: Commissioner Gomez.

215
00:32:19,950 --> 00:32:25,769
Chambers: Alright, so… Great conversation. This is, this is really good. Good information for all of us.

216
00:32:27,260 --> 00:32:45,639
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.

217
00:32:45,710 --> 00:32:52,470
Chambers: that Title 49 will tell us what's going on. That will be what we're shooting for, correct?

218
00:32:55,660 --> 00:32:58,280
Chambers: Yeah, I mean, our decisions are supposed to be…

219
00:32:58,560 --> 00:33:05,719
Chambers: backed up by Title 49. We're supposed to approve things based on how the code exists.

220
00:33:06,150 --> 00:33:23,909
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…

221
00:33:25,040 --> 00:33:39,519
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.

222
00:33:39,730 --> 00:33:48,580
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.

223
00:33:53,610 --> 00:34:03,030
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.

224
00:34:04,360 --> 00:34:14,749
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.

225
00:34:15,870 --> 00:34:21,660
Chambers: Yeah, because I think it actually… it's in the section that talks about becoming a, I don't know.

226
00:34:22,550 --> 00:34:28,199
Chambers: You become a, whatever, a first-class city, or whatever it is, and then you have to have a…

227
00:34:28,670 --> 00:34:36,720
Chambers: develop a code, and then variances to that code have to somehow come… they're very… it's very similar to this.

228
00:34:37,199 --> 00:34:45,409
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.

229
00:34:45,570 --> 00:34:55,290
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.

230
00:35:00,460 --> 00:35:10,810
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.

231
00:35:12,080 --> 00:35:21,000
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…

232
00:35:22,600 --> 00:35:30,090
Chambers: It's, it's, it's like… Obviously, the person wants to build something there in general, so, like, that in itself…

233
00:35:30,530 --> 00:35:36,580
Chambers: almost knocks B up, because they're seeking to build this building.

234
00:35:36,880 --> 00:35:39,790
Chambers: But… so it's really hard to kinda…

235
00:35:40,400 --> 00:35:51,880
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,

236
00:35:52,960 --> 00:35:54,650
Chambers: That residential lot.

237
00:35:54,930 --> 00:35:59,420
Chambers: was… Intended to be built out as a residential lawn.

238
00:35:59,680 --> 00:36:05,909
Chambers: Any other… I mean… Any other… any thoughts on… Commissioner Wiebold?

239
00:36:07,140 --> 00:36:23,870
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

240
00:36:24,070 --> 00:36:33,430
Chambers: perfectly normal 1,500 square foot house. Would we say, no, build a 900 square foot house? Or would we say, hmm, reasonable?

241
00:36:37,940 --> 00:36:40,090
Chambers: Commissioner Cole.

242
00:36:40,230 --> 00:36:54,000
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…

243
00:36:54,000 --> 00:37:02,030
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

244
00:37:02,030 --> 00:37:19,239
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

245
00:37:19,330 --> 00:37:21,740
Chambers: An obligation to interpret?

246
00:37:21,910 --> 00:37:41,000
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

247
00:37:41,000 --> 00:37:44,989
Chambers: they want, right? We don't just say, yes, you deserve a big house.

248
00:37:44,990 --> 00:37:52,860
Chambers: we… we say… we find that there is a hardship present, right? So as long as we are… are putting…

249
00:37:53,070 --> 00:37:57,180
Chambers: The language of the standard into our reasoning.

250
00:37:57,570 --> 00:38:01,650
Chambers: then we have a place to… to work from, you know what I mean?

251
00:38:02,250 --> 00:38:03,780
Chambers: Yep, Commissioner Wiebold?

252
00:38:04,080 --> 00:38:16,070
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.

253
00:38:17,780 --> 00:38:21,429
Chambers: Yeah, and I would totally agree on that, like, for the…

254
00:38:21,610 --> 00:38:32,910
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.

255
00:38:33,270 --> 00:38:41,640
Chambers: Analyzing those, Those are making the findings to… to make sure they meet those four criteria.

256
00:38:42,100 --> 00:38:47,099
Chambers: In our discussion, you know, someone could make a motion and insert a finding.

257
00:38:47,350 --> 00:38:52,850
Chambers: And if the body of the Commission accepts that as being True.

258
00:38:53,090 --> 00:39:03,179
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.

259
00:39:03,610 --> 00:39:11,460
Chambers: and we want to approve it, we have to do just like Commissioner Cole said, and make… and find a reason why

260
00:39:11,570 --> 00:39:25,199
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,

261
00:39:25,860 --> 00:39:30,429
Chambers: A finding maybe not being 100% perfect, or something like that.

262
00:39:36,270 --> 00:39:46,569
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.

263
00:39:46,770 --> 00:39:54,219
Chambers: And it's… I think, Chair.

264
00:39:54,350 --> 00:40:17,190
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.

265
00:40:17,190 --> 00:40:20,509
Chambers: And in order to do the next part, I need…

266
00:40:20,750 --> 00:40:36,389
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…

267
00:40:36,570 --> 00:40:39,779
Chambers: That's not necessarily a special condition of the property.

268
00:40:41,480 --> 00:40:44,819
Chambers: Yeah, and I've never been able to get to the threshold where

269
00:40:45,030 --> 00:40:52,770
Chambers: A person wanting to construct something on the property is… That person causing the…

270
00:40:52,940 --> 00:40:56,890
Chambers: the… the special condition. I mean, the person…

271
00:40:57,070 --> 00:41:00,989
Chambers: Wanting to build a house on there does not create the special condition.

272
00:41:01,470 --> 00:41:11,160
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.

273
00:41:11,340 --> 00:41:13,799
Chambers: I don't consider the person

274
00:41:14,090 --> 00:41:19,490
Chambers: Wanting to build the house as being causing a special condition, which makes the variance needed.

275
00:41:19,700 --> 00:41:25,389
Chambers: I think the last one that we heard was pretty cut and dry.

276
00:41:25,690 --> 00:41:33,419
Chambers: The applicant probably didn't look at the criteria, and I believe Commissioner Cole asked a direct question.

277
00:41:33,710 --> 00:41:39,529
Chambers: That had to… Do with the size of the building, and essentially they just said.

278
00:41:39,710 --> 00:41:41,879
Chambers: I want my building to be 10 feet wider.

279
00:41:42,570 --> 00:41:44,520
Chambers: And… that was it.

280
00:41:45,000 --> 00:41:52,120
Chambers: So, there really wasn't a way that we could write findings to meet the criteria.

281
00:41:52,580 --> 00:41:55,710
Chambers: After that question had been asked and answered.

282
00:41:56,470 --> 00:42:03,870
Chambers: So, thank you, Chair Peterson. So, as you kind of get used to variances, you start looking

283
00:42:03,990 --> 00:42:16,099
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.

284
00:42:16,310 --> 00:42:22,039
Chambers: And so, it's important, as you're kind of thinking about how you,

285
00:42:22,060 --> 00:42:30,740
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.

286
00:42:30,740 --> 00:42:42,130
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…

287
00:42:42,180 --> 00:42:44,090
Chambers: We'll stand up upon appeal.

288
00:42:46,140 --> 00:42:52,159
Chambers: And then I got one more comment on that. Yeah, I think that in the past, when findings have been developed to

289
00:42:53,670 --> 00:42:56,520
Chambers: I mean, staff almost most of the…

290
00:42:57,690 --> 00:43:01,589
Chambers: 95% of the time gives us a recommendation to deny the variance.

291
00:43:02,090 --> 00:43:09,569
Chambers: So, it is helpful if one of the commissioners actually

292
00:43:10,240 --> 00:43:19,419
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.

293
00:43:20,610 --> 00:43:29,510
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.

294
00:43:29,690 --> 00:43:39,140
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.

295
00:43:39,250 --> 00:43:45,110
Chambers: And so, like, a finding can be… Draft it up, and

296
00:43:47,050 --> 00:43:48,810
Chambers: Is there anything more to say on that one?

297
00:43:49,090 --> 00:43:57,090
Chambers: Thank you, Chair. I think that is absolutely true, because, especially with variances, you know.

298
00:43:57,680 --> 00:44:04,300
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

299
00:44:04,480 --> 00:44:11,559
Chambers: put together for a stand, but I think what the chair was talking about is if… if we intend to… to…

300
00:44:11,610 --> 00:44:14,339
Chambers: Do something contrary to the recommendation of the staff.

301
00:44:14,340 --> 00:44:34,610
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.

302
00:44:34,730 --> 00:44:37,880
Chambers: We have to kind of say the why of the variance being warranted.

303
00:44:40,060 --> 00:44:49,650
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.

304
00:44:49,830 --> 00:44:53,599
Chambers: So there wouldn't really be much of a leg to stand on.

305
00:44:56,610 --> 00:44:59,180
Chambers: Any other thoughts? Commissioner Gomez?

306
00:44:59,610 --> 00:45:11,829
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.

307
00:45:17,070 --> 00:45:30,450
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.

308
00:45:30,700 --> 00:45:37,439
Chambers: Usually C, the community development finds that it meets that, usually D,

309
00:45:37,680 --> 00:45:40,730
Chambers: The staff reports will say that it…

310
00:45:41,060 --> 00:45:50,229
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.

311
00:45:50,360 --> 00:45:55,140
Chambers: So you really have to… if you think there's a way that those can be met,

312
00:45:55,980 --> 00:46:00,380
Chambers: Yeah, it's really good to, like, game that out in your head beforehand.

313
00:46:01,860 --> 00:46:03,880
Chambers: Okay, Commissioner Simon.

314
00:46:05,600 --> 00:46:21,040
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

315
00:46:22,580 --> 00:46:34,599
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.

316
00:46:34,980 --> 00:46:38,539
Chambers: So, I would love us to have a similar discussion if we could.

317
00:46:46,640 --> 00:46:53,489
Chambers: Attorney Lynch, Did you have this presentation from previous, or did you have to develop it yourself?

318
00:46:56,610 --> 00:47:03,230
Chambers: Sorry, it's a Frankenstein. It's, cobbled together from… other…

319
00:47:03,570 --> 00:47:07,330
Chambers: presentations, and then I just kind of modified it to

320
00:47:07,440 --> 00:47:15,249
Chambers: Fine-tune, you know, things that you hadn't heard yet, some of the history, just to give you some more…

321
00:47:15,530 --> 00:47:17,150
Chambers: useful details.

322
00:47:18,000 --> 00:47:24,560
Chambers: I mean, I almost feel like we could just roll this variance conversation right into the cup right now.

323
00:47:24,910 --> 00:47:35,310
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.

324
00:47:38,720 --> 00:47:48,729
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.

325
00:47:50,280 --> 00:48:01,590
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.

326
00:48:02,010 --> 00:48:13,160
Chambers: And so… Let's see, so I think, like…

327
00:48:13,280 --> 00:48:17,989
Chambers: I guess we usually don't condition variances, but they can be.

328
00:48:18,960 --> 00:48:20,380
Chambers: A lot of it.

329
00:48:22,290 --> 00:48:33,559
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.

330
00:48:34,480 --> 00:48:53,369
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.

331
00:48:54,060 --> 00:49:01,579
Chambers: On the right-hand side, they almost always, kind of publish what kind of case and the kind of…

332
00:49:01,730 --> 00:49:07,750
Chambers: options that we have with that case. And so, we have… we see… we sit in… in different…

333
00:49:07,900 --> 00:49:12,570
Chambers: roles for different cases. For some, we're, like, approving or denying, like, a cup.

334
00:49:12,680 --> 00:49:15,630
Chambers: And we're kind of the, the, you know.

335
00:49:15,900 --> 00:49:31,320
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.

336
00:49:31,320 --> 00:49:48,130
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

337
00:49:48,380 --> 00:50:04,690
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.

338
00:50:05,100 --> 00:50:17,390
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

339
00:50:17,390 --> 00:50:26,289
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

340
00:50:26,620 --> 00:50:32,769
Chambers: but with conditions. And so then we have to look and see what,

341
00:50:32,990 --> 00:50:47,689
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.

342
00:50:47,810 --> 00:50:52,620
Chambers: the… compatible with… with surrounding…

343
00:50:53,350 --> 00:51:00,749
Chambers: uses, or what have you, congruence with the neighborhood, or some… there's a couple of standard ones.

344
00:51:01,280 --> 00:51:21,149
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.

345
00:51:21,450 --> 00:51:33,230
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…

346
00:51:33,530 --> 00:51:42,570
Chambers: space to add conditions to address what we hear, again, process-wise, what we hear when a person is applying for the cup.

347
00:51:42,690 --> 00:51:48,550
Chambers: But it all ties back to the reason why the cup's allowable, which is in statute.

348
00:51:49,020 --> 00:51:50,150
Chambers: Does that make sense?

349
00:51:54,850 --> 00:52:00,710
Chambers: And I'd probably say the majority of the cups that come to us is a staff recommendation for approval.

350
00:52:00,900 --> 00:52:08,610
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.

351
00:52:08,830 --> 00:52:13,680
Chambers: If it's a recommendation for denial, it's probably based on

352
00:52:13,820 --> 00:52:31,910
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.

353
00:52:32,120 --> 00:52:37,029
Chambers: And then how to convince all of us of that as well.

354
00:52:37,180 --> 00:52:48,829
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.

355
00:52:49,040 --> 00:52:51,530
Chambers: That staff has put in the report.

356
00:52:53,380 --> 00:53:11,430
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.

357
00:53:11,800 --> 00:53:15,619
Chambers: I feel like the marijuana establishments always have a ton of conditions.

358
00:53:16,190 --> 00:53:21,779
Chambers: But, oh, gosh, what was I gonna…

359
00:53:22,050 --> 00:53:31,400
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.

360
00:53:32,260 --> 00:53:40,319
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.

361
00:53:40,710 --> 00:53:54,200
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.

362
00:53:54,350 --> 00:54:00,440
Chambers: Making the motion And including that condition in it,

363
00:54:01,390 --> 00:54:10,159
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

364
00:54:10,270 --> 00:54:14,470
Chambers: make an amendment to take it away. Commissioner Wiebold?

365
00:54:15,850 --> 00:54:23,769
Chambers: This power to put on some conditions is pretty interesting, and I could see…

366
00:54:23,930 --> 00:54:28,159
Chambers: Potential for us to heap conditions upon

367
00:54:28,350 --> 00:54:45,350
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?

368
00:54:48,560 --> 00:54:57,270
Chambers: attorney might have a better idea, but, essentially, I mean, they could appeal our decision, but, yeah.

369
00:54:59,700 --> 00:55:12,089
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.

370
00:55:12,350 --> 00:55:17,030
Chambers: So, for some reason, they're modifying their COP, and I don't know why.

371
00:55:17,800 --> 00:55:22,780
Chambers: And if I can just say that most of the time.

372
00:55:24,540 --> 00:55:32,240
Chambers: We… we are in more of a position of actually kind of taking away conditions, because sometimes staff puts, kind of.

373
00:55:32,350 --> 00:55:33,110
Chambers: M.

374
00:55:33,400 --> 00:55:41,350
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…

375
00:55:41,550 --> 00:55:53,270
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

376
00:55:53,400 --> 00:55:54,470
Chambers: for us.

377
00:55:54,640 --> 00:56:01,800
Chambers: The reason conditions are important are not because we personally have an idea of how this project should go.

378
00:56:01,820 --> 00:56:11,609
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.

379
00:56:11,610 --> 00:56:30,450
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

380
00:56:30,580 --> 00:56:39,729
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,

381
00:56:39,870 --> 00:56:42,669
Chambers: That, you know, we would…

382
00:56:43,340 --> 00:56:48,150
Chambers: not vote for that motion. We would deny that motion, and someone else would make a motion with

383
00:56:48,260 --> 00:56:52,200
Chambers: You know, the kind of conditions that mirrored what we heard in the… in the group.

384
00:56:52,510 --> 00:57:01,139
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.

385
00:57:02,770 --> 00:57:15,220
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.

386
00:57:19,130 --> 00:57:32,659
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.

387
00:57:32,920 --> 00:57:38,580
Chambers: So now someone else would have to make, an amendment to remove that condition.

388
00:57:38,770 --> 00:57:41,330
Chambers: Or add another one. But,

389
00:57:42,290 --> 00:57:58,130
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

390
00:57:58,370 --> 00:58:08,789
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.

391
00:58:08,910 --> 00:58:20,330
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,

392
00:58:20,450 --> 00:58:22,089
Chambers: Anyways, Commissioner Cole.

393
00:58:22,220 --> 00:58:37,050
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.

394
00:58:37,050 --> 00:58:51,089
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…

395
00:58:51,090 --> 00:59:10,459
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.

396
00:59:10,600 --> 00:59:11,840
Chambers: Write it down.

397
00:59:13,390 --> 00:59:26,849
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.

398
00:59:27,110 --> 00:59:36,109
Chambers: Let's see… Is there any other thoughts on the conditional use permits?

399
00:59:40,950 --> 00:59:52,730
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.

400
00:59:52,840 --> 00:59:59,689
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.

401
00:59:59,910 --> 01:00:06,180
Chambers: And it's usually for, like, larger… larger-type projects. It's, like, commercial,

402
01:00:06,280 --> 01:00:11,940
Chambers: childcare, nursing home, I don't know, I mean, there's a lot of examples, marijuana facility.

403
01:00:12,080 --> 01:00:18,330
Chambers: And so, when that table of permissible uses was developed.

404
01:00:18,540 --> 01:00:26,270
Chambers: whoever was writing that section of Title 49 recognized that, well, this… this is a higher impact use

405
01:00:26,420 --> 01:00:31,410
Chambers: So, it needs, like, a body of people to review it and see if,

406
01:00:31,690 --> 01:00:40,839
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.

407
01:00:41,060 --> 01:00:44,630
Chambers: So… Commissioner Simon.

408
01:00:45,270 --> 01:00:51,010
Chambers: So, I'm trying to think about one of our recent situations, and…

409
01:00:51,870 --> 01:00:57,500
Chambers: there… and I appreciate that we have condition recommendations, or conditional recommendations.

410
01:00:57,620 --> 01:01:01,910
Chambers: I think there were some things in the scenario that…

411
01:01:02,120 --> 01:01:06,709
Chambers: and I don't know if this is something of more discussion with the planning folks, but

412
01:01:07,560 --> 01:01:12,910
Chambers: Especially as we were talking about it, like, Some of the…

413
01:01:13,360 --> 01:01:21,810
Chambers: What could possibly happen is we could have no idea about the topic, and…

414
01:01:22,010 --> 01:01:29,639
Chambers: We would hope that we would have recommendations specifically from, like, an urban planning type of expectations of, you know.

415
01:01:30,540 --> 01:01:33,729
Chambers: space usage, because I feel like there were…

416
01:01:34,450 --> 01:01:46,110
Chambers: what the individual was asking for was very extreme from what the city permits. And… without having…

417
01:01:47,980 --> 01:01:51,189
Chambers: More recommendations of how

418
01:01:51,510 --> 01:02:07,560
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…

419
01:02:07,790 --> 01:02:13,889
Chambers: In the meeting, if we could have, you know, what are the urban planning standards for

420
01:02:14,450 --> 01:02:29,709
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…

421
01:02:30,500 --> 01:02:32,260
Chambers: There was a permission.

422
01:02:32,410 --> 01:02:48,019
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

423
01:02:48,800 --> 01:02:52,480
Chambers: There are so many standards and guidelines from the urban planning.

424
01:02:52,910 --> 01:02:54,130
Chambers: And so…

425
01:02:55,180 --> 01:03:00,889
Chambers: like, the APA. I'd like to have that, and I don't know if that's something that we can discuss.

426
01:03:01,100 --> 01:03:09,949
Chambers: Later, in addition, but… Commissioner Cole? Sure. Two things. One, we can't talk about any cases now, right?

427
01:03:10,450 --> 01:03:18,510
Chambers: But in general, what we can talk about is the ability for us to have additional information

428
01:03:18,870 --> 01:03:21,169
Chambers: To make a decision about a cup.

429
01:03:21,390 --> 01:03:31,209
Chambers: The issue is that the standards that we are obligated to consider are already named in Title 49, and so

430
01:03:31,310 --> 01:03:44,779
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.

431
01:03:44,920 --> 01:03:47,020
Chambers: On its own.

432
01:03:47,730 --> 01:04:07,359
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.

433
01:04:08,080 --> 01:04:12,710
Chambers: That may… you know what I'm saying? Yeah, it goes back to, say, like,

434
01:04:12,950 --> 01:04:20,879
Chambers: Landslide hazard maps. Those maps are not adopted, so we can't use them as a reason to deny it.

435
01:04:21,110 --> 01:04:24,649
Chambers: A certain thing, because it doesn't live within our…

436
01:04:24,930 --> 01:04:28,040
Chambers: code or adopted plans, Commissioner Simon?

437
01:04:29,670 --> 01:04:36,310
Chambers: So, health and safety… Would very much feel like something that has not been resolved.

438
01:04:36,840 --> 01:04:39,959
Chambers: Or has a potential to be impacted.

439
01:04:40,760 --> 01:04:55,189
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…

440
01:04:55,910 --> 01:05:07,309
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?

441
01:05:07,600 --> 01:05:21,520
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.

442
01:05:21,650 --> 01:05:25,829
Chambers: But… That's kind of what I was hoping for.

443
01:05:26,390 --> 01:05:33,859
Chambers: Yeah, like, I don't think we could, like, modify a finding, and then, like, we decided this because,

444
01:05:34,200 --> 01:05:35,859
Chambers: Whatever, that this…

445
01:05:36,340 --> 01:05:45,639
Chambers: National Urban Standard of Planning, or some other… we wouldn't reference, like, another document that hasn't been adopted by the city.

446
01:05:45,930 --> 01:05:51,940
Chambers: In a finding, but you can make the finding that says, This level of… or…

447
01:05:52,610 --> 01:05:57,530
Chambers: This is okay, or this is not okay because of health, safety, and…

448
01:05:58,340 --> 01:06:03,110
Chambers: welfare, I can't remember what it is. So, did you have something else?

449
01:06:03,920 --> 01:06:15,899
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…

450
01:06:15,900 --> 01:06:33,969
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,

451
01:06:34,260 --> 01:06:48,789
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.

452
01:06:58,290 --> 01:07:00,439
Chambers: Yeah, I think, like,

453
01:07:01,890 --> 01:07:10,339
Chambers: like, referencing an outside source, I mean, it's similar to public testimony, like, it can help…

454
01:07:11,010 --> 01:07:15,849
Chambers: Form, or form your decision.

455
01:07:16,360 --> 01:07:24,930
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.

456
01:07:25,070 --> 01:07:33,880
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…

457
01:07:34,520 --> 01:07:38,309
Chambers: can't use it as a backup, I guess. Commissioner Wiebold?

458
01:07:41,340 --> 01:07:45,430
Chambers: I think this is pretty intriguing now. So, if we…

459
01:07:45,640 --> 01:07:50,070
Chambers: For example, had an applicant who wanted

460
01:07:50,630 --> 01:08:08,010
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

461
01:08:08,040 --> 01:08:20,950
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

462
01:08:21,149 --> 01:08:22,670
Chambers: Decision, correct?

463
01:08:23,640 --> 01:08:30,700
Chambers: Yeah, definitely. I mean, we're using the public testimony to inform our decision, and we can…

464
01:08:32,970 --> 01:08:34,859
Chambers: Like, if… if…

465
01:08:36,149 --> 01:08:46,130
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.

466
01:08:46,490 --> 01:08:48,080
Chambers: What you had found.

467
01:08:48,569 --> 01:08:55,649
Chambers: But I don't think we would include specific references to that information within the findings.

468
01:09:01,460 --> 01:09:09,130
Chambers: Well, it was a good discussion. I like these good ones. Is there any other thoughts?

469
01:09:10,380 --> 01:09:16,589
Chambers: Commissioner Cole? Maybe we could just ask Attorney Lynch, do you want to clean up anything that we just said?

470
01:09:17,010 --> 01:09:21,830
Chambers: No, I'll just say that anything the Planning Commission decides can be appealed to the Assembly.

471
01:09:24,380 --> 01:09:26,230
Chambers: Since that was a question earlier.

472
01:09:33,819 --> 01:09:35,619
Chambers: Okay,

473
01:09:41,200 --> 01:09:54,279
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.

474
01:09:54,610 --> 01:10:03,760
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.

475
01:10:03,980 --> 01:10:07,169
Chambers: And you're preventing me from using it, so the city kinda…

476
01:10:07,670 --> 01:10:11,390
Chambers: Has… it's like an inverse condemnation kind of deal, so…

477
01:10:11,780 --> 01:10:19,730
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,

478
01:10:20,710 --> 01:10:22,310
Chambers: Anyways,

479
01:10:22,620 --> 01:10:32,199
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.

480
01:10:32,530 --> 01:10:37,280
Chambers: So, anyways, okay, any other thoughts?

481
01:10:38,140 --> 01:10:40,750
Chambers: We can move along.

482
01:10:44,850 --> 01:10:49,369
Chambers: Okay, we got the staff report, any committee reports?

483
01:10:49,980 --> 01:10:54,340
Chambers: The Title 49 Rewrite Committee has not met since our last meeting.

484
01:10:57,000 --> 01:11:03,620
Chambers: Seeing no committee reports, can we have our liaison report? Can you bring over Deputy Mayor Smith?

485
01:11:12,370 --> 01:11:13,939
Greg Smith: Hello, Mr. Chair, can you hear me?

486
01:11:14,790 --> 01:11:15,620
Chambers: We can.

487
01:11:16,400 --> 01:11:18,489
Greg Smith: Very good, thank you.

488
01:11:18,650 --> 01:11:27,770
Greg Smith: I could… appreciate your work, of course. Thanks for the good discussion, and appreciate that, the discussion on variances and cups,

489
01:11:28,030 --> 01:11:37,710
Greg Smith: Definitely. I learned some things there, and also good… good reminders in there. Just a brief update since we… since I,

490
01:11:38,330 --> 01:11:42,990
Greg Smith: listened in your meeting two weeks ago. The Assembly met on August 17th.

491
01:11:44,520 --> 01:11:56,989
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.

492
01:11:57,120 --> 01:12:03,299
Greg Smith: FEMA funds to repair bank armoring, amongst other kind of flood-related items on the agenda there.

493
01:12:03,570 --> 01:12:16,980
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,

494
01:12:17,160 --> 01:12:27,299
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,

495
01:12:27,880 --> 01:12:33,350
Greg Smith: that had been regarding an application that had been in front of the Commission on July 28th of this year.

496
01:12:33,860 --> 01:12:48,450
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

497
01:12:48,630 --> 01:12:55,109
Greg Smith: assess the application within, again, within the confines of Title 49. Heard that was maybe…

498
01:12:55,250 --> 01:13:00,479
Greg Smith: The most expeditious way to do it, and So you'll be…

499
01:13:00,730 --> 01:13:04,590
Greg Smith: Well, should the applicant reapply, we'll be seeing that then.

500
01:13:04,840 --> 01:13:07,699
Greg Smith: That's all I had for ya.

501
01:13:08,820 --> 01:13:11,709
Greg Smith: Appreciate your work, happy to answer any questions.

502
01:13:14,670 --> 01:13:16,830
Chambers: Any questions from Commissioners?

503
01:13:18,120 --> 01:13:24,109
Chambers: All right, seeing none, thank you so much for joining us, and, we appreciate the information.

504
01:13:27,050 --> 01:13:37,919
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.

505
01:13:38,090 --> 01:13:44,419
Chambers: Seeing none… Planning Commissioner comments and questions?

506
01:13:44,520 --> 01:13:46,510
Chambers: Probably did enough of that already.

507
01:13:47,000 --> 01:13:52,820
Chambers: Executive session, supplemental materials, all right, brings us to adjournment.

508
01:13:53,300 --> 01:13:54,509
Chambers: Thank you so much.