[0:01] All right, seeing as how it's 6:30, we'll go ahead and call

[0:07] uh the Kodiak Island Burough Planning and Zoning Commission work session here

[0:11] in the Assembly Chambers. Today is Wednesday, September 9th, 2026.

[0:16] We would like to inform you guys, whoever is listening and or tuning in.

[0:21] Unfortunately, we are having some issues with our recorder. It's malfunctioning.

[0:26] So, I apologize for that. Um, and we'll try and get that working or keep our

[0:34] fingers crossed that it continues.

[0:39] All right. With that being said, can we go ahead and call the meeting to order,

[0:44] please?

[0:47] Are you calling for a roll call, chair? >> Sorry. Yes. Calling for a roll call.

[0:52] » Mr. Nef >> here.

[0:54] » Mr. Dagan, >> present. Miss Craig

[0:58] » here, Miss Williamson >> here,

[1:00] » and Mr. Delgado >> here.

[1:02] » You have a quorum. >> All right, that moves on to citizens

[1:06] comments. Citizens comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. To make

[1:10] comments, call the local number at 907-486

[1:14] 3231 or toll-free number 855492-9202.

[1:20] Comments are for general topics only. Anybody

[1:28] uh wishing to make a comment, please um stand at the podium, state your name,

[1:32] sign in, and speak to the commission as a whole. Thank you.

[1:49] Okay, seeing as we've got no phone calls and no comments, we'll go ahead and rem

[1:55] continue to the packet review. Um, first thing on the packet is a Kodiak Island

[2:00] Bureau case 27-007, the administrative request for disposal

[2:05] of portions. Vice Chair, >> yes.

[2:08] » Can you please go back and do items for discussion?

[2:10] » Oh, sorry. Thank you. >> Okay. Items for discussion. Plan 2045,

[2:18] chapter 2, land use draft review. Chris. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh I'll have Brahman put

[2:24] up some documents online or up on the screen here uh because we didn't get to

[2:28] cover them uh last work session because we didn't have the quorum. Um and we

[2:33] didn't talk about the first time we talked about uh chapter 1 uh back in

[2:37] July. So there's a couple things here. one is the uh uh the document design for

[2:42] plan 2045. So the what's attached to the uh agenda as for chapter 2 is not it's

[2:48] just the word document. So it's not the actual uh end design of the document. So

[2:54] that's what we have attached here is kind of what the front page would look

[2:58] like if Ramen wants to scroll through that kind of gives you an idea of how

[3:01] the chapter covers are how we break how we break out some design in interior of

[3:07] each chapter. Uh we do have some text put in here just to kind of show you in

[3:11] context. Same thing with maps and things like that. So that's kind of what the

[3:15] the design will look like. It'll just have you know the text will be

[3:18] throughout the pages but it'll have similar designs. Uh and sometimes based

[3:22] on the type what the subject of each chapter is too will also play into what

[3:27] photographs and so on are used as well. So that gives you a good idea what the

[3:31] design would be. Uh and also the next document would be is an updated timeline

[3:38] for plan 2045 which factors in uh this process. And so and we're at that end

[3:45] stage here where it's starts in August of 26. Uh this is the stage where uh the

[3:51] commission will be reviewing uh chapters making comments. uh staff will take

[3:56] those comments back, make any necessary changes, and then we go on to the

[3:59] assembly for um additional review by the assembly uh at work sessions. We'll make

[4:06] any changes that they have to the chapters and once it's gone through that

[4:10] process, we will put the the document together in the design that I showed

[4:14] earlier, and that will be what will be submitted for uh a comment period,

[4:19] usually between 30 and 60 days uh to the public to respond to that. Uh and then

[4:24] once that's done uh we'll make any uh needed changes to the document uh based

[4:31] on comments received and then we will go um through the approval process which is

[4:36] the public hearing process before the the assembly and then eventually before

[4:42] um uh the excuse me before the commission and then the assembly after

[4:46] that. Any kind of questions on on that process? So, we're in that we're in that

[4:52] beginning stages of the process where the commission's reviewing initial

[4:54] chapters and uh chap chapter drafts and then the assembly will also review

[5:00] drafts uh after the commission has reviewed them. And what we have for

[5:05] chapter 2's draft is before you brain can put that up. Um I'm just going to

[5:09] briefly go through it because I just want to let the commission know how

[5:13] that's designed. It's no it's of course a lot smaller than the last chapter

[5:17] where we had 130 pages but the introduction chapter includes a lot of

[5:20] things that are not necessarily controversial because it's a lot of

[5:24] background information. Uh whereas the u the land use chapter talks about

[5:30] different things. So we go over current conditions related to land use. So that

[5:34] would include uh regulatory framework of for land use decisions and also codes uh

[5:41] land ownership and use. We talk about different types of resources. Uh some

[5:45] special areas that uh have some special distinction. Uh we also do issue

[5:50] identification which is all part of that initial phase of the of the plan where

[5:54] we had public meetings regarding different uh topics of the uh plan.

[5:59] Those topics will be end up becoming chapters. And so that uh issue

[6:03] identification is there. And then we talk about the current future land use

[6:07] map. If you remember, the commission's already reviewed the proposed future

[6:11] land use map at a previous uh meeting, I believe, back in July, I think. And then

[6:17] uh I talk a little bit about the new future land use map and how that's put

[6:20] together in terms of what are the the major land use designations. And then

[6:26] the last two parts are the kind of the main pieces and that's the uh goals,

[6:30] objectives, and policies. And it's broken down as a goals first. Objective

[6:35] is under the goal and then policies are under the objectives. And we have those

[6:39] outlined here. And uh we have uh really four major goals and then there's

[6:45] objectives underneath that and then policies under that. So uh again if the

[6:50] commission has any uh questions on those or would like to send me any questions

[6:56] that you may have after the meeting that's fine as well. And then also the

[7:00] last part of the chapter is the implementation which is basically uh

[7:03] it's a table of uh objectives and policies that uh would would necessarily

[7:10] be implemented and things that we would be uh tracking after the plan is adopted

[7:15] in terms of how they are implemented and uh um that kind of information.

[7:22] Any questions on on that? I know that's it's still a lot even though it's not as

[7:26] many pages as chapter one. It's still, you know, 30 pages in chapter 2.

[7:33] » Yes, Mr. Nef. >> So, I saw I was really surprised that

[7:37] the burrow has only you have listed only 36,000 acres of land that the burrow

[7:43] actually owns. >> That's the uh yeah, that is the what I

[7:47] got from our GIS staff in terms of what the current most recent numbers we have.

[7:52] » And that's including land like out Bay and

[7:55] » it should include all that information. Yeah. all that all those properties.

[8:00] » Oh, so yeah, you got a map showing what we have right around town by any chance

[8:04] of >> Yeah, that'll be some Yeah, I'll have to

[8:07] be adding those. I will tell you our GS uh analyst has left the burrow and so uh

[8:12] » Okay. >> Yeah, I'll be making those maps when I

[8:15] have time to make them. So, but we will be making maps that will show that

[8:19] information and other things as well. >> Okay. I I won't bother you anymore about

[8:23] that. Mostly curious. So, all right. Thanks. and we will make sure we yeah

[8:27] we'll be bringing those maps to you all in the in the you know the when it comes

[8:30] for you for public hearing you'll have those all those maps in there as well

[8:38] » I just wanted to say that there's a lot of work that's been done on this and um

[8:45] I watched the deal last night for the uh assembly candidates and one of the

[8:51] question was where do you think it is areas that are maybe under paid or not

[8:58] enough money for them. And I think that part this here is I mean it's like that

[9:02] throughout the burrow. But um for the work that you guys go and the amount of

[9:08] detail that you have to go through the pages that you provide for us to read um

[9:13] you do a lot of work and it um helps us do our job very well. So, I just want to

[9:18] acknowledge um that a lot of the background work that is done by the

[9:23] bureau we don't people don't see, but um I commend you for what you've done so

[9:29] far. This looks good to me. Well, and I will just say that a lot of, you know,

[9:33] most of the if not all of the goals, objectives, and policies in this chapter

[9:38] were things that we received from public meetings, from uh surveys that were done

[9:43] uh in other types of activities uh that that people citizens participated in um

[9:49] throughout the process. That'll be the same as we go forward for the other

[9:52] chapters too. It's all based on what people gave us in terms of their

[9:56] feedback and we use that to to create goals and create the objectives and

[10:01] policies that fall under those.

[10:12] And as I said, if anybody has any questions on any specific thing, please

[10:16] feel free to email me. I will respond to you. And if you see anything that you

[10:20] think has a maybe there's an error or something, I'll be happy to fix that as

[10:24] we go forward. Thank you.

[10:30] » All right. Now, we can move on to the packet review.

[10:36] Uh, case Kodiak Island Burough. Case 27-007,

[10:41] the administrative request for disposal of portions of the burough properties

[10:46] USS 3468 and 3467, Lot One. Chris, do you got follow up on that?

[10:53] Thank you.

[11:06] uh community development received an application from the uh burough manager.

[11:12] This is based on uh recommendations from the uh uh lands committee of the

[11:18] burough's lands committee regarding uh the uh Beaver Lake properties. Uh these

[11:25] are two burrow properties as you mentioned in your um discussion. Uh the

[11:31] proposal that went through the burough lands committee was disposal of portions

[11:36] of those properties. Those are outlined in the staff report that's attached uh

[11:40] to this agenda item. Um staff has reviewed the application

[11:46] against approved plans for the area as well as the 2008 comprehensive plan. Uh

[11:51] staff recommended that the portions of the subject properties be retained and

[11:55] not disposed of. uh staff has created findings and resolutions for both a

[11:59] disposal which is which is resolution A and retention which is resolution B. Uh

[12:05] there are proposed findings within each of those resolutions that support uh

[12:11] those uh resolutions. Uh title 18 which is our lands uh title regulations for

[12:17] the burrow requires that the commission review burough land disposals to

[12:21] determine whether the properties are surplus or not. And based on that

[12:24] determination, a resolution is required either for disposal or for retention of

[12:29] the subject properties. Those resolutions are a recommendation on to

[12:33] the burough assembly who will make the final uh determination on whether uh a

[12:38] property is disposed of or not. And and if it is disposed, they will um discuss

[12:44] how it will be disposed, what what method and what any kind of conditions

[12:48] that are uh attached to that. We have received comments. I know in the

[12:55] staff report attached to here, I have not updated it, which I will do for the

[12:58] regular meeting next week. I think we have about 14 comments in opposition to

[13:02] disposing of of the portions of these two properties. Uh so I just wanted to

[13:07] let you all know that. Uh but all 14 comments are attached to the work

[13:11] sessions uh agenda item. So you should have those in front of you on your

[13:16] screens. Uh if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those.

[13:23] Let's say that per we um recommend retaining these properties.

[13:31] Uh I know that in a number of the or a few of the comments that were made um it

[13:37] seems like these properties keep coming up to talk about it when uh I think at

[13:44] this point I'm thinking that we uh the history of the US is to just pave

[13:50] everything over and um with leaving very few little green space and especially

[13:56] around rake lakes and rivers and streams I think it's important to keep those

[14:01] things more natural uh in order to keep our land

[14:07] um habitable. So, how long will this be off the table if we vote to

[14:15] keep it that way? Uh I I I know we're not supposed to tie the hands of future

[14:21] um uh as um members,

[14:26] but at some point we have to try to leave them there as it is.

[14:31] » I mean, it's it's difficult for me to say that, you know, something's

[14:34] completely off the table for for potential disposal. What I will say is

[14:39] in terms of our recommendation to the commission is based on the plans that we

[14:44] have before us and that that would be the comprehensive plan and also the

[14:47] specific plan that was updated back when these properties were uh reszoned to the

[14:52] natural use district. Uh and unlike some of the other properties like when you

[14:56] all looked at the Island Lake properties that was uh public use lands district

[15:01] and the portion that was proposed for disposal was not currently being used

[15:04] for a public use. In this case, it's not really being necessarily designated as a

[15:08] public use. It's designated as a natural use, which in other words, you're

[15:13] leaving it basically leaving it alone. I mean, you can have trails and there are

[15:16] trails on these properties, but typically you're not developing them

[15:20] when they're in the natural use uh district and as well as they're in the

[15:24] natural use land use designation uh for the comprehensive plan as well. So,

[15:29] that's why staff is recommending uh to retain them. uh the assembly

[15:34] always has the ability to uh you know they'll of course the commission has the

[15:39] ability to send their recommendation uh just like the burough lands committee

[15:42] has and it's again it gets up to the assembly about making that final

[15:46] decision and there's nothing that I know of that can you know restrict that from

[15:50] happening uh that they have the ability to dispose of you know say they're going

[15:56] to dispose of it in a certain way uh again what was before you is not

[16:00] disposing of the entirety of the two properties but you know rather small

[16:05] portions of the properties and uh so I will just clarify that it's not the full

[16:11] extent of the properties but smaller pieces of the property that are adjacent

[16:14] to the existing roadways uh primarily because those locations have existing

[16:20] public water and sewer facilities uh to access.

[16:26] » Um so you're recommending that we don't dispose of them or you're Um staff's

[16:33] recommending that they be retained which is mean which means not to dispose of

[16:37] them. >> Oh okay.

[16:40] » Yes. And again that's based on the comprehensive plan and the land use plan

[16:44] that was approved for the for this area

[16:50] » where we are showing um partial one two three and four. just so we're clear

[16:57] which partials are the ones in question.

[17:02] » So it's really so on the so you know none of those partials have been

[17:06] created. So those pieces would have to be created. So if the uh if the assembly

[17:10] does dispose of it, they'll be disposing of those portions of the properties. uh

[17:15] in terms of how that's handled, whether you do a subdivision first or as a

[17:19] subdivision afterwards, the recommendation from the lands committee

[17:22] was that they be disposed of through a request for proposals. And so the the

[17:27] request for proposals could also include u the subdivision of the the initial

[17:33] subdivision of the properties uh off from the main parcel. So kind of what

[17:38] you see there is kind of what the lands committee had submitted in terms of what

[17:41] they consider would be the the primary properties and that's really the the the

[17:46] wooded areas that have those parcel numbers over them. Uh not really the not

[17:52] the really the lake itself or any of the other pieces. So again, it's it's hard

[17:57] for me to say because we have not done a subdivision of those and that would have

[18:01] to be done later as part of, you know, it's discussed as part of the request

[18:05] for proposals that will be discussed at the assembly level.

[18:20] Um, as far as staff considering that natural use and what options are there

[18:27] in the burrow, what options do we have to provide

[18:32] public for land that aren't something like this that people would not complain

[18:37] about and say not in my backyard type thing. And

[18:40] » I mean, you don't I mean, even if you were were to attempt to develop this

[18:44] property, it would not be certainly easy to do. all the easy property I think

[18:47] that the burrow owns that could be easily developed that had certainly

[18:52] public water and sewer to them. There's very little of that and where you and

[18:56] where you have any they do have constraints whether it's that they're

[18:59] wet or they have wetlands or they have steep steep slopes or whatever it might

[19:03] be there's there's always going to be some constraints there and which makes

[19:07] it difficult to develop. Uh there is, and this is something we've talked about

[19:11] at the lands committee, there are quite a few privately owned properties that

[19:14] are probably more easily developed than say the burough properties are. uh and

[19:19] incentivizing how you incentivize those properties to to be developed is

[19:24] certainly something that I think the assembly will uh should look at and it's

[19:28] something that we're recommending in in the new comprehensive plan that we look

[19:32] at what could be done to try to incentivize development of existing

[19:36] private land that has access to public water and sewer.

[19:41] » I'm not really aware of a lot of private land like that. That's kind of

[19:46] » I can get you a map. There's a map that has gone to the lands committee about uh

[19:50] what private land is out there that's that's vacant.

[19:52] » Okay. Yeah, I'd like to see that.

[19:59] » I think this is um just a a tricky one because like you said, there isn't a lot

[20:05] of land out there. Um when was the comp the last comprehensive

[20:12] plan made that we're we're using to reflect on

[20:15] » so the current our decision >> current yeah the current plan that that

[20:18] we have in place is was approved in 2008 but really the work was done in six and

[20:22] seven I believe is mostly where where that the work of developing it was done

[20:26] » so almost 20 years ago >> correct

[20:30] » lot's changed okay I think that was it anybody else

[20:35] have any other I would have been in favor of these

[20:42] four.

[20:46] » I'm sorry, Miss Craig. Can you please speak up?

[20:48] » If the Kodiak Island Housing hadn't, you know, bought that property and they're

[20:53] going to be building houses on there and so it's going to the traffic is going to

[20:57] be more now. But had that not happened, I probably would have opened these up.

[21:04] But now that that's happening, I think there's just going to be a lot of

[21:09] traffic on that road. So that would be my only reason for holding off on these.

[21:15] So

[21:19] » So if I understand, we're still in the inception of

[21:24] liquidating these properties. Is that correct?

[21:27] » Yeah. I mean, this would be if the Island Lake properties is a year to

[21:33] maybe year and a half potentially, these are going to be quite a a bit further

[21:37] off because we're talking about requests for proposal.

[21:40] » Mhm. >> Uh and then that would lead to a lot of

[21:43] other things that would need to happen because depending on what the proposal

[21:47] is, it still would have to be reszoned to something other than natural use.

[21:51] You'd still have to have a subdivision, >> right? and potentially um a lot of work

[21:56] that would need to be done if a subdivision is approved within its

[21:59] two-year time frame for recreation because of of uh whether kind of

[22:04] improvements are being proposed and also any kind of environmental constraints

[22:08] that exist that you have to uh address in development.

[22:12] » So we have a long process ahead of us which is to say I would say we should

[22:17] get this process started. I would want to see this approved simply because we

[22:22] want to have the expansion down the line to be able to make this property into

[22:28] residential for our city and burrow in service district 1. So with that being

[22:35] said, what would be the next step? You're saying staff is saying no to this

[22:39] development. staff recommended no because of what the current

[22:43] comprehensive plan and the current land use plan for this area stated when it

[22:48] was reszoned to natural use district >> and that was back in 2008.

[22:53] » Yeah. So that that would be again it's up to the commission to make a

[22:57] recommendation. Again the assembly has the final say on what they are going to

[23:01] do with the proposal and then as part of that discussion on their side they will

[23:05] determine how it will be disposed of. In other words,

[23:09] » the recommendation from the lands committee was for requests for

[23:11] proposals. They could potentially do something else if they wanted, but uh

[23:15] considering the the state that the properties are currently in, probably

[23:18] request for proposals makes the most sense.

[23:22] » Okay. So, there's some logic there. Getting

[23:27] a private citizen to give up some of their land for development has been

[23:32] perhaps one of the bottlenecks to our growth for the purposes of residential

[23:37] homes. This is a government uh initiative to try and open up that

[23:43] land for other uh individuals to step up to the market and produce residential

[23:49] homes. So, I would advocate that we should consider moving the process

[23:54] forward for those that come after us to have the flexibility to at some point

[24:01] move this into a production phase. I don't think we're anywhere close to

[24:06] actual house building. I think we have a long road ahead of us. We've got to see

[24:11] what the environmental impact will be. I can tell you that this is my backyard

[24:16] and my wife and daughter love walking through that that area, but I also

[24:22] understand that it could be available in such a way to help ease our impact of

[24:29] our residential market. So, I'd be open to the idea of

[24:36] moving this forward. Thank you.

[24:45] Yeah, I I agree with uh Craig on that one there. It's we're kind of in a bind

[24:51] right now because there isn't very much available for people that I mean I've

[24:57] heard this from the public quite often even at this meeting and rural meetings

[25:02] that people cannot find land to build on. And we are due for I'd say a pretty

[25:10] good burst of looking at what we got with the rocket

[25:14] launch and Coast Guard expansion is uh we're not going to be prepared. I

[25:20] mean it's it's definitely time to move on something like this I would say and

[25:24] the Lance Committee has been looking at it. I'd really wish the lands committee

[25:28] I know think Sarah Fraser was there on that. I wish she was here because I

[25:32] would like to hear I'm sure they studied it out pretty well and had good

[25:36] reasoning behind that also. Uh but yeah, we're we're definitely in a time where

[25:43] if if any time is a time to start preparing for expansion, I would say

[25:48] right now is even though we're in a little lull right now. I mean, I'm in

[25:52] building and I can say there's nobody building new houses right now and that

[25:55] is all just cost. I think partly it is land availability for some people.

[26:03] Um but yeah, very few new houses being built. I think you're probably aware of

[26:07] that being in community development. So um that's going to change though. I mean

[26:13] it would like I'm sure people would like it to change if we really get that

[26:16] expansion and a lot of people don't want co Kodiak to grow but that's uh kind of

[26:22] necessary for where we're headed right now as a community. Anyways, that's

[26:27] about it.

[26:36] Just one thing I would clarify for the commission. So, you know, for your since

[26:40] you have two resolutions before you for this for next week's meeting, the

[26:44] resolution A is the one that you would make your initial motion on before it to

[26:47] open the public hearing because that one's in the positive in terms of

[26:50] disposing of it. you always you have resolution B which is the one for

[26:54] retention. Uh if you ever like want to amend your motion to substitute you

[26:59] could do that. Uh if the idea for the uh commission is you want to go forward

[27:03] with a recommendation to the uh assembly then your initial motion would be uh

[27:10] approving resolution A uh and then opening it for your hearing and going

[27:14] through your hearing process and then making your your final decision on that

[27:19] uh resolution.

[27:30] All right. Seeing no other comments on that, we'll go ahead and move to the

[27:34] Oceanfront Kodiak LLC case 27-008. Request to reszone of Cliff Point Estate

[27:42] Ocean Front ADN number one track BDN number one track C and Cliff Point

[27:48] Estates ADA ADN number three track D.

[27:55] » Chris. >> Yeah, Brahman's this is Brahman's case.

[27:58] She'll be uh presenting that one. No problem.

[28:00] » No, you're fine. Good evening, commissioners and Kodiak. Uh the

[28:04] applicant has proposed four separate subdivision cases and one ray zone case

[28:08] which went for public hearing in July of this year at this commission. All were

[28:12] approved in the same month as the public hearing. The applicant has stated that

[28:15] they want the majority of the properties within the Cliff Point area to have the

[28:19] same zoning designation to create uniformity within its community.

[28:24] Uh, Oceanfront Kodiak LLC has requested that Cliff Point Estates Edition number

[28:28] one, tracks B and C, and Cliffpoint Estates addition number three, tracks D

[28:33] all be reszoned into a zoning designation with a greater area

[28:37] requirement, the C conservation district. The larger area condition will

[28:43] keep the integrity of the future property owners. Um,

[28:48] I'm so sorry. Uh, sorry. will keep the integrity of

[28:53] the proposed zoning district and the surrounding areas. In addition, it also

[28:57] gives the future property owners more room to maneuver their potential

[29:01] developments. KIBC1 17.50 of

[29:07] uh is the already existing code within the sea conservation district to prevent

[29:13] clearing, filling, excavation or cons or or structural development within a 50-ft

[29:18] buffer barrier adjacent to any anadimous streams. meaning that zoning would stop

[29:23] any development closer than 50 ft from any anagiman streams that are located in

[29:27] the cliff point area. This request is in line and compliant with the future land

[29:32] use map. At last at the last meeting regarding the cliff point area, uh we

[29:38] did get asked um about the permitted uses surrounding business. looking at

[29:43] the sheet of paper titled article X uh use restriction under section 10.1 land

[29:50] use A does answer that question that I believe one of the commissioners had at

[29:55] the July meeting um with the other cases. So we just wanted to make sure

[29:58] you had this information uh to move forward. Staff does recommend pro

[30:03] approving the proposed reason and forwarding case 27 tax 008 onto the

[30:08] assemble assembly for final approval. Are there any questions?

[30:15] » I would just add something. One of the things that Brahman gave you were the

[30:18] covenants, existing covenants for uh Cliff Point which restrict uh what other

[30:23] uses can take place other than single family. So uh those restrictions would

[30:29] uh make it uh difficult if not impossible to do any kind of

[30:33] non-residential uses that would be permitted in the sea

[30:37] conservation district. And that was the reason why we uh submitted that to you

[30:43] so you could have that. But also it answered a question I believe that one

[30:46] of the commissioners had at a at the the meeting back in July when we saw the

[30:50] other when you all heard the other reszone case

[30:58] after the last meeting we had about this one. We did the resoning.

[31:03] I asked the guy that was here about what it would cost for a person to get one of

[31:09] those lots and put a house on it, how much it would cost to get it all done,

[31:12] and he said about 400,000. So, that prices out a lot of the people

[31:17] that I know. What is that going to How is making the laws bigger going to

[31:23] affect the price? Is it going to go down? Is it going to be better? Or do we

[31:26] have any ideas yet? I'm I wouldn't even try to speculate on how much you

[31:31] increasing the I mean, of course, the the cost would go up if you're going to

[31:34] increase the size because it's more land, but I couldn't I'm not going to

[31:37] try to tell you how much more it would be.

[31:41] » I I like I mean, we are going to have I think they said about 5,000 people going

[31:47] to be moving into here. Um

[31:52] they I heard many people say that housing has never been affordable in

[31:56] Kodiak. Uh but it can be. Maybe not in right now, but in the

[32:04] future it can be. Uh, and I think that's what we need to start to um concentrate

[32:11] on is making affordable housing available to people. Uh, and affordable

[32:16] to people that live in Kodiak, not affordable to people that are coming

[32:20] from outside to live here. We need to take care of our own before we um cater

[32:26] to others. And I understand that we have to let people in in order to grow, but

[32:33] um we need to find a way to make it easier

[32:38] for people that are already here living in substandard or bad housing, you know,

[32:43] multiple families in one home. We need to make it easier for those guys to get

[32:48] into it. And what Kodiak Island Housing is doing is a start, a great start, but

[32:53] we need more things like that happening here. And another thing that we need to

[32:59] think about is um the livability, how we need to make our um homes and

[33:08] subdivisions more people friendly. Uh you drive around this town and you go to

[33:14] some of these places and there are no sidewalks. um we're supposed to be

[33:18] inviting people in. We want people to come here and raise their families, but

[33:22] if they can't walk across down the street to visit their neighbors, then it

[33:26] isn't um inviting. It's more like we're trying to get robots to go to work and

[33:32] come home and that's it. Uh so we need to start thinking about how we design

[33:37] these places that are going to live. And I think that we need to start putting

[33:40] sidewalks in there. Although it may cut the lot sizes down some, but um we can

[33:47] do it.

[33:56] For the record, this is an anomaly to go regressing back into a conservation

[34:02] form. Is that correct?

[34:07] » Right. what it was before. >> Right. So, at one point the developer

[34:13] decided to try and do subdivision or subdivision the lot and now is

[34:19] regressing back to a conservation of a larger lot.

[34:24] » Correct. And and again, I'm not going to try to speak to their reasoning. We have

[34:28] the public hearing next week. They gave you an answer at the last

[34:33] hearing back in July for another case.

[34:39] » Sorry, I didn't have a mic on. So, I will thank you for in the audience. Um,

[34:43] I would just say that uh I will let the applicant speak to why they want the

[34:48] rezone. Uh again in your meeting in July where we had the two sub or the four

[34:53] subdivision cases in the reszone uh they did express that they felt that they

[34:57] could sell the larger lots easier than the the smaller lots and that's why they

[35:01] were doing the consolidations and then and then the reszone. I'm I'm going to

[35:06] infer that's the same reason here. So these are larger tracks to begin with.

[35:09] These these tracks that you have before you they're not uh being consolidated.

[35:13] are already uh large enough to meet the the minimum lot size of the of the

[35:18] conservation district. >> Thank you.

[35:28] All right, seeing no other questions, we'll go ahead and move on to case

[35:33] 27-009, capital improvement projects priority

[35:37] list for FY2027 through 2031.

[35:42] Brunwin. >> Good evening, commissioners. Before you

[35:46] is resolution FY2027 tax 009 related to the capital improvements program. This

[35:52] encompasses the entire 5year span this program runs for. We are doing things a

[35:57] tad differently this year as we've come to realize come to the realization that

[36:01] the capital improvements project program and list are two separate documents. The

[36:05] program will have the entire five years of pro projects showing for the entire

[36:09] bureau. As you can see, we have section one of this resolution showing projects

[36:14] only for FY2 27 while section two has all other projects not not designated

[36:21] for fiscal year 27. These projects will stay in their respective sections for

[36:25] this resolution. The last few years we have gone project by project so as not

[36:29] to get lost in which one we are working on to get organized for priority. If you

[36:34] look in front of you, there will be a numbered sheet so we can all stay on the

[36:38] same page for which project will go into which space. If you're ready, we'll

[36:42] start with the first section and prioritize those prior to moving on to

[36:45] section two. If the commission decides not to forward Never mind, that section

[36:50] does not apply because we do have to get this um resolution wrapped up at this

[36:55] meeting and voted on next meeting so we meet our deadline to forward this on to

[37:00] the assembly.

[37:03] So if you would like we can um start with the first project.

[37:16] This is your guys's discussion. You tell me where to put things.

[37:19] » Okay. Have you guys had a chance to look at

[37:23] these?

[37:28] So you have projects one through five that need to be prioritized for first.

[37:43] I am going to go ahead and recommend that we move the Kodiak burrow.

[37:51] Oh, that's number five. Sorry.

[38:08] Go ahead, >> Brown. Sorry to

[38:11] What page are we on? >> Um, if you're doing the split screen,

[38:15] it'll pay be page 17 of 24 of the packet for this specific case.

[38:20] » 17. >> What was that?

[38:22] » Page 17 of 24, you said? >> Yes, sir.

[38:40] Thank you. >> Absolutely.

[38:46] » So, we're only looking at section one through five.

[38:50] » One through five. >> Yeah. Only one through five projects.

[38:53] Sorry. Because now they're they're done in one

[38:57] section and two section where last time we did them all at once.

[39:37] Number five is going to be my pick. the Kodiak Island burrow lee treatment plant

[39:43] as our number one.

[39:52] » Are we discussing individually or are we >> I think so.

[39:56] » Okay. Um my idea sorry was number two and the only reason I say that is

[40:04] because they have allocated some funds where the rest of the projects have not

[40:10] » but I it's for discussion

[40:14] » absolutely so given um while I do sit on the roads for

[40:20] service district 1 and I'd love to see that to be a high priority I would

[40:24] rather see the lie plant be the priority if we're doing one through five for

[40:29] these first. And the reason I say that is because that is a part of our waste

[40:34] management at the landfill that has been needing repair. We've delayed and

[40:41] deferred maintenance. It's time for us to step up and try and get this one as a

[40:48] high priority item. So, that would be my logic behind it.

[40:53] If I read this correct, and I don't know if we're allowed to ask questions here,

[40:57] but um >> you're absolutely allowed to ask

[40:59] questions. >> When I read number five, the lie

[41:04] treatment plan, it this is just for a purchase of a generator.

[41:11] » Yes. And including the installation as well.

[41:15] » Okay. And it's on here because of we've had blackouts is the way I read it. and

[41:20] it just is to help that correct, >> not necessarily something that's

[41:25] critical. >> If you look in um I want to say it's the

[41:28] third paragraph, I don't know if you can see up on the screen, but it kind of

[41:31] gives you a little bit of that information right here where it says um

[41:35] loss of power disrupts critical treatment processes affecting PH

[41:39] balance, which then staff were spending money on staff time or they are sorry

[41:43] spending money on staff time to figure out all this. So, it's a continuous um

[41:49] money pit is how it was explained to me almost. Um so, they're looking to update

[41:53] all of that and have both the generator purchase and then the installation all

[41:59] under one. So, it wouldn't be a separate, you know, fee or charge, I

[42:03] guess, project.

[42:06] Any other comments from the commission? >> Um I I'm happy with the one, two, and

[42:13] three as they are. I would change number four with number six and put number four

[42:19] at six and keep five at five. >> So we after the last couple years of

[42:24] doing this, can we work one project at a time so we can all come to an agreement

[42:28] or by we I mean you guys and then we can move down the list that way. Um if you

[42:33] guys want to start with project five and move it up. I don't I don't care how we

[42:36] do it, but can we do one project at a time just so that we all

[42:39] » know exactly where we're putting these projects and I don't mess up the

[42:42] document for next week and then we have to postpone so I can fix it, you know.

[42:51] » So now I forgot what I said. >> You said one, two, three.

[42:54] » So >> you said one, two, and three as they are

[42:56] and then four and five you wanted to kind of move around a little bit. It

[42:58] sounded like >> Yes. Well, five I want to stay keep the

[43:03] same, but six I want to change it. Move it up to four.

[43:07] » We are not talking about six. That's in section two.

[43:09] » We understand this. >> So, we're only talking in about one

[43:12] through five right now. We cannot move any projects from section two into

[43:15] section one.

[43:21] » Browen, a a clarification question. What is defining sections one and two? So if

[43:27] you go into the um code regarding the CIP, it designates um all these projects

[43:34] are supposed to have a fiscal year attached to it. So when we submit this

[43:37] into CAPSUs, it's very clear who's asking for the money, where the money's

[43:42] going to, who's going to be doing the project, how much money has been

[43:44] allocated already from the agency, how much they're asking for, and what fiscal

[43:49] year they want this project to go in. um when we started digging a little bit

[43:54] deeper and you know you absolutely I didn't um I kind of absolved this when I

[43:59] moved into my department you know so I wasn't entirely clear on what the

[44:04] difference was between the list and the program the program is for specific to

[44:08] like that first year the list however is a 5-year pro uh five-year list but with

[44:14] us doing these these sections you know if you go back up and you read like what

[44:18] section one means it's the Kodiak Island burough Planning and zoning uh

[44:22] commission recommends the following capital improvements in order of

[44:26] priority for adoption into the Kodiak Island bureau FY2027

[44:31] CIP list of capital improvements. So this is specific just for this upcoming

[44:35] fiscal year. We're not going beyond that. So we have burrow projects which

[44:39] will be in section one from moving forward in the next coming years. And

[44:44] then all other projects that's including other agencies around the island that's

[44:48] also including parks and wreck um for you know the city if they wanted to put

[44:52] one on they normally have their own CIP list but every now and then like you

[44:55] know as you can see the city does have projects on our list as well. So this is

[44:59] to designate not only the fiscal year the projects itself.

[45:04] » Remind us again what the CIP list is for and what is what it's meant to do. So

[45:11] these are these are projects that go for a fiveyear span and then the pro the

[45:16] program is a separate entity. So we're only f focusing on a five-year list is

[45:20] what we're we're looking at. Um >> what I was getting at is each of these

[45:26] people that are submitting these projects. Let's say because I'm from a

[45:32] village, one of the villages sends in this project. What it's doing on this

[45:37] list is if it's ranked depending on where it's ranked on the list that shows

[45:43] how important it is to the bureau that it gets done and it's easier for the

[45:49] person asking for the money to get funding from whether it be the state or

[45:53] the federal government because they can point to the CIP list and say see it's

[45:58] right here on the list. >> Absolutely. and it just being on a

[46:01] resolution being adopted by um a bigger, you know, a bigger or different entity.

[46:06] It doesn't have to be bigger. It's just, you know, could be a separate entity,

[46:09] but them having their project on our our resolution absolutely helps regardless

[46:14] of where it is in the priority list. Um I also want to point out that every

[46:19] single one of these entities that submits to us has their own option of

[46:23] submitting directly into CAPS and not going through the bureau. This is just

[46:27] an extra little support that we want to give to everyone on the island. You

[46:31] know, this isn't um we're not we don't pick and choose what goes onto the list.

[46:35] We just pick the priority and then the assembly comes in with their own

[46:38] recommendation based off of our list. So, I want you guys to fully understand

[46:42] like this is not going to be the deciding factor of where these all fall.

[46:46] These will get moved around or they maybe the assembly agrees with every

[46:50] single one of your recommendations 1 through 17 and they keep them exactly

[46:54] like that, you know. So the assembly will only see well we we'll see

[46:58] everything but they will vote on different things.

[47:06] » Okay. >> I'd like to see number one move to

[47:11] number five because I'm looking at it and it doesn't really sound like it's

[47:15] anything needed. It just sounds like some kind of little perks they like to

[47:19] get to me on the uh dress it up a bit. doesn't sound like

[47:25] there's anything they really need at this point. Maybe in the future, but uh

[47:32] sounds like it's a little bit premature to really feel like they need

[47:37] that personally. Um and then just move everything else up in order. That would

[47:42] be my choice right there. >> Okay. So, what I'm hearing from Dean and

[47:48] Mr. Nef that it sounds like we all kind of want to move number five to the top.

[47:53] Is that correct? I believe court was talking about

[47:57] project one um Kodiak Island Burough Fire and Rescue and I think Mr. Dan was

[48:02] talking about project five. >> You said number one to move to five and

[48:06] five to one. Was that correct? >> No, just move shift all the one through

[48:10] four one shift the one through five up. So like two through four.

[48:15] » Okay. So you want to see service area number one on number one, not number

[48:20] two. in this game. >> Tell you what, I like his idea. I like

[48:25] Joe's idea. Everybody takes a step forward while step one goes to step

[48:30] five.

[48:36] » Is that your guys's recommendation to staff?

[48:39] » I'm fine because I it's probably going to get changed anyway. So, I mean, I'm

[48:44] fine. >> Okay. So just so staff is clear, you

[48:48] guys want to move project number one, burrow fire and rescue into project

[48:51] number five and then everything else shifts up one.

[48:54] » That's correct. >> This is a work session. So do we need to

[48:59] vote on this next week or are we >> You'll vote on the the resolution once I

[49:04] get it back into your where you guys want all your projects to be moved

[49:07] around and shifted. Um and then you guys will we'll move for a vote. Yes.

[49:10] » Fair enough. Thank you. >> Okay. So now we move down to section two

[49:17] which are project number six through

[49:28] 18. So we'll start with project number six.

[49:50] Miss Brown, are we doing this as a increment of five or the remainder of

[49:56] the list? >> Just one at a time.

[49:58] » One at a time. It'll just be easier for us. Otherwise, we're all going to be

[50:01] here debating and forgetting who said what and what goes where, you know? So,

[50:05] » so in order to expedite this, I would suggest that we accept the list,

[50:09] chairwoman, of the list as it presents itself.

[50:15] » So, you don't want to make any changes to section two?

[50:21] » We are looking at a voice with no real teeth in the decision

[50:28] process. the burrow can choose to manipulate and maneuver maneuver

[50:33] projects as they see fit. >> Well, they can, but I don't want you

[50:37] guys to feel like this recommendation is just um null and void, you know, like

[50:42] it's it's a useless thing. It's absolutely vital for the assembly to

[50:46] hear and see what how you guys feel about the projects. Um now, if you

[50:51] really feel that, you know, 6 through I I believe it's 17 or 18 want to stay 6

[50:55] through 17 or 18, I I absolutely understand. And I just want you guys to

[50:59] fully understand that you do have a voice and and the assembly does take

[51:03] that into account whether or not they agree with it um or disagree with it.

[51:07] They they do take it into account. >> I hear that.

[51:11] » Okay. >> I thank you for that clarity.

[51:13] » Yes, sir. >> I'll also say that when I was on the

[51:17] assembly, much of what was discussed here did come up uh in our discussions

[51:23] there. So it is important that we uh make our feelings known. Um and with

[51:29] that being said, I would say uh

[51:36] where are we on six? The Larsson Bay I know for many many years has been losing

[51:42] water out of their system. And not only that, they're fighting with beavers up

[51:48] in their river. So, um I think that we keep them their reservoir up at six. And

[51:56] um >> I saw one more here. I'll find the other

[52:01] one and let you think. Okay.

[52:07] » So, so um Mr. Delgado, you want to keep number six as number six then because it

[52:12] is a I mean these are all priorities and it's such a hard decision to do this. I

[52:16] understand. Um, is everyone else wanting to keep number six as number six or do

[52:21] we kind of want to shift things? >> Well, I'm looking at this list and I see

[52:25] that we have the harbor and we have the wa wastewater treatment facility here in

[52:29] the city and those are significant

[52:36] projects as well. One's an economic driver, another is a health and safety

[52:40] issue. Uh, just like the Larsson Bay's uh water reservation.

[52:45] » Yeah. >> Uh, reserves. So

[52:51] then there's the whole conversation aspect of equity, equality, fairness

[52:58] » between the different organizations, cities and

[53:01] » and u individuals that are involved in these locations. And as as we're moving

[53:07] down, you know, if you guys agree that number six stays number six and then we

[53:10] get to number 12 and you're like, you know what, I want to bump number 12 into

[53:14] number six and we shift everything down, like this is not set in stone. We we're

[53:18] here to sit here and work through all 18 projects, you know? So, this list can

[53:23] absolutely be shifting this whole time. It's just easier if we move it one and

[53:28] then you guys can come back to another project and say, you know what, I want

[53:30] to change my mind. Number six goes to seven, number 12 goes up, or number 14,

[53:34] what whatever the number may be. So even if you guys agree right now, we

[53:40] can change our mind in 20 minutes or you guys can.

[53:43] » I would like to recommend that we move the hospital facility sterilization to

[53:48] number six.

[53:54] I think the hospital obviously being the one and only hospital in town um

[54:01] where everybody comes from not just us but the surrounding villages um feel

[54:06] like it's important that we have the proper system to sterilize their

[54:11] equipment. So, I'd like to change that one if anybody has any comments to that.

[54:25] Recently in the paper there was a article I believe I saw about how

[54:30] Providence and the burrow have been able to acquire a grant I believe it was from

[54:35] the state to be able to replace the refrigeration cooling tower on the

[54:41] hospital. Um that was a $380

[54:47] some odd thousand endeavor as I recall. So that there is grant potentials and

[54:53] opportunities here. that is something that is outside this CIP list at this

[54:58] time. Is that correct? That that could influence

[55:02] the individual or department that is trying to seek for these funds.

[55:06] » Are you are I just want to be clear. Are you asking because they've already

[55:09] received grant money for a separate project that this might influence or

[55:12] » right >> getting more money additional funding?

[55:15] So we don't have any visibility of any grants that are in the pipeline or being

[55:19] prepared for uh this kind of a need by the hospital or by the burough

[55:26] engineering department or anything like that. Is that correct?

[55:29] » Yeah. I mean I I'm not privy to that information until it's handed into my

[55:33] department um for either to be accepted on this or for the permits when they

[55:37] come later for the zoning, you know, and building. Um, however, I I don't

[55:43] believe, and I could be mistaken on this, that if you've received grant

[55:46] money in the past, even if it was recently, I don't think that influence

[55:51] influences the state or the legislature to

[55:55] push for a project or not push for a project. I don't I don't think that goes

[55:59] either way, but I could be mistaken. I just don't think that that's how that

[56:02] that system kind of works with the legislature. Um, you know, cuz we submit

[56:07] these projects into CAPSUs. like we don't say on our priority list it was

[56:12] number one. I mean we do I believe we do supply the resolution that the document

[56:16] it's in. Um but if you've ever seen and I don't know if anyone of you guys have

[56:21] I just saw it for the first time a couple months back what capsis really

[56:25] looks like and it it it's like you're you're plugging and playing information.

[56:29] It's not asking like was this your number one priority. You can absolutely

[56:33] put that in your dialogue of the project, but I I don't believe that, you

[56:37] know, if the hospital received money, the legislator is going to push for that

[56:41] the hospital to receive more. Um I I don't think that's how he he and she

[56:46] works that at the state level. >> Thank you.

[56:50] » Yeah. >> I have a follow-up question.

[56:52] » Okay. >> Regarding the price of oil being higher

[56:54] than it has been of late, has that impacted the coffers of the state from

[57:00] your perspective? Are you seeing any kind of an influence with more monies

[57:04] being available to the local burrows and cities within the state?

[57:08] » Um, you know, I can I I don't believe I can answer that just because I don't

[57:13] know enough about all the other bureaus and when they receive money. I don't

[57:18] follow the money trails directly from the state to all these other

[57:21] communities. Um, I so I can't answer that question fully. I will say that if

[57:27] I remember right, no projects have been pulled off this list in the last two

[57:31] years, Chris. I don't I don't believe so. Um, so this list has been updated.

[57:38] You know, I we've added a couple projects in the last couple years, but I

[57:41] don't believe any projects have been pulled off since the school roof. And I

[57:48] want to say maybe Sema or or Scott, and I hate to ask them while they're in the

[57:52] crowd, but I want to say that there was a school roof that was approved maybe

[57:55] three or four years ago for funding. Um, but other than that, um, No,

[58:03] » thank you. >> Yes. I hope that answered your question.

[58:07] » Thank you. It did. >> Okay.

[58:16] So, I believe the discussion dropped off at um the hospital wanting to be bumped

[58:21] up um to number six. And how does the commission

[58:26] » I'm down with that? >> That will go to number six and

[58:30] everything. I'll just move down one. >> I've got a couple more recommendations.

[58:38] Um, before we move on with more recommendations, I' I'd like to see

[58:42] where this project where you guys want number 15 if you want it moved into six.

[58:47] » Otherwise, I'm going to start falling behind.

[58:53] » Sure. >> I'd be agreeable.

[58:57] » I mean, I I personally like 17 and 18, but but that's neither here nor there.

[59:07] wastewater treatment in the harbor. >> What if I told you that that was number

[59:11] seven? >> Oh,

[59:13] » my recommendation. >> Would number eight be the um St. Herman

[59:18] Harbor replacement or would it be the harbor replacement versus the water

[59:23] treatment? >> Uh I had the

[59:29] wastewater treatment at number seven and then the Saint Harbor at number eight.

[59:34] I'm agreeable. >> Me, too.

[59:38] » So, just so I'm clear, we want to move 15 into six. Okay.

[59:45] » And then what was your the commission's recommendation for number seven, project

[59:50] seven, the St. Herman Harbor?

[59:54] » Is everyone agreeing with that? So, I can move it or

[59:58] » so harbor before treatment. >> Uh, no, sorry.

[1:00:03] treatment before harbor. >> Okay. So as it is 17 to 7, 8 is

[1:00:14] then the harbor. >> So six is hospital.

[1:00:19] » Mhm. And then >> seven is treatment plant.

[1:00:22] » Mhm. >> And eight is

[1:00:25] » harbor. >> Correct.

[1:00:26] » And everything else bumps.

[1:00:31] I'd like to move the community health center to number nine.

[1:00:37] » Feeling the health itch. I could be agreeable to that as well.

[1:00:42] » What project number is that? I'm I'm moving my

[1:00:45] » That is number 14. >> Is everyone agreeing that number 14 will

[1:00:49] be number nine? >> Sure.

[1:01:00] I've seen three or four head nods. >> Yes.

[1:01:05] » Yes. Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:01:09] » All right. Project number 10. >> I want to recommend the city of Port

[1:01:13] Lines Fire Station.

[1:01:19] Project number 11,

[1:01:25] City of Port Lions Water Distribution.

[1:01:38] » What project number is that please? >> The water distribution is number seven

[1:01:45] for Port Lions. >> Okay. So then number six, formerly the

[1:01:50] city of Larsson Bay reservoir spillway. I'd like to see that one put in as the

[1:01:55] follow on.

[1:01:58] » So just so we're clear, the new project number 10 will be project number seven,

[1:02:03] city of Portland's water distribution system replacement.

[1:02:07] Everyone's agreeing with that. Okay. Project number 11 on the new list is

[1:02:12] which one was proposed? Number six, the city of Larsson Bay reservoir spillway.

[1:02:18] » Okay.

[1:02:27] » And everyone agrees with that. >> Then what follows is the Kodiak storage

[1:02:31] tank. Kuruck, sorry, Kuruck water storage tank.

[1:02:36] Unless the chairwoman disagrees. >> That's fine.

[1:02:42] » Okay.

[1:02:47] The proposal for project number 13, the city of Old Harbor septic tank

[1:02:55] sewer truck. I thought it was, but okay. >> Septic. What is it?

[1:03:03] » Sorry, I was trying to write and I might have got that wrong, but yes, the septic

[1:03:08] truck tank replacement. Sorry. Project number 13, City of Old Harbor.

[1:03:14] » Yes. >> Okay.

[1:03:18] » So, you want 13 to stay as 13 then? Yes. >> Okay. Just I just want to make sure I'm

[1:03:22] clear. >> You're fine. Okay. Project number 14,

[1:03:25] you guys.

[1:03:30] » No, we've already set that one. Uh, we can go with the Carlook sewer

[1:03:36] truck.

[1:03:40] Project number 10, city of I guess that leaves just two,

[1:03:47] right? The city of Larson Bay. We've got >> Before we move on, I just want to make

[1:03:50] sure the commission agrees that Carl sewer truck will be moved into project

[1:03:55] into space 14 on the resolution. Okay, >> I agreed.

[1:03:58] » Thank you. Project number 15.

[1:04:05] We can do the equipment city of Larsen Bay equipment and repair.

[1:04:17] » Sure. >> Can you give me a a number, please?

[1:04:21] » 16. >> 16. Got you. Okay.

[1:04:26] And that leaves the city of Larsson Bay upgrade to the city hall as number 18.

[1:04:35] Project number >> Oh, number sorry.

[1:04:37] » We're on project number 16. So, what do we have for 16? You want to

[1:04:42] move the city of Larson Bay into space 16?

[1:04:49] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:04:54] Project 12.

[1:04:58] Okay. Project number 17

[1:05:04] that the city of Larsson Bay upgrade to the city hall

[1:05:10] that I'm sorry I I think we're off on the on a different page. Um, I believe

[1:05:14] you guys just moved that project number 12 on the current resolution into space

[1:05:20] number 16 for the new resolution, which is the city of Larson Bay upgrade city

[1:05:24] hall. >> Oh, I thought I said

[1:05:25] » Did I get my wires crossed? >> Uh, I might have I I thought I said

[1:05:29] equipment and repair, but maybe not.

[1:05:33] Equipment repairs and maintenance. >> You said you said equipment and repair

[1:05:37] was going to be 15. >> Okay, then that was me. You're right.

[1:05:43] Let's do a quick recap. Um, starting with number one. So, we have number two,

[1:05:48] number three, number four, number five, number one, number 15, number 17, number

[1:05:55] 18, number 14, number seven, number six, number nine, number 13, number 10,

[1:06:04] number 16, which

[1:06:08] Yep. Okay. number 16 and then number 12. So, you have two more projects to

[1:06:13] prioritize

[1:06:20] and I got you guys correct, right? That's that's where everyone's at. Okay.

[1:06:23] Okay. >> Brahman, can you remind them two the two

[1:06:27] remaining projects what those >> Yeah.

[1:06:29] » What those are? >> Honestly, no, I can't.

[1:06:33] » Yeah, I wrote these down, not the numbers. This is why we go one at a time

[1:06:38] all the way down the list starting from number one number through 17 so we don't

[1:06:42] we don't lose track but um I I really don't know where we're at.

[1:06:45] » Is number 11 >> the city of Port Lions fire

[1:06:49] » 11 and number eight. >> Thank you.

[1:06:51] » 11 and eight. Okay. I was wondering. >> All right. City of Larson Bay water

[1:06:56] distribution lines number 17 or number 18?

[1:06:59] » 17. >> Everyone's in agreement. Yeah. Okay. All

[1:07:05] right. So number 11 will be moved into >> 18.

[1:07:10] » 18. Okay.

[1:07:16] » Sorry. >> I thought I was I

[1:07:20] » And I may I may um do a draft of this resolution and BCC it to all the

[1:07:27] commissioners to make sure that we are all on the same page. Um

[1:07:31] » I just want to make sure I'm doing you right.

[1:07:35] Okay. Any other questions, comments, or concerns? We'll go ahead and move on.

[1:07:41] Next case, U. Patrick Anderson, case 27-0.

[1:07:47] request a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 ft to 10 and 16

[1:07:54] ft and reduce the rear yard setback from 20 ft to 8 ft for new

[1:08:02] build allowance. >> Yes, thank you. Uh the applicant

[1:08:06] requests uh these two variances to allow the construction of a cabin size single

[1:08:09] family residence at 40689 Pag Shack Road. The existing property is

[1:08:14] substandard in lot size and is unusual in shape compared to other properties in

[1:08:18] the surrounding area. And as mentioned the requested variances to reduce the uh

[1:08:23] 25 ft front yard setback from 25 ft to 10 ft and the reduce the 20ft rear yard

[1:08:29] setback from 20 ft to 8 ft. Uh your staff analysis begins on page two of the

[1:08:34] staff report. Proposed findings in support of the variance are on page four

[1:08:38] of the staff report and in your uh proposed uh resolution. If the

[1:08:43] commission disagrees with the staff recommendation, findings in opposition

[1:08:46] to the variance request will need to be developed. Uh the planning and zoning

[1:08:50] commission bylaws do allow the commission to uh defer action on the

[1:08:54] case uh giving direction to staff to uh draft uh a new resolution

[1:09:00] uh for uh denial if the commission does want to do that. Uh if you have any

[1:09:06] questions, I'll be happy to answer those. I believe the applicant is also

[1:09:10] uh in the audience today as well.

[1:09:15] » Yes sir. >> So I my understanding I I must guess I

[1:09:20] must have got it from the wrong place somewhere but I thought when you had a

[1:09:24] R1 lot you had to have and you had to have well and septic you weren't on

[1:09:29] water and so you had to have like a oneacre lot. This is way smaller than

[1:09:33] that. So I was wondering what the story is. Am I wrong on that?

[1:09:38] Sounds like I am. >> Well, I mean it is a substandard lot.

[1:09:42] So, um it wasn't created to that. It was created prior to those regulations. So,

[1:09:47] it is um substandard in size and we do not have a restriction in our code that

[1:09:52] keeps someone from uh proposing development. Uh currently the way that

[1:09:56] with the setbacks, you would not be able to develop this property. uh and it is

[1:10:01] not listed as a unbuildable lot in the plat since it predates

[1:10:08] uh most of our current zoning regulations that we have.

[1:10:13] » Yeah, I don't have any concern with the setback. I just uh starting to

[1:10:17] concentrate too many people in an area with too many septics. The two small

[1:10:22] areas kind of like I already thought one acre was kind of a small area to require

[1:10:28] » if you look in the if you look in the in the staff report the proposed cabin is

[1:10:33] very small in size. Uh but again the applicant could uh speak to uh what

[1:10:39] their proposal is. I'm just considering I'm just want to

[1:10:44] know why do you think there's no health potential health issue still

[1:10:49] with that small of a lot having a septic system on it whether the cabin's small

[1:10:54] or large or whatever. >> Again, we don't we don't review the se

[1:11:00] any septic approvals or approvals for u on-site wastewater treatment. That would

[1:11:05] be ADC uh to do that. The uh current zoning regulations don't address that.

[1:11:10] that is addressed in to some degree in the building code that they have to have

[1:11:14] a septic system or some other approvable type of wa of wastewater disposal. But

[1:11:20] that's not something that's in the in the zoning regulations other than when

[1:11:24] someone's creating uh creating a lot and they don't have sewer and water then it

[1:11:29] restricts the size. But again, as I mentioned, this predates those zoning

[1:11:34] regulations in terms of the uh the requirement for a specific lot size uh

[1:11:40] when you do not have access to public water and sewer.

[1:11:44] » Looks like Patrick's willing to address it there.

[1:11:49] » Yes, you can come up and speak.

[1:11:54] » Can you guys hear me? Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:11:56] » Just wanted to let you guys know this lot is pretty unique. It actually

[1:12:00] doesn't have any neighbors either. There's not really anybody nearby me.

[1:12:03] And we won't be doing a septic system on this lot. We will be doing an above

[1:12:06] ground containment system which will be pumped out um by SID uh once a month or

[1:12:11] or maybe even more frequently.

[1:12:15] » Thank you.

[1:12:20] » Any other questions? Anybody? I don't have a question, but I

[1:12:27] like the idea of helping people build on their land, and so I'm going to be in

[1:12:31] favor of this as well. >> I think I had a question. Patrick, did

[1:12:36] it used to have a cabin? No. For some reason, Ben thought it had a cabin on

[1:12:41] there a long time ago. >> Uh, no. It has never had a structure on

[1:12:47] it. Um what it is what it used to be was actually the bridge access the original

[1:12:51] bridge access to beside check for a walking bridge. Um the bridge since has

[1:12:57] been long gone for I think about 30 years somewhere around in there. Um so

[1:13:03] currently it's just been it's just been empty for the last we've had it for 35

[1:13:06] years in the family and it's been empty for that time.

[1:13:11] » Patrick, have you ever seen flooding in that particular land?

[1:13:16] Yeah, it's a very good question. We have not. It's actually very high above the

[1:13:20] river uh and above everything else around it. We've had no drainage issues.

[1:13:23] We haven't seen any flooding. Um we've been we have a cabin out there in the

[1:13:27] community and it's something um we love Poseid Shack. We intend to to keep that

[1:13:33] place the way it is. We want to, you know, keep it preserved. Uh keep it what

[1:13:37] it's always been. So, we're very very cautious. We wouldn't want to do

[1:13:40] anything um below like the water level, anything like that. So, we think that

[1:13:45] this is a a very good spot to build. >> Thank you, Patrick.

[1:13:53] Nope.

[1:13:57] Okay, thank you for that. Just got locked out. Okay,

[1:14:05] I guess we'll move on to our next case. uh Shunac case 27-011

[1:14:13] for uh request of a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces

[1:14:18] from eight parking spaces to two regular spaces and two loading dock spaces and

[1:14:23] 188 compliant parking space right here. >> All right, commissioners one more time

[1:14:30] with me tonight. The principal use within the II industrial district

[1:14:34] consists of land intensive commercial uses incorporating certain types of

[1:14:39] manufacturing, repairing and assembling of goods, particularly those related to

[1:14:43] the fishing industry. Seafood processing establishments are permitted use are a

[1:14:47] permitted use within the II industrial district within Kodiak burough code

[1:14:52] 17.175.040

[1:14:56] which is the off- streetet parking for those of you if you don't remember. Um,

[1:15:00] industrial or manufacturing establishments have a parking

[1:15:03] requirement of 1 per 700 square ft of gross floor area. The proposed structure

[1:15:08] is a total of 5,250 ft, bringing the required amount of

[1:15:12] parking on the lot to a total of eight spaces with the required loading space.

[1:15:16] In addition, staff reviewed other industrial zoned parcels in the

[1:15:21] surrounding area, finding this lot is significantly smaller in lot area.

[1:15:26] Directly east and west of the subject parcel parcel are two industrial zzoned

[1:15:31] lots. Both lots are over an acre in parcel size. Comparing that to the 65

[1:15:36] acres of for 419 Shellov Street or the subject parcel, it shows it's

[1:15:42] significantly smaller in lot size. In addition, the subject partial has a

[1:15:47] parcel has a substantial amount of lot located in the open water. Um, a lot of

[1:15:52] it is, you know, their their lot is in the water.

[1:15:57] So, their buildable area is pretty much being taken by this new new structure if

[1:16:02] it were to be approved.

[1:16:07] » Any comments or questions from the commission?

[1:16:13] » So, they're asking for a variance in

[1:16:16] parking, >> correct?

[1:16:18] But how many employees are being employed at this location? I did ask um

[1:16:24] and they did respond back and they said that they will have anywhere about eight

[1:16:28] employees I believe on shift um and they will you know be crossing shifts um not

[1:16:35] overlapping but they will you know one shift stops another new eight employees

[1:16:38] come in for the the cow processing and I do believe that they have a um

[1:16:43] transporter van that's available for this as well like car pooling

[1:16:49] » okay so the lot can handle the required code require hard spaces.

[1:16:54] » Incorrect. Um, at this point, and I believe they gave me a site plan, which

[1:16:58] I've included. Um, they can fit it was uh two regular parking spaces, I

[1:17:05] believe. Uh, hold on. Sorry.

[1:17:10] One ADA and then one loading space because they are required as a as a

[1:17:14] non-residential to to have that loading space. So, that 10x40 I believe is the

[1:17:19] the dimensions has to be on there. So, that does take up quite a bit of their

[1:17:22] available parking area. And I'm going to pull up this um site plan for you guys

[1:17:26] right real quick. Right here, if you can see up there, I know it's a little far

[1:17:31] away. >> Does it need to be orientated

[1:17:34] differently or is that the orientation property goes over the warf?

[1:17:38] » So, right here at the bottom of this screen, um it shows Shelikov Street. So,

[1:17:43] the bottom of this site plan is the front of the lot.

[1:17:47] So, if you kind of like look up on the screen, you can see like how I scrolled

[1:17:50] it down. >> I'm looking at it on mine.

[1:17:53] » Okay. Okay. Just making sure.

[1:17:57] » I have a question. >> So, this is a processing plant and then

[1:18:03] there was is it going to be a restaurant or just a processing plant?

[1:18:06] » No, there's there's no restaurant. They're proposing a kelp processing

[1:18:09] plant in the in the industrial. There's no restaurant they're talking about at

[1:18:13] this point on this lot. >> Okay.

[1:18:15] » Yeah. that I I'm not sure if maybe you're alluding to a different lot or

[1:18:18] something. They might have works for a different um

[1:18:22] restaurant or business, you know, but at this time this is only for the kelp

[1:18:26] processing. I don't think they could fit anything else on that lot.

[1:18:30] Um I think I gave you guys a pretty good picture up above which does show how how

[1:18:36] tight and narrow this lot is. It's extremely narrow. Like if you compare it

[1:18:41] to the ones right directly next to it to the east and west, you can see how

[1:18:46] narrow this subject parcel is compared to this. It's almost half the size and

[1:18:51] width of the one directly to the west. Sorry, east. Wrong way.

[1:18:59] » If I'm correct, and I could be mistaken, Shunac also owns the building across the

[1:19:05] street. >> Correct. I believe it's the one directly

[1:19:07] across the street, but it could be Kitty Corner, but I'm pretty sure it's the one

[1:19:10] directly. >> And they've got the appropriate parking

[1:19:13] for that.

[1:19:17] » Um, as far as I know, they do. They've never come in for a change of use or

[1:19:20] anything for for maintenance. >> So, I guess I'm just thinking if there's

[1:19:24] any overflow, they the property across the street is theirs.

[1:19:29] » Correct. But um you know if that I don't know what the requirements are on the

[1:19:33] parking for across the street. So I if they could fit it they might but at this

[1:19:38] time I didn't we didn't even talk about that as an option because I I don't

[1:19:42] believe they would have enough room for both parking um across the street

[1:19:46] because hours of operation they can't overlap with tandem parking spaces. So

[1:19:50] if we require five for that current business across the street and another

[1:19:55] four overflow from 419 the subject parcel now to go across the street I

[1:20:01] don't believe they'd have enough room for all of that but I don't know what

[1:20:03] the requirements are for across the street

[1:20:07] » they are using the existing buildings and structures on this property correct

[1:20:12] or are they going to build something new >> I believe they're te they tore most of

[1:20:16] it down and they will be moving a lot of it off or moving um uh

[1:20:22] like adding that into the building. I think that's the total square footage of

[1:20:25] the new structure. >> So, theoretically, they could build the

[1:20:28] parking space into the structure.

[1:20:33] » I'm not an architect, so I'm not going to answer that. I I don't know um if

[1:20:39] they could or not. Quite honestly, I don't have an answer for that. Maybe

[1:20:42] Chris can answer that. >> Who's the applicant representative here?

[1:20:46] I believe >> I don't have anyone on the phone. They

[1:20:48] did say that they were >> Oh,

[1:20:51] » would you care to come up and let us pick your brains?

[1:20:54] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you.

[1:21:00] » Hi. Yeah. So, we've hired an architect to kind of direct us on this property

[1:21:06] and how we might be able to comply with the parking requirement.

[1:21:11] » Can you please make sure your mic is on if it's not? Thank you.

[1:21:15] » There we go. But uh yeah, I mean I can try to answer

[1:21:20] any any questions. Uh >> so basically um we got we got a grant

[1:21:27] for 2.3 million to um get all the equipment.

[1:21:31] » Excuse me. Can you state your name for the record?

[1:21:33] » Yeah. Yeah, no problem. Katie Hughes with Cog. I'm project managing this uh

[1:21:39] project with along with Shunak and Wild Source. Um, we got a grant for 2.3

[1:21:45] million to buy equipment, kelp processing equipment. And we got a list

[1:21:51] from our distributor. I can't speak from the engineers that

[1:21:57] um, put the plant together. And the building itself,

[1:22:03] whatever lot they have left, everything fits in that building like to that to

[1:22:10] that lot basically, right? >> Pretty much. Yeah, it it's going to tie

[1:22:15] up. >> And it's going to be two stories

[1:22:17] » hopefully. Yeah, >> maybe with it. Just depends what kind of

[1:22:21] funding we get, but it's uh there's there's a lot of

[1:22:27] equipment that goes with it. So that's the that's the site plan right there.

[1:22:32] And the the new proposed building is the uh the 40 40 by 86.

[1:22:38] » Can I interrupt you guys for a second? Sorry, Chris.

[1:22:41] » I just want to go through the chair. Uh so can you explain how employees and I

[1:22:46] mean what's the need for parking on this site based on how your employees access

[1:22:50] it? Are they do employees walk to the site? Is there uh like a like a shuttle

[1:22:55] that you have that that drives employees here? How how will your employees?

[1:22:59] » So, a lot of them >> come to the site.

[1:23:01] » Take uh >> Can you please speak into the mic? Thank

[1:23:04] you. It's got to be caught by the way. >> A lot of them um carpool, some of them

[1:23:08] take taxis. Um I mean, we've been making it work in

[1:23:13] the building in the business that is Kodiak Wild Source. Um and that that's

[1:23:19] been working out fine. But, um that's yeah, a lot of them carpool. a couple of

[1:23:25] us drive and along Shelikoff. I mean, it's it's tough to park. I I'll admit

[1:23:32] that. But you usually you're able to find a a parking spot somewhere. Um

[1:23:37] either street parking um we've got a couple places at our at

[1:23:42] our uh property there, but um yeah.

[1:23:50] » Did that answer your question, Mr. Commissioner?

[1:23:56] So follow-up questions.

[1:24:00] » Was there any consideration to parking inside the structure or somehow in

[1:24:05] expanding that ability to have the and meet the code for parking

[1:24:09] » inside the structure? With a layout that we have, we we uh didn't see really a

[1:24:16] way of um of doing that. We've got some uh what we're making is kind of a a

[1:24:22] maraculture um processing um processing building and a lot of this

[1:24:28] is um centrifuges and and a lot of big equipment um and floor space is going to

[1:24:35] be very tight inside that building. So I don't think uh parking inside will be an

[1:24:42] option. Um >> so will this be open to the public?

[1:24:48] No, it won't. It'll be just a manufacturing building.

[1:24:52] » Okay. So, no retail um location or anything like that.

[1:24:56] » No retail. Across the street is is another um property that's uh will have

[1:25:02] a retail area that's under constru construction right now. It's been under

[1:25:06] construction for the last three years, but that's 412 Shelikoff and that's

[1:25:11] directly across the street. Okay.

[1:25:18] the building here in the back. And I'm sorry I left my glasses, but it is that

[1:25:23] another processing facility. I can't see what it I can't read what it says.

[1:25:27] » That was that's their storage. >> Whi- which uh building are you referring

[1:25:30] to? >> Just right behind Yes, that one.

[1:25:32] » Um storage. >> So that's our um that's our ice house.

[1:25:36] That's Yeah, that's where we've got uh a cold storage and and ice making in

[1:25:41] there. >> So not necessarily additional employees.

[1:25:44] No, >> just

[1:25:45] » storage. Y >> perfect warehouse.

[1:25:47] » Thank you. >> And that extra already exists.

[1:25:50] » It does. That's already built. Yep. That's that uh that fabric tension

[1:25:54] building that you see at the end of the dock. So,

[1:25:56] » okay. >> Thank you,

[1:26:00] » Sure. >> I I see um by the parking one and two

[1:26:05] that there is some room between that and the building next to the container truck

[1:26:12] parking. Is there can there be parking behind that one and two or so is

[1:26:19] » that that's code. So I'll answer that for

[1:26:22] you. We have we have code uh protecting that. So no you can't have tandem

[1:26:27] parking spaces. So if their hours of operation are from let's say 8 to 5 um

[1:26:33] and it's strictly that you can't have tandem parking. So can't park one in

[1:26:37] front of another in a commercial zone business. There's few allowances one

[1:26:40] being like a car dealership. Um and a couple other things like that. Uh they

[1:26:45] did we did previously kind of go through that. Um and are you Chris Cenito? Yes,

[1:26:50] sir. Okay. So, Mr. Cenito, I and then I believe um either the contractor or

[1:26:54] another employee of them, we we kind of went a couple times trying to figure out

[1:26:57] maybe a different configuration to fit one or two more spaces. And with the

[1:27:01] aisle widths, uh, the required aisle widths, the turning and maneuvering, it

[1:27:05] it's just impossible for them to get any more than what they what they fit

[1:27:10] compliantly at least. >> Yeah.

[1:27:16] Anybody else? >> Thank you guys for being here and

[1:27:20] answering those questions. >> Appreciate you guys.

[1:27:24] » Say, um, as he acknowledged, the parking there is

[1:27:29] already pretty crowded. if it does end up he has employees have vehicles now we

[1:27:34] need to park we have a parking issue who's going to fix it and how are we

[1:27:37] going to fix it I guess that's the question I'd have right now

[1:27:41] » well we have a code enforcement officer so if you're saying um like parking in

[1:27:45] the street kind of thing um there you know the city the city has their own

[1:27:49] code we have our own code so they can't just park willy-nilly you know um there

[1:27:53] are par designated parking areas along that road that they would either have to

[1:27:58] um early bird gets the worm I think on that, you know, either you're walking a

[1:28:03] bit or um or you can get yourself on the lot or, you know, down the street. There

[1:28:07] are parking areas if you I know you've driven down that obviously, but if you

[1:28:11] kind of drive right across I want to say it's kitty corner this way from this lot

[1:28:16] there. There's a pretty big strip parking spot a little bit further down.

[1:28:28] Guess we'll go ahead and move on. Um, we've got no public here. Thank you,

[1:28:32] Bronin. Sorry. Um, no public hearings, so that's going to move us on to old

[1:28:37] business, which we don't have. Um, but looks like we do have some new business.

[1:28:42] Chris, >> so we will have uh elections. Uh we did

[1:28:45] confirm with the burough clerk that you will need to do elections for um at

[1:28:52] least for chair unless the vice chair becomes the chair. But at the very least

[1:28:58] you'll have to do an election for the chair. And if the uh vice chair were to

[1:29:02] be elected then you'd have to elect a new vice chair as well. But we did

[1:29:06] confirm that from from the burough clerk. The the vice chair doesn't just

[1:29:10] become the chair. So we did confirm that. The other item that's not on here

[1:29:14] because we did have uh Miss Frasier left who was on the lands committee uh the

[1:29:21] commission will need to do another recommendation. So we are going to add

[1:29:24] on to new business uh an item to recommend a com an additional

[1:29:29] commissioner for to the mayor for uh the lands committee. So I wanted to make you

[1:29:35] all aware of that as well.

[1:29:47] the you wanted. >> We need an answer like right now.

[1:29:51] » No, no, you're in work session. So, I'm just I'm just letting you know that you

[1:29:54] don't vote anything on work session, but I'm let again this is packet review. So,

[1:29:57] we're letting you know what's on it's not a public hearing, right?

[1:30:00] » It's new business, so it's like a business session item.

[1:30:03] » Okay. >> Uh and there will be two of those. I

[1:30:05] just wanted to let you know that there's a second one because we do need the

[1:30:08] another lands committee member. >> We need to appoint somebody to the lands

[1:30:11] committee. >> What you'll do is you'll make a

[1:30:13] recommendation. Okay. And the mayor appoints that person.

[1:30:15] » Okay. >> Question. I was uh spacing out a little

[1:30:19] bit there. I'm not sure I caught everything.

[1:30:22] » So, is Sarah Fraser still on the board? >> She has resigned.

[1:30:25] » She did resign. >> Yes.

[1:30:27] » Okay. and her resignation was accepted by the assembly at the at the regular

[1:30:32] meeting last week >> and and they will be voting on I think a

[1:30:35] new member here in September. U so hopefully you'll have a new uh

[1:30:40] commissioner ready to go in October. >> Okay, gotcha. I get it now.

[1:30:47] » And because she was on the lands committee, we also need to

[1:30:53] » I'm on the lands committee. You should be on the lands committee.

[1:30:56] » Okay. No other talk. We'll go ahead and move

[1:31:01] on to reports. We've got our regular meeting scheduled on Wednesday,

[1:31:06] September 16th at 6:30 here in the Assembly Chambers and our work session

[1:31:12] on Wednesday, October 14th at 6:30 here in the Chamber of Commerce chamber

[1:31:17] chamber of commerce, sorry, the Assembly Chambers.

[1:31:21] Okay. Um, next we move on to communications. Looks

[1:31:28] like we've got um several case results letters from July's

[1:31:36] meeting and we'll go ahead and move on to staff comments.

[1:31:39] » So, thing I will say is this is related to the uh communications. Uh all four

[1:31:45] subdivisions for uh Oceanfront have been uh recorded uh and that reszone has been

[1:31:53] approved. So those those cases have been completed. Uh that's all I have. Thank

[1:31:58] you, >> Bronin.

[1:32:02] » I just want to say thank you so much for listening to me talk a lot this meeting.

[1:32:06] I don't normally talk so much, but I appreciate all the questions. It

[1:32:10] definitely um worked my brain.

[1:32:17] Yes, ma'am. Um, for the regular meeting, will you

[1:32:22] guys consider if your agenda says that CIP goes before these cases that these

[1:32:27] people are sitting in the audience for that you make a motion to move those

[1:32:31] cases ahead of the CIP? Like those guys had to sit through a lot today. So, just

[1:32:37] to think about it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sema.

[1:32:43] We're going to go ahead and move on to commissioner comments. Mr. Dan.

[1:32:48] » Well, thank you. It's been a pleasure to serve on this commission. I am

[1:32:52] technically up for reelection. I chose not to submit my paperwork for a packet

[1:32:56] for uh this position. So, this position will be available come the next election

[1:33:02] cycle here. So, again, it's been an honor and a privilege to serve along

[1:33:06] with you. Um, best of luck as you move forward with

[1:33:11] your decisions and process. It's been an honor to serve. Thank you.

[1:33:20] » I don't think we should accept his resignation.

[1:33:25] » Thank you for all the work that you guys did and yeah, I'm glad to be back and

[1:33:30] glad to be here and good luck.

[1:33:35] » Thank you. Thank you. Bye. No comment.

[1:33:41] » I think uh we did a very good job tonight and uh yeah, sorry to hear

[1:33:46] you're leaving, Craig. Been very pleasure having you with us and uh

[1:33:52] thanks for all your hard work. I really like the colors you did on your uh

[1:33:55] comprehensive plan. All those little chapter pictures, those are nice. I like

[1:33:59] that. They all look really great. Thank you.

[1:34:05] Sorry, I guess that leaves me. Um, thank you and thanks for bearing with me. I'll

[1:34:09] try and get better at these meetings. Um, yeah, thank you guys for being here.

[1:34:14] Thanks for all your guys' hard work and we'll see you guys next week.

[1:34:20] Oh, we're going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 8:04.

Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session of September 9, 2026

Transcript