[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.