Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

And I will call this meeting in the Valdez Planning and Zoning Commission for Wednesday, April 22 to order. Let the record show that all commissioners are present with the exception of commissioner Matroka, who's excused. Commissioners Raditich and Molten are on the phone. Everyone else is in the room. And our first item of business is the approval of minutes from 04/08/2026. Is there any comments or changes? Corrections?

I'll move that we accept them.

We we just accept our minutes now without without a motion if there's no changes. I don't know yet. Alright. Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Public business from the floor. We have no one in the audience unless somebody online would like to address us on a nonagended item. K. Public hearing. We have one tonight. It's a proposed repeal and reenactment of title 16 of the sub it's the subdivision code.

Do we have anyone here that would like to address us as part of the public hearing? Alright. We will close the public hearing. And if it's alright with the commission, I would propose that we start with new business item number two because I suspect that'll be shorter than item number one, and we do have somebody online here for that item so we could get him out of the room quicker that way. Any objections online, commissioner Aditya or Molton?

No objections.

Alright. Then I would entertain a motion to approve the temporary land use permit 26Dash07 for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, an agent for TAPS owners for an approximate two and a half acre portion of Tract B And E Section 34 A S C S 98 Dash 30 Browns Creek per plat twenty sixteen dash seven owned by the city of Valdez.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Moved by commissioner Wade, seconded by commissioner Fegerberg. Any discussion on this one? Yeah. It seems like it's pretty similar to the one we approved not too long ago. And if anyone in the audience would like to address us online, you're welcome to speak.

Yes, thank you. We have wrapped up that winter work and have moved to a dig site that's on the Valdes Terminal property. And the mobilization for the summer work is scheduled for May. And this one is scheduled for the month of August, extending a little bit into September.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

And just for the record, that was Peter Nagel from Alieska?

Yes. Yes. Peter Nagel. Thank you. Nagel. Sorry.

I guess we'll go ahead and take the vote.

Okay. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Just to confirm the votes online because I I wasn't able to see, commissioner Raditich? Aye. Commissioner Moulton?

Aye.

Okay. Those opposed, please say nay. With that, we have six yeas, one absent, commissioner Mitroca. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. Now we'll move on to our remaining new business item. It's the approval of a recommendation to city council to repeal and reenact title 16 of the Valdez Municipal Code titled subdivisions.

Motion to approve.

Second. And

moved by commissioner Wade, seconded by commissioner Fegerberg. Would you like to start, Kate, with a summary of what changes and highlights?

Thank you. Yes. I'm just gonna come down here so I can look at you instead of down the dais. Yeah. Thank you very much. I do just wanna give a brief introduction to remind everyone of the the project and some of the project goals and significant changes that we've brought forward in the draft for the revision tonight. We also have Dave Whitfield on the line who is a member of the consultant team or an r and m consultant. So after I give a brief overview, he's gonna hop on and just go into a little bit more detail, talk you through some of those significant changes in the draft. And then I think at that point, we'll open it up to any commissioner questions or discussion. And we might be being joined by Beth as well.

She just got on.

Okay. Great. Do you have that? Can you swap the cameras for the folks online? Okay. Thank

you. Okay. So this is the the revision that you have before you tonight. It's for title 16 of the subdivision code, and this is a continuation of the rather long process we've been on together, which started with the revision of the comprehensive plan adopted in 2021. And part of implementing the vision of the comprehensive plan and some of the higher priority goals in the comp plan were to revise our local zoning code and subdivision code to really bring them into alignment with the goals that we set in the comprehensive plan.

So as you all well know, the title 17 process was a lengthy process, and we successfully got that developed and and adopted. And and then we moved into the title 16 project. So with that, one of the main project goals was to bring title 16 into alignment with the comprehensive plan and also the revised title 17 because there were a number of areas that we knew should be addressed in 16 for alignment with the zoning code. As we looked at the project as a whole, it was really important to balance individual property rights within the city with that community vision and the broader goals for implementing the vision of the community as a whole. And we we also wanted to make sure to address the unique characteristics of Valdez.

We're always trying to strike the balance of streamlining and standard practices, but making sure that our codes really fit the local community and the unique needs that we have here. One of the areas that was called out from the beginning as an important goal both in title 17 and title 16 is snow, because we know we have a lot of it, and it has some interesting land use implications in Valdez. The way we move snow, store snow is different than a lot of places, and so that's something unique that needed to be addressed. We also wanted to make sure that throughout the title, we were incorporating easy to understand language and working on easing the process for applicants, developers, anyone navigating the code, staff included, and commissioners as well to really refine procedures and make sure that we have clear and easy to follow processes for everyone involved. So as we moved moved into the project, I think Dave will touch a little bit more on the process, but I do just want to remind folks, and we have a commissioner who's joined us since this project started, that we did have a joint work session with the commission and city council to talk about those goals and to really talk through the areas of the title that you all wanted to see specific changes and city council members.

So that was a really useful session to help us guide the project, as well as, of course, a long list of things that staff had noticed as we've navigated this code and brought applications and plots through the subdivision process in the past. So both of those things really informed the process as a whole. So as you'll notice, the title is is very different, which is why we we went with the full repeal and reenactment. It because we reorganized it and and really tried to change some things. It didn't lend itself to providing you with exact red line changes.

And and really that was to try to ease reading and interpreting the code and also provided, you know, additional definition of terms and some clarity that we think was lacking in the existing version of the code. So the team did this rewrite in a similar format to title 17, and we've mimicked some of the procedures in title 17. One of those areas is adding administrative approval options. That was something we heard loud and clear from the commission that it would be nice for some of the really more minor plats that there was an option for a streamlined administrative approval. So that's definitely an area that we're looking forward to hearing more from you on tonight.

Another topic along with the the goal of addressing snow storage was just really clarifying the process to make sure that we're consistently handling snow storage and how those properties are handled throughout the the full process and after plotting. We also added a variance process and really defined criteria for approval. That's something that's new and process for public way vacation public way vacations. So I think those are some of the main changes. We also made some extensive updates to the plat monumentation section, which reflect current survey practices.

And the commissioners, as you were able to review some of the public comments that we received during the public comment process, those were heavily informed from feedback from a surveyor who's worked in the community locally. So that was really beneficial as a part of that public comment process. So that's a really high level overview of what we have before you tonight. And then I'm going to pass it off to Dave and Beth from R and M Consultants in Anchorage, who who worked with our team of community development staff to develop this draft.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kate. Good evening, and thank you, everyone, for allowing us to be here tonight. My name is Dave Whitfield. I'm a community planner with R and M Consultants based here in Anchorage. With me tonight is my colleague in planning, also from R and M, Beth McKibbin.

This ordinance that you're reviewing tonight is really the result of a roughly year and a half long collaborative process between the R and M team and your community development department staff, Kate, Paul, and Bruce. The rewriting of Title 16 is a process, a process that aligns the legal, technical, and community priorities into an implementable framework. Our work started with a comprehensive review of your comprehensive plan, Plan Valdez. It provides the foundation for planning decisions and would help inform the draft ordinance. Once we understood the plan, the vision, and the vision for Valdez's future, we could then shift our focus to Title 16.

We needed to identify where Title 16 aligned or in some cases didn't align with the comprehensive plan. Our work identified broad areas of Title 16 that should be updated. This included an administrative process for minor plats, clarification regarding preliminary and final plat requirements, a formal process for vacation of public rights of way, criteria for variances, clarification on the dedication of snow storage lots, and as Kate mentioned, an update to the plat monumentation requirements to reflect current practices. In April, the project team participated, again as Kate mentioned, in a joint Planning Commission City Council work session on this rewrite. That discussion provided the project team valuable feedback and direction with many of the ideas expressed in that meeting reflected in this ordinance.

As we began drafting Title 16, we conducted a peer city review of other communities' subdivision regulations around the state. Those included communities like Cordova, Soldotna, Juneau, and Unalaska. While this ordinance is intended to reflect the goals and values of Aldis, it's also important to understand how other communities approach these issues. This avoids a re eventing of the wheel and repeating other communities' mistakes. While we may not have the time to go through the ordinance in great detail here tonight, I would like to point out some of the larger, more substantive changes.

If I could direct everyone to the draft ordinance starting on page five, that would be appreciated. On page five of the ordinance you're going to see a review matrix. This is a new addition to title 16 and really is in line with Title 17. We brought this over from Title 17. And what this table does is it makes clear which body has review, decision making, and appellate authority for specific application types.

As I mentioned, this is found in Title 17, which creates that consistency and interpretation that I think this project aims to accomplish. Number two on page seven of the ordinance, actually pages seven through 10, are a complete update to all definitions in Title 16. Some of the terms that were found in old Title 16, they were really not defined. And so this ordinance updates those definitions and provides additional definitions to terms that are found throughout the ordinance. This creates clarity and consistency and reduces ambiguity throughout the title.

It also provides for legal defensibility. Number three, pages 12 through 23 of the draft ordinance, a rewrite of the preliminary and final plat chapters of Title 16. The process for preliminary and final plat review is not as clear Title 16 as it could be. The rewrite of these two chapters more clearly establishes the application review and decision making process for Platts. It also establishes, as Kate mentioned earlier, an administrative approval for minor Platts or Platts that created no more than two lots.

Number four, pages 24 through twenty six and twenty seven through 29, the creation of approval criteria for variances, and the creation of a process and approval criteria for public way vacations. Establishing criteria ensures that exceptions are granted only when necessary and in a way that maintains the overall integrity of the code. It also prevents unfair advantages and personal bias while allowing flexibility to property owners and preventing harm to adjacent property and or the public. The establishment of criteria provides the Planning and Zoning Commission with the ability to establish defensible findings more easily to be used in the case of an appeal. Number five, thirty three of the draft ordinance.

As Kate mentioned, one of the issues that we wanted to clearly fix in Title 16 was how snow storage lots were established. This section establishes a clear standard for the dedication of snow storage and requires that snow storage lots be conveyed to the city by title. The current title 16 is a little vague in this particular area, so the rewrite provides that clarity. Number six, an update to and this is on page 40 of the ordinance an update to the monumentation section to reflect current survey practices. Kate mentioned that a member of the public and local surveyor provided some valuable comments to the project team with respect to survey practice.

Those comments were reviewed by the project team that included a licensed surveyor with R and M consultants. And the language reflected in the ordinance is both a reflection of that public members, a member of the public's comments as well as R and M licensed surveyors recommendations. I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review this ordinance tonight. Beth and I are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Whitfield. Alright. With that, I'll open it up to the commission. Does anybody have any particular praise or heartaches or things you wanted to bring forth before we vote?

I have a couple things.

Alright. We'll start with commissioner Wade.

Since we're just kinda talking about snow storage lots, I know in the past, like, the city has gone in and bought lots and stuff. I guess I just have an issue. And I haven't been able to, like, compare this one to what the old one, so I don't really know what it was. But just the idea of so if I go out and buy five acres and plan on building this subdivision and I have it all plotted out and I have dedicated snow lots, Then I have basically have to give a portion of that land to the city in ownership.

Yeah. The first Equal to the the size of your roads.

Yeah. I don't know if it's always been that way. I just kinda have a

What page are you

looking at? Well, I mean, right now, it was just page 33 because we ended there. But, I mean, it it was addressed earlier. It talks about beating, snow storage lots and everything over. Yes.

I'm like, you know, maybe something happens and and, you know, we don't because I know there's smaller subdivisions like Corbin and out in various other places that, you know, are fairly small. And if you take a portion of that, then you have to turn over a piece of your land to this city. And then, like, what if the development didn't come to fruition as you had planned or, you know, something else changes or whatever, and that subdivision isn't developed. Has has it always been that the city the snow lots have been had to be dated over? Because like I said, I know, like, you know, I I know, like, the city has bought lots when it came available, whether people selling them or for tax you know, they were behind in property taxes or whatever they confiscate or whatever you wanna say for for snow storage.

But I didn't see, like, where if if you own the property, yeah, you have it dedicated for snow storage. I don't ever recall seeing, like, that you had to actually turn ownership of that lot over to the city, and I'm wondering why.

You're correct. It the the old wording was no storage area shall be dedicated to the city, and now it's conveyed to the city. I'm not sure what the the legal ramifications of that are.

Well, one is, like, dedicated for city storage, and the other one's, like, you have to turn over ownership. That's what it sounds like.

So to answer your question, because you're yes. It it it was a requirement. It is a requirement in the existing code that the snow storage be dedicated to the city, And we sought to clarify exactly what that process is because the standard process has been to have the deed transferred to the city. Part of that means that then the property owner isn't paying property taxes on property that they can't develop because it is dedicated for snow storage. And so that is something that we sought to clarify in the updated title, and that's why you see that the language is worded a little bit differently to really show what the process is because that has been the standard process.

But over the years, especially going back into the history of Valdez, we haven't always seen adequate snow storage dedicated at the time of subdivision, which has really caused an issue because we have a very high level of expectation for snow removal in Valdez, and the city has committed to providing that in different areas. So the goal was, you know, we didn't make drastic changes to those snow storage, requirements, but we did change them slightly and tried to clarify that process so that we know that each subdivision is, handled similarly and consistently moving forward and that there's adequate snow storage dedicated during that process.

Does that satisfy you, or do you wanna propose a change?

Because I mean, yeah, if you have dedicated and you say it's dedicated and then somehow, you know, like, if you change that, then the city will go back, no. Here was your plan. Here was your development strategy, and now you're not using it. That's they have repercussions. So having a dedicated snow lot or portion of your land being dedicated to snow is different than turning over ownership of your land too.

And I can I I I don't know? I would prefer, like, maybe an option, like, they wanted to, did not pay property taxes. But I'm like, okay. Taxes for 10 or $10,000 parcel that you might want back, you know, so a few $100 or whatever it is, paying per year, and then that land is gone that you can sell for 50 or $60,000 later on. Like, you know, if if, like I said, if something didn't happen or, like, you wanted to sell the whole parcel because, you know, the del development didn't come to fruition because, like, here, it's, like, immediately sign over to the city and title and stuff. So I don't know. That's that's just

Okay. I

don't know if anybody else agrees or not. I just know, like, some of, you know, some of the subdivisions or smaller areas out at Corbin, and I think I think out of Tenwell there on the north side of the highway, they didn't need to put in, like, for a subdivision, a small one. And and so I don't know, you know, if they have dedicated thing. And I just I can't see people want to have to be, you know, happen to be forced to turn over ownership of their land to the city rather than just identify it as being a dedicated portion or parcel.

Can I make one point of clarification also? So the the snow storage requirements in the subdivision code remain a calculation based on the new right of way, public right of way that's established. So it it really is and will continue to be, in the new draft, adjusted based on the size of the subdivision. So if you are taking a subdivision action that's not establishing new right of way surface, then you're not required to, provide any additional snow storage. It's it's based on the need, calculated by that subdivision design, to to ensure that we have adequate snow storage that's coming off of those surfaces.

Sure. And I have no problem with that, any of that thing. It's just I kind of just have an issue with, you know, having to turn over ownership and title of that dedicated land.

Mister Whitfield, do you have a comment on this?

Yes. Thank you, sir. And I very much appreciate the question and the concern regarding snow storage. One thing I want to point out is that with the establishment of a new process for vacation of public ways, Should there be an instance where a subdivision was approved, title to that lot was conveyed to the city, and then for some reason development didn't occur, the property owner could petition for a vacation of public way to the city. And if the city determined that the land was excess to public need, could potentially get that, that property back.

So that's an option for you. I mean, I I fully understand the concern involved here, but I think that the ordinance does, does account for that.

Does that satisfy your concern? The only solution I could see would be changing Shell to May, and I I don't think that would be a good personally, I don't think that would be a good solution. I I think we need the snow lots if we're gonna bring extra roads into the city. That's my my opinion, but I would still entertain a motion to

My opinion is whoever has a property and wants to put the subdivision in, this makes them aware that they have to dedicate a portion of that property for snow removal, and it goes to the city. If they decide not to go along, then you have recourse after the plant is done. This isn't you know, as soon as you come up with the idea, they don't take a chunk. You've gotta go ahead and plant it and go through all this stuff. So, I think it's fair because we need snow removal lots.

That, I live in Minnow Creek, and there was not enough snow removal lots. City had to go ahead and buy property from the people that put that subdivision in in order to create snow removal lots. So, anyway, that's just my thought.

Yeah. And and I know, like, this I I know the city has done that out the road, and and I think at Corbin and stuff too that they've, like, you know, bought the parcels or, you know, when the plot was they didn't they didn't sell off all those parcels of land or something and had them dedicated because I don't know. Somehow to me, like like like, should coincide with, yeah, it doesn't doesn't quite and, like like, that should be part of your property taxes, you know, to, you know, having a snow thing. And I'm I'm I'm all on board with the dedicated land. And, you know, if they deviate, you know, I'll if they go and build something on that so they don't have that, then, you know, revoke or fine, you know, whatever.

But just, I don't know. If nobody else is with me, then it's kind of a moot point, but I just I just have a a problem with signing over immediately, you know, ownership of a big chunk of your property. But we can let that stew for a minute, I guess. Alright. And like I said, if nobody else is with me, I guess it doesn't really matter. I have

a question about it. Commissioner Fegerberg, so so if these people are developing subdivisions come in and they they buy five lots. They have to give one lot to the city, but they're still paying for five lots with no compensation. Is is that what I'm am

I understanding like. Like

If you're subdividing, you're taking one lot, breaking it into five. Mhmm. Not buying five or unless you were rearranging lot lines. Okay. Alright.

That Well, the the the snow storage requirement is based on the right of way that's established. So it's not based on the number of lots or the size of lots. It's a formula that's designed to make sure that the dedicated snow storage is adequate to store the snow from the public right of ways that are established. So in your scenario, it would be if that person who has proposed a new subdivision has, you know, new roads being established. So if lots are being subdivided on an existing public right of way, the the idea is that that snow storage has already been accounted for when those right of ways were established.

So it's it's really triggered by the establishment of new right of ways where the snow is going to need to be cleared and then stored because we have a limit in Valdez of how far we actually push snow, and and that's why we need those snow storage areas. So the the formula, is something that, you know, is in the existing code and was discussed with our public works director and our city manager. And, really, what you see before you is trying to make sure that we we plan for snow storage and the way that we do snow removal so that we don't have to look and, you know, do what commissioner Goodreau described that has happened in some of those older subdivisions where we found that the snow storage wasn't adequate, and we had to go back and try to make a fix later and acquire land. So, yes, snow storage is required to be dedicated and deeded to the city under this code, but it's triggered if new right of way is established.

Basically, like you said, instead of lots, if I wanna go buy five acres and subdivide it up and make a little mini subdivision, then, basically I mean, just in layman's terms, I'm gonna have to give one acre to the city for snow snow storage.

So, basically It all depends on how Well, road is.

That's what I mean. Like, in in an overview. But, basically, I mean, that's what if you're gonna go in and if you're gonna build roads and if you're gonna subdivide, you know, that's gonna be what's gonna happen. So you're gonna have to give a portion of your Yes. Land to the city. Where before, it was dedicated and and and, you know, dedicated, indeed, it are two different

I I would propose we move on. And if anyone in the room wants to second this, then go ahead and make a motion to change it because you know you already got a a second. And work on on wording as we're discussing other items if you do wanna pose a change so we have something that we can discuss as a change. That sound good?

Yeah. That sounds fine to me. I just had a

I think we fleshed it out well enough. Yeah. I think we understand

the problem. Can I add a clarification

just for kind

of point of order? So just as a reminder, tonight, what's before you is your recommendation to city council on this draft. And so with this process, as as chair Hayes is speaking to, if you would like to make specific recommendations to city council, for modifications to the draft, that would be, you know, the type of motion that you would want to propose and vote on, would be a specific recommendation where the commission would like to see us take a different direction than the draft that's before you tonight.

Alright. Did you have

other concerns?

Yeah. Just another real quick on page thirty three forty six talking about cross slopes. It says the minimum road cross slopes shall not be less than 2%, and that's fine. That's pretty standard for, like, a paved road, but we have several subdivisions, that are non paved, that have created issues in the past where actually the crown exceeded because, so this is not less than 2%. Like, ideally, for gravel roads, you have, like, a 4% not to exceed 6%.

Because when you get too far over that, you know, you have a major crown, and and it's kinda difficult for plowing, like snow plowing and everything to run-in a grader blade and stuff on there. So I was just wondering why they just put the minimum and they didn't add, you know, not to exceed the 6%.

I do not know.

Dave, is that something that you can speak to?

Yeah.

Thanks, Kate. Very much appreciate the question. I believe this is actually a carryover from existing code. Generally speaking, code speaks to minimums and normally not maximums. So I think that that's what the code intended. That said, you know, we would certainly entertain a change, should, the commission desire.

What what line number are you on?

On the left. It's page one fifty four.

On the left, there's line numbers.

944?

Yeah. 944.

Okay. Because yours is laid out different than mine for some reason.

Yeah. Well, this is the final. And when I was trying to look at one earlier, they were different. Yeah.

Okay.

From the original published one and the final one. So it starts out with cross slopes.

Yeah. And what is your question again?

Why should why not have a maximum as well?

Yeah. Just because it says the minimum amount, but it doesn't say the maximum amount of crown, which would be, like, the 6%. And I know some of the summer maintenance where it's taken place, like, that has gone to, like, eight or 10 places. And like I said, it it it's difficult when you're trying to maintain, like, you know, snow removal or or

The greeter wants to take the crown.

Yeah. Or we've had people where, you know, all of a sudden, as they maintain it and the crown gets higher and the road gets deeper, all of a sudden, have a big dip coming out of your tooth.

That that is word for word from our existing code. Would you like to propose adding a a maximum? Well,

that I I I'm pretty sure 6% is the maximum code for

I think you're right. I think that that was somewhere else Mhmm. That was in here. Oh, yeah. D. D?

Yeah. Maximum is allowed to six

Those are for, yeah, those are for super elevations. Super elevations. Like, on, you know you know, corners and corners and stuff like that. Like, where the road is sloping up to

Okay.

Is there any response from Dave or Beth?

I mean, is that something that can be addressed or added as the maximum grade?

Through the chair, through commissioner, I'm amenable to a change. If the commission wants to, establish both a minimum and a maximum, I wouldn't necessarily oppose that. Kate, do you have a a thought on that?

I'm comfortable with that if you'd like to make that recommendation.

I trust your judgment because you'd actually do snow plowing and grading.

So And I know

more about it than I do.

Has been a pain in the butt. So, yeah, if it's not too much of an issue, I think

Put a maximum in there. Yeah.

So should we make these as amendments, or how do we word this since it's just a recommendation?

So I think you can you can handle it one of two ways. If you want to Yeah. Take each potential recommended amendment and and vote on it separately, then I'll note that and incorporate the documents we bring forward to city council.

Okay.

And and so, yeah, we can. It'll it'll be kind of a case by case basis. But if the commission would like you know, commissioner Wade would like to propose recommending the specific amendment to the draft, and then the commission votes on it, I'll make sure we'll work as a team to make sure that that is transferred, as it moves forward to council.

Great. Thank you. Would you like to do that? Make motion? Yes. Okay. It's been moved to add the words, and not greater than 6%

Yes.

At the end of that sentence, line nine forty four. Do we have a second? I'll second it.

I'll second it.

It's been moved by commissioner Wade, seconded by commissioner Goodreau.

And like I said, this is in particular to gravel roads, so I don't there there's I didn't really see any differentiation in here on these, so I don't know if that makes a difference.

Don't know. Through the chair through the chair, may I ask a quick clarifying question?

Yes, please.

To the commissioner, is it your intent to only apply the maximum 6% to gravel, or do you intend to provide that for paved as well?

To be honest, I'm not sure exactly on the numbers on paved. I know that is two to three times more grade required for drainage and runoff from gravel and dirt than than pavement, but I don't know what the maximum is on pavement. So

In any case, it would be less than 6% Yes.

It sounds like. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Any discussion on this proposed change recommendation? Alright. Can you call the vote?

Yes. Just because it was difficult for me to hear last time, I'm going to call the vote in the room and then clarify with the commissioners online. That'll be the process to avoid that. So all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay. Commissioner Raditich? Aye. Commissioner Molten?

Aye.

Okay. With that, we have six yeas, one absent. Commissioner Mitroka. And motion on the amendment carries.

Thank you. Great. Anything else?

I have just one more.

Alright.

So, farther down on that page, we're talking about subdivisions in which streets do not meet the criteria or requirements set forth by the planning authority will not be accepted. I believe, like out at Cummings Way and out at 10 Mile on the north side of the road, there's platted subdivisions, but the roads were not up to city spec, and so they're privately maintained. But they're still accepted, and they're still platted subdivisions. So I guess, I'm wondering why it says, will not be accepted as a city road or something only or will be accepted as private roads or something to that effect, I guess. So so if if if somebody wants to create their own subdivision, then it looks like here, like, it's not gonna be accepted unless the roads are created to city standards.

But if the city isn't maintaining if they're if they're treated as private roads and maintained by private entity, then could that subdivision

still Was the intent on this is is for a city taking over the street?

Yes. So, the intent is that, you know, the city is then accepting maintenance of those roads. So the situations that commissioner Wade is describing are subdivisions, you know, existing subdivisions. And so the standards in this title for future subdivisions will be will be required for all plotting actions. And so the the standards of the title will be required for plotting, and there are options for private streets.

That is something that we've clarified in this text. But the reference here is acceptance by the city for our maintenance and to take over those roads. And so the the subdivisions that you're talking about were previously platted, many of them under, you know, state plats that then the city incorporated at a later date. So it's a little bit different situation. The the the plotting requirements within the title are required for future subdivisions and development.

And some of those plats out there have plat notes on them saying the city will never take the street over.

Mhmm. So Unless yeah. It's when I was just wondering, like, so so we're not even given future subdivisions an option to maintain it privately. Looks like it needs to be No. So we

did define in in the draft the options for private streets. Dave, is there any more detail that you want to add to that as well?

Yeah. Thanks, Kate. I would say that there's probably a number of subdivisions in Valdez that don't meet the standard of this title. Those subdivisions, those streets are likely either private or grandfathered or nonconforming, as we refer to them. So it's not as though those subdivisions or those streets would have to be brought to standard as a result of this title. As Kate mentioned, this title would only apply to future subdivisions.

Another thing to consider is we do have the variance process if there are unusual circumstances where we might rent a slightly steeper road or whatever we might vary. Now we go through a public process.

Okay. Sorry. Then I did have one other thing. On the the compliance with title required prior to on 01/26?

01/26.

What line? 223. Compliance with title required prior to issuance of permits. It's, describing no buildings or permits shall be, awarded for any parcels before recorded on or before 02/08/1965. I was just wondering where that date kinda came from, because I know there's, like, homestead properties and stuff before that.

And I know there's even, like, within city here that's, city lands that are not really recorded parcels and and stuff according to the current state provisions and stuff now. So I just wondered That is a good question. I had

the same question. I That is word for word from the old it's

just in front of And Alan brought

it up too, so it would be nice if we had a little bit of history if anyone knows. I assume it had something to do with the earthquake time period and with the establishment of the new new town. New town. Yeah. Just because of the date.

Kate, are you aware of the significance of that date?

No. I'm not off the top of my head, so I'm I'm looking to other staff in the room. Otherwise, that might be something I need to Bruce, do have a

I believe that was the date of the first subdivision coach.

Or the okay.

The original.

When when the subdivision coach were first adopted.

Oh, yep. That makes sense. Yeah. Mister Minish had brought that up in his his comments too.

Yeah. He mentioned something about where oh, that hotel Yeah. Isn't planted or, yeah, it's not set up legally, and it's been bought and sold a number of times.

Is that something you wanna take out of the code or propose to to change, or is it just a curiosity?

Well, kind of a curiosity, and I do have original homestead. I mean, I'm gonna be dead and gone probably before anything capped. But I yeah. I know there's some homestead, lands

Sixteen o four six.

And stuff that were prior. It's right after statehood. There was quite a few homes that and there there's a couple in area in in '59 and and sixty of of lands and stuff that were Yeah. Prior to this. If somebody ever wanted to sell them or divvy them up or do whatever, then then it looks yeah. I I don't I just I don't know why they Yeah.

It kinda stuck out on me too. It was one of

I don't know either, but I'm comfortable leaving it because it wasn't there.

Yeah. Kinda easygoing on that. It is certainly something that I can look into a little bit more on the history. So, you know, whatever the commission is comfortable with tonight. But if you do want to proceed, leaving it in. It's from the existing code, And we can dive a little bit more into the specific provision and then, you know, could bring forward an amendment at a future date for consideration with a little bit more context if you'd like.

Yeah. Please. That sounds good.

Yeah. Because it doesn't even say, like and I I don't know if this whole entire thing, it, is attributed to, like, if you're gonna develop a subdivision on it. But because, yeah, the wording says, like, no building or occupancy permit shall be issued for a new building on a lot which did not exist prior to or, you know, did not exist as described or recorded prior to February 1965. Yeah. Those lands prior to that. Like, I wanted to go build a house on one of my lots out there, that was Yeah. Recorded. It was, like, 1960, 1959, actually.

Yeah.

Yeah. It seems like it might be a provision that was, you know, relevant at the time of Newtown development, and and I'm not sure that it's still necessary at this time, but I'd like to have a little bit more time as staff to dive into that and and, you know, call it out specifically, talk with the city attorney, and then we could bring some things forward or however you'd like to proceed.

Alright. Okay. Anyone else? Might as well just go right down the line, I suppose.

You're good.

Hey. How about commissioner

a few things?

Oh, you do? Okay.

Yes, sir. On page seven of 46, one twenty nine.

Hold on, Steve. Sure. Commissioner Radtich, did you have something on the on the topic we just discussed, or are you gonna bring something new up?

It'll be I'll I'll wait till after Steve's done. Yeah. Sorry.

Thank you.

K. Go ahead. I'm sorry, Moe.

I I just noticed your hand is up.

Adjacent means two or more lots that are share a common lot line, a buddy, or where they are separated only by an alley or a minor street. If they're separated by an alley or a minor street, they aren't adjacent. Am I right in that assumption or no?

I don't know.

No. This this was a point of discussion, among the project team. So, Dave, can you can you explain, where we landed on on leaving that definition?

Yeah. Thanks, Kate, and great question. I think this was brought up by the project team. There was talk at one point in time of eliminating the definition for adjacent and just simply going with a but. The title speaks to the term adjacent quite a bit.

In our research, the definition of adjacent would include properties that are separated by right of way, in this particular case, by an alley or a street that's designated minor, not just those properties that are directly abutting or sharing a common property line. So in this particular case, the project team opted to keep, the definition, and not eliminate it. Otherwise, we would we would be creating a conflict in title.

Okay.

Alright.

I'm not gonna argue that. Where are we? Another one on page 10 of 46, line two seventeen. They talk about not being in compliance and parcel violation shall be a separate offense. What do they mean by an offense, and what will they be punished? How will they be punished by not being in compliance?

Who's gonna take that one?

I think, ultimately, it's you know, the the details of the legal process would be a question for the city attorney. But I will let Dave add on to my answer if he has any comments to add. But I will say that the community development department has been in this situation before where a landowner has started to initiate a sale prior to the subdivision and plotting process. And so our practice is, as with any of our actions, is we're we're always going to try to avoid legal action initially and work work with a property owner to come into compliance. So the initial process is, you know, contacting them, sending letters, making sure they're aware of what the proper plotting process is and the necessary steps in bringing them forward through that process first before it results in any legal action.

Yeah. I think the specifics beyond what's outlined in the draft, I I would opt to have the city attorney get into more process specifics. But Dave, in lieu of that, do you have any commentary to add on this section?

Yeah. Thanks, Kate. I think this section intends to deal with those situations or prevent those situations where there might be an illegal subdivision of land, a land subdivision by deed. State statute requires that you file a plat. And in filing a plat, that constitutes a legal subdivision of land.

Subdivision by deed is strictly prohibited. And I think that this section intends to establish that and identify potential violations in the event that an illegal subdivision occurs. I would agree with Kate. We may want to have legal take a second look at this. But really that's the intent of this section.

Okay. Thank you.

Just for clarity, that is the existing wording as well. It was sixteen o 04:40 before announcing fifty. Alright.

Chair, can I add just one other point that I probably should have mentioned in the presentation? Just just for the commissioner's awareness as well, you know, I'm I'm happy to bring anything back to the city attorney for a point of clarification. But one thing that we didn't mention, an important step of of the process, was in addition to the staff and project team review, we also had multiple reviews of the draft by the city attorney, the city clerk and deputy clerk, city manager, public works director, capital facilities, fire. So that was kinda glossed over in the process, so I just wanted to take a moment to state for the record that there was a lot of other staff involvement, including legal review. Not to say that that's, you know, absolutely, we can seek any additional clarification if needed.

But Yeah. Just so you know that process happens.

Absolutely. Yeah. Trying to

on page 14 of 46, line three twenty seven, there's a semicolon there. I don't know why. That's a little nitpicky.

Oh, yeah.

Easement existing dedicated by the Platt. On page 21 of 46.

And I

got this out of Gary Meniche. Not Gary Meniche. It's Al Allen's. 497. He thought that five seconds was way too long when it comes to measuring and laying the land out, and doing the survey work.

Dave, could you answer that? I'm I'm assuming the other day it was the reason this didn't get changed. Do you know why?

Through the through the chair to the commission, yes. We did have our our surveyors look at this, and they did not note that this was a necessary change. We can certainly, check-in with them again and, and have them review that, but they did not note this as a change.

Okay. Thank you. Alright.

And the only other one I have is, age 24 of 46, May, and May criterion for approval of, a variance. Mhmm. It states the need of the variance is not the result of actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. Can you tell me what that means?

Yeah. Give

me an example, I guess.

Certainly. I I'll start that off and then let Dave add any more detail that he'd like. But, really, the idea this is a common criterion for, you know, a variance of this type or certainly of other types too because the idea is to ensure that this wasn't a situation where the applicant went ahead without permission in, you know, something that requires a variance authorized by the plotting authority and then was seeking relief after,

you

know, taking that action without approval.

Without approval.

So the idea is that, you know, you can't take an action that requires a variance and then seek forgiveness after the fact that you really go through the proper process and seek the approval. So Dave, did you want to add anything to that?

Kate, I'd just say you're exactly right. I mean, is a situation where the need for the variance cannot be self imposed. It cannot be caused by the applicant. It cannot be caused by the property owner. That there needs to be unique circumstances existing on the land that would warrant a variance, necessarily something that was created by the applicant.

Gotcha. Thank you.

If if I could step in here and and, Moe, I'm still thinking of you. Don't don't think I've forgotten. That was a a section that I had flagged as well, that entire section. I'd like to read the original, existing text. It says when in the judgment of the commission, it would be inappropriate to apply literally a provision of this title, the commission may waive or vary such provisions so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured provided that in no event shall the requirement of filing and recording the plat at or a survey map be waived.

It was succinct, and it gave us the freedom to address any wrongs that could be done in a public setting with with multiple opinions and hearings. This restricts us to where I don't see any variance ever being granted or any waivers. So I would like to see the original text replace this. Or if we stick to this, these criteria, we shall consider. Not that we have to meet all of them all. It's something we have

to consider. So, yeah,

that that would be my recommendation. Because no matter how smart we are and how much work we put into this, we can't foresee the future what some developer may come up with. And this gives them an out where they can come before a public body and regress their grievances. And I think that's an important part of what we're here for. And I I get what they said what mister Whitfield said in in the beginning that it's dangerous.

Freedom is dangerous because we could use it to strike against our enemies and and deny their their applications or use, you know, in past racial present prejudices or whatever. That leaves that open to to to be something that could be could happen. So I can see why lawyers are scared of having that kind of a freedom for a board like this. But I think it's worked well in the past, and I'd like to continue having that freedom.

Yeah. I was reading through this, and, basically, you're right. If we have to meet every one of these criteria, we may not be ever be able to

And they're all a good criteria Yeah. In and of themselves. But to try and meet every one of them, I I don't see ever granting another waiver. But think about that. And if if somebody wants to propose that, then we can take it up as a vote.

That's another area where that adjacent property came into effect too. Like, you know, because it says the welfare or, interest to adjacent property. And if we're considering adjacent property across another road or something else, then that has that effect on that also. But I guess more restrictive because now we're considering the roadway or alley or whatever adjacent property also. That was where I remember that one coming into effect too. Yeah.

So, Keith, asking you, we have if somebody comes in for a variant, we have to meet every one of these criteria or explain how they do meet it.

Yeah. Can I can I step back and provide a little bit of context for why this change was made? Because I I appreciate you calling that out, Cherise, because this is one of the significant changes in the draft. And and it really was a topic that staff had identified early on as a priority of ours to have some additional language and additional guidance, refine and add more of a process to that very simple provision from the existing code. So I I certainly appreciate your concern and your feedback, and and I do just want to make sure the commission knows that this was a really intentional change.

You heard me talking about the goals, and and one of the main goals was to simplify, streamline. And and this is an area where we intentionally added more of a process. And really the reasons behind that were, I think, generally two part. One is the goal is to make sure that every applicant or every member of the public that goes through these processes is treated consistently and held to the same standard. And, you know, I I think, you know, you referenced some of the areas where it it could be possibly an issue where the commission does have prejudice, but it's not only that.

It's also an issue of having an ordinance that really guides commissioners over many years to follow a similar process and and look at the same criteria and the same standards. So the idea with establishing these criteria is that, we hope that the ordinance is written in a way that most every applicant can comply with it and really follow those regulations and those standards that we've set. Because I think Dave made the point earlier, but typically, the code is looking at the minimum standard because this is the minimum of what we know needs to be done here to have a well designed subdivision that can serve our community. And so, you know, the idea of establishing this process and criteria is that it's transparent and the public knows what to follow. And then that second part, frankly, is staff having a really clear process to follow because the the waiver provision that's in the existing code has been handled a little bit differently.

And so we had questions that we talked through as we were looking at this draft, you know, does this need to be a separate process that happens ahead of time? And, ultimately, we decided that it can run concurrently with the plat. So things like that where we're really trying to have some clarity that helps guide both the public and staff through the process. And then, like I said, really provides consistently consistency so that every every member of the public trying to do development, is held to the same standards or the same standard if if the commission is going to grant a variance for some of those. You know, there's definitely unique situations that have come up where where we have veered from the code.

So that's the idea behind it. Dave, did you wanna add anything to add a little more color from your perspective?

Yeah, Kate, I think you hit the nail on the head. The aim here is consistency. I would also add that the goal is to provide legal defensibility. So by providing consistency in the application of code for every situation, we're also providing that legal defensibility. And I think that that's important to staff.

I agree. That's important to me too.

I do have a question on on the d part there where it says the variance will be in accordance and then is consistent with the intent. Is that is there something missing there, or the variance will be in accordance and is consistent with the intent and purposes? Or is there something accordance with what? Is it is it just missing a word there? Or

I think you're right that that is a typo.

So the variance will be in accordance and consistent with the intent, or

I think I think either that that could probably be struck. I think it's repetitive.

Yeah. That that's what we've concluded previously.

Right? We just missed that.

We just

So

what's it supposed to be?

So it it's it should be is consistent with the intent and purpose of this title, and we would strike in accordance. So

That's a good catch. Right. You have any

The only this is just theoretical. Would this stop somebody from moving a shed five feet from the property line?

That would be in our zoning code.

Yeah. That would be an issue of title 17. But I do actually think that that is also a good point. This is one of those areas where we sought to have title 16 really follow a similar format as title 17. So there is a variance process within title 17 for the zoning regulations, which is similar to the process that is in the draft.

So we if somebody came to us and we agreed that they can move it, this should not stop us or the part in, was title 16 should not? This is 16 17.

Yeah. Title 16 wouldn't have any bearing on that process or that scenario. That would be something that would be based on the variance process within the zoning code and title 17.

This would be variances to the platting. To the platting. We might say the lot could be a little bit narrower than what's specified or the street can be a little steeper, things like that that have to do with the plant itself, not with the zoning use. Yeah.

Thank you.

Do you have other

Nope. I'm done.

Okay. Commissioner Aditych, do you still remember what you were gonna say?

Yeah. Page five and six that we were looked at earlier and kind of outlining the authorities of, the director is going to do you know, have authority for this and the commission for that. But when it is the director having that authority, will it still go out for public comment, or does that not happen?

Are you talking about the very first section, Moe?

The what

is your matrix?

The matrix. Yeah. And it's it kinda outlines when the the staff and director have authority to approve. And then when it needs to go and for the commission, Kent and Kate was saying, you know, we were there was definitely discussion about, hey. Can the the staff and director just approve some things? And does that mean it won't go out for public comments? Is that because the idea is to speed it up. Where was that matrix at? Page page five and six.

Five of 46.

I think

The review matrix.

David made mention of that matrix.

So, yes, page five and six goes over, who is the reviewing authority and the decision authority. But if you Yeah. Go to page 11, that is where all of the public notification requirements are spelled out. Dave, do you want to touch on, you know, kind of the conversation we had around the administrative approvals and versus the planning and zoning approvals and the formal public notification process?

Yeah. Thanks, Kate. Yeah, this was a topic that we on the project team talked at length about, discussion about whether there should be a public noticing requirement for minor plats or plats that would be done administratively. And I think what we landed on and what the ordinance reflects is a public noticing requirement for plats, but that major plats would provide mailed notice. And so to Commissioner Reyesh's question, with respect to notice the public is noticed for all plats and would be would have the opportunity to provide you know comment should they desire.

Okay

Does that clarify it for you, commissioner Ratherkitsch?

Yes.

K.

Did you have other points to discuss?

No. I don't have anything further.

Okay. Commissioner Moulton?

No. I have nothing to think of. It will be which is said in London Avenue.

We're having a hard time hearing you. I don't know if you're not close enough to your phone. Or

Oh, I'm right here. Never mind. Continue on.

Okay. Thank you. I I do have one that we had brought up before, and that was over the front line. It's on page 45.

Velocity, is this better?

I'm sorry?

The curiosity, is this better?

Yes. Better. Much better.

Yeah. Come back to me when you're done. Sorry. Thank you.

Thanks. In the in the definitions, the front lot line, we had discussed at one time that on a corner lot, it's it doesn't necessarily have to be the shortest. Shortest line would be the front yard because some of these corner lots, they have combined three lots together so that they're actually even though they may Front West Low or Front Low Street, they're the legal definition of a front yard lot would say they Front Hazelet. And we have discussed maybe sticking something in there where we we could use corresponding to the physical address would be your front yard. So if your your front line if your street address is West Loh, then that is your front yard or could be your front yard.

It'd be the option of either the shortest or where your physical address is. Anybody remember when we discussed that? It was It was Yeah. I think it was over Harris's. Harris's. On the corner. Yeah. And I don't remember what the particulars were, but I thought we had discussed adding that to the code. Is that something you guys wanna stick in?

Where are you looking at this? Which

Definition line 161. 161. Definition line. I I said page 45. That was on the the PDF. It's actually page eight of 46.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, yes.

So in the case of a corner lot, the front line shall be the shorter of the street lot lines. I thought we had discussed or the line corresponding to the physical address so

that it

gives gives the homeowner an option of which one is considered the front when you're on a corner. In some streets, it's it's it doesn't really matter which one you'd call your front. It's like, say, the grocery store, it could be either Pioneer or it could be Meals, and they have a driveway into both. But other places, it seems very clear that the longer line is their front yard, and that's where their street address is. I don't know. It's not a real big deal, but it it didn't I know there's causing hard It

did cause a little bit of an issue.

I I wonder, chair Hayes, if the the scenarios that you're referencing are where lot lines were removed. So it was an already established lot that already had a street address assigned, and the removal of a lot line, you know, may have shifted that, but it was already addressed off that street. Is that kind of the scenario you're talking about?

The particular one was the Harris lot that had been two two narrow lots along whatever street it was. I don't Hanagita maybe. Mhmm. And then when they erased that center lot line, that made that line longer than the line along Hazelett. So now Hazelett becomes his front yard Mhmm. According to the definition.

Yeah. I think and I definitely want Dave to or Beth, who has her hand up to comment on this. But I think, again, you know, the the majority of this ordinance is focused at at looking at future subdivisions. And so, you know, looking at subdivisions that are being developed where the street addresses aren't yet established. And so I I do think because we have some flexibility in our street addressing code in title 12 and staff has some discretion, that I think at least the specific examples that you're bringing up as an area of concern may not be as much of a concern, but I I'd like to hear from the consultant team on that.

Miss McKibbin?

I just wanted to point out that that definition is the same as in title, 17.

Okay. That that's good to know. Alright. I'm not seeing any agreement to change that anyway, so let we'll move on. Section 16 o eight, forty, fifty, and sixty, which would be line three eighty one.

I really like what you did in in giving the community director the ability to approve simple flats, and I and the the whole goal of that wasn't to get work off of our table. It was to make it faster for the public. But what we ended up doing was we took what used to be a a maximum ninety day process. And now if everything went to its full timeline allotted, it could take up to a hundred and thirty days. So I think we took a step backwards by changing the the timelines on each of those actions.

So I'd like to look at that at least and discuss it before we just approve it. So that is line three eighty one. So the first thing is the acceptance for review. It says it can be reviewed or it should be re reviewed within ten business days. In the old code, that was five business days.

So we've doubled the time that we give we've given to review. And then on line three ninety one, they had to submit review agencies should submit comments no later than ten days, and that used to be three days. So we've way greatly expanded that. And then on the preliminary plat approval, it says within thirty days on on line three ninety five, and that stayed the same. It was thirty before.

But then on the final decision when when planning and zoning actually decides, it says we shall hold a public hearing within sixty days and that within thirty days of the public hearing, so that makes 90. We have the public hearing after sixty days plus thirty days before we have to make our decision. So that became ninety days where it used to be we had to decide within sixty days. So we got ten days to accept the review and then thirty days with staff and review agency or thirty for a staff and review agencies or for preliminary plat, and then sixty before a public hearing and another thirty before we have to decide. If all of those took the full time, we have a hundred and thirty days maximum where it used to be a ninety day maximum.

I don't know where these times came from.

Yeah. I'm just kind of reviewing and processing all of that, in addition. So I'll I'll similarly, I'll start off and then and then let Dave add to it. I I will say that one of the considerations as as the project team developed these different timelines and trying to get them right is that, you know, the intent is that it won't take the full time. Right.

And so we wanted to make sure that the commission, particularly when you're looking at the approval deadlines towards towards the end, we we wanted to make sure that the commission did have some ability to postpone if there was something that you needed more information on or clarification on, but not necessarily that necessitated you vote turning down or voting against approval. So I can I can tell you that that was our intent was to, you know, typically, the public hearing and the decision happen right at the same time? But we did seek to give the commission a little bit of flexibility if you needed to postpone for some reason. So that was the intent behind that. But I'm definitely, you know, appreciate your your point because, certainly, we are trying to make things more efficient and not take longer.

So, Dave, is there anything that you'd like to add about those?

I certainly yeah, Katie. I appreciate the the comment. You know, certainly, our our intent is not to slow the process down. I think some of the language that's in this section of code is intended to set guidelines or set maximums, not necessarily restrict the community development director or the commission from doing things sooner than that. Also, we've established an expiration date on Platts.

We've extended that out. The intent behind that is to provide the applicant or property owner with additional time to resolve conditions that might be required as part of a platting action. It's not necessarily to extend or lengthen the process. It's to provide them additional time should that be necessary to file the plat rather than having to start the plat process all the way over again.

Okay. Does this open us up to playing favorites where if we have a particular developer that the community development director likes, she could speed the process? And if it was a one that she didn't like, she could drag her feet and push him out of the construction season. Alright. This that's the kind of thing that's going through my mind. Not that the current director would do that, but if we're writing this for the future too, for anybody who may take her position.

And it has been issued in the past.

Yeah. So it it leaves room for playing favorites.

Timely review processes.

I don't know. Yes. Mister Nalit.

Yeah. I just wanted to just point out one one particular with the review agencies, the 16 o 8050. I I just personally don't see how that three days was even practical if we're gonna be asking, like, external agency to review it, and then three days would not be enough time to get that incorporate that into the agenda packet or statement for the meeting on the preliminary plat. So I I wasn't highly in favor of the ten days in that case. Okay. Because we try to publish at least a

week beforehand. Okay.

Mr. Chair, may add just a quick comment to Paul's comment with respect to reviewing agency comments? The ten days is not only to allow staff the ability to review those comments, but also the public and the applicant. If those comments come in three days prior to a meeting, then the applicant may not have the necessary time to prepare and resolve that comment. So as Paul mentioned, I think ten days is rather standard and probably appropriate in this particular case.

Alright. Thank you. I I'm not seeing much

It seems like the like the sixty days and and I think you said that was before, but once it's accepted by the director and it's been through these other things, I don't understand why it would take, like, sixty days to hold a public hearing. That that seems kinda long. Like, that could be shaved down.

Right. Yeah. We we certainly, as staff, do not want it to take sixty days and, you know, and would seek to bring it forward to the commission sooner. With with any of these provisions, we were trying to write something that would be reasonable too so that if there is a unique circumstance where more information needed to be gathered or, you know, something happened that we wouldn't be you know, we we would still be able to follow the code reasonably. So Yeah. Absolutely.

And this is just, like, for holding a public hearing. Like, it seems like things would come about, like, after the public hearing or something where if issues or whatever came up. Doesn't seem like once it's accepted by the director, and I don't understand why it would take sixty days just to hold a public hearing.

It certainly does not usually take sixty days.

So Like, it would seem like I understand your point. Yeah. Like, if issues came up in a public hearing, then that would need a longer time frame.

The original, we had to decide within sixty days. We had to hold the hearing and make our decision. Even if we postponed, still had to keep it under the 60.

I see.

Now it's 60 plus 30. But I I'm not seeing any impetus to change this, so and I think we'll move

on. Well, it's one of those things that I really didn't realize. I never read that with the idea that it was that much different. Do we need to have thirty days after the sixty? I mean, the zoning commission shall within thirty days of the close of the public hearing approve or conditionally or reject.

Well, as the director pointed out, sometimes we may wanna postpone to the next meeting to get more information. To

get more information.

Which would push us to have our public hearing sooner so we still have time within that sixty days according to the old code. Mhmm. I don't know. It's it's not a big heartache to me. It was it was a concern I thought we should at least discuss before blindly Yeah.

I appreciate. May I speak? Sorry.

I can't Sure.

Raise my hand. I agree with you, Dawn, about the timing because I think that's what gets a lot of people frustrated when they feel that it's taking in a a lot of time to be able to move forward. So like you said, I don't think it may intends to do that, but when it but when it's like, well, we've got we're it's not due yet. So it's okay if it waits another ten days or something. Don't know. It doesn't seem like we have an answer as to why that was increased by forty days.

So I I guess I to to answer that question, I would say the why was that as a project team, you know, we were weighing back and forth and and trying to strike the right balance where, you know, in in this case, in this section of the code, the the dates that are here are the maximums. So, you know, we always seek to move something forward as efficiently as possible. And this was to try to set a reasonable maximum so that if there are unique situations that come up, we can accommodate them within the code. But two things about that, you know, we definitely welcome your feedback tonight if we didn't quite you know, if we maybe extended it a little bit too far. So definitely are open to feedback from the commission on that.

And, additionally, as with many of the provisions in here, if if we get into you know, we're introducing new administrative processes in some areas. We're also refining, you know, some of the timelines and things like that. So if if any of these issues become an issue moving forward as we're implementing the new code, that is also something that we can revisit in a code revision as necessary. So I think you have both of those options, before you tonight. If you'd like to recommend, a change in the the current timelines that are laid out in this section, or if it's something that you would like us to, know, kinda see how it works for a year and revisit, either would be a viable option.

Yeah. You know, I'm looking at this minor plots or minor subdivisions, they have to have it done in thirty days. Major subdivision, they've got 60.

Right.

And that kinda makes sense to have more time in order to it was a bigger project. But, yeah, why don't we just, I don't know, accept this now and if it comes up?

I'm comfortable with that. Yeah. And if somebody does wanna propose a change as the meeting goes on, please speak up. Maybe this next one might also it plays into it. It's on line four fifteen talking about if if we take too long, if we delay it too long.

The original the existing code, a delay triggered an automatic approval. If we didn't approve it within those sixty days, it was automatically approved and went on through the process. So, and now it's just triggers an appeal. So now if if we take too long, it's up to the applicant to appeal it to the next level. So I don't know if we wanted to restore that automatic approval. That kind of pushes us to get things done in time.

So you're saying the old code said it would be automatically be approved if not done in a certain amount of time?

Yeah. And that was on page 16. I'll read it. If the commission does not approve, disapprove, or return the plat to the applicant within sixty days, the plat is considered approved, and a certificate of approval shall be issued on demand. I agree.

And now if we delay if if the authority does not approve, denies, or returns the plat to the applicant within the limits of subsections a and b above, if it was a community development director was the was the approver, then it goes to planning and zoning. Or they may request that it goes to planning and zoning. So it's up to the applicant to push it forward. And if if it was coming to us first, like in a major major one, then they they can, request that it be submitted to city council. It's not automatic.

I I prefer the original myself. I I don't know. It's up to you guys to make any any amendments if you want.

On the chair. Who

I'm just bringing it Who's the chair? Yes. Please, Mr. Whitfield.

May I just add just a quick bit of clarification on the old language versus the new language? The old language referred to a situation where there was no action taken on the plan. The new language is where an action is taken, but the applicant disagrees with the action taken. And so they can elevate it to the next higher level review and approval body. So in a situation where no action is taken and the plat essentially just sits there without decision, In the case of the old code, that plat was automatically approved.

In this particular case, the language says that if they deny it, they do not approve it, they deny it, or they return the plat for some reason, the applicant has the ability to request that that, be elevated to the next, higher body.

So

what if we don't take any action and the timeline runs out? What what is their redress?

That's a great question. I have to look into that question just a little bit to see if, if we do have the language in there that does say that it's automatically approved. We'll have to go back and take a look. Great question, chair. Okay.

Do you have something to add or

I just want yeah. Just to add a little bit of context. You know? So the intent of staff is you know, the recommendation is to have the have this new language so that, you know, it in the situation where it you know, one of those hypotheticals you're talking about if the commission had some sort of prejudice against the developer, that they do have recourse to make sure that a decision is made on the plat, but that that still, you know, goes to the next higher, approving authority like city council. So, I, you know, under understand the discussion tonight and and just want to clarify that that is an intentional change.

We want as staff, we wanted to make sure that every applicant has recourse to get a decision, but that it has also gone through a review and a decision is made by an approval body, whether that city council you know, or if it's the director, if we have an issue with a director not making a decision on a minor plat, but then that can go to the planning and zoning commission. So welcome any feedback from the commissioners on that, but that was an intentional addition from staff.

Okay.

Yeah. As I read further through there, if the director denies the plan, they can ask the planning and zoning commission to look at it.

Right.

And if we turn it down, they can then they can go to city council. So they've got a number of

But what if we don't take

any action?

What if we don't take any?

My my understanding is that inaction would also trigger that. You know, I I don't think that's a likely situation, but my my understanding of the draft is, you know, those timelines are in place so that the commission can't just indefinitely postpone a decision as the plotting authority. If if you don't make your decision within that timeline and you don't either you know, if you deny it within that timeline, they have their appeal recourse. If you do not make a decision within that timeline, they can also go through that same process. That's my understanding of the draft. So it it is a it is a difference, and so definitely appreciate hearing feedback from the commission on that change.

Everybody's comfortable with that then?

I Yeah. I think, like, in the original because we have to think about the developer, not just us. Like, the developer has to feel secure in coming in and investing much money in doing a project like this. Right. So in the original one, I mean, it was black and white. Like, okay. If something stalled up and and got whatever, then and then approval was automatic. This one, they had alternate avenues, which in any issue relating, they have these avenues on appeal here in the city council. But Right. I'm either way. I'm I'm comfortable

with this with the directors And, yeah, explanation. I don't know how it would play out legally, but, of course, if we did delay, their ultimate recourse is to the courts. It's extremely expensive and time consuming. So I hate to see a developer have to go through that, but they do have that as a background too.

Sure. Can I add one point just Yes? Based on your comment? And and that is something that you'll remember, you know, we incorporated in title 17 and as before you in the title 16 draft. We intentionally added to make sure there were those layers of appeal, because, you know, to your point, ultimately, they can appeal through the court system. But we wanted to add a

few

layers locally so that an applicant has recourse in those situations. And adding the administrative approvals allowed us to have those three layers. And you see that in the review matrix in title 17 and the review matrix in title 16. The idea is you have a chart that you can go through and see any action under this title. This is who reviews it, approves it. This is who you appeal to, potentially a second appeal if it's a director decision, and to really streamline that and give folks some good options if it needs a closer look before it ends up in the courts. Right.

I

believe that is all that I had to bring up. Commissioner Walton, you had something? Commissioner Malton?

Oh. Oh, he's.

You are now muted. You were not muted before, but we couldn't hear anything.

That's interesting. I can't hear you.

Text us.

Yeah. Chris, if if you do have a Chris, if you do have access to the chat and you can just confirm that you can at least hear us and hear all the discussion, that would be great.

Oh, he says just move on, so we'll go ahead and do that. Any final comments, changes?

Go ahead.

I was just just one more, I guess, plea or one more pitch on deeding over, the the land on there from dedicated to deeding. Like, if I if I buy a chunk and I'm gonna develop and I dedicate and land a snow lot, we don't have snow year round. And I'm you know, maybe in the summertime, I wanna use that land for a lemonade stand or community garage sale or my lay down yard for material and lumber and stuff for my building projects in the subdivision. So there's alternate uses. So just because it's a dedicated snow lot in the wintertime, it has other uses that you know, for the owner in the summertime.

And so I just I I I guess I don't know. I'm pretty stuck on that dedicated versus deeded over.

So I don't

know if anybody

Going around town, you notice in the summertime, there are more boats, trailers.

That too.

That's true. Parked in the snow snow lot. And the cities really don't say a thing.

What what line was that again?

It's throughout the whole section talking about beating over snow locks to the to the and transferring title immediately to the city. And

While while you're looking for it, I will just add to to commissioner Goodreau's point. You know, there there there are uses that the city allows of snow lots when they're not being used to store snow, and we do have a process, the temporary land use permit process, which many community members utilize to gain access to snow lots in the summer season for lay down or events or other purposes. So that that's just part of the discussion, but there is that option. Yeah.

Well, like the very last page, dedication snow storage. There's one of them that just says all land dedicated for snow storage shall be deeded to the city. And then it's, yeah, it's several other places in here too.

Charlies, can you hear me now?

Yes. We can.

Okay. Sorry. I'm kind of in the middle of a construction zone, so stuff keeps changing. What I was gonna say was that I kinda wanted to hear more from Rhonda on that and then maybe from admin if if this was more of, like, was this changed to be up for a liability issue so the city could access the land whenever needed? There had to have been some change to make it a you will, not, you know, a possibility to to deed it.

So the the goal with this was to memorialize what the current practice has been. So so this has been the practice, at least since I've been at the city and, you know, how how dedicated snow storage has been transferred. But it was not clear in the code, and, you know, there were some instances in history where, different sort of processes have been followed. So the intent of staff, this was something that was called out from the beginning that we wanted to address, and the revision was to just make

the

process transparent and, formalized in that way. So that that was the intent of staff, and it was a priority of the city manager for this code revision.

Does it

And what the

Go ahead. I just want

Sorry. Go ahead. And so with with the the fixed income or or what how whatever the verbiage is we're using for that, a class from Shoop, They're storing all their snow on-site. Does a subdivision owner have opportunity to do that and does not need it still?

So that the development that commissioner Moulton is referring to is the Blueberry Terrace, the Akkad development. So that's actually a development on a single lot. So snow storage was something that was a consideration in the c the conditional use permit for that planned unit development. And so when it comes to snow storage requirements for a single lot, that is a provision of title 17, and we look at snow storage for that development through the building permit process and the zoning clearance review that happens for the building permit process. So that is on-site snow storage, which is sort of a separate issue within title 17 when we're looking at any specific development and their plan for construction for structures to make sure that they have a snow storage plan, whether it's on-site snow storage or off-site.

So tonight, we're looking at title 16, you know, for subdivisions, the creation of public right of way of paved surfaces that we know the city, you know, when we do take over maintenance of those roads that the city is going to be storing snow or in, you know, in the case of private that there's no storage allocated. So this is for the public right of ways and city snow removal feeding the lots.

I was curious. Would anybody have heartache with changing it? I'm including staff and the consultants in this question. Changing it from Shell to May as far as needing it to the city, would that cause heartache or or paperwork messiness, or what what would be the problem with just making it an option?

I'm sort of speaking for this the city manager who's not here to comment on it tonight, but I I do think that the the goal of the city was to have really clear language, and so the shell helps us meet that goal. So, you know, if if the commission wants to make a recommendation that this be modified, I will absolutely bring it forward. But from the staff perspective, this was a really intentional addition to make it very clear that that's the process that needs to be followed.

I think there's a big difference between dedicated and heated. That's that's my problem. Buy this land however they divide it up, but then they have to section off the city or cross section of it and give it to the city.

And then get a conditional use permit for pay

it And then, yeah, then it

in the summertime. Use permit. Whatever they do they might

That's I don't know.

Well, now I'm seeing two people on on that side. Would you like to make a motion?

Because I don't I I just like, there's not an issue if it's a dedicated snow lot in the in the in the in the plan. And if they do something on it, just start finding them $10,000 a day until they move this up. You know? I don't I don't see why the city has to take the land in order for it to be a dedicated snow lot. It's just my hang up.

Yeah. Well, my whole theory on this, you're talking about, you know, they have to have a street there, and the city has to maintain that street if they put a spree there. The city needs a place to put that snow. Now if you're just gonna have two lots sitting beside, you know, you put put in a small subdivision, you should be able to supply and put the snow on the land that you have around the homes. We're talking about large subdivision.

And anybody that's gonna be putting in a large subdivision, they're going to realize that a portion of their land is gonna be given to the city because the city is gonna be plowing those streets. They need a place to put that snow. And the city needs to be guaranteed that that will be there for them. That's my thoughts.

Well, I don't see how it's any different than dedicated parking to your businesses having to have a certain amount parking space. They don't need the parking lot over to the city. Yep. But, I mean

Very good point.

Mhmm. If there's I mean

I'd like to ask that

we that we put whatever to.

We we have discussed this at length. I'd like to see either a motion or that we move on. If you could put a motion, then we would have more time to discuss it, and we'd have something clear to discuss. I think we're at that point now. And we're we're hearing the back and forth. Okay. Commissioner has moved that we change it from shall to may dedicate the land

of the city. Dedicate. That's that's what you're dedicated. Yeah.

Or yeah. Shall. May to

be the original

Yeah. Language. Well

Commissioner Peggerberg, can you just clarify what your amendment is for a recommendation?

Yeah. I amended I'd like to amend it to say dedicated rather than deeded.

So change the word deeded to dedicated Yeah. Throughout the throughout the title because there are multiple references.

It should be dedicated area, but not deeded to the city.

And we have a second?

Second.

It's been moved by commissioner Feigenberg, seconded by commissioner Wade that we change the snow lots back to dedication to the city instead of deeding to the city. That stated

correctly? Yes.

Okay. Now

let's go ahead and continue the discussion.

Just one last so so that gives them the option. They were saying if they wanna give up a chunk of that land and dedicate it so that they don't have to pay property taxes on it, they can do that if that's what their option is. But if they don't, if they wanna have summer usage or maintain that title to it, then I I think that gives them that option too. So yeah.

I I would ask staff, have you ever had someone request that they not get it over, or is it just gonna nobody even questioned it?

Not not in my experience. I we have had a situation where it was an oversight and the process wasn't followed, so we had to go back at a later date, which was complicated with the property tax issue because so we have had some confusion over it. You know? There but there are throughout his history of plotting and Valdez, there have been a variety of ways that it's been done. So I think, you know, I think this is something that should the commission decide to vote to approve this amendment tonight, we what we would do as staff is take a look at what a couple options would be and then put forward your recommendation to city council and ultimately let them consider the draft in front of them and the recommendation by the commission and potentially make an amendment.

Right. But I would do that in consultation with, you know, the public works director and city manager as well.

Very good. Any other discussion on this? Anyone online? Or

No. I'm comfortable with making that change, knowing that we're not the final word, and the city manager can make his pitch to his council if he wants to make it completely 100% clear that they want the property.

Alright. Thank you. Alright.

Yeah. And the only thing I wanna say is this is future development. This has nothing to do with what's going on now.

And before we vote, I'll just put it out there that I'm I'm more in agreement with Steve. I think this is a good process what they came up with personally. Could you go ahead and call the vote?

Yes. Just conferring with staff to make sure we didn't need more clarification. Oh, good. So I'm calling the vote on the the amendment, the the recommended change from commissioner Feigerberg to change the language of deeded to the city for snow storage to dedicated to the city. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed, please say nay.

Nay. Nay.

Commissioner Molten?

Aye.

Commissioner Raditich? Aye. Could you repeat that, commissioner Raditich? Aye.

I agree.

Okay. So with that, I have four yeas, two two nays, chair Hayes, commissioner Goodreau, One absent, commissioner Mitroca. And motion on the amendment carries.

Thank you very much. Alright. One last call for comments on any other topic before we vote. As the night wears on.

We don't go to these long ones. We don't.

I'm I'm and it it's definitely worth going to.

Yeah. I think so.

This is a big change. Yep. Commissioner Aditya and Moulton, everything's good out there?

Yes.

Alright. We'll go ahead and call

the vote.

Call the final vote.

The final vote has been

If I may, I just would like to thank the commission for your careful review of the draft before you and all of this really thoughtful discussion and feedback. So thank you for that. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay. And just to clarify online, Commissioner Moulton, can you repeat your vote?

It's gonna a Aye.

Okay. And Commissioner Raditich? Aye. Alright. With that, we have six yeas, one absent. Commissioner Mitroka, motion carries.

Thank you. And we have one report from the community director.

Yes. I don't have much tonight, for you. We're gonna be, taking this draft forward to city council, to close out this title 16 revision process. And then I will have updates for the commission at your next next meeting about some of the ongoing discussion about desired bathroom locations, and as well as some updates on the short term rental application and that application going live. And then our next code revision that we're we're moving through, that's in progress and and almost ready to come to you for recommendation is title 15 of the building code.

Very good. Moving right along.

Any questions for the What about desired bathrooms?

Oh, Steve. Boy. So it it came up, I think, two meetings ago on commission business from the floor, and this is a topic that has come up previously, from commission business from the floor of the desire, to make a formal recommendation to city council, for bathrooms in some of our recreational areas. So the two areas that have been proposed by the commission is Robe Lake Woah. And and Valdives Glacier Lake.

And so I'm I'm I'm working with the I'm working with the city manager and the parks and rec director, because the city manager desires to have some input by the Parks and Rec Commission, in addition to the planning and zoning commission. So we're kinda working out exactly what the process will be, but there will be something coming before this commission and the Parks and Rec Commission, to let you decide on a formal recommendation to city council. So

Excellent. Very good. You.

Thank you. Alright. Commission business from the floor. Commissioner Fairburn.

Nothing.

Commissioner Goodreau.

Thank you for your patience with my questions and stuff, and I think this is a good, document. And thank you for the toilets possibly

that

roll late.

I'm sure it's

Same. I'm glad to see that going forward. And, yeah, I appreciate all the work and everything done on here. I know there was just a few little things, but overall, it wasn't that much and good progress on it. You. Yep.

And Commissioner Adityc?