Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Right. Then we will start with or let the record show that all commissioners are present with the exception of commissioner Goodreau who's excused, and commissioners Wade and Raditich are on the phone. First item is approval of minutes. Did anyone have any changes to the minutes for 04/12/2023? How about 04/26/2023? June 11 this year and June 25, our last meeting.

Oh, yeah. For the 06/25/2001, there's just a spelling error in new business discussion. About halfway through that paragraph, lease is spelled incorrectly.

Alright. Alright.

Thank you. Good eye. With that, the minutes are approved, and now we'll move on to public business from the floor. Did anyone come here to address us on an agenda nonagended item? Alright.

And we've moved to public hearings. First public hearing is for conditional use permit 25Dash02, an application from Alderwood LLC for a conditional use permit for a recreational RV park. If anyone is here to address us on that, please come to this mic and make sure the red light is on and state your name for the record. Alright. We did receive one, text or email concerning this, and it has, she is in favor of it, but she has some concerns that we will address when it comes time to discuss the the item.

We'll close that public hearing and move on to the variance. Public hearing for an application from Alderwood LLC for a variance from the specific use standards for a recreational RV park. This is variance 25Dash01. Did anyone come to talk about the variance?

Alright.

And we have our third public hearing is for the rezone of thirty two eighty one Richardson Highway from general commercial to neighborhood mixed use. Did anyone come to talk about this issue? This is out by the Robe River subdivision.

At this time, if an applicant wants to make comments, you can during the public hearing portion, or the commission can ask the applicant to come up for questions during their discussion. So it's totally optional.

Alright. We will close the public hearings and move on to new business. Item number one, approval of King Salmon Lane as the name for the private street servicing the ACAH planned unit development, Blueberry Terrace on Lot 5 Evergreen Vista Number 1 Subdivision. Can I get a motion so we can act on this?

Motion to approve.

Second. It's been moved by commissioner Biedis, seconded by commissioner Molton. I believe so. Okay. Any discussion?

I think it sounds like a very appropriate name, and it definitely relates to Valdez, so I'm in favor of it. Anyone in the audience care to address us on this? And how about on the phone? Miss Smith, would you like to say anything?

I just wanted to say thank you for your your time and your attention. We're very excited to bring this development to your community. So thank you.

Alright. Thank you. With that, let's call the vote.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed, please say nay. Can I just confirm the votes online? So right now I'm showing six yeas, one absent Commissioner Goodreau. Rhonda and Mo, did you vote in the affirmative?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. So with that, six yeas, one absent. Commissioner Goodreau, motion carries.

Alright. Thank you. New business item number two, approval of recommendation to city council for releasing public access interest in a 60 foot wide easement that extends north south across the entire western side of Lot 5 A, Sleepy Hollow edition number four.

Motion to approve.

Second.

It's been moved by commissioner Biedis, seconded by commissioner Milton. Any discussion on this one? Alright. And please come to the mic and state your name for the record.

You press the button, and I'm the red light.

My name is Logan Kressler representing Gas Inc.

Alright. Did you have a statement prepared, or are you just open for questions?

I don't know how much you guys know, but we're just basically seeking to enclose the outdoor car wash pad, which happens to run into the 60 foot easement that's between, ourselves and Safeway.

Okay.

Apparently, it was, allegedly zoned for a planned street that was never put in.

Did anyone have questions for the applicant? Currently, are no questions. Alright.

Thank you, guys.

I do have a question for staff. The the public notice only included 300 feet around the property, not around the easement. Wondering, should that extend all the way to Denina and include, like, KBAK and the two churches? Well,

the the action that is in front of us is just to release the access portion that is on gas ink. It's not the entire easement.

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought we were doing the entire Western Side.

No. The entire Western side of Gas Inc's lot, Capital Joe's lot.

I misunderstood. Yes. So I'm sorry. It was I I can see that. Thank you. It's happening, but that that's the the intention here is just the portion on captain Joe's line. So with that said, if somebody were to on a road from one of those other properties in the future, where would the road go if we couldn't make it go all the way out to Pioneer? I guess to Alatna. Yeah. All of those. Alatna to the the Dina?

It would it would go from Bremner.

From Bremner?

Yeah. Alatna doesn't extend because of the Safeway store. Safeway store.

Okay.

Yeah. And so, you know, staff, we talked this over and really to look at it it is hard to look at just a portion of an access easement, but because of the the request from the business owner and their development plans, in order to really look at alternative access options for that lot to the north of them, we would need to, you know, look at the area as a whole more. And so that was why we decided in this case with the time sensitive nature of their request to bring forward just this portion of the access easement so that we would leave some options if you did look at extending access from Brenner if it needed to go down towards Pioneer, although, you know, wouldn't be able to extend through the gas ink lot. Currently, that lot is mostly accessed through the neighboring parcel owned by Eagles Rest, but those are separate parcels, so there is the potential for needing alternate access, in the future, and so that's where, Remner would be the easiest access point.

Okay. That answers all my concerns. Did anyone else have any concerns or suggestions? How about the two of you online? Any comments, questions?

No. I'm good. It looked good.

Yeah. No further questions for me.

Alright. Yeah. This seems like a very good project and a good use of our time. I'll go ahead and call the vote.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, please say nay. With that, we have six yeas, one absent. Commissioner Goodreau, motion carries.

Alright. Thank you. Okay. Now we're moving to action item on the conditional use permit 25Dash02, a request from Alderwood LLC to allow a recreational RV park on a portion of Track 2 A S L S 7361 Survey 2007 Dash 5 Parcel E 140 Airport Road and adopt the findings. And before we proceed on this, I need to make it known that I did have an ex parte communication with the applicant.

He called me up back in May and discussed this project. He he had not applied for a conditional use permit yet, so it it wasn't like an illegal or or backdoor thing. He was just brainstorming some ideas. And when I realized that it would be before us, I stopped him, and I said, you know, he he's a former member, so he understood. I said, you know, this is an ex parte conversation, so I really can't offer any opinions on it, and suggested that he continue working with staff.

And he did not give me any extra information that you guys don't have from the packet, and I believe that I can keep an open mind even though I did have a discussion with him. Putting that on the record, if anyone would like me to recuse, I certainly would. Alright.

Yeah. So to the chair's point, so that's a decision of the commission at this point if if you if anyone deems that recusal to be necessary. Otherwise, if there's no objections, then we'll proceed.

You have no financial interest in this. Correct? No.

It was just a a a friend calling a friend, I think, because we were on the commission together more than anything.

Which can happen in this small town. I have no problem.

Yep. Alright. Thank you.

You just verify online.

Yeah. Commissioner's online. Does anyone have an objection to me taking part in this?

I do not. No objection.

Alright. Thank you. Then if we could get a motion, we will discuss it.

Motion to approve.

Second. Then moved by commissioner Bidis, seconded by commissioner Metropa. Okay. Any discussion? Yes. Which one? Is there I just wanna make

sure I'm understanding this all correct. So the entire property will be but part of it I mean, I'm trying to get my thoughts in in queue here. Part of a resident's concern is, and when I was on council, we did go through the, evictions with Alderwood at the time, Volusian Village. So if maybe Kate can speak to that letter and how this could affect evictions, and how, you know, like, within it's a hundred and eighty consecutive days that you can have an RV on a property versus mobile homes and how this all just gels together into one community.

I I can provide some insight into the issue. I'm not going to speak to the legal questions regarding the landlord tenant act, but I can talk about the uses that are requested and, what's being authorized and and what is consistent with other mobile home parks in the area. So, you know, the existing use of the Alderwood Park is for mobile and manufactured homes. The request before you would give the park operator the flexibility to use vacant spaces for, as RV park spaces. So those RVs would be subject to the requirements of an RV park, which is, you know, a shorter term use meant for recreation and shorter term inhabitation.

So this this is something that exists in other mobile home parks in the area. Valdes Mobile Home Park has, some authorization for RV parks as well as the primary use of the park for manufactured homes. So this this request would allow the park operator to also have RVs. It's not a change in use from a mobile home park to an RV park. The mobile home park use exists, and this would be an added option for the park operator. Do you wanna add anything?

No.

That address your concern? I believe so. Yeah. I don't see how it could affect the evictions. She had a a second point was, placing RVs on less than full sized lot spaces, and condition number four says the permitting shall only rent spaces that were previously established within the manufactured home park.

To me, that that satisfies that. Does anybody think we need to strengthen it and and actually spell out the lot sizes? These are all very valid concerns. I I when I first read this, was thinking to myself, if I was a resident, I don't know that I would want RVs coming and going with the noise and the generators and potential to accidentally back into my vehicle. There there is a a somewhat incompatible use.

On the other hand, it is very compatible in a way that, you know, it is temporary housing, and it's it's already got the plumbing. It's already got the electric. So I can see both sides of it.

Yeah. That was one of the questions that, the community member had, and it says there that they'll have water, sewer,

and electricity hooked up so that RVs will have access to the the mobile home, Arcas. Do you know, Bruce?

Yes. That is my understanding. Each of the spaces do have water, sewer, and electricity to it, and my assumption is that those would be available to the RV as well. And furthermore, basically, they need to be available unless you approve the variance, which is the next item, because they need to have sanitary facilities.

Thank you. And I just also mentioned that the applicant is in the audience if you wanna ask questions or specifics of plans for the park.

Any other concerns? Concern

goes to, I guess, the exact wording of whether the RVs have to use the required hookups, or do they pay a lesser fee and not use hookups? There's an Airbnb behind me that oftentimes, has an RV parked there. People come in with an RV, and there'll be a generator running. And so I'll go over and ask them to completely turn the generator off here in a, you know, residential area. And so that would be one of my concerns, which is, I think, was sort of addressed in the letter as well is, yeah, is it a suggestion of use, or do they have to use required hookups?

Yeah. I I did misspeak speak there in that if it's completely self contained with the water storage tank and a and a holding tank and they wanted to use a a dump station somewhere, they would not need to connect to the water and sewer if it was completely self contained.

And that was another question about, you know, dumping and and how that'll be addressed. But how about the power issue? Are they gonna be I mean, I don't expect a mobile home mobile home RV running its generator all night. I wouldn't be very happy.

Yeah. There's nothing in the application material that indicated, one way or the other on that.

Is that something we wanna add as a condition that may be required to hook up at least the power?

I feel like if we don't address it with the applicant or with the application and If

you'd like to address this, please go to the mic and state your name for me.

Like we'd be hearing about it next summer if it wasn't.

Well, good afternoon. I'm Roger Keeper. I'm the owner of Alderwood, and it's very simple to clarify a bunch of questions you guys have. By absolute no means have you any intentions to make Alderwood an RV park or a mobile home RV park combo. I have no time to go sit in the office all day long and check people in and out.

The problem or the issue we have is if somebody with a motor home wants to or camp or whatever wants to come in the park, they cannot get electricity. The only way they get electricity is if they go to the planning department and apply for a building permit, and this building permit needs to be presented to the electric company in order to get the meter installed and to get this the pedestal energized. That's a problem we have. What we have every now and then, you know, construction workers, come to town, and they're looking for a quiet place, and there's usually two, three, five campus. They come in, and they spend all summer long there, and they're all plumbed in.

They had work all day, and they just come home at night, and they're looking for a place to sleep. By no means have we any intentions to encroach anywhere to staff our visa in between mobile homes. And most of these mobile homes, you know, as you guys know, expand and they make them wider. Each spot is 40 feet wide and 100 feet long. And each spot, 102 spots in there, have water, sewer, and electricity.

There's a pedestal in there and water and sewer. And so you cannot claim two mobile homes or RVs in one spot. And sometimes, you know, spot number three, spot number five, they are really encroaching on that empty vacant space in between them, and we just leave this vacant. We're not planning to do anything with those spots until maybe one of these days, one mobile home moves out, and then we can, you know, push people back into the perimeter they actually rent. Some people in the trailer park, rent a vacant space beside them because they wanna park their boat there or have a expand their yard a little bit and so forth.

So by absolute no means have any interest in having, like, an RV park there with generators or running at night or something like this, which would be you know, nobody runs a generator and RV park here. You know, the people just that doesn't happen. Probably, say, you can put fire or something like this if you do that. And we're just looking for, you know, seasonal workers coming to town and to park their bees there. And with this conditional use permit, we're gonna be able to then go to the electric company and present this, and we can get these meters energized. And these meters, they run through our name. They will run through all that work. They will not run through the individual who plugs in there for months or what, maybe five months for the whole duration of the summer. You guys have any questions?

Very good. Thank you.

Yeah. Chris?

No. It's good to hear that that's your your view is for a longer longer term rental, not daily stuff.

No. No. Absolutely. No. Daily.

There's no

other way. The option to do that.

Yeah. We we do have the option, but I I have no time to be in a office there every day, you know, to check people in and out and once we park, can yell at them. You know, I'm not yes. I have no time for that. But the there is no other vehicle in place in our code to get what we want. We have to apply for this permit, and this is what it's that's why we had to apply for. Mr. Wall gave us the variance there. He told us we have to have this in place because we're not planning on to have any restroom facilities or long room mats or any of this nature. It's not gonna happen. There's no no other vehicle in place to get what we what we are

looking for. Anyways, any questions? It sounds like if we did add a condition that that they use the power that's supplied, that wouldn't affect your plans at all? No. No. Have no heartache. That no.

Not at all. If you say there are no if you out a generator running or anything like this, yeah. You know, it doesn't matter. You know, they wouldn't do it anyways because the neighbors, they they get my phone rings, and I have to go out there 11:00 at night and yell at people. I'm I'm not interested in this. So, anyway no. If you wanna do this, it's not a big deal.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Aditych, did you have a question for the applicant?

Yeah. I'm not sure who directly would this be to, but the a one hundred and eighty days length of, time, what happens if somebody doesn't leave? Like, how does is there any I I think that it sounds like the intention is it's going to be seasonal. But if somebody decides to stay longer than one eighty days, is how does that gonna work?

Mister Wall, could you answer that?

That would be a violation of the conditions of approval, and, we would we would take enforcement action against them for that. It would they are required to comply with these condition whatever conditions you approve on the conditional use permit, and that is one that we have listed there. And it is in our in the code as well. So not only is it a condition violation, but it's a code violation as well.

So in the code, that's for all RV parks?

That's correct.

Okay. I didn't realize that. Okay.

Can I offer one point of clarification too?

Yes, please.

I just I just wanted to clarify that the the conditional use permit grants the applicant to have this use be allowable on the lot because it is a conditional use, and it requires this permit. It's still anytime that you install a power pedestal, whether it's to service an RV or if it's for the placement of a mobile home or for any other project, it still will require an electrical permit. And so this permit is not authorizing that action. Just wanted to clarify that. The building permit process is still required.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or proposed amendments? K. Then I I do have one more.

It's stated in the in the narrative that there'll be no tents or cabins, and and I certainly believe him. I'm wondering, is that a substantial change if he decided later that he wanted to allow tent camping that would would violate, number eight, condition eight, or is that something we we might wanna spell out specifically? Condition eight said the use must be consistent with the submitted application narrative and site plan. So to me, that covers it good enough, but I'm just wanted to bring it up for discussion. Alright. So I would say I would think

so then later with the, my nomenclature is correct with the variance for not having bathrooms. If they put tents up, that would then violate that part as well.

Okay. Everybody's comfortable with that then. Alright. Any other comments from the audience? We'll open it up. Are any questions before we vote? Commissioner Wayne, did you have a question or comment?

No. I was just gonna say you covered the I mean, it was pretty thorough, and, you know, I I imagine the applicant, will have everything in order and and, you know, as far as as as far as everything addressed and talked about and stuff there, there's there's plenty of spaces to separate things out and stuff. So I think it sounds like a a good option and and stuff there. So

Alright. Thank you. Any final comments? I'll just say that I am in favor of it. I think it's a a good use of the land, and I think it's a well well done proposal.

And I give credit to the staff for working it through and to the applicant. I'm sure it wasn't easy at all. Let's go ahead and call the roll. Alright. Then we'll move on to action item number four, approval of variance twenty five zero one, a request from Alderwood LLC for a variance to the specific use standards to allow a recreational RV park without the provision of restrooms and to adopt the finding findings of staff.

We could get a motion.

We can discuss Motion to

approve. Second.

Been moved by commissioner Bitis, seconded by commissioner Troka. YouTube voice is not very similar. Okay. Any discussion on this one? Anyone online have any comments, questions?

No. Again, the application was pretty thorough and answered. Any questions I'd have, so it looks good to me.

Alright. Thank you.

Nothing for me.

Would the applicant care to address us on the variance? Anyone in the audience with questions? Last minute chance to talk. Okay. It seems straightforward to me as well. Let's go ahead and call the vote.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, please say nay. With that, we have six yeas, one absent. Commissioner Goodreau, motion carries.

Alright. Thank you. And our final action item of the day, approval of a recommendation to the city council concerning the proposed rezone from general commercial to neighborhood mixed use of Lot 2 Track 3 USS 3538, Flat 2003 Dash 7, and to adopt the findings of staff.

Motion to approve. Second.

Been moved by commissioner Bitis, seconded by commissioner Mitroka. Oh, no. Whatever you

think you're gonna guess, just flip

it the other way. Oh, okay. And any discussion on this one? Sure. Yes.

Go ahead. Just I am noticing that it is adjacent to other properties with similar zoning.

Correct? And

that is still kind of the will of counsel in the department. It's been five years since I've dealt with this. So the idea was always try to keep stuff together that we're like, and not have rogue zonings Yes. For lack of a better term. So this still stays within that plan.

Mhmm.

Yes. There is one parcel to the north that is a different ownership that is also general commercial. So that parcel will remain in general commercial zoning, but it is consistent with the neighborhood mixed use zoning of the parcel to the south and the two parcels on the other side of that parcel to the north that will retain the general commercial. And then the other element that's covered in the staff report is the consistency with the comprehensive plan because we also look to the future land use maps anytime we're looking at zoning changes to make sure not only is it consistent with the current zoning, but also with the future vision of the community. And so that's where you'll note that the future land use map does show this particular parcel as residential neighborhood.

However, the parcels all across the Richardson Highway to the south are shown as neighborhood mixed use. So that's where we did consult with the city attorney, and I discussed it also with the city manager. And we are all in agreement that this change is in conformance with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan because of that neighboring place type across the highway.

Thank you. Any other comments? I had one concern over it was that we had originally designated these locations near subdivisions and major arteries in case sometime in the future, maybe there would want to be a convenience store or gas station that could service that particular neighborhood. And then I looked up the chart for what uses are allowed, and all those uses are still allowed even in the the new designation. So any type of convenience store or gas station, some of them went from being outright permitted to being a conditional use, but that'll leave my concerns.

So not too worried about that. And to commissioner Bolton's point, I agree. I think that it's good to keep similar uses adjacent to each other to be the similar designations. Anyone online here to address this?

Not me. Once again, it seemed pretty thorough, and and, yeah, it sounds like a good project they got going on there.

Alright. Anyone in the audience want to address this? Alright. Let's go ahead and vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Those opposed, please say nay. With that, we have six yeas, one absent. Commissioner Goodreau, motion carries.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to reports, and we have one report. It's the issuance of temporary land use permit twenty five zero seven, the softball association for an approximate four acre portion of 3100 Richardson Highway Track D 79 Dash 116 owned by the city of Valdez. And that was pretty concise. Did anyone have questions about that use? K.

I did wanna say, there's 11 teams in that tournament. There's quite a bit of people that came down, and I heard it was a very great event. So that's nice that, the city could support that temporary permit for that.

Thank you. As far as I know, only one broken leg, so we have to keep telling these old people playing softball. We can't slide anymore. We're all too old to slide.

There's also one concussion.

Wow. Sounds like a lot of fun.

One thing I would just notice, staff, too, is that, we, you know, typically, try to get these reports prior to events, but it doesn't always work with the meeting schedule, like in this case. So we are debriefing with city staff. Like, we talked to parks maintenance just to verify the event's going smoothly and if there's any recommendations to bring forward next year, but we didn't have any issues that were brought up by city staff.

I did notice that they weren't charged for it, where, like, the Renfare and others were for the similar thing. What is the difference in how each one is treated?

That's in the fee resolution, which I don't have exactly in front of me, but they're or sorry. It's in title 17 in the TLUP code. There's some exceptions. And I believe it's for community events by a local organization. So I would have to check on Ren Faire to see whether or not what what the difference was.

But this organization, the Softball Club, met that definition for the fees to be waived. You'll see a similar we haven't executed it yet, but we're working on an application for the fire wave 400 right now. They similarly fall under that exemption. So it's something that we look at on a case by case basis depending on who the applicant is for the temporary land use permit and the term of the permit, whether the fee applies or not.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. With that, we'll move to commission business from the floor. We'll start down there with commissioner Molten.

I have nothing. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Commissioner McCrogan.

I have nothing. Commissioner Beas? I also have nothing.

Commissioner Wade?

Nothing. Thank you.

Commissioner Aditych?

Nothing further for me.

Alright. And I have nothing, so we will go ahead and adjourn. Thank you all for being here. I do too.