Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. I'd like to call this meeting of the Valdez Planning and Zoning Commission for Wednesday, August 27 to order. Rhonda, can you hear us online?

Yes. I'm here. Thank you.

Alright. Great. Thank you. You're there. But the record show that all commissioners are present with the exception of commissioner Moulton who's excused, and commissioner Wade is on the phone. Approval of minutes for planning and zoning meeting, 08/13/2025. Did anyone have any additions or comments on that?

No. That's that's good news.

I just have one request. If you could put the the, rezone number 25Dash02 in in your headings, it makes it easy to track if I'm ever looking back through if that's doable.

We can add that directly.

Do that with yeah. It's just a minor change. And public business from the oh, if there are no comments, then the minutes are approved. No objections. Public business from the floor is for anyone in the audience to address us on a nonagended item. Anyone here for that? Alright. New business item number one, approval of preliminary plat for Spruce Tree Subdivision and subdivision of Lot 2, Track 3, US survey number 3538, plat number 22003 Dash 7, creating Lots 2 A, 2 B, And 2 C Spruce Tree Subdivision. Can I get a motion on it?

I'll move.

Okay. It's been moved by commissioner Goodreau.

I'll second.

Seconded by commissioner Bidis. Any comments on this? This is once. Or, no, this is preliminary, but then there's a final.

Yeah. So final plot. So the final plot will come back to you for approval. So some of what you see on the preliminary plot tonight is not included in the final plot. There's different requirements in title 16 and the subdivision code for preliminary plot. So there's a lot more detail on here, than you actually see on the final plot, including some of the existing and proposed development that won't show on the actual plat.

So none of those buildings will show, the zones won't show on there?

I think the zones do on the final, but pretty much everything else does not transfer, you know, other than the boundaries of the parcels themselves. So the rest of the information is for you as the commissioners, in case you have any questions or concerns. But there wasn't there wasn't much to highlight in the staff report, so I don't have a lot to add. But if you have any corrections or changes that need to be made, then we will, work with the applicant and their surveyor to get those made before the final plot comes back to you for your final approval. And I I will, I guess I'll give you a little bit of a preview.

One of the things that we are looking at in the title 16 code revision based on the comments that we received from commissioners and city council members during the work session is to potentially simplify that process as long as there aren't significant changes required. So we'll talk about that in the future, but we are looking at streamlining the plotting process, especially for really simple, lot line additions or removals and things like that. So for now, we're under the current code, which requires a preliminary plot and final plot approval by the commission.

Excellent. Thank you.

And you're and you're saying this may be changed, or what will be different?

I we can definitely have another discussion item. I was gonna talk just briefly about the project update in my report.

Okay.

But

let's save that for since it's not directly related to this Sure. Motion. But I will, definitely provide a project update for you all, and we'll be having a draft moving forward for your revision. So you'll see all the proposed changes.

Right. The only question I have, and I'm really not much one, I guess, is, the snow lot. In here, they say they're going to keep that snow lot as a snow snow lot. What do they have that, will guarantee that that will be there?

Yeah. So right now, the city leases this area as a snow lot, and so there isn't a guarantee. You know, when we typically do a subdivision that is dedicating new, public right of ways and surfaces, that's where the code requirement for snow storage comes into play. And there is a process laid out in code by which the snow storage lots are deeded to the city. Because this subdivision action does not dedicate any right of way, it is not required to be addressed during the planning process for what the applicants have brought forward tonight.

Because the city knows that the snow storage is important, and this is crucial snow storage for the city, we have talked with the applicants about that. And there's going to be a separate conversation with the public works director and the city manager about that lease moving forward or potential options for the city to, look at, you know, some kind of, certainty that we have that snow storage because it is really important. But, however, since the plotting action tonight is just adding a lot line and not dedicating any new right of way, it's not a requirement. So we've we've talked it over. The city manager is aware that this plot is on the agenda.

City council discussed it with the rezone, but neither of those actions are really the appropriate place to have a discussion about snow storage. So I know city manager Duvall will be reaching out to the McKays to have that conversation

at a later date.

Fair enough. Thank you.

I do have a question for Lot 2 A as far as access to that. Is that gonna be on Skidder Street, or is that gonna be highway side?

I I'll let the applicant speak to any future development plans if you want to answer that question. But Skidder Street is not currently developed, so it is platted, and they could put in access. But that that road hasn't been completed by the developer who owns the lots on the other side yet who will be completing that. So there is access off of the Richardson Highway or an option for that. But, again, since the applicants are here, I don't wanna speak to their future plans.

But

there's there's legal platted access on the Richardson.

Okay.

Red is Jim K. On.

So just remind me. I'm not this is all new. Which one's two a?

Here. I got

the the the long The

one with the con axis.

Yeah. Oh, I think if you could put that map. Can you put that map on the TV, Jared?

Yeah. That's that's got a highway. That's highway access. Okay. Unchanged.

Because and that's what I just wanted to because 2 A is the whole like, there's two C

That's half of

the whole property.

Then 2 A is the full length, right, to the highway.

Yes. Yeah. The the the a goes from Skidder to the highway. There's some access to that property. It's a shared access, actually, with the Kellers on the the border property line. We we share that.

Okay. From the highway?

From the highway. And and that's gonna be unchanged because that property is being unchanged. Yeah.

Can I ask another question? If, on two way, there was future of putting houses on there. Is that what that said, right? Is that for the whole, it looks like there was gonna be the goal was to put some houses on on there.

Maybe in in a in a dream conversation that we had earlier. Okay. Yeah. Nothing in the very near future.

Okay. So depending on what, the applicants decide to do for their development, further plotting could be or further subdivision could be required depending on how they decide to do it. You know, under the the new zoning code, there's different options for how they could do residential development at that site. But you you do see in the agenda statement that staff acknowledges that there is a known zoning violation at that property, which we've discussed at length with the McKays and a plan to correct that violation. It was existing prior to their ownership of the property. And so that that was you know, I'll let you speak to the details of your future development plan, but I did just want to acknowledge that it's called out in the agenda.

So the question.

Yeah. There's a bunch of ideas that we've been bouncing back and forth with residential style homes or condos or something. But it's it's right now, it's in the DreamWorks phase, and and nothing's nothing set in stone, but it's it's residential something is is is our plan whether, how that comes to shape and and how that comes to pass is is yet to be determined. But that's that's kind of our our goal.

Does that satisfy your curiosity or you have more questions?

Yeah. I I just thought it said something about that in here, and I was

It was mentioned. You're right. Mhmm.

Yeah. Okay. But we that doesn't really matter, I guess.

No. No. We're this is we have no conditions on this. We're just proving the flat. Yeah. It was

just kind of, like Yeah. Maybes. And then as far as the did you wanna speak to the zone the zoning of the that it wasn't I think prior to the new code, it wasn't, there was a violation, and currently, there's violation because it's connexes. Is that what it is?

Yeah. The go ahead. I think it's it's not the the conditions of the property aren't aren't conducive to storage. And so that's it's been like that for twenty years. Yeah. Herb built that out in the late nineties, early o's, and it's just that's what it's always been. And whether it went through the city for permitting or this or not, it's just we're kinda sitting on, like, what I would maybe like to refer to as grandfathered status. Thank

you very much.

But for we're looking to remediate that issue and whether it takes a couple years or a few years, but it's it's also there's the simple fact where that's a storage facility for, like, 60 or 70 homes, people, residents of LDs. Mhmm. There's no viable alternative. And so we also have to kinda keep that in mind because we can't just sell the Connex to the person, and they take it to their house because there's city ordinances against that. So it's gonna be a little touch and go for a little while, but I have to think outside the box maybe. But that's neither here nor there. But it's

When you say the property is not conducive to having the connex there

Can I just add a little bit of clarification?

Yeah. So a little better than

I did.

So this this issue was brought to staff's attention when, Jim and Magdalena McKay approached us to talk about their development plans. They had already acquired the property. So it wasn't we we previously hadn't identified it as a zoning violation, but in doing research in the zoning code, you know, we looked at the current zoning code that was updated a couple of years ago, and found that it was a violation. But in doing research, we determined that even under the old zoning code, it also was a violation. So in that way, it's not what we call a legal nonconforming use or what many people refer to as grandfathered because it it was a violation under the code when it was established.

You know, we did some research, and and like Jim said, it is a long standing use at that site. And I suspect, because RV and boat storage is a use that's conditionally allowed and can you know, it it may have started that way and kind of expanded with the. So, ultimately, you know, we talked with the applicants, and they said that it it was their plan to, in the next five years, to look at more residential uses. And so I think that's that's a good solution to try to correct the violation. So this was discussed during the rezone of the property, which now with the neighborhood mixed use zoning that they received a month or so ago, they have those options to pursue the development that they plan.

They also own a similar business in a different area where it is allowable zoning in an industrial area. And then additionally, as staff, we're we're evaluating, whether this is a potential use that might be appropriate to look at as a conditional use in this district, because RV and boat storage is a pretty similar use. But that is not, you know, that's not something that we've determined yet, and we're gonna be looking more broadly at the neighborhood mixed use district in general to determine if that's something that we want to propose to you all in city council to look at for an ordinance change. So, you know, there's not a clear there's not an exact timeline of this being corrected. But as staff, we are, you know, just hoping to work with the applicants to turn around this long standing issue.

I

guess if I could, for our purposes, is there any requirement in code that before a subdivision take place that property does be brought up to standards?

There's not a specific code requirement that says that you can't do There are requirements that staff provide you with information on the zoning, and so that's why it was laid out in the agenda statement for your awareness and and have that background information. But, the the preliminary plat that has been brought forward, staff recommends approval because it it meets the code requirements.

Very good. Thank you. Any other questions while the applicant's still up

here? No.

Thank you, Jim. Any other comments before we take a vote? I used to have one minor typo, and that's my name. It was two S two a's and and one s. That's the only thing I found. Everything else looks beautiful. It was very well done, much more detailed than we're accustomed to, and I like that. Makes it easier to see what's going on in in the owner's mind. So I appreciate the the surveyor going going the extra mile. Alright. Would you like to call the vote?

Sure. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Commissioner Wade, were you able to

Aye. Yeah.

Okay. Those opposed, please say nay. And with that, we have six yeas, one absent. Commissioner Moulton, motion carries.

Thank you. And reports, we have the community development director's report.

Yes. So I just have a brief update on the code revision projects that staff is working on. We're still working on title 15, which is the building code revision. So the the plan for that, just as a reminder, is that we're initially bringing forward the update to bring our codes from the 2009 international building code, residential code, and other associated code years up to the 2021 codes. And that's going to be a more straightforward update where we're bringing forward, for the international building code, which is adopted at the state level.

We'll be bringing forward all the state fire marshals amendments to that code as well as updates to our local amendments. In general, we're removing local amendments because many things that we had amended to change in the 2009 code have been addressed in the twenty twenty one codes, and our amendments are no longer necessary. There are some exceptions to that rule, so we'll have, detailed information for commission and city council who's, making the decision on any ordinance update and the public. So that will be coming forward in November and December before city council. Once I have more firm dates on that and the draft goes public, I'll make sure that commissioners are aware because you play an important role in that process serving as the board of appeals or building code appeals.

So we'll we'll keep you in the loop on that project. So that's the initial code update. And then we are working on a couple of building code related projects in the department that will come forward in subsequent updates. So we have an engineering form that's extending some of our tables for, the different, like, snow load, seismic, and, requirements like that where because of our location and our conditions in Alaska, we go beyond what's actually in the table prescriptive in the code book. And so we're working on an extension of that that we will likely work into our local amendments and codify it.

But regardless if of that process, it'll be a tool that's available for the building inspector and for the public who's navigating the building permit process. And then we're also looking at options for mobile home replacement, and we don't know exactly what that will look like. It's something that the Planning and Zoning Commission has talked about for many, many years, And it's there's a demand in our community. We hear from a lot of people that they would like to build something that's similar to a manufactured home, but they can't, you know, meet the HUD requirements to actually manufacture HUD manufactured homes. So, we're looking at what what it would take to develop our own local code that could be in our building code amendments that would give the inspector something to do plan reviews to and inspect based upon.

So though that's gonna take up quite a bit longer, which is why we're not gonna hold up the other building code update, but just so you know, those projects are in our long term plan. And then the other is the subdivision code that we briefly mentioned before. The Title 16 project is moving along. We had the joint work session with city council and got a lot of feedback that has been incorporated into the draft that we're working on. So just received our our first look at a draft from the consultant team that we're working with today.

So we're we're gonna be working that through staff and eventually a city attorney and city clerk's review before we bring that forward for your review and comments and city council, and we'll keep that moving through the process. And so we're hoping to have that on a similar timeline to the building code for adoption as well. Excellent. So we hope we hope to start the new year with new building codes and subdivision codes in place.

Very nice.

Yep. That's my update.

Great. Any questions? Alright. Okay. Commission business from the floor. We'll start down on the end. I've got nothing. Alright.

Yeah. I don't have anything. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you.

I don't have anything either.

I'm done. Alright.

Commissioner Wade.

I'm good. Thank you.

Bye. Thank you all for being here. Appreciate your time. We are adjourned.