Cordova: Planning Commission Public Hearing & Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, at 6:30 PM

Yeah, I turned— I muted it for a little bit. Okay, thanks.

Hey, um, this is the Planning Commission public hearing, Tuesday, October 13th. Um, call to order. Uh, roll call. Tanya Harrison absent. Uh, Mark Hall here.

Sarah Trumbly. Chris Rainey here. Gail Foody here.

Sean Denadel here. Christian Om here. That makes the quorum. This, uh, public hearing for the conditional use permit Attach accessory living quarters used for financial gain on tract A1 Scott subdivision.

Open to public comments. Is there anybody here?

Do it from right here. Um, light so she can hear it. Okay, where would you like me? Um, you could just—. Number 3?

Yeah, that works. Okay, thank you. Yeah, no problem.

Okay, so I quickly read through your packet. Um, if you want to state your name and your address for the record. Sure, my name is Jose Gonzalez, my address is 96 First Street.

And you can go ahead. Okay, um, so I noted in here that you're going to require him to be on city services, um, water, sewage, and refuge, which is great. Our concern, living where we're at, we've seen it firsthand over the last couple of years. He just— give you a perfect example. Just the other day, we videotaped him with our home ring cameras with a bucketload of white trash bags on the front of his loader, which is a full-size loader, dumping them off the cliff to Fleming Creek, down into Fleming Creek.

And then dumping dirt on top. Numerous pictures of trash being dumped down into Fleming Creek. Um, his sewage was being dumped into Fleming Creek originally when he started setting up this cabin. I contacted the city, um, they stopped him from dumping it openly into Fleming Creek and out into the water. So I just ask that if this does get approved, that, um, you continue to be diligent about watching his waste, uh, sewage, um, and garbage, because if he's going to be renting and creating more sewage and more waste— and I've seen it firsthand over the last couple years of what he does with it— so he doesn't have to pay, you know, actually bill.

That is detrimental to our waterways and our community. Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Well, Gary, um, I'm going to put us on recess for 5 minutes if somebody else comes in. So we're recessed.

Meeting back to order. Is there any other public comments?

Not hear none.

Call to for adjournment of the public meeting hearing. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. And moving on, like to call to order the Planning Commission regular meeting, Tuesday, October 13th, 2026. Uh, call for, uh, roll call. Tanya Harrison. Here.

Mark Hall. Here. Sarah Trumpling. Here. Chris Rainey.

Here. Gail Booty. Here. John Denadel. Here.

Christian Elm. Here. That's a quorum.

Um, approval of the agenda. I move to approve the agenda. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Uh, approval of consent calendar.

Mr. Chair? Sir? I move to approve the consent calendar.

I second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Okay, correspondence. Um, there Oh, you missed—. You missed number 5. Oh, disclosure of conflicts of interest and ex parte communications.

Oh boy, anybody here other than me?

Okay, um, being a former land surveyor, um, I've been asked to review preliminary plots and the, um, adminis— of the administrative And this was originally submitted as administrative plat, and therefore I have more knowledge of it, but it's only from a review standpoint as a surveyor and a platting, somewhat of an expert. Um, I don't know if that is a conflict of interest or not. Yeah, retired, retired surveyor. Surveyor.

It's up to Tanya and the Commission to decide that.

So, Tanya, do you have any issues? I, I don't think I have any issues there. I mean, like I say, yours is not— they said the $10,000 of direct financial gain. I don't see that. And in general, I feel like your experience has been helpful in these matters.

I don't think that having expertise is the same thing as conflict of interest. Okay, we're good. Gail, do you have any comments on that? No, I think this is a good thing.

Okay, then I'm going to let Tanya rule on it.

I think she said she didn't have an issue. I, I, I don't have an issue. No, I, I don't, I don't see any conflict there. Okay, moving on. Correspondence.

Um, there is a letter. I don't know if Tanya and Gail got it from the Department of Natural Resources concerning, um, Mr. Scott's conditional use permit. Did you guys— did they get sent? They didn't get it. I can forward it to you now though.

Um, basically they have other issues, but, um, they don't have an issue with this.

But is However, due to the proximity of the proposed use of the state land, our office notes that should Mr. Scott conduct any further unauthorized use of state land, such as the placement of buildings or personal belongings, those items and/or structures may be placed in trespass and removed by our office. So And then there was another letter from surveyor. That's—. It's just the— it's just this lot that's bigger. And then the surveyor sent, um, a letter that was forwarded to the Planning Commission as he requested.

That English? No, that was just forwarded to the Planning Commission as you requested. Okay, so that's all the correspondence. Um, communications by and petitions from visitors. We have no guest speakers.

Audience comments regarding agenda items.

Wish to speak again or add more to it?

No. Okay, hearing none, move on. Um, planner's report. Once again, Gary Durham.

Any questions? We'll start with Sean. No, no questions in the finance board. No questions. No questions.

No questions. Gail? No questions. Anya? Uh, no, not at this time, thanks.

Okay, then moving on because I have no questions. Unfinished business? None solicited. Um, new business? Or there's no unfinished, so there's new business.

Information, US Army Corps of Engineers public notice period for the 18 Mile Rehabilitation Project proposed by the United States Forest Service.

Not sure what we're supposed to do with this. It's, it's just for informational purposes, so, um, if anyone has any questions on the project, I might have an answer, but, um, it's What we received is, is what's in the packet. They want to do a realignment to the 18 Mile Road. And they're going to reclaim some of the river crossings and I believe put in culverts and they're right now currently there's river crossings into salmon spawning streams and so they're trying to make it so that's not occurring on that road. So, yeah, I had a, just a small clarification.

Okay. So, on the plans, it listed having a quarry back there. That's just the quarry for doing this project. That's not a larger installation. I am not sure.

Yeah, I'm not sure on that part of the quarry. I just know about the road realignment. I was just wondering if this was a project in, like, as a aim for some larger project, or if it was a standalone project. I believe that in the future what they would like to do is possibly put a cabin out there and then reach, come into Boulder Alley and then be able to access more Forest Service land later on in the future, kind of clean up the Boulder Alley Road and make it more, more drivable for more vehicles. Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Anybody else have any questions? Questions or comments for the planner on this?

Don, Donia, or Gail? No, no, I'm good. Okay, then I'm going to move on to the conditional use permit, detached accessory living quarters used for financial gain on Tract A1. Scott subdivision.

Mr. Chair, sir, I move to approve the conditional use permit for the detached accessory living quarters to be used for financial gain on Tract A1, Scott subdivision, submitted by Dan and um, Debbie Scott, and to adapt and incorporate findings and conditions of approval within the staff report.

I'll second it. This is Gail.

Um, open it for discussion. Your motion. Okay. Um, yeah, this is the kind of, um, move that we have historically been trying to encourage. Um, not necessarily the short-term rental market, but, uh, just increase, uh, use of properties around town.

I think some very valid, uh, criticisms have been stated, uh, both, um, officially by the state and by neighbors in the area.

I definitely do think that it's a priority to keep an eye on, but that is an enforcement branch, not an issuing issue. So, yeah, I think that so long as the conditions are adhered to, then I would go for it. Gail, do you second? Yeah, I like us to be able to stand up and move on things that need to be addressed. And if the things are addressed, then yay, we've just had a little practice and a positive outcome.

Sean, um, I mean, based on what the Public Works and the state are requesting to see, and I don't see the applicant here, um, I actually would not move to approve this. I would voted down. Um, I think if they were here, it would be better to hear from them how they were going to try to meet this conditional use permit and also adhere to the sewer and wastewater, like, the, the state and city laws. So, um, yeah, I would say no.

I guess I just am concerned with the conditions of approval, that, um, that they would be able to adhere to those. Those are pretty big, pretty big conditions, and if those can be met, then I would not have an issue, um, approving it, because it is— that is what we have been saying, is we want more, um, more rentals and places for people to, to grow their property and for more sales tax and things like that. But, um, yeah, I, I do wish that they were here so that they could maybe speak on some of the, the issues that are at hand.

I'm undecided at this time.

Um, I'm a little bit at a disadvantage here because I was really struggling to get the Zoom, so I missed whatever comments may have been said during the public hearing. Um, and so I'm not sure if there was, you know, a whole lot of people who showed up in opposition to this or not. Um, so I am not the best informed, but overall I would say that there sounds like there have been a number of pretty serious concerns with this property, both with the sewer and in building without a permit. And, um, I, I guess I, I'm not opposed to, um, conditional use permits for accessory dwellings. Again, we seem to always be doing this with people who want to do short-term rentals, you know, fishing season.

I'm guessing this is going to be another Airbnb, not really the housing issue that we're trying to address. Um, but I, I also am a little bit uncomfortable with the number of issues that there are, and, and in the application, there's very little description. You know, it's not a whole lot of information to go on. So, um, I suppose I could be convinced, but I would like to hear from the rest of the commission. I'm not super comfortable with it from what I can glean from the packet.

And, um, like I say, I missed the public hearing, so I definitely want to make that clear. I was not able to hear if any comments were made during that time. We—. So we had a neighbor, um, talk at the public hearing, José Gonzales, at 96 First Street. Um, he was concerned about, uh, the neighbor putting white trash bags into Fleming Creek and dumping dirt on top of them, and sewage, um, coming from the septic of the cabin into the creek.

Those were his main concerns.

Did I already get Gail?

I'm still in support of this. I think it, to me, outlines It's just kind of clear to me that, uh, we need to set some boundaries so that people know where they are. And if we end up doing things that, you know, let's not overstep, but let us, let us step up to stuff like this early. And often in the leftmost, uh, efficient touch. But part of what we're doing is protecting of the future use of the land in our jurisdiction.

7, Public Works staff assessment. Big one, go ahead. The applicants report that both single-family home and cabin are on septic systems. Public Works staff spoke with the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and found the septic systems were not approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. The city Public Works Department has sent a notice that applicants must comply with connecting to the city water and sewer services per CMC Municipal City Municipal Code 14.08.030 and City Municipal Code 14.12.180.

These codes require that structures built on a property must connect to city water and sewer service when a water and sewer main is located within 150 feet of a lot that adjoins the right-of-way. The closest water and sewer main is approximately 60 to 100 feet from the subject property. City code requires the applicant to connect within 90 days of the provided notice. Based on the date the notice was provided, the applicant must connect to the city water and sewer services on or before November 2nd, 2026. Yeah, uh, that is one of the conditions of approval, uh, in order for this to be granted, they have to do that.

Yeah, that— yeah, that is Uh, on page 8 and 9, um, condition 5. Yeah, and actually conditions of approval number 8 right there. So, um, I'd add that—. I, I do. Oh, you did?

I do. Sorry. No, you're good. Oh, okay. Sorry, I just Currently, I am opposed to the approval of this.

There's a few reasons for that. Uh, namely, uh, seems like the building itself was built without a permit, and it is currently being used without the, uh, conditional use permit. Uh, seems like for the— the building permit has been submitted, but for that to be approved, it would require the conditional use permit to be approved.

1St. Is it—. Am I correct in that? Yeah, that's correct. Um, that alongside with— I again wish they were here to tell us if they had completed it or not.

November 2nd is coming up quite soon. Yeah. And without verification of that, I don't quite feel comfortable. So these would be the first steps to compliance The building already exists. It's already against the zoning code.

A conditional use permit would be the first step to bringing that building into compliance with the zoning code. And then if you do put these conditions on it, if somebody is in— does not meet the conditions of approval, they're in conflict with the permit that's already provided. And so, there, there's a way to go back and make sure that they do come into compliance with that, or that easier than a fine. There are fines in the city code for noncompliance with conditional use permits. So that would be the first the first kind of step to take if, uh, for some reason these conditions were violated?

It's a chicken and the egg issue. Um, we would issue a conditional use permit with nothing there, and it would require this stuff to be done before they can get the final permit. It's a conditional use, and they jumped the gun by building a building without water and sewer. Um, it's one of those things, if I was going to do this, I really would need this permit prior to know I can do it. Um, there's no sense in going ahead and cooking up— going to the effort right now of putting in the water and sewer if we're not going to approve a permit for it.

So that's where approving this conditional— there's conditions to it. They would have to meet these conditions before it's an authorized use. It's the way I read it, but our planner may have a different That's—. Yeah, that's correct. So if we don't approve this, then they can't do anything.

They have to tear the building down or do something.

So all we're doing is saying you're going to hook at the water soon, you're going to come into compliance, or it's going to get yanked. And they've got until November 2nd to get this done, which there's projects sitting right now on existing roads that aren't getting done. So, water sewer project. So, so if we were to approve this today and they did not meet those conditions by the previously stated November 2nd, what would be involved? Is that a revocation of the approval, or is—.

Um, so there would be different enforcements, uh, for the code that we can, we can pursue at that point. So, but it is that November 2nd deadline. It's not a different deadline. Yeah, it's what's in, in here, the conditions of approval, because that's what the motion that's before the commission right now is. Um, let's see, uh, the motion is, I move to approve the conditional use permit for the detached accessory living quarters to be used for financial gain on track A-1 Scott subdivision submitted by Dan and Debbie Scott, and to adopt and incorporate the findings and conditions of approval within the staff report.

So the— with the findings, and then also those conditions of approval in, uh, Section 8. Have they been told about these, um, these conditions? No, I mean, they like the, um Public Works, the Public Works staff stated, you know, that they have told them by November 2nd they must be connected to city water and sewer per code. They do know about that timeline, um, and they do know about the septic, so they have— they are aware of those things. They, they don't—.

Or they—. I'm sure I've emailed them the packet, so they do have this information. Um, but it is up to the commission what conditions of approval that they put on this permit and what findings go for them.

So, this is Tanya here on the phone. Um, one thing that stood out to me a little bit in this is that, um, You know, on page 6, it says the cabin is currently being used for gain as a short-term rental. So, you know, this applicant built this structure without getting a building permit, without getting a conditional use permit, and normally, you know, review of things like the septic, that all would have been caught at that time. Um, Now there is a septic system that sounds like isn't working very well. Now we have contaminated property.

Um, how many years? It doesn't say when the structure was built. At least, I believe it was the May that it started going up and then July, I think, when it was completed. Yeah. Uh, which page did you say that, uh, that was on?

I didn't see that information in there, but I could have overlooked it. But I did not see a date of, you know, how long this building has existed. Um, because on page 11 it says the cabin was built for family and friends. We are looking into renting this cabin for the fishing season, possibly, right? But it doesn't say when the cabin was built.

Yeah, another thing to note is if it was built for family and friends, but But they're renting it, or gaining— that's—. That's what the conditional permit is for, a rental cabin versus— yeah, you could put a shed up on property without a conditional use permit.

I guess we're a little bit saying it's okay to put the horse before the putting the cart before the horse, right? Because, like, I understand that the granting conditional use permit is the way forward, and I understand that. I'm just not— it does seem a little bit like there could potentially been a period of time here where this has been a problem, and I'm a little uncomfortable, I guess, with the conditions of approval, um, making sure that the city has a means of making sure that there is compliance and recouping whatever, you know, perhaps there was lost revenue to the city. There's a lot of— there's a lot outside of the commission's role in here to unpack. I'm assuming Amanda's on that, but I just— it's definitely not cut and dry.

Clear.

Are you? Are you back? Okay. So up to this point, there have been enforcement actions that have already occurred and got them to submit the conditional use permit application and the building permit. Um, so that's why we're here today is to bring them into compliance.

So they are trying to comply at this point because of the enforcement that's already occurred. Um, and this, if this conditional use permit gets passed, there will be, um, it will be a tool to be able to use for enforcement into the future. So. Yeah, and, uh, just to be clear, if we were to vote it down, we would have to be disagreeing with one of the criterion decided on by staff and those defining that. Yes, you would have to come up with your— you would have to amend the motion.

You would have to come up with your own findings, um, and as a commission agree to them to then vote this down. Yes.

Yes. So I think of— if we are wanting to amend that, I think the criterion that, uh, is the one that we're talking about is criterion 5, that it actually affects the public safety, health, and general welfare. And, uh, my argument in favor is that this is a mechanism for preserving the public health and general welfare because it is a manner of enforcing compliance where they have to hook up with the— with the septic is the primary.

I guess my understanding is regardless of whether they get the conditional use permit, they have to hook up to the city sewer.

Yeah, if they want to use the building.

So if, if we want them to be using the building for any, for any purposes, then they have to hook up with the sewer.

They don't— was that part of the building permit, is to hook up to the water and sewer? So they can't be issued a building permit until they have a conditional use permit. So this— yeah, they have. And also to point out, they have already paid fines for this noncompliance and are trying to bring it into compliance. There are additional conditions you could approve this under if there's additional conditions that you would like for them to meet as well.

So is that something you wanted to look into? You can do that, or, um, as we discussed, change the findings. I mean, I feel like the condition of approval is that, like, unless they meet those first two conditions, they shouldn't be able to rent the unit to anyone for financial gain. Yeah, it's not an occupiable building.

They can't get the building permit until they get this. Oh yeah, is it, is it within our power to ask them to get their trash out of Plumbing Creek? Because that is actually quite awful down there. Um, I mean, I can bring it up to the Public Works Director and the refuse superintendent and, uh, talk to them, uh, as well as DEC about any additional, um, things they can do for enforcement of that. So is that something that we could tack on to this, or is that a separate issue?

Um, we— uh, it would be something that would need further investigation, and I can bring up with the Public Works Director, um, and see what's in, uh, what the code allows us to require. I would be in favor of approval with an extra condition that they have to clean up their trash that they have previously dumped, if that is something that we could do that. Um, I— let me ask my phone a friend. On some level, uh, our approval feels like condoning this previous behavior. Um, but ultimately, ultimately, you know, that's not—.

Better to ask forgiveness than to get denied. But I do think there should be some accountability for—. Yes, well, they've been paying fines. Since it's not part of the findings of Um, of the conditional use permit, we can look into it further for code, um, like in code compliance sections with the public works director. But I don't know that we can make it a condition of approval.

I think that would apply to anybody doing the same thing anywhere. It has nothing to really do with this unless we want to use it as a hammer to make them do it. But that's not what this is for. This is to allow a structure for a round. That's what you've got, a limited function here.

That's the unfortunate thing. Um, my one comment that I want to put to staff is when you get these, kick it back and get a sketch so we know what we're looking at, because I have no idea where these buildings are up there. In the relationship. There's, there's the original plat, which we spent years when I first spent— got here on trying to get that subdivision. That took—.

That was a nightmare. Um, but where is this relationship to the other building? The—. Yeah, and so it— they have, I believe it's 22 acres there, right? Um, and I did receive the building— I did receive a, a building permit, um, but I did not include the image here.

It's—. If you look on page— let's see, uh, page 14, um, there's, there's a lot within the boundaries of this lot.

Yes, um, it's in front of that in this, in this wider— it looks like a pullout section of—. So it's, it's all the way up? Yeah. Yes. Oh, that would get the water and sewer up to that lot there.

So reality, they should have had water and sewer. Did they ever get a building permit for that?

Cabin on that lot? Um, I believe so. It's, uh, the owners are here today.

I can answer that if that's allowed. Okay. Um, no, he did not ever get a permit for it. He did not put in a legal septic. We did not know that until after we purchased the home.

Um, and so we had to clean that all up and put in an incinerator system because it's too close to the water to legally put a subject there without a whole lot of finagling. So yeah, and I would like to also point out that it has been happening all summer long. We've seen vehicles out there from the Science Center, Alaska Airlines, and nobody knows that it's not legal. I mean, they see a rental available during a tough time to find housing, and it's not their fault, but they've been renting that, and I'm assuming not paying taxes on the income. So just so that you're aware.

Also, going back to the trash—. Okay, yeah, there's, there's a lot. There, there is another chance, I think, at the very end to add more comments after the end of the meeting. Yeah, we have audience comments at the very end. Thank you.

Hi, I guess I'm just— this is Tanya. Listening to these comments, it sounds like I'm hearing a lot of similar things from many of the commission members, that there are things about this conditional use application that are concerning. Um, but I think everyone's understanding that this conditional use permit is an attempt of— as a means of moving forward. Um, but I suppose I would almost wonder if it would be worthwhile if this went back to staff and we got a little bit better, um, application from the applicant with some drawings. What does the structure look like?

We would have gotten those had this been done the correct way, where you do the conditional use permit first and then you build your structure, right? And so, just because the building exists already, we're gonna let that slide. I, I guess I wonder if it would be possible if this got referred back to staff, we get a little bit more information. At that point, we will have passed the November second deadline, which is a deadline outside of this conditional use permit that has to happen regardless.

And if that has been complied with already, that also makes this a lot more palatable.

That sounds reasonable. So there's a deadline on a conditional use permit application. The commission does need to make a decision decision. I believe it's 30 days from receiving the application, um, so we wouldn't have that time frame. If you did refer this back to me, um, it would need to come back in front of the commission before that 30-day timeline, so we would hold a special meeting.

Um, let's see when they submitted the application.

Was on, uh, 9/17, so we would need to hold another meeting before that time frame and notice it for the conditional use permit, which doesn't allow us enough time to do that. So, um, okay, understood.

We can't just disapprove it, or do we have to have a reason to disapprove it? You have to have a reason for disapproving it, and you need to change— you would need to change your findings. But, um, you know, like I said, they, they've paid fines, they're trying to come into compliance. This is what, um, the path forward that they need to do is complete a conditional use permit application first. And then, um, if they are granted one, then they can, um, comply with the building permit.

So this is the start of, of those things coming into compliance if you agree to that. Um, Do we want to approve it, or does somebody want to make a motion to reject it for a certain reason and come up with the wording for reason?

If you want, we can take a recess if that helps. Um, Anyone? I, I could be in favor of approving this only as a means of, you know, making sure that there is compliance. But I think, you know, for the record, this is not how things should be done, and, um, it creates an awful lot of challenges for the community and for the city. Um, so it's, it's, it's definitely not done lightly.

I think ultimately, unless someone has another opinion, we don't have exactly concrete grounds to disapprove this at the moment. Um, and just because few of us may be uncomfortable with the approval of it does not mean that it doesn't meet the requirements. And stagnating this may not be the best move. Madam Chair, I move to approve the conditional use permit for the detached accessory living quarters to be used for financial gain on Track A1, Scott Subdivision, submitted by Dan and Debbie Scott, and to adopt and incorporate findings and conditions of approval within the staff report.

That—. I think that's what we've already been— okay, great. Yeah, I'm just trying to move it along. Yeah, okay, let's go. Um, yeah, I'm ready for us to call the question.

All right, I'll call the question.

Um, all those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Motion passes.

I like an insert. We'll move on. Um, we're now going to look at, um, where is final plat here?

Um, do I have a recommendation on this final plat, or do we just—.

There's a motion, there's a suggested motion in there. Yeah, uh, Madam Chair, I, I move to recommend to the city council approve the final plat submitted by Drew Lindau at Critical Geo creating Jensen and Nolan subdivision, and to adopt and incorporate findings of recommend approval within the staff report.

Hear your motion. Um, I think that the, the surveyor met with the homeowners and replatted, or like, you know, reviewed all the boundary lines, and I don't think anybody has any issues with what Drew found. Um, not a big— uh, so yeah, I think pretty straightforward.

You second? I did. Same. I think it's pretty cut and dry. Third?

Yeah, I agree. Uh, unless, uh, yeah, I think it looks fine. I concur. Gail? Yep, I'm all ready to vote for it.

Tanya? Yep, I had no issues.

Well, I can move forward with this. Um, being a professional surveyor that used to review these plats for years under different standards, state standards and other borough standards, There are some what I would consider deficiencies, but it's not in our code, so I don't think you should hold it up. Um, but a couple of things that are going to make it hard for the owners are additional paperwork. There is one owner certificate with 3 different owners, so those 3 different owners own the whole thing. Not a portion of it.

If they added a— like for, um, Nolan Trustee, Lot 3241, whatever that person is going to own or whatever they did own, that cleans it up. It can be done with title documents after the fact, but once we approve this plat, those owners owned all of this together.

That's just a technical issue. Um, it probably would get overlooked, um, but it, it's a title issue, and that was one of the things the state were really strong on. Um, there's other minor stuff, but, uh, the, the vicinity sketch was turned into vicinity map The big issue I have with it, there's no scale, no north arrow, but it was originally a sketch and we really don't call for vicinity map. That will change when we redo the subdivision code, that it actually states it'll— what it has to. Um, the biggest thing is the section line actually goes north-south through the hospital, so that keeps it all in the proper section, in Section 27, as he has it listed.

That was my one thing. I was—. I spent an hour looking for it this morning trying to figure out, well, what section is it really in? Because there's nowhere in here where— that's what the vicinity map really does, give you where is it in relation to stuff. Um, but we don't have requirements on this, so we can't— I would— if he hasn't already created the mylar, if he could just throw the section line in there, just any source for this, which her little, uh, parcel viewer is just perfect.

That's exactly what needs to be used and just say, see, your parcel viewer is the source, uh, at whatever scale it puts it in at. But we don't have that requirement, so we can't enforce it on this plat. Um, there's other minor technical stuff, but that's only because it, it does meet our current requirements as is. So I wouldn't deny it, but I wouldn't sign it as a surveyor.

So, but I'll let Connie sign the plat approval for, uh, for, um, chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She gets to sign this one.

Okay, any other additional comments?

Well, I have a question about that. It seems like it would be very helpful for the owners to add that stuff to it. Is there a way we can delay the vote on this and then let them put that in? You would have to find— you would have to go through the findings and make different findings than what are before the commission.

Um, everything that is on there would have to be, um, cited by code. Oh, okay. Well, then I just ready to vote for, for it then. That would be— owners could say, hey, can you add this to it? And I don't know if we would need to resee it with a minor edit.

If the owners were the ones that wanted to do that, um, we would have to—. We would have to bring any edit back before the commission. So we can't approve this, let's say, the recommendation that the, the final copy before it gets signed by the council, City Council, has that addition made to it? Um, you would have to change the findings and reject it for a reason under the code. And then make suggestions for code requirements, which this meets all of the code requirements that we have currently.

So we have no choice but— yeah, okay. Yeah. Yeah, I guess what I'm hearing out of this is that we may need to revisit our code to make these plats more consistent and to make that enforceable. But as it is right now, even though this is a sub— I guess a substandard plat, or that, you know, Commissioner Hall has found some deficiencies with it, it does still meet our code. Is that what I understand you saying, Mark?

It meets our code requirements. Our code, I believe, is from the 1980s, and so it is due for an update. I believe since our city manager was planner, she's been calling for the request to fund code updates for the subdivision code, the zoning code, and the building and construction code, and the building and construction code. Was funded for an update in 2022. So that was a complete overhaul.

We are working on trying to bring a code update in front of the commission, but that takes a lot of time. So we're, we're, we're not quite ready to bring that forward yet. However, we are working on one.

Okay, um, unless somebody wants to amend it, uh, do we want to call for the motion?

Hearing no objections, I'll call for the motion to approve as is. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Aye. All right, motion approved. It's been noted, so the owners do know, um, and it's up to them if they want to delay it more. And I think that now brings us to any additional audience comments at this time. About any and everything.

That's bad. I want to talk to— okay, uh, Commissioner, comments, sir? Um, yeah, no, uh, it's always interesting to have, uh, rowdy discussion in the meeting, so, uh But I'm glad that we were all able to come together to have good discussions. And thank you, Amanda, for putting together a good packet. Thanks.

Kristen? No comments. John? No comments.

Yeah, Sarah? Thanks, Amanda, for the packet. Thanks. Gail? Yeah, and thank you for adding that last one.

I got it in the email and it helped me. Quite a bit. Thank you very much. Thank all of you guys for coming to the table on a Tuesday.

Uh, thank you, Commissioner Hall, for chairing as I'm out of town, and, um, good discussion, everybody. And thanks to Amanda. And that's all I have. I just want to add the one reason I'm on this commission was I saw the deficiencies when I got here in the subdivision code, and that's the main reason I'm still here on the commission. So once we fix it, I may be gone.

I'll still be here, and I'm still willing to, uh, review, but then I can review them as just a, a friend of the city versus a Commissioner. So, uh, call for adjournment. Mr. Chair, sir, all those in favor, aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you, ladies.

Thank you, folks.