Seward: P&Z Regular Meeting 9/1/2026

I'm—. I'm—. I call this one September 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Commissioner Charbonneau. Can you do this in the pledge?

Pledge of Allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay, Miss Clerk, can we get a roll call? Roll call for tonight's meeting.

Charbonneau? Here. Verhey? Here. Hornseth?

Excused. Not here. Excused. Excused. Sitra?

Here. Hubbard? Here. Wilder is excused. And Chair Sullivan?

Here. You have a quorum. Great, thank you very much. Okay, I'll move on to the next thing as we have citizens' comments on any subject except those items for public hearing. We have 4 items for public hearing, so any of the things other than those.

Time is limited to 3 minutes per speaker, and we have a total of 36 minutes total time for this agenda item. Miss Clerk, is there anybody signed in?

There is no one signed in. Okay, does anybody out there want to talk about anything other than non-generate public hearing items? No? Okay, we'll drive on. Okay, fifth item is approval of the agenda and consent agenda.

Um, I will need a motion and a second, please. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda. Okay, I'll second. Okay, are there any changes to the agenda and consent agenda? No?

Okay, Ms. Clerk, can we have a roll call on the Agenda, please. Voting on the approval of the agenda and the consent agenda. Sharbonneau? Yes.

Sittra? Yes. Hubbard? Yes. Fairhay?

Yes. And Chair Sullivan? Yes. The consent agenda and agenda has been approved, and approved on the consent agenda are the approval of August 4th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes. Great, thank you very much.

Okay, following that, I'll move on to special orders, presentations, and reports. We don't have any special orders or presentations at this time, but We do have a report by Community Development. I will turn that over to Community Development. Thank you, Chair Sullivan. Uh, just a couple quick ones.

Our office has been partnering with Parks and Rec to get the Jesse Lee home property up and running. Um, and so our office has been working with Metco to kind of get the ground laid, then Parks and Rec is going to take it over here shortly to start developing the park side. And so we're kind of at that in-between point where Metco's about wrapped up with their work. So if you haven't been up there, just encourage you to go check it out. So I'm excited to see where that goes.

I know I've mentioned this before and I put it in my city manager reports, but the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission still has a Seward-specific seat on their planning commission that is available. And in a recent conversation I had with the planning director and other planners from around the area, there's talk about taking that designation away from Seward. So, uh, trying to do another big push to see if anyone out there is interested. So if you know folks, yeah, let them know, and we're going to kind of try and spread the word as well. 'Cause I'd love to see that spot stay with Seward.

I put out an inquiry to see if we can expand it to maybe the Seward area as a middle opportunity, 'cause I think we could get some interest there, but I'm still waiting to hear back from that request. So, um—. Can you confirm the scheduling and place? Is it always over in Kenai? Uh, I don't know.

I think it's a virtual—. Yeah, I'm not sure actually on that one. I think it's typically over in Soldotna. Yeah, it's choice. It used to go virtually from time to time.

You can do virtual because if that's really emphasized, I'm sure you might get more interest because people shy away from, you know, traveling on the roads during the winter. They wouldn't want to do that. Yeah, agreed. Any commissioners, any other questions? I do have one.

Can you give me a thumbnail sketch on exactly what do they— what does a SEWERD representative over there do? What do they do above? Do they review our plats or re-plats or what? Yeah, I don't know too many specifics, so I would imagine it's similar to this, this commission. In terms of just more borough-wide decisions that you're making, and then you're kind of making the final decision of things like PLATS versus where you are making kind of a recommendation that gets sent to the, to the borough.

Okay, good. Thanks. Okay, well then, if that's the case, if nobody has anything else, I'll move on to the public hearing. Is that it? I interrupted you and I wasn't sure if you were finished with your report.

Yep, yep. Yeah, he was. Yeah. Okay, all right, then I will have—. We don't have any other reports and announcements or presentations I'm aware of.

So we'll move on to the public hearings on that. We have 4 items for public hearing tonight, and the first one is Resolution 2026-0010. Ms. Clerk, could you read that into the record? Resolution 2026-010 of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Seward, Alaska, granting Tomix Lorcher a variance from the front yard setback requirement in the Seward City Code 15.10.220 reducing the required setback from 20 feet to 10 feet for the properties located at 1600 and 1602 Harold Avenue in the single-family residential R-1 zoning district.

Okay, great. And before we go any further, since this is a quasi-judicial resolution, I'd like to ask if any of the commissioners need to disclose any conflict of interest or have any ex parte communication on this item, or if anyone sees this to disqualify a commissioner from participating in decision on the basis of perceived conflict of interest or which has not been declared. So does anybody have any conflicts of interest or anything else like that? Okay, good. All right, with that then, I will go ahead and move forward, and I will need a motion and a second, please.

I'll make the motion to approve Resolution 2026-010. Second. I'll second. Okay, thanks, Beth Navanessa. Um, administration.

Thank you, guys. I'll provide an overview of this application. If the commission turns to page 19 of the packet, you'll see an area Aerial imagery of this property kind of helps to give you an idea of what's happening on the ground a little bit. So this is an area within Seward that was platted historically and for whatever reason those historical plats didn't take into consideration very well the topography of the land. And so Harold Avenue is a public right-of-way that was platted, however, it's platted right on a steep mountainside slope.

You can see on The next page, page 20, that top picture kind of shows where some ground has been excavated, and that edge of the hill there is the rear property boundary. So Harold Avenue, the road, would essentially be that steep hillside. Of course, anything's feasible with enough money, right? A road could be put in there, but not, um, not something likely that wouldn't happen in concealed to ever develop that right-of-way. However, given the requirements in code, the front setback is calculated from the platted right-of-way, which is Harold Avenue.

And so technically, any development on that lot should be placed 20 feet back from Harold Avenue, um, whereas the alley, which is also not developed, would most likely, if it was developed in the future, be the primary access to that property. And so the applicant is just requesting to essentially switch those setbacks. But he's requesting a variance from the front yard setback so he can have 10 feet back from Harold Avenue and then put the 20 feet, um, on his— the back of his property, the rear of his property, which is adjacent to the alley. So you get a better image of this if you turn to page 25. You can see a site plan of his proposed development there.

Chiswell Street is listed there. It's not technically It is the alley, just want to clarify that. Um, but yeah, so the proposed single-family dwellings would be placed at the logistical rear of the property adjacent to Harold Avenue, which will not be developed, leaving the greater setback there at what will be utilized most likely as the front of the property. Um, currently has As you can see in the pictures that were taken of the site on page 20, since the alley is undeveloped, the applicant is proposing to develop a driveway that would access the properties from Iowak Street. And so the driveway would access both of the properties, which we've addressed with him, the, the need potentially in the future then for him to create an access easement for that second property, or to either combine the two lots into one lot.

But that can all be be taken care of internally and after the development. Yes. So on page 20, just so I can get a frame of reference, the stuff that is on that area, is that on his property now, or the one that the, the 1600, the addresses that we're talking about? Um, so yeah, there, yeah, that angle of the picture doesn't accurately show exactly where the alley is. It just gives the general idea.

The other items that are encroaching within the alleyway, and that's also been addressed with the applicant that when the alley is developed, any of those encroachments would need to be removed. But any proposed development on the property, the properties in question of the variance, 1600 and 1602 Herald Avenue, will be— the development will be within the property boundaries. 1601, Is that where the cat is placed right now? Is that what we're seeing? 1601 Is—.

That would be 1600.

See, the cat's like right here, sitting right here. Okay, is that on 1601 for this picture right here? So 1601 is on the other side of the west side of the cat right now. Um, 1601 is on the, on the east side of the undeveloped alley. The undeveloped alley.

Okay. Yeah, yeah, not pictured in the—. Okay, picture. You're referring to the 1601 where the home— where there's a dwelling already built? Is that what you're asking?

It's blank. It's the city Oh, I see, I see, I see what you're saying. Yeah, so that would be further— that would be on the other side of Harold Avenue, so further up the hill. Yeah, sorry. So yeah, in that, in that picture would be past the— it would just be on the top picture, it would be further past the, uh, that rear property boundary, 80 feet further up the hill.

Okay, Harold Avenue is running north and south, right? And it's all the way at the end. Yeah, on the street, if you take a look at the On page 19, you could get a better feel for it, I think. Yeah. Is this Harold Avenue?

Yeah. This is Harold Avenue. This is Harold Avenue right here. Right, yeah. It says 1601.

These are the two lots here. And that cat picture would be approximately right here where that— and then the alley. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Looking kind of north.

Exactly, yes. West-ish. No problem. Okay, so conditions to this variance. There are no utilities to the site, and so prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant is going to be required, of course, to coordinate with Public Works and the Electric Department to determine the appropriate locations for those, for those utilities.

And then the applicant is required to ensure that each dwelling is appropriately, appropriately addressed and signed so that there's no issues with emergency response being able to access those properties. And then I'm just receiving the proper approval by the Public Works Department for the private driveway access. Well, that's that. I think that's good as far as, you know, some form of development there. It has absolutely nothing.

You've got a grassy alley and a grassy road, and so he's just trying to develop it to begin some sort of development on Harold Avenue and possibly down the road might be helping other people eventually build something there at some point in time. The, you know, given the fact that he's sort of reversing his property with the frontage, I said, you know, I think it actually widens the area where you actually have some sort of a street, so it actually separated further than than if you had the frontage, the, uh, on the other side for the 20— the 10 feet versus the 20 feet. So you're gonna have better separation.

I have any questions? Okay. Um, yeah, I have a couple issues with it. Um, well, one, the variance is like very specific and unique and kind of tends to set a precedent for things, so I don't— I'm not very fond of them myself. But in this particular one, it seems that it would be almost— instead of switching the property, then having a potentially small street on one side, would it— and resource management being, which is 1601, which I'm assuming is steep as well, is why it's resource management and it's not, not, um, a privately owned piece of land.

It seems like the proper way is to just vacate the, um, Herald Avenue section. If you vacated Herald Avenue section and basically took over that section, and then Chiswell could be wider— be wider. Or if Iowak was going to be the main street, which is problematic because there's two lots side by side that have to have easement across, which is a nightmare for the person on the other side. Yeah, because you can't get to it. You can't get to it.

So it just But you're not going to get rid of Harold Avenue. You're just saying eliminate Harold Avenue. We vacated streets before that can't be built. It can't be built on, and there isn't any public property on the other side of it, and there's no way to use that property in the future to say, oh, that's a good spot and we might change it from resource management to whatever and sell it off. It appears that Harold Avenue was showing that it's too steep for anything, and then west of it, the resource management lot, 1601, would also be too, too, uh, steep for proper development.

Then since they're at the end, it seems better to vacate that, that unusable street, and then we don't have to have a variance, and he can build in accordance with— exactly, with the code. What does that—. How is that done? Is that even— is that doable kind of thing? Yeah.

Which one is that? Yeah, it is, it is feasible to vacate right ways. And we did do a site visit with the Public Works Director to assess that option because that is something that we wanted to look into. And I mean, it's still an option. What essentially would happen though, if you look back to the picture on page 20, um, even though when the city vacates a right-of-way, the property owner would obtain half of that right-of-way, right?

In this instance, the half of the right-of-way that they're gaining is unusable. But the portion of their property that they would then have to give up to widen the alleyway would be the usable part of their property. And so, um, essentially then you're just reducing the size of their property that they can— that they can utilize for development. Um, yeah, which obviously it's still an option. I don't— I don't know then if the applicant would be in agreeance with that vacation of the— of Harold Avenue, you know what I mean?

If they're— if the exchange is then having to lose 20 feet of the usable part of their property to get—.

I know because variances are based on, you know, not for just simply for convenience, it's for the topography and things that they are unable to control. And I understand how that goes, and, and, uh, that's why I don't see it's too— I mean, if you can vacate Harold Avenue, but I don't want to make it more difficult for him or make his footprint smaller to build on. So I mean, I see no problem with, uh, you know, keeping going along with the variance itself. It's, it's unique to that circumstance, not like something can apply across the board. And then the individual can build and just dropped it instead of 20 feet for the frontage, just drop it to 10.

It's not like it's a huge neighborhood there. I don't— I personally don't see a real huge problem. Well, what are the lands for the rest of the neighborhood. So if that road isn't usable, are we going to develop an alley as a road? Because you have multiple lots further down.

There is that alley. Yeah, can be utilized for access, but, um, to classify as a road or utilize it as a road is very problematic according to Public Works and Fire and Police. Just the maintenance of it, snow removal, it's not— you don't get the same maintenance as you would for an actual right-of-way. It's smaller. And so while the alley could be utilized to access those properties, if it's utilized as the— as a, as a road or classified as a road, then it becomes problematic.

So I guess what I'm trying to get at is that seems to be 5 more lots on that string right there, and if Harold is unusable and we're not going to build a road there, are the rest of those lots and the 2 we're talking about, are they now going to only be able to use an alley? What's the city's plan for that? Because this individual is able to use an alley, but the one— these, uh, from the 5 to the north won't be able to.

So is there a plan to develop the alley into a road, or how are they going to use their lot? That's what I'm trying to get at. If we change it, then the rest of them also become accessible. Probably. Yeah, no, I see what you're saying, but I guess what it is, if you do the alley— because we know in town here we have plenty of homes here that are only accessed by the alley.

Yeah. And if you improve the alley enough, I mean, make it better dirt road than it currently is, then they can access it that way. Yeah, which is— that's—. We're trying to get us—. If we give this variance here, then we'll probably end up getting variances for the rest of them.

Then the alley will in default turn into the road. Are we talking Chiswell or Harold? Chiswell's the alley. Yes. So we're calling the alley even though it says it's a street.

Okay, so yeah, so it will by default turn into the road. And I guess I'm trying to get— is the city okay having the alley potentially be the default road road. It should be, honestly, because with fire and everything, uh, all the places we have, you know, even downtown here, you know, my, my neighborhood, I have new— most of the houses on my block are accessed by an alleyway. Right. That's what I'm trying to get.

Like, yeah, we might end up having the alley be the main road. Oh, then if we do this, yes. So just for access, but remember, those lots can't build unless they have all the public improvements, which are typically brought through a right-of-way, and that would not happen through the alleyway. Way. And so there is no plan, right?

Like, it's just— it's—. It's locked. Yeah, it's hard terrain, okay, to deal with. And so right now, there is— to answer that question, the city has no plans to develop the alley or the road. I was trying to switch it to get all of the views.

How far did the utilities go up there?

Yeah, the utilities Yeah, and on Bayview Place. Okay, Bayview Place is the road, the right-of-way just to the east. I know. Yeah, that's what should happen, but that's old. Well, up to Barn— where'd you say?

Barnwell. So they go up I Alec, is that where they end? They don't go about I Alec.

Yeah, I mean, just go up Bayview, please.

Okay, so is he on a well up there? The existing house area? There's nothing there. It's actually nothing. It's undeveloped.

Completely undeveloped. There's a house there across from Harold. That's on Bayview. That's on Bayview. Bayview.

Okay, so he does have some there.

Any other questions? Yes. Good. All right. Yes.

So, yes, so first point is previous planning affecting future planning. So when we're doing our business, something to keep in mind because, yeah, uh, the street seems so crazy on Harold and that it's not developable, but it's there and there's property owners along there. So in the work we do, something to keep in mind. And I agree with, uh, Commissioner Charbonneau that it does create a precedence and the whole block would need to have that same variance to have access and become buildable property. So is that we're willing to do?

Also kind of odd that an alley has a street name. Like, really? That's not common. Never seen that around here. So I also hesitate with this variance.

Yes, my point. Yeah, but what if it was already plotted? I mean, the fact that it was, you know, drawn out and plotted and done the wrong way— why, why do we— why is it, you know, why are we regulating ourselves or restricting ourselves that if it's done wrong in the first place. Well, you just had to buy this undevelopable property also. I don't know, fix it, swap them over, and make all of them developable with a proper road.

Then that alley would become the proper road, no longer an alley. Yes, but it would be widened, it wouldn't be shifted. Yeah, it just, it just mirror effect. Yes. So Harold would not exist and it would be the back of the property and it just all becomes ultimately the, the road all the way down, which makes sense.

I mean, that's essentially what we're doing doing, except we end up with a tiny road instead of a proper road. Yeah, but we— Danny, can we— we can't direct them to make a road there to make— to fit this. It'd take a lot of replatting. Yeah. And swapping the property.

But typically, most common, what happened— what has happened with other city right-of-ways that have been vacated, the property owners end up footing the cost for that.

I don't— I can't think of the situation since I've been with the city where the city has paid to vacate a right-of-way, except for I guess the Marathon Addition replat that we're doing to clean up that. So if it was— I mean, if it was something that was, um, the commission directed staff to do and was approved by council, then that could be something that could be done. The only other thing that I would hesitate with, having worked with the borough on different Plats and Vacations is I don't know exactly what lenience they would give us on that alley if we're then swapping it and making it the public right-of-way, if their standards would then be firm to making it 60-foot wide, which then also— yeah, then you're taking 40 feet off of his usable property. So there's just some— I, I also like the the clean, fix the whole thing sort of solution, but I, I think it might make us run into more issues by cleaning it up. Yeah, even if they wanted to go that route, that was their only option, you would need the other property owners to be on board.

And are they going to be on board if they're losing developable? Yeah, that whole road there. Yeah, essentially property goes from more flat to steep.

Oh, because then they would basically shift it. It'd be shifted west. Yeah, towards the steeper slope.

Anybody have anything else? It's clear as mud. Are we, are we ready to vote? Well, as frustrating as it is for— it may be setting a precedence, and I, I don't, I don't— I think this is a good time for them to have that, uh, this variance and If they can work with it, and I'm not concerned about it setting a precedence for the other lots. And God only knows who'll go in there.

Yeah, God only knows who'll want to go back in there. It's pretty, pretty dense. Well, you mean the existing owners going north? No, no, just anybody buying that. Yeah, there's other properties, and there was a letter in there by the neighbors, so I'm concerned.

Chair, there is a public hearing, so we do have someone to speak. Okay, I'll have the applicant present here and, you know, speak in a minute. Okay. Yeah. Anybody have anything else at this time?

No. Is the applicant present? Um, my name is David Neff Show. I'm informally representing. Yeah, if you want to come on up here and, uh, excuse my ignorance of formalities.

That's okay. Last time I was at a P&Z or ZBA meeting, I didn't need reading glasses.

Yes, so just let you know that we have, um, you obviously state your name, your connection with the applicant, and whether you would live inside, outside the city limits. And you have 10 minutes of total time. Um, I live inside the city limits. I've lived in Seward on and off now for 7 or 8 years. Um, I know Andy, Tom through, uh, business and personal relationships for 5 years now.

Uh, they are traveling, um, so they'd asked me to be here to represent them, um, in this, uh, hearing. Um, certainly respect and understand some of the comments Nathaniel and Vanessa had brought up, and also with our city planners. It's putting the cart before the horse, the horse behind the cart, and then making sure the road is wide enough to take both. I would offer, just in conversations with Andy, they're looking at building the two homes for year-round use. And I know that they do have access from the road that we discussed about under the adjoining property owner.

Insofar as granting variances, case-by-case scenario, looking through this, my understanding is it's met the findings of pretty much what the city is looking to do with those lots. Um, so I think that, uh, if I can speak for Andy, I think they would look forward to getting this reviewed and approved if possible this evening. If not, fully understand whatever the next steps would be. Okay. All right, that's it.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All righty, so I know—. So now we're open for public comments. Do we have any public comments?

No? No. Okay. All righty.

Anybody, any other questions for commissioners or anything else like that? Anything? Okay, I think we then, if nobody has anything else, I will go ahead and put to the vote.

Voting on Resolution 2026-010. Ziptrap? Yes. Charbonneau? No.

Berget?

Yes. Robert? Yes. And Chair Sullivan? Yes.

The Resolution 2026-010 is approved. Okay, thank you. Okay, sir. Okay. All righty.

So then, what if I leave now? May I leave?

You got to keep us company. Yeah, got to go through all of them.

That approved, then. Are we have a, a second public hearing Tonight is Resolution 2026-0011. Could you read the title into the record? Yes, Resolution 2026-011 of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Seward, Alaska, recommending Kenai Peninsula Borough approval of the preliminary plat of Lot 5B-1, Forest Acres and Fort Raymond subdivision, Seward Gateway properties, creating Lots 1 through 4, Forest Acres and Fort Raymond Subdivision Sewer Gateway Properties Phase 2. Great, thank you very much.

So with this one also being quasi-judicial, I'd like to ask any of the commissioners to disclose if they have any conflicts of interest or have had any ex parte communication on this item, or if anyone seeks to disqualify a commissioner from participating in a decision on the base of perceived conflict of interest, which has not been declared. Are we all good? Yes. Okay, good to go. I'll need a motion Make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-011.

I'll second. Okay, okay, we have a motion and a second. So what I will ask is administration to give us a little thumbnail on this. Thank you, Chair Sullivan. Um, many of the commissioners may recognize this plat or feel like it's a little familiar, and it is because the commission has reviewed a similar plat to this before, a few months ago, which was approved And but then before it got sent to the borough, the first plat ended up having a few minor revisions.

And so due to those revisions, the Commission is required to review and approve this second phase plat again. You'll notice some of the changes here are it's now— the right-of-way proposed in this development is going to be at Hammerhead versus that cul-de-sac. That's probably the main change to this. There's probably some slight changes to lot sizes as well, but a lot of the reasons for the first revisions in the, in the first plat came from some of the issues with DOT access and whatnot, and so these changes are specific to be able to develop these properties and maintain access on the property. Properties just to the north for other development.

So these, these 4 lots here, as explained by the applicant at other meetings, are intended to be utilized for multi-family dwellings, one of which, Lot 1, has already been approved for that 17-plex, where the lots to the north will be utilized for other types of development and require that access on the Seward Highway— wait, this is more appropriately accessed just off of Hemlock Avenue. Another main point that I want to just point out to the Commission, if you notice that the proposed right-of-way on this property is only 40 feet wide but then has 10 feet utility easements on either side. And so the applicant and the surveyor are requesting this exception from the Kenai Peninsula Borough since the borough requires a 60-foot right-of-way. Um, Sewer City Code currently requires a 50-foot right-of-way, and in reviewing this with our Public Works Director and Electric Director, they, they're both fine with the 40-foot right-of-way as long as it has that 10 feet utility easement on the outer side to get that full 60, 60 feet. So typically the water and sewer lines go down the middle of the right-of-way, which fit well within the 40 feet, and then electric goes in those outer edges, which would be within the 10-foot utility amusements.

But the reason for that exception request is due to, um, if the full 60 feet were granted for the right-of-way, then that cuts into the lot sizes, which is essential for— if you remember, we have a minimum lot size for a certain amount of multi-family dwellings. And so he has to have a certain lot size in order to build that 17-plex and then the future multi-family dwellings. So with the smaller right-of-way— but with the 10-foot utility easements, he's able to count the portion of the utility easement as part of his lot size, even though it's not going to be buildable in that area, utilities are going to be in there. That still counts into his lot size so that he can construct that multifamily dwelling. But it doesn't infringe or encroach on anything that Public Works or Electric would need for utilizing that right of way.

Way. So, okay, nice summary. Thank you. And, uh, you gotta remember these things are very small for old people. I'm gonna look at it.

I need a little magnifying glass out. Well, we were brainstorming different ways to get it live. No, not just teasing, but yeah, yeah. So what I'd like to find out is, is the applicant present? Are we unmuting?

He should be on the phone. Yep. Yep. Hello?

I'm here. Okay, great. All righty. And would you do me a favor and just state your name, your connection with the application, whether you live inside or outside the city limits, and you'll have 10 minutes to speak. And we can reserve some time for later if the commissioners have any questions.

Okay, sounds good. Um, good evening, um, Chair Sullivan and commission and staff. Um, my name is Robbie Williams. I live in the lower 48, and I have land inside the city limits, and this is the land we've been dealing with for the last about 3 years in trying to move forward and getting it developed. Good news is I just got our sewer and our sewer permit from ADEC approved, DEC approved, so Um, yeah, we're moving one step at a time and, and, uh, moving forward.

Hope to, uh, break ground in first fall next year, and, and, uh, if we get any luck, and, and, uh, we might even be able to get some sewer in this year. Sounds great. So are you not hooked up to the city sewer on this one? You're doing Yeah, that's Commissioner Hubbard. I'm sorry, Commissioner Hubbard here.

Yeah, we're going to be, um, chopping up our first manhole, uh, um, over near the pumping station, uh, to the left, and, um, running about 700 feet of sewer and water and fire hydrant. Mm-hmm.

And sewer subs to the fire department as well.

That's Mandy. Good work. Okay, anybody else have any questions at this time? No, I guess we've gone through— we went through Phase 1 and now Phase 2, which is, which is good. We had an opportunity to see your original one, which actually was pretty, very detailed, which was really helpful, which is nice.

Um, let's see, do I have anybody for public comments? Anything at all? No, no, there's no comments. Anybody? No?

Okay. Um, let's see. Well, let's see, anybody else at the dais have any questions? No? I think we're probably, uh, ready to vote.

Voting on Resolution 2026-01.

1. Hubbard? Yes. Verhey? Yes.

Charbonneau? Yes. Ziptras? Yes. And Chair Sullivan?

Yes. That Resolution 2026-011 has been approved. Great, thank you. Okay, I think we're going to take a 5-minute pause because we have another person that's going to be coming in here short—. Or no, we're going to be listening to another person for the next resolution.

So when we trade over, we can do that. We can put a 5-minute clock. Yeah.

Very good. Okay, great. We're back on record. And our third public hearing item for tonight is Resolution 2026-0012. Ms.

Clerk, could you read that into the record? Resolution 2026-012 of the Planning Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Seward, Alaska, recommending City Council and Kenai Peninsula Borough approval of the preliminary plat of the Tract H Seward Original Townsite Waterfront Park Replat, creating Tract H-1 Waterfront Park Replat with associated vacations and dedications. Okay, great. Thank you. I'll need a motion— oh, correction, let me start before this gets quasi-judicial.

I'd like to ask about any commissioners to disclose if they have any conflict of interest or have had any partake communication on this item, or if anyone seeks to disqualify a commissioner from participating in the decision on the basis of perceived conflict of interest which hasn't been declared. Is everybody good to go? Okay. All right, I'll move on. I need a motion and a second.

I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-012. I'll second. Okay, great. Thank you. And I'll move it to administration.

Do you have any comments? Yes, I'll provide a brief overview here. Thanks. So this replat is stated as primarily to vacate, um, current utility easements and just place them in a new location on the property. There could be some confusion as to why then, you know, the original tract is referred to Tract H and then the new plat is going to be called Tract H-1.

Typically when we see this, it's because a new lot is being developed or the property is being divided or split in some way. But I just want to clarify that the property boundaries of this parcel are not changing. You're required with any new plat to rename it so that future people can identify it as— that it's been changed in some way. And so if you look on page 58 and 59, you'll see on 59 the existing utility easements in yellow and orange there. And so the— and then the proposed plat on page 58 in that gray, darker gray color in the center.

Essentially, the utility easements, the existing existing utility easements. There's 3 of them spaced out throughout the property. They're being consolidated into that one center utility easement to make development more feasible on that lot, which is the current plan now with the Harbor to develop that, that parcel for the Harbor Master Building and other buildings that could be leased for retail and other economic businesses. So once this plat is approved, those utilities will be moved into the new utility easements. So it's primarily just doing that, getting utilities, all access to the property will remain the same, and to the, um, the docks there.

Okay, great, great. Thank you. Um, then we'll go from there. Is the applicant or the representative available? Yeah, this is Dave Hale of Ardham.

I'm from the city of Surat for this. Oh great, well, if you have anything to say on here, we have— I'll just need to obviously get your name and your connection with the application.

I'm guessing you live outside the city limits, and but you'll be allowed 10 minutes to speak if you have anything additional to add. Yeah, I don't have much. I mean, this is basically we're trying to clean things up. There's going to be some construction construction in hopes of a new harbormaster's building. So even though he's going to get moved about, I guess over time they've, they've just been placed kind of willy-nilly.

They're—. The previous plat didn't define the easements very well, and there's, there's underground utilities just going everywhere around here. So the primary purpose of this is to just clean all this up and make usable easements and get rid of the stuff that me, but doesn't think we're a property. So I, I think staff has, uh, has explained that pretty well, but that's basically the purpose of the, of the thing. And we've, we've just based the, the boundary on the, the mean water line, just like the, the previous lot.

So the, the, there's some, some interest in that, how we did that since, you know, the— a little bit to the side of the building so the survey had it, but it's not a whole lot different. We use most of the same. So that's basically it. We're not creating any subdividing to get any deals. We're just trying to clean up the ES+ so the easements are better defined.

Okay, okay, great. Thank you. Well, all I'll do now is open it for public comments. Is there anybody signed in? There is no one signed in.

Okay, then I'll turn it over to the commissioners at this point. Do we have Do we have any questions or concerns? No, it's pretty straightforward. Yeah, excellent. Okay.

I do have a question. I'm sorry, I didn't catch his name. David, was it? Dave? David.

Okay. David, this is Commissioner Hubbard. I was curious on the existing public boat launch area, what utilities are actually in there right now? Which one? The boat launch area?

The yellow.

Boat launch. Yeah, the boat launch is one of them. The previous plat didn't define it very well, but basically what they're trying to do is they're trying to have easements for that public boat launch. There's also easements that cut across there. There's a storm drain.

I think there's some power easements. That whole west side of the subdivision and it's got stuff running all over the place, and that's why that's such a large area. Okay, well, that's going to be stand put then, right? Yeah, it pretty much needs to. Yeah, all that infrastructure, right?

Uh-huh. We just surveyed down there and we got them to mark all the underground locates, and they're just going all over the place on that west side. So it's really— once you— if you were to, uh, if you were to dedicate a whole bunch of easements based on the underground utilities, they would overlap so much that it would almost feed the area. So, okay, wow, okay. And it kind of makes sense just to leave that as one big, uh, big area.

And there's—. And the 20-foot easement that goes north-south, uh, from, from that subdivision to the south, it was never defined. Uh, you can't place it. Huh. So, so there's—.

You don't know, it's just gonna— it's gonna run in there too. Everything's just gonna be one big utility easement to the Everything is just where it needs to be. Okay, and then the ones in orange that are running east and west, those fingers, what's in those now?

Uh, there's electric, there's communication, and there's sewer. Let me see, let me look at all my flat— there's, uh, the exhibit that shows the subdivision with the big utility is mostly based on sewer and storm sewer and water. Okay. And then they're going to relocate all the, uh, the electric and the com to the north. So right now there's, there's sewer and water going out to the east, out to all the facilities out there.

Sure. And, and those are typically, you know, you need 30 feet or so for water. It's pretty deep. And, uh, and with sewer, and once you start dedicating that, you get pretty good inputs and all overlap.

So, so I think we'll go 15 feet south of that for that sewer line. So it's that whole corridor for sewer and water that just goes out to the east, and, and we're going to still need that. Okay, that'll really clean it up. But the one south is—. That seems like an outlet wire.

That's a—. It's mostly electrical. From what we see, there's no utilities. That's probably good. You don't need to do codes at some point, but they just never, never happen.

So we're, we're hoping we can just vacate that and get more usable space for, you know, whatever you guys need to use it for. Okay. All right, you good? Thank you. All right.

Yeah. Okay, well, thank you. Any other commissioners have any questions? No, I guess nothing further. Where are we right Ready to vote?

Okay, voting on Resolution 2026-012. Verhey? Yes. Ditzrath? Yes.

Hubbard? Yes. Charbonneau? Yes. And Chair Sullivan?

Yes. This resolution, Resolution 2026-012, has been approved. Great, thank you. Thank you very much for explaining what you're doing. That's going to be helpful.

Thank you guys. Yes. Okay, all right, from there what we'll do now is We move on to our fourth public hearing item for tonight, which is, uh, 2026-0013. Miss Clerk, could you read that in? Resolution 2026-013 of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Seward, Alaska, recommending City Council amend Seward City Code 16.01 and 16.05 to clarify public improvement requirements when subdividing, developing, or selling land.

Okay, great. And as this is a legislative thing, I don't have to worry about the paragraph on, uh, conflict of interest, so I'll just move right on into, uh, a motion and a second. I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-013. I'll second it. Okay.

All right, Administration, what do you got? Thank you. I'll try and provide a brief overview here of the changes since they are extensive and I just hope that all the commissioners had a chance to review it. I know we reviewed this in multiple work sessions and then of course if any public or developers listening want any further clarification, just invite them to please come into our office because this is a lot of information. Most of it is actually things that have been required but weren't ever written down and then I'll try and touch on the ones that are new overall but essentially this The code is just clarifying that developers are the ones that are responsible for implementing these required public improvements.

Then it just clarifies the formal preliminary plat review process that the city has been already utilizing, but that wasn't detailed in code. It adds in requirements for construction plans as well as drainage plans, which were required in the past but weren't detailed anywhere. It also adds in utility access and easement standards, which also were a general requirement with all plats and subdivisions, but once again wasn't, wasn't detailed. Um, it expands slightly the street construction standards, and there, there were some changes that we made with widening the street from 50 to 60-foot right-of-way within city limits, as well as providing some new restrictions for dead-end streets or cul-de-sacs. The commission remembers that, as well as providing requirements for pedestrian improvements within the subdivisions such as streets or widened right-of-ways, paved right-of-ways.

And then also it creates more detailed street lighting standards which weren't previously in there. Some of the main changes do come in the section that outlines the water connection requirement. And so I'm going to turn to that section with the commission because that's also a section that was changed in the laydown that I sent out. So if you want to turn to the laydown, not what was in your packet but what we sent you, and we'll look at that just so I can walk you through those changes.

Which section is that? So this is Section 12. 1605.

30. Yeah, yeah, 30. Yeah, yep, number 30, 1605.30.

Um, sorry, I do want to clarify because it can seem a little bit confusing since there are so many specifics in this, in this section of code, but this is Title 16, which pertains to subdivisions of land. And so these requirements only pertain to land that is being subdivided. So if there is property that that has already been subdivided, then these requirements don't pertain to them. They would have to refer to Title 14, which is the public utility section, and then I can't remember the electric section of code, but they would then— if there's already platted land that somebody wants to develop, they would refer to those other sections of code. This just pertains to any new development that with the subdivision preliminary plat process.

So with the water system requirement, any new subdivisions are required to connect to public water, but then Section B provides the option for a waiver that could be approved by the commission. However, that waiver would not be submitted to the commission unless it met two requirements. The first requirement, that the proposed subdivision is located more than 400 feet away from the existing public water system. So we have a similar requirement with our sewer systems. So if a property— and this requirement is in Title 14 as well as stated next in this, in this Title 16 chapter— but if a property is located more than 200 feet away from a sewer system, then they can install a septic system.

We have intentionally made the location— the distance here greater than 200 feet because it's the city's intent that everyone be on city water. It's, you know, to have multiple wells or other water systems throughout the city can be— there can be lots of complications. So it's more advantageous to have people on the public water system, which is why that number is greater. So that's the first condition that must be met. The second condition Letter B is what was changed for the Public Works Director.

Um, in the first version we had that there was a— if there was a private connection line that was greater than 50 feet, then they would also qualify. But, um, with Public Works Director input, he said that that would be too, too easy of a standard to meet, and he preferred to go with more of something that addressed the topography of the landscape being— making it unfeasible to connect to public water. So those are the two conditions. If a development meets those two conditions, then they can, they can submit an application for a waiver. The application must be submitted to Community Development and the Public Works Director, who would then review it for completeness and accuracy based on the standards outlined here.

You know, the availability of the alternative water system, whether it meets professional engineering standards, ADEC, all of those requirements would be reviewed internally before that application would even be brought to the commission. And then that application would be brought to the commission with either a recommendation from the Public Works Director and Community Development for approval or a recommendation recommendation for denial, and then the commission could make the final decision on that waiver. So that's an explanation of that process, and the main change being letter B under number— the big B, number 1, little b. Okay, and then, um, I want to briefly touch on the alternative water supply systems that could be approved. We have Private well, pretty straightforward.

A lot area is required to be no less than 40,000 square feet, which is mirroring the King of Peninsula Borough requirement. And this is put in here practically because we've already run into issues within the city where, um, the city would have been okay with having someone put a well on a property that was less than 40,000 square feet, and the borough denied that. So to avoid any complications between the city and the borough, we're just maintaining the borough standard there of 40,000 square foot lots for a private well. Other options would be the community well system, then a cistern and rainwater catchment system, which has quite a few more regulations as this isn't, um, something common within the city right now. Outside city limits, I know, has a few of these, but there are definitely more considerations to take into account with that sort of system.

And those would be the only alternative systems available currently with, um, a waiver application. And then there's listed in letter C specific review criteria that staff and commission would review those applications by in order to determine if they would recommend approval or not. Those are the main changes from what we reviewed in our previous work sessions for that one. The sewage disposal system there under Section 13 pretty much mirrors what's in Title Title 14. There's not anything too different from that.

And then the other major change that I wanted to point out from what was in your packet versus this laydown is under the Section 14, so communication and electricity systems. So that's 1605.040.

And it's under letter D— sorry, letter D. C. So in the previous version, it said that all new communication and electric lines must be installed underground unless the Commission and the Council approved the alternative installation method because of infeasibility with the topography or whatnot. So this new The new version is saying, you know, all communication and electric lines must be installed underground unless the electric utility director determines that underground installation isn't practical. So it's essentially removing that overview by the commission and the council and putting the weight of that decision on the electric utility director. Comments for that was just that the electric utility utility director probably knows best— a little better— what's feasible and what's not. And that having that extra step of approval, two extra steps of approval by the commission and council, would be quite burdensome on the developer to move ahead with their development.

So, um, that's been changed to just internal approval by the electric utility director. And yeah, I think everything else were items that we discussed pretty thoroughly in our work session. So unless there's other Any other questions that the commissioners have from their year review? I'll leave that for my—. For my letter.

Can we move on a little bit later? No, I appreciate you spelling this out. I really like the fact that you've consolidated things, spelled it out so it's in one place. I like the comments that people have brought through email to us and highlighted things, which is super helpful. So the city is technically the applicant, so I'm not going to ask the city to speak, but I'm going to open it to public hearing now, public comments.

Do we have any— anybody signed in for public comments at all? There is no one signed in. Okay, thanks. So then I'll bring it back to the dais for our discussions. Yes, I'd like to make a motion to amend Resolution 2026-013 under Section 12.

Okay, 1605.030, as moving through the subsection F under that into subsection triple I, III. I would like to to strike the entire section of III from this. Do we have a second? Sure, I'll second. Okay, all right.

Now can you say that all over again? I'm kidding, the paragraphs. No, but go ahead. Um, yes, so, uh, I'd like to basically strike the cistern rainwater catchment system from this document. Uh, I don't approve of this section in here because homes in town should have access to water.

And I feel that this section here allows contractors to build a substandard home that is essentially a dry cabin, yet charge premium in-town prices. So somebody in town buying a home expecting utilities now has to live in a dry cabin and move water to their home. And we don't have a public— technically, we don't have a public system to move, or a private system to move water to the home. I just I think that it opens up too many areas of confusion, and I don't think we need to go down that road. There's just— there's no way to get water to these.

How are these people going to move that water? We have areas, sections of time when they wouldn't need to have water that they'd be filling up, I don't know, at the harbor during the wintertime, where it's water open all the time. And I don't think it's, um, wise to have it in here. Okay. Commissioners, anybody else?

Yeah, Commissioner Sharbonneau, are you familiar with Homer? Yes. They have a whole hillside that doesn't have water. That's true. And how do they get water?

They have a private sector that travels, that you can buy water to on a monthly or daily service, and they bring water to them. The water is filtered, it's taken from a regular place. They have the infrastructure to do that. They also, on that hill, don't have technically the feasibility to hit a well there, whereas around here in town, most if not all of the building buildable sites can hit water. It might be difficult to hit it, but they can.

So the first condition is that if you're within 400 feet, you're going to be required—. Mandated to hook up to the water. Yeah. No, I think it's written really well. I just don't think it's worth opening that door to a contractor coming being like, well, you know, it's too hard for me, so I want to build a home and I want to sell it to somebody and they don't have water.

So do you— what areas do you think— I mean, I don't think— I think what you're looking at isn't what this is meaning to be applied to. I think this is meaning to apply to some very rugged areas that cannot get water. Like there's up on Camelot. Camelot's not a—. I know, just a minute.

I know that it's not— you can see those, but that's an example. But you do have areas across the bay that our meridian hits and includes that could actually— a catchment system could lend well to that. I think that the amount of—. The number of lots that are technically would fit into this are small enough. I don't think there's very many of them, and I don't think that this is going to solve— by doing this, it's not going to solve any problems we have with housing.

What it's going to do do is open up an area for somebody to try to get something through and pass it on to a buyer that ends up with a substandard home. How many lots are you talking out there? Just a couple. And depending on those lots, some of them— actually, some of them, if you can build on them, you probably can get water. If you can't build on them— there are a lot where you can't build and you definitely could not get water.

I, I think, um, you might need to do a little more homework on that because That's not what I'm hearing and seeing over there, but where the potential is.

So, uh, and there, there has to be full disclosure. I mean, buyers would know that would be disclosed, of course, on a catchment system, or, you know, or they have to bring water in, or where there might be a lack of you know, of water that you need so many gallons per minute to make it adequate. But I know people up in the hills that do have these systems and they work well for them, or they get water out of city limits where these things should go. But in the city, you move to a city to have utilities. I don't think we don't have to do so.

We've been through this out at the rural residential area at Four Stakers, and then we got a rating there. There's no sewer and water over there. I mean, there's a development going up right now where they had to plug— they, they chose to put their own wells in. They put 14 wells in over there. Yeah, we have areas that—.

But they could access water. There's other places that can't maybe access water, or they're— so I, I don't, I don't see a reason. I mean, this is very— catchment systems are very common around. It's also a subdivision too, so it's a big area. So that's part of it.

It's like onesies and twosies, you may be able to do catchment, you know, system. But if the developer has the whole thing, then, you know, that, that would be hard to— hard-pressed to just— these, you know, period of, you know, lots at the end, and all of a sudden they can't do it. That might be part of the consideration. Maybe he shouldn't have those as lots. So that does pose a question.

If there is a development and say part of it And I don't know how you want to micromanage it, but— and I'm sure the builder would be able to assess that, or our Public Works, as to whether the whole area is allowed to be a catchment system, or we condition it to where, you know, where at all possible, you know, do a well and use these other— or community well system, these other alternatives, and that be your last resort. Yeah, the only stipulation in the code right now is that whatever alternative water system is approved, it would need to be approved approved at the preliminary plat stage. So a developer or subdividers would have to have investigated and done a thorough, you know, site condition review of their subdivision prior to submitting that preliminary plat to then come to the commission and say, okay, this number of lots can access a private well, but this number wouldn't. Can I get—. So they can identify that it has some variety, perhaps.

But they would need to do that up front. It wouldn't be like they request to have all wells and then they get into it and just— and figure out, oh, some of them don't, because they would have missed their window. Well, and that's going to dictate the price too. I don't think, you know, most people want to go— well, I should say most people, it depends, but they'd rather have that— have this great view, you know, at the expense of having to do their own water. We're active through a catchment system, so we're actively trying to keep and get most or all homes on public utilities.

So since we want them all on public utilities because they're living in the city limits, why are we opening up another window to not have them on public utilities? Well, the condition is you're going to get on public utilities if you're within 400 feet, otherwise it's cost-prohibited. Prohibited. Why even put it in there? We're just gonna have another, another issue down the road to try get people on if they get off of them?

Not if they're within 400 feet. If they're within 400 feet, they got to hook up. But do we have anything in our books that says the city's gonna invest, I don't know, millions and millions of dollars for a new water system over there? That's, that's not happening. It's just not happening.

Well, when that happens, then they can maybe have the option to do that. And that is what they talked about in the Forest Acres subdivision. So I think just eliminating it is— I mean, we're at this stage right now planning this stuff, we might as well include it. It's my opinion. Well, I see it as another burden for future individuals here trying to slush through the issues that we created when we just could have made it nice and simple since we're trying to keep people—.

It's really simple. They don't have— oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, they don't have to buy. Well, we can agree to disagree. Of course.

Yeah. Okay, we'll go from there. So anybody else have, uh, yeah, I don't have a comment on this interaction.

Um, staff is just recommending whatever changes the Commission makes is done to the substitute resolution, right? So we would ask you to deliberate that first before you make any amendments.

So what do you, what are you saying? You want us to vote on this amendment, the laydown that we The laydown. Yeah, that would need to be adopted. Yeah, as the substitute resolution. And, and then you would discuss the one that you're doing— you are now— because if you do yours now and then adopt the substitute resolution, then you've done nothing to that section of the substitute resolution.

So were you saying that he made the amendment for the substitute prematurely? The substitute resolution is not on the books right now, whatever the property is. So what we're doing is then is we're voting on the original? Correct. All right.

Substitutions. So you're not allowing any amendments or considerations to this? No, we are. We're just saying that whatever amendments you make, we would like to see them made to the substitute resolution. You are making them to the original resolution.

We would like you to adopt the substitute resolution and then have that be your starting point for deliberations, if that Does that make better sense? Just formalities. So do we have an argument for no reason?

Sorry, sorry, this is an official meeting. All right, um, so I guess that's, uh, we need to vote on adopting the laydown of Resolution 2026-01. 13, Correct? Yeah, someone would need to make a motion and second to—. We've already made the motion.

We have to vote on that yet, and then changes would happen. Did someone make a motion? You motioned to— oh, we did for the resolution, for the actual resolution, for the original one. Okay, you need to replace it first, and then Nathaniel can make his amendment. Okay, so now we need a motion to— we need a motion and a second for adopting the laydown.

Okay, does anyone do that? I'll make a motion to adopt laydown 2026-013. Yes, I'll second. Okay, okay, now voting on adopting the laydown of Resolution 2026-013. Hubbard?

Yes. Siptra? Yes. Burke? Yes.

Charbonneau? Yes. And Chair Sullivan? Yes. That adoption of the laydown has been approved.

Now back to the main motion, which now you can motion your amendment. Okay, I'd like to make a motion to amend the amended 2026-013 to strike subsection III, cisterns, rainwater, and catchment systems. Is that clear enough? Oh yeah, she's got it. Do we have a second?

Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay, Commissioner Ziptra. Okay, so that's back on the table. Yes, on the floor table.

And so now, any be further discussion on this at all. I said what I had to say.

Is, um, just feeling very torn. I don't like limiting any potential development, of course, and it does seem like there's a lot of stipulations that have to be met before it would be allowed to have a cistern or rainwater catchment, so We'll crack that door.

Yes, to the staff, where did you get the language on this? This is like boilerplate stuff in, in common, uh, areas that have that consistent—. Yeah, I mean, it was in reviewing other cities that have similar systems, so Juneau, Ketchikan, Homer, kind of a, you know, reviewing their requirements and then determining what would fit our, our city. Is that— that's how these were developed. And, uh, another question, uh, where could you see this probably being needed in Seward right now and within our median?

So have you heard— I mean, have you had developers come in and suggest to us? I know there's been one. The wording, we try to be intentional with it to address Commissioner Charbonneau's point of, for most of the city, we want them hooking up to city water. The wording is really aimed at that— those developments across the bay that are potential housing areas that don't have any near connection to city water. That's kind of like the targeted area that we would hope to see these developments, whether or not use the catchment system or not, but like wells in that area.

I'm sorry, real quick, how many potential subdivisions— I mean, we do have a couple of them that are going over there and possibly north of, you know, up the hill from Nash Road and all the rest of that stuff. There's a lot of land up there. I know one, that one subdivision that's going in there, I think that's primarily wells because they're over 200 feet beyond any, any city, city water. So that would be sort of the same kind thing as you could move down the road and even up the hill. So essentially, is that like you're saying, that's the, the intent?

There was no, no plan for sewer or anything else going up in those areas at all? No. With the, the obviously the Darling subdivision, which you all worked on, and then there's one, uh, nearby that was approved for the DRP, um, and so that's the only one that's come across like our office, but you know, with the Coast Guard coming in, I'm not sure. Yeah, potentially there's potential over there for sure, but nothing concrete that's come to us yet in terms of development. Yeah, okay, thank you.

Anybody have anything else to consider?

Mulling? Throw it out there? All right, we're gonna vote on this motion. The voting on the amendment of Resolution H-36-013, striking Section 12F in Seward City Code for the cistern and rainwater catchment systems. Charbonneau?

Yes. Verhey? No. Ziptra? No.

Hubbard? No. And Chair Sullivan? No. This amendment has failed.

Now back to the main motion. Okay, I think we're ready to vote for them as amended. Yeah, they're laid out. Yeah, I have— I'd like to possibly submit amendment, but— or just actually get some clarification. I, uh, the street lighting part, it says, uh, under the— it's the last page, B1, it says street lighting systems must be designed in performance with the most current roadway lighting guidelines published by the Illuminating Engineering Society, IES.

Or equivalent nationally recognized standard approval by the city.

And then it does say lighting intensity, things to consider, lighting intensity, spacing and configuration are determined based on roadway classification, traffic volumes, and pedestrian activity. I just want to use the example of this highway. I know that it's a DOT highway, but the lighting, when they put that lighting in, it was horrendous.

Overkill. And I'm— it does also say in here, so if you just let me talk for a minute, talk this through, this before I try to— if I need to have a motion, just tell me. But it also talks about, um, I think there was something in here about light— oh, dark sky preservation. And I would like to— I, I liken that to light pollution or excessive light, blue light I would like to see some sort of provision in here possibly that we have warm light versus cold bright blue lights in neighborhoods because it can get really not very— it's kind of unfriendly lighting otherwise.

And even though there are these standards, some of them might be excessive for, I mean, a highway, or I mean the lighting that they put out there was actually for like— it seemed like for an 8-lane freeway compared to just a 2-lane highway that we had. So I just, I just want to avoid that type of thing, even though we're putting in that we're going by these standards, because sometimes the standards just aren't appropriate for the subdivision that we're looking at. So I don't know if these standards include— there's 60-foot right-of-ways, there's 40-foot right-of-ways, there's there's alleys, and sometimes the lighting is just either— it's not enough or it's too much. So I just wanted to make sure that we respect the avoidance of any light pollution, excessive. Yeah, I think as far as like the standards, we work through this code with the utility supervisor, operations Supervisor, and basically the reference to the IES is to provide a sort of guideline that— so that developers and individuals know this is your general guideline that the city is going to be utilizing.

However, you'll notice in the subsequent numbers there that, yeah, just— it mentions that— it doesn't mention specifics for lighting intensity, spacing, or configuration, or fixture type, pole height, all of that because the electric department did specifically want to have that flexibility to determine what would be appropriate for each situation. So, um, from my understanding, our conversations with them, they aren't strictly tied to that IES standard as far as, um, if, if the electric department deemed that this, this street or whatever doesn't, doesn't need— and I think that IES standard may have some flexibility within it as well, but that's just kind of the guideline they're using. And then the electric department would be the ones that ultimately would then provide the standards based on each situation. However, yeah, to your comment about like the type of lights, warm lights, that sort of thing, that's not necessarily written in here anywhere. So if the Commission feels like that would be appropriate— the only thing that is mentioned is that in number 4 that the light fixtures must be LED.

LED units. I don't know if LED lights are typically considered as warm light though, so that might conflict, is all I'm saying. Yeah, lighting has evolved quite a bit and you have LED units now that you can actually tone down. They can go blue to warm yellow kind of, or warm gold or something.

So, yeah. Well, I like the fact that you have the downward illumination and the controlled distribution patterns, because I think that you're going to put things on there that is consistent with a subdivision as opposed to that, you know, like I totally agree with you, when they put that lighting on Third Avenue or the highway that came in, it looked like it was a runway. Yeah, there was like a starship was coming in. And so they did tone it down, but I think, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, there's got to be a certain, you know, a neighborhood, you know, subdivision standard of some sort that's acceptable that people would do, because why would you do noise, light pollution, and the rest? Because that's just going to cost more money anyway as it was.

So is there something along those lines, or is it just, you know, up to the, you know, the subdivide— the obvious is a subdivision working with the electrical department. I'll say like the nice thing about using the IES is lighting does change over time, and so those standards will change. And so we're allowing our code code to evolve with the standards that do change. And I do know that IES, they take into account— I'm just doing a little research on them here— light level, safety, visibility, glare, and how lighting affects surrounding properties. And so, based on where the lighting is being implemented, there'll be different standards depending on where it's going and what's around there.

I think that it's perfectly fine to go with the IES. However, if you wanted to, I don't— I feel like you could put something in front of LED, like a warm LED, because there are different spectrums of LED, and you can even break it down to their, like, Kelvin spectrum and get the actual temperature if you wanted to, which I don't think would be— I think would be a decent thing to have here to designate what type of LED. But if you don't, I think the IES is probably a pretty safe way to go. Can I just include, insert, uh, neighbor-friendly lighting? That's too big because what's neighbor-friendly?

Maybe like a warm LED? Yeah, I just feel like that's very subjective. Yeah, yeah, I don't want to get too granular, so, but it is a concern. I just wanted to express that. But there'll be a review process obviously when it comes through, and that's, you know, every time we have a CUP, we want— and there's people putting things in, you know, we were talking about the types of light and the downward, you know, things.

So we can— it's something we can actually dictate if it needs to be, or bring it up that this is something that we would like to see for the development. So we have one more shot at it. We'll have one more shot at it. And when it— yeah, they follow this through.

Peace of mind. I know, it always is. Yeah, yeah, we— I think we still have an option to take a look and discuss things. So that's a nice thing, it has different review processes. So—.

I also have one more. I don't know if it's just an edit on Section 3. Did you mean to also put Shell in there on the fourth line down? I know that was under—. That was one of the concerns or discussions.

It's under Section 3. I don't have—. Oh yeah, we didn't have page numbers. We don't have page numbers. Section 3.020, it's the fourth line down, a person may.

Oh, it should be Shell Interactive. Yeah, that would be more appropriate as Shell. So, okay, we can make that change. Oh, typo. Okay, good.

That's easy enough.

Okay, good night. And I think there was a— well, I don't know if we need to discuss that. That's fine. Okay.

Do we have anything else?

Not—. We have a— we are voting on the main motion the same, so let's go ahead and move on that. Yeah, voting on Resolution 2026-013 with the adopted laydown. Charbonneau? Yes.

Ferney? Yes. Sittra? Yes. Yes.

Hubbard? Yes. And Chair Sullivan? Yes. This resolution with the adopted laydown is approved.

Great, thanks for all 4 of these. Appreciate it. So what I'll do is now I think we're going on to unfinished business. We have none, which is nice. Other new business items?

We have just one at this point in time, I think, is, uh, the— our topic for, um, 15th September. Yeah, we, um, if you want to tune into the last council meeting, the council gave staff direction to work with Corvus Design to implement a wayfinding design system in town to help, um, with the volumes of people that get dropped off in blobs and they kind of just congregate looking at their phones knowing what to do. And so we're trying to model what other towns are doing, um, and so they are going to come— we're going to do a public workshop at some point in October, but we're trying to give them a lot of preliminary data, existing and so we would like to, kind of similar to what we did as an exercise with the last work session, is get a map of Seward, uh, specifically like the downtown harbor area, and just identify all those kind of trigger points or areas of concern. And we're not looking at just areas of concern, but like where do we want people to go, and not just where we want them to go, but our preferred routes for them to get there, you know. So having people not maybe walk along the Seward Highway but along Fourth Avenue.

So they're visiting our businesses in the historic downtown or along the waterfront. And so kind of maybe address that Port Avenue and get people towards the underpass. Um, so kind of that, from that area all the way down to the Sea Life Center is kind of our project area. But we'd love feedback from you and any public that comes to join for that. That'd be good.

I feel like dovetails a little bit with Commissioner Hubbard said before, because when people get off the boat and they can wind up there and they're just sort of like asking looking for directions everywhere. I think this would be probably a good direction in that way. So that's good. Okay, thank you. Um, anybody else have anything to operate with?

Okay, all right. So right now, if there are reminders for our informational items and reports, we have, uh, the reminder of the 15th of September at 6 PM at the work session. Actually, is it 5:30? It's a work session at 5:30. It's not September.

Okay, this normal 6, normal one. Yeah. Okay, um, okay. And then we have another one following that, another meeting, uh, in October. And that one is— that's the one that we have it combined from 5:30.

We have a double header on the 20th. Yes, due to the election. That's the— for the election. So 5:30 the work session, 7 PM in the council chambers for actual meeting. So that'll be a double header.

So with that, then I'll move on to final public comments. Does anybody have any final public comments from the public?

Nope. Okay, then I'll move on to commission and administrative comments and responses to citizens' comments. Well, we didn't have any citizens' comments, so administration. Have good dialogue. We're kind of getting into the shoulder season and things are slowing down, but we had a big meeting today, a lot of, uh, items.

So good discussion. So thank you for your hard work and reviewing all that. Thank you. Yeah, there's— we've had a lot of light meetings, so this is the first heavy meeting in a while, and appreciate the commissioner's thorough review of everything. Definitely helps to get a better product in the end, I think.

Time. Okay. Yeah, it was— it was sort of a surprise when I got the packet. I was like, that's a lot of stuff, you know. So I'll just work down with everybody.

Vanessa, anything? Uh, nope. No comments. Yep. Daniel.

Thank the administration making all these fantastic packets. Yes, I like paper. Happy. Commissioner Roberts. Yeah, I just want to really thank the staff for putting this together and making it— making the process easier.

When I first got on Planning and Zoning, the subdivisions was the first topic, and it was— I was overwhelmed. I was like, this is way above my pay grade. I have no business doing— where's everybody that's supposed to be contributing to this? And over time, they all showed up. And, uh, thank the different city departments for putting their time in and weighing in and contacting them as well, and that we could, um, really come up with a very workable product.

And as our town grows, and even since then, we have seen subdivisions develop and new ones coming on board. So, uh, just appreciate that. And yeah, great. Thank you. I want to thank you very much for the detailed explanations of where we need to pinpoint our views and what it is that we need to look at.

That was fantastic. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, I want to thank everybody, the entire team here, because, you know, without you guys, the commission, you know, the clerk's office and administration here, just, you know, this is a tough duty, you know, to do a lot of this stuff. There's a lot of complicated things people have to think through, and which I really like when people have differing opinions, but they articulate it well, state it well, and then you just move on from there, and people can make a decision from there. I just think it's been a good process for everybody, and thank you all.

Right? Yeah, I just want to concur that even though we may not all agree, it really helps us think. Sure, I appreciate these alternative opinions and amendments. For sure, absolutely. So if nothing else, and with that, I will adjourn the meeting at 8:00.