Kodiak Borough: Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session of September 9, 2026

All right, seeing as how it's 6:30, we'll go ahead and call, uh, the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission work session here at the Assembly Chambers. Today is Wednesday, September 9th, 2026. We would like to inform you guys, whoever is listening and/or tuning in, unfortunately we are having some issues with our recorder. It's malfunctioning, so I apologize. For that, um, and we'll try and get that working, or keep our fingers crossed that it continues.

All right, with that being said, can we go ahead and call the meeting to order, please?

Are you calling for a roll call, Chair? Sorry, yes, calling for a roll call. Mr. Neff. Here. Mr. Dagan.

Present. Ms. Craig. Here. Ms. Williamson. Here.

And Mr. Delgado. Here. You have a quorum.

All right, that moves on to citizens' comments. Citizens' comments are limited to 3 minutes per speaker. To make comments, call the local number at 907-486-3231 or toll-free number 855-492-9202.

Comments are for general topics only.

Anybody wishing to make a comment, please stand at the podium, state your name, sign in, and speak to the commission as a whole. Thank you.

Okay, seeing as we've got no phone calls and no comments, we'll go ahead and continue to the packet review. First thing on the packet is a Kodiak Island Borough case 27-007, the administrative request for disposal of portions. Vice Chair, can you please go back and do items for discussion? Oh. Sorry.

Thank you. Okay. Items for discussion. Plan 2045 Chapter 2 Land Use Draft Review. Chris?

Yes. Thank you. I have Bronwyn put up some documents online or up on the screen here because we didn't get to cover them last work session because we didn't have the quorum. And we didn't talk about it the first time we talked about Chapter 1 back in July. So there's a couple things here.

One is the document design for Plan 2045, so the— what's attached to the agenda for Chapter 2 is not— it's just the Word document, so it's not the actual end design of the document. So that's what we have attached. Here is kind of what the front page would look like. If Rahman wants to scroll through that, it kind of gives you an idea of how the chapter covers are, how we break— how We break out some design in interior of each chapter. We do have some text put in here just to kind of show you in context.

Same thing with maps and things like that. So that's kind of what the design will look like. It'll just have, you know, the text will be throughout the pages, but it'll have similar designs. And sometimes based on the type, what the subject of each chapter is too, will also play into what photographs and so on are used as well. So that gives you a good idea what the design would be.

And also, the next document would be— is an updated timeline for Plan 2045, which factors in this process. And so, you know, we are at that end stage here where it starts in August of '26. This is the stage where the Commission will be reviewing chapters, making comments. Staff will take those comments back, make any necessary changes, and then we go on to the Assembly for additional review by the Assembly at work sessions. We'll make any changes that they have to the chapters.

And once it's gone through that process, we will put the document together in the design that I showed earlier, and that will be what will be submitted for a comment period, usually between 30 and 60 days. To the public to respond to that. And then once that is done, we will make any needed changes to the document based on comments received, and then we will go through the approval process, which is the public hearing process before the Assembly and then eventually before the—. Excuse me—. Before the Commission and then the Assembly after that.

Any kind of questions on that process? So we are in that beginning stages of the process where the Commission is reviewing initial chapters and chapter drafts, and then the Assembly will also review drafts after the Commission has reviewed them. And what we have for Chapter 2's draft is before you. Brahman can put that up. I am just going to briefly go through it because I just want to let the— Commission know how that's designed.

It's, of course, a lot smaller than the last chapter where we had 130 pages, but the introduction chapter includes a lot of things that are not necessarily controversial because it's a lot of background information. Whereas the land use chapter talks about different things. So we go over current conditions related to land use. So that would include regulatory framework for land use decisions. And also codes land ownership and use.

We talk about different types of resources, some special areas that have some special distinction. We also do issue identification, which is all part of that initial phase of the plan where we had public meetings regarding different topics of the plan. Those topics will end up becoming chapters. And so that issue identification is there. And then we talk about the current future land use map.

If you remember, the Commission has already reviewed the proposed future land use map at a previous meeting, I believe back in July, I think. And then I talk a little bit about the new future land use map and how that is put together in terms of what are the major land use designations. And then the last two parts are the kind of the main pieces, and that is the goals, objectives and policies. And it is broken down as goals first, objectives under the goal, and the policies are under the objectives. And we have those outlined here.

And we have really four major goals and then there are objectives underneath that and then policies under that. So, again, if the Commission has any questions on those or would like to send me any questions that you may have after the meeting, that is fine as well. And then also the last part of the chapter is the implementation, which is basically— it's a table of objectives and policies that would necessarily be implemented and things that we would be tracking after the plan is adopted in terms of how they are implemented and that kind of information. Any questions on that? I know that's— it's still a lot even though it's not as many pages as Chapter 1, it's still, you know, 30 pages in Chapter 2.

Yes, Mr. Neff? So I saw—. I was really surprised that the Bureau has only— you have listed only 36,000 acres of land that the Bureau actually owns. That's the— yeah, that is what I got from our GIS staff in terms of what the current most recent numbers we have. And that's including land like Ugiak Bay and—.

It should include all that information, yeah, all that, all those properties.

Oh, so you got a map showing what we have right around town by any chance? Yeah, that will be something. Yeah, I will have to be adding those. I will tell you our GIS analyst has left the borough and so—. Okay.

Yeah, I will be making those maps when I have time to make them. So, but we will be making maps that will show that information and other things as well. Okay. I won't bother you anymore about that. No problem.

I was just mostly curious. So all right. Thanks. And we will make sure we'll be bringing those maps to you all in the— you know, when it comes for you for public hearing, you'll have those— all those maps in there as well.

I just wanted to say that there's a lot of work that's been done on this and I watched deal last night for the assembly candidates, and one of the questions was, where do you think it is, areas that are maybe underpaid or not enough money for them? And I think that part— this here is— I mean, it's like that throughout the borough, but, um, for the work that you guys go and the amount of detail that you have to go through, the pages that you provide for us to read, um, you do a lot of work, and it helps us do our job very well. So I just want to acknowledge that a lot of the background work that is done by the Bureau, we don't— people don't see. But I commend you for what you've done so far. This looks good to me.

Well, and I will just say that a lot of, you know, most of the, if not all of the goals, objectives, and policies in this chapter were things that we received from public meetings, from surveys that were done. And other types of activities that people, citizens participated in throughout the process. That will be the same as we go forward for the other chapters, too. It is all based on what people gave us in terms of their feedback, and we use that to create goals and create the objectives and policies that fall under those.

And as I said, if anybody has any questions on any specific thing, please feel free to email me. I will respond to you. And if you see anything that you think has a— maybe there's an error or something, I'll be happy to fix that as we go forward. Thank you.

All right. Now, we can move on to the packet review. Case Kodiak Island Borough, Case 27-007, the administrative request for disposal of portions of the borough properties USS 3468 and 3467, Lot 1. Chris, do you got follow-up on that? Thank you.

Committee Development received an application from the Borough Manager. This is based on recommendations from the Lands Committee— of the Borough's Lands Committee regarding the Beaver Lake properties. These are two borough properties, as you mentioned in your— discussion. The proposal that went through the Burrow Lands Committee was disposal of portions of those properties. Those are outlined in the staff report that is attached to this agenda item.

Staff has reviewed the application against approved plans for the area as well as the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended that the portions of the subject properties be retained. And not disposed of. Staff has created findings and resolutions for both a disposal, which is Resolution A, and retention, which is Resolution B. There are proposed findings within each of those resolutions that support those resolutions.

Title 18, which is our lands title regulations for the borough, requires that the Commission review borough land disposals to determine whether the properties are surplus or not, and based on that determination, a resolution is required either for disposal or for retention of the subject properties. Those resolutions are a recommendation onto the Borough Assembly, who will make the final determination on whether a property is disposed of or not. And if it is disposed, they will discuss how it will be disposed, what, what method, and what any kind of conditions that are attached to that. We have received comments. I know in the staff report attached to here— I have not updated it, which I will do for the regular meeting next week— I think we have about 14 comments in opposition to disposing of, of the portions of these two properties.

So I just wanted to let you all know that, but all 14 comments are attached to the work session's agenda item, so you should have those in front of you on your screens. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those.

Let's say that per— we recommend retaining these properties. I know that in a number of the— or a few of the comments that were made, it seems like these properties keep coming up to talk about it when I think At this point, I'm thinking that we— the history of the U.S. is to just pave everything over and leaving very few little green space, and especially around lakes and rivers and streams. I think it's important to keep those things more natural in order to keep our land habitable. So how long will this be off the table if we vote to keep it that way? I know we're not supposed to tie the hands of future members, but at some point we have to try to leave them there as it is.

I mean, it's difficult for me to say that, you know, something's ever completely off the table for potential disposal. What I will say is In terms of our recommendation to the Commission is based on the plans that we have before us, and that would be the Comprehensive Plan and also the specific plan that was updated back when these properties were rezoned to the Natural Use District. And unlike some of the other properties, like when you all looked at the Island Lake properties, that was public use lands district and the portion that was proposed for disposal was not currently being used for a public use. In this case, it's not really being necessarily designated as a public use. Designated as a natural use, which, in other words, you're leaving it— basically leaving it alone.

I mean, you can have trails, and there are trails on these properties, but typically you're not developing them when they're in the natural use district, as well as they're in the natural use land use designation for the Comprehensive Plan as well. So that's why staff is recommending to retain them. The Assembly always has the ability to You know, of course, the Commission has the ability to send their recommendation just like the Bureau of Lands Committee has. And again, it gets up to the Assembly about making that final decision. And there is nothing that I know of that can, you know, restrict that from happening, that they have the ability to dispose of, you know, say they are going to dispose of it in a certain way.

Again, what was before you is not disposing of the entirety of the two properties, but you know, rather small portions of the properties. And so I will just clarify that. It's not the full extent of the properties, but smaller pieces of the property that are adjacent to the existing roadways, primarily because those locations have existing public water and sewer facilities to access.

So you're recommending That we don't dispose of them or you are recommending—. Staff is recommending that they be retained, which means not to dispose of them. Oh, okay. Yes. And again, that is based on the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan that was approved for this area.

Where we are showing Parcel 1, 2, 3, and 4, just so So we're clear, which parcels are the ones in question? So it's really— so on the— so, you know, none of those parcels have been created. So those pieces would have to be created. So if the Assembly does dispose of it, they will be disposing of those portions of the properties. In terms of how that's handled, whether you do a subdivision first or a subdivision afterwards, the recommendation from the Lands Committee was that they would be disposed of through a request for proposals.

And so the request for proposals could also include the subdivision of the— the initial subdivision of the properties off from the main parcel. So kind of what you see there is kind of what the Lands Committee had submitted in terms of what they consider would be the primary properties, and that's really the wooded areas that have those parcel numbers over them. Not really the lake itself or any of the other pieces. So again, it's hard for me to say because we have not done a subdivision of those and that would have to be done later as part of, you know, that's discussed as part of the request for proposals that will be discussed at the Assembly level.

As far as staff seeing that natural use and what options are there in the borough, what options do we have to provide the public for land that aren't something like this that people would not complain about and say, "Not in my backyard," type thing?

Even if you were to attempt to develop this property, it would not be certainly easy to do. All the easy property, I think, that the borough owns that could be easily developed that had certainly public water and sewer to them, there's very little of that. And where you— and where you have any, they do have constraints, whether it's that they're wet or that they have wetlands or they have steep slopes or whatever it might be. There's always going to be some constraints there. Which makes it difficult to develop.

There is— and this is something we've talked about at the Lands Committee— there are quite a few privately owned properties that are probably more easily developed than, say, the borough properties are. And incentivizing how you incentivize those properties to be developed is certainly something that I think the Assembly will— should look at. And it's something that we're recommending in the new Comprehensive Plan that we look at what could be done to try to incentivize development of existing private land that has access to public water and sewer. I'm not really aware of a lot of private land like that. I can get you a map.

There's a map that has gone to the Lands Committee about what private land is out there that's vacant. Okay. Yeah, I'd like to see that.

I think this is just a tricky one because, like you said, there isn't a lot of land out there.

When was the last comprehensive plan made that we're using to reflect on our decision? So the current—. Yeah, the current plan that we have in place was approved in 2008, but really the work was done in '06 and '07, I believe, is mostly where that— the work of developing it. So almost 20 years ago, correct? Lots changed.

Okay, I think that was it. Anybody else have any other—.

I would have been in favor.

I'm sorry, Miss Craig, can you please speak up? If the Kodiak Island housing hadn't You know, bought that property and they're gonna be building houses on there, and so it's gonna— the traffic is gonna be more now. But had that not happened, I probably would have opened these up. But now that that's happening, I think there's just gonna be a lot of traffic on that road. So that would be my only reason for holding off on these.

So So if I understand, we're still in the inception of liquidating these properties. Is that correct? Yeah, I mean, this would be— if the Island Lake properties is a year to maybe a year and a half potentially, these are going to be quite a bit further off because we're talking about request for proposal, and then that would lead to a lot of other things that would need to happen because depending on what the proposal is, it still would have to be rezoned to something other than natural use. You would still have to have a subdivision. Right.

And potentially a lot of work that would need to be done if a subdivision is approved within its 2-year timeframe for recordation because of whether kind of improvements are being proposed and also any kind of environmental constraints that that exist that you have to address in development. So we have a long process ahead of us, which is to say, I would say we should get this process started. I would want to see this approved simply because we want to have the expansion down the line to be able to make this property into residential for our city and borough in Service District 1. So— With that being said, what would be the next step? You're saying staff is saying no to this development?

Staff recommended no because of what the current Comprehensive Plan and the current Land Use Plan for this area stated when it was rezoned to Natural Use District. And that was back in 2008? Yeah. So that would be— and again, it's up to the Commission to make a recommendation. Again, the Assembly has the final say on what they— what they are going to do with the proposal.

And then as part of that discussion on their side, they will determine how it will be disposed of. In other words, the recommendation from the Lands Committee was for request for proposals. They could potentially do something else if they wanted, but considering the state that the properties are currently in, probably request for proposals makes the most sense.

Okay. So there is some logic there.

Getting a private citizen to give up some of their land for development has been perhaps one of the bottlenecks to our growth for the purposes of residential homes. This is a government initiative to try and open up that land for other individuals to step up to the market and produce residential homes. So I would— advocate that we should consider moving the process forward for those that come after us to have the flexibility to at some point move this into a production phase. I don't think we're anywhere close to actual house building. I think we have a long road ahead of us.

We've got to see what the environmental impact will be. I can tell you that this is my backyard, and My wife and daughter love walking through that area, but I also understand that it could be available in such a way to help ease our impact of our residential market.

So I'd be open to the idea of moving this forward. Thank you.

Yeah, I agree with Craig on that one there. It's—. We're kind of in a bind right now because there isn't very much available for people that— I mean, I've heard this from the public quite often, even at this meeting and rural meetings, that people cannot find land to build on. And we are due for for, I'd say, a pretty good burst of looking at what we got with the rocket launch and Coast Guard expansion is we are not going to be prepared. I mean, it is definitely time to move on something like this, I would say.

And the Lands Committee has been looking at it. I really wish the Lands Committee— I don't think Sarah Fraser was there on that. I wish she was here because I would like to hear I'm sure they studied it out pretty well and have good reasoning behind that also. Uh, but yeah, we're, we're definitely in a time where if any time is a time to start preparing for expansion, I would say right now is, even though we're in a little lull right now. I mean, I'm in building and I can say there's nobody building new houses right now, and that isn't all just cost.

I think partly it is land availability for some people. But yeah, very few new houses being built. I think you're probably aware of that being in community development. So, um, that's going to change though. I mean, it would— like, I'm sure people would like it to change if we really get that expansion.

And a lot of people don't want Kodiak to grow, but that's, uh, kind of necessary for where we're headed right now as a community. Community. Anyways, that's about it.

Just one thing I would clarify for the Commission. So, you know, for your— since you have two resolutions before you for this for next week's meeting, Resolution A is the one that you would make your initial motion on before to open the public hearing because that one is in the positive in terms of disposing of it, you always— you have Resolution B, which is the one for retention. If you ever, like, want to amend your motion to substitute, you could do that. If the idea for the Commission is you want to go forward with the recommendation to the Assembly, then your initial motion would be approving Resolution A and then opening it for your hearing and going through your hearing process and then making your your final decision on that resolution. Okay.

All right. Seeing no other comments on that, we'll go ahead and move to the Oceanfront Kodiak LLC, Case 27-008, request to rezone of Cliff Point Estate Ocean. Front ADN number 1, Track B, ADN number 1, Track C, and Cliff Point Estates ADN number 3, Track D. Chris? Yeah, Brahman's— this is Brahman's case. She'll be presenting that one.

No problem. You're fine. Good evening, Commissioners and Kodiak. The applicant has proposed 4 separate subdivision cases in one rezoned case, which went for public hearing in July of this year at this commission. All were approved in the same month as the public hearing.

The applicant has stated that they want the majority of the properties within the Cliff Point area to have the same zoning designation to create uniformity within its community. Uh, Oceanfront Kodiak LLC has requested that Cliff Point Estates Addition Number 1, Tracts B and C, and Cliff Point Estates Addition Number 3, Tracts D, all be rezoned into a zoning designation with a greater area requirement, the Sea Conservation District. The larger area condition will keep the integrity of the future property owners— I'm so sorry.

Sorry. Will keep the integrity of the proposed zoning district and the surrounding areas. In addition, it also gives the future property owners more room to maneuver their potential developments. KIBC 17.50 of— is already existing code within the Sea Conservation District to prevent clearing, filling, excavation, or structural development within a 50-foot buffer barrier adjacent to any Anadromous streams, meaning that zoning would stop any development closer than 50 feet from any Anadromous streams that are located in the Cliff Point area. This request is in line and compliant with the future land use map.

At the last meeting regarding the Cliff Point area, we did get asked about the permitted uses surrounding business. Looking at the sheet of paper titled Article X Use Restriction under Section 10.1, Land Use A does answer that question that I believe one of the commissioners had at the July meeting with the other cases. So we just wanted to make sure you had this information to move forward. Staff does recommend approving the proposed rezone and forwarding Case 27-008 on to the Assembly for final approval. Are there any questions?

I would just add something. One of the things that Brahman gave you were the covenants, existing covenants for Cliff Point, which restrict what other uses can take place other than single-family. So those restrictions would make it difficult, if not impossible, to do any kind of non-residential uses that would be permitted in the Sea Conservation District. And that was the reason why we submitted that to you so you could have that, but also it answered a question I believe that one of the Commissioners had at a— at the meeting back in July when we saw the other— when you all heard the other rezone case.

After the last meeting we had about this one, we did the rezoning. I asked the guy that was here about what it would cost for a person to get one of those lots and put a house on it, how much it would cost to get it all done. He said about $400,000. So that prices out a lot of the people that I know. What is that going to— how is making the lots bigger going to affect the price?

Is it going to go down? Is it going to be better? Or do we have any ideas yet? I wouldn't even try to speculate on how much, you know, increasing— I mean, of course, the cost would go up if you're going to increase the size because it's more land. But I couldn't— I'm not going to try to tell you how much more it would I like—.

I mean, we are gonna have, I think they said about 5,000 people gonna be moving into here.

They— I heard many people say that housing has never been affordable in Kodiak, but it can be.

Maybe not in right now, but in the future it can be. And I think that's what we need to start to concentrate on, is making affordable housing available to people. And affordable to people that live in Kodiak, not affordable to people that are coming from outside to live here. We need to take care of our own before we cater to others. And I understand that we have to let people in.

In order to grow, but we need to find a way to make it easier for people that are already here living in substandard or bad housing, you know, multiple families in one home. We need to make it easier for those guys to get into it, and what Kodiak Island Housing is doing is a start, a great start, but we need more things like that happening here. And another thing that we need to think about is the livability, how we need to make our homes and subdivisions more people-friendly. You drive around this town and you go to some of these places and there are no sidewalks. We're supposed to be inviting people in.

We want people to come here and raise their families, but if they can't walk across the down the street to visit their neighbors, then it isn't inviting. It's more like we're trying to get robots to go to work and come home, and that's it. So we need to start thinking about how we design these places that they're going to live. And I think that we need to start putting sidewalks in there, although it may cut the lot sizes down some, but we can do it.

For the record, this is an anomaly to go regressing back into a conservation form. Is that correct?

Right. So at one point, the developer decided to try and do subdivision or subdivision the lot and now is regressing back to a conservation of a larger lot. Correct. And, again, I'm not going to try to speak to their reasoning. We have the public hearing next week.

It's over— they gave you an answer at the last hearing back in July for the other case.

Sorry, I didn't have my mic on. Thank you for— in the audience, I would just say that I will let the applicant speak to why they want the rezone. Again, in your meeting in July where we had the two— or the four subdivision cases and the rezone, they did express that they felt that they could sell the larger lots easier than the smaller lots, and that's why they were doing the consolidations and then the rezone. I'm going to infer that's the same reason here. So these are larger tracts to begin with.

These tracts that you have before you, they're not being consolidated. They're already large enough to meet the minimum lot size of the Conservation District. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other questions, we'll go ahead and move on To Case 27-009, Capital Improvement Projects Priority List for FY 2027 through 2031. Bronwyn. Good evening, Commissioners. Before you is Resolution FY 2027-009 related to the Capital Improvements Program.

This encompasses the entire 5-year span this program runs for. We are doing things a tad differently this year as we've come to realize come to the realization that the Capital Improvements Project Program and list are two separate documents. The program will have the entire 5 years of projects showing for the entire borough. As you can see, we have Section 1 of this resolution showing projects only for FY 2027, while Section 2 has all other projects not, not designated for fiscal year '27. These projects will stay in their respective sections for this resolution.

Solution. The last few years we have gone project by project so as not to get lost in which one we are working on, to get organized for priority. If you look in front of you, there will be a numbered sheet so we can all stay on the same page for which project will go into which space. If you are ready, we will start with the first section and prioritize those prior to moving on to Section 2. If the Commission decides not to forward— never mind, that section does not apply because we do have to get this resolution wrapped up at this meeting and voted on next meeting so we meet our deadline to forward this on to the assembly.

So if you would like, we can, um, start with the first project.

This is your guys' discussion. You tell me where to put things. Okay, have you guys had a chance to look at these?

So you have projects 1 through 5 that need to be prioritized first.

I am going to go ahead and recommend I recommend that we move the Kodiak Borough— oh, that's number 5, sorry.

Go ahead. Brown, sorry to— What page are we on? If you are doing the split screen, it will be page 17 of 24 of the packet for this specific case. 17. What was that?

Page 17 of 24, you said? Yes, sir.

Thank you. Absolutely.

So we are only looking at Section 1 through 5. 1 Through 5. Yeah, only 1 through 5 projects. Sorry. Because now they are done in one section and two sections where last time we did them all at once.

Number 5 is going to be my pick, the Kodiak Island Borough Lichy Treatment Plant as our number 1.

Are we discussing individual legally, or are we—. I think so. Okay. My idea— sorry— was number 2, and the only reason I say that is because they have allocated some funds where the rest of the projects have not.

But it's for discussion. Absolutely. So given— while I do sit on the roads for Service District 1, and I'd love to see that to be a high priority. I would rather see the Leachate Plant be the priority if we're doing 1 through 5 for these first. And the reason I say that is because that is a part of our waste management at the landfill that has been needing repair.

We've delayed and deferred maintenance. It's time for us to step up and try and get this one as a high priority item. So that'd be my logic behind it. If I read this correct, and I don't know if we're allowed to ask questions here, but you're absolutely allowed to ask questions. When I read number 5, the Lichay treatment plan, this is just for a purchase of a generator?

Yes. And the installation, including the installation as well. Okay, and it's on here because of we've had blackouts is the way I read it, and it just is to help that, not necessarily something that's critical. Correct, so if you look in, I wanna say it's the third paragraph, I don't know if you can see up on the screen, but it kind of gives you a little bit of that information right here where it says loss of power disrupts critical treatment processes affecting pH balance, which then staff were spending money on staff time, or they are, sorry, spending money on staff time to figure out all this. So it's a continuous money pit is how it was explained to me almost.

So they're looking to update all of that and have both the generator purchase and then the installation all under one. So it wouldn't be a separate, you know, fee or charge. I guess, project.

Any other comments from the Commission?

I am happy with 1, 2, and 3 as they are. I would change number 4 with number 6 and put number 4 at 6 and keep 5 at 5. So after the last couple of years of doing this, can we work one project at a time so we can all come to an agreement? By we, I mean you guys, and then we can move down the list that way. If you guys want to start with Project 5 and move it up, I don't care how we do it, but can we do one project at a time just so that we all know exactly where we're putting these projects and I don't mess up the document for next week and then we have to postpone so I can fix it, you know.

You said 1, 2, and 3 as they are, and then 4 and 5 you wanted to kind of move around a little bit, it sounded like. Yes. Well, 5 I want to keep the same, but 6 I want to change it, move it up to 4. We are not talking about 6. That's in Section 2.

I understand this. So we are only talking about 1 through 5 right now. We cannot move any projects from Section 2 into Section 1.

A clarification question. What is defining Sections 1 and 2? So if you go into the code regarding the CIP, it designates all these projects are supposed to have a fiscal year attached to it. So when we submit this into CAPSES, it is very clear who is asking for the money, where the money is going to, who is going to be doing the project, how much money has been allocated already from the agency how much they're asking for and what fiscal year they want this project to go in. Um, when we started digging a little bit deeper, and you know, you absolutely— I didn't, um, I kind of absolved this when I moved into my department, you know, so I wasn't entirely clear on what the difference was between the list and the program.

The program is for specific to like that first year. The list, however, is a 5-year pro— a uh, 5-year list. But with us doing these, these sections, you know, if you go back up and you read like what Section 1 means, it's the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning, uh, Commission recommends the following capital improvements in order of priority for adoption into the Kodiak Island Borough FY 2027 CIP list of capital improvements. So this is specific just for this upcoming fiscal year. We're not going beyond that.

So we have borough projects, which will be in Section 1 from moving forward in the next coming years, and then all other projects. That's including other agencies around the island. That's also including Parks and Rec for, you know, the city. If they wanted to put one on, they normally have their own CIP list, but every now and then, like, you know, as you can see, the city does have projects on our list as well. So this is to designate not only the fiscal year, the projects itself.

Remind us again what the CIP list is for and what it is meant to do. So these are projects that go for a 5-year span, and then the program is a separate entity. So we are only focusing on a 5-year list is what we are looking at.

What I was getting at is each of these people that are submitting these projects Let's say, because I'm from a village, one of the villages sends in this project. What it's doing on this list is if it's ranked, depending on where it's ranked on the list, that shows how important it is to the borough that it gets done. And it's easier for the person asking for the money to get funding from whether it be the state or the federal government. Because they can point to the CIP list and say, see, it's right here on the list. Absolutely.

And it just being on a resolution being adopted by a bigger, you know, a bigger or different entity, it doesn't have to be bigger, it's just, you know, could be a separate entity, but them having their project on our resolution absolutely helps regardless of where it is in the priority list. I also want to point out that every single one of these entities that's submits to us has their own option of submitting directly into CAPSYS and not going through the borough. This is just an extra little support that we want to give to everyone on the island. You know, this isn't— we're not— we don't pick and choose what goes onto the list. We just pick the priority, and then the assembly comes in with their own recommendation based off of our list.

So I want you guys to fully understand, like, this is not going to be the deciding factor of where these all fall. These things will get moved around or maybe the assembly agrees with every single one of your recommendations 1 through 17 and they keep them exactly like that, you know. So the assembly will only see— will see everything, but they will vote on different things.

Okay. I would like to see number 1 moved to number 5, because I'm looking at it and it doesn't really sound like it's anything needed. It just sounds like some kind of little perks they like to get to me on the, uh, dress it up a bit. Doesn't sound like there's anything they really need at this point. Maybe in the future, but, uh, sounds like it's a little bit premature to really feel like they need personally, and then just move everything else up in order.

That would be my choice right there.

Okay, so what I'm hearing from Dagan and Mr. Neff, that it sounds like we all kind of want to move number 5 to the top, is that correct? I believe Court was talking about project 1, Kodiak Island Borough Fire and Rescue, and I think Mr. Dagan was talking about project 5. You said number 1 to move to 5 and 5 to 1? Was that correct? No, just move, shift all the 1 through 4, shift the 1 through 5 up, so like 2 through 4.

Okay, so you want to see service area number 1 on number 1, not number 2? Yes, ma'am. Tell you what, I like his idea. I like Joe's idea. Everybody takes a step forward.

While step 1 goes to step 5.

Is that your guys' recommendation to staff? I'm fine because it's probably going to get changed anyway. So I mean, I'm fine. Okay. So just so staff is clear, you guys want to move project number 1, Borough Fire and Rescue, into project number 5, and then everything else shifts up one?

That's correct. This is a work session, so do we need to vote on this next week, or are we doing—. You'll vote on the resolution once I get it back into where you guys want all your projects to be moved around and shifted, and then you guys will move for a vote. Yes. Fair enough.

Thank you. Okay, so now we move down to Section 2, which are project number 6 through 18.

So we'll start with project number 6.

Ms. Brown, when are we doing this as increment of 5 or the remainder of the list? Just one at a time. One at a time. It will just be easier for us. Otherwise we are all going to be here debating and forgetting who said what and what goes where, you know.

So in order to expedite this, I would suggest that we accept the list, Chairwoman, of the list as it presents itself.

So you don't want to make any changes to Section 2?

We are looking at a voice with no real teeth in the decision process. The Bureau can choose to manipulate and maneuver projects as they see fit. Well, they can, but I don't want you guys to feel like this recommendation is just null and void, you know, like it is a useless thing. It is absolutely vital for the assembly to hear and see how you guys feel about the projects. Now, if you really feel that, you know, 6 through— I believe it is 17 or 18 want to stay, 6 through 17 or 18, I absolutely understand.

I just want you guys to fully understand that you do have a voice and the assembly does they do take that into account, whether or not they agree with it or disagree with it, they do take it into account. I hear that. Okay. Thank you for that clarity. Yes, sir.

I will also say that when I was on the assembly, much of what was discussed here did come up in our discussions there, so it is important that we make our feelings known. And with that being said, I would say— where are we on 6? Larson Bay, I know, for many, many years has been losing water out of their system. And not only that, they're fighting with beavers up in their river. So I think that we keep them— they're— Reservoir up at 6, and I saw one more here.

I'll find the other one.

So, so, um, Mr. Delgado, you want to keep number 6 as number 6 then? Because it is a— I mean, these are all priorities, and it's such a hard decision to do this. I understand. Um, is everyone else wanting to keep number 6 as this number 6, or do we kind of want to shift things? Well, I'm looking at this list and I see that we have the harbor and we have the wastewater treatment facility here in the city, and those are significant projects as well.

One's an economic driver, another is a health and safety issue, just like the Larsen Bay's water reservation. Yeah. Reserves.

So then there's the whole conversation aspect of equity, equality, fairness between the different organizations, cities, and individuals that are involved in these locations. And as we're moving down, you know, if you guys agree that number 6 stays number 6, and then we get to number 12 and you're like, you you know what, I want to bump number 12 into number 6 and we shift everything down. Like, this is not set in stone. We are here to sit here and work through all 18 projects. You know, so this list can absolutely be shifting this whole time.

It is just easier if we move it one and then you guys can come back to another project and say, you know what, I want to change my mind. Number 6 goes to 7, number 12 goes up or number 14, whatever the number may be.

So even if you guys agree right now, we can change our mind in 20 minutes, or you guys can. I would like to recommend that we move the hospital facility sterilization to number 6.

I think the hospital, obviously being the one and only hospital in town, um, where everybody comes from, not just just us, but the surrounding villages feel like it's important that we have the proper system to sterilize their equipment. So I'd like to change that one if anybody has any comments to that.

Recently in the paper there was an article I believe I saw about how Providence and the borough have been able to acquire a grant, I believe it was from the state, to be able to replace the refrigeration cooling tower on the hospital. That was a $380-some-odd thousand endeavor, as I recall. So that there is grant potentials and opportunities here. That is something that outside this CIP list at this time, is that correct? That that could influence the individual or department that is trying to seek for these funds?

Are you— I just want to be clear, are you asking because they have already received grant money for a separate project that this might influence or—. Right. —Getting more money, additional funding? So we don't have any visibility of any grants that are in the pipeline or being prepared for this kind of a need by the hospital or by the Bureau of Engineering Department or anything like that. Is that correct?

Yeah, I mean, I, I'm not privy to that information until it's handed into my department for either to be accepted on this or for the permits when they come later for the zoning, you know, and building. However, I don't believe, and I could be mistaken on this, that if you've received grant money in the past, even if it was recently, I don't think that influences the state or the legislature to push for a project or not push for a project. I don't think that goes either way, but I could be mistaken. I just don't think that that's how that system kind of works with the legislature. You know, because we submit these projects into CAPSES.

Like, we don't say on our priority list it was Number 1. I mean, we do— I believe we do supply the resolution that the document is in. But if you have ever seen, and I don't know if any one of you guys have, I just saw it for the first time a couple months back, what CAPSES really looks like. And it is like you are plugging and playing information. It is not asking like, was this your number 1 priority?

You can absolutely put that in your dialogue of the project, but I don't believe that, you know, if the hospital received money, the legislator is going to push for that, the hospital to receive more. I don't think that's how he, he and she works that at the state level. Thank you. Yeah, I have a follow-up question. Okay.

Regarding the price of oil being higher than it has been of late, has that impacted the coffers of the state from your perspective? Are you seeing any kind of an influence with more monies being available to the local boroughs and cities within the state?

You know, I don't believe I can answer that just because I don't know enough about all the other boroughs and when they receive money. I don't follow the money trails directly from the state to all these other communities.

So I can't answer that question fully. I will say that if I remember right, no projects have been pulled off this list in the last 2 years, Chris? I don't believe so. So this list has been updated, you know, we have added a couple projects in the last couple years, but I don't believe any projects have been pulled off since the school roof. And I want to say maybe Sima or Scott, and I hate to ask them while they are in the crowd, but I want to say that there was a school roof that was approved maybe 3 3 or 4 years ago for funding.

But other than that, no.

Thank you. Yes. I hope that answered your question. Thank you. It did.

Okay.

So I believe the discussion dropped off at the hospital wanting to be bumped up. Move to number 6. And how does the Commission—. I am down with that.

I have got a couple more recommendations.

Before we move on with more recommendations, I would like to see where this project, where you guys want number 15, if you want it moved into 6.

Otherwise, I'm going to start falling behind.

Sure. I'd be agreeable.

I mean, I personally like 17 and 18, but that's neither here nor there. Wastewater treatment and the harbor. What if I told you that that was number 7? My recommendation. Would number 8 be the St. Herman Harbor replacement or would it be the harbor replacement versus the water treatment?

I had the wastewater treatment at number 7 and then the St. Harbor at number 8. I am agreeable. Me too. So just so I'm clear, we want to move 15 into 6?

Okay. And then what was your— the Commission's recommendation for number 7, Project 7? To St. Herman Harbor.

Is everyone agreeing with that so I can move it, or—. So harbor before treatment?

Uh, no, sorry. Treatment before Harbor. Okay, so as it is, 17 to 7, 8 is then the Harbor. So 6 is Hospital, mm-hmm, and then 7 is Treatment Plant, mm-hmm, and 8 is Harbor, correct? And everything else bumps.

I'd like to move the community health center to number 9. Feeling the health itch. I could be agreeable to that as well. What project number is that? I'm, I'm moving.

That is number 14. Is everyone agreeing that number 14 will be number 9? Sure.

I've seen 3 or 4 head nods. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah.

All right, project number 10. I want to recommend the City of Port Lions Fire Station.

Project number 11.

City of Port Lyons Water Distribution.

What project number is that, please? The water distribution is number 7. For Port Lyons. Okay. So then number 6, formerly the City of Larson Bay Reservoir Spillway, I'd like to see that one put in as a follow-on.

So just so we're clear, the new project number 10 will be project number 7, City of Port Lyons Water Distribution System Replacement. Everyone's agreeing with that? Okay. Project number 11 on the new list Is which one was proposed? Number 6, the City of Larsen Bay Reservoir Spillway.

Okay.

And everyone agrees with that? Then what follows is the Kodiak storage tank— Kurlak, sorry, Kurlak water storage tank. Unless the— Chairwoman disagrees. That's fine.

Okay, the proposal for project number 13, the City of Old Harbor septic tank.

Hmm, sewer truck, I thought it was, but okay, er, septic. What is it?

Sorry, I was trying to write and I might have got that wrong, but yes, the septic truck tank replacement. Sorry, project number 13, City of Old Harbor. Yes. Okay, so you want 13 to stay as 13 then? Yes.

Okay, just— I just want to make sure I'm clear. You're fine. Okay, project number 14, you guys.

No, we've already said that one.

Uh, we can go with the Carlock Sewer Truck, project number 10.

City of— I guess that leaves just 2, right? The City of Larson Bay. We've got— before we move on, I just want to make sure the commission agrees that Carlock Sewer Truck will be moved into project— into Space 14 on the resolution. Okay, I agreed. Thank you.

Project number 15, we can do the equipment— City of Larson Bay equipment in repair.

Sure. Can you give me a number, please? 16. 16. Got you.

Okay, that leaves the City of Larson Bay upgrade to the city hall as number 18. Oh, number— I'm sorry, we're on project number 16. So what do we have for 16? You want to move the City of Larson Bay into space 16?

Yeah, okay, okay.

Project number 17, that—. The City of Larson Bay upgrade to the city hall.

That— I'm sorry, I think we're off on the On a different page. I believe you guys just moved that project number 12 on the current resolution into space number 16 for the new resolution, which is the City of Larson Bay upgrade City Hall. Oh, I thought I said— Did I get my wires crossed? I might have. I thought I said equipment and repair, but maybe not.

Equipment repairs and maintenance. You said equipment and repair was going to be 15. Okay, then that was me. You're right.

Let's do a quick recap, um, starting with number 1. So we have number 2, number 3, number 4, number 5, number 1, number 15, number 17, number 18, number 14, number 7, number 6, number 9, number 13, number 10, Number 16, which— yep, okay. Number 16 and then number 12. So you have 2 more projects to prioritize.

And I got you guys correct, right? That's where everyone's at. Okay, okay. Brahman, can you remind them the 2 remaining projects, what those are? Honestly, no, I can't.

Yeah, I wrote— I'm super sorry—. Down, not the numbers. This is why we go one at a time all the way down the list, starting from number 1, number through 17, so we don't, we don't lose track. But, um, I really don't know where we're at. Is number 11 the City of Fort Lyon's fire?

Thank you. 11 And 8. Okay, I was wondering. All right, City of Larson Bay. Water distribution lines, number 17 or number 18?

17.

Everyone's in agreement? Yeah? Okay. All right. So number 11 will be moved into— 18.

18. Okay.

Sorry. I thought I was—. I— and I made— I may do a draft of this resolution and BCC it to all the commissioners to make sure that we are all on the same page. I just want to make sure I'm doing you right.

Okay. Any other questions, comments, or concerns? We will go ahead and move on. Next case, Patrick Anderson, case 27-010.

Requests a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 and 16 feet and reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet for new build allowance. Yes, thank you. Uh, the applicant requests these two variances to allow the construction of a cabin-size single-family residence at 40689 Pisac Shack Road. The existing property is substandard in lot size and is unusual in shape compared to other properties in the surrounding area. And as mentioned, the requested variance is to reduce the 25-foot front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet and reduce the 20-foot rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet.

Your staff analysis begins on page 2 of the staff report. Proposed findings in support of the variance are on page 4 of the staff report. Report and in your proposed resolution. If the Commission disagrees with the staff recommendation, findings in opposition to the variance request will need to be developed. The Planning and Zoning Commission bylaws do allow the Commission to defer action on the case, giving direction to staff to draft a new resolution for denial if the Commission does want to do that.

If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer those. I believe the applicant is also in the audience today as well.

Yes, sir? So my understanding— I guess I must have got it from the wrong place somewhere, but I thought when you had an RR-1 lot, you had to have— and you had to have well and septic, you weren't on water, and so you had have like a 1-acre lot. This is way smaller than that, so I was wondering what the story is. Am I wrong on that? Sounds like I am.

Well, I mean, it is a substandard lot, so it wasn't created to— that it was created prior to those regulations, so it is substandard in size, and we do not have a restriction in our code that keeps someone from proposing development Currently, the way that with the setbacks, you would not be able to develop this property, and it is not listed as an unbuildable lot in the plat since it predates most of our current zoning regulations that we have. Yeah. I don't have any concern with the setback. I just— starting to concentrate too many people in that area with too many septics. Two small areas kind of like— I mean, I already thought 1 acre was kind of a small area to require—.

If you look in the staff report, the proposed cabin is very small in size. But, again, the applicant could speak to what their proposal is.

I'm just considering— I just want to know why do you think there's no potential health issues still with that small of a lot having a septic system on it, whether the cabin is small or large or whatever? Again, we don't review any septic approvals or approvals for onsite wastewater treatment. That would be ADEC to do that. The current zoning regulations don't address that. It is addressed to some degree in the Building Code that they have to have a septic system or some other approvable type of wastewater disposal, but that's not something that's in the zoning regulations other than when someone's creating a lot and they don't have sewer and water, then it restricts the size.

But, again, as I mentioned, this predates those zoning regulations in terms of the requirement for a specific lot size when you do not have access to public water and sewer. Looks like Patrick's willing to address it there.

Yes, you can come up and speak.

Can you guys hear me okay? Yes. I just wanted to let you guys know this lot is pretty unique. It actually doesn't have any neighbors either. There's not really anybody nearby me, and we won't be doing a septic system.

System on this lot. We will be doing an above-ground containment system which will be pumped out by Sid once a month or maybe even more frequently.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Anybody?

I don't have a question, but I like the idea of helping people build on their land and So I'm going to be in favor of this as well. I think I had a question. Patrick, did it used to have a cabin? No? For some reason, Ben thought it had a cabin on there a long time ago.

No, it has never had a structure on it. What it used to be was actually the bridge access, the original bridge access to Pisai Check for a walking bridge. The bridge since has— been long gone for, I think, about 30 years, somewhere around in there. So currently, it's just been— it's just been empty for the last— we've had it for 35 years in the family, and it's been empty for that time.

Patrick, have you ever seen flooding in that particular land? Yeah, it's a very good question. We have not. It's actually very high above the river and above everything else around it. We've had no drainage issues.

We haven't seen any flooding. We've been—. We have a cabin out there in the community, and it's something— we love Posey Check. We intend to keep that place the way it is. We want to, you know, keep it preserved, keep it what it's always been.

So we're very, very cautious. We wouldn't want to do anything below, like, the water level, anything like that. So we think that this is a very good spot to build. Thank you, Patrick.

Nope. Okay, thank you for that. I know, just got locked out. Okay, I guess we'll move on to our next case, uh, Shunak case 27-011, for a request of a variance to reduce the required Number of parking spaces from 8 parking spaces to 2 regular spaces and 2 loading dock spaces and 1 ADA compliant parking space. All right, Commissioners, one more time with me tonight.

The principal use within the I Industrial District consists of land-intensive commercial uses incorporating certain types of manufacturing, repairing, and assembling of goods, particularly those related to the fishing industry. Street. Seafood processing establishments are permitted use— are a permitted use within the I Industrial District within Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.175.040, which is the off-street parking for those of you if you don't remember. Industrial or manufacturing establishments have a parking requirement of 1 per 700 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed structure is a total of 5,200 to 250 square feet, bringing the required amount of parking on the lot to a total of 8 spaces with the required loading space in addition.

Staff reviewed other industrial-zoned parcels in the surrounding area, finding this lot is significantly smaller in lot area. Directly east and west of the subject parcel, parcel are 2 industrial-zoned lots. Both lots are over an acre in parcel size. Comparing that to the 0.65 acres of 419 Shalikov Street, or the subject parcel. It shows it's significantly smaller in lot size.

In addition, the subject parcel has a substantial amount of lot located in the open water. A lot of it is, you know, their lot is in the water, so their buildable area is pretty much being taken by this new structure if it were to be approved. Any comments or questions from the Commission?

So they're asking for a variance in parking? Correct. But how many employees are being employed at this location? I did ask and they did respond back and they said that they will have anywhere about 8 employees employees, I believe, on shift, and they will, you know, be crossing shifts, not overlapping, but they will, you know, one shift stops, another new 8 employees come in for the CAL processing. And I do believe that they have a transporter van that is available for this as well, like carpooling.

Okay. So the lot can handle the required— code-required spaces? Incorrect. Um, at this point, and I believe they gave me a site plan which I've included, um, they can fit— it was, uh, 2 regular parking spaces, I believe. Uh, hold on, sorry.

1 ADA and then 1 loading space, because they are required as an— as a non-residential to, to have that loading space. So that 10 by 40, I believe, is the, the dimensions has to be on there, so that does take up quite a bit of their available parking area. And I'm going to pull up this site plan for you guys real quick right here. You can see up there. I know it's a little far away.

Does it need to be orientated differently, or is that the orientation where the property goes over the Wharf? So right here at the bottom of this screen, it shows Shellacoff Street. So the bottom of this site plan is the front of the lot. Lot. So if you kind of like look up on the screen, you can see like how I scrolled it down.

Mhm. I'm looking at it on mine. Okay. Okay. Just making sure.

I have a question. So this is a processing plant, and then there was— is it going to be a restaurant or just a processing plant? No, there's, there's no restaurant. They're proposing a kelp processing plant in the, in the industrial. There's no restaurant.

There's talking about at this point on this lot. Okay. Yeah, that— I, I'm not sure if maybe you're alluding to a different lot or something. They might have works for a different, um, restaurant or business, you know. But at this time, this is only for the kelp processing.

I don't think they could fit anything else on that lot. Um, I think I gave you guys a pretty good picture up above, which does show how, how tight and narrow this lot is, it's extremely narrow. Like, if you compare it to the ones right directly next to it, to the east and west, you can see how narrow this subject parcel is compared to this. It's almost half the size in width of the one directly to the west— sorry, east, wrong way.

If I'm correct, and I could be mistaken, Shoenack also owns the building across the street? Correct. I believe it's the one directly across the street, but it could be kitty-corner, but I'm pretty sure it's the one directly. And they've got the appropriate parking for that? As far as I know, they do.

They've never come in for a change of use or anything for me. So I guess I'm just thinking if there's any overflow, the property across the street is theirs. Correct, but, um, you know, if that— I don't know what the requirements are on the parking for across the street, so I— if they could fit it, they might. But at this time, I didn't— we didn't even talk about that as an option because I don't believe they would have enough room for both parking, um, across the street because hours of operation, they can't overlap with tandem parking spaces. So if we require 5 for that current business across the street and another overflow from 419, the subject parcel now, to go across the street.

I don't believe they would have enough room for all of that. But I don't know what the requirements are for across the street.

They are using the existing buildings and structures on this property, correct? Or are they going to build something new? I believe they tore most of it down and they will be moving a lot of it off or moving Like adding that into the building. I think that is the total square footage of the new structure. So theoretically, they could build the parking space into the structure?

I am not an architect, so I am not going to answer that. I don't know if they could or not. Quite honestly, I don't have an answer for that. Maybe Chris can answer that. Is the applicant representative here?

I believe they are. I don't have anyone on the phone. They did say that they were.

Oh. Would you care to come up and let us pick your brains? Sure. Yeah. Yeah.

And— Thank you.

Hi. Yeah. So we've hired an architect to kind of direct us on this property and on how we might be able to comply with the parking requirement. Please make sure your mic is on if it's not. Thank you.

There we go. But yeah, I mean, I can try to answer any questions.

So basically, we got a grant for $2.3 million to get all the equipment—. Excuse me, can you state your name for the record? Yeah, yeah, no problem. Katie Hughes with Cognac. I'm project managing this project along with Shuniak and WildSource.

We got a grant for $2.3 million to buy equipment, kelp processing equipment, and we got a list from our distributor— I can't speak— from the engineers that put the plant together, and the building itself Whatever lot they have left, everything fits in that building, like, to that lot, basically, right? Pretty much, yeah. It's going to tie up— And it's going to be 2 stories. Hopefully, yeah. Maybe.

It just depends what kind of funding we get, but it's— there's a lot of equipment that goes with it. That's the site plan right there and the new proposed building is the 40 by 86. Can I interrupt you guys for a second? Sorry. Chris.

I just want to go through the Chair. So can you explain how employees— I mean, what's the need for parking on this site based on how your employees access it? Are they— do employees walk to the site? Is there like a bus stop? Like a shuttle that you have that drives employees here?

How do your employees come to the site? So a lot of them—. Can you please speak into the mic? Thank you. It's got to be caught by the mic.

A lot of them carpool. Some of them take taxis.

I mean, we have been making it work in the building, in the business that is Kodiak WildSource, and that has been working out fine.

That's— yeah, a lot of them carpool. A couple of us drive. And along Shiloh Cough, I mean, it's tough to park, I'll admit that, but usually you're able to find a parking spot somewhere, either street parking. We've got a couple places at our property there, but—.

Yeah.

Did that answer your question, Mr. Commissioner?

So, follow-up questions. Was there any consideration to parking inside the structure or somehow expanding that ability to have the— and meet the code for parking? Inside the structure? With the layout that we have, we didn't see really a way of doing that. We've got some— what we're making is kind of a mariculture processing building, and a lot of this is centrifuges and a lot of big equipment, and floor space is going to be very tight inside that building.

Building, so I don't think parking inside will be an option.

So will this be open to the public? No, it won't. It will be just a manufacturing building.

Okay. So no retail location or anything like that? No retail. Across the street is another property that will have a retail location. Area that's under construction right now.

It's been under construction for the last 3 years, but that's 412 Shelikov, and that's directly across the street.

Okay.

The building here in the back— and I'm sorry, I left my glasses— but is that another processing facility? I can't see what it—. I can't read what it says. Which building? Building are you referring to?

Just right behind, yes, that one. So that's our ice house. That's where we've got a cold storage and ice making in there. So not necessarily additional employees. No.

Just storage. Yeah, perfect. Thank you. And that structure already exists? It does.

That's already built. Yeah, that's that fabric tension building that see at the end of the dock. So— Okay.

Thank you. Sure. I see by the Parking 1 and 2 that there is some room between that and the building next to the container truck parking. Is there— can there be parking behind that 1 and 2 or— So— Is that right? So I'm in it.

Go ahead. Code, so I'll answer that for you. We have, we have code, uh, protecting that. So no, you can't have tandem parking spaces. So if their hours of operation are from, let's say, 8 to 5, and it's strictly that, you can't have tandem parking.

So I can't park one in front of another in a commercial zone business. There's a few allowances, one being like a car dealership and a couple other things like that. Uh, they did— we did previously kind of go through that. Um, and are you Chris? Yes, sir.

Okay, so Mr. Sinito, I, and then I believe, um, either their contractor or another employee of them, we, we kind of went a couple times trying to figure out maybe a different configuration to fit one or two more spaces. And with the aisle widths, uh, the required aisle widths, the turning and maneuvering, it's just impossible for them to get any more than what they, what they fit compliantly, at least. Yeah.

Anybody else? Thank you guys for being here and answering those questions. Thank you. Appreciate you guys.

I was going to say, as he acknowledged, the parking there is already pretty crowded. If it does end up he has employees that have vehicles and have a need to park, we have a parking issue. Who is going to fix it and how are we going to fix it? That's the question I have right now. Well, we have a code enforcement officer, so if you're saying like parking in the street kind of thing, they're, you know, the city, the city has their own code, we have our own code, so they can't just park willy-nilly, you know.

There are designated parking areas along that road that they would either have to— early bird gets the worm, I think, on that, you know. Either you're walking a bit or or you can get yourself on the lot or, you know, down the street. There are parking areas if you— I know you've driven down that, obviously, but if you kind of drive right across, I want to say it's kitty-cornered this way from this lot, there is a pretty big strip parking spot a little bit further down.

Okay.

I guess we'll go ahead and move on. We have got no public hear— thank you, Brown and Sorry. No public hearings, so that is going to move us on to old business, which we don't have. But it looks like we do have some new business. Chris?

So we will have elections. We did confirm with the borough clerk that you will need to do elections for at least for chair unless the vice chair becomes the chair, but at the very least, you will have to do an election for the chair. And if the vice chair were to be elected, then you would have to elect a new vice chair as well. But we did confirm that from the borough clerk. The vice chair doesn't just become the chair.

So we did confirm that. The other item that is not on here, because we did have Ms. Frazier left who was on the Lands Committee, the Commission will need to to do another recommendation, so we are going to add onto new business an item to recommend an additional Commissioner to the Mayor for the Lands Committee. So I wanted to make you all aware of that as well.

So we need an answer like right now? No, no, you are in Workstation. So I am just letting you know that you don't vote anything on Workstation, but I am letting— again, this is packet review, so we are letting you know what is on. It is not a public hearing. Right.

It is new business, so it is like a business session item. Okay. And there will be two of those. I just wanted to let you know that there is a second one because we do need another Lands Committee member. We need to appoint somebody to the Lands Committee.

What you will do is you will make a recommendation. Recommendation, and the mayor appoints that person. Okay. Question. I was spacing out a little bit there.

I'm not sure I caught everything. So is Sarah Frazer still on the board? She has resigned. She did resign? Yes.

Okay. And her resignation was accepted by the assembly at the regular meeting last week, and they will be voting on, I think, a new member here in September. So hopefully you will have a new commissioner ready to go in October.

Okay. Gotcha. I get it now.

Okay.

No other talk? We will go ahead and move on to reports. We have got our regular meeting scheduled on Wednesday, September 16th. October 13th at 6:30 here in the assembly chambers, and our work session on Wednesday, October 14th at 6:30 here in the Chamber of Commerce— Chamber of Commerce, sorry, the assembly chambers. Okay.

Next we move on to communications. Looks like we have got several case results letters from July's meeting, and we'll go ahead and move on to staff comments. So the only thing I will say is this is related to the communications. All 4 subdivisions for Oceanfront have been recorded, and that rezone has been approved. So those cases have been completed.

That's all I have. Thank you.

I just want to say thank you so much for listening to me talk a lot this meeting. I don't normally talk so much, but I appreciate all the questions. It definitely, um, worked my brain.

Yes, ma'am. Um, for the regular meeting, will you guys consider if your agenda says that CIP goes before these cases that these people are sitting in the audience for, that you make a motion to move those cases ahead of the CIP. Like, those guys had to sit through a lot today, so just that— think about it. Thank you. Thank you, Sima.

We're gonna go ahead and move on to commissioner comments. Mr. Dagan. Well, thank you. It's been a pleasure to serve on this Commission. I am technically up for reelection.

I chose not to submit my paperwork for a packet for this position, so this position will be available come the next election cycle here. So again, it's been an honor and a privilege to serve along with you.

Best of luck as you move forward with your decisions and process. It's been an honor to serve. Thank you.

I don't think we should accept his resignation.

Thank you for all the work that you guys did, and yeah, I'm glad to be back and glad to be here. And good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.

No comment.

I think we did a very good job Tonight. And, uh, yeah, sorry to hear you're leaving, Craig. Been very pleasure having you with us, and, uh, thanks for all your hard work. I really like the colors you did on your comprehensive plan, all those little chapter pictures. Those are nice.

I like that. They all look really great. Thank you.

Sorry, I guess that leaves me. Um, thank you, and thanks for bearing with me. I'll try and get better at these meetings. Um, yeah, thank you guys for being here. Thanks for all your guys's hard work, and we'll see you guys next week.

Oh, we're going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 8:04.