Planning Commission

CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA Minutes - Final Planning Commission Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:00 PM Harrigan Centennial Hall I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Present: Darrel Windsor (acting chair), Randy Hughey, Stacy Mudry, Victor Weaver (arrived 7:12 pm) Absent: Chris Spivey, Kevin Mosher (assembly liaison) Staff: Amy Ainslie Public: Tom Gamble, Jill Hirai, Bart Meyer Acting Chair Windsor called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. II. CONSIDERATION OF THE AGENDA III. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES A PM 20-08 Approve the May 6, 2020 minutes. Attachments: 07-May 6 2020 DRAFT M-Hughey/S-Mudry moved to approve the May 6, 2020 minutes. Motion passed 3-0 IV. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Tom Gamble, who identified as a tribal citizen and tribal committee member, spoke telephonically during persons to be heard. He requested updated information from the Commission and staff about the No Name Mountain Project and Granite Creek Master plan. He expressed concerns about the phase 6 project of the cross trail and inability to access the section 106 review. He mentioned there may be a request to halt the phase 6 cross trail project due to the high historic significance, cultural, use and access to subsistence in the area. V. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Ainslie began her report by updating the commission on the No Name Mountain Project. She announced the next meeting, a joint work session between the commission and the assembly, was to be held on June 3, 2020 at 6pm. Ainslie urged the public to attend, particularly those with interest or concerns about the project. The meeting will include a presentation of the draft plan by the consultants for community and commission feedback. She reported the public survey was live on the website for three weeks and received 88 responses following community outreach online and in person since February. Ainslie mentioned that some organizations had asked for more CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes - Final May 20, 2020 time to provide feedback which she hoped to accommodate within reason due to the importance of public engagement. Ainslie continued her report with updates about the Planning Department. She noted city hall was open to the public and staff was in the office full time again, but still reachable through phone or email. To accommodate proper distancing citizens were asked to make appointments when possible or use the office doorbell when not possible. Ainslie reported the Planner I position was posted and was to close on Friday, May 29th. Ainslie hoped for the hiring committee to conduct interviews in the first week of June. Person to be heard, Tom Gamble asked the Chair if he could get clarification on the director’s report. Staff and Commissioner Hughey supported questions if the Chair agreed. The Chair entertained the query. Gamble expressed concern on a separate land proposal before the Assembly involving a private citizen and 17 acres of land which Gamble had opposed in December. He felt that there had not been tribal consultation on No Name Mountain project or a call for proposals of development in the area. He expressed concern that the master plan showed some of the land could be used for high-end housing which he disagreed with due to the current cost of living. Gamble asked to meet with the Planning Director to discuss concerns further and hoped for future Tribal consultation. Ainslie agreed to a future meeting and clarified a few points before moving on. She stated the planning department had been in contact with the Tribal government on the No Name Mountain project since November, before the project commenced. Staff were directed to the committees on Natural Resources and Cultural Resources with whom they communicated and attended a meeting in March. She stressed that consultation with the Tribe was a priority of this project. Ainslie elaborated that the No Name Mountain plan was created as a framework to understand the suitability and potential uses of the land, but in no way secured the land for any particular use or developer. She stated the land in question was not yet open for bids or proposals and the passage of the plan alone would not change that. Ainslie further clarified that the other projects mentioned in Mr. Gamble’s concerns were not related to the No Name Mountain project or the Planning Commission. VI. REPORTS VII. THE EVENING BUSINESS B P 20- 02 Public hearing and consideration of a final plat for a minor subdivision to result in two lots at Shotgun Alley, located in the SFLD single-family low density zoning district. The property is also known as Lot 14, USS 3557. The applicant is the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land, and Water and North57 Surveying. The owner of record is the State of Alaska. Attachments: P 20-02 SoA Shotgun Alley Subdivision_Staff Report P 20-02 SoA Shotgun Alley Subdivision_Aerial P 20-02 SoA Shotgun Alley Subdivision_Final Plat P 20-02 SoA Shotgun Alley Subdivision_Planning Minutes 3.4.20 P 20-02 SoA Shotgun Alley Subdivision_Applicant Materials Ainslie noted in the staff report the preliminary plat and variance were discussed and CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - Final May 20, 2020 approved in a previous meeting on March 4th. The new plat secured access and utilities to an existing residential lot, allowed the right of way to be relocated to ensure proper usage, and created a new residential lot in a desirable low-density neighborhood. Ainslie noted that two new lots would be created with this subdivision, one of substandard size and one of standard size. She explained the substandard lot contained many complicated access and utility easements to maintain access to a neighboring lot. Platting a substandard lot allowed the state to convey the lot to the owner of the abutting lot, Mr. Meyer, and to be incorporated it into his lot and dissolve all but a shoreline access easement. Ainslie noted the standard lot, which would be sold via public auction, was ideal for residential development in size, location, access, and available utilities. She explained the creation of the standard lot added housing stock, residential space, and moved an exempt property onto the city tax roll. Staff recommended approval. Jill Hirai, representative of North57 Surveying, a state designated applicant to the application, was present. Commission had no further questions. Bart Meyer, owner of the neighboring property attended telephonically. Meyer clarified that two city easements, sewer and powerline, would also remain if he acquired the property. M-Hughey/S-Weaver moved to approve a final plat for a minor subdivision to result in two lots at Shotgun Alley, located in the SFLD single-family low-density zoning district. The property was also known as Lot 14, USS 3557. The applicant was the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land, and Water and North57 Surveying. The owner of record was the State of Alaska. Motion passed 4-0 by voice vote. M-Hughey/S-Weaver moved to adopt the findings as listed in the staff report. Motion passed 4-0 by voice vote. C LM 20-03 Public hearing and consideration for a land sale request of a portion of Tract A11 Whitcomb Heights Subdivision. The request is filed by Pioneer Land Development LLC. The owner of record is the City and Borough of Sitka. Attachments: LM 20-03 Pioneer Land Development LLC_Kramer Ave Request to Purchase_Staff Report LM 20-03 Pioneer Land Development LLC_Kramer Ave Request to Purchase_Aerial LM 20-03 Pioneer Land Development LLC_Kramer Ave Request to Purchase_Applicant Narrative & Proposal LM 20-03 Pioneer Land Development LLC_Kramer Ave Request to Purchase_DRC Feedback Ainslie began the staff report with an explanation on the sales process for municipal property. She explained the applicant was not the buyer-inherent, but rather the person who started the process by requesting the land be sold. If the Assembly agreed to sell, the land would be sold through a competitive bid process, recommended by the Commission and determined by the Assembly. She noted the competitive bid process usually involved an auction/sealed bid process, which had low city involvement in the final usage of the lot, or a Request for Proposals (RFP) process which allowed the city greater involvement in the usage. Ainslie stated that following the decision of if and how the parcel should be sold, the Assembly would approve a survey and appraisal, set the minimum price, take bids and/or proposals, and pass a sales ordinance to approve the sale. The municipal administrator would execute the sale through a sales contract. Ainslie described the property which was located on the corner of Cushing and Kramer CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - Final May 20, 2020 Avenue. She stated the requested property was just under one acre in size, fairly level for development with some elevation increase in the back and contained minimal wetlands with drainage occurring just north of the requested property line. The property had been deemed low risk by Shannon and Wilson’s 2016 landslide assessment and the city’s landslide risk ordinance. Utilities were available in the area, through public and private access. Ainslie asked the commission for recommendations on 1) If the property should be kept in municipal inventory or sold and 2) If sold, which competitive bid process should be used. The applicant, Jill Hirai of Pioneer Land Development LLC, was present. She stated she would like to subdivide the lot into 3-5 lots, depending on the topography and utility costs. She would like to keep the lots smaller in size to make them as affordable as possible. Hirai stated she had looked at multiple privately-owned lots before approaching the city, but the others were not developable. When asked by the commission which sales method she would prefer she answered whichever process would be the most efficient and cost-effective. Commissioners were all in agreement to sell the lot. Weaver and Windsor expressed concern for the longer time, greater management oversight, and lesser profit involved in the RFP process. Hughey asked if the auction/sealed bid process could include a stipulation for number of lots to be created and timeframe to complete. Ainslie clarified that the RFP process would have to be followed to legally stipulate conditions. Weaver pointed out that there was a seller who wanted to buy it and create the ideal number of lots in the desired time frame, and they should give her a chance to do so as quickly and efficiently as possible. Mudry and Windsor agreed. M-Weaver/S-Mudry moved to recommend the approval the sale of a portion of Tract A11 Whitcomb Heights Subdivision through the auction/sealed bid process. Motion passed 4-0. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Seeing no objections, Acting Chair Windsor moved to adjourn at 8:18 PM. CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA Page 4