March 14, 2000

Vice Chair Mike Bavard called the regular meeting of the City and Borough of Juneau Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m., in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building.


Commissioners present: Mike Bavard, Dan Bruce, Marshal Kendziorek, Mark Pusich, Merrill Sanford, Jody Vick

Commissioners absent: Johan Dybdahl, Tracey Ricker, Ken Williamson

A quorum was present.

Staff Present: Cheryl Easterwood, Community Development Director; Tim Maguire, CDD     Planning Supervisor; and CDD Planners Heather Marlow and Katharine Heumann


February 15, 2000 - Special Meeting
February 22, 2000 - Regular Meeting

MOTION - by Mr. Pusich to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2000 special meeting and the February 22, 2000 regular meeting as written.

There were no amendments or corrections. Without objection, the minutes were approved.

Chair Bavard announced that VAR2000-00009 and USE2000-00009, related to 401 South Franklin Street, were continued and would be taken up at the March 28, 2000 meeting.


There was no one who wished to address the Commission.




Location: 4102 Aspen Ave.
Applicant: Kimberly Welburn

It was noted that a motion for reconsideration was made at the February 22 meeting because a planning commissioner was absent, and the commission wanted the full membership present to vote on this particular item. However, there were three commissioners absent at this meeting, so a motion to continue was an option.

Commission Action:
- by Mr. Vick to reconsider USE2000-00004.

Mr. Vick said that while he supported the motion to reconsider, he also favored a motion to continue action on this item because the vote would have an everlasting impact on the applicant.

Roll call vote
Ayes: Bruce, Pusich, Sanford, Vick, Bavard
Nays: Kendziorek

The motion to reconsider passed by a 5-1 vote.

Several commissioners indicated they would be absent for the next regular planning commission meeting on March 28.

MOTION - by Mr. Vick to continue USE2000-00004 and the related variance request VAR2000-00007 until the April 11, 2000 meeting. Without objection, it was so ordered.


Mr. Bavard read the items on the Consent Agenda and added one item from the Regular Agenda, SUB1999-00031. He then inquired if there was any public comment. One gentleman indicated that he wished to speak on SUB1999-00051, and it was withdrawn from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda.

For the record regarding SUB1999-00031, Mr. Bruce disclosed that the contractor for Mr. Chen is Mr. Pollard, a client of his firm. Mr. Bruce said he had not discussed this matter with Mr. Pollard and their relationship is not connected to this matter. He had talked with the City Attorney about this as well and did not believe there was a conflict.

MOTION - by Mr. Kendziorek to approve the Consent Agenda as amended and including VAR2000-00003, USE2000-00010, USE2000-00011, and SUB1999-00031 (as listed below). There being no objection, it was so ordered.


Location: 23 Mile Glacier Highway
Applicant: Tony Yorba

Staff recommendation: That the Board of Adjustment adopt the director's analysis and findings and determine that criteria 1-6 found in Section 49.20.250 are met and grant the variance as depicted on Attachment 7 and to allow the prefilter building to have a 30-foot setback from Shrine Creek and to allow the sewer lines, septic tanks and bathroom building to have a 40-foot setback from ordinary high water of Shrine Creek. This recommendation is made subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to construction, a siltation fence shall be installed around the construction area to prevent  siltation into the creek during construction of the facilities.

2. Any disturbed portions of the stream bank shall be revegetated immediately after the installation of the facilities with vegetation that naturally occurs in that area.

3. All construction equipment shall be stored outside of the 50-foot creekside setback.


Location: 957 Goldbelt Avenue
Applicant: Richard Monkman & Tina Kobayashi

Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the director's analysis and findings and grant the requested conditional use permit.


Location: Juneau International Airport
Applicant: Alfred Cook

Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the director's analysis and findings and grant the requested allowable use permit.


Location: 12410 Mendenhall Loop Road
Applicant: Jim Chen

Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the analysis and findings in the staff report and approve the preliminary plan for the Resort at Auke Bay Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the applicant revise the Homeowners Association Agreement to contain provisions regarding year-round maintenance of the pedestrian pathway.

2. That the applicant revise the Homeowners Association Agreement to specifically address maintenance of the off-site pedestrian trail and acceptance of liability, that a letter of non-objection is obtained from the School District, and that the conditions of WET98-00002 are complied with.

3. That the applicant revise the site plan to show an additional public parking space.

4. That the applicant revise the construction plans to show street signage for one-way traffic, no parking, and private maintenance, acceptable to CBJ Engineering Department.

5. That the applicant revise the Homeowners Association Agreement to include language which clearly describes the no-build restriction in the 25-foot buffer area and that this area is clearly shown and described on the final plat. This includes the requirement to provide a gate to the pedestrian trail if a fence is constructed.

6. That the applicant revise the final plat to accommodate the platting procedure, described above, for common-wall development, but if this procedure is not workable for financing purposes, that an alternative may be proposed that is acceptable to CDD staff.

7. That the applicant build the required improvements according to the final construction plans as approved by the CBJ Engineering Department.

8. That the applicant comply with the conditions of the design review permit DRP1999-00007.

VAR2000-00009 was continued to the next meeting at the applicant's request.




The first item taken up was SUB1999-00051, which had been removed from the Consent Agenda.


Location: 412 "H" Street
Applicant: James Williams

Mr. Vick disclosed that the applicant was his brother-in-law, however, he had no dealings with Mr. Williams regarding this matter and did not think he had a conflict of interest. Mr. Kendziorek asked Mr. Vick if he could be fair. Mr. Vick said yes. Fellow planning commission members indicated they had no objection to Mr. Vick remaining on the panel to hear and act upon the street vacation request.

Staff report: CDD Supervisor Tim Maguire reviewed the staff report. In December 1996, the applicant received an allowable use permit to construct a driveway in a portion of the right-of-way of 5th Street in Douglas to access a proposed garage to be built to the east of the existing house. Because of the steep grade between the roadway and the garage site, a good portion of the driveway would need to be built in the public right-of-way. The applicant received a grading permit and began work on the driveway, however, the permit did not include plans for construction of the rockery retaining walls built along good portions of the driveway. The Engineering Department has told the applicant that certain permanent improvements (retaining walls) must either be removed from the right-of-way or he must apply to have this portion of 5th Street vacated.

Staff received three comments on the proposal. Alaska Electric Light and Power requested an easement for an existing power line. CBJ Public Works requested an easement for a small section of sewer line. The CBJ Engineering Department believes that this portion of 5th Street would never be put through as a public street because of the very steep grades and the conflicts that would be created with existing residential driveways in the vicinity.

Turning to the findings, Mr. Maguire stated that a majority of the owners of the front frontage of the street signed the application, and proper public notice was made. There is no overwhelming public need to retain the right-of-way for current and future public needs, and existing use of the right-of-way for public utilities can be addressed by easements.

Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the director's analysis and findings and grant the request to vacate a portion of the right-of-way of 5th Street located between "I" and "H" Streets in Douglas, approximately 120 linear feet, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the applicant complete the replatting process to record the revised property reflecting the street vacation and necessary easements.

2. That the plat associated with this request establish an access and maintenance easement for the sewer line within the vacated right-of-way. The easement dimension will be a minimum 20 feet, and the easement must be approved by the CBJ Engineering and Public Works Departments prior to plat recording.

3. That the plat associated with this request will establish an access and maintenance easement for electrical facilities within the vacated right-of-way. The easement dimension shall be a minimum 20 feet, and the easement must be approved by AEL&P prior to plat recording.

4. The applicant shall prepare an Order of Street Vacation in accordance with CBJ 49.15.450(E).

5. That an engineering report for the rockery retaining walls be submitted to the Engineering Department, and that the Order of Street Vacation and plat be recorded, prior to further work on the driveway.

Mr. Kendziorek asked which property owner(s) would gain the extra property. Mr. Maguire said the property would be split down the middle and attached to the three adjoining parcels.

Mr. Sanford inquired about future access for 6th Street. Mr. Maguire replied that the Engineering Department found the grade was so steep that it would never be finished as a through street.

Public Testimony:
Karl Bausler
, 1501 5th Street, Douglas, reviewed comments that he had submitted in writing (dated March 7, 2000, on file). His main concern was that he uses the subject right-of-way to access "H" Street. He did not object to the street vacation for the applicant to use as a driveway but wanted pedestrian access to be maintained through there. He would like to keep using the access uphill of the rockery wall without running the risk of trespassing on private property. He also suggested that the City build a stairway to provide a safe public route around the applicant's retaining wall. He noted that in the past snow has been stored on the side of the street where the applicant has built his driveway.

Mr. Kendziorek asked if the applicant would have needed a separate permit to build the rockery retaining walls. Mr. Maguire said the Engineering Department has to look at plans for working in the right-of-way, and staff has included a condition in its recommendation to address that.

Mr. Bausler questioned how many street vacation requests the Planning Commission hears in a year. Ms. Easterwood estimated three to six.

Responding to a question from the chair, Mr. Maguire stated that, in general, if public access should be maintained for pedestrian or vehicular traffic, then a right-of-way would not be vacated. Staff consulted with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Non-Motorized Trail Plan, and the subject right-of-way is not identified as a walking route. The terrain is steep and does not seem like a typical access route, so it did not come up as an issue. Mr. Maguire said that the Engineering Department did not indicate an alternative to a street vacation, other than removing the rockery walls. Vacating a portion of the right-of-way might be an option, but the property owners involved would have to be consulted.

Mr. Bausler asked if the City could grant an easement for pedestrian access, similar to the easements indicated for public utilities. Mr. Bavard stated that utility easements are 20-30 foot wide no-build corridors so utility companies have access for maintenance and repairs. Mr. Maguire commented that a regularly used trail is not the same as an easement, and in that case it should remain as a public right-of-way. Mr. Bausler said the foot trail is just used by a few local residents.

Mr. Kendziorek inquired if it would be possible to vacate only half the right-of-way and leave the other half for public access. Mr. Maguire replied that partial street vacations have been done in the past, and the vacated portion was attached to just one adjoining lot.

James Williams, the applicant, said that he had lived in his home for 22 years, and the trail is very steep and not used much. He said he would be happy to preserve public access through his portion of the right-of-way. He indicated that the other property owner involved has plans for their half the right-of-way, once it is vacated, and would not be in favor of a partial street vacation. Regarding snow plowing, his driveway construction has made the street wider and provided two more parking spaces. There is no parking on one side of the street in the winter. Referring to Mr. Bausler's suggestion, he said he doubted the City had the funding to build a public access stairway.

Mr. Bruce asked if Mr. Williams knew where the AEL&P utility easement was located. Mr. Williams said there is a power pole in what could be considered the middle of the street, probably located on what would be his neighbor's half of the right-of-way. Mr. Bruce said he was wondering if the pedestrian access could be in the same space as the AEL&P easement. Mr. Williams reiterated that he would sign off on public access through his portion of the vacated right-of-way in a heartbeat. Mr. Bavard commented that there would be nothing stopping people from parking cars on the utility easement and blocking the pedestrian access, while the applicant has indicated that he would keep public access open on his property. Mr. Pusich added that it would be simpler to retain the pedestrian access on the applicant's property, since he had been so amenable to Mr. Bausler's request.

Mr. Bavard inquired if another condition would be in order to address the pedestrian access. Mr. Maguire suggested that the condition state that the pedestrian access be retained on the applicant's half of the vacated portion of the right-of-way and have staff approve the width and the location.

Commission Action:
- by Mr. Kendziorek that the Planning Commission approve SUB1999-00051 and accept staff's recommendation with five conditions, and add the following condition:

6. The applicant will provide a pedestrian easement on his half of the vacated portion of the right-of-way that will be approved by CDD staff for width and location.

Mr. Bruce requested that the motion include the language suggested by staff about CDD staff approving it after consulting with the applicant as to the exact location. Mr. Kendziorek accepted that as a friendly amendment.

Without objection, the motion carried, 6-0.


Location: Valley Boulevard/Granite Drive
Applicant: Hugh Grant

Mr. Bruce disclosed that Mr. Grant has been a client of his firm in the past, but there presently is no ongoing representation. He did not feel that his participation in this zone change request would present a conflict.

Staff report: CDD Supervisor Tim Maguire reviewed the staff report in the packet. In 1996, the Comprehensive Plan was updated. Included in that revision was the redesignation of a portion of the Glacier Village Subdivision from Urban Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for the properties to the south of Valley Boulevard. The original request to change the Comp Plan was to include all the lots in Glacier Village Subdivision as Medium Density Residential. However, during the public hearings there was concern expressed about traffic and access in and out of the area. The proposed map revision was decreased to only those properties bordering Valley Boulevard.

The applicant believes that the lots are suited for multi-family development because they front on Valley Boulevard, which is bordered by multi-family zoned lands to the north. The properties are currently developed with multi-family development or a mix of vacant and storage uses. These properties have been designated for multi-family development in the Comprehensive Plan.

The applicant wishes to have these properties rezoned now, prior to any development taking place on the adjoining lots, so the zoning in the area is settled. The applicant is constructing roads and utilities to these adjoining lots for development of single-family housing. This would put potential property owners on notice about what to expect for future development and avoid objections to changes in the future.

When considering this zone change request, traffic was still considered an issue. Staff contacted DOT which agreed that this area has a problem with access. A traffic analysis was requested and completed by the applicant. The study showed that the intersection at Mendenhall Loop Road has an "F" level of service, the lowest level of service. The report also concluded that the increase in overall traffic for the proposed zone change was 1.1% and did not make a significant difference on the existing situation. However, DOT concluded that although a level of service could not be lower, an increase in trips per day at peak hours would cause greater delays at the intersection. These delays would cause drivers to take more chances and, therefore, increase risk of accidents.

Because of the traffic situation, alternatives were discussed. These included going ahead with the requested zone change, having the zoning change made after a set number of years, or having a zoning change when certain access improvements were made. The alternative agreed upon was waiting until certain improvements have been completed; this is also called transition zoning. This met the applicant's desire to have the zoning decided upon now, but also would not allow a change in the density until improvements have been made to the access. In addition, a recommended condition would be that the road, water and sewer improvements also be completed prior to allowing the increase in density.

Mr. Maguire next reviewed the findings and the staff recommendation.

Revised staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the director's analysis and findings and the request to change the zoning of the subject lot from D-5, residential, to D-5 (T) D-18.

The requested zone change would allow the current D-5, Single-Family/Duplex Residential zoning to transition to D-18, Multi-Family Residential zoning (allowing 18 dwellings per acre) at the time that improvements are made to the intersection of Valley Boulevard and the Mendenhall Loop Road. These improvements would be those necessary to bring the intersection to a safe level of service acceptable to the State of Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) and CBJ.

In addition, staff recommends the following conditions:

1. That the transition to D-18 Multi-family Residential also be conditioned on the provision of public facilities, including public sewer, water, and publicly maintained roadway, to all 12 lots, and that all improvements are accepted by CBJ Engineering Department.

2. That the conditions of transition to D-18, Multi-family Residential should be noted on the zoning maps and in the CBJ permit tracking program, Permit Plan.

Mr. Maguire reported that staff received a telephone message from Tom Horn, who has property in the area, and he voiced his objection to the zoning change. His objection was primarily based on the zone change allowing additional multi-family housing in the area.

Mr. Sanford asked when the intersection at Mendenhall Loop Road is slated to be upgraded. Mr. Maguire said this intersection is not on DOT's Improvement Program list at this time. Staff discussed this with DOT which indicated that the intersection could be added to the list, depending on CBJ making that request to DOT. The State further indicated that the intersection was high on the list for accidents, but it's a matter of funding. There may be money to correct safety problems, similar to improvements in the works for the Haloff intersection. Further responding to Mr. Sanford, Mr. Maguire said no design work has been done for the Valley Boulevard and Mendenhall Loop Road intersection.

Mr. Pusich asked if he understood correctly that there would be no development on those lots until the intersection improvements have been made. Mr. Maguire said yes, but the properties could be developed under their current zoning designation, D-5. It would not transition to multi-family until access was improved and public facilities were installed.

Mr. Kendziorek inquired if the applicant had requested a straight zone change, not a transition. Mr. Maguire indicated that was correct.

Public Testimony:

Orval Wieber, 8424 Steep Place (adjacent to the subject property), reviewed a list of questions he had also submitted in writing (on file). Staff provided responses, as follows:

Type of intersection improvements? One alternative is a traffic light and turn lanes.
Improvements funded by the state?
This intersection project is not on the Statewide Improvement Transportation Plan for 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Correct, but the list is updated annually. The Planning Commission reviews the list and makes recommendations on local improvements it would like DOT to undertake.

Mr. Wieber referred to page five of the staff report and said the cumulative traffic effect of the overall subdivision development would be greater than the 1.1% increase quoted by staff. He explained how his calculations, based on a total of 96 dwellings developed, would make it more like a 6%-15% increase in traffic at peak hours. The traffic report shows that 48 dwellings would generate 31 extra vehicles using the intersection at peak hours, a figure he thought was unrealistic. The traffic analysis does not take the overall development of the subdivision into consideration but only looks at part of it; it also ignores any development that might occur in other subdivisions in the area.

Mr. Wieber asked that the zone change request be denied based on the high accident rating at the Valley/Mendenhall Loop intersection, and because there is no funding planned to make traffic improvements. Also, the proposal does not address the overall cumulative impacts of the development on the intersection.

Mr. Kendziorek pointed out that the proposal before the Commission is not the applicant's request to change zoning straight to D-18, but to transition to D-18, meaning nothing would happen until the improvements are made. The improvements would not be based solely on the applicant's traffic analysis but on a comprehensive DOT traffic study. Mr. Wieber said he would welcome that, but he thought the uncertainty of when those traffic improvements would take place was unfair to the developer.

Drew Sielbach, an area resident, reviewed his written comments submitted on March 8 (on file). His concerns centered around the incremental increase in both pedestrian and vehicle traffic along Valley Boulevard. He agreed with Mr. Wieber that there would be a sizeable increase in traffic from the denser development. Kids walk down Valley Boulevard to catch the school buses, as well as people catching the City Transit bus. He also had concerns about the busy Valley Boulevard, Delta, Slate intersection.

Mr. Sielbach said he purchased his house in a D-5 zone and he didn't have a problem with that type of development, but he worried about going to D-18 density. Regarding making the zone change transition now to give future owners fair notice of potential development, he said it does not do anything for the current property owners.

Roger Allington, 5892 Montgomery St., said he was the traffic engineer who prepared the traffic impact analysis for the applicant. He stated that he did not necessarily disagree with the sentiments of the two previous speakers. Nevertheless, he defended his study data by explaining that multi-family housing generates fewer trips per dwelling unit than single-family residential. The purpose of the traffic study was to differentiate between how much traffic would be generated by these specific lots under present zoning as opposed to the future zoning; that is where the 1.1% increase figure comes from. He did not study the entire area for development because that is not part of the proposal. Even development under the current zoning would add to the traffic in and out of the subdivision. The entire length of Mendenhall Loop Road is overloaded and has traffic problems during peak hours.

Mr. Kendziorek asked if he was suggesting that the subject lots not be rezoned until the whole of Loop Road has been upgraded. Mr. Allington said no, just that if the intent was not to add any further traffic on Loop Road, then there could be no more development in the Mendenhall Valley of any kind, even conforming with existing zoning. Every new dwelling would increase the traffic trying to access Loop Road. Mr. Kendziorek recalled that Mr. Allington had at one time stated that intersections at an "F" level of service should not be made worse. It seemed that for this application he was saying it was okay to make the Valley Boulevard/Loop Road intersection a little bit worse. Mr. Allington explained that "F" means there is more traffic trying to access a facility than it can handle, and he agreed that any development at all will make it worse. However, the policy decision that has to be made by the Planning Commission and Assembly is how to address the issue when the situation is already past the point when there should have been improvements on Mendenhall Loop Road.

Mr. Bruce wondered if the signalization of Haloff Way would have any impact on the Valley/Loop Road intersection. Mr. Allington said he doubted it would because that light will be too far away to do much good. If anything, in the morning southbound traffic might tend to back up a little bit worse than it does now, and in the evening it might possibly break up the northbound traffic to make it a little easier to make left turns. Mr. Bruce inquired about the possibility that funding might fall out of the sky for traffic improvements like it did to fix the Haloff intersection. Mr. Allington said he understood that the money for Haloff came from the Highway Safety Improvement Program; he did not know whether the Valley Boulevard and Mendenhall Boulevard intersections were even on the HSIP list.

Mr. Pusich asked if the Transportation Steering Committee has discussed this intersection or others in the area. Mr. Allington said not really because the committee has been looking at long range planning (the first preliminary model run indicates that four lanes would be needed on Loop Road by 2020).

Mr. Bavard questioned what impact a traffic signal would have at the subject intersection. Mr. Allington replied that a traffic signal analysis shows that installation of a signal with no additional lanes would probably provide a level of service "C," what is recommended for Loop Road.

Hugh Grant, 3170 Nowell Avenue, the applicant, pointed out that he has been the proud owner of the property for 30 years, and it has created no additional traffic in all that time. His observations of the Valley Boulevard/Loop Road intersection indicate that traffic movement would improve substantially in the mornings by removing the school buses. He noted that the zoning has not changed on his property since 1970, but his development rights have been taken away by changes in the requirements for a duplex. Thirty years ago, he could have put a duplex on each of the 58 lots.

Mr. Grant said the traffic congestion at the intersection did not appear to be that bad to him, however, he understood that under the zone change proposed he would not able to develop the lots at a D-18 density until the traffic situation has been improved. He noted that he does not necessarily want to develop all the lots at a higher density, but it would not be desirable to build single-family residences facing existing multi-family dwellings on one side of Valley Boulevard. It would make more sense to build multi-family across from the existing multi-family development on Valley, then build single-family on the street behind (backed up to the multi-family).

Responding to Mr. Bavard, Mr. Grant reiterated that the whole development could end up being single-family, but if it worked out to be multi-family he wanted anyone buying property there in the future to be aware of the potential for higher density than what exists now.

Mr. Grant further discussed the impacts of traffic into and out of the Glacier Valley Elementary School and how that could be improved by extending street access to the back of the school property.

Mr. Sanford inquired about what street standard the applicant would have to provide. Mr. Maguire stated that the applicant has improved a portion of Valley Boulevard, and utilities have been extended to most of the street. Staff is recommending to not go to D-18 density until the road is upgraded and utilities are extended to all the lots.

No one else wished to testify, and public testimony was closed.

Mr. Bruce stated that the Public Works Committee has discussed this area with the Engineering Department with regards to improvements on Valley Boulevard for drainage and putting in a sidewalk for pedestrian access. He said he was confident that the problems are recognized in more than just one CBJ department. If the Valley/Loop Road intersection is as much a problem as presented at this meeting, it is likely that in light of the transitional zoning proposed, those interests are protected until the area can handle the traffic load.

Mr. Bavard recalled that during work on the Comprehensive Plan there were requests for these types of zone changes, and the Commission tried to create reasonable boundaries. He agreed with Mr. Grant that it is reasonable to have multi-family facing multi-family across a street. The Commission has tried, through the use of streets and other zoning, to ensure there are not drastic changes between areas and that the transition is gradual.

Mr. Bavard asked staff about the process. Mr. Maguire explained that the Planning Commission's action would be a recommendation to the Assembly to change the zoning maps or deny the request.

Commission Action:
- by Mr. Kendziorek that the Planning Commission recommend to the Assembly MAP1999-00001 and adopt all of staff's analysis, findings and recommendations, including the minor amendment made by staff to condition #1.

Mr. Bavard spoke in support of the motion, saying that in the past transition zoning has elicited good and bad comments from the public. He thought it was the right thing to do in this situation with the traffic and access problems at the intersection. It also lets people know that this is transition zoning and could be developed as multi-family at a later date when improvements are made. Other commissioners displayed their concurrence with Mr. Bavard's comments.

Roll Call Vote
Ayes: Pusich, Sanford, Vick, Bruce, Kendziorek, Bavard
Nays: None

The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.

USE2000-00009 was continued to the next meeting at the applicant's request.

SUB1999-00031 was taken up on the Consent Agenda.


VAR2000-00007 was continued until April 11, 2000 (see "Reconsideration" section above).



Ms. Easterwood thanked commissioners for voicing their comments about the zone change item for the record so staff can refer to the reasoning behind the Commission's decision at a later date, if necessary.

Mr. Vick praised the way the staff report was put together and how the applicant and most people from the neighborhood who testified were in harmony regarding staff's recommendation. Other commissioners chimed in with their agreement.



Mr. Kendziorek reported that due to his work schedule he would be unable to attend the APA Conference in New York. He wondered if a staff person could attend in his place.

Mr. Vick said it was hard to justify spending the money to send a commissioner when there is such a budget crunch, however, he supported sending a staff member.

Mr. Bruce thanked staff for an article included in the meeting packet.

Mr. Pusich mentioned that the Anchorage Conference would be money and time well spent if a staff member could go. He asked staff about the construction he noticed south of the Douglas Bridge. Ms. Easterwood said it was Mr. Madsen's new hotel, which received an allowable use permit.

Mr. Bavard inquired about the current and future status of the parking spaces that used to be reserved for police cars at the old police station downtown. Ms. Easterwood said she would check into it.


MOTION - by Mr. Kendziorek to adjourn. There being no other business and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m.