Planning commission rejects proposed Big Lake bar

PALMER — While Sutton residents could not convince planning commission members to oppose a shooting range, Big Lake residents won opposition to a bar at a marathon meeting Feb. 2.

In all, commissioners said yes to the range, voted twice against the bar, and unanimously approved a route to extend Seldon Road to Pittman Road.

Shooting range

The range in Sutton had apparently been operating at its present location along the Glenn Highway without the proper permitting for years, according to operators, community members, and officials.

Range operators hadn’t intended to operate without proper permitting, said Tim Kane, a spokesman for JTAC — the company that owns the property — and leases it to other nearby companies, like Anchorage-based Alaska Tactical.

After conducting a public hearing with the local community council, officials with the Sutton council generated a letter summarizing the results for borough staff, with the understanding that borough staff would respond about the next steps in the process.

Two years elapsed, during which informal discussion continued, officials said. He was unaware of the Special Use District until he received a cease-and-desist letter in August, Kane said.

“Of course, we complied immediately,” he said.

While the borough doesn’t maintain zoning laws, a Special Use District governs land use in the area. As a result, range owners were required to apply for a conditional use permit. When they were notified of their non-compliance, they sought the appropriate permitting immediately, Kane said.

Objection to the range centered around noise there, though many residents who spoke at the public hearing, like John Robertson, also said they hadn’t heard of the range until shortly before the planning commission meeting.

“The fact is, a lot of people are just learning about this,” he said. “There was not anything posted until recently here in Sutton.”

Other Sutton residents were concerned about the range’s affect on property values, including a representative from the Alaska Mental Health Trust, Southcentral regional land director Victor Appoloni. The Trust owns an uninhabited adjacent property, Appoloni said.

“Our concern is the decrease of property value due to close proximity of the shooting range,” he said. “This is due to possible health and safety issues, noise concerns, and we believe that the applicant didn’t adequately address Mental Health Trust Land, where we have an obligation to protect the current and future values of that land.”

Supporters of the permit, like Claudia Dolfi, a representative for the Sutton Community Council, said the presence of the range might help address a public safety concern. Widespread recreational shooting has made parts of the Jonesville neighborhood unsafe, Dolfi said. Community council members also were surprised to learn there was a problem with the range as some citizens apparently were to discover the shooting range needed a conditional use permit.

“Here was a legitimate business coming to our town to do it right,” she said. “We were excited and, I have to tell you, we were a little disappointed that two years down the road, they were getting called into question as sneaky.

“There is nothing sneaky about it,” Dolfi said. “We posted it out there. We encouraged people to get involved in every way possible.”

Range advocates and operators found a sympathetic ear among commissioners. Commissioner Brian Endle lives in the neighborhood, and said he supported both the range and the community council.

“I have reviewed the material and I also live very close to this shooting range,” he said. “I live on Soapstone. It’s not 2 miles, it’s probably a little bit farther, but I think it’s a great idea myself. As far as the Sutton Community Council, I have known them to be extremely thorough in their communications to community.”

Commissioner Bruce Walden, a retired military shooting instructor, was even more direct.

“Bottom line: it’s a shooting state,” he said. “If you move to Alaska and you don’t realize there’s going to be shooting going on around you, you probably should have watched National Geographic before you got here.”

Big Lake bar

The commission followed the shooting range approval with 5-1 vote rejecting a conditional use permit application for a restaurant and bar located near the Rocky Lake subdivision in Big Lake.

Numerous residents spoke against the bar. Many said they favored a new restaurant in Big Lake, but opposed adding another bar over concerns about public safety, particularly the interaction between pedestrians, alcohol and cars.

Confusion over the permit application was rife. Permit applicant Robert Mark Button told commissioners his understanding of the permit process — based on two previous applications — was that he would receive preliminary feedback from the commission then make changes based on conditions set down for approval.

Over months of correspondence between borough planner Mark Whisenhunt and Button — documented in the written materials submitted for the board — Button accused Whisenhunt of delaying the process. Button ultimately demanded and received a public hearing on a conditional use permit, despite Whisenhunt’s caution that the application contained conflicting information (specifically, information about noise abatement measures, which included and omitted an 8-foot fence), and no permit for Rosalie Circle, a private road located on the property, had been obtained.

Borough staff ultimately recommended denial of the permit.

“I know I have a lot of opposition to this project, but I guarantee you that for every person that shows up in opposition, I will have 10 people show up in favor,” he wrote Whisenhunt in September 2014. “I get very tired of government in general holding entrepreneurs back that are just trying to put people to work. I have already been approved by so many damn government agencies I could not even begin to tell you. Not to mention the 106 licenses that I currently have to sell Twinkies and gas.”

Submitted plans contained in the information packet for the meeting also show an outdoor bandstand or concert stage. However, at the beginning of his testimony before the board, Button said that idea had been removed from plans because of concerns about noise expressed by his neighbors.

“I tried to appease as much as possible, my neighbors’ concerns,” he said. “I can understand it. That’s why I did get rid of the bandstand.”

Residents opposed to the bar mentioned the history of bars in Big Lake, which at one time contained about a half-dozen bars, but which now contains only one, according to several speakers.

Jim Harmon worried that a bar would lower his property values.

“I think the restaurant is a great idea, and I think to have a bar there is a very poor idea,” he said.

John Rush worried a hard-liquor bar would adversely affect the community.

“The area is within a mile of the post office, the public library, the fire department the public skating rink, the public volleyball area, the elementary school, the airport, I could go on and on,” he said. “Everyone in the community is going to be required to be going through where a bar is going to be.”

Big Lake, which is on the brink of becoming the borough’s fourth incorporated city, doesn’t yet have the infrastructure to handle a bar, Rush added.

“We don’t have police in Big Lake,” he said. “We have state troopers, they’re a great resource, and they’re scarce.”

A few residents spoke in favor of the proposal, like Lolly Symbol, who praised a reference in the materials to a plan to offer bar patrons a ride home.

“In the evenings that I might have three, instead of one or two glasses of wine, Mark Button is willing to offer me, as well as my friend, a ride home,” she said. “I think that’s going to reduce a lot of the traffic issues that we have.”

During commission discussion, Adams said he was inclined to vote in favor of the permit.

“This is another classic case where the absence of land-use zoning regulation leaves a lot of area for interpretation,” he said. “When I look at the comprehensive plan, when I hear what’s being said, I actually do support passing this resolution with some conditions.”

The Big Lake comprehensive plan does not specifically exclude a bar from that area, Adams said. In addition, the commission is not tasked with enforcing sound ordinances.

“All of this can be constructed and not have a single noise issue when it comes to use,” he said.

Roads

In other business, the board unanimously approved the “Fishback alignment” as the route for the Seldon Road Phase II extension, which will continue the new section of Seldon from where it meets Beverly Lakes Road to Pittman Road.

Two residents who spoke at the planning meeting, Curt Scotting and Tom Henkel, said they favored the Zehnder Road alignment.

The meeting ended about 12:10 a.m., despite a printed warning on the agenda that the meeting was required to adjourn by midnight. No votes were taken after midnight, apart from a vote on a motion by Adams about 12:01 a.m. to extend discussion past the previously announced adjournment. The only business remaining at the point of adjournment was board member comments and other standing items

“Certainly from this point on we’ll try to make sure the chair understands the importance of following our policy,” said Planning Officer Eileen Probasco.

Contact Brian O’Connor at 352-2269 or brian.oconnor@frontiersman.com or on Twitter @reporterbriano.