Platting Board - May 7, 2025 - 2025-05-07 18:30:00

We will call this May 7th, 2025 meeting of the Planning Board to order. May we have roll call? Skyler Quinn. Uh, here. Brandy Pennington.

Sarah Catherine Bryan. Present.

Patrick Jones. Present. Ashley Ploy. Present. Kaya Mirka.

Present. Brenda Butler. Present. Kevin Cross. Here.

You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? You're a Russian here.

I just got—.

Okay.

Moved by Miss Butler, seconded by Miss Polley.

Are there any corrections or objections to the minutes? Hearing and seeing none, minutes are approved.

Next is special order of business. Are there any disclosures this evening?

I do have a disclosure. Please state that. Um, I plan on being involved in the Case S12-827 post-development that could result in a financial gain, and I just want to make you guys aware of that.

Um, based on your financial conflict, are you recusing yourself from this case, or are you asking to participate still? Um, I believe I can still participate, um, fairly. I just—. Up to you guys. I would ask for a motion to direct—.

Through the chair, may I ask, when you say that you, uh, may benefit from this, can you— can you, uh, delve further and give some details into how how that financial ramifications may impact you and the petitioner? I plan on building a house in the neighborhood.

Do you currently have an offer to purchase any lot, and is— are you under contract to purchase any lot? I am not. Okay, thank you.

May I have a motion to have Ms. Ploy participate tonight?

Move by Mr. Cross, seconded by Ms. Butler. Mr. Cross, can you please state your motion? Yes, you know, we run into these issues. Is it a conflict of interest or is it not a conflict of interest because someone has a particular interest in a land development? We run into this on the Anchorage Assembly because is it a conflict of interest to vote on how the budget is spent when it may impact or negatively— positively or negatively impact my property taxes?

And so what we're looking for is we're looking for a direct correlation between those actions. The fact that lands are being tracked and you may or may not wish to purchase that, although that is important for you to disclose, I don't think is relevant for the case of this discussion. I believe that you can participate participate fairly. In fact, you might actually come with a little bit of extra scrutiny to make sure that what is developed there is in the best interest of the neighborhood in general. So I would— it's close, but I will— I'm going to vote that you participate.

Thank you.

Ms. Butler, do you have anything to add? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I would just like to say that from what I know, that Ms. Polley has always represented herself as a person of integrity, and I don't think that she would make any decisions that would be biased and not per code or any— and not go, you know, on her own way and still listen to staff recommendations, public testimony. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. I have nothing additional to add to that. May we please vote?

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote?

Mr. Quinn? Yes, thank you. That's all right. Mr. Mirka?

In favor, yes. Thank you.

Thank you for your disclosure, Miss Ploy. You may be—. You may participate in that case. Through the chair, I have two disclosures.

Please. Yes, regarding case S12825, petitioner Daniel Potts. Petitioner's representative, S4 Group LLC. I have recently utilized their services to provide land surveying services on some property that I own that I'm looking to subdivide. However, I have no financial interest in this particular case.

I have no advanced knowledge other than what's been presented in the staff package, and I have no financial interest I feel that I can participate fairly and unbiased and would request that I participate in this case, given that disclosure. Likewise, I would like to join that with another disclosure on the next case, Case S12827. Petitioner's representative, Tony Hoffman, on that same project, I did hire him to do some survey work. Again, similar professional services, um, professional relationship, no pre— no knowledge in advance of the case that's behind us, before us, other than what's been submitted in, um, our pa— in our package. No advanced conversations, no financial, um, incentive or investment.

So in both these cases, I would request that, uh, I participate. Um, thank you.

Thank you. Um, we have a motion to approve Mr. Cross's participation in these cases tonight.

Moved by Miss Butler, seconded by Miss Ploy. Miss Butler, would you like to speak to your motion? I plan on supporting this motion. Mr. Cross does not have any direct financial gain from any of these action items in front of us today, and he is again a man of integrity and has never had a biased comment to any of the previous planning actions that we've had in front of us, and I believe he can still maintain that level.

Thank you, Ms. Butler. Ms. Polloy, do you have anything to add? I do not. I agree with Ms. Butler. Thank you.

If we could please have a vote. Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Mirka.

Mr. Mirka, how do you vote? In favor. Thank you.

Ms. Bryan, how do you vote?

I'm sorry, did you say Brandy Pennington? No. Miss Bryan? No, thank you. Is this Miss Pennington?

Yes. Thank you. How do you vote? In favor. Thank you.

Miss Bryan, how do you vote?

Wasn't she on there? Miss Bryan, are you on the phone?

Okay, this motion has passed. Mr. Cross, you can participate. Are there any other disclosures?

I have— do I do have a few this evening as well. I was absent from the 4/16 meeting but have listened to the audio and can vote on that matter. Additionally, the petitioner in S12825 is a licensed real estate agent who I've used in the past and would use again in the future. Additionally, the petitioner and I have worked together on floor plans and house plans for various projects and may be called upon to assist with this project. So I will need to recuse myself from that case this evening.

Do we have a motion to approve that?

Recuse. Do you want to? I move to recuse. Okay.

All right, Kevin. Through the chair, um, uh, I believe we have to do everything in the positive, so what would it be? It would be a move to participate and we vote no. Robert, rules of order, all things have to be in the positive. Yes, you participate, and then we'll vote again, and then I will not be supporting that motion.

Okay, thank you.

Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Ms. Butler. Mr. Cross, would you like to speak to your motion? I will not be supporting my, um, I would not be supporting this motion. It has been clear that the chair has a direct financial conflict with this particular case and the petitioner. Thank you.

Ms. Butler, do you have anything to add? No, I too won't be supporting the motion, and I agree with Kevin's comments. Thank you. May we move to a vote? Mr. Quinn, how do you vote?

Yes.

Ms. Pennington, how do you vote?

Yes.

Did someone just call in on the bridge phone? Good evening. I apologize for my tardiness. This is Sarah Catherine Bryan.

Thank you.

Mr. Mirka, how do you vote?

Mr. Mirka, how do you vote?

In favor. Thank you.

I move to reconsider.

I don't think they understood the question. Someone move immediately to reconsider. Those on the phone, would you please listen to the motion? Did it fail? I said yes.

Oh, you're right. I withdraw my motion to reconsider.

And reference to Mr. Cross's question, I believe I understood his motion.

May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Actually, sorry, uh, Point of order. The motion was that you participate. 4 Yeses means you participate.

Oh, it has to be 5. Thank you, I appreciate it.

That's for information only. We have abbreviated plat action summaries dated 4, 21, 25.

Okay, moving on to the consent agenda. Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

This is Sarah Catherine Bryan. I move to approve the consent agenda.

Uh, can you please second that? We already have a motion on the floor. I second. Sarah Catherine Bryan seconds the motion to approve the consent agenda. Thank you.

Miss Butler, would you like to speak to this?

There are no objections. Consent agenda is approved.

Okay, moving on to new business here. As I will be recusing myself from the first case, we need to have a motion to nominate a chair pro tempore.

I don't hear anybody. Nobody's like jumping up and down in their seats.

You can't nominate yourself, just so you know. So now I'll nominate Kevin Cross—. Mr. Cross, sorry. I should have said— I shouldn't have said anything.

This is Brandy Pennington. I second the motion for the nomination.

Are there any objections to this nomination?

Hearing none, nomination is approved.

I will now recuse myself for this case and pass the gavel down to Mr. Krauss. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to— moving on. No persons to be heard. No reports. We'll be meeting— excuse me, what's the other— there we go.

Approvals, no old business. Moving on to new business.

Welcome to the Municipality of Anchorage Planning Board, May 7th, 2025. The Planning Board meets each month on the first Wednesday except holidays as regular meeting. If the Planning Board fails to complete its agenda for its regular meeting, the board carries over to the remainder of the agenda to the following meeting. So the process by which the public may speak to the Planning Board at its meetings is: 1, after the staff presentation is complete on the public hearing items, the chair will ask for the public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the rule— in the Commission rules and procedures.

They are: A, petitioners, including all his and her representatives, have 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups such as community councils, PTAs, etc., have 5 minutes, and individuals have 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board.

Any part— excuse me— any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the planning director within 7 days of the board's decision made on the record, a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21.03.050A-4A. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any part of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 21.03.050 Hope you're writing that down. The notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not— excuse me— not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the application.

Case S12825. May I hear the staff presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request to subdivide 2 parcels into 22 lots with variances, um, to— for the required Class A improvements, variances to peripheral improvements, block length, and dedication.

The lots will be serviced by wastewater and private wells. The petition site is located west of O'Brien Street, north of Lower Road, east of Zurich, and south of East 72nd Avenue. The petition site is surrounded by R-5 low-density residential zoning district, which is single-family residential. The southern portion of the property abuts residential office R-2M condominium development, and the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and width required by the R-5 zoning district. The district requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet and a minimum lot dimension of 50 feet for single-family use.

The petitioner is seeking a phased development with the first phase consisting of lots 1 through 16 and the second phase including lots 17 through 22. Uh, in the matter of road improvements, Zurich Street and O'Brien Street are currently constructed Class B standards as strip paved asphalt with no sidewalks, curb, and gutters. Traffic, right-of-way, and private development are not requiring improvements to these streets as they currently match the surrounding subdivisions' level of improvements. Planning is requesting the conditional approval for private development's comments that the petitioner dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the continuation of East 74th Avenue alignment and construction of an 8-foot walkway within the right-of-way, to include a grading— grading plan that demonstrates future road construction is feasible without retaining walls or slope stabilization. The utilities for the site— sanitary sewer does serve a portion of the lots.

The petitioner will be required to enter a mainline extension agreement with AWU to extend any for the remaining lots, and the petitioner is proposing wells for each individual lot. In the matter of the variance request, uh, variance 1 is AMC 2108-050C. That's improvement requirements by improvement area for a Class A district. Both Zurich and O'Brien Streets are strip paved, 20 feet wide, with limited drainage infrastructure, no curb gutter, sidewalks, or street lighting. Variance 2 that they're requesting is 2108.050F, peripheral streets, and that states the platting authority may require the improvements where it finds they are necessary for the efficient flow of traffic.

The petitioner is requesting to not require the improvement and construction of East 74th Avenue as it bisects the proposed subdivision. There's a Variance 3, which is dedication of streets. That's 2108-040A, and that's the requirement for street rights-of-way to be dedicated to the public. And that— they're requesting to not dedicate the East 74th Avenue. Variance 4 is 2108-030G2.

That's block arrangement in a Class A Improvement Area. Residential block arrangements shall not be less than 300 feet, no more than 500 feet. The variance would allow the petitioner to subdivide with a block length of approximately 690 feet. Moving on to the subdivision variance approval criteria, staff has found that can, uh, Condition A for Variants 1 and 2 has been met. The proposed subdivision is typical for the surrounding area that is developed to Class B standards.

The existing surface of neighboring streets are strip paved with no sidewalks, curb, or gutters. Granting the variance to the pavement improvement standards will maintain the existing characteristics of the surrounding area road network. Both— all departments— MOA Traffic, Right-of-Way, and Private Development— has stated there are no objections to that requested variance. In the matter of Condition A for Variants 3 and 4, staff finds the standard is not met. No unique conditions exist that are directly related to the requested variances.

There is nothing unusual or different about this lot compared to the other platted lots in the area or in R-5 District. The staff finds the applicant has failed to demonstrate there are any special circumstances or conditions that would make strict application of 2108.040A and 2108.030G2 impractical or unreasonable. As Traffic Engineering commented, one of the key considerations for requiring dedications of wide array is to allow for pedestrian and transportation system connectivity. That benefits pedestrians. The Traffic Engineering Department generally takes the position of requiring right-of-way dedications and supports doing so when the dedication is clearly shown to be an excess municipal need, or there are other factors that make the connections infeasible.

The Traffic Department found there are no factors in the subject property that make the connection infeasible, and so Private Development Right-of-Way and Traffic comment— commented that a dedicated right-of-way for East 74th should happen and will provide connectivity and also a standard block length for pedestrians, as will any future vehicle access travel if warranted. In the matter of Condition B, staff finds variances 1 and 2 are met. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The variance to not improve Zurich and O'Brien Street to Class A standards is not anticipated to have any negative impact to the public or surrounding neighborhood. As the surrounding neighborhood subdivisions are currently constructed to Class B standards.

Dedicating of East 74th Avenue but not constructing provides the possibility of a future road connection. For Condition B, staff finds Variants 3 and 4 is not met. The walkability of the neighborhood will be diminished without a pedestrian and future vehicle connection to Lake Otis Parkway. Without the right-of-way and dedication, there would be potentially a need to reacquire the lots as right-of-way. Also, minimum block lengths are necessary for walkability, pedestrian safety, and connected communities.

On Condition C, staff has found Variance 1 and 2 is met. Residential streets have the sole purpose of providing frontage for service and access to individual lots. Approval of the variance would not nullify the intent and purpose of the regulations. Because the existing roads are strip paved, including the surrounding neighborhood, will— and will serve the subdivision on two streets, the rational nexus to require full municipal standards and construction of the— of a peripheral street is not present in this platting case. Uh, Variants 3 and 4, staff has found, is not met for Condition C. So the intent of peripheral streets and block length is to provide efficient flow of traffic, maybe in the future, as well as emergency vehicle access for connectivity and traffic circulation.

As noted in the staff packet for the Anchorage Non-Motorized Transportation Plan of 2021, the 2040 Land Use Plan, um, to its pedestrian pathways to improve safety and having them built environment that invites walking along with infill design principles to enhance connections and pedestrian access and for relationship to surrounding neighborhoods. The granting of these variances to not dedicate a peripheral street of East 74th Avenue would nullify that intent of the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that condition— or yeah, condition D for variants 1 and 2 is met. Strict compliance to the subdivision regulation would add additional cost to the developer and ultimately homebuyers, it is agreed that the full municipal standards, uh, is— are unnecessary. For Condition D, Variants 3 and 4, staff finds is not met.

Um, Traffic Department, right-of-way, private development, they did recommend denial of these variances. Dedicating East 74th Avenue will create a conforming block length, and the block length is one of the minimum standards that apply to all subdivisions. Private development has asked only for an 8-foot paved walkway to be constructed within the East 74th right-of-way. So with that dedication requirement, it's not an undue hardship to the two subdividers. The right-of-way is a significant benefit to the subdivision and the rest of the neighborhood.

The minimum lot size of the R-5 district is 50 feet, and the proposed lots are 62 and about roughly 62.6 feet. Staff has looked at it and conferred with private development, and it appears they may have to lose 2 lots to dedicate that right-of-way and construct a pathway. So with that being said, the department recommendations for— staff finds variance 1, 2— reviewing agencies had no comment or objection to the variance, granting the variance to the Class A improvements and not constructing the East 74th Avenue mitigates some of the concerns about compatibility with the existing roads in the surrounding neighborhood. Variance 3 and 4, staff recommends denial of these variances. The applicant has failed to substantially meet the standards.

And I'll read that. Every subdivision standard and zoning regulation necessarily imposes some burden on property because by definition it limits the use to which land may be put. So long as all the land is similarly situated in subject to the same restrictions. Hardship caused by the subdivision standards or zoning classification alone does not constitute a valid ground for a variance. Here is— there's no hardship other than personal development preference for the subject property.

So economic considerations are personal and not grounds for the variance. The applicant must show that denial of the variance will leave them with no other reasonable use of the property or without a reasonable return on investment. Restriction to a.

Profitable use is not sufficient to justify variance, and denial of the variance does not render the property valueless, as a conforming subdivision lot design is possible. In a broader view, planning has looked at the proposed subdivision and the subject property designated as compact mixed residential low, in which has an implementing zoning district of R2-M or R2-D in the 2040 land use plan. So a subdivision in closer alignment with the land use plan and other housing goals for the municipality would minimize— maximize options to reconfigure the proposed development plan in a way that could result in higher numbers of housing units if the petitioner wishes. Staff finds that— recommends from the department, page 13, 14, so we recommend approval of the A and B, denial of C and D, and then approval of the phasing plan. And then approval of the plat subject to Conditions F1 through 8 found on page 14 of the staff packet.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff?

You're recognized. Um, I do have a question about when 4 different variances are being submitted at the same time, but yet when you read the comments from like traffic engineering, and traffic engineering says that they recommend denial if the dedication of the row is— if they don't dedicate the row. So how is it like, how do we decide like two different variances that one directly affects the other if the outcome is one way or the other? Through the chair, Ms. Butler. So that's why variances 3 and 4 are kind of tied together.

So variance 3 and 4 would would be the dedication of 74th Avenue through the middle of the subdivision. If, uh, if the— if the board decides to approve that variance, then they would have to approve the block length as well because there's no road segment block breaking that up. However, if, if they deny Variance 3, Variance 4 becomes, uh, kind of moot because the subdivision will conform to the code. However, you would have to vote on that as well to probably, uh, if you deny— if you, if you approve variance or deny variance 3, you would have to, uh, deny variance 4 just as a matter of policy.

Do we have any other board members who wish to address staff?

Seeing none, may we hear from the petitioner's representative?

Please state your name for the record. You have 10 minutes.

Good evening, Chairman, members of the board, planning staff. My name is Craig Bennett with S4 Group, and I represent the petitioner. This proposal is for a relatively straightforward 22-lot subdivision. However, it does include 4 variance requests. I'll keep my initial remarks brief and focus on the key points and then address the variances in more detail during the rebuttal.

And we are requesting to subdivide 2 parcels into 22 low-density residential lots. Each of these lots complies with the R-5 zoning requirements for both size and area. The lots are approximately 63 feet wide, which exceeds the 50-foot minimum width required. The lots also exceed the minimum requirement of 6,000 square foot in size. We are showing all the lots to be over 7,500 square foot in size.

We're proposing a phased development with 7— with lots 17 through 22 included in a future phase. We're also showing the dedication of 30 foot of right-of-way for both O'Brien and Zurich Streets. And this proposal is consistent with current code or current zoning. And with that, I'll pause. And reserve my detailed comments for the rebuttal, and allow the community opportunity to share their thoughts.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from the, from the board to the petitioner?

Thank you. Seeing none, do we have any persons wishing to testify?

Ma'am, anybody, if you'll want to go ahead and step up to the mic. Looks like it's on, the red light. Go ahead and state your name clearly for the record, and then, um, and your name is? Cam Anderson, A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N. Cam, are you speaking for yourself? Are you speaking on behalf of a homeowners association, a community council, or anybody?

For myself. Okay, fantastic. You will have 3 minutes. We live on Bern, or Bern, which is a block down from Zurich, and we spend a lot of our time walking our neighborhood. We have 2 dogs that require a lot of output, so we walk through Zurich and all the way down to the ponds and everything, and there's a lot of traffic.

And the roads that come through Zurich and O'Brien are very narrow, um, and kind of Concern is adding a street adds a lot more traffic. We're very worried about the kids, the dogs, and the condition of the roads on 74th that break down every winter. And it's hard for us to understand a road going all the way through to Lake Otis when we have 72nd and Lohr that go right to Lake Otis. It's pretty easy traffic flow all the way to Lake Otis, and adding another street seems stressful to the neighborhood for us.

Thank you. Thank you.

Does any of the board members have a question?

Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak on this matter? Yes, ma'am, please come to the mic. Please state your name, if you could spell your last name.

And then are you an individual or speaking for a community council? Okay, speaking for myself, Patricia Anderson, A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N. Thank you, Patricia. You have 3 minutes. Okay, I live on East 74th right across the street from the parcel that wants to be developed, and I have done a written comment that should be in the package here, and I asked about a dump on the parcel since I had heard that several years ago, and I know that's not a plating thing, but if there was a dump on the southern track of this parcel, which is supported by historic aerial photographs, that there is something that was in the woods, starting with the photograph of 1960, and what is the process to get testing For this, I have waited since my written comment to see if there is an agency in the municipality that handles a concern like this, and I've heard nothing back.

So I'm wondering if there is a process to get environmental site assessments and if that should be done before a subdivision is plotted. Um, there was a backhoe in the area 2 days before the postponed 4/16 hearing that did some work right in the area where the aerial shows where this clearing was or dump or what could have been there. I think that the agencies should be contacted when there is a citizen concern, especially backed up by a photograph. I'm glad that East 74th would not be extended at this time. If it could be just left the way it is, that would be fine with me.

But definitely a right-of-way is the next best thing, and the sidewalk. My question would be, who maintains that 60-foot right-of-way with the sidewalk going through it, since it could take up to 30 years to put 74th down to the the highway. I'm guessing it has to go to the frontage road first, but 74th ends right at Nancy. It doesn't even go to the frontage road, so that would have to be developed too. So I'm assuming that's going to be a long time from now.

So that means that 60-foot right-of-way is going to be there growing weeds, trees, or whatever with an 8-foot sidewalk going through it. So my question would be, who maintains that? The other thing is public notices. The public notices that were put on opposite corners of this parcel were ripped down, um, right the day after the 4/16 postponed hearing. And when I called and said they were gone so that people could look for this hearing tonight, they got ripped down also.

So those notices were down more than they were up, and I feel.

That we all should have gotten another notice after the postponed hearing so others could be here tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions from Ms. Anderson?

You may be seated. I appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anybody else from the public who wishes to be heard?

Thank you. We will now— if we call the petitioner's representative to the chair. How much time does he have for rebuttal? 8 Minutes and 39 seconds.

Would you care to address any of the public's comments? Yeah, thank you to the members of community who took the time to share their thoughts and concerns. I'd like to begin by addressing the 4 variance requests and then use the remaining time to respond to the 3 community comments. Variance 1 is the construction of to Class B standards. This variance requests permission to construct the streets to Class B standards, which is consistent with the existing conditions of Zurich and O'Brien Streets.

As noted in the staff report, this request is supported by the departments including Planning and Traffic.

Variants 2, 3, and 4 all relate to East 74th, and starting with Variants 2, it's a request not to construct East 74th Avenue. Sheet 5 of the application shows that traffic has no objections. Sheet 12 includes staff recommends recommendation of approval, and all the standards are shown to be met. Moving on to Variance 3.

This is a request not to dedicate East 74th. As outlined in Triad Engineering's letter on page 29 in the staff packet, East 74th currently terminates at Zurich and O'Brien on either side of the proposed subdivision. It is not listed in the official streets and highways plan, which results in a classification of a local secondary road. Existing portions are strip paved with no curb, gutter, or sidewalks consistent with the surrounding streets. And more importantly, East 72nd Avenue and Lowell Road already provide access out to Lake Otis Parkway with signalized intersection offering a much safer alternative.

To a new unsignaled connection on 74th. The Anchorage Fire Department has confirmed that a connection by East 74th is not essential for their service. Additionally, no proposed lots would take direct access off East 74th. A through connection could increase traffic, noise, and safety concerns, issues that were just brought up by the community members. This variance would promote a quieter, safer neighborhood while still meeting all safety and emergency requirements.

And the fourth variance is the block length, and this is a request to allow a block length of 690 feet. Class A improvements allow for 500 feet, and Class B improvement areas allow for 1,320 feet, with the improvements being supported to be built to Class B, the 690-foot length is reasonable and within the Class B improvement area, what they allow. Code allows the platting authority approve a longer block length when necessary or traffic circulation is not—. Could you hold up? We're getting some feedback.

Okay, thank you. I was wondering what that was. Those on the bridge, would you please mute your phone? Uh, you're giving feedback through our testimony.

Thank you. And if we got a little distracted, so I apologize. Sorry, is it possible to add like 15 seconds onto his time, or has he got plenty on there? I don't want to punish him because we were distracted with feedback.

Thank you. All right, so code allows the platting authority to approve longer block length when necessary or when traffic circulation is not impaired. And in summary, we respectfully request your, to your approval of this 22-lot subdivision and associated variances. This project is consistent with the zoning, and I believe we have addressed both the community and infrastructure needs responsibly. And Mr., the developer, Mr. Potts, and Trident Engineering is here to answer questions too.

And moving on to the community comments, we agree that 74th shouldn't be punched through, allowing for less stressful walks. Regarding the dump on the parcel, we did talk to the previous owner back, I believe, 50 years, and they did clear an area for parking back in the day, and we did dig 3 test holes and found no trash on site. So, but if any trash is ever found when development goes in, it is taken care of at that time. And now I'd like to open it up to questions from the board.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from the board?

Yeah, you can just hit your little— you can, for those on the— if you're online, please just speak up or text me and then do request to speak. The reason we use the monitors is because it goes on the record. Thank you. Brenda, you're recognized. [Speaker:JENNY] I was just kind of wondering, because after reading all this stuff and traffic engineering and the planning department, they all sat down and kind of talked about how to reconfigure all these lots, and there seems to be a way to do it to meet all of the Anchorage code and still maybe lose 2 lots but still increase the amount of housing.

And I was just wondering why that isn't really taken into consideration, or if it is now taken into consideration since this packet's been published. Yeah, so that dedication would lose 2 lots. And not just that, building, constructing even a sidewalk ends up being an expensive process. Start having drainage, and where does that drainage go? You know, it goes on the neighbor's lot, so you have to It just keeps on going.

Does it go on your neighbor's driveway? Well, then you need to take care of that. And right now the project is a little bit of a hill, about 15 foot high in the center, and splits off going east and west. So we would have drainage going two directions that would need to resolve. So there is that cost.

Typically, I don't bring up cost too much, but it is losing two lots and then having construction is significant, especially with these being R-5 lots. So they're not— the value of them is less than like something up on Hillside that can take it, can incorporate larger, I guess, costs. This is a little bit narrower on the cost margins, and I can have the developer address that if you have questions on that.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, I'm putting myself in the queue. Brenda, you'll take the gavel.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Bennett. I have a couple questions. Um, so we're really just talking— there's a couple things that's important about this development. One is creating a subdivision that fits well within the community and doesn't put unnecessary burden on the neighboring existing houses regarding traffic, traffic flow. In finding something that functions well.

And two is strict adherence to the code can often be— if you guys have ever seen Title 21, as thick as it is— can be financially burdensome. So my question is regarding the sidewalk requirements. If you were to extend 74 through and building that, I can't tell— am I missing something? It doesn't look like there's any other sidewalks in the area. Can you tell me if there exists sidewalks?

There's no existing sidewalks in there, Lake Otis, but not, um, back in the subdivision. And so would you only be building that section in between that covers Lots, uh, 6 and 17? Would that be built to a standard? You'd have a sidewalk, but then basically, is it my understanding that then it would be sidewalks to nowhere? Correct.

74Th, are you being required to do off-site improvements to 74th, which is built to a lower standard than you would be building in between your two lots, either east or west? Both directions, and it would depend on the drainage. So private development wants a mass grading to show the future and how the drainage would go. So build the sidewalk, it would go both directions. It would have to construct, so we'd want to put drainage onto the neighboring property.

Would you— would the new extension of 74th between your two lots have stormwater? It would have ditches. So it's just surface drainage? Yeah, surface. Okay.

Um,.

Yeah, and fire said they didn't need it. They said they had the access for safety reasons. They were fine. There's fire hydrants to the north and south. Okay, okay.

And I can let Triad speak to the drainage a little bit more. Thank you, I appreciate that. Yeah, sure. My name is Grant Matthews, M-A-T-H-E-W-S. I'm with Triad Engineering.

Um, in terms of drainage, it gets very complicated in an area like this with an infill development because the existing streets in all directions don't have drainage infrastructure. So when we're improving, you know, one small stretch of right-of-way and bringing it up to a standard, then we're putting in ditches to collect the runoff. But if the adjacent streets don't have ditches or any other storm infrastructure, we're left chasing that improvement further, you know, potentially all the way out to Lake Otis or, or south to, you know, however far we need to go. So that can ripple into the cost. And I guess the other thing I'd like to clarify that was said earlier, I was there when we did the subsurface exploration with the excavator and just confirming that there was no, you know, unclassified fill or landfill, anything on the site.

There was some trash on the surface, just some steel and other materials, but We just found native soil on site, so it wasn't ever filled in as a dump site that we're aware of. Thank you. And to build upon that, when obviously the houses that will go there, if this project— if this plat is approved and the subdivision comes to fruition, you'll be digging foundations. And can you speak to the experience of what happens if you start digging 5-foot holes in the ground and you find other debris? What is the typical process to address that?

Yeah, I mean, there's requirements if, you know, God forbid there was like petroleum products encountered or something. There's a very prescriptive process for remediating that, but it would be, you know, a Phase 1 study and you'd have to go through the protocol to remove all of the contaminants. So yeah, there's no— we don't know of any contamination. There has not been an environmental study that I'm aware of, but as As far as we know, there is no contamination on site. Thank you.

And I only mention that for the benefit of our public testimony. Thank you very much. I don't have any other questions. Do we— regaining my gavel, do we have any other questions from the board?

Thank you.

So, just a second.

Okay. What?

Use my cheat sheet? Is that what you're saying to me? Use your cheat sheet. I kind of remember this. I took some ginkgo biloba earlier.

All right, so, okay, so regarding case S12825, Alplinko View, lots, uh, 1 through 22, do we have a— do we have a motion to approve the variance from AMC 21.08 0. Here we go. Thank you. Um, 0.05(c), improvement requirements by improvement area for Class A district subject to Condition 1. That reads recording a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions.

Moved by Brenda, seconded by Ashley Pluie. Brenda, do you have a— would you like to speak to your motion?

Okay, yeah, first I'll state the motion. So I move in case S12825 to approve the variance from AMC 2108050C, improvement requirements by improvement area for Class A district, subject to condition 1 that reads recording a suitable within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions.

Speaking to the motion, after reading the staff report and the— all of the department's recommendations, this does meet the requirements of Anchorage Municipal Code 2108.050(c).

That's— this was very, very detailed and really, yeah, it was a lot. So I don't think having this particular stretch of road developed to Class A standards would be fair. Definitely like should be consistent with the surrounding area. So I plan on supporting this motion.

Thank you. Ashley, would you like to speak to your motion? Uh, no, I agree with Ms. Butler. All right, thank you. Passing the gavel.

I'll also be moving to support this, uh, Variance 1. You see this a lot, particularly when we're developing tracts and subdivisions that are surrounded by other areas that were built decades earlier, then what ends up happening is you have a 40 or 30-foot section of street that's got rolled curb and gutter and real nice that just feeds dirt. Makes no sense. In fact, it actually could create a safety hazard regarding snow removal. You imagine a road grader dropping it and suddenly I've got 3 inches of asphalt or concrete that I didn't have before.

And so I will be moving to support this just to make sure that the streets in the neighboring are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, adding sidewalks that go nowhere can also create safety hazards because in some instances individuals are on the side of the road and they're popping in and out. It's not good to have pedestrians walking on a sidewalk and then in a road and back and forth, so it's best to maintain continuity. So I'll be looking to, uh, support this motion. Thank you.

We have a vote.

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yes.

Miss Bryan, how do you vote?

Yes. Miss Pennington, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Mirka?

Yes. Thank you.

Motion passes 7-0. Please mute your mics, those on the bridge. Thank you. Give me a second. If those online are board members, would please mute your phones.

Greatly appreciated.

Okay, regarding Case S12825, Alpenglow View Lots 1 through 22, do I have a moved motion to approve approval of the requested variance from AMC 21.080040A, streets dedication to not dedicate East 74th Avenue as it bisects the proposed subdivision, subject to recording a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions. Do I have a motion to approve?

Motion so moved by Brenda. Do I have a second?

Second by Ashley. Brenda, would you care to speak to your motion? Yeah, um, I'll state my motion. Um, so I move in case S12825 to approve the variance from AMC 2108-040A, streets dedication, to not dedicate E 74th Avenue as it bisects the proposed subdivision, subject to recording a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions. Um, and again, speaking to the motion, um, I will plan on supporting it, um, based on staff comments and traffic engineering.

All the other reviewing agencies did not have any concerns about the compatibility with the existing roads. The variances with the conditions should be It should mitigate any concerns, um, and leaving— yeah, leaving some area leaves room for future construction of 74th. A point of order, um, Mr. Cross, um, I believe we skipped B, item B. Oh, I apologize. We voted on item A, but we were supposed to move to item B first.

I'll let you continue. Is that correct? Um, let's see what we've got here. In case— in a move variance, streets dedication not needed, 74th peripheral streets improvements. Oh, that is correct.

You know, I apologize, the motion on my screen was, um, was C. I should have caught that.

And I apologize. Um, approval from Perennial Streets, not recorded. I'm trying to think if, if we flip these, if that creates any complications.

I apologize. Excuse me, is it— I thought he said C. Denial of the request of variance. Of variance.

No, not according— forgive me.

Yeah, Brenda, go ahead and withdraw your motion. And then, um, Lori, if you'd be so kind as to put—.

Apologize, I will withdraw my motion. Something got flipped on our end.

Thanks, Sean.

Glad somebody is paying attention.

Just make sure. All right. Fantastic. All right. So do I have a motion to approve in Case S12825?

I am looking for a motion to approve a variance from AMC 21.0. 8.050F, Peripheral Streets Improvements, to not require the improvement and construction of East 74th, subject to recording a suitable plat within 70— excuse me, within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions. I have a motion to approve by Brenda. Do I have a second?

Ashley seconds. Brenda, would you care to speak to your motion? Okay, um, yeah, this looks better. I will first state my motion. So I move in case S12825 to approve the variance from AMC 2108-05F, peripheral streets improvements do not require the improvement and construction of East 74th Avenue subject to recording a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions.

Now my notes make sense. So when I speak to the motion, I plan on approving or supporting this motion because traffic engineering had no objection to the condition that the dedication of East 74th Avenue right-of-way is part of the platting action. And that if the developer doesn't construct East 74th, it still allows the municipality to construct Undeveloped section of road as future improvements, which will align like between like Lake Otis and Brayton, which would be great. I lived off of Brayton. I could definitely use some help.

But yeah, that's all I really have to say that I totally support staff's real dive into this whole Planning action and variances. Ashley, do you care to speak to your motion? Nothing other than I plan to approve the motion. Thank you. Does anybody online care to speak to the motion?

Any members on the phone? Hearing none, I'll pass my gavel. I will also be seeking to approve this. Um, in fact, you might call this more of a traffic calming measure. We've seen this happen in many areas, not for South Anchorage but Midtown, Fairview, name it.

We have found that these through streets and stuff can actually create more pedestrian issues, and that, you know, bifurcating these and allowing for residential development where people have to stop slows down traffic. Combined with traffic calming measures, it can actually create a much more beneficial— Additionally, I think there's instinctively we understand this also, not to the benefit of the petitioner, but to the benefit of Anchorage, that if we want affordable homes than adding 2 lots to the development. The development costs are fixed whether they get 22 or 20, it's going to cost the same amount of money, but 2 more costs kind of reduces the burden on homeownership and can keep the cost of construction down. So given the staff analysis, their support, and just the, um, it just makes sense. I will be moving to support this motion.

Thank you.

We will have a vote.

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yes. Miss Bryan? Yes. Miss Pennington?

Yes. Mr. Mirka?

Yes. Thank you.

And the motion passes 7-0.

Now we will move on to C, or excuse me, it is— it's your B on your list, it's C on ours.

Okay, I'm looking for a motion to approve in case S12825 to approve the variance from AMC 21.08 4.040A, streets dedication, to not dedicate East 74th Avenue as it bisects the proposed subdivision, subject to recording a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and approved time extensions. Do we have a motion?

Moved by Brenda. Do I have a second?

Seconded by Ashley. Brenda, would you care to speak to your motion? Yep, first I'll state my motion. I move in case S12825 to approve the variance from AMC 2108-040A streets dedication to not dedicate East 74th Avenue as it bisects the proposed subdivision, subject to recording a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions. I do not intend to support this motion.

Based on the vast amount of information provided by traffic engineering and the department recommendations, um, it's just— it's this particular area, like, another 22 lots generating another 200 to 450 additional daily trips for two-family units is excessive. Um, understand, you know, costs, but costs aren't a determining factor of whether or not a variance should be approved.

I agree with staff's analysis, traffic engineering's research, and the planning department's overview of this recommendation of Denial.

Thank you. Ashley, would you care to speak to your motion? I do not.

Thank you.

Give me just one second. I'm going to, uh, speak, but I just want to go over something real quick, if you will please be patient. Is there anybody on the phone that wishes to speak? Any board members? Sarah Catherine Bryan, um, you recognized.

I, I'd also like to, um, just cite specifically traffic engineering mentioned that, and I'm just going to read out of our packet. One of our key considerations for requiring dedications of rights-of-way is to allow for transportation system connectivity Connectivity makes it easier for the public using all modes of— sorry, using all modes to navigate the system, access their destinations, and avoid out-of-direction travel. And this is the important part: emergency responders, trash collection, and other service providers also benefit when the network is connected and there are nearby secondary access options. So this is a genuine public safety, uh, consideration. I, I plan to, um, not support approval of this variance for that reason.

Thank you. Street dedication. Thank you. Is there anybody else?

Um,.

Thank you. Passing the gavel. Yeah, this one I struggle with. I mean, I guess I wish I knew what the cost burden was because I can see it both ways.

And just for the petitioner, when we look at something, because I do believe that there are unintended consequences to the complications of what we're doing here, and we— and And the word safety sometimes is used so broad that it's an easy way to squash or stop basically anything. So, you know, you shouldn't walk with your shoes untied.

But I guess for the petitioner, I'm not going to support the variance, but I would recommend in the future that you come with information regarding the cost associated with something. If you have the costs associated, then it gives us an idea to say, oh my gosh, I've seen projects where off-site improvements or things like that are $600,000, $700,000, and it's 2 houses. So oftentimes having some of that stuff in there is beneficial in order to get something. So I will be, um, I'll be not supporting this variance. Thank you.

See anybody else? May we have a vote?

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote?

No.

Miss Bryan? No. Miss Pennington?

Yes. Mr. Mirka? No, thank you.

That motion fails 6 to 1.

Next, I'm looking for a motion to approve in case S12825 to approve the variance from AMC 21.08.030G2, residential block arrangement in Class A improvement areas shall not be less than 300 feet nor more than 500 feet long to allow for a block length of 690 feet subject to recording the plat within 60 months of an approval and any approved time extensions. We have moved by Brenda. Do we have a second?

Seconded by Ashley. Brenda, would you care to speak to your motion? I'll state my motion for the record. I move in case S12825 to approve the variance from AMC 2108-030-G2, residential block arrangement in Class A improvement areas shall not be less than 300 feet nor more than 500 feet to allow a block length of 690 feet subject to recording a plot within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions. I'm speaking to my motion.

I do not intend on supporting this motion based on traffic engineering's recommendations, the planning department's recommendations, The— I mean, Class A improvements area shall not be less than 300 feet nor more than 500 feet. It's— this is like traffic engineering says, this is one of the few minimum standards that the subdivision code requires. The only impact presented in the narrative was financial burden, and again, financial burden is not a reason to be allowed a variance from municipal code.

You know, transportation infrastructure supports needs of developments, and we need— we need this to maintain a certain standard in the area, and all of the surrounding subdivisions were required to meet this code. That's pretty much all I have to say.

Ashley, did you have, uh, did you want to comment on your—. I'm just—. I agree with Miss Butler. I do believe we should all be held to that same standard. Thank you.

Uh, through the chair, I'm actually in Patrick's chair. I have a question for staff. Um, since 3 didn't pass, isn't 4 redundant?

Uh, well, Mr. Chair, um, 4, we need to vote on 4. Um, we do, it's slightly redundant. However, uh, for process, you know, if it gets appealed, but yes, it's, it's slightly redundant, but we do need to vote on that. Thank you.

Uh, then I will vote just because 3 didn't pass, then 4 is redundant. So that's why I'll be not be supporting it. Thank you.

May we have a vote?

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? No. Miss Bryan? No. Miss Pennington?

Yes. Mr. Mirka?

No. Thank you.

And the motion fails 6-1. Thank you. Okay, so we're at this point, I believe our chair can enter. Oh, we're not done. Do we have one more motion?

Oh, thank you. I apologize. I thought there was only 4. Approval of plans. Okay.

Thank you.

I'm looking for a motion to approve Case S12825 to approve the phasing plan subject to Condition 1 that reads recording a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions.

Moved by Ashley, seconded by Brenda. Ashley, would you care to speak to your motion? I will state the motion. I move in case S-12-825 to approve the phasing plan subject to condition 1 that reads recording a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and any approved time extension. I do not have anything to say to that.

Thank you. Brenda, would you like to speak to your motion? I plan to support this motion. It is standard municipal code requirements.

Anybody on the phone care to speak to the motion?

Seeing none, let's vote. We have a vote.

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yes.

Ms. Bryan? Yes. Ms. Pennington? Yes. Mr. Mirka?

Yes. Thank you.

And it passes 7-0.

Looking for a motion to approve in Case S12825 to approve the plat for 60 months, subject to Conditions 1 through 3, 4A and B, and then 5 through 8. So moved by Brenda. Do I have a second?

Seconded by Ashley. Brenda, would you care to speak to your motion? I'll state my motion for the record. I move in case S12825 to approve the plat for 60 months subject to conditions 1 through 3 and 4, A and B, and 5 through 8. I plan on supporting this motion based on the conditions.

I think that the conditions on this PLAT are things that we've all had issues with, with the variances. So this PLAT definitely eases a lot of, of questions when it comes to this action. Thank you. Ashley, would you care to speak to your motion? I do not.

Thank you. Anybody online? Hearing none, we'll have a vote.

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yes. Miss Bryan?

Yes. Miss Pennington? Yes. Mr. Mirka?

Yeah, thank you.

And that motion passes 7-0.

No, we have one more.

Okay, in case S12825 I'm looking for a motion to approve the plat for 60 months subject to Conditions 1 through 3, 4A and B, and 5 through 8.

See, we did just do the last one, so we're now— you're inverted on your end. So we ran into the same problem where there is inconsistency between the packets and what's been uploaded. So forgive it, it's technology, gotta love it.

Thank you. I have returned as chair. Maybe please have staff's presentation in case S12827.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a request to subdivide one tract into 13 lots and 3 tracts with variances. 2, Lot frontage and access, dedication of streets. The plat would create 13 residential lots in Anchorage.

The petitioner proposes to build Panoramic Circle, a 50-foot-wide private access tract. The access tract will be maintained by the homeowners association. It will allow for compact placement of structures due to slopes and to lessen the disturbance of the property or to subsurface water.

So the petition site is located on the hillside south of the intersection of Potter Valley Road and Potter Highlands Drive. The petition site is surrounded by R-6 SL low-density residential, 1-acre homes with special limitations of 1 single-family home. The proposed lots and tracts meet the minimum lot size and width required by the R-6 SL zoning district. None of the reviewing agencies had any objections to the plat and variances. In the matter of the road improvements and dedications, the proposed subdivision has access to Potter Valley Road, which is a collector roadway.

Panoramic Circle is located within Tract 1. Both Private Development and Traffic recommend for Traffic 1 to consist of the 50-foot-wide private street, 20-foot-wide, which is strip paved in accordance with the Municipality of Anchorage standard specifications. This will include reconstruction of an existing 5-foot-wide gravel trail at the intersection of Panoramic Circle and Potter Valley Road.

A portion of the constructed roadway for Potter Valley Road is outside of the existing platted right-of-way, instead transitions across the proposed Track 2. Traffic Engineering, Private Development Planning recommend that the dedication of a 50-foot PUA by document for that portion of constructed road outside of the right-of-way. For the matter of the drainage, Watershed has requested the project design satisfy stormwater treatment and extended detention requirements. For trails, there is a 10-foot-wide trail shown along the western boundary of the subdivision. The trail exists as part of previous subdivision improvements, and we're only placing that in an easement through it as that currently exists.

Conformance with the adopted plans, preliminary plat appears to generally conform with the petition site land use classification as well as policies found in the 2040 Anchorage Land Use Plan of Policy 4-1 and Policy 5-1. So the subdivision is going to provide residential lots for those seeking to purchase a rural large lot parcel, and the rural development of the subdivision is keeping with the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Now we come to the matter of the variance request. So the petitioner is requesting variances from AMC 2108-030-L1, which is lot frontage and access, All lots shall have frontage on a street. And AMC 2108-0408-1, Dedication of Streets.

All street rights of way shall be dedicated to the public. So the variance requests are to create single-family fee-simple lots with the tracks managed by the homeowners association. The homeowners association will be responsible for maintenance of the internal roadway within the tracks. Staff has found that Condition A is met for both variances. There are certain special circumstances that strict application of the subdivision regulations would be undesirable to the general public.

The steep slopes on portions of the property limit the location of structures and on-site water and wastewater systems. The location and design of the private road will minimize the site disturbance envelopes for structures and slope disturbance. Staff finds that Condition B is met for both variances. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to other property owners in the area, as the road improvements will be privately maintained Staff finds Condition C, the standard is met for both variances. The proposed private road street design provides for a compact development that may be necessary with steep slopes and other environmental conditions.

The intent of the subdivision regulations is met, and all lots within the subdivision will be provided access. Staff finds that Condition D, the standard is met for both variances. Undue hardship would result from strict compliance with the regulations. The topography of the property limits design options for access, road design, placement of the homes, and septic systems to a confined area of land. Granting the variances will enhance the maximum potential use of this property.

And generally reviewing agencies had either no comment or no objection to the variance requests. The Planning Department therefore finds the standards are substantially met and recommends approval Subject to Conditions A-1 and B-1 through 8 found on pages 8 and 9 of the staff packet, with one minor edit, um, on Condition Number 2. It shall read: Resolve with Planning, Traffic, Private Development, and Right-of-Way the need to dedicate a public use easement by document across Track 2 for that portion of Potter Valley Road constructed within Track 2 and outside the dedicated way. Um, I can answer any questions. The petitioner's here tonight, and I believe the engineer on record as well.

I know that they worked, uh, very long with multiple meetings, um, to get the road design, uh, for this to meet all the standards required. And I'm sure they can tell you it's a, it's a very tight, um, subdivision. If they shift, if they have to shift the road just slightly like they did Then they run into lot width to length requirements and on-site with slopes. It's very— it's fairly steep, and everything is kind of just designed to fit perfectly as it— as you see on your staff packet for the preliminary plat. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff?

Are there any questions from anyone on the phone?

Hearing none, we will now move to the petitioner's presentation. Please state your name. Good evening. My name is Tony Hoffman. I'm a land surveyor and I work for the Boutet Company.

I'm here tonight to discuss this platting action, Panameric Ridge Subdivision. With me tonight is Brandon Marcotte, the project engineer, tried engineering, and the owner and developer of the property, Connie O'Donnell.

Shamira is also here to answer questions.

The property is located on Potter Valley Road at the intersection of Potter Valley Drive. The legal description as it currently exists is Tract A1 Viewpoint South subdivision. The property is 34 acres, zoned R-6. As Sean stated, the subdivision will create 13 home lots and 3 tracks.

With this application, we have requested those variances that allow the project to be developed with the privately owned road, 700 feet in length. The variances will allow the road to be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners. The road is situated in Tract 1, which is 50-foot wide. The road design, including grade, width, and construction cross-section, is engineered to the same standards as a road built in a dedicated right-of-way. The road construction plans were just recently approved by the Municipality of Anchorage Private Development.

Both the police department, fire department, and other agencies commented— actually, the police department and fire department had no comments about safety or any of their reviewing issues. The lots as designed meet the minimum standards for R-6 lots, including area, slope, and 3-to-1 standards. The existing trail is referred to as Highland Trail. It runs along the west and north side of the property adjacent to Potter Valley Road. That trail was built by Potter Creek Development under the supervision of Miss Yoshimura.

It's the only private trail on the hillside built by a private party. It is widely used by neighboring developments. Once, once the subdivision construction has been completed, The trail will be dedicated or deeded to the Potter Creek HOA, and an easement will be established on the trail. Now, the homeowner association will be formed that will regulate the development and collect dues. However, it has determined by the, uh, developer that the best way to serve the Panoramic Ridge subdivision is by becoming a subassociation of the current Potter Creek Homeowners Association.

That letter that we distributed to you outlines some of the specifics about that. Um, this is background. Title 21 does require an establishment of an HOA, and it is actually a platting condition of number 4.

Speaking to some of the comments and the public outrage, the Developer presented the project actually quite a couple times, most recently February 13th at Rabbit Creek Community Council. Their concerns are outlined in the staff package. Some of their concerns included protecting the trail and easement, the creation of a homeowner association, which we're going to get to in a minute, um, which we got to already, um, and, uh, concerns regarding the lot grades and design. Again, the lots meet the Title 21 requirements, including steep slope. Now finally, there was— there were some additional comments that were placed that came in after, and we're going to get this— touch on those.

Um, comment number 1 on May 3rd: As soon as the ground is broken, please require that a porta potty and dumpster are established on site. That's, um, the developer has agreed that porta-potties and dumpsters will be present during construction and the site will be kept as clean and debris-free as possible. Next would be a request that no chickens or farm-type animals are allowed. Currently, the CC&Rs of Potter Creek Homeowners Association allows chickens. Any change would require modification of the HOA regulations.

And right now that's not being anticipated. Um, and, um, finally, there was another question about the planning board requiring the subdivision developers to construct a road that would meet minimum public right-of-way requirements. I would point out that there are 9 other private roads in the Potter Valley that are very similar in construction and configuration as what we're doing. They have functioned well. So this is not an unknown situation.

And then there were also concerns about the— and now this summarizes— that the Municipality of Anchorage should improve Portugal or Finland Street and Portugal Place, which is the secondary access.

So we understand that the secondary access, that goes out of the area is not built to municipal standards. But the issue can only be resolved by municipal action. It's a common issue and situation in Upper Hillside area. Despite the issue though, the municipality continues to issue building permits in Potter Heights, which is above our project. So ultimately, the broader issue should be brought forth or I guess, um, brought forth and discussed by Rapid Creek Community Council and the municipality as far as some sort of, um, construction agreement or improvement.

So that's all I have, and I don't know if the engineer of record has any more time. I'm sorry I ate up so much.

Uh, good evening, my name is Brandon Marcotte, M-A-R-C-O-T-T, with Triad Engineering, licensed professional civil engineer. We have 20 years of experience specializing in residential development. I'll kind of skip past some of the points that Tony made and speak more to the access road and to the internal road. Access to the subdivision is available by Potter Valley Road. As staff mentioned, this is a collector road which was brought up to full municipal standards in in 2014, in part by this very same developer that is seeking this plat approval.

Potter Valley Road is paved through and just beyond the proposed intersection with the new private road. The intersection also contains streetlight and is lit to municipal standards. We have worked closely with the Municipality of Anchorage Private Development Division to ensure that the alignment of the new road provides the safest and most functional access to and from the subdivision. The road has been designed and reviewed under the same standards applied to public roads, and it will be constructed and inspected to those same municipal standards. Civil plans have been submitted to the appropriate municipal departments, and we have addressed their feedback to arrive at a design that meets approval requirements.

In closing, we thank you for your time and consideration in this request, and unless there's any immediate Questions. We reserve our time for rebuttal. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for the petitioner?

Good. Mr. Cross. Thank you. I just have a question regarding the letter from Attorney James McCollum and a suggestion that Panoramic Ridge will incorporate into Potter Creek as a subassociation of a similar manner. That would require a vote of the Potter Creek HOA, correct, to incorporate you?

And then I guess my question is, what if they say no? I'm going to let the owner Connie Yoshimura answer that question. Oh, I'm just— yeah, I'm just curious on what problems that creates if it is— if you are not warmly received. I don't know why they wouldn't, but more of a just an understanding of that process. Thank you, Connie.

Thank you. I'm Connie Yoshimura. I am the owner and the developer for the proposed project. Um, I think there is a basic misunderstanding, um, and we have been back and forth, uh, with the association, um, and it is my decision that we will remain within the association, and we have some negotiating that we have to do regarding some specific items that has been outlined by, uh, Mr. McCollum. We are awaiting for a response from the homeowners association board of directors in order for us to complete our negotiations.

Um, we have— Panoramic Ridge will be incorporated into the Potter Creek HOA, uh, and not really as a sub-association but as part of the general association. Um, and the declaration for Panoramic Ridge would provide that— I'm sorry, I don't have my glasses, so I can't— if you could read it, thank you. Yeah, let me read it out, please. Thanks. Okay, the declaration for Pan American Ridge would provide the ability to have black chain-link fencing.

It would be permitted if it's a wood fence. There will not be a limit on the size of garage, except that it could be no more than 35 feet across the front, but unlimited in depth. Detached ADUs will be permitted, but they have to be in compliance with the ADU ordinance. And, uh, specifies permitted tree species will be autumn blaze maple, northern redbud, crabapple, and mountain ash. And after approval of the home plans by the Potter Creek Design Review Committee, The company which is owned by— the company that is owned by Connie that is developing the subdivision will have final approval of all the exterior elevations consistent with the approved plan.

Thank you. And, you know, I appreciate that additional detail. It's interesting because that sounds more like a zoning issue than we would have to deal with on platting, right? So we're just— how you chop up the pizza, that's what you put on it. So, um, but thank you for answering that question.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions for the petitioner?

I do have one. I was looking at the— you submitted here and some of the other subdivisions that I've seen in that area that have the private drives. I see that all the lots come to a, you know, the midpoint of the development, whereas here I see the road is actually, you know, shown platted with no particular ownership. So is that something different here, or is that going to be done later, or just out of curiosity?

I guess, uh, through the chart, could you repeat that question a little bit more clearly? The, the— if it— if I understand you correctly, tract 1 would be owned by the HOA, which consists of the road improvements itself. Yeah, I was looking at, uh, I was kind of researching this area, and, and down on like King Eider and, uh, Kitty Wake and some of these other ones that are, that are private drives similar to this, when you look at it on the plat, at least with the city, all of them come together in the center. There's no actual road shown On the, on the drawing versus here, I see that obviously the road is, is clearly marked and those lot lines don't extend to the center like those other roads do, correct? Yes.

So that, that's, I guess, my question is if this is going to be a private drive like those, is there a reason that those lot lines don't extend to the center? I think it's a matter of ownership. We want— you want to have clear delineation of the HOA's responsibilities. So in those instances, I would imagine The community or the residents in the area probably band together, if you will, to maintain some of those roads that don't have, you know, ownership defined within a specific tract. And so the way this plat was designed was to create that road and put it in a tract that can be deeded to the HOA, and so it can be maintained properly through, you know, the proper ownership channels.

Okay, appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

Uh, those lots were created, uh, going to the center of the road really for the purpose of marketing so that the lots would appear larger.

Thank you for the clarification. All right, are there any last questions for the petitioner?

Seeing none, we will open the hearing to public testimony. Thank you.

Please state your name.

Through the Chair, if you could turn your mic on. Make sure the red light comes on.

How about now? There you go. There we go. If you could repeat yourself for the record, please. Yes, my name is Jonathan Green.

I'm an attorney with the law firm of Guess and Rudd appearing on behalf of the Potter Creek Homeowners Association tonight. Thank you. You have 5 minutes. Thank you. Our comments tonight are to urge this board to reject this application at this time.

It is premature. As Ms. Yoshimura alluded, there are negotiations apparently that need to be continued, or begun rather. What we have is a tract of land that has been part of the HOA since 1985. Tract A1, in numerous documents in the recorder's office, is subject to the Potter Creek Homeowners Association. Now, tonight, for the first time, we're hearing that no, it wouldn't be a subassociation, as a letter from her attorney to the Potter Creek Homeowners Board the other week asked for, but it would stay part of the general association.

And that's because it takes a two-thirds vote of all lots to de-annex property, and there's very little likelihood Ms. Yoshimura will succeed at this. She tried once a little over 10 years ago. And failed for similar types of developments, but she gained some concessions in the negotiations. And frankly, my client is frustrated by the approach. We have no problem with the development.

It's a wonderful tract. It's a challenging tract. But it can be developed in accordance to the design standards and procedures, the CC&Rs and the bylaws of the association that Ms. Yoshimura, as the lot owner, has been party to and agreed to for decades. There's no need for these variances that are, to our standards and outlined in that letter, which is, the members have noted, are not part of the variance request before the Planning Board today. However, we would urge the board to take into account the fact that It is premature to be asking for board approval of these road variances when substantial roadblocks for the development exist with the HOA that have not been resolved.

Additionally, we do not believe that the applicant has met its burden of proof to justify these variances for a number of reasons.

There is not a private party that is willing to bear these costs at this time as required of main— for maintaining a private access road, which is contrary to what is stated in the application. They would have to set up a new HOA to pay for this, which you've just heard them claw back. That's not what they would actually do. They would remain part of the Potter Creek HOA, the Potter Creek HOA which is not inclined to pay for this road maintenance. And that on its face is enough to fail to meet their burden of proof for the variance.

Additionally, we have significant concerns, as I believe other members of the HOA are going to testify tonight, as to drainage, snow, ice removal, and challenges in this area.

It was disheartening to see no comments from the police department or the fire department on the design as approved. One thing that is noticeably missing from the application and other materials in the packet is any mention of what grade of road this access will be. They mentioned it's 700 feet long. A rough estimate of the grade Easily shows it will be above 14%. If you have a 700-foot horizontal with approximately 130 feet of elevation gain, where it starts at Potter Valley Road, it's 1,070 feet elevation, and roughly where they have it designed to end is almost 1,200 feet.

This is well in excess of the maximum 12% allowed with a variance under the design manual criteria for anchorage. The hillside area. It's even more in excess of the 10% grade limitation for emergency access vehicles under Policy 08-007. These are real concerns that are not addressed in this application and argue in favor of my client's position. You should deny this application at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

Seeing none, is there anyone else for public hearing?

Thank you. If you could please turn on the mic and state your name. My name is Sean Hitchcock.

H-I-T-C-H-C-O-C-K. Thank you. Are you representing yourself tonight or any boards? Yes, myself. Okay, you have 3 minutes.

Members of the board, my name is Sean Hitchcock. My wife and I live in our dream home on Potter Highlands Drive, which is just past the applicant's property. I urge the planning board to deny this application due to the road dedication variance. That we think should be disapproved, the AMC 21.08.040A.1. We are not opposed to this development.

We just want it to be developed by the rules of the Potter Creek Homeowners Association. The Rabbit Creek Community Council and the Anchorage Hillside Home and Landowners Organization, of which it is a part, These are the rules that we all use to determine if we wanted to live in that area. CY Investments has not followed the proper path to develop this tract of property. They should have proposed their development to the Potter Creek Homeowners Association and received their approval before this application was even submitted for variance to the road standards for this development. The proposal for this private road for this development is below muni standards.

A 20-foot-wide road will not meet the standards for access by emergency vehicles and snow removal equipment. Also, because of its substandard construction, it will have a negative impact on.

Of effect on the adjacent muni roads, and it will cause undue expense to the Potter Creek Homeowners Association. All of the other roads in the Potter Creek Highlands section of the Potter Creek subdivision have muni roads. They have nice deep drainage ditches to handle the snow and water runoff. The application points out successful examples of private roads in the subdivision of Kitiwake and King Eider. They are not successful examples as they have issues during extended winter season that we have in the Potter Creek area.

Residents of those streets use their own snow blowers to clear the snow to maintain emergency access and egress before the private snow removal contractors, contractors come to clear the private roads. The cost for capital reserves, maintenance, and snow removal will all be borne by the Potter Creek members, and it will cause an increase in the dues for the association. Again, I urge you to deny this application. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

Seeing none, thank you for your time. Thank you. Are there any other, uh, public hearing?

Thank you. Please state your name.

Yes, my name is Mark Sauve. It's spelled S-A-U-V-E. I'm a homeowner on South Point Ridge development, which is the community just to the south of that. I'm also an officer of the HOA there, but I'm not be speaking on behalf of the HOA in this case. Um, thank you.

You have 3 minutes. Oh, thank you. Um, yes, uh, I do have some concerns associated with this development, uh, specifically with some of the variances. Or the variance in question. And it also has to do— a couple of reasons, one of which, the main one, is in the wintertime, we get a lot of snow up there, and it tends to drift really badly.

The snow removal tends to run behind. These streets get really narrow. The berms get really high. And just the ability to see when you're pulling out onto these roads is minimized. Getting a variance where these roads are going to be narrower and potentially the berms higher as snow removal, not this winter withstanding, but certainly in previous ones, gets reduced, gets to be a safety hazard.

In wintertime, that's a significant concern for a tighter road. And, and something else to keep in mind, in the summertime, there's at least a couple of user groups I can think of that use this area quite a bit that might be affected by smaller roads. Alaska Pacific University uses this road for their skate/ski trials and exercises, and they tend to aim for the highest paved point that they can find. This is going to be either the first or second highest paved point once it's constructed. And when they're coming up, they, they, without a good shoulder on the road, it's a bit of a hazard to try and get around them.

So in summertime, that, that is a concern because of that user group. And in addition, the Anchorage Bike Club in summertime does hill climbs up Potter Valley Road. And again, they tend to aim for the highest point that's paved. This is going to be one of them. And not having a good shoulder there could make things a bit more hazardous for them.

So I would urge you to consider rejecting the variances associated with this development, both for the snow removal issues and the line of sight there when the snow gets bad, and for some of the— in consideration of the user groups that will likely be using this road. Not having that full width could present a safety hazard associated with it. And I would also like to speak in support of doing the 20-foot-wide trail easement for the, the trail that crosses some of these lots, as opposed to the 10-foot-wide easement that was mentioned beforehand.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

Seeing none, thank you for your time. Okay, please speak. My name is Michael Schotz, S-C-H-O-E-T-Z. I am a resident of Potter Highlands Drive. I live actually one lot from the subject property.

I can go off script here real quick. I will say I have personal knowledge of people that live on these private streets, and they discuss the difficulty in the snow removal and everything that goes on to it. I've driven by Kitty Wake on it in different times because I like to take my kids around, and it is a process there. It's, it's no joke. Uh, the drainage is bad, and, uh, it will— this lot will be the, be the same.

I'm here tonight to voice support for the denial of the application S12827. This variance application has been submitted, and this is all in my opinion, I'm speaking for myself. This variance application has been submitted to circumvent obligations and restrictions that are already in place. The petitioner in their application states that the development, uh, that the developer will form a binding HOA that will have the required dues structure to maintain that road. Of course, that may have changed now, but that was what was in the statement.

This property is already a part of a homeowners association, an association with certain covenants and obligations for certain development standards. The developer knowingly annexed the subject property in the homeowners association with full knowledge of these covenants. In fact, it was clearly contemplated that there may be an instance in which certain areas covered by the homeowners association may desire to be developed outside of the HOA restrictions. As such, a formal process for de-annexation is provided for in the covenants of the homeowners association. To my knowledge, that process has not been completed.

I don't believe it has even been started. The developer is attempting, in my opinion, to develop this property in a manner that has not been approved by the homeowners association. It does not have homeowner association support. This application has been submitted without the blessing of or input from the homeowners association. An association that will be obligated to bear the cost to be borne by approval of this application.

My wife and I purchased our dream lot on which we built our dream home based on the covenants and agreements— covenants and agreements in place for the area. We welcome and desire for others to do the same in the future based on the covenants and restrictions in place. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

No. Thank you for your time.

Please state your name for the record. Yeah, my name's Tim Kochert. It's K-O-C-H-E-R-T. Are you representing yourself or a board? I'm representing myself. Okay, you have 3 minutes.

Okay, I live just beyond the subject property on Potter Highlands Drive. Um, back in 2019, my wife and I were searching for the place to build our dream home and, uh, discovered Potter Highlands and, and that area and was amazed at the, at the wide of the streets, the covenants that were followed, um, the depth of the, the the streets for drainage. And so we built our dream home there. And we followed the rules, the rules that were laid. We followed the rules of the Potter Creek Homeowners Association in building our home, submitting our plans.

And then we followed the rules of the municipality that you laid down. We followed the rules of the fire extinguishing system we had to have in our house. We didn't request any variances for that because that's the rules you guys laid down.

So as we built our home and now have moved into it, we found what the winters were like up there. And we get a lot of snow. We get 10, 11 feet of snow. And those drainage ditches that we have in place and those wide roads, they were full. Of snow.

And there's nowhere— I don't see how you would shrink a road and still have emergency access in and out of the homes.

The fire department, I had them come out today. And the fire department did an assessment on my lot. And what I learned was, is those wide roads that we have up there, there's another reason for those wide roads. That's a good firebreak. And we're all concerned about this.

I understand Anchorage needs to find place for homes and stuff, but I, I don't see change in the plans, guys. The process is there. The rules have been laid. We need to follow them. So I'm not in support of this S12827.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

Thank you.

Are there any other people wanting to come forward for public hearing? Thank you. If you could state your name and let us know if you are for yourself or board. Hi, I am Leanne Osgood. I am here for myself.

I live at 18721 England Circle. So I am not in this group that are from the South Point Ridge or Potter Highland Drive area. I have been there in my dream home.

Since 1991 when there was no development up there. I use Finland and Portugal. It is my comment in here. Finland and Portugal are used as a cut-through or a shortcut for everyone on the hillside up above me to go to Bear Valley, Goldenview Middle School, South High School, the trail system. If they're visiting their friends at Prominence Point Shangri-La, etc.

This place, you'll know that you'll go through there, I bet you will. These roads are not able to support the amount of residents that are happening above us. Connie O'Shaughnessy has been doing this development and she's been pushing off improving these roads. She's been allowed. I agree with the petitioner who says the municipality needs to take action and do something with these two roads.

They are extremely dangerous. I see that this picture got put in here. This happened this winter. Now imagine if this fire truck was coming down Portugal when I was going up it. There's been garbage trucks there, there's been fire trucks twice stuck on here.

I have so much— today coming here to this meeting, I met two cars on the hill. They're not from the area. It's an unmaintained area, these two roads. There's three of us that plow the area for everyone else that use these cut-throughs. There were two cars coming up the hill that I went around and, um, they don't live in the neighborhood, so they're going somewhere up above us.

So I really, really ask the municipality Anchorage to look into doing something for these two segments that are connector roads. I understand that Potter Valley is the collector road, but people are using these connector roads, including the fire department, include— so That's all I have. I really appreciate you listening to me. Thank you. Any questions?

Do we have any questions? Okay, no, thank you. Is there anyone else looking to testify?

No. With that, we will close the public hearing. A point of order, I believe there's a phone testimony that we'll call in here. Let's see if we can get a hold of them. Thank you.

Good evening. Are you able to hear me? Yes. Hello, is this Joel Brownell? It is.

Okay, this is the planning board calling for public testimony in case S12827. So as an individual, you have 3 minutes to testify. Please state your full name for the record, and then you can begin your testimony.

Thank you. This is Joel Brownell, B-R-O-W-N-E-L-L. I also live on Potter Highlands Drive and just representing myself. My wife and I moved up to this area recently and made a large investment in a beautiful home. And as has been stated by others, part of the draw was the homeowners association.

The maintenance of the roads, the quality, and the reassurance that the investment was a good decision for us. When we have made changes to our property, we have followed the rules in terms of getting sign-off from the homeowners association, which isn't always convenient, but it's part of what we all signed up for. I won't restate what I think multiple other people neighbors have stated already. But what really stands out to me is this request commits our current homeowners association to maintain the road and presumably have some liability for the road as well. And I haven't heard any explanation about why the request for variance would be made in the absence of initial discussion or approval through the current homeowners association.

Association. Um, many of us walk, bike in the area. Um, we bump into our neighbors with the dogs. There's children in, in the area, and that intersection where the road will enter into that area looks like a very steep entry point. Um, and especially with private maintenance, I've got major concerns during the winter with the snow and the ice about vehicles coming down that hill and sliding into the intersection whether it's a risk to other vehicles or pedestrians, um, bicyclists and whatnot.

And so in the absence of any justification for this request without previously going through the homeowners association piece, um, that part just doesn't make any sense to me. So I appreciate, uh, the time and certainly encourage that this is denied at this time.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else?

Okay, so not— we will close the public hearing. Oh, um, apologies. Uh, any rebuttal for the public testimony that we had?

You have 2 minutes and 40 seconds left.

Okay, your time is ready. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I had two partners and myself, and in 1992 we bought the Potter Creek land out of Neil Burke's bankruptcy. And so all the houses that have been built in the subdivision since 1992 have been the work of my team as far as the beautification of the subdivisions.

In particular, I would like to say we had many disagreements with the existing homeowners association in order to get the changes for Potter Highlands itself. What I want to say to you is in 1992 when we bought it, we were living with existing covenants, codes and restrictions and design criteria that were originally established in 1982 and 1984. So if you can think about living with covenants, codes, and restrictions and design criteria that are more than 40 years old, certainly there is that opportunity for some change, which is what we were able to accomplish through strenuous negotiations with the Potter Creek Homeowners Association for Potter Highlands. And as you can hear, the people that live there now that are— were the benefits of those amendments enjoy the tranquility and the beauty of an upper hillside home that really, quite frankly, has been my personal and business responsibility. I would say to you, this is a very well-to-do homeowners association.

At their annual meeting, I was told that they have $800,000 in reserves. Congratulations for that. And I'd like to feel that we have made a contribution to all of that as a result of our development activities there. And we have no desire whatsoever to destroy the quality and the beauty of the subdivisions that we— and the communities that we have created. And so now I'd like Brandon, if you could address some of the more technical responses, please.

I'll do what I can in 30 seconds, but I'll give it a shot. Um, uh, it may be it was missed in the application in terms of, um, being readily, um, obvious, but if you look to Condition 6A on Sheet 9, I just want to make it clear that what the city is requiring us to do is to construct panoramic surface Panoramic Circle to municipal standards. It literally says in the condition, construct Panoramic Circle to municipal standards as a 20-foot-wide strip paved road with a 39.5-foot bulb. Sorry, your time is up. Thank you.

Do you want to finish your statement there? I would love to. Thank you. Um, uh, typical Section 20-1 of the Municipality of Anchorage standard specifications, This is the same exact road standard that was built in Potter Highlands Drive. I know because I was the design engineer for that road.

The significant difference between these two projects is Potter Highlands Drive is nearly flat as a pancake. Those grades in there are nice and flat. There's nice open spaces. It's a lot easier to access your driveways. This side of Potter Valley Road is much more challenging.

Okay, it's got a lot more topography, as was indicated by the public. We've done our work and submitted our civil plans to the municipality in advance of this meeting, and we have obtained an approved civil set of plans for a road that meets municipal standards with a maximum road grade of 12%. Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay, we will now close the public testimony. Are there any final questions? Through the chair. Go ahead. Thank you.

So I have some questions here. One, just trying to address the public testimony and some of the concerns that we have here. One is a question, and then I'm going to follow it with more of a statement or a thought process. It was said that we were— by asking for variances, we're maybe we're not playing by the rules or we're looking for something special. My question is, in the original creation of Potter Creek subdivision, did they seek any variances or did they seek any exceptions in that development?

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I think in the original creation of the Potter Creek subdivision,.

Division, there were a number of variances, and I can't recall what they were because I was not a part of the original one. But certainly the conversation that we just had about the lots going to the center of the road would be a good example of changes. I will help you by saying there were many. Thank you. And so the point is that variances are very common, particularly when you get into alpine slopes and you run into these issues.

And so The subdivision and the houses that we all live in, and I live in what I call the nosebleed section of Eagle River, which is above the nature center. I almost need a mountain goat to get to my house. It's surprising anybody built houses up there. But that's why we all drive duallys and have studded tires. But the point being that it's very common for someone to seek variances and it's not being treated special or asking for special consideration.

It's just part of the process. The other thing is that I want to understand this, that even if the plat— if If we approve this, right? It's a subject to, correct? Meaning that it's, there's no guarantee. Okay, so, and one of the provisions here, it says under section 4, it says, even though we approve it, you still have to establish a homeowners association and provide copies of the CCRs to the planning department for review and approval before they allow you to do anything.

So the approval doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to get carved up and they're going to start building whatever it is. That just means that for— and this is my statement part for those here— it just means it's— they know that now they can invest thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of more dollars into studies in order to meet the provisions that are required by Because why would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars before the muni even says, well, we wouldn't even let you carve it up anyway. So again, just because we approve it, we approve a lot of plats that never get built on. And I can tell you there's stacks of them because in the process of completing these criteria, they run into a snag, they get a study that doesn't work. We can't meet the grade.

For instance, one of the things is the property owner and utilities shall not raise, lower, or regate the property in any manner that will alter the drainage patterns of those shown in the approval grading and drainage plan without approval from the municipality of Anchorage. Drainage study is very expensive. You're not going to spend it until you have a plat and that you know your plat is going to be approved if you can do it because it's going to cost so much money. So again, allow— please allow me, this is less of a question, again, more of a statement. I think it's important that the public understands that if the planning board approves it, it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

It gives them the assurances that at least now it's safe to start investing the money to resolve your concerns that all have been heard and are very relevant. So thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Butler. Actually, through the chair, um, if it's the, um, will of the board, I'd like to call committee of the whole. Sure. Is there a particular procedure for— Thank you.

Get a motion to approve a committee of the whole.

Moved by Miss Butler, second by Miss Ploy. Miss Butler, if you'd like to speak to that. Yeah, um, I just think that it is, um, extremely important that the board have an informal conversation, um, to make sure that we understand our purview and what our duties and responsibilities are. I think it's vital for the process. Thank you.

Miss Ploy, do you have anything to add? No. Okay, thank you.

Does everyone understand what the committee as a whole is on the phone as well? I've never done one. For a point of order, if I can have a point of clarification.

Through the chair, it's an informal discussion. It is recorded, but it is not in the minutes, but it's just informal so you guys can kind of debate and get your discussions out before you put a motion on the floor and have to vote on it. All right. Thank you.

Is there any opposition to this?

Hearing none, we'll move to a vote. Oh, okay. Sorry. With no opposition, we will open it up to community at the whole.

You're welcome to sit down as we'll chat about this a little bit.

Thank you. Miss Butler, did you have anything you wanted to add on that? Yeah, um, it's just I understand, um, that there's always a motion in, in these planning actions, and I understand that people spend their livelihoods developing properties and homes and stuff, but we have to be careful. We can't get into civil battles, right? So like the, the homeowners associations and stuff like that is just completely not in our purview.

So what would be the procedure. This is probably for staff.

If we approve a planning action and, and it has like a homeowner's issue and it's a civil matter, it's not a board matter, is there an option to table to let them work out any sort of kinks in the, like, in any of these particular conditions? Or like, how could we assist get some of this, the civil matters, out of the way so we can focus on our job, which is making sure that we're following code.

Uh, through the chair, Ms. Butler, I believe as, uh, Board Member Cross stated, you're correct in that it's a civil matter, and, um, the, the Planning Board tonight is just approving the conditions, and then it's up to the petitioner to resolve all those. And that's where, that's where that would lie, is they have to resolve the all these conditions and bring it into the planning department for, um, for the plat to move forward. And so through the chair, so I think what you make is a really good distinction. That's what I was trying to put out here, is that we are here to, to support what is in Title 21. Outside of that isn't our business.

Okay, that's a dispute between neighbors and agreements between neighbors, but it's not in the charter, it's not in the code, it's not in this. We have to stick to what is in Title 21, and if they want to develop, they can have special variances. I respect that neighbors would have very— a lot of concerns over what somebody does next door, but that's not our business. The platting only deals with how we divide up the property lines and whether or not, regarding the property lines, whether or not they're abiding by Title 21. Zoning deals with use and probably can get maybe closer to solving these problems, but really that's not our lane.

Through the chair, uh, Ms. Butler, also to add to that, so in essence, approving these conditions, they have the 24 months plus any time extensions to resolve these matters. So, um, quite a few. They can do up to 2 other time extensions for an additional 2 years each. So that's, that's what— that's why there is the 24 months to resolve everything, the road design and, um, all the other conditions. Thank you.

The one thing I did want to ask staff here regarding the kind of— because I agree with, uh, with the assessment of Ms. Butler and Mr. Cross that, you know, the HOA items bridge into the civil side of things that we're not— you know, it's just not our brand, our purview for this board. However, uh, item 4 on the department, uh, recommendations says establish a homeowners association. Does that need to be reworded to provide some flexibility as whether or not they end up coming into the other one that was there, or whether anything needs to happen there, or is that too strict provision of that? Um, staff feels that number 4 as it stands is, is good enough. They have to— they can either establish a homeowners association with the 13 lots, or they can establish into another homeowner association.

Either way, it's establishing a homeowner association for those 13 lots. Gotcha. So it's establishing a homeowner association over the lots, not necessarily establishing a new one. Okay. Yeah, through the chair, that's a common phrase.

It's just because, you know, that's a requirement because they don't get municipals— they're not getting, you know, MOA, uh, road service. So there has to be some sort of agreement that establishes the to make sure the roads are getting serviced. Sure, yeah, just in reading it, when I read establish it, to me, just a new entity versus maybe being adopted under another one. But yeah, thank you for the clarification for both. And I do want to state too, I've driven through some of these roads with the private drives.

I definitely understand the concerns with the road maintenance and the snow maintenance in the winter. It definitely gets tight, definitely gets small. I did want to mention and just kind of bring up too that, you know, this Road, and it's very clear in the, in the, in reading the department recommendations, it definitely was presented as not a— we just feel like it being a private drive, there's slope issues, there's constructability issues. It seems like if it was reasonable to do.

Resided to public standards that they would have. It's just the, the fact of how this is developed, the, the slopes around it, and then what would happen if you had the larger right-of-ways and being able to push those houses further back. You may not have the proper, you know, septic requirements or whatever else is needed up there. So it seems like it's a matter of whether things get developed or whether they don't, and, and that was kind of my takeaway of that. But maybe the board has any other thoughts they want to talk about with that.

Through the chair, I would like to just say, you know, before we go back on the record, back into our formal conference, is that in no way at all whatsoever does the approval of things that may not sit well with the community— is it meant to invalidate concerns. Definitely We don't want anybody to misinterpret intent. It's never harmful. It's just, you know, something that we have to balance and sleep with at night is, you know, people's concerns. I mean, I know out in the Matsu Valley, there's this couple that built this beautiful dream home, beautiful dream home, absolutely gorgeous, and awful people moved in next door.

It's a junkyard, garbage, It's disgusting. And so I get it. I get the concern, but I just wanted to maybe make it very clear that we just cannot, you know, we can't get into that aspect of the conversation. So thank you for allowing this. Absolutely.

And the last thing I did want to mention too was the Finland Drive part there at the back. I've driven that myself in a four-wheel drive vehicle, which I felt was really possibly not accurate or enough for that road. It can be definitely treacherous back there. And I do hope that the municipality does invest in that infrastructure in the future and does something with that, because I think that would really benefit the public in that area to have good secondary access out of it. But again, tied to this one, I would not be putting it towards this, but for the development in that area, I think the municipality should definitely do something to improve that road.

So thank you.

Is there any other comments we'd like to make, or are we looking to close this? Okay. Anyone on the phone have anything to add to this as we're open?

Staff would like to add just one, one thing. As, uh, Mr. Cross had pointed out, uh, 6A does require them to construct that to municipal standards. So even though it's in a private tract if it's private tract or dedicated right-of-way, it's all going to have to be constructed to municipal standards. And that's what they're doing.

Thank you. Any further comments? OK. We will end the Committee of the Whole conversation and get back on— sorry. Could we get a motion to come out of the Committee of the Whole?

Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Ms. Butler. Thank you.

Any opposition? Hearing none, we will come out of the Committee of the Whole. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to, uh, our voting here. Let's wait for them. Motion to, uh, come up. Great.

Got a motion to approve.

Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Ms. Butler. Mr. Cross, can you please state your motion? I'm moving Case S12827 to approve variances from AMC 21.08.030L1, lot frontage and access— all lots shall have frontage on the street— and AMC 21.08.040A1, dedication of streets All streets right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public subject to Condition 1 that reads recording a suitable plat within 24 months of approval and approved time extensions. Thank you. Would you like to speak to your motion?

I would just state that, uh, you know, we— it's not on the record, so, um, anyway, would you just look at the plat? If we just look at staff notes, uh, starting on pages 2, agency comments extending through pages 8, about halfway down past 8, uh, lays this out. Um, I don't have any other comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Butler, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, um, I intend to support this motion, um, based on staff recommendation. Agency comments, there have been absolutely no hesitations on supporting this through any of the agencies. The variances seem to meet all of the requirements.

They don't cause any sort of safety issue. Traffic engineering is on board. Planning does a very good job at analysis, like their analysis I just— I support the staff.

Thank you. Are there any additional comments?

Anyone on the phone?

Hearing none, we'll move to a vote.

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yeah. Ms. Bryan? Yes. Ms. Pennington?

Yes. Mr. Mirka? Yes. Thank you.

The motion has passed 8 to 0.

Got a motion to approve the item on the floor.

Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Miss Butler. Uh, Mr. Cross, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I'm moving case S12827 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to the conditions— oh, little jump in the screen, um, conditions 1 through 5, 6A and B, 7A through C, and 8A, with staff's edit to condition B to read resolve with planning, traffic, and with private development and right-of-way the need to dedicate public use easement by recorded document across Track 2 for that portion of Potter Valley Road constructed with Track 2 and outside of the dedicated right-of-way.

Thank you. Would you like to speak to your motion? Yeah, this is the heart of it. All our public testimony is basically resolves around, um, B and those conditions 1 through, uh, 6, 6A, B, and 7. And those are understanding that just because we approve this plat, it means the real homework begins.

And so just so that people hear, they say it's passing and they're not listening know you were heard, you were respected. And it's important to note that it is all approved subject to resolving every concern I heard here: establishing a homeowners association or agreement therein, uh, dedicating a 20-foot-wide trail easement, um, entering into subdivision agreements with private development, uh, for their public improvements, constructing Panoramic Circle to municipal standards, All the, all the concerns that I heard in public testimony are resolved and are a condition under this. So I will be supporting it because it, it addresses almost entirely the public concerns that were brought to us today. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Butler, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, I plan on supporting this motion and I 100% mirror Mr. Cross's comments. And public was heard, was taken into consideration. We do understand where you're coming from, but like Mr. Cross said, every concern is addressed in the planning department's conditions, and if the petitioner fails to meet the conditions, they fail to develop.

So I think that— well, that's all I really have to say. Thank you. Are there any other comments?

Hearing none, move to vote.

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yep. Miss Bryan?

Yes. Miss Pennington? Yes. Mr. Mirka? Yes.

Thank you.

Motion passes 8 to 0. Now conclude the cases for the evening. Are there any comments?

We, uh, get a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Seconded. Seconded by Ms. Ploy. We'll adjourn. Good night.

Thank you, everyone.

My desire. I can't ignore the flame. You can't have my heart. You can't hold my mind. I won't stay.

I won't change. Where's the ground? I keep falling.