Alaska News • • 43 min
Platting Board: January 7, 2026 - 2026-01-07 18:30:00
video • Alaska News
I'd like to call this January 7th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order. May we have roll call? Skyler Quinn. Here. Sarah Catherine Bryan.
I'm present. Patrick Jones. Present. Ashley Ploy.
Present. Kyle Murka. Present. Brenda Mills. Present.
Kevin Gross. Present. You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you.
Do we have a mo— Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?
So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Mirka, seconded by Mr. Cross. Uh, are there any objections or corrections to the minutes? Um, there's one correction on page 5.
My last name's wrong.
Thank you for that. That has been noted and will be adjusted. Um, any other corrections or objections to the minutes? Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Moving on to approvals, um, should we have special order business?
Are there any disclosures? Um, I just have one disclosure. I don't anticipate our meeting will go beyond this, but I do have a plane to catch this evening, so I'll need to leave no later than 7:30. Thank you, Mr. Mirka. Just, uh, mention when you're going to leave and we'll correct the record.
Uh, well, what, like when you're about to leave? Uh, yeah, we'll do it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other disclosures?
Seeing none.
May we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?
Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Bessara Bryan. Anyone wishing to pull an item for discussion?
Seeing none, are there any objections to the approval of the consent agenda?
Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved. Moving on to public hearings, and I'll read the process.
The Planning Board meets each month on the first Wednesday except holidays as regular meetings. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Planning Board at its meetings is: 1, after the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. 2, Persons who wish to testify will follow the timelines established in in the Commission Rules of Procedure. A, petitioners, including all his/her representatives, are given 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal.
B, representatives of the groups, community councils, PTAs, et cetera, are given 5 minutes, and individuals are given 3 minutes. 3, 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. 4, 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.4.a. Following the approval of the written— written findings of fact and decision, any party 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.
The notice of appeal must be filed with the Planning Director in a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.
Moving on to new business, may we have staff's presentation in case S12865? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is Gerdwin Industrial Park subdivision. It's a 156-acre approximately tract of land, and this is a preliminary plat to subdivide one tract into 6 tracts.
So the plat would create 5 smaller tracts and a 137-acre large remainder tract. The tract boundaries align with the zoning district designations in order to prevent split zone tracts, and the subdivision of the 4 smaller tracts will be for industrial uses. This petition site is located east of Alyeska Highway and south of Ruan Road. The property is zoned both— it's Girdwood Open Space and then Ruan Road Industrial District, which is the 5 industrial tracts will serve the existing community areas and the community well location. The proposed tracts meet the minimum lot size and widths required by zoning, and none of the reviewing agencies had any objections to the plat.
So when it comes to the road improvements and dedication, the proposed subdivision has access to Bedrock Circle, which is a local roadway. The proposed cul-de-sac road aligns to the intersection of Ruan Road, which is already constructed, and since they're both constructed to municipal standards, Planning Department has not recommended any improvements to those sections of road. The Bedrock Circle cul-de-sac, if you look on your plat, they're dedicating— the petitioner is going to dedicate an additional segment of public use easement south of that cul-de-sac across Track B1 and B2. And that's— they're dedicating that for future extension of Bedrock Circle if it happens to the south for construction of a road.
So the sewer main in Bedrock Circle will need to be extended past the center point of the cul-de-sac bowl. It's just a little short to provide frontage to the new parcels if they seek service. They can provide sanitary sewer, septics, if they want, because they're over 1 acre in size. So to cover the conformance of the adopted plans, this plat conforms with the petition site's land use classification and the following goals of the 2025 Comp Plan, Girdwood Comp Plan: economic diversification and sustainability, provide space for light industrial, policy, and the development pattern is consistent with other industrial and commercial properties that border the site within the Girdwood Industrial Park. So for trails, this property includes the historic Iditarod Trail route that is located on the west bank of Glacier Creek.
The previous plat in action for plat 2016-67, it dedicated a 100-foot trail easement, and this proposed plat references that easement along with associated notes. That are— that relate to the trail. The Planning Department's requesting a condition that they dedicate a 10-foot-wide pedestrian access right-of-way or easement from Bedrock Circle out to Track B6 along the northern boundary, and that's to provide pedestrian access from the cul-de-sac out to the Girdwood Open Space tract and all the associated trails. That's required by AMC 2107-060-D3.
Which is external street connectivity. So with that being said, PLATT recommends approval of the plat subject to conditions found on page 6 of the staff packet. I can answer any questions you have, and the petitioner and representative are here as well. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation.
All right, thank you. Good evening, I'm Ryan Yell. I'm with Heritage Land Bank, and I'm joined here this evening by my colleague Emma Gibney and senior land surveyor with R&M Consultants, Dave Hale. I'd like to thank members of the board for their review consideration of the case, and also thank staff for their review of the application in preparation of a well-written staff report. The purpose of this subdivision is to subdivide into 6 tracts, which will reflect the existing development pattern and will ease land management by correcting the split zone issue between industrial and open space.
This plat will also have the added benefit of making a standalone tract available to the Garwood Valley Service Area which will allow them to get independent utility services, provide them with independent land management authority, and will allow them to better assist the Gerber Fire Department by providing them a dedicated training area. Further developing and correcting land management issues within the Gerber Industrial Park was included in the 2025 HLV work plan, and additionally, this plat is the result of an initial analysis on various development options for the Gerber Industrial Park that was conducted by my colleague, Emma Gibboney, in 2024. That analysis included 4 different development options that range from a full subdivision of 17 lots with full utilities installed and an extension of Bedrock Circle, to a concept very similar to the one that's before you this evening. Given the high cost of a full subdivision and the complexities of installation of full utilities, the preferred option was the concept that is before you this evening. Subdividing the industrial park in the proposed track configuration will allow HLB to better manage individual building pads and will allow for future extension of Bedrock Circle without the need for the municipality to acquire right-of-way for that extension.
HLB did present this plat to both the Girdwood Land Use Committee and GBOS during their regularly scheduled September meetings. We did receive a vote of support from the Land Use Committee as well as a resolution of support from GBOS that was included with within our application. We've reviewed the staff report and we have no objections to the conditions as written, and we would appreciate your support of this plat and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. So thank you. Thank you for that presentation.
Do we have any questions of the presenter?
Seeing none, um, Well, I guess we'll open this up to public testimony. And, oh, you're given— I already have 7 minutes and 48 seconds of rebuttal time left. Um, so we're now open to public testimony. Is there anyone calling in or— okay, I guess we'll Close public testimony.
Do you want to use your remaining time for any rebuttal?
Well, then we're going to close the public hearing and the matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion?
Move by Mr. Cross, second by Ms. Mills. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion? Yeah, move to approve. Okay, in the case of S12865, move to approve the plat for 24 months subject to conditions 1 through 4, A through D, as shown on page 6 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Cross.
Would you like to speak to your motion? Uh, yes. Um, so as identified by HLB in 2024, this is, uh, not only an opportunity to create some light industrial land for use in Girdwood but also is cleaning up some Looks like some split zoning issues. And I would like to point out that reviewing agencies had no comments. Pretty much it was unanimously approved.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross.
Ms. Mills, would you like to speak to your second? Sure.
I support this motion based on staff findings and the conditions on page 6 of the staff report. Meets zoning compliance, especially with the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements of the respective zoning districts. There's no variances requested or required. It's consistent with the adopted plans for the Garrett Wood Comprehensive Plan. Provides access and transportation meets all those requirements.
The pedestrian connectivity from Anchorage Municipal Code 2107-060-D3 is met. The utilities and drainage is outlined in the staff report along with, of course, the flood hazard areas from AMC 2107-020-E. The agencies The reviewing agencies had no comments, no objections, no recommendations for denial. Public notice was given. There's no public comments received prior to the issuance of the staff report.
And based on the evidence in the record, the preliminary plat complies with all applicable provisions of Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, subject to the stated conditions. Thank you, Miss Mills. Anyone else wishing to add findings?
With that, let's call the vote.
Mr. Jones, how do you vote? Yes. Miss Ploy?
Thank you.
And the motion passes 7-0.
Moving on to Case S12866. May we have staff's presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we're moving across the street to the north now to Orca Mountain View Subdivision, which is a 68-acre subdivision.
And this is a preliminary plat to subdivide one tract into three large tracts. There are areas of 3.5 acres, 14 approximately acres, and 50 acres. So the subdivision also falls within two zoning districts, the Alieska Highway Mixed Residential and the Girdwood Open Space District. So the tract boundaries are going to align with the zoning district designations in order to prevent split zone tract again. And the purpose of this subdivision is to create 3 separate tracts subdivided along zoning boundaries.
This will allow for easier exploration and discussion of a future residential subdivision within the residentially zoned portion along the Alyeska Highway. I believe the smaller tract will be kind of set aside for conservation— or not conservation, but it's, it's pretty wet. It's got some wetlands. For the road improvements and dedication, the proposed subdivision has access to Ruan Road. The Planning Department's not recommending any improvements to this section of the road.
It consists of large tracts that will be subdivided in lots into the future in a subdivision process that will be before you, and at that time of the design, the developer will provide road design, right-of-way dedication, future sanitary sewer and water mains. Uh, each of the lots— each of the tracts meet the minimum size required by the zoning district, and none of the reviewing agencies had any objections to this plat. Uh, to conformance with the 2025 Girdwood Comprehensive Plan, uh, the petition meets the site's land use classification, meets Goal E2, economic development in Girdwood, is compatible with the natural environment, Protection of valuable wild natural open space. So this development intends to keep the community character and provide for protection of natural spaces. It also has that— that large tract is going to be the open space tract for the zoning district with trails.
So the property includes the historic Iditarod Trail route that is located, once again, on the west bank of Glacier Creek. So there's a 125-foot perpetual public easement and a 200-foot perpetual public easement that exists by previous book and page documents, and the easements, uh, provide access along the existing trail in that section. So it's going to be a requirement for the petitioner to resolve with the private development the need for and location of any drainage easements on the subject property, which will allow existing drainage patterns to cross the new property lines and for any future drainage improvement connections. So with that being said, staff finds— recommends approval of the plat subject to conditions found on page 5 and 6 of the staff report. Once again, the petitioner is here and we can answer any questions you have.
Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?
Seeing none, would the applicant like to come up and provide your, your presentation. You have 10 minutes. Please state and spell your name for the record. Sure, uh, Ryan Yelle, last name Y-E-L-L-E, with Heritage Land Bank. And for the record, also joined by my colleague Emma Gibbony and senior land surveyor Dave Hale with R&M Consultants.
Again, just like to thank the board for your review of this application and for staff's review of the application and preparation of the staff report. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide into 3 tracts based upon zoning boundaries separating the area zoned Alieska Highway Mixed Residential from the surrounding Gurbud Open Space. While no development is being proposed at this time, tracting out the residentially zoned area will allow for further exploration into developing residential uses within proposed Tract B-2. And HLB is also currently conducting a sewer mainline extension feasibility analysis for the parcel to help us better understand the development potential of Tract B-2. This planning action was included in the 2025 HLV 5-year work plan, and that is a result of a land suitability analysis that HLV conducted last year and recognized that the residentially zoned portion within the subdivision was considered generally suitable for development.
It also aligns with the priorities of the mayor's office to explore opportunities for new housing throughout the municipality municipality. And we did present this plat to both the Gerber Land Use Committee and the Gerber Board of Supervisors during their regularly scheduled September meeting. We also received a vote of support from Land Use Committee as well as a resolution of support from Gerber Board of Supervisors that was included in the application this evening. Uh, we've reviewed the staff report. We don't have any objection to the conditions as stated or the plat notes.
And we would appreciate your support of this plat, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of the petitioner?
Mr. Cross. I'm just curious, it stated during the Girdwood Land Use Committee that they anticipated that access to Alaska Highway is going to be challenged by DOT. Do you have any idea what their why the DOT would have an issue with your action.
Uh, through the chair, uh, Member Cross, we did receive comments from DOT restricting access to Alyeska Highway. So there is going to be a plat note placed on this that access to Alyeska Highway is prohibited. We did anticipate that just based upon our initial discussions with DOT. They just seem very protective over connections to the Alaska Highway. So we do anticipate that if there were to be further development, access would have to come off of Rue Wayne.
Any other questions? The petitioner? Okay, you have 8 minutes and 23 seconds rebuttal time. Let's open up to public testimony. Anybody wishing to testify?
Anyone here wishing to testify? Okay, then we'll move on to phone testimony.
Hi, this is Crystal.
Oh, hey, Sean. Hello, Crystal. This is the Planning Board calling for public testimony in case 12866. Are you testifying as an individual or representing a group? As an individual.
Okay, you'll have 3 minutes to testify. Please state your full name for the record and go ahead and begin your testimony. Thank you. My name is Crystal Hoak and I'm a full-time resident of Girdwood for the past 12 years. Um, I have been working on this parcel since at least January of 2024 when I started introducing it at Girdwood Housing and Economic Committee.
I have had the land surveyed professionally, and for Girdwood Community Land Trust, we have expressed interest in putting workforce housing on this parcel. The resolutions of support that came out of both— or well, out of Girdwood Board of Supervisors after a vote at GHAC and also at land use stipulated that they were in support of a community-led development where workforce housing and affordable housing is a priority, and that the community housing component was also added on at HLB's most recent meeting that they had approving the, the 5-year plan. So my specific request would be to add a plat note that 50% of the land is dedicated to community housing purposes, and I hope that this would be a gesture to show Gerdwood that you're interested in solving the problem of workforce housing for us, um, given the recent development is, um, almost all market rate. Um, I appreciate the time to give my testimony tonight. Thank you.
Thank you for that testimony.
Do we have any questions from the board?
Seeing none. Actually, I do have a question. I want— going on that public testimony suggestion there, if we were to consider that, I assume the time to do that would actually be when this is being subdivided into the actual lots and not the tracks. But maybe staff could speak to that. This is Crystal.
Hi, Crystal. I believe it was hung up. So the planning board member is asking you a question. Can you go ahead and repeat your question? Hey, and Pat, can you just— could you slow down a little bit?
Your, your voice is kind of fuzzy, so it's a little tough to hear. Sure, yeah, no problem. My question was more directed to staff in regards to the comment that was just made about the plat note. Would that plat note be appropriate for this, this particular platting action, or would it be more suited for in the future when they actually start developing the roads and individual lots or whatever they're looking to do? If that was something that the board would consider.
Thank you, Mr. Jones. I believe it would be probably— as this is just subdivided into very large tracts and it involves, you know, 60-some-odd acres, and we're not specifically calling out individual lots, I believe that the time that it was subdivision into smaller lots of one of those tracts would be the time that the discussion between HLB and the municipality and any type of plat notes of that nature. Right now, this is just preparing the land for future subdivision.
So you're on track with what you were saying.
Perfect. Thank you for your input on that. Thanks, Pat, for— Mr. Jones, for that question. Uh, anybody else have questions on that?
Um, I have a quick question for the person making public testimony. To your knowledge, are there other municipalities or other communities that have successfully written onto a PLATT provisions for affordable housing? If so, do you have any insight into what language they used to define affordability?
I, I really appreciate the sentiment behind your idea, but I think that I'm not alone in feeling a little blindsided. And sure, I— yes, I can. Read several examples. One would be a basic workforce housing restriction. An example of that would be— and of course, I'm talking about the 14-acre section that would be used for residential housing, hopefully.
So an example would be, "Plot note: Lot 3, Block 2 is hereby restricted for workforce housing purposes. A minimum of 50% of the residential units developed on this lot shall be reserved for households earning no more than 120% of area median income, AMI, as defined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding on all future owners, successors, and assigns. And I do believe that the support coming out of Gerdwood was right on the heels of the resolution of support for the community-led development that came in July and August. So then it— then HLB brought it up in September.
So I believe that people were under the impression that they were moving on it for that purpose. But there's also— there's additional versions, community housing with local employment priority. There's split use, which is workforce housing plus market rate, which is more in alignment with what we are proposing currently. We're hoping to do 50% workforce and 50% market rate. Thank you.
I don't have any follow-up.
Uh, are there no further questions of the testifier? Mr. Cross, sounds like—. And I don't have any for the testifier, so she can go ahead, and I appreciate her comment. Um, so we dealt with, uh, a lot of land development with— on the assembly, particularly because I was there when we approved Holton Hills. So one of the challenges for Girdwood is that you understand that Housing and Urban Development identifies affordable housing into 3 different metrics, okay?
Low income is anything that's 80% of the median household income for the area. Affordable is 80 to 120, and then high end would be 120. The problem is that the demographics of Girdwood, um, the average household income is tremendously high. And so therefore, when you're taking in these metrics and you figure that there's several individuals at households that makes, you know, 7 figures a year, then what's average household income? And so, you know, and the cost of construction that goes into it.
So I think these conversations, although they're important, are a little above our pay grade for what we're doing here as far as the plat, and those notes are best left to private development and the muni to iron out, given the unique challenges that Gerdwood has. Thank you. That addresses precisely my concerns about what definitions we're using. Seems— I don't want to incentivize people artificially decreasing their reported income in order to— I just— yeah, thank you for that insight. I'd also like to just point out that this is like a first step here, so there's lots more to come with this land, and there's lots more discussion and lots more community involvement.
This is just a first step, so we're, we're just dipping our toe. Thank you all for those comments. Is there any other testimony? Oh, uh, Miss Mills. I just have a question for staff, um, for a plat note.
Like, I'm part of my ignorance on this particular matter because it's the Municipality of Anchorage, um, land application. So if this is an issue, like, I know that we can't just like, hey, add a plat note as a board. Isn't there an application process to modify a plat note? Like, wouldn't, um, this Girdwood Community, um, people then apply for something like that and then do it through the planning office? Uh, through the chair, Ms. Mills.
Usually a plat note removal or modifications for an existing plat note that exists on a recorded plat, um, in this case it would be something that would be played or requested in, in future subdivision. I believe, through the chair, I believe Mr. Cross years ago stated it perfectly when we had a large number of people here. The planning board gets to decide— basically, we don't get to decide what goes on the pizza, we get to decide how the pizza is sliced up. I don't know if Kevin remembers that or not, but I do. So that's kind of a good analogy.
And then also, for the planning board's information, they oftentimes— I believe the municipal The surveyor would state how— she looks at plat notes as well and says, well, how is this relative to the boundary? Because the plat is basically the survey instrument that creates fee simple lots for sale. So they try to stick with survey information on the plat. The other stuff is usually addressed through— well, maybe in the rebuttal, HLB can kind of describe of development agreements and such like that. Thank you.
I just wanted to, um, just kind of clarify that we have to make a decision based on the information provided to us, based on the packet and applicable code and ordinances. So we can't just add things as an administrative body.
Thank you for all those comments. I do have Oh, Mr. Jeff, interrupting. Yeah, I did have one additional question for staff that just came up with the restriction of not having access off of Alieska Highway. I don't have the maximum cul-de-sac length requirement in front of me, but I did want to ask, are we getting into a situation where in the future with just access off of— when I'm envisioning just obviously a road down the center of that track. Are we getting into a position where we would have to entertain a variance for cul-de-sac length there versus having, say, one intersection off of Alieska and then having a T into two sections there to serve that tract?
Or are we still within the requirement there for cul-de-sac length off of the lane?
Through the chair, Mr. Jones. Yeah, that's a good question. However, it would really just come down to— we don't have any design design in front of us right now. It all just depends on what— how they're going to subdivide the land, or if they do a, like, a U-shaped design, or just they keep it short and then have larger tracks at the end of the cul-de-sac bulb. Potentially, we could see a subdivision with a very— a request for a variance to the cul-de-sac length, or they could just build it to comply with the platting standards, the subdivision standards.
It does, thank you.
Okay, unless there are other questions, I think we're ready for a rebuttal.
Uh, thank you. Ryan Yell with Heritage—. Mr. Yell, one second.
Yep, 8 minutes and 23 seconds of rebuttal. All right, thank you. Uh, in reference to the issues with access to the Alyeska Highway, We're in sort of the conceptual phase right now of trying to figure out, okay, where can we actually put in a sewer main line to achieve gravity flow to connect to adjacent and/or adjoining sewer mains within Rouyn.
That is going to influence— the findings of that will influence future design for where a road can actually go, because you, you'd want to, to the best of your ability, put in that main line and then put a road on top of it, rather than having a sewer main and then a road somewhere else and be chewing up sewer easements and right-of-way space with sewer easements and right-of-way. So when we get to that point where we can actually figure out where a road can go, then we're going to be approaching and having new discussions with DOT on at least one connection to the Alaska Highway. So we're not putting in a, you know, approximately 1,200-foot-long cul-de-sac. If it were to be the only access coming off of Rouyn, it would be quite a long cul-de-sac, and I think the— in Girdwood, your maximum cul-de-sac length, I believe, is 450 feet. Staff can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
And then, also, I just wanted to address the request for a plat note. At this particular phase of the development process, this is This is just to track this out so that we can explore residential potential further. And we prefer to, you know, kind of keep the plat notes as clean as we can. When we get to the point where we're creating individual lots, if there is the legal ability to put that type of restriction on certain lots, we could have that discussion at that time. But in this case, it's just one large tract, one residentially large tract.
Thank you.
Thank you for that rebuttal. Do we have any questions, any, any remaining questions of the petitioner? I do have a follow-up prompted by that. Um, this would be directed to either staff or the petitioner. So along the lines of the affordability note that we had discussed, just the staff, obviously you put it in as the the department recommendation of having the note of restricting access off of Alieska, but being that the design is in its early conception, you know, would it make sense to not have that note on here now, allow them to do some design?
If it determines that they need to have a, you know, stub off of Alieska versus off of Rue Ann, or however they determine that it needs to run, we can then restrict it to, you know, maybe one access off of Alieska And in the next, uh, when the tract is actually being subdivided, um, or is it— do you feel confident that, you know, having it on this note is, is acceptable? Through the chair, Mr. Jones, um, so I believe we'll keep the sub— the, the access plat note from the state on this plat, as this is once again just 3 large tracts. It applies to the other tract to the north, the smaller 3-acre one. Which is, which is more for kind of like wetlands. However, when they come down and they do figure out— when they do figure out more of a design and more of lots and they come back with a subdivision of just this one tract being subdivided, they can also— we're going to have meetings, they can meet with the state, and once they have kind of a design of what kind of lots are going to look like, they can revisit that with— it's a whole new planning action, so If the state decides, yes, okay, you can put it, you know, X number of feet from here or here, and we're okay with that now, now that you have a design.
It's too conceptual at this point, and they're just tracts. So it can be revisited, and then that plat, they can— it's going to have its own plat notes. They're either going to carry forward or they're going to— the state will say, no, you can have an access.
So once again, it's just these are 3 large tracts, and then when they get into the design and come back with a subdivision of the one tract, that can be— they can, they can meet with the state and, and come up with either keeping the note or not. Hopefully that answers. Okay, thank you. It does, yes. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Jones. Do we have any other questions?
Seeing none, let's close public testimony. The matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion?
Move by Mr. Cross, second by Ms. Mills. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion? Yeah, I move in the case of S12866 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to conditions 1 through 3, A through E, and 4A as shown on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Would you like to speak to your motion?
Yes, I'm just going to reference the notes, um, on page 2 of the staff packet. One, under request, just identifying why this is necessary, and more importantly, under public comments— I mean, the— I would say the lack of public comments, but more importantly, in general, the reviewing agencies had no comment or no objection to the subdivision request. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Mrs. Mills, would you like to speak to your second?
Sure. I intend to support this motion. I'll mirror Mr. Cross's comments, and again, based on staff report, agency comments, and the record before us, it's a preliminary plat. It meets the applicable requirements of Title 21 and other applicable municipal regulations, of course, subject to their conditions. And it— the approval supported by providing— supported provided the applicant satisfies the conditions of approval.
Identified in the staff report, like recording of required easements agreements, inclusion of required plat notes related to drainage, access controls, stream setbacks, flood hazard district requirements, and correction of addressing— drafting the correction of addressing items prior to final plat recording. Sorry, it's been a long couple weeks. Yeah, sorry. Thank you, Miss Mills. Anyone else wishing to add findings?
Okay, seeing none, let's call the vote.
Mr. Jones, how do you vote? Yes. Miss Ploy?
Yes. Thank you.
And the motion passes 7 to 0. Um, do we have any board member comments? Mr. Cross, actually, I just want to give a real quick, um, one of the challenges we faced on the assembly when it came into putting these designations and plat notes regarding around land use is that we— is that the municipality represents all individuals regardless of income. So the incentives are not typically made in plat notes because the market will drive what housing is necessary.
The best way to get low-income housing is doing financial incentives. So if you want low-income, it's LIHTC properties and tax credits or things like that. Those are the best levers that we have found without being discriminatory. So again, like they were saying, what Sean was saying, my one thing to make sure the public understands is the statement I made is if you think of all land like pizza, our job is just to chop it up and make sure that the size of the slices is appropriate for whatever needs to be done We have nothing to do with what goes on the pizza. That's all done in zoning.
Thank you. Good comments, Mr. Cross. Anything else? Just want to—. I mean, I, I always want to be encouraging people to, to participate, to share that particular impulse for the record, but can you imagine the nightmare for us if we let people just put things on the plat?
I mean, no, no, that would I mean, there are still things on the Platts and Turnagain that I think would shame many of us if we'd read them today. I mean, this I think is just universally morally recognized as like, yeah, affordable housing, no problem. But it takes a lot of work to get something off the plat. So, yeah. Another great point.