Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - May 14, 2026 - 2026-05-14 18:30:00

Good evening and welcome to the Municipality of Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals meeting for May 14th, 2026. Will the secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here. Andrew Romerdahl.

Here. Brian Bennett. Here. Craig Bennett. Here.

Jason Norris. Here. Jonathan Lang. Here. John Walatka.

Here. Mark Maisley. Here. Christopher Schuette. Here.

You have a quorum. Thank you.

Next item on the list is minutes. We have minutes for Do I just want to— you don't want to do disclosures right now?

Okay, um, we have minutes for Thursday, April 16th, 2026. May I have a positive motion for approval, please?

Mr. Craig Bennett, seconded by Mr. Brian Bennett. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Seeing none, is there any opposition to approval of the minutes?

Seeing none, none, the minutes are approved, and we'll move on to the special order of business, executive sessions. Disclosures. We have many disclosures this evening. And Mr. Craig Bennett. Yeah, thank you.

I was recused from participating in Case 2026-0016 and will abstain from voting on Resolution 2026-002. Thank you.

Mr. Romerdaal. Yes, I was absent for the April 16th meeting and therefore will be abstaining from voting on resolutions 2026-005 through 2026-007. Thank you. Mr. Schuette.

Thank you. I abstain from voting on the minutes, and I will also abstain from voting on the consent agenda as Uh, I'm a freshman. I was not yet seated on the board. Thank you. Mr. Masley?

Yes, I abstain from voting on the minutes as well and will also abstain from voting on the consent agenda as I was not yet seated on the board. Thank you. Mr. Malatka? I abstain from voting on the minutes and will abstain from voting on the consent agenda as I was not yet seated on the board. Thank you.

Are there any other disclosures?

Okay, moving along. The consent agenda.

On the consent agenda, we have resolutions for approval: uh, 2026-002, 2026-005, 2026-006, and 2026-007. May I have A motion for approval, please.

Mr. Norris moves and Mr. Lang seconds. Does anyone want to remove any of the items from the consent agenda for further discussion?

Seeing none, is there any opposition to approval of the consent agenda?

Seeing none, the consent agenda is approved. Nothing under appearance requests, nothing on unfinished business, nothing on the regular agenda, which brings us to public hearings. We have one case this evening, and it is a variance case. So, um, the procedure for variances— the procedure by which the public may speak to the board at this Meeting is. After the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the Chair will ask for the applicant to state their case.

The applicant, including all of his or her representatives, has 10 minutes for the presentation and may reserve time for rebuttal at the end of the public hearing. Throughout the proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the applicant, who must convince the Board by a preponderance of evidence that the variance should be granted. A concurring vote of a majority of the fully constituted membership of of the board, which we have this evening, minus those excused for conflicts of interest, shall be required to grant variance. For a variance to be granted, all 8 standards must be substantially met. On the conclusion of the applicant's presentation, the board members and the staff may then direct questions to the applicant through the chair.

The chair will then open the, the hearing to public testimony on the issue. Persons wishing to testify must follow the time limits established in the rules of procedure. Representatives of groups such as community councils or PTAs 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.

Time is kept by the secretary. Display at the front will be green to within 1 minute of the time allowed and then turn yellow. At this time, you should begin to sum up your testimony, and at the end of the allowed time, the light will turn red and a tone will sound. An individual may have appeal rights related to any action the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals takes. The parties have 30 days from the date of mailing or other distribution of the decision to file an appeal with Superior Court.

And with that, the first case The only case is case 2026-0032, James Fowler and Cynthia Kakla— sorry, they're here.

Um, this— will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. So on February 17th, 2026, the Planning Department mailed 212 public hearing notices. The department received 3 public comments in support of the variance approval. The Taku Campbell and Sand Lake Community Councils did not provide comments on this case.

The public comments are located on pages 27 to 29 of the staff packet. Is there any opposition to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case? Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. So this is a request for dimensional variance, uh, to allow deck to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side setback in the R-2A district. The previous owner built the deck. The petitioner purchased the property in 2018, rebuilt the deteriorating deck in 2019 in the same footprint as the original deck.

Then they installed a hot tub in 2020 with a small deck addition that encroaches the same distance as original deck into the side setback. So the property owner discovered the deck encroachment when he went to construct a carport and the contractor went to close the permit over at Building Permitting. So the owner is here tonight requesting the variance to allow the constructed deck to remain and close out the building permit for the constructed carport. Due to the location of house, there's only about 13 feet between the property line and the backside of the house. So this variance, as I stated, will allow the deck to remain 3 feet from the side property line instead of the required 5 feet.

So staff finds that Standards A and B are met. The property is a corner lot. It has a 20-foot primary setback on the west line, a 10-foot secondary front setback on the north property line, which is actually kind of the side of the house. And then the south and east property lines have a 5-foot setback. So in practicality, if you look at the, uh, as-built, the southern portion of the property functions as the rear yard, but it's pretty small.

There's only about 13 feet because, uh, kind of the unique geometry of the corner lot and the slight slope, they place the houses when they built that house kind of at the top of the slope at the maximum kind of rear setback. Um, so that limits the size and location of the deck area. Standards C, staff and the Planning Department finds that it's partially met. The previous property owner built a noncompliant deck, and the current owner replaced that dilapidated deck in the original location, which was 3 feet from the property line, so the hardship is thus partially not self-imposed. Staff finds that Standards D, E, and F are met.

The parcel adjacent to the subject parcel, which is right behind that deck, has existing mature trees and landscaping as a buffer between the two properties, as well as a shed. There was no comments received from the— or objection for the granting of the variance. The, the, the variance would not permit a use not otherwise in the R-2A zoning district, and it will not change the existing building envelope, and hence does not adversely affect the nearby properties. Staff finds Condition G has been met, and then H, staff finds that's been met because this is the minimum variance, which is 2 feet, that'll allow the property owner to use the existing deck in the backyard as well as hot tub. So with that, the staff finds if,.

If approval— staff's recommended denial. If it's approved, we have 2 conditions on page 5. The pictures starting on page 15 shows the original deck. 16 Shows kind of the new deck. You can see the back fence line and then the house, how there's not much there.

There's kind of an aerial view on page 18, which is pretty good. That kind of shows how much backyard they do not really have. And then you'd have to look at the as-built on page 24, kind of to understand that it's a corner lot. This one, Google Street View helps a lot when we were writing it to see, really get an idea of what is going on. But the petitioner is here tonight, and he'll talk about it as well.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions of staff by the board?

Mr. Brian Bennett. I have a question about the identification of the primary front and the secondary fronts. If the address is to the 82nd Street, the front entrance is to the 82nd Street, and the garage driveway goes to the 82nd Street, why is the primary frontage on the other— what, the Mentra Avenue, or Mentor Street rather. Through the chair, Mr. Bennett. So street addressing runs a little different.

You can address off of pretty much any— it doesn't correlate with the setbacks. They kind of base it off of just where, like, as you mentioned. Now, setbacks are determined kind of by prevailing lot pattern, and in this instance, land use review had determined And it— and I believe the owner may add to this, it helps with the setbacks when he built the carport. But, uh, it was determined that Mentra Street, uh, would be the, uh, would be the, the primary front setback. Also, when the house was built, that's kind of how it was.

It was laid out back, back a long time ago so that you have— you have a front setback, and then they just said, well, 82nd is going to be your secondary front, and then it's just sides. There is no rear. The other question I have— the other question I had was the— on the Part A and the page 3, the exceptional physical circumstances form a unique geometry. It's a rectangular lot with a grounded corner. What are the exceptional circumstances?

Well, staff kind of looks at those kind of corner lots are a little unique in the fact you just mentioned they have like a front that may not necessarily meet with the front of the house, a secondary front, and then they have no rear yard. The deck and hot tub is essentially in their backyard, as all practical purposes, for privacy, but it's really a side yard. So, and the corner lots usually are just a little bit different shape. Hope that answers your question, sort of. Thank you.

Any other questions? Mr. Norris. Thank you, Chair. Uh, so I apologize, this might be a bit of a blunt question. The, the issue at hand seems to be C being partially met, and if—.

Is it—. Would it be true to conclude that if the owners had left the dilapidated deck— that's, that's how it's stated in the report— So potentially dangerous, I guess. If they had left that, then it would have been met, but because they took the initiative to rebuild it and make it safer, it's partially met. Through the chair, yes, Mr. North, you're correct. That's the view of the planning department.

Okay, thank you. I'd like to touch back with Mr., I believe, Bennett. Another unique geometry is if this— there's no picture of it, and it's unfortunate. I should have maybe added one. From Street View, this house sits up like the whole front driveway is on a slope.

It's not a big slope, but there's a slope. And when they built that house, they put it all the way to the back of the lot where they could, basically at the top of this like slight hill. And then that's— that kind of set everything in motion there as far as anything you can add on. So it is a— it is a slight slope to this, this lot and a corner lot. Thank you.

Anyone else? Whoops. Mr. Masley. And you actually hit the button. I'm so cool.

Thank you. Through the chair, would either of these projects require permits to be pulled?

The hot tub, no. And the deck is less than 30 inches. So to my knowledge, no. But the carport was—.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, will the petitioner please come forward and state your name for the record?

Yep, my name is James or Jim Fowler. Okay, are there any questions of staff by the applicant? Do you have any questions of staff? No, I don't think so. Okay, I've been working with you for quite a while, so all my questions got answered.

Then will you please present your case? Yeah, um, so this whole thing came about because, uh, I hired a contractor who took a permit out to build a carport, and carport is built. It's been built almost for a year now. They did a final inspection, the muni bought off on it, and they said, oh, by the way, you need to give us an updated as-built now. And on page 25 is the as-built that came with our house in 2018, and you can see the deck there.

It's extremely not to scale. On page 24 is the as-built after the carport was built, and the planning folks asked me to go actually have the, the guy that does the as-built put those dimensions in for the deck and the hot tub. So they were added as a revision to the as-built to see exactly where they were. So we requested a variance for the hot tub, a design variance, and we were granted that variance in March. So it would be unfortunate if we had to cut the deck off now because the hot tub's kind of sitting out there with no deck attached to it.

So I'm hoping we can make this one work too.

So I guess I don't know what it— what substantially met means in, in this Um, in light of the self-imposed Criterion C. Um, but I, I think Sean presented it pretty well. It's a really small backyard. Um, I— the idea that if I never rebuilt the deck, it wouldn't be a problem, but since I rebuilt the deck, it is a problem. So I respectfully ask for granting of the dimensional variance in this case.

Thank you. Um, you have 8 minutes left for rebuttal. Are there any questions of applicant by the board members?

Okay, are there any questions of the applicant by the staff? No. Okay, then, um, we'll open the public hearing. So you can have a seat. Sit down?

Yeah, for a minute, because there is nobody out there. Um, is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in this case?

No. All right, then does the staff have any rebuttal, anything additional? Uh, no, nothing additional. Maybe I could just point out, as the owner had stated, page 25 shows that as-built, and then page 15 shows that deck with the scallops there, as you can see, almost to the fence. Um, that, that's all.

He, he's— he was just pointing out that it didn't seem like it matched, but he had an actual photo from 2018 of that original deck. Thank you.

Does the applicant have anything additional?

You have 8 minutes.

I don't have 8 minutes worth of additional, but, um, our, our nearest neighbor is on the south side of our property. They're That's the, that's the setback. And I went over, I went around and talked to a couple neighbors before the March hearing, and I said, do you guys have any problems with this deck? And they said, we didn't even know you had a deck. And there's no windows on the north side of their house, which is that faces us, and they have a shed which Sean mentioned that is right on their side of the property that further protects the view.

And so anyway, they—.

Didn't—. They didn't even know we had a hot tub, so, um, or a deck. They— I mean, they knew I had a deck, but anyway, my point is that the neighbors really didn't have any trouble with it. And we're not partiers, we don't make a lot of noise, and the additional 2 feet encroachment into the side setback, because we have no back setback, um, hasn't been a problem for the last 8 years. So I'm hoping it's It's okay to leave it the way it is.

Okay, thank you.

With that, the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Schuette. Is this on? Okay. Yes, thank you. I move in case 2026-0032 to approve a variance from AMC 21.06.020, Table 21.06-1, the table of dimensional standard residential districts, to allow this deck to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot setback— side setback— in the R-2A district, subject to the conditions shown on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report.

Seconded by Mr. Craig Bennett. It has been moved and seconded that a variance be granted to allow a deck to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side yard setback. Um, Mr. Schuette, will you please speak to your motion? Yes, thank you. Um, it's an interesting, uh, uh philosophical discussion about what is truly a front and what is truly a side of a rectangle on a corner lot.

That being said, um, it does seem like the— all of the other conditions have been met. This is the only one that's been partially met, but doesn't seem to create a situation where it pushes this property further out of conformance. And in addition to that, the The fact that there were nothing but positive public comments received by staff and included in our packet, including the neighbor to the south that he referenced, really makes it seem like this is one of those cases where the letter of the law is extremely specific, but the real world has shown us that it doesn't always work out that way. And this property owner, I think, has done a good job of making application for relief through this variance process, and I don't see a problem with approving it. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Craig Bennett.

Yeah, I'd just like to add that I agree with Mr. Schuette in that all the reviewing agencies had no objections, and the 3 community comments were all in support, and I will be supporting this. Is there any further discussion? Anyone else?

Mr. Lang. Through the chair, yes, I would ask that the board find that Standard C is met. By saying that it is not met because this was the action of a previous owner removes— incorrectly places the responsibility on the prior— on the current owners. I think the standard is met and that we should find such. Anybody else?

Then if we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of a motion to grant a variance to allow a deck to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side yard setback in the R-2A district, subject to conditions shown on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. A yes vote will grant the variance and a no vote will deny the variance. Members, please vote.

There are 9 votes in the affirmative and no votes in the negative. The variance is granted. Voilà.

Okay, next on the agenda are reports. Um, I don't necessarily have a report. I have something to say, and I'm going to put it under board member comments. Secretary, any report? We have a meeting next month.

Okay, good. Uh, we don't have any committees, so now we are to board member comments, and I would like to welcome the new members.

And also say that the director, Melissa Babb, wanted me to thank the 6 of us who have been hanging in through the lean times. And the lean times— the last time we had a full board was September 2021. So it's, uh, it's nice to see it. Anybody else? Mr. Lang, uh, if it's, if it's appropriate, I actually have a question for staff.

Um, so concerning this specific variance that we just heard, uh, further down in the code, uh, 2106030 is projections into required setbacks, uh, unroofed landings, decks, and stairs, which are only allowed to encroach into front and rear setbacks. I know, I know for a fact because I submitted it, a code change to address side yard setbacks. And do you know if there's been any movement on that? Uh, that I do not know. Um, that has come up amongst all us planners as well about the— it's not allowed on the side but the front and rear.

Because, you know, people come to the counter and we're looking at these issues and we always say, oh, I think we allow that encroachment. And then we're like, oh, it's in the side. So I, I will— if that is— I will follow up with that and see if that can get moved along. Thank you. And as far as board member comments concerning that, it does come up regularly.

If it's less than 30 inches off the ground, as it was stated in the previous case, it's not required to have a building permit. So, uh, you know, there'll be a little side landing that goes into a garage door, uh, that's an encroachment. Uh, and, and I know that in my professional work I've seen this come up numerous times in the last few years. So it is something that comes before the board, I think, unnecessarily. We just had these people in here, they spent all that money to get a variance, and I think that a simple code change would correct that.

Unless it's concrete. Concrete's allowed. Yeah. Really?

Okay. Secretary has prompted me to ask the new members to introduce themselves and state say a little something about themselves. And sure, um, I'm John Wlodka, um, recent graduate from college working at Triad Engineering in engineering training. Uh, I think I've got about one more year before I can sit for the PE. Uh, I presented to Planning Board and I believe Planning and Zoning Commission, so figured it'd be a good idea to get on the other side and see what the experience is about, maybe get some insight for future presentations and just know a little bit more about how the process works.

So thank you. Mr. Masley. I'm Mark Masley. I'm a realtor with Realty One Group Aurora here in Anchorage. I've been licensed for 42 years now, and I've been here in Anchorage since 2001.

And, uh, I'm excited to be part of this board. This is my first experience with the municipal board. And I'm happy to be here.

Thank you. Uh, Chris Schuette. I'm a private community development consultant here in Anchorage. Um, prior to that, I spent 6 years as the director of economic and community development for the municipality, uh, where I had a chance to work with the planning department and boards and commissions staff to find some people like you to put on boards and commissions so we could get the work of the city done. Um, I was— I'm currently serving on the building board as well.

So I do spend time— well, not lately, but normally we spend time adjudicating cases appealing against the building code. And I got a call about the challenges that you had to carry for so long with not a full board here and would I be willing to serve on this one as well. And I said yes. So I'm happy to be here. Thank you.

Right. Anything else? Anybody else? Okay. Then I would entertain a motion for adjournment, please.

Move to adjourn, Chair. Seconded. Well, yeah, we've got a lot of movement. It seems like everybody wants to go. We are adjourned.

Midnight sun is gone away with the fall colors to show. A time to think on memories of a time I knew. Together, let's have a look.