Platting Board - June 4, 2025 - 2025-06-04 18:30:00

Yes.

Good evening everyone. I'd like to call this June 4th, 2025 meeting of the Planning Board to order. May we have roll call? Mr. Quinn? Here.

Miss Pennington? Here. Miss Bryan? Here. Mr. Jones?

Here. Mr. Mirka? Here. Miss Butler? Here.

Mr. Cross? Here. Ashley Ploy is excused. You have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?

Moved by Miss Butler, seconded by Mr. Mirka. Are there any corrections or objections to the minutes? I'd like to make one. I was present virtually and voted on several matters, and I'm not listed on the virtual attendees.

Sorry.

That's been noted by staff. Thank you.

Any other corrections or objections to the minutes?

Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Moving on to special order of business. Are there any disclosures?

I do have one this evening. Um, I was recused from case S12825, so I'll need to abstain from voting on the consent agenda.

Thank you for that disclosure. Any other disclosures?

Uh, I myself do have one disclosure. Um, We— our company has an ongoing business relationship with S4 Group, who is the applicant's representative in several of the cases tonight. So I would like to disclose that and put my participation on the S4 cases up to a vote amongst the board.

There's a—.

I can move to approve that Skyler participate in all cases that S4 is on tonight.

I second. Should I list the cases? Oh no. Okay, move by Mr. Mirka, second by Miss Sarah Bryan.

Yeah, should we call a vote?

Mr. Cross, how do you vote?

Affirmative. Thank you.

Motion passes. I will be participating. Thank you. Any other disclosures through the chair? Yes, Mr. Cross.

I also utilize S4 Group, um, They are conducting, uh, some survey work and some business analysis for me regarding a replat. However, I don't have any, uh, knowledge regarding or, uh, preconceived knowledge regarding any of the cases before us, and I would, uh, encourage us to allow me to participate. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Without any financial conflicts or personal benefit, you can, you can participate in the cases with S4 Group.

Okay, moving on to informational items. For information only, we have abbreviated plat action summaries dated 5/12/25 and 5/19/25.

Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Move by Miss Butler, seconded by Mr. Mirka. Any objections to approving the consent agenda?

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved.

Moving on to new business, but first I'm going to read you the procedure of this board. Sorry, one second. Um, can you put me down for abstaining from that because I intended to vote, please? Okay. Okay, perfect.

Thank you. Thanks for catching that, Mr. Jones. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Planning Board at its meeting is: one, after the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the on the issue. 2, Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission Rules of Procedure. A, petitioners, including all his and her representatives, are given 10 minutes.

Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. B, representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., 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 21.03.050(a)(4)(a).

Following the approval of the 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 0.050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the Planning Director on a form prescribed by this— 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 and public hearings, can we have staff's presentation in case S12824? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a preliminary plat to subdivide one lot into two lots with vacation of a portion of the 50-foot right-of-way along the north property boundary of Lot 1 of JB Crew subdivision. The request is to vacate 8 feet of right-of-way along the north boundary of proposed Lot 1A and to vacate 20 feet of right-of-way along the north boundary of proposed Lot 1B to allow the property owner's use of the land.

The proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and width required by the R-6 zoning district. None of the reviewing agencies had any objections to the plat and vacation request. And in the matter of the vacation request, uh, staff finds that the proposed subdivision has frontage along Buffalo Street and East 140th Avenue. A section of Rabbit Creek is located within the East 140th right-of-way. Traffic has stated in their comments that they will not object to a partial vacation of 20 feet and 8 feet along that north boundary.

The remaining 30-plus feet of right-of-way can be utilized to access the creek and can support future trail development to the creek and adjacent park. The right-of-way is surplus to the current and future needs of the public. Staff finds that the Platte right-of-way is not in the classification listings in the Official Streets and Highways Plan, that 3 and 4, the— it's not within the half-mile or quarter-mile grid. Condition 5, existing and dedicated right-of-way will serve the remaining property. The vacation will not have any impact on traffic circulation.

Traffic circulation. Condition 6, the 20-foot and 8-foot right-of-way to the proposed vacation along that north property boundary will not affect traffic. There is no proposed realignment of roadway, and the vacation will not impact any existing traffic circulation. The final plat shall include any utilities required by the utility agencies. Private Development, Right-of-Way, and the Municipal Traffic Department stated in their comments that there's no objection to the vacation of the right-of-way or the plat.

So generally, reviewing agencies had no comment or no objection to the vacation request, and therefore staff believes that the proposed vacation of a portion of the 50-foot right-of-way is in excess of municipal need and recommends approval of the vacation and the final plat to create 2 lots, subject to Conditions A and B found on pages 7 and 8 of the staff packet. I can answer any questions, and the petitioner's representative is here as well tonight. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?

I do have a question for staff. In regards to the comment that there was no objection for the different reviewing agencies, it looked like on page 38, Parks and Rec did have some objection to this in regards to their— the stream setback and that the vacation there. Is obviously quite tight in relation— just looking at the as-built that we have here, the plot, it's very tight on that, the way that the creek meanders there. Is there any—. I guess any consideration that needs to be given to that comment?

Through the Chair, Mr. Jones, I believe that Watershed Management Services' comments are going to— and the plat note requested are going to address any comments that Parks may have had since they are kind of the authority on that so that the whole thing of the portions of the lot subject to any Title 2107, which is stream setbacks and protection, that it's covered.

Do you have any follow-up on that or do you have an additional Mr. Jones, let me—. Can we take a look here?

Usually Watershed Management Authority is the, uh, they're the authority on streams, so they believe it was sufficient, the amount of setback.

They didn't mention anything about code setbacks or anything. There's no structures, um, there's no buildings proposed within that, and there wouldn't be any, any Building permit's going to protect that from being built within those stream protection setbacks. That's why they're there. Okay. Is there any concern for some of the comments that are here about, you know, trailheads and things like that?

Obviously, with the way that Rapid Creek meanders and the way that they were vacating 8 feet of that right-of-way, and now we're right up against that south bank of that lot. So if there were any sort of, you know, opportunities for trailheads or something, there's no— it's effectively cutting that ability on the south side of the creek there. By allowing that traffic and right-of-way both addressed it and said there's still 30 feet of right-of-way that's ample to build a trail on the, on the other side to the park.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for that question. Do we have any other questions of staff? Uh, sorry, Ms. Butler. Yeah, um, my question pertains to the affidavit of posting on page 18. It is the wrong one.

It's the wrong case number, and legal description is not for this property, and there's no photos to verify the posting was actually done. I believe those might have got switched during the packet preparation for tonight. And then to address the second part of your code, uh, your comment, um, the code doesn't require photos. It just requires the affidavit of posting. Is like post— it's, it's— I mean, it's an affidavit saying that you posted the property.

The photos that we've seen over the years are, um, kind of courtesy. I think they've just been put in. But yeah, we've seen some that don't come back with photos, and we've checked the code, but it's, uh It's not a required requirement. We're looking in the staff report right now. I know that the property was posted, but we'll double-check because I think that got transposed.

The other application question, and this is just because I have a lot of experience with submitting like special land use permit applications. Oh, yeah. If I was to submit one where the information wasn't filled out, like such as the floodplain and all that kind of stuff, it would have come back as incomplete. And this one is noted for the environmental information to be part of the 100 and 500-year floodplain. Why is— was there no, like, request to have the application amended?

That I'm not sure. It is missing it. It wasn't signed, but, you know, it gets routed to Watershed Management Services that checks for floodplain, and then they review it on their mapping. So they don't usually look at the application. They review for the parcel, and then they make comments on that.

And it should be noted that Francis McLaughlin presented that we checked the staff file and the correct posting affidavit is in there. Okay. Thank you. I have just— I have gotten incompletes from Francis for like missing like environmental stuff. So I just wanted to see just for consistency across the board for all the different reviews.

That is all. But thank you.

Thank you for that question. Do we have any other questions of staff?

Seeing none, I think we're ready for the petitioner's presentation.

You please come up and present your case, uh, and please, uh, state and spell your name for the record, and you're given 10 minutes.

Oh, and please turn your mic on. There's a little Button.

Ah, there we go. I'm Pat Seidel, um, the owner of the property that we're trying to subdivide. We're doing this because we like the property, but we're finding that we're aging and we'd like to age in place, so we would like to have a ranch on that property. In that, in that subdivided area. And so we thought, what's the best way to do that?

When we originally brought the property, we were told that with the boundaries we had, that we had enough to subdivide it. But apparently in the 19 years since we've had the property or bought the property, things changed a little bit, and we found out that we were a little bit short on our on our acreage. So, um, we tried to get the minimum amount, um, that we needed, um, to allow the community to have access where they normally have access and to allow us to have enough room so that we could, uh, uh, subdivide the property and build on it. So that's all I've got to say.

Thank you for that presentation. You have 8 minutes and 49 seconds of rebuttal time. Does anyone have any questions of the applicant?

Seeing none, we are going to open up this case to, uh, public testimony. Just take a seat. Um, and does anyone else in the public wish to testify about this case?

Seeing none, uh, Mr. Seidel, if you'd like to add any remaining comments, you're welcome to do so. You have 8 minutes and 49 seconds for any rebuttal or additional, uh, information you want to give the board.

With that being said, we are going to close this case to public testimony, and it now rests with the board. Do we have a motion for the vacation?

Moved by Miss Butler, seconded by Mr. Jones. Miss Butler, can you state your motion? I move in case S12824 to approve the vacation elimination of a portion of the 50-foot right-of-way along the north property boundary of Lot 1, JB Crew Subdivision, 2007-36, subject to recording a suitable plat within 24 months of approval and any approved time extensions as shown on page 7 of the staff report. Thank you for that, Ms. Butler. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, I intend on supporting this motion. Approval of the vacation of this portion of the property will conform with adjacent properties. No reviewing agencies objected. We've determined that the setbacks are going to be addressed with the streams.

The vacation of this 20 feet will leave 30 feet of right-of-way access to the creek and support future trail development to the creek in the park. And I agree with the planning department's recommendation of approval. Thank you, Miss Butler. Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, thank you.

I do intend on supporting this motion as well. I just brought to light that Parks and Rec comment really more for the record. I can definitely see what the petitioner is trying to do here and dividing the lot And like I said, I intend to support the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Would anybody else like to add findings?

Through the chair, Member Cross. Mr. Cross, please add your findings.

Yes, I'd like to point out there's no objections from staff, no objections from traffic, no objection to the 30 feet for traffic development that has been determined to be an excess of future need. And there is no need for roadway realignment, and it is subject to watershed approval under 2107. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. With that, I'm going to hand the gavel over.

Just add in a couple comments. I will also be supporting this motion. Staff said that this right-of-way is surplus to their current needs. It meets all the criteria, and there's no objection, so I'll be supporting this as well. Anybody else have any Any final findings?

Seeing none, let's call the vote. Mr. Cross, how do you vote?

Affirmative. Thank you. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes. Just a second.

Now, do we have a motion regarding the 24-month timeline for the plat?

Moved by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Butler. Mr. Jones, can you state your motion? I move in case S12824 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to conditions 1, 2, and 3, A through D, as shown on pages 7 and 8 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Would you like to speak to your motion?

I don't have any additional findings to add other than what was mentioned on the first motion. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Miss Butler, would you like to speak to your second? Um, no, um, I intend to support this motion as well, um, for the same reasons as stated in the previous motion. Thank you, Miss Butler.

Does anyone else have any findings that they'd like to add?

Seeing none Let's call the vote. Mr. Cross, how do you vote? Affirmative. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes.

Moving on to Case S12833, uh, can we have staff's presentation? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the petitioner is requesting to vacate all landscape easements and the associated landscape plat note from Winter Park Subdivision Lots 1A and 2A. The landscape easements were dedicated by plat 2011-102 and carried forward with plat 2015-43.

Subdivisions are no longer required to dedicate landscape easements because Anchorage Municipal Code requirements for landscaping have changed. The petitioner plans to convert an existing preschool into an adult care facility. The vacation of the landscape easements and the removal of the plat note will facilitate redevelopment of the property as the adult care facility. This is really, you know, a cleanup action that the, that the board is being asked to do. This is just a housekeeping matter.

The planning department supports the request for the vacation and finds that the removal of the um, the plat— associated plat note, um, the approval criteria is met. The department's recommending approval, um, subject to, um, the condition on page 3 of your packet. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation.

Do we have any questions of staff?

Seeing none, I think we're ready for the petitioner's presentation.

Thank you, Chair, Board. My name is Craig Bennett with S4 Group, and we agree with planning. They did a great job on this. And just a little housekeeping, housekeeping. Process, and I'm just here to see if there's any questions.

Thank you for that presentation. You have 9 minutes and 45 seconds of rebuttal time. Do we have any questions of the petitioner?

Through the chair, Member Cross. Mr. Cross, fire away. Yeah, Mr. Bennett can kind of give us an idea of timelines because it looks like this should have been resolved on December 9th, 2020, but unfortunately the petitioner has been dealing with this. How long have you been struggling in order to remove this plat note and clarify this condition? It seems to me like it's been a very arduous process.

Would you care to speak to that on the record? There was just—. Yeah, thank you, through the chair. There's been different, I guess, processes for this. There's been the CUP, there's been multiple PLATs and the previous owner since passed and his son now is managing the property.

So there has been different processes going through. So I wouldn't say so much that this has been held up because of a new process is just, trying to remove a landscape easement that we had to put on in the past because that's what code required at the time. And I'd have to say that planning has been great dealing with them removing this one note. And now hopefully moving forward, it will be a lot smoother.

Thank you for that response, Mr. Cross. Go ahead. No, I appreciate that. I know that the municipality, through the assembly and All governing agencies have been making significant changes to this process. And so if there's anything we can do to clean up, to expedite the process and limit the expense and time by petitioners, any input you can give would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Are there any other questions?

Seeing none.

We're going to open this up to public testimony. Is there anyone here wishing to testify?

Please state your name for the record, state and spell it, and you have 3 minutes of testimony time. My name is Justin Green. I'm the owner of the property and just want to talk about the challenges that have taken place with this particular property. It's an old Anchorage property. Originally it was— Oh, excuse me.

You are the petitioner? Yes. Okay, then you, you have to wait until the public testimony is over, and then you can certainly come up and give your testimony at the end of it. Yes, sir.

Is— are there any other members of the community or anybody else wishing to testify?

Seeing none, I hate to do that to you, but come on back up and give your testimony.

Just trying to follow the procedures and just give us one second to set your time.

So now that we know that you're the applicant, you are given 9 minutes and 45 seconds of time to testify. Thank you.

Technical problem, hold on.

Good.

Yeah, so my name is, uh, Justin Green, owner of the property, um, inherited by, uh, my late father in 2022. It's been a challenging property. It's, uh, been in Anchorage for quite a number of years. It started out, uh, as a Golden Pond shop, and then when my grandparents purchased it in in the late '50s, early '60s, became a daycare facility, and it was operating as a daycare facility all the way up until 2018. I could tell you that it's been a very expensive and challenging process to be able to get the change of use through the planning board and now having to get the plat note removed to be able to complete the process.

Just trying to keep the building in my family and trying to have it serve the community again in a different capacity.

Thank you for that testimony. Does anyone have any questions of the applicant?

Through the chair, Member Cross. Fire away.

Mr. Green, do you have any specific suggestions on how we can expand expedite and the process limit the expense, um, benefit of future development and other individuals that have gone through your plight?

So I can tell you that it's, it's a very expensive process just to be able to do a bathroom remodel that's only going to cost about maybe $6,000 or $7,000. The expense that's associated with it, with the architecture fees the engineering fees, the platting and zoning board fees, the building permit fees. It's a, it's a huge expense and it's a real eye-opener if anybody's ever had to go through it before, being able to see why we have so many vacant properties in Anchorage instead of utilizing those properties in other manners in which other businesses could potentially prosper. You know, The property itself in 2009 and 2010 when the off-street parking requirement went into place, that was a huge expense to my family. And that's what added this plat note in.

And now having to remove that plat note 15 years later after we removed much landscaping to be able to meet the off-street parking requirements is, uh, is extremely frustrating and, and a huge expense to myself as a property owner and my family as the property owners in the past.

Mr. Cross, any follow-up? Yeah, just— I appreciate him bringing that to our attention. It's— this is a story, you know, when I read these cases that I— and I look through the timelines and what people have gone through and how much they've had to to spend just due to the layers of bureaucracy that we've unintentionally created is just extremely frustrating, not just for Mr. Green but for hundreds of Anchorage residents. And so just know that, you know, at least myself on the planning board and individuals, I'm sorry that it's taken so long and taken so much money out of your time and existence. To do something that is relatively seems simple.

Um, just understand that, uh, we appreciate you, and if, if you would make sure that your assembly people know that you know about your story and know how much, uh, what you've been through in order to get to this point so we can resolve these issues, would be greatly appreciated. Um, we kind of work in a vacuum in a, in, in kind of an, for lack of a better pun, an igloo, and if we don't hear the struggles of constituents like yourself, then we don't know and it's business as usual. So I appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross.

And I agree that it seems like there could be an easier way to do this. Does anyone else have any questions of the applicant?

Seeing none—. Wait, wait, hold on, I'm trying to figure out my button—. Miss Pennington. Yeah, exactly how much did you— just rough calculation—. Have you spent between architecture fees, zoning fees?

And this isn't just the plat note removal, this is for, you know, simply changing a daycare facility to be an adult daycare facility. And the only requirement needing to change is changing one bathroom to have a shower in it to meet the current code for an adult day center. The shower itself is, you know, going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe $6,000 or $7,000. But I think that time, energy, and effort and money spent— I've probably spent over 200 or 300 hours on this project over the last 2 years, as well as close to $30,000 just in fees. And has your facility operated?

During this time frame? The property's been vacant. Okay. And so how much money would you have made if you were able to operate through that time frame?

Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of about $800,000 per year. So over the last 2 years, I'd say, uh, $1,600,000, uh, lost revenue, as well as the expense of keeping that building operating which you've got property taxes, gas, water, and electric that don't stop. And those costs are about $30,000 per year. What is your carrying cost for a vacant building? What is what?

Carrying cost for a vacant building. Security taxes payment. Yeah, so the carrying cost is about $30,000 and that's excluding any maintenance on the building. That's just in property tax and utilities over the last 2 years, roughly about $30,000 per year. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Any other questions of the applicant before we close it?

Okay, public testimony is now closed, or the public hearing is now closed. Uh, do we have a motion?

Moved by Mr. Jones, seconded by Miss Sarah Bryan. Mr. Jones, can you state your motion? Thank you. I move in case S12833 to approve the vacation of all landscape easements and the removal of plat note 11 from Winter Park Subdivision Lots 1A and 2A per plat 2015-43, subject to recording a resolution with the State of Alaska Recorder's Office and providing proof to the Planning Department as shown on page 3 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, thank you. I intend to support the motion. As was stated by staff, the reviewing agencies have no objections. As to the comments that were sent out, none were received back.

And I agree that it meets the removal of plat note requirements in 2103-200G-9. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Ms. Sarah Bryan, would you like to speak to your second? Thank you.

I also intend to vote to approve. Um, there were no agency objections to this, and this is the most limited set of department recommendations I've ever observed. So I have no reservations about voting to approve. Thank you, Miss Sarah Bryan. I'm going to hand the gavel over.

I will also be voting in support of this. Staff called it cleanup and housekeeping. That's what the applicant's representative called it as well. This is very much an expensive house cleaning exercise, but nonetheless I will be supporting it. Any other findings?

Seeing none, let's call the vote. Mr. Cross, how do you vote? Approved. Thank you. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes.

24-Month version. The 24-month version. Next one, right? Oh, okay. It just said Just saw this down here.

Oh, that though. Okay, I guess that wraps up that case. Moving on to, uh, Case S12831. Staff, can we have your presentation? Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So this is a preliminary plat to subdivide one track into 12 lots and two tracks with a variance to streets to not construct a collector to Class A improvement standards. The subdivision lies in the Class A district. So approval of the variance would permit the developer to construct Driftwood Bay Drive to Class B rural collector standards instead of the required Class A urban standards. What's out there now is the Class B rural collector standard, the existing portion of road.

The project includes building approximately 380 feet of Driftwood Bay Drive to a rural collector standard for access to Cumulus Circle. The proposed lots and tracts meet the minimum lot size and width required by the Chuyakiga River R3 Special Limitation Zoning District. As stated, Driftwood Drive Bay is a collector street that the developer will extend into undeveloped lands. Cumulus Circle is located internal to the subdivision. Private Development Traffic Engineering are recommending improvement standards of Class A for this road that will consist of curbs and gutters with street lighting at the intersection of Cumulus Circle and Driftwood Bay Drive and the cul-de-sac bulb of Cumulus Circle.

For drainage, Watershed Management Services requested a plat note for the streams on this plat and for stream protection setbacks. Uh, with trails, the petitioner, uh, will— is going to build an 8-foot-wide paved pathway along Driftwood Bay Drive, which is matching and the continuation of the existing pathway that's already there. In conformance with the 2006 Chuyacki River Comprehensive Plan, this plat appears to generally conform with this petition site's land use classification as well as the goals of Housing and Residential Development Goal 1A. The subdivision will create a new residential development of single-family homes in the Eagle River area, and Objective 2D, the development pattern is consistent with other residential properties that border the site. So with the variance request, once again, the variance is to construct Driftwood Bay to a modified suburban rural collector standard by providing a 28-foot strip paved road with ditches and a separate pathway.

For the standards, staff finds Condition A is met. The requested variance will allow the petitioner to provide access to proposed lots without having to provide a road section to urban street standards. The proposed design would be like the existing road segment, which is west of the development. A stream and drainage way bisects the property along the eastern boundary and limits future development of the property and the potential need for an urban collector road extension further east. So Traffic Department, private development, right-of-way sections support the requested variance.

Standard B is met. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to other property owners in the area.

It will convey the stormwater runoff instead of the normal curb and gutters along that section with ditches and swells. Staff finds Condition C is met. The right-of-way of its current width adequately serves the subdivision. One of the goals of the Chugiak River Comp Plan is to ensure that the natural systems are protected, maintained, enhanced. The objectives of the plan includes protection of wetlands and preservation of natural drainage way.

By ensuring the integration of area drainage needs into development plans. So the variance, if granted, will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations. Um, staff finds Condition D is met. Strict compliance with subdivision provisions, uh, would not allow flexibility in the design of a drainage system that treats stormwater runoff to filter and treat pollutants prior to entering the Eagle River Greenbelt. The standard would create an undue hardship and result in a conflicting design.

Granting the variance will enhance the maximum potential use of the property to allow the existing drainage systems to function as designed and preserve and enhance the natural features of the property. As stated, generally reviewing agencies had no comment or no objection to the variance request, and there was no comment or objection from members of the public. Written: The Planning Department finds that petitioner's application meets the variance review Standards and recommends approval subject to conditions as well as the plat found on page 8 of the staff packet, which is A, B, 1 through 5, and page 9 of the staff packet. So once— to summarize the variance, they're going to create lots, but the variance is to the Class A standard to match— built to basically to build Driftwood Bay to a standard and similar design that's already out there. They're just continuing at 380 feet.

I can answer any questions, and the petitioner and representative are here tonight. Thank you, staff, for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff? Through the chair, Member Cross. Mr. Cross.

Yeah, my question to staff is, was a similar variance provided to the adjacent property owner that, uh, developed the adjacent lots that they were able to develop at a lower standard? Through the chair, Mr. Cross, yes, there was quite a few variances. That Eagle Crossing was a very multiple plats and multiple meetings at the planning board. Right. There was variances.

But it was also multiple phases as well. I would speculate 20 to 30 different phases and iterations of the plat. But yes, yes, to answer your question, you're correct. Thank you. And just for clarification, then what we're doing is we're extending the same liberties to this petitioner as we have to the adjacent petitioners.

Thank you. Yeah, and it's matching the existing roadway. Thank you, Mr. Cross. I'm going to go to my screen queue first. Miss Butler.

Yeah, I just have a question about Standard A. I know it's met and that's great, and I understand that there has been— have been other variances, but this one references Case S10625. Is it possible in the future if there's reference to a variance that has been approved, if we could have like the resolution or something, or is there somewhere that we can grab it so we can see if it matches what we had, what we have on our table today? Through the chair, yes, we can provide the historical information. Part of it is we're kind of updating all our— we're trying to go electronic with everything, and we're— there's some few things that we're still adjusting. But the, uh, the history like that's something we could definitely put in there.

I think it would just assist us in making sure that all of our decisions are— we have precedence now, so it would be nice to see past precedence.

Thank you, Miss Butler. Any other questions? Mr. Jones, did you— no? Okay. Miss Pennington, your mic's on, or Do you want to ask a question?

Any other questions of staff? With that, let's move it over to the applicant's presentation. Please state and spell your name for the record, and you're given 10 minutes. Good evening, members of the board, through the chair. My name is Tony Hoffman.

I'm representing— I'm with the Boutet Company here in Anchorage, and I'm representing Spanell Homes, um, who is a petitioner. They're the owners of Mission Hills LLC, which is the actual landowner. It's an LLC. With me tonight is Andre Spanelli and his assistant to answer any questions you might have. Um, we'll keep this brief.

This is a pretty standard plat layout. The lots are pretty standard. The Tract 1 we're designating right there in the corner provides opportunities for, um, multifamily development style, which would be similar in, in keeping with the area. That large tract just to the south of us, referred to as Trailhead Avenue, is, is a nice, um, condominium development, townhouse style. So that Tract 1 would be— is going to be a nice multifamily site.

The rest of them, we'll, we'll just see how the development rolls out. The variance— to speak to the variance, um, we appreciate all the time that staff has put into this with us. We've been talking about this development for some time, and Driftwood Bay Drive has always been, always been a very costly option to absorb into the lots we're building. So this variance allows us a standard that still matches basically what has been built on Driftwood Bay rut drive and not have to build it to the strict adherence to the OSHP, which would require a Class A collector road with curb, gutter, all of it. So this variance allows us to build similar to what was previously granted in the other variances.

But to speak to Miss Butler's point, that is a really good idea, and it's hard sometimes to get those variance packages from previous cases. There's been multiple times when I've tried to do that when we're building a new case in an adjacent property, and they're not readily available online. Sometimes you can find them in the clerk's website, but they're constantly bringing that up to date. But that is a very good point. Um, yeah, we, we feel this variance request will allow us to build the road that's in a more similar fashion to what's there.

It definitely does. Um, it, um, you know, it'll access the future development out there if, if, if if the project pencils. It's still not 100% guaranteed, that little pencil, because providing— building an off-site piece of road 380 feet onto a piece of ground you're trying to develop, that's a pretty heavy off-site cost. And, and Spinell Homes is going to be bearing that cost. So this is kind of a negotiation, but it still is, you know, as, as costs fluctuate, it's going to be hard to make this project pencil.

So this is the first step. It's a 380-foot piece of road off-site. It'll have to be absorbed into the development, and so everybody's going to get that passed on. And how— one of the, one of the components of that variance originally was for some reason not to build that stretch of Driftwood Bay Road because there, there are lots that fronted. So they got a variance to not build this piece of road we're building.

So by allowing us at least to not have to build it to the full 32-foot curb and gutter standard, that at least helps the development start to pencil. If the project does continue on, it'll go further east, and then we'll, we'll talk about different collector standards as, as we move east. But this first 13 lots will be you know, the, the beginning of it. And originally we had planned for 90 lots all the way out. There's no way that would pencil with the Collector Road standard.

So by shrinking it to this 13-lot component or development and then that 380 feet, we, we kind of zeroed in on a very, um, negotiable variance. You know, we, we don't have to talk about 1,300 feet of road and all kinds of variances. That would be difficult, and it probably definitely wouldn't pencil out. This, this is the beginning. So that's what the variance is about.

Um, I don't— I appreciate the help that staff has given us. We've been working on this for about 4 years, um, and finally got here tonight. There's been a lot of negotiation, and we appreciate staff's help, and we, um, we agree to all the conditions. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions?

Of the presenter.

I'll ask one question. Okay, Mr. Murphy, if you were to have had the whole plan of 90 lots— and maybe this is more of a staff question— but would you have had need to go to a Class A collector road through that subdivision even in that standard? That's, that's a, that's a good question, and it would depend on how you would model a TIA, because there definitely would be a requirement for a TIA eventually. And then we start talking about secondary access. For—.

You—. I'm going to let Andres Pannell talk. You can tell when he wants to talk. Um, I had a lot of conversations with the planning department, traffic department, uh, regarding the road. My initial plan was to reclassify the road because everyone agreed the road dead ends into a property that is already developed as a single-family house.

So there's no chance of this road continuing through the way the plan originally had it when it was classified as collector. What I was told was, "Don't do that. Just ask for the variance 'cause it's going to take way too long and we don't even know if you could reclassify it." We all agree it should be reclassified, But we don't know that you actually can accomplish that. So that's why we're here talking about a variance is because there's no other option. And like everybody said, we're just matching the road that's already there.

So we're going to eat this elephant one bite at a time. Yeah. I like it. I tried. I tried.

But yeah, I got to go, so.

If you have any other questions—. Any other questions?

Through the chair, Member Cross. Mr. Cross, just a point of clarification, since we're on public testimony, if we can refrain from using acronyms known in the industry and instead of saying TIAC, say Traffic Impact Analysis for the record so that the so that the general public understands what we are referring to would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross.

Tone it down, please. I was referring to a traffic impact analysis. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions for the presenter?

Seeing— Ms. Pennington. I'm curious how much How much deviation from your original plan do you now have in order to conform to municipal standards?

Um, that's a tough question to answer. We're shrinking from 90 lots down to 14. We've reduced— you know, original design was for 90 lots, if that's your question. The bigger— yeah, so we were going all the way east through another 1,200 feet of road, had a master plan which would be the most efficient way to do this in a phased development, cutting out this 13 lots as Phase 1, which was the original plan. Unfortunately, we got so tangled up in this collector issue and about what the requirement for the traffic impact analysis would be and where do you model it, how do you model it, it just became a tangled web.

So rather than trying to come up with 150 different variances for that 1,200 feet of road, that didn't work. So we've scaled it down 20— 80% or more. So just one more time for the record, you intended to build 90 homes. Yeah. Now you're building 14.

Yes, but there will be, you know, the, the remnant tracts will have to come in, the remnant tract in the area to the east. I mean, if this is successful, then we'll have to come in again and negotiate again and go through the whole process, but that is The only way we saw a way forward in an expedient fashion, like in 5 years, which is what, you know, it's taken 4 years to get to this point. So another 2 years to get in the ground. Thank you. Yeah.

Thanks for not quitting. Excuse me? Thanks for not— thanks for continuing the process. Yeah, I would have packed up and moved to the Valley, but that's me. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Pennington. Any other questions?

Okay, Mr. Hoffman, you have 5 minutes and 16 seconds of rebuttal time. We're going to open it up to public testimony. Are there any members of the public wishing to testify?

Please come forward. Please state your name and spell it for the record, and you're given 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Anley Bickford Perez.

Miss, could you pull the mic down a little bit? Thank you. Hi, my name is Anley Bickford Perez. Um, can you— could you spell it please? A-N-L-E-Y and then B-I-C-K-F-O-R-D hyphenated P-E-R-E-Z.

Thank you.

So we live along Eagle River Lane. There's 12 homes that are adjacent to the petition site, and our neighbors and I were concerned because the land that is behind our homes is all considered wetlands. And so we all have sump pumps. And so we are just expressing concerns that when these homes are being built, you know, right now when there's not any homes, the The project or the outflow of the wetlands is draining down to Eagle River, but when these homes are built, how is it going to affect the wetlands above the drainage area?

Is that the end of your testimony or just asking the question? Yeah, I was just asking a question. I thought that's what—. I could answer it or staff could answer it. Okay, we just want to make sure that there's going to be like appropriate drainage so our homes don't flood.

So just, uh, I guess I'll answer it there. For any project like this, there's a drainage plan that has to be conducted for the project. They look at pre- and post-development conditions. All of that has to get reviewed by the municipality. This is kind of the first step in the process.

Okay. And if this gets approved there will be a variety of conditions that have to get fulfilled to be able to get permits and develop the site. So there is much more work to be done to analyze the things that you're speaking of. Wetlands would have to get permitted separately, and there's a variety of things. And staff, chime in here if you want.

Mr. Chair, you're correct. You're correct on all that. There's also a condition in the departments that they'll have to As he was stating, it specifically says property owners and utilities shall not obstruct, impede, or alter approved drainage facilities— example, swells and ditches— in any way that will adversely impact adjacent properties. So that, that's, um, as he stated, they have to submit a drainage plan that's going to address that.

Thank you. Thank you, staff. Do you have any other testimony you'd like to provide? Okay, thank you for testifying. Are there any other members of the public wishing to testify?

Seeing none, Mr. Hoffman, you are back up for rebuttal. You have 5 minutes and 17 seconds. Um, through the chair, I cannot definitively say what will happen to the drainage patterns, but, um, As the chair said, there will be a rigorous watershed analysis post and pre-construction about all effects. But considering the drainage patterns are all going downhill, and from where she lives, it is uphill from us, and that whole area of the wetlands to the north of our development is not part of, of this plan. So that's all wetlands up there, and any wetland permitting is, again, arduous and difficult.

So, but water flows downhill, and our water is downshed from hers, or down watershed. So I think it's a pretty safe assumption that we will not be interfering with those patterns as they exist in her area.

That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.

Are there any final questions of the applicant from the board?

Seeing none, do we have a motion— or sorry, I'm going to close public testimony. Do we have a motion?

Moved by Mr. Jones, second by Miss Sarah Bryan. Mr. Jones, can you state your motion? Yes, thank you. I move in case S12831 to approve the variance from AMC 2108030F Streets to not construct a collector to Class A improvement standards, subject to recording a suitable plat within 24 months of approval and approved time extensions as shown on page 8 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, thank you. I intend to support this motion. As staff and the petitioner has mentioned, this is keeping in line with what the road is doing west of this property, which I think is very important to do both from a traffic standpoint as well as drainage and stuff, which is spelled out in here of how they're able to kind of remediate some of the drainage patterns and do that. Plus it provides the paved trail.

So I think this is a good option with, again, keeping with the community and what's to expect there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Ms. Bryan, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, I'd, um, I also intend to vote to approve.

I'd like to add that each of the subdivision variance approval criteria from Anchorage Municipal Code 2103-240G-3 are met. I also appreciate the public testimony on this, on this matter. It's been a theme of this meeting everyone's been sitting through. There are so many procedures that we all have to go through, developments impeded by this. But I think that it's important to recognize it's a balancing act.

We've got to live in the environment. We can't have houses flooding. We all love— we all value housing. So I appreciate both the testimony, the rebuttal. End of comments.

Thank you, Ms. Bryan. I'm going to pan the gavel over. I will also be supporting this motion. It sounds like a strenuous process, and it doesn't sound like, um, there are any quick decisions made on anything. Seems like it was a serious series of many conversations with staff trying to get this figured out, and it meets all the conditions, and the variance meets all the criteria as well.

So I will be supporting it. Thank you.

Uh, Miss Butler. Yeah, um, just extra findings. I just wanted to put on the record too, I intend to support this motion based on the fact that there is historical approvals of variances for this exact same reason. So we should probably stick to what has already been done so everything in the area meets the same approval criteria.

Thank you, Miss Butler. Any other final comments?

Let's call the vote.

Mr. Cross, how do you vote? Move to approve. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes.

Do we have a motion for the 24-month clock for this project?

Moved by Mr. Jones.

Seconded by Miss Bryan. Mr. Jones, can you state your motion? Yes, I move in case S12831 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to conditions 1, 2, 3A through C, 4A through C, and 5A and B as shown on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, thank you. I intend to support this and agree with the other board members' assessment on the previous spot. So it's unfortunate that there were, you know, 90 homes originally plotted for this, that this section is only able to get a fraction of that amount in. But I have some— I hope that, I guess, with the precedent set here and the criteria that we're doing, that this will help the future development. So I do intend to support this.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr.— Ms. Bryan, would you like to speak to your second? I have no further comment to add. Thank you, Ms. Bryan.

Any other findings?

I will add that this did look to meet all the dimensional and lot size standards of the CER-3 zoning district. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any other findings? Let's call the vote.

Mr. Cross, how do you vote? Move to approve. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes.

Moving on to Case S12830. Can we have staff's presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a request to remove plat notes number 3 and number 9 from plat 386 with Wentworth Subdivision for Block 2, Lot 17.

And the purpose of the request is to allow the owner to construct a fourplex on the parcel. So the petitioner's request is to remove both plat notes as the structure would conform to current Title 21 dimensional standards. The original plat placed use and dimensional standards as plat notes during a time prior to municipal zoning regulations taking effect in 1970, as the plat was created in 1954. Um, the R-3 district allows 6,000 square feet for up to 4 dwelling units, and the lot size of this property is 10,454 square feet. The front setback requirement is 10 feet and the side yard is 5 feet.

Uh, conditions that require the plat notes have changed because the regulations established by Residential District Standards in Title 21, such as setbacks and minimum lot dimensions, did not exist to apply to this property when the surveyor created the plat. At the time of the plat, plat notes afforded protections in the absence of land use regulations. Current code, however, for residential district dimensional standards negates the need for the plat notes. Removal of plat notes would not reduce protections to properties. Standard B: Removal of plat note would not reduce protection of the setbacks and lot dimensions or apply a less restrictive code to the property.

Or have a negative impact. Uh, Standard C, Plat P-386 would continue to meet the approval criteria for subdivisions in Section 2103-200(C)(9) with the removal of the plat notes number 3 and number 9, as the existing subdivision still facilitates the orderly and efficient layout and use of the land to the maximum extent feasible because setbacks and minimum lot dimensions by use are in the code under Table 21.06-1. Staff recommends the removal of restrictive plat notes number 3 and number 9 from plat 386, as seen on page 3 and 4 of the staff packet. This will allow the petitioner to go forward with building a fourplex on that corner property there that is currently vacant, and I believe they're, um, Currently, they've pretty much finished up all their building permits, and they're— they'll be ready after this gets approved to start construction. Thank you.

Thank you, staff, for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?

Seeing none, would the petitioner's representative please come forward and state your name and spell it for the record, and you're given 10 minutes. Thank you. Craig Bennett with S4 representing Holquist tonight. And as staff said, no objections. Staff supports this plat note removal, and this plat note removal will allow the owner to build a building that will meet zoning code.

And I'm just here to answer any questions. Thank you for that presentation. You have 9 minutes and 37 seconds of rebuttal time. Do we have any questions of the presenter?

Seeing none, we're going to open this up for public testimony. Are there any members of the public wishing to testify? Not going to let this sit too long. Seeing none, Mr. Bennett, uh, you have 9 minutes and 37 seconds of rebuttal time. Miss something?

Oh, did I miss something? Okay, please proceed. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. With that, we are going to close public testimony. This matter now rests with the board. Do we have a motion?

Move by Miss Butler, second by Mr. Jones. Miss Butler, can you state your motion? Um, I move in case S12830 to approve the removal of plat notes number 3 and number 9 from plat P386 that state buildings on other than business lots shall not be constructed or placed within 15 feet of the front boundary line of the lot line or within 5 feet of any other boundary line of the lot, with this exception that a garage may be placed within 2 feet of the rear property line and maximum of 2 buildings to a lot, only one of which may be used for habitation. All living units, whether single or duplex type, must be under one roof. Maximum of 1 two-family dwellings on each lot plus garage.

This is subject to the condition of recording a resolution with the State of Alaska's Recorder's Office and providing proof to the Planning Department, as shown on page 3 of the staff report. Thank you, Ms. Butler. Would you like to speak to your motion after you take a deep breath? Yeah, I intend on supporting this motion. I think the removal of plat notes 3 and 9 will bring this plat to current standards.

The review criteria listed in AMC 2103-200 G9 are met for successful removal or modification of a plat note, and wholeheartedly agree with the Planning Department's recommendation of approval. Thank you, Ms. Butler. Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, thank you. I think Miss, uh, Miss Butler summarized my thoughts on it nicely.

I see this is just a housekeeping item. It's good to get cleared up, allow for more development, which we definitely need. Excited to see this get built. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Um, any other findings of the board?

Seeing none, I'll hand the gavel over. I will also be supporting this. Here again, another house cleaning cleanup, um, case. That's pretty straightforward. Staff supports it.

I'll be supporting it as well. Thank you.

Any final comments? Seeing none, let's call the vote. Mr. Cross, how do you vote?

Move to approve. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes.

Moving on to board member comments. Are there any comments amongst the board?

Through the chair, I have one for Mr. Bennett if he's still in the audience. Mr. Cross.

Yeah, Mr. Bennett with S4, if you would approach the podium. I've noticed in my years on the Planning Board that we spent a considerable amount of time in discussion regarding outdated plat notes, much like the previous case. Do you think there's any value in a— perhaps the assembly, or perhaps municipality, moving that plat notes would become obsolete or would expire after a specific amount of time? By, say, 50 years that the plat— that those plat notes would cease to exist unless further examined and deemed advantageous and worthy? It just seems like so much of the plat notes, SL, special limitations, are from long ago before we ever realized what Anchorage would look like.

And I'd appreciate just on the record your thought on something like that. Yeah, through the chair, thank you. I think a plat note that goes against zoning might be one that could just be maybe not ignored, but if it disagrees with, with current zoning code, then it just not be applicable, and you'd have to have probably the planning director I guess approve that or agree with that, but if a plat note contradicts current code, that'd be appropriate time not to have the plat note or have to ask to remove the plat note.

So through the chair, what I hear you saying is that if we have a plat note that is in violation of the most current code regarding either zoning or land use, rather than have to go through an arduous, um, you know, go through for the Planning Board before the Assembly or whatever, we should be giving more discretion to the building director, um, from the Planning Department. But as long as there's no objection, maybe that could be an administrative review and approval, um, so that we can save the cost and expense to the petitioners. Is that something you think would be advantageous? I think it would. I, um, anytime you can speed up a process, I think it generally is beneficial.

Well, I appreciate that. I'll be reaching out to you, and I'll be probably contacting a couple of assembly members because it seems to me like this is a very simple change in code that we could do that gives more, more control to the planning department in order to expedite these projects. If we're truly behind getting housing built and truly behind reducing the cost, then some of these no-brainers just— we can avoid this arduous process. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross.

And Mr. Bennett, are there any final board comments?

Seeing none, do we have a motion to adjourn?

Moved by Ms. Butler, second by Mr. Jones. We are adjourned. Thank you.