Anchorage Assembly: PlattingBoard: Live

It's all right for me to change my place of residence because it makes you feel better inside yourself. Thank God that we have this opportunity here at Texas Tech University Lubbock: an educational system which allows us to do things like take classes online or even go on vacation during your academic year if needed by our university community members.

Good evening. We'll call this September 2nd, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order. May we have roll call?

Skyler Quinn. Here. Sarah Catherine Bryan.

Patrick Jones. Present. Kyle Mirka. Present. Brenda Mills.

Present. Kevin Cross. Present. Ashley Poi. You have a quorum.

Thank you.

Thank you. Maybe a motion to approve the minutes.

Moved by Mr. Mirka, seconded by Mr. Cross. Are there any objections or corrections to the approval of the minutes?

Hearing none, minutes are approved. Next on the agenda is special order of business. Are there any disclosures this evening?

Hearing none.

Move on. For information only, we have abbreviated plat action summary dated 8/10/2026. Can I have a motion to approve or accept the abbreviated plat action summaries?

Any objections? Hearing none, action summary has been accepted.

Sorry, do you have a motion and a second? Thank you.

Maybe we have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Moved by Ms. Mills, seconded by Mr. Mirka. Anyone wishing to pull an item for discussion?

Are there any objections to the approval of the consent agenda?

Hearing none, consent agenda is approved. Next, we'll move on to the public hearings. I'll read the process. The procedure by which, by which the public may speak to the Planning Board at its meeting is: after the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the commission's rules of procedure.

Petitioners, including all his or her representatives, 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., 5 minutes. Individuals, 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board.

You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board. Any 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 2103-050.

Following 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 2103-050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the Planning Director on 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.

May we please have staff's presentation in case S12905? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request to remove plat note number 5 from plat 2020-81 Drake Subdivision, blocks— block 4, lots 1A and 1B. The purpose of the petitioner's request is to allow the owner to have a separate driveway not located within the platted 30-foot access easement.

The planning department supports the removal of plat note number 5. Currently, plat note 5 reads as follows: Access to Lots 1A and 1B shall be restricted to a single shared driveway. The location and any subsequent relocation of the driveway shall be approved by the Traffic Engineering Department. The comments from MOA Traffic regarding the original platting case, found on page 35 of your staff packet, reads as follows: Traffic is recommending that access to both lots within the subdivision be from the lower classified roadway Merganser Avenue. This could be done with modification to existing lot configuration or an access easement through new Lot 1A for Lot 1B.

There are currently two unimproved access points to proposed Lot 1A in the northwest and northeast corners respectively. The current access point in the northwest corner is located too close to the corner of Lake Otis Parkway. This access point needs to be eliminated or relocated a minimum of 50 feet from Lake Otis Parkway intersection. The Planning Board must find the criteria listed in Anchorage Municipal Code AMC 2103-200G-9 are met for successful removal or modification of a plat note. These criteria are addressed in the following.

Criteria A is met. The original condition placing this plat note was incorrect from the MOA traffic— traffic comments received by the Planning Department. MOA traffic requires a minimum of 50 feet of separation from the Lake Otis intersection for a driveway to be installed along Merganser Avenue. Removal of this plat note would not reduce protections to surrounding properties. Criteria B is met.

Removal of the plat note will not have a negative effect on neighboring properties. Removal of the plat note will not reduce protection of the setbacks and lot dimensions or apply a less restrictive code to the property. None of the reviewing agencies have any objection to the removal of the plat note. Criteria C is met. Plat 2020-81 will continue to meet the approval criteria for subdivisions in subsection 21.03.200 with the removal of plat note number 5.

Reviewing agencies have no objections to the requested plat note removal. MOA Traffic provided comments questioning how the note was added given their agency review from the original platting action, as mentioned on page 35 of your staff report. On August 10th, 2026, the Planning Department mailed 142 public hearing notices. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received public comments. The Huffman O'Malley Community Council did not comment.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the removal of plat note number 5, subject to conditions found on page 3 of the staff report. I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner's representative, Tony Hoffman, is in attendance. Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff?

Miss Mills. So, um, one is just a general housekeeping question. So it's like a two-part. One's just like, um, cleanup. And on the, um, staff report cover page, it refers to Lots 1A and 2A, while the rest of the record identifies Lots Lots 1A and 1B.

So I'm just going to assume that it was a typographical error. Okay. Through the chair, thank you, Ms. Mills. And then my question is, because traffic suggested replacement language requiring Lot 1B to access Merganser through the existing easement, can you confirm that there is no circumstances created by removing Note Number 5 that could leave Lot 1B without legally enforceable access? Through the chair, Ms. Mills, that's correct.

So the access easement is staying in place. It is the only access that Lot 1B can take or maintain. This just makes it to where 1A does not have to share that same access. They could actually have a separate driveway still meeting the requirements of distance separation from Lake Otis. Perfect, thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you. Do we have any other questions for staff?

Okay, hearing none, we'll move on to the petitioner's presentation.

Good evening, through the chair, members of the board. My name is Tony Hoffman, um, and I'm representing the petitioner here tonight. Yeah, I really don't have anything to add. This is pretty straightforward house cleaning issue. It's going to make that— these two lots a lot easier, especially 1A, to build in by not having to share the driveway, um, or the easement And I appreciate staff's help with this.

This is the second one of these we've done in a couple months, and it's helping a lot with development of these lots. Other than that, I'll save my time. Thank you. You have 9 minutes and 43 seconds left for rebuttal. Do you have any questions of the petitioner?

I'll actually put myself in the queue for just a quick second here. I did want to just clarify the plot plan that was provided to us. Does show Lot 1A having its driveway go into the easement, but based on what we're understanding is the question today, in reality that will slide towards Lake Otis, and that way it has its own independent driveway, and then that access would be left for 1B. Through the chair, yes, you're correct. And, you know, to be clear, no matter what, the traffic department— the MOA traffic department has full, full regulatory authority over where we put the driveway and separation distances.

So the note was a little overreaching when we did that in 2020. This is just going to make it easier to work with the traffic department. And you're— to answer your question, yes, you're correct. Awesome, perfect. Thank you.

Do we have any other questions for staff?

Thank you. We'll now open the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone that would like to move forward and give testimony in this case?

And we do have one on the phone, so seeing nobody come forward, we will call in the phone testimony now.

Hello, is this Brian? Yes, Brian, this is the Planning Board calling for public testimony in case S12905. Are you testifying on behalf of Kempton Hills Homeowners Association? No, no longer. Okay, you have 3 minutes.

Oh, did you still want to testify? No, go ahead. You were going to say something. You have 3 minutes to to testify if you'd like to. Oh, right now?

Yes. Oh, no, I don't have anything more to say. Okay, thank you. No help. Is there any additional public testimony?

Seeing nobody coming forward, we will now close the— actually, sorry, is there any rebuttal? No? Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

Any final questions of staff?

Okay, we will move— can I get a motion for plat note removal?

That is moved by Ms. Mills, seconded by Mr. Cross. Ms. Mills, would you like to state your motion? I move in case S129 05 to approve the removal of plat note number 5 from plat 2020-81, subject to the conditions shown on page 3 of the staff report. Thank you. Would like to speak to your motion?

Yes, um, I intend to support this motion. Um, the findings are pretty clear. The need for note 5 has been negated. There's no negative effect on surrounding properties. Subdivision approval criteria remains satisfied, and lot 1B retains legal access.

Yes. Thank you. Mr. Cross, would you speak to your second? Yes, I also intend to support it. I think it'd be clearly stated on page 2 under staff analysis, Section A, that this plat note, as indicated by the Planning Department, was never needed.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any additional findings?

We will move to vote.

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yeah. Thank you.

That has passed. We'll now move to the second case tonight. May we have staff's presentation in case S12908?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a plat to subdivide one tract into two tracts for proposed tract H1 and H2, Port of Alaska Alaska Subdivision. The platted area contains 603.2 acres and is a resubdivision of Tract H with a realignment of the existing roadway. The petitioner proposes to vacate a portion of Terminal Road and dedicate a new portion to the west of the existing right-of-way.

The port plans to construct an electrical substation in the newly created Tract H-1. The petition site is located north of Ocean Dock Road and east of Terminal Road in Anchorage. The proposed tracts meet the minimum lot size and width required by the respective zoning district. None of the reviewing agencies had any objections to the plat or right-of-way vacation and realignment. The plat lies within an area designated on municipal maps as having a high or very high susceptibility to seismically induced ground failure within seismic zones 4 and 5.

The applicant notes that the application does not contain a soils report because the Port of Anchorage has extensive soils investigation reports in its archives. Amounting to volumes of historical data. The Port can make soils information available in response to specific information requests. The municipality must consider the following criteria for any vacation of public rights-of-way, dedication, section line easement, Bureau of Land Management easement, or public use easement. The proposed platting action is creating 2 tracts of land from an existing tract and requesting vacation of a portion of an 80-foot right-of-way dedicated per plat 2015.

-122 With dedication of a new alignment of right-of-way for that section of Terminal Road. Private development notes that future road improvements shall be made under an MOA right-of-way permit at the time of development. No improvements are required currently. Staff has placed a condition of approval for this preliminary plat to dedicate 80 feet of right-of-way for the realignment of Terminal Road. The vacation request has been reviewed and found to conform to the municipal vacation policy and meets all 6 criteria.

It meets Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Agencies have expressed no objection to the request to vacate this portion of right-of-way, and the utility companies will have the opportunity to request easements as part of this process. Therefore, the Planning Department believes that the right-of-way is in excess of municipal need and recommends approval of this vacation subject to conditions of approval. In general reviewing, agencies had either no comment or no objection to the subdivision request. On August 10th, 2026, the Planning Department mailed 314 public hearing notices in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code 21-03-020-H3.

As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received public comments. The Government Hill Community Council did not provide comments. Attachment 2 includes the petitioner's affidavit of posting along with their application submittal to the Planning Department, and Attachment 3 includes all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the vacation and the plat subject to conditions found on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner's representative, Dave Hale, is in attendance.

Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff?

Miss Mills, go ahead. I'm sorry, I'm just so picky. Okay, um, just because I, I need to make sure that everybody's on the same page, and, um Um, there's multiple acreage figures, so on 3 different pages there's 3 different, um, gross acreage figures: 1603.2, 1606.95, 1609, 1609.1. What's the actual gross acreage, just so we can keep a nice clean record? Through the chair, Miss Mills, I will leave that to Mr. Hale because I'm sure as a surveyor he has that more accurate.

This is actually Sean's case. I'm not going to blame Sean for it, but I'm just helping him out. He's out down. So I'm not sure what the actual— I just know it's in the 600 range. How's that?

Oh yeah, I could see that, but I just, you know, it's just really good to have like, um, a nice clean, clean, correct gross net acreage just for record consistency. That's all I'm looking for. Through the chair, I will leave— Miss Mills, I will leave that to the petitioner to answer for me. Hopefully he's got it. Thank you.

Are there any additional questions of staff? Seeing none, we'll move to the petitioner's presentation. If you want to move— come forward.

Thank you. If you could state and spell your name for the record.

Yeah, hi, I'm Dave Hale, H-A-L-E. I'm representing the petitioner, Port of Anchorage. Great. You will have 10 minutes.

So yeah, we've been working with staff for a bit on this to make sure everybody was okay with the realignment of this right-of-way. So we have no objection to staff recommendations. I can answer any questions that you guys might have and save my time later if I need it for rebuttal, please.

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

I mean, if we want to keep this a really interesting meeting, I mean, I could always ask questions. Go for it. More like the— just because of like the extensive historical, geotechnical, all that kind of fun stuff. So I guess you guys will go through site-specific review and like the utilities and AWU, and, you know, these are all things that are still going to be part of this project, correct? Yeah, they're going to put a substation there, so there's going to be a whole bunch of scrutiny going on with that, and any improvements to the roads will be even more.

So actually realigning this thing takes it out of a lot of the topography, which makes it much more buildable, uh, and so it's— it actually works out pretty well. But yeah, this thing is going to be scrutinized to death as soon as they start the process. As far as the acreage goes, the preliminary plat is correct, the 606, what is it, 95. We've developed I don't know how many exhibits along the way, so it may be that some of those got in there and were not refined the way they should have been.

Thank you. Do we have any additional questions for the petitioner? Go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. This land fell within the Port Modernization Project and scope of work, wasn't it?

Kind of in their initial planning. I don't know that it's part of the actual— that project. There's a bunch of projects going on down there. The modernization with the T1, T2, those are separate. And then this for the substation is a different project, and it is what prompted this plat.

So the plat is actually a separate action as well. Yeah, I just seen— I recall when we were having the conversations on a modernization project speaking to this, and I remember there's a pretty extensive geotechnical survey and research done on that when they were planning out Phase 1. Through Phase 3 of the modernization project. I think this— I think some of that data encompassed, but— All right. Thank you.

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

Thank you. OK.

We'll now open the process up to public hearing.

Any—. Anyone here? No? OK. Lori, anyone on the phone? Tonight?

No? Okay, uh, we will go ahead and close the— sorry, any time for rebuttal? Okay, uh, we will go ahead and close the public hearing.

So as a reminder, we will need 2 votes on this one. Here we have a motion for the plat for the vacation, moved by Mr. Murka. Seconded by Ms. Mills. Mr. Markoe, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I move in Case S12908 to approve the vacation of a portion of the 80-foot right-of-way for Terminal Road, subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of the staff report.

Thank you. Would you like to speak to your motion? I intend to support the motion. All the conditions were met, um, and it seems like pretty straightforward case. Thank you.

Ms. Mills, would you like to speak to your second? Yeah, um, I intend to support this motion based on staff packet. Um, all the criteria has been met, and I'll mirror Mr. Murka's comments as well.

Thank you. We'll move to a vote.

Looks like we're having a technical issue here. It says that it was passed, but it's showing incorrectly here on the screen in front of us.

Oh, there it goes. Okay, do we have a vote from Mr. Quinn? Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yeah, thank you.

Thank you. May we have a motion for plat, uh, for the plat for 24 months?

Moved by Ms. Mills, seconded by Mr. Murka. Ms. Mills, would you like to speak, state your motion? Yeah, I move in case S12908 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to the conditions shown on page 5 of this staff report. Thank you. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, I intend to support this motion. Um, this action confirms the zoning and protected plans. Existing row is surplus only because equivalent replacement row is being dedicated. Replacement alignment is more suitable for future construction. Future northern access is preserved.

Traffic circulation is not impaired. Vacation does not affect protected grid or OS and HP corridors. And no reviewing agencies or public oppositions or Community Council oppositions. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Mirko, would you like to speak to your second?

I intend to support it, but nothing further to add. Thank you. We'll move to a vote.

Mr. Quinn, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

That has passed. We will now move on to any board member comments.

Any comments? No? Perfect. Can I get a motion to adjourn?

Moved by Ms. Mills, seconded by Mr. Mirko. We are adjourned.

Thank you, Skyler.

Thank you so much. Thanks for—. Thanks, everyone.