Anchorage Assembly: Platting Board: June 17, 2026 - 2026-06-17 18:30:00

Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call this June 17th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order. May we have roll call? Skyler Quinn. Here.

Patrick Jones. Present. Ashley Ploy. Present. Kyle Murka.

Present. Brenda Mills. Present. Kevin Cross. Present.

Sarah Catherine Bryan. You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. I do need to notify everyone that if you were here for case S12884, that case has been postponed to the July 1st meeting due to a scheduling conflict with the petitioner.

It's the one on Highland Road in Eagle River. So just want to mention that.

Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?

Move by Mr. Mirka, seconded by Mr. Jones.

Are there any corrections or objections to the approval of minutes? There's a correction. Oh, yes, Ms. Mills. On page 3, it was Board Member Jones who moved to go into committee of the whole.

Thank you, Miss Mills. That has been changed. Are there any other objections or corrections to the minutes?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

Next on the agenda is special order of business. Are there any disclosures?

Yes. Miss Mills. I have worked in my capacity as the paralegal for JDW Council by referring work directly to Steve Callahan. Um, who is presenting one of the planning actions today. I do not have a financial interest in this particular matter.

I've never referred or worked with him on any sort of residential. This is like a specific type of business that we've referred for site plan drafting based on his knowledge, but I do feel like I make a completely unbiased decision on any action. Do you have any personal gain No, none at all. Okay, and I think that S4 is on cases S12-882, S12-883, S12-891. Is that all of them?

To clarify, I've never worked directly with any other member of S4, just with Steve Callahan. Okay, given that you have no personal gain or financial interest in this, the ruling of the chair is that you can't participate unless there's an objection by this board. Seeing none, oh, Mr. Cross. Yeah, I just want to make sure, I want to disclose that although I was absent for the March 4th meeting, I did watch the YouTube video and caught up, so I can participate in the consent agenda and approve minutes. Thank you.

Just for clarification. Thank you, Mr. Cross. And Miss Mills, you can participate. Any other disclosures?

Seeing none, I have one myself, my standard one with S4. For case S12882, S12883, S12891. I have— our company has hired us for in the past to do miscellaneous survey work. I don't have any personal or financial gain in any of these cases that they've brought forth tonight. I have no knowledge of them other than what's in this packet.

And I'd ask that somebody on the board make a ruling if they would like me to participate or not. Thank you. Or sorry, make a motion for my participation. I move that you're able to act in all of those cases mentioned. Moved by Mr. Mirka.

Is there a second? Second by Mr. Jones. Let's call a vote.

With that, the motion passes, and I will be participating.

For information only, we have abbreviated plat action summaries dated 5/26/26. Do we have a motion to accept the abbreviated plat action summary?

Moved by Mr. Murka. Second by Miss Ploy.

If there's no objections, that is approved.

May we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Moved by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Cross. Is anyone wishing to pull an item for discussion?

Seeing none, are there any objections to the approval of the consent agenda? Seeing none, the consent agenda is approved. Moving on to public hearings, and I will read that process.

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 issue. 2, Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission Rules of Procedure. A, petitioners, including all his/her representatives, are given 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. B, representatives of 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 21.03.050A.4(a). 21.03.050A.4(a).

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 21.03.050.

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.

Moving on to new business. May we have staff's presentation in case S12880?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request to remove plat notes number 3 and 9 from plat P-386, Wentworth Subdivision Block 4, Lot 2. The purpose of the petitioner's request is to allow the owner to construct an accessory dwelling unit over the existing garage. The Planning Department supports the removal of plat notes number 3 and 9, as Anchorage Municipal Code, AMC Title 21, establishes— establishes residential district dimensional standards by use.

Plat note 3 reads as follows: buildings on other than business lots shall not be constructed or placed within 15 feet of the front boundary line line of lot 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. Plat Note Number 9 reads as follows: maximum of 2 buildings to a lot, only 1 of which may be used for habitation. All living units, whether single or duplex type, must be under 1 roof. Maximum of 1 2-family dwelling on each lot plus garage. The petitioner's request is to remove both plat notes so the structure would conform to current AMC Title 21 dimensional standards.

The original plat created in 1954 placed use and dimensional standards as plat notes during a time prior to municipal zoning regulations taking effect in 1970. AMC Table 2106-1, Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts, shows for the R-2M District a minimum area requirement of 6,000 square feet for up to 4 dwelling units. The lot size is 8,130 square feet with an existing duplex and detached garage. The front setback requirement is 20 feet, the rear setback is 10 feet, and the side setback is 5 feet. This property fronts East 43rd Avenue and has alley access on the rear.

The Planning Board must find the criteria listed in Anchorage Municipal Code AMC 21-03-200-G-9 are met for successful removal or modification of a plat note. These criteria are addressed in your staff report. Criteria A is met. Criteria B is met. And criteria C is met.

Reviewing agencies' comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 18 of your staff packet. There were no objections to the removal of these plat notes. Therefore, staff recommends approval of removal of plat notes 3 and 9, subject to conditions found on page 3 of the staff report. I can answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you.

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

I do have one. Can you clarify the Chugach Electric comments that were noted on page 3 there and then also on page, I believe, 24 was their actual note there? It's just kind of confusing because it says Chugach objects to the removal of plat note 3 as it pertains to the entire plat, but it would seem that 9 would do the same, right? I mean, unless I'm reading something wrong. Can you expand on that?

Through the Chair, Board Member Jones, I'm not sure why Chuetsch wrote this note because it only applies to this lot. It doesn't apply to the rest of the plat. And there was a previous— I don't know if you've driven Tudor lately, but there's a new construction right in the same area. They did the exact same thing. They had 3 and 9 removed a couple months ago.

So this does not affect the rest of the plat. Or any of Chugach's. So that comment's kind of an odd— I wonder if they thought it was more of a platting action, not just a plat note removal. Thank you for clarifying. Mm-hmm.

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

Yes, sir, I did have one additional. So in looking at 2505070B3BI, which was cited on page 23, It mentions that accessory uses can encroach into the rear setback in a condition where you have an alley. And looking at that code section, it just says that it can encroach. Obviously, this property is like 1.3 feet or something like that. It's quite close to the property line.

So is there any further direction or, you know, setback limitations that are spelled out anywhere in Title 21, or is it just it can, and as long as it works, it works? I think Through the chair, Board Member Jones, give me 2 seconds and I will find it. It's in Chapter 6. It allows encroach— sorry, it allows closer setbacks when there is an alleyway.

And I'm gonna find— here it is. A private garage or carport may project into a required side or rear setback abutting an alley. That is 21 06-030-C-2-F.

So again, it says that it can, but it doesn't tell you by how much, or—. It can actually go all the way to the property line. Okay. So it's just vague in that regard. Correct.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions of staff?

Seeing none, we are ready for the petitioner's presentation. Please come up to the podium and present.

And please state and spell your name for the record, and you're given 10 minutes. Hello. Can you turn your mic on, please? It's— there's a little button down below. It should turn— yep, there you go.

Hi, my name is Bron Solana, and it's B-R-O-N-S-O-L-A-N-N-A.

Um, I didn't really prepare a presentation, but yes, I'd like to remove the plat notes number 3 and 9 to allow construction of an ADU on top of the existing garage at the mentioned property. Um, I acquired the property in 2020. And rehabilitated it. Since then, it's been 100% occupied, and I'd like to exercise my right to construct an ADU on top of that building. And, uh, although— well, yeah, that's pretty much it.

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

Hearing none, we're going to open this up to public testimony. If there's anyone wishing to testify, maybe just— is there anybody in the public wishing to testify on this? Okay. Yep, not seeing anyone. If you want, you have 9 minutes and 13 seconds left to continue to plead your case.

Up to you.

I don't have very many comments about this. Okay. Um, do we have any final questions?

Okay, then we're gonna close the public hearing, and the matter now rests with the board. Do we have a motion for the plat note removal?

You can take a seat.

Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion? I move in Case S12880 to approve the removal of plat notes 3 and 4 from plat 136 for lot 2, block 4, Wentworth subdivision. And it says in here, it says 3 and 4, but isn't it 3 and 9?

3 And 9. Good catch. So I want to amend that and just make sure that's Plat Notes 3 and 9. Thank you. Working on that correction.

There we go. Mr. Cross, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, all 3 approval criteria for removal of the Plat Notes 3 and 9 have been met, and the department did not receive any comments from reviewing agencies or from the public objecting to the removal of plat notes 3 and 9. I also want to point out this is a plat note that is 74 years old. This is a problem that has plagued development in Anchorage, particularly since then we've done Title 21, we've done numerous zoning and changes, as well as updated our land use.

And so actually, you guys may or may not know this, the Anchorage Assembly is looking at an automatic expiration of plat notes after 50 years unless they're reinvigorated because— Mm-hmm. This causes a lot of delays and expense to the public when we have things that are nearly a century old and the demographics of the neighborhood have completely changed. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. I did not know that.

Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, thank you. I agree with Board Member Cross's summation on that. Agree that it meets the approval criteria for moving this and appreciate staff's clarification on the Chugach Electric note and also the code section requiring accessory uses. I intend to support this motion.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Anybody else wishing to add findings?

Oh, uh, Ms. Mills. Yes, um, thank you. Um, I intend to support this motion, um, but one thing I would like to, um, mention is that I intend to support this motion because AMC 2103-200 G9. It's not merely a preference for current code over older plot restrictions. I'm going to support this motion based on the fact that the original purpose of the plot notes has been superseded by municipal zoning regulations.

The equivalent or greater protections remain in place under Title 21, and no evidence in the record demonstrates adverse impacts to neighboring properties. Thank you. There was no public comments. There were no objections from reviewing agencies or the Community Council. Thank you, Ms. Mills.

Anybody else wishing to speak to this or add findings? Seeing none, let's call the vote.

And with that, the motion passes.

Moving on to Case S12882. Maybe we have staff's presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a preliminary plat to subdivide one lot into one lot with the vacation of a 30-foot roadway easement along the eastern and northern boundary of proposed Lot 1.

The owners have plans to develop the property as multifamily residential. The property is within the R-3 Mixed Residential Zoning District. The proposed lot meets the minimum lot size and width required by the R-3 Zoning District, and none of the reviewing agencies had any objection to the plat or the vacation. For road improvements, staff has requested a condition requiring the petitioner to dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way along the southern boundary of the proposed subdivision for Lakeshore Drive and not requiring road improvements at this time. In the matter of the vacation request, the petitioner has requested the vacation of that 30-foot roadway easement along the eastern northern boundary.

The proposed subdivision incorporates the vacated right-of-way into the lot and will provide a shared access agreement for the lot to the west of the subject property on Lakeshore Drive. In the matter of the standards, staff has found Condition 1 has been met. It will deny— not deny any access to the property, and roadway easement is not useful for vehicle circulation in this location. Staff has requested a condition of approval that the petitioner do enter into that shared access agreement for the owner of lot— or the owner at 3345 Lakeshore Drive prior to recording the plat. And the Traffic Engineering Department states in their comments that the easement is surplus as the easement, even if dedicated as right-of-way, does not connect to another right-of-way.

And would not serve its intended purposes. Staff finds Condition 2 has been met. This easement's interior to the development, and all properties have legal and physical access to a dedicated street. The vacated roadway easement is not necessary for any future street or future interior traffic circulation. Staff finds 3 and 4 have been met.

They're not on the half or quarter-mile grid. Staff finds Condition 5 and 6 are met. The vacation is not going to have any impact on traffic circulation. The existing street network provides adequate access to all the existing lots in the area. The vacated roadway easement will allow for development of the property without encumbering the design and allow the property owner to maximize the use of the property for residential housing.

The property to the west will retain access through that access agreement I've talked about, and agencies have expressed no objection to the request to vacate the easement on the subject property. Thank you. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this vacation and the plat subject to conditions 4 and 5 found on staff— the staff packet. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for that presentation.

Do we have any questions of staff? Yeah, I do. Ms. Mills. I'm sorry. So I was looking at this one, and I just needed to verify.

So the way that the petition site looks to me, it almost looks like a double flag lot. So does the resulting layout meet the frontage or access without a variance? Because I didn't see any specific citations to Title 21 in the staff report explaining how this plat configuration meets frontage and access requirements without a variance. So if you could, like, walk us through applicable code standards and how this layout satisfies those standards, especially given the shared access situation with 3345 Lakeshore Drive, that'd be great. Sure, thank you, Ms. Mills.

So the— as stated, it does meet the— it's the R3 zoning district, and it meets the minimum lot size and width. So the only flag portion of this would be the portion along Lakeshore Drive, which it meets that width And they're not changing the actual survey boundary of the lot. They're just vacating this access easement, and the lot's remaining the same size, which was a leftover remnant. It's never been platted. It's a— what we call an aliquot part.

So it's kind of a remainder parcel that's left. But it does meet everything. The back section there, it's not really a double flag. It's just that front portion is the flag portion. Okay.

And that meets all the requirements. And I believe the surveyor had looked into that prior. And then dedicate or entering into the access easement is going to provide the access for that garage at the house. Follow-up, Ms. Mills? No, I'll just listen to the petitioner presentation as well.

Thank you. Mr. Jones. Thank you. Can you clarify, when I was looking at the drawing here, it didn't— it wasn't immediately clear to me what the width of the actual flag is. It looked to align with the 30-foot roadway easement that's being vacated, but the only dimensional tag I see is down at the bottom.

It says 29.78 feet, and I don't know if it was— if that was directed towards the width of that section or not, but I know if the intended parcel is to be served by both water and sewer, it doesn't need to be 30 feet. Per the flag note specs, which was what, 2108, 030, K4 and 5. So just wanted to see, like, is there any sort of leeway with that if the 29.78 is indeed the dimension of that flag as it meets Lake Shore, or is that a missing dimension that we don't have? Sure. I believe the surveyor may be able to give you the exact dimension, but it does look like it's 29.78 as we look at page 19 of the staff packet, which, like I said, there's no— There's no way to— it's an existing parcel, and they're just vacating the roadway easement.

So there's no way they could— it has, like, nonconforming rights for the minimum subdivision standards. They didn't apply for it, but there was no way you could capture any other width because it's surrounded by platted parcels. As I said, it's an aliquot part, so that's the remainder. Now, the sewer and water— The surveyor may know. I'm not 100% sure they're all in Lake Shore Drive.

Maybe they are. That's something they may know. There may be a different route they're taking, or I'll let them answer that. Okay. I'll—.

But AWW didn't have any— in their comments, they didn't have any objections to the plat in action. Would that be like a condition of development where they have to ask for a variance if the—. I believe they'd have to work that out with AWW. Maybe they researched that and AWW had said, Well, it's an existing parcel, so it's— we're considering it served. Sure.

I mean, we're talking inches. I know it's not the end of the world, but just out of curiosity, how much— how firm they are on the 30-foot. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Any other questions of staff? Seeing none, we'll move on to the petitioner's presentation. Please come up and state and spell your name for the record, and you have 10 minutes. Good evening. Craig Bennett with S4, that's B-E-N-N-E-T-T. Staff did a great job of explaining it.

This is one parcel that's a remainder parcel. It's left over and we are, move that over, just vacating the easement is the main purpose of this and replatting the boundary. And as shown, it's 29.78 feet on the frontage. And there's a— it was an existing house on this property, already has water and sewer provided, but that'd be part of a site plan process. And we did reach out to AWU previously, and the engineers have already talked to them about that.

It all seems to be acceptable at this point, but that'd be part of the site plan process. Let's see. And page 19 has a detail of that. Let me see. Traffic had no objections.

None of the other reviewing agencies objected, and staff recommends approval. And with that, I'd just like to ask the board to vacate this easement. And are there any questions? Thank you. You have 8 minutes and 42 seconds left.

Do we have any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Murka. Just curious if you've already been working on a shared driveway plan with that neighbor. Yes. So the neighbor to the south has a garage with a driveway that comes in right off the road, and part of the— one of the conditions is we'll provide an access or a shared driveway easement with them, and we're dedicating, I believe, 30-foot— a frontage there also.

So it will be right— the first 30-foot will be right-of-way. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mirka. Any other questions?

Seeing none, I think that's it for now. We're going to open this up for public hearing. Is anyone in the public wishing to testify? Please come up to the podium, state and spell your name for the record, And you have 3 minutes. Thank you.

My name is Kristen Maves, M-A-V-E-S, and we occupy one of the homes along— there's 3 homes along the easement. And when we bought our property, we knew the easement was there, knowing that we would have a buffer for any future development. And we would like to preserve the easement to preserve the Lake Park neighborhood. And we're also very worried about drainage. In this area because when they cleared all the trees, they did not leave any buffer.

A couple owners ago, between the homes along the fence line where the easement is— and it was a completely tree lot when they cleared it— we have had more water coming into our backyard. Now that the lot is cleared, there's no tree roots and things, and there's— would be no buffer between us and the larger dwelling, multi-family dwelling that's going to go back there. So it will negatively impact our neighborhood when— if they remove the easement.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

Mr. Murka. Were you under the impression that an easement would not allow them to clear? We thought they had to leave a buffer, at least some, when they cleared. They cleared right up to the fence. Yes.

Yeah, I think the only thing I would clarify is that's not necessarily what this board will determine whether or not they— what they can do with that lot. But this particular easement would not have prevented them from clearing it even if this platting action is not moved forward. They would still be able to clear all of that area. So— Right. But without the easement, there's no buffer between any future building, which we knew they would eventually develop the lot.

And the housing development on the other side. Yeah. There's 3 homes, and 2 of them have a small portion up against the fence, and then the 3rd house has the entire fence line. So they will be entirely impacted with building up close to the fence. Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Murka. Just another thing to point out, they will have to go— they will have to develop a drainage plan where they model pre and post development, and there's a a whole process that takes place just after this on how they're able to develop it. So the drainage will be studied and reviewed heavily, just as an FYI. Any other questions?

Seeing none, appreciate you coming out, and thanks for your— thanks for testifying. Thank you.

Anyone else in the public wishing to testify?

Seeing none, going to close the public hearing. Oh, sorry, um, do we— do you have any rebuttal? Just that, correct, there will be a drainage plan required to any development, and there will be some sort of buffer just required by the zoning code. Between a building and a property line. And any questions for me?

Thank you. Any final questions of the petitioner?

Thank you. Okay, seeing none, um, I'm going to close the public hearing. The matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion? Moved by Mr. Jones.

Second by Mr. Mirka. Mr. Jones, can you state your motion? Yes, I move in Case S12882 to approve the vacation elimination of a 30-foot roadway easement, Book 938, Page 44, along the eastern and northern boundary of Proposed Lot 1, subject to the conditions shown on Page 5 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, I intend to support the motion. Obviously, this is specifically designated as a roadway easement, which, you know, clearly based on the development in the area won't be needed. And I think staff has done a good job presenting here. Again, in looking at the comments that we heard this evening, definitely understanding to that and want to be mindful of that. There is two notes that would be placed on the plat specific to drainage.

And as was mentioned before, there would be setbacks that will help prevent the buildings being built right up on the property line. There are setbacks that'll prevent that a little bit. But yeah, I do intend to support the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Mr. Murko, would you like to speak to your second? I think Mr. Jones summed it up perfectly well. I plan on supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Murka. Mr. Cross, would you like to add findings?

Yeah, I was just going to state, in addition to the vacation request, that this is a vacationing of a right-of-way road easement. And so I understand the public's concern, but there already was a right to build a road there. It is not a landscaping or a green buffer easement. So there's a distinctive use in what kind of easement we're we're getting rid of. So actually, I think they would rather have— I mean, we're not getting rid of a greenbelt easement or a setback easement.

We're getting rid of a road easement, which I think I would prefer not having a road, I guess, behind my house. Thank you. Sorry, I do have one additional finding I'd like to add with the clarification that the— and also shown as plat note B-1 Resolve Utilities means I'm confident that they'll work with AWU on the Flag Lot dimension there, work out any dimensional things that need to be worked out, and get approval from AWU if it's less than they would normally do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Ms. Mills. Yeah, I intend to support this motion. It's consistent with zoning and comprehensive plan. Staff did an amazing job at looking up all of these potential issues. Definitely want to mirror Board Member Cross and Board Member Jones' comments.

It's a roadway easement. It's a surplus to public need. The easement is not required by official streets and highways plan. Adequate access will be maintained. Traffic circulation will not be adversely affected.

Utility and municipal interests are protected. There's no comments or concerns from the community council, and none of the reviewing agencies had any issues. Thank you, Ms. Mills. Any other findings that— or anybody else want to mention anything else? Seeing none, let's call the vote.

With that, the motion passes. And now we need a motion for the plat.

Move by Mr. Jones, second by Mr. Murka. Mr. Jones, can you state your motion? Yes, I move in case S12882 to approve the plat for 24 months, subject to the conditions shown on page 5 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Uh, nothing additional to add, uh, from the— what was originally stated. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Murka, would you like to speak to your second? Nothing to add. Thank you, Mr. Murka.

Let's call the— I guess I'll ask anybody wishing to Add findings. OK. Let's call the vote.

With that, the motion passes.

Moving on to case S12882. May we have staff's presentation? Or sorry, S12883. May we have staff's presentation? OK.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is S12883. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Eklutna Center Subdivision. So it's a preliminary plat to subdivide 3 tracts into 2 lots with variances from legal and physical access and peripheral street improvements.

So the plat would create 2 lots in the Eklutna Village. Proposed lot 2 of this subdivision is planned to be the site of the future Eklutna Gathering Center. Approval of both variances would permit deviation from requirements for all lots to have physical access and to construct Woodspruce Street as a peripheral street. So the petitioner proposes to dedicate right-of-way for Woodspruce Street and construct improvements to Indian Chief Court, as well as a portion of Woodspruce Street onto Lot 2 with appropriate fire turnaround. Second.

So the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and width required by the Chugiak/Eagle River R7 zoning district. None of the reviewing agencies had any objection to the final— to the plat variances. For the road improvements and dedications, Indian Chief Court and Woods Bruce Street will be— one of those will be constructed as a 24-foot-wide strip paved with 4-foot shoulders and ditches on both sides of the roadway. With fire turner hammer— turnaround hammerheads as per Private Development's condition. So the Planning Department is placing a condition of approval for the preliminary plat that prior to final plat approval, the petitioner shall enter into a sublease agreement with Private Development for the required public improvements.

So for the variance request, variance— the first variance for legal and physical access has been met. The petitioner is requesting not to improve the section of Woodspruce Street that would provide the access to Lot 1. Legal access is established by the subdivision plat and by dedicating 33 feet of right-of-way. The second variance, that's for peripheral streets, and it's a requirement for improvement of peripheral streets, and the petitioner is requesting to— not to improve Woodspruce Street in relation to Lot 1. They're going to construct a fire turnarounds and access to Lot 2.

So the future improvements for Lot 1 will happen at the time that they decide to develop Lot 1. Staff has found that Condition A has been met, standards met for both the variances. The Woodspruce Street right-of-way provides legal access to undeveloped Occlutna land to the north. It would be unreasonable to construct the full length of the right-of-way with no development plans for Lot 1. The petitioner will construct access and improvements to Lot 2.

Staff finds Condition B has been met for both variances. Granting the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area. There is legal access to all the remaining properties and parcels surrounding this development by the dedication of Wood Spruce Street, which is going to take place with this plat. Uh, Condition C has been met for both variances. The surrounding developed properties have constructed access.

This dedication of Woodsboro Street will provide the legal access to Lot 1 to the north and for the construction of the physical road at a later time. Staff finds Condition D has been met for both variances. The property would be subject to a substantial additional cost developed with strict compliance with the subdivision regulations. The full 880-foot length of improvements would be at a hardship as the Klutna Gathering Center will construct and take access for Lot 2 at the intersection of Indian Chief Court at the southern end of this lot. So granting the variances will allow for the planned construction on Lot 2.

Future road construction will take place when development of Lot 1 occurs while providing the necessary dedications of rights-of-way. So with that being said, staff recommends approval of the variances found on page 6 and 7 of the staff report. If we look at page 9, maybe— I don't know if you guys get the full-size plat, but if you look at page 9, it's not labeled, but Woodspruce Street runs north-south there along that dotted line. So they're going to dedicate that with this plat, and then Indian Chief Court comes off of a Clute and a drive, and they're going to construct that to get to Lot 2, and they'll have the Fire and Traffic and Private Development are okay with them constructing the hammerhead turnarounds that they've shown in their plans. I'm happy to answer any questions, and the petitioner and representative are here tonight.

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

Seeing none, move on to the presentation. Please come up to the podium, state and spell your name for the record. You have 10 minutes. Good evening again. Craig Bennett with S4BENETT.

Staff did another great job on this one. It's a subdivision in Eklutna Village of about 18 acres creating 2 parcels. We're asking for 2 variances, and we're dedicating right-of-way on the east side— or the west side, sorry. We agree with all of staff's comments. There were no department objections.

All the standards are shown to be met for the variances, and staff recommends approval of this one. And, um, staff did a pretty good job explaining why the variances are met, why the standards are met for them, and I'm just here to see if there's any questions. The board has. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of the petitioner?

Seeing none, you have 9 minutes and 10 seconds of rebuttal. Um, like to open this up to public testimony. Is there anyone in the public wishing to testify?

Please state and spell your name for the record. Good evening, Curtis McQueen, M-C-Q-U-E-E-N. Good to see you. Kevin. I have worked for, with, and alongside the Eklutna people, most of it with Eklutna Inc., for over 21 years. I was the CEO for 15 years, right through 2019.

I have a lot of history in what the Gathering Centre is, so I thought I'd share a little bit of that because our council is really excited about this project. It has been a dream for 30 years. People who might know the Eklutna Inc. board on the land side and the tribal side of Native Village of Eklutna are the same people. So we share the same people on both boards and councils. So this has been a project that the corporation and the tribe have been working for, for a long time.

And we're really excited about it. The overlay district was not our idea initially, but we were really fortunate. We were being celebrated I want to say maybe 2011, 2012, by the things that the Eklutna people have contributed to this community. Many people know the 5 school sites, Chugiak High School. The Eklutna people own that land.

They only charge $10 a year. When we've stepped up to make land available, they've done that for Eagle River growth. But the village has always supported the corporation. The only thing the village ever asked from the corporation is to leave the village land very traditional, very rural. The Tlingit people, when they settled there 1,500 years ago, they never would have imagined a municipality of Anchorage growing up on one side and a Matsu on the other.

So it's a beautiful little area. They open it up every other year for the big powwow, which will be in August this year. So it's a great time to come down and check that out. But they wanted to develop a modern building but to leave a very traditional feel. Feel very village-like.

So this is our first project with the overlay district, and we're really, really excited about it. I'm the owner's rep on this project. I was asked by the Eklutna folks to put the team together. We're using our own construction company from the corporation. Sorry, I'm just going to cut you off real quick.

Since you just said you are an owner's rep, you're given 5 minutes. Oh. So we're going to increase your time. Okay, thank you. There you go.

Thank you. So yeah, so we, um, we built a couple construction companies on the corporate side And then started to work with the village to try to make their dreams come true. And we built the clinic, which is open to everybody and veterans, and that's been very successful. You see that when you pass the highway there. The gathering center is right behind that.

We did the Ernie Turner Center, which is a treatment plant up at Clutna Lake Road, and we also took down the lower dam all about the same time. But we've never done our own office building. And this is going to be a multiple personality. Mm-hmm. It's an office building where we consolidate our programs, but it's also going to have a cultural component to it.

That's why we call it the Gathering Center, so that we can gather there. The other thing that after the 2018 quake, we decided that we were going to design the building— and we have Stantec, our architects here— to a place where the entire village can muster, gather in an emergency. So it'll be a place where if, you know, a big event happened, the village could go to that building. So it's been designed for that. So it's evolved, but it's— we're really excited about that.

So we've cleared the site, we're looking forward to bringing heavy equipment in here real soon, and I can answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have any questions?

Seeing none, that was very informative. Thank you for that presentation, or that testimony.

Anyone else in the public wishing to testify on this?

Seeing none, um, do you want to use your rebuttal time of 9 minutes and 10 seconds to go over anything? Okay. Uh, do we have any final questions of the petitioner? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. It's now at rest with the board.

Do we have a motion?

Moved by Ms. Mills, seconded by Mr. Cross. Ms. Mills, can you state your motion? I move in Case S12883 to approve a variance from AMC 2108030E, legal and physical access. A subdivision shall have legal and physical access and a variance from AMC 2108050F2, peripheral streets, improvement of peripheral streets when necessary for efficient flow of traffic or emergency vehicle access, subject to the conditions shown on page 6 of the staff report. Thank you.

Ms. Mills, would you like to speak to your motion? No. Staff did a good job at this one. I think that based on the department's recommendation and— the findings for the variance. I tend to support this.

However, I will clearly state that I'm only going to support these variances because they allow infrastructure to be phased in coordination with actual development demand. Requiring immediate construction of an 880-foot roadway segment to serve an undeveloped future parcel would result in infrastructure that is not presently needed.

For access, traffic circulation, or emergency response while preserving the municipality's ability to require such improvements when development of Lot 1 occurs. I will not support a variance if it's based on finance, just for the record. Thank you, Ms. Mills. Mr. Cross, would you like to speak to your second? Yes.

Variant requests typically have a much more stringent application process, and I will point out on pages 5 and 6, they've met all standards. There are special circumstances, conditions affecting the property that such strict application and provision of the subdivision regulations could clearly be impractical, unreasonable, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will not have a nullifying effect on the intent and purpose of the subdivision, and it is creating undue hardship due to strict compliance. So I'll be voting for it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross.

Anybody else wishing to add findings? Mr. Jones? Yeah, I will also add I wholeheartedly support Item B on page 5 where it talks about the detrimental to building the road that's not needed at this time. I feel like if you give the public that much road, it's just an invitation for, you know, people to go back there and nefarious acts, dump, do whatever. So I think not doing that at the time would really be the best decision.

So I definitely agree that the variances have been met and definitely on that one specifically would definitely support that motion on that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Anybody else wishing to add findings? Seeing none, let's call the vote.

With that, the motion passes. And now do we have a motion for the plat?

Moved by Ms. Ploy. Seconded by Mr. Jones. Ms. Ploy, can you state your motion?

Yes. I move in Case S12883 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to the conditions shown on page 6 and 7 of the staff report. I don't have much to say on that one. Thank you, Miss Ploy. I missed those last comments.

Would you like to speak to it? Okay. Uh, Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your second? I have no additional add. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Anybody else wish to add findings to this? Seeing none, let's call the vote.

With that, the motion passes.

Case S12883 was— yeah, sorry, 84 was delayed. So we're moving on to S12891. We have staff's presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a request to modify plat note number 4. Of plat 2025-38 Turnigan Crossing subdivision lot 1. Modification of the plat note will allow the property owner more flexibility when designing a site plan for a multifamily residential development. Current plat note number 4 reads as follows: direct vehicular access to the unnamed alley from lot 1 shall require peripheral improvements to bring the alley into conformance with the current municipal standards. Proposed modification reads as follows: The unnamed alley shall not be used for principal access until such time that the alley is improved to municipal standards.

Secondary access to the unnamed alley directly from garages is permitted. 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. Criteria A is met. Criteria B is met. Criteria C— C is met.

Reviewing agencies' comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 16 of your packet, staff packet. There are no objections to the modification of this plat note. Therefore, staff recommends approval to modify plat note 4, subject to the conditions found on page 3 of the staff report. I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner's representative is in attendance. Thank you, staff, for the presentation.

Do we have any questions of staff?

I will ask, how are we defining principal access? Because without— I guess without seeing a design of how they're looking to develop it, I mean, if there's— if they're all going to be townhouse-style units, say, with garages, you know, that face that road and no other ruled access off of, you know, Barbara and that cul-de-sac bowl, then I mean, that really would be primary access then. But if it's going to be, no, there'll be another roadway coming in off the cul-de-sac bowl and this is just going to be for the garage access, then okay. But I guess it's kind of hard to look at it and say without knowing what the design is. I mean, has there been any discussion on design?

Do we know what that's going to look like? Through the Chair, Board Member Jones, there have been a couple different iterations The plans that the developer has presented, the latest iteration, I believe, has a drive off of Barbara that is a central drive. So there'll— so it'd be a central court type scenario where all the, all the fronts, I guess you could say, would face that internal street, and then the garages on the south side would just take access from the alleyway.

Does that help?

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any other questions of staff?

Seeing none, I think we can move on to the petitioner's presentation.

Please come up to the podium, state and spell your name for the record. You have 10 minutes.

Yeah, still Craig Bennett, B-E-N-N-E-T-T. Nice short one. Staff did a great job. Again, looking to remove a plat note number 4. And what it is is the primary vehicular access, that's for an internal street. So that will come off— well, we don't really have a full site plan yet.

We're waiting for this plat note to be able to move forward with the site plan. But it would come off from the cul-de-sac., an internal street for a condo development or a multi-family development. And no objections. Staff recommends approval. Here for more questions.

Thank you. You have 9 minutes and 17 seconds left for rebuttal. Do we have any questions of the petitioner?

Seeing Mr. Mirka? No. Okay, um, seeing none, open this up to public testimony. Anyone in the public is wishing to testify, please come to the podium and state and spell your name for the record.

Okay, seeing none. Um, okay, no rebuttal. Uh, any final questions? Seeing none, close the public hearing on this item. The matter rests with the board.

Uh, do we have a motion? Move by Mr. Jones, second by Mr. Murka. Mr. Jones, can you state your motion? Yes, I move in case S12891 to approve the modification of plat note 4 of plat 2025-38 for Turnagain Crossing subdivision lot 1 to state the unnamed alley shall not be used for principal access Until such time that the alley is improved to municipal standards, secondary access to the unnamed alley directly from garages is permitted, subject to the conditions shown on page 3 of the staff report. Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, thank you. I don't object to this, to this motion. I intend to support it. The one clarification that I needed that staff was able to provide us was kind of defining principal access and giving us the assurance that they have seen seen some preliminary site plans and something will be— primary access for the units, rather, will come off of Barbara and it will just be garages. Without seeing that, it was hard to know that without that clarification.

But otherwise, I intend to support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Murka, would you like to speak to your second? Just that I intend to support.

Thank you, Mr. Murka. Anybody else wishing to add findings? Ms. Mills. Yes, I would like to just add that I intend to support the motion based on staff's findings, the approval conditions ABC under 2103-200(G)(9) 2103-200(G)(9) are met. I would like to just clarify for the record, I will support this motion because the proposed development obtains principal vehicular access from Barber Street.

The alley no longer serves access function anticipated when plat note number 4 was adopted. Allowing secondary garage access while retaining the prohibition on principal access preserves the original public safety and circulation objectives without requiring unnecessary alley improvements. I'm mentioning this because cost prohibitive is not an AMC approval criterion, um, which we should be basing our approvals on. Thank you, Ms. Mills. Anybody else wishing to add findings?

Seeing none, I will pass the gavel over real quick and speak to it. I agree with all the fellow board members' comments. I will also be voting to support this. But I do think that— I mean, I agree with staff's analysis that because of the principal access coming off of the cul-de-sac, this does meet that requirement. But I think that this board should think very hard about plat notes in the future.

Because I think that this is a ridiculous requirement, this, that this plat note was put on this plat to cover, to encompass the entire block. It would make this just completely uneconomic. So I just think that we should pay a lot of attention to future plat notes to try to, try to prevent something that would be difficult to be undone at a later date. Um, with that, anybody else wishing to say anything? Mr. Cross?

Yeah, plat notes and special limitations plague our land use. They're all over the place. It's a big part of what we do here. And it would be nice that in some of these examples that are just blatantly obvious that more authority isn't given to the building department to expedite removing them. I completely agree.

Any final findings? Seeing none, let's call the vote.

With that, the motion passes.

And, um, do we have any board member comments?

Seeing none, do we have a motion to adjourn? Move. Uh, moved by Mr. Cross. Second. By Miss Mill.

She beat Mr. Jones. We are adjourned.

The size of these plants. Yeah, I know. It's like opening up during the presentation. I know. For a second, I'm like, what are you doing?