Anchorage Assembly: Platting Board: August 5, 2026 - 2026-08-05 18:30:00

We'll call this August 5th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order. May we have roll call? Skyler Quinn. Here. Sarah Catherine Bryan.

Here. Patrick Jones. Present. Ashley Ploy. Present.

Kyle Murca. Present. Brenda Mills. Present. Kevin Cross.

Present. You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. May we have a motion and second to reorder the agenda to hear agenda item F1B before F1A?

So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Mr. Mirka. Uh, if there's no objections, the motion's passed. Or any objection?

Okay, hearing none. Uh, can we have a motion to approve the minutes of June 17th and July 1st?

Moved. Okay, sorry.

Moved by Miss Mills.

Oh, second by— who's it moved by? Oh, moved by Mr. Cross, second by Miss Mills. Uh, are there any corrections or objections to the approval of minutes?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

Uh, next on the agenda is special order business. Do we have any disclosures?

Mr. Mirka, I, I was absent from the July 1st meeting but have listened and watched, so I'll be participating in the consent agendas. Thank you, Mr. Mirka. Any other disclosures? And I was also absent from from the July 1st meeting, and so I will be abstaining from voting on the consent agenda. Thank you, Miss Catherine Bryan.

I myself have my standard disclosure. We've used S4, who's the— who's involved in case S12889 in the past. I'd ask for— I don't have any financial gain or personal knowledge of this case, and I would ask for somebody to make a motion to see if I should be able to participate. So move. Move by Mr. Mirka.

Second. Second by Mr. Jones. We will call the—.

Are there any objections from Chair Quinn participating tonight?

Seeing none. We move that he can participate. Thank you.

Taking the gavel back.

For information only, we have abbreviated plat action summaries dated 7/13/26 and 7/20/26. Do we have a motion to accept the abbreviated plat action summaries?

Moved by Mr. Murkoff, seconded by Mr. Jones.

Um, actually, these are just approved, right?

Are there any objections?

Hearing none, that is approved. Uh, may we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

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

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

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved. Moving on to public hearings.

The procedure by which the public may speak to the Planning Board at its meeting is: 1, after the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for a public testimony— will ask for public testimony on the issues 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 C, individuals are given 3 minutes.

3, When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board. 4, Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the board's decision made on the record. A written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21.03.050A.4.a. Following 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. The appellant is not the applicant. The appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

Moving on to public hearings, or new business of public hearings, may we have staff's presentation in case S12901?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this, uh, Plat— or this removal here, basically what's happening is on Lot 4, it's a pretty narrow wedge shape. There's a lot of items there on the front of the lot. What this case is going to do is we're going to remove the 30-foot screening easement that was placed in 1981, and then we're going to— the current Title 21 has a 25-foot landscape requirement that's going to just be by code, and then they're going to come in later by book and page and remove that telephone and communications easement because the new code allows those to overlap.

Um, so here I'll begin with my staff report to kind of explain things. So it's going to be a request to remove plat note number 3 from plat 202451 for Alpine View Estates, and this is lot 4. And the— like I mentioned, the purpose is to allow the owner to construct a multi-family or just a residential dwelling on the lot. The Planning Department supports the removal of the plat note, as Title 21 establishes similar protections in AMC 2109.0706B for vegetation retainment regulations within 25 feet of the Alaska Highway, and it also accepts, uh, accommodates driveway utility easements or utilities located by permit in that section of code. So if they remove plat note number 3 so the property owner can build a residential development within the GR-4 multifamily Residential Zoning District.

This will allow more buildable area on the lot. It is very narrow wedge-shaped and encumbered by this screening easement and the 20-foot telecommunications and electric easement. So staff finds that all 3 criteria have met— have been met. Criteria A, the plat note— conditions that require the plat note have changed because the regulations established by site development and design standards in Title 21 A, such as the setback area vegetation with Alieska Highway frontage standards, did not exist or apply to the property when the original plat note was created. The original screening easement was done by document 1981, and the plat notes at that time afforded protections in the absence of land use regulations.

Now we have this highway screening protection through a 25-foot landscape buffer. Criteria B's been met. Modification of the plat note will not have a negative effect on neighboring properties. As I mentioned, the Title 21 landscaping requirements will remain in place with removal of the plat note, and that, uh, Item C has been met. It would—.

Plat 2024-51 will continue to meet the approval criteria for subdivisions. So the Planning Department recommends approval of removal of plat note number 3, and we feel that, uh, removal of that 30-foot screening easement and then the 25-foot, uh, Title 21 current code requirement meets the intent of any type of screening. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?

Hearing none, ready for the petitioner's presentation. Please come up, state and spell your name for the record. You are given 10 minutes. Make sure you turn the mic on, please. Thank you.

Through the chair, members of the board, my name is Tony Hoffman. I'm representing the petitioner tonight. Mr. Russell Fitzwater is the owner of Lot 4. Um, I think staff has done a really good job talking about this. We're just trying to reduce the, um, the 50 feet is what we're dealing with for a setback.

Right now the way it's configured, and we're just trying to reduce that to a reasonable 20-foot ease— T&E easement ultimately is where it'll be when we get rid of this note. And then we move the easement, and if you look on page 15, you can see, see what we're talking about. That 15-foot or the 20-foot T&E easement, then after we remove this note, will be pushed back onto the right-of-way. So we'll— that'll be our setback, our or the 25-foot vegetative buffer will be controlling then. So we can have the teeny easement in that, in that veggie, that buffer.

But, you know, the other side of it is there's no— the utilities are all in, so there's no— there's not going to be a lot of destruction of this or anything here, as the electric's already been fed into the property and it comes around the back of the lot. So this is just about opening up that wedge-shaped piece right there for a better constructability. So with that, also with me tonight is the developer and owner of the rest of the lots, Tim Cabana, who couldn't speak to the buildability, but buildability, if, if, if the board has any questions. Other than that, I think I'll retain my time. Thank you for that presentation.

Do we have any questions?

Hearing none, you have 8 minutes and 24 seconds of rebuttal time. Thank you. We will open this up to public testimony. Is there— are there any members of the public wishing to testify? If so, please come up and state and spell your name for the record.

Not seeing any movement. Um, okay, do we have any final questions of the petitioner?

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion for the plat note removal?

Move by Mr. Jones, second by Miss Mills. Mr. Jones, can you state your motion? Yes, I move in case S12901 to approve the removal of plat note 3 from plat 2024-51 for lot 4, Alpine View Estates subdivision, phase 4, subject to the conditions shown on page 3 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, uh, as I think this is pretty straightforward. I have no objection. I intend to support it. I agree with staff's findings in this that all the criteria of 2103-200G-9 have been met. Seems like a very reasonable accommodation to be able to get this lot into a more developable place for its intended purpose.

So I intend to approve. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Ms. Mills, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, I intend to support this motion based on the facts that Plot Note 3 requires retention of undisturbed vegetation within 30-foot screening easement, and the petitioner has sufficiently shown that the— this plot note has been superseded because of Gridwood Code, which now independently protects vegetation within 25 feet of the Eliasca Highway row.

All reviewing agencies either had no objection, no comment, including private development, DOT, Chugach OnStar, Ro, and, um, water and sewer. No evidence in the record suggests adverse impacts on neighboring properties, and the plat otherwise remains compliant with subdivision standards. Thank you, Miss Mills. Is there anyone else wishing to add findings? Mr. Cross?

Yes, I also tend to support removal of the plat note. Um, again, it's important to note that the 30-foot Setback was established before Title 21 gave the 25-foot within code, and so it's in excess of public need, so I will be supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Anyone else wishing to add findings?

Seeing none, let's call the vote.

With that, the motion passes.

Moving on to case S12889, may we have staff presentation?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request for a subdivision of 2 lots into 2 with a request for vacation of the public use easement 2016-013104-0. Any easements requested by the utilities will replace the vacated public use easement. Reviewing agencies have no objections to the proposed vacation or preliminary plat.

The Municipal Traffic Engineering Department right-of-way section have no objections to the right-of-way vacation. On May 11, 2026, the Planning Department mailed 75 public hearings in accordance with the AMC Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.200h.3. As of the— as of this writing, the Planning Department has received 10 public comments against the vacation of this easement. The Glen Alps Community Council provided resolution opposing the vacation of the easement. The vacation request.

The proposed platting action is creating 2 lots from 2 and requesting vacation of the public use easement. Highland Road is a collector. The 2026 recreational trails plan does not map the trail reported by the Glen Alps Community Council and the public comments. The Hillside District Plan maps the trail along Canyon Road, but the easements on the side of the road opposite to the subject parcel highlight an abundance of right-of-way for the trail to pass through. Private development does not require additional improvements.

The vacation request has been reviewed and found to be confirmed— found to conform to the municipal vacation policy and meets all 6 criteria. It meets criteria 1, as the public use easement is surplus to current and future public needs. There exists no trailheads, mapped trailheads, on the subject lots. There are large easements along Canyon Road on the bank opposite to the subject lot, which alongside the right-of-way provide no valid— which provide a valid alternative for the trail to pass through. Uh, this meets criteria 2.

The public use easement shown to be vacated on the preliminary plat is not part of the official streets and highways plan. The easement is interior to the development, and all properties have legal and physical access to a dedicated street. The vacated public use easement is not necessary for any future street or for future interior traffic circulation. It meets criteria 3. The subject right-of-way is not lying on a half-mile grid.

Existing rights-of-way front and provide access to all properties. It also meets criteria 4: the subject right-of-way is not lying on a quarter-mile grid, and again, existing right-of-way front and provide access to all properties. It meets criteria 5: this vacation will not have any impact on traffic circulation. The subject properties will have unchanged access to public right-of-way after the proposed subdivision. It also meets criteria 6: this vacation will not change access of right-of-way for subject properties, as does not impa— and does not impact traffic circulation.

Agencies have expressed no objection to the request to vacate the public use easement 2016-013104-0, and the utility companies will have the opportunity to request easements as part of this process. Therefore, the Planning Department believes that the public use easement is in excess of municipal need and recommends approval of this vacation subject to the conditions of approval.

Recommendations: the staff recommends approval of the vacation on the plat subject to conditions found on page 4 of the staff report. I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner's representative is in attendance. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?

Mr. Jones? Yeah, I have a few questions on this one. So I would appreciate a little bit more backstory. Um, in doing some preliminary research on this, this looked like it had already come across the Planning Board's desk back in 2020, case S-12545.

Denied. Can you give me a little bit more backstory as to how this is coming back around and, and why, I guess? Through the chair, Mr. Jones, um, I might have to refer a little bit to the survey on record. I believe we, we— so originally, the way that these POEs came about is the municipality had to acquire these public use easements because there was no dedicated right-of-way. The municipality did that.

You can see kind of on page 23, there was 3 2 PUEs that were acquired. Then Canyon View Estates came in for the subdivision, and they— it was a very long process. It was appealed, but they— the Planning Action requested vacation of the 2 PUEs in lieu of dedicating right-of-way. So we— the Planning Board at the time approved the vacation of the the PUEs and dedicating of that right-of-way. This remaining portion was just going to be a Tract A, just a remainder tract on the plat.

And the plat recorded, and then the owner had the surveyor come back and through the abbreviated plat process, because it met the requirements, subdivided it into 2 lots. The PUE still stood over that because that was not part of the original request. And now we're here before us today to take the two lots and vacate that PUE because they want to construct a second house there. So, so, uh, and the surveyor can correct me if I'm wrong, but that was— I believe the original request was for those two. And then, um, but there was a bunch of— there was a bunch of appeals that were.

Filed at the time. So it's a very thick and very lengthy previous platting case. Yeah, I found that to be the case when I was going through as well. There was quite a bit in that packet though that this PUE was also for drainage and other considerations, and I think part of it was also— and that in that document, I'm kind of going back from memory when I reviewed it last month, but there was a considerable amount of right-of-way that was supposed to be given as, you know, with that PUE that I don't think happened to the extent that it was originally going to happen. Um, correct.

So, uh, well, I'm sorry to cut you off there. When, when the, when the municipality— we can see on 23, it's very wide. So when the municipality originally, uh, acquired this PUE, they were unsure. Uh, I believe Mr. Rahaly wouldn't let them survey it. I don't know exactly the whole history.

So they acquired more kind of, uh, PUE, not knowing what the road, where it would go, kind of, if that, for improvements and where it was. So you can see that there's a very large amount of PUE. But then when they came in with the subdivision, the surveyor surveyed all that in and dedicated, I believe, 70 feet of right-of-way, um, in the, in the, you know, in the exact location of where the road is today. So we were able to vacate that. And I think that was just the agreement, that large— if you look at page 23, that large triangle piece there there is what they acquired from Don Rahaley, his family.

It was what they— just what they— the agreement that was— that took place. And then to answer your question about drainage, I believe the surveyor is going to be able to answer that, which is the— part of the reason for the request tonight is to— for drainage and the placement of the home and the fact that— I'll let Craig Bennett kind of explain it further. This will be able to push the house away and be able to do more drainage in the back of the lot.

And it should be noted that part of the original platting action was to build a pathway, and that was built out there along Canyon View Road.

Not on this PUE, but just on the road. It's within the right-of-way, yeah. And I think I should also add, Ari and I had spoken to Right of Way before the meeting, and we asked them, you might hear tonight, about maybe social trails that exist on there and some other issues. Right of Way mentioned, Mike Walters, he stated that there's been no Right of Way PM&E project constructed trail in that public use easement. Social trails may exist, but not any formal MOA project.

No utilization of the right of way Project has happened. It is in excess to municipal need as there is dedicated right-of-way and a constructed trail as part of the original subdivision agreement with dedicated right-of-way through this subdivision. Um, so last, uh, last question that I have for staff is when, when this stuff is purchased and negotiated, obviously the MOA purchased it from private entities, so I assume taxpayer dollars were spent on this PUE. So is there, you know, how does this process normally work? And I mean, is this— is there compensation by the petitioner when it comes back to the city, or is this just, okay, here's your, here's your land back, you know, thanks?

Yeah, um, it's basically they've dedicated their portion of the right-of-way. So we, we were—. It's—. I don't know if it's called in lieu of, but it's basically that we're vacating the PUEs just like we did in the previous plat for that big section. But in that happening, they have to dedicate 70 feet of right-of-way.

There's no compensation. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Ms. Mills? Yes, a question for staff.

Just so we can just clarify and clear this up. So AMC 2103-230 requires the board to determine whether the public use easement is surplus to present and future public need. So other than testimony that, um, public comment that members of the public currently walk across the easement, is there any adopted municipal plan recorded purpose agency recommendation, or other substantial evidence demonstrating that this easement remains necessary for a present or reasonably foreseeable public use.

Through the chair, I believe it's not on any recorded plans. The only plan which shows a certain part of Canyon Road to have a trail sort of situation thingy would be, uh, the Hillside District Plan, Hillside Development Plan, and that just generally lists that section of Canyon Road. Not necessarily that section of property. And since it's just Canyon Road along which that this is sort of mapped out, I believe that the right-of-way that's present, uh, right-of-way sort of, uh, dedication that's present across the road should be suitable enough to satisfy that needs. So in conclusion, the amount of— so amount of dedication that exists right now on this, the easement that exists right now on this plot, on the subdivision would be in surplus to requirements.

Okay, um, I have a quick follow-up. Okay, um, so if the board were to deny this petition based solely on testimony that members of the public informally use the easement as a trail, which specific approval criterion under AMC 2103-230 would staff conclude has not been satisfied?

Um, through the chair, I do believe that the report sort of speaks to the fact that all 5, 6 criteria have been met. So I wouldn't necessarily speculate on what criteria could not have been met, because to our understanding, all criteria have been met. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Mills. Mr. Murcah. I have a clarifying question, uh, that Mr. Jones had, had touched on. And it was very clear that the public, these neighbors, believed that there was money that changed hands for this PUE. I believe, Mr. O'Dell, just a few seconds ago you said no funds have transferred hands.

It was just the dedication of where Canyon Road sits that was— that is now owned by the municipality through that, through that right-of-way, and that no money, no financial compensation was made for these— this, this land. Is that correct? Well, uh, through the chair, um, no, I did— the municipality for this, as we see on all these pages 23, 24, 25, this was a PM&E project where they did purchase, uh, that this, this PUE. So they did purchase it from the, the Rahaley family. But as far as we're— as far as, uh, vacating this PUE now and the previous one, the municipality is not compensating the, the developer on record.

There's no— it doesn't— we're not giving money to that. And, and the— as far as the municipality, when they did, um, purchase—. Purchase—. Yes, yep, we use that word— purchase this particular right-of-way, um, what you're ultimately telling me is that the municipality received what it paid for. It has a full— all of Canyon Road, right?

Yeah, Canyon Road. It has what it paid for.

Well, let me see if I understand. We purchased those 3 PUEs, and then the plat came along, they vacated those, but they dedicated right-of-way. Okay. Yep. Yeah, is that where you're making— okay.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr. Murca. Ms. Bryan. This may not be a question for staff, but if staff knows, how long has the public been using this trail?

Through the chair, I believe the public can answer that better than I can. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions of staff?

Um, hearing none, I think we're ready for the petitioner's presentation. Please come up to the podium, state and spell your name for the record. You have 10 minutes.

Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board. My name is Craig Bennett with S4 Group. That's B-E-N-N-E-T-T.

And first, I want to express our appreciation to planning staff. They've done an excellent job with this, and we sincerely thank them. I'll just be brief to start with, um, history and overview of the project, and after that, I'll step aside and let the public provide their comments and then return and address their comments. In 2021, we subdivided Canyon View Estates and created Tract 1. Per plat 21-6 or 20-21-65.

Then in 2024, we created lots 14 and 15, which are existing right now with plat 2024-16. A home was built on lot 15 this past year, and lot 14 does not have a house built on it yet. Now we're here asking for an easement vacation. This can—. This.

Consists of two lots, and we are not changing the lot lines. We're only seeking to vacate an easement along the front of them. This should be a pretty straightforward case. The proposed plat easement vacation meets all the standards and code, and as staff noted, it's consistent with code, and there are no objections from any of the community departments. And with that, I'll pause here, let the public provide their comments, and then I'll return and address any questions or concerns.

Thank you. Thank you. You have 8 minutes and 34 seconds of time for rebuttal. Uh, but do we have any questions of the petitioner?

I have questions for the petitioner, but, uh, it sounded like you're okay with just taking that on rebuttal, so I'll wait on those.

Anybody else wishing to ask questions right now? Okay, then we'll open up to public testimony. If you'd like to testify, please come up to the podium. State and spell your name for the record, and you have 3 minutes.

Uh, I'm with the Community Council, so 5. Oh, okay, thanks. I can just have a second.

Okay.

Sorry, I need glasses. So good evening, members of the board. My name is Brian Cook. I'm the vice president of the Glen Ellyn Community Council, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the council and, uh, our request that you deny this, this request. Uh, first and foremost, um, I, I don't agree with the petitioner about how good a job planning department did.

It's kind of disturbing to me when there's a prior decision that a planning board made of over all three of the public utilities— Mitzitzah Rahaley gave anchorage— that was denied. If you look, I have copies here if the board would like to see it. But, um, you know, and that's not included in the report, right? The fact that Municipality paid $130,000 for that. This comes from Municipal Surveyor Stephen Schmidt.

It's an email that says that the municipality paid $130,000. There's no discussion of that in the public report, right? It only has to come up when somebody specifically asks about it, right? No transparency there. The final page of this findings of fact and decision the Planning Board made: the vacation and variances are not found to comply with the approval criteria contained in two Anchorage municipal codes and are denied pursuant to the Anchorage Municipal Code.

Right, none of that's in the report, right? The public would not have any idea that that took place unless somebody brought it up, right? What also is not in there is the planning Department's prior position on this from Director McNulty, an email to the Glen Alps Council stating the Planning Department continues to be unsupportive of any requested variances and vacations associated with this plat, which will be our position as this moves forward. I have a copy of that if you would like to see that as well. So The problem I have with all this is just there's, there's no disclosure from the planning department about all of the history associated with this.

So we're just going to take $130,000, which is about $185,000 now according to Google, and just give that to the developer so that he can use and make money with it? That's not a good use of public funds, okay? You and us and all of us are stewards of the public money. We have to use it. We don't give it to private entities so that they can make profit.

All right, another thing I want to point out. So, um, he talked about trails. Okay, the petitioner writes in their petition the easement does not contain any trailheads or trails. All right, and then the staff report says that there's no trailheads. Okay, so when this was going to come up on July 1st, I went out there and I took a picture, right?

I have pictures if you guys want to see that. See, it says trailhead. This is right along Canyon Road. Everybody can see it, drive by. The planning department, they could have driven out there and seen that, right?

You'll hear testimony from lots of people tonight— people who built the trail, people who use the trail, people who use the picnic table out there. Right, none of this is in the report, right? And then I drove out there today because I received information about some stuff out there, and there's no sign, okay? No sign. Both signs are gone, and the picnic table that was there has also been moved or gone.

I, I don't know the specifics about the picnic table, right? So I just want you— ask you, who do you think has motivation to remove the signs right, that have been there for years and years and years. And you can ask the members of the public who were here to talk about that, because there's people here that put these signs up and now they're gone. So I took this on July 1st, it's in my phone if anybody wants to see it. And I took this one today.

Okay, so in conclusion, I just think this has already been decided, and I don't know why we have to decide it again. The facts and circumstances on the ground over there have not changed at all, and there's been no evidence produced by S4 or anything written in the report that changes that. So I urge you to deny this request. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

I have a couple. Yes. I'm bamboozled. I, I, I— it was not clear, based on my understanding of your remarks, what consideration the $130,000 was for. So I wanted to get clarity on that.

And then—. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Um, so there's an allegation of $130,000 more or less. Yeah, I have an email. Do you want to see it?

So I just need to know what the consideration was. Why was it, to your understanding, $130,000 exchanged from whom and to who? Yeah, so the Rojales— the Rojales had 3 public use easements that they granted Anchorage, right?

And the municipality of Anchorage paid $130,000 essentially for these 3 easements. Okay, okay. And you mentioned that the public has been using this trail for years and years and years. Do you have an approximate number? I don't know if you would personally know, but how long has this trail been in use?

So I'm going to let that to them. I'm brand new to the council. I'm like 2 months, 3 months on it, and I'm also a board member of the Glen Alps Road Service Area, brand new, so I don't know those numbers. There's individuals in the back who will testify to that. You can ask them the questions.

'Cause I don't know that, and I don't want to know that if I don't have the facts. Last follow-up question: is that why y'all were giggling earlier? Excuse me, what? There was some giggling going on in the back. Is the joke that money was indeed—.

I don't know. I don't know what people were laughing at. Okay.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions?

Okay, appreciate your present— or your testimony. Oh, sorry, I think I have a question. I just— I don't want to step out of line, but I'm just wondering, like, the— this was noticed to the community council in— what was it, um, according to this packet here, there was notices sent for meetings on like March 24th. The community council was noticed about the meeting and stuff. And other people had managed to get a bunch of public comments in, but we don't see any of the documents that you're referring to.

So I'm just kind of curious if this was, where I see public comment, but I don't see the emails and I don't like, so we, it's really hard. So I have copies of these if you want. I understand, but we need a chance as a board to take a look at information prior to a meeting. There was ample time. This thing's been postponed twice, so I'm just kind of curious.

Well, my point is, is that the planning department had all this information and they're the ones that should have provided it to you. Well, I, I don't know about that. So that's not on the community council, that's on the planning department. I know, but it's unfair to, um, try to— we can't make decisions on information that we don't actually physically have and we haven't had a chance to verify. So it would have just I was just curious as to if this was just obtained in the last month or if there was a reason why we don't have that information.

Okay, um, anybody else wishing to ask questions of this petitioner or testifier? Sorry, no, through the chair, but that seems like a question for staff and not necessarily for the community council. Okay, I think you can take a seat. Thank you. And Mr. Cross, you want to ask your question of staff and then we'll call up the next person afterward, or do you want to wait till everybody gets done?

No, I'm going to wait to acquire more information before I ask one.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please state and spell your name for the record, and you have 3 minutes. Good evening, my name is Greg Kuiper, that's K-U-I-J-P-E-R. I'm with the Glen Alps Community Council and the Road Board as well, but I'll be speaking on behalf of myself through the chair and board members. Good evening.

We're here insisting, uh, in strong opposition to case S12889. We respect the work of the staff but urge the board to reject the staff's recommendation. The petitioner and its representative, S4, have failed to meet the strict legal standard required by municipal code to strip this asset from public use. Let's look at the law. Under AMC 21.03-230A, the code clearly states, in all cases, the board must deem an area being re-vacated to be of value to the municipality unless proven otherwise.

The code states explicitly that the burden of proof lies entirely with the petitioner. In May, our community council held a fully noticed democratic public meeting to evaluate this claim. Amazingly, the petitioner's map didn't show the PUE trail that's been in use for years, like 5 years. Our community council unanimously passed Resolution 2026-01, formally affirming the immense public value of this easement. This is in addition to the resolution we passed in '21 supporting the drafting of a letter to Director McMulty that spoke directly about the PUE Trail that was built on the easement and the potential future uses of the land for overflow parking, drainage, wetlands, etc.

Any future uses. The petitioner wants you to treat these resolutions as obsolete pieces of paper, but our community's unanimous democratic action stands as a massive roadblock to that. Claim. The staff report recommends approval based on high-level technical metrics, but maps don't show how our community actually functions. AMC Chapter 2.40 establishes community councils to maximize local self-determination because we are the on-the-ground experts.

We are the eyes and ears of Glen Alps. We know what Canyon Road is. It's not Canyon View Road or Canyon whatever. We know this easement provides critical public value for not just the current trail, but for future uses, which is also why it was included as part of the state grant that improved Canyon Road, not just for this development, but for our whole neighborhood and the road maintenance issues we've did— we've been dealing with for the 20-plus years I've lived here. Just 10 years ago, when we paid $130,000 for it, the developer— the developers would like us to believe they are helping satisfy the demand for affordable housing.

I suppose this is not the case here. The two links— I have two links to brand new homes within this development that are luxury direct-to-vacation rentals for out-of-towners. This is a great deal for lining the pockets of the developer, but not in line with the municipality's goal of increasing affordable housing. And I'm afraid this is exactly what would happen with this platting action. Once a public use easement is vacated, it's gone.

A permanent loss of a public right-of-way. The staff report treat— may I continue? Sorry, that's it. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks.

Do we have any questions of the testifier?

It's Brian. I'm going to keep asking this question all night. How long has this, uh, trail been around? It's been around for at least 5 years. Okay.

Anywhere close to 10 years by any chance? Um, I don't believe so. Okay, thank you. Any other questions of the testifier? Seeing none, we appreciate your testimony.

Anyone else wishing to testify, please come up, state, spell your name for the record.

Good evening, my name is Ted Moore. I've lived in the Canyon Road neighborhood—. Can you please spell your name? Sorry, just a—. Pardon, my name is—.

Just please spell it, it's just easier for staff. M-O-O-R-E. I've lived in the Canyon Road neighborhood for over 50 years. Well over 10 years ago, our local Glen Alps Service Area secured the funds to purchase this PUE for the benefit of the community, not to donate to a greedy developer.

Several years ago, community members— about 5 years ago— constructed a public trail that winds its way through the easement. This trail provides local residents with one small shared option to walk in nature away from the often obstructed shoulder of a busy road. The easement's public value for that and other uses will only increase over time. This is not the first time the developer has tried to get this easement vacated. How many times does the public have to come out and fight the same issue?

The developer could easily have configured his lots differently to include more area outside the PUE. Thus, any constraints affecting the developability of these lots are a problem of his own making and do not warrant stealing the PUE from us, the public. A public trail is one of several permitted uses of a PUE. The muni criteria for PUE vacation state that the muni will not entertain any vacation unless it can be shown that the easement is surplus to current and future needs of the public. The developer has gone to extraordinary lengths to circumvent this criterion.

On page 16 of your packet, the developer's narrative asserts, and I quote, the easement does not contain any trailheads or trails that cross the property. That assertion is a blatant lie unworthy of any so-called professional. Are we supposed— are we to suppose that the developer never even saw the trailhead signs, the cleared walkway, the picnic table? Why aren't these features addressed in the vacation narrative? The trail is even clearly visible in aerial imagery.

The 2022 photographs in your comments pocket packet, which I assume you have, and if not, I've got copies of them right here I can hand out. Document the trail marker signs erected at each end of the trail, as well as a picnic table, a manatee located midway along the trail. One of the signs was knocked down last year as the developer was in the process of constructing a driveway to a new house on Lot 15. Earlier this summer, I found the sign lying in the bushes and reinstalled it at the point where the trail leaves the new driveway. Someone removed that sign within just a few days.

Next, the sign at the other end of the trail closest to the mailboxes was removed early last month. Recently, things got even more ugly. The picnic table midway along the trail was stolen just within the past couple of weeks. I have no specific knowledge of who committed these acts of vandalism, but it could only have been someone who wanted to make the existence of the trail less obvious. Does this kind of behavior represent the way the easement vacation process is supposed to work?

We're just a community that purchased the easement and wants to be able to continue enjoying it. We plead with you to Deny the requested vacation once again. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Do we have any questions of the testifier?

I have a question, Mr. Murka. Uh, since you seem to have some knowledge of the history of this purchase, this acquisition, the acquisition was for this exact triangle or was it for a larger portion of PUE? The acquisition was made through a state grant to, to, on behalf of the Glen Alps Service Area, which is an outgrowth from the old Glen Alps community, separate city that has more than just road service powers. And they, they were grant— Mike Hawker of the state legislature, it secured this funding and, and on behalf of the, of the council. And then the Municipality of Anchorage, which acts on behalf of the of the board in terms of doing the negotiations.

They negotiated with the Rahaly Estate to purchase that land. And when they purchased that, was it just this triangle in question, or was it a larger portion of PUE? It was the entire piece of land. There's three— I think there's three parts of that easement, but basically, um, along— it was in order to allow the upgrading of the entire Canyon Road and provide better access to Chugach State Park. And I think that gets to my point.

If the remainder of the PUE was, was removed, that plat— those additional plat notes were removed, why wouldn't it be also appropriate for this one to be removed if the goal was for this road to be, to be dedicated? And it now is. The remainder, the remainder of the easement was not given away to—. Where is it now? It was relocated to, to correspond to the, the right-of-way, to the slightly relocated— when the, um, Glen Alps Service Area undertook to arrange to have the road upgraded, they did some minor realignments of it, and therefore the, the boundaries of that of those other portions of the public use easement were adjusted.

They were supposed to have been 100 feet total width. Somehow it got down to 60 feet, even though that was— I believe it was— that was denied in a prior public hearing. But okay, I hope that answers that question. Thank you. Any other questions of the testifier?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Anybody else wish to testify, please come up.

Please state and spell your name for the record. Just makes it easier on staff. Yep. Hi, my name is Tom Burke, B-U-R-K-E. Uh, thanks for taking the time to listen to us, to the board.

Uh, so we just keep having hearings about this piece of land. It's been going on over and over for years. This is the third time, uh, and it's all about the same two lots. Now, none of the facts on the ground has changed. There hasn't been a landslide or something to make us think things are different.

We're only here because the developer didn't get what they want and they want more. That's all that's going on here. The developer claims that there is not a trail on this wedge of land. You know that's not true. We all know that's a lie.

Okay? The developer also claims that there is a trail on the south side of the road. That too is a lie. You can go out there, you can look at the road. There is a road and a shoulder on the north side and a ditch on the north side.

There's a shoulder on the south side which is a little wider. By a little wider, I mean about 5 feet. And that's what they're calling the trail, is a 5-foot-wide gravel shoulder. Now, in the summer, that shoulder is almost entirely occupied by parked cars. Nobody's walking on it.

In the winter, that shoulder is entirely occupied all the time by piles of snow and ice where the snowplows dump the stuff off the road. So if you wanna know if it's a trail, I can say that you can't walk on it in the winter, so you have to walk on the road. And if you wanna walk on it in the summer, you can dodge between the parked cars where you're 2 or 3 feet away from the traffic, going by or the traffic splashing water on you. So somehow the developer has convinced the city that a wide shoulder on a road is a real trail where there's a fast road, which is ridiculous. You wouldn't let your kids walk on it.

It's dangerous. The people who live along the road have been petitioning the city to get the speed limit reduced and to get speed bumps put on the road because it's dangerous. There's nowhere to go. The piece of land we're talking about is the only part of the PUE that hasn't been vacated by the city over the 8 or 10 years since the road was built. It's the only place you can walk in the public land that we spent $130,000 to and, and be more than 3 feet away from a moving car.

So this is the only thing where you can walk. They say there's a trail. There's a shoulder, and they say that this trail isn't there, but it's the only place you— where you could safely walk in the whole neighborhood. And that's ridiculous. We're going to give that away.

Why we're giving away money we spent, you guys haven't come up with any answer to that. The city hasn't. And the questions that have been asked so far don't say why don't we give it away. And the answer is because we already bought it. It is money spent by the public for the public use, and that's not the same as the developer's use.

Thank you. Thank you. You have any questions of the testifier?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Anybody else wishing to testify, please come up and state and spell your name for the record.

Good evening, my name is Mark June. My last name is spelled J-U-N-E. I've lived on Upper Dearman Road since the late '80s. I've regularly walked Canyon Road. I've walked on the trail, not so much in the last few years because it's a construction zone, or it's near construction, and we live in a time when one is sensitive to other people's property rights.

Um, the points that I would make today is that this is clearly a do-over, clearly a second bite at the apple. The area has gone through the subdivision process, and at the end of the day, it is what it is, and the developer decided to proceed under those terms. And so unless there is a substantial change in circumstances, there's no reason reason to revisit the previous decisions of this board. The second thing that I would add— the second point I would have to make is that in order to vacate the easement, it has to be established that it has no value. And regardless of the source of the funds, regardless of the path of the funds, regardless of whether you call it dollars or other valuable considerations, things were bargained for and exchanged, and that bargain in exchange demonstrates value.

That is why people do things. That is why people make decisions. They make decisions because they think the decision that they made had value at the time, and in this case, the decision was made to have the PUE because it had value at the time. My last comment is that I've— this I guess repeat something I said before. I've used the trail much less over the last 2 years because it is an active construction zone with houses— nice houses— being built on lots.

And when you enter construction zones, it's unclear where you can go and where you can't go. And I think that that's something you should take into consideration in determining whether there's ongoing value to the easement. Thank you very much for your time. I'd encourage you to, to to make the decision not to vacate the easement. Thank you very much.

Thank you for testimony. Do we have any questions of the testifier?

Seeing none. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify, please come up and state and spell your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Jen Jolliff, J-O-L-L-I-F-F. My family and I have lived in this neighborhood for more than 25 years, and the public easement trail in question this evening has been a valuable part of our lives, providing a safe and peaceful alternative to walking along Canyon Road, especially as it has evolved from a rural dirt lane into a paved suburban road. I've walked on the trail through this easement with my partner, with my son, with my neighbors on so many occasions, and a roadside path adjacent to traffic would in no way be comparable to the natural byway which we currently enjoy. The municipality purchased this easement from the landowner for the common use of the public, and it seems to me that it's not reasonable for the developer now to ask to have it gifted to them so that they can further profit off of it. How could that possibly be justified as using the taxpayers' resources responsibly? I've heard arguments of Anchorage's housing crisis and the necessity to get rid of obstacles to developers, but let me be clear about this particular subdivision.

It's not affordable housing. The homes which have been built and sold by Holdquist Homes along Canyon Road the past several years are assessed by the municipality at from between $800,000 to $1 million, and one is currently on the market advertised for $1.5 million.

A little out of reach for the average shopper. Plus, at least 2 of those new houses are not even housing Anchorage residents at all, but are being used as $600 a night vacation rentals. So I'm asking the Planning Board to reject the developer's request for this public easement to be vacated. It would be a personal loss to me and my family and the whole neighborhood, including those who now live in those Holquist homes along Canyon. But maybe even more importantly, taking the taxpayer-purchased community asset and bequeathing it to a developer so they can make a little more money on the construction of another high-end Airbnb would show reckless disregard for the letter of the law and be just plain wrong.

Thank you for your testimony. We have any questions of the testifier? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please state and spell your name for the record.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ian Moore, M-O-O-R-E. I've lived in the neighborhood for my whole life. I'm here in opposition to case S12889, and in particular the request to vacate the on public use easement. In ruling on this case, the board has the obligation to adhere to municipal code, which under Title 21.03.230 clearly states that, quote, in all cases, the platting authority shall deem the area being vacated to be of value to the municipality unless proven otherwise.

The burden of proof shall lie entirely with petitioner, end quote. In the packet for the hearing and in their presentation, the staff provided 6 additional criteria to be used in their internal consideration. I want to stress that those are not found in municipal code, and if relevant, would be in addition to the requirements in 21.03.230. The easement that's under consideration was purchased by the municipality just 10 years ago in 2016. The easement document is found on page 18 and 19 of your packet.

And stipulates that it is to exist in perpetuity for uses specifically including a walkway or trail. That's on page 18 and 19 of your.

Packet. As others have made clear here today, there is a much-loved public trail that takes advantage of this small pocket of public use easement to allow walkers to escape the noise of the road, but the applicant and the staff seem to be contesting its existence. I'd like to direct you to the aerial photo on page 40 of your packet. This is the municipality's latest official imagery from 2024, and on the photo I've added the outline of the easement and have drawn arrows to show where the trail— the foot trail— is clearly visible. If the printing in your packet is blurry, you can find the original photo on the municipality's GIS website under the imagery app heading.

There, the 2021 photo, which is on page 6 of your packet, in lower resolution, but the trail is also visible where it isn't hidden behind the fat yellow line. If you need further evidence, I direct you to Google Street View imagery where the trailhead signs are clearly visible beside the, beside the road. This trail and public use easement are an important asset to our community, and we strongly oppose their disposal. Even aside from existing uses, this perpetual easement provides for future opportunities like drainage improvements, roadside parking, and undoubtedly other uses we can't even envision now. If the public were to— if the public easement were to be vacated, it would be gone forever.

It would be a permanent loss to the community and to current and future residents of the municipality. This easement is providing significant value now and will continue to provide even more value in the future as the land around it is built up. Municipal code requires that the request to vacate these easements be denied. I ask the Planning Board to uphold the law, listen to the community, and deny Case S12889.

Thank you for your testimony. Do you have any questions of the testifier? Seeing none, thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify, please state and spell your name for the record. Good evening, my name is Christine Cook, C-O-O-K.

I'm not a member of this beautiful community, um, specifically. I live over on Glen Alps Road area and I'm a member of the Glen Alps community. But, um, I was troubled when I heard some of the facts about what happened here. I feel like there's been a lack of transparency, and, um, that bothered me. And as I learned about, um, what the community has benefited from, I thought it's not really just a matter of what's the consideration, what's $130,000 that was paid for a certain amount, and it's going to be just, you know, pushed back a little bit more, you know, the— oh, we we just really meant for that 70 feet of road, when, um, I think the focus really does have to be, as was mentioned several times now, on the, the public value that needs to be acknowledged and can't be vacated unless proven otherwise.

And you've heard what that value is, and I would argue the fact that that value is happening every day and it would last in perpetuity for the members of that community. That means forever, rather than just whatever is left of the $130,000, if you parcel it out, of then dollars to be built into two lots and what the entire community loses. So that to me really has struck me. And then also, I know now, listening on two occasions to how you consider these proposals, You put a lot of weight on the agencies who've reviewed them all. They haven't had the information.

As you, um, have noticed yourselves, you didn't have some of the information that— I wouldn't say that the council should have known that they somehow should have made sure the staff report was going to include when they've been very, um, boisterous and, um, very clear about where the community council stands. They've made resolutions in order to try and make sure that the public record is clear on where this community stands regarding this. So it's A lot of this information is not in that public report. It's not in the staff report. And that's what got routed to the agencies.

So if nothing else, you, you've gotten baby— basically a rubber-stamped, non-transparent approval handed to you without all of the information. And really, that's not fair to anyone. And it's certainly not fair to this community. And it's certainly not proving that this vacation is not worth public value. So I really implore you to deny this for the second time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions of the testifier? Seeing none, thanks. Anyone else wishing to testify?

Okay, um, I think we are ready for rebuttal if you'd like to. Oops, oh, sorry, there's phone testimony.

Telephone number 907-575-3866. Can't take your call now. At the tone, please record your message.

That's my phone number up here.

Okay, it should be noted for the record that the two phone testimonies of Ian Moore and Greg, they're both— they both testified and they're here tonight. Okay, then I'll ask the question one last time. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, we are on to rebuttal. Please come up and you have— yeah, please state and spell your name for the record and you have 8 minutes and 34 seconds.

And just give us one second to start the clock.

Okay. All right, thank you. Craig Bennett again, B-E-N-N-E-T-T. And thank you, Chairman and members of the board. And I want to thank the community members who came out to speak today and the ones who commented but aren't here tonight. Also, the primary community topics that I heard include the community meeting, drainage, and Pee Wee, and trail corridor.

And I'll speak to these 4 topics and then see if I can answer any questions or go in more detail where needed. Starting off with the community meeting, um, CPage 29, 30, and 31 in the staff packet. We held— we sent out flyers initially. The March community meeting was canceled, so we sent out flyers again, held our own community meeting, and then attended the April Community Council meeting. And as staff shows, we met the— met code and the conditions for having a community meeting.

Drainage. This came up. Um, this easement vacation will not create a drainage issue. It actually will greatly help a possible drainage issue. If you look at the sheet 2 of 3 in the drain— in the handout, on the right-hand side where the blue easement line— there's a blue dashed line that's a drainage.

We are seeking this vacation so we don't have to cross that drainage and create a potential issue. We're looking to build the house in the middle of the lot instead of at the end outside the easement where we would have to have a driveway going across a drainage. So we're seeking to resolve a drainage issue with this vacation. And PUE overview— this seems to be hot topic tonight. So in the 2010-2016 timeframe, there was a PUE or an easement needed over the existing Canyon Road because there wasn't an easement over the existing road.

The Muni was able to get one from the owners at the time, and then the owners sold the property to a developer. And then with the platting action and Plat 2021-65, we dedicated right away Instead of using the PUE, we dedicated the right-of-way over the existing road. And part of that dedication was— and Platt was requiring a trail easement along Canyon Road because there's a trail easement in the trails plan. It shows a trail along Canyon Road. So we built a trail— well, the developer built a trail on the south side of the road that had to be engineered and approved by planning traffic, private development, right-of-way.

So there's an 8-foot shoulder for the pedestrian access on the south side. And then the fourth main item was— is this trail corridor. And this seems to be the main comment, I think. Um, and this easement is surplus to current future public needs, as the planning staff report clearly states. The easement is not mapped in the draft 2026 recreational trails plan, the 2021 AMATS non-motorized plan, or the other official trail.

There's no functional trail on the ground according to Right-of-Way, no trailheads on these lots, and there's no connecting easements around it. It doesn't go anywhere. Even if there was a trail, this would just create a short dead-end segment that crosses an existing driveway, a proposed driveway, introducing unnecessary vehicle-pedestrian safety conflicts. Trail use already exists along Canyon Road where there is ample right-of-way on the opposite side. All reviewing agencies, including Traffic Engineering, Private Development, Right-of-Way, have no objections to this vacation.

The staff analysis confirms the easement meets MOA vacation policy criteria and is in excess of admissible needs. And the detail sheets illustrate these points clearly.

Should be noted that no one from the Canyon View subdivision objected to this easement vacation, the people that live there and that use the Canyon View Trail. And looking at the details, Sheet 1, just a recent aerial side view showing the existing house on 15, proposed 15A, and the proposed location on 14. And I highlighted with two red dots, um, the neighbor-installed signs, and then the dashed red line is the approximate location between them. And then across the street on Canyon Road, and gold is the existing pedestrian access, pedestrian trail. And sheet 2 real quick— still have some time— is the overview.

So you can see it's mainly going across, um, this community, um, trail in red is posed basically to go across Lot 14. It dead ends. There's no connection anywhere else. The property to the south, or to the bottom of the page, is the only property that touches this existing easement, and that's a private property with a fence up. So someone would have to come along Canyon Road on the existing trail, cross Canyon Road to this, walk across a proposed driveway, then walk down an existing driveway, and then cross Canyon Road again, which is a major safety hazard.

And then the last— there was a comment in the community council meeting about trailheads. So I just added Sheet 3 showing where the canyon lots are, and trailheads are about a mile away. And with that, open up to comment or questions. Thank you for that. Mr. Cross.

Thank you.

I'm curious. I'm looking at my staff packet, page 18. And so— and I just want clarification here because page 18 shows the recording instrument for the public use easement, and it does say for valuable consideration, right? So that means that there was some sort of compensation to the property owners at the time, correct? And is it your— and it's the petitioner's suggestion that they paid for the right-of-way on Canyon Road and the improvements as part of the off-site improvement requirements when they were replatting or developing the subdivision?

And that was— that's how— so now we have basically two trail easements. We have the public use easement, and now we have an easement along the road as well. And they paid for that as part of their development. So what it was, was there was no easement on the existing Canyon Road at the time, and the previous owner sold PUE to Canyon Road because that back in I believe 2014, some previous to me working on this. Canyon Road needed to be upgraded, and they weren't sure of the alignment, weren't sure the exact location, so they asked for a fairly large PUE at the time.

Then when the plat came in, we surveyed the road, said here it is, and we dedicated right-of-way over the top of it and said here's the, here's the right-of-way, it's dedicated. So it was basically superseded, or the PUE. Was that right-of-way required as part of the off-site improvements, or was it—. Was required as part of the plan? Okay, so it was required because you're doing off-site improvements and you got to build it to the standard, and Title 21 said you had to build it to the standard.

Correct. So we had to upgrade the road and add the shoulders at that time. Okay, um, thank you. You're welcome. Uh, thank you, Mr. Cross.

Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chair. Um, when this was— if I'm remembering correctly from the original case that came through, these two lots were designed differently than what they show now, right? Prior to that. So this was— we recorded it as Tract 1, so it was just, just one tract at the time.

Is that what you're referring to? And then we came back with a short plat and cut it in half and made Lots 14 and 15 last year. Yeah, because I guess what I'm getting at is it appeared that the development of these lots were, you know, this PUE was taken into consideration for the development of these lots, so that these were put together with the intent of being able to develop Lot 14 with this PUE remaining. Is there something that has fundamentally changed aside from a marketability standpoint that Lot 14 is no longer developable if this PUE remains? It's still developable.

We could build on the— I guess it would be the north side. A house could be built. It was just that there's a drainage there and there was drainage concerns, and the community even was bringing up drainage concerns. So we're like, well, it makes a lot more sense to build it where we're not crossing that drainage. Build a house in the middle of the property instead of the backside.

When you say crossing that drainage, the way that the visual was given to us, um, I mean, it kind of meanders, but it kind of follows roughly the line of the easement. Um, so it would appear that you could put a driveway in that northernmost tip, or is that not possible? No, sorry, uh, too steep. So you have to have a driveway come from basically the side that it's showing, and it would cross up kind of like Lot 15. So those lots were designed with the topo.

Okay, so you wouldn't be able to fit a driveway up, and then you'd have to come from the— correct—. Longer sections to be able to meander and get your driveway. Okay, yeah, that was— I see the topo on, on this map, but obviously on the visuals that were given, I don't see that. The biggest question that I wanted her to have was was— is that lot developable with it remaining? I believe Lot 14 average slope is about 13%, and you can't really do a driveway over 10%.

Sure. Okay, so you're going to be—. It'll be—. We'll be crossing. Yeah, sure.

So it just made sense, um, to ask for this variance or this vacation of the PUE and build the house in the center. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Miss Mills. Uh, yeah, I just have a simple question about, um, the signs that went up on the row, because I know that I just had to apply in the Matsuburo for sign— temporary signage for a dead-end street, but I had to go through the Public Transportation Department and get a permit for each sign that I had to put up, or asked to put up, before I put it up.

Do you know of any permit applications that have been applied for or approved through the Municipality of Anchorage to allow trailhead signs on this particular ROE? And that might be a question of staff if you can't answer. I have talked to, um, Right of Way previous, a few months back, maybe even longer, and there was no grant, there's no approved signs. I believe these were, um, neighbor-installed signs, and I didn't see them Prior to us submitting the application, I didn't see any signs that might have been there in years past, but about a couple days after our community council meeting, I did notice the signs up at that time, about 2 days later. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Singh, relative to the date when there was an attestation that no signage existed. When, when did this occur, when you noticed that signs were there? Um, just a couple, I believe a couple days after our first community council meeting. Thank you. So March.

Any final questions? I have a question for staff. Uh, let's—. Sure, ask your question. Okay, okay, yeah, question for staff.

So, um, do you— does the planning department have internal protocol or procedures for community council resolutions that have been voted on and approved by the community council after public notice has been posted Um, or is that something that goes to the Anchorage Assembly through the Federation of Community Councils?

If it's anything, if there's any material associated with the case that has been submitted as part of public comments, it adds on as an addendum if it goes to any public hearing. But we do definitely add things to the case as time goes on until the public hearing comes in. Now, with respect to what you were asking, I'm not sure if you're asking if there has to be a sign-off saying yes or anything like that. No, I just— I saw the one resolution that was clearly transparently put in the staff packet, but I was just wondering because there's claims that there are other resolutions that have not been provided to us. So I was just kind of wondering about the internal protocol for your department because this one clearly says it was signed on April 23rd, 2026, and then, you know, it's like— and we have it, so I'm just kind of wondering if there was anything else that might not have been put in our packets.

Through the chair, anything we get, we put into the file. Even if it's on the last day, we added as an addendum or something like that, but it is definitely— whatever has been sent to us has been put in the file for sure. Thank you.

Any final questions, staff, of the petitioner? Um, you have 2 minutes and 15 seconds left if there's anything else you want to say. Um, in closing, if all the board's questions have been answered, I'll close by saying we are full agreement with staff's recommendation of approval. We accept and agree with all the department conditions and appreciate the thorough review conducted by the departments, none of which submitted objections. And I appreciate the comments from the public and the community council.

And, um, let me see. With that, I'll just conclude and say— I respectfully urge the board to approve this. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your presentation. At this time, we will close the public hearing.

The matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion for the vacation?

Move by Miss, Miss Bryan, second by Mr. Jones. Miss Bryan, would you like to state your motion? Thank you. I move in case S12889 to approve the vacation of a recorded public use easement 2016-013104-0, subject to the condition shown on page 4 of the staff report.

I do not decline to approve. Would you like to speak to your motion? I, I would. So I do not decline to approve petitions that come before this board lightly, but in light of the extraordinarily high evidentiary standard that the petitioner must meet in order to vacate this easement. I don't think that we can validly find that this easement is in excess of current or future municipal needs.

There were remarks from petitioner which I took well, but, you know, going from there's no, there's no trail to— well, the trail doesn't go anywhere. Well, a trail can still be part of what makes life worth living in Anchorage if you just enjoy walking on it. Or what I was making notes— you can walk on the road, but people may prefer to use the designated trail to walk.

There are other thoughts that I have that I think are not tailored to the factual findings that we need to meet, and I, I grant that I may be looking at this too simplistically, but has the petitioner, whose work I respect, met our threshold or for finding that this easement can be vacated? I don't think so.

Thank you for those comments. Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your second? I would, thank you. This particular case is kind of a tough one because I do appreciate that the public testimony that we had today. My concerns are less about the trail and more about when this was originally developed.

If you look at the document that was cited on 18 and 19, the agency was Municipality of Anchorage Public Management, or Project Management and Engineering, which is an agency that did not provide a comment on this, as I don't think that they are typically part of the routing for this. And they're in the initial case that was previously came across the board that was declined, a significant amount of that information was about drainage and different site improvements and things more than this, you know, the trail and the use of that. So without having, you know, feedback from PM&E saying, you know, what we needed it for, for the construction of the road or whatever, is no longer needed. I have a really difficult time agreeing with this and saying, yeah, it's, it's definitely, um, you know, in, in excess of public needs, um, at this time. And then also to what the petitioner's representative mentioned too, that the lot is still developable in its current condition.

There's accommodations that could be made where, in my opinion, they have the best of both worlds. All the public use easement can remain for the purposes that it was really originally intended, as well as the public can use it for what— the way they're using it. The developer can also build a house on it and sell it for its intended purposes. So I don't intend to support this for those reasons stated. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Anyone else wishing to speak? Mr. Cross. Yes, thank you. I also don't intend to support this.

Staff packet page 18, we have a copy of the quitclaim or the deed of which the public use easement was established, and it says that for good and valuable consideration. So the previous owner was compensated for this POE, and further on it says the easements in perpetuity pertaining to the following described real estate. If it was meant to be abolished when they established a right-of-way around the highway, it should have been clearly articulated that upon establishing a right-of-way, the public use easement would be eliminated. But without consideration being given back to the municipality, if the petitioner wasn't saying, well, they previously paid him— I don't care if it's $3, $130, whatever it is, they should be compensating the municipality for purchasing to get it back. And they should be put in.

And if there is a redundant easement, which means we have the right-of-way, then we have the POE, and we have the right-of-way, then they should— whatever the value is that we bought it from them plus inflation, they should be compensated to improve the trail next to the road. Does that make sense? Like, I'm looking at— like, it obviously has value, otherwise we wouldn't have paid them for it. Additionally, I, you know, I just fundamentally disagree with a lot of the statements on the additional— on the on our handout here. No public agency has expressed need for the trail across the front of Lot 14.

Well, that's not true because I have a quitclaim right here that says for valuable consideration. So obviously there must have been some need for it, otherwise we wouldn't have paid for it. Privately installed signs do not create a functional or adopted public trail. I would rather you have publicly— uh, privately paid for signs than municipal paid signs on trails in public right-of-ways because that saves taxpayers money. We know it exists because it's on— I can see the trail.

If the trail didn't exist, I wouldn't see it on Google, I wouldn't see— wouldn't have signs, and the property owner would have been able to put no trespassing or blocked it off a long time ago, which they haven't done. So obviously the trail exists, otherwise they would have ceased them being able to use it years ago. A few informal paths or neighbor signs do not constitute adopted municipal trail, but people using a trail and trailhead signs and a public use, an established public use easement does. So I just, I just fundamentally just kind of disagree with it. I don't think that what the developer's doing or the petitioner is necessarily, you know, I've heard some pretty strong-handed things like they're greedy or whatever.

Listen, they're trying to use the public process in order to develop a lot. I just feel as if that POE is valuable., and we have not received adequate compensation to release it at this time. If they want to come back and they want to figure out how much it's worth and they want to pay us back for buying it from them, I might reconsider my decision, but at this point I don't support it. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Um, Ms. Mills.

Well, um, it's not very often that I am in complete disagreement with members of the board. It's not a quitclaim deed, it's a public use easement. For good and valuable consideration is legalese. It's on every single recorded document. I've done property transfers for $10, okay?

So, and that's not our purview. That's not what we're here to do. We're not here to dispute how much money changed hands and when. We are here to find facts and code and whether or not this application is applicable, as a— it meets code. So the burden of proof, it rests with the petitioner, absolutely.

And under.

AMC 2103-230, the petitioner must demonstrate public use easement is surplus to present and future public need, and this vacation will not adversely affect transportation, circulation, municipal services, utilities, or other public purposes. So I understand that people like to use it, and I have neighborhood kids that like to walk through my yard. I don't like it. Right. Um, number 2, reviewing agencies support the request.

Staff report reflects that traffic engineering, no objection. Parks, no objection. Right-of-way, no objection. AWU, no objection. No adopted transportation trails plan or trail plans identify easement as necessary for future public use.

So these findings alone strongly support approval under Title 21. Now, public testimony established is current use, but not necessarily public necessity. So, and I understand that members testified that they currently use easement as a walking trail, and while this testimony is relevant and should be considered, informal public use alone does not establish that the easement remains necessary for present or future municipal purpose under AMC 2103-230. And we as a board must determine whether substantial evidence demonstrates that the easement continues to serve identifiable public purpose recognized under municipal code. So, and there is no evidence that's been presented that the easement is designated for future municipal use.

So I will be the oddball and support this motion based on approval criteria of Title 21 and the information provided to us by staff and what is in current code and the information— the packets that we have ahead of us. Thank you, Miss Mills. Mr. Mirka, uh, in that same document on page 19, the, the almost second to last paragraph describes what this PUE is set aside for, and it is very excessively broad. It is my opinion that the PUE was acquired to give a road to have a substantial right-of-way on this portion of land. I agree with Miss Mills.

I will be supporting this motion. I, I believe— excuse me— I believe conditions have been met. And again, I believe that this PUE was a large, broad brushstroke to solve a problem, which is a permanent right-of-way, which Holtquist has already improved and has been accepted by the municipality. So I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Murko.

Anyone else wishing to add findings?

Seeing none at this time, I'm going to pass the gavel over and speak to this. I am also in agreement with Mr. Mirka and Ms. Mills. I think that this PUE was purchased to provide access and to improve the road, which is what happened. I think that there was— there's been a lot of talk about the backstory of documents that we haven't referenced or that were not included in this packet, and I think that a lot of them aren't applicable. I've been pretty consistent on this board of staying in my lane and just trying to stick to the standards And in my opinion, it meets the standards.

And I'm not going to repeat everything that Mr. Mirka and Ms. Mill said, but they generally covered my points and why I'd support this. Thanks.

I'll take the gavel back, and unless there's any, um, last thoughts, we'll call the vote. Seeing none, let's call it.

And with that, the motion passes.

Uh, do we have a motion for the, uh, 24-month plat?

Moved by Ms. Mills.

Second by Ms. Ploy. Ms. Mills, can you state your motion? I move in case S12889 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of the staff report.

Thank you, Miss Mills. Would you like to speak to your motion? Um, I intend to support the motion based on everything that we've been talking about. Thank you, Miss Mills. Miss Ploy, would you like to speak to your second?

No, it's okay. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Ploy. Um, anybody wishing to add findings or to this?

Seeing none, let's call the vote.

With that, the motion passes.

Do we have any board member comments?

Seeing none. Oh, Mr. Cross. Yeah, so I know on the last one, um, you guys were probably surprised that I voted for it after I came out so vehemently, but you know, it's very important that you listen to the other board members and that you stay voraciously curious. So I stay curious up until I have to vote. And I felt as if you made really good points that I should have taken into consideration, and that is why I changed my vote.

It's— again, I try to stay curious right up until the end and weigh if I'm not being reasonable, if I'm not being emotional, and try to separate those. And I think it's a very important strength for us to have that we don't dig ourselves into a rut just because we have preconceived ideas about something. It's important to remain curious right until the end. So it was really important. If you hadn't spoken up and haven't said anything, I probably— I would have been dead fast.

But I appreciate you sharing, and I appreciate the contributions of this board. Thank you. I think those are very wise words of wisdom. I'll add something as well. Um, so along with that, I did want to mention, um, that I do— I do appreciate the other board members' stance and opinions on that, that We don't know what we don't know was a big part of the reason that I came to the decision that I did on this matter.

And the fact that there was an agency that deemed that this land was valuable enough to pay for it with project management and engineering that didn't have the ability to give their opinion, right, wrong, or indifferent, I felt that that was grounds enough for me to say whatever they— whatever rationale they gave to, to secure this needed to remain. Um, and again, once again, this, this had come across the board, um, 5 years ago. Um, but long story short, it is what it is. Um, but, uh, yeah, I would say that moving forward in cases like this more directed to staff, it would be nice to have a little bit more of the background information when something comes in front of us because This was something that, as you can tell from the various comments from the community, there was a lot of back and forth on. There was a lot of previous information on this, and it took a substantial amount of digging on my side to even find what I did.

And really came up from citing— seeing some stuff that was cited in here about, you know, Final Plat and its numbers, and then digging into that and finding out, okay, well, what is that about? Where it's maybe above and beyond what would maybe normally be requested on this. So I think had that complete packet of information been provided to us, the outcome may have been different tonight. So just something to consider moving forward. Thanks.

Also really good thoughts. Ms. Mills? Yeah, I do have— so the board is allowed to question staff prior to a meeting. So if we're reviewing packets and we find that there's more information needed an email to the planning director with the question, they will provide information to the entire board. So we're all looking at the same information.

So we're all able to be able to do our investigation based on the same information. And then there's no way or avenue for us to fall off the same wavelength when we're looking at criteria for approval. So that's where, I mean, trust me, in reality and the real me as a person, And it's difficult for me because I go, who are you to tell me what to do? It's my property. And then there's the, but you purchased property in Anchorage, it's got code, you knew this.

So I have a hard time on a personal level, but when it comes to an obligation and a duty on a board that has certain rules and regulations.