Platting Board Meeting - May 21, 2026

The pledge.

Can I get a motion to approve today's agenda?

Madam Chair, I move to approve the agenda for today's meeting. I get a second. I second. Are there any changes to the agenda? Madam Chair, Tyler Young of the Planning Officer.

There are changes to the agenda.

For Case 6A, the Wells, Troutman, Cutler variance, the petitioner has requested that case to be stricken. We will no longer be hearing it. Okay, are there any objections?

Motion has been approved. Can I get a motion to approve May 7th meeting's minutes? Madam Chair, I move we approve the Minutes for the regular meeting of May 7th. Thank you very much. Can I get a second?

A second. Thank you very much, Carla. Are there any changes or objections? The minutes have been approved. Okay, I'm going to open public testimony for persons to be heard present or online for items not scheduled for public hearing.

Is there anybody present that would like to speak to something that is not on the agenda?

Anybody online? Nobody online. I am closing public testimony.

So we have ASLS 2019-69. The request is to vacate the existing, existing public use easement and dedicate right-of-way following the existing east Hillside Drive and to create 2 lots from Parcel A-3 to be known as ASLS-2019-69 containing 238.39 acres plus or minus. The property is located east of South Talkeena Spur, north of East Hillside Drive, and directly west of South Mount Hunter Drive within the east Half Section 04, Township 24 North, Range 04 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, in Community Council Number 12, Susitna, and in Assembly District Number 7. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

Seeing none. Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, other parties interested in the application, or members of the public concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time the matter is submitted for decision outside of the public process provided by the borough?

Seeing none, are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative, um, Madam Secretary, the mailing report please. There was 60 public notices mailed April 28th, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Due to an issue with public notice procedure, planning staff is requesting the proposed ASLS 2019-69 to include the vacation of a portion of East Hillside Drive to be continued to the June 18th, 2026 Planning Board meeting. Pursuant to MSB Title 43-10-065G, notice of the easement vacation request shall be posted and maintained by the applicant 30 days prior to the public hearing. This request is to allow the petitioner the time required to maintain the public noticing at the site location. For the 30 days required by code.

Thank you very much. Would the petitioner or petitioner's representative like to speak?

Okay, can I get a motion from the board? Oh yeah, I knew I was missing something. I'm going to open for public testimony. Would anybody like to speak about this particular case? Anybody online?

No one online. Closing public testimony. No, you got to keep it open. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Everybody told me I want in stereo. Keep it open. I always forget that too. Public testimony is to remain open. Petitioner.

No petitioner. Motion from the board. Madam Chair, I moved for the continuance of ASLS 2019-69, Section 04, Township 24 North, Range 04 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, to the June 18, 2026, Planning Board meeting. Thank you very much, Mr. Liebing. Can I get a second?

Second. Any objections? So moved.

So next one we have is ASLS 79-109 Bartlett Hills RSB, Track 30. The request is to create 4 lots from Track 30, ASLS number 79-109 Bartlett Hills, plat number 87-29, to be known as Trax 30A, 30B, 30C, and 30D, containing 257.7 acres plus or minus. The petitioner is requesting a variance from 43.20.140, physical access. The property is located north and west of Montana Creek, east of South Talkeetna Spur and north of East Yoder Road within Section 11 in the southwest quarter section 02, Township 24 North, Range 04 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, in Community Council Number 12, Susitna, and in Assembly District Number 7. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision Or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

Seeing none. Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, other parties interested in the application, or members of the public concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time the matter is submitted for decision? Outside of the public process provided by the borough?

Seeing none, are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There was 10 public notices mailed April 28th, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The proposed ASLS 79109 Bartlett Hills Resubdivision of Track 30 is proposing the creation of 4 lots. Legal access for all lots is through the section line easement on the western boundary. A topographic narrative was submitted in lieu of a soils report pursuant to 4320.281 as all proposed lots are greater than 400,000 square feet. The topographic narrative is seen at exhibit pages 7 and 8. The petitioner is requesting a variance from MSB 4320.140, physical access, If approved, construction of the road to provide physical access to all lots would not be required.

The variance application with the supporting answers to criteria A through C is seen at exhibit pages 12 through 17. This property is encumbered by state agricultural restrictions. Preliminary approval for the subdivision has been obtained from the State Department of Natural Resources. If the proposed subdivision is approved, final approval from DNR Division of Agriculture would be required. This is listed at recommendation number 3 of the approval with variance, as well as recommendation number 6 of the recommendations based on denial of the variance.

For clarity, the page count starting with agency comments is off by 1. There was a page that was scanned in by accident as it was a note on the back of one of the pages. So please note that when exhibits are referenced on the front, it's one further down the chain. Alaska Department of Fish and Game exhibit, seen at exhibit page 24, notes that tract 30 borders the Middle Fork and North Fork of Montana Creek on the east border of the lot. Middle Fork and North Fork of Montana Creek are both anadromous fish water bodies and provide habitat for Chinook, Coho, and chum salmon.

It was determined that the dividing of 4 lots does not require a habitat permit at this time, but one may be required if the property owner intends to withdraw water, modify banks, or has work in the water or at below ordinary high water line.

Uh, Matsuburo Planning and Platting Division, uh, seen at Exhibit Page 25, does not support the request for a variance to 4320.140 Physical Access, as staff does not feel that the justification provided by the submitted by the petitioner is sufficient to grant the variance. The reasoning for each of these is as follows. Criteria A states that granting of the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to adjacent property. The petitioner— staff believes the petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposal would not be injurious to adjacent property owners. Physical access to the site should not be the burden of subsequent subsequent developers.

Criteria B states that the variance request is based upon conditions of the property that are atypical to other properties. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the property is atypical to the other properties in the area, or other properties of similar— the right-of-way width has not been shown to be inadequate for constructing improvements to access. And criteria C states that because of unusual physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property, for which the variance is sought, or because of the taking of a part of the property through the condemnation, or because of surrounding development or conditions, the strict application of MSB 4320 shall result in undue substantial hardship for the owner of the property. Staff feels that the petitioner has not demonstrated that they would feel undue substantial hardship from the application of borough code due to physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property. The existing right-of-way width exceeds borough minimum standards and has not been shown to be inadequate for constructing improvements to access.

Uh, Matsuboro Department of Public Works' Pre-Design and Engineering Division, seen at Exhibit Page 26, neither supports nor opposes the variance request to physical access. PD&E does note that should the variance be granted, a note shall be placed on the plat stating that any further subdivision of these parcels will require construction of the road. This is seen at recommendation number 4 of the conditions of approval list with approval of the variance. Matsuburo Development Services has no objections. No objections were received from any public utilities for the proposed subdivision.

Uh, for the board's convenience, staff has drafted recommendations of conditions of approval and findings of fact for both the approval of the variance, as well as recommended findings of fact for denial of the variance. Separate from the variance recommendation, staff has prepared findings of fact and recommendations of conditions of approval for approval of Bartlett Hills Resubdivision, both with and without the variance approval.

Thank you, Matthew.

Okay. Would the petitioner or petitioner's representative like to speak?

You need to push the button on the mic, please. I got that. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dan Bush with Bush Construction Survey. I own it.

I'm a registered land surveyor here. How you doing, Michelle? Hi. Oh, but anyway, uh, the petitioner and his partner are going to end up with the, with the 4 lots. So, and they're, they're happy with the way the road access is currently, um, and because of the agricultural restrictions, you're not able to subdivide it any farther than the 4-acre 4 lots.

So the only benefit to building a road would be to— there's a guy off the end of Moose Meadows that's off to the west side that uses a— I call it a fairly good pioneer road now. It's only 8 to 10 feet though. And, um, but anyway, I would encourage you to accept the waiver. Uh, it's— that option is on page bottom of page 7. Are there any questions?

Mr. Levy, I just want to clarify one thing. So the variance request that is— that you're asking for is strictly the improvement of the road, is that correct? Yes, yeah, so Moose Meadows has a narrow Pioneer Road that goes up to the corner of the property and then it goes off to the west. I think there's only one person living there. And then there's a fairly good trail that goes through the property on the west side going north and it would just serve those 4 lots and that's how the access is now and it's, It's adequate for what they want to use it for, and there's nobody living up there anyway.

As you go north, there's no other people living just to the west or to the north or any, any, anywhere around it. Off to the right is the Creeks, which nobody lives there either. So the Pioneer Road wouldn't really serve anybody except for the, those 4 lots, and they, they're already happy with the And, and what is, uh, the, the land north, um, of it, uh, is it subdividable in the future? No, no, because of the agricultural restrictions, it's not. If for subdividing into 4 lots, is it— they can't do anything in the future with it.

Any other questions? Mr. Gilson, I think the question was Track 30A, what's north of that? Not your 4 tracks, but Track 30A, what is north of that one? Could anybody be subdividing up there? Uh, it's unsubdivided land.

I don't even know who owns it. Uh, probably state land or federal land, but there's nothing, nothing up to the north. Okay. I flew over it the other day in my airplane, and as far as you can see, there wasn't anything there. Up to the north within a, within a mile anyway.

Any other questions?

If we did— if you insisted on the variance, then I would like to propose that it's just for Moose Meadows. That would slightly benefit the guy living off to off the end of Moose Meadows, but that'd be it. But anyway, I'm, I'm, uh, would like you to— I'd like to encourage you to use that option on the bottom of page 7 to accept it with the, with the variance. That'd be nice. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Dan. I'm going to open for public testimony.

Is there anybody present that would like to speak?

There anybody online?

No one online. I am closing public testimony.

You don't have to speak again. We're good.

I don't think there's any other questions. All righty, I just need a motion from the board.

Um, prior, prior to making a motion, I guess I have a staff, uh, question here. Obviously you've proposed two solutions to this, um, one with the variance and one without. Uh, explain to me your conditions of approval and how it differs from one to the other. Please, through the chair. So, the only real difference between the conditions of approval list on with and without is whether or not the road construction comes into play.

So, obviously, if the variance is denied, then they would have to construct access road for the lots being created. And that's really the only difference. And did the staff look at that land north that would potentially be accessed in the future by this road that you're, uh, requesting be developed more? I do not know who the owners to the north are. I would have to look it up, and I just don't have the information in front of me right now.

Question for staff: the lot to the north, whether there is a road in the future or a road now, that still have the same situation because whether or not it's one lot or four lots, it's same situation, correct? If further development were to take place to the north, then yeah, the road would be a requirement at that time as well. It's just a matter of who the burden falls on.

And legal access is not being affected by this, it's just physical access, correct? Yeah, legal access is in place already for all lots. There's a— I believe it's a 100-foot-wide section line easement in that area between 50 and 50. So they have the legal—. Thank you.

Mr. Young, did you want to speak? Tyler Young, Planning Office. Excuse me.

Okay.

All right. Yeah, thank you. In reference to the, uh, property to the north, the Pioneer Road wouldn't go all the way to the north anyway. It would go to the south end of that Lot 30A, and then it would be a— that dead end there. So it wouldn't go all the way to the north property anyway.

I actually have a question for you. Um, is there access to that north property right now. How is that property being accessed? Uh, right now there's a trail that goes up on the, on the west side of the property that goes, uh, up. It actually goes through, um, Lot 30A, goes all the way through the lots.

That's existing right now. That's, that's— so they do have physical access. But it's not the— is it a recorded easement that's required? That's—. Is there an easement for, for that?

So right now, 30A is giving them access to that property. Say that again. So 30A is giving access to the property to the north right now, um, through that trail. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bush. You know, obviously, I think what we're all trying to get here is, is that if we approve the variance, are we locking out access to that future lot or not? Um, or are we going to put the burden on them when they try to develop it and there's not a legal access to it and we're back to the same thing?

Mr. Young, Tyler Young, Planning Officer. There is legal access to the north through that 100-foot wide section line easement. That constitutes legal access. The owner of that lot, per the agenda plat, is the Montana Creek Native Association.

Any further development of that lot would need to come in front of the planning board. It's a matter of whether or not they'd be able to construct the road for the variance. And Mr. Bush is correct, the road would not have to go all the way to that northern thing. It would just have to be able to have enough access to lot track 30A with an approved turnaround.

So hypothetical for staff here, uh, I buy the northernmost lot 2 years from now and my wife doesn't like a bumpy road, so I have to build a road. I could build a road if I so choose.

I believe that's correct, yes. All right, perfect. Thank you. Okay, I would entertain a motion from the board.

Uh, Madam Chair, uh, I move to approve the preliminary plat of ASLS 87-29 Bartlett Hill RSB Track 30, Section 02, uh, and 11, Township 24 North, Range 04 West Seward Meridian, contingent upon, uh, the staff recommendations and with the variance approval.

Can I get a second? I second. Thank you very much. Further discussion?

Any objection?

Motion so moved.

All right, last we have Settler's Bay Unit Number 11. The request is to create 5 lots from Tract E, plat number 77-17, to be known as Settler's Bay Unit Number 11, containing 3.06 acres plus or minus. The property is located south of Canic Goose Bay Road, directly east of South Settler's Bay Drive. And west of South Roosevelt Drive within the Northwest Quarter Section 03, Township 16 North, Range 02 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, in the K'nik Fairview Community Council and in Assembly District Number 3. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision Or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

Seeing none, have you received or otherwise engaged in an ex parte contact with the applicant, other parties interested in the application, or members of the public concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time the matter is submitted for decision? Outside of the public process provided by the borough?

Are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There was 593 public notices mailed April 28th, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Came in Reynolds, Planning Staff. A soils report was submitted per Exhibit B in the staff report, pursuant to MSB 4320-281. All proposed lots will use community sewer and water systems. Clarification on usable building area without regrading was requested, but no response has been received as of 5/21.

All lots should have 10,000 square feet of usable building area after regrading. There were no objections or concerns received from borough departments, outside agencies. 1 Comment or 2 comments was received from the public, 1 in support and 1 in objection. Public comment in support indicated that there would be more homes to support families.

Comment in opposition states that new development will bring more traffic and are opposed to townhomes and multifamily dwellings. At time of staff report write-up, there were no responses to requests for comments from Department of Fish and Game, the Community Council K'nik Fairview, Fire Service Area Central Matsu, Road Service Area K'nik, Emergency Services, Community Development, Assessments, Planning, or Development Services. Staff recommends approval of the plan and plat Sellers Bay Unit Number 11 with these 6 findings of facts and 10 conditions of approval.

Thank you very much, came in. Is there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, is there petitioner present would like to speak?

Okay, I'm going to open for public hearing.

Anybody present would like to speak?

Yes, my name is Doug Wilbur. I live down in Settler's Bay. I'm— was he saying there was only two submittals? Yes.

You have that list? My wife has a list of comments. I thought maybe he would read that. I'm not sure how it works. It was submitted in the handout.

You're welcome to read the comments if you would like. Oh, well, I—. You got 3 minutes, you can read whatever you want right now. Okay, well, I guess I don't really know how this works. Um, oh, you're fine.

So I looked at the layout and it's— we live, we live down there and been there for 20-plus years. But anyways, you look at the layout and it, it doesn't— it's not conducive to the rest of the layout in Settler's Bay. They have two— I guess the one that really caught my eye are the two long driveways, uh, right next to each other that go all the way in the back. They don't access the Settlers Bay Road. It looked like you could, you could mirror them pretty easy, but I guess that would be a design.

And it's saying water and sewer, so that they're connecting to the, the sewer system is what he said over there on his comment.