Platting Board - July 2, 2025 - 2025-07-02 18:30:00

Good evening everyone, on the verdict call for July 2nd, 2025 meeting, the planning board to order. It is 6:28. May we have roll call? Skyler Quinn. Here.

Brandy Pennington.

Brandy Pennington.

Patrick Jones. Ashley Ploy. Here. Kyle Mirka. Present.

Brenda Butler. Present. Kevin Cross. Here. Sarah Catherine and Brian is excused.

And let me check Come on, Miss Pennington, please.

Brandy Pennington? Yes. Thank you. You have a quorum. Thank you.

Moving on to approvals for minutes. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?

Move to approve. Moved by Mr. Cross. Second. Second by Mr. Jones. Uh, are there any corrections or objections to the minutes?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved. On to special order of business. Does anyone have any disclosures?

Miss Ploy?

Um, I was absent for the June 4th meeting and will abstain from voting on the consent agenda. Thank you for that disclosure. Any others? I do have one. My spouse works for AWWU and put together some of the comments that were in the packets this evening.

I have no special knowledge or any financial interests on what was shown here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. With that, the ruling of the chair is that you can participate. Are there any other disclosures?

Through the chair, Mr. Cross. Uh, yes, Craig Bennett, S4, Brandon Marcotte, Triad. I conduct regular business with them on different development projects, but I have no advanced knowledge of anything that's been before us. I have no financial interest, and I feel as if I can act impartially. So I encourage the ruling of the chair that I participate.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. The ruling of the chair is that you can participate. Are there any other disclosures? Seeing none, I have a couple myself.

I've also conducted business with S4 Group and Triad Engineering.

Before I continue that disclosure, I'm going to pass the gavel over.

Like I said, I just— I'm just disclosing that we've used S/4HANA and TRIAD in the past, and then I'm also going to disclose that On cases, uh, S-12836 and 12838, we have purchased land from Eklutna in the past as well, and I would ask, uh, I'd ask for a vote. I move that Mr. Quinn be able to participate in all cases tonight.

Second.

Uh, are there any objections? Seeing none, uh, Chair Quinn can participate in these cases.

Thank you. And it sounds like Miss Ploy has an additional disclosure. Miss Ploy? Sorry, I also do work with Triad, but there's no financial gain and I can vote impartial. Thank you, Miss Ploy.

The ruling of the chair is that you can participate. Any other final disclosures?

Seeing none, um For information only, we have abbreviated plat action summaries dated 6/9/25 and 6/16/25. Moving on to the consent agenda, are there any objections to approving— oh, uh, do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Moved by Miss Butler, seconded by Mr. Cross. Are there any objections to approving the consent agenda?

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved.

Moving on to the public process. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Planning Board at its meetings is: 1, after the staff presentation is complete on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. 2, Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission Rules of Procedure A, petitioners, including all his/her representatives, are given 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. B, representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, et cetera, are given 5 minutes.

And individuals are given 3 minutes. 3, When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board. 4, Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the planning director within 7 days of the board's decision made on the record. A written notice of appeal a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21.03.00A.4.8.

Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may, within 20 days, file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 21.03.050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the Planning Director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

May we have staff's presentation in case S12834? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request to subdivide 18 lots into one tract with a vacation of Driftwood Street from East 69th Avenue South to apply to 20-foot alley. AMC 2103.230, vacation of a right-of-way.

And variances from Anchorage Municipal Code. AMC 2108030F7, dead-end alleys shall be prohibited. And AMC 2108040A1, dedication of streets, the west 15 foot of Greenwood Street. The petition site is located east of Greenwood Street and Rosewood Street, south of East 69th Avenue and East 68th Avenue, west of Homer Drive, and north of East 70th Avenue. This plot is to create a tract for an approved snow disposal site at this location.

The petition site is surrounded by I-1 Light Industrial District commercial and industrial development to the north, south, and west, while abutting the Seward Highway on the east. The proposed tracts meet the minimum lot size and width required by the I-1 zoning district. The I-1 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot dimension width of 50 feet for all uses. In addition, the applicant has requested a vacation of right-of-way and two variances. These variance requests are described and assessed in the various request sections of this report.

The only objection from a reviewing agency was to AMC 2108040A-1, Dedication of Streets, the west 15 feet of Greenwood Street. Vacation request. The petitioner is requesting the full 30-foot-wide vacation of Driftwood Street from its north terminus at East 69th Avenue to the unconstructed alley at its south terminus. The vacation requests have been reviewed and found to conform to the municipal vacation policy and ordinance that states the Planning Authority shall consider the merits of each vacation request, and in all cases, the Planning 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 the petitioner.

The preliminary plat is a revision to acreage to facilitate future development of the property. The right-of-way was originally dedicated to provide access to the— to 12 of the 18 lots involved in this subdivision. The right-of-way requested for vacation is undeveloped. Access to all adjoining properties is provided by dedicated rights-of-way. Traffic circulation will not be adversely impacted by this vacation.

Therefore, staff finds that the right-of-way is in excess to municipal need. And recommends approval of the vacation subject to the conditions in the staff report. Variance 1 requested variance from 2108030F7 alleys. The petitioner is requesting a variance from this part of code which states dead-end alleys shall be prohibited. The petitioner is requesting not to dedicate a cul-de-sac or turnaround for the unimproved alley abutting this property.

This alley is not part of this platting action or being vacated due to it being dedicated by the properties to the south plat 70-357. Standards A, B, C, and D are met for this variance. Standard A: The proposed subdivision is typical for the surrounding area. Access is taken from Homer Drive that is built to State of Alaska DOT and PF standards. The existing alley was dedicated by the platting action of the lots to the south.

This existing alley is undeveloped and being used by the property owners to the south as storage for equipment. Requiring this platting action to dedicate a cul-de-sac at the end of this alley would create a special circumstance or condition that would be impractical, unreasonable, and undesirable. Standard B: The dead-end alley is not detrimental to the public welfare of the— or injurious to other properties in the area. This alley is not used for access to any surrounding properties, and the vacation of Driftwood Street and combining of these 18 lots, physical and legal access to the remaining parcels surrounding this development is already provided. This alley is in excess.

Standard C: This alley is not needed with the vacation of Driftwood Street. This variance has no effect on the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulation or the comprehensive plan. Standard D: This dead-end alley is not detrimental to the public welfare of— or injurious to other properties in the area. Therefore, staff finds that all four standards have been met and recommends approval of the variance to a dead-end alley. Subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Variance 2, requested variance from 2108-040-A-1, Dedication of Streets. The petitioner is requesting a variance for a requirement for street rights-of-way to be dedicated to the public and street widths to conform to the official streets and highways plan. The petitioner is requesting not to dedicate 15 feet along the western portion of this tract to Greenwood Street. Standards A, B, C and D are not met for this variance. Standard A: No unique conditions exist that are directly related to the requested variance.

There are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the subdivision that would make the strict application of AMC 2108-040A impractical or unreasonable. Standard B: The granting of this variance would preclude future development needs for this street. Without the right-of-way dedication, there would be— there would potentially be a need to require reacquire it for any road improvements in the future to Greenwood Street. Standard C: the intent is for the Municipality of Anchorage to acquire right-of-way not deemed in excess that would potentially be a need for any future road improvements. Standard D: the granting of this variance would preclude future development needs for the street.

Without the right-of-way dedication, there would potentially be a need to reacquire it for any road improvements in the future. Therefore, staff finds that all 4 standards have not been met and recommends denial of the variance to not dedicate 15 feet of the right-of-way to Greenwood Street. Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 40 of your packet. There were only objections regarding the variance to the dedication of the 15 feet of right-of-way. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the vacation variance 1 and the plat subject to conditions found on page 9 of the staff report and denial of variance 2.

I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner's representative and the petitioner are in attendance. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?

No questions?

Okay. Um, I think we're ready for the petitioner's presentation. Please state and spell your name for the record. You're given 10 minutes. Good evening, Craig Bennett, B-E-N-N-E-T-T, and thank you for being here tonight, and thank you, staff.

This is—. This subdivision is creating one tract out of 18 lots, like staff said, with a vacation and variance. The zoning is I-1 light industrial, and I'll keep this short and simple and efficient. We agree with staff on all the recommendations and conditions. There were no objections from the departments or the community, and we asked the board to approve the case as staff recommends.

And I'll just open up to questions now.

Thank you. Um, you have plenty of time to rebuttal. Does anyone have any questions of the petitioner? Through the chair. Mr. Cross, um, yes, uh, well, the staff recommends that we not grant you your variance request on number 2.

You're okay with that? Correct. There was a misunderstanding and we've resolved it since then, so we agree with staff now. Well, that makes it very easy. Thank you.

You're welcome. Uh, Miss Butler? Yeah, my question is just about the snow storage site itself. Um, I saw reference to like 16.5, which is about wells and stuff, not really worried about that. Concern would be more with like community members asking about potential groundwater contamination and drainage plans and all that kind of fun stuff, because there is like a bunch of businesses in that area, and that's kind of like— not like the snow storage site that's by Lowe's off of Diamond and Old Seward, it's kind of like tight right there.

So what is your plan for that? Through the chair, that's a separate application. That's for the use. This is just for the platting action, just to combine it into one. But the snow storage will go through full review through private development, drainage, and everything like that.

And if you have, I guess, drainage questions on that, Triad Engineering is here that can answer that too. Fair enough. It was just something that was in the packet, so I thought I would ask.

Uh, through the chair, Mr. Bennett, I'm curious. I assume nothing precludes them from using the property as a snow lot the way that it exists currently, is that correct?

Sort of. Um, so there's an existing right-of-way that we're vacating per this plat Sure. And keeping snow in existing right-of-way is problematic. So this plat combines into one, makes it easier. And instead of having it separate, I guess that would be the main, the main issue.

And then having it as one, one property simplifies it for the application for the snow storage. Okay. And I can let Triad speak to that a little bit more too. A little bit more too. Sure.

Through the chair, this is Brandon Marcotte with Triad Engineering, M-A-R-C-O-T-T. Um, basically, as Craig just hit the nail on the head, the, the right-of-way that we're vacating, uh, via— not Greenwood, Driftwood, I think it is— um, basically just from an operational standpoint, uh, MOA right-of-way just has issues with, you know, basically a potential taking of that right-of-way, uh, through the use of the snow dump. So we kind of discuss the process with them and what they would support, and they would support vacating that right away. And so, um, you know, we kind of took the opportunity to clean up this property, these properties, which we attempted to do like 10 years ago or so, um, and we ran into a number of different problems because we were vacating the alleyway to the south that is on the neighbor's properties, and it was a challenge. And so this kind of actually came together somewhat nicely to opportunity to resubdivide this back into one tract, which is what was originally intended, uh, like 10 years ago. But, um, basically getting rid of that right-of-way helps with the snow storage operation a little bit more cleanly as far as right-of-way likes to see.

Thank you.

Uh, Mr. Hatcher. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So they have an approved site plan, or approved administrative site plan, for the snow dump at this site. One of the conditions was vacating Driftwood.

So that's why they're doing this Planning Action, Commissioner— or Board Member Butler. That's why. Yep, definitely helpful. Thank you. Um, any other questions?

Seeing none, you have 9 minutes and 26 seconds of rebuttal time, and we're now going to open the hearing to public testimony. Are there any members of the public wishing to testify?

Seeing none, uh, do you guys want any rebuttal?

We're good, just if there's any other questions.

Not seeing any. All right, um, At this time, we're going to close the public hearing. The matter now rests with the board. Do we have a motion?

Move by Ms. Butler, second by Mr. Cross. Ms. Butler, can you state your motion? I move in case S12834 to approve a vacation from AMC 2103-230 for Driftwood Street from East 69th Avenue South to plotted 20-foot alley subject to Condition 1 to record a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and any approved time extension as shown on page 9 of the staff report. Thank you. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, um, I intend to support this motion. I'm looking at the platting action. When you're consolidating a lot and all— or you're consolidating a tract, all the lots disappear. So having the dedicated row for driftwood through a property just doesn't make any sense. This is in excess, as stated in the staff packet.

Good cleanup, good time for cleanup, and definitely supporting the motion. Thank you, Miss Butler. Mr. Cross, would you like to speak to your second? Yeah, just noting that on pages 6 and 7 of staff packet We can note that the standards were met and that there were no objections by MOA Traffic Department, right-of-way section, or private development. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cross. Anybody else wishing to add findings? Sure, I'll add that there was no public comment as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Any additional findings?

Seeing none, let's call the vote.

Ms. Pennington, how do you vote?

Miss Pennington, how do you vote?

Just give us a sec, we got a little bit of a holdup. Thanks.

Kyle, can you text her, ask her how she feels, please?

She's so light!

She can't hear us.

Can ask her how she votes? She can't hear us. Yes. But she can't hear us. She says no.

But she's voting yes.

Ask her.

Cause I can't get through on my— I have my phone on the bridge too, so— I'm sorry. This is falling down here. And it keeps dropping.

Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please consult your directory and call again.

Miss Pennington, are you on the line? Yes, thank you. I vote yes. Thank you.

Uh, with that, the motion passes.

Do we have, um, the next motion for the variance about streets and alleys?

Moved by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Mirka. Mr. Jones, can you state your motion? Yes, I move in Case S12834 to approve a variance from AMC 2108030 F7 Streets. Alleys—. Dead-end alleys shall be prohibited, subject to Condition 1, to record a suitable plat within 60 months of approval and any approved time extensions as shown on page 9 of the staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, as staff had mentioned, this is really kind of a cleanup item here. Wouldn't make sense to have this alley be present with the vacation of the right-of-way. Way that's being requested and approved.

So I would intend to support this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Mirka, would you like to speak to your second? I intend to support the motion but nothing else to add.

Thank you, Mr. Mirka. Are there any additional findings?

Uh, Miss Butler? Yeah, um, I also intend to support the motion. Um, there was no— no reviewing agencies had any No negative comments, no public comments. Community Council didn't have any negative comments. Everybody seems to be in support of this motion.

Staff's packet clearly explained why it was needed. So I think I agree with staff.

Thank you, Miss Butler. Any other additional findings? Seeing none, let's call the vote. Ms. Pennington, how do you vote? Yes.

Thank you.

With that, the motion passes. Moving on to the motion for a variance on the streets dedication. Do we have a motion?

Move by Ms. Butler, seconded by Mr. Murka. Ms. Butler, can you state your motion? I move in case S12834 to approve a variance from AMC 2108-040A streets dedication to not dedicate 15 feet of Greenwood Street as shown on page 9 of the staff report. Thank you, Ms. Butler. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, um, I do not intend on supporting this motion. Um, I feel that the 15-foot Greenwood Street dedication is part of code. It's, it's one of the basic parts of code. It's also like we've discussed in previous meetings that the standards should be the same for neighboring properties, and it's clear that there is the 15-foot dedication on the subdivision next to this one as outlined in staff packet. Also, that doesn't meet the approval criteria, and I definitely want to follow staff's recommendations.

Thank you, Miss Butler. Through this chair, point of clarification: do we have to vote on something if we're not going to pass it? I mean, if we just didn't vote on it, then they wouldn't be granted the variance. It's my understanding we do. Okay, I just— I don't recall.

I know it's in the assembly. We just wouldn't vote on it if we weren't going to move it, if it wasn't going to go anywhere. But it was just a point of clarification for process. Thank you. That definitely makes logical sense, but just a safe measure, might as well just vote.

Um, Mr. Mirka, would you like to speak to your second? Uh, no, I, I think that staff has already fully clarified that, that, um, and I, and I agree that Greenwood Street it does not make sense for us to do away with that street dedication. And so I just want to make sure though to not dedicate 15 feet. So if I wish for the 15 feet of dedication, I'm going to vote no on this, is that correct? Just making sure my double negatives aren't—.

Uh, a vote no would leave a dedication of 15 feet, correct? And that is my intention. Thank you. Thank you. Any other findings?

Yes, I have some additional findings on this one. I would also agree that I will not support this motion, and so that the 15 feet is dedicated, and this is in line with obviously the private development traffic engineering's recommendations as well as the clarifications that the petitioner brought forward, that they are now in support of this as well. So I will not be supporting this. So the 15 feet dedication is provided. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any additional findings? Seeing none, let's call a vote. Miss Pennington, how do you vote?

Miss Pennington?

Antarctica.

Ms. Pennington, are you on the line?

I need her on record.

I've got both my phone and this phone on the bridge.

I believe you. I'm sorry. I said I believe you.

Miss Pennington, are you on the line? Yeah, thank you. How do you vote, please? Yeah, thank you.

With that, the motion fails.

Um, do we have a motion for the, uh, 60-month requirement for the plat?

Move by Mr. Cross, second by Mr. Murka. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion? I move in case S12834 to approve the plat for 60 months subject to conditions 1 through 3A as shown on page 9 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Um, nothing that's already hasn't been, uh, been stated in our previous actions. The variances were not opposed by the Traffic Department, Right-of-Way Section, or Private Development. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Mr. Murka, would you like to speak to your second?

Uh, just that I intend to support it. Thank you, Mr. Murka. Anybody wishing to add findings?

Seeing none, let's call the vote. Miss Pennington, how do you vote?

Miss Pennington, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes.

Moving on to Case S12834. May we have staff's presentation? Oh, actually, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just got to correct the record.

Uh, S12836. Can we have staff's presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a request to subdivide one tract into 9 lots and 5 tracks.

The plat would create 9 residential lots in Eklutna Village in Eklutna and the potential for subdivision and development within proposed Tract 1, the larger tract. Tract A is an existing community park, and Tracts B, C, and D will be for community use to include the existing well site. So the property is within the CER7 single-family residential district and also the Eklutna Overlay District. The proposed lots and tracts meet the minimum lot size and width required by the zoning district, and none of the reviewing agencies had any objections to the plat. The proposed subdivision has access to Haricott Drive and Eklutna Village Road.

The proposed cul-de-sac aligns at the intersection of Haricott Circle and Haricott Drive out to Rusticate Drive. The Planning Department does not recommend improvements to these sections of the road. The unnamed cul-de-sac is located internal to the subdivision. And both Private Development and Traffic Engineering recommend improvement standards for this road that should be constructed as a 20-foot-wide strip paved with 2-foot shoulders and ditches on both sides of the roadway and a standard 39.5-foot radius turnaround bulb, and to enter into a subject agreement with Private Development for those required improvements. Conformance with the adopted plans, the plat appears to conform with the petition site's land use classification.

As well as the following goals and objectives of the 2006 Chuyak River Comprehensive Plan. That would be the Land Use Housing Residential Development Goal 1A and Objective 2D. So this subdivision is going to create a new residential development of single-family homes in the Klutna Village. This development will be located within that village and intends to keep the community character. So with that being said, Planning Department recommends approval of the plat for 24 months Subject conditions 5 and 6 found on the staff packet.

The petitioner's representative is here tonight to answer any questions as well. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?

Seeing none, is the petitioner ready for their presentation? Yep. 10 Minutes. Please state and spell your name for the record. Good evening, Craig Bennett, B-E-N-N-E-T-T, with S4 Group.

This is Village Park subdivision, and as staff stated, we're looking to create 9 residential lots and including a village. We are in agreement with all the department recommendations and all of their conditions. As they stated, there's no objections from any of the departments or the community. And this platting action is fairly simple, and I'll go straight to questions again. Thank you for that presentation.

You have 9 minutes and 30 seconds of rebuttal time. Do we have any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Jones, I did have one point of clarification. On page 15, um, it says the— at the end of the first paragraph there, the lots will be serviced by a community well and a and septic system. On page 14, the potable water and wastewater disposal, you have private well and private on-site checked.

So I do want to just clarify for the record that the intent is a community well with private on-site septics. Correct. So we're looking at using the potentially the community well on-site, but these lots are large enough to use a private well and, um, their own private septic, which is likely what's going to happen. Um, so there is a community well right there, but likely be just their own wells. Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Any other questions? One question to the chair, Mr. Bennett. Track D, uh, I assume that that will end up being just more development as time goes on. Um, so that—. Curious about that.

All right, so you're looking at, uh, Tract A, or which one do you say? Sorry, Tract D, kind of that T-shaped, uh, correct. So that would just tee into future development up, um, at existing Lot 4 if it ever extends through. Thank you. So it's kind of a leftover piece that's not big enough, but in the future it could become some lots.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Seeing none, um, we're going to open up the hearing to public testimony. Are there any members of the public wishing to testify?

Seeing none, do you want to use rebuttal time? You have 9 minutes and 30 seconds. Just if there's any other questions the board can think of. Any final questions? All right, thank you.

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. The matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion on the 24-month plat? Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion?

I move in the case S12836 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to conditions 1 through 3, 4A, 5A and B, and 6A through C as shown on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Would you like to speak to your motion? Uh, yeah, it's a pretty cut and dry, uh, replatting action, and I think the Native Village of Eklutna and Eklutna Inc. should have the right to develop their land in order to create affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cross. Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, thank you. I intend to support the motion as well. Um, there was no objections from the staff, and from the letters that were sent out to the public, there was no objection to the neighbors or anyone there.

So I intend to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Anybody else wishing to add findings?

Pass the gavel over. I agree with everything that Mr. Cross said and Mr. Jones said. I will also be supporting this motion. I think I will also find— add that appears to meet all dimensional standards of the CR-7 district here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any other remain— or any other additional findings?

Seeing none, let's call the vote. Ms. Pennington, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes.

Um, moving on to Case S12838, may we have staff's presentation?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a preliminary plat request to subdivide one tract into 13 lots in 3 tracts. So that plat would create 13 residential lots in Chugiak. Uh, Tract B encompasses a conservation area and cannot have any disturbance.

The petitioner is seeking approval of a phased development, with the first phase consisting of Tracts A through C, and then the second phase is going to be the 13 lots.

So the property is within the Chugiak River R-6 residential district. Um, the proposed lots and tracts meet the minimum lot size and width required by that zoning district. Um, so for road improvements and dedication, the proposed subdivision is going to take access from Old Cranberry Drive, a local road, and construction of the proposed cul-de-sac road and section of Old Cranberry Drive will meet municipal standards. So the Planning Department is recommending improvements to these sections of road, and this is going to include the peripheral improvements to Old Cranberry Drive, which addresses the concerns of the Eagle River Maintenance and the Birchwood Community Council, which is in the staff packet. So to get into that, the peripheral improvement standards are to improve Old Cranberry Drive from approximately 680 feet south of Tarika Avenue to the start of the Mead Creek subdivision.

So this is going to include approximately 630 feet of improvements just to the subdivision beginning, and that's going to be— have to be constructed as a 20-foot-wide strip paved road with shoulders and ditches. So the cul-de-sac internal to the subdivision is going to have to be constructed as well as a 20-foot-wide strip paved road with shoulders and ditches and cul-de-sac bulbs and mass detail radiuses.

So conformance with adopted plans, the preliminary plat appears to conform with the petitioner's land use classification and the goals and objections of the 2006 Ch'uukirra Comp Plan. For Residential Development Goal 1A. This subdivision is going to create new residential development of single-family homes in Chugiak off of Birchwood Loop. Community Design Goal A: The subdivision sets aside the conservation area wetlands and creek in a separate tract. The home sites are situated on upland area of higher ground with mature birch trees outside of the wetlands.

And then the Land Use Residential Development Objective 2D: The development pattern is consistent with other residential properties that border this site. So with that being said, Planning recommends approval of the phasing plan and also of the plat for 60 months, subject to all the conditions found on page 6 and 7, which is going to include them entering into a subdivision agreement to, uh, to construct all that Old Cranberry Drive, which is quite a, quite a large section they're going to have to bring up to to a standard. And then I think the petitioner's representative is here, and he can maybe speak to the phasing. I think the— as we said, the tracks are going to be the first phase, and then the lots will be the second phase. So the construction improvements will have to happen on that second phase.

When they want to build the lots, that's when they're going to have to do all the road improvements. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff? Mr. Jones?

Yeah, I do have a question for staff. Page 36, about midway down, it's a public comment here, and it states, uh, whereas neighbors have expressed significant concerns regarding the proposed subdivision's cul-de-sacs not meeting MOA and Anchorage Fire Department standards, potentially impacting emergency response and community safety. Can you speak to that, if that's something that they maybe misconstrued based on the drawings? Does that meet the standards? Can you just clarify that?

Through the chair, yeah, Mr. Jones, it's going to meet the standards. That comment came in— well, they met, you know, that was through the Birchwood Community Council, and they met before all the agency comments came out. So the agency comments, I know Private Development worked with Eagle River Street Maintenance who was also— attended that meeting with the Birchwood Community Council and discussed that. And that's where you're seeing the— let me circle back here— the conditions found on there where they're going to have to build a 39.5-foot radius at the 90-degree turn and the cul-de-sac bulb. All that is to the municipal mass standards that are required for fire turnaround, for circulation.

And just for road design of a 20-foot strip paved road. So they're— and as I stated in the staff packet, their comments are addressed and their concerns are addressed, and the code is going to meet that when it comes time to developing the road. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Any other questions of staff?

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

Please state and spell your name for the record. Good evening, Craig Bennett, B-E-N-N-E-T-T, with S4 Group. And as staff stated, this is Mink Creek subdivision, and it's about a little over 220 acres total out in Chugiak, just north of the highway. There is Track B in the center of the property is a large conservation easement. So we just tracked it out, that entire conservation easement as a tract.

It's about 136 acres and there's wetlands in that tract and all the wetlands are in that Track B. This is a phase plat, as staff stated. So the first phase will be making the tracks and then the second phase would be the 13 lots. With the cul-de-sac and, as staff stated, the future road built—. Building.

The proposed lots are on a little ridge above Track B. This plat meets all the development and design standards per code. This conforms to the zoning and the comp plans, and we are in complete agreement with staff on their conditions and their recommendations. And just going back to that road concern again, it's, um, it will be built to Muni standards. And I know Birchwood was concerned about that, and since that community meeting, I've let them know that yes, this will be built to community or to the Muni standards.

So I will reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal. Thank you for that presentation. You have 8 minutes and 30 seconds of rebuttal time. Do we have any questions? Of the presenter.

Ms. Butler.

Just because I've dealt with certain departments when it comes to reviews and stuff, have you guys started your groundwater studies? Because I know that it can be quite time-consuming and be like a holdup for for the entire project? Correct. So the—. We—.

There was test holes done on the site, and it should be in the staff packet, um, the report for the test holes. Are you talking about the septic or wells? No, sorry, the groundwater itself. I've seen that the, the septic and the wells were done, but there was like the groundwater studies that were mentioned in the staff packet. I think Awu was mentioning it.

I just off the top of my head. Um, yeah, they were just, just talking about the, the groundwater. So I think it's more, more to do with like drainage and potential for, um, contamination due to like, you know, the wetlands and stuff. I'm just curious about that. Through the chair, this is Brandon Marcott with Tried Engineering.

That's M-A-R-C-O-T-T. We have not done any drainage studies yet. Um, that would come come after tonight, basically we would start that process to go down that road. Speaking to the soil stuff, NGE, Northern Geotechnical, did complete some septic testing out there, and I have their— I think those results were in the packet, or maybe they haven't been, but all test holes on the property came back with very good test rates for percolation. So they did encounter some groundwater, nothing there looks earth-shattering in terms of, you know, at the surface or anything. So the water table on property seems to be definitely workable for development.

Thank you. Yeah, it's just I've been on the other side of the waiting game, so I was just curious to see where you're at. Thank you for those questions. Do we have any other questions? Yeah, I have an additional one here.

Can you speak a little bit to just the road alignment of Old Cranberry Drive where it ties into the new development here? Because based on the dark lines, it would indicate that that Old Cranberry Road possibly has maybe another section of right-of-way, and you're aligning with like the right-hand side of that, that right-of-way. Is it just based on how the road is actually constructed versus how the right-of-way is plotted, or can you speak to a little bit how that's going to tie into the new subdivision here?

All right, so when you're going straight north of the property, Old Cranberry Road, has a 50-foot right-of-way on the east side, and then there's an easement on the west side. And rural roads are 50-foot wide. In town, we typically have 60-foot, but out in rural, you're allowed 50. So we're tying in to the 50-foot section. Which is already dedicated right away, and then as it moves north, it goes to a 30-foot dedication and then up to easements.

Okay, so there's kind of a mix of dedications and easements, but we're tying in to, um, a 50-foot section. Okay, yeah, so the 30-foot that's called out there, that's just specific to what's in front of Lot 1 and Lot 2, correct? It's kind of piecemealed, and if you look to the right On was a Blueberry. It's the same thing. You have 30-foot on some side, 33, 50s.

It's kind of a mix and match as you go along. Okay, so what is the— on the western side of Old Cranberry Road, was that other— that on the other side there's another 50-foot line, it looks like. What is that representing? Um, an easement, a road easement. Okay, that's just a road easement, you said?

Okay. All right, thank you. Through the chair, Mr. Jones, I also think— I, yeah, I believe we questioned a little bit of that too with a curve and how it's offset. I believe Mr. Bennett had stated to us that there's like some topography there too. That's why the alignment's over and kind of does a little curve like that.

It's just the way— it's hard to tell on the map, but there's a little bit of topography, I believe.

Yeah, just the visual there is just kind of odd because like you said, if it's a 50-foot right-of-way for the rural roads, then it's theory showing 100 feet, right? I mean, 50— 250-foot sections there. So that's why I was getting a little confused on what— where the right-of-way is and what it's actually showing. So thank you for the question. Any other questions?

Okay, well, seeing none, you have 8 minutes and 30 seconds of rebuttal time. And now let's open up the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone in the public wishing to testify?

Yup. Please state and spell your name for the record, and you have 3 minutes. My name is Jeremy Hickok, J-E-R-E-M-Y, last name Hickok, H-I-C-K-O-K. Um, we are just residents out in the area where this proposed subdivision is to be developed. I'm actually on the border of the Lot 2 over off of— it's Cran— or Crabtree Street, but I guess it's Blueberry on some maps. So I just want it on the record that, you know, working with S4, watching them come in and do this, it's been very a positive experience.

They've been very forthright in what's going on. There was concerns brought up at the Birchwood Community Council, some of them were mine, about the cul-de-sacs being wide enough and stuff, but that has been clarified for sure. That they will be up to Muni code. So from my perspective, we're in support of it. Positive development, I think, is, is great for our city that we need right now, as long as it's done with, you know, proper— and with proper studies, and also just so it doesn't affect the residents that have been there.

And I know there's concern with some of the residents on Old Cranberry as they're coming into the new subdivision, but that's one or two individuals that it's impacting. And we're, like I said, we're over on Crabtree, so it is impacting us on the back side of us, but as far as the through traffic, it's not impacting us. So there is a concern about how much more traffic will be coming down Old Cranberry there. The other concern that I think should be on public record is, is The busing for the school buses are all the way up on Jayhawk. And so that is quite, quite a ride from us on old, on Crabtree up.

It's, it's about a quarter of a mile that our kids would have to walk to the bus route. So if we're looking at this subdivision going back, it could be a half mile. I mean, hey, when I was younger, I walked a half mile, not a big deal. However, we're out in the rural area a little bit there too. So that was a concern that the council and the community had as well.

But I think that it— working with S4, I think that those issues can be resolved, and working with the municipality too. So we're in support of it as much as we can be and want that to be, like I said, positive interaction for positive development as well. So thank you. Thank you for coming out and testifying and saying that. It sounds like you had some hesitations and questions, and I'm just Happy to hear that the design team was able to work with you and hear you out, and that's, that's great testimony.

Thank you. Anybody have questions of the testifier?

Not a question, more of a comment. Um, I would like to thank you. Not very many people take the time to come all the way to a meeting on a Wednesday night to to say something positive. So I just want to let you know that it's appreciated and that you are in support and that the group was able to address any concerns because of course it's concerning when, you know, something's happening in your neighborhood. But the fact that they took their time and explained it and ended up changing your mind and they're still working with you, I just wanted you to know that it's not very often intention that people come to say nice things.

So thank you. I'm sure, I'm sure not. Yes. And from the get-go, S4 Corp, from the moment I received the card in the mail, the person on the phone I talked to, to actually at the Birchwood Council meeting, to actually the Eklutna, the corporation, all of it, they've been very, very friendly. You know, we might have opposing sides to some degree, But yet that's what the public process is for, and we're able to work through it.

So I appreciate that. Really good to hear, and I totally agree with Ms. Butler. Uh, any other questions of the testifier?

Seeing none, um, anybody—. Yeah, thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify?

Staff is getting ready to call someone for phone testimony.

Your call cannot be completed.

Your call cannot be— Please do not dial a 1 when dialing this number. Hey, Sean.

Hi, this is Mark.

Hello, this is the Planning Board calling for public testimony in case S12838. Are you testifying as an individual or representing a group? As an individual, yes, yes, sir. You have 3 minutes to testify. Please state your full name for the record and go ahead and begin your testimony.

All right, uh, thank you. My name is Mark Coburn, C-O-B-U-R-N. I'm a resident of South Birchwood, adjacent to the tract that's being subdivided by Eklutna. My only comment is, if there are existing public roads that do not meet municipal standards that have to be used to access the subdivisions, I would want the developer to pay for any improvements to those roads rather than sharing it with the adjacent property owners that aren't asking for the improvements to be done. So thank you very much.

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

Seeing none, is there Anyone else wishing to testify? Thank you.

Seeing none, um, would the petitioner like to come up and give any rebuttal? You have 8 minutes and 30 seconds.

Yeah, I'd like to thank the community for coming out. And also, the road comment is correct. Phase 2, part of the requirement would be to construct the roads to municipal standards. So that should relieve their concern. And it will be inspected and have to go through the whole process and be reviewed by the departments.

So any other questions that I can answer?

Any questions?

Seeing none. All right, thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Um, at this time we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion for the phasing plan?

Move by Mr. Cross, second by Mr. Murca. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion? I move in case S12838 to approve the phasing plan subject to Condition 1 to record a suitable plat within 60 months as shown on page 6 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, I'll just read, um, on page 2 under comments. In general, reviewing agencies had no comment or no objection to the subdivision request, and on June 9th, the Planning Department mailed 96 public notices. As of this in writing, the Planning Department had not received comments in response to the public hearing notices, and the Birchwood Community Council did provide some comments that were attached. Those have been addressed regarding the phasing plan. So I, I will be supporting this motion.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Mr. Mirka, would you like to speak to your second? Nothing extra to add, but I will be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Mirka.

Any other findings?

Seeing none, I'm going to pass the gavel over. I will also be supporting this. I agree with everything that Mr. Cross said, and it meets all the criteria, so I'll be voting in favor, taking the apple back. Um, any remaining findings? Seeing none, let's call the vote.

Miss Pennington, how do you vote?

Yeah. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes 7 to 0. Do we have a motion on the plat?

Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Ms. Butler. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion? I move in case S12838 to approve the plat for 60 months subject to conditions 1 through 5A and B 6A through D and 7A through C, as shown on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Uh, yes. Um, regarding concerns from the public, there were two. Um, I will cite that under Condition B4, that, uh, private— that the petitioner must submit to private development review for approval comprehensive site grading and drainage plan to resolve the need for any drainage easements and drainage improvements. And under 5A and B, that will be the, the petitioner's— they are required to construct Old Cranberry Drive from approximately 680 feet south of Tariqa Avenue to the start of Meek subdivision. They will be making those road improvements at their own expense, and nearly 700 feet of road improvements is going to be rather costly.

So just keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Ms. Butler, would you like to speak to your second? Uh, yes, um, I intend to support this motion.

Um, like Member Cross said, the application meets all of the approval criteria. There's no objections from any of the reviewing agencies. Any of the community concerns have been clearly addressed. They will definitely be covered in the conditions, and I support the Department's recommendation of approval. Thank you, Ms. Butler.

Anybody else wishing to add findings?

Yes, thank you. My primary concern on this was just the development of the road, which Mr. Cross had mentioned, as well as the fire department turnarounds in the cul-de-sacs, and I was glad to hear that those had all addressed. So I intend to support the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Any other findings? Seeing none, I'm going to pass the gavel over. I will also be voting in favor of this. I think all the concerns that were raised have been addressed. It meets all the conditions, and I'll be supporting it.

Take the gavel back, and let's call a vote unless somebody has anything else to add. Seeing none, let's go call it. Miss Pennington, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes.

Moving on to board member comments. Does anyone have any comments?

Seeing none. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Moved by Mr. Cross. Second. Second by Mr. Mirka. We are adjourned.

Thanks, guys. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Really good stuff.