Platting Board - December 3, 2025 - 2025-12-03 18:30:00

How's everyone doing? Are we— all set, Sarah?

We'll call this December 3rd, 2025 meeting of the Planning Board to order. May we have roll call? Skyler Quinn. Here. Sarah Catherine Bryan.

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

Kyle Merka. Here. Brenda Mills. Here. Kevin Cross.

Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?

So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Mirka, seconded by Mr. Cross. Are there any corrections or objections to the minutes being approved?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

Sorry.

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

Seeing none, we can move on to informational items. For, for information only, we have abbreviated plat action summaries dated 10/14/25 and 11/3/25.

Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

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

Seeing none, are there any objections to approving the consent agenda?

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved.

The Planning Board meets once a month on the first Wednesday except holidays as regular meetings. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Planning Board at its meetings is: 1. After the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. 2. Persons who wish to testify will follow timelines established in the Commission Rules of Procedure.

A. Petitioners, including all his/her representatives, are given 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. B, representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., are given 5 minutes, and individuals are given 3 minutes. 3, When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board.

4, Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the planning director within 7 days of the board's decisions made on the record a written notice of appeal— 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. If 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, uh, or new business under public hearings. May we have staff's presentation in case S12864?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a request to remove plat note number 2 from Plat 96-101 Glenview Estates subdivision, lot 4.

Plat note number 2 reads: Direct vehicular access from any lot on a frontage road, Hilltop Drive, Wooded Hill Circle, and Leprechaun Drive is permitted. The petitioner is requesting the plat note removal to allow for secondary driveway access to Hilltop Drive for one lot on Glen Hill Circle. The property owner wishes to access the rear of the property for maintenance and seasonal storage of vehicles. The single-family home has an existing driveway and garage that accesses onto Glen Hill Circle, the original Circle created with the subdivision. So in staff's analysis, the Planning Board, for the criteria for successful removal of or modification of a plat note, the criteria— the following criteria as follows: Criteria A, staff feels that Condition A has been met.

At the time of the original plat recording in 1996, the design coupled with the plat notes envisioned all the lots fronting Glen Hill Circle to take primary access from Glen Hill Circle rather than the surrounding streets of Hilltop Drive or Wooded Hollow Circle, and for Glen Hill Circle to be paved along with Hilltop Drive. The constructed subdivision currently has primary driveways onto Glen Hill Circle. The property owner would like to access Hilltop Drive for the subject lot as a secondary use for his recreational vehicles, being able to access it for yard maintenance and the subdivision covenant restrictions for storage. Of said vehicles. Adherence to municipal traffic standards for safe traffic maneuvering onto Hilltop Drive will be a requirement of the new driveway permit.

Municipal Traffic Engineering, they noted that Hilltop Drive is a paved local roadway with a right-of-way dedication of 60 feet. In the Official Streets and Highways Plan, it classifies both Hilltop Drive and Glen Hill Circle as local roadways. Municipal Traffic Engineering Department and Right-of-Way Section had no objections to the plat note removal this access to the rear of the lot. Condition B, staff finds, has been met. Modification of the plat note will not have a negative effect on properties.

The modification of this plat note is only applicable to Lot 4 of Glenview Estates subdivision. The lot has constructed primary access directly to Glen Hill Circle for the single-family structure and garage. The petitioner is requesting that plat note removal for the secondary access to the rear yard area. Municipal Traffic Engineering, Right-of-Way, Street Maintenance did not object to a driveway onto Hilltop Drive. Staff finds Condition C has been met.

Plat 96-101 would continue to meet the approval criteria for subdivisions with modification of this plat note. The existing subdivision still facilitates the orderly and efficient layout and use of the land to the maximum extent feasible, even without the restrictive plat note. The subject property has frontage and constructed primary access onto Glen Hill Circle. It is a municipal requirement that the petitioner will need to get a driveway permit. And in addressing some of the comments that we received late, I was able to go around today and speak with the different agencies again and show them the comments that we received and kind of discuss with it.

So we talked to traffic, and they stated the same— their comments still stand, and that there's a 100-foot separation of lots. 100-Foot wide— the lots are 100-foot wide or more, and they basically said there's a 100-foot separation between driveways if there are secondary driveways, and that's more than adequate. Right-of-way has been out there. Mike Walters, I believe, was the original— one of the original guys on the crew that helped pave that road originally. But they're— one of their inspectors has been out there 6 times, and I believe the petitioner can speak to it as well.

He originally had a smaller culvert, and Right-of-way made them put in a larger culvert that's more adequate for drainage and to address any type of icing or anything like glaciation like that would go on. And then we talked to Tony Windsor in Eagle River Street Maintenance, and he said he had no problem with a second driveway onto Hilltop there. He said they've got steam thaw on call if it freezes up. They're right on it. If anything, it'll just flow over that.

The grader can scrape the ditch line, and they have no problems with a secondary access like that. So we were able to talk to right-of-way Eagle River Street Maintenance, who would be maintenance in it. He also said that Eagle River Street Maintenance, which unlike some of the municipality, they just plow. They don't have a gate or anything. They don't plow driveways.

So there will be a berm there in the back, his second— well, everywhere in Eagle River apparently. But that back lot will be basically a berm unless the homeowner, you know, wants to use it in the winter, which it doesn't sound like he does. So we were able to— that's the agencies I was able to talk to and address, you know, address the public's concerns that they had on some of the issues that resulted with some of the agencies. But they had been out there, right-of-way especially. And has been following it, and their comments still stand.

With that, you know, staff recommends approval, and I can answer any questions you may have. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER HART] Thank you for that presentation. I do have a question about setting precedent. That was something that's been mentioned, and this kind of reminds me of the cases in Bear Valley. Is there legal weight put on if we, if we approve a case and then future applications come in?

I mean, is there— do we have to approve future applications if, if, uh, no, uh, through Mr. Chair? No, there's no, uh, each case is just like every, um, board, you know, entitlement that is being asked for. It's case by case, just like all the PLATS you see in front of you and all the variances that you've dealt with. On plats.

Just because you give a variance for cul-de-sac length or something like that doesn't mean that every neighborhood gets it. Same with, as you mentioned, the previous plat notes. There might be a lot that, you know, that you can't remove the plat note because of the steepness doesn't meet the requirements of the traffic departments for driveway grade or the approach or the width. You know, of the, of the culvert and driveway. So, uh, no, um, each, each one is an individual case, uh, so every owner would have to come in and they'd have to go through the same process of, of the standards, and then that would do whether or not they meet those standards.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Jones has a question. Yeah, thank you. So I'm having a tough time with Condition A, and that just reading this and seeing it and based on information we've had from previous cases, it seems relatively minor in regards to a reason in which we would say, yes, that has changed enough to merit that this condition is met, just going from a paved to a— or gravel to a paved surface, especially considering looking at the plat note. I mean, it encompasses multiple roads around the division.

Looking, you know, if I was the developer back then and had to put the note on, obviously don't know exactly the reason why, but I would assume because the other roads were encompasses, it wasn't just because that was gravel. So can you speak to a little bit more about why this would trigger in your mind to meet that condition? Well, we don't 100% know. We did look originally when the applicant came in and looked at an old— pulled the boxes and got the old case records. They've gone since gone back, but there was nothing in there that really stated it was kind of offered up Agency comments were different back then.

You know, I was 24, or over 20, that was in the '90s. So things were done a little different. They were just compiled, and they just had a plat note requirement on there from PM&E and traffic. I believe there might have been, there's no like records of testimony or anything like that, but I believe maybe it was offered up. That they wanted the primary driveways to be constructed on the Glen Hill Circle.

They didn't want someone to build a new house because none of the houses were built yet. It was for plat approval. And they didn't want a house to be built and then taking primary access from these other roads.

You know, it's hard to tell. That was, you know, '96. Well, it was not that long ago. That was a long time ago. As far as code changes and the viewpoints of traffic and right-of-way and the administration currently.

Does that answer your question? Yeah, it does. It seems to me that, you know, all these have all taken their primary access where the— that's where the majority of your traffic load is going to be, is people going out onto the Glen Hill Circle. Sure. And it's all built out in that subdivision.

Okay, a couple more questions for you. When traffic is looking at this, my concern is that, much like the chair had mentioned, you know, about setting precedence. If, if we say yes here, my mind goes to, you know, if this rationale is sound, why shouldn't we allow any of the other lots on this subdivision to do that, that face this road? If, say, any— everyone else does this, this individual is using it for, you know, recreational storage use he sells the house, next person builds an ADU, it's got 2 or 3 cars that come in every day. Every house does that on the street.

Now this lot, this road's got 40 more cars on a given day coming and going. Are they looking at what this road can accommodate in terms of traffic, or are they just looking at driveway separations? I mean, I'm concerned what is Hilltop Drive built to, and can it— I mean, if you just looked at Yes, would a driveway on each one of these houses— could it support that? And if a developer was putting that in, does that road meet those standards? Uh, yes, uh, through the chair, um, there was a little bit of discussion of that.

I— we touched on that a little bit today. Um, um, uh, you know, ADUs are now allowed, and, uh, uh, the, uh, the road is, um, 20-foot strip paved local road with 60 feet of right-of-way in case these be, you know, further expanded. And it's— they didn't have the traffic counts, but just looking— the traffic engineer had looked briefly at the number of existing and potential, and it's, you know, it's a local road just like any other street. It can handle— the volume's not there to— like, it's not maxed out volume yet. And that's what they look at.

They do look at the traffic counts too. Driveway separation and things like that. Okay, thank you. Yeah, my final comment is in the comments it was, it was given that back in 2001 someone attempted to do the same thing on Lot 7 and it was declined. Do you have any insight as to, you know, we kind of looked—.

Sorry, yeah, yes, we kind of looked into that and I went around and asked traffic and right-of-way and, uh, uh, you know, they— we said, well, about the precedence, I brought up the precedence and then the fact there might have been another lot that got denied, and they said both traffic and riders. I said, well, the, you know, the current administration and the current— our current view is, is, uh, that might have been the case back then, is to not allow access, but they, they're confident now the way it's built and the way it's been built out so far that it's fine, that they're still sticking with allowing access to that. And it meets the current standards and traffic count load. And the street maintenance was fine with the maintenance of it as well. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Miss Mills, do you have any questions? I do have a question. Um, my question is for the application process under 2103.020H. Is community engagement and community meetings part of a plat removal application process?

Uh, no, no, not for plat note removal. Okay, I was just concerned because on page 22, um, of the staff packet, like, the community council wasn't notified. And as somebody who works in land use a lot, community engagement is really important, especially if it's gonna affect the surrounding properties, and I was just kind of wondering about that. Right.

Any follow-up, Miss Mills?

Uh, any other questions?

I think that's it. Uh, we're ready for the presentation of the petitioner. If you could please come to the podium and please, please state and spell your name for the record, and you're given 10 minutes. Oh, can you please turn your mic on? There's a little button down below.

There you go.

My name is David Hudson. I'm the owner of 2303 Glen Hill Circle.

One of the things that I guess I have to establish coming into this, why we did what we did or why we wanted to do what we've done. I'm a long-term resident of Alaska. I'm a prior police officer. I retired from APD. I worked Eagle River, Chugiak, Birchwood, all the way out to mile 32 of the Glenn.

That was our jurisdiction. So I've watched the residents, Birchwood, Chugiak, Peters Creek area grow, and the growth that I'm speaking of is we've gone from gravel roads that were annually oiled to now paved surfaces, surface, and that surface is of course to spec with what the road maintenance people want for, in accordance with the ordinance for the width of the roadway. This is a 60-foot roadway with, with right-of-way. I'm set back off of that. I made sure that I was.

Matter of fact, my fence, when I put my fence in, I called Ryan Johnson here. He's my surveyor. And Ryan surveyed to make sure that I was inside the boundaries of my property. I wanted to make sure the fence was inside the boundary so that I didn't impede on anybody or anything. And plus the fact my wife, um, she likes to look at moose and rabbits and those kind of things.

And so by having a clear path from my fence to where the vegetation starts They run by all the time and she sits out there and watches them. So do my dogs, by the way. But anyway, so 2 years ago we started this process. Initially it was kind of an oversight on my part with land use permits because that's what everything used to be back in the day. And, you know, they were pretty— the city was pretty lax on that.

Now the city has tightened that up. With a permitting process. So immediately I went and got a permit. Um, so I got a land use permit for all the work that I was doing in my backyard. So there was a lot of trees that were taken down, a lot of dirt work that had to be done, fence put in.

So we did all that work, and one of the things that it was necessitated having that type of access, uh, was using heavy equipment. So, um, in response to all of that, knowing that what I was looking to do was depart my 40-foot motorhome, and I have a 20-foot enclosed trailer, and I have a couple of little small, um, four-wheeler trailers, that kind of thing, kind of toy trailers, um, that I park in the backyard. Uh, it's, it's not a primary ingress/egress. It is, it is a secondary at best. I'll park my motorhome there, and come season, my wife and I are traveling, so we'll be gone.

Um, and I just needed access so that I could park a 40-foot motorhome. It's a truck, it's a Freightliner. A truck, a Super C motorhome. And so I needed, I needed something to support that. And so we have a D1 pathway that we built that's sufficient for the weight of the motorhome.

We had all that engineered as it's supposed to be. If I was to come from the front, and I know some of the notes that somebody says, well, you can, you can make access from the front, it's a 3-degree grade, and I don't think that I'm going to take that weight of a motorhome across my septic field. That would crush my septic field. So that's why necessitated having to look at a, uh, access in the back. So I made application, process was approved.

I talked to many departments over on Elmore And I was over there quite a bit. You can attest to that. I spent a lot of time over there making sure that the T's were crossed and the I's were dotted.

As far as I've seen some information about safety concerns, safety concerns, what safety concerns? I mean, the, the roads folks. Have said it's fine.

Matter of fact, we've made— we've tried not to impede anything within the subdivision because we knew we have neighbors that do not like that kind of thing being done. It's a new way and they're stuck in the old ways. So I didn't want to be one to have the finger pointed at me, but I read today in the package of all the things that are in my backyard. My wife was coming here to testify tonight, and she wouldn't come and testify because she was so distraught over what was put in this package. The sheds, the lights, my hot tub, everything that was listed in there, uh, is a privacy infringement.

And if it's not a privacy infringement at the very least, it could be stalking under municipal code. So I, I'm just trying to get along with my neighbors, so I've done everything humanly possible to make sure that this was correct. Ryan's going to talk— Ryan Johnson from my surveyor is going to talk about the technical aspects that we've met.

Yep, so just to—. Can you state and spell your name for the record? Uh, my name is Ryan Johnson, R-Y-A-N J-O-H-N-S-O-N. And then just to address a couple of the comments, I think for Condition A, Hilltop Drive, it had the platted right-of-way to make a loop that connected with Ski Road going up Bear Mountain, but That's never constructed, and I don't think it will be constructed, so there's a lot less traffic flow going through there. And then the other comment— comment, I forgot what it was. But yeah, it's just simple secondary use, not going to be a primary driveway or anything like that.

So for edification, there are 14 lots in our subdivision, Glen Hill Estates. Only 7 of those would— could even possibly have access if there was. But the way there— the way our lots are constructed, ones below me, so 1 through 3, are right on the apex of where you come in off the Old Glen Highway onto Chapel and then up right in that apex. Two of them are located there. I don't think that would— it would be a, a reach to get to those being approved because of the way the street's laid out.

I'm further up, I'm further up the hill. There's nothing that would impede me from parking my motorhome or taking in and taking it out, but that's all I'm using for. It's a secondary, not primary, secondary usage. I have a privacy fence that I close and lock, and that's that.

And then we'll save the rest of the time after this. The other comment that I had was all these— it's not going to really set a precedent. Everyone that wants to do this in the future is going to have to go through the same process and get approved, so you can't have one of the lots that has the T driveway. You can't— right-of-way won't let you do that. So on one of those lots, this would get turned down.

So I think that addresses Mr. Jones and Ms. Mills' questions, uh, as to the reason behind that. It's just— I'm just making application for Lot 4. Yep, we'll save the rest of the time. Thank you for that presentation. You have 1 minute and 18 seconds left for rebuttal.

Uh, if you could hang out, see if we have any questions for you.

Miss Mills? Yeah, actually, I would like to— no, um, I read in the packet that DOT suggested a modification to the plat note as opposed to removal. I'm just saying like a seasonal access. Um, well, I saw that, I saw that from DOT PF as well. Um, it could have gone either way in application, either removal of the note or modification of the note.

Either way, the same thing would be accomplished. Understood, but it might be a little bit easier to do a modification and layout the season of use instead of just having this open plat removal, plat note removal, and then maybe neighboring properties wouldn't push back so hard? Yeah, that would be something to think about, you know, to have the notes say secondary use, like no permanent driveways. Right. And so like—.

Or things like that. Signify an actual season of use, so, you know, there won't be concerns about wintertime and icy roads and that kind of stuff. Well, when you say seasonal use, um, I'm primarily thinking of my motorhome and my trailer, but say I wanted to get my four-wheeler out to go all the way around to come up to my upper driveway to plow it, I would probably go through that fence with my four-wheeler. Um, again, that's not primary ingress egress. That's, you know, for— I guess you could call it special use or whatever, for plowing my driveway.

I do have a side-by-side, but it generally goes in the 20-foot trailer and I drag it out of there. So no, I don't see— I don't foresee this becoming an issue. But either way, it's kind of the city's thing as to whether it becomes modification to the plat note or just an out-and-out removal of the plat note. Thank you. I hope that answers your question.

Yeah, no, I was just— I read it and I wanted to just get your input on that and see how you felt about it. Thank you, Miss Mills. Any other questions?

Seeing none, I think we're going to open this up to public testimony. And again, you have a minute and 18 seconds left for rebuttal time. Thank you.

Anyone wishing to testify, please come up to the podium.

Public testimony, please state and spell your name for the record, and you have 3 minutes.

My name is Tim Jones. As I stated in my comments, I've been up there for—. Excuse me, Mr. Jones, would you please state and spell your name for the record? Do what? State and spell your name for the record.

Can you spell your name for the record, please? Timothy, T-I-M-O-T-H-Y, Jones, J-O-N-E-S. Thanks. As I stated in, uh, in our comments, I've been up there 40 years. Before the subdivision came in, and that was originally a gravel pit.

And when they developed it, or got the approval for development, the whole area was concerned about access, or, you know, people coming out of the back streets and stuff. And we were promised at that time that there would be no access on the back roads, or on the from the backs of these properties. So I guess it kind of sticks. But one of the things I thought is when they said gravel, when the gravel went in, it changed from gravel to pavement, that was a key to initiating the plat removal. But I'm sure that the people planned somewhere along the line that that would get paved eventually.

So I don't really see that that's a trigger point.

You've got the precedent in 2001 for the plat removal that was denied.

In 2001, The owner of Lot 7, Glen Hills Estates, installed an access driveway on Hilltop and without permit and sought the removal of plat number— plat note number 2. The plat board denied it, and then it was appealed to the assembly, Municipal Assembly, and it was the— they upheld the denial. And I was at the meeting, the plat meeting last time, so, uh, it's at that time nobody can answer the reason for Plat Number 2. Um, yeah, I guess the other thing that we're concerned about is the safety at the bottom of the hill. That's a school bus stop, and we've been 40 years driving up up and down that road, and we've seen many conditions.

As I stated in my testimony, I have slid on that road. Stop, you know, we start— I've slid into and onto the Old Glen Highway, uncontrolled slide, and I don't want to see that happen if he's in Thank you. Okay, sorry. You have any questions? Do we have any questions?

Oh, I want—. Sorry, I, I, I want— I, I want to respect the boundaries we have around time, but— and you might not be able to answer this, I was in grade school back when this was originally decided by the planning board— but do you remember what the rationale for the denial of removing Platano Tutte was more than 20 years ago? Yeah, oh, what, do I know what the rationale was? Yes, I mean, we should be relying on the actual decision, but if you can speak to that, that would be helpful. I know that at that time that a lot of the improvements or subdivisions were coordinated with the community council, or Chugiak Community Council, and had a lot of input into that along with the, with the communities that surrounded this area or this subdivision.

And, uh, as you got to know, a comment from Darryl Parks from the, uh, president of the Chugiak Community Council— excuse me— um, they don't normally allow any, uh, secondary accesses It just— at the back of the, of the properties. I think you should have the comments on that from him.

Thank you. Do you have any other questions?

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

Information that we're saying, I mean, we were told to make copies, so I just want to know if you wanted, uh, Sean, is this everything? Uh, Mr. Chair, yes, we, we— every comment that we receive through email or on the CityView portal, uh, has, has been provided to the Planning Board. You can provide— go ahead and provide what you have.

Go ahead and provide what you have. Um, is this on? Okay, I'm Tony Jones, T-O-N-I-E Jones, J-O-N-E-S. Um, I've lived there since 1985. Uh, the driveway coming from the backyard, Lot 4, Glen Estates, Hill Estates, into the Hilltop Drive Prince, since to me a safety issue, uh, there's— I know he was commenting that it wasn't, but for me it has always been a safety issue. Children walk down that Hilltop Drive to the school bus at the bottom of the hill, and there's a city park, uh, Loretta— no, I can't remember— a Kohler, Miriam Kohler Park at the bottom of the hill with children playing along that same area that is, uh, right at the bottom of that hill.

And, uh, vehicles are parked along the road for— they park there for the school bus stop, but they also park because there's a park there and, uh, the children play there. Uh, to me, I'm a nurse, so I have always— and I work with pediatrics, so for me, anything that has to do with safety is, is really important to me. And when it comes to children, it's It's a priority. And so to me, that alone is scary to me because that road, I have actually stood down that road and I've also flipped my car on that road. I've actually coming down it, turned sideways and flipped over.

It was a car full of people. So it's this road, you don't have to be there. It's some people may not think it's very steep, but to me it is steep. And So I think that the fact that there's going to be more homes, I know there will be more people coming out on that road. I just, I don't doubt that at all because, I mean, you're saying that everybody has to come to you and ask, but if one's going to make it through, aren't they all going to make it through?

I mean, it's not fair that one would be able to get it and the others wouldn't if they can actually get there. And I am just concerned about the that those children at the bottom of the hill, that is, that is my biggest concern. Um, with more people coming on there, more accidents could possibly happen. This is the only way in and out for us, for the people who live, which, you know, there's not, uh, there's probably 3 or 4 houses there, but there's also lots of lots that are come— that can be built on back on, uh, in Wooded Hollow Circle. And, uh, so I just feel like there's going to be more people coming down that road and, uh, I just am concerned about the amount of people that are actually coming into that hilltop and creating problems.

So even though that road was crowned many years back, there's still potential that that actually— those cul-de-sacs or those culverts being placed there, so many of them building up with ice. I don't know. I just am scared that they're going to build up with debris and ice, and then they say that they won't flow over into that crown, but I just don't believe that because we've had a lot of ice come to cross that road from those. So thank you for your testimony. Yeah, do we have any questions?

Can I comment on what, uh, Brian actually said about that? And not—. Unfortunately, your testimony is— pardon me, you've ran out of your 3 minutes. I'm sorry. Sure.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

Anyone else?

Here's some pictures of the role model.

If you could please state and spell your name for the record, and you have 3 minutes. Is the mic on already? I guess it is. It is, it's on. We can hear you.

Lori Neuschwander. 20517 Wooded Hollow Circle is my address. Last name is N-E-U-S-C-H-W-A-N-D-E-R. And I'm opposing the removal or any modification to Plat Note 2 based on— well, in 201, the case there that in 201 Lot 7 of Glenview Estate States attempted to have this plat note removed after he constructed a driveway from the back of his lot onto Hilltop. A public hearing and an appeal were held, and it was denied by both the planning department and the assembly. If this note is removed or modified, it will set a precedence, I feel, and there could be potentially 6 or 7 additional driveways accessing from the back down Hilltop.

And when Lot 4 constructed a driveway onto Hilltop, this is the identical situation of Lot 7 back in 201.

Glen Hill Circle, Lot 4, he basically has two driveways since he has a horseshoe driveway and a large parking pad off of Glen Hill Circle. Where he can certainly access it out that direction rather than, you know, like the back. Timberline survey stated that the topography on Lot 4 would not— the removal of vegetation or alteration of the existing site topography. Well, it's already been altered at the 2 years ago when they started to basically clear the whole lot of all the trees, and I know that they can do what they want in their private lots and property that they own. But this did take out, you know, like, all of their trees, so it did, you know, alter that.

And Timberline states maybe for seasonal personal use. And how do you determine seasonal? There's four seasons in Alaska. We all have our toys that like to come and go. And I just don't see that, you know, that would work that way.

And again, safety concerns. There's— there can possibly be 6, 7 driveways. There's 3 lots back there. If they put duplexes on there, that could be an additional 10, 12 vehicles back there coming up and down the road in the future. And I just, um, that would be another concern for, you know, safety.

So I'm opposing removing the plat note.

Thank you for testimony. Do we have any questions?

Mr. Cross, you're thinking? I just have a question. Are these Do you know if all the lots are on well and septic, or is this all public— is this public water and sewer? I thought it was all well and septic, correct? Well and septic.

Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, anyone else wishing to testify?

Hi, my name is Becky Kitchen, B-E-C-K-Y K-I-T-C-H-I-N. I live on Glen Hill with Mr. Hudson here. I'm at the top of the hill. I have no access to the road of which they speak. And like they said, only maybe 7 houses that have even close to access to get to where he's trying to get to.

That road doesn't cut through. If they ever do decide to cut through, then you're talking heavy traffic for them. They don't even mention— she talks about safety for the children. I get that there is a park there, but right behind the park is a construction company that's bringing in big pieces of equipment to and from their property too that access that road, but it's further down the hill by the park. That's it.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

I actually—. I—. This is just me being nosy. Um, we very rarely see people who are not the petitioners or the petitioner's relatives come and support or provide even neutral commentary on petitions before the Planning Board. And so I'm interested, um, are you— you're a neighbor, um, so I— you're just here because you—.

I, I said that they were going to do this, I'm like, oh, I'll go check it out. Awesome, thank you for coming and providing that testimony. Okay. Any other questions?

I think that's it. Cool.

Unfortunately, you've already provided your public testimony, so we can't receive it.

Anyone else wishing to testify?

With that, we're going to close public testimony. Oh, sorry, uh, would the petitioner like to rebut the testimony? You have a minute and 18 seconds.

There's probably not much. Please state and spell your name again for the record. David Hudson. It's probably not much in the, in the sense of rebuttal, uh, more clarity. Um, so we're talking about there's only 7 lots that would even come close to being able to, to ever apply for the same thing that I'm doing.

3 Below me, in other words, 3 from me down to Raven and to Chapel and to the Old Glen would be really tough for them to do because they're in the apex of a very busy corner. The gentleman testified as to sliding down the hill. I'll counter that by McKenna does a really good job of— they're the contractor for the Eagle River Road Board, and they do an exquisite job of cleaning snow from the street and also sanding when, when applicable. And I know that Chapel Drive really gets hit really hard in that apex of the corner there because there is a bus stop. The bus stops on the Old Glen and kids have to walk across.

There's a church there on the corner. There is a park there. Raven is the name of this Drink. Thank you. Do we have any final questions?

Thank you for your time. Thank you. I'd like to close public testimony at this time, and the matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion?

Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Miss Sarah Catherine Bryan. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion? Yes, in the case of S12864, to approve the removal of plat note number 2, plat 80— excuse me, 96-101— that reads direct vehicular access from any— from any lot onto frontage road Hilltop Drive, Wooded Hollow Circle, or Leprechaun Drive is prohibited, subject to recording a resolution with the State of Alaska Recorder's Office against the property recognizing removal of the plat note. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes. Um, so I listen to the, you know, the public's concern about the additional traffic, but we're really talking about very little traffic, okay? We're talking about one individual, and we have the right to police this, as well as we're relying upon the information provided by traffic and the experts in planning department— excuse me, at the planning department. To tell us that they've done their research. Dozens of people who've been doing this for many, many years to say that this is reasonable use.

Second, as far as the hill being steep, I live on Prudhoe Bay Drive. It's a 17% grade for a mile and a half, and they just approved two more houses on that road. I can't believe this is any more steeper than what we're approving all over Chugiak/Eagle River for houses. And this is simply a secondary access. Okay, I, I think that, um, in fact, you're actually making— if you're saying that more traffic is dangerous, we're actually making Glen Hill Drive more safe because that house— that road is about the same length but has 3 times the number of houses, and you're just asking to add more traffic onto that rather than another street built to similar standard that has— what I counted, I could see less than 10 houses on it.

So it's actually safer to divert some traffic from Glen onto Hilltop, and we're not talking a ton. We're talking very small use. In fact, you probably get more traffic every time a teenager turns 16. If any of those homeowners have one teenager get a driver's license, I guarantee you it's 100 times more traffic than this gentleman accessing the back of his property. Finally, the fear that the ADUs are going to blow up and everybody's going to grow onto it.

These houses are on well and septic. What do you have to do when you add an ADU onto a house with a well or septic? You have to completely modify your septic system, add $50,000-$60,000 onto the cost. It is unrealistic to think that everybody on that street is going to add an additional dwelling unit, to tear up their septic system, re-modify it, and then build a structure with the building department, and with— even though we're outside the BSA in Eagle River. So I think a lot of these fears have just lead of our imagination gone wild.

This is a gentleman who has the right to access his property reasonably without unreasonable restrictions put on by government, and I think this is a completely fair and reasonable use. So I will be voting for it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Miss Sarah Catherine Bryan, would you like to speak to your second?

Yes, thank you. Um, first I'd like to echo Mr. Cross's, uh, just emphasis on the fact that we're relying on experts who work for our municipality municipality and the traffic and planning departments to make most, if not all, of our factual findings. And so in the event that we are seeing hundreds of, hundreds of additional cars suddenly come onto these streets, future petitions may be denied. Again, I don't want to belittle any of the people who testified, but I agree that we are these are the risk of having dozens, hundreds of cars come onto the street every day. I think it's speculative.

Um, multiple public comments also addressed and stated genuine concerns regarding traffic safety which might be adversely affected by the removal of Plattnote 2. These specific concerns include a lack of adequate stop and yield signs in some of the written public comments. Um, the remedy for those concerns is not to deny the petition. Rather, concerned community members should work through appropriate municipal, municipal channels to ensure appropriate traffic signage be installed. Staff analysis of this matter is clear: adherence to municipal traffic standards for safe traffic and maneuvering onto Hilltop Drive will be a requirement of any new driveway permit.

Um, that is a Development Services Department issue, not a Planning Board issue. Finally, petitioner mentioned— and this is a little bit off topic— but petitioner mentioned that some of the conduct from his neighbors may constitute stalking under the municipal code. Fun fact: Title VIII Title VIII does not actually provide for a cause of action for stalking. However, the Alaska statute for stalking leaves out a lot of irritating harassing behavior, so I encourage you to petition the Municipality of Anchorage to revise Title VIII if you are concerned about the limits of the law on that. Thank you.

Thank you for those findings, Mr. Jones. Thank you. And I wanted to just clarify a few things. So I am very sympathetic to the petitioner. I understand what you're trying to do.

You know, we all live in Alaska. Recreational vehicles, things like that, are a big part of living up here and enjoying it. And I do hear what the people that shared their testimony, the fears that you have. Do I think that this place is going to blow up with traffic? I really don't.

But really, the issue that I have with this and the challenge that I have with supporting this is that we as a board have specific rules here that we have to adhere to and have to be met for us to be able to remove this note. So regardless of what was said tonight, we have to rely on was the information provided to us enough to meet the criteria. And I really don't feel that, uh, Item A has been met because the subdivision is, is the same with the exception of that road has been paved And I don't think that was the limiting factor of not allowing access to those side roads as part of this. So as I mentioned, I, I support— I agree with what they're trying to do. I think it's great to have the access.

Unfortunately, the way this lot was set up with that plat note, to me, this hasn't been met, and I can't support it for that reason. If this was a different development that didn't have that plat note, I think it'd be fantastic. I would love to do something like that on, on a property that I owned. Um, but it's— to me, it just— I don't see this meeting the criteria. But thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Anyone else wishing to add findings? Mr. Berko? Um, I would like to agree that I have read this packet early when I got it, and then I read it again today, and then I of course have listened to all this testimony. I think Mr. Jones has very adequately stated my thoughts on the matter as well.

I am drastically empathetic to Mr. Hudson in his lot and his circumstance, and I want very badly to have him access both sides, but I too do not see that all of these have been met and that there's adequate cause to remove the platanone. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Mirka. Ms. Mills. Yeah, so Um, I was torn at first, obviously.

Um, I do think that somebody should have the right to do what they see fit with their property. I also do understand when you buy a piece of property, you agree to certain rules and regulations, ordinances, all that kind of fun stuff. Um, and then I heard the comments, and, and I It is, it is just a simple use. Um, I don't— if it was a 20-year-old coming in here, you know, wanting to like, you know, have secondary access, I would be super hesitant. But if a gentleman wants to put a diesel pusher in his backyard, like, that is a big deal.

That's a big piece of machinery. Like, I would not want it driving over my septic. And we can't see that on the site plan, obviously, because we don't have an as-built site plan. We just have the site plan. So we don't see the things that are giving the reason for this request.

We don't see the, the septic. We don't see the well. We don't see those locations. We just see this gentleman wanting to, you know, get around this code. Would I be more comfortable with a modification of the plat note?

Absolutely. You know, just to have a secondary access plat now would be better. The other thing is everybody keeps referring to these 7 properties that have— could potentially have secondary access, but that's not the case. DOT and PF recommend that Lots 1 and 3 still have restricted access to Chapel Drive and Hilltop Drive. That's on page 29 of the packet.

The other thing is the reference to the plat note removal for Lot 7, that's a completely different type of location. That's on a corner, that's a corner lot between two streets. So I can only see three potential properties. One is Lot 4, which we're discussing. Um, but secondary access, I do not see an issue.

I totally support the planning department. Shawn went above and beyond multiple times talking to multiple departments and multiple reviewing agencies. So I definitely have changed my mind, and I will be supporting this plat note removal. Thank you, Miss Mills. Mr. Mirka, your mic's hot.

The only thing that I wanted to add is that we cannot know the future owner, future residents of this property and their intention. We cannot know that. And so that's come up many times tonight, that, that Mr. Hudson has a very adequate use case for this secondary access, and I couldn't agree more that he does in every way, shape, and form, but we do not know what the future for that property is. So that's all I want to add. Thank you, Mr. Murka.

Mr. Cross, it's my understanding, as far as the significant changes to the subdivision, it's my understanding that Hilltype Drive at one point was supposed to loop around and connect through, and that was never done. So that road was actually supposed to have substantially more traffic on it. Um, if you look at the original plats and you look at where the road right-of-ways are and what's established on there, um, utilizing the MOA GIS maps. You can see that originally was supposed to be a road that connected through with much more traffic on it. And I think what happened was that wasn't done.

The amount of traffic on Hillside Drive significantly reduced, and therefore I think that meets the criteria. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Uh, I'd actually like to hear Mr. Jones' comments on what Mr. Cross just said.

Uh, truthfully, I think that that would, I guess, make more of the case for this plat note staying, because had it been developed, the petitioner could then come in and say, well, this has changed, something changed about the road. And so we could say, okay, yeah, there, there's maybe the road was improved more when it was made through to a loop, maybe it was made wider, bigger, whatever, um, so that I could say, yes, this has changed enough to substantially change that note. But as it sits right now, the road and the way it's developed is the same as it was when, when this was originally put in. So in my mind, it goes back to I don't feel like that note is, is met, or that condition is met.

Anyone else?

Miss Mills. Through the chair, I would actually— would, um, Member Jones, would you feel more comfortable if it was a modification to the plat note for secondary access?

No, actually. And like I said, I have no— the objection is not to what the lot would be used for in the slightest. Like I said, I, I share Mr. Murka's sentiment that, you know, for what what the petitioner is looking to do. I think it's great. It'd be great.

I don't feel like it would drive the traffic concerns. So it really has nothing to do with the use. It has everything to do with us as the board. We have to look at the criteria that have been presented for us to say, yes, something has changed, and we should be able to look at that and make our decision on it. But in my mind, this has not changed substantially enough for me to say I agree that all 3 criteria have been met.

I just, I just don't see it. And it's tough because we don't typically go against staff's recommendation on something. But to me, it does have a bit of a precedence feel to it where, you know, someone's going to come in and say, well, some trees got cut down, and that, you know, well, you did this one. Is that enough now to say something changed because this road got paved? That was enough, you did it for them.

So I have a difficult time seeing, you know, in my own mind, not necessarily whether the board would be held liable for, you know, saying yes or no to something later, but to my mind and myself of, okay, I voted this on this. If this same situation came up, maybe slightly different or something later, would I say, yeah, I made the same call, or am I going against my own, you know, thoughts and reasons on it? And I just— I don't think this has been met in my mind.

Final comments.

Let's call the vote.

With that, it passes.

Do we have any board member comments?

Mr. Murka? Um, I am relieved because Mr. Hudson gets to do what he wants, and I got to vote with my conscience, so it's perfect. So, but selfishly, uh, that doesn't mean everybody's happy be in the room, but I am. Thank you. Any other comments?

Do we have a motion to adjourn? I so move. Moved by Miss Sarah Catherine Bryan. Seconded by Miss Mills or Miss Ploy. And we're adjourned.

It was tough. It went how I hoped. I didn't have to be perfect this way, but I just— I was thinking. I really— that's why I really was thinking, you know, and you could take— I feel like you could take both your.