Mat-Su Borough: Platting Board Meeting July 16, 2026

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm opening up this meeting to the Planning Board at 1:00 PM. Madam Secretary, the roll. Planning Member Shavetta. Present.

Planning Member Leaping. Present. Planning Member Gilson. Present. Planning Member Carney.

Present. Planning Member Traxler. Present. Planning Member Kevin. Present.

Planning Member Farnoff. Present. Madam Chair, we have a quorum. Thank you very much. We stand for the pledge, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Can I get a motion to approve the minutes from July 2nd's meeting?

Madam Chair, I'll motion to approve the minutes from the July 2nd meeting. Thank you very much. Can I get a second?

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

Madam Chair, I move to approve the agenda for the July 16th meeting. Thank you very much. Can I get a second? I'll second it. Thank you very much.

Okay, I'm going to open up— oh, sorry, yeah, I'm getting ahead of myself. Are there any objections to approving either the minutes or the agenda? Okay, both have been approved. Beautiful.

Okay, so I'm going to open up public testimony for persons to be heard present or online for items not scheduled for public hearing.

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

Anybody online? Okay, seeing none, I am closing public testimony.

Okay, so we have Primrose Point Phase 4. The request is to relocate— oh, we do have one person online.

You lied to me, you told me no.

Okay.

Reopen. Okay, I'm going to reopen for public testimony.

Yeah, just at the end of today's discussion, I have a question. I'm learning about what this public hearing is related to because I have the land immediately south of the 8 lots proposed. So I'll just have a question at the end if that's okay. My name is Chalen Ryan, R-E-I-N. Thank you, sir.

If you want to speak at the testimony for the— when that agenda item comes up, please press, I believe it's star 3 on your phone, and you will theoretically raise your hand and we will be able to give you indication as when it's appropriate to speak. Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, I'm— nobody else online? We're good.

Okay, I'm closing public testimony. Okay, we are on Primrose Point Phase 4. The request is to relocate an internal road in the last phase of Primrose Point MSP, Tract D, Primrose Point Phase 1, to be known as Primrose Point Phase 4, pursuant to Title 43.15.049. The proposed change will require board approval. The property is located directly north of West Lone Cub Drive and south of West Ashbrook Drive within the Southeast Quarter Section 4, Township 17 North, Range 01 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, in the city of Wasilla and Assembly District Number 4.

To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

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

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

Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There was 176 public notices mailed June 23rd, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Chris Kerlin, Planning Staff. The proposed subdivision was approved with an internal cul-de-sac located further south. Pursuant to MSB 43-1545-G2D, proposed right-of-way easements may be moved up to 60 feet if approved by the Planning Officer. The proposed relocation is beyond 60 feet and will require Board approval.

A copy of the existing and proposed Plans are at Exhibit D. The soils report was submitted pursuant to MSB 432281A by Stephen Panoni, professional engineer. Notes that 3 test holes were excavated. No groundwater was encountered. Test hole location map and soils logs are included in the exhibit. The engineer states that each lot has 10,000 square feet of contiguous usable septic area and 10,000 square feet of usable building area.

Comments: MSB, pre-design and engineering. As previously stated on June 2nd, the portion of Lone Cub Drive fronting the subdivision is classified on the OSHPD as a minor collector. PD&E suggests Lot 20 take access from Ashbrook Drive and Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19 share common accesses to Lone Cub Drive. Please note that per, per the 2022 Subdivision Construction Manual A043C, space shall be provided on these lots for turnaround so the vehicles will not have to back out onto minor collector streets. Staff notes the issue was unresolved at the time of this report.

Westlone Club Drive is a City of Wasilla-owned and maintained road. There was no response from the city. MSB Permit Center had no comments. Utilities, GCI had no comments or objections. MTA has no comment.

NSTAR and MEA did not reply. Public, Kristen Bates objects and shared additional pages of concerns. Ron Orbeck has concerns about the design of each property, sewer, water, and mailboxes.

Comments received after this report was written are in the handouts. Staff notes: this subdivision was previously approved, and this platting action is to change the location of an internal road. Plat of Primrose Point Phase 4 is consistent with state statute and borough code. A soils report was submitted. Legal and physical access exists.

Topographic information was— were submitted. There were no objections received from the borough departments, outside agencies, or utilities at the time of this staff report. Case is to approve or deny the relocation of an internal road. Staff recommends approval with these 6 findings of fact and 7 conditions of approval. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Curling. Questions for staff? Mr. Levy. Um, I'm just curious, the, the comments from pre-design and engineering regarding lots, uh, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are Are you covering those comments under your condition 4A there where you're just simply asked to submit the design to them?

Sort of. It's something that needs to be decided here by the parties involved. Uh, before we get to the point of the preconstruction meeting. It would be good to go in with this is the plan.

So, I'm a little confused then. Um, is it a condition of approval, or are we not ready to approve without that design?

Through the chair, it would not be supported by PD&E as it is without, without the shared access, that they would proceed no further than the preconstruction meeting without doing that. So either you make them do it, or PD&E will at the preconstruction meeting, or nothing will ever happen.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Curling.

Okay, I'm going to invite the petitioner or the petitioner's representative to come up and speak.

If you want to press the button on the microphone. Thank you, sir. Good evening. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Panone, not Panone.

That's all right. It's Italian. Um, I am with Pinon Engineering. I'm the engineer that is working on developing the roads and the water system. When we brought this project online, we were given pre-approved plans.

They were not stamped. They were designed by another engineer, and when we started reviewing and doing the actual design, we found that the road coming up from Lone Cub to the first intersection was greater than 10% based on the contours, and to— that violated the, the code requirements of what a road could be. And then the road going into, um, the, the cul-de-sac was flat, and there was all kinds of grades that just wouldn't work. So we were able to move it by moving it about 60 feet where we show it on the plat, we are able to get and meet the, meet the codes for steep driveway or steep roads. And, um, so it just makes the— it makes the whole subdivision actually work this time.

Based on the question about the shared driveway, we could easily put an easement for a hammerhead coming out of a garage or something like that. The problem is we don't know exactly where the houses are going to sit. So we could show, um, um, an easement of a shared driveway and put a requirement for a hammerhead outside any house that may be built on those, uh, 4 lots or 5 lots, uh, 16 through, um, 20. Other than that, everything else stays the same. It's just fixing it based on the actual topography.

Um, I don't know why it why it was approved originally with, with a greater than 10% grade, but it wouldn't work. And all we're trying to do is just fix that, that issue there. Um, I'd be open for any questions if there, if there are any.

Mr. Levy, I guess the question is, obviously, this, the shared driveway and access to the streets is a, uh, hard stop with PW, uh, or the Public Works pre-engineering, um, as the developer, would you rather have it, uh, laid out on the plat approved by the board or move forward and work it out later in the process with pre-design?

Um, that, that's, uh, I obviously I'd like to do it in pre-design. We'd like to move forward with this, start getting things moving on this. We would, uh, um, obviously when, when we do schedule a pre-construction meeting, we would have, uh, design in hand when we showed up for that. Um, with, again, we're, we're going to be making some assumptions of where a house is going to go and where these, these turnarounds would be, but at least we could, we could show where a driveway would, a shared driveway would work. And a driveway for a— for lot 16 would work.

Mr. Young, Tyler Young, Planning Officer. This is a very common occurrence. This is not out of the realm of ordinary measures. Usually these issues are handled at pre-design and engineering based entirely on what he said. They don't entirely know where everything is going to go.

We don't want to lock them into one area. When that changes would need to be made. And if changes are made, they would have to come back in front of the board. So we would prefer as the planning to leave this to pre-design engineering to take care of.

Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to open up for public testimony.

Is there anybody present that would like to speak to this particular case?

Come forward. Okay.

For public comment, we ask that you sign the book that is down in front of you with your name for the record and state your name and spell your last name after turning on your microphone, and you will have 3 minutes to speak.

Oh, that's okay.

They might be speaking at different hearings or a different event.

Okay, looks like they're all sitting right back there raising their hands. So if you want to come up afterwards, you, uh, have the same criteria, and the timer will start after you finish spelling your name.

Been a long time since I've been to a planning meeting, and it's been a long time since I've had to speak in a public facility. So bear with me, this is a little new. If you state your name and spell your last name just so we could have it correct in the record. Sure. It's Diane, D-I-A-N-N-E. Last name is Woodruff, W-O-O-D-R-U-F-F. And I do thank you for this opportunity to weigh in.

Thank you. Your timer starts now. My house is also known as Lot 23, Block 4, Shadowood Valley Edition Number 1, which is immediately adjacent to this particular subject property. I have been going to planning board hearings on this from off and on since 2005, when the original development of 195 lots on 65 acres was proposed. And at that time, it was a little distressing because we found that the Planning Board was asked to approve it with a lot of misinformation in the packet, um, misinformation from the developer, from the Planning Technician at the time, from the City Planner, et cetera.

The result of that was that we ended up having to ask for reconsideration, which we got. The Planning Board then overturned their approval. Based on the facts that it did not meet city code, it certainly didn't meet Wasilla Borough Code even. And so we ended up then going to the Board of Adjustment Appeals, which affirmed the overturning that had been done at the planning— our planning board. So I'm very concerned that all of you have the facts and understand exactly what we're looking at here before you make a decision.

That's—. You're being asked to approve something that isn't set in stone. And what we're finding is that when we have things that are not solidly in stone, when the board has to make its decision, that bad things sometimes come to pass later. So I am not okay with them thinking that maybe they'll work out a solution for those 4 lots, which, as you will notice if you look at Exhibit D, you've got 2 versions, the old one and the new one. And on the old one, it did not have any lots that had to access access only through Lone Cub.

And now you've got 4 and potentially a 5th one that may access onto that. So you're looking at a very, very short stretch of road from an intersection. There's one other house that's there. Then you're going to look at 3, maybe 4, even up to 5 driveways and a new road coming in for 22 new lots. And those new lots may or may not be duplexes.

They're legal because the zoning on my side of the line is R-1, which is single-family residential. The zoning on their side of the line is R-2, which allows for duplexes. And every other building, all 17 of them on Ashbrook as it stands now, are duplexes. So we are looking at quite a bit of traffic that may go down and The estimate that you looked at, or the assumption made, was that 50% of that traffic would probably go the other way. If you are anywhere near the top of that hill, it doesn't make any sense to go out the other way.

So we're looking at maybe 44 new families worth of traffic emptying onto that street, and it is, as noted, a minor collector. So there's concern about people not backing out into the street, which is why they're looking at maybe a potential driveway combination. I talked to the city this morning about that. They're still up in the air as to how that's going to go too. So, um, with that in mind, I would urge you to at least postpone this, take another look at it, and get everything down before you decide whether or not it should be approved.

So that's just my thought of that. We have a similar T-intersection about 3 blocks from my house, maybe. And every single winter, somebody slides through that. It's a bad thing. So I know that, that the property is steep.

It certainly presents some challenges for the developer, but they knew that when they bought the property, or they should have known that when they bought the property and planned accordingly. And this is just not a complete design that makes sense. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Hello. If you want to sign the book that's in front of you. Okay. I already signed up the other one. Do I do this one too?

This one, just to say that you had spoke at the podium.

Hi, my name is Barb Shogren. And if you want to spell your name just so we get it absolutely right on the record. It's B-A-R-B S-H-O-G-R-E-N. Great. And we'll start your 3-minute timer now.

Thank you. Okay. Yes, and I live, uh, right behind where the new subdivision would be going in, um, and I've lived in that home probably close to 50 years. And we— when the first proposal came through, as the lady mentioned, back in 2005 or 2006, We were— I was peripherally involved with the petition that went through, and we were able to have it looked at and postponed, and they ended up increasing the sizes of the lots so we didn't have that intense population in such a limited area. And when I looked at the thing that came through, I thought we had just, you know, I thought because we signed the petition and things had been changed back in the early 2000s that they would not be looking at this congested development area.

So what I'm— I have concerns. I did read— I hadn't seen the engineer's report about the absorbency of the soil. So at first I was concerned that all those septics going in with all those people could really impact the septic ability, the soil's ability to absorb, but apparently It's not a case. However, I am concerned about the infrastructure being able to support that number of people, especially if there's duplexes that go in and just the whole congestion on that area. That's a lot to put in, um, into that small area.

Um, noise pollution with the lack of trees and all those buildings behind us. It's just, I'm just really concerned and would really appreciate if the lots could be enlarged so there wouldn't be that much congestion in such a small area. That's it. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. If you could state your name and spell your name, and then your 3-minute timer will start after that. Margaret Melear, M-E-L-E-A-R. And I just moved in within the last 6 years. They've been here longer. Um, and I appreciate seeing the original.

I think in my email, that was my question. What did the original look like so we could compare it? Um, but I think my concern also is all the homes that have been built so far behind us. I'm in, um, Lot 3, um, kind of behind Lot 28 and 26 of what's proposed here. Um, so what has been built close to me in the last couple of years are all duplexes as well.

So I look at this small area and see 22 lots and imagine 44 families, septic for 44, a lot of— a lot more traffic, a lot more. Yeah, it's just a very different setup than everything around it that I moved into. Um, so I think that's concerning as well. Um. But I think just really reiterate what they said.

I think those are my concerns as well. So thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Is there anybody else present that would like to speak?

Anybody online?

Okay, I'm closing public testimony.

Would the petitioner's representative like to speak again?

I have nothing further to say. Okay, can I get a motion from the board?

Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary plat of Primrose Point Phase 4, Section 4, Township 17 North, Range 01 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 7. Thank you, Mr. Leibing. Can I get a second? I second. Thank you very much.

Discussion from the board?

Quick question for staff, uh, with the backing up, is there anything with the driveway permit process that could deal with these kinds of issues in the future?

They will have to— through the chair, Tyler Young, flooding officer— they will have to approve, uh, get approval for driveway permits for each new lot contingent on PD&E's recommendations, likely involving shared access to limit the amount of driveways, and with that shared access, T-turnarounds to make sure that there is area for vehicles to turn around to be able to enter appropriately onto that classification of a road. Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions?

Mr. Kevin? Uh, yes, through the chair, I— my biggest concern is with that shared access.

Shouldn't that be something on the plat that we approve? Prior to approval because you can put in a shared access easement through the Planning Board and then they can design the hammerhead in the lot. Even though you don't have a specific location where you're going to put the house at this point, I understand. But when you've got 5 lots, I don't see why you can't put a shared easement in between the— on the lot lines, which then gives the ability and authority for the permit process, because you can't have a driveway within 6 feet of a pin at the corner of your lot when you go from the road access to the lot. So if we—.

If that's provided for the Planning Board to approve, then they can put the shared driveway in. Through the Chair, Tyler Young, Planning Officer. Condition number 4C, arrange pre-final and final inspections with DPW per CFM, the subdivision construction manual, and submit final report to platting per F1. They are going to have to work with DPW to figure out all of those issues before platting will sign off and final recommendation before any of these lots could be conveyed out. Um, the reason why we are not pushing towards a shared easement is because it's not just 2 lots that are affected.

It's not easy to say where these shared— which lots are going to be sharing with which lots. And I do not want to lock anyone into having to figure that out right now when PD&E could come back and say, no, we— it's better for it to be over here. And then they have to come back in front of us to make all those changes.

Back to the chair, and the reason I asked that question is through my own experience is that Easements can be applied after approval, but prior to final approval. Therefore, it's still approved under borough code, and accessibility is the same at that point as if it had been approved by the board.

Even though the easement's not applied now, the easement can be affixed at the time of final platting, correct? That is correct. Yes, I think the concern from what I've read through public comment and what's been heard here today is the concern of where the driveways are, that it's— even though it's not affirmed on what we're approving, it still has to be approved on final plat and to borough code. That's correct.

Any other questions?

Hey, any objections?

No objections. Motion passes.

Next, we have Sunshine Meadows Phase 2. The request is to create 9 lots from Tract A1. Sunshine Meadows Phase 3, plat number 2014-30, to be known as Sunshine Meadows Phase 2, containing 14.84 acres plus or minus. The property is located south of West King Arthur Drive, east of North White Rabbit Drive, and north of West Cherry Lake Drive within the northwest quarter section 36 Township 18 North, Range 03 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, in the city of Houston and in Assembly District Number 7. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, other parties interested in the application, or members of the public concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time the matter is submitted for decision outside of the public process provided by the borough?

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

Seeing an affirmative. Madam Secretary, the mailing.

There was 102 public notices mailed June 16th, 2026, as well as June 23rd, 2026. The reason for two mailings was there was an error on the first mailing for it being mailed out too late, so that's why there was a second mailing on that one. All right, thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The proposed Sunshine Meadows Phase 2 is creating 9 lots located within the City of Houston city limits. Access for all lots is from the proposed internal street. Access to the subdivision is from West King Arthur Drive and West Cherry Lake Drive. Both roads are maintained by the City of Houston. Legal and physical access requirements will be met once the internal road construction has been completed.

A geotechnical report was submitted pursuant to code. Per Mark Hansen, professional engineer, each of the proposed lots does have at least 10,000 square feet of usable building area and at least 10,000 square feet of contiguous usable septic area pursuant to code. Topographic mapping and a drainage plan were submitted and are on exhibit page 6. An average daily traffic calculation was submitted and is seen on the agenda plat. There were no objections received from any state or federal agencies, borough departments, or utilities, or the City of Houston.

No comments were received from the public in response to the notice of public hearing. Staff recommends approval with 7 findings of fact and 8 recommendations of conditions of approval. Thank you, Matthew. Any questions for staff?

Seeing none. I'm going to— is the petitioner, petitioner's representative present, like to speak?

Turned it off. Yeah, there you go. Uh, yeah, so it's Chris Burt. I'm with FR Bell and Associates. We're just the engineering firm that's doing this for John.

Um, we have nothing to say. We've been working with the the staff throughout this process. So we kind of—. Every—. Everything that's in the recommendations, we're fine with.

Uh, just note that the, the road, the access road, uh, the petitioner actually worked with the City of Houston last fall. It's already constructed and built to their standards. And so that was pretty much the only recommendation on there that was something outstanding to do. Uh, available for any questions. Any questions?

I don't see any. You're up. It's pretty straightforward. Yep, it is.

Okay, I'm going to open up for public testimony.

Is anybody here that would like to speak to this particular case?

Anybody online?

Nope. Okay, I'm closing public testimony.

Where'd he go? So he just came up here and spoke. I don't imagine he wants to come back up again. I asked twice.

Did you, did you want to say anything else? Okay, we're good. Alrighty, can I get a motion from the board? Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary plat of Sunshine Meadows Phase 2, Section 36, Township 18 North, Range 03 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 8. Thank you, Mr. Leving.

Can I get a second? I'll second it. Thank you, Mr. Kevin. Discussion from the board?

No discussion. Are there any objections?

Seeing no objection, motion passes.

All right, next we have Starlight Subdivision. The request is to create 184 lots in 2 tracts from parcels 17N North, 02 West, 31D002. Oh geez.

17N02W31D003 and 17N02W31C002 to be known as Starlight Subdivision, containing 200 acres plus or minus. The plat is located directly north of West Carmel Road, west of South Goose Bay Road, and south of West Sunset Avenue, located within the Southwest Quarter Section 31, Township 17 North, Range 02 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, in the K'nik Fairview Community Council and in Assembly District Number 5. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision? Or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

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

Are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Madam Secretary, the mailing report. There was 63 public notices mailed June 16th, 2026, and June 23rd, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Cayman Reynolds, Planning Staff. Uh, initially, the petitioner would also like to request a 10-year— a total of 10-year approval extension for the fact that there are 13 phases. Due to this also being quite a large subdivision, they wanted to present the entire thing at once and to also account for potential changes in economic conditions. Uh, as for the, um, soils report, 41 test holes were dug with water being found in 4.

These are noted as seeps or moist conditions varying from depths of 8.5 to 15 feet. Groundwater will be a limiting factor for lower areas of some lots. However, each appears to have adequate usable area. Total elevation change across the entire area is 94 feet. Majority of the area is composed of gentle ridges and valleys with some steep slopes exceeding 25%.

Each lot will still contain 10,000 square feet of usable septic and building area. The development will have a community water system. Note that the USA's comment is in the handouts. There are 5 handouts for this case. See the 5th for an updated recommendation of conditions of approval.

The conditions of approval were further amended to—. Please see—. So please see the supplemental handout. There are no objections or concerns received from borough departments, outside agencies, or public at the time of the staff report. 3 Handouts contain objections by the public.

All 3 note potential issues with traffic due to Carmel Road being a rural road. One notes USPS does not deliver down the road. One notes that Starlight Subdivision will interfere with their planned private airstrip and concerns about trespassing on their existing dirt bike track and potential stormwater and drainage issues. At the time of the staff report write-up, there are no responses to requests for comments from Alaska Department of Fish and Game. United States Army Corps of Engineers, MSB, emergency services, planning division, or development services, on-star or MTA.

Staff recommends approval of the master plan and Starlight subdivision with the 7 findings of fact and 10 conditions of approval as presented in the supplemental handout.

Thank you, came in with the petitioner's representative. Like to speak? Oh, yeah, go ahead. Sorry. Apologies.

Tyler Young, planning officer. Just to reiterate what came and said to the board. The handout that is— I apologize for the number of handouts. That is my, that is my fault. The appropriate handout to be referring to is the one that has the sticker on the bottom that says supplemental handout Starlight subdivision.

That is the final version of the handouts.

Thank you, Mr. Young. Gary.

Gary LaRosa with Keystone Surveying, representing the petitioner who's here today. Um, Tyler, it wasn't your fault. It was actually behind the scenes. The conditions changed because Tyler, Tyler did the proper research and it was a good thing and he should be thanked for that. But anyways, there's no fault there.

He did good. And then came and stole what I wanted to talk about, which was that we're asking for a 10-year approval.

As I said in the submittal letter, hopefully you read it. Um, a lot of people would have brought their subdivisions in in pieces, so you'd never know the whole thing, and traffic wouldn't be planned properly. Um, we don't do that. We bring it in all at once so you could see what's going to happen and make sure that everything is properly accounted for. If you notice, you'll see there's a through collector right-of-way to the unsubdivided property.

It's 80 feet wide. It actually fits a collector road. Um, anyways, um, I know it's just a brief overview, so, um, Carmel Road is classified by the borough as a minor collector. That's where traffic is supposed to go. It's—.

This is a step above residential collector, so it's a, you know, That's where the traffic goes. Um, I'll save the rest for afterwards and see if there's questions later. Unless you want to ask them now, but usually wait. We can wait. Okay, thanks.

Thank you, Gary. Okay, I'm going to open for public testimony. Are there persons present that would like to speak to this case?

Come forward.

Thank you, sir. If you want to state your name and spell it, so we make sure we get it correct in the record, and then your 3-minute timer will start once you're done. My name is Paul Griffin, Griffin, Paul.

Speaking on behalf of this Starlight subdivision, I own a 30-acre and 40-acre plot just to the west of that. I did submit a little written statement and some maps to you guys. Oh, I'm sorry. First time ever doing this. Yeah, like I was saying, I own a 30-acre and a 40-acre just west— west.

I'm sorry, just east of the west line on Starlette property or development.

I submitted a little sheet and a map yesterday. We have had plans on developing our property. We do have a snow machine track, motorcycle track. Uh, there is a picture of our airfield on it. Um, we are not opposed to the neighborhood going in, other than the first public hearing notice that we got.

Um, the first time that was canceled and rescheduled to this one, we had absolutely no idea any of this was going on. Um, uh, we're showing concerns for Carmel Road, the excess traffic. Yes, we do want to develop also, but our development would be a much smaller, smaller development in the neighborhood and would not cause as much traffic influx on the roadways. Um, it does appear— I have read over some things. This is my first time getting the full scope of work or the documentation, um, that you guys have provided us.

Uh, my concerns are once it's developed, once lots are sold off, uh, to make people aware that are buying those lots of noise concerns., coming from our property. There are cases going on, or there have been cases in the, in the past, to where motocross tracks, snow machine tracks, airplane fields, stuff like that, that do generate a lot of noise, starts getting complaints, um, and can affect our viability to develop our property the way that we want to. Um, nothing has been brought on to the plotting committee for our property. Uh, we have talked to a surveyor, um, kind of got a general idea of what we want to do. It is by no means the final statement.

That's why we haven't submitted anything. Um, this is our 10-year plan to develop our property also, and we just have concerns on putting in a 185-unit development right adjacent to us. That's all I have to say. Is there any questions?

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Did I fill this in? Yes, sir, if you could fill out that form.

I think I made it without my glasses. Thank you, sir. If you could state your name and spell your name so we get it correct in the record, and then your name is James Link, and it's L-I-N-K. Great. Your 3-minute timer starts now, sir.

Uh, this is something that I don't do that often, so I'm basically here to get in the system. Uh, I have no information, very little, just notice that they were going to do it. That's the only information I have.

So it's wide open as far as I'm concerned.

What's— if they turned around and said it's approved the way it is, then I've got to look at what says on that piece of paper that the borough sent me, that they was— how they was going to make the lots and so forth. In other words, see what I'm getting at? I, I got to get more information what's going on, um, one way or the other. Uh, I just happened to, uh, I have, uh, 80 acres on the east side of this subdivision, so I'm a little concerned. But one of the things I am wondering about is just the little pond that's on this property.

I don't know what their water system, what their sewer system, whatever. This is a surface water lake. There may be a little water trickle into it, but no big deal. Houses all the way around it. With sewer systems, uh, is the little pond going to turn into a big green garden, or, or does anybody else have to pay any attention to it after it's over with?

Or, uh, you know, I don't know any regulations, uh, no information as to the developers for their subdivision. Do they say, uh, size houses, this size lots? I don't have anything. That's why I'm here, just to see the best way that I can get more information on this.

Mr. Young. Tyler Young, Planning Officer. I'm stopping the timer.

Yes, sir. We are following public procedure as set forth by the assembly in terms of notification. I'm glad that the notification reached you. Thank you for coming out and giving your public testimony. As it's shown on here, all the lots meet all the Matsubara code per the Planning Department.

We have reviewed this very thoroughly, and we've worked with both petitioner, the surveyor, and the engineer to make sure that everything is going to be done correctly. The minimum lot size on this, since it's a community sewer— I'm sorry, community water— is 20,000 square feet, about half an acre. There will be no lots smaller than that. I don't believe that you have a utility lot or anything like that that is less than 20,000 square feet. No, so all lots will be 20,000 square feet minimum.

Every—. There is a condition of approval and notification both on the plans and in the approval process in terms of the State of Alaska having jurisdiction over all septic systems. Everything will need to be installed and approved and appropriately permitted through the State of Alaska system for all new septic systems going into every single lot. In terms of house design, that is beyond what the Planning Board represents. These will all be private properties, and they can do with it as they see fit within the reasons of code.

So, so, is there any other questions that you might have that I can answer? As far as, as the builder that wants to develop this, yes, do they have anything that they're going to file or anything? As to the conditions that they want within their subdivision that they can control, uh, dos and don'ts and so forth? I believe you're referring to covenant— through the chair, I believe you're referring to covenants and restrictions. Um, they will have the ability to do that.

That is not anything that the Planning Board or the Planning Department oversees. So then I would have to contact them through them some way as to their regulations.

If they—. On that type, in other words, if they've got some specialty that they want in there, uh, that it can't happen in that subdivision or not, I'll have to go to them to find that kind of stuff out. Correct, yes. Okay. Okay, well, that's, um, I know more now about it than I did before, but so there's more coming.

That's what I'm interested in. This is the big picture, right? This is what's going to happen over, uh, if approval takes place. This is what will happen over the next 10 years, right? It's not, it's not all going to happen right out of the hat.

Yeah, I didn't, but I figured they was going to run me off right away. No, no, sir. Um, I don't have one of my business cards. Actually, I do. I do have a business card down here.

I highly recommend you reach out to me if you have any further questions as the— as this process continues. Yeah, if you can bring it down. Thank you. Um, and I'd be happy to answer any further questions or direct you in the right direction. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, my name is Jessica Lowe, L-O-W-E. Great, and I'll start your 3-minute timer now. Thank you. Okay, also a first-timer speaker, so bear with me. Um, I live off of Carmel Road myself with my family, and we have been working to build out a pocket and long plans for our 15-acre parcel that we have out there.

The notification that just came in the mail a couple weeks ago was the first information we had about this subdivision, which will very much so impact this neighborhood. There are homestead families in here, large parcels for lots of multi-generation people. It's very spread out, quiet, the way we like it. Putting in a large development— and I get it, things are growing, we need to expand. I work in real estate, so I totally understand that it's inevitable.

But putting in 184 houses, uh, if they're, if they're single-family residential— I don't even know, as the gentleman before said, there was not a whole lot of information that came out in the notification in the mail. Um, but the amount of traffic, um, as I said, I'm directly off Carmel. We already lost part of our property when they paved the road and took some of our privacy away. Now, if that road has this much more traffic on it, my concern is, are they going to widen the road? If they widen any further, you're taking away my driveway and privacy that we— the little bit of privacy we have left on our property.

Um, the infrastructure, the wear and tear on the roads, the demand on the school mail system, as I saw in one of the petitions in the mail, you know, there's There's no room for the mailboxes. Are they going to have a community mailbox in their subdivision? Um, the well and the septic issues and demands there, the impact on the wildlife with the marshes and the ponds that are in the area, all of these things. It seems like there's a bit of a— well, I won't say that, but, you know, half-acre lots, it seems like they're really trying to cram it all in and get as much as they can for the area. You know, people move to the Valley because they want They don't want to be on postage size land parcels right next to their neighbor.

They want the space. They want the freedom to do what they're wanting to do. What are the CCNRs going to be like for this neighborhood? Are they going to be having dogs and noise issues? Are there going to be restrictions?

What kind of clientele are they going to be bringing into our neighborhood? And what kind of crime or issues could be coming with that if it is multifamily or other things? So I think that there's a lot of information here that has not been revealed to us or shared with us yet. I know there was numerous neighbors I spoke to that had big concerns with this. They couldn't be here, unfortunately, today.

Some neighbors that we spoke to didn't even know anything about it until we showed them the letter we got, and yet it should impact them equally as much as us, and they weren't even informed. So I, I think this is something that really needs to be reevaluated and make sure that it's not going to have a negative impact on the residents that are already there, on our well flow and water quality, soil absorptions, runoff, all the demands. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Come forward.

Thank you, sir. If you could, uh, state your name and spell it so we get it correct in the record, and then we'll start your 3-minute timer. Yes, sir. My name is Steve Piskosky, last name spelled P-E-S-K-O-S-K-Y.

Good afternoon. Um, I don't know the young lady that just testified, but apparently we're neighbors. Um, I live at 9958 West Carmel Road. I moved there 4 years ago seeking a rural lifestyle and found it. You know, we live in a community that's very quiet.

The moose roam freely. We have often sightings. It's a great quality of life. Um, as mentioned, you know, the notice for this development kind of lagged. You know, we're just catching up to those notices now.

But I live directly across from Starlight, so you can imagine I'm less than enamored to wake up and see the forest clear-cut across the street from me, and to understand that there's going to be 184 new neighbors on my doorstep in high-density development. Um, that's not attractive to me as a resident of the community. That's not what I moved there for. But more appropriately, You know, a lot of folks have mentioned West Carmel Road. The section of West Carmel Road where this development is taking place is barely a two-lane gravel road, uh, during times of weather, which is now and else— else other times frequently washboarded out, lots of potholes, very difficult on washing out.

I'd like to understand, and I have big concerns about what is a supporting infrastructure for Starlight. The supplementals you mentioned, Tyler, I didn't see those. Those were kind of not accessible there, so it may be addressed in there. But, you know, it's difficult passing the section of Carmel Road where I live on now when you put that amount of traffic over time on. What are the plans to develop this?

As we mentioned, if we pave it, all of a sudden that encroaches on our properties. If we don't do something to improve it, it's not really suited for hundreds of new vehicles coming on through there on a daily basis. So I do have significant concerns on the road noise, quality of life, etc., and these should have been addressed before some of these notices caught up to us. Those are my opinions and my thoughts. Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your testimony.

Anybody else present that would like to speak?

Sir, please come forward.

Sorry, I apologize. Can you state your name just so we have it for the minutes? Paul Griffin. Thank you. Um, I was just wondering, have you guys read and— or mulled over, whatever you want to call it— uh, any of the turned-in statements that have been brought into you guys?

Like, yes sir, like the one that I have turned—. Okay. Can, can you fill us in on any kind of comments that you guys might have on what you have learned from the public? Who this is going to be impacting, you know.

I have one comment about the roads. That is a road service area issue, not a planning board issue necessarily. So if you got problems with your road, you need to direct it to your local RSA. Okay. Other than that, I don't have any comments.

Tyler Young, Planning Officer. We read every single comment. Every comment gets entered into the public record, and it is kept in perpetuity. So we hold on to every single one of those comments in relation to this subdivision for the entire time that we will have access to the subdivision, which is we keep records indefinitely, right? We don't destroy anything.

And everything stays in-house. Planning deals with Matsuburo Code Title 43, and that is subdivision regulations as set forth by the Matsuburo Assembly. Correct.

We sympathize, but we only have a certain amount of power as the government to tell people how to use their private property. Correct. And this meets code. This meets the proper code that has been put forth. Okay.

So that's, that's as far as we are able to do it. That's as far as our purview goes. Okay. I was just, you know, like I said, it's first time here, first time ever trying to deal with this. Don't—.

Trying to get understanding of the whole entire process. Absolutely. And I feel— I recommend you reach out to my office and we could discuss it further. Of course. Would you like a card?

Couple, can you bring that down? Thank you. Of course. Thank you.

Any other public testimony?

Sorry, Jessica Lowe, L-O-W-E, for the record. Uh, just a question comment. So you mentioned that plating doesn't have anything to do with the roads and to talk to RSAA. It seems like there's a disconnect though. If you guys are approving things and there's not communication going on with RSA, you guys are openly approving things that create other problems that can't be resolved because it's not being communicated directly.

Is that correct? Am I understanding? Not exactly. Tyler, go ahead. Tyler Young, Planning Officer.

We reach out to all the RSAs when, uh, this application came forth. We dispersed it far and wide throughout the borough to many within the, within the borough and outside of the borough. Cayman, I'm hoping you can answer whether or not— if you could go back through your packet and answer whether the RSA responded to our request for comments.

None of the RSAs responded.

The RSA did not respond for request for comment.

We tried, but we do not require them to respond if they don't, if they choose not to. Now, it does— this subdivision does meet our standards in terms that are set by Pre-Design and Engineering, another division of the borough. And it meets code. So if they don't respond, it's just the residents of the area who have to suffer the consequences if there's not a solution. Well, you can go to the local RSA board meetings and express your concerns there.

Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, um, question for staff. Okay. Um, Tyler, what is— because no one's mentioned it— what is the classification of Carmel?

Did you— I heard him mention the other subdivision road. Oh, Carmel as well. I missed that. It's a—. Yeah, we can't hear you.

Same problem. Is Carmel a minor collector or a collector? So, oh, Carmel is— I thought you were talking about one of the subdivision roads inside. So Carmel is a minor collector. Okay, thank you, Matthew.

Thank you, Chair. And as Tyler lightly touched on, PD&E reviews these. They are the department in the borough that is over top of the RSAs. So, if roads are not currently certified to standard, our Public Works Department calls it out as something that needs to be addressed. Obviously, if the roads are already certified to standard to meet the requirements, it wouldn't be on the developer to upgrade them further.

Because they should already be at that classification. That's where Public Works weighs in and makes sure the roads meet the requirements as part of the subdivision process. Thank you, Matthew.

Anything else? Close public testimony. Oh, no. Anybody online?

No. Last chance. Anybody else that would like to speak? Seeing none, I'm closing public testimony. Gary, you're up.

Uh, Gary LaRusso again, Curt Haller, and then, uh, Jess Hall is here if you have questions for him. I do. So the community mailboxes— are there going to be community mailboxes? I'm pretty sure the Settler's Bay— yes.

Is there a location designated for the community mailbox? They're designated by the Postal Service, so we don't get to pick and choose where they go. Okay. Is there a dedicated lot for the community, for the homeowners that would be dedicated to the HOA for the subdivision, for park community gathering, that sort of thing? There is not.

Could there be? That's a lot of lots to not have one designated for the community to have for a park and our community gathering. And who would maintain the park?

And who would own it? The homeowners association. I've seen this in other developments. I lived in one. I used to live down KGB, kind of a course across from Carmel, and they dedicated the lot that they used to mine gravel, and the homeowners association owned it, and we had to fill it in, and then we bought the equipment for the, for the park for the kids to hang out in.

I think that's somewhat normal. Would you like to speak? Well, I can answer that. There won't be a homeowners association in here. There will be restrictive covenants in the subdivision, but we don't have planned for an HOA.

And that goes beyond—. I understand. We do have plans for mailboxes. We have to work that out with the Post Office and Public Works on where it goes. So they both have to agree where we're going to put them.

So those will be in there. So, yeah, I asked outside of Title 43. Um, and I'm not supposed to do that, but I'm sure the public was probably curious about that question too. So I asked.

If there was going to be a park, a designated block, you know, back to my submittal letter. Most people would bring this in in pieces, and most people would never even ask that question when it comes in in pieces. But we brought it in as a whole project so you could see the whole project. When I, when I was on the Title 27 committee, which is predecessor to 43, there was an attempt or a lot of conversation actually about requiring a park or an open space lot in every subdivision, every subdivision that went in. And it just wasn't feasible to do that or require it, and the borough didn't want to take them was the big issue.

It's like, yeah, sure, but, you know, we want to dedicate it to the borough. They don't want it. They'll tell you they don't want the liability for it. How do you control that? How do you keep it just to the subdivision owners?

You can't. You get everybody coming in there. It's not a feasible thing unless, unless it's done by a municipal organization and they have a parks department that takes care of it. That's the only way those things function. There's a lot of lawsuits right now.

In this valley over open space and access the lakes only because they're not being maintained. So, um, it's out of 43, but you asked the question, so thank you for answering it. Well, just to go back, I've been developing for a while, and many years ago we tried to put, you know, open space park in there, and the borough wouldn't allow us to even put it on the plat. Because we didn't have an HOA, but we wanted to put that space in there. So it's not really an option.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Just a quick question for staff with this new subdivision. Uh, obviously the traffic volume increasing. Automatically you guys would trigger the developer to redevelop Carmel Road if the numbers made it necessary, correct? Tyler Young, Planning Officer, through the chair. This has been vetted by PD&E, and Carmel Road already meets the standard to be able to handle this subdivision.

I'm just— for the public, that's something that's alleviated that's something that's alleviated on some kind of level and looked into? Yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chief. Through the chair, we had 2 meetings with Public Works before this, and we went through all the issues.

You see, they have no comment other than a typo.

I think it's classified as a minor collector. It's 23 to 24 feet wide or more. It meets the standard. It's this subdivision. We're asking for a 10-year approval.

So there isn't a heavy load upfront, which is what would happen if it didn't have a lot of approval. Everything would come in at once. This gives the borough— it's the borough's responsibility to build and maintain those roads. And when traffic reaches a certain point, they will have to do that. With the tax money derived from here and everywhere else and everyone that uses the road.

There's other subdivisions going in in the area that I know of. Um, lighting does too. It's, it's, it'll get to a point where RSA will have to spend some money there, and that's the way the borough works.

Thank you. That was kind of my point, that there is a grand master plan. It's not just willy-nilly. And when the requirements are there and the requirements are met, RSA is going to do something. That's what— that's— you have to talk to your RSA people.

And, well, you know that. You have to talk to them and make it a priority for them. It's always a squeaky wheel, you know, who's squeaking the loudest though. Madam Chair.

If, if the question I, I think was asked and maybe danced around was the condition of the road surface in this area, I'm very familiar with, is because it was washboardy and the road is wide, plenty wide. Um, is there was no discussion from the RSA or anything about— because that would be the RSA or Public Works that would be required to pave that section. I don't think it's something that would fall on the builder developing the land to pave it at this point. Is, is there room for discussion with that for them as this development goes forward? Because it's obviously not being all developed at once.

So that's the whole reason for the 10-year plan. Is that something that can be conditionally approved?

Mr. Young, through the chair, is your question— can you repeat your question? So the concern from public was the road surface in that location. So from the gravel beginning to where this section is, is a quarter of a mile roughly, maybe, that's not paved. So the concern from public is road condition.

Is—. I guess it's an R— it's outside of Title 43 for us. It's a road condition RSA issue. So for us, it's not even something we can considered. That's correct.

As the road is constructed, it may not— eventually this road is going to require maintenance beyond the level that is going to have it, and that will gradually increase. Eventually that maintenance is going to cost more than what it would be to just pave the road. So eventually there's going to be a break-even point. When the RSA will pave that road. I don't know when that will be.

That's outside of my division, but it will happen eventually because it makes financial sense for it to happen. Correct. But for platting responsibility for the platting board, even though the concern from public is access, it meets code. We don't have control over the road surface. In our decision.

We're deciding on the appropriateness of the subdivision following code. We can understand public comment and concern, but we can't let it decide where we go based on the department that's responsible for that. That's correct. And, and I want to make sure people outside understand that. That's right.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Alrighty, gentlemen, thank you. Thanks.

Can I get a motion from the board? Madam Chair, I move to approve the master plan of Starlight Subdivision, Section 31, Township 17 North, Range 02 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, contingent on staff recommendations 1 through 10. To also include a 10-year approval plan for the master plan, which I don't see in the 1 through 10 submittal. Can we include that, or does that have to be a separate vote? That can be included.

Okay, beautiful. Can I get a second? Second. Discussion from the board?

I, I'd like to offer this, uh, comment. Not necessarily germane to this, but I know a lot of people will probably leave immediately after a vote on it. So I would just— this is the issue of an existing road which was designed to a certain standard but may have fallen into disrepair and causing a lot of problems for everyone and the concerns associated with that. I have been told that it is a fairly effective tool to use the Matsu Problem Reporter It's an online system, and if you and all your neighbors come complain about the current condition of Carmel Road, I have been told that it's an effective way to get some assistance in that regard, because, uh, I've— obviously there's some disagreement about whether Carmel Road is in good shape or not. So I, I only offer that prior to everybody leaving after the vote.

I concur with what you said. Definitely use the problem reporter. They will get— they will respond. They will get back to you about that and resolve the issue.

Um, any further discussion, Mr. Carter? Madam Chair, I, I just have, uh, just a couple comments because again, like, um, Shaliving said, you know, I think the public would like to, to hear these things. Um, maybe helps out the mind or maybe give an understanding of process. First of all, I, uh, I've developed, I own a real estate brokerage, I build homes. I've sat in your seat, I've sat in the developer seat, and now I'm sitting in this seat.

And in our job is strictly to make sure that we make sure that the application, the proposals meet the SCM, right? We don't control covenants, code restrictions, whether they're going to be there or not, HOAs, whether they're going to be there or not. Public concern is heard. We read the notes, we're up here reading them even as people come up here, and I just want people to know that the public know that we, we do hear it, but we make a judgment based off of does it meet the contractor manual, the construction manual, and something like this, though it's huge, we look at it and it does. And we can't allow our feelings and our personal opinions really to, to be the judge.

So we hear you for sure.

But at the end of the day, it meets all the requirements, and that's what we have to make a decision on. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Any objections?

Seeing none, the motion passes. All right, to the board, do you want to take a break now or do you want to go through another case? One more. One more.

Well, they're kind of hooked together though.

I guess it doesn't matter. Shadow Mountain ones.

Well, let's get, let's get through one more. We can always pick it up for the next one. Okay, is my recommendation. Alrighty, we'll go with that. Okay, so next we have Shadow Mountain Circle.

The request is to grant, to grant a public use easement over a portion of government lot 11 and tax parcel D6. The proposed public use easement is to allow proper alignment of an access road to be constructed as part of the proposed Shadow Mountain Estates subdivision. The property is located north of Knick River, south and west of Bodenburg Creek, and directly east of South Oakland Highway within the southeast quarter section 35, Township 17 North, Range 02 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, in Butte Community Council and Assembly District Number 1, to the board. Do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

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

Seeing none. Are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There was 29 public notices mailed June 16th, 2026, as well as June 23rd, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Matthew Goddard, Planning Technician. The proposed Shadow Mountain Circle public use easement is being put forward in conjunction with the proposed Shadow Mountain Estates, which is scheduled to be heard Next in line, if approved, the proposed easement will allow for proper road alignment of Shadow Mountain Circle's access onto the South Old Glen Highway. A public use easement application with supporting exhibit drawing was submitted by the petitioner, and this is seen at exhibit pages 5 and 6. Preliminary plan and profile was submitted showing the proposed road design of Shadow Mountain Circle. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities submitted the following comments: DOT concurs with the proposed action to create the public use easement.

All access to Government Lot 11 will be through the public use easement. No further access to the Old Glenn Highway will be permitted for this lot. A plat note is required stating that no direct access to the Old Glenn Highway for Government Lot 11 or something similar is required. Planning staff notes that a plat note will be added as a condition of approval for the proposed Shadow Mountain Estates, which is where an actual recorded plat would be applicable. There were no objections received from any borough departments and no objections received from any utilities.

There was—.

Sorry, that's actually for Shadow Mountain Estates. That's next one. My apologies. At that point, staff recommends approval of Shadow Mountain Circle public use easement with 6 findings of fact and 4 recommendations of conditions of approval. Thank you, Matthew.

Any questions for staff?

Seeing none, I'm going to open and— oh, would the petitioner's representative like to speak?

Okay, don't see them. I'm going to open for a public hearing. Anybody present that would like to speak?

Anybody online?

Okay, I'm closing public testimony. Is the petitioner or petitioner's representative present?

All righty, I need a motion from the board. Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary Shadow Mountain Circle public use Easement, Section 35, Township 17 North, Range 02 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 4. Thank you, Mr. Leibing. Can I get a second? I'll second it.

Thank you, Mr. Kevin. Discussion from the board?

No discussion from the board. Any objection?

Seeing no objection, motion passes.

I recommend going one more since directly unrelated to—. Right, one more. Alrighty, so we have Shadow Mountain Estates.

The request is to create 6 lots from Tract B1 Dow Homestead, plat number 200— plat number 2000-122, to be known as Shadow Mountain Estates, containing 8.76 acres plus or minus. Access for all lots is from a proposed street on the northern boundary of the property. The property is located north of Knick River, south and west of Bodenburg Creek. And directly east of South Old Glenn Highway within the Northeast Quarter Section 2, Township 16 North, Range 02 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, in Community Council Number 2, Butte, and in Assembly District Number 1. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

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

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

Being an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There was 23 public notices mailed June 16th, 2026, as well as June 23rd, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Matthew Goddard, Planning Technician. The proposed Shadow Mountain Estates is creating 6 lots. Construction of Shadow Mountain Circle is being proposed to serve as access for all lots. A preliminary plan and profile for the construction of Shadow Mountain Circle was submitted and is seen at Exhibit Page 9. A geotechnical report was submitted certifying that each lot being created will have a minimum 10,000 square feet of contiguous septic area and 10,000 square feet of building area.

Topographic mapping and as-built information are shown on the agenda plat. Per the provided as-built, there is a cabin on proposed Lot 3 within the 33-foot section line easement. This structure will need to be removed prior to recordation. There is also a well located within the section line easement that will either need to be vacated or an encroachment permit obtained. Either one would cover it.

Both of these are seen at recommendation number 6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game has no objection, but does note that Bodenberg Creek passes through Track B-1. Bodenberg Creek is an anadromous fish water body and provides habitat habitat for chum, sockeye salmon, as well as resident fish species such as rainbow trout. It has been determined that dividing the lot into 6 lots does not require a habitat permit at this time, but it may be required if the property owner intends to cross the creek in a vehicle or ATV-type machine, withdraw water, modify banks, or has work within the water location or at the waterline. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has the following comments: no direct access to the Old Glenn Highway for proposed Lot 1.

Add a plat note stating that no direct access to the Old Glenn Highway for Lot 1 or similar. This is seen at recommendation number 7. Apply for an approach road review for Shadow Mountain Circle connection to the Old Glenn Highway. Access permits are legally connected to the physical lot that they are connected 2, and therefore the applicant needs to be the owner of Government Lot 11. In your handout packet, you will find a revised list of conditions of approval, adding the recommended condition number 8, which states, obtain an approach road permit from ADOT and PF, provide planning staff a copy of the approved approach road permit.

The borough's Department of Public Works Pre-Design and Engineering Division had the following comments. An ADT estimate will be required for the proposed subdivision. Staff notes that an ADT has since been received and is at exhibit page 17. PD&E further notes that the road shall be centered on the section line easement from station 4+47 to the end. Please confirm the extent of the Old Glen Highway.

Staff notes that this will be handled during the final review process, as seen at recommendation 4D. Code Compliance submitted the following: a large portion of the property is within the 500-year flood zone. The cabin on proposed Lot 3 is encroaching into the section line easement setback and will need to be addressed. Please check to see if the structure qualifies for legal nonconforming. If it does not qualify, then it will need to be relocated per Ordinance 17.55.

This is at recommendation 6. Matanuska Telephone Association notes that they have a cable run to Parcel D6 that will need to be relocated when the road is constructed. This is at recommendation number 5. After the staff report was written, there was one comment received from the public in response to the notice of public hearing. Kim Mahoney, a property owner to the north, has concerns about their existing driveway currently located where the proposed Shadow Mountain Circle will be and the impact to drainage.

Staff notes that the driveway connection, while may need to be realigned, will be properly joined up to the road once it is constructed. That's part of the construction requirements when affecting driveways that are existing. Staff recommends approval of Shadow Mountain Estates with 9 findings of fact and 11 recommendations of conditions of approval. Thank you, Matthew. With the petitioner's representative, like to speak?

No.

Going to open for public hearing.

Is there anybody present that would like to speak to this particular case?

Anybody online?

No. Yeah, closing public testimony.

Petitioner? Nope.

Motion from the board.

Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary plat of Shadow Mountain Estates, Section 02, Township 16 North, Range 02 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 11 as shown in our handout number 2.

Thank you, Mr. Leibing. Can I get a second? I second. Discussion from the board?

No discussion. Any objection?

No objection. Motion passes. How much time do we need, guys? 15 Minutes? Just one more.

No, 10 to 15. All right, well, we can call it back to order sooner than that. Okay, so come back at 10:46— or 10:2— 2:46. I'm sorry, 2:46 recess.

I won't doze off at all after this. You hear a thud.

Ready? Second to first one. Yes.

I don't like sandwiches. Where's the sandwiches? I'll hold that.

Oh, there are the sandwiches. Did you guys find them? Yeah, they're there. Um, there was—. Wait, let me go grab some.

Christian, do you want one?

No. Other snack there for you guys.

We're actually— uh, no, I don't think Dad would take us to that gym.

You can if you want. Oh, please don't. It makes me feel angry. No, we, we don't—. We're doing, we're doing everything we can to get the house filled with paperwork.

This is the most for me to, uh, there will be contentious cases.

You never know, you never know when there is Star!

Still wait.

I still waiting for What are you doing? Stop taking pictures of me. That's funny.

Yeah, so you found it a little slow down there on the very— down on the Kenai? Yeah.

Oh, they called at 11. They haven't updated yet. What time are we opening up? 2:46. You got, uh, 2 minutes or less than 2 minutes.

Yeah, I'm not fishing until Thursday, so hopefully they'll be—. You should— it should be fantastic. Last year it was unbelievable.

We had 2 nets in the water and Not great at all. I remember just before I, I went down there, they had a day that was 106,000. I mean, the biggest day, I think, was like 180. That's just unbeliev— that's an escapement for some years. And they have the limit was like 9 per person.

Yeah, I remember I was fishing. You couldn't even keep rolling across the backs and you just felt like maybe I got one in everyone's today. Yes. Well, the, the last pass, we, we go up and we drift on the bank opposite the where the launch is, and 2 nets, big nets We needed like 2 more fish to fill the— our self-established quota, right? So we're drifting along and I start into it and I start to pull the net up like, oh, I got our 2, and got net on the other guy, other side of the net.

Well, I got 2 more and I meant, whoops, I'm wrong, I got 3. Yeah, it was It was crazy.

Okay, I'm calling this meeting back to order.

Treasure Trove. The request is to create 3 tracts from Tax Parcel D1, Lots 12 and 13. Block 8, Treasure Island, and dedicate and construct a turnaround for North Treasure Street to be known as Treasure Trove, containing 62.06 acres plus or minus. The property is located directly south of North Anchor Circle and directly west of North Treasure Street within the southeast quarter section 22, Township 18 North Range 02 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, in the Meadow Lakes Community Council and Assembly District Number 7. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

No. Seeing none. Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant other parties interested in the application, or members of the public concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time the matter is submitted for decision outside of the public process provided by the borough? No. Seeing none, are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Yes. Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report. There was 125 public notices mailed June 16th, 2026, as well as June 23rd, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Chris Kerlin, Planning staff. The request is to create 3 tracts from tax parcel D1 and lots 12 and 13, Block 8, Treasure Island, plat number 7131. The proposed tracts range in size from 10.85 to 38.41 acres. A turnaround at the end of North Treasure Street will provide access to Tracts B and C. Tract A will take access from North Anchor Circle.

A topographic narrative was provided by Curtis Holler, PE, pursuant to MSP 4320-281.

Parcels over 400,000 square feet are exempt from soils and engineering data if a detailed topographic narrative is supplied by an engineer or surveyor. This will be found in your handouts. Comments: MSB Pre-Design and Engineering Exhibit C, PD&E has no comments. MSB Permit Center had no comments. Utilities, Instar has no comments.

GCI and MEA did not respond. MTA requests a 15-foot utility easement on the east side of Track B adjacent to the 30-foot dedicated for this plat and the outer edge of the temporary cul-de-sac. The plat of Treasure Trove is consistent with state statute and borough code. Legal and physical access exists. Topographic narrative was submitted.

There were no objections received from borough departments, outside agencies, utilities, or the public at the time of the staff report. Any received afterward are in the handouts. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Treasure Trove with these 5 findings of fact and 7 conditions of approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kerlin.

Questions for staff? Mr. Liebing. Um, just a quick question. I was looking over the conditions of approval and I do not see anything regarding MTA's request for the 15-foot utility easement. Is that—.

Should that be there, or is it not necessary to be in the conditions? Through the chair, it's a request. That's—. It's a request. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, is Gary—. Nope. Okay, I'm going to open up for public hearing. Is anybody present that would like to speak to this particular case?

Anybody online?

Closing public hearing.

Gary? Oh, okay. Mr. Holler. Hello, Kurt Holler, engineer for the representative. Kurt with a C and an H-O-L-L-E-R.

Um, here to answer any questions that you might have. And then I had one, um, thing I noticed on the conditions of—. Actually, Gary noticed on the conditions of approval number 3. Um, we had a reword for that. It talks, it talks about constructing the internal roads and cul-de-sacs, but this is largely an access road project.

But maybe that you could just add construct access and internal roads and cul-de-sacs. Straighten that out. Yeah, our access is coming from the north and that needs to be constructed too. So the largest portion of what's going to be constructed is actually outside of the project. So we need to redo the conditions and rewrite that.

Just add that they want to approve the road without us doing it, but you can add it on the fly anytime you want right now.

Could you rephrase how that needs to read, or what the suggestion is? I—. If you just made the first 4 words say construct access and internal roads and cul-de-sacs. Oh, gotcha. Thank you.

Yeah, right. And then I just did answer question on MTA where they wanted the easements. Didn't make any sense. I talked to them a few times, tried to straighten them out on where it needed to go. So we're all covered on that.

We're going to put it where it needs to go instead of where they said they wanted it. Okay, any other questions?

You're off the hook. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.

All righty, can I get a motion from the board? Madam Chair, um, I move to, uh, approve the preliminary plat of Treasure Trail contingent upon Recommendations 1 through 7. Thank you, Mr. Leaming. Can I get a second? I second.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I'd like to amend condition number 3 to read construct access and internal roads, uh, adding the words access and Okay, is that go as a motion? That needs to be seconded. Yep, I second it. Okay, discussion from the board on that amendment? Any objections to the amendment?

Amendment passes. Back to the main motion. Discussion on the main motion?

No discussion on the main motion. Any objection to the main motion? Motion passes.

Next we have Alaska Sunrise. The request is to create 6 lots and 2 tracts from Parcel 2, Matsu Borough Waiver 86-54 PWM, recorded as known as 86-194W, to be known as Alaska Sunrise, containing 109.4 acres plus or minus, and construct and dedicate a portion of East Plumlee Road. The property is located directly north of East Plumlee Road and directly east of South Henry Way within the southwest quarter section and southeast quarter section Township 17 North, Range 03 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, and the Butte Community Council in Assembly District Number 1. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

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

Are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing affirmative, Madam Secretary, mailing report, please. 38 Public notices were mailed out June 23rd, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Chris Kerland, Planning Staff. The proposed Alaska Sunrise is creating 8 lots ranging in size from 1.04 acres to 52.55 acres. Access for all lots will be from an extension of East Plumlee Road, not North Covington Street, as stated in the report. A geotechnical report was submitted pursuant to 432281A.

Curtis Holler, professional engineer, notes the soils investigation consisted of 3 holes dug to a depth of 17 feet. No groundwater was encountered in any of the test holes. Soil specifications for each test hole are noted on the soil inspection log sheets. The engineer states that based on Title 43-2281, all lots contain sufficient overall area, all lots contain at least 10,000 square feet of usable building area, and all lots have at least 10,000 square feet of contiguous usable septic area. Comments received were Alaska Department of Transportation, no objection to the proposed lot division.

MSB Predesign and Engineering has no objection to the T-turnaround if a public use easement is dedicated through the subject property to connect with the end of Al's Avenue. Staff notes this issue was unresolved at the time this report was written and will need to be decided today. MSB Permit Center, no comments from the Permit Center. Utilities, MSTAR has no comments or recommendations. GCI has no comments or objections.

MTA would like to request a 15-foot utility easement on the south side of Lots 1 6. M— MEA did not respond. The preliminary plan of Alaska Sunrise is consistent with state statute and borough code. There were no objections from any federal or state agencies, borough departments, or utilities. Legal and physical access exists to the proposed lots, and a geotechnical report was submitted pursuant to 432281.

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary Platt of Alaska Sunrise with these 5 findings of fact and 8 conditions of approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kerlin. The petitioner's representative like to speak?

So, Kurt Haller, uh, Engineers for the representative, and Terry's with me. Terry Nicodemus, Surveyor of Record. Mostly we're here to answer questions that you might have today.

Questions?

No questions.

Guess you guys are good. Okay then, thank you very much. All righty, I'm going to open up for public hearing. Is there anybody present that would like to speak to this particular case?

Anybody online? Nobody online. Closing public hearing.

I have to do this twice. I'm sorry.

Are we good? Did you want to speak? Okay, we're good. Motion from the board. Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary master plan of Alaska Sunrise, Section 19, Township 17 North, Range 03 East, Seward Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 8.

Thank you, Mr. Leibing. Can I get a second? I'll second it. Thank you, Mr. Kevin. Discussion from the board?

No discussion from the board. I'm sure. Mr. Young, Tyler Young, Planning Officer. Mr. Kerlin, there was something that you mentioned needed to get decided today. Would you be able to reiterate that to the board?

Yes, through the chair, Chris Kerlin, Planning Staff. The issue is the extension of Plumlee Road. Ending with either a cul-de-sac or a T-turnaround. Believe PD&E wanted a cul-de-sac, temporary cul-de-sac. The petitioners prefer a T-turnaround.

That is the issue.

Okay, discussion from the board, Madam Chair. Um, Chris, is that the So, I guess, I guess I'm a little confused. The T-turnaround is not acceptable and they're requesting a cul-de-sac.

That was the comments I received. They didn't say unacceptable. They said they would support it if they dedicated an easement through their property to another T-turnaround on the north of the property.

So that would need to be something surveyed and on the plat then. Yes. Okay.

They did explain this. I saw the handout where the petitioner talked about this particular issue with the T-turnaround and their justification for it. Yeah. Um, but I guess what I'm Sorry, my apologies. Um, I guess I'm trying to figure out where is the easement they're requesting through the property.

You said it's on the north side? Yes, on a different tract.

Through the chair, on the very north, if you look at the vicinity map, you can see there's a dedicated right-of-way on the north of this property's on their north boundary.

Is it—. There it is.

So that's— that tract is a part of this lighting action? Gotcha. So they want the easement across the north, or they want an easement down the east side? Down the east side to connect with the proposed turnaround.

I'm sorry, who is it? Who is the—. Oh, sorry, who is the they that's requesting it? That would be pre-design and engineering. So they are requesting the easement for a turnaround at the north side Is there an expectation they're building a road on the east side, or right now they just want the easement in there and the T-turnaround that's on the southeast corner is what they're proposing on building?

That's where I was confused. I believe so. The petitioners want the T-turnaround at the end of the Plumlee Road extension, correct? PD&E wants a temporary cul-de-sac unless they dedicate through to the other T-turnaround at the north of the property.

Is there a road there? There's a 50-foot public use easement, PUE.

So we have to determine who's right. That does—. That—. So this, this request for the easement makes no sense to me, because if there's a PUE across the north, there's no road there, they're building the turnaround on the south end, they're not extending the road to the east on the east side, north to south, why are we granting an easement for a T-turnaround on a north piece of property that has no access? Other than a PUE if there's no road there.

Mr. Young, please, please clarify. Tyler Young, Planning Officer. PD&E is not my division, but speaking what I know about this case, PD&E prefers to not have T-turnarounds unless the road has plans to be extended. If the road is not planned on being extended, they prefer cul-de-sac X? They prefer, but it's not required.

Yeah, so it's preferred. I'm going to defer to Matthew on that too. I believe it's in this. I mean, I'm, I'm just trying to understand. So, in the— sorry, Matthew Goddard, Planning Technician.

In the subdivision construction manual, it gives allowance for Public Works to approve alternative turnarounds, but it is DPW allowance, so they have to approve a T-turnaround when it's going in because it is not the standard. It is considered an alternative turnaround under A-07.2 of the subdivision construction manual. This might be a really dumb question, but it's a temporary cul-de-sac, so it would be removed if it was extended. Something to that if it was a connection made. Uh, that is generally how that works.

If a cul-de-sac is deemed temporary, once the road is extended and accepted for maintenance, the temporary portion of it would be automatically vacated.

So the temporary cul-de-sac, would that encroach more into that corner lot if required? If they put in a temporary cul-de-sac, it would require a much larger radius, and even though it's temporary cul-de-sac, it still encroaches into that property. I believe that would be correct. Are we using the word temporary here just to make it easier so you don't have to petition later on to have it removed? Correct.

Okay, so it's just a regular cul-de-sac? Yes. All right, so Reggie Carney, um, when, when there's a temporary cul-de-sac here, and if that road ever gets extended, the wings of the cul-de-sac get cut off. The property that was taken up by that cul-de-sac goes to those lots. It's not, it's not taken.

And then the cul-de-sac, if another one is needed, gets produced down the road, whether a permanent cul-de-sac or another temporary cul-de-sac. So this here is just It's— I believe it's just an emergency and maintenance thing that their vehicle could turn around in. A T-turnaround will work if Public Works or DPW approves it.

Steve, Kevin, the problem with temporary cul-de-sacs is they encroach onto the lot, reducing what you can do and where you can put things on the lot. I don't like temporary cul-de-sacs because you're taking 60 feet or 50 feet in length by 25 feet onto private property inside the utility easement. That's the problem with temporary cul-de-sacs. It would eat into that, I guess it'd be southeast corner of that property. Therefore, it could affect septic systems, well locations, things like that.

Thank you. Well, that's the reason I was saying it was the distance from the And it has to be from the temporary cul-de-sac, not from the property line. And then my next question was, we're at 45,000 square feet. Is that going to bring it below 40,000 square feet? Well, they don't— they still give you the lot size, my understanding.

Correct me if I'm wrong. If it's platted at this size, I don't think you lose the square footage of your lot size based on the amount of property there.

It's still 45,000 square feet because eventually, again, I'm speaking just from experience, not absolute knowledge, that when that goes away, you get your property back.

Matthew, through the chair. Yes, it would be an easement, not dedicated right of way, which means the underlying property is still owned by the property owner and would not affect lot configuration size.

Yeah, size remains, but usability on that setback and everything is affected.

So then I guess my next question is, if we approve it as drawn, is it going to get approved at the next stage?

Or are they going to deny it?

Based on their language, Tyler Young, Planning Officer, based on their language, there is no determination of whether or not they will approve it or deny it.

But they wanted us to make a decision on it. They want— they wanted the plat to be redesigned to accommodate what is normally What has normally been accepted at the borough level of a temporary cul-de-sac based on the subdivision construction manual 2022. So, the question I have is, they've allowed these T-turnarounds in the past. It's been an alternative. Acceptable.

It's an acceptable alternative. There's no reason it shouldn't be allowed here just because they want the easement and access. That to me does not compute. I'm wondering though if it's because of, you know, maintenance, to get a piece of equipment in there and be able to turn around. It's, it's easier to do a cul-de-sac, but it doesn't change that maintenance can still be adequately done.

And that's again, from my experience.

So, the subdivision— Mr. Young. Tyler Young, Planning Officer. Planning brought this case forward, giving the Planning Board the option to choose between one or the other, with the understanding that either option would meet code and either option would meet the subdivision construction manual.

Well, the petitioner prefers the T-turnaround, but then PD&E is like, we want more easement. If I, I would, if I may, if the way that it's drawn and been presented is the request and it meets code, which I feel we should approve it in that manner. If they wanted something else, they should have said it doesn't meet code and they wanted something different. It should be Approved as if.

Further discussion on that?

Okay, I guess the matter's settled. We're going to go with the T-turnaround.

Does that need to—.

Okay, I'll call for the question on main motion of approval. Okay, as is.

Any objections? No. Okay, motion— main motion has been approved.

Okay, Fairview Parks.

Okay, so next we have Fairview Parks MSP. The request is to create 12 lots by 6-phase master plan from Parcels 1 and 2, Matsuburo Waiver Number 80-9-PWM recorded as 80-34W, and, and Tracks C1, C2, C3, Matsuburo Waiver 2000-43-PWM.

Recorded at Book 1060, page 309, to be known as Fairview Parks MSP, containing 73.26 acres plus or minus. The property is located at— does this read north of East Fairview? That's what it should be. Yes, north of East Fairview Loop, south of East Parks Highway and east of South Seward Meridian Parkway, within the Northeast Quarter, Section 18, Township 17 North, Range 01 East, Seward Meridian, Alaska, in Community Council Number 22 Gateway, in Assembly District Number 3. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

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

Seeing none, are you able to be impartial in this decision? Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report. There was 67 public notices mailed June 23rd, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matthew Goddard, Planning Technician. The proposed Fairview Parks Master Plan would create 12 lots by a 6-phase master plan. Access to the lots 1 through 10 is from East Fireweed Road. Access proposed lots 11 and 12 is from East Fairview Loop.

Both roads are maintained by the state of Alaska. Proposed access spacing for all lots is shown on the agenda plat. A geotechnical report was submitted by submitted pursuant to code. This is at exhibit pages 8 through 23. Eli Ward, uh, registered professional engineer, notes that based on the collected data from the soils investigation and observations, each lot will have at least 10,000 square feet of usable building area and 10,000 square feet of contiguous land that may be used for septic area as required by Title 43-2281 code requirements.

An as-built and topographic mapping were submitted, as seen at exhibit pages 6 and 7. Based on the submitted as-built, there are no setback violations currently existing, nor will any be created by this action. An average daily traffic calculation was submitted pursuant to code. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has submitted the following comments: shared access required for lots 1 and 2. Add a plat note stating that shared access to Fireweed Road for lots 1 and 2 or similar is required.

This is at recommendation number 3. All lots next to common access easements are expected to take access through the common access easement. No direct access to Fireweed Road for lots 3, 4, 6, and 7. Required to add a plat note stating that no direct access to Fireweed Road for lots 3, 4, 6 and 7 or similar is needed. That's at recommendations 4 and 5.

Recommend platting roads instead of dedicating common access easements. Recommend access coordination with DOT and PF right-of-way and planning for internal circulation with future lot development. And apply for a new access permit for existing access points and any new access points. Access points. This is at recommendation number 6.

The Alaska Railroad Corporation submitted the following comments: Please locate monument PC 156-IR along the northern boundary of the Alaska Railroad, Lot 10, U.S. Survey 9024. If the monument is not found, please reseat the monuments in accordance to MSB 4315.054 and Bureau of Land Management US Survey standards. This is at recommendation number 7. Please add the record bearing and distance information, including curve data for US Survey 9024 Lot 10 as documented, and show the information on the plat. As a general note, access to Lots 11 and 12 from the south via DOT-permitted road under the Alaska Railroad permit number 9670 and located within the Alaska Railroad boundary requires permits from both local and state agencies.

That would be something for the future at the time of driveway development. Per Matsuburo Predesign and Engineering Division, clarification is requested on the design and how it would interact with the official streets and highways plan. Upon receipt of the request, the petitioner has provided clarification. PD&E had no further comments. This is seen at exhibit pages 29 through 38.

MTA requests utilities be included in the 60-foot common access easements. This is covered by recommendations 8 and 9. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Fairview Parks Master Plan with 8 findings of fact and 11 recommendations for conditions of approval. Thank you, Matthew. Questions for staff?

Seeing none, would the petitioner's representative like to speak?

Dana Rumpfelt, R-U-M-F-E-L-T, Lavender Survey. Thanks for your time, Planning Board. I'm just here to answer questions.

Any questions?

Nope. Thank you, Dana. Okay, I'm going to open up for public hearing. Anybody present would like to speak to this particular case, come forward.

Thank you very much. If you mind signing the book that's down in front of you. My name is Bonnie Capon. Oh, you got to turn your microphone on. Yeah, okay.

C-A-V-A-N-A-U-G-H.

Um, I have a couple questions. One thing, when Matthew explained the railroad thing, to me you were talking in a foreign language. So what is the railroad asking on their, on their comments? Can that be answered, Matthew? Sure, Dana.

I, um, I, I spoke directly to, um, what is his name, the railroad? Sorry, I spoke to the railroad to get clarification on this comment, and what he's saying is he wants that missing monument reset. So he wants steel in the ground where it's at. So there's a missing monument on the Yep. So, right here, there should be, like, right across the street from this one, there should be a monument right there.

Uh, and I am pointing at the south line of Lot 12 where the curve turns into the straight point of curvature, right? It's like right here-ish. That's what he is asking to be reset.

And maybe another question too. So, are they proposing a road between 11 and 11 and 12 access off Fairview Loop Road?

So, we don't know how the—. How they're going to get to Lots 11 and 12 unless it's through off Fireweed Road on through the subdivision. Matthew. Um, through the chair, the, uh, lots would have the ability to apply for driveway permits to that. It wouldn't be a road unless they pursued further action later on.

At this stage, it would just be lots accessing to that easement, and they'd have to get the appropriate permitting at the time of going through that process. And so that would go back to—. Would you call it RSA or whatever it is, the road service people? That wouldn't be anything to do with the platting.

People. Correct. Matthew, through the chair, um, driveway permitting for this location would be with the state and potentially the railroad as it is through their permitted process. The railroad did call out that both state and local authorities would have to weigh in on those access points, but it would go through their permit review process for the driveways.

My biggest comment is if you guys are familiar, between Fairview Brook Road and those lots is a very, very steep hill. And on the other side of the lots off Fireweed, um, it's flat for maybe those first 7 lots, but then again there's a very steep hill. They're taking a lot of gravel out there at the moment, but there's a lot of dirt that's got to be moved. We are very close to that. We can feel the dot being—.

The dirt being moved now because lots, um, A8, A9, and A11, which aren't part of this. They're developing that right now, which is fine. We can't fight development. But, um, yeah, just a lot of land is going to be moved when they develop this area. And that just is my comment.

I don't know. There's nothing we can do about it. This way it is. Thank you for your testimony. Yeah.

I do have to write my address here.

Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to testify?

Is there anybody online?

Seeing none, I'm closing public testimony. Dana, would you like to talk again?

Uh, just to state that we accept our conditions of approval. The end.

No questions. Thank you, Dana. Can I get a motion from the board? Madam Chair, I move to Approve the preliminary master plan of Fairview Park subdivision, Section 18, Township 17 North, Range 01 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent on the staff recommendations 1 through 11. Thank you, Mr. Kevin.

Can I get a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Leibing. Discussion from the board?

No discussion. Any objection?

No objection. Motion passes.

Next we have Montana Sunshine. The request is to create 8 lots from partial 24N04W21B003 to be known as Montana Sunshine, containing 38.09 acres plus or minus The plat is located directly south of East Romano Avenue, east of South Talkeetna Spur Road, and west of Montana Creek, located within the northwest quarter section 21, Township 24 North, Range 04 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, and the Susitna Community Council and Assembly District Number 7. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property be affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

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

Seeing none. Are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative. Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There was 23 public notices mailed June 23rd, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Cayman Reynolds, Planning Staff. In regards to soils conditions, 4 test holes were dug to 13 feet with no water being found. There are no slopes over 25%, and usable area is sufficiently set back from known wells and bodies of water. Each lot will have over 10,000 square feet of contiguous usable building in the septic area.

There are no objections or concerns received from the borough departments, outside agencies, or the public at the time of the staff report. MTA requests a utility easement. See the exhibit and recommended conditions of approval. PD&E comments to redesign the road and ditch profile so there are no low spots in the ditch without an outlet. At the time of the staff report write-up, there are no responses to the request for comments from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Community Council Kinnick Fairview, Road Service Area 17 Kinnick, Planning Division or Development Services, GCI, or MTA.

Staff recommends approval of the master plan and Montana Sunshine with these 7 findings of fact and 9 conditions of approval. Thank you, Kaman. Any questions for staff?

No questions. Is the petitioner's representative present and like to speak? Nope.

All righty, I'm going to open for public testimony. There's nobody here. Is there anybody online?

Closing public testimony. Mr. Hansen.

Good afternoon, Craig Hansen. Hans Land Solutions representing the petitioner. Very straightforward, just here to answer questions if you've got any. I'd be glad to answer them. You have any comment about PD&E's comment?

Comment about keeping the drainage? Yeah, the drainage thing. Well, no, I better not.

Um, we'll address that certainly. Okay. Um, it's either going to be basin or we've been shifting to infiltrators, which are— they're in the right-of-way, but the way I've got them designed, we have a rock basin with a culvert that's vertical that holds sufficient water for circumstances like this. So that's my expectation as to what we'll end up doing.

Any questions for Mr. Hanson?

Nope, you're off the hook. Thank you very much. All righty.

Motion from the board. Madam Chair, I move to approve the master plan of Montana Sunshine Section 31, Township 17 North, Range 02 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 9. Thank you, Mr. Leibing. Can I get a second? I'll second it.

Thank you. There's Mr. Cohen. Discussion from the board?

No discussion. Any objection?

Motion passes.

Alrighty, staff comments.

Have one comment. So, as a clarification for P, D, and E's comment, um, on the Exhibit D with the flood hazard area listed. Oh.

Yeah, we're done.

Yeah, right. No comments from you guys. Um, sorry, uh, let's see, August 6th, we have one, one case that day, so no sandwich. Sorry, guys. Um, and don't forget, July 30th is our law training.

At 5 PM. If you are unable to make it, please let me know so I can send out accommodations.

Thanks for everybody. Yeah, what's that? Thanks for everybody storming through that. That was a, it was a good one. The planning sends out thanks to the planning board.

He's gonna stay here until— Any other board comments? All right, meeting has been adjourned at 3:30. 2 And a half hours. Good job, guys.