PLATTING BOARD MEETING - Municipality of Anchorage

PLATTING BOARD MEETING 

Z.J. Loussac Library 

3600 Denali Street 

Anchorage, Alaska 

MINUTES OF 

May 4, 2005 

6:30 p.m. 

A. ROLL CALL 

Present Bruce Phelps, Chair 

Sharen Walsh, Vice Chair 

Dennis Linnell 

Gloria Shriver 

Ellen McKay 

Bud Caress 

Mike Kreger 

Excused 

Staff 

Jean Funatake 

Jerry Weaver 

Margaret O’Brien 

Lori Schanche 

Greg Soule 

Sharon Ferguson 

Doug Lesh 

CHAIR PHELPS explained that municipal regulations state that actions by the Board 

shall require the favorable vote of the majority of the fully constituted board, or five 

members. As seven members were present this evening, petitioners were allowed to 

request postponement of their case. 

B. APPROVAL OF ACTION SUMMARIES AND MINUTES 

BOARD MEMBER McKAY moved for approval of the Action Summaries of March 28, 

2005, April 4, 2005, April 18, 2005, April 20, 2005 and April 25, 2005 and the Minutes 

of March 2, 2005 and April 6, 2006. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS seconded.

PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 2 

May 4, 2005 

AYE: Caress, Phelps, Linnell, Shriver, McKay, Walsh, Kreger 

NAY: None 

PASSED 

C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 

1. S-11099-5 Notice of Reconsideration 

CHAIR PHELPS indicated that he and Mr. Caress have been directed to not participate 

in case S-11099-5 due to individual conflicts of interest. Vice Chair Walsh assumed the 

chair. 

VICE CHAIR WALSH explained that notice of reconsideration was spread at the Board's 

last meeting. The motion to reconsider was approved and the matter was postponed until 

this evening so that interested parties could be present. She noted that Sandra Wicks 

submitted a letter regarding the reconsideration asking that, if there were ex parte 

contacts, they be stated for the record. She disclosed that she had received a telephone 

call from Tom Nelson asking about reconsideration and she explained that because she 

had chaired the case she felt was not appropriate to contact her. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL stated he was also contacted by Mr. Nelson and asked to 

look into the possibility of reconsidering. He reviewed the Board's motion and felt that 

condition 11 regarding road standards should be reconsidered. 

BOARD MEMBER SHRIVER stated Mr. Linnell contacted her after the Platting Board 

meeting leaving a message that he had reconsidered this case. She called him the next 

day and he told her he had initiated the process to reconsider, at which point she called 

Mr. Kreger and told him the matter would be reconsidered. 

MS. WICKS did not feel the ex parte contact had been adequately described because 

presumably Mr. Nelson gave some reason why he thought there should be 

reconsideration. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL explained that Mr. Nelson asked that he look at the 

conditions on the plat regarding road improvements and drainage. He reviewed those 

conditions and thought the Board had adequately addressed the drainage and should 

revise condition 11. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL moved to amend condition 11 to state, "Improvement of 

Yosemite Drive from Eagle River Loop Road to Eagle Pointe Subdivision to collector 

road standards." BOARD MEMBER McKAY seconded.


May 4, 2005 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL indicated this language was proposed in the original 

motion made by Ms. Shriver. The condition was then amended to include specific design 

criteria. He felt that, in keeping to the requirements the Board typically imposes, the 

condition should simply refer to a road standard. MS. WICKS indicated the Board failed 

to make the determination, which the code requires, whether this is an urban area because 

it has been zoned PLI. That bears on whether this would be an urban collector standard. 

VICE CHAIR WALSH thanked Ms. Wicks for her comments and asked that she refrain 

from further comment. 

VICE CHAIR WALSH asked that Staff clarify the situation of urban collector standards 

versus other collector standards and if there is specific information the Board needs to 

make an informed decision. MR. WEAVER clarified that the urban collector standards in 

the Design Criteria Manual would be applied in this situation. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL repeated his motion that condition 11 state “Improvement 

of Yosemite Drive from Eagle River Loop Road to Eagle Pointe Subdivision to urban 

collector road standards.” VICE CHAIR WALSH asked if the motion would read “Enter 

into a development agreement for improvement to Yosemite Drive from Eagle River 

Loop Road to Eagle Pointe Subdivision to urban collector standards." BOARD 

MEMBER LINNELL indicated this was correct. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER indicated he would not support the amendment. 

BOARD MEMBER SHRIVER understood from Mr. Weaver's testimony at the hearing 

in this case that items a through h of condition 11 were, in fact, collector standards and 

she, therefore, found that the language of the condition should stand as approved and she 

did not support the amendment. 

VICE CHAIR WALSH supported the amendment, noting she was troubled that the 

Board approved a specific list of design standards that was provided by the petitioner and 

she felt it was more appropriate for the Board to apply the standards that are normally 

required with a plat. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER recalled addressing a question to Staff at the hearing 

asking what were the collector standards and those standards were listed. He also had not 

heard this evening why what the Board did in articulating the standards it wanted for that 

road was a bad idea. He was also not satisfied with the public process. He noted there 

were many people who had given testimony and he felt that, before the Board undoes an 

action that was taken after public testimony and in effect reverse it, there should be a 

similar type of public hearing. He remarked that, if an error was made, an appeal could be 

filed.


May 4, 2005 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL was not certain the standards that were adopted in 

condition 11 are the current urban collector standards. He thought the Board is in the 

position of perhaps superseding standards that are listed elsewhere. 

VICE CHAIR WALSH felt the conditions that were imposed on the plat would ensure 

that the street is improved adequately, but she also felt that urban collector standards 

would do the same. She was uncomfortable setting a precedent of approving specific 

standards submitted by petitioners. 

BOARD MEMBER SHRIVER did not understand what in the condition is objectionable, 

if items 11.a through 11.h are in fact urban collector street standards. MR. WEAVER 

explained the Board typically requires improvements to the standards that are in the code. 

In this case, the Board determined that the road would be improved to collector standards 

and those streets should be constructed to the standards as reviewed and approved by 

PM&E. Requiring design detail at this level is a deviation from what the Board has done 

historically. Staff did not recommend the Board do that. There are design standards 

established and codified that should be used to construct infrastructure improvements. 

The street will be constructed to the standards outlined in the Design Criteria Manual and 

the Department would prefer the Board not make these requirements. He offered 

testimony from Howard Holtan, Municipal Engineer. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER asked if the Board would be receiving testimony from 

some parts of the public and not others. VICE CHAIR WALSH indicated that Mr. Holtan 

is a member of staff. BOARD MEMBER KREGER understood staff was the source of 

the request for reconsideration. VICE CHAIR WALSH noted it was likely that the 

amendment would fail, given that at least two of the five members available to vote had 

expressed opposition. BOARD MEMBER KREGER felt there was no need to take 

further testimony from individuals, including Staff. VICE CHAIR WALSH felt it might 

be educational for the Board to receive additional information from the Municipal 

Engineer. VICE CHAIR WALSH asked if Mr. Kreger had strong objection to allowing 

Mr. Holtan to speak. BOARD MEMBER KREGER replied that he was not chairing the 

meeting and was not in the position of deciding who would or would not be permitted to 

speak. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL added that there might be higher standards required in the 

code that would improve the road further than what the Board had outlined in conditions. 

He thought the Board was superseding its judgment for that of the Municipal Engineer. 

VICE CHAIR WALSH asked that Mr. Holtan clarify the situation with respect to the 

standards as a purely informational item. 

MR. HOLTAN stated the collector standard in the Design Criteria Manual calls for a 36- 

foot wide street; the prescriptive requirement in the condition is one of four different 

sections that are proposed in the new standard. Those standards are the result of different


May 4, 2005 

functional uses of the roadway to include different mixes of traffic volumes and to fit 

different conditions. There is concern that there is over 150 acres of Heritage Land Bank 

(HLB) land in this area, only 50 acres of which is devoted to this school. HLB is 

considering developing additional land in this area and that development may require a 

larger standard or some changes. Secondly, the type of development that might be 

proposed on HLB land may lend itself to a different road section, such as a parkway with 

a divided section. He was hoping to have some flexibility to accommodate those 

differences. Collector streets sometimes vary from the standards, while still performing 

the intended function, meet the level of traffic volumes on the roads, the mix of vehicles, 

pedestrian safety, and illumination requirements. The request is, as the development of 

HLB lands moves forward, there is only a requirement for improvement to a collector 

street standard, but not prescriptive so that he is required to reconstruct Yosemite Drive 

at some point in the future. 

AYE: Linnell, McKay, Walsh 

NAY: Shriver, Kreger 

ABSTAIN: Caress, Phelps 

FAILED 

2. S-11353-2 Notice of Reconsideration 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS moved to reconsider case S-11353-2. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH seconded. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS indicated he received additional information from ADOT 

addressed to Jerry Weaver dated April 12, 2005 referencing zoning case 2004-151 

Hillcrest Subdivision. This additional information has a potential impact on this case. The 

New Seward Highway project could cause changes on the Old Seward Highway at 92 nd 

Avenue and Abbott Road. In the year 2005 design is starting, right-of-way work is 

scheduled in 2006, and utilities and construction in 2007. He understood there would be 

four or five ways to overpasses on the Seward Highway and this is one. 


NAY: None 

PASSED 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS moved to reconsider condition 6 stating "Constructing 

Abbott Road to urban half street standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north 

site from Old Seward Highway, west, extending at least 60 feet beyond the eastern 

boundary of the Long Street intersection."


May 4, 2005 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH seconded. She offered an amendment to reword condition 6 

to state “Resolve the need to construct Abbott Road to urban half street standards with 

curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north site from Old Seward Highway, west, extending at 

least 60 feet beyond the eastern boundary of the Long Street intersection pending 

resolution with the State of Alaska on their upcoming project.” This was accepted as a 

friendly amendment. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS felt the implications of the letter were that the proposed 

project improvements by the State of Alaska would impact condition 6. Those 

improvements are widening the Seward Highway from 4 to 6 lanes, modifying existing 

interchanges, rehabilitating frontage roads and constructing a frontage road between 

Dimond and O'Malley, overcrossings at International Airport Road, 68 th Avenue, 76 th 

Avenue, and 92 nd Avenue, extension and upgrade of 92 nd Avenue to minor arterial 

standards through the New Seward Highway and Old Seward Highway and providing 

pedestrian and bicycle accommodation and drainage. BOARD MEMBER CARESS had 

concern, however, that all of the overcrossings proposed by this project could not be 

accomplished in one construction season. He had asked that condition 6 be reconsidered 

out of concern that he thought it was appropriate. He had concern, however, that these 

improvements might occur much later than the 2007 construction season while the Toyon 

Subdivision is being developed. He asked if the developer should pay to improve this 

road at this time or let the taxpayers do so later. 

MR. WEAVER explained the State of Alaska will be building an overpass at this location 

and this road will not be accessible in the future. He believed the Board required this 

condition at the request of PM&E because it is peripheral to the subdivision. He did not 

believe the proposed development was going to use Abbott Road as its access. When the 

overpass is constructed, these properties will probably have very limited access to it; only 

closer to the Old Seward Highway. It would be premature to build the road, particularly 

since they will not be using it as access. MR. SOULE stated PM&E would have no 

objection to deleting condition 6. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS reworded his amendment to delete condition 6. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH agreed as second. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER asked in what way the Board erred in adopting this 

condition in its previous action. MR. WEAVER explained that peripheral road 

improvements are discretionary to the Board, the Board made this recommendation at the 

request of Staff, and Staff received new factual information that changed the Staff 

position. BOARD MEMBER KREGER asked what was the public testimony in this case. 

MS. O’BRIEN did not recall any public testimony being offered in this case. CHAIR 

PHELPS stated that was also his recollection. VICE CHAIR WALSH noted that the 

Chair was not present for this case. CHAIR PHELPS stated this was correct. VICE


May 4, 2005 

CHAIR WALSH indicated she could not recall any public testimony for or against this 

case. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL asked when ADOT is planning to construct the proposed 

improvements. MR. WEAVER replied that in the last discussion with them he 

understood that project is on an accelerated path for construction in the next two to four 

years. BOARD MEMBER LINNELL recalled that the only discussion in this case was 

among Board Members. He recalled that one Board Member had concern with regard to 

pedestrian access. BOARD MEMBER SHRIVER stated she was concerned with children 

because there is a subdivision across the street and she wished to ensure there were 

sidewalks for children to get to school safely. BOARD MEMBER LINNELL asked if 

this is still a concern. BOARD MEMBER SHRIVER replied that this is still a concern, 

but she was not sure if this street would be used as access to the residential subdivision. 

MR. WEAVER stated a rezoning is being processed to the south of the subdivision. 

There are two north/south streets out of the R-5 subdivision to the south; the eastern one 

will not have access to Abbott because of the overpass. Short Street will have rightin/right-out 

access to Abbott. BOARD MEMBER LINNELL asked if the subdivision 

currently has access, but will not in the future. MR. WEAVER stated the easternmost 

street will not have access to Abbott. He stated this area is in transition. A rezoning is 

being processed on the western portion of the property. The area will probably be 

reconfigured and rezoned to a different zoning district. Currently, R-O SL zoning is 

being considered, residential office with a residential component. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS noted many assumptions are being made with respect to 

time schedule, funding, and whether the zoning will or will not be approved. He only 

received the letter addressed to Mr. Weaver and that letter says it “could cause changes.” 

CHAIR PHELPS thought there is new information from ADOT that brings into question 

whether it is now appropriate to require construction of the street. He understood Staff 

had considered the ADOT letter and it is their opinion that condition 6 is not required. 

MR. SOULE clarified that 92 nd Avenue and Abbott is the same street. It would be 

cumbersome to require the petitioner to build a road that would likely be rebuilt in a 

different fashion in two to three years. 

CHAIR PHELPS asked if the ADOT project is on the Transportation Improvement 

Program. MR. WEAVER replied that he did not discuss that with ADOT. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS took exception to Staff’s comments about a road being 

built in two to three years. The ADOT letter says that at the earliest maybe in 2007 there 

will be four overcrossings. He felt that to have that much construction over the Seward 

Highway could take as many as five or six years. CHAIR PHELPS asked if Mr. Caress 

was suggesting that because of the speculative nature of this situation, it would be 

appropriate to not delete condition 6.


May 4, 2005 

BOARD MEMBER McKAY felt that it was appropriate to word the condition to 

“resolve the need” which allows the petitioner to address the question with ADOT. She 

noted that the question is whether the road should be constructed out to the Old Seward 

Highway, which does not abut the petitioner's property. She felt it was not fair to the 

petitioner to require construction if that road will be torn up in a couple of years. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH stated she would favor the amendment as worded or to 

state “Resolve the need with PM&E and the State of Alaska to construct Abbott Road to 

urban half street standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north site from Old 

Seward Highway, west, extending at least 60 feet beyond the eastern boundary of the 

Long Street intersection." BOARD MEMBER CARESS so amended his amendment. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH concurred as second. 

CHAIR PHELPS noted that there are typically delays on major highway projects and a 

major project of this type usually is done in five or six years, not three years. 

Amendment 


NAY: None 

PASSED 

D. CONSENT AGENDA 

1. Time Extension 

a. S-10549-2 Ridgemont Subdivision 

2. Finding of Fact 

3. Commercial Tract – None 

4. Other 

5. Resolutions for Approval 

Without objection, the Consent Agenda was approved.


May 4, 2005 

E. OLD BUSINESS – None 

F. NEW BUSINESS 

1. Public Hearings 

a. S-11302-1 Wal Mart Stores Inc. Attn: Eric M. Strauss. To 

subdivide two lots and four tracts of land into one 

lot with the vacation of the north 30 x 300 feet of 

LaTouche Street. Located west of New Seward 

Highway, north of East Dowling Road and east of 

Old Seward Highway. 

Staff member MARGARET O'BRIEN reviewed the requests for the Board. She 

explained this request is a reversion to acreage of two lots, two deed parcels, and 

two unsubdivided parcels into one lot. The petitioner is also requesting a vacation 

of LaTouche Street that runs north/south within the property and to vacate a 15- 

foot wide public use easement along the north property boundary. The site is 

zoned I-1 and is 29 acres and is undeveloped. It is surrounded by I-1 uses with R- 

3 and PLI to the east that includes multi-family residential and Polaris School; 

that is across the New Seward Highway. The purpose of the plat is the 

development of a Wal Mart super center of approximately 240,000 square feet. 

The property is impacted by Type C wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE) has exercised jurisdiction over a portion of the wetland site on this parcel. 

There is a proposal to create a wetland conservation area in the northwest corner 

to preserve it as undisturbed because it provides an important drainage function 

and filtering of sediments before entering the storm drain system in East 66 th 

Avenue. An application has been submitted to the COE. The public comment 

period on that permit began April 19 th and will conclude May 19 th . 

The other issue affecting the development of the site is traffic impact. The traffic 

impact analysis (TIA) was prepared. ADOT has accepted the TIA, which does 

include a number of items such as widening 56 th Avenue at the Old Seward 

Highway to include an additional turn lane and to create a two-lane approach. The 

Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station is to the north of the petition site across 

56 th Avenue and for a two-week period there is a free dump day and traffic 

becomes backed up along 56 th Avenue. ADOT is requiring coordination of traffic 

control efforts on those days. ADOT wants Juneau Street to be designed as a 

minor collector. An 80-foot wide dedication is proposed on the west property 

boundary and construction will be to urban industrial half-street standards. 

ADOT also wants to review the signal operations at each intersection, which was 

part of the final TIA. ADOT has requested a median in Dowling Road from 

LaTouche to Rosemont. If traffic warrants, they want that median extended to the 

new Juneau Street to allow a right-in/right-out from this site. A memorandum of


May 4, 2005 

agreement between petitioner and ADOT is needed to accomplish these 

improvements. Municipal Traffic Department has not accepted the final TIA due 

to concerns with coordinating traffic on 56 th Avenue with free dump days. They 

also want a traffic signal at 56 th Avenue and Old Seward. The signal installation 

includes all median and associated work. They are requesting a plat note be 

placed on the final plat stating “WalMart shall not receive a Conditional 

Certificate of Occupancy until the Old Seward Highway and 56 th Avenue traffic 

signal is operational.” This is to be done before Wal Mart opens its doors to the 

public. They also want the petitioner to resolve the configuration of the roadway 

and medians at the intersection of Old Seward Highway and 56 th Avenue. These 

requirements are addressed in the Planning Department's recommended 

conditions. 

In reviewing the vacation requests, MS. O'BRIEN noted that a 30-foot wide rightof-way 

is being dedicated along the north boundary in lieu of the 15-foot public 

use easement. That dedication results in a 60-foot wide right-of-way for East 56 th 

Avenue, which meets current standards for an urban industrial street. Juneau 

Avenue is being dedicated to an 80-foot width on the west property boundary in 

lieu of LaTouche Street right-of-way, which has never been constructed or used 

as a connection between 56 th Avenue and Dowling Road. It does appear that 

vacation of the public use easement and the LaTouche right-of-way meets 

municipal vacation policy and ordinance and would not adversely affect traffic 

circulation or access to this or other properties in the area. 

CHAIR PHELPS asked who would be responsible to approve the construction of 

the intersection at Old Seward Highway and 56 th Avenue, as required in condition 

8.c. MS. O’BRIEN replied that both the Traffic Department and Project 

Management and Engineering (PM&E) would have approval responsibility. 

CHAIR PHELPS asked if that should be specified in this condition. MS. 

O’BRIEN replied in the affirmative. 

The public hearing was opened. 

BRAD RINCKEY, with Lounsbury Associates and representing the petitioner, 

introduced TOM ADAMS, also with Lounsbury Associates. MR. RINCKEY stated that 

this project has been discussed several times with all interested parties, including several 

meetings with the Municipal Planning Department to discuss all aspects of site 

development with an emphasis on access and drainage. There have also been meetings 

with the Taku/Campbell and Campbell Heights community councils and positive 

responses have come from both on site layout and proposed building aesthetics. There 

have been meetings with Army COE, EPA, USF&W, Department of Natural Resources 

regarding the wetlands resulting in the development of a plan to restore and maintain a 

portion of the wetlands on the site. That plan has been submitted to the COE. A TIA has 

been completed and verbal approval has been received from the Traffic Department.


May 4, 2005 

Written approval has been received from ADOT. The petitioner has met with the 

Mayor’s Office and received a positive response to the building layout and the building 

aesthetics. This hearing is to address the plat. This project is subject to site plan review 

by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at which time all design elements will be 

discussed in detail. A site plan review application will be heard on July 11, 2005. This 

project is also subject to Urban Design Commission approval where landscaping, 

screening and building design elements will be reviewed; that review is anticipated in 

July. MR. RINCKEY felt regarding condition 5.b that is premature to say the driveway 

must be abandoned with construction of the traffic signal when design of the signal has 

not even started. He asked that condition 5.b state “Resolve with MOA Traffic Engineer 

regarding the lot across 56 th Avenue and the need to abandon the existing driveway.” He 

also asked to amend condition 5.d to state “56 th Avenue signal be approved by 

Municipality of Anchorage Traffic." He noted that through dialogue with the Community 

Planning and the Mayor's Office and the community, WalMart now understands the 

concerns of the community and wants to create a development that not only addresses 

those concerns, but fits into the surrounding community and environment. 

CHAIR PHELPS asked for clarification of the changes to conditions requested by the 

petitioner. MR. ADAMS proposed to delete condition 5.b and reword condition 5.d to 

state “Resolve with MOA Traffic Department the construction and final configuration of 

the roadway and medians for the Old Seward/56 th Avenue signal, prior to recording the 

final plat.” 

CHAIR PHELPS asked the source of the site plan requirement. MS. O’BRIEN replied 

that the large retail establishment ordinance requires site plan review. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS asked if the driveway referenced in condition 5.b is to the 

east across the Old Seward Highway. MR. ADAMS replied that it is on the west side of 

the Old Seward that serves as access to a business. The petitioner understands the 

concerns with respect to the driveway and will work to resolve the matter. BOARD 

MEMBER CARESS asked if 56 th Avenue is a driveway at present. He asked what the 

owner of that lot has to do with this platting action. BOARD MEMBER KREGER did 

not see a driveway across the Old Seward Highway. MR. RINCKEY thought the 

driveway in question is just south of the extension of 56 th Avenue and perhaps the 

proximity to the intersection is too close. MS. O’BRIEN clarified that the lot at Old 

Seward and 56 th Avenue, on the west side, takes driveway access to 56 th Avenue at the 

corner of the intersection; when that intersection is signalized they might have difficulty 

accessing their property. Traffic probably wants to ensure there is at least a 75-foot 

separation distance. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER asked Staff’s position on the revision to the conditions as 

proposed by the petitioner. MS. O’BRIEN was concerned with the revision because 

Traffic told her the TIA had not been accepted. She wanted to ensure that however the 

motion is crafted, the issue of the driveway is addressed. She preferred the original


May 4, 2005 

recommendation from Mr. Rinckey to resolve, not eliminate, condition 5.b. CHAIR 

PHELPS asked if the result would be either moving the driveway or abandoning the 

driveway. MR. RINCKEY was agreeable to changing the language to “Resolve the need 

to abandon…" believing the wording "must be abandoned" was too strong. CHAIR 

PHELPS suggested “Resolving the need for abandonment or relocation.” MR. 

RINCKEY was amenable to this change. 

CHI KONG TO, representing the owner of the driveway, thanked the Board and Staff for 

their time and work. He explained that it is important for that property to have access 

onto 56 th Avenue because the use on the property is a heavy equipment dealer that moves 

equipment in and out of the site. Closing the access to 56 th Avenue would have a very 

negative impact on the business. He indicated he is not opposed to the development 

proposed by WalMart, but he remained concerned with access to this property. To date, 

neither the petitioner nor his representatives have approached the owners of the property 

regarding this driveway access. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS noted that condition 5.b references the Old Seward 

Highway and 56 th Avenue, which he thought was the intersection, but is instead a 

driveway. MR. RINCKEY indicated on an aerial photograph that the driveway appears to 

be in the right-of-way. BOARD MEMBER CARESS indicated he had misunderstood 

condition 5.b, which he thought referred to a property near the Old Seward Highway, 

when in fact it is Construction Machinery Inc.’s property. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL asked that Mr. Kong To identify the property to which he 

was referring. MR. KONG TO used the aerial photograph to locate the property. He 

feared the condition was to abandon the driveway on his property. MS. O’BRIEN 

clarified that this lot was not the subject of condition 5.b. MR. KONG TO apologized for 

his confusion. He asked that the ingress/egress to his property not be impacted by traffic 

flow. 

MARK MAGNUS stated his customers and those of two other businesses use the 

driveway at the intersection in question. Eliminating that driveway would create 

difficulties for his customers in accessing his business. 

CHAIR PHELPS asked if this driveway is currently used. MR. MAGNUS replied that his 

and two other businesses use the driveway at this time. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS understood that 56 th Avenue west of the Old Seward 

Highway is not developed. MR. MAGNUS indicated that it is a driveway. BOARD 

MEMBER CARESS asked if Mr. Magnus understood that a driveway within a certain 

distance of an intersection is in violation of regulation. MR. MAGNUS suggested that 

perhaps the driveway relocation could be addressed with the design of the traffic light.


May 4, 2005 

In rebuttal, MR. RINCKEY felt that the public interest of the driveway that may or may 

not be in the right-of-way would be addressed in the revised comment. When the design 

survey for the intersection is done, all efforts will be made to accommodate the business 

owner at that location. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER asked to what revised comment Mr. Rinckey was 

referring. MR. RINCKEY explained he was referring to the revision to condition 5.b to 

resolve the situation with respect to the driveway. MR. ADAMS further clarified that the 

request was made to reword this condition so there is not simply the direction to abandon 

the driveway. There may be a way to relocate the driveway to still provide access to 56 th 

Avenue. He noted that the design of the intersection has not begun. 

BOARD MEMBER CARESS asked if condition 6.c to physically close LaTouche if it is 

not used would necessitate a turnaround. MR. ADAMS replied that at this time that 

portion of LaTouche that is not used would be maintained in its current state. LaTouche 

beyond Lot 1 Stocklin Subdivision is the only portion that is constructed. 

The public hearing was closed. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL asked that Staff address Mr. Caress’s point regarding the 

need for a turnaround if LaTouche is vacated. MS. O’BRIEN stated that ADOT wanted a 

permanent barrier so there could be no access. The owner of the property on Stocklin 

Subdivision has used this portion of LaTouche to park cars. No temporary turnaround 

was requested because the right-of-way has been used by that single business. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH moved for approval of the vacation of the 15’ Public Use 

Easement along the north property boundary and vacation of the LaTouche Street rightof-way 

within the property boundary subject to filing a suitable replat within 18 months. 

BOARD MEMBER seconded. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH supported her motion, noting that additional right-of-way is 

being dedicated to serve the development and the vacation is proper. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL added that the vacation meets the four criteria to approve 

a vacation, per municipal policy. 


NAY: None 

PASSED 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH moved for approval of the plat for 18 months subject to 

Staff conditions 1 through 14, amending condition 5.b to state "Resolve with Traffic


May 4, 2005 

Engineering the need to abandon or relocate the driveway directly across from 56 th 

Avenue,” amending condition 5.d to change the word “median prior to recording a final 

plat” to "signal prior to recording a final plat." 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL seconded. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH supported her motion, stating it is obvious from review of 

the information that considerable research, engineering, and discussion has occurred with 

interested parties. The main concern expressed tonight has to do with the access to 

neighboring property owners, particularly at 56 th Avenue. The petitioner’s suggested 

conditions respond to those concerns in a positive way. 


NAY: None 

PASSED 

b. S-11358-1 Ward Subdivision. Robin Ward. To subdivide one 

parcel into nine lots. Located south of Kincaid 

Road, East of Jodphur Street, and north of West 

Kendale Circle. 

Staff member SHARON FERGUSON reviewed the request for the Board 

involving an undeveloped 10-acre subdivision of Tract A, Johnston being 

subdivided into 9 lots. The property is located south of Kincaid Road and east of 

Jodhpur Street. There are accesses from Kincaid Road and from West Dimond 

Boulevard. A 50-foot right-of-way for the east half of Jodphur Street was 

dedicated with the plat for Johnston Subdivision. Jodphur Street is classified as a 

local road. The proposed density of 0.9 dwelling units per acre (DUA) falls below 

the 3-6 DUA cited as the recommended density in the 1982 Anchorage Bowl 

Comprehensive Development Plan, however, the lots are sized to accommodate 

septic systems. Staff had been under the impression that wells would provide 

water to the subdivision, but this afternoon Staff heard from the petitioner's 

representative that in fact the owner plans to extend public water into the 

subdivision. Staff recommended amending the recommendations to delete 

conditions 2.d and 2.e that refer to wells and add condition 9.h “public water.” 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL asked if condition 2.e should remain as it relates 

to septic systems. MS. FERGUSON agreed that condition 2.e should remain. 


TONY HOFFMAN, representing the petitioner, thanked Staff for their work and 

apologized for the confusion regarding the provision of water to this property. He stated


May 4, 2005 

this is a straightforward plat application. In the additional comments provided to the 

Board are photographs that were taken long before the petitioner purchased the property. 

He stated that any drainage issues would be addressed when the drainage plan is 

developed and the property is developed. He stated this is an appropriate use of the land 

and the proposed density is well under the permitted DUA. 


BOARD MEMBER LINNELL moved for approval of the plat for 18 months subject to 

Staff conditions 1 through 9, deleting condition 2.d and adding condition 9.h “public 

water.” 


BOARD MEMBER LINNELL supported his motion, finding that this is a well laid out 

subdivision that meets Title 21 requirements and furthers the goals of Anchorage 2020. 


NAY: None 

PASSED 

c. S-11110-2 Cloud Nine Subdivision (REVISED). To subdivide 

one parcel into 5 lots with a variance from AMC 

21.80.200 (Legal and Physical Access). Located 

south of Paine Road and Southwest of Carl Street. 

CHAIR PHELPS explained that the Platting Board opened the public hearing for 

Case S-11110-2 Cloud Nine Subdivision on July 21, 2004 and continued the 

public hearing to August 4, 2004 and rescheduled each month thereafter until 

October 6, 2004 at which time the Board approved an indefinite postponement 

until access issues were resolved. The public hearing was not closed. If people did 

not testify at the previous hearing, they have the opportunity to do so at this time. 

The Board may wish to deal with allowing those who did testify to testify again. 

Staff member MARGARET O'BRIEN stated the minutes from the original public 

hearing are included in the packet. The hearing was opened on August 4, 2004 to 

subdivide one parcel into five lots and a variance from AMC 21.80.200 for legal 

and physical access. The access to this property is via Goldenview Drive through 

dedicated rights-of-way within Mountain Village and Keno Hills subdivisions. 

From there it continues through access easements that were allowed in prior 

platting actions because of the limited development in this area. A requirement to 

build the road to municipal standards for only a few lots was not felt to be 

reasonable at the time those plats were heard. The subject property is steeply


May 4, 2005 

sloped, zoned R-10SL, and all the proposed lots are at least 7.5 acres. The 

development would be served with on site well and septic systems. Due to the 

steep slopes, a drainage analysis for erosion and sedimentation control are critical 

to the development of this property. Because of the fractured bedrock nature of 

the soils, more advanced design of septic systems might be required to avoid 

contamination of area wells. On Site Systems has required that a nitrate model or 

an engineer's report be submitted to prove the development of this subdivision 

will not have an adverse effect on existing wells. The public hearing was 

continued from the August 4, 2004 meeting in order to resolve issues regarding 

access to the site. A problem arose with the 60-foot access easement that runs 

northwest to southeast within Marguerite Hills Subdivision. A plat note not 

approved by the Board was included on the plat in error that limited use of that 

access easement through Marguerite Hills to only the lots within Marguerite 

Subdivision. That was not the intent of the Board at the time, it is not in 

conformance with Title 21 to landlock property. The resolution to that issue was 

to record a correcting resolution to amend the plat note. The correcting resolution 

is included on pages 6-8 of the packet, which reads “The existing traveled way is 

for the benefit of the property owners to the east and south and is not to be 

construed as a public dedication for maintenance or liability.” This includes 

Cloud Nine Subdivision. This plat was recorded in 1994 when Marguerite Hills 

Subdivision was subdivided into two lots. The plat recorded in 1997 included the 

words "… is for the benefit of the property owners in this subdivision only," 

referring to the access easement in Marguerite Hills Subdivision. The corrected 

plat note allows legal access along the 60-foot wide platted access to be used by 

Cloud Nine Subdivision and the unsubdivided property to the south of that 

subdivision. 

CHAIR PHELPS noted that amended conditions had been put before the Board. 

MS. O’BRIEN explained that some wording changes were made to condition 3 

and condition 9 includes the corrected plat note. Two additional conditions were 

added to ensure, if in the future the roads are built and maintained by the 

Municipality, profiles are provided proving they can be built to municipal 

standards. Because a variance is being requested, approval by the Fire 

Department, Development Services, Traffic Department, and Planning 

Department needs to be obtained. CHAIR PHELPS asked what is required in 

AMC 21.45.040, which is referenced in condition 13. MS. O’BRIEN read this 

code section into the record; the code provision requires legal and physical 

access. The Department is requesting this be a public use easement rather than a 

private drive, but it is not requesting that it be dedicated at this time. 


KENNETH LANG, representing the petitioner, referenced his comments from the prior 

hearing. He concurred with the Staff conditions, having worked closely with Staff to


May 4, 2005 

resolve numerous issues. He felt these conditions resolve the access issue, which was the 

concern of the Board at the last hearing. 

CHAIR PHELPS noted that the Board has the discretion to allow or disallow those who 

testified previously to again testify. BOARD MEMBER WALSH felt it would be 

beneficial to allow testimony to refresh the Board’s memory and for those members of 

the Board who were not serving when the case was previously heard. 

LON DREKA, landowner through which the proposed subdivision takes access, stated he 

has serious concerns about the legality of the easement the petitioner is proposing to use 

for access. He felt this concern had not been addressed. There is also an access problem 

getting to the 60-foot wide easement that goes through Marguerite Hills, which has also 

not been addressed. He stated the access through the proposed subdivision has two very 

steep hairpin turns that should be addressed. The proposed access goes through his 

property after it leaves Marguerite Hills, goes through the proposed subdivision, makes a 

hairpin turn, and then comes back through his property. He stated a Cat skinner going up 

the mountainside created this access. He did not think a fire truck could successfully 

travel that access. 

CHAIR PHELPS believed that Mr. Dreka's concerns were the legality of the access, 

problems with the access through Marguerite Hills, and problems with respect to two 

hairpin turns. 

AERIAL STRAIGHT asked if her testimony would be limited. CHAIR PHELPS 

responded that the hearing is open completely. She stated she and her husband own four 

lots on Paine Road immediately across from Cloud Nine Subdivision. She submitted a 

comment, but it was not included in the packet. Their main concerns remain the roads. 

The requirement is to improve Paine Road to municipal standards for a three block length 

of that road. However, in order for people to reach Cloud Nine, they have to leave Clarks 

Road, which is paved, and drive through Rabbit Creek Heights, which is 1.5 miles of a 

substandard dirt road that would not hold up to heavy equipment. At the last hearing it 

was noted that this subdivision is only three lots, but it seems that little subdivisions are 

being added around the main subdivision. All of the residents from those smaller 

subdivisions would be filtered into Rabbit Creek Heights and onto roads paid for by 

Rabbit Creek Heights residents, with residents of Cloud Nine having no financial 

obligation. Cloud Nine Subdivision is located on the south side of Paine Road on the 

west end of Paine Road. Mr. Burnham also has a subdivision S-11168-2 that is now on 

hold, which would provide five more lots onto Paine Road and into her subdivision. She 

had a major concern about surrounding subdivisions using her subdivision roads. In the 

additional comment package was a comment from Dan Stone, a member of the Rabbit 

Creek Heights Community Council, who says that in meetings there were 

recommendations the subdivision be approved, but those were from the Rabbit Creek 

Community Council, not the council in her area.


May 4, 2005 

JOE BURNHAM spoke in favor of this subdivision. He stated he owns property further 

up the mountain from the proposed subdivision and he would be using the access being 

proposed for this subdivision. He stated with respect to condition 5 on the proposed plat 

to resolve the location of a 20-foot trails easement with the Municipal Trails Coordinator, 

that the landowners in this area formed a homeowners association to address this issue. 

The homeowners association has been working with the trails people and Municipal 

Trails Coordinator who agreed to allow the location of trails to be resolved and for 

section line easements to be used wherever possible. He stated this is a dangerous ravine; 

there is better access along the section lines. In a meeting last week there was agreement 

to using section lines whenever possible. Landowners in the area have no objection to 

people using trails, but do object to a requirement for a trail in a certain area when platted 

easements can be used. He understood when he bought his property that all of the 

properties were subject to the joint use easement agreed to by the previous owners and 

that existing owners are subject to that easement, which runs with the land. 

CHUCK LEKITES, owner of the property to the west of Cloud Nine Subdivision, stated 

he favors the subdivision. He clarified that trails will be located along section line 

easements. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER asked the location of Mr. Lekites' property. MR. 

LEKITES stated his property is to the west of Cloud Nine, Lot A2 of Marguerite Hills. 

ROBERT JACOBS, owner of Lot 2 Marguerite Hills, a 40-acre parcel adjoining Cloud 

Nine Subdivision on the southwest, stated he spoke previously about the trails issue. He 

has a meeting with Land Design North to discuss the use of section line easements and to 

come to an agreement among the property owners in this area. He bought his 40 acres 

about 15 years ago and has watched as people have wandered the hillside. He also lived 

on Switzerland Drive in 1977 and used to run up to the top of Mt. Baldy. He stated he has 

worked as a certified mountain guide for 26 years so he is not against hiking/use of the 

land. He thought the idea behind the trail issue was to define the exact location of the 

trail. He thought that people had the idea that these trails would lead to Chugach State 

Park, but the park is far away from this location; the trails go to private land only. He 

stated he has read the 1997 plan that speaks to connectivity between subdivisions and 

there is an uncertain understanding of what that means. The 20-foot easement being 

discussed in relation to this subdivision goes directly to his property and ends at his 

property line. 

DAVE MATTISON, owner of Lot 1A-1 Marguerite Hills bordering the subdivision’s 

west boundary on the north side, voiced concern with the 20-foot trail easement being 

proposed. He commented that the initial request was for connectivity between 

neighborhoods and he felt that section lines provide both north/south and east/west 

connections. Everyone who lives in the area is concerned with trails because the trails as 

proposed would lead from one private parcel to another parcel. He noted that the nearest 

State Park is 5.5 miles away and access would be better served with section lines.


May 4, 2005 

DEBORAH MOLE, resident of Alta Court at the bottom of Bear Valley, stated that she 

and her family moved to their home in 2000, drawn by the variety of trails and easy 

access to wilderness. She has been advocating for the trail easement and would like the 

established trails to be retained; they have been the foundation of this area. She was glad 

to see the requirement for a 20-foot easement being recommended in the conditions. She 

also had concerns with transportation and septic systems, but she thought those were 

being addressed in the conditions of approval on the plat. 

DIANNE HOLMES, representing the Rabbit Creek Community Council, stated the 

Council has submitted a revised letter to the Board regarding this case. One of the 

Council's main concern is drainage. There are many bad drainage situations because of 

the past winter. Conditions 7.a and 7.b that were placed on the plat were very forward 

thinking about drainage in their insistence that all drainage be controlled on site and that 

any drainage concerns that arise during the development of the property be controlled. 

She stressed the importance of these conditions on this and any other plat on steeply 

sloped property. She indicated there is high bedrock on the petition site and the Council 

is concerned that the engineer’s report speaks to the need for recontouring for septic, 

which makes it very difficult to control drainage on-site. The Council has asked that there 

be careful consideration of the high tech septic systems that could be recommended, 

some of which are not expensive to maintain; perhaps a biofiltration system would 

require less contouring and involve less acreage. Vegetation retention is important, but it 

will not guarantee drainage control. The Council also asked that the Board ensure there is 

safe walking along roads for pedestrians. The Saddle Trail was destroyed recently as a 

result of soils testing; that trail leads to Mt. Baldy. The Council is unsure how the issue of 

that trail will be addressed. She stated that a 20-foot easement straight up the mountain 

would not be adequate and would erode. She hoped this could be addressed through other 

means. The Saddle Trail is shown as an arrow on the Areawide Trails Plan that caused 

concern and discussion with other plats over the past several years. It is important to 

maintain that because the other alternative along the section line easement would not 

reach Baldy, although it would probably not erode. She did not know how the Trails Plan 

could be implemented in this area if that arrow is not addressed. She hoped the Board 

recognized there are moves afoot to connect Bear Valley and Potter Valley with trails, 

coalescing at the ridge that then goes to the east to Chugach State Park. She noted that 

Anchorage 2020 policies calls for connectivity of trails through plats and replats. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH understood that Mt. Baldy is privately owned. MS. 

HOLMES believed this was correct. BOARD MEMBER WALSH understood the intent 

is to have public trails through the property, but they would not lead to public property. 

MS. HOLMES replied they would go to the Park once they intersect with the trail from 

Bear Valley to Potter Valley. BOARD MEMBER WALSH asked if the Council was 

asking that trails be dedicated throughout this area to public areas, but is not expecting 

private areas to be connected for public use. MS. HOLMES replied that the Council 

wants adherence to the Trails Plan, although it is rather imprecise in this area. BOARD


May 4, 2005 

MEMBER WALSH asked if the Council hopes that trails can be dedicated throughout 

the area to public parks, while respecting individual property owners’ rights. MS. 

HOLMES hoped there would be some compromise because the Trails Plan shows the 

trail and Anchorage 2020 calls for connectivity. BOARD MEMBER WALSH recalled 

from prior testimony that the public is currently using private land on Mt. Baldy. MS. 

HOLMES stated the Council would like access that works near where the trail has been 

historically located. 

CHAIR PHELPS asked if the Council's suggestion is to resolve the location of a 

connecting trail or in general resolve the location of a trail somewhere in this area. MS. 

HOLMES was not privy to what is occurring with respect to testimony offered by other 

persons in this hearing. She felt a trail should be located in the general vicinity of the 

arrow shown on the Trails Plan. CHAIR PHELPS asked the location of the Saddle Trail. 

MS. HOLMES replied that it comes from Paine Road and travels north/south. MS. 

SCHANCHE referred to an aerial photograph with an overlay of trails to locate the arrow 

from the Trails Plan, to the "right" of the Homestead Trail. She stated she met with Mr. 

Burnham and the Traffic Director regarding traditional use trails on private property. 

There was, at that time, discussion of using section line easements, which would extend 

from Paine Road south. The Traffic Director mentioned that the original intent of the 

Trails Plan was to try to connect trails from Paine Road to trails from the Steamboat area. 

They were going to try to work within easements rather than go on private property. The 

Municipality did not want to pursue the Saddle Trail at this time because it cuts through 

two properties, but was relying on the fact the roadway would be a public use easement. 

There was no intent to encourage vehicle access to the trail, but to allow pedestrian use. 

The trail eventually leads to Chugach State Park, but the route down the road might never 

be realized. A hole was put into the Saddle Trail so that people could not use it. The 

Municipality is attempting to find a solution that will work for everyone. 

BOARD MEMBER SHRIVER asked if wording condition 5 to resolve the location of 

the 20-foot trail would mean that Ms. Schanche would work with private property owners 

to locate trails on section lines as much as possible and that there would be a trail, 

satisfying the Rabbit Creek Community Council's concerns. MS. SCHANCHE believed 

this was the case, so long as the roadway can be allowed for pedestrian use. She was 

encouraged that one of the testifiers is using Land Design North to design a trail on the 

section line, which would be helpful and likely gain support from the community 

councils. BOARD MEMBER SHRIVER asked if there should be language regarding 

pedestrian use of the roadway. MS. SCHANCHE indicated that a phrase could be added 

“to allow pedestrian use.” She stated it is not desirable for people to park and then hike. 

BOARD MEMBER SHRIVER thought perhaps the condition should not be changed, if 

the desire is to discourage parking and hiking. 

JEFF BROWN stated if Paine Road were followed straight to Chugach State Park, the 

slope would be extreme. He stated there is a desire to locate trails for recreational use. He 

stated that the road with hairpin turns will not be accessible by emergency vehicles. This


May 4, 2005 

leads to other public safety issues, such as other subdivisions developing in this area 

using roads in his LRSAs, which he pays for. His other concern was that good water 

quality be maintained, if the developer is using septic tanks. He stated he did not oppose 

the use of septic systems so long as the area is not excessively disturbed. He indicated he 

recently visited Section 36 where someone put a new access through Heritage Land Bank 

land and there are places where people cannot drive, but they can walk. He commented 

that the proposed subdivision is very steep and the trail people are using exists because it 

was a natural path to achieve access up the mountainside. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL asked where Mr. Brown lives. MR. BROWN replied that 

he lives on Alta Court. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER asked whether Mr. Brown supports or opposes the 

proposed subdivision. MR. BROWN replied that with some modifications made for 

trails, assurance that the water is good quality, and assurance that everybody contributes 

to the LRSA, he would favor it. He stated he is far from against development, but favors 

good development. 

In rebuttal, MR. LANG stated that most of the issues expressed in testimony are 

addressed in the Staff recommendations. Mr. Dreka is concerned with access and hairpin 

turns, as is the petitioner and Staff. That item will be addressed through condition 13. He 

indicated that Ms. O’Brien invited him to a meeting next week to address many of these 

issues with the relevant agencies. With respect to the testimony regarding access to 

Rabbit Creek Heights, he thought the residents of that subdivision would see a good deal 

of development in the future now that the platting issue has been resolved. That 

subdivision is currently only one-third developed and there are over 200 lots in total. 

Now that the platting has been corrected the lots will become more desirable. He 

anticipated there would be an increased demand on that subdivision road system because 

of this, while the proposed subdivision is adding only three lots. He felt the Staff had 

appropriately and comprehensively conditioned the plat. He reiterated that the trails issue 

is in the process of being resolved and he felt the condition to do so is adequate. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER noted there was a comment about the lack of legal access 

and one person testified to concern with the access crossing his property and unresolved 

legal issues. MR. LANG explained that the underlying principal is that this trail has 

existed for 40 or 50 years and it has prescriptive rights. Mr. Dreka is disputing an 

agreement that was reached between the property owners years ago regarding the use of 

this trail. This is where the wording “for the benefit of the property owners to the south 

and east” arises. Mr. Dreka's concern was that the document was signed by owners at 

different times and was recorded more than once with additional signatures as they were 

obtained. He believed it stands as a legal document and even without that there is a 

prescriptive right that provides legal access to Cloud Nine Subdivision. BOARD 

MEMBER KREGER asked how the access being illegal would affect the Board’s action 

on this plat. MR. LANG stated the only area in question is the segment from Marguerite


May 4, 2005 

Hills to Cloud Nine and to the west of that there is platted access. As an alternative, the 

owner of Lot 1A2 has agreed to grant a 60-foot easement along his south property line 

from the existing 60-foot roadway to the boundary line of Cloud Nine. This would 

provide uninterrupted access, if necessary. BOARD MEMBER KREGER understood 

that if the existing access is not legal, there would be a problem, but that problem is 

addressed by taking access through another landowner’s property. He asked whether 

there is a solution such as going through another property where legal access is not in 

contest if the Board does not want to resolve the issue of whether or not access is legal. 

MR. LANG deferred to Ms. O’Brien. 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL felt it would be fair that Cloud Nine Lots 1-3 would join 

into the Rabbit Creek Heights Subdivision LRSA and Lots 4-5 would join the LRSA for 

the Marguerite Subdivision area. MR. LANG indicated that is the intent. BOARD 

MEMBER LINNELL asked how this requirement could be included in the conditions. 

MS. O’BRIEN suggested adding a condition that requires the owners of Lot 1, 2 and 3 

participate in the Bear Valley LRSA. She did not believe a LRSA has been established 

within Marguerite Subdivision, but there are subdivisions coming forward next month in 

this area and one of the proposals is to either have those subdivisions join an existing 

LRSA or create one. The plat could be conditioned to join an existing LRSA or join one 

that is created in the future. 


BOARD MEMBER LINNELL moved for approval of the variance from AMC 21.80.200 

for legal and physical access for Lots 4 and 5. 


BOARD MEMBER LINNELL stated the variance meets the requirements to grant a 

variance and, given the access issues surrounding this subdivision, granting the variance 

is in the best interest of the subdivision. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER noted that discussion of one of the criteria for approving a 

variance involves the question of legal access from the west to Lots 4 and 5. Assuming 

that the question of whether or not legal access exists is still in contest, he asked if it 

would be appropriate to approve the variance. BOARD MEMBER LINNELL felt the 

courts would determine the matter of the legality of the access, and the Board can 

presume it is legal based on the material provided. 


NAY: None 

PASSED


May 4, 2005 

BOARD MEMBER LINNELL moved for approval of the plat for 18 months, subject to 

Staff conditions 1 through 13, adding condition 14 “Lots 1, 2, and 3 join the Rabbit 

Creek Heights Subdivision LRSA and Lots 4 and 5 join either an existing LRSA or one 

created in the future.” 



NAY: None 

PASSED 

G. PERSONS TO BE HEARD – None 

H. REPORTS – None 

1. Chair 

2. Secretary 

3. Committee 

I. BOARD COMMENTS 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER had concern with the reconsideration process as well as 

with the issue of ex parte contact. He stated he received a call from one of the petitioners 

in a case saying an error had been made and he did not return that call. He did not like the 

idea of a disappointed petitioner being able to call an individual Board Member and 

saying something was forgotten, overlooked, or there is new information and asking them 

to spread notice of reconsideration. He felt that is somehow an ex parte comment. He 

sympathized with the caller, because he did not know how else a request to reconsider 

could be brought before the Board. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH agreed that a Board Member receiving such a call is put in 

a difficult situation; at the least, the Board Member must report having received the call. 

In the past when there has been this type of situation, it has been helpful for the Board to 

receive information from the Legal Department either in the form of a memorandum 

explaining the process or at a worksession. 

MS. O’BRIEN stated there have been increasing requests to have worksessions on a 

variety of topics. In the past there were monthly meetings with the Director and staff has 

requested that those monthly meetings with the Director be re-established so that boards 

and commissions can meet individually or jointly with the Director or with each other. 

CHAIR PHELPS felt regular meetings would be useful, however, those would not


May 4, 2005 

address the issue at hand. He favored Ms. Walsh’s suggestion to request direction from 

the Planning Department or Legal Department regarding the rules and procedures for ex 

parte contact. BOARD MEMBER WALSH agreed that worksessions are helpful, but she 

felt a letter of instruction, memorandum or other written direction from Legal would be 

useful as well. 

BOARD MEMBER KREGER stated in the second matter reconsidered this evening he 

felt that new information had been introduced, but in the first he felt the issue had been 

aired and he felt the way it was handled the first time was thorough. He stated he 

generally does not favor the reconsideration process because it generally does not allow 

for the public hearing to be re-opened, which may not be appropriate to due process. 

BOARD MEMBER WALSH responded that occasionally events occur that have left her 

feeling uncomfortable, such as the Board setting conditions that were not appropriate. 

CHAIR PHELPS understood that was the rationale behind a reconsideration. The process 

provides an opportunity for making appropriate change. He differentiated between the 

Board feeling a change is necessary and a request being made by an outside party. 

J. ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

PLATTING BOARD MEETING - Municipality of Anchorage

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?