PLATTING BOARD MEETING - Municipality of Anchorage

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 16 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. The public hearing was opened. KENNETH LANG, representing the petitioner, referenced his comments from the prior hearing. He concurred with the Staff conditions, having worked closely with Staff to
PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 17 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.
Page 1 and 2: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Z.J. Loussac
Page 3 and 4: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 3 May 4
Page 11 and 12: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 11 May
Page 15: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 15 May

PLATTING BOARD MEETING - Municipality of Anchorage

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?