PLATTING BOARD MEETING - Municipality of Anchorage

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 3 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.
Page 1: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Z.J. Loussac
Page 5 and 6: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 5 May 4
Page 11 and 12: PLATTING BOARD MEETING Page 11 May

PLATTING BOARD MEETING - Municipality of Anchorage

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

Delete template?

Save as template?