PLATTING BOARD MEETING - Municipality of Anchorage

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.