Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - February 12, 2026 - 2026-02-12 18:30:00

That's me hanging up. Are you still on the line? Yes. All right, thanks.

You ready?

Good evening and welcome to the Municipality of Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals meeting for February 12th, 2026. Will the secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here. Andrew Romerdahl.

Here. Brian Bennett. Here. Craig Bennett. Here.

Jason Norris. Here. Jonathan Lang. Present. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Next item of business are the minutes. We have minutes for Thursday, January the 15th. May I have a positive motion, please?

Moved by Mr. Norris, seconded by Craig Bennett. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Hearing and seeing none. Hearing and seeing none.

Is there any objection to approval of the minutes?

Hearing and seeing none, the minutes are approved. And we move on to special order of business disclosures. There are disclosures of this evening. Um, Andrew? Yes, through the chair, um, I was absent for the November 13th meeting and therefore will be abstaining from voting on Resolution 2025-013.

Thank you.

Mr. Craig Bennett.

Through the chair, in case 2025-0140, I had previously disclosed that the petitioner had appealed the planning cases that my firm represented. I continue to have no financial or personal interest in this matter and will remain impartial. The board determined that I did not have a conflict and directed me to participate. And in case 2026-0016, my firm is representing the petitioner and I have a direct conflict and request to be recused. Thank you.

I have a positive motion on, um, Mr. Craig Bennett's participation in case 2026-0016.

Mr. Lang.

Yes, I move that, uh, Mr. Brian Bennett— or excuse me, Mr. Craig Bennett— be allowed to participate in case, uh, 2026-0016. Seconded by Mr. Brian Bennett. Um, will you speak to your motion, Mr. Lang? Thank you. Uh, I believe that, uh, Mr. Craig Bennett's assessment is correct and that he should be recused, so I will not be supporting my motion.

Thank you. Mr. Brian Bennett, you got to turn on your—. My mistake here. I believe that he should be able to participate as he wishes. Okay, I will not be supporting the motion to—.

Any other discussion?

I'm ready to vote. Please vote.

Mr. Romerdaal, how do you vote? No. Thank you. I don't have a little doodah.

It's one vote in the affirmative and four votes in the negative. The motion is denied, and Mr. Craig Bennett will be recused from case 2026-0016.

Mr. Lang, uh, through the chair, in case 2026-0016, an as-built survey I prepared appears in the case packet on page 18. I do not have any financial interest in the property, nor do I have any connections with the petitioner beyond having performed the as-built in 2024. I ask that I be allowed to participate in the case. Thank you. I have a positive motion directing Mr. Lang to participate in case Case 2026-0016.

Moved by Mr. Norris, seconded by Craig Bennett. Would you speak to your motion, Mr. Norris? Yes, Chair, I move to direct Board Member Lang to participate in Case 2026-0016, uh, for reasons that he stated. He has no financial interest and can remain impartial. Thank you.

Mr. Craig Bennett. I agree, nothing further. Thank you.

Is there any objection to the motion?

Hearing and seeing none, the motion passes and Jonathan Lang will be, uh, participating in Case 2026-0016. Are there any other disclosures that I don't know about?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda. On the consent agenda, we have a resolution for approval. Um, it's a revised resolution from Resolution 2025-0013.

May I have a positive motion for approval of the consent agenda, please?

Moved by Mr. Craig Bennett, seconded by Mr. Norris.

Is there any objection to— does anyone want to remove this item? For further discussion.

Hearing and seeing none, is there any objection to the motion?

Hearing and seeing none, the motion passes and the consent agenda is approved.

Nothing, uh, no appearance requests, nothing on unfinished business, nothing on the regular agenda, which moves us to public hearings. We have 1, 2, 3, 4 cases before us, and they are all variance cases. So I will read the procedure.

After staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for the applicant to state their case. The applicant, including all of his or her representatives, has 10 minutes for the presentation. And may reserve time for rebuttal at the end of the public hearing. Throughout the proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the applicant, who must convince the Board by a preponderance of evidence that the variance should be granted. A concurring vote of the majority of fully constituted membership of the Board, minus those excused for conflicts of interest, shall be required to grant a variance.

For variance to be granted, all 8 standards must be substantially met. On the conclusion of the applicant's presentation, the board members and the staff might then direct questions to the applicant through the chair. The chair will then open the public hearing for testimony on the issue. Persons wishing to testify follow the time limits established by the rules of procedure. Representatives of groups such as community councils, PTAs, and the like groups have 5 minutes and individuals have 3 minutes.

When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board. Time is kept by the secretary. The display at the front will be green to within 1 minute of the time allowed, then turn yellow, and at this time you should begin to sum up your testimony. At the end of the allowed time, the light will turn red and a tone will sound.

An individual may have appeal rights related to any action the Zoning Board of Appeal— the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals takes. The boards— the parties have 30 minutes from the date of mailing or other distribution of the decision to file an appeal to Superior Court. With that, we'll start with You can't whisper to me. Whisper, whisper.

I've been reminded, with the recusal of Mr. Craig Bennett, case number 2, case 2026-0016, the petitioner Larry Radspinner, um.

We will only have 5 members for that case, and that's a short board. And as a short board, you are offered, uh, the chance to postpone it.

When there is a 5-member board or commission, the postponement is offered and agreed to by the petitioner. They will be moved to the next regular agenda, and this should occur within 30 days and does not require re-noticing.

If the petitioner is willing to postpone but unable to attend the next available meeting within 30 days, the petitioner has a one-time option only to choose the next date certain he or she can attend at no extra fee.

So if Mr. Radspinner would please come forward, or their representative. State your name, please. Hello, my name is Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. I am the representative for this case, and we will not be postponing. You will not be postponed?

Yes, because it will be the same situation. Okay, thank you very much.

So case number 1, which was postponed from January 15th, um, is case 2025-0140, Rob and Gina Brown. Um, And introduce the case. The applicant is— um, will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On December 19th, 2025, the Planning Department mailed a total of 79 public hearing notices following the procedures of Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.020.H, Notices.

The department did not receive any public comments at the time of writing. The Glen Alps, Hillside, and Bear Valley Community Councils did not provide comments.

Are there any objections to the— the sufficiency of notice in the case?

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. Rob and Gina Brown, the owners of 13688 Canyon Road, are requesting a dimensional variance from Anchorage Municipal— Municipal Code 21.06.020(b), Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts, for the following features: 1, to allow an existing single-family dwelling to encroach 10.4 feet into the 25-foot rear setback, and 2, to allow a proposed shop/accessory dwelling unit to encroach 9.9 feet into a 25-foot rear setback in the R-8 zoning district of a legal nonconforming lot with the R-9 district setback and lot coverage requirements. The existing structure, structure was constructed sometime between 1993 and 1994 according to municipal records. During staff's research, no documentation was found of a building permit in, in those records for the subject parcel for the home built in the mid-'90s.

Nonconformities on the subject parcel were identified and addressed in a letter of nonconforming determination, uh, further referred to as an NCD, by the Municipality of Anchorage in 2013. This 2013 NCD contains several errors. First, the letter of nonconforming determination incorrectly identified the zoning district setback and lot coverage requirements. According to AMC 21.13.050A.1, a subject parcel that does not meet the minimum lot size requirements is subject to the setback and lot coverage requirements of the zoning district with the, quote, lot that is, uh, in the— pardon me, um, the largest lot area requirement within the lot would, would be conforming.

The R-8 zoning district has a minimum lot size of 1,740,240 square feet, otherwise 4 acres, and the subject parcel is 132,000 square feet, 3.03 acres. The next largest lot size in which the subject parcel would be conforming in the zoning district is R-9, with a minimum lot area requirement of 87,120 square feet, or 2 acres. The NCD from 2013 erroneously stated that the subject parcel would be held to the R-9 setback and lot coverage requirements. This is incorrect as the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet per AMC 21.06.020(b), Table of Dimensional Standards, Residential Districts. The R-7 setbacks and lot coverage differ from R-8 and R-9, whereas the R-8 and R-9 zoning districts have the same lot coverage amounts and setback distances.

Thus, had the NCD been correct, the existing structure would have been determined as out of compliance in 2013. Secondly, the NCD made the wrong assessment on what setback is considered a side setback. The NCD states, quote, the shed encroaches entirely into a 10-foot side yard setback. However, Bonney Lane Road fronts the western property boundary of the subject parcel. Therefore, the eastern property boundary is in the rear, and the subject— and the parcel is— pardon me— and the existing structure is subject to rear setback requirements, which are greater than the side setback requirements.

The side setbacks for this parcel are the north and south property lines, and these are noted errors in the 2013 NCD. Additionally, an application to build a shed was submitted to the municipality in 2015. And the subsequent review of the as-built shows the shed and greenhouse approximately 38.8 feet away from the eastern property line. During the permitting review, zoning staff erroneously did not provide comments about the conflicts with the zoning setbacks, uh, of the existing structure. Lastly, the error in the 2013 NCD was discovered 11 years later when the applicant applied for a building permit for the proposed shop ADU in its proposed location was based on incorrect R-7 setbacks mentioned in the ECD.

In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve the variance, the board must find the variance request substantially meets, uh, the following 8 standards. I will first address the 8 standards against the variance request for the existing structure. Staff finds that Standard A is not met for the existing structure. Construction of the home was prior to the NCD with the incorrect R-7 setback information. The subject parcel is a nonconforming lot within the R-8 district, and it follows setbacks requirements in the R-9 districts.

However, the setback requirements are the same for zones R-8 and R-9, meaning there is no increase in setback requirements due to the nonconforming lot size. There are additionally no streams, wetlands, or steep slopes on the lot. Therefore, the standard is not met. Staff finds Standards B is not met for existing— the existing structure. Residents, uh, residencies are rights which other property owners commonly enjoy in the same zoning district.

However, as there are no exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances existing on the site, Standard B is unmet for the existing structure. Standard C is met for the existing structure. The current owners purchased the property with the existing structure in place and encroaching into the rear setback. As the house was built in 1994 and the current owners came into possession in 2013, the location of the existing structure in the rear setback is not self-imposed hardship. Standard D is met for the existing structure.

If granted, the proposed variance for the existing structure will not adversely affect the adjacent properties. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing structure in size or use. Standard E is met for the existing structure. This variance does not change the character of the zoning district and does not permit a use that is otherwise not permitted in the R-8 zoning district. The variance for the existing structure is in keeping with the overall intent of the code.

Structure F is met for the existing structure. The encroachment within the rear setback has no known impacts on health, safety, or welfare of the people of the municipality. Standard G is met for the existing structure, as the standard is not applicable to the development. And lastly, Standard H is met for the existing structure. There are no proposed modifications or additions to the existing structure, and the variance seeks to approve what has been in existence for approximately 31 years.

I will now review the 8 standards against the variance request for the proposed structure. Staff finds Standard A is not met for the proposed structure. There is no increase in setback requirements due to the non-conforming lot size. There are no streams, wetlands, or steep slopes on the lot. The property owners have the correct setback information to design a new structure, move, or relocate the proposed structure.

Therefore, the standard is not met. Standard B is not met for the proposed structure. As established in Standard A, there are no extraordinary, um, or exceptional physical circumstances on the subject parcel. Certainly shops, garages, and accessory dwelling units are rights which other properties commonly enjoy. However, the proposed structure may be redesigned, relocated to meet the applicable setback standards.

Standard C is not met for the proposed structure.

Upon discovery of the error, municipal staff notified the petitioner of the conflict. The proposed structure, again, may be redesigned, resized, or moved to meet setback requirements. Standard D is partially met for the proposed structure. The proposed use of the structure is a shop and accessory dwelling unit, which is permitted in the zoning district. However, there could be adverse impacts to a future owner of a neighboring property with the approval of this variance.

Standard E is met for the proposed structure. This variance does not change the character of the zoning district and does not permit a use that is not otherwise permitted in the R-8 zoning district. The variance for the proposed structure is in keeping with the overall intent of the code. Standard F is met for the proposed structure. The encroachment within the rear setback has no known health— on health, safety, or welfare of the people of the municipality.

Standard G is met for the proposed structures, and it is not— as it is not applicable to this development. And lastly, Standard H is not met for the proposed structure. The plans for the proposed structure could be amended to relocate, resize, or redesign the structure outside of the required setback. The petitioners have the correct setback information for their design. The variance request for the proposed structure is not the minimum that will make it possible to have reasonable use of the land.

Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3 on page 30 of your packet. There were no comments or objections from reviewing agencies, community councils, or members of the public.

As AMC 21.03.240(g) requires that all 8 standards be substantially met for the Zoning Board of Examiners and appeals to grant a variance. For the existing structure, review standards A and B were not met, and the Department recommends denial.

Review standards— excuse me. For the proposed structure, staff finds that review standards A, B, C, D, and H are not met or partially met, and the department recommends denial. If after the public hearing the board finds that all 8 standards are substantially met for either or both of the variances, then an approval shall be subject to the conditions listed under either Variance 1 or Variance 2 on page 6 of the staff report. I can answer any questions the board may have, and the petitioner is in attendance. Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff by the board? Mr. Lang. Through the chair, could you clarify, the nonconforming determination was done under the old code? Does that make a difference? Through the chair, Mr. Lang, no.

I analyzed the difference between 2013 and 2015— or 2013 and present-day code. The setback standards were the the same, and the requirement that they go to the next lot conform— or next zoning district of lot conforming size, uh, was the same. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, another question, uh, how was— well, I guess that wouldn't matter for the setbacks.

Never mind. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Norris. Thank you.

Uh, through the chair, so just to be clear, we're voting on one variance and not one variance for existing and one for proposed? Through the chair, it is one case, but there are two variances to be voted on, one for the existing structure and one for the proposed structure. Okay, thank you. I had a further question. I was looking at the addendum that we received, and I just wanted to ask real quick a couple of things the petitioner had in here.

So the first is they cite the 20-foot elevation change from east to west as a potential point of contention. I was wondering if you could speak to that, and also the 100-foot well and septic separation items. Through the chair, absolutely. Uh, the topography that I noted, um, using municipal software does note it as a slope of 9%, moving gradually to— from the east side of the property to the west side of the property. However, based on aerial photography and photos provided by the petitioner, the ground appears relatively flat in those areas but does change as you move through the parcel.

Um, regarding the location of the well and septic, uh, on the as-built that was provided initially with the packet, the well information was there, but I do not recall seeing septic information, which might have altered my writing of the staff report. However, we understand that existing infrastructure that is entirely necessary for residents is important, and meeting any needed setbacks or adjustments from that is crucial. Um, yes, thank you. Thank you. Uh, last thing, they said that this was meant to replace a barn that was in disrepair, and they, they have that on the addendum as well, and it shows as removed on— in the packet on page 21.

Was that— I say is or was— uh, was that structure conforming and within setbacks and everything? Through the chair, no, that structure was not conforming. In the 2013 non-conforming determination, they found that the shed entirely encroached into what we now know as the rear setback, and the barn also encroached into the rear setback. The existing structure did not encroach, uh, for the R-9 side setback as stated in the NCD. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, will the applicant please come forward.

State your name— state and spell your name for the record, please.

Okay, there we go. My name is Rob Brown, R-O-B-B-R-O-W-N. Do you have any questions for staff? Uh, no. I have brought Ron Thompson who will present after me as well.

Okay, thanks. Chair and members of the board, thank you. My name is Rob Brown. My wife Gina and I are applicants for Case 2025-0140 for 13688 Canyon Road. We are requesting two dimensional variances from the rear setback, as was mentioned.

One to recognize the existing home, which is 14.6 feet from the rear property line, an existing 10.4-foot encroachment, and one for the proposed shop ADU, which would be 15.1 feet from that same line, an encroachment of 9.9 feet. The key issue is our good faith reliance on municipal action. When we purchased this property in 2013, the municipality issued a written non-conforming determination In 2025, 12 years later, that determination was found to be an error, both as to the applicable zoning district and by misidentifying the rear yard as a side yard. We relied on that official determination for more than a decade. In fact, in 2015, the municipality approved a land use permit for a greenhouse using that same 2013 determination.

In 2024, after part of our 50-year-old barn collapsed, we began planning a replacement structure. We hired an architect, paid for design work, and paid for a survey and plot plan, again using the municipality's written 2013 determination as the baseline. Only in 2025 were we told the prior determination was wrong and that new variances would now be required. This hardship is not self-imposed. We did not create the underlying municipal error, and we did not build the existing home.

We acted reasonably and in good faith based on a written municipal determination and subsequent municipal approvals. And just to add, my house did burn down in 1992. It was rebuilt, um, uh, on the existing cinder block foundation with a slight expansion. Um, granting these variances will not adversely affect neighbors or the public. There were no public comments, and reviewing agencies raised no objections.

This is a long-established farmstead property, and we are not asking to change the character of the area, only to allow reasonable use consistent with the site's long history. The requested variances are the minimum necessary for reasonable use. Relocating the proposed structure to eliminate the encroachment is not feasible because the footprint is constrained by an existing rock gabion wall on the west and required— by required separation distances between our well and the planned septic system. Requiring a redesign at this stage would impose extraordinary costs and delay based on an error we reasonably relied on for 12 years. For all these reasons, we respectfully request approval of both variances.

And I'd like to turn it over to Ron Thompson.

Hi, my name is Ron Thompson with Scope Permitting and Engineering, R-O-N-T-H-O-M-P-S-O-M.

I added the addendum just because there's been many meetings on this with the municipality attorneys involved in the room. Rob and his wife met and they were told that they would be somewhat supportive of going through this process. I don't feel that the staff report was very positive in our favor at all with respect to that meeting. I still don't. I thought we also then postponed last month to have another meeting this past week, we again sat down with the municipal attorney and the planning department, and they again assured us they'd come here and very much verbally tell how many mistakes were made on their part to get us to this point.

Um, and I.

I don't feel like that has also been the case. I feel like, um, I feel completely, um, I, I would just say I don't feel like what has been said in the planning department is what has been presented here tonight to you. So what I tried to do in the last week since that meeting was present some documentation to prove that I believe A, B, C, and H are met, um, one of which is no one talked about that this is a property that's had agricultural rights with it. Uh, that's why there's two wells. The one well is for the agricultural area, the other well is for the house.

Um, there's septic area to the south of the existing house, so you can't build over that direction. Um, the the proposed, or the, it says the existing barn, it's really an existing greenhouse that is in between the well and where the outdoor agriculture area is. Both those areas need to have the water clean and there's no access to get down there. Plus there is a fairly good, by land surveyor standards, whether someone says something looks flat, and whether or not a land surveyor data points show differently, it does show a fairly big drop-off. There's also overhead power lines that run through the property with an easement, 20-foot easement for that, so you have to stay at least 10 feet away from the power poles.

So it, it's very impacting lot. I thought that it'd be good for us to depict that in a, in a graphic manner. To show that we really picked almost the only place on this property that he can reasonably put a shop with an ADU on it, even though it's a large chunk of property because there's so much agriculture going on. At no time in this process did the owner know until such time we submitted for permit this summer that anything was in error. After all the design fees, after all the survey fees, after all the plot plan fees, after everything was done and everything got reviewed and approved, we found out that they said you needed to use the R9 standard.

When we went in to talk about the R9 standards, that's when they said, oh, by the way, your rear, front, and side yards are different as well. Um, that means a whole entire new design process. It's not easy. It's not an inconvenience. It's a large amount of money that was determined on a piece of paper, a non-conforming determination that we— I file hundreds of these a year, and they're recorded on the property.

And people buy and sell property, as, as I think all of you know, on those to get the rights to be able to build on their property and spend the money that they do based upon what they have. In this case, they did that. They, they did get a permit after the NCD, and even though that greenhouse that was permitted was outside of the setback it should have at that time, if this NCD was so incorrect. I just think it was interpreted differently back in the day, and nowadays it's interpreted a different way. And I think all of you on the board here know that interpretations change depending on who's in charge and who works through the system.

Uh, I do agree that what they're saying is correct today, but how we got there and how the, how the site is set up, there is really only one location that this can go. We think we did this minimal size garage. We tried to move it as close to the gabion wall that we can. The gabion wall is there for the agriculture and blocking wind that goes toward the, the agricultural growing area, so we can't really move it there. We can't move it where the, where the the, the greenhouse is, and it's replacing a barn or shop that was already in this exact location.

And so we felt pretty strongly about this. I felt that we'd have a little bit more support from the administration on this based upon the past meetings internally. We didn't, so we hope that, that we've given you enough information in both our— my addendum and the graph graphic to show that not only is the existing house built and then rebuilt because of a fire, that, that the proposed location, we did our best to locate it in a place that met the code, met the interpretation of the NCD, and we feel there's really not any place to go other than this. So I'll save the rest of my time for a rebuttal. You have 1 minute and 17 seconds for rebuttal.

Are there any questions for Mr. Brown or Mr. Thompson by the Board?

Mr. Norris. Yes, I do have a question. In regards to the block wall, you say that it is used to block wind for agricultural area, would the structure itself not act as a windbreak if it were to be moved closer to that? And could it not replace the block wall's function in that respect?

Through the chair, um, so the, the gabion wall will be, um, uh, not just a wind block but also a heat wall on the other side, um, at the end of this construction for fruit trees. And so as part of my master plan, the idea is to utilize that as a heat wall as well because it has a nice western exposure as well as a southern exposure. I do have a business, Flat Top Farm, that I run out of my house, and I do sell plants commercially as well. And so where we live, blocking wind is the name of the game. And so the most wind we could block, the better, because we do get 120-mile-an-hour winds.

Multiple times, often through the year, and we grow all year only to have the wind destroy it at the end of the season. And, and so the, the, the gabion wall, in addition to being a depository for the rocks of old Rabbit Creek that are on my property, it also is as a much more concrete structure for dwarf fruit trees that I plan on growing on the other side of it. And the building will only make it better as well.

Any other questions? Mr. Craig Bennett. Through the chair, one question. It's hard to scale off this drawing, but it seems like the proposed building and the block wall are about— it's hard to say about 16 feet. Um, if you moved it over 10 feet, that'd still give you maybe 6 feet between the building and the wall.

Um, I guess I just had a question on that. The idea would— we could move it as close to that gabion wall and still have an entranceway and have that— is what you're talking about is the entry pad that's out there that I mean, yeah, we have a little bit of room to move it over, but I mean, probably like a foot, maybe, maybe 2 at the most. So that can easily be accommodated if that's what we're talking about, is moving it that little bit closer. But I also have to— the gabion walls typically goes down into the ground, so we got to make sure that we're not taking the foundation of the new building and compromising the gabion wall base either. And just to clarify, the existing barn is on a pedestal of sorts.

There is a significant drop to the gabion wall, and so there would be quite a bit of fill the more we move over. That is a side yard with a deck planned for the accessory dwelling unit there. That's on the west side. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Are there any questions of the applicant by the staff?

Through the chair to the applicant, is the barn existing still? Is it still up? So, um, through the chair, the barn did collapse at the time of applying for this land use permit. I was in the process of deconstructing it with the intent of building it last year. And so currently I have continued to deconstruct it.

The existing foundation— the barn was built in 1965, the best we can tell. It's the original homestead property of the Roehly Homestead, which is, I believe, 1953. And, and so that barn has been built in pieces throughout the years. It still has its existing floor, uh, in it, as well as some of the sidewalls as well. But the flat roof part, um, which, um, ended up being just layers of tar paper, did collapse after the large snow of '24-'25.

Um, yeah. Thank you. No further questions.

Okay, thank you.

Hello.

The public hearing. Is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 2025-0140?

Anyone at all?

Okay, hearing and seeing none. Um, does the staff have anything additional?

No, ma'am. Thank you. Okay, and then for the applicant, you have 1 minute and 17 seconds for rebuttal. Yeah, I just hope you can understand the situation. It's very complex.

It's complex for the city. It's complex for the owner. Uh, the owner did in good faith everything that he felt Um, he was afforded with the rights of the property he bought with the documents that were approved as if they were correct and accurate. Uh, everything to that, it's very obvious. This says when the side yard— it's set in the NCD, the side yard, the shed was in the side yard.

It dimensioned that side yard in the NCD. Everything that we proposed here is outside of what that NCD did. Um, and so It, it, I believe that we, there are errors made, we agree, but we also agree that this isn't an inconvenience. This isn't proposed by himself. He's trying to do the best he can.

He tried to meet the exact requirements that were given to him, and we tried to minimize the size of everything that we could to fit as tight as we could and still keep the uses and not waste all of the expense on the the things that were already being used and have been used for, for 50 years on his property, which is the, the, you know, the agricultural area. That's very old situation. So hopefully you can understand that. Appreciate it. Okay, so we'll close the public hearing and the matter rests with the board.

May I have a positive motion for variance number 1 for the existing structure, please?

Do we get to ask them any more questions? Do we get to ask them any more questions? The staff? No, just staff members. Oh yeah, sorry.

Um, do I have to open the public hearing again? Okay, we have a question for the petitioner. Yeah, this is James.

Sorry, sorry about that. Um, one more question, um, through the chair. I know, so there's this property that's a little over 3 acres, but I believe petitioner also owns the property right next door. What about just doing a subdivision and then you resolve all the issues and then there is no setbacks unless, um, I guess that's my question.

I mean, there's a lot of— there's options on the table for certain things, but he also bought the property with the, the rights that he had been given by the municipality, and he followed those rules, just like I think the municipality should follow the rules that they give him. Just because he happens to now own the property next door, I, I I agree that it's an issue, but it's also, um, we were promised in, in the meeting with the municipal attorneys and our attorney that this would be the best and most economical and positive solution for the situation. Um, and so we proceeded with this as the solution because I think it's a fair solution. I think for the situation that is granted, I think it's fair and not to force an owner to give up other land for a purpose that was never intended when he bought that piece of land. So I don't, although I can't disagree that there is a replat option, completely understand exactly where you're coming from there, but I don't think that that's fair to encumber an owner with having to encumber and trade land to himself and put it in this other property when he bought this land with the rights that he had been given.

And everything we've done is toward those rights that were recorded on his property, like everybody would do in a due diligence is pull that, those documents, and you rely on them. So I hear what you're saying. I understand that. I've talked to the owner about that, uh, but I also agree that, that even though that can be done, that's not the issue at hand. And we were also discussed that in length in multiple meetings with municipal attorneys and our attorneys, and this was a solution that they said that they would help, um, push forward and, and kind of support.

So that's what's Only just a bit frustrating because I didn't feel like we did get that support as I thought. And so we're having to kind of push a little bit harder here trying to define why and everything when there is another option of such as that. But we were, the owner was told this is the way to go about doing it and it should be fairly reasonable process, fair process, it'll solve it forever, and not encumber any other portions of his land negatively, I guess. You know, to force him to negatively affect his own land because of an error made by the muni, I think, is the frustrating part of this whole case. And so I think you can understand maybe that.

Thank you.

Through the chair, as a point of information, I am an associate planner with the planning department. I was not in any meetings where individuals in higher positions were making assurances that I cannot be accountable for. It is my personal pride and moral responsibility to treat every case equally, ethically, and by the code. Just as a point of information. Thank you.

Let me tell you, she's absolutely right. Um, the meeting took place without her before I even filed for the application. We filed for the application, and why we postponed from 1:15 was because I found out that her and Miss Appleby did not know about this prior meeting with the municipality. So we postponed, uh, both because of a short board and to discuss this one more time, and because we felt that the staff report was much more not in our favor than what the owner felt. I was not in that meeting either, so I'm going off of what the owner and his attorney and what was discussed at the later meeting.

They agreed this past week that they did have this meeting. They agreed that they also did not discuss with this planner that that meeting had took place. And as we all know, everybody knows here that nobody's saying that a variance is guaranteed. I'm not saying they said, oh, it's a guaranteed variance, a guaranteed approval. It's just that they would be more forthcoming with saying, There were some major mistakes here.

We got to a situation that we shouldn't be in, and we're all in a bad situation here. The best solution is let's clear that— clear this air, clear it up, clear it with a variance that can go with this property forever and not encumber the, the problem any longer and push it down the road. And we all agree with that. Don't kick it down the road, if that makes sense. Okay, thank you.

Now may I have a positive motion? Come on, guys.

Moved by Mr. Lang.

Through the chair, and I move in case 2025-0140 to approve the dimensional variance from AMC 2106-020, Table 21, .06-1, Table of Dimensional Standards, Residential Districts, to allow a portion of an existing two-story building to encroach 10.4 feet into the required 25-foot rear setback, subject to recording a Notice of Zoning Action Resolution of Approval and final as-built within one year with the State of Alaska Recorder's Office. Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr. Craig Bennett. It has been moved and seconded that a variance be granted to allow a portion of an existing two-story building to encroach 10.4 feet into the required 25-foot rear setback.

Mr. Lang, would you please speak to your motion? Through the chair, thank you. I.

Believe that it is reasonable to, uh, grant this variance based on the age of the structure and the conditions and the guarantees that were previously given through the non-conforming determination. Unlike a lot of documents that the municipality generates, non-conforming determinations are recorded in the District Recorder's Office. As it was mentioned by the petitioner, anyone doing due diligence would see these documents in the record, and we should be able to trust that what we've been given can be relied upon, uh, especially when it's a recorded document like that. So I believe we should honor the intent of that nonconforming determination, and I will be supporting the motion. Could you speak to the standards, please?

Yes.

Uh, with regards to, uh, Standard A, um, while it was mentioned by staff that there is a consistent slope, you can see in the topography in the case packet, uh, not sure what page that was on, uh, Page 22 is the topography. There is quite a bit of slope on the lot. It's a consistent slope, but it is not fast— it is not flat per se. So I believe that that standard is met.

The house was constructed originally where it was constructed, and that is not a hardship that was created by The property owner, I believe that standard is met. Pardon me, I'm skipping ahead.

I believe that the standard of B is met because of the nonconforming determination which they used to rely on this situation. I believe that standard C, as staff says, the standard is met. And then And as, as it states in the suggested findings, I also agree that Standards C through H are substantially met. Thank you. Mr. Craig Bennett, do you have anything?

As Mr. Lang stated on the standards, I'll just say, or just add to that, the non-conforming— there was an error, did allow it, and it was an existing house. Um, so I'm in support of the existing structure.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, if we're ready for the question. The question is on the adoption of a motion to grant the variance to allow a portion of the existing two-story building to encroach 10.4 feet into the required 25-foot rear setback. A yes vote will grant the variance and a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Romerdel, how you vote? Yes. Thank you.

There are 6 votes in the affirmative and 0 votes in the negative. Um, the variance is granted.

And moving on to variance number 2 for the proposed structure. May I have a positive motion, please?

Moved by Mr. Lang.

Uh, yes, uh, I move in case 2025-0140 to approve a dimensional variance from AMC 2106-020 Table 21.06-1, Table of Dimensional Standards, Residential Districts, to allow a portion of a proposed shop ADU to encroach 9.9 feet into the required 25-foot rear setback, subject to recording a notice of zoning action, resolution of approval, and final as-built within 1 year with the State of Alaska Recorder's Office. Seconded by Mr. Norris.

So it's been moved and seconded to grant an A variance to allow a portion of a proposed shop ADU to encroach 9.9 feet into the 25-foot rear yard setback.

Mr. Lang, would you please speak to the motion? Through the chair, yes, I believe that for the same reasons stated in the first variance that was just approved, that we should also apply those to this. Difference.

Standard C, the hardship is not self-imposed, and again, I would say that the reliance upon the nonconforming determination is not a hardship. The city's change in their position to walk back what was decided in the 2013 nonconforming determination is a hardship that was not created by the petitioner.

And with, uh, Standard H, uh, through the discussions that we've had and the clarifications we received from the petitioner, I believe that standard's met and that that is the ideal for that structure and that that is the minimum setbacks required. Thank you. Mr. Norris. Thank you, Chair. I agree with what Mr. Lang has said.

I I also believe that it's very difficult to hold a resident relying on a recorded document and hold them to a higher standard than we would the municipality itself. And, uh, while it does appear at first glance that this proposed structure could be located elsewhere on the lot, upon further examination and discussion, I don't believe it could be. And so I believe the standards are met. Thank you.

Any further discussion? I see it.

Mr. Craig Bennett. Yeah, looking at— it's hard to scale, but like I brought up previously, it looks like you could move the building over 10 foot and still have 5, 6 feet between the proposed building and the gabion wall.

And then the other aspect is could do a subdivision and move the line over and take out any need for any variance.

Um, true, there is a cost to subdividing, but I guess there is a way to make this meet code through the process.

And I'd be interested in any comments on that from the board.

So, Mr. Lang. Yes, if I could reply to Mr. Craig Bennett's comments. I appreciate your perspective on that, and, and we're not being presented with alternatives here tonight. We're being presented with this.

We don't, as you stated, we don't have anything to scale this drawing with, and that also doesn't consider the slope. So one, one of my questions, which I did not ask and maybe I should have, was access to the existing greenhouse area and if access was going to go through that area. So, you know, I, I trust that we've been given good information, just as they trusted that the NCD was good information. And again, I'll be supporting the motion for those reasons.

Mr. Brian Bennett, did you have—. No. Ms. Appleby. Yes, thank you, Chair. I, I just would like to give a point of information to request that the board also speak to Standard D. It is a slight error in the summary of the staff report where we, we did— we listed Standard D as substantially met, but it, it actually is noted as partially met for the proposed structure.

So I'll just ask that the board also speak to that standard as well. Thank you.

Mr. Lang, through the chair, if you can give me a moment to read this.

With regard to Standard D, I believe that the standard is met. Again, with all of the design work relying on the non-conforming determination, that seems to me through reading this that that renders that moot. I believe the standard is met. Thank you. Any further discussion?

One question for staff. One question for staff. Okay, just one question for staff. Is there any reason that there couldn't be a subdivision on this? Or, um, I guess was that.

—Talked about much. Uh, through the chair, um, to my knowledge, there's nothing that would prohibit a subdivision to move the eastern property line further east to provide ample room between proposed and existing structures. Um, I believe the idea was floated to the petitioner's representative in a casual conversation.

With no particular suggestion for either path. Thank you. Thank you. That's it.

Mr. Norris. Thank you. I'd just like to reply to Mr. Craig Bennett's request to speak to whether a subdivision would be a proper path forward. My perspective on that is I appreciate the suggestion and the creativity of trying to solve a problem. To me, I, I don't feel comfortable punishing a petitioner for having the insight and forethought and wherewithal to purchase the adjacent property and saying, well, you, you just so happen to own this.

So I, I don't think that I would be in favor of denying a variance here to— for them to pursue a subdivision there. But I do appreciate the creativity in trying to solve the problem in a different way. Thank you.

Any other discussion?

If not, if we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of a motion to grant a variance to allow a portion of a proposed shop ADU to encroach 9.9 feet into the required 25-foot rear yard setback. A yes vote will grant the variance and a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Romerdaal, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

5 Votes in the affirmative and 1 vote in the negative. So the variance is granted.

The next case is Case 2026-0016, Larry Radspinner.

Is the petitioner in attendance?

Thank you. I forgot, sorry. Um, well, the staff please describe the notice given in this case. Madam Chair, should we wait for Mr. Bennett, Mr. Norris to return, or Mr. Norris at least? Mr. Bennett's recused himself.

Mr. Norse stepped out for a hot minute.

That'd be a good idea. Thank you.

I guess we're waiting.

We're back.

Will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On January 20th, 2026, the Planning Department mailed a total of 101 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103-020H. Notice: as of this writing, the Planning Department has not received public comments. The Chugach Community Council and Chugach Eagle River Advisory Board did not provide comments on this case.

Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant, Larry Radspinner, is requesting dimensional variances from Anchorage Municipal Code AMC 21- 10-060, Table 21.10-06, Table of Dimensional Standards, Chugach/Eagle River Residential Districts. This property is currently 2.99 acres and zoned CER 5-A. This zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 43,560 square feet or 1 acre and 150 feet of frontage.

The applicant is seeking to subdivide the almost 3 acres into 3 separate lots with 2 lots meeting the required minimum 43,560 square feet and 150 feet of frontage, proposed Lots 1 and 2. The request is for relief, for relief for proposed Lot 3 from the minimum lot 1-acre size requirement, allowing a reduction of 194 square feet, resulting in a proposed lot size of 43,366 square feet, is a reduction of approximately half a percent, not 0.004%. That's on the report. Also, from the minimum required— from the minimum required 1-acre relief is also requested from the minimum 150-foot frontage requirement, allowing a reduction of 15 feet. This is a reduction of 10%, not 0.1% on the report, resulting in a proposed 135-foot frontage.

This proposed lot still meets the minimum of 40,000 square feet required for on-site septic and well. The proposed lot size does not reduce the setbacks required for this non-conforming lot. This lot, if approved, would therefore default to the CER-7 setbacks, which are exactly the same as the CER-5A. There's an existing structure located approximately in the center of the existing 2.99 acres. The proposed lot lines have accounted for its location, and setbacks can still be maintained without the need for additional variances.

The effect of granting this variance will allow the platting of 3 lots instead of 2 Providing 2 additional lots for new housing units within the municipality of Anchorage. There's no anticipated adverse effect on the surrounding properties. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards. Madam Chair, I will highlight the 2 that it Partially meets, and I will gloss over the other that it does meet, and if any board members have any questions on those, they could ask me after the fact. Standard A is partially met.

There are no extraordinary physical circumstances of the subject property that are unique only to this lot and not found elsewhere throughout the CER-5A zoning district. The CER-5A district was established in 1985. Contains 321 lots in the Chugiak/Eagle River area, of which 265 meet the 1-acre minimum. The existing structure's location, the parcel's overall size of 2.99 acres, and the reduced frontage of 435 feet together create a physical condition that differs from many parcels immediately adjacent to this parcel, but are shared by 56 CER-5A lots throughout Chugiak/Eagle River. These characteristics, characteristics therefore do not constitute a singular unique hardship.

Limited to this property alone. The Chugiak/Eagle River Comprehensive Plan Update 2006 designates this property and adjacent parcels for 1 dwelling unit per acre. The requested variance preserves that density and remains consistent with the comprehensive plan and the prevailing development patterns of the CER-5A District. Standard B is met. Standard C is partially met.

The petitioner could adjust lot boundaries to meet the required Lot size and width. However, the placement of the existing house location limits subdivision options for the lot. The requested variances do not create special conditions or allow circumvention of zoning requirements. The reduction in lot size and frontage does not alter the district's character. The intent is to create one additional lot for housing, supporting the administration's goal of 10,000 homes in 10 years.

The variance does not permit any use not otherwise allowed in the CER-5A district. Standard D is met. Standard E is met. Standard F is met. Standard G is met.

And Standard H is met. Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 24 of your staff packet. There were no objections to the variances for reduced lot size and width from reviewing agencies. The Department finds that Standards A and C are partially met and Standards B, D, E, F, G, and H are met. Therefore, the Department must recommend denial of the variance.

If after a public hearing the Commission finds that all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to Conditions 1 and 2 found on page 5 of your staff packet.

I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner's representative, S4 Kate Suave, is in attendance. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff by the board?

Mr. Norris. Thank you, Chair. I did want to ask real quickly, you indicated that the lot lines could be adjusted in order for them to meet the standards? Through the chair, Mr. Norris, if the house structure was actually located in a different location, we'd probably still be here for variances, but it wouldn't be for the 135. It might be like one lot is— two lots are just under the one acre, and two lots are under the 150 feet instead of one lot taking all of it.

Thank you, appreciate it. Yep.

Any other questions of staff?

Will the applicant please come forward?

Do you have any questions of staff? I do not have any questions of staff. Okay, then will you please present your case? Uh, my name is Kate Sauve. That's S-A-U-V-E.

I am the petitioner's representative. I would first like to thank staff for their time on the staff report. Their work is appreciated and important. This dimensional variance request is concurrent to an approved platting action which proposes to subdivide the site into 3 lots. Due to the placement of the existing house and the fact that the site is just under 3 acres in total, proposed Lot 3 will be by necessity under the required minimum lot dimension standards.

The approved plat on page 19 of your packet shows that Lot 3 is 194 square feet under the required size, which is about the the size of a 1-car garage. Lot 3 is also 15 feet under the required width standard. This is due to how the lot lines have to jog around the existing house. The required width is 150 feet. The frontage on the lot is— on Lot 3 is 173 feet, but because the lot width is determined by measuring the width at the midpoint of the lot, it does not meet the required standard of 150 feet.

Even though it was not required for this application, notices were sent out to 53 of the surrounding neighbors to inform them of the proposed action, and I attended and presented the Chugiak Community Council. No opposition was brought to the floor in regards to the project. One neighbor, the owner of the property directly to the south of the site adjacent to Lot 3, had clarifying questions but expressed no objections to the lot closest to them being slightly under the minimums for lot dimensions. At this time, the Planning Department has received no public comments regarding the case, and no objections have been raised by reviewing agencies for this variance or the associated plat. Staff states that 6 of the 8 approval criteria are met and that 2 of the approval criteria are partially met.

I would like to address those criteria. Staff states that Criteria A is only partially met as there are no extraordinary physical circumstances of the property. On page 17 of your packet, you will see detail of the proposed subdivision, which shows topography. The rear portion to the west of the site is actually quite steep. Lot 3 has, in particular, has challenging topography where it is steepest in the middle and the rear of the lot.

The best place to build a house on this lot would be near the front where the lot width gets larger. The width requirement is for 150 feet. The frontage on this lot is 173 feet. Staff states that Criteria C is only partially met, as the petitioner could adjust lot boundaries to meet the required lot dimensions. Lot boundaries could be adjusted, but not without demolishing the existing house, which is inhabited and in good condition, or make strange and unnecessary lot line jogs that wrap around the house.

There is also no possible way to adjust lot boundaries to meet the lot area requirement, as the site being subdivided is 2.9 acres large, just under 3 acres. Regardless of how you subdivide the site, one, if not all, 3 lots would be under the required standard of 1 acre. Approval of this variance will allow for the associated platting action to move forward, a platting action that has been approved by the Planning Department, has no objections from reviewing agencies, and is the most reasonable use of land. I would like to remind the board that there are only 5 members voting and every vote counts. One no vote means denial of this case.

If anyone is considering voting no, I ask that you please voice any questions or concerns that you have so I might address them.

You have 6 minutes and 48 seconds for rebuttal. Thank you. Are there any questions?

Of the applicant by the board members?

Hearing and seeing none. Are there any questions of the applicant by the staff? No, Madam Chair. I appreciate Kate's thoroughness in her presentation though. Thank you.

We have a phone.

And that's for the public hearing, right? Okay, so thank you, and we'll open the public hearing. And we do have someone to provide phone testimony.

If I go fast enough, it's not so bad.

Suggestion. Hello, is this Carolyn? Thank you. It is Carolyn. This is Paul Hatcher with the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals.

You call— you requested to speak publicly, right? You have 3 minutes. And you want me to speak now? Yes, please. My name is Carolyn Weir, and I own the property across Dogwood Street from this site.

I'm also a water system operator. I would like this variance to be denied because— for a couple— for a couple reasons. One, the area is all large lots, and I hate to see the character change just by dividing it, and I'm afraid it would. And 2, the nitrates are increasing in the area. I can't speak for the closest neighbors because they're residential, but 2 water systems that are downhill are downgrade from the site.

One is Skyview Water System, and a sample obtained January 6th came back at 8.23 4.71 milligrams per liter. And Vitus Chugiak Laundry and Convenience Water System had a sample taken on November 25th, and theirs is at 4.71 milligrams per liter. And that's what I wanted to tell you.

Are there any questions? Okay. Any questions by the board for Ms. Weir?

Seeing and hearing none, thank you for your testimony. All right, thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to testify in Case 2026-0016?

Anybody at all?

Seeing none, um, we will close the public testimony.

And does the staff have any rebuttal?

Madam Chair, the only thing I wanted to mention is this lot is not smaller than 40,000 square feet, which is the current standard for an on-site septic system, and it is also not of a size that it wouldn't have to meet existing setbacks for the CER 5A, which I'd mentioned before, but I just wanted to reiterate that. So not sure what, what the— if she was concerned that— if the public was concerned that this lot was too small, smaller than what was allowed for on-site septics, it is not. It still meets that 40,000 minimum square footage. Thank you.

And the applicant, you have 6 minutes and 48 seconds. Thank you. Again, it's Kate Soave, SAUVE, petitioner's representative. Regarding the subdivision of the property, this is an approved plat already, but even if this variance isn't approved, the property will still be subdivided, likely into 2 lots. These lots are still very large.

The Lot 3, it's— the requirement is 1 acre, we are under by 195 square feet, which is about the size of a 1-car garage. Um, it's not that big of a change. Again, thank you, Paul. The septic requirement is 40,000 square feet. All these lots still apply to the 40,000 square foot septic requirement, and all lots will have to prove that they can support well and septic.

Does anyone have any other questions for me?

Mr. Brian Bennett. Through the chair, please. On page 18, there's a map of the site, and at the northwest corner, there's a.

A well indicated with a 100-foot circular protected zone. Each of these 3 lots would then have to have their own 100-foot protected zone for a well, or how would you get water from the well to the 3rd site at the bottom on the south side? Each site would have to have its own well. The current well shown on that as-built will become the well for, I believe it's Lot 1. Lot 2 is going to drill a new well, and Lot 3 will also have to have a new well.

So all 3 lots will have to have their own well. And they can fit all those 3 lots with 100-foot protections radius around them on that site? Yes, I don't believe that's possible. Uh, 40,000 square feet again is the standard square footage. Okay, I'm worried about a circular protected zone, and as Craig Bennett has said, the scale is a little difficult here, but, uh, being a small geometer, I don't believe you can fit 3 circles at 100-foot protected radius on there and still have any room for a, uh, septic systems.

I think that's a valid concern. I don't think that it applies to the variance for Lot 3 as it is a small variance for size. The platting application, one of the conditions is that we must prove that the site— that there's adequate and safe potable water for each proposed lot and neighboring lots. Per 15.55.90, and that possible well locations will meet all code required separations. So that is a condition of the approved plat, um, that will have to be met regardless of this variance.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.

Oh, Mr. Hatcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bennett, through the chair, Mr. Bennett, the 100-foot radius is not— you don't, you don't have to meet 100-foot radius for each well from itself. Wells can be within the 100-foot radius. The septic just has to be outside the 100-foot radius.

So each well could be within 50 feet of each other if it had to be. And with the circle that you can see on page 18, there's plenty of space in the front of the lot for the septic system to be located outside of that 100-foot radius. So basically all those wells are probably going to be along the back property line. They can all be within each other's 100-foot radius. Your septic just can't be within that 100-foot radius.

And like Kate said, on-site will— they had the requirements that they can meet all the requirements for the platting action that has already been approved. So if on-site didn't have any, you know, any concerns, I'm not sure we need to have any concerns. But that's, that's just what I wanted to point out.

Uh, thank you.

Okay, um, public hearing is closed. Matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Move by Mr. Lang. Uh, through the chair, I move in case 2026-0016 to approve a dimensional variance from AMC 2110060, Table 21.10-06, Table of Dimensional Standards, Chugiak/Eagle River Residential Districts, to allow relief from the required minimum lot size and width in the CER-5A Rural Residential and Mobile Homes District. Subject to recording a Notice of Zoning Action and Resolution of Approval within 1 year with the State of Alaska's Recorder's Office. And seconded by Mr. Norris. It has been moved and seconded that a grant— that a variance be granted for relief from the required minimum lot size and width in the— in the CER 5A district.

Mr. Lang, will you please speak to the motion? Through the chair, thank you very much. I will be supporting the motion. I believe this is within the policies that the municipality wants as far as more housing. I find that Standard A does exist.

It meets the goals of the comprehensive plan, and again, this is a small enough area that we should be granting the variance. Excuse me, this is for the— is that one for the width?

That, yeah, this lot together is just shy of the minimum for what it requires for 3 lots. So I believe it meets that standard. And with Standard C, I believe that standard is also met.

The— yeah, there's a lot of mental gymnastics that can be done, and lines can be moved all over the place to get this to conform very strictly with the code, but I don't, I don't believe that that's serves anyone. So I believe that standard is also met, as well as the remainder of the standards.

Mr. Norris. Thank you, Chair. I concur with Mr. Lang and feel that for want of 194 square feet, we would be there, and that the petitioner has done all the due diligence and the best they can in this case. And I will be supporting. Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

Hearing and seeing none, if we are ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of the motion to grant relief, a variance to grant relief from the required minimum lot size and width. Yes vote will grant the variance, a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Romerdaal, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

There are 5 votes in the affirmative and 0 votes in the negative, and the, um, The variance is granted.

And if we can get Craig Bennett back, or—. Yeah, we'll carry on.

Welcome back, and we'll move on to case 2026-0017. Uh, Michael and Patricia Oden are the petitioners.

Excuse me.

Sorry, right, right. Die.

The staff, please present the notice given in this case. Thank you, Madam Chair. On January 20th, 2026, the Planning Department mailed 187 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103-020-H. Notice: as of this writing, the Planning Department has received one public comment not in favor of granting the variance. The Eagle River Valley Community Council and Chugach Eagle River Advisory Board were notified and did not provide comments on this case. Is there any objection to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing and hearing none, will staff please present this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for reference, the one objection to the public comment is 5 houses to the west of this existing property. If you will turn to page 4 of the staff report and correct an error. Under condition number 1, near the bottom of the page, the first and second lines refer to AMC 2109.060, Table 2109-5, Table of Dimensional Standards, Girdwood Residential Districts.

This is incorrect and should read AMC 2110.060, Table 2110-6, Table of Dimensional Standards, Chugiak/Eagle River Residential Districts. This applicant, Michael and Patricia Oden, are requesting a dimensional variance from Anchorage Municipal Code 2110.060, Table 2110-6, Table of Dimensional Standards, Chugiak/Eagle River Residential Districts, to allow a deck to encroach— a side deck to encroach 3 feet 6 inches into the required 5-foot side setback for the CER1A SL, Single Family Residential District with Special Limitations. According to the narrative in the application, the previous owner of the property built the subject structure and kept a building permit open since 1991, which the applicant discovered in the process of selling the house. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought.

And must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards. Again, I will only read the standards that are not met or partially met and highlight just the, the ones that are met. And if the board members would like to ask me, they can. Standard A is not met. According to the Municipality of Anchorage maps, this parcel has a, I would call, moderate slope of 15%, as, as do about half the parcels in the neighborhood.

There are no wetlands adjacent to or within the subject parcel. There are also no streams passing through the parcel. Therefore, there are no physical circumstances to the subject property that are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. Standard B is not met. As established by Standard A, the parcel is not subject to any exceptional circumstances that are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district.

Thus, the strict application of this code will not impose exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner and will not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning ordinance. Standard C is met. Standard D is met. Standard E is met. Standard F is met.

Standard G is met. And Standard H is met. Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 16 of your staff packet. There were no objections to the variances— the variance for Produce Sorry, there was no objection to the variance. The department finds that Standards A and B are not met and Standards C, D, E, F, G, and H are met.

Therefore, the department must recommend denial of the variance. If after a public hearing the commission finds that all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to Conditions 1 and 2 found on page 4 of your staff packet with the change to the correct reference in Title 21 for Condition 1, as I stated at the beginning of my presentation. I can answer any questions the board may have. And the petitioner's representative is here on their behalf. Are there any questions of staff by the board?

Mr. Lang, uh, staff, through the chair, um, on page 14 of the staff packet is an as-built of the structure, uh, and it shows the front setback of the house at 19.2 feet. Was, was this brought up at all? Because the front setback here should be 20 feet. It looks like the entire structure was built within the front step back, and maybe they should get it— be getting a nonconforming determination rather than a variance, or also seeking a variance for the building location.

Through the chair, Mr. Lang, this is my co-worker's case, and I did not— the only thing I can think of is that the special limitations for this neighborhood reduced the front setback less than 20, but I do not know that for a fact.

Uh, thank you for that clarification. Um, if the SLs reduce the front setback, then we also need to know about that if it impacts the deck.

Hold on one minute.

Through the chair, Mr. Lang, no, the SL does not speak to any other setbacks. It speaks to dwelling units per acre.

And a 75-foot-wide greenbelt along the top of the bluff overlooking Eagle River as depicted in the platting action.

Mr. Hatcher, thank you very much. You're welcome.

Mr. Brian Bennett, did you have a question? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you through the chair. Madam Chair, I have a— actually not a question but a comment.

Personally, I'd like to publicly thank the staff and all those people working for the staff for the board. I asked a couple of questions on Sunday afternoon during two basketball games and a football game which had some relevance, and I received multiple replies on Monday morning from different people that I had not addressed, and And I would like to thank the staff for making that possible.

Thank you. You're welcome. Anybody else? Mr. Norris? Yes, Chair.

I, I'm not sure exactly who to address this to. I have not, on my— during my time on the board, not run across this particular situation, and I was just wondering if it would be possible to amend the variance to allow for— to correct for this, uh, because Mr. Lang brings up a great point. So I, I don't know if that's possible or not. I'd like to be educated. Through the chair, Mr. Norris and Mr. Lang, Ms. Appleby just looked up— they, they acquired a minor modification.

So I just— to inform you what a minor modification is, you have a— you can request up to 5% without going through the variance process. And so in a 20-foot setback, you get 1 foot It basically comes down to 12 inches, and they, as you can tell, it's 19.2, so they're just under that 12-inch requirement. So that's what they, that's what they acquired.

So they have approval for that front setback as a minor mod. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you for asking.

Any other questions of staff by the board?

Will the applicant or the applicant's representative please come forward and state and spell your name for the record, please?

Good evening, I'm Jonathan Butzke, B-U-T-Z-K-E, with a Z. Do you have any questions for staff? For staff? Sorry, there's an echo. You and me both.

Do you have any questions for staff? Uh, no, other than I guess the question would be, should I— I'm here just to, uh, represent his— the sellers, uh, Michael and Patricia Oden's interest in the property. Um, that's fine. Here, so if you had questions of me, will you please present your case? Okay.

Uh, I assume everyone has the packet that had the photo and all those, so I'm not going to get too lengthy of repeating what he they basically presented to you already. But the facts were basically Michael and Patricia Oden were owners of this property from 2015 until the end of 2025. And during that time, they didn't— they weren't aware or were known of a permit that was open until they were about to— when they were selling it. So this was news to them, and they're trying to clean up the permit questions. When they acquired the property, it wasn't presented to them as an issue, or were they knowledgeable of it?

Um, see this? So they basically request a dimensional variance for this to move forward, for the clear title of the home to be processed without variance issues. Um, I guess that's basically the facts of it at this time. There weren't any concerns of the deck itself. It's just a deck issue, you know, that's— I think that was the main issue was the deck setback.

There's no construction issues, there weren't any inspection issues of it or anything like that. And while they owned it, there was no concerns from any of the neighbors at the time that we knew of. So I heard the concern of a neighbor, and the sign was posted as requested. Thank you. Are there any questions?

I do have a question, Mr. Lang, through the chair. Um, on page 11 of the packet, there's a photograph of the house, and it shows that this deck is the primary access to the front of the house. Looking at that in conjunction with the as-built that's on page 14, it doesn't look like there's any way to access the front of the house if this deck is removed in its entirety and to meet the setbacks? That would be correct. Your observation is correct.

Thank you. And the deck is the original as they bought it in 2015 from the original builder owners.

Any other questions? Mr. Brian Bennett. Procedural question: how would a person have found out about the open permit? Probably this is for staff as much as anybody else. You say you brought the— they bought the property without knowledge of the open permit.

When would they have normally run into this during the purchase and sale process from the first time? Through the chair, Mr. Bennett, I'm so glad you asked this question because I was going to put my, my thing in a request to speak. So this is part of the problem we have Titles do not show building permits, open building permits. There are many structures within the municipality of Anchorage that have open building permits and are sold and bought every day, and there's no way that we know of as currently that it could be recorded against the property so that it shows up on a title like an NCD, like we've just talked in the previous cases. There's nothing that shows up on any title that shows a an existing structure has.

And so the only way a property owner— which most property owners don't know this— is to come down to 4700 Elmore and go to the development services counter and ask if there's any open permits. That's the only way they can find out if there's an open permit. Yeah, they could— they can look online if they know all the information to do it. There's no— there's no legal obligation to disclose this. There is.

Well, I'm sure there is, but As we know, people don't always disclose certain things. Human nature, Mr. Bennett, human nature. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else doing okay? I don't even know where we are.

Are there any questions to the applicant by staff? There are none, Mrs. Chair. Thank you. So then we'll open the public hearing.

Is anybody in the public wishing to speak to Case 2026-0017? Anybody at all?

Come forward, state and spell your name for the— for the record. Melissa Flint, M-E-L-I-S-S-A F-L-I-N-T. I am the real estate agent licensee for the buyer of the property. We discovered the, the permits that were open when we did our checklist, our search for that, but there is no— there's no real, um, it— there's no title doesn't search it, nobody search it, has to be on either the client's checklist or their, the, or their licensees. So we, we discovered it.

This is the buyer and they are for keeping it as it is, and it has been posted. And so they just greatly appreciate being able to move forward with it as well. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Flynn?

Seeing none, anyone else wishing to speak?

Seeing and hearing none, um, does the staff have any rebuttal? I do not, Madam Chair. Does the applicant have anything additional?

Indicates not.

So the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Moved by Mr. Lang. Uh, through the chair, I move in case 2026-0017 to approve a dimensional variance of AM— from AMC 2110-060 Table 21.10-06, Table of Dimensional Standards, Chugiak/Eagle River Residential Districts, to allow a deck to encroach 3.6 feet into the required 5-foot setback.

That jumped to something different while I was reading. Is that the right thing?

I believe— point of information, I believe all you need to say is subject to the conditions in the staff report. I think you got everything else. Subject to the conditions in the staff report. Thank you very much.

I think you kind of have to say as corrected. As corrected. Okay. Thank you.

Would you please speak to your motion?

Madam Chair, thank you. Again, I brought attention during the public hearing to the photograph of the house on page 11. And looking at that with relationship to the as-built as shown, noting the allowable setback dimension of 19.2, looking at the front of the house, there is no reasonable way to get access unless across this deck. The deck could be made smaller to accommodate— to be less of a setback violation, but I believe that based on the slope that we can clearly see in the picture on page 11, that Standard A is met, that the slope is exceptional in relationship to where the house is placed. And then I believe that because of these circumstances, that Standard B is also met, and I agree with the staff that the remainder of this— the standards are met.

Mr. Craig Bennett.

Thank you. I'd like to add that this deck is next to a greenbelt and not, um, an additional lot with a house, and I will be in support.

Anyone else?

Okay, then if we're ready for the question— questions on the adoption of variance to grant— to allow a deck to encroach 6— 3.6 feet into the required 5-foot setback. A yes vote will grant the variance and a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Romerdaal, how you vote? Yes. Thank you.

There are 6 votes in the affirmative and 0 votes in the negative, and the variance is granted.

Moving on to the last case. This is case 2026-0018. Um, Axel Kubitz is the owner and you are the petitioner's representative. Thank you. So will the staff please describe the notice given in this case?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Planning Department mailed 230 public hearing notices on January 20th, and no responses were received. Also, the affected community council is the South Addition Community Council, and they did not provide comments either. Thank you. Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case? Yes, um, this is a request for a variance to allow a new residential structure to encroach 3 feet into the required 10-foot secondary front setback. The secondary front setback joins the south property line facing West 11th Avenue. The property owner would like to replace the existing single-family home with a new residential development. There is an as-built of the existing house on page 20 of your packet, and the proposed plot plan for the new residential development is on page 19 of packet, just one page earlier.

With regard to Criterion A, the subject property is a corner lot, so it has two front.

Setbacks, and the proposed encroachment is into the secondary front setback along the south property line. The lot only contains 4,000 square feet, and the minimum lot size in the R-2M district is 6,000 square feet. Furthermore, the lot only has 40— is only 40 feet wide, and the minimum lot width in this district is 50 feet. So, um, this is a small lot and it's also a narrow lot, which is unique to this, this, this part of the neighborhood. With regard— so the approval criteria is partially met.

With regard to Criterion B, is partially met. The physical circumstances of the subject property create an exceptional undue hardship upon the property owner, would deprive the property owner of having a modest-sized house. The lot is 2,000 square— 2,000 square feet smaller than the minimum lot size required required in the R-2M district. Moreover, the lot width is 10 feet short of the minimum required width of 50 feet. With only a 40-foot-wide lot, the house would need to be very narrow in order to meet the setbacks.

Let's see. With regard to Criterion C, it is— the criterion is partially met. The subject property is has a unique physical condition. It's a substandard lot for both the size of the lot and the width. The proposed newly built home will add value to the property and to other properties in the neighborhood.

The—. Also, the hardship is not self-imposed. Plat C-50 created the lot 85 years ago in 1941. The petitioner could reduce the width of the proposed residential structure from 28 feet wide to 25 feet wide with a redesign of the house. However, no other lot in the neighborhood is forced to have such an exceptionally narrow house.

The department finds that the other approval criteria are met for the reasons stated in the staff recommendation or the staff report, the department must recommend denial of the variance because criteria A, B, and C are partially met. However, if after the public hearing the board finds that all 8 approval criteria are met, then they should be subject to conditions 1 and 2 on page 5 of your packet, and I'd be happy to answer questions Also, the applicant is here as well. Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff by the board? Mr. Bryant Bennett. I have a question about page 18, the layout, and I'm just trying to understand the idea of a secondary front entrance. Does this mean that there is no rear setback because of the secondary front entrance? That's right.

So the, the closeness that the south side of the garage is in the alley next to the alleyway is no longer pertinent? Oh, um, uh, when a lot abuts an alleyway, then, um, uh, structures are allowed to be built to the property line abutting the alleyway. So when you drive down through South Edgewater in this neighborhood, you'll see many garages built to the property line abutting an alleyway. And that is an exception to the setbacks rule when you're abutting an alleyway. And there are other exceptions to setbacks, but that is a—.

That's the one appropriate here. Yeah. Okay, I won't ask you to quote reference numbers here, but fine. Thank you. Yeah.

Any other questions of staff?

Mr. Norris. Thank you. Through the chair, so if the secondary front setback was not in place, what, what would the setback be? Would it also be 5? Half, half, half the front.

If I may interject, that was the question basically that I was asking when I— in the emails that I exchanged with staff. I thought all of the board members had received those emails. I think my question is, if instead of 11th it was another lot, what would the setback be?

Um, uh, it would be a 5-foot side yard setback if this was, um, in the middle of the block type of lot. Thank you. Yeah.

Any other questions of staff?

The applicant, please come forward. State and spell your name, please. Hi, my name is Petra Wilhm, P-E-T-R-A W-I-L-M. Do you have any questions of staff? No questions.

Then will you Um, please present your case. Yes, I will. Thank you. First, I just want to thank you for your time so late tonight and thank the planning staff for helping me out with this application. Um, I'm an architect, residential architect primarily, and I'm representing the petitioner who's Maxwell Kubitz and his wife, and they are just not able to be here for a family gathering.

Um, they recently purchased this lot and we're requesting a dimensional variance of the setback requirements because it's an extra narrow lot. The existing existing house that's on there is small and dilapidated, and so the property owners would like to build a new multi-level single-family home with a basement apartment, an attached ADU basically, and they would like it to be similarly sized to the neighboring houses. The lot is 40 by 100, which is at least 10 feet narrower than all of the adjacent lots. It is also sited on a corner, as we talked about, and the required corner lot Second, frontage setback restricts the buildable footprint to 25 feet wide. And just for some perspective, a townhouse is about 24 feet wide typically, so that's very narrow for a single-family home sitting by itself on a lot.

A typical tall— oh, I already wrote that. The majority of the lots in South Addition are at least 50 by 100, and the other 3 corner lots on this intersection of 11th Avenue and P are 6,000 square foot or greater. And we discovered the need for this variance when I was testing a lot of different concept plans for this house. So have been through several different plan developments and programs and trying to squeeze things together. And so I finally decided that we should maybe ask for a variance because at the 10-foot setback, we could use 3 extra feet, and I think that we could get everything in the plan that they would like.

So, uh, just to respond to the 3 variant standards that were, um, not met according to the Planning Department, um, there exists exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances, and those circumstances are not applicable to other land in the same zoning district. So just to restate, this is a 40 by 100, 4,000 square foot lots, and all of the adjacent lots are 50 by 100 or larger. And the 3 corner lots nearby are 6,000 square feet or larger.

Variance Standard B: Because of these physical circumstances, the strict application of the code creates an exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner. Are you getting an echo too, or I'm just trying to figure out how to talk in here with an echo? Uh, so the corner lot and the R-2M requires a 20-foot front setback and a 10-foot second side setback. Which restricts the buildable width of 25 feet, and every adjacent property has a minimum of 40-foot of buildable lot width.

And, um, Standard C, the hardship is not self-imposed, and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute an inconvenience. So as I said, we tested several concepts, um, And basically what I discovered is that the narrow— we make narrower that we make the plan, the taller that the plan ends up, the building ends up going because you push program up and we can still stay under the maximum building height, but we end up shadowing the lots. Probably the two lots to the north will see significant more shade if the building is taller. So it's better and more neighborly to be a little shorter. These clients are very concerned about upsetting the neighbors also.

So that is coming into play here. And I guess I will save the rest of my time for rebuttal. Are there any questions of Ms. Wilham by the board?

Hearing and seeing none, are there any questions of Ms. Wilham by the staff? No, Madam Chair. Thank you. Then we'll open the public hearing. All the sea of people out here that we see, we'll ask, is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 2026-0018?

Anybody at all?

Seeing and hearing none, we will close the public hearing. And does staff have anything additional? Uh, no.

Does the applicant have anything additional? You have 6 more minutes. No. Okay, then the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Moved by Mr. Norris.

Yes, Chair, I move in case 2026-0018 to approve a dimensional variance from AMC 21.0 21.06.020, Table 21.06-1, Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts, to allow a new residential structure to encroach 3 feet into the 10-foot secondary front setback, subject to recording a notice of zoning action and resolution of approval within 1 year with the State of Alaska Recorder's Office. Thank you. Seconded by Mr. Craig Bennett. Mr. Norris, will you still— it has been moved and seconded that a variance be granted to allow a new residence structure to encroach 3 feet to the 10-foot secondary front setback.

And Mr. Norris, will you please speak to your motion? Yes, thank you, Chair. Uh, so for Standards A through C, where staff notes that these are partially met. Starting with, uh, Standard A, I would say that the lot itself and, and the dual setbacks do create the physical circumstances that make the, the variance necessary. I'd also note on the as-built that we are provided in the application, it appears that the existing structure also encroaches into that setback along West 11th Avenue.

If I'm reading this correctly. And so I think that if we're looking to actual consequence of granting the variance, it, it's not actually all that great, and that the existing structure has been there for so long and has created no great hardship for the neighborhood or the structure itself, I feel speaks to the fact that this is necessary. Uh, 25 feet seems a bit unreasonable compared to what is afforded to the other structures in the area. And I think that that makes a case that A through C are met, and I concur that the rest are met, uh, with staff's assessment, and I will be voting to support. Thank you.

Mr. Craig Bennett, I'll just add that there was no objections from staff or any community, and that the lot width is 10 feet shorter than the minimum required lot width of 50 feet. That'll be it. Any further discussion? Mr. Lang, uh, through the chair, yeah, the, the, um, most of the subdivisions I see have wider corner lots, not smaller corner lots, uh, so I'll definitely be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, um, if we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of the motion to grant a variance to allow a new residential structure to encroach 3.3 feet into a 10-foot secondary front setback. A yes vote will grant the variance and a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Romer-Dahl, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

There are 6 votes in the affirmative and 0 votes in the negative. The variance is granted.

So that ends the public hearings and we're on to reports. I don't have anything to report. Do we have a meeting next month? We do. And, um, there are no committees.

I thought somebody else wanted to— ah, Mr. Lang. Uh, through the chair, I do have a board member comment. As I was preparing for this evening's meeting, I read through the— reread through the approval in Title 21. 2103.240(G) states approval criteria. The application must state with peculiarity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show the application substantially meets the following standards.

The staff reports always state if after a public hearing the board finds that all 8 approval criteria are met. For me, that's a disconnect. My reading of the code is that the 8 criteria must be substantially met, meaning a majority of the criteria must be met, rather than all 8 criteria being met individually. Staff often comments that 2103.240(g)(2)(g), Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations, do not apply.

Why doesn't staff ever say that criteria A through F and H do not apply in certain cases? Instead of saying the standard is not met. For example, a petitioner is seeking a variance, uh, because a builder built their home in the wrong spot. We saw that tonight. Then Criteria A does not apply.

Considering actions by the board, I believe it is reasonable and appropriate to state in our findings that a specific criteria, in our opinion, does not apply, rather than performing some serious mental gymnastics like we've seen in some of these cases, to petition— to prove that the petition meets all 8 criteria. I've asked the planning director and staff via email for clarity and guidance, and I wanted to bring this in as a member comment so that everyone is aware of this. Thank you.

Does staff have any Anything to say?

Madam Chair, and through the chair to Mr. Lang, we have received the question and appreciate the, the thought and the consideration behind the, the question. We do not have any statement to make tonight on the matter, but we are discussing this internally. And we'll report back to the board when we have concluded our discussion.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Oh, no other board comments. Then I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn, Chair. Mr. Chair, second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. We are adjourned. Where's my hammer? I find it interesting, particularly for the handicap. Thank you, Andrew.

Thank you. Good night.