Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - April 16, 2026 - 2026-04-16 18:30:00

Good evening and welcome to the Municipality of Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals meeting for April 16th, 2026. Will the secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here. Brian Bennett.

Here. Craig Bennett. Here. Jason Norris. Here.

Jonathan Lang. Here. Andrew Romerdahl is excused. You have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. Although we have a quorum, we are what's called a short board, which means there's only 5 of us, and to approve anything, to pass anything, all 5 of us have to agree. So because of that, when there is a short board, a 5-member board or commission, a postponement is offered. And so if it's agreed to by the petitioner, they will be moved to the next regular agenda. This should occur within 30 days, which does not require re-noticing the case.

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.

When a postponement is requested by the petitioner, there is rescheduling fee and a new public hearing date shall be determined by the Planning Division. This will put their case in the next available cutoff date queue as if they were submitting their case for the first time. So with that being said, there are 3 cases tonight to be heard, 3 variance cases.

And the first case, case 2026-0037, uh, the petitioner is Patrick Kukowski, and he's here. And the next case is case 2025-0127, Teresa Shackelford is here. And the last case is Yuriy Soledad, or their representative. Okay. And so does anyone want to postpone?

They need to come up. One at a time. Patrick Kokowski, come on up to the front and turn the mic on and state your name for the record. Patrick Kokowski. And do you want to continue this evening or postpone?

Yes, I'll continue. Okay, thank you. And next we have Theresa Shackleford.

State your name for the record.

Is the mic off?

Oh, there it is. Teresa Shackelford, and I'm okay to go forward. Okay, thank you. And Yuri Soledad's representative, state your name for the record.

Turn the mic on again.

There we go. Darryl Brent Hathcote, and we'll move forward. Okay, thank you very much. All right, back to the agenda. The, uh, next item on the agenda are minutes.

We have minutes for February 12th, 2026. May I have a positive motion for approval, please?

I don't have—. Moved by Jason Norris, seconded by Craig Bennett. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Seeing none, is there any objection to approval of the minutes?

Seeing none, uh, the minutes are approved by unanimous vote. Uh, next is a special order of business, executive sessions, uh, disclosures. Are there any disclosures this evening?

I was recused from participating in case 2026-0016 and will Abstain from voting on Resolution 2026-002. For the consent agenda. Okay. Anyone else?

Okay, moving on. We have the consent agenda. So because we're a short board and Craig Bennett cannot vote for it, that means we don't have a quorum for just that one item, so we'll remove that item. And I need a positive motion for the consent agenda for the remaining items A, C, and D. Moved by Jonathan Lang, seconded by Jason Norris.

Any other case that would you— that you want to remove from the consent agenda for further discussion? Okay, seeing none, is there any objection to approval of the consent agenda as it stands?

Seeing none, the consent agenda as it is abbreviated is approved. Next we have appearance requests with nothing scheduled. No unfinished business, nothing on the regular agenda, which brings us to public hearings. The first case is Case 2026-0037, petitioner Patrick Kukowski, which we know he's already here. We've already done that.

So, um, will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On, on February 17th, 2026, a total of 117 public hearing notices were mailed in accordance with the procedures AMC 2103-020H. In response, the Planning Department received one public comment in support of the variance. The reviewing agents expressed no objection.

The Chugiak/Eagle River Advisory Board and Chugiak Community Council provide no comment regarding 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. Uh, for the record, the correct case is, uh, 2026-0037. There is one place in the staff report where it said 2025 instead of 2026. Okay, this is a request for a dimensional variance to legalize a workshop at 24531 Teal Loop that encroached 2 feet into the 20-foot rear setback.

Built over 20 years ago under a valid permit, the structure appeared compliant in 2003 and 2006 surveys. However, a 2025 pre-sale survey revealed the encroachment due to a historical measurement discrepancy. While the owner act in good faith and the structure has no adverse neighborhood impact, the Planning Department recommends denial because Standard A is not met and Standard B is partially met. The application fails to meet the legal threshold for undue hardship because the survey error is a technical issue rather than a physical characteristic of the land itself. Without extraordinary physical circumstances in Standard A, the request cannot satisfy all 8 mandatory standards required for approval.

All the other standards have been met. If after the public hearing the Board finds all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to the two conditions as shown on the staff report.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff by the board? Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to— I have a question about why the initial staff report says that the incident is 2106.020B given that the property is in Chugach, which would imply a 2110.

And also the B implies that it's a commercial and industrial zoning when it clearly isn't. And this, this is repeated in a couple of places throughout on pages 11 and 12 where they go back and forth between the 2106 and 2110.

Designations for the property.

Well, you're right, it was supposed to be 2110 Eagle River and table 2110. Table— yeah, 2110. What? So I'm sorry for that. Yeah, it's supposed to be 2110-060 and the table 2110.

-62. So that's one other thing to rectify. I recognize that the setbacks are the same in both instances, but as for clarity and consistency, I think that should be edited. Yes. Yeah, I would like to rectify, like, a correction that the request for the major variance is supposed— it's from AMC 2110.

020, Table 2110-1, Table of Dimensional Standards. It should also be A rather than B, I believe, as residential rather than commercial industrial. Yes. The 2110, it is a Table 1, it is residential.

What did it say?

Mr. Lang. Uh, yes, what is the— what is the minimum lot size in CR7?

Through the chair, board member Lang, CR7 is $20,000 for a single family, $40,000 for a duplex. Or two-family.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, then if the applicant would come forward, please.

Do you have any questions of staff? I don't. Okay, then, um, would you please present your case and make sure the mic is on? Is it on? Yeah, I think it's on.

All right, thank you. Thank you all for being here. Um, in 2003, we cleared our lot to build this shop, and I contacted Robert C. Johnson and Associates. His name was actually on the original as-builts in 1986, I think, when the place— the neighborhood was getting built. We had him come out in 2003.

My neighbor Randy Barker was there as well. And, you know, because he— we're all neighborly helping each other do these tasks. And they surveyed and put the stakes in the ground, and me and Randy ran the string lines, and the neighbor Lucy, Lucy to the left of me, they were all out there running string lines. And I wanted to make sure we had 20 feet off the back, and actually Mr. Johnson suggested I go 21 feet, and we did that. We broke ground in construction and started all the work, and 3 years later in 2006 when the building was done, we had another survey done and they came out and I think I was 20 feet 6 inches off the back line if I remember right.

And we got an as-built done and here we are 20 years later and I had to do a COSA inspection to put our house on the market. And I got the paperwork back from the COSA inspection, and, and I just looked at that thing and it said 18 feet, and I was just— there's just no way. There was just— I was, I was floored. And, uh, so I actually contacted Mr. Schuler, who did that, uh, survey, and he said, I, I stand by my numbers. These, these GPS They're within a millimeter, he said.

They are— they're on the money. So I still was having a hard time with this, and, uh, I even called the municipality, the septic people down with the handle the COSA stuff, and he said, well, how did you even notice this? Because all we cared about was where the septic pipes are in the front yard. Well, I just couldn't in good conscience not do something about it. I'm not gonna— I have a young man that's been wanting to buy the house now for about 4 or 5 months.

And I just couldn't look in the mirror and just pretend I never saw that 18-foot. And so that's what started this whole process.

I was still not believing what he had done, so I hired a fourth crew to come out there from Timberline. And that kid said, no, sir, he's right. It's 18 feet on the money. And so that's where— why we're here. The house is basically— there's earnest money on the house.

We've just been sitting waiting for this process to happen. I think I was scheduled in March and got put off till now, which has been a little bit of a hardship.

We're moving out of state and having a new home built in Idaho, and we're taking my mother-in-law with us. We have her house built next to ours and it's attached. Get into a little bit warmer climate, do some snowbirding.

That's it. Okay, um, you have 6 minutes and 35 seconds left for rebuttal. I just would like to request this variance get approved so I can move on with our life. And, uh, um, I, I could have not said nothing about this and nobody would have ever known until I had to get a new asphalt done, which I, I'm still kind of having a hard time with this because even the neighbors— I think you have a letter from Randy Barker as well who was there. And, uh, do you have any questions for me?

I, I I've never done this before. I'm kind of nervous. So hang on, I, uh, skipped over quite a number of things tonight. We did, you know, we built per the permit next to the, the building permit, and the municipality accepted our, our paperwork. And I, I find— I don't know why there's no liability on, you know, no repercussions when this kind of thing happens for the people that actually stand behind their measurements.

I'm pretty surprised. 2 Feet seems like a long way to be off. And—. Hang on. Like I said, I skipped over a bunch of things tonight.

One of them was the annual election of officers, which should have happened back in the special order of business. And I'm just going to make a proclamation and say we're moving this to the end of the agenda. I hope everybody's okay with that. All right. And then next, I was supposed to talk about the procedure that we follow for variances.

And we haven't missed anything really, but let me go through it. After the staff presentation is complete on the public hearing item, the chair will ask for the applicant to state their case, which you did. The applicant, including all of his or her representatives, has 10 minutes for the presentation. And time may— 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 a majority of the fully constituted membership of, of the board, minus those excused by conflicts of interest, shall be required to grant a variance. For a variance to be granted, all 8 standards must be substantially met. On conclusion of the applicant's presentation, the board members and the staff may then direct questions to the applicant through the chair. The chair will then open the hearing to public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established by the rules of procedure.

Representative of groups such as community councils or PTAs 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 in the front will be green until— to within 1 minute of the time allowed and then will turn yellow.

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. Any individual may have rights related to any action that the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals takes. Parties have 30 days from the date of mailing or other distribution of the decision to file an appeal to Superior Court.

Okay, sorry, I forgot that part. So we're.

Are we at this point? Are there any questions of the board members— by the board members for the applicant?

Good. Then are there any questions of the applicant by staff? No. All right, then we'll open the public hearing so you can sit down for a minute. Um, is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in case— 2026-0037, anyone at all?

Okay, seeing none, we do have, uh, we have one phone testimony. Oh, sorry, phone testimony.

I couldn't hear you. Please try again. At the tone, please record your message. When you've finished— Telephone number 86.

Post the motions, just state it.

Well, and that's— she typed it. She's editing it right now, right? Okay, so she's not answering. Madam Chair, no answer. She's not answering.

Madam Chair. So I would just like read the message, the email from Chris Spencer.

His comment was, I would like to provide comments supporting the variance as it does not negatively impact the neighborhood or the property on either side of the address.

That's the comment from the caller. So we can't question?

Oh, no, that was just like a question. Right, we'll just move on. Yeah. As that it was the only public testimony. And we have no one to question, so we'll close the public hearing.

And nope, not yet. Mr. Shackleford, do you have anything additional? Kalkowski, sorry. Do you have anything additional that you want to say?

The neighbor to the south of me. And then that's Chris Spencer. He's a couple doors up. I don't know, he told me he sent in a letter too, you know, that he said he's available for comments if needed. I'm not sure why that didn't come through.

Um, Lucy next door, Lucy O'Hara, said she sent in something as well. I mean, she didn't take support. She was there when we built. She was, she was packing bricks.

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

Mr. Craig Bennett.

Is it right?

Yes, Madam Chair, it looks correct.

I move in case 2026-0037 to approve a variance from AMC 21.10.060, Table 21.10-6, Table of Dimensional Standards, Chugiak/Eagle River Residential District, to allow a portion of an existing workshop to encroach 2 feet into a required 20-foot rear setback, subject to the conditions as shown on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Thank you. Is there a second? Seconded by Mr. Lang.

So, Mr. Bennett— or yeah, Mr. Craig Bennett, please speak to your motion. Yeah, I see that staff shows that Standards C through H are substantially met, and staff says A and B are partially, or B is partially met. I'd say A is met because of the physical circumstances of the rebar that originally found was held and the original survey show that they were in the setbacks. And then the same with B. And I'd like to add that, um, the comments are in support of granting the variance too from the community.

Mr. Lang, will you speak to the motion please? Uh, yes, I concur with Mr. Bennett's assessment. I believe that, uh, that, uh, his reasoning on the hardships is correct, and I will be supporting the motion. Is there any other discussion?

Okay, then 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 an existing workshop to encroach 2 feet into the required 20-foot rear setback subject to conditions shown on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. A yes vote will grant the variance and a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Okay, there are 5 votes in the affirmative, 0 votes in the negative, and the variance is granted. There you go.

Thank you.

Next case. Now we go to Shackleford. Case 2025- 0127. I know that Ms. Shackelford is here.

So will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? On March 20, 2026, the Planning Department mailed a total of 148 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedure AMC 2103-028 Notice. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received public comment. The review agencies expressed no objections. The Eagle River Valley Community Council and the Chugiak/Eagle River Advisory Board did not provide comment on this case.

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

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case? This is a request for dimensional variance to legalize a garage and eave at 11335 Juanita Spur that encroached 19.7 feet the garage and 20 feet the eave on the 20-foot front setback. Although the property faces extreme top— topographical challenges and the garage integrated into the home for over 25 years is essential for storing a child's medical equipment, the Planning Department recommends denial because Standard C is partially met, as the garage could have been built further back from the property line when it was first constructed in the 1990s. All the other standards has been met. The hardship was partially self-imposed during original construction.

However, the structure poses no public safety risk, lacks.

Neighbor opposition, and sits on an unmaintained dead-end road. If after the public hearing the board finds all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to the 3 conditions as shown on the staff report.

Are there any questions Of the staff by the board. Mr. Lang, through the chair, is, is a spur like an official designation, like an alley?

No, it is not an alley. It is just like an unmaintained gravel— I believe it is a gravel road. So it is— the property is located at the end So it is not an alley, and because of the topography, it's never going to be developed as a— I believe it's not going to be developed road. Okay, um, so do we, do we have the width of the spur? Is it like alley-sized, like 20 feet or 25 feet?

Um, was that shown on the as-built? 15 Feet? Okay, so it's approximately I'm kind of gauging. So it's narrower than an alley. Are there any— it doesn't appear from the photography that there's any other houses that use this spur to access.

I am not sure. Maybe the petitioner can inform. That is only like— I know there is a property in the corner and, uh, one other property just Before then, thank you. I am very fine right now.

Through the chair, Mr. Brian Bennett. Are there any restrictions on the fact that the house is built over a property line and in fact probably doesn't Does it encroach into the setback for the front property? The house itself does, not just the garage? The house is not encroaching only because like actually the— it is angle. If you see like it's only encroaching the garage, not the house.

Uh, I'd like to see a map.

There are no restrictions about building over the property line.

Yes, what happened when you built, uh, over the property line, it is like the right-of-way. If you see on the— it was one of the conditions, it was that right-of-way was not against the— they had no objection, but they said that she would need to acquire an encroachment permit. That is one of the, one of the conditions for the approval, for her to get an encroachment permit through the right-of-way. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions?

Mr. Norris. Thank you, Chair. Uh, so I, I just wanted to follow up right quick. So I'm looking at the as-built, and that's in the application, and it does show that the garage roof does overhang 6 inches into the right-of-way. But should that be— I'm doing this on the fly, and I apologize— but does that need to be in the request itself.

It just says 20 feet into the 20-foot setback, but I didn't see anything in there about also into the right-of-way.

Okay, that's like— that's what I mentioned. It is in one of the conditions, the condition number 2. The condition number 2, that's what it say, provide proof of approval from the MOA Right-of-Way Division for an encroachment that extended to the street right-of-way. So she wouldn't— one of the conditions of approval would be her to come to the right-of-way and get an encroachment permit for what's encroaching into the right-of-way. And I, I take it that bringing this variance would be something she would need in order to go and do that?

Yes, she would need the approval of the to get this right away, uh, the encroachment permit. Yes. Thank you. And, uh, Commissioner Lang, I got an answer for you. That is only the property before her that accessed the, the, the Juanita spur.

That's only— yeah, that is only her and them. Thank you. Both of them. You're welcome.

Any other questions?

Okay, if the applicant will come forward, please.

Ms. Shackelford, do you have any questions of staff? No. Then please present your case. Thank you for being here tonight and for allowing me to present my case. I bought the house with my ex-husband in 2012.

It was my understanding that he had sought the variance and had gotten the variance. After my divorce, I found out that he had not indeed doing that— had done that, so that's why I'm here tonight. The garage was built before we bought the house. We've put a new roof on it. We store medical for my multiple handicap child.

It has heating, a concrete floor. It would be a hardship if we had to remove the garage.

It was my understanding also, and Mr. Bennett, your comment about the house being built on the property line. It was my understanding that those lots were combined at one time, so it was just one lot, but I'm not seeing it from here, so I'm not sure.

The garage matches the house, as you can see from the pictures. Uh, we've had no complaints. It doesn't— our spur road, uh, it's a gravel road. No one comes down that. Our neighbor that has the property next to us, her driveway cuts off before continuing down the end of the dirt spur.

The road basically is a driveway.

And I believe that's all I have. Okay, you have 8 minutes and 20 seconds to rebuttal. Are there any questions, um, of the applicant by the board members? Mr. Lang, through the chair, uh, thank you for bringing this case before us. Uh, you mentioned in your narrative that there was a non-conforming determination conducted.

That was before, uh, we bought the house.

Okay, I'm not exactly sure. I'm sorry, I'm ignorant on that matter. I'm not sure what that means, but that was before we bought the house. That was the year before Thank you. Uh, if I can redirect that question to staff, was there a non-conforming determination for this?

Yes, it was one in 2011, and it states that like at the garage it was not, uh, part of the non-conforming though at the time. Okay, so the non-conforming determination was specifically to the house straddling the lot line and the front setback? Yeah, it did not and didn't address the garage. Yes. Okay.

All right.

Thank you. Any other questions, board members? Okay.

And do you have any questions of staff? I don't believe so. Thank you. Then we will open the public hearing. Thank you.

Anyone in the public wishing to testify in case 2025-0127? Anyone at all?

Seeing none.

Ah, staff, anything additional?

No. Okay. And the applicant, anything else you want to say? Got a lot of time. Don't have to say anything if you don't want to.

As a side note, I apologize that I did not follow up sooner and make sure it was done when I was told it was done, being the joint property owner. So my apologies for that, that I did not follow up sooner. It was only until I got a letter from the bank after the divorce and the property switched into my name did I realize that it wasn't— the variance hadn't gone through, okay, or even applied for. Thank you.

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

Mr. Norris.

Thank you, Chair. I move in case 2026— correct, it says 2025 here, I just want to make sure—. It is 2025. Okay, 2025-0127, to approve a variance from AMC 21.10.060, Table 21.10-6, Table of Dimensional Standards, Chuyaki River Residential Districts, to allow garage and garage eave to encroach into the front setback subject to, subject to the conditions as shown on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report.

Seconded by Mr. Craig Bennett. So It has been moved and seconded that we— that a variance be granted to allow a garage and garage eave to encroach into the front setback subject to conditions shown up. No. Yeah. Okay.

We might start all over again for tonight. Allow garage and garage eave to encroach into the front setback.

Will Mr. Norris, will you please speak to your motion? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Uh, I do concur with staff on A, B, and D through H, that these are met. With respect to C, I would argue the hardship is not self-imposed.

Uh, the applicant did not build this garage, did not put it there. And, uh, obviously the circumstances do not merely constitute inconvenience. They did not result from their direct actions of the Applicant. And for those reasons, I feel that C is met. Uh, thank you.

Mr. Craig Bennett, will you please speak to the motion? I concur and just will add that There were no objections from any of the reviewing agencies.

Okay, then if we are ready for— is there any further discussion? Anybody else want to chime in?

Then if we are ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of a motion to grant a variance to allow the garage and garage eave to increase. Encroach into the front setback. A yes vote will grant the variance. A no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

5 Votes in the affirmative, 0 votes in the negative. Uh, the motion— the variance is granted. Thank you.

All right, and moving on.

The next case is case, uh, 2026-0045, and we have a representative for this one.

Daryl Hathcote.

What are we doing?

So, uh, will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On March 20th, 2026, the Planning Department mailed a total of 120 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103-020H. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received public comments. The Girdwood Board of Supervisors 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. If you will turn to pages 16 through 19 when I give my presentation, this might help and clarify some of the questions you might have. The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance from Anchorage Municipal Code 21-09-060, Table 21-09-5, Table of Dimensional Standards, Girdwood Residential Districts, to allow a front elevated deck to encroach 5 feet into the 20-foot front setback within the GR2 Girdwood Single Family, Two Family Residential District. And what I mean by elevated, this deck is approximately 60 inches or 5 feet above grade.

The department did not receive any public comments. The department did not receive any reviewing agency comments in opposition, and the The Redwood Board of Supervisors received notice, notice, and did not comment. Therefore, all 8 review criteria must be substantially met for a dimensional variance. The department finds that Standard A is not met. There are no streams, wetlands, or significant slopes present on the lot.

Therefore, there are no physical circumstances to the subject property that are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. The lot was originally platted in 1996, Plat 66-163. The plat dedicated only a half-bulb cul-de-sac at the end of Bantz Circle, resent— resulting in a lot shape with two frontages on the same street. One frontage is the primary front and the other frontage is the secondary front. The deck encroaches into the primary front setback.

Bantz Circle is a dedicated half-bulb cul-de-sac. 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 would 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 not met.

The hardship is self-imposed. It was the responsibility of the property owner to verify that the structure would be located outside of the required setbacks prior to construction. However, elevated decks are common in Girdwood to deal with snow accumulation and subsequent runoff. An elevated deck provides better access and is not just a minor convenience. Standard D is met.

Standard E is met. Standard F is met. Standard G is met because it is not applicable. And Standard H is met.

Therefore, the department finds that Standards A, B, and C are not met. All other standards are met.

If after a public hearing the board finds all 8 review criteria are met, then the variance should be subject to the conditions 1 and 2 found on pages 4 and 5 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner's representative is in attendance.

Are there any questions of staff by the board?

Mr. Bryant Bennett, through the chair, I'd like an explanation of the The concept of the corner lot and whether this meets those qualifications with the rounding of that one portion of the property line. Through the chair, Mr. Brian Bennett. So had this cul-de-sac at a future date been fully developed, the cul-de-sac bulb is the other frontage? Is that what you're— is that what you're asking?

So it's two fronts because of the cul-de-sac bulb?

Two fronts. Correct. So there's a primary front and a secondary front. We like these ones, don't we, Brian? We always talk about the front, the secondary frontage, and the front and the primary frontage.

And so this one's unique because the primary and the secondary front are the same street. Typically that's not, that's not a very common attribute. Typically you have two different right-of-ways on a corner lot, but because of the cul-de-sac bulb, this one has the primary and the secondary are the same street. So the setbacks are then all based on either the front setback or the side setbacks with no rear setback up With no rear setback, that's correct. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Mr. Craig Bennett.

Does the elevation of the deck, um, I guess matter if it was lower? Would it change anything? Through the chair, thank you, Mr. Craig Bennett, for this question. Yes, if the deck were only 30 inches high, it could encroach 5— this whole 5 feet. Into the front setback.

So in my opinion, that is a unique circumstance to Gerdwood, because if you look on pages 17, 18, and 19 at the photos, you can see the accumulation of snow. And if that deck were half that height, it would basically be buried, most likely, in snow and very hard to maintain. I believe that's the reasoning why they put it at 60 inches or 5 feet in height.

Mr. Norris. Thank you. Through the chair, I was wondering if you could help me understand how, how much of the deck encroaches in the applicant— in the application. The front there, it says variance to allow 15 square feet of front deck, but looking back at page 16 of the staff packet, it looks like 5 feet from the front of the deck would be almost half the depth of the deck. So I'm just wondering.

About how much— I mean, is it more substantial than that? Through the chair, Mr. Norris, he calculated 15. I couldn't calculate— I don't have Bluebeam or anything to where I could calculate that with it being a prow front type deck. The house is not a prow front, just the deck is, and I would guesstimate that it's probably a little bit more than 15 square feet, but with the angles, he's pretty— he's probably pretty close to that. We don't deal in the square footage realm, as you know.

We deal in What's the furthest— what's the closest point to the property line? So it's a 5-foot encroachment. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions? I have a question.

What makes this the primary front yard and not the cul-de-sac bulb?

Madam Chair, this is a great question. I had the very same question for land use. Because if— I'm assuming it's because the cul-de-sac is not a full cul-de-sac bulb. If the cul-de-sac had been fully developed, unfortunately it's the airport, it's Girdwood Airport, state-owned property to the north of this, so it's never going to be developed. But I would classify the bulb as the primary front.

That's how I see it. Land use did not determine it that way when they issued the land use permit. And so they chose this side of Banff. Again, this is a very unique situation because it's not two different right-of-ways, it's the same right-of-way because of the cul-de-sac. And so if it were the secondary front, then it would be 10 feet, and the primary front would be the— if that's how you want to look at it, the cul-de-sac would be the 20 feet.

And that's how I, that's how I kind of felt it looked like, but that's not how land use determined when they issued the land use permit. Hence why they're here with the variance. This is also a dead end. This is literally the— there's 2 houses to the— on the left-hand side. There's nothing at the end of this cul-de-sac.

It's, it's very, very little traffic. I'm not sure 5 feet's gonna— and you can kind of see on page 16 that the actual right-of-way is considerably set back from the edge of the property line, about 10 feet or more. It's not— there's no curbs, there's no gutters, there's no swales. It's just a— I don't think it's strip paved. I couldn't tell because it was wintertime, but I think it's just gravel.

Okay. I have a follow-up. Mr. Brian Bennett, through the chair. Does it— I have seen under some circumstances where the direction of the front door and the driveway have an influence of primary frontal. Is that influencing here?

Through the chair, Mr. Brian Bennett. Yes, so if you were to look at all the other homes along Banff, they all face not the cul-de-sac bowl per se, they all face Banff proper, and that's where the— that's how they determine what the primary front is. If it was more than an acre, then you could pick, but it's, it's not that large. Thank you. You're welcome.

Anybody else?

Okay, then if the applicant's representative will please come forward.

Good evening. I'm here on behalf of Darrell Hadcutt, uh, representing this case. Uh, there are exceptional physical constraints on this property. They are not typical of other lots in the same zoning district. The site contains existing underground utilities, including water, sewer, and electrical lines, as well as utility easements shown on the survey.

In order to safely construct the foundation, the pile contractor was required to maintain a minimum 3-foot clearance from the utilities, which significantly limited where piles could be placed. During construction, additional subsurface obstructions were encountered while driving piles further, restricting feasible foundation locations. The lot is also irregular in shape, which reduced flexibility in meeting setbacks requirements compared to standard rectangular parcel. In addition, the property has dense tree coverage. And there is an existing trail behind the lot.

Maintenance— maintaining tree coverage along the rear and surrounding areas is important for privacy and consistency with the neighborhood character, which further constrained the buildable area. These combined conditions create a uniquely limited site-specific building envelope that's not generally applicable to other properties in the district. Because of these physical constraints, strict application of the setbacks requirements creates undue hardship. To safely avoid utilities and maintain required clearness and work around subsurface obstructions, the structure had to be slightly rotated approximately like 2 degrees from the original plan. This small adjustment resulted in front corner of the deck extending approximately 5 feet into the setback.

So the encroachment was not intentional and was not known during construction. We only became aware of the setback issue after receiving the final site as-built survey.

The variance will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The deck does not obstruct views, create unusual privacy impacts, or interfere with neighbor— neighboring property use. We have spoken with most of the surrounding neighbors, and we already have an email from one of them. They are good with that. Uh, granting the variance will not change the character of the zoning district.

The property remains residential in use, and elevated decks are common in this area. The design and scale are consistent with surrounding homes.

The variance requested is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property, and that's it.

Okay, are there any questions, Mr. Hapko, by this board? Mr. Brian Bennett. Was, was the deck constructed at the same time the house was constructed? Yeah, thank you. Anyone else?

Mr. Lang, uh, to the chair, uh, you said the house is on piles. I said what? The house is on piles. Yeah. Are the other houses in the neighborhood on piles?

I'm not sure. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Norris, thank you, uh, through the chair. So, sir, you, you mentioned that there were electric lines that influenced this. I was looking at the as-built survey and I see the, the utility easements, but I don't think I see what it is you're referring to. Could you point me in the direction of where those electric lines were that were initially—. I'm, I'm— I don't have the answer for this.

I'm not sure. Okay, uh, one more if you don't mind. You said that during construction there were subsurface issues that necessitated moving the footprint of the structure. Yeah, um, I take it you ran into rock when you were driving piles or something, but I was just wondering, um, why the decision to move it in the direction it went. Um, what— I don't want to say it was purposeful, but it was a conscious decision at the time of construction to do that.

I was wondering what necessitated that or influenced that. Yeah, uh, at this point, actually, the structure was already on site. So we couldn't redesign it, right? I, I think it— my question is more to the placement of the structure. The placement, right?

Yeah. Did you— you moved it because you couldn't get the piles in where you thought you could? No, I don't know. I don't have the answer for that. Okay.

Sorry, I'm a little bit nervous. It's not me, on behalf of Daryl Haskell. He had to leave because they have a flight, and that's why I'm here. I understand. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant by staff?

Not a question, Madam Chair, but maybe a clarification. I believe there was an existing smaller structure that they added on to at this site, and that's why there might be this encroachment. I haven't been able to see, there's no aerial that I could tell, but it looked like there's a small cabin or something that was there at one time.

Okay, then we'll open the public hearing. So have a seat. I have the letter from one of the neighbors if I can handle to anybody. Thank you. Thank you.

And will you enlighten us to what this letter says?

Thank you, Madam Chair. To whom it may concern, as owners of the property located at 181 Banff Circle, we state that we are not contesting nor find conflicting issues affecting us in regards to decking being over the front setback of neighboring property located at 184 Banff Circle, Girdwood, Alaska. If there are further questions, you may reach me at, as listed below, as the owner and spokesman for KST LLC.

Thank you. All right, um, let's see, I guess there's somebody back there. Anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 2026-0045? Anyone at all?

Seeing none, um, You do have some time.

Is there anything additional you wish to say?

No, indicates not.

Then, um, staff have anything? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just looking back through the appraised value history of the lot, and it appears for the years 2017 through 2023 there is some structure, existing structure, that was on the lot that was being appraised for improvements.

So I'm wildly guessing, but I believe they may have added on to an existing structure, and that was possibly impacting their location, from Mr. Norris's question, possibly. Okay.

Then, um, we'll close the public hearing and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Come on, Mr. Craig Bennett.

I move in case 2026-0045 to approve a variance from AMC 21.09.060, Table 21.09-5, Table Dimensional Standards, Curdwood Residential District, to allow a deck to encroach 5 feet into the 20-foot required front setback, subject to the conditions as shown on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr. Lang.

So, Mr. Craig Bennett, will you please speak to the motion?

So as the department shows, standards D, E, F, and H are met, and A, B, and C, they showed as not met, and G is not applicable.

Like to comment on A, B, and C. Extraordinary or physical circumstances.

I'd say a 5-foot deck versus a 30-inch is fairly minor, and extraordinary circumstances is the amount of snow that Girdwood has, um, and also the front setbacks being road versus cul-de-sac, which is the front.

Standard B, physical circumstances, I would say the standard's met because of the front yard.

If the driveway came off the cul-de-sac portion, it would be easier to understand the cul-de-sac being the front yard. So I believe that standard's met. And then C, self-imposed special conditions. I'll just say back to the 5-foot versus 30 inches and the amount of snow that Girdwood has, and no community comments Against it.

Mr. Lang, will you please speak to the motion? Uh, through the chair, thank you. Uh, looking at the as-built on page 16, um, it looks like there's a utility pole in the front. They were talking about the proximity, the utilities, and that pole might be in the right-of-way, but it looks like the guy wire runs onto the lot and is not in the adjacent utility easement. It sounds like for that, for numerous reasons, the location of the house as it was placed during the construction differs perhaps from what it was on the land use plan, and we're dealing with, with cleaning that up.

So I agree with Mr. Bennett's conclusions, and I will be supporting the motion.

Any other discussion?

Mr. Norris. Thanks. Appreciate Mr. Lang addressing the electrical component. I would ask if members have any further thoughts on C about how this is not self-imposed because there was a conscious choice made during construction to move the footprint of the structure that would lead it to seeming to be self-imposed, and I would invite further discussion on that point. Thank you.

Anybody?

Mr. Lang.

Through the Chair, Mr. Norris, I appreciate you bringing that up. Item C states the hardship is not self-imposed and special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. As Mr. Bennett, Mr. Craig Bennett mentioned, you know, the snow load in Girdwood is not a special condition, or is, is a special condition in the sense that, that impacts a lot of things, especially deck height. And, and I believe that it is reasonable to, to accept this as not being self-imposed. If, if this occurred during construction and there wasn't someone there saying, oh, if we move this, it's going to affect the setbacks, then, you know, that's a contractor problem, not necessarily the, the homeowner's problem.

So the question of whose responsibility— we saw that in the prior case with, with the rear corners being held by the original surveyor, whereas the newer surveyors found a different, a different setback. So again, you know, where does the responsibility lie? And ultimately, if the homeowner paid somebody to build this for them, is it still the homeowner's responsibility when they're trusting the professionals to have done the work correctly?

Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

Any other discussion?

Then if we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of a motion to grant a variance to allow a deck to encroach 5 feet into the 20-foot required front setback. A yes vote will grant the variance and a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mm-hmm.

There are 4 votes in the affirmative and 1 vote in the negative, so the variance is denied, and we shall continue on.

[Speaker:CAROLYN_BAXTER] So I made the command decision that we moved the annual election of officers to the end of the agenda. So we are there. And we had several different ways we could deal with this. Mr. Lang, I think, wondered if we could just not deal with this until we had more on board.

We heard from the parliamentarian. That we don't actually have to have a vice chair, so we could move that the current chair and parliamentarian continue on as we are until we have more members and we can have a better vote.

I'm willing to do that, parliamentarian.

I suppose you could self-nominate to be vice chair, but you don't want to do that. No. Right? Anyway, I need a positive motion of some type. Mr. Norris.

Thank you, Chair. I move to retain the chair and parliamentarian, and I'd like to nominate Mr. Lang as vice chair. Thank you. See, there you go. I got a haircut expecting that.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor, and is there any discussion? I'll second the motion. All right, if there's no discussion, is there any objection?

Then I shall be chair. Brian Bennett shall be parliamentarian. Jonathan Lang shall be vice chair.

And Ellen McKay is chair. That's what I said. Ellen McKay is chair.

More kommode than chair.

Congratulations. Thank you. All right. We are done. If I could have a motion to adjourn, that would be great.

Would you entertain board member comments first? Oh, if you would like to make a comment, comment away. I would. At our last meeting, I commented on some procedural questions, and the planning director is working on potential code changes around those. I had emailed with her today and asked you know, if there's any clarity on that, anything they want to share with that, and she said if they decide to move forward with code changes, then she'll get back to me.

But that really doesn't answer the question. I think that it's important for us to address that. If the staff can, in their comments, say that something doesn't apply, why can't we say— why can't we decide as a finding of fact that a certain standard does not apply? So that's, that's specifically where I want clarity on that. Something else I'd like to, to add to board member comments is in the one case tonight there was a non-conforming determination.

I understand that it didn't directly apply to the merits of the case, but I think it would be important for staff to include those non-conforming determinations in the future so that we're fully informed. And that concludes my comments.

Any other comment?

I think there's something that might come down the pike where the staff will not address each one of the standards other than it does or doesn't apply, which will really affect us because we'll have to come up with something more than we have been saying. Yeah, the staff did a great job, or we disagree with one or two of these. So it's going to be more work for us and less work for them.

Anyway, that's my comment.

Other than that, did we— oh, Paul, did you want to say something? Thank you, Madam Chair. That's correct. So we, as staff, has been directed to reduce our staff reports to under a minute, our presentation to under a minute, or to a minute at the most. That was mainly done in Planning and Zoning Commission.

There was some concern in Planning and Zoning Commission whether or not that would be enough time enough information for the public to know and understand. I was hoping that our director had contacted you and the other board members in the planning board and everything to inform you that that's the direction we were going. As you noticed on mine, I did a little bit more.

Claudia pretty much matched what she was supposed to do. I broke the rules, sorry. Thank you. You're welcome. I do believe it was short enough.

It's within a couple minutes. It's not— we didn't take a ton of time. I think that's feasible for you to know and for anybody that's in the public that's here to know too. But just be aware that that might be coming forward. So can we formally object?

Sure. You could. By all means, you could email the director and ask that you be given a little bit more of the staff report than a snippet in under 1 minute, just so you have more information. And as for the NCD, I'm sorry about that, Mr. Lang. It was— the same thing happened with the minor modification, right, with the case that I presented a couple— a month or 2 months ago that we didn't have the minor mod for that 1 foot or that 9-inch encroachment into the front yard.

Setback for that variance also. So those are things that need to be included in the, in the staff packet, and I will take that back to, to Elizabeth. Thank you. You're welcome.

Mr. Norris. Uh, Chair, your statement about objecting, would it be within the purview of the body to pass a resolution in support or against or something else of that nature, or are we— I've not run into this in my time on the body. I'm just wondering what the procedure might be. Well, it's a, it's a whole new world. I have no idea.

So, um, I guess we could, huh? I think an email from you and maybe even the rest of the board members might, you know, just explain that you would like not a lengthy staff report, but you would like you know, a little bit longer than, than a small snippet, just to give you more time and more information. That's why I try to do mine the way I do, you know, just hit the high points that aren't met. And if it's not applicable, like G, or if it's met, then it's, you know, it's the same thing we tell the applicants typically. It's like, don't worry about the ones that are met, just worry about the ones that aren't met to speak to the board about.

But to make the decision on whether it is met or whether it isn't met, I think that's— so as a staff, you'll just say A, B, and C are not met and not tell us why? No, there should be at least— I have my report here and I could read it to you, but it's one sentence per standard that is not met instead of a paragraph or maybe two paragraphs. In my report. Okay. And I'm just reading my report, so I mean, I mean, as long as you guys are reading them, and that's where I would focus to maybe is focus on the standards that are not met and figure out why.

Through the chair, if a case is appealed and they have very brief findings, it's true, it will be brought back saying you don't have adequate findings and find more. And we've had that happen before in Planning Board, I believe, is the, the main one that it's happened before in, not enough findings. And so the— it comes back. Of course, ours are— ours go to the Superior Court, right? Appeals for Zoning Board don't come back to Zoning Board.

Yes, but Superior may find that we don't have adequate, correct? And then it would have to come back for more. Correct.

Mr. Naras. Thank you. Yeah, I just note that we're making pretty big decisions that can affect someone's life pretty intensely. And I'm a fan of bureaucratic brevity, despite my lengthy diatribes up here sometimes. So I feel like whatever it takes for you to give us the information we need to make a decision is is what is required.

I don't think that artificially shortening that when there are pretty grave matters at stake here is the right thing to do. Thanks.

Put that in your email. Okay, we can adjourn now. Move to adjourn. Second. It's been moved and seconded.

We are adjourned.

Well, I don't know why anybody thought I should continue on as chair.

Stays mad at me! Oh oh oh oh— Oh oh oh oh—.