Platting Board - February 4, 2025 - 2026-02-04 18:30:00

Just you watch, it's all the same.

Like to call this February 4th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order. May we have roll call? Skyler Quinn. Here. Sarah Catherine Bryan.

Here. Patrick Jones. Here. Ashley Ploy. Here.

Kyle Murka. Here. Brenda Males. Present. Kevin Cross.

Here. You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?

So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Murka, second by Mr. Cross.

Are there any corrections or objections to the approval of the minutes?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved. Next, we have special order of business. Are there any disclosures?

Seeing none, for information only, we have abbreviated plat action summaries dated 9/22/25 revised and 1/20/26.

May we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Moved by Mr. Mirka. Second. Second by Mr. Cross.

Is anyone wishing to pull an item for discussion?

Are there any objections to the approval of the consent agenda?

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved. Moving on to the public hearings, and I will read the process. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Planning Board at its meetings is: 1, after the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. 2, Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission Rules of Procedure. A, petitioners, including all his/her representatives, are given 10 minutes.

Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. B, representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., are given 5 minutes. And C, individuals are given 3 minutes. 3. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board.

May only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board. 4. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the planning director within 7 days of the board's decision made on the record, a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21.03.050A.4.a. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may Within 20 days, file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 21.03.050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the Planning Director on a form prescribed by the municipality.

If the appellant is not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

And moving on to new business, may we have staff's presentation in case S12869?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Case S12869 is a request to remove plat notes number 2 and number 7 from plat 2017-1, Richport Subdivision, Tract 1. Plat note 2 states there shall be no vehicular access to Lake Otis Parkway from the subdivision, and plat note 7 states the 5-foot development setback is in addition to the required side yard setback. The petitioner requests the removal of plat note number 2 to to allow for the construction of a driveway to Lake Otis Parkway.

The petitioner requests the removal of plat note number 7 to allow the approximately 8,400 square feet of the existing development setback to be of, quote, better use of the available development area, end quote, as stated in the petitioner's narrative. The Planning Board must find all criteria of AMC 21.03.200G.9 met for the successful removal of these plat notes. Standard A states: Conditions that required the plat notes on the original plat have changed and the need for the plat notes has been negated. Staff finds Standard A is met. The recent O'Malley Road reconstruction project included the construction of a right-hand turn lane from Lake Otis Parkway to O'Malley Road moving west.

The need for the turn lane necessitated plat notes number 2 and 7 as: 1, limiting access onto Lake Otis Parkway would be necessary to establish an additional building development setback so no structures, including driveways, could be installed. And 2, by providing the additional development setback, it was assured that future site development could not encroach on the land needed to create the right-hand turn lane for the O'Malley Road reconstruction project. The state has completed the O'Malley Road reconstruction project in 2018, and the as-built was accepted in 2019. Staff finds Standard A is met as the completion of the project has negated the need for plat notes restricting access and providing an additional easement. Additionally, Municipal Traffic and Right-of-Way Departments, as well as the State of Alaska's Department of Transportation, did not object to their removal.

Standard B states: Modification or removal of plat notes will not have a negative impact on adjacent or nearby properties. Staff finds Standard B is met. The removal of these plat notes will not have a negative effect on the neighboring properties. Removing plat note number 2 would allow for vehicular access onto Lake Otis Parkway. However, as a raised median divides the two western lanes of Lake Otis Parkway, vehicles will be unable to access the northbound lanes.

But removing plat note number 7 will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties, as the presence or lack thereof of a development setback would only affect the subject parcel. Additionally, Municipal Traffic and Right-of-Way Departments and the Alaska Department of Transportation did not have any objection to the removal of these plat notes. Therefore, staff finds Standard B is met, as the removal of the plat notes will not result in negative impact onto, uh, neighboring properties or adjacent properties. Lastly, Standard C states, despite modification or removal of the plat notes, the plat continues to meet the approval criteria of subsection 21.03.200(c)(9), and staff finds that this standard is met. The removal of plat note number 2 will continue to provide efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement largely due to the existing conditions of Lake Otis Parkway.

The raised median separates northbound and southbound traffic, and if a driveway is placed on the subject parcel exiting onto Lake Otis Parkway, the raised median prohibits vehicles exiting the park's parcel onto Lake Otis from traveling north without first traveling south. Likewise, traffic traveling north on Lake Otis Parkway does not have the ability to make a left-hand turn into the parcel. The removal of plat note number 7 will aid in making more efficient use of the land In Planning Case S-12873, the associated abbreviating Planning Case to remove the development setback easement associated with plat note number 7 was approved for removal on the condition that this case is approved. And if that easement is removed, as well as this note, more land will be made available for efficient use. In summary, plat 2017-1 will continue to meet the approval criteria of AMC 21.03 0.200(c)(0.9) if plat notes number 2 and 7 are removed.

Staff finds all 3 criteria are met for the removal of plat notes 2 and 7 from plat 2017-1 and recommends approval subject to condition 1(a) found in the staff report. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?

Seeing none, I think we can move on to the petitioner's presentation. Please come up and state and spell your name for the record, and you have 10 minutes.

I'm just waiting for the presentation. Thank you. Sean, can you check? Sean, can you check her laptop, please? It was working before, so we tested it.

Look at the buttons on the HDMI.

Thank you guys for your time. My name is Carly Lamoth, L-A-M-O-T-H-E, and I'll wait for Lori. You good? And all you I will use any of my unused time for rebuttal. Um, thank you all for being here, and thank you, staff, for that presentation.

This is Case S12869, Removal of Plat Notes Number 2 and 7 from Plat 2017, Tract 1 of Ridgeport Subdivision.

Project overview: this site is Tract 1 of Ridgeport Subdivision, located at the northwest corner of Lake Otis Parkway and O'Malley Road. The site is currently undeveloped and is zoned R-4 SL, multi-family residential with special limitations. The request is on behalf of petitioner Touchmark Senior Living to remove plat notes 2 and 7 to facilitate development of this parcel.

This is an overview for plat note number 2, which reads, there shall be no vehicular access to Lake Otis Parkway from this subdivision. Plat note 2 appears to have been carried over from— based on comments from 2007 from the traffic department as part of platting case S-11589. It's assumed this plat note was requested due to the elevation change between Lake Otis and the site. There's an approximate 15-foot difference at the south end of the site and approximately 30-foot grade difference at the south end. At the time of this plat in 2007, you can see that in the lower arter— lower aerial image, um, that Lake Otis consisted of two through lanes and an eastbound left turn lane for southbound traffic along Lake Otis.

In approximately 2018, a westbound turn lane was added and a median extended on this Lake Otis Parkway. The grade difference at the end of the north— northern end of the site would lend to a driveway connection outside of the turn lane pocket. Any driveway that's proposed along Lake Otis would be required to be reviewed by MOA Traffic and be required to meet grade requirements, landings, and sight distance triangles.

Removing this plat note allows for the ability for the development team and MOA Traffic to work together to determine the appropriate connection for Lake Otis Parkway. MOA Traffic did not have any objections to the plat note removal.

This figure details plat note number 7, the 5-foot development setback along the eastern boundary of Lake Otis Parkway. As shown, the setback is in addition to the right-of-way easement and a public use easement. This easement vacation has been approved as part of case S12873 with the condition of approval of this plat note removal. This would be the last step to finalize the easement removal.

As stated, this development easement was approved by Planning per Case S12873, and reviewing agencies have no objection, no objection to this request, and staff have recommended approval of both plat note, plat note removals. All reviewing agencies have no objections to either of these requests, and staff did a great job in their staff report, and we have no objections to the conditions of approval. We thank you all and thank staff for their time.

Thank you for that presentation. You have 6 minutes and 47 seconds of rebuttal time.

Uh, do we have any questions from the board to the petitioner, Mr. Mirka? I just have one question, which is really just my curiosity. Uh, it would appear that the turn lane was never going to interfere or go anywhere near that, that corner. Why do you think plat note 2 was ever discussed and, and eventually established?

Based on our research of, um, plat in case 2, uh, S-11589, um, the MOA Traffic Department did not give justification of their request for the plat note, but it's our assumption that it's due to the changes in grade in that area. And was Touchmark the owner of the property at the time that that plat note was written? No, I believe it was owned, um, okay, by a different private property entity. Sounds good, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mirka.

Any other questions?

Okay, well then, uh, this time we're going to open this up to public testimony. If anyone's wishing to testify in the public, please come up and please state and spell your name for the record, and you're given 3 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Jason Norris, last name is N-O-R-R-I-S, and I'm a resident, uh, in a nearby subdivision. We're happy— I'm happy that housing's being built. I have no issue with plat note 7 going away. Quite frankly, I'd be in favor of zoning this.

I hope that they build to their heart's content on as much of the lot as possible. That lot's been disused for a long time. I'm excited that our elders may have a place to age in place on the hillside. There's not a lot of opportunity for that, and I think that this fills a real need. That being said, I would ask that plat note to stick around.

Would not be in favor of it being removed. Talking about the character of Lake Otis, south of Fred Meyer, there are no other private lots that take access from Lake Otis. It's all public streets or Hanchu. And so this would, quite frankly, be out of character. And it would introduce a lot of conflicts that we see elsewhere in the city.

And quite frankly, we'd be repeating a lot of mistakes that we've made elsewhere. We're taking a road that's designed to move traffic through, and we're forcing it to act like a street where people come in and out. I understand that Traffic Department didn't have any objection to this, and that may be because of the criteria that you're looking at, but that doesn't mean that there won't be traffic conflicts. It's a high-speed channelized road on an incline, and we have a right-hand turn lane to go westbound O'Malley, and you're going to have traffic trying to take that and get off or on from this, uh, cut into the lot. And there's going to create conflicts.

We see elsewhere where things like this happen and people that are trying to go right, in this case on O'Malley, will get behind someone turning here and get frustrated and go around them and swerve into the other lanes. Also want to point out that just because the median will disallow people to turn on northbound Lake Otis, it doesn't mean people aren't going to cut across all 3 lanes of traffic in front of people to try to go westbound up the hill. Or eastbound up the hill on O'Malley. And so that, that is a reasonably foreseeable thing that is going to happen should this curb cut, uh, be allowed to happen. And just by the very nature of the business, uh, seniors, we do have things like ambulances and anchor rides, and those are very vital things, uh, that are not objectionable, uh, on their, on, on their own except when they are taking access to or from this across a major roadway.

And, you know, quite frankly, we're in a city where we've killed over 30 pedestrians in 2 years, and we're introducing another conflict point on a high-speed roadway. And why are we doing that? It doesn't line up with our long-range transportation plan, which places pedestrians at the highest point of the modal hierarchy. And to do this for a lot that, quite frankly, already has 2 accesses— They have one off of O'Malley and they have another one off— I'm sorry, Independence, is it? And so we could avoid all of these reasonable, reasonably foreseeable impacts, uh, and just have two instead of three access points.

Thank you. Thank you for that testimony.

Uh, anybody else wishing to testify?

Seeing none, like to come back up. You have 6 minutes and 47 seconds. If you could just give us 5 seconds, and we're ready. Thank you so much, and thank you to Mr. Norris for coming out and sharing his testimony. Um, we would like to emphasize that the removal of this plat note does not inherently approve a driveway onto Lake Otis.

It will still go through all of the approval reviews, um, and mechanisms set in place for the municipality. Um, and so at the time of development, when— if a driveway is proposed on Lake Otis, it will be reviewed by MOA Traffic and Right-of-Way Department at that time to make sure it conforms with the official streets and highways plans, um, and all of the driveway requirements. And I do just want to, um, although we don't have a site plan right here and a development plan in front of us. The main points of entry will be on O'Malley and Independence Drive. So Independence Drive will be a standard two-way road where they can make a right turn or a left turn, um, and this— if there is a driveway on Lake Otis, it would be a right-in, right-out only.

So that's not intended to be the primary point of access. I don't believe it will have signage on Lake Otis. Um, the main entry point will be O'Malley and Independence Drive where there are two existing constructed driveways. Um, Lake Otis is intended to be an additional driveway just to help with facilitation of development.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

This is Brenda. I do have a question.

Go ahead. If this is— is this going to be a potential senior living home, um, would you agree that the access to like Otis and the removal of the plat note would maybe aid or assist in any type of emergency situation that may occur if for some reason there are obstructions or heavy traffic on O'Malley or Independence? Would this be like a backup for an emergency use as well as the— to facilitate the construction and development?

Thank you, Commissioner Mills. That's a great question. So as far as having an additional access point off of Lake Otis, any additional driveways will absolutely help with emergency access. Um, in our staff report, we noted that while, um, the closest fire station is probably going to take access from Independence or O'Malley, if there there are blockages at those driveways, the Lake Otis driveway would certainly be a third option for emergency access.

Wonderful, thank you. Thanks, Miss Mills. Any other questions?

Seeing none, um, we're going to close the public hearing. Matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion?

Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion? Yeah, I move in the case of S12869 to approve the removal of plat notes 2 and 7 from plat 17-1 for Tract A, Richport subdivision, subject to recording a resolution with the State of Alaska Recorder's Office recognizing removal of the plat notes and providing proof of the Planning Department. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, there are 3 criteria by which, um, the removal plat note must be met, and all 3 of these have been met. We can look on staff packets pages 2 and 3. One, conditions that require the plat notes or in the original plat have changed— that has been met. Modification, removal of the plat notes will not have a negative impact on nearby adjacent properties— that establishment has so far been met. And despite modification, removal plat note, the plat continues to meet the approval process under subsection 21.03-200(c)(9).

And that one has been met. I think it's important to note that the gentleman who came forward, Mr. Jason Norris, his concerns are valid. This removal of flat note does not mean yes. It's still a no unless they can come up and come up with a traffic plan, traffic study. This just removes the flat note, which means don't even consider it.

This opens it up for them to consider it, come up with adequate traffic planning. Additionally, having been born and raised in that area of town, I will— my having driven that intersection hundreds of thousands of times. In fact, I think it was in a car accident in that one in the late '80s. My brother was not a very good driver. But, um, I also would think that the access off O'Malley Road, given the construction, that, that's— we know that's 50 miles per hour coming down, but it will tell you it's more like 60.

65 Coming down O'Malley and having a runout from the subdivision onto a road that, although it's 50, we know that people coming down O'Malley heading towards New Seward Highway are driving at a pretty good clip. And having it come on and off slower streets such as Independence or Lake Otis actually logistically makes more sense for slower traffic flow and safety. So given those findings, I will be moving to approve it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross.

Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, thank you. I intend to, uh, to support the motion as well. Um, I agree wholeheartedly with Board Member Cross's summation of it and agree with the staff presentation that it meets the approval criteria in 2103-200 G9. And as you mentioned, um, you know, this is just the first step in removing the barrier, and that way they could at least present it as an option.

I have faith in our MOA traffic team to look at this and see if it's safe and if it can move forward if they decide to do so. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Anybody else wishing to add findings?

Hearing none, let's call the vote. Ms. Mills, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

With that, the motion passes.

Moving on to board member comments. Any members wishing to add comments about anything?

Seeing none, do we have a motion to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Move by Mr. Cross.

Second. Seconded by Mr. Jones. We don't have to vote on that, right? We're adjourned.

I know where I'm going to go. I hope that you take me seriously. I hope that nobody stays mad at Oh!

Oh!