Platting Board - March 4, 2026 - 2026-03-04 18:30:00

Uh, I'm good. Thank you. Thanks, Pat. Sarah, you're, you're good?

Yes, ready to go. All right, thanks guys.

We'll call this, uh, March 4th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order. It is 6:43. May we have roll call? Skyler Quinn. Here.

Sarah Catherine Bryan.

Present telephonically. Patrick Jones.

Present. Ashley Ploy. Here. Kaya Merca. Present.

Brenda Mills. Present. Kevin Cross is excused. You have a quorum. Thank you.

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

Approve.

Move by Miss Ploy.

I'll second. Second by Miss Butler— or, uh, sorry, Mills. Sorry, my correction, Miss Mills, as of somewhat recently.

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

Seeing none, the minutes are approved.

Okay, but I don't have to read this. Okay, all right. Next on the agenda, special order of business. Are there any disclosures?

Just to be safe, I should probably disclose that I, uh, I have worked with Jonathan Ling in the past. Um, I'm not affiliated with the case that he is working on here in any way, um, but I would ask for a motion from someone to, uh, see if I should be able to participate. I move to the chair that he participate in the case. I'll second that. Let's call a vote.

Sorry.

Mr. Jones, how do you vote? Yes, you can participate. Thank you. Miss Bryan, how do you vote? I vote yes.

Thank you.

With that, the motion passes, so I will be participating in the case he's a part of.

Um, moving on, can we have a motion to reorder the agenda for the, uh, elections of officers, just so we don't have to take up the public's time because they don't care about that?

So move. Move by Mr. Mirka. Second. Sec. Misploie.

Are there any objections? All right, it passes.

For information only, we have abbreviated plat action summaries dated 2/2/26 and 2/23/26. Do we have a motion to accept the abbreviated plat action summary?

Moved by Miss Mills, seconded by Mr. Mirka.

Are there any objections?

Seeing none, that passes. Uh, maybe we have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Moved by Miss Ploy, seconded by Miss Mills. Is anyone wishing to pull an item for discussion?

Seeing none, are there any objections to the approval of the consent agenda?

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved. Uh, we'll move on to public hearings, and I'll 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 timelines established in the Commission Rules of Procedure. A, petitioners, including all his and 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 each given 3 minutes. 3, When testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You 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.

With that, may we have staff's presentation in case S12860? Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a preliminary plat request to subdivide 2 lots into 2 new lot configuration with a request to vacate the undeveloped right-of-way between the lots for Shawn Street. Uh, the zoning district is Chugiak/Eagle River R6, low-density residential.

Plat 82-341 dedicated the western half of Shawn Street for Lot 83B, and Plat 84-457 dedicated the eastern half of Shawn Street for Lot 1. For staff analysis, the petition site is located east of Birchwood Spur Road and north of Alluvial Street in Birchwood. The properties are developed with single-family homes. The MOA Traffic Engineering Department, Private Development, Right-of-Way Section, and Eagle River Street Maintenance Section have objections or concerns to the proposed vacation of this right-of-way.

In the matters of the vacation request, staff finds that criteria 1 is not met. So this vacation would be detrimental to the future needs of the public in that it would forego right-of-way that may be needed to provide access to the residential zone lots to the north, specifically lots 79 and 80 that are 2.5 acres in size each. In addition, there's a possibility that current and/or future owners of lots could request to extend Shawn Street to the north to obtain physical access and subdivide the properties into 1-acre lots or whatever future revision there is. The applicant has not demonstrated that the right-of-way is in excess of municipal needs. This vacation would be detrimental to the public welfare by precluding road improvements or potentially creating the challenging need to reacquire the right-of-way by the municipality.

The right-of-way section states that while the right-of-way reserve could be developed across the northern boundary of these properties, vacating Shawn Street for, uh, Vacating the Shawn Street right-of-way takes away the option to develop as a loop or a grid pattern from Alluvial north and then out to Birchwood Spur Road. Agencies stated in their comments that the vacation request is not surplus, as the potential for residential growth outweighs the probability of commercial development in this location, and that the burden to show Shawn Street is in excess has not been proven. Staff finds criteria 2, the official streets and highway plan classifies this Sean Street as local street, and the primary function of a local street, as described in the OSHPD, is to provide access to abutting properties with the following guideline— paraphrase— create local streets at the time of original land subdivisions which address connectivity, and that's what they did in the '80s. As stated, the municipality requested that right-of-way back in the '80s for any future access to serve the lots to the north, which are still unsubdivided. So subdivision of the property to the north through the right-of-way reserve could potentially create a cul-de-sac length that exceeds the standards of cul-de-sac for Title 21, and that would potentially could require a property owner subdividing the lot to apply for a subdivision variance rather than connecting through to Alluvial Street and providing a secondary connection.

For this, the applicant has failed to substantially meet the requirement that without a doubt, the right-of-way is clearly in excess of all future needs. Staff finds 3 and 4, it does not lie in the half-mile or quarter-mile grid. Criteria number 5, Shawn Street provides access to the remaining lots north of the subject properties. Granting the vacation could have an impact on traffic circulation in the future by eliminating a through-design connection rather than a dead-end street, which could impede traffic circulation and accommodation of emergency response vehicles. Future subdivision of the property to the north could result in the applicant's need to obtain a variance from subdivision standards and limit the option of accessing Shawn Street.

Criteria 6: This vacation will not result in realignment of any existing right-of-way. Staff finds that the potential for the right-of-way to be developed as a through loop takes away the same beginning and end points with the vacation. There is still— as stated, there is still potential for residential growth from lots to the north. However, if Lots 79 and 80 are both rezoned to a commercial district in the future, municipal reviewing agencies stated they would not be supportive of commercial access via Shawn Street and would at that time be supportive of right-of-way vacation. Traffic Engineering has stated in their comments that MOA Traffic agrees that commercial activity should not be routed via the residential zoned area, and at that time of development, any commercial access would be directed to Birchwood Spur directly.

The applicant then has failed to substantially meet many of the vacation policy standards. Private development, right-of-way, Eagle River Street maintenance, and the municipal traffic department stated there is an objection to the vacation and that the right-of-way may be needed in the future. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this vacation. To kind of circle back with what, uh, as the Planning Board, um, you guys have seen many plats come in with variance is the cul-de-sac length. And we'll see through some of the comments and through the testimony that, yes, some of the section line— it would be a straight line— would be less than 900 feet.

But as you've seen with subdivision plots— and we don't know what kind of development, there's no design yet— the road could curve, end in a cul-de-sac or anything like that. That could result in a variance to the cul-de-sac length. It just comes down to that the municipality does not believe that it— Shawn Street is in excess municipal need at this time. Uh, Mike Walters with, uh, Right-of-Way is here, and we can answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you for that presentation. I'd kind of like to hand the floor to Mr. Walters if you have anything else to add to that, or No, I think Sean stated it pretty clearly. Um, this is to me is a clear question. Getting rid of this Sean Street that was dedicated when these flats were done, all the stuff to the north is all residential and has not even begun to be developed, and taking this away would create extra burden on somebody to take it out further out to the Birchwood Loop, Birchwood Spur. So at this point, we just do not think it's advisable to get rid of it.

Thank you. I am curious, just with all these supplemental comments that were issued, if that has changed your opinion on any of your original findings or anything.

Well, it was a, you know, and that applies to both of you.

Well, Jonathan asked that one question. Jonathan Lang asked if it is rezoned, then I would change my opinion of it. But right now, there is nothing before anywhere to do a rezone. It's all still residential. There's no actions that I'm aware of at this time.

Uh, Mr. Chair, yes, staff finds even with the, with the comments, um, that this is residential zone land and we would, uh, it's not proven that it's in excess and there's potential that, you know, that the municipality would in the future have to acquire right away at the, at the the cost or with no subdivisions on the northern lots proposed. We just don't know what's going to be built or even in the future. You know, back in the '80s, this was required to be dedicated, and it hasn't been built since then. But we don't know, you know, in the future what may be built for residential.

Thanks for those responses. Any questions of staff? Mr. Murka, your mic's hot. Um, in the event that, uh, Property 79 and 80 were developed, I can see on page 30 of our packet that there is right-of-way along the north ends of 81, 80, and then it turns along 79. I'm curious at what point of development, let's say, of, of any one of those lots— 81, 80, or 79— whose responsibility would it be and whose decision would it be to improve Shawn Street?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Burke, are you talking residential development? Yes, since they're already— since they're already zoned that way, let's only— let's only refer to it as that, right? If, if a combination, you know, of all three came in with a subdivision design, um, well, of course, the, uh, the petitioner, the developer, would have to design— would have to build the road.

And that would be to municipal standards and municipal requirements at that time, correct? Yes, that's correct. That's correct. And does it make any difference, uh, or, or how would it work given that these right-of-ways that we're speaking of are 30 and 30, so 60 feet, and it appears that the right-of-way on Lot 80 is a 50-foot right-of-way? How does that line up?

Well, I'll let Right-of-Way answer as well, but there's kind of two things. So those are those right-of-way reserves there. However, with a subdivision, as you know, they could come in in the middle with a road or any design of road. So they would be— just like the plats you see, they would have to be dedicating 60 feet. It wouldn't necessarily have to be within those right-of-way reserves.

But if somebody wanted just one You know, one person— they wanted to subdivide into 2 lots or something or 3 lots, and they wanted to follow that. It's 50 feet. The official streets and highways plan calls for 50 to 60 feet for a local street. It could be developed within that. I can let Mike Walters add to it.

These were platted as BLM patent. And those 50-foot right-of-way reserves are set aside for future roads, drainage, telephone, communications. But we don't necessarily need the whole 50 feet. It just depends on what kind of road is going to be there. So local roads will be 30 and 30 on each side.

If it's going to be a collector, we need a little bit more. I do not see a collector going in that area. It's just too short of an area and it's residential. So potentially the people— only thing will be used would be 30 foot of that 50, and that other rest of it would revert back to the property owners. And if someone— if, if those property owners of, of 8180 and 79 decided that they wanted to, you know, come forward with a subdivision plan, that subdivision plan can include Shawn Street or it cannot include Shawn Street, is that correct?

That that whatever they present is considered, either direction? That is correct.

They could, you know, taking a look at page 30 of the plat, if let's say 79 just wanted to subdivide that into the southern half of it, rather than coming, as Mike Walters alluded to, rather than coming all the way from Birchwood Spur, they could come up Shawn Street there. It just goes back to we don't— there's no subdivision design. These are unsubdivided parcels, so we don't know if it would be— if the right-of-way would be utilized or not at this point. All right, thank you.

Would the municipality accept a road and 50 feet of right-of-way? Like, could you, or would that have to be a private drive? No, the municipality could accept a road and 50 feet. As I stated, the OSHMP calls for 50 to 60 feet. So these would be— if it's just a local rural Class B road, it's going to be 22 feet of pavement.

We need 30 feet. So you've got pavement and shoulders and a little bit of snow storage. But that's plenty of right-of-way.

What other questions do we have? Mr. Jones, anything? Yes, thank you. I do have a question. I guess more so I would like to confirm for the record if— yeah, because I can see that a lot of the concern here is if lots 79 and 80 go to a commercial use.

So I want to just confirm for the record, if the house that's on 80 got removed and the gaming hall decided to pave that, can you please confirm that a parking lot is not permitted use under this residential zoning district. That is correct, Mr. Jones. You're correct. It's not a— that's commercial and not residential. And as all the agencies stated, if those properties decided to rezone and go through the rezone process to commercial, then all the agencies stated that we could come back to the Planning Board.

They would be agreeable to vacating Shawn Street if all that gets rezoned. Because, uh, the municipal traffic department does not want commercial traffic going through residential.

Perfect. Okay, thank you for confirming. But we're not at that point at this time. It's still residential, and that's why we're saying it's not an excess municipal need because we don't know at this point.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, we will move on to the petitioner's presentation.

Good evening, members of the board, staff, and the attending public. I'm Jonathan Lang of Lang and Associates Incorporated, and I am appearing here tonight as the representative of petitioners Julie Jorlette and Sean and Lori Barnett.

Oh yeah, it is already up there. Great, thanks, Lori. Through this platting action, we are proposing to create 2 new lots with the vacation of the unconstructed Shawn Street right-of-way.

This subdivision plat and right-of-way vacation—. Mr. Lynch, sorry to cut you off, can you just hold on for one second?

Can you stop the timer, please?

Mr. Jones and Miss Sarah Catherine Bryan, just giving you guys a heads up that they— the petitioner, the presenter has a PowerPoint that they are showing us right now. Um, I don't know if you guys can pull that up, but I just want to make sure that you're able to see what he is talking about.

Please continue. Sorry. If you could just start over, that'd be awesome. I was kind of distracted by this. No worries.

Thank you. Uh, again, good evening, members of the board, staff, and the attending public. I'm Jonathan Lang from Lang and Associates Incorporated, and I'm appearing here tonight as the representative of petitioners Julie Jorlette and Sean and Lori Barnett. Through this platting action, we're proposing to create 2 new lots with the vacation of the unconstructed Sean Street right-of-way. This subdivision plat and right-of-way vacation request are in response to the Native Village of Eklutna's recent acquisition of lots 79, 80, and 82 which are shown here in orange.

The Shawn Street right-of-way ends at the south property line of Lots 79 and 80 at the center of the green triangle. Lots 64, 66, and 67, shown here in red, bounded with the blue dashed line, are the lots where the Native Village of Eklutna has constructed and operates the Chinnin Gaming Hall.

Looking at the area's zoning, we need to consider the current land uses. The lots shown in orange along Birchwood Spur Road are zoned CEA, I-1 Light Industrial. The lots shown in green are zoned CER6 Low Density Residential, and the lots shown in red are also zoned CER6 Low Density Residential. Portion of these lots are currently paved and are being used as parking for the Chinnin Gaming Hall.

We disagree with the conclusions in the staff report based on the following: we are not denying the adjacent property owners of any rights of access by vacating Shawn Street. The staff report states the vacation would be detrimental to the future needs of the public in that it may be needed to provide access to the residential zone lots to the north. The Shawn Street right-of-way, shown here hatched red, could be used to access these properties, but as we have shown, there is both legal and buildable access for these lots via the 50-foot patent right-of-way reservations, shown here hatched in green. These reservations are of sufficient width that no road improvements would be impeded and there would not be a need to reacquire the Shawn Street right-of-way.

We agree with the staff report that vacating the Shawn Street right-of-way takes away the option to develop Shawn Street as part of a loop from Alluvial to Birchwood Spur. By necessity, the loop being suggested would use the 50-foot patent right-of-way reservations, and this loop would run between the gaming hall and the commercial development along Birchwood Spur Road. In their comments on pages 35 through 39 of the staff report, Eagle River Street maintenance, traffic engineering, right-of-way, and private development all agree that they would not support commercial access to Lots 79 and 80 via the Shawn Street right-of-way. This loop would create the scenario we are trying to avoid by allowing commercial traffic the option to drive through the residential neighborhood. The staff report suggests that there could be a need for a variance for cul-de-sac length longer than 900 feet.

Peters Creek is approximately 970 feet from the edge of Birchwood Spur Road along the north side of these lots. A cul-de-sac in this location would no long— would not be longer than 870 feet in order to preserve the 50-foot streamside setback and 50-foot repair-in-use zones required by code from Peters Creek. The staff report also notes that Lots 79 and 80 could be developed as 4 1-acre lots. The most logical point for a cul-de-sac along the north side of 79 and 80 would be at the corner common to these lots, approximately 670 feet from the edge of Birchwood Spur Road. Substantially less than the 900 feet required for a variance.

To be clear, this could not be subdivided into more than 4 lots under the current zoning. The staff report also states that traffic engineering, right-of-way, and private development have concluded that the potential for residential growth outweighs the probability of commercial development in this location. Today we received a site plan that was sent to contractors last summer for the construction of of the permanent gaming hall on Lots 64, 66, and 67. These plans do not show any development on Lots 79 and 80. These plans do show ingress and egress from the gaming hall parking lot onto Lot 80.

For this access to be viable, a road or driveway will need to be built across Lots 80 and 81. The probability of commercial development seems a lot more probable if you consider this site plan. The letter from the Native Village of Eklutna's legal counsel objecting to this vacation states that the appropriate time to evaluate traffic circulation and access is when a development application is before the municipality. We would agree with them, but the Native Village of Eklutna has so far developed their properties without presenting any development applications to the municipality. The Native Village of Eklutna has also paved portions of the property zoned residential, CER-6, and they are using this residential zoned area as parking for their commercial gaming hall in violation of the zoning code.

We ask the board to consider adopting the following findings based on the information that we have provided. Number 1, both legal and buildable access is available to the adjacent properties. Therefore, the Shawn Street right-of-way is in excess of municipal need. Number 2, vacation of the Shawn Street right-of-way is not detrimental to the public welfare and does not preclude any road improvements necessary to development of the adjacent properties. Therefore, the Shawn Street right-of-way is in excess of municipal need.

Number 3, while traffic circulation is desirable, construction of a loop in this location is inappropriate and would allow commercial traffic access through a residential neighborhood. Therefore, the vacation of the Shawn Street right-of-way will protect the integrity of the Alluvial Street neighborhood by eliminating the possibility of commercial traffic accessing the neighborhood. We respectfully request that you approve this plat as submitted with the vacation of the Shawn Street right-of-way. And Mr. Barnett has a letter that he would like to read into the record.

Thanks, John. Um, my name is Sean Barnett and my wife is Lori, the blonde lady back here, and we have owned the property for close to 50 years. The late '70s, I petitioned to subdivide Lot 83 in half and vacate the easement. Then the planning board granted the subdivision with the following conditions: The conditions were I would have to upgrade Alluvial Street. They also granted 20 feet off the easements.

I ask that Shawn Street be vacated for the following reasons. We do not want the potential for commercial traffic driving down Alluvial Street. Alluvial Street is a residential area— safe, quiet, peaceful. Sean Street has never been developed. It is currently my driveway.

This easement is currently being used for a driveway and a fenced yard. The two lots to the north of 83A and B, 84A and B, have legal dedicated access from the north side. The reserve can be accessed— access to lots 79, 80. This will keep potential commercial traffic out of the Alluvial Street neighborhood. Many of the residents that live on Alluvial Street use the street to ride bikes, walk their leash dogs, and just safely go for a walk.

My wife is an avid bike rider and has noticed the traffic on North Birchwood has increased substantially. She feels less safe than before. Eklutna and Marnell have not been transparent about their intentions. They are not receptive to our requests for information about their intentions. We fear they may try to use lots 79 and 80 for commercial purposes.

Twice, Marnell Real Estate has entered into a contract to buy my home and not followed through. And after the contract expired, they refused to give back the earnest money.

Lori and I both worked for the Municipality of Anchorage for many years. Lori as a volunteer Chugiak fire dispatcher for 11 years and Anchorage School District for 22. Myself, I've been a Chugiak volunteer firefighter and an Anchorage fireman for 27 years. We have been good stewards of the land by keeping it clean and not cluttered. Our beautiful home is in excellent shape and is our pride and joy.

The planning board— planning departments need to step up and do the right thing. Keep commercial traffic away from residential areas. The right thing is to grant the vacation of Shawn Street and save our neighborhood. Thank you. And we would like to reserve the remainder of our time for rebuttal.

Thank you. You have 50 seconds left. Thank you.

Uh, do we have any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Mirka, the petitioner has, um, uh, brought up another question that I have for staff, if that's okay. Go ahead.

In I'm wondering if this scenario is at all possible. If the owners of Lot 81, 80, and 79 came up with a residential plan to put in a loop, paved the loop, let's say it was approved, they were going to move forward with residential plans, put in the road on Shawn Street and whatever else was included in that plan, and then decided they wanted to rezone, would they have the ability to do that after Shawn Street had been developed?

Through the chair, so be— if they just threw a platting action, they came in, or is this just a— the platting act, so they would have to do a notice of utilization to improve the, uh, the, the easement, um, And that would, that would be looked at. Um, Mike might know a little bit more about notice of utilization, but, uh, yeah, if they came in and then built a road, uh, that's a substantial cost with no plat. Um, I believe we'd, we'd usually— that's associated with a plat. Um, and then they would have to rezone it and go through that whole process and go to the plans zoning assembly, which could ask questions, but, um Yes, they could.

That's all the question I have. Thank you, Mr. Mirka. Anybody else?

Mr. Jones? I do have a— I do have a question for staff. Um, so following up on the question, um, that I asked earlier, um, after the initial presentation, looking at the plat that was provided, um, it looks like similar to what Mr. Lang had mentioned, that Lot 67, which is also zoned CR-6 residential, is currently being used as a parking lot. So with that concern, I can see why the petitioners would have concerns of Lot 80 and Lot 79 having the same, um, you know, outcome if there was no penalties or ramifications from keeping the gaming hall from just turning those into parking lots. So is there anything being happened— happening currently against the gaming hall for using Lot 67 in a way that's not permitted currently?

Is there some sort of action that zoning is dealing with on that, or is there some sort of correction that they have to do to make that, or is there some future, you know, commercial zoning application that they're doing, or is there anything going on with that currently? Uh, thank you, Mr. Jones. Um, there's no, uh, commercial— there's no rezone application into the planning department. Um, however, I— we don't— we don't— we didn't check. Um, there might be a land use enforcement action against them.

There may be a case ongoing. Um, that's something we didn't get comments provided to us about. Uh, there may be an active case or there may not be. That I don't know.

Yeah, because to, you know, I mean, I can understand the petitioner's concern that in this, if this is something that, yes, it's not a permitted use, they shouldn't be doing it. But if they're doing it and there's no ramifications for it, then, you know, to the point that that's, that's obviously an area of concern then, um, if there's no one following up on this and checking to make sure that these things don't get used in a way that's not permitted.

Oh, thank you, Miss Jones. Yeah, that's a land use enforcement. Um, the Planning Department is not aware, but we'd also— we're not into the enforcement side of land use.

Uh, I have another question that I'd like to, to direct towards more of the petitioner or, uh, petitioner's representative. So as it sits right now, I'm looking at an aerial view the house that is on Lot 80 appears to get its access, um, really its driveway is somehow running through the gaming hall parking lot, which is obviously not a, uh, seems like a— wouldn't be a good option for residential, you know, access to be through another development regardless of whether or not there's an access agreement in place. Obviously that's just kind of an odd arrangement. So, by, by removing the Sean Street, if those stay as residential and lot, say, lot 79 is, is, uh, is developed with just a residential house or something in the future, that seems like a very odd way to access the properties. So, is that— I mean, obviously that's nothing that you're concerned with.

I mean, that seems to me from a safety and also, I guess, more of a value perspective of them, it's kind of, you know, you're cutting away a very attractive access point off of Shawn Street for residential development. Um, and kind of, I guess, doing the neighborly thing would be to allow them to have access there if they developed it, versus having to cut through a gaming hall's parking lot to get to your house. It doesn't seem like a good way of accessing it if you could access off the street instead. Well, through the chair, Mr. Jones, so, um, if we look at, uh, If we look at page 9 of the staff report, I believe you're speaking to the house that's at the very northern portion of that. So we got the aerial view, and you can see a house there, and then a line off to the— we'll call it the left, which is the west.

And then we turn to page 30 of the staff report, and you can see that that would be Lot 80, and then you can see the driveway, the unnamed— it's called an unnamed road that cuts across 83A and 82. That is a driveway, and then there's some— there's, I think, Mr. Lang, and once I'm done, he can allude to it, too. There might be some sort of access agreement across those. That's Lot 80, just so we know which lots we're talking about. And they could access Shawn Street if they did a utilization and improvement.

I'll go ahead and let the petitioner's representative speak to this as well. But just so everyone knows, I believe— and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Jones— but we're talking about the house that's on Lot 80 there, which is the— you can see it in the aerial view on page 9 to the north. Yeah, and with the tree cover, it was hard to, to see exactly where. So, so I see now that on page 30 that that unnamed road must be their driveway access then for 80, not through the, not through the current 50-foot right-of-way preserve that runs through 81. That's correct.

Okay, because, because what runs through Lot 81 is— that's a commercial property, and looking at the plat, that's, that's Zone CD. So that's, that's a commercial development property, right? Lot 81? Yes. Okay, so that's where Lot 80's true access should be coming from and not this unnamed driveway road thing that cuts through Lot 82 and 83A, right?

It's their physical access now, yes. The legal access could be through the— yeah, through the section line, or I mean, not the section line, but the right-of-way reserve.

Through the chair, Mr. Jones. Yes, that is correct. The house that's on Lot 80 currently has what would be potentially a prescriptive rights easement access that crosses Lot 83A. And crosses Lot 82. So that would be physical access to the property, but again, their legal access is either through that right-of-way reservation on the north side or from Shawn Street.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Jones. Ms. Mills. My question's for staff as well.

The parcel, Lot 80, it's owned by the Native Village of Eklutna. So is there— this is— and it might be a little bit out of our purview, but, you know, considering what I do for a living, I'm kind of questioning whether or not, like, the municipality would be able to make any determination on what a Native association can do with their land. So is there anything in code or Title 21 that I was missing in regards to a Native village owning parcels?

Uh, through the chair, um, Ms. Mills, I think there's two different owners, uh, between where the— what was called the gaming hall in the red there, and then what the orange that we see on the screen Those are, I believe, two different owners, two different entities, the Klutna and— well, I'll let the petitioner— but the way it's in the CAMA system, which is the city's appraisal system, is George Ondola for the red, and then I believe it was Klutna for the orange. So they are two different, and there's various— it's not really purview to the plat today, but there's various ongoing issues with that, as you know. Yeah, I'm not trying to get outside of our purview. It's just we need to be specific about what we're looking at, and it's what is here, not what is there, right? So that's why I'm kind of just—.

Correct. The planning staff is saying it's residential land to the north. That's what we're looking at tonight. Through the chair, Ms. Mills, if I can also speak to your comment. Lots 80 and 82 were both patented from the federal government directly to citizens.

They were never owned by any natives. The gaming hall land is an original native allotment, so I believe that it has those tribal rights, which is how they were able to through the federal system developed the gaming hall facility on that property. Lot 79, I believe, was an original Native allotment. I don't know if it ever passed into private hands. At that point, it would lose the dignity of a Native allotment legally, but it is currently owned by the Native Village of Eklutna, just as Lots 80 and 83 are.

So, or '82. So they— what the rights and interests are, we don't know. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for those questions.

Any other questions?

This is Catherine Bryan. Anything?

No, thank you. Mr. Jones?

Nothing additional currently. Now, as I say that, I guess there's one kind of kicking around here. So you're saying that, Mr. Lang, can you clarify that Lot 79 you don't think has passed into someone else's hands, so there might be some certain Native allotment benefits entitled to that property, but Lot 80 had a house on it, so I assume that that doesn't meet the criteria.

Through the chair, yes, I believe that's a correct assessment. I'm not, I'm not certain if Lot 79 has any, any native rights. I'm not an attorney. That's not my purview. Sure.

With, I guess, building on Ms. Mills' comment, so would that allow them to do something different? It might be more directed towards staff. Would that allow them to have more flexibility in how they use their land without having to go through you know, the typical application processes for, say, like, you know, using a residential lot for parking lot purposes or something like that?

Through the chair, my understanding is that for the gaming hall, they went through a federal process for all of their approvals, and if Lot 79 does have the same dignity of a native allotment, they would have— they would be allowed to follow the same process that they followed previously.

Okay, looking at your, your plat doesn't— obviously we don't see— I just see the lots that are named gaming hall or gaming hall parking lot. So it doesn't look like there's a real effective communication between, like, Lot 66. It's got the gaming hall sitting on it, and then Lot 79. So if Lot 80 doesn't have the same criteria, it's not like you could pave Lot 79 and have a easy to access path to go to the existing parking lot of the gaming hall without somehow cutting through Lot 80, which doesn't have the same protections. Am I gathering that correctly?

Through the Chair, I believe that's correct, but as was previously expressed, there's a concern that they're going to do what they want without any sort of public input, and we're uncertain whether or not there's a zoning access action against them currently for using residential land that they've paved and are using for commercial parking currently on— can't see the lot numbers, they're too small— 67 and 65, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you. And at this time, we're going to open it up to public testimony. Please come up to the podium, state and spell your name for the record, and please make sure to identify if you are presenting on behalf of any special group.

Sir, if you could turn your mic on, there should be a little button at the bottom. And John can, John can help you out.

Good evening, Planning Board. My name is Brian Hall. My property is on Lot 85, catty-corner from Lot 79 and 80, or Lot 79. My understanding is I have 3 minutes to speak, is that correct? That's correct.

Okay, so I'd like to address some things rather quickly here. Number one, I guess I'd kind of the elephant in the room here tonight, and that is because what I'd like to speak about is the potential development of the gaming hall that would expand in the event that it is approved. And the reason why I think this whole mechanism from Sean to get the vacation on Sean Street is to get ahead of this whole situation, because in the eventuality that it does happen and that casino is developed The eventual— eventuality of Lots 82, Lot 80, Lot 79 being taken into trust at that time, if that casino development is approved, is a possibility and an eventuality. So at that point in time, the city has zero jurisdiction over those properties. Nothing.

You cannot do anything about it. You cannot say anything about it. They can develop those properties any way they want. It's another country, okay? That is why we are here tonight, to get ahead of that and to give the vacation on Shawn Street so that we don't end up dealing with that in the eventuality that that does happen.

So that's— this is what I'm trying to open you folks' eyes up to here tonight. Is that that will be an uncontrolled situation, and then the vacation of Shawn Street will become a separate and larger issue. So if you want a bigger issue going down the road, if this gaming hall does get developed, that's what's going to happen. If you want to deal with it when it's low-hanging fruit and it's not going to take resources and time and years of a fight, then now is the time. To stop this and vacate Shawn Street for the benefit of residents who have lived in this community for 50 years.

That should have some precedent, and I'm begging you to see that clearly, even though we are coloring outside of the lines here a little bit tonight because we're asking for something that the city is clearly not seeing with all their guidelines. And it is being refused from 3 separate departments, there's something else that's going on here, and you need to be aware of that. So if this gaming hall is developed, this is what you're going to see. You're going to see us battling something different as residents, okay? And I don't want to see that, and I'm here tonight to try and appeal to you to change your view and look at this a little different way.

I've already made my comments to the planning board online through your website. And with that, I'll close. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for that testimony. Anybody else, please come up if you want to testify.

Please state and spell your name for the record and say if you're a part of any group.

Good evening, members of the planning board. My name is Michael Schechter. I'm an attorney at Ashburn and Mason, and I represent the Native Village of Eklutna. My spelling of my last name is S-C-H-E-C-H-T-E-R. Sir, can you hold on for one second?

Uh, sir, I'm just going to read through the, uh, instructions on where you kind of classify and how much time you're given. One second.

Okay, yeah, your representative, you have 5 minutes. Thank you.

First, the Native Village of Eklutna agrees with the staff report and the recommendation of denial. We're not going to belabor that point. The staff analysis is thorough. It covers the law and the guidelines of the city in terms of dealing with street vacations. We don't think it's necessary to belabor and repeat that.

The applicant and their representative, they spend a lot of time speculating about what the Native Village of Klutna might do in the future, what they could do in the future. All of those things. Lots 79 and 80 are owned by the Native Village of Eklutna. They were bought in the open market.

They hired me. I'm a land use and real estate attorney, among other things that I do. I'm not a Native rights attorney.

There's a reason for that. The Native Village of Eklutna is trying to figure out what to do with those parcels. The plans for the gaming hall, as everybody is well aware, are up in the air. And they're not up for debate here right now. We don't know what's going to happen up there.

If Sean Street is vacated, then the village's ability to get a return on the investment of their property as residential use is diminished and destroyed, which is contrary to what the applicant themselves wanted to do with the street when they subdivided the property themselves 40 years ago. And through a number of neighbors all to the north, owning— different people owning Lots 79 and 80 over the years. This has never come up, and now it has come up. Now, the Native Village of Eklutna has an agreement with the folks who have the native allotments on the properties in red to the north, but those are different properties from Lots 79 and 80. And what we're asking is that the Planning Board respect the staff report And understand that a significant Title 21 process will come to bear if the Native Village of Eklutna comes through to say, we would like Lot 79, 80 rezoned to do something else.

And that is the process that will have to be gone through. And the discussion of the entire street grid, traffic, access will happen. And the folks, the applicants, the other folks here speaking on their behalf, Just as the Native Village of Eklutna got a postcard about this application, they will get the same thing, and they will have the ability to testify and bring their concerns to bear on what— where traffic should go. And as we already know, we— the Native Village of Eklutna has a pretty good heads up that there's a lot of, um, I think unanimity amongst the departments, um, that review this within the planning department to say this is not how Shawn Street should be used for commercial uses. We understand that, and the planning that goes forward, um, we'll take that into consideration, and that will have to be discussed if and when somebody brings that application forward, if the native— if the Village brings that application forward.

So examining Shawn Street in isolation will lead to less than optimal development in the city as we know, has occurred across the city, across the Anchorage Bowl, for the entire history of Anchorage. So we ask you not to look at this in isolation. If and when there is something to discuss, the, the Planning and Zoning Board and the Assembly will be the appropriate forums to discuss that. Right now, this is residential property, and it deserves to have the access that was granted to, granted to it by the subdivision that occurred to the south 40 years ago.

I'd also like to point out that the application spends a lot of time on purchase offers and discussion of Marnell and the folks in the gaming company.

That seems really inappropriate for a platting application, and it speaks to some of the things that you've heard tonight, which are could, maybe, should, would, might— those words all speak to what land use and planning attorneys call generalized community harm, and that is not an appropriate basis for a decision. As the staff report is outlined for you, the appropriate basis for a decision are the guidelines and whether or not John Street is surplus to the city's needs right now as the land use zoning for the area provides. We'd ask you to follow the staff's recommendation, deny the vacation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

Anyone on the phone?

Can you speak to some of the— I mean, there have been concerns about special rights and being able to kind of develop these parcels in a silo. Can you speak to that at all? Sure. The—. Again, I was hired for a reason.

Um, the Lots 79 and 80 are lots that were purchased by the Native Village of Eklutna on the open market. The concern about land-into-trust in particular— is everybody familiar with that concept? I can say what it is briefly. But basically it's the idea that Native lands, allotments in particular, other certain village and corporation lands can be placed into trust and basically create a reservation or Indian Country in Alaska. Originally The idea was that wasn't supposed to be part of the deal of ANCSA and how Native rights were, were determined in Alaska.

We're supposed to have something different. Land-Into-Trust has been a movement among Native groups in Alaska to, to have exactly that, to have that land placed into trust. Right now, the current, the current federal administration has said no, and it's gone back and forth for the last 15, 20 years. Between different administrations saying yes, uh, Native lands in Alaska can be placed into trust, no, they can't be placed into trust. So right now, the Native Village of Eklutna owns that property the same as any other property owner would.

If they would like to do something different on it, they have to come to the city and get it rezoned. Um, since I have a little bit of time left, I'll, I'll go back to a previous point I should have made, which is The ramification for the activities on the red parcels is land use enforcement. The Planning Board's purview is not to punish other property owners or related property owners for things that are happening on the red parcels by punishing the orange parcels, right? We have to look at each of these things individually. If there should be land use enforcement on the red parcels, then people should seek out land use enforcement on the red parcels.

It doesn't change people's rights on other properties where the enforcement actions aren't taking place. Thank you. Do we have any other questions?

Hearing none. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else wishing to testify, please come on up and please state and spell your name for the record.

You will have 3 minutes.

Is it on? It's on. Okay. My name is Marilyn Sarvela. I live— my husband and I live on Alluvial Street since 1975.

Sorry, can you just spell your name for Arthur? Okay. Last name Sarvela, S-A-R-V-E-L-A. And just a couple little points to address from our conversations here in that why we're concerned, like Brian had mentioned, The Lot 80, I believe it is, when the Kohler family sold that to the Native Village of Eklutna with the Marnell check, it was a big surprise to all of us. There was no— we didn't know.

It was kind of by an accident we found out. Since the time of that purchase, which I believe is about a year and a half ago now, on Lot 80. There, the house has been used as storage. There's been equipment going there and operating during the middle of the night. The owner, Julie Jarlette, on Lot 2 of the— by the easement, keeping her up at night.

And those are the kinds things that we're seeing that it's supposed to be residential, it's not being treated as residential. It is a storage place. It is— they're operating heavy equipment that works off of the casino gaming area. So that's why we're really worried about how the rules are followed and not followed and who they— who the rules are really being upheld by and who. So that's why we're concerned.

We are— have lost faith in the people that are supposed to be protecting us and making sure that if we're going to follow the rules, then we're hoping other people follow the rules. And they're not. On Lot 79, that's been an open lot for a long time— I mean, for decades. We've lived there since '75, and one person was going to buy it many years ago, but they would have to put a street through. It's too expensive, so it's been residential, the lots that were the green lots there.

So that's why we really like to encourage you to agree to vacate these lots. We see a problem coming down the road. And we're living there, we hear it, we see it, we're dealing with the traffic, we're dealing with the garbage, we're dealing with the alcohol bottles that are thrown in the ditch because they can't drink in the casino, so they drink out into the parking lot and then go in, but they throw them in the ditch. So those are the things we're seeing. Seeing.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify? I did have a question, um, for the last testimony. Um, I do appreciate your testimony and did want to just ask, have you or any of your neighbors that you're aware of submitted any formal complaints to the city regarding the, the use of the Lot 80 for commercial purposes or anything like that?

We, we have called— I think it's 311, I don't know, I can't remember what the phone number is— whenever there's a noise complaint. I, I can't remember the phone number that we're supposed to call when there's a noise complaint, and it was really bad when they were first clearing the 6.5 acres. So, but yeah, we have filed. Okay, thank you. And with Police Department too.

So thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify?

Uh, do we have phone testimony?

Hi, I can't come to my phone right now. Please leave your name and number and I'll call you back as soon as I can. Thanks.

We can try one more time.

Hello? Hello, am I speaking with Tiffany? This is Tiffany. Yes, this is the Planning Board calling for public testimony in case S1287. 60.

Are you testifying as an individual or a group? Individual. Okay, you will have 3 minutes to testify. Uh, please state your full name for the record and spell your last name, and then you can begin your testimony. Okay, it's Tiffany Loafman.

T-I-F-F-A-N-I. Loafman is L-O-U-G-H-M-A-N.

You can begin. And okay, and I wish to express my support for vacating the proposed Shawn Street right-of-way. Based on the information currently available, the creation of this roadway would not provide any access to any existing residential properties, nor does it appear to serve a demonstrated public need. Proceeding with construction under these circumstances would place an unnecessarily unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers without offering a corresponding community benefit. Additionally, the intended future use of the surrounding land has not yet been authorized or is legally determined.

Advancing a new street prior to the completion of proper land use approvals would be premature and could create avoidable complications. For future planning decisions. For these reasons, I actually support vacating the Sean Street proposal, at least until such a time as it has— has been clear, justified public purpose established.

That's my testimony. Thank you. Do we have any questions of the testifier?

Seeing none, thank you for calling in. Thank you.

With that, that concludes the public testimony. I'm going to close the public hearing. Oh, sorry, uh, my bad, Jonathan, you have 50 seconds of rebuttal. We almost closed.

Uh, thank you. Um, as, as you've heard, there's a lot of fear, there's a lot of uncertainty, there hasn't been a lot of transparency with the development that's happened so far. So again, I'd like you to consider adopting the following findings based on the information we've provided. Both legal and buildable access is available to the adjacent properties, therefore Shawn Street is an excessive municipal need. Vacation of the Shawn Street right-of-way is not detrimental to the public welfare and does not preclude any road improvements necessary to develop the adjacent properties.

And while traffic circulation is desirable, construction of a loop in this location is inappropriate and would allow commercial traffic access through a residential neighborhood. Therefore, the vacation of the Shawn Street right-of-way will protect the integrity of the Alluvial Street neighborhood by eliminating— eliminating the possibility of commercial traffic accessing the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Now I would like to close the public testimony.

The matter rests with the board. I do have one additional question for staff, if you wouldn't mind. Sorry, Chair, we're going to open it back up again. Apologies. Uh, uh, staff, one last question.

So let's just say Lot 7980, uh, worst case scenario happens, they pave this lot, they put in an access road down Shawn Street to Alluvial Street with no no permission, no permits, no nothing, they started using that. Is there anything— obviously that wouldn't be correct by the way this should be done, but would there be anything that would prevent the petitioners from coming forward at that later time if this does happen and saying we're going to do the same thing again because all these concerns have proven true and they're now using it the way that they didn't want to use it? There's no— like, once they do it, there is no oh, they're using it now, so now we can't take it away, right? They would be permitted to be able to come through and remove the access at that time. They could fence their properties and completely get rid of Shawn Street if it became an issue.

Could you confirm that?

This is Mike Walters with Right-of-Way. I'll answer that question. They will not be able to come down through Shawn Street because it is a municipal asset. It's a dedicated public place that belongs to the municipality. Um, Right-of-Way is the permitter and the permitting authority for right-of-way, and any work in that right-of-way, anything they want to do in it, they would have to come to this department first.

And then I can— sure. But what I do think that the concern at hand is that things have happened maybe without, you know, the proper procedures, or, or however the— whatever the circumstances might be. It seems like maybe things have been happening, um, just without maybe the proper procedure, I guess, the best way to describe it. So again, development of that right-of-way You know, could potentially happen the same way. Obviously, it wouldn't be permitted that way.

It wouldn't be acceptable to do that, but I can see that that would be the petitioner's concern, would be something like that is done. So that's, I guess, the question that I have at hand is anything that happens on Lot 79, 80, if it goes towards the realm of commercial, these petitioners would be able to come back at a later date and say, okay, now we're going to do this. And there's nothing that would preclude them from being able to do that, right? If we say no tonight, they can still come forward and do this later, I guess, is the best way to ask the question. That is correct.

That, that's what was stated, and it was stated if it was rezoned to, uh, commercial, then, um, then the agencies would be amenable to vacating that right away. But that's, I guess, that's different from the question that I'm asking. What I want to ask is if nothing changes other than the residential lots start being used in a commercial way. If we say no tonight, nothing else changes, I guess, in the way that the application is looking. Those lots are still residential.

But if they need to come forward and say, hey, now they're actually using these as parking lots, you know, the zoning action is not helping, whatever, you know, whatever situation might be coming there, can we then— is there— because we said, if we say no, can they come back at a later date? And, and look at this again, or if we say no and those don't change to commercial lots, this is, this is dead, I guess. Can you confirm the process of that if this is—. Depending on how this goes tonight, the applicant come back at a later date and request to vacate the right-of-way? So to answer your question, okay, thank you.

Okay, so this can be brought back up. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Ms. Mills. I just have, uh, one quick thing, um, because listening to people's comments, I just wanted to make sure that everybody's got access to the proper contact numbers for code enforcement.

Do you happen to have an email list or something that you can send these wonderful people so if there's things happening on property that's disturbing them or being used, they can contact the proper department? If they go to the municipal website Right on that front page, down on the right side, it's called Anchor Works. That's the easy way to go into and submit a complaint. Wonderful, thank you. Thank you, Miss Mills.

Are there any final questions? I'm just going to let it sit for 5 seconds.

All right, with that, we are going to close the public testimony. The matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion?

Move by Ms. Mills. Um, apologies, I do want to ask, would this be a situation that it might be beneficial to go into committee as a whole? Um, if there's any favor with that, I'd like to put both put forth a motion to do that. I didn't hear your question. Can you repeat it?

Yeah, I was curious if this might be a situation, Chair, where we want to go into committee as a whole and have just some dialogue on it to see how the various members are feeling before we move to, to vote.

We can after we get a second.

Oh, and now a motion and then a second.

Moved by Miss Mills, second by Mr. Mirka.

If there's no objections, we are in committee of the whole.

Uh, appreciate that, Sharon and other board members, for, uh for doing that. So I guess I'll start off. I do share the petitioner's concern. Absolutely. I can see that this could be very challenging.

Obviously, when there's commercial development near residential, you know, these kind of challenges can come up, and it is very challenging. The issue that I have at hand, though, is that, you know, these lots are owned now by the Native Village of Eklutna, but without true development happening, these lots could be turned back over to other, um, you know, just residential property owners if they choose to decide, you know, in a few years, oh, you know, we actually don't want these, we don't need those. Uh, maybe the rezone process is something that we're not going to do. We don't need the parking, we don't need, you know, whatever the situation might be. I'm concerned by removing that Sean Street access that we could be hindering that future development and access to those lots because, as I mentioned earlier to, uh, 1 of the testifiers, I'm concerned that, you know, right now as Lots 79 and 80 sit, they only have really legal access through that right-of-way reserve, which kind of cuts right through the parking lot of the, the, um, gaming hall the way it looks.

So obviously that wouldn't be advantageous access. So I feel like by forcing them to go that way, you kind of limit those forever being used residentially because who would want to cut through a parking lot of the of a commercial organization to get to their property. Um, so anyway, I just kind of wanted to throw my thoughts out there before we started going into motions.

Those are good comments. Mr. Murka? Um, I, uh, as, as usually happens, I have gone back and forth all day on this as I read it, and then of course as we've listened to lots of testimony. Um, it, it is actually my belief, as I, as I study this out in my mind, that if 79 and 80 are ever subdivided residentially, I, I think it was already pointed out that those could only be subdivided into 1-acre lots. So we're only talking about 4 individual lots on this particular set of land.

I'm not a developer. I'm just kind of looking at some lines on a map here, and most likely, if someone's going to develop lot 80 and 79, they're probably not going to use access or to go to the expense of upgrading Shawn Street. Just throwing that out there. It's kind of my own thought.

I could go as far to say that Shawn Street, in my opinion, is in excess of municipal need, given that 80 and 79 can easily be developed and replatted and made to be for residential lots and have access without any issue and without any need for Shawn Street.

With that said, I can also see that if these were not owned by the Native Village of Okloutna and they were just privately owned, that perhaps residential development in the future would be more likely and somebody would come up with a great plan to use Shawn Street. So I've kind of got two perspectives here, and I think I lean towards the first, that 79 and 80 could easily be developed with the patented right-of-ways that are already on these plats or drawing them some other way. They're, they're commonly owned, and that Shawn Street could be vacated without any issue whatsoever, and the municipality will be no worse off, in my own opinion. So those are my thoughts. Ms. Mills, I would just like— because we're in committee of the whole, I'll just say that we have to review what is in front of us.

Not what if. It— like, we don't know. We don't know what plans are. We don't know if there's going to be— we don't know anything because it's not in front of us. It hasn't been reviewed by staff.

It hasn't been submitted to the planning department. There is no plan. There is no nothing. So how do we base a decision on something that we don't know? Like, that's just— it's unfair to both parties.

I just don't think that we should put ourselves in that kind of predicament. If there is an application in front of us, it's in front of us, we'll review it. If it's not in front of us, we can't guess. Um, that's all I have to say. Thank you, Miss Mills.

Miss Mills' comments are kind of how I view this as well. I mean, it's, it's tough, but I've been really consistent from my time on this board about just reviewing what is directly in front of us and, and trying to hold it to the standards as best I can.

My only hesitation is just what you've all spoke to on your, your problems to date with, um, these properties being treated differently. But, um, yeah, is there anybody else wishing to add comments in Committee of the Whole?

Yeah, I'll jump, I'll jump back in. Yeah. And because that's leaning back towards, I think, what, uh, you know, building on Ms. Mills' comments there, if there's a, uh, a rezone action against 79 and 80, um, where they're looking to develop those to be commercial properties for use as parking expansion there, I feel like there would be a lot of things that would trigger the ability for, for Shawn Street to be removed and for that risk to be mitigated. Obviously, as you see in our packets, all of the departments that had comments on this were— would be in favor of Sean Street being removed if that action happened. So I feel like either through that, that platting action of this— okay, now this, this is being commercially zoned— that plat would have to go forward.

In that case, they could also be putting a plat note— a plat note on that flat saying, you know, access to Shawn Street is not, you know, allowed to where— I mean, it's, it's— I feel like it could also be triggered that way through that commercial action or through that lighting action. Not only that, but, you know, this thing could come again and not— I guess not be needed because that access is, it's just not available to them, um, any other way, uh, which would then make this, you know, resubmission, you know, obviously, um, a lot easier to do in the future. So I'm still going back to, again, what others said, where looking at what's presented in front of us right now is a residential lot. I feel like we are taking possible access away, um, but in the future, if they're turned to be commercial, then I think that's a different, different case, uh, different use, and we have a different set of criteria to go off of with that.

Thanks, Mr. Jones. Anybody else wishing to speak freely? I'm, I'm going to jump in briefly, and I appreciate going into committee because I don't think this is necessarily appropriate to incorporate into our factual findings, but an application, a request to this board that is admittedly speculative strikes me as a misuse of the application process, and I, I fall more on the side of Ms. Mills and the chair in saying we have to look at what's before us, not, um, again, speculative, not speculation about what may happen or what might strike some people as likely and terrible in the future.

Thank you for those comments. Anybody else, or should we make a— can somebody make a motion to move out of the Committee of the Whole?

Move by Miss Ploy, seconded by Mr. Mirka.

Okay, no objections, we are out. Is there anybody wishing to, um, actually— okay, we're back to the original motion, which was moved by Miss Okay, motion's back on the floor if anybody would like to move it.

The original motion went away, so if the original maker of the motion— okay. Move by Ms. Mills, second by Mr. Murka. Ms. Mills, can you state your motion? I'm moving Case S12860 to approve the vacation elimination of a 60-foot right-of-way between existing Lots 83B Alluvial Subdivision and Lot 1 Mint Subdivision for Shawn Street, subject to the conditions shown on page 6 of the staff report. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes. Um, after reviewing the staff report, agency comments, and the application materials, I find the request in case S12860 does not meet the standards of the municipal vacation policy under Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the staff report and agency comments. The Shawn Street right-of-way was dedicated to provide future access to properties north of the subject site, and the applicant has not demonstrated that the right-of-way is clearly surplus to municipal needs. Evidence in the record indicates that the right-of-way may be required to provide access and maintain circulation for adjacent residential properties.

Several municipal agencies including Right-of-Way Section, Traffic Engineering, Private Development, and Eagle River Street Maintenance have objected to the proposed vacation due to concerns about future access and connectivity. Because the applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating that the right-of-way is unnecessary and the vacation would maintain or enhance circulation, I do not intend to support the motion to approve this case.

Thank you, Ms. Mills. Mr. Murca, would you like to speak to your second?

Yes. As I look at all of the conditions, there's 6 of them in front of us, I can probably get as far to say that Condition 1, in my opinion, has been met and Condition 2. The one that is the hardest is Condition 5, which states, in all cases, it must be proven that the remaining property in the area can be adequately served and the traffic circulation is enhanced by the vacation of the right-of-way. I cannot get all the way on that particular condition, so I will be voting no on this motion so that it does not pass.

Thank you, Mr. Murka. Anybody else wishing to add findings?

I can jump in here. Uh, I would like to thank Ms. Mills and Mr. Murka for their for their comments. I don't really have anything additionally to add. I think those are summarized nicely. The question I did want to ask, just more for procedurally, is, is the vote at hand— the department's recommendation is a denial.

So with the motion at hand, if— do we agree with staff, so we're voting yes, or are we voting no to say that we're not allowing this to pass? I just want to clarify what, what the vote is if the answer is a no to this action.

Yeah, it's a deposit, so if you vote against it, if you vote no, then it fails the, the vacation of the—. I assumed as much. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you for the clarification, Chair.

Anybody else wishing to add findings?

So do I have to— I would add the finding that, um, as clarified by staff, a parking lot on this residential property is not a permitted use. I would also add the finding that if this is rezoned to commercial, we would be able to look at this at a different time, and access to Shawn Street could be limited through other means, whether it be a plat note on that commercial action or through a later removal that was supported by the various departments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Let's call the vote.

Mr. Jones, how do you vote? No. Thank you. Miss Bryan? No.

Thank you.

With that, the motion fails.

And we have a second vote— or we have another motion.

Anybody wishing to move this motion?

Moved by Ms. Mills, second by Mr. Murca. Ms. Mills, can you state your motion? I move in case S12860 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to conditions 1, 2, A and B, and 3 shown on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report.

Would you like to speak to your motion? I'm just mirror everything I said for the first original motion. Thank you, Miss Mills. Mr. Mirka, nothing additional, no. Thank you.

Uh, does anybody wish to add findings here?

Hearing none, let's call it.

Mr. Jones, how do you vote? No. Ms. Bryan? No. Thank you.

With that, the motion fails.

Thank you everyone for coming out, um, and we're going to move on to case S12876. Maybe we have staff's presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a preliminary plat for S-12876, which is Commercial Park subdivision, and this is to subdivide 2 lots into two lots and vacate the right-of-way between the lots, as well as small portion of right-of-way and a telephone/electric easement along the eastern boundary of proposed Lot 1A1. So this is the final step that will allow the owner to potentially develop the property as a hotel. There were two previous plat and actions that have combined lots and configured the subdivision of the final design of these two lots shown on the preliminary plat.

It has been a few years in the making for them. They didn't own all the property at first, and we recommended, hey, come in and vacate these little alleyways and pieces, but they hadn't acquired it yet. So they kind of went through these multiple subdivisions that have been recorded. But now that they've acquired it all and they have a development, they're here tonight to go ahead and prepare it all and clean it up. So each proposed lot meets the minimum lot size of the B-3 zoning district.

No road improvements and dedications are required. This is over off Fairbank Street and 40th Avenue, a big vacant lot right there. So we're vacating a 20-foot right-of-way between existing Lots 9A and 1A, a 10-foot right-of-way along the eastern property boundary of existing Lot 1A, and a 10-foot T&E that runs along the eastern boundary of existing Lot 1A, which they'll have to rededicate T&E through this plan in action. So in the criteria, staff found that one has been met. The vacation will not deny any access for any property.

A 10-foot alley is not useful for vehicle circulation in this location. It's in the shape of an L. Staff finds two is met. The rights-of-way and easement to be vacated are not part of the official streets and highways plan. They're not necessary for any future street or future interior traffic traffic circulation. 3 And 4 are met.

It's not on the half-mile or quarter-mile grid. And number 5, vacation will not have any impact on traffic circulation. As I stated, the existing street network provides access to all the existing lots in the area, surrounding area. The vacated rightsway and easement will allow the development of the property without encumbering the design. As you can see, it kind of runs right through it.

And that same with criteria 6, agencies have expressed no objection to the request to to vacate the right-of-way and easement for the subject properties. And with that being said, staff finds the approval— recommends approval of the vacation of those two small right-of-ways and the T&E easement, and as well as the plat. So on page 6 is where we can see the department recommendation A and B. Thank you. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER STEINGASSER] Thank you for that presentation.

Do we have any questions of staff?

Seeing none, we are ready— or anyone on the phone?

Hearing none, we are ready for the petitioner's presentation. Before you start, I would like to apologize. I should have asked for a motion to reorder the agenda given how long that took. That was my error as chair. My apologies.

My name is Melissa Branch. I'm with Big City Engineers, and I'm actually—. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? Oh yeah, so Melissa, M-E-L-I-S-S-A Branch, B-R-A-N-C-H, and I'm a representative with Edge Survey and Design for Alaska Falcon. And I really don't have— as Sean stated, we have been working with the municipality for a really long time, Edge and I did the original platting in 2019, and we're trying to get all of this done then.

And, uh, so third time's a charm. So, uh, really just here to be present and to answer any questions you may have. So thank you. You have 9 minutes and 37 seconds of rebuttal time. And do we have any questions of the petitioner?

Um, okay, then we're going to open it up to the public testimony. I wouldn't go too far. Is there anyone on the phone? Okay, there's no one on the phone. There's nobody here.

Uh, if you want to say something, you've got all the time in the world. Okay. Um, do we have any final questions?

All right, we're going to close the public testimony. Do we have a motion? What's the will of the body?

Moved by Mr. Mirka, second by Ms. Mills. Mr. Mirka, can you state your motion? I move in case S12876 to approve the vacation, the elimination of a 20-foot right-of-way between existing lots 9A and 1A :10-foot right-of-way along the eastern property boundary of existing Lot 1A, and a 10-foot T&E easement along the eastern boundary of the existing Lot 1A, subject to the conditions shown on page 6 of the staff report. Thank you. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Certainly. Uh, super grateful for this very simple case after the last one. All conditions appear to be met. Uh, no one has reason to not plow this right forward. So I'll be supporting the motion.

Ms. Mills, would you like to speak to your second? Sure. Um, after reviewing staff report, and there's, you know, all the agencies report, the reviewing agencies, um, nobody had any, anything negative to say. Um, nobody had any sort of, you know, comments or anything. There's no public comment, no community council issue.

Thank you for finishing up the plat, building up Anchorage. This is— it's great. Right-of-way easements proposed for the vacation are interior alleyways. They're not part of the official streets and highway plans, not on the quarter-mile locate— you know, half-mile grid. And because the municipal reviewing agencies have not objected to the proposed replot of the vacations and the subdivision is consistent with B-3 zoning, District and the Tudor Road commercial corridor land use designation.

So I intend to support the motion. Thank you, Ms. Mills. Anybody else wishing to add findings? I'm not going to let it sit too long.

I would just add that the community meeting was in support of this, as well as the neighbor of Flog Nack wrote a nice letter of support as well. I intend to support the motion, and I'm excited to see this get built. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Real quick, anything else? Okay, let's call it.

Mr. Jones, how do you vote? Yes. Miss Bryan? Yes. Thank you.

And with that, it passes.

One more. Oh, um, yeah, we need a motion for the plat as well.

Moved by Mr. Mirka, second by Miss Ploy. Mr. Mirka, can you state your motion? I move in case S12876 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to conditions 1 and 2, A through C, and 3A and B as shown on page 5 of the staff report. Would you like to speak to your motion? Don't take too much time.

Nothing additional. Uh, Miss Ploy, would you like to speak to your second?

No, no, I'm okay. I'm good with everyone else. Oh, sorry, actually I didn't ask if— or yeah, I did ask you if you want to speak to it. Um, anybody wishing to add findings here?

Hearing none, what's the Will the body—.

Mr. Jones, how do you vote? Yes. Miss Bryan? Yes. Thank you.

With that, it passes. That might be one of our quickest cases ever.

Uh, moving on to annual election of officers. Would anybody want to make a Motion to nominate chair and vice chair or retain the current officers.

I move to retain the current officers. I second that.

Moved by Mr. Murca— uh, do I need to say all that?

Moved by Mr. Mirka, second by Ms. Ploy. Um, yeah, Mr. Mirka, do you want to—. I, I said that with a question mark kind of at the end, just making sure, you know, both you guys still want to do what you do and all that good stuff. But I, I think you're both amazing, so be happy to have you as chair and vice chair again.

And I agree, I think you guys do a great job.

Thank you for that. I won't speak for, for Mr. Jones, but, uh, I will say that it's, it's interesting being chair, um, because you're supposed to speak last and, uh, you're kind of supposed to let everybody else talk. You can dig in with staff early on, and, uh, I, I never wanted to be chair. Of this board when I first started because I felt that I had a lot of, a lot of stuff to add to the conversation and I wanted to engage more in the dialogue. And, um, anymore, by the time it gets to me, I, I just don't have a tremendous amount to add.

I, I like— I, I honestly don't. I mean, this— I feel like this board is strong. And, uh, I mean, this was an odd situation because we didn't have an interim vice chair. I probably should have pointed one and then I could have spoke to it because I couldn't hand the gavel over. But, um, I feel good doing this because you're kind of just like the, the, the police in this job.

You're just, just kind of running things. And I just don't— I've always said that the chair is not the most powerful person on these boards. The most powerful person is whoever makes the motion and gets to speak to it first. That's the most powerful person on any of these municipal boards, in my opinion. Um, but I don't feel the need to do that because you guys just kind of take the words out of my mouth.

And then I don't like— I mean, well, that right now is not a great example, but I don't like to talk just to hear myself talk. So, um, I'm good with that. Mr. Jones, what do you think?

Yeah, absolutely. I'm, I'm more than happy to continue serving as vice chair. I think you do a great job, Mr. Quinn, as chair. So I'm I'm happy to continue with it, and I appreciate the support.

Anybody else wanting to speak to this?

What's the will of the body?

Mr. Jones, how do you vote? Yes. Miss Bryan? Yes. Thank you.

Officers are retained.

Do we have a motion to adjourn? Or actually, sorry, do we have any member comments?

Okay, do we have a motion to adjourn?

Sure, it's on there now. Move by Miss Mills, second by Mr. Mirko. We're adjourned.

Thank you, Pat and Sir Catherine. I hope you feel better. Kyle and I race. I don't have to wait for the button because I'm like, well, okay, you have it. At 8:22.

It was one of the toughest.

Let's go round and spin it. Oh, say I'm not very lucky if they owe me something. Let's go round and spin it. Oh, I'm so very lost. Oh, things hadn't gone my way.

I've been on both lows and the grass is.