2026-10-08 - Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals

00:31municipality of Anchorage

00:33Zoning Board of Examiners and

00:34Appeals meeting of October 8th

00:352026.

00:36>> Well, secretary please call

00:37the roll.

00:38>> Now Im. Okay. Here, Brian

00:42Bennett here, Craig Bennett

00:43here, Jason Norris here easily

00:45here, Christopher shooting

00:47here under our goal. Jonathan

00:51laying and John Le Carre

00:52excuse you have a crime. Thank

00:53you. Thank you.

00:55>> Next item on the agenda are

00:56minutes. We have. Minutes for

01:00September. 10th 2026. They

01:02have a positive motion.

01:02Please. Mr. Lee moves. Are

01:16there any? is start shooting,

01:25moved. Ainslie seconded. Are

01:32there any corrections to the

01:33minutes? Seeing none. Any

01:39opposition to approval of the

01:40minutes. Seeing none. The

01:47minutes are approved by

01:48unanimous consent. And the

01:53next item is a special order

01:54of business. Executive

01:56sessions disclosures. Are

01:57there any disclosures this

01:57evening? The board members?

02:03Moving on the consent agenda.

02:09On the consent agenda. We have

02:102 resolutions for approval.

02:12They have a positive motion.

02:13Please.

02:23>> second.

02:28>> Second, you Mark Minds

02:30Frozen 2

03:01move again. Marc

03:04moved Should a second. That

03:13anyone wish to remove any of

03:14the items on the consent

03:15agenda for further discussion.

03:23Is there any opposition to

03:24approval of the consent

03:24agenda? And the consent agenda

03:29is approved? Passes by

03:32unanimous consent. It's not

03:36large. She Next item is

03:49parents requests. We don't

03:49have any appearance requests.

03:52Unfinished business. No

03:54unfinished business. Nothing

03:55on the regular agenda. Which

03:57brings us to public hearings.

04:00Case. 2026 Dash 0, 1, 2, 5,

04:10Petitioner is Alaska.

04:10Serendipity LLC. Well, the

04:20staff please describe the

04:21notice given in this case.

04:24Point of order, did you want

04:25to? Give

04:28>> minutes? They have to

04:28speak. To the chair on

04:41September 14th, 2026, a total

04:42of 164 public hearing notices

04:44were mailed in accordance with

04:45the procedures of AMC. 21 0,

04:473, 0, 2, 0 h notice. 8 public

04:52comments have been received.

04:53The Girdwood Board of

04:54Supervisors provided comments

04:55on this case found in your

04:56supplementary packing number

04:57one.

05:00>> Are there any objections to

05:01the sufficiency of notice in

05:02this case? Seeing none. Will

05:10this staff please present the

05:11case? Thank you. Madam Chair.

05:15The applicant is requesting

05:18three-dimensional variances

05:18one AMC. 21 0, 7,

05:20>> 0, 2, 0. Be 9 table. 21 0,

05:237, dash one minimum stream

05:26setback with her side to allow

05:28the existing structure with

05:30proposed addition. Tim Crouch,

05:314.5 feet in the proposed

05:32detached garage with an EDU,

05:35Tim Crouch, 14 feet into the

05:3725 foot side. 25 foot stream

05:41setback. Number 02:00AM, C 21.

05:440, 7, 0, 2, 0, be 9 Little d

05:46Roman Numeral 3 streamside

05:50zone to allow foot bridge to

05:51cross the stream and variants

05:52number 03:00AM, C 21. 0, 9, 0,

05:566, 0, be table. 21 0, 9 dash 5

05:59table dimensional standards.

06:01Goodwood residential districts

06:03to allow proposed detached

06:04garage with to you to encroach

06:085 feet into the into the side

06:08and front setback. There's a

06:13listed 4th variance request

06:14listed on the application for

06:2021, 1, 3, 0, 4, 5, This is the

06:21nonconforming section of code

06:23related to structures

06:23encroaching into the

06:24streamside zone. There's no

06:25variance for nonconforming.

06:28Structures. It already has a

06:30nonconforming, determination

06:33the property was developed in

06:361975. Before municipal

06:36protection setbacks existed.

06:38Stream setback requirements

06:40were later established through

06:4285. 57 in May 1985. creating a

06:4625 foot setback from the

06:47ordinary high water line

06:49because the original structure

06:50was built prior to this

06:51regulation. The owner obtained

06:53a nonconforming determination

06:53to legally recognize the

06:55existing encroachments into

06:56the stream and site setbacks.

06:59This determination ensures the

07:00owner can reconstruct the

07:02building while maintaining

07:03compliance with title. 21

07:03regarding nonconforming

07:05structures, the applicant

07:06purchased the property in

07:082021. with the intent to

07:10remodel and update the home

07:10during planning Signet

07:12significant structural

07:13instruction issues were

07:14discovered. The complete

07:15rebuilding of the existing

07:16structure became necessary as

07:18part of that process. The

07:19current has built survey

07:21result existing encroachments

07:22into both the stream and side

07:24setbacks. These encroachments

07:26recognized and legally

07:27validated under the

07:27nonconforming determination.

07:31The lot size location of the

07:32stream and the placement of

07:33the original 1975 structure,

07:35significant significantly

07:35limit available buildable

07:37area. The proposed homes

07:39reconstruction will will

07:39remain in the same location,

07:43Tomane to maintain compliance

07:43with the nonconforming rights

07:44and avoid creating new or

07:45additional stream impacts. The

07:48applicant designed the new

07:49edition is far away from the

07:50stream as possible while

07:51staying within all other

07:51required zoning setbacks.

07:53Although the original

07:54structure encroached into the

07:56site setback and a 10 foot

07:58utility easement along the

07:59East property line. The

07:59propose rebuild will eliminate

08:01these encroachments this

08:03corrective action reduces

08:04longstanding nonconforming

08:05issues and aligns more closely

08:06with the current zoning

08:07standards. The applicant

08:09proposes a detached garage

08:10with to you where the existing

08:11gravel pad is located within

08:12the southwest corner, the

08:15garage is intended to provide

08:16needed vehicle storage and

08:18housing support, which are

08:19common. Unexpected uses in the

08:20GR to district due to cite

08:23constraints. The garage cannot

08:24be placed outside all setback

08:24areas while still meeting

08:26reasonably reasonable design

08:27and safety standards. As a

08:29result encroachments into the

08:31front side and stream setbacks

08:32are necessary to accommodate a

08:33garage with to you. That is

08:34typical for the neighborhood

08:37to connect the updated main

08:39structure safely and

08:39efficiently to the proposed

08:40garage. The applicant proposes

08:41a small footbridge within the

08:43streamside zone. The bridge

08:44will be fully contained within

08:46the 25 foot setback and is

08:47required ensure adequate year

08:48and access between the 2

08:51structures in order for the

08:52Zoning Board of Examiners and

08:53Appeals to approve the

08:54variance. The estate with

08:58particular the the relief

08:58sought him a specified, the

08:59facts or circumstances that

09:00are alleged to show that the

09:02application substantially

09:03meets the following 8

09:03standards. is met for both 1,

09:092, 3, dispersal contains

09:10exceptional physical

09:12circumstances. That's

09:13significantly limit

09:14development options. The

09:16property has an average s****

09:17of approximately 6% in an

09:18unnamed stream that originates

09:19near the Northland Road at the

09:21southeast corner of the lot

09:23inflows Northwest by setting a

09:24substantial portion of the

09:26property because the stream

09:28runs directly through the

09:29site. The required stream

09:30prediction setbacks, reduce

09:31the use of Larry of this

09:31parcel. The presence of a

09:35stream traversing. The lot is

09:35an extraordinary physical

09:37condition that imposes

09:38constraints not commonly found

09:38throughout the zoning

09:40district. Well, some of their

09:41parcels in the district may

09:42have streams are similar.

09:44Natural features. This is not

09:45characteristic of the

09:47district. As a result, the

09:48physical circumstances

09:48affecting this property are

09:49exceptional and justly can

09:51justify consideration of the

09:52request of variance. Standard

09:56be variances. 1, 2, 3, are met

09:59the stream setback which

10:00bisects the parcel combined

10:01with the standard zoning

10:02setbacks applicable to the

10:04property, reduce the total

10:05bill. area, but more than 86%,

10:08these constraints limit what

10:09type and size and structure

10:10can be accommodated. These

10:13combined physical

10:14circumstances create an

10:15exceptional and undue hardship

10:15for the property owner without

10:18relief, strict application of

10:19the code would effectively

10:19prohibit the applicant from

10:21constructing a home in

10:22associated accessory,

10:22structures in a manner

10:24consistent with what is

10:26commonly permitted and enjoyed

10:26by other properties within the

10:27same zoning district as such

10:30the request of variances are

10:31necessary to allow a

10:32reasonable use of the property

10:34commonly joined by other

10:34properties within the same

10:35zoning district. Standard. See

10:38variances, 1, 2, 3 are met.

10:41The physical hardship

10:42experienced on this property

10:43is not self-imposed location

10:43of the Stream Channel is

10:46entirely outside the control.

10:46The property owner and its

10:48alignment across the lot

10:49severely limits the available

10:50space for redevelopment. The

10:52street by 6, the person, the

10:54way that restricts

10:54construction options for both

10:56the single-family dwelling and

10:56the proposed detached garage

10:57with an ad you the applicants

11:01actions have not created the

11:03special conditions, the

11:03constraints that right solely

11:04from the natural placement of

11:05the stream and the useful

11:06stream protection setbacks.

11:09Although the applicant has

11:10rented the home to incorporate

11:12Rock River rep wrapping gravel

11:13to stabilize the building pad

11:16measures taken in response to

11:16past flooding and structural

11:18undermining these efforts to

11:19not create hardship. Instead,

11:20they address preexisting

11:24environmental challenges while

11:25the detached garage with an

11:2580, you could be moved

11:27slightly closer to the front

11:28property line to reduce the

11:29stream setback. Encroachment

11:30doing so would increase

11:31encroachment into the front

11:32setback. He went beyond what

11:34is reasonable? Such a shift

11:36would not eliminate the

11:37hardship of merely transfer it

11:37from one setback to another.

11:40Additionally, the stream

11:41divides the person to 2

11:41distinct areas creating a

11:42physical access barrier to the

11:45northeast portion of the law

11:46without the proposed

11:46footbridge. Access to the area

11:49could only be obtained by

11:50crossing adjoining properties,

11:51which is not feasible. These

11:54conditions reflect true

11:55physical limitations, not

11:57inconvenience and support the

11:57conclusion that hardship is

11:58not of the applicants making.

12:03Standard E variances. 1, 2, 3,

12:04are met. The existing

12:05structure has encroached into

12:06the stream setback since its

12:06original construction in 1975.

12:09and the proposed redevelopment

12:10will reduce non can 40's

12:11rather than increase them. The

12:13removal of the east side

12:15setback, encroachment and the

12:16placement. The new addition

12:17entirely within the required

12:18setbacks ensures that the

12:19property to the east will not

12:20experience any adverse impact

12:21from the requested variance.

12:24Similarly, the proposed

12:26detached garage with an ad you

12:27encroachment along the West

12:27and South property lines.

12:29Well, not negatively affect

12:30the adjacent western parcel.

12:33The garage will maintain a 5

12:33foot separation from the

12:34Westside property line

12:36dimension consistent with

12:37standard setback. Allowances

12:39in the municipality of

12:40Anchorage maintaining this

12:42buffer ensures continued

12:43privacy, separation and

12:43compatibility with neighboring

12:45land uses. As a result, the

12:47request variances do not

12:48impair or diminish the

12:49permitted use of any adjacent

12:50properties. Standard E

12:53variances 1, 2, and 3 are met.

12:57This does not change the

12:57character of the zoning

12:58district and is not permitted.

12:59Use not otherwise permitted in

12:59the GR 2 zoning District.

13:01Standard F. Variances 1, 2, 3

13:06are meant to date. The

13:07existing encroachment has not

13:08created any adverse effects on

13:09the health safety or welfare

13:10of the community. There are,

13:12however, weather patterns and

13:13climactic events beyond the

13:14control. This property owner

13:16and beyond control all

13:17girdwood residence that may

13:18affect the flow of the stream

13:18and others in the area. Such a

13:22natural conditions can present

13:23potential impacts, but they

13:23are not caused or exacerbated.

13:25Biden requested variance. The

13:28proposed encroachment into the

13:29front side setback for the

13:30detached garage with did you

13:31does not present any known

13:32adverse effects on the help

13:34safety or welfare of the

13:34people. The municipality, the

13:37setback productions occur

13:38outside environmentally

13:39sensitive areas and no

13:41conditions have been

13:42identified. That would create

13:43a health safety or welfare

13:44impact to the people or the

13:44municipality. Standard is not

13:47applicable to variants. 1, 2,

13:503, ADA accommodations do not

13:51apply to single family

13:52residential development.

13:55Standard. H Vance is one in 2

13:56are partially met with

13:59creative design. The law could

14:00potentially comedy to single

14:02home single family home, a

14:03detached garage with an ad.

14:04You reducing encroachments

14:06into both the stream

14:07protection setback and the

14:07required building setbacks,

14:09such an alternative

14:10configuration could be

14:10achieved by decreasing over a

14:11building footprint. We're

14:13shifting structures or

14:14increasing the height.

14:18shifting searchers further

14:19from the stream protection

14:20setback paired with requesting

14:21variances to encroach into the

14:23building setbacks instead of

14:24Instead, this approach could

14:25reduce impacts the stream

14:28protection area and better

14:29preserve the hydraulic

14:31hydrologic ecological riparian

14:32vegetation and a static

14:33functions. That water courses

14:35provide. However, practical

14:36constraints, limit these

14:37options, the property contains

14:39existing 10 for utility

14:40easements along the North East

14:41and west boundaries. In

14:45addition, she got Electric

14:45association cea overhead power

14:47lines and polls are located

14:48within the easement from the

14:50north and east sides of the

14:52parcel these utility easements

14:54and power infrastructure

14:55significantly restrict the

14:56ability to relocate or

14:59redesign structures without

14:59creating new conflicts,

15:00conflicts of violating

15:01established easement limits as

15:03a result, although looks

15:04alternatives exist. And Perry,

15:06they're not feasible in

15:07practice to the physical and

15:08regulatory constraints present

15:09on the site. For standard

15:13variance. 3 is met. This is

15:14the minimum minimum variance

15:15that will allow the property

15:16owner to construct a proposed

15:18detached garage with to you,

15:19however, an increase in the

15:20front encroachment would

15:21reduce the stream setback.

15:22Encroachment for the

15:22structure. Review Natick

15:26Agency comments are included

15:27in attachment 3 starting on

15:29Page. 8 of the staff report

15:32Emily Watershed Management

15:32Services provided comments

15:33regarding the encroachment

15:34into the stream and the foot

15:35bridge crossing the stream.

15:38Therefore for variants one.

15:39The department finds that

15:41Standard H is partially met

15:42and be C D E F and G are met

15:48there for the department must

15:49recommend denial of the Vance

15:50if after public hearing the

15:51board finds that all 8

15:52approval criteria are met,

15:54approval should be subject to

15:56the following 2 conditions

15:59variance to the department

16:00finds that centered H is

16:02partially met and standards

16:03ABC, D E F and G are met.

16:06Therefore the department must

16:07recommend denial of the

16:08variance if after a public

16:09hearing the board finds it

16:10all, 8 approval criteria are

16:12met than the approval should

16:13be subject to the following.

16:142, 3, conditions. Vance, 3,

16:18the department finds that all

16:18its standards are met there

16:19for the department recommends

16:20approval of the variant

16:21subject to the following 2

16:22conditions. I can answer any

16:23questions that the board may

16:25have and the petitioner and

16:27the representative are in

16:27attendance.

16:31>> Are the questions staff by

16:32the board, Mr. Mosley.

16:35>> All right. Question chair,

16:37Mr. Mason, this for us. Thank

16:39you. I guess what

16:43>> cited procedural question.

16:45Our are we too approve or

16:48disapprove this application as

16:50a whole or are we allowed to

16:53divide the issues among the 3

16:54fit for variances? To the

16:58chair board member? Mainly due

16:59to actually, actually vote on

17:00all 3.

17:00>> They'll be separate votes

17:01for each each variance. Thank

17:02you. You're welcome.

17:05>> Mr. Bennett, Mr. Brian

17:06Bennett.

17:11>> First of all, thank you for

17:12sending me the reply to my

17:13question earlier. Expert

17:19expedited response. But I

17:20would like to know how the

17:22documented noncompliance

17:23influence is a grandfather for

17:24not following the same

17:25dimensions in the

17:25reconstruction. The note that

17:26you sent to me included a pair

17:28include a sentence which says

17:29the Structure is reconstructed

17:33with the same dimensions. And

17:34that's not happened here. As I

17:36understand the problem. That's

17:38the first of my questions.

17:42Would you like others and

17:42sense? Would you like to

17:43answer one of the time?

17:45>> If I may, would like to

17:45answer one of the time threw

17:47the chair, mister Brian

17:47Bennett.

17:50>> The existing structure

17:51encroaches.

17:53>> I do not have an actual

17:54dimension. Extensively and

17:59then the existing structure

17:59can be rebuilt due to the

18:02nonconforming determination.

18:06The addition of a very small.

18:10Square triangle, actually, if

18:12you turn to page. All right.

18:19Looking first drawing. No, it

18:24is on Page. 57 0, 4, I'm

18:33looking at it. Yes. So the

18:37only new part of the addition

18:38that is encroaching in the

18:38stream setback is that very

18:41tiny little triangle. It's got

18:43a different hatch pattern. I'm

18:44not sure if you can see that

18:44or not. That's what the 4 and

18:47a half foot encroachment for

18:48variants. One is for. Because

18:51the rest of the structure has

18:52nonconforming rights and is

18:54not considered encroaching,

18:57but it's not conforming only

18:58in the sense that if you

18:59reconstructed, you have to use

19:00the same dimensions.

19:01>> And they're not doing that.

19:05The petitioners not doing that

19:08understand it.

19:08>> Correct. They are using the

19:09existing.

19:14>> They're expanding on the

19:14existing facility, hence the

19:15need for the variance.

19:17>> For that portion, only.

19:27>> To answer that question to

19:28my colleagues are right. The

19:29use of the word and in the

19:31petitioners, various petitions

19:33for any of the what amounts to

19:34be. 32. Criteria standards. If

19:38any of those does not meet the

19:40standard 10, all of for

19:42because the use of the word

19:42and all of that. Variances

19:44must be declined. According to

19:49Robert's Rules of Order and

19:49Miriam Webster. When you take

19:52when you use the word and it's

19:55both were none. For all 3 or

19:58none. Actually in this case.

20:05So if any of any of the

20:06criteria are met with the

20:06denial. The whole thing goes

20:10down in flames. As I

20:11understand the word and

20:14>> I do not understand it that

20:15way. And given that the

20:18application has reference to

20:194, even though it's just 3 the

20:21applicant actually applied for

20:223 different variances.

20:25>> Robert's rules of Order

20:26Page 6, 56 7. They have an

20:30explanation of the difference

20:31is between him and and or

20:34minus the 10th Edition.

20:42>> Well, I appreciate Robert's

20:43rules of The application for a

20:45variance can have multiple.

20:47Portions and B. Approved or

20:51disapproved, which you which

20:52this board has done in the

20:53past. They've approved one

20:54port, one variants and not

20:55approved a second variance.

20:56When there was more than one

21:00>> But I'm not talking. But

21:00between variances of talking

21:01about within the first

21:02variance. The description is

21:03a. O for 2 to encroachments.

21:09correct. That's correct. 0.5

21:10feet and proposed crashed

21:11AirAsia. Yep. That is correct.

21:13So that would be that it still

21:14be the same variance.

21:16>> So if if you have a problem

21:17with any of the values for

21:19either of those 2 structures,

21:20plus a covered bridge, then

21:23the host cyst that whole

21:24variants must too

21:29>> That is correct. Well, the

21:29bridge itself is one variants

21:32the to encroachments of the 2

21:33structures in the stream

21:35setback or one variants and

21:35the front side setback. Irwin

21:38variance.

21:39>> But if you're climb the

21:39variance for the garage and

21:41the ad you then there's no

21:42need for the covered wagon for

21:42the covered bridge. you can

21:47can't establish a need. And

21:49there's no reason to approve

21:50variance for this covered

21:51bridge.

21:54>> No, you can still approve

21:55the variance for the bridge to

21:56the bridge would just be still

22:00access to even if that's too,

22:02if the once if the atu was not

22:03constructed, you'd still be

22:03able to construct the bridge.

22:04If you prove variance. So we

22:06would have a bridge to nowhere

22:07know you have a bridge from

22:09there.

22:10>> Current gravel parking area

22:11to existing structure.

22:17>> is already present on

22:17street. But not in the same

22:21place.

22:28>> Move on to another question

22:28here. What are the points of

22:33measurement for establishing

22:34the height of the structure?

22:37other words, is to peak of the

22:37roof?

22:41>> Threw the chair Mr. Brian

22:43Bennett, it's from grade to

22:43the midpoint. Some great to

22:46wear midpoint. The high to the

22:51building is meeting at the

22:51midpoint of it has meant it is

22:52measured the midpoint. Yes.

22:56Did you did you by chance to

22:57the email I sent out earlier?

22:58I did look at. For the X.

23:03>> I read the though that you

23:04sent to me. About differences

23:08and variances. Okay.

23:11>> There was another. There

23:13was an extreme Elsa now to the

23:14board members because one

23:15board member had a question

23:16exactly on that on with the

23:18height.

23:18>> Okay. So does that have OK,

23:19that

23:27>> Anybody want Mr. Craig

23:32Bennett. Couple

23:37clarifications. One is this

23:3930%. Max lot coverage in this

23:41area. Threw the chair. Get me

23:47one second, Mr. Brown and Mr.

23:48Treatment. think it is. But I

23:51from it. varies if it's larger

24:00than a certain size. That's

24:00the criteria. And then. Kind

24:06of in response to. Tony

24:11Bennett. 25 1% for lots larger

24:13than 15,000 square feet. 30%

24:15otherwise, OK, 30. So you're

24:16correct? Yes. Clarification

24:22too. The other been a

24:22question. This site, the area.

24:28That this building is

24:32streamside setbacks, the same

24:33shape except for the small

24:34triangle and its larger

24:37outside of the setback threw

24:38the Mr. Craig Bennett,

24:43correct. Assuming the existing

24:43encroachment is greater than

24:44the small addition,

24:48encroachment that they're

24:48proposing in this small corner

24:49and I'm sure they could

24:51probably design it out of it

24:53if they had to and still

24:54maintain the existing

24:55footprint and then stay

24:56outside of all the setbacks,

24:56UK. That's everything. Thank

24:59you. Thank I was going to

25:09reference page 69 of the

25:10packet. And I was looking at

25:14the elevation above ordinary

25:15high water mark.

25:17>> 4 feet, 7 and a half. On

25:22the lower right, site section

25:23bridge through the chair board

25:27member Norse. I am not 100%

25:28sure. And I will the fault

25:31too. The petitioner in the

25:33representative because they

25:34probably have bigger plans

25:35that. And probably know that

25:38exact get. And is that OK? But

25:42thank I hate to ask a super

25:44nerdy question here. do we

25:46know if that is outside of one

25:49percent flood level? Do we

25:50have a recurrence where that

25:52would back up the stream? I do

25:54not know the answer to that

25:55question. Understood that

25:58watershed did not provide

25:58anything. Reflect that it

26:01would be or wouldn't be. And

26:03they did do a site visit to

26:06the site. Yeah. So they went

26:07out and delineated and thank

26:18Just a quick clarification for

26:21staff or the petitioner since

26:22they have bigger plans set

26:26page. 45 of our packet is

26:28zeroed out one from the

26:30architects. It seems to

26:31indicate that the West, the

26:35utility easement located on

26:36the west edge of the property

26:37is vacated but throughout the

26:40staff packet, there are

26:42references to utility

26:42easements on all 3 sides, West

26:45North and east. Which is it is

26:47that is that. Is that correct?

26:52Paul threw the chair, Mr.

26:54Shooting 45. Is that super

26:58concept plan which actually

26:59even a different couple

26:59different encroachments which

27:01are not what they're building.

27:01So they eliminating the 5 foot

27:04encroachment into the

27:07Eastside. 10 foot utility

27:08easement. Concept actually

27:14showed them going all the way

27:14back to 10 feet. Rear setback

27:18and they change that to

27:19actually maintain the 15 foot

27:21rear setback. So there's no

27:23there's no variance needed for

27:23the rear. They were getting

27:25rid of The design was to

27:28eliminate that and I'm sure

27:29the representative can can

27:31talk about that a little bit

27:32more. I did want to point out

27:35there is part of code 4

27:39girdwood that's unique to

27:41girdwood. And I don't know if

27:41everybody, if all the board

27:42members know about it or not,

27:44and not that they're not

27:45necessarily doing this in this

27:47case. But you can switch. Your

27:51site setback. So currently in

27:52the GR to its a 10 foot side

27:54setback, you can. To 15 feet

27:58and 5. They're not necessary

28:03doing that. I'm just saying

28:04that's where that's where the

28:055 feet comes from for the atu

28:07because if they had 15 feet on

28:08the side, they could then have

28:10were not being an encroachment

28:12for the 5 feet on the West

28:13side. But because of stream

28:15and all that other stuff

28:19that's just for informational

28:19for everybody. In case you

28:20didn't know that one. thank

28:23you. actually, you you took

28:25the bus where I was going to

28:27drive it anyway, which asking

28:28that question. So

28:30>> you need to guard what is

28:31special limitations on

28:32accessory dwelling units over

28:33certain height when it comes

28:35to introducing flexibility in

28:37the side. Setbacks like that.

28:38You as you just described, how

28:41is that not the case in this

28:42property?

28:46>> Through the chairman's it's

28:47not just because the existing

28:47structure is right at that 10

28:48foot. And so they if they were

28:49to it. That could shift the

28:53main house because they be

28:54going more into the stream.

28:56They could reduce it somehow.

28:57I guess but that's not the

29:00current plan is its to

29:01eliminate the existing

29:02encroachment. And of the 10

29:06foot setback. Stay at 10 feet

29:07and ask for the 5 feet on the

29:08West side. So let me ask

29:13again, okay. They're asking

29:15for the 5 feet on the West

29:16Side. West side should be 10

29:19feet correct?

29:19>> Because the West Side is

29:20where the accessory dwelling

29:21unit is being built. Am I

29:25misunderstanding the girdwood

29:26section on would preclude them

29:29from taking advantage of the

29:30flexible side back side

29:32setback. Excuse me. And that

29:35for the rest of my body, I'm

29:38referring to and see 21. 0, 9,

29:400, 5. Those subsection 3 h to

29:472 or 3 items specific to any

29:48use and guard was very

29:49different from from Anchorage.

29:50But it it does specifically

29:53number one you shall not

29:54encroach into any required

29:57setback. And number 2 side and

29:59rear setback flexibility

30:00allowed table. 21. 0, 9 dash 5

30:02show that apply to accessory

30:02dwelling. It's taller than 15

30:04feet. And earlier question

30:05about height. So I get I guess

30:07my question is, is that not

30:10applicable here? And if not,

30:11why? Threw the chair? What

30:24part of code was that Mr?

30:25Shooting? Oh, boy. 21. 0, 9,

30:330, 5, 0, 5. I probably missed

30:36a letter in there somewhere. I

30:37apologize by 15 minutes off

30:38the top your head. It's the

30:40it's the chapter 9 section on

30:4180 use. there are 3 specific

30:50prohibitions or I guess

30:51constraints on 8 e U.

30:54Development and good with that

30:55are different than Anchorage.

30:59I think I'm missing a letter

31:00in there somewhere. Maybe it's

31:00H 3. could have a It's h

31:06setbacks in 80. You shall not

31:07encroach into any required

31:09setback. The side and rear

31:10setback flexibility allowed in

31:12the table shall not apply.

31:15Took 6 accessory units taller

31:16than 15 feet. So you are

31:18correct. So this wouldn't even

31:19apply. You wouldn't unless it

31:22was less than 15 feet tall,

31:23which we know it's not this.

31:25They would not be able to use

31:26the flexibility even if they

31:26had the 15 feet, which

31:29probably confusing everybody,

31:29which I'm sorry. So no, they

31:31would not be able to flex

31:32this. But I'm just it wasn't a

31:36city of flex that I was

31:37talking about. It was just

31:37that 5 feet is not an uncommon

31:38side. Setback. In Girdwood.

31:42Realizing they're not they

31:45don't have the option to make

31:46it that way. It's just not an

31:47uncommon thing in the girdwood

31:48area. Okay. Thank you that

31:50that helps. And just to put a

31:52bow on my line of questioning.

31:54So thank you for clarifying

31:56that. It was conceptual site

31:56plan. I was looking at that.

32:00It seems to document that

32:01they're going to encroach 5

32:01feet in that 10 foot side

32:03setback. But you're saying no,

32:04that was conceptual. They do

32:05not intend to. So this section

32:07of code specific to you then

32:08would not apply. To the chair.

32:12You're talking about the

32:15existing structure. Do you

32:15view the atu is still going to

32:16encroach 5 feet? What is yes,

32:21okay. But the existing a

32:23conceptual. Yes. Yeah. Just

32:23talking with the atu here. So

32:25okay. So I guess that's not a

32:26bow. Last one, I promise given

32:34the specific language used in

32:36that with section of code on

32:3780 use, what are we allowed to

32:40do? I mean, I my understanding

32:43is we don't have the authority

32:46necessarily to waive code and

32:47it seems pretty written pretty

32:48specifically to preclude an 80

32:52you in that site setback. So

32:53what are we able to do with

32:57that? Threw the chair Mister

32:58Xi. That's whether they need a

33:00variance that that okay. So we

33:01are able to correct. Thank You

33:01bet. Mr. Mason. Thank you to

33:11the chair. I just wanted to

33:12some clarification on my

33:13original question. Which was

33:16can we divide the question

33:18when we go to vote on this?

33:20>> In light of what Mike

33:23colleague, Mr. Burnett was Mr.

33:24Bennett was talking about.

33:27Which seemed to lean more

33:29toward. We have to approve the

33:30application as a whole or deny

33:32it as a whole. To the chair

33:36board actually, that is

33:39completely up to you. If you

33:40feel the chief want to amend

33:45or change the motion you can

33:48amend the motion or changed

33:49votes or by for Kate is

33:49actually what it's called

33:52Lowrie has that capability to

33:53hit The Buy for Kate Button

33:54right there in the thing. If

33:55you want to buy for Kate, any

33:57of these variances by any by

33:57any means. Thank Also the

34:04question of lot coverage was

34:05brought up. What is C?

34:09>> Actual lot coverage for for

34:12this proposal.

34:13>> Threw the chair board

34:14member Maisie. I will leave

34:14that up to the representative.

34:15I'm sure they have that

34:16number. At at their

34:20fingertips.

34:20>> And and you said that since

34:21the property is less than a

34:24certain square footage that

34:26the 25% would apply or the

34:2630%, 30%, 30%, yet.

34:35>> Anybody else? Any other

34:37questions for staff?

34:40>> Seeing none. We'll move on.

34:48Would the

34:48>> petitioner or the

34:49petitioners representative,

34:49please come forward. State

34:50your name for the record. And

34:54stomach.

35:00>> Hello, my name is Richard

35:01Todd Kessler and the one of

35:02the petitioners. move up. My

35:06name is Richard Todd cast and

35:07one of the petitioners.

35:11>> Hi, my name is Wendy Mail

35:12and I'm one the petitioners.

35:13Okay. Do you have any

35:15questions of staff? Not at

35:19this time. Okay. Then would

35:21you please present your case?

35:26Ok? So or so pardon have and

35:29stumble a little bit here. But

35:32so this is my wife, Wendy. His

35:36life-long Alaskan volunteer

35:37Alyeska ski club. What I'm

35:38skier at Alyeska my name is 37

35:44years in construction. I'm in

35:45vertical vertical in civil

35:46construction. The civil PM

35:49general contractor,

35:50environmental consultant,

35:52primarily and I respond to

35:53spill. Emergency response

35:56contaminated sites. Cleanup is

35:57my primary line of work. We

36:00have a family of 7. Our

36:01youngest is 7 years old. Our 2

36:05oldest children went through

36:05the mighty mites program at

36:06the Alyeska Ski Club. And our

36:082 youngest children are

36:09currently engaged in scheme

36:09program there as well. So what

36:13is the purpose of this

36:13construction? We want to

36:18establish a generational based

36:19for a family to live in ski

36:19and recreate. We want to

36:22upgrade aging housing. We want

36:25to continue provide affordable

36:27housing to local girdwood

36:29workers. We want to preserve

36:33stream setback and overall

36:34natural feature qualities to

36:35purposeful and minimal impact.

36:36Construction. The setback

36:41variance for this exists for

36:42the existing gravel parking

36:44lot would provide the least

36:45impact to the property and

36:46still provide local housing

36:48and reasonable commonly

36:48enjoyed rights. Inflicted a

36:52lot alternatives here and in

36:54one would be the use by right

36:55where we could install a

36:55covert over the stream and

36:59access via road. But we just

37:00didn't feel that that was

37:01appropriate to preserving the

37:02character of the of the lot.

37:06And one of our other purposes

37:09here as to contribute

37:10positively to the neighborhood

37:10to the community and to the

37:11municipality. And so we came

37:16up with the development

37:16strategy with are planning

37:17approach. We went to a

37:20thoughtful process considering

37:21many points. We want to

37:25preserve the acoustic visual

37:26environmental stream and

37:28property qualities. We want to

37:30preserve along affordable,

37:31long-term local housing before

37:32and after construction. We

37:36want to integrate with our

37:37neighbors and our

37:37neighborhood. We want to

37:40develop a family home plan

37:43that's for our current and for

37:44future generations. We want to

37:49utilize the most qualified

37:50architects and builders for

37:51design and construction of

37:53this project. We've used

37:55Willow Ridge construction for

37:56the initial design in our

37:57initial variance package in

37:592024. weve got personal past

38:01performance with their design

38:02and construction. That's going

38:04very well. And they have years

38:05of experience of building

38:06homes in Girdwood. They have

38:10construction techniques. They

38:11employ that such as low-impact

38:15sensitive Area Foundation's

38:16using both vehicle and driven

38:17piles, whichever work the best

38:20and then associated framing

38:21structures, which we tend to

38:21plan to employ. We also have

38:25brought on as the architects

38:26with Mark a long time. design

38:29firm. He's helping to this

38:31facilitate this plan. This

38:33proposal and to help us with

38:35variance process. And so we've

38:39considered lots alternate

38:40plans and approaches the EU

38:43itself has been revised 4

38:44times in conversations with

38:46watershed with the

38:47municipality to try to find

38:47the very best way to situate

38:49us the structure so and we

38:55also engage the municipality

38:55or Leon to work

38:56collaboratively plea with the

38:57variance process. We prepared

38:59and submitted the variance in

39:022024, we've received the staff

39:03report and we took those

39:05comments and we decided to

39:07revise our proposal and to

39:11resubmit. And so we spend a

39:12couple more years doing some

39:14real good. Thank you. We did

39:16present our initial design

39:17package to boss you see

39:20solicited public comment at

39:22that point on that, you boss

39:23had a litter of non objection

39:24following the meeting. We

39:28received comments and we

39:29reconfigured are conceptual

39:29plans after initial meetings

39:35we also invited watershed to

39:37come and look at the sidewalk

39:39it together. We've had

39:40numerous meetings and their

39:41office and at the site to talk

39:42about the ways that we can

39:44preserve that the integrity of

39:46the property and not affect

39:47any hydrologic processees and

39:50also allow that the

39:50construction to occur. And

39:52then we also we received the

39:56nonconforming determination

39:57for the House to be able to

39:58proceed. That's where we're

39:58doing here. And then we

40:02prepared and submitted the

40:052026 variance request and

40:07thereafter we went to it that

40:08pass me again presented are

40:09are project again and

40:11solicited public comment at

40:11that point. And then that

40:16that's kind of the history of

40:17what where we get. gets us to

40:20would like to talk about the

40:21staff report, the discussion

40:22specifically focusing on

40:24Standard H since the staff

40:27report voted in favor of all

40:28the other remaining standards.

40:31Just want to make sure that we

40:32clarify her a little bit. What

40:32some of the standards are and

40:35the the language is the

40:37variance. Granted is the

40:38minimum variance that will

40:38make possible a reasonable use

40:39of the land. And so the staff

40:42reporting indicates the

40:43standard is partially met. So

40:45with the variance request one.

40:49The garage in the ad, you

40:50would simply occupy the

40:51existing bill to parking area

40:54and would not require greater

40:56vegetation, modifications. So

40:58there's previously existing

40:59gravel parking lot. That is

41:02the same footprint that we

41:03would use for the atu. So

41:06we're not modifying any grade.

41:06No vegetation, nothing of

41:08that. And similarly not with

41:11the hydrologic There's nothing

41:13that would change with this

41:14design the U.S. tablets

41:19established function and

41:19footprint of the property is

41:21not being changed by this

41:21request. the staff report. A

41:26garage and housing are common

41:26and expected uses within the

41:28GR to district. The

41:30structures. The minimum size

41:33that we could find to

41:34facilitate a garage in an ad

41:35you. The to you is actually

41:39smaller than the existing

41:42house and going even smaller

41:43would reduce workforce housing

41:43space, even more. feel very

41:48strongly that are variance

41:51request as well. Reasoned

41:52practical, minimal in keeping

41:54with municipal code and

41:54watershed management

41:56objectives. Watershed

41:56management does not object. To

42:01the encroachment as long as

42:02all existing needed vegetation

42:03remaining between the gravel

42:04pad in the stream is preserved

42:06and the remaining stream

42:07setback or means vegetated,

42:08which is what we plan. So

42:20we've looked at this. We've

42:21talked with watershed and we

42:23we find that there's there's

42:24no appreciable hydrologic

42:25impact from this stream that

42:27would result from granting

42:28this variance. There's no

42:28construction that would go

42:31inside of what's not already

42:32used the stream is fed by a 16

42:38inch diameter culvert that

42:40enters from the northwest or

42:41from the southwest corner of

42:42the property through the under

42:45Northland Avenue, the maximum

42:47flow rate through 16, it's

42:48colder at easing Manning's

42:50equation is 4.2 cubic feet per

42:52second. So that's the maximum

42:53flow that could come through

42:54that COVID at any given time.

42:56If we look at the drawings

42:58cross Section 3, we can look

42:59at that. It would take about

43:0020 times the maximum flow to

43:02that covert to impact the

43:03structure in any way. In the

43:07event of flooding. We would be

43:08the first in line to suffer

43:09the consequences of reportedly

43:10decide structure, but we don't

43:11want to do and we do not want

43:14that to occur for us or any of

43:16our neighbors. And I would

43:20Hield not the rest of my time

43:21for rebuttal. have about 2

43:29minutes of rebuttal and I and

43:31I I did forget to do

43:34something. So. You get a

43:39little bit of leeway anyway. I

43:40was supposed just describe the

43:42procedure.

43:42>> For the public testimony. I

43:47apologize and the procedure by

43:48which the public may speak to

43:50the board at this meeting is

43:54after the staff presentation

43:55is complete on public hearing

43:56items. The chair will last for

43:56the applicant to state their

43:57case. She did it. The

44:01applicant, including all of

44:02his or her representatives has

44:0210 minutes for the

44:04presentation a reserve time

44:05for rebuttal at the end of the

44:07public hearing throughout the

44:09proceedings, the burden of

44:10proof rests upon the applicant

44:11must convince the board by a

44:12preponderance of evidence that

44:13that variant should be granted

44:17concurring voted of the

44:18majority of the fully

44:18constituted membership of the

44:20board. Minus those excused by

44:21conflicts of interest shall be

44:23required to grant a variance

44:26for the variance to be

44:26granted. All 8 standards must

44:27be substantially met on the

44:30conclusion of the applicants

44:32presentation, the board

44:34members and the staff made

44:36then direct questions to the

44:36applicant through the chair.

44:38The chair will then open the

44:39public hearing to public

44:40testimony on the issue,

44:43persons who wish to testify

44:44will follow time limits

44:45established in the rules of

44:47procedure. Representatives of

44:49groups, Community council's

44:52PGA's cetera, have 5 minutes

44:53and individuals have 3 minutes

44:55when your testimony is

44:56complete, you may be asked

44:57questions by the board. You

44:59may only testify once issue

45:01unless question by the board.

45:02Time is kept by the secretary.

45:05The display at the front will

45:06be green to within one minute

45:07of the time allowed and then

45:09turn yellow at this time. You

45:11should begin to sum up your

45:12testimony and at the end of

45:13the allowed time, the light

45:14will turn red and a tow most

45:15out. An individual may have

45:19appeal rights relating to any

45:19action. The board. The zoning

45:22Board of Examiners and Appeals

45:24takes the parties have 30 days

45:26from the date of mailing or

45:27other distribution of the

45:28decision to file an appeal to

45:29superior court. And sorry, any

45:35part affected center? Are

45:44there any questions? Of the

45:47applicant by the board

45:48members? Mr. Should. Thank

45:55you. First, I want to make

45:55sure can you all hear We've

45:57been having technical

45:58difficulties. I can't always

45:59hear out of the speaker, but

46:00if you can hear us, that's

46:01great.

46:02>> Also can talk very loudly.

46:05I wanted to ask a question

46:06about a statement you made

46:08towards the end about the

46:09visit. You made our visits

46:10made by watershed management I

46:14appreciate that. They that you

46:15work with them closely. They

46:15know. Wet stuff in girdwood

46:19pretty well. I was just I just

46:21wanted to ask if one of the

46:25items they highlighted as a

46:26concern, at least as included

46:27in our packet is related to

46:31pilings propose for the foot

46:34bridge it sounded like

46:37generally they were OK with

46:38it. But there are concerns

46:39about the pilings on the bank

46:42on the outside of the bend

46:44where Channel forces channel

46:46erosion forces are typically

46:47the greatest. I guess this is

46:48on House side. Have you have

46:51you been able to address that

46:52in the design?

46:54>> We have following that

46:55comment. We've spoken with

46:55watershed and we plan to

46:57modify the plan accordingly.

46:58Okay. Thank you. question, Mr.

47:06Shooting. Yes, my question.

47:07Okay. The also the side. Mr.

47:12Bennett, Mr.

47:20>> question a couple of

47:21questions actually about the.

47:22First of all, the the bridge

47:25is one of my concerns out here

47:26to say that the the the impact

47:29of the big integrity. But I'd

47:32also like to ask you about the

47:33drawing on a 1, 0, 1, 1.1,

47:35which is the floor plan. It

47:38appears that the building.

47:42Mall. On the West side for the

47:45connection to to the bridge.

47:52You're either having an

47:53outside unsupported corner.

47:56That you're going to have a

47:57bridge turn on to where you're

47:58going to modify the foundation

48:00wall underneath the bill

48:01underneath the bridge to

48:02accommodate that bill. I think

48:05it's but between 2 on one side

48:06and 4 feet on the other side

48:07on the house and the same

48:09thing occurs down on ad. You.

48:11The bridge is not connected

48:13directly to the House. There's

48:16a supporting underneath that

48:16somehow it that outside

48:17corners. It's Marcus Carr.

48:25>> And see next interview.

48:28>> Marco, can you move closer

48:29to the mike? could hear me

48:31now, John. Every state. My

48:33name. there. hi, my name is

48:37Mark was a car. Was the

48:37architects have been assisting

48:38with this process with Todd

48:42and Monday. So right now, the

48:44if you look at a 0.3, which is

48:46a site plan which should be

48:47reflective of with 1.1, which

48:48is also good 4 plan. We show

48:53the pilings underneath the

48:56bridge and what we're going to

48:57do is move those pilings to

48:59that corner joint to get them

49:03further away from the stream

49:05setback to Crest Watershed

49:06management concerns at this

49:10point we were planning on a

49:10wood structure, but I have to

49:13go to a steel structure to

49:14spend up our. And to the

49:19earlier question, Clarence

49:20underneath the bridge is about

49:224.7 and that's established by

49:24watershed management mapping

49:25of the stream which we had a

49:28surveyor market their We have

49:32pretty good idea where actual

49:33high water, ordinary high

49:34water Mark S.

49:39>> I'd like to ask about on

49:42the Are we on Page 62 of our

49:43packets. 56.2 page. 89.

49:55>> It's 29. That's where

49:57should management. Again, it

50:03was looking actually at

50:04drawings that they provided

50:051.0 that is page 62.

50:10>> Yes, So, yes, I I got a

50:15good mix. Yes, you're correct.

50:17So on page, 62 a 1.1 It shows

50:22that current pilings, those

50:25retreat from the stream right

50:26now. They're currently outside

50:29the stream.

50:29>> which is shown on Page.

50:33Age. 57. You can see the site

50:37plan and so you can see where

50:44to map stream with island's

50:47actually. 56 shows that a

50:48little bit better. The colors

50:51on the great.

50:54>> would be basically moving

50:55the piers, all 4 of them. Yes,

50:57away from where in the center

50:58of the stream. Yes, flow.

51:02>> The other currently just

51:02outside of ordinary high water

51:03mark. But we're going to get

51:05them as far away as watershed

51:09management

51:09>> I was looking more at the

51:10twist on the big bridge of an

51:12unsupported corner. Well, put

51:13comms underneath You're not

51:14going extend the foundation of

51:15to to those points.

51:17>> No, in fact, right now

51:21we're discussing putting the

51:22atu completely on pilings.

51:24>> Just to reduce the

51:26potential for impact because

51:28there's concern about tree

51:32roots. A lot from our neighbor

51:33to the West. And and we're

51:34trying to do everything we

51:35can. To mitigate that. We've

51:38talked to will a bridge

51:39construction about putting

51:40that on pilings to medicate

51:42any impacts to the site and a

51:45gravel removal and leaving

51:46that the existing gravel pad

51:50that gripped just existing

51:51gravel pad almost exactly as

51:52it is. So that's under

51:57>> can I move your document?

52:012.2, 8 or the H one document

52:04page 16. quotes they're the

52:11only way we can come to a

52:12point of not objection is the

52:14building is completely within

52:15the existing gravel PED vs. It

52:17is largely confined within.

52:22The yes.

52:23>> So sir. So originally.

52:27we've gone through a number of

52:28iterations. The site plan. And

52:33the in January we came up with

52:34iteration was larger than it

52:41is now and so watershed

52:43management said please map out

52:46the existing travel pad. So we

52:47brought the survey are back,

52:49mapped out the existing gravel

52:50pad in show watershed

52:53management where the existing

52:56gravel pad was under the

52:57proposed earlier atu design.

53:00And then they said the only

53:00way that we could support.

53:03This very uncertain. Having on

53:05objection is if you reduce the

53:09size of the atu. So completely

53:10on top of the existing gravel

53:12pad. And so then we reduce the

53:14ad you saw fits. On the crest

53:18of the existing gravel pit,

53:19right where the parking lot is

53:20now. And you can see that your

53:24page number. 56.

53:28>> We fortunately you got it.

53:29You haven't eaten by 11.

53:31>> But if you look closely,

53:35there's there's heavy wind.

53:36That's the toe of the gravel

53:37pad. And then there's dashed

53:40line and board of that. And

53:41that's top of the gravel had.

53:43So any place. Inside the

53:47stream setback? Where that

53:52gravel pad exists. We have

53:54reduced the atu to only occupy

53:56that area. Now outside of the

53:56stream setback. The building

54:03is larger than the gravel pad,

54:04but we're outside the stream

54:06setback. So that's not

54:06watershed management concerned

54:08that point.

54:08>> If you look to the to the

54:11left and educate it's out that

54:14heavy dashed line a spring

54:15setback on. So.

54:18>> We've done extensive

54:19mapping of the property. cars

54:22on Ali, an Lee to try to make

54:26sure that we didn't have

54:28hydrologic impact to the

54:29existing grades. So rich

54:31connection is actually

54:31sticking out into the.

54:34>> Under the toe of the gravel

54:34pad.

54:38>> Yeah. So would be supported

54:39at the toe of the gravel pad,

54:40but on pilings. So.

54:46>> The other question is on

54:47also on that page. This is

54:50that you have a full

54:53understanding and compliance

54:54with difference. You're that's

54:55why you're here is to because

54:55you're not in compliance.

54:57You're looking for a variance.

55:02you want to respond to that

55:02with your statement that?

55:06Fight?

55:07>> Understand the question

55:07completely. Could you please

55:09repeat that? It's a matter to

55:10matters. Semantic said Lee.

55:13You're not. And you may

55:14understand that you're not in

55:15full compliance. That's why

55:16you're here. get a variance

55:19for the non-compliance of the

55:20design.

55:24>> I think that you know,

55:26you're correct. Maybe a

55:26slight. The statement. We

55:30understand the issues on the

55:31and the buildings don't fully

55:36comply.

55:37>> So that's why we're asking

55:38for a very that's my point.

55:38Yes, okay. Ok, thank you.

55:43Anybody else? Mr. Shoot.

55:49Sorry, I'll take another bite

55:50the app because this line of

55:51questioning has think about

55:52something else.

55:56>> And maybe it not normal in

55:58the course of business for

55:59watershed management or for

55:59designers to consider this.

56:01But you know, if if

56:04constructed as proposed we're

56:05creating. Significantly more

56:09non permeable surfaces, are

56:10there today. Which is normal.

56:12When you build something. Have

56:16you guys modeled or thought at

56:19all about what impact, if that

56:21kind of construction and

56:23changing the natural

56:24environment to that degree

56:24would do with water. It was

56:28hard to tell from the really

56:29cool looking drawings, Marco,

56:30but I don't know which way

56:32different elevations of the

56:33roof slopes that are where

56:34that snow is dumping.

56:37>> I apologize. I should have

56:40put down arrows on the slopes

56:40so that if you go to sheet,

56:4161. We purposely. There's

56:50large shed rose on full

56:52structures and then there's

56:53flat roofs on all structures.

56:56>> The large said you know,

56:57say on primary house slopes to

57:03northeast and that the roofs

57:05slow cruise ships are

57:07purposely s**** away from

57:08stream. To do that. The

57:11majority of that water runs

57:14away from the stream and that

57:15can drop into a pious. Well,

57:18fortunately, Todd

57:19environmental engineer. And

57:23he's he's calculated the

57:24drainage district to make sure

57:26that we're lot of what we

57:27pass, but also we all of our

57:31flat roofs will be internally

57:32grain and then they will.

57:33Graham and the office

57:34>> Side of the building and

57:38probably going drainage our

57:38place well well. And I talked

57:41to our client about that fully

57:45agree. That's great strategy

57:46slow the runoff from the

57:49House. Us into the street.

57:51fact, the existing house

57:52inside the stream setback is a

57:53cable rough half of which

57:55dumps straight into the

57:56spring. So police on that with

58:02our thought actually going to

58:03slowing the runoff into the

58:04street. Now on the atu side,

58:09of course, it's a gravel path,

58:10but are parking so water close

58:10the ground. There. So I don't

58:13know if we're going be

58:16speeding it up or slowing it

58:16down. But we will be getting

58:17the water away from the

58:18street. So most

58:20>> Which direction does that

58:21won't slow?

58:26>> You if you look at age, 61.

58:33>> start point to right.

58:37That's why Mike pointed right

58:37at the other house. That's the

58:42highest low. So the the low

58:43edge of the slow fled the

58:46Below. It a slow kiss on the

58:47West. all cases, we have

58:53corrected the water off the

58:54roofs as far as way from the

58:57stream possible because that

59:00was that in the first go

59:00around. 2024, that was a

59:05comment we received from the G

59:07O s I believe on their word

59:08about speeding up front office

59:10spring. So we designed the

59:12rooms, specifically press

59:13home.

59:22>> Mr. Craig. Them. Yeah.

59:24Through the chair. I just did

59:28some rough numbers. And I

59:29think the lot coverage of the

59:30for The coverage of the house

59:33like 20%. This kind So I if

59:39you like, I just wanted to

59:42kind of more comment. Just

59:44kind of confirm that it's

59:45around 20 and you're allowed

59:4730's who are well under yet.

59:47It's actually 24%. Okay with

59:50Cambridge, EU. So I put tax

59:55reg. To you house 24%. long

1:00:0330%.

1:00:05>> Okay.

1:00:06>> And for our core area

1:00:06ratio.

1:00:10>> 0.5 4.4 Okay. Let's all

1:00:13thank you. Im a good with

1:00:22questions but that he's happy.

1:00:34>> Are there any questions of

1:00:35the applicant by staff? No.

1:00:39Madam Chair, thank you. Open

1:00:42the public hearing so we can.

1:00:45Is there month from the

1:00:46public? Wishing to testify and

1:00:51case 2026 Dash 0, 1, 2, 5,

1:00:52Anyone at all. Please come.

1:00:59I've got a couple of handouts

1:01:02tonight. there a way in which

1:01:02you can take a look that?

1:01:06Start around starts right

1:01:07here. I want

1:01:27Please come

1:01:27forward copy. We'll see what

1:01:30we can What you got. You got

1:01:30and should be an extra.

1:02:05>> Okay. And state and spell

1:02:07your name for the record.

1:02:08Please. You got.

1:02:12>> Good evening. My name is

1:02:13Derek Brewer. And along with

1:02:14my wife's Where the owners of

1:02:17one 51 McGee, Michelle Road

1:02:20number one 2 lived there for

1:02:21over 30 years. Hang on to say.

1:02:24>> Thing.

1:02:26>> Paul has a map. That he can

1:02:32this play that will show us.

1:02:37>> Where you are relation to

1:02:38ever go.

1:02:42>> That was the address again.

1:02:43So one, 51. Yeah. this one

1:02:44right here. That's it. And

1:02:46this is the subject properties

1:02:47for Manos. So these are this

1:02:48is where you're okay. Start

1:02:56again. All right. So we live

1:02:57there. Want to one. We're the

1:02:59adjacent property. Okay.

1:03:13You've got your whole 3

1:03:15minutes ago. Go. All right.

1:03:16Here we are. So if providing

1:03:19you a couple paper, still the

1:03:21straighter points of formal

1:03:22objection to particular case,

1:03:242026. Oh 1.25 Page one, the

1:03:30green boundaries are alyeska.

1:03:31Sarah deputies, existing

1:03:33structure.

1:03:34>> Uses a rental in its red

1:03:34lines are then multiple.

1:03:35Proposed structures. These are

1:03:41self imposed design

1:03:41constraints, petitioners.

1:03:44Hardships in this case are

1:03:44delusional. The applicant is

1:03:49attempting to maximize density

1:03:50on unknown constrained lot by

1:03:52squeezing a larger primary

1:03:53house. A new detached garage,

1:03:59a new and a new covered bridge

1:04:01onto a site that is known to

1:04:02buy sacked stream at the time

1:04:04of purchase. The need for

1:04:08variances driven by

1:04:10architectural ambition, not by

1:04:12an inability to build a

1:04:13reasonable code compliant

1:04:13home. The Petitioner Unknown

1:04:18Project engineer with

1:04:19professional environmental

1:04:20engineering and consulting

1:04:22Company reported that after

1:04:23the purchase, the existing

1:04:26house in the summer of 2021

1:04:29and in the fall, the structure

1:04:30was discovered to have

1:04:31multiple critical functional

1:04:32issues. The most basic of home

1:04:38inspections would have easily

1:04:40have shown these functional

1:04:40issues prior to buy it. And no

1:04:43undue hardship. This place up

1:04:46on that owner. In the ammo. A

1:04:51staff report October first

1:04:522026. With creative designed a

1:04:56lot could potentially

1:04:59accommodate a single-family

1:05:00home, all reducing

1:05:01encroachments into both the

1:05:03stream protection setback in

1:05:04the required building

1:05:06setbacks. The report also

1:05:08noted the property continues

1:05:10existing 10 foot utility

1:05:11easements on the North, which

1:05:12borders our property. I got to

1:05:15speed up. Go to page 2 plays

1:05:16flip the page over the photos

1:05:18we've submitted show recent to

1:05:23get electric power line

1:05:23failure from the summer. Do to

1:05:26high winds and historically

1:05:28unstable year-round, visible

1:05:29wetlands between our

1:05:32properties. The use that you

1:05:33get electric heavy equipment

1:05:34reaching established easements

1:05:37have required unobstructed

1:05:38access. No fewer than 3 times

1:05:39a year. Confirming a staff

1:05:44report observations. The

1:05:47Greene boundaries identify the

1:05:48petitioners. Current residents

1:05:50and the proximity to those

1:05:51power poles. Finally, the

1:05:55water course protections of

1:05:57the multiple code exists to

1:05:59prevent development that

1:06:00compromises watershed

1:06:01integrity, shifting drainage

1:06:03onto adjacent properties.

1:06:04That's our biggest issue. The

1:06:06significant volume of water at

1:06:09the confluence of 2 fish field

1:06:11streams historically crossing

1:06:12that street Northland present

1:06:16serious wrist to adjacent and

1:06:17downstream properties. Thank

1:06:19you for your time. questions

1:06:22and Is there a chance that I

1:06:28can speak briefly for my wife?

1:06:29She doesn't particularly care

1:06:30for public. Speaking very

1:06:31brief. Allowed. Make sure when

1:06:42let's that's getting Mr.

1:06:43Shooting in here. First, I'm

1:06:44sorry to ask you a question

1:06:47show. Go ahead. thank Before

1:06:49you pass the mic.

1:06:53>> Thank you for your packet

1:06:55and for your testimony and for

1:06:57photos of that you got work

1:06:58from this summer. a little

1:07:01familiar with the area, but

1:07:02not super familiar. But you

1:07:05live there generally speaking,

1:07:07would you say that the grade

1:07:11from southeast to northwest is

1:07:12pretty steep? In other words,

1:07:13is it. Is that a 5 e enough to

1:07:17wear? There is significant

1:07:21drainage occurring from north

1:07:21from south to North.

1:07:24>> I would agree with that

1:07:25statement. there is

1:07:25significant. And I think

1:07:29alright. He's gonna can speak

1:07:30to that much better than I can

1:07:31because she's going to be more

1:07:32impacted than

1:07:34>> Okay. And then last

1:07:36question and I'll let testify

1:07:37for your wife.

1:07:42>> The existing easements all

1:07:42have power poles within them

1:07:43now, including the east side.

1:07:46>> Well, you can see him on

1:07:46that picture. Great it out. So

1:07:52ours that runs from. Yeah.

1:07:53There you go. That one runs

1:07:53right there and then that one.

1:07:54And then it goes all the way

1:07:55through, OK, pass to the south

1:07:57side of my house. Ok? Thank

1:07:59Thank you. Yeah. That power

1:08:02pole tipped over hold that 12

1:08:05hours. We're out power

1:08:09>> Yeah. Thank you, sir.

1:08:12You've said that any

1:08:12inspection would have.

1:08:15Revealed the structural

1:08:16deficiencies as that. Is it

1:08:17your assertion they didn't get

1:08:18on?

1:08:25>> I'm not making it a

1:08:26surgeon. What I'm saying is

1:08:28that a person with a

1:08:30construction background would

1:08:31look at welding in the

1:08:32condition that it's an and

1:08:34would it would be suspect to

1:08:36them. I have a construction

1:08:38background. He has a

1:08:40construction background. It

1:08:41would not be a mystery to walk

1:08:42up to that building and the

1:08:44condition that it was and is

1:08:45in. And say there are issues

1:08:49to this building that our that

1:08:53need a deeper look. thank you.

1:09:01Okay. So by the way, no one's

1:09:01integrate disagreement. I

1:09:03don't think that something

1:09:04needs to be done with the

1:09:05House. I. Behind that. So now

1:09:09the size of that house

1:09:13testified Pre-K lie beyond my

1:09:16if you want to testify for

1:09:17your wife, you need to

1:09:18specifically state that you

1:09:19are doing that. And yes, her

1:09:20name. Yeah. speaking on behalf

1:09:23of my wife. Cindy Shake.

1:09:30Slightly different. I'm going

1:09:31switch gears on here. You

1:09:33know, I've been working with a

1:09:34group of people 2 try and work

1:09:40cooperatively West's this

1:09:42issue that we've had. You

1:09:47know, we're we're highly

1:09:48educated group of and

1:09:49everybody's got a Ph D are. We

1:09:50got one person with a Ph D we

1:09:54got multiple people with

1:09:55master's degrees and bachelor

1:09:56degrees and this process as

1:10:00been one of the most

1:10:02frustrating things we have

1:10:03done in a long, long time. And

1:10:04I got some had knots from you

1:10:05guys. Wow. We've got to come

1:10:08up with a better system.

1:10:12Something that simplifies a

1:10:14flow I Q and a portal. I don't

1:10:16know what. Frustrating. Dead

1:10:21ends. It's been a it's been a

1:10:27process. I can't imagine that

1:10:28we're the only ones. I don't

1:10:30know what the answer is and

1:10:32give some suggestions. I'm

1:10:37sure you guys know what I'm

1:10:38talking about. But anyway. Any

1:10:43questions, any other

1:10:44questions? Associated? less

1:10:52question more statement just

1:10:54maybe to help you feel at

1:10:55ease. We did receive comment

1:10:57from your wife. It was

1:10:58included our packet. I think

1:10:59mail comment came through.

1:11:01>> So please don't feel like

1:11:03he didn't have a to voice your

1:11:06opinion. We did see it. Okay.

1:11:08Excellent. Thank you. And you

1:11:08know, you never know who saw

1:11:10Thank you for your time.

1:11:11Appreciate it.

1:11:13>> Anyone else? Wishing to

1:11:15testify. Handouts as well.

1:11:39>> Hello, my name is Nancy

1:11:40A-Rod. 1, 7, initiative road

1:11:43girdwood. 25 years might hang

1:11:47on. I'm civil engineer. I

1:11:48worked on grade and rain in

1:11:50Alaska for 25 years. First, I

1:11:54appreciate that the commission

1:11:55was thus far denied knot

1:11:56variance under Standard H. But

1:11:59in my view, the application

1:12:00also fails to satisfy others

1:12:02banners and continues to fail

1:12:04standards Dnf as it did in

1:12:062024 at that time, the

1:12:07commission described the

1:12:10areas, quote, environmentally

1:12:11sensitive stream area under

1:12:12standard at the principal

1:12:14change now is that the

1:12:15applicant remove the Ripper

1:12:15out from. That in the setback

1:12:20in the stream setback in

1:12:21proposes she piling at the

1:12:23setback boundary as well as in

1:12:24the setback. According to the

1:12:26survey in the application lot

1:12:30survey know 2 states, the

1:12:32unnamed stream with Varys

1:12:33delineated by Emily Watershed.

1:12:37She piling in. This location

1:12:38will constrict the channel

1:12:38flow during storm events in

1:12:40this movie will stream. It

1:12:43looks like about 70 feet. A

1:12:45sheet piles proposed with the

1:12:46hinge point angle to the

1:12:46northwest. There's no way it

1:12:49being on the set back in that

1:12:51it won't end up being in the

1:12:53setback. The applicant just

1:12:54stated that they have thing

1:12:57pretty good idea where the

1:12:57high watermark us I'm not

1:13:01aware of a comprehensive study

1:13:01for watershed. So I mapped it

1:13:06stream corridor between north

1:13:07and a muggy viz, a levy on

1:13:08exhibits, wetland

1:13:08characteristics. And great if

1:13:13someone else would do one. But

1:13:13I think the hydrology is

1:13:15obvious. We are already

1:13:17getting flooding and the

1:13:18photographs I provided

1:13:20documentary flooding that

1:13:21occurred after the recent

1:13:21development. One 72 North Lamb

1:13:24that they are from last year,

1:13:25not 2021, our property is

1:13:28already being devalued. We

1:13:29cannot accept any more water

1:13:30from upstream development.

1:13:32Despite being outside. The

1:13:36stream set back the one 72

1:13:38North Undeveloped has

1:13:39compounded effects of

1:13:40increasingly frequent and

1:13:40unpredictable storms and melt

1:13:41cycles. The commission must

1:13:46assess to impacts and

1:13:47development across the

1:13:48watershed. Although revise the

1:13:51current plan remains nearly as

1:13:51large as original peers move

1:13:55more vegetation, including

1:13:57mature trees reduce flooding

1:13:58in the stream corridor. extent

1:14:01of Phil is unclear. The large

1:14:03shed roof strip lines in the

1:14:05setbacks will just intensify

1:14:06the run off the dime. Design

1:14:07is not improve. This proposal

1:14:09does not comply with several

1:14:12title. 21 requirements,

1:14:13including restrictions and

1:14:15erecting runoff on to Jay

1:14:15since properties. I

1:14:19respectfully ask the board to

1:14:20deny the variance require

1:14:23construction the existing

1:14:23building footprint to protect

1:14:25the stream neighboring

1:14:25properties and downstream

1:14:27infrastructure. This decision

1:14:28is important. Not only to the

1:14:31affected residents and this

1:14:32watershed, but also to the

1:14:35review of future development

1:14:36proposals throughout Girdwood.

1:14:43And then you have, I do have

1:14:44comment from my husband, Larry

1:14:45Siegel of I could do that,

1:14:48too. there's any questions.

1:14:49Thank you. Any questions the

1:14:53Mr. Nicely. I noticed on your

1:15:00drawing here on the front, you

1:15:00have a

1:15:04>> section of the stream that

1:15:06goes off along

1:15:07>> eastern lot line. And yes,

1:15:08it in use along the north lot

1:15:11line. Yes. What is that? Is

1:15:13that another streamer? Is is

1:15:18just something that was drawn

1:15:19in there?

1:15:20>> It is a stream as far as I

1:15:22know. And I think the Brewers

1:15:26might attest to that to runs

1:15:27behind their property and it's

1:15:28got it's about like at least

1:15:3014 inches deep. And it's it's

1:15:35year-round.

1:15:36>> And is that a is that a

1:15:37stream that would be subject

1:15:37to the same setback

1:15:40requirements as it's not

1:15:41because it's on named its top

1:15:42defined by watershed. But in

1:15:46my opinion, it needs to be

1:15:47that whole area needs to be

1:15:48really looked that closely.

1:15:48Cause. You know, I live are

1:15:52they all converge and I see at

1:15:55least 3 define come into the

1:15:56pond where I live. Okay. So I

1:16:01just verifying that that.

1:16:05>> Section of the stream there

1:16:06is based on your research.

1:16:08It's not something that's

1:16:09actually incorrect catalog,

1:16:10but that's reality. Gotcha.

1:16:16Any other question this? All

1:16:17right. Mr. Shooting. Thank

1:16:23you. First, like the previous

1:16:25speakers wanted to let you

1:16:26know that we did receive copy

1:16:27of your of your written

1:16:28testimony as well. So feel

1:16:32heard. appreciate what we

1:16:32definitely appreciate getting

1:16:33those comments. Following on

1:16:37the same lines as Mr. Ma's

1:16:39Lee, you know, the watershed

1:16:41mapping you provide is

1:16:42different than the resources

1:16:44available to us through water

1:16:45shed mapping surfaces or

1:16:46washer, watershed management

1:16:47services.

1:16:47>> Yes, and it sounds like

1:16:51this year this year in

1:16:52Girdwood much like an

1:16:53Anchorage. It was a very wet

1:16:55year with a lot of excess.

1:16:56Snow melt running late to the

1:16:59year. So I know here in the

1:17:00city, certainly we

1:17:01experienced. Flows in places

1:17:03that we didn't. We don't

1:17:05normally so. Is that far East

1:17:12side where the where you've

1:17:13documented the channel on the

1:17:17eastern edge of the property

1:17:18actually into the neighboring

1:17:18property. Is that one? That is

1:17:23more ephemeral, not constantly

1:17:25full of water, but this year,

1:17:25perhaps because of the

1:17:26flooding or that water flow.

1:17:30It was.

1:17:31>> You know, I wouldn't want

1:17:32to

1:17:33>> confirm that. But, you

1:17:36know, I've looked at it a few

1:17:37times and it's always flowing.

1:17:37And I see it. So, yeah, yeah.

1:17:42>> It's a challenge with So in

1:17:44full disclosure, I was part of

1:17:46the original 2018 to rewrite

1:17:47the stream setback codes and

1:17:50one of the most challenging

1:17:55conversations during that

1:17:56entire period was defining

1:17:58what's ephemeral and what's

1:17:58not, because changes year

1:18:01after but but at some point,

1:18:02you know, I think watershed

1:18:06management on the municipal

1:18:08side. Watershed management has

1:18:09done the best they can to

1:18:09present I think what our the

1:18:13known channels, the most

1:18:14frequent channels and so this

1:18:17is certainly supplementary to

1:18:20that. And they're mapping.

1:18:21Doesn't address the downstream

1:18:23impacts you talked about in

1:18:24your presentation about

1:18:25sitting in the pond, a

1:18:26surrogate it's just it's

1:18:29helpful. Thank you to prove

1:18:30that for you to provide this

1:18:31additional information. Mr.

1:18:37Thank you. Am your I

1:18:41appreciate the the drawing

1:18:42that you brought. And I was

1:18:42just wondering, did you?

1:18:47>> Received confirmation from

1:18:48Myshake, Mr. Brewer that

1:18:49believe there's a stream going

1:18:49through as well. I did. All

1:18:51right. Thank you.

1:18:56>> Constant with fish. Okay.

1:19:04And now you want to give

1:19:05testimony for your husband.

1:19:08Oh, state, his name Larry

1:19:10Siegel, 1, 7, 3, mission of

1:19:12Road Goodwood. 25 years. I'm

1:19:18disturbed and saddened by the

1:19:20changes seen in the fish pond

1:19:21during and after construction

1:19:22of the development. One 72

1:19:23Northland, there were piles of

1:19:24still with trash littered in

1:19:26it during the construction of

1:19:27that project. Considering a

1:19:29stream said very is difficult

1:19:32to understand with Gerd Woods,

1:19:34multimillion dollar investment

1:19:35and fish habitat, including

1:19:37the new fish Passage, Colbert,

1:19:40Comedy Road, all trees and

1:19:41other streamside vegetation or

1:19:42central components of that

1:19:43habitat. We are required to

1:19:47upgrade our driveway. Culvert

1:19:49when we replace it to meat,

1:19:49fish. Passions standards. We

1:19:51should not bear that cost

1:19:53because the pros development

1:19:54create additional flooding

1:19:56that Knesset to set

1:19:56replacement. I believe any

1:20:02additional encroachment on the

1:20:03stream setback will normally

1:20:04negatively affect the

1:20:05ecosystem. Construction poses

1:20:08a serious risk to the stream.

1:20:12For stream setback variance.

1:20:14The plan should show runoff

1:20:16and sediment will be control

1:20:17during construction to protect

1:20:19neighboring properties.

1:20:19Photographs taken during

1:20:23construction at one 72 north

1:20:24Linn document said of men and

1:20:24a breeze in the pond showing

1:20:25that the silk fence failed to

1:20:27provide adequate adequate

1:20:28pollution control. The

1:20:31existing building footprint at

1:20:34one 50, not 8 north and is

1:20:35about 35% larger than ours.

1:20:38Our property is nonconforming.

1:20:39As a builder, I believe

1:20:42thoughtfully designed home of

1:20:43thoughtfully designed home can

1:20:44fit within that footprint

1:20:45while remaining compatible

1:20:46with the surrounding

1:20:46environment. The proposed

1:20:52design is not suitable for the

1:20:53lot. Furthermore, the Spurs

1:20:56proposal is disingenuous to

1:20:58tack spares and funding

1:21:00agencies that are investing in

1:21:03fish habitat and girdwood. I

1:21:04respectfully urge the board to

1:21:05deny the stream setback

1:21:05variance and allow no further.

1:21:07Phil vegetation removal within

1:21:08the setback. Thank you. Any

1:21:15questions for the husband, Mr.

1:21:16Segal. Mr. Shooting. Thank

1:21:21you. feel like I'm not placing

1:21:24I'd like to just ask for some

1:21:26clarification on the statement

1:21:27you read on behalf of your

1:21:31husband.

1:21:31>> Are were you were for it

1:21:32for the new construction

1:21:34impact that you describe. Are

1:21:35you referring to 1, 7, to

1:21:38Northland on your? But yes,

1:21:39right. And so this is updated

1:21:40the applicants application has

1:21:44a

1:21:44>> historical. The other house

1:21:45that was there. So that

1:21:47probably should be updated.

1:21:49But that is correct. That's

1:21:50how it looks now.

1:21:56>> Any other questions? No one

1:22:04else wishing to testify in the

1:22:04case. 2026. 0, 1, State and

1:22:12spell your name for the

1:22:13record. Please. Will Brennan?

1:22:17>> I live on 1, 5, 3,

1:22:18Northland Road across the

1:22:18street. want to speak today

1:22:30about why the request of

1:22:31variances are not the minimum

1:22:33required for reasonable use of

1:22:34the affected property. And

1:22:36he's not similar to other

1:22:37developments in the

1:22:38neighborhood. Why any

1:22:40perceived hardship the

1:22:40petitioners faces, in fact,

1:22:42self-imposed. Why would not be

1:22:43prudent for your board to

1:22:44issue these variances? The

1:22:48petitioner proposes to

1:22:49construct 4700 square feet of

1:22:50living space within 5300

1:22:51square feet of building area

1:22:52on their constrained law. My

1:22:55wife and 2 kids and I lived

1:22:55full-time across the street

1:22:57and 1500 square foot home.

1:23:00Currently the largest home on

1:23:01Northland Road has 2600 square

1:23:02feet of living space on the

1:23:04property. There's currently

1:23:05only to you on our street and

1:23:07it is a small mother-in-law

1:23:09basement apartment proposing

1:23:10to construct well twice the

1:23:11size of anything on our street

1:23:12is not the minimum reasonable

1:23:13use of the property. This is

1:23:16especially true when factoring

1:23:17in the site constraints new to

1:23:18this lot. To build the largest

1:23:21home in the neighborhood on a

1:23:22lot with the constraints is

1:23:23not reasonable. While the

1:23:25existence of the creek is not

1:23:28self-imposed purchasing the

1:23:30slot with the plan to develop

1:23:30to the scale is self-imposed.

1:23:33The petitioner claims that

1:23:34when they purchased the

1:23:34property in 2021, the intended

1:23:35to simply renovate not

1:23:38realizing the structural

1:23:39deficiencies would require a

1:23:39full rebuild as currently

1:23:41proposed. I remember when this

1:23:42property come up for sale, it

1:23:43was clear as day that both the

1:23:46homeless structurally

1:23:47deficient and the existence of

1:23:47the creekwood significantly

1:23:49affect the options for

1:23:52reconstruction. The Zillow

1:23:53listing still viewable online

1:23:53and the photos paint a

1:23:54picture. The seller even

1:23:56stated in all caps, cash only

1:23:57offers one can imply why the

1:23:59petitioners, a license of

1:24:01winds near it stretches

1:24:03credulity to suggest they did

1:24:03not understand what they're

1:24:04purchasing. Furthermore, it is

1:24:08particularly unreasonable to

1:24:09issue these variances in this

1:24:10location. This property is

1:24:10situated at the base of

1:24:12Alyeska home of unique

1:24:14microclimate the mix. This one

1:24:15of the snowiest and wet us

1:24:16neighborhoods in the country

1:24:18go to experiences. Extreme

1:24:19weather events with increasing

1:24:21regularity. This proposed

1:24:22development seems disregard

1:24:24that fact constructing a new

1:24:25home on this property is not

1:24:27unreasonable. Constructing

1:24:27this home on this property is

1:24:28unreasonable. The petitioner

1:24:32could construct a home

1:24:33similarly sized to all others

1:24:33on our street without seeking

1:24:353 variances. Look at the

1:24:36architectural drawings of this

1:24:37home. It clearly is not the

1:24:40minimum reasonable use of this

1:24:42property. The extreme shape of

1:24:43the home gives away the game.

1:24:45Their intention is to build to

1:24:47the maximum extent possible.

1:24:47And then some building within

1:24:503 setbacks and right up to the

1:24:51boundaries of all other

1:24:52setbacks on this particular

1:24:53lot with these environmental

1:24:55factors is unreasonable. It

1:24:59sort of put the petitioners

1:24:59requesting to construct a 10

1:25:00pound home on an 8 pound lot.

1:25:02Your board should deny this

1:25:04request doing so does not

1:25:05preclude the petitioner from

1:25:06constructing on the property.

1:25:08It only not just them to

1:25:09construct something reasonable

1:25:11taking into the account, the

1:25:12constraints of the property

1:25:12that they purchased. Any

1:25:16questions to Mister Burr, Mr.

1:25:18Mosley. Thank you, sir.

1:25:24Appreciate you coming in today

1:25:24and telling us about this.

1:25:27>> Would you categorize your

1:25:29objection? Mostly to the house

1:25:30and the size of the House?

1:25:34>> The addition of the garage

1:25:35in a and covered bridge.

1:25:37>> I would. I would saige up

1:25:39to all that.

1:25:42>> The ad you will be

1:25:45>> within the front and side

1:25:46setback there's nowhere to

1:25:50park. Yeah. So presumably

1:25:51there's going to be too. 3

1:25:53full-time residents there. 2,

1:25:57maybe to renters. And they do.

1:25:58You family in the primary

1:25:59home. There is no parking.

1:26:02There's a garage and the only

1:26:02other place to park is

1:26:04immediately in front of the

1:26:05garage there by what your

1:26:06tenants are going to block the

1:26:07primary residence. The you

1:26:08have to ask them move every

1:26:09time. The only one where the

1:26:10park is in the street, the

1:26:13street that, you know, my kids

1:26:14playing that I have to backing

1:26:15out of my driveway. There's

1:26:17nowhere for left for snow

1:26:19storage. The only place to

1:26:19reason we store snow with

1:26:20design is either in the creek

1:26:22exacerbating the hydrologic

1:26:24issues or on my property or

1:26:26one of the other neighboring

1:26:29properties. The home's size is

1:26:30totally uncharacteristic of

1:26:31the neighborhood and again,

1:26:32unreasonable looking up the

1:26:34lot. mean, it's clearly has

1:26:36site constraints and they're

1:26:37just trying to figure out

1:26:38every possible way too. Work

1:26:42around the constraints

1:26:44unreasonable. I'm also

1:26:46concerned about the hydrologic

1:26:46effects. I am upstream but,

1:26:49you know, I fought all winter

1:26:53building up a little temporary

1:26:54dams to keep overflow from

1:26:55hitting my slap. I understand

1:26:58my downstream neighbors, their

1:27:00concerns, the fact that this

1:27:01is a a covered enclosed bridge

1:27:07again, we're at the base of

1:27:08alyeska. There's extreme surge

1:27:10events melt, rain and snow

1:27:11events if typically during a

1:27:15surge event, water would

1:27:17overflow the decking of a

1:27:18bridge in this situation. I

1:27:19don't know what would happen.

1:27:20It's attached the 2 dwellings

1:27:20that turn into a dam that

1:27:22backs up onto the road. I've

1:27:24heard no, there's there's

1:27:28there's no way for me to know.

1:27:28As a non expert, whether or

1:27:31not that would be concerned

1:27:32but seems concerning to me.

1:27:34Yeah, there's I have plenty of

1:27:37reasons to be opposed to this.

1:27:40Okay. And just in fairness to

1:27:42the applicant, the drawings

1:27:43that we have show the garage

1:27:44and a D U.

1:27:48>> Encroaching into the side

1:27:48setback but not necessarily

1:27:51different. Said.

1:27:51>> I know the drawings that

1:27:52you have your fear looking at

1:27:54the most recent drawings they

1:27:55encroach into both the front

1:27:55and the set. So there's

1:27:59nowhere to store snow. There's

1:28:00nowhere to store vehicles

1:28:00except blocking other

1:28:01vehicles.

1:28:06>> Any other questions, Mr.

1:28:07Brennan, Mr. Shooting. Thank

1:28:09you for coming down.

1:28:12Appreciate that. I also

1:28:13appreciate your acknowledgment

1:28:14that you're not an expert

1:28:15either. My but you live there

1:28:16and you've got eyes. And so I

1:28:17want to ask you about your

1:28:18observations. Are the past

1:28:20winter.

1:28:20>> It's my understanding that

1:28:21there is currently a bridge of

1:28:24some kind, a walkway elevated

1:28:28walkway that connects from the

1:28:28current home to the gravel

1:28:29pat. Is that correct? Correct.

1:28:33And this past winter, which we

1:28:36all know was spectacular. Did

1:28:37you observe any of the damning

1:28:39situations like you described

1:28:40that are possible? At that

1:28:42property? In other words, it's

1:28:46almost like a foot bridge,

1:28:48right? Currently gathered

1:28:49birds that were there. Those

1:28:53surges where water would back

1:28:55up during may be one of the

1:28:56rain, rain and snow events in

1:28:58and that foot bridge caused

1:28:59any sort of damning in its

1:29:00current condition. I did not

1:29:02see that this winter. I will

1:29:04say the bridge has been

1:29:06relocated within the last 2

1:29:08years. sure there's been

1:29:09issues over the years, but no,

1:29:10I didn't see any sort damning.

1:29:11But again.

1:29:11>> The current bridge is open

1:29:14air. If there was any sort

1:29:15surge, it could floor over.

1:29:16What I'm concerned about is,

1:29:20you know, those fully enclosed

1:29:20on 3 sides words ago except

1:29:21upstream onto the road and

1:29:24also state for the record, the

1:29:28you know, all Anchorage

1:29:30experienced, you know, more

1:29:31precipitation from

1:29:31understanding that the typical

1:29:33winters Alyeska actually had

1:29:34its second lowest snow year on

1:29:35record. Going back into the

1:29:3760's. So all we had a cold

1:29:40winter and we're dealing with

1:29:40ice overflow. We didn't have

1:29:41as much water as is typical.

1:29:42So other years it could be

1:29:46much different than what we're

1:29:47already dealing with this

1:29:47winter. Any other questions

1:29:51Mr. Brennan?

1:29:57>> Anyone else wishing to

1:29:57testify.

1:30:07>> State your name for the

1:30:08record. Please show Hello. My

1:30:09name is Mike Edgington. That's

1:30:10G I N G to it. I'm also a good

1:30:15rest not an immediate

1:30:16neighbor. You'd have to zoom

1:30:17out a little about said of the

1:30:18mile foot of a mile.

1:30:19>> To the Southeast Southwest

1:30:20from that. I served and a half

1:30:26years on that could double to

1:30:28supervise with responsibility

1:30:29for land use and housing

1:30:31policy. So I've got a lot of

1:30:32interest in topics that come

1:30:33up tonight. As I said,

1:30:37probably thousands of times

1:30:39during 2 months since

1:30:40Anchorage is a good. He's not

1:30:42Anchorage. We have about 2 and

1:30:43a half times the rainfall.

1:30:44Anchorage bould us the not

1:30:47very funny joke about good is

1:30:48everywhere. Inside the 2, 2

1:30:49steeple too wet to build.

1:30:54There's about 60 square miles

1:30:57catchment. Aaron. The

1:30:58watershed funneled into a very

1:30:59narrow valley. So they're all

1:31:01streams everywhere. I have a

1:31:03stream dissecting property. I

1:31:04was very surprised to hear.

1:31:05It's unusual because I would

1:31:05say it's pretty common. A tree

1:31:06in this area. While this

1:31:10specific diagonal aspect to

1:31:11that stream is so unusual,

1:31:13having streams crossing

1:31:13properties. Very common. The

1:31:15thing that rain, is very

1:31:17common, both in terms of

1:31:19private property impact to

1:31:20those 2. The impact local

1:31:23roads. And I know this is area

1:31:24where there's been history of

1:31:25problems in both. I was also

1:31:29like Mr, Shooting those who

1:31:30very involved in the 2018

1:31:33rewrite. Strip setback with my

1:31:34my focus was the impacts

1:31:35within good. And what I recall

1:31:39the prior code basically said.

1:31:41Even if you have existing

1:31:43structure, you base the

1:31:44kennel, it impacts stream

1:31:45setbacks. The the new code

1:31:48strikes. I think a very nice

1:31:50ball game. It says you can

1:31:52still impact if you have a

1:31:53structure which impacts that

1:31:54backs in part to stream

1:31:56setbacks. As long as you make

1:31:58a net you can still basically,

1:32:01you know, do that. You can

1:32:02still impose that. You can

1:32:05still have encroachment as

1:32:05long as there is a net

1:32:06benefit. I think that's a

1:32:10great dog. And I think that's

1:32:12enabled a lot construction

1:32:14within good. But of course,

1:32:14that's not what's happening

1:32:15here. What's happening here.

1:32:16But previous speaker said the

1:32:22the intent to absolutely

1:32:23maximize the size the

1:32:24structure of this is what

1:32:25500,000 square feet is by far

1:32:26the largest structure in that

1:32:28area. One of the largest in

1:32:29that you all to Sunday require

1:32:36To maximize that structure

1:32:37size is what's causing these

1:32:38problems. That's what's

1:32:39leading to the variance

1:32:40request is nowhere close I

1:32:43would say reasonable use the

1:32:45land. One final thing I'd like

1:32:49to say is I heard a lot of I

1:32:51think probably the majority of

1:32:52the applicants. Testimony was

1:32:56about aspects of housing and

1:32:56how it could meet housing.

1:32:59Absolutely true. And I have no

1:33:02question I've no doubt in the

1:33:03sincerity of that that

1:33:04applicant, I put that dozens

1:33:06of times as well in nearly

1:33:08every single case when an

1:33:09applicant has come for

1:33:10variances conditional, use

1:33:12what that resulted in what

1:33:13we've seen at the end is a

1:33:13very large empty home. Second

1:33:17home, short-term rentals.

1:33:17That's just what happens in

1:33:19good. Very last point I

1:33:22actually wrote the code.

1:33:24That's a nice to shoot.

1:33:25referred to only about to you.

1:33:28>> Height restrictions. If

1:33:28there are new questions about

1:33:29reasons for that. So the

1:33:30justification of happy to

1:33:31those. Thank you. Mr. Friend.

1:33:45Mr. Shooting. Now it is that

1:33:49down. really like to ask him

1:33:50questions. Come on, Mike, get

1:33:51away that easy. The first

1:33:56one's an easy one. Just thank.

1:33:56Thank you for first. Yeah.

1:34:00Just to clarify, you're

1:34:01opening description of your

1:34:02pet of your previous rules.

1:34:03You're no longer on Okay? My

1:34:06friend of Times. was going to

1:34:11ask you a question about the G

1:34:11boss letter, but I guess I

1:34:13can't you know you can also

1:34:13buy don't have the outset.

1:34:19Questions. Thank, you know,

1:34:22think, you know, you. are

1:34:24steps. Anybody else wishing to

1:34:27testify. We came

1:34:53Does the

1:34:53staff any rebuttal? And, you

1:34:58know, Madam Chair. Does the

1:35:03applicant have any rebuttal? I

1:35:04think 2 minutes left.

1:35:14>> So with regards to our

1:35:15neighbors, we appreciate their

1:35:16comments and their concerns.

1:35:18And we we want to be good

1:35:20stewards of this property and

1:35:20for neighbors as well. The

1:35:24property at one. 73 make Eve.

1:35:29She had indicated that her

1:35:30place is smaller than our

1:35:31existing place right now,

1:35:32which is incorrect. Our

1:35:34current structures, 1128

1:35:39square feet of living space

1:35:39and her says 1824 and I'd also

1:35:47like to mention there was

1:35:48comment about the power poles

1:35:50failing or power lines

1:35:52failing. Actually our

1:35:55neighbor's tree cotton wood

1:35:56fell over onto the lines and

1:35:58took electrical lines out onto

1:36:00our property and ripped are

1:36:02electrical box off or tenant.

1:36:06That's currently Rodin. And

1:36:07you should have an email from

1:36:08them since we bought the

1:36:09property. And 21, we have not

1:36:13spent one night in our

1:36:14property. We rented it out

1:36:16long term to hardwood and

1:36:20people and girdwood employees

1:36:22workforce. We're there to

1:36:23support girdwood and we don't

1:36:24want to take any housing away

1:36:26from hardwood, but we would

1:36:27also like to be able to enjoy

1:36:28the property ourselves with

1:36:32regards to our neighbor across

1:36:34the street and the setback

1:36:36that we're asking and that

1:36:37front, it's actually from what

1:36:41we understand 20 feet from

1:36:42where the garage door would be

1:36:43to the edge of that, the road

1:36:46where it's built right now.

1:36:49And so there would be room for

1:36:50us to have off road parking as

1:36:54well as a kind of triangulate

1:36:57right there. So it gives a

1:36:57little bit more space onto our

1:36:59property to park cars. Again,

1:37:02we we want to be good stewards

1:37:03of this. We will. We

1:37:07experience constructing art.

1:37:09We will clean up our trash. We

1:37:11are not people that go in and

1:37:13just let our contractors trash

1:37:15our areas and leave trash

1:37:16behind.

1:37:17>> We will be.

1:37:19♪

1:37:25>> Let him finish.

1:37:30>> It's so I mean, we just we

1:37:34understand that, you know, our

1:37:38neighbors are worried about

1:37:39the impact that are billed

1:37:41going to do. But we are. We've

1:37:42studied yet. We've worked long

1:37:44and hard with the

1:37:45municipality. We've done

1:37:48everything that's been

1:37:48requested of us to try to

1:37:50minimize any impact on our

1:37:51neighbors. And this area and,

1:37:54you know, again, with the

1:37:56construction we used Willow

1:37:59Ridge before and our property

1:38:01was pristine and we went to

1:38:03the build as well, our self

1:38:04and cleaned up if there was

1:38:06any trash on, you know, our

1:38:09property. We have high

1:38:11standards for this build and

1:38:14we want to make sure that, you

1:38:15know, we don't impact our

1:38:16neighbors downstream or

1:38:18upstream. Or across the

1:38:23street. That's not what we

1:38:23want to do with this bill. We

1:38:24just want to be able to, you

1:38:28know, build responsibly and

1:38:28enjoy this property. And we've

1:38:30got at extreme hardship more

1:38:34than neighbors, you know,

1:38:37around us because our property

1:38:39is dissected with a creek

1:38:40right down the middle of it.

1:38:49Not unless somebody wants to

1:38:52hear it, Mr. Bennett would

1:38:53like to hear Go ahead.

1:38:57>> as far as the streams

1:38:58outlined in this diagram.

1:39:03Watershed management, Kyle

1:39:04Cunningham came to the site in

1:39:04May 2024. and purposely picked

1:39:08a month. The pipes. Wow.

1:39:12Access mountain snowpack melt.

1:39:14So we Piccolo Loeffler monthly

1:39:16pick a high flow month. Cal

1:39:19Cunningham walked the entire

1:39:20site and marked out the high,

1:39:22ordinary high water mark and

1:39:25as a result of that effort,

1:39:28the stream actually became

1:39:28whiter than what we had

1:39:30previously been looking at,

1:39:34because it was we're looking

1:39:34at the original surveyed

1:39:38mapping. And then once we

1:39:38surveyed in that actual

1:39:39ordinary high water mark, the

1:39:44encroachment on of the stream

1:39:45on the right originate 50

1:39:47people. I-25 feet either side.

1:39:51Now it varies. And in some

1:39:53places, it's much more than 50

1:39:53people And so we actually lost

1:39:58a significant amount of

1:40:01buildable area as a result of

1:40:03that mapping effort that we

1:40:05voluntarily yet Kyle

1:40:05Cunningham. So that's our

1:40:09comment to this is that we've

1:40:10done this. I you know, I don't

1:40:13doubt that there's a fair

1:40:16streams that pop I mean, I

1:40:17live in Garner died looking

1:40:17car, but 60 years I've seen

1:40:24streams everywhere. Some

1:40:25sometimes that there's some

1:40:26things that are not You know,

1:40:29the streams, we as builders

1:40:32developers, designers have to

1:40:35go with what watershed

1:40:36management tells us.

1:40:40Otherwise, it's just flat out

1:40:40moving target that you can

1:40:41never. And down. I so almost

1:40:44impossible standard to live

1:40:45with. And then the only other

1:40:49comment I had on this document

1:40:51is that.

1:40:51>> These are very old

1:40:53diagrams. The impact on the

1:40:56site is much less are

1:40:56proposing now shown on that

1:40:58Iran and also. The Greene try

1:41:01rectangle or rectangle around

1:41:06existing going doesn't show

1:41:07front we're proposing private

1:41:11deck the exact same location

1:41:12and size. That's what's there

1:41:13now. So just little bit

1:41:18misrepresented have if you go

1:41:19to. 56 of staff report. You

1:41:24can see the actual pot all

1:41:34right to close the public

1:41:34hearing. And the matter rest

1:41:37of the board.

1:41:41>> So there's been some

1:41:41question about how we're going

1:41:42to address this.

1:41:44>> And

1:41:45>> We're going to take each.

1:41:48>> Variance one of the time.

1:41:50Unless I have. Ocean. To do it

1:41:56otherwise. Mr.

1:42:00>> No didn't. Any little bit

1:42:03of looking real quick. I think

1:42:07if I understand the question,

1:42:09Miss Mr. Ryan Bennett opposed

1:42:09it was with variants, one

1:42:12having and and And therefore

1:42:16the 4 and a half foot on the

1:42:16houses. Tied to. The garage

1:42:21and 80 you request as well.

1:42:25What what I'm a proposed,

1:42:28should someone moved and

1:42:29second, someone then could

1:42:30move to divide the question so

1:42:31that they could be taken up

1:42:32separately. Thank you. I make

1:42:39a comment. Okay.

1:42:43>> My comment was for the and

1:42:44is basically. You can divide

1:42:48the variances and take them

1:42:49individually. But if you're

1:42:50going to write a statement.

1:42:53Variance, one, you have to

1:42:55include you can't break that

1:42:56down less. You're going to

1:42:56make a whole new motion. A new

1:42:58variants and justify to get in

1:42:59a different manner. That's my

1:43:03objection is that it's not

1:43:04about variances 2, though, I'm

1:43:05surprised that they were

1:43:06written in this way. Variance

1:43:11one has the and in it and

1:43:12thing you have to take it as

1:43:12it as it states. And vote on

1:43:16it and that in this sense of

1:43:17voting on a single variance

1:43:18variance, one. And then if you

1:43:21wanted fly that. 2 others,

1:43:25criteria to the others

1:43:26variances. Then that's your.

1:43:31That's a choice that each

1:43:31individual can make. But as

1:43:36far as a variant as it's

1:43:37written, you have to take that

1:43:39as as whole. I think unless

1:43:40you're going to make a little

1:43:41emotion inevitable, start the

1:43:41process again from scratch.

1:43:43The way the I speak of this in

1:43:48terms of the public

1:43:49parliamentarian here as

1:43:50opposed to a membership. And

1:43:52just minutes.

1:43:56>> I think we have to. Realize

1:44:00what the place of Robert's

1:44:01rules is in our procedures.

1:44:05It's it's. Secondary to what

1:44:08it says in the code. And it

1:44:13specifically states that in

1:44:13the code that if it's that the

1:44:17code rules and if if if

1:44:18there's something the coach

1:44:20doesn't address, then we'd

1:44:20fault. Robert's rules of

1:44:22order.

1:44:25>> So you're going to take

1:44:26various women divided into 2.

1:44:29Variances address them

1:44:30individually know.

1:44:32>> I'm just stating. Robert's

1:44:36rules. applies within the

1:44:40code. Mr. first So can make a

1:44:52motion at this time. If you're

1:44:55going to make a motion wait,

1:44:56OK? Mr. Doris, thank you,

1:45:03ma'am.

1:45:04>> going to turn to Page one

1:45:0430 here. Section 5, if a

1:45:11pending main motion are

1:45:12pending amendment contains 2

1:45:13or more parts capable of

1:45:14standing a separate questions.

1:45:17The assembly can vote to treat

1:45:19each part individually in

1:45:21succession. Such a course is

1:45:23proposed by the motion of a

1:45:23division of a question. And it

1:45:27would be my assertion for

1:45:29variants one given the and and

1:45:33for them being 2 different

1:45:34encroachments from 2 different

1:45:36structures. Robert's rules.

1:45:38This could be a split

1:45:38question. Divided question.

1:45:40Well, thank you. And we can do

1:45:42whatever we want to do. So

1:45:42correct. But but the

1:45:47parliamentarian was very

1:45:47concerned about Robert's

1:45:48rules. So I thought I support.

1:45:52>> I want to read your book

1:45:52later Note later on later on

1:45:53later on.

1:45:54>> Mr. Beazley. Positive

1:45:56emotion.

1:46:00>> I wasn't going address the

1:46:03question at this time. What I

1:46:03was going to do was to get

1:46:06some clarification on how

1:46:07we're going to address this

1:46:10issue. My motion would be to

1:46:12treat the application is one

1:46:13question.

1:46:16>> All 3 variances as one.

1:46:20Well, you can make the motion

1:46:20and will can vote on it. If

1:46:21that's second, Well, he could

1:46:34make the motion we can vote

1:46:35on. We can discuss vote on it.

1:46:39Is there a second? I seconded.

1:46:43Okay. It has been moved and

1:46:45seconded. That will take all 3

1:46:45variances. Any discussion. Mr.

1:46:52Shooting.

1:46:56>> Yeah, thank I no offense to

1:46:57my colleagues, but I do intend

1:46:58to vote against this because I

1:47:00do think there's greater

1:47:01utility in considering the

1:47:01variance request individually.

1:47:04but the offense park.

1:47:07>> Any other discussion? So.

1:47:17It has been moved and

1:47:18seconded. That we take all 3

1:47:21variances as one. Will the

1:47:28maker of the motion please

1:47:29speak to your motion, Mr.

1:47:29Beazley.

1:47:32>> Yes, I think it gets. I

1:47:34think it gets overly

1:47:36confusing. When you have a

1:47:38single application with

1:47:39several parts to it and you're

1:47:42not considering the

1:47:42application as a whole. It

1:47:45would almost be like if there

1:47:49was a a 5 foot encroachment.

1:47:53And we said no, it can't be 3

1:47:55feet. And it's it's

1:47:59contradictory to the

1:47:59application itself. To break

1:48:03it down into its individual

1:48:07parts and try you know, try to

1:48:10create something of our own

1:48:13construct. That wasn't the

1:48:14intention of the application.

1:48:17In my mind, the application

1:48:18was submitted for the whole

1:48:19package was submitted for

1:48:22that. increase in the house,

1:48:25it was considered for the

1:48:27covered bridge and it was

1:48:29considered for the garage with

1:48:31the atu. And in my mind that

1:48:34comes package. And it's not a

1:48:37piecemeal pick and choose sort

1:48:38of situation. Mr. Brent

1:48:42Bennett.

1:48:45>> really nothing to add. And

1:48:48second to make sure we could

1:48:49get a vote on it.

1:48:52>> Any other Mars?

1:48:54>> Thank you, I respect, Mr.

1:48:59Ma's position here. I think I

1:49:00will be against. And the

1:49:02reason for that is I do think

1:49:05that there is utility and

1:49:06taking these one by one. And

1:49:11specifically if we were to

1:49:12split question one. And the

1:49:13reason for that is if you look

1:49:14at the proposed house. The

1:49:18actual encroachment into the

1:49:18stream setback is very, very

1:49:19small amount. There are other

1:49:23parts of the property. Other.

1:49:27In comments, if you will. That

1:49:28May 1 million for have much

1:49:29larger impacts. And that may

1:49:34not meet the intent of the

1:49:35criteria by which we're

1:49:36supposed to judge these. So I

1:49:40think that in doing so you're

1:49:41taking one portion which meet

1:49:45all the criteria and mixing it

1:49:46with other portions that may

1:49:47not. And that may lead you to

1:49:49a decision with impact upon

1:49:52the petitioner. So I'll be

1:49:53against thank you. Any further

1:50:01discussion.

1:50:04>> Jennifer, Ready for the

1:50:05question question is. adoption

1:50:08of the motion to consider all

1:50:123 variances as one action. The

1:50:14yes vote. Well, consider them

1:50:19all as one and a no vote will

1:50:19not.

1:50:392 for the affirmative for

1:50:41for the negative. So the

1:50:41motion fails. And we move on.

1:50:46Now. We're going you want to

1:50:49split first Robertson.

1:50:55>> Roberts requires the main

1:50:57motion to be made first and

1:50:58then you can split. we need to

1:51:01make a motion. And then I

1:51:02would move to split. Ok, Mr.

1:51:08Nurse, I'm Make a

1:51:14>> 2 proving I was looking for

1:51:19my my language here. I'm

1:51:25moving case 2, 0, 2, 6, Dash,

1:51:300, 1, 2, 5, 2, approved a

1:51:31variance from AMC 0, 7, 0, 2,

1:51:350. 9.

1:51:36>> Table. 2, 1, 0, 7 Dash one

1:51:40minimum stream setback with

1:51:41her side to allow the existing

1:51:43structure with proposed

1:51:43addition to encroach 4.5 feet

1:51:48and the proposed detached

1:51:49garage with an ad you to

1:51:51encroach 14 feet into the 25

1:51:52foot stream setback. Subject

1:51:55to come to the condition shown

1:51:56on Page 6 of the staff report.

1:51:59>> And seconded by Mister

1:52:00Shooting. It's been moved and

1:52:03seconded that grant a variance

1:52:08to allow the 60 structure with

1:52:10proposed addition to a Crouch.

1:52:134 point. But the the proposed

1:52:15detached garage with an ad you

1:52:16to encroach 14 the into the 25

1:52:18foot stream setback. Mr.

1:52:24Doris, we speak your motion.

1:52:27>> Yes chair. I will. And I

1:52:28move to split the question.

1:52:30With separate variances

1:52:35praline to the proposed

1:52:35addition to encroach 4.5 feet.

1:52:40And then the second part would

1:52:42be the proposed detached

1:52:43garage with an ad you to

1:52:44encroach 14 feet into the 25

1:52:45foot train set back. Okay. I

1:52:49will second that. Okay. It was

1:52:51second. Mr. Shooting you want

1:52:54to.

1:53:11>> You want? has been moved

1:53:12and seconded. That we

1:53:15consider. Splitting. The

1:53:21motion into 2 separate parts.

1:53:31Mr. Norris, will you speak

1:53:32your motion? Yes. Thank you.

1:53:35Chair.

1:53:36>> I do believe that these are

1:53:37separate questions. They are

1:53:40separate structures with

1:53:41separate benefits and separate

1:53:43impacts. I do believe that in

1:53:47relation to the criteria which

1:53:50are proposed, that should be

1:53:51considered separately as it

1:53:54may render a different

1:53:55decision when they are and

1:53:56maybe more equitable for the

1:53:58outcome for everyone. Thank

1:53:58you.

1:54:02>> Mister shooting.

1:54:06>> Thank In addition to the

1:54:06comments made by the mover,

1:54:09I'd also like to highlight

1:54:12that the applicant and their

1:54:14original application also

1:54:16bifurcated the home in the Atu

1:54:17in their application for

1:54:18relief. And so while the staff

1:54:22packet in the presentation

1:54:24today Consolidated both the

1:54:25atu garage structure in the

1:54:27House into a single request

1:54:29for a variance. The original

1:54:30application had them listed

1:54:31separately. So I feel

1:54:33comfortable in considering

1:54:34each one individually we're

1:54:37not straying too far from the

1:54:38original intent of the

1:54:38application. Thank you. Any

1:54:41other discussion.

1:54:47>> Okay. So it has been moved

1:54:48and seconded to buy for Kate.

1:54:50>> The

1:54:50>> variants number one. And

1:54:56>> consider the existing

1:54:57structure with proposed

1:54:58addition to it Crouch. 4.5

1:55:01feet and a second action. To

1:55:06consider that they catch

1:55:06garage with a to you. Is there

1:55:16any further discussion not?

1:55:18>> The yes vote will split.

1:55:22The variance request and no

1:55:24vote will. Keep the variance

1:55:29request as one. Please vote.

1:55:536. Yes votes. So we're going

1:55:54to take them separately. Back

1:55:58to Mister Norris.

1:56:03>> Yes, chair. I would move to

1:56:04approve. I Yeah. Move to

1:56:09approve and case 2026, 0, 1,

1:56:142, 5, to approve variants from

1:56:15AMC to one 0, 7, 0, 2, 0. Be 9

1:56:17table. 21 0, 7 Dash minimum

1:56:20street setback with her side

1:56:23to allow the existing

1:56:24structure with proposed

1:56:25addition. To encroach 4.5

1:56:28feet. Subject to the condition

1:56:32shown on Page 6 of the staff

1:56:33report. Thank you. And while

1:56:40Lori's catching up, I'll go

1:56:41ahead and make that second.

1:56:43Mr. Shouldn't.

1:57:15Mr. Turner's

1:57:15moved.

1:57:20>> You just hit the move. But

1:57:25moved and second. Mr. please

1:57:32speak your motion.

1:57:35>> Yes chair. Thank so on the

1:57:39motion before us, we are

1:57:40considering a very small

1:57:43triangle shaped piece of the

1:57:46main structure and to walk

1:57:47through the approval criteria.

1:57:49I will note that. Variants one

1:57:53as originally proposed met

1:57:57everything except for H where

1:57:59it was partially met. And I

1:58:03will make the assertion that

1:58:05motion as amended our

1:58:07currently stated for that very

1:58:08small portion. In the stream

1:58:09setback. Does meet. H so as my

1:58:17assertion now that all of

1:58:18these criteria are met for the

1:58:20motion before us. Thank you.

1:58:24Mr. Shooting. Thank As

1:58:32similarly has similarly came

1:58:33to the same findings as Mister

1:58:35Norris.

1:58:36>> I do want to point out one

1:58:40of the interesting things

1:58:43about this case is despite the

1:58:45preponderance of water flowing

1:58:47in girdwood parcels as heard

1:58:48from multiple testifiers

1:58:49tonight. I do think that this

1:58:51one in particular is a very

1:58:54unique condition by suspected

1:58:55in a way that does make the

1:58:56site almost on developable.

1:59:00And because of that, I really

1:59:03feel like that is particularly

1:59:05was met and C were met firmly.

1:59:11And so I encourage everyone to

1:59:12to support it.

1:59:23>> Any other discussion?

1:59:28Seeing none? It has been moved

1:59:32and seconded.

1:59:34>> Some you know, they're

1:59:35already did that.

1:59:39>> Any further discussion

1:59:41discussion? If we're ready for

1:59:43the question. And the question

1:59:47is to allow the existing

1:59:49structure with the proposed

1:59:50addition to encroach 4.5 feet.

1:59:55Into the stream setback,

1:59:58subject to conditions shown on

1:59:59Page 6 of the staff report. A

2:00:00yes vote. Will grant the

2:00:04variance. A no vote will deny

2:00:05the variance. Please vote.

2:00:29Affirmative votes. No negative

2:00:31votes. The variance has been

2:00:31granted. Mrs. No, yeah. Make a

2:00:40motion for that. The positive

2:00:43motion for the 2nd half of

2:00:46happy to do so.

2:00:49>> I'm moving case 2, 0, 2, 6

2:00:52Dash, 0, 1, 2, 5, 2, approved

2:00:53a variance from AMC to one

2:00:57Ducks. 0, 7, 0, 2, 0. Be 9

2:01:00table to one Ducks. 0, 7 Dash.

2:01:02One minimum stream setback

2:01:03with her side to allow the

2:01:06existing structure with

2:01:07proposed addition to encroach

2:01:084.5 feet and

2:01:14>> pollen counts. We've

2:01:15already done that part. Yes,

2:01:18sorry in command per side. Her

2:01:25side for the proposed detached

2:01:27garage with an ad you to

2:01:29encroach 14 feet into the 25

2:01:31foot stream setback. Subject

2:01:33to conditions shown on Page 6

2:01:33of the staff report.

2:01:36>> If you could move button.

2:01:39When we get one. And second,

2:01:46it. Mr. Craig Bennett.

2:01:53Cayman's during our speak your

2:01:53motion.

2:01:59>> I moved for discussion

2:02:00purposes but would like to

2:02:01hear from my other members of

2:02:02the board. Please.

2:02:06>> Any other discussion on?

2:02:09Mr. Mosley.

2:02:14>> We want to hear from the

2:02:15second her first. The chair.

2:02:27>> So this is atu. And just

2:02:30looking at the site. For

2:02:36discussion purposes. Typical

2:02:37lot is allowed 30% lot

2:02:39coverage are typical houses

2:02:40and you're allowed 30%. And

2:02:42the of this. Bridge.

2:02:47It's 24%. I feel. Denying it.

2:02:54Encroaches on what everyone

2:02:55else is allowed in the area to

2:02:57go up to 30%. And they're just

2:03:00going to 24. like to keep that

2:03:04in mind as we talk. Mr.

2:03:09Mosley. Thank you. Madam

2:03:11Chair.

2:03:14>> So the reason that I that I

2:03:17moved to treat this as one

2:03:19from the beginning. Is that in

2:03:23my mind, it is it is one

2:03:25structure. It's connected by

2:03:26by a covered bridge. It's.

2:03:30>> You know, all

2:03:32interconnected there. So

2:03:33whether or not technically its

2:03:36its 3 different structures in

2:03:38my mind, it's all one. If we

2:03:40approved the house, which we

2:03:41have. And don't approve the

2:03:48bridge and the Atu garage.

2:03:54That is going to create a

2:03:55situation of confusion in my

2:03:58mind.

2:03:58>> So a new. If they have to

2:04:01come up with a whole new.

2:04:04Design for the structure

2:04:08because the garage in the and

2:04:10the covered bridge are not

2:04:12approved. How is that going to

2:04:15impact? The approval of the

2:04:19house if they have to come up

2:04:20with a new design and they got

2:04:23a variance for that. Now

2:04:25already tonight, are they

2:04:26going to have to go back and

2:04:29reapply for another variance?

2:04:33If the plan for the core house

2:04:35changes as a result of what

2:04:36we're doing here. So just

2:04:38wanted to explain why. I had

2:04:42made a motion to treat the

2:04:43application is one because

2:04:45this one project, it's one

2:04:49building envelope. It's it's

2:04:50one piece of the puzzle. To

2:04:52speak year question on the

2:04:54coverage. Yeah, it is a unique

2:04:59property. And when you look at

2:05:01building coverage. Again in my

2:05:05mind, it might not be the

2:05:06legal definition of it. But in

2:05:09my mind, you're considering

2:05:10the bill double portions of

2:05:12the lot. And if you consider

2:05:13that 50 foot swath through the

2:05:16middle of the lot, that takes

2:05:20overall building area of the

2:05:23lot down to a significantly

2:05:24less square footage and the

2:05:26home that they're putting on

2:05:27there at 2000 Square feet. I

2:05:31think it's fine. When you add

2:05:33the other 800 and something

2:05:35square feet to the 162 Square

2:05:37feet. Covered bridge. It is a

2:05:44lot for the slot and that's

2:05:44not to. We are to say. yeah,

2:05:49that's it's a it's a lot of

2:05:53building area for a lot of the

2:05:55size considering the building

2:05:56on bull up. That's available.

2:06:00Any further discussion. Mr.

2:06:02Shooting. Yes, thank you. I I

2:06:09appreciate the viewpoint of my

2:06:10colleagues about the building

2:06:10as a single structure. I in my

2:06:14mind, even though they are

2:06:15physically connected, I have

2:06:15been thinking of them as

2:06:17separate.

2:06:18>> Pieces of a whole and why I

2:06:22think that is critical to the

2:06:24way I value 8 this case is it

2:06:27focuses primarily on the

2:06:28garage in a tu which while

2:06:31connected by bridge. I still

2:06:33consider to be a detached

2:06:35garage from the primary

2:06:36structure. The primary

2:06:41structure and the design what

2:06:42the applicant was able to do

2:06:45with the existing stream

2:06:46setback in topography inside

2:06:49setbacks is pretty phenomenal.

2:06:50It's it's a very creative and

2:06:51clever way too achieve a house

2:06:59that does not deviate further

2:07:00from the existing

2:07:02encroachment. And in

2:07:05creatively add square footage

2:07:06to it in a way that does not

2:07:07encroach anywhere. I thought

2:07:08that was great. I have a real

2:07:10hard time with the garage and

2:07:14the accessory dwelling unit

2:07:15and my problems hinge on that

2:07:16key word, accessory, given

2:07:20that it's not a primary use of

2:07:21the property that it is

2:07:23accessory. I'm having a hard

2:07:25time justifying satisfaction

2:07:26of criteria age in our code

2:07:31and criteria skews me. C see

2:07:37one stands out. This is the

2:07:37one about hardship that

2:07:38self-imposed. That one stands

2:07:39out to me in particular

2:07:42because unlike the

2:07:43reconstruction of the

2:07:44building, footprint of the

2:07:45primary structure, there is no

2:07:46excess restructure there used

2:07:48to be a shed that the shed, as

2:07:49I understand it is gone and it

2:07:50was only 10 by 12, roughly. So

2:07:55the idea of creating a

2:07:57detached garage in 80 you an

2:07:58accessory use, if you will. I

2:08:01just I have a hard time,

2:08:06feeling that that criteria has

2:08:06been satisfied. It's very

2:08:07clearly self-imposed at that

2:08:08point. And that's that's why I

2:08:11was thankful for my colleague

2:08:13to buy for Kate this issue

2:08:14because considering this so as

2:08:15a single package would make

2:08:16that really tough for me to

2:08:19testify, I think it's creative

2:08:20design. I think it's great

2:08:22design. I think in 80 with a

2:08:24garage. If I let him go

2:08:25without definitely want one.

2:08:27But I just I don't see how the

2:08:30criteria laid out in code has

2:08:31been met and that we could

2:08:31approve. Thank you. Any other

2:08:36discussion. If not ready for

2:08:41the question

2:08:45>> The question is. To approve

2:08:53a variance. For the proposed

2:08:56detached garage with 8 with a

2:09:00view to encroach 14 feet into

2:09:01the 25 foot stream setback.

2:09:05Yes. Vote will grant a

2:09:06variance. A no vote will deny

2:09:07the variance.

2:09:292, yes votes and

2:09:314 votes in the negative. So.

2:09:35The variance is denied.

2:09:37>> And we'll move on.

2:09:39>> Variance to.

2:10:26It's to the

2:10:26bridge.

2:12:383 conditions.

2:13:10>> Positive motion by Mr.

2:13:11Shooting. Just take a motion.

2:13:15Please.

2:13:16>> Yes, thank you, chair. I

2:13:16move in. Case 2, 0, 2, 6 Dash,

2:13:210, 1, 2, 5, 2, approved a

2:13:22variance to allow foot bridge

2:13:23to cross the stream subject to

2:13:25the condition shown on Page 6

2:13:26of the staff report. Can I buy

2:13:32Mr? Craig Bennett. Mr. Should

2:13:37be with you. Speak your

2:13:38motion, please. Yeah, I I'd

2:13:41like to I'd like for the

2:13:42record to reflect that. My

2:13:44motion is in reference to a MC

2:13:4821 dot. '07, Dot 0, 2, 0, B 9

2:13:50D. I I just to make sure that

2:13:56we include the code reference

2:13:57and in the motion. And other

2:14:04than that, I encourage people

2:14:05to prove. Thank you. You're

2:14:07not going to. Address them

2:14:09standards. Yes, absolutely.

2:14:14thank you for reminding this

2:14:18one was also tricky when

2:14:19thinking about, but I do,

2:14:22Billy, I do believe that they

2:14:25have satisfied all 8 of the

2:14:28standards as laid out in

2:14:29municipal code, a leading me

2:14:30to believe that we can approve

2:14:31this as a variance. Thank you.

2:14:34Mr. Craig Bennett. I agree

2:14:41that all the standards are met

2:14:42and the need to be a way

2:14:46across the creek and be

2:14:49approving Any other

2:14:53discussion. Mr. Mosley. So its

2:14:59my understanding that there is

2:15:02an existing footbridge in

2:15:04place is that actually covered

2:15:06by the end? This might be a

2:15:08staff question is actually

2:15:09covered by the and CD.

2:15:11>> Or is that? In other words,

2:15:16they if they reconstructed the

2:15:18foot bridge where it is, do

2:15:21they need a variance for that

2:15:22or is it covered by the N C D?

2:15:26Threw the chair board easily.

2:15:33If you turn the page. 51 52 of

2:15:36your staff packet.

2:15:45>> don't believe she mentions

2:15:45the bridge. She mentions the

2:15:49house encroaching. The deck

2:15:52encroaching. And the shed. But

2:15:56the shed was removed. Hence

2:16:04the need for the variance.

2:16:19I

2:16:19think it's on Page 3 of 6 Paul

2:16:21on the N C page which page?

2:16:27pitches. Get 6.51 Of your

2:16:27staff reporter. Were you

2:16:33seeing it? It's referenced in

2:16:34the has built by Robert

2:16:37Lumpkin. 24 2026 towards the

2:16:37end of that paragraph. That

2:16:42she does not mention it and

2:16:44you need the conclusions. She

2:16:46mentions it. But she doesn't

2:16:46say whether or not it actually

2:16:47has. Nonconforming rates.

2:17:20Yes,

2:17:21she mentions through chair.

2:17:21She mentions that Mr. Shooting

2:17:24said, but she does not. It is

2:17:26not one of the conclusions.

2:17:29The only thing in the

2:17:30conclusions of the the House

2:17:35and the shed. So if it's not

2:17:44covered.

2:17:44>> Then it needs a variance

2:17:45sense it just Caruso, you

2:17:51Again, you know, 3 parts of

2:17:54the same plan spree, parts of

2:17:54the same structure,

2:17:55essentially. If they're not

2:17:59permitted. To rebuild the

2:18:04existing foot bridge under the

2:18:04ncb. Then my my thought would

2:18:09be to grant a variance for the

2:18:11footprint so that they have a

2:18:13method of creating something

2:18:16new there and getting from the

2:18:17House to the parking area or

2:18:19at least having an

2:18:19opportunity. 2. Redesigned the

2:18:26garage in ad you so that it

2:18:26fits within Required building

2:18:28envelope. And I think with

2:18:34with that variance in place,

2:18:37it gives them a leg up on that

2:18:40ability even allows them to if

2:18:42they do choose to have a

2:18:44covered. Bridge that goes from

2:18:47the House to their parking

2:18:48area. I think that's something

2:18:51that we should that we should

2:18:52grant. Any discussion. Mr.

2:18:58Norris. Thank you, chair. I

2:19:03will be in favor of this. I

2:19:05don't think it would be proper

2:19:06for us to give them a house

2:19:07with no way to And

2:19:10>> you are looking at the

2:19:11existing structure. I don't

2:19:11know that it would provide

2:19:12the. Access given its current

2:19:18footprint alignment may not

2:19:22fit with the House has

2:19:23proposed and the variance

2:19:23that's approved. So without

2:19:27this, I think that we would be

2:19:28giving them a house with no

2:19:28way to get to it not. I don't

2:19:29believe that that would be a

2:19:31application of law or policy.

2:19:35And I believe that it meets

2:19:37all the criteria, including

2:19:38this is very minimum to enjoy

2:19:41the the property in a manner

2:19:43that others put. So I intend

2:19:43to support. Thank you. Any

2:19:45other discussion.

2:19:49>> If not. He's been moved and

2:19:54seconded.

2:19:55>> not into that. OK, the

2:19:59question is on the adoption

2:20:05variance to allow a foot

2:20:06bridge to cross the street.

2:20:10Yes, but will grant a variance

2:20:11a no vote will deny the

2:20:12variance. Please vote. 6 votes

2:20:27in the affirmative. No votes

2:20:27in the negative variance has

2:20:28been granted. We'll move on to

2:20:31variants street. And have a

2:20:35positive motion. Please.

2:20:56Moved

2:20:56by Mister Craig Bennett. Would

2:20:59you please State your motion?

2:21:06>> I'm moving case 2026 Dash

2:21:090, 1, 2, 5, to approve a

2:21:10variance from AMC. 21 got 0,

2:21:120, 6, 0, be. Table. 21 Dash 0,

2:21:189 dash 5 table dimensional

2:21:19standards, girdwood

2:21:20residential districts to allow

2:21:22a proposed detached garage

2:21:23with an ad you to encroach 5

2:21:25feet and to the front and side

2:21:26setback. Is there a second?

2:21:40Seconded by Mister Brent

2:21:40Bennett. Mr. Craig Bennett,

2:21:44when you Speak your motion,

2:21:45please. Not sure how this will

2:21:51play out with the. First

2:21:54variance, but the department

2:21:58recommends approval. The

2:21:59department says that. All 8

2:22:01standards are met. And I agree

2:22:05with that. Be voting an

2:22:09affirmative for. Mr. Brendan.

2:22:25The move.

2:22:26>> Motion was seconded so we

2:22:26could move it to vote.

2:22:28>> You have any.

2:22:30>> I really had nothing to add

2:22:31to what's been going on.

2:22:32You're taking consideration.

2:22:34I'm trying to be convinced.

2:22:35Okay.

2:22:36>> Anybody else? Thank you.

2:22:45concur with Mr. Craig Bennett

2:22:45that the staff, it concluded

2:22:49that for a variance, 3, all of

2:22:50the conditions were met. I do.

2:22:54Obviously acknowledged that

2:22:55things have changed quite a

2:22:57bit given how things went with

2:22:58variants one. But I do believe

2:23:00that where the applicant able

2:23:01to design a structure to meet

2:23:07their needs within this small

2:23:09amount of setback,

2:23:10encroachment what's left of

2:23:11the buildable area. I think

2:23:13that is a reasonable I'll come

2:23:16and I wouldn't and support.

2:23:17Thank you.

2:23:24>> further weaken further? Mr.

2:23:27Shooting.

2:23:30>> Thank you. it's a it. This

2:23:35is a tricky like Mr. Norris

2:23:37stated in the earlier vote, we

2:23:42clearly indicated some

2:23:42concerns about the EU's

2:23:43proposed and design. As it

2:23:46relates to the stream setback

2:23:49variance. Request. I have this

2:23:51many of the same concerns with

2:23:51the site setback. One. You

2:23:55heard our conversation earlier

2:23:58between staff and I back and

2:23:59forth as to whether or not we

2:24:01could even we should be

2:24:03granting this kind of variance

2:24:06given 21. 0, 9, 0, 5, C to 3 h

2:24:10longest coats. I never set out

2:24:10loud, but basically. The

2:24:14government code as it relates

2:24:16to 80's is pretty specific

2:24:17that they don't want

2:24:18encroaching into the side

2:24:19setbacks for units over

2:24:20certain height side and rear

2:24:22setbacks and unfortunate. This

2:24:23one is over that height. So

2:24:26feel like we have not

2:24:26satisfied all criteria in

2:24:30particular. I'm hung up on

2:24:33criteria. Age. I do not think

2:24:35that this ad meets that

2:24:36criteria. And if that one is

2:24:37not met, cannot approve. Thank

2:24:38you. Mr. Mosley. I agree with

2:24:47Mister Xi to a certain extent.

2:24:51Once again, we're we're

2:24:52breaking the hold out pieces.

2:24:55you know, this. This

2:24:59particular variants will

2:25:00depend. On how the applicant

2:25:04redesigns the garage and a D

2:25:05U. We've already approved a

2:25:09bridge. Which doesn't extend

2:25:14all the way to the. To the

2:25:16stream setback. And so, you

2:25:20know, might my concern is

2:25:21that? Is the whole design

2:25:26going to have to change as a

2:25:28result of this or are they

2:25:31capable of building a garage

2:25:34and or a D U? That takes

2:25:38advantage of those 5 foot.

2:25:41Encroachments into the

2:25:43setbacks but still does not

2:25:45encroach on the stream

2:25:46setback. And so I think it

2:25:50gets confusing when we when we

2:25:52break a project down into

2:25:52parts like this and it would

2:25:57be counterproductive to

2:25:58approve a variance at this

2:26:01point, which may or may not

2:26:02even be able to be used. So

2:26:12the point of information

2:26:13chair. If I may, I need some

2:26:17clarification, perhaps from

2:26:19staff on that exact point, Mr.

2:26:21Ma's Lee. I think that's a

2:26:21very interesting point. So my.

2:26:23>> My point of information for

2:26:25staff is variances are

2:26:30approved in a property owner

2:26:31elects not to exercise that

2:26:32variance. Is that allowable, I

2:26:35guess.

2:26:40>> chair, Mr. that is correct.

2:26:41So you can. You can request a

2:26:42variance whether or not you

2:26:43build to that. That

2:26:44requirement or not, I don't

2:26:47know if I can add anything

2:26:49just again, the 5 foot

2:26:52setback, encroachment that

2:26:52they're asking for is possibly

2:26:56only 20 something feet long on

2:26:56100 and something for the lots

2:26:57of. That. That's where I was

2:27:01come. That's where the staff

2:27:02report came with it with the

2:27:03age that It was meant in that

2:27:04case. You're talking. 15% of

2:27:09the last link that you're

2:27:09encroaching into. Not 50% or

2:27:11100% of it. So. To the chair.

2:27:25to your question of you have 5

2:27:28bedrooms, 3 Vaz. Excuse me. 5

2:27:31bedrooms, 4 And you only have

2:27:35a 2 car garage. That's not the

2:27:40minimum. By the way, you could

2:27:41have one car garage. And you

2:27:45can also have a minimum house.

2:27:45I've seen them down to the

2:27:46smallest 92 square feet. just

2:27:53want to that came to be, but I

2:27:54was also wondering if we don't

2:27:56approve the garage and it to

2:27:56you. You have a 3 bedroom, 3

2:27:59bath. With major Trees Creek

2:28:03in the front yard and no

2:28:05landscaping allowed. What's

2:28:06not to like about that. Just

2:28:09the thought of. coming. From

2:28:13the result of all this and

2:28:14separating about garage to the

2:28:19covered bridge into the major

2:28:19Innovation. Mr. Mosley.

2:28:31>> I'm also trying to figure

2:28:31out what we're actually

2:28:32granting a variance for. Are

2:28:34we granting a blanket variance

2:28:38for a garage to extend 5 feet

2:28:42into the site. Setback and

2:28:46also encroach 5 feet into the

2:28:48front setback regardless of

2:28:50the size or plan of that

2:28:51garage, which doesn't make any

2:28:52sense to me because you could

2:28:55end up building a garage that

2:28:58extends. You know, all the

2:29:00way. Way up. It could have

2:29:07different dimensions. And

2:29:09again, you know, I hate to

2:29:09keep harping on this, but this

2:29:10goes back to. Breaking up a

2:29:15cohesive design into parts

2:29:18where the parts are not the

2:29:19same as the hall. And so I for

2:29:23denying the variance for the

2:29:25position of this garage. Then

2:29:29everything gets tonight for

2:29:31the garage, including the

2:29:32encroachment to the side and

2:29:35the encroachment to the front.

2:29:36Sorry, I'm losing my voice.

2:29:37But anyway, that's that's my

2:29:41opinion on this. If they want

2:29:42to come back with a new design

2:29:46for the garage in the ad. You

2:29:49then those variances can be

2:29:50addressed at that time. Mr.

2:29:58Pregnant. Thank you. I just

2:30:02like to say again, this is the

2:30:06variance that the department

2:30:07recommends approval of.

2:30:08>> And in this case, going

2:30:15with department's finding. The

2:30:21extension of the 5 feet when

2:30:24it go up past the stream would

2:30:27not keep going it would be

2:30:31restricted to the streams that

2:30:31setback area. But he OK?

2:30:39>> I would. I would comment on

2:30:40that. that doesn't appear to

2:30:41me to be obviously the case

2:30:44because we're approving a 5

2:30:45foot setback. From the side

2:30:49which has nothing to do with

2:30:51the stream. So in this

2:30:53particular drawing the

2:30:54building actually extends.

2:30:57Into the stream setback. And

2:30:59so we're actually proving. A 5

2:31:01foot. Variance for

2:31:07encroachment into the side of

2:31:09the lot. That is actually

2:31:10within the stream setback. Can

2:31:20I ask staff Pena? Threw the

2:31:22chair, mister Craig Bennett.

2:31:26>> Yes, this would be granting

2:31:27a 5 foot variance to the

2:31:29site's epic. But like you

2:31:30said, they still you denied

2:31:32any encroachment into the

2:31:33stream. Setback for the

2:31:33garage. I would say with

2:31:37clever design and with some.

2:31:40Tweaking, you could probably

2:31:41still get some type of the

2:31:42structure within that

2:31:42footprint. But that's that's

2:31:44just what I'm looking at. Mr.

2:31:50Shooting.

2:31:54>> I appreciate the

2:31:55conversation. And

2:31:56unfortunately just generated

2:31:57new question for me. Paul, as

2:32:00it relates to carports and

2:32:03zoning districts which I'm

2:32:04super familiar with. They are.

2:32:07They similarly allowed to

2:32:09encroach side and rear

2:32:10setbacks like the canon

2:32:10acreage.

2:32:14>> Threw the chair mister

2:32:16shooting. Know they cannot.

2:32:16There is a caveat to that

2:32:17because current code refers

2:32:18back to Chapter 5 of Anchorage

2:32:19code. And private garages or

2:32:22car parts can. But only if

2:32:24they're butting. And Ali.

2:32:26That's the cabbie up. And

2:32:29you're gonna ask that when

2:32:29that so I headed up. Any other

2:32:33discussion.

2:32:43>> ready for the question. The

2:32:44question is on the adoption of

2:32:46a motion to grant a variance

2:32:48to allow proposed detached

2:32:49garage with a view to encroach

2:32:495 feet. Into the front and

2:32:51side setback. Subject because

2:32:54nations son shown on Page 6 of

2:32:55the staff report. yes vote

2:32:58approve the variance. A no

2:33:02vote will deny the variance.

2:33:03Please vote.

2:33:23There are 3 votes

2:33:24in the positive and 3 votes in

2:33:27the negative takes 5 votes to

2:33:29approve. And so the variances

2:33:30the night. So that was the

2:33:43only case. Under public

2:33:45hearings. And next we have

2:33:48reports. Reports by the chair.

2:33:52I have nothing reports by

2:33:54this.

2:33:56>> Secretary.

2:34:00>> She thinks maybe there

2:34:01won't be meeting next month

2:34:01years. No committee's board

2:34:04member comments. Mr. Shooting.

2:34:08>> Yeah, because nobody has

2:34:09heard from me tonight. The

2:34:12struggling I want to say thank

2:34:16you to staff and 2 fellow

2:34:18commissioners. This was a

2:34:19particularly interesting

2:34:21night, I believe in the body a

2:34:22short time. But this was by

2:34:22far the most interesting and

2:34:26intellectually challenging

2:34:26meeting we've had thus far.

2:34:28But I really appreciated the

2:34:32conversation and the facts and

2:34:34details provided by staff as

2:34:34well as the applicant. Thank

2:34:38you. if this is what our

2:34:40meetings are like, this is

2:34:40going to be a wild ride. So

2:34:41thank you.

2:34:43>> Mrs excuse me, Mr. Beazley.

2:34:48>> I just had a point of

2:34:49clarification. You had stated

2:34:54that approval requirement was

2:34:555 votes. I think you meant for

2:34:56votes. It's 5. We passed

2:35:01thing. 42. Because we had

2:35:05somebody that wants. On

2:35:07disclosure.

2:35:14>> I can read that part. If

2:35:14you want. Occurring vote, a

2:35:21majority of the fully

2:35:22constitute a membership of the

2:35:24board. Minus those excused by

2:35:25conflicts of interest. And so

2:35:26that particular vote Hannah,

2:35:28someone that was excused.

2:35:31conflict of interest. That's

2:35:32what went down to 4. Mr.

2:35:38>> Yeah. Why not? And they

2:35:42want to say kind of echo what?

2:35:47Mr. Shooting was saying that

2:35:49this was a difficult case

2:35:51tonight and I want to do want

2:35:52to compliment the petitioner.

2:35:54I do believe that you did your

2:35:55level best to work with a lot

2:35:57that you have and it's

2:35:58presents very difficult

2:35:59challenges. And I appreciate

2:36:04everyone coming out make their

2:36:06voices heard. We don't often

2:36:08get a ton of public testimony

2:36:11we've got some tonight to help

2:36:12inform our decision so it was

2:36:16a it was an interesting night

2:36:17and I appreciate everyone's

2:36:18involvement. Thank you.

2:36:23>> that's it. We need.

2:36:25>> A motion for adjournment.

2:36:28>> So moved. Second second.

2:36:33>> Moved by Mister

2:36:36>> Seconded by Mister Bryan

2:36:37Bennett. We are adjourned.

2:37:16>> You registered