The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutKINCAID ESTATES Expired S-110145-11014 Kincaid Estates EXPIRED Platting Board Summary of Action March 5, 2003 Page 7 The parcel is actually located west of Abbott Loop Road in Section 9. b. Street names: Vicinity map: Lore Rd between Seward Hwy & Lake Otis Pkwy. Vicinity map: 72nd Ave, not 72th. C. Determine if these lots part of Block 2 and correct the title block if necessary. d. Map information: Block numbers missing from all lots. e. The scale between the top two drawings is incorrectly labeled as the same. M. S-11014-2 ncaid Estates Subdivision, Tracts 1-3 — ort Plat Approval Case withdrawn by the petitioner per letter received on February 20, 2003. n. S-11029-1 Kincaid Estates Subdivision, Tracts 1-10 RESOLUTION NO. 2003-10 A. Approval of the vacation utility easements subject to the non -objection of all affected utilities. B. Approval of the vacation of the screening easement subject to re -dedicating a screening easement adjacent to the western boundary of the Kalmbach/Lucy pit with subsequent plat(s). C. Denial of the vacation of a portion of West 80th Avenue. D. Approval of the plat for 60 months subject to: 1. Resolving utility easements. 2. Dedicate a 60 -foot right-of-way for Kincaid Estates Drive. Municipality of Anchorage Development Services Department Building Safety Division 151gld�7:7c\:U7�IAI DATE: December 27, 2002 TO: Jerry T. Weaver, Jr., Platting Officer, CPD FROi11: 411res Cross, PE, Program Manager, On -Site Water & Wastewater SUBJECT: Comments on Cases due December 26, 2002 The On -Site Water & Wastewater Program has reviewed the following cases and has these comments: S-11011 Evergreen Subdivision. No objections. S-11012 BLM Lot 42, E''/x, T13N, R3 W, Section 33 / BLM Lot 42A No objections. S-11013 Debarr Vista Subdivison. No objections. LS -110147% LT12N; R4W; Section 9 / Kincaid Estates Subdivision. 1, No objections. S-11019 Muirwood Pard (vacation). No objections. Please fill in the information asked fnr hpinw PETITIONER' I PETITIONER REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name past n—a}me first Name (Last name first) Maung Aamms 3 E 00 amng acres 440 \,J, 5a -J L✓ "" i o 3 M!G%�o /vii ctS'�V ��e.lrN6 AV =q v Contact Phone: Day 22 _ Night Contact Phone: Day. 56L- 29 Night FAX. o �7ci4Z FAX: S(el •626 E•mad: E•mad: 'nePon aacmonaL pevuanes or a¢ocse over rnownrrs no .�„•ma„�, ,.m, ,,....e ... ,._...-- ------_--_— --_ -- _ - ----_'-^-"�a �•�••^•^•+..••W��+, vn�iG�J,Iur VCCr P1U{:C]]II19 OI a16 aPPficaaan. PROPERTY INFORMATION Properr/ Tax nr000-000aa000t: 5E qT7 NfY� Site Street Address: Current legal description: (use adffaonaL sheet if necessary) SGE o.TiKNE•f� Zo : Q1A 2 5 L Acreaoe: ) G , Grid n ZZZ3 Z.32Z 2 L3 Lots: tr Tracts: Total # parcels: I hereby certify that (I am)(1 have been authorized to act for) owner of the property described above and that I petition to subdivide it in conformance with Title 21 of the Anchorage Municpai• Code of Ordinances. I understand that payment of the atipiicaticn fee is nonrefundable and is to cover the toss associated with processing this application, and that H does not assure approval of the subdivision. I also understand that assigned hearing dates are tentative and may have to be postponed by Planning Depamnent staff or the Platting Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Assembly for administrativerea. provice written proof of auepnzauon) PROPOSED SUBDIVISION INFORMATION ProDosea legal description: (use aadaonaisneetinnecessary) �/L*GTS I�Zt3 !(r,JGArf,J ES%4i� S.�gQ• a Lots: 1 ;;Tracts: I Total;; parcels: Accepted by; IPoslrBAfgaviC _.. .Fee ._. .. ...... - - Case Number'.. Page 2 o...e....m-.., G.m .omen ed ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (Ail or Donn ofsde affecled) Wetland Classification: 9 None ❑ "C" ❑ IF ❑ "A" Avalanche Zone: -None ❑ Blue Zone ❑ Red Zone Floodplain: IVNone [3 100 year ❑ 500 year ElSeismic Zone (Hardina/Lawson): 01" ❑ "2- ❑ "3" ❑ "4" ❑ 05" RECENT REGULATORY INFORMATION (Events mat have oaorred in tast s years for ail or poruon of sdei ❑ Rezoning - Case Number. Preliminary Plat ❑ Final Plat -Case Number(s): S- 1059 D 5-io z+0 ❑ Conditional Use - Case Number(s): ❑ Zoning variance - Case Number(s): ❑ Land Use Enforcement Action for ❑ Buiiding or Land Use Permit for ❑ Wetland oerrnit: ❑ Armv Coro of Engineers ❑ Municipality of Anchoraae APPLICATION CHECKLIST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INFORMATION Anchorage 2020 UrbanlRural Services: tSiUrban ❑ Rural Anchorage 2020 West Ancnoraae PlanningArea: Inside ❑ Outside Anchorage 2020 Major Urban Elements: Site is within or abuts: ❑ Major Employment Center ❑ Redevelopment/Mixed Use Area ❑ Town Center ❑ Neighborhood Commercial Center ❑ Industrial Center ❑ Transit - Supportive Deveiopment Ccrridor Additional required aocuments unless specifically waived by Platting Eagle River-Chugiak-Peters Creek Land Use Classification: ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Parkslopens space ❑ F3blic Land Institutions' ❑ Marginal land ❑ Alpine/Slope Affected ❑ Special Study ❑ Residential at dwelling units per acre Waived by Girdwood- Tumagain Arm ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Parks/opens space ❑ Public Land Institutions ❑ Marginal land ❑ AlpinelSlope Affected ❑ Special Study ❑ Residential at dwelling units per acre ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (Ail or Donn ofsde affecled) Wetland Classification: 9 None ❑ "C" ❑ IF ❑ "A" Avalanche Zone: -None ❑ Blue Zone ❑ Red Zone Floodplain: IVNone [3 100 year ❑ 500 year ElSeismic Zone (Hardina/Lawson): 01" ❑ "2- ❑ "3" ❑ "4" ❑ 05" RECENT REGULATORY INFORMATION (Events mat have oaorred in tast s years for ail or poruon of sdei ❑ Rezoning - Case Number. Preliminary Plat ❑ Final Plat -Case Number(s): S- 1059 D 5-io z+0 ❑ Conditional Use - Case Number(s): ❑ Zoning variance - Case Number(s): ❑ Land Use Enforcement Action for ❑ Buiiding or Land Use Permit for ❑ Wetland oerrnit: ❑ Armv Coro of Engineers ❑ Municipality of Anchoraae APPLICATION CHECKLIST Fee: Plat: Copies C 42 (long plats) 32 (snort plats only) ❑ 8'/ixl1 reduced copy Other maps ❑ Aerial photo ❑ Housing stock ❑ Zoning Mandatory on plat depictions: ❑ Pedestrian walkwav ❑ Landscaping reauired by zoning Property Title: ❑ Certificate to Plat Additional required aocuments unless specifically waived by Platting Officer. ❑ Site topography (4 copies minimum) a--, 0w7, - Waived by ❑ Soils investigation and analysis reports (4 copies minimum) Waived by ❑ Subdivision orainace clan Waived by 20X003 (Rev. 01.-10'Eaac Exibit "A" PARCEL NO. 1: THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SEWARD MERIDIAN, RECORDS OF THE ANCHORAGE RECORDING DISTRICT, STATE OF ALASKA, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WEST FOUR HUNDRED FEET THEREOF WHHICH HAS BEEN PLATTED N ST. JOHN SUBDIVISION, PLAT NO. 70-31 AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY ROADS. PARCEL NO. 2: THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHIEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SEWARD MERIDIAN, RECORDS OF THE ANCHORAGE RECORDING DISTRICT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF ALASKA, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED BY DECLARATION OF TAKING RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1963 N MISC. BOOK 71 AT PAGE 113 AND AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED AUGUST 8, 1963 N MISC. BOOK 72 AT PAGE 127. PARCEL NO. 3: THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SEWARD MERIDIAN, RECORDS OF THE ANCHORAGE RECORDING DISTRICT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF ALASKA, EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY ROADS. PARCEL NO. 4: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED N THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER, OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SEWARD MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER EAST 1/16 CORNER OF SECTION 9 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST ALONG THE 1/4 SECTION LINE 2640 FEET TO THE CENTER WEST 1/16 SECTION CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 0002' WEST 202.93 FEET ALONG THE 1/16 LINE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 2, SEAVIEW HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 64059' EAST ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF A AFOREMENTIONED SUBDIVISION, 1924.34 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY, SOUTIH 71059' EAST 941.32 FEET TO THE EAST 1/16 SECTION LINE AND EAST BOUNDARY OF AFOREMENTIONED SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 0002' EAST ALONG THE EAST 1/16 SECTION LINE 1307.8 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING WITHIN THE ANCHORAGE RECORDING DISTRICT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF ALASKA. PARCEL NO. 5: THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SEWARD MERIDIAN, BEING LOCATED N THE ANCHORAGE RECORDING DISTRICT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF ALASKA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 117 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF ALASKA FOR PROJECT S 0520 (7) BY DEED RECORDED JULY 3, 1963 N DEED BOOK 262 AT PAGE 94. 21052671000/01 HULTQUIST DAVE 1105268/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVE 1105269/000/01 IIULTQUIST DAVE - 1112113/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID & DIMOND SANDS LESA L 1112115/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID & MCDOWELL LESA L -�L 1112116/000/01 IIULTQUIST DAVID & LESA L i 1112120/ 00/01 HULTQUIST DAVID & LESA L !2172121/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID & I LESA L 1112722/ 0000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID & LESA ;1112123/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID & LESA L 1112124/000/01 IIULTQUIST DAVID & LESA L *1126110/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID 8c LESA L 1128103/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID & LESA L -1129118/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID & LESA L 1,527207/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVE 1527208/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID & LESA '1527274/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID D & LESA L 15272751000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID D 1604232/000/01 HULTQUIST DAVID D & LESA L 1604232/000/02 HULTQUIST DAVID D & LESA L HULTQUIST DAVID 170712-95O 0/Ql DBA HULTQUIST CONSTRUCTION MUIRWOOD T PARK R D 1VIUIRWOOD PARK TRE 5951 MUIRWOOD TRF PARK T12N R4W SEC 9 NW4NE4 E PTN i T12N R4W SEC 9 E2SW4NE4 T12N R4W SEC 9 E2NE4 8000 ST JOIN LT 5 ST JOIN LT 4 ST JOIiN LT 3 ST JOHN LT 2 ST JOIN LT 1 KINCAID SAND LAKE LUCY LUCY LUCY T12N R4W SEC 9 NE4SW4 & NW4SE4 PTN . T12N R4W SEC 9 NE4SE41ESS . , E117 DIMOND SANDS TR A MCDOWELL LT A-211 MCDOWELL LT A -2G 3511 114TH SIEFKER #2 LT A2A SIEFKER #2 LT A3A1 MAUI INDUSTRIAL TR 1B 360 100TH PARK MAUI INDUSTRIAL TR 111 360 100TH PARK SOUTH HILLS BLK 7 LT 4 3000 HILLSIDE Jerry Weaver Municipality of Anchorage Platting Board Authority 4700 Bragaw Street Anchorage, Alaska Re: S-10114 Kincaid Estates Tracts 1-4 Our File No. W-3818-01 Dear Mr. Weaver: JAN 1 3 2003 OEM L. MCKAT MICHAEL R -?AMU RAnRA Z. NAULT STETEN T. OiiARA JOHN M. SEDOR BRIAN J. STMITZ THObW V. WANG. JR. via hand delivery 72�- S 11014,MAR 5 2003 Pursuant to Anchorage Municipal Code (herein "AMC") 21. 15.125(E)(4), the South Anchorage Concerned Coalition, Inc. appeals the Platting Officer's December 30, 2002 decision to approve the preliminary plat of Tracts 1, 2 & 3 submitted under the abbreviated plat procedure by Petitioner David Hultquist in Case S-11014, Kincaid Estates Subdivision (herein `the Tracts 1, 2 & 3 preliminary plat"). Based on the fact that currently case S-10873, Kincaid Estates Subdivision, is on appeal to and under consideration by the Board of Adjustrnent for errors in application of the law and lack of substantial evidence in findings of fact, it is vital that Kincaid Estates remains undisturbed until all field data and analysis has been completed and proper approval secured. Consequently, the Platting Officer's decision to approve the preliminary plat must be vacated. Errors in Application of Law Approval of the Tracts 1, 2 & 3 preliminary plat violates due process of law. 2. The Tracts 1, 2 & 3 preliminary plat is not an eligible preliminary plat under AMC 21.15.125. BANKSTON, GRONNING, 01HARA, SEDOR, MILLS, GIVENS & HEAPm A PROF=ONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW ROBERT & ATWOOD BUDDING 550 W. Tm AVENUE. SUITE 1800 ' AnnoRAOE. Awu 99801 (907) 276.1711 FACM= (907) 2794358 WWW.HANB.TTON.TO WILLIAM M. BANBS70N MARE. W.FULLMER ANDREA E. GIROLAMO JON T. GlvaNs CRRis D. GRONNING CHRISTOPHER J. REAPTUCY January 13, 2003 Jerry Weaver Municipality of Anchorage Platting Board Authority 4700 Bragaw Street Anchorage, Alaska Re: S-10114 Kincaid Estates Tracts 1-4 Our File No. W-3818-01 Dear Mr. Weaver: JAN 1 3 2003 OEM L. MCKAT MICHAEL R -?AMU RAnRA Z. NAULT STETEN T. OiiARA JOHN M. SEDOR BRIAN J. STMITZ THObW V. WANG. JR. via hand delivery 72�- S 11014,MAR 5 2003 Pursuant to Anchorage Municipal Code (herein "AMC") 21. 15.125(E)(4), the South Anchorage Concerned Coalition, Inc. appeals the Platting Officer's December 30, 2002 decision to approve the preliminary plat of Tracts 1, 2 & 3 submitted under the abbreviated plat procedure by Petitioner David Hultquist in Case S-11014, Kincaid Estates Subdivision (herein `the Tracts 1, 2 & 3 preliminary plat"). Based on the fact that currently case S-10873, Kincaid Estates Subdivision, is on appeal to and under consideration by the Board of Adjustrnent for errors in application of the law and lack of substantial evidence in findings of fact, it is vital that Kincaid Estates remains undisturbed until all field data and analysis has been completed and proper approval secured. Consequently, the Platting Officer's decision to approve the preliminary plat must be vacated. Errors in Application of Law Approval of the Tracts 1, 2 & 3 preliminary plat violates due process of law. 2. The Tracts 1, 2 & 3 preliminary plat is not an eligible preliminary plat under AMC 21.15.125. Jerry Weaver January 13, 2003 Page 2 3. The Tracts 1, 2 & 3 preliminary plat violates the Sand Lake Redevelopment Plan because the plat fails to indicate required streets and trails and the road designated as Kincaid Estates Road fails to indicate appropriate connectors. 4. The Tracts 1, 2 & 3 preliminary plat violates the Areawide Trails Plan, the Coastal Trail Plan, the 1985 Anchorage Park, Greenbelt and Recreational Facility Plan, and the Anchorage 2020, Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan by failing to designate trails required by these Plans. S. Based on the issues currently on appeal to the Board of Adjustment in case S-10873, the approval of the Tracts 1, 2 & 3 preliminary plat violates numerous provisions of the Anchorage Municipal Code, the Sand Lake Redevelopment Plan and the Anchorage 2020, therefore, it is vital that Kincaid Estates remains undisturbed until all field data and analysis has been completed and proper approval secured. 6. Appellants hereby real rge and incorporate by reference the points on appeal alleging errors in application of law and facts not supported by substantial evidence previously set forth in their Notices of Appeal in cases S-10873 and S-10973-2 filed May 15, 2002 and June 20, 2002 and which were subsequently consolidated. See Attached Notices of Appeal. Sincerely, BANKSTON, GRONNING, O HARA, SEDOR, MILLS, GIVENS & HEAPHEY, PC Andrea E. Girolamo AEG/jmv Enclosures cc: Client W3818\0I\LTRwewvffAE61 to i• MUNICIPALTTY.OF ANCHORAGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO C:E OF APPEAL TO AN AMON.OF THE PLANNING AND NING COlaUSSION OR THE PLATTING BOARD w FEE - $160 U COSTBOAV - $100 MB USE BYcrsrrS a - C:) c o tn ± p Ihte "' Appeall3e&: z cr d • CbetBand: er U 1 1 AC�nij Q71Bt SearirtgDsAe: . 1%CI�QII% A. General Identity of Action being appealed 1. Planning Department file number: s -i nR70 2. Name of project or subdivision: Kincaid Estates Subdivision Gu S. Date of Commission or Board action: , 2002 B. Appellant's Name and Address Will Watson. Deanna Essert Robert Paulsen, Eric Volforth. South Anchorage 1. Name:- ton rn d.oa ion. Inc. c o Christopher. J, Eeaphey 2. Mailing Address:_ nant[arnn rronninY n�Rarn 550 Went Seventh. Suite 1800 Anchorage, AR 99501 8. Telephone: 276-1711 4. Relationship to action: Petitioner _,Agent of Petitioner. ArovideNameandeddreseafpetitixer. Name* Mm7ingAd� .. _Other person adversely affected* Government agency* • If you are not the petitioner or higher agent you must give notice to the petitioner by outiW mail at higher jut known addrou within three days of Ming this Notios cfAppeaL Notice of Appeal Board of A4juetaient wRITrEN STATEMENT (Plain paper maybe used if needed for additional apace) ' Please see attached—Written Statement—Notice of Appeal 2 :16fN! G d 0 {: N0.5554 P. 2 Notice of Appeal Board of Adjustment SPECIFICS OF APPEAL CERTIFICATION An appeal may be considered far three causes, and the cause(a) must be explained and a reason given for why the appeal should be granted. The causes are: 1. Procedural error 2. Error in application of law, S. Findings or conclusions that were unsupportedby evidence. A written statement of cause and reason for granting the appeal must accompaay this notice so that the appeal may be considered. An oral statement may not be used. It is important, then, that a careful and complete statement be made. I (um) hereby certify that lam (tae are) qualified to make this csppeal and that my (our) statement of cause and reason is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Signature: Date: STATEMENT INSTRUCTIONS An appeal may be considered for the following listed three causes, singly or in combination. Explain the cause and also state what corrective decision is desired by his appeal. 1. Procedural Error. If you allege procedural error, specify those matters which constitute the error and the manner in which the alleged ermr resulted in prejudice to your interest. 2. L%Tor in Application of IAw. If you allege legal error, specify the manner in which principles of law were incorrectly applied. Include reference to any ordinance, statute or other codified law upon which the allegation of legsl error is based. 3. image and Conclusion Unsupported by EYaden= If you anop that findings or conclusions are not supported by the evidence that was presented, specify and explain those findings or conclusions which lacked evidentiary support at the time of the action. Notice of Appeal N0. 5551 1. 2 Board of .Ad juataast SPECIFICS OF APPEAL. CERTIFICATION An appeal may be considered for three causes, ad tis causeW must be aq+bW and a reason given Lor why the appeal abould be: granted. The causes am 1. Procedural nam ><. Error in app>ieatioa of Lw. S. Pindings or conclusions that ware Unsupported by evidence. A written statement of cause and reason ibr granting the appal must accompay dais notios so that the appeal may be considered. An oral stattemat may not be used. It is important, then. that a COMM and complsb statement be mads. I (u1e) henbY mrti& that I ora (we w4 Quailed to make" gppira and that my (our) siatemtat of cause and reason is trite oVid correct to d w bent of nW (ow) Date: STATEMENT INSTRUCTIONS An appeal may be considered for the following listed thra causes. duel or in combination. Explain the cause and also state what corrective dacsion is desired by his appeal. 1. Proeedural Error. If you Wisgs procedural am, specify those mutters whieb constitute the error and the manner in which the gueged naps raultad is prejudice to your interest S. Error In Application of Lw. Ifyou allege legal error. Specify the mstsnar in which principles of law were ineorrectly applied. Indude "knave to any ce"ance. statute or other codified law upon whieb the allegation of legal error is basil L M*atnn and Conclusion Unimsmriea by Evidence, If you #bp that findinge or a=dueims are not supported by the evidence that was presented, specify and explain those findings or conclusions which lacked evidentiary support at the time of the action. 10)1 :1: iSiN d 0 110.5551 1. 1 Notice of Appeal Board of Adjustment SPECIFICS OF APPEAL CERTIFICATION An appeal may be considered for three cause, and the causes) mustbe wcpkined and a reason given for why the appeal should be granted. The causes are: 1. Procedural W= 2. Error in application of law. S. Findings or conclusions that were uneupportedby evidence. A written statement of cause and reason for granting the appeal must accompany this notice so that the appeal may be considered. An oral statement may not be uud. It is important, then, that a careful and complete statement be made. I (we) hereby certify that I am (we are) quaUAM to make this appeal and that my (our) state o use and reason is true and correct to &a best of nay (ow) hnowledge. Signaturs: j4/NnM ir_J Date: STATEMENT INSTRUCTIONS A,n appeal may be considered for the following listed three cawea, eintiy or in combination. Explain the cause and also state what corrective decaion is desired by his appeal. 1. procedural Error. If you allege procedural error, apathy thou matters which constitute the error and the manner in wbich the alleged error resulted in prejudice to your interest. Z. Error in Anolication of Law. If you allege legal error, aper the manner in Which principles of law were incorrectly applied. Include reference to any ordinance, statute or other codified law upon which the allegation of legal error is based X. pindfligs and Conclusion Unsr findings or conclusions are not supportei and explain those findings or conclusions of the action. orted hx Evidence. If you wage that the evidence that was presentad, spettify ch lsciced evidentiary support at the time :..'i.2*;.,2E,C�O .: No. 5622 i Notice of Appeal Board of Adjustment SPECIFICS OF APPEAL CERTIFICATION An appeal may be considered for three causes, and the cause(s) must be explained and a reason given for why the appeal should be granted. The causes are: 1. procedural error 2. Error in application of law. 8. Findings or conclusions that were unsupportedby evidence. A written Statement of cause and reason for granting the appeal must accompany this notice 80 that the appeal may be considered. An oral statement may not be used. It is important, then, that a careful and complete statement be made. I (we) hereby certify that lam (we are) qualified to make this appeal and that my (our) statement of cause and reason is huecorrect to the best of my (our) knowledge. /' Signature: `Z A4=t:6�- Date: r)— STATEMENT INSTRUCTIONS An.appeal may be considered for the following listed three causes, singly or in combination. Explain the cause and also state what corrective decision is desired by his appeal. 1. pMcednral Error. If you allege procedural error, specify these matters which constitute the error and the manner in which the alleged error resulted in prejudice to your interest. 2. Error in Auld oAtion of Law. 1f you allege legal error, specify the manner in which principles of law were incorrectly applied. Include reference to any ordinance, statute or other codified law upon which the iMegation of legal error is based. g. F:ndinits and Conclusion Unsuprted by Evidence. If you allege that findings or conclusions are not supported by the evidence that was presented, specify and explain those findings or conclusions which lacked evidentiary support at the time of the action. 06-19-02 14:11 RECEIVED PRON:997 P.02 Appellants appeal the Municipality of Anchorage Platting Board's MaylS, 2002 decision, as set forth in the written Findings of Fact and Decision adopted June 5, 2002. As described in detail below, the Board misapplied provisions of the Anchorage Municipal Code (herein "AMC') and adopted findings and conclusions which were not supported by substantial evidence, including but not limited to the Board's finding that the requirements of Condition No. 31 were met. See, AMC 21.30.090. Consequently, the Board's decision to approve the preliminary plat must be vacated. Errors in Application oil, 1. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010(A)(2) by accepting and approving a preliminary plat without a finding that the plat promotes the public health, safety and welfare. 2. The Board arbitrarily applied AMC 21.11.3O2(B) by allowing petitioner time to present and argue his position in excess of the ten minute allotment provided by the Code while denying appellants and others additional time and/or an opportunity to respond. 3. Appellants hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the points on appeal alleging errors in application of law previously set forth in their Notice of Appeal filed May 15, 2002. Findings Not S TRported by S'bc anti 1 Evidence 4. The Board's finding regarding approval of the preliminary plat was not supported by substantial evidence because the plat does not promote the public health, safety and welfare. 5. The Board's finding that the requirements of Condition No. 31 applied to the preliminary plat for Kincaid Estates Subdivision approved on March 20, 2002 have been met is not supported by substantial evidence in that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (A.DEC) did not review the Hydrology reports, data and information and/or provide review comments to the Platting Board for the public hearing review on May 15, 2002, as required by the Condition. Finding Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 55, 63, 65, 70. 6. The Board's finding that the requirements of Condition No. 31 applied to the preliminary plat for Kincaid Estates Subdivision approved on March 20, 2002 have been met is not supported by substantial evidence in that all the Municipality's concerns raised in the January 25, 2002 letter have not been adequately addressed. Specifically, there is still insufficient data available to accurately estimate key aquifer parameters (i.e., hydraulic gradient, aquifer thickness and width) and the developer has failed to provide an adequately thorough investigation of the bydrology to better define the characteristics of the underlying aquifers, their proximity to the surface of the ground, the characteristics of the soil covering these aquifers, and the relationship between these underlying aquifers and the pond at the south end of the pit. Findings Nos. 27, 28, 30, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 55, 57, 58. 7. The Board's findings regarding a lack of potential adverse impact on drinking water aquifer(s) underlying the proposed subdivision are not supported by substantial evidence in that Written Statement -Notice of Appeal 1 Platting Board Case No. 5-10873 W381"I/APPEALS MT.I.doc i the analytical assumptions, methodology and conclusions of the petitioner's groundwater consultant, Terrasat, Inc., were called into question by a majority of interested persons testifying before the Board and Staff, including testimony and written analysis submitted to the Board by hydrogeologist Jim Munter of J.A. Munter Consulting, Inc., and Professor Emeritus of Geology Anne Pasch. Finding Nos. 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43,44, 45, 46, 64, 65, 66. 8. The Board's findings that the scope of the May 15, 2002 hearing did not include consideration of existing conditional use permits for the property were not supported by substantial evidence in that the Board waived any objection by inquiring as to the status of such permits. 9. The Board's finding that the preliminary plat, the Board's review thereof, the conditions imposed and any subsequent Planning and Zoning Commission action constitutes satisfaction of the existing conditional use permits is not supported by substantial evidence. Finding Nos. 34, 35, 36. 10. The Board's findings regarding the structure and permeability of the subsurface and underlying aquifers in the proposed development area are not supported by substantial evidence in that (1) they are based on limited samples taken within a fairly small portion of the property - there is no rationale provided for the location of the borings,' and the conditions at these locations, including the depth•to ground water, may not be representative of the remainder of the property, and (2) they do not resolve conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the material, its porosity, its composition, and its ability to absorb contaminates likely to be generated by a residential development of this scope. Finding Nos. 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63,64, 65, 66, 67, 70. 11. The Board's finding that a lack of public trust in the Municipality's ability to enforce conditions imposed on the proposed development is "not pertinent to the TIA or Hydrology report'' is not supported by substantial evidence in that the Municipality has heretofore failed to adequately enforce the conditional use permits, including site reclamation requirements for the proposed development site. Finding No. 69. 12. The Board's finding that the public hearing held on May 15, 2002 was conducted in accordance with its rules of procedure is not supported by substantial evidence in that the Board acted arbitrarily by not limiting the Petitioner and its representatives to the ten minute presentation provided for in the rules, but strictly enforcing the three to five minute presentation limit for members of the general public and representatives of concerned citizen groups 13. The Board's finding that the requirements of Condition No. 30 applied to the preliminary, plat for Kincaid Estates Subdivision approved on March 20, 2002 have been met is not supported by substantial evidence in that URS's review of the Traffic Impact Analysis raised questions and concerns with regard to methods, completeness and accuracy of analysis for calculating added congestion, pollution, and structural safety of the roads in the area. Findings Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. written Statement - Notice of Appeal 2 Platting Board Case No. S-10873 Wad I E-01/APPFA1-STMT.1 AOC O 14. The Board's findings regarding the similarity of the geology between the proposed Kincaid Estates and the Sand Lake Subdivision is not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, Shannon & Wilson's peer review clearly cited significant differences between the Kincaid Estates terrain and that of surrounding subdivisions. Additionally, Professor Pasch's statements about the geology of the area appear to contradict and mise questions about M. Cross's statements asserting similarity. Finding No. 65. 15. The Board's findings that the occurrence of coal is significant is not supported by substantial evidence in that the evidence presented to the Board indicates that coal within the limited samples occurs in discontinuous lenses less than an inch thick and a few feet in length and that removal of nitrates by these insignificant coal deposits is "extremely unlikely" because "coal grains found in a well core do not represent a significant unit either in volume or as a stratigraphic matter." Furthermore, the "carbon in coal is generally not considered biogeochemically favorable to creating anaerobic conditions and microbial populations needed for denitrification and should not be regarded as a reliable denitrifying agent." FindingNo. 27. 16. The Board's finding that ADEC has agreed with anything asserted by Tenasat is not supported by substantial evidence because ADEC's May 10, 2002 letter clearly states that ADEC "has not done a project review, nor have we opined as to any significant groundwater issues associated with the project." Finding No. 55. 17. Appellants hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the points on appeal alleging findings not supported by substantial evidence previously set forth in their Notice of Appeal filed May 15, 2002. End of Written Statement - Points on Appeal Written Statement - Notice of Appeal Platting Board Case No. S-10873 W 3 818-01 /APPEALSTMT.1.dor MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF APPEAL TO AN ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING CONIUSSION OR THE PLATTING BOARD 3 FEE - $160 CD :; COSTBOND -$.Z00 mR USEBYC MW 1 w AcrePtaaceDau�S-/S d1 Q a Appeal to-- Actual Cost: -?� _ _j o cJi HavingDate. o- N i Ltd: A. General Identity of Action being appealed 1. Planning Department file number: 2. Name of project or Subdivision: Kincaid Estates Subdivision 8. Date of Commission or Board action: March 2o. 2oo2 and May 1 200 B. Appellant's Name and Address Will Watson, Deanna Essert Robert Pauleen, Eric Wolforth, f'oncerd.oall ion 2n 1. Name: ne South Anchorage c/o Christopher J. Eeaphey 2. Mailing Address:_ Rantcn on Gronning n'llarn 550 West Seventh, Suite 1800 Anchorage, AK 99501 3. Telephone: 276-1711 4. Relationship to action: Petitioner _Agent of Petitioner. Brmide Name and addr-dw ofpetitioaer. Name. Mel7ingAddraas . —m—Other person adversely affected* Government agency* • if you are not the petitioner or hielher agent you must give Rotoe to the petitioner by certified mail at his/her butt ]mown add:esa within three days of filing this Notice of Appeal Notice of Appeal Board &Adjustment WRITTEN STATEMENT (Plain paper may be used if needed for additional space) Please see attached—Written Statement—Notice of Appeal Appellants appeal the Municipality of Anchorage Piatting Board's March 20, 2002 decision, as set forth in written the Findings of Fact and Decision adopted May 1, 2002, to approve"the preliminary plat and phasing plan submitted by Petitioner David Hultquist in Case S-10873, Kincaid Estates Subdivision (herein "the preliminary plat'). As described in detail below, the Board misapplied provisions of the Anchorage Municipal Code (herein "AMC) and adopted findings and conclusions which were not supported by substantial evidence. See. AMC 21.30.090. Consequently, the Board's decision to approve the preliminary plat must be vacated. Errors in Application of Law 1. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010(A)(2) by accepting and approving a preliminary plat without a finding that the plat promotes the public health, safety and welfare. 2. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010(A)(3) by accepting and approving a preliminary plat without finding that the plat mitigates the effects of incompatibilities between the proposed land use and the land uses in the surrounding neighbodioods, including the potential contamination of drinking water aquifer(s) underlying the development, traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution and overcrowding in neighborhood schools. 3. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010(A)(3) and AMC 21.75.010(B) by accepting and approving a preliminary plat without imposing conditions that adequately mitigate the effects of incompatibilities between the proposed land use and the land uses in the surrounding neighborhoods, including the potential contamination -of drinking water aquifer(s) underlying the development, traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution and overcrowding in neighborhood schools. 4. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.15.110B(4)(b) by accepting and approving the preliminary plat that did not include all plans, data, tests and engineering reports required by the department of health and human services to substantiate the availability of a safe and adequate volume of water or the capability of the proposed subdivision to adequately dispose of all waterbome domestic wastes. 5. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.15.110B(4)(b) by accepting and approving the preliminary plat in reliance on Terrasat's January 17, 2002 nitrate loading calculations for the aquifers underlying the development, despite the department of health and human services' concerns about "the analytical approach and the insufficiency of data upon which the conclusions were based." written Statement - Notice of Appeal 1 Platting Board Case No. S-10873 W3818-01/APPF,ALSrMr doe 6. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.15.100(B)(6) by accepting and approving the preliminary plat prior to a public hearing on the results of additional expert analysis the platting officer required concerning the development's potential impact on drinldng water quality in the area. 7. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.15.100(B)(6) by accepting and approving the preliminary plat prior to a public hearing on the results of additional expert analysis the platting officer required concerning the development's potential impact on traffic in the area. S. The Board violated AMC 21.15.110(B)(4)(c) by accepting and approving a preliminary plat that did not include the field investigation and soil classification information required by department of health and human services. 9. The Board failed to comply with AMC 21.15.110(Bx4)(d) by accepting and approving a preliminary plat that did not contain copies of proposed protective covenants, restrictions or home owner association bylaws as required by that code provision. 10. The Board violated AMC 21.15.110(B)(4)(e) by accepting and approving a preliminary plat that did not include a statement of reasons for and description of the propos phasing. 11. The Board violated AMC 21.15.110B(4)(e) by accepting and approving a preliminary plat that did not include the information regarding pedestrian trip generators. 12. The Board violated AMC 21.15.110B(4)(i) by accepting and approving a preliminary plat that did not include a preliminary drainage analysis estimating on-site (within the pit) or off-site (Cook Inlet outfall) drainage impacts or showing how those impacts will be mitigated in light of the development's unique location (50+ foot depression) and proximity to drinking water aquifers. 13. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.05.080 by accepting and approving' the preliminary plat without applying the review hierarchy and procedure established in Title 21.05 for implementing the Anchorage 2020 Anchorage Comprehensive Bowl Plan (herein the "Anchorage 2020 Plan'J. 14. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.05.080 by accepting and approving the preliminary plat without considering all applicable Land Use Policies of the Anchorage 2020 Plan. 15. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.05.080 by accepting and approving the preliminary plat without considering Land Use Policy No. 28 of the Anchorage 2020 Plan which guides proposed development impacted by the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, i.e., development within the West Anchorage Planning Area as identified on the Land Use Policy Map. Written Statement -Notice of Appeal 2 Platting Board Case No. S-10873 w3 s 1 s-0 t/APPEALSTMT.doc 16. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.05.080 by accepting and approving the preliminary plat without considering Land Use Policy No. 35 of the Anchorage 2020 Plan which requires assessment of traffic impacts, including air pollution, for major new residential developments. 17. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.05.080 by accepting and approving the preliminary plat without conforming the preliminary plat to the public review standards established by the Anchorage 2020 Plan. 18. The Board violated AMC 21.75.010 and AMC 21.05.080 by accepting and approving the preliminary plat without conforming the preliminary plat to the land use standards established by the Anchorage 2020 Plan. 19. The Board violated municipal law, including AMC 21.15.010(B) and the Sand Lake Redevelopment Plan as adopted by Resolution 16-83 (March 15, 1983), by accepting an approving the preliminary plat and/or application for variances without requiring the application to be signed by all holders of record title to the subject property 20. The Board violated federal, state and municipal law, including AMC 21.25.020 and the Sand Lake Redevelopment Plan as adopted by Resolution 16-83 (Manch 15, 1983), by accepting and approving the preliminary plat without determining whether the petitioner had met all existing terms or conditions of prior entitlements issued for the subject property, including the terms and conditions of reclamation required by any applicable ordinance(s) or statute. 21. The Board violated municipal law, including the Sand Lake Redevelopment Plan as adopted by Resolution 16-83 (March 15, 1983), by accepting and approving the preliminary plat without conforming the proposed subdivision to the requirements established by that Plan and Resolution, including .the requirement that "sufficient bond ... shall be established to safeguard the implementation of [the] proposed ...redevelopment plan." 22. The Board's findings regarding the adequacy of the stone water drainage for the proposed subdivision are not supported by substantial evidence in that the storm water drainage plan submitted with the preliminary plat does not encompass the entire subdivision, does not establish a conclusive method for removing storm water from the subdivision, and does not provide engineering to support the use of either the proposed tunnel outfall or the proposed lift -station for removing storm water from the subdivision. Finding Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 97,98 Written Statement - Notice of Appeal Platting Board Case No. 5-10873 W 3818-0VAPPEALSTMT.doc 23. The Board's findings regarding a lack of potential adverse impact on drinking water aquifer(s) underlying the proposed subdivision are not supported by substantial evidence in that the analytical assumptions, methodology and conclusions'of the petitioner's groundwater consultant, Terrasa4 Inc., were called into question by a majority of interested persons testifying before the Board and Staff; including the Department of Health and Human Services which required further on site study. Finding Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 97, 98 24. The Board's findings regarding the proposed subdivision's lack of potential adverse impact on vehicular traffic in the area are not supported by substantial evidence in that the information presented did not satisfy either the Municipal Traffic Department or the State, Department of Transportation, both of which required a new Traffic Impact Analysis. Finding Nos. 45,46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 97, 98 25. The Board's findings regarding the subdivision's compliance with the Areawide Trails Plan Map are not supported by substantial evidence in that the plat does not designate or set aside specific land within the subdivision for public trails or an extension of the Coastal Trail. Finding Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54, 95, 97 26. The Board's findings regarding the subdivision's potential impact on neighborhood schools are not supported by substantial evidence in that the information presented to the Board establishes that the existing schools are at or exceeding capacity, a new school will be required in the area as a result of this and other subdivisions under construction, and the plat does not designate or set aside specific land within the subdivision for a school site. Finding Nos. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 96, 97 27. The Board's findings regarding the adequacy of the proposed sanitary sewer system for the subdivision are not supported by substantial evidence in that the information presented to the Board does not provide engineering to support the use of a lift station to remove sewage from the subdivision or other guarantees that, in the event of lift station failure, the ddnldng water aquifers underlying the subdivision would be adequately protected. Finding Nos. 64, 97 28. The Board's findings regarding the adequacy of a plat notice of the subdivision's location within the 65-70 Day/Night Level airport noise contour are not supported by substantial evidence in that the Board disregarded, without explanation, the information presented to the Board recommending that noise mitigation be required for building construction in the subdivision. Finding Nos. 67, 68, 97 29. The Board's findings that the preliminary plat conforms to the Anchorage 2020 Plan is not supported by substantial evidence in that the Board failed to consider all the applicable Land Use Policies and conform the preliminary plat to the public review standards provided for in the Plan. Finding Nos. 69, 70, 73, 94,97 Written Statement - Notice of Appeal 4 Platting Board Case No. 5-10873 W3818-01 /APPEALSTMT.doc 30. The Board's findings regarding the proposed subdivision's compliance with the Sand Lake Redevelopment Plan (SLRP) are not supported by substantial evidence in that the preliminary plat does not satisfy the SUP restoration plan, including but not limited to ensuring placement of adequate topsoil, slope stabilization, revegetation, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, storm water drainage and mitigation of traffic impacts. Finding Nos. 15,14, 20, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 94 31. The Board's finding that the petition developed a subdivision "that will address all the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood" is not supported by substantial evidence in that the Board's own findings demonstrate on-going public and neighborhood concern with respect to various aspects of the proposed subdivision. Finding Nos. 35, 36, 42,43,49,97,98,99, 100, 101 End of Written Statement - Points on Appeal Written Statement - Notice of Appeal 5 Platting Board Case No. S-10873 W3818-01/APPFALS MT.aoe raLy-0zee01i 38P Do a ranndd`'�Joe Esse+rt 907-243-7811 . P.02 MAY. 15.110111:11W. 0 16 10.5068 P.1 • Notice of Appeal Board of Adjustment SPECIFICS OF APPEAL CERTIFICATION An appeal may be considered for three causes, and the cauasfa) must be explained and a reason given for why the appeal should be granted. The causes an: 1. P1 urs) anon 2. Error in application of kw. 9. Pbulings or conclusions that were unsupported by evidence. A written statement of cause and recon for granting the appeal must a000mpany tbis notice so that the appeal tray be considered. An oral statement may not be used. It is important, titan, that a careful and complete statement Us mads. I (we)hwvby md& an t ram (we anJ quau ed to males this appeal anF. PPA d that mr (cud atatem case and tasaao u true d c+vtr»et m tis best of (curl toowfad�a ' 9i�statvze� Dats� STATEMENT IN&MUCTIONS An appeal may be considered iior the following listed three muss. singly or in combinstion. Explain the cause and also state what correct"" decision is dWmd by his appy. 1. If.you allege procedural error. specify these mattere which constitute the error end the vas "M is which tbs alleged error resulted in prejuEioe to your interest. 2. X= in Avalication of Law._ If you &Usgs legal error, spec* the manner in which principles of law were incorrectly applied. Include rekrwM to say ordinance, etstute or otber codified law upon which the allegation, of legal orrox is based. y. Fisdinee and Conclugiou [}nroeoerted by 1e<'�ddenm._ If you a]lege that findia or Conclusions are rmt supported by the evidones that wee pteeented. sps* and of explain those finding or conclusions wbkh lacked avldentiary support at the time the action. ' . MAY. 15.2001 11:11 AM Notice of Appeal SPECIFICS OF APPEAL CERTIFICATION Nu. hM r. 1 Board of Adjustment An appeal may be considered for three causes, and the causew must be explained and a reason given for why the appeal should be granted. The causes are: 1. Procedural el 2. Error in application of law. S. Findings or conclusions that were unsupported by evidence. A written statement of cause and reason for granting the appeal must accompany this notice so that the appeal may be considered. An oral statement may not be used It is important, then, that a careful and complete statement be made. I (we)hemby csrdtV tba t I am (wv are) qualified to mAkv this appeal ad thar t My (our) 5t8 tem ant ofcause an d :w Lvn fs true and ca=W to thv best afmy (oar) knowl Signature: - 425��F� / T Date:, STATEMa1T INSTRUCTIONS An appeal may be considered for the following listed three causes, singly or in combination. Explain the cause and also state what corrective decision is desired by his appeal. 1, prvoedural Ermr If you allege procedural error, specify those matters which constitute the error and the manner in which the alleged error resulted in prejudice to your interest. 2. Error in ADnnlication of Law, If you allege legal error, specify the manner in which principles of law were incorrectly applied. Include reference to any ordinance, statute or otber codified law upon which the allegation of legal error is based. S. Find n and Conclusion 11.uMorted by Evidence. If you allege thdfind.inga or conclusions are not supported by the evidence that was presented, sps* and explain those findings or conclusions which lacked evidentiary support at N time of the action. MAY. 15. 2002 11: 1 IAM U.5 d U f• Notice of Appeal SPECIFICS OF APPEAL CERTIFICATION A0.5068 1. Board of Adjustment An appeal maybe considered for three causes, and the oauseG) muft bre azpWned and a reason given for why the appeal should be granted. The causes are: 1. Procedural a= 2. Error in application of law. S. Findings or conclusions that were unsupported by evidence. Awritten statement of cause and reason for granting the appeal must accompany this notice so that the appeal may be considered. An oral statement may not be used. It is important, then, that a careful and complete statement be made. Jr (wet hamby $'that l am (we a.ne) qui0ed to male thio appeal and that t my(our)statement otcauseandreasontrueandoorr»cttothebort0my%sr) knowl Signature: -L w 7-aL Date of 1�1 I I • fah / An appeal may be considered for the following listed three causes, siney or in combination. Explain the tau" and also state what corrective decision is desired by his appeal. 1. Procedural Farm. If you allege procedural error, specify those matters which constitute the error and the manner in which the alleged error resulted in prejudice to your interest. 2. Error in Aimliration of Law. If you allege legal error, specify the manner in which principles of law were incorrectly applied. Include reference to any ordinance, statute or other codified law upon which the allegation of legal error is based S. Findines and Conclusion Ummorted by Evidence, If you allege tbat findings or conclusion are not supported by the evidence that was presented, specify and explain those findings or coaolusions which lacked evidentiary support at the time of the action Short Plat Summary December 30, 2002 Page 2 of 3 4. Change the designation of Folker "Avenue" to "Street". 5. Showing the right-of-way of East 48th Avenue as being dedicated by this plat and resolve with Development Services, Right -of -Way whether the entire 33 foot easement is to be dedicated to right-of-way or only 30 feet is required. 6. Providing an as -built survey to Land Use Enforcement to verify compliance with yard setbacks for the existing structure in relation to the new lot lines. 511013 DeBarr Vista Subdivision Approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Resolving utility easements. 2. Resolving with AWWU the size and location of the requested sanitary sewer easement. 3. Placing the following note on the plat. a. Access is limited to existing driveways with a current valid driveway permit. b. Arterial landscaping meeting the requirements of AMC 21.45.125.C.1 shall be installed and maintained within the arterial landscape easement by the property owner or his/her designee. 4. Submitting an as -built survey to Land Use Enforcement to verify compliance with yard setbacks. 5. Installing the landscaping per AMC 21.45.125.0 requirements. 510114 Kincaid Estates, Tracts 1-4 Approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Resolving utility easements. 2. Entering into a subdivision agreement for the construction of any required streets and trails. Short Plat Summary December 30,2002 Page 3 of 3 3. Resolving with AWWU the size and location of requested water and sanitary sewer easements. Also resolve the need to enter into a mainline extension agreement with AWWU to provide public water & sewer to the 4 proposed tracts. 4. Dedicating a 50 -foot right-of-way for Kincaid Road along the northern boundary of Proposed Tract 1. 5. Resolving with Trails Coordinator, the size and locations of multiple trails required by the Areawide Trails Plan; The Coastal Trail Plan; the 1985 Anchorage, Park, Greenbelt and Recreational Facility Plan, and Anchorage 2020, Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan. 6. Labeling all surrounding streets on the plat and resolving street names. 7. Correcting vicinity map to show Snead Street and Sand Lake Road. 511019 Muriwood Park, Tract 3B -Vacation Approval of the vacation of 20 -foot utility easement which runs north and south through Tract 3B from the south end of Lot 26, Block 5 to the north edge of Cobbler Drive for a distance of 100 -feet, subject to obtaining letters of non -objection from all of the affected utility companies, and filing a suitable re -plat within 18 -months. Sincerely, Jerry T. Weaver, Jr. Platting Officer