Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing officer approves Badger Industrial Park four‑lot subdivision with seven conditions
Summary
The Fairbanks North Star Borough hearing officer approved SD007-26 to subdivide roughly 9.58 acres in Badger Industrial Park into four lots, adopting staff findings and seven conditions. Staff and the applicant will work with GVEA on utility‑easement placement; transportation staff clarified access is permissible via a shared driveway for Lot 2A.
Fairbanks — The Fairbanks North Star Borough hearing officer on Dec. 4 approved SD007-26, a request to subdivide about 9.58 acres in Badger Industrial Park into four lots, adopting staff recommendations with seven conditions and findings of fact A through F.
The subdivision, proposed by Tanana Valley Surveying LLC on behalf of property owners Kevin Drotzer and Arvo and Linda Still, was described in staff testimony as a "quick plot" meeting the access standards of Title 17. Staff contact Zach Lee recommended approval with seven conditions after noting existing legal access via the Richardson Highway Frontage Road and Midland Street.
Why it matters: The approval moves a commercial industrial parcel into separate lots that could be developed independently. Two procedural clarifications during the hearing addressed utility‑easement demands and transportation access that affected how the plat may be recorded.
Staff told the hearing that GVEA requested 30‑foot public utility easements (PUEs) within the interior and around proposed Tract A, but staff said those PUEs were excessive because 30‑foot easements already exist on the east and west sides of the tract and because FNSBC 17.56.030(a) requires a demonstrated need for additional public utility easements. "With the already existing utility easements and the fact that PUEs can still be added once the tract develops, staff feels that the request is excessive and as such we're conditioning the applicant to work with GVEA regarding the placement of new utility easements," Zach Lee said.
Transportation planner Don Galligan clarified an agency comment listed in the staff report. Galligan said he intended to prohibit direct lot access to the Richardson Highway itself, not the Richardson Highway Frontage Road, and affirmed that the proposed shared driveway for Lot 2A meets Title 17 requirements. "The comment I submitted was no direct lot access to the Richardson Highway, period," Galligan said.
Applicant representative Bill Kinney said he planned to negotiate with GVEA and suggested a compromise, for example offering an easement along the south boundary of Tract A. "I'll give Stacy a call and see what they want to do," Kinney said.
Decision and next steps: Hearing officer Kellen Spillman added two findings of fact on the record (E: access to Lot 2A via the shared driveway is permissible; F: the plat could be recorded without a new PUE because FNSBC 17.56.030(a) demonstrated‑need has not been met) and approved the request with seven conditions and findings A through F. He ordered that a final plat be prepared by a registered land surveyor and submitted to the Community Planning Department within 24 months or preliminary approval becomes void. The officer notified parties that the decision may be appealed to the Planning Board by filing a notice of appeal and fee with the borough clerk within 10 working days of the hearing.
Authorities and references: Staff cited FNSBC 17.56.030(a) governing utility easements and Title 17 access standards.
Closing: The subdivision now proceeds to implementation steps (final plat preparation and any negotiated utility‑easement agreements); the borough clerk’s office and the Community Planning Department were listed as contacts for appeal and procedural questions.
