Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants Girdwood deck variance 4–1, citing lot constraints and snow considerations
Summary
The Zoning Board approved a variance 4–1 to allow a front elevated deck (about 60 inches above grade) to encroach 5 feet into the front setback in Girdwood, with the board split on whether the hardship was self-imposed; conditions from the staff report apply.
The Anchorage Municipality Zoning Board on April 16 approved a dimensional variance for a property in Girdwood to allow an elevated front deck to encroach 5 feet into the required 20-foot front setback. The vote passed 4–1.
Planning staff recommended denial, stating standards A, B and C were not met and characterizing the hardship as self-imposed in part because the applicant was responsible for verifying placement prior to construction. Staff noted elevated decks are common in Girdwood because of heavy snow and that other standards were met; the staff packet cites conditions on pages 4–5 should the board find the criteria satisfied.
The applicant’s representative (presenting for the owner, recorded in the packet as "Donald has cut") told the board subsurface issues encountered while driving piles, existing utility easements and an irregular lot shape created exceptional physical constraints that limited where the structure could be safely built. The representative said the footprint adjustments during construction were not intentional attempts to avoid setbacks and that neighboring owners had expressed no objection; one neighbor letter from Kst LLC stated they did not contest the encroachment.
Board discussion focused on whether the hardship was self-imposed and whether Girdwood’s snow loads and lot frontage geometry constituted unique circumstances. Craig Bennett argued the combination of snow accumulation and corner/frontage complexity supported a finding of hardship; one board member dissented, calling attention to the apparent conscious decision during construction to shift the footprint.
The motion to approve, moved by Craig Bennett and seconded by Mr. Lang, passed with four affirmative votes and one negative. The board approved the variance subject to the conditions in the staff packet and noted that parties may appeal within 30 days of decision mailing.
Board members asked staff to ensure the record documents any utility or encroachment-permit requirements and clarified that findings should be detailed enough to withstand potential appeals.
