Anchorage planning board declines to vacate Shawn Street right-of-way after contested hearing

The Anchorage Planning Board on March 4, 2026 declined to vacate a 60-foot right-of-way for Shawn Street in case S12860 after extended testimony from the petitioner, neighbors and a tribal representative and a staff recommendation to deny the request.

Staff told the board the municipal reviewing agencies — traffic engineering, right-of-way, street maintenance and private development — had raised objections and that the Official Streets and Highways Plan (OSH&P) classifies the reserve as a local street intended to preserve future connectivity. "The applicant has not demonstrated that the right-of-way is in excess of municipal needs," planning staff said, recommending denial.

Petitioner Jonathan Lang, representing Julie Jorlette and Sean and Laurie Barnett, argued the board should find both "legal and buildable access" exists to the lots north of the subject properties via existing 50-foot patent reservations. Lang asked the board to adopt findings that vacating Shawn Street would not be detrimental to public welfare and would protect the Alluvial Street neighborhood from commercial traffic. "Both legal and buildable access is available to the adjacent properties," Lang said in closing remarks.

Property owner Sean Barnett told the board the right-of-way has never been developed and is currently used as his driveway and yard. "We do not want the potential for commercial traffic driving down Alluvial Street," Barnett said, asking the board to "do the right thing" and grant the vacation to preserve neighborhood character.

Representing the Native Village of Eklutna, attorney Michael Schechter urged the board to follow staff's recommendation and deny the vacation, saying the application contained speculation about possible future development and that any change in land use should come through the standard rezoning and planning processes. "Examining Shawn Street in isolation will lead to less than optimal development," Schechter said, urging the board not to approve the vacation.

Residents and neighbors also testified. Brian Hall said vacating Shawn Street now would leave residents powerless if the gaming hall and associated parking were later developed and the parcels were taken into trust. Longtime resident Marilyn Sarvella said Lot 80 has been used for storage and heavy equipment and reported filing noise and police complaints; she urged the board to approve the vacation to protect the residential area. Caller Tiffany Lohman said constructing the road would be premature and would impose unnecessary costs without an established public purpose.

Board members debated whether to decide on speculative future uses or to apply the municipal vacation standards to the facts before them. The board recessed to committee of the whole for informal deliberation, during which members expressed differing views about the likelihood of future subdivision and the adequacy of existing patent reservations as access. Ultimately, motions to approve the vacation and a motion to approve the plat for 24 months (subject to staff conditions) failed, with multiple recorded "no" votes. The chair declared both motions failed; staff and agency objections, and the board's conclusion that applicants had not met the burden of proof on the surplus-to-municipal-needs standard, were decisive.

Planning staff told the board that the applicant may reapply or return if future rezoning or development applications change the factual record. Staff also noted that land use enforcement for alleged improper uses of nearby parcels is a separate process outside the planning board's purview.

What happens next: Because no formal approvals were adopted, the Shawn Street right-of-way remains dedicated; the petitioner may bring revised applications in the future if circumstances (such as a rezone) change. The board moved on to other cases after closing the public hearing on S12860.