Planning board approves Feather Lake preliminary plat amid runoff, runway and notice concerns

The Matanuska‑Susitna Borough Planning Board approved a preliminary plat for the Feather Lake subdivision on a roughly 168.2‑acre parcel near Horseshoe Lake, voting to create 10 lots and adopt staff’s recommended conditions.

Kamen Reynolds, planning staff, told the board the redesigned plat shows 10 lots and recommended approval with seven findings of fact and five conditions, noting one geotechnical test hole on Lot 1 (12 feet deep) and groundwater encountered at about 10 feet. Reynolds said most of the proposed lots exceed 400,000 square feet and therefore do not require additional subsurface testing under Title 43 requirements.

Neighbors and nearby land managers urged caution, focusing on wetlands, a runway shown on the plat and whether public notice was sufficient. Emerson Krueger, a representative of borough land management, said the runway depiction appears to stop at parcel boundaries, raising questions about separation distances typically recommended by the FAA. Several residents, including Laura Bruce and Janet Whitfield, said the public had been able to review only an 8‑lot configuration previously and asked the board for a continuance so the public and agencies could comment on the 10‑lot redesign and related technical reports.

Chris Wahlstrom, co‑petitioner, said the application is a Title 43 preliminary plat request and asserted the plat complies with access, wetland, stormwater and Army Corps requirements. Dana Rumpel, the surveyor for the applicants, said wetland permits have been issued and that the project meets the lot‑size thresholds in Title 43; she also explained the item had been continued from an earlier meeting, which can affect what appears in the staff packet.

Jerry Birch, an adjacent landowner, alleged the developer used a sequence of smaller Corps of Engineers permit filings (each under threshold acres) and an initial unpermitted driveway to avoid a public comment process. Birch characterized that sequence as a “deceitful strategy” that reduced transparency; planning officer Fred Wagner said notification requirements for the plat process (property owners within 1,200 feet) were met but acknowledged confusion around comment receipt and continuances.

Planning member Chiveda moved to approve the Feather Lake preliminary plat “contingent on staff recommendations 1 through 5,” and planning member Kevin seconded the motion. No objections were raised and the motion passed.

The board’s approval applied only to the preliminary plat under Title 43; staff and speakers noted that other permits (for wetlands work, access or future construction) may require separate reviews or permits by state or federal agencies. Planning staff said Fish and Game did not require a habitat permit at this time but may if bank work or water withdrawal occurs. The board asked staff to follow up on the public‑notice and comment handling to avoid similar confusion in the future.

The board moved on to the next agenda item after approving the Feather Lake plat.