Anchorage Assembly: Planning and Zoning Commission - August 10, 2026 - 2026-08-10 18:30:00

Okay, we're going to call the August 10th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May we please have the roll call? Andre Spinelli, here. Jared Gardner, here. Radhika Krishna, here.

Jeff Rahn, here. Brandy Eber, here. Amma Abaza, here. Megan Mills, here. Edith McKee, here.

Scott Poulos is excused. You have a quorum. Thank you.

Next item, special order of business: any disclosures from the commission?

Commissioner McKee.

Sorry, I wasn't quite ready yet. I need to disclose that on Case 20260095, that I work with both MOA and the State of Alaska, but I have no prior knowledge of this case. I have no financial gain from this case.

Um, sorry.

And also same with case 2026-0100. Um, company I work for also works with municipality Anchorage, and we also work with HDL. But again, I have no prior knowledge of this case, and I have no financial gain.

Uh, thank you for the disclosures. Do not believe we need a motion to direct you to participate. If anybody disagrees, please chime in. Otherwise, we'll move to Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you, Chair. Similar disclosure in Case 2026-0100, the company I work for does business with the petitioner's representative, Corvus Design. That business is unrelated to this case. I do not have a personal, personal or financial interest in the case and would like to participate if the Commission is so willing.

Again, I don't think we have a problem directing you to participate. Anybody disagrees, please chime in.

Next, we'll move on to Case 2026-0101. Will staff please provide a brief presentation? Good evening.

Good evening. Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. This is the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities project to reconstruct the Porter Drive corridor between Artke Boulevard and Dowling Road spanning approximately 0.77 miles. The concept report includes a review of existing conditions, a preliminary review of guiding plans, 4 street concept options, and a stakeholder involvement summary. Members of the project team are present tonight to answer any question regarding the concept report.

But this is not a public hearing item. This report serves as information item to familiarize the Commission with the project before they submit the 35% design study report, which you will review during a future public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you. There will be no presentation from the petitioner, but they are present to answer questions. If any of the Commission has any questions, please feel free. Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you. Through the Chair, I have a question about consideration of bike lanes. Page 14 of the report, Section 611 and 612, Options A and B both show on-street bicycle lanes with other amenities. And in Section 6.1.1, it stated, however, there is some concern regarding on-street bicycle lanes without a buffer separating cyclists from traffic. However, I do not see an option that makes— that mitigates that fact.

No dedicated bike lanes that are in fact protected. Can you help the Commission understand why that's the case?

Hold on. You need to turn your mic on, and there you go. And then please start with your stating your name. My name is Rory Van Nortwick. I'm the project manager with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities on this project.

Um, we are currently just in the conceptual phase. We can take any of those types of comments. Um, one of the things that I would point you to, that in lieu of that, it was the shared use pathway Other than that, I have no other comment. This section of corridor is pretty tight as far as right-of-way and utility concerns are considered, and it's kind of like threading the needle, but something to be considered.

Quick follow-up, if I may. Yeah. The concept report talks about improving safety for all roadway users. Can you help me understand, is there data supporting emphasis of improving safety on one user type over the other? When I read the report, it looks like, you know, curves may be an issue, and then there's no room on the side of the traveled lanes for anything but cars to be in the traveled lanes.

My previous question was around non-motorized safety improvement, and my question this time is, is there one user group of the roadway over others that has a higher risk profile and should receive more tension in terms of improving the safety for that user group? Thank you.

I don't currently have that information. That'll likely be something that we pick up during our traffic analysis and our surveys that happen along the corridor.

Are you good, Commissioner Rahn? All right, uh, Commissioner McKee.

Hi, um, I— my comments are sort of similar. That as you advance design that you would consider. One of the things that could be done is because you have enough room looking at Option B and Option C in— I'm sorry, Option A and Option B is that you have a 6-foot proposed bike lane that's adjacent to the traveled way that— and because the report indicates that you're going to be redoing drainage, sometimes moving curb line. Is complicated if you're— if you don't have to redo drainage, it ends up adding a cost. But that if you move the curb and gutter line adjacent to the traveled way, it allows you to put the bike path on the other side of the curb and gutter.

It would reduce the overall— in order to keep the same footprint, you would reduce the bike lane to 5 feet and put a 1-foot detectable tactile warning strip between the bike lane and the sidewalk, and then you would keep the bike lane elevated at the same elevation as the sidewalk. So essentially it becomes a protected cycle track that's separated from your sidewalk, so it does provide your cyclist and your pedestrian the same level of protection and removes them from the active traveled way, and it wouldn't change your overall footprint at all and can give a a Class B rider a feeling of safety so that they utilize the facility at greater, um, use. The other piece that I would ask the design team to consider as you advance is, um, and plus once you elevate that cycle facility next to the pedestrian facility, that if you maintain that elevation across side streets, driveways, and other approaches It also acts as a traffic calming device for people entering and exiting the roadway, and also keeps bikes and peds elevated slightly, and also makes the, the use of the facility more comfortable for people who might be utilizing a wheelchair or other assistive devices to not have to keep up ramping and down ramping. So I just would ask the design team to consider those options and maybe present them to the public for their consideration.

Thank you. Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. I think primarily a comment and maybe a, maybe a related question kind of on the same topic. And with respect to, I guess this is page 9, which is describing the relationship between the different guiding documents.

And in 3.2.3, where it talks about the AMATS non-motorized plan, it does note that Potter Drive is recommended as a location for a separated bikeway to enhance the bicycle network, and then says that this recommendation contrasts with the industrial street typology in the Official Streets and Highways Plan, which states that in-street bike lanes are rare. And I guess my comment is I read —In comparing kind of those two guidance documents, I would interpret that to be that the AMATS non-motorized plan is kind of providing a specific recommendation that wouldn't necessarily conflict with a general statement about in-street bike lanes being rared, that those could be read consistent with each other. And I'm wondering if that's how you all read those documents, and if so, that could maybe be clarified in any future descriptions so that doesn't look like there's a direct tension there. We can look at clarifying that. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, thank you. Uh, Commissioner McKee. Hi. Um, sorry, I have a couple other comments.

One, I really like that you've narrowed lanes to 11 feet, and I would hope that as you advance design that that stays because that's also a really good traffic calming measure. I also really appreciate that the cycle lanes um, are 6 feet, and that is exclusive of the curb and gutter. So often we meet that required minimum including that 1.5 foot of the gutter pan. So I was also really happy to see that that is advancing in your typical sections. Thank you, and would encourage the team to keep that.

I see no further questions from the Commission. We would— we could entertain a motion to accept or any other motion the Commission wished to make.

Commissioner McKee, would you like to state your motion? I move in Case 2026-0101 to accept the Context Sensitive Solutions Transportation Project Review for AMATS Potter Drive rehabilitation. That is seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner McKee, would you like to speak to your motion? Um, yes please.

I intend to support the, the context-sensitive solution transportation project review as it's been submitted. I would encourage the design team to consider protected cycle tracks and elevated bike and ped facilities across approaches to improve safety. I would Also, I'm really pleased to see the 11-foot lanes and the 6-foot cycle facilities and encourage the design team to keep those as they advance typical sections.

Thank you, Commissioner McKee. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next, we will move on to the public hearing items, and I will read the procedures by which the public may speak to the Commission. After staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the Chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limit established in the Commission rules of procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal.

Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., will receive 5 minutes. Individuals will receive 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the Commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission.

Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the Commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 2103 21-03050. Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Following approval of written finding of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filling— filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with 21-03050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

May we please have the staff presentation for Case 2026-0078?

Thank you, Chair. Uh, Case 2026-0078 is a request for a park master plan review of the Girdwood Parks Master Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the decision-making body for park master plan reviews. Attachment 2, comments of the staff report, has all reviewing agency and public comments received by the planning department. We've received one public comment.

Reviewing agencies had no objection. There were some substantive comments submitted by the State of Alaska and from Long Range Planning.

Attachment 1 has the draft plan. It also includes a resolution of support from the Girdwood Board of Supervisors, or GBOS, the community council for Girdwood. Pages 17 to 24 in the draft plan describe related or applicable plans and studies. The Planning Department supports the findings in this table, but found that some parts of the draft plan are not consistent with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. So this is given as a condition of approval.

Overall, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Girdwood Parks Master Plan, uh, with two conditions of approval, uh, stating whether it's a 10 or 15-year plan, and then resolving the consistency of the plan with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. I'm available for questions, and the project team is also here tonight with a presentation and available for questions. Thank you. Uh, question from Commissioner Krishna.

I, I think I'm hoping for you to provide a little bit more information about how we help the, um, this plan become consistent with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan and what options there are.

For that, and just to, to start with, um, I understand that every newly adopted plan supersedes the one before it. Could you clarify if that's the case, even given that this is a plan that only addresses an element of the Gerdwood Comprehensive Plan?

Uh, this is Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. So this is not necessarily an element of the Comprehensive Plan. This type of plan is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but it doesn't become a component. And so that's why it becomes a little bit strange, right? If you have the Comprehensive Plan that says land use in this area should be X, and then a plan that came after that but isn't part of the Comprehensive Plan that says land use in this area should be Y., it puts anybody interpreting the plan, including the public or us, in sort of an odd position, right?

So somebody say, well, this came more recent, so that's, you know, more in effect, but it's not an element of the Comprehensive Plan. So it is kind of providing this conflicting guidance, and it's not quite clear what to do.

And I believe the code is specific that in terms of conflict between elements of the Comprehensive Plan, it's the later adopted. Because this wouldn't be an element of the Comprehensive Plan, I don't think it— we wouldn't have that sort of conflict. Even though we all know that we have one set of guidance and another set of guidance, they just are sort of classified differently in the force that they carry. I think I'm— yes, I'm going to stay on this thread a little bit because I think I'm trying to figure out what will happen if, say, this Commission adopts this plan as is., and it does have conflicting elements to the Gerdwood Comprehensive Plan, what would the results of that be?

I guess I'll answer first. I just— so there is the condition of approval. So the approval of this plan would not be final until all of those conditions are resolved. And I suppose I'll interject my Mr. McKenna Foster can chime in with the division comments from Long Range, but I interpreted them to mean that either there has to be a change to the Gerdau comprehensive plan, there has to be a change to this draft plan, or there's some additional information that would lead the department to find the two plans to be consistent, basically, are the options. And so the recommendation for this commission is Basically, we're saying approve it conditional on the resolution of that.

And if I could weigh in also. So say somebody came in, and I'm trying to pull up the zoning for that parcel, and they said, oh, I'd like to maybe rezone to something else. And maybe currently, I believe parts of that area are designated for mixed use in the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. So they say, I'd like to rezone to a mixed use zone. Currently, we would say that is in alignment with the plan.

Our recommendation would be for approval because that's what the plan says. And then you would have this situation where people say, but the parks plan said that was going to be an open space or a park. But we'd say, well, the comprehensive plan still says mixed use. So that's why really it's just— if it's— if the community wants it to be open space or parks, it'd be ideal if the comprehensive plan also said that. Or if the community really wants it to be mixed use, then It gets confusing if this Parks Plan is saying it should be something else.

I think this is my final question, but I think I'm— could you tell us where that requirement for consistency comes from? Is it in code? Are we— is this Commission unable to adopt something that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Or— I understand that the Department is recommending approval with the following conditions, but I think I'm trying to understand what our ability here on this Commission is.

I think the question comes down to— the Planning Department will make the recommendation based on what the policy guidance is. The decision-making bodies can always make whatever recommendation they like. The Assembly makes whatever recommendation they like. So if this was a rezone case, the Assembly could decide, "We think it's appropriate as this no matter what." We are just saying from our perspective,— in this plan was just completed. The Gerber Comprehensive Plan was just completed about a year ago.

And it said the idea for this area is it will be mixed use. And now about a year later, there's another plan that's coming forward that said the idea for this area is partially parks and open space. So again, it's just we always have to start from the adopted policy guidance. And so our position will always be, ideally, it would be great if the policy guidance is there. The Commission can make recommendations that say, you know, the policy guidance says this, but we think it's something else.

The Assembly can also make higher-level decisions about a rezone and say, well, the Comprehensive Plan said this, but we actually think this is more appropriate. That's their power. And in this case, because this is just a Parks Plan review, I believe this is the terminal level. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decider about whether it gets approved. But it wouldn't become part of the Comprehensive Plan.

So no matter what, even if it got approved as is, going forward, our recommendation would be we'll go with what the Comprehensive Plan says. And the Comprehensive Plan says mixed use.

Thank you.

Commissioner Baza. Um, I have a question about DOT's comments, and I was wondering if that should also be a condition of approval. It seems that there is several parts of the plan that encroach into DOT airport property or propose a land swap, and DOT seems to not be aware of this and objects to it.

Through the chair, Commissioner Abaza, if the commission would like to add that as a condition of approval, you could do that. You would just amend the motion and phrase it similarly to how the other condition is. So it would be— it could just be a simple resolve with the state of Alaska the comments that were submitted for Case 2026-0078, or even this case, I think is clear enough. Some of their comments, I think, were about following regular regulation, but I, I can understand your point, but that would be an easy way to do it if the Commission so desires.

Thank you.

Okay, um, seeing no more questions for staff, we'll ask the petitioner to come— please come up and give your presentation.

Hi, my name is Peyton Johnson, and I am here today as the delegated authority to present on behalf of Girdwood Parks and Recreation to present the Girdwood Parks Master Plan, um, and I will walk you through how we believe we are consistent with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan.

Looks like you turned your mic off.

Thank you. The second comment from the Planning Department identifies 3 items that they believe are inconsistent with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan, being 1, expanded vehicle parking at parks, 2, indoor recreation spaces, and 3, one parcel of land that has a mixed-use designation. First, to address the indoor recreation spaces, we can work with the planning department to add a paragraph to address this. Indoor recreation spaces were identified as needed in the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan as well as during the planning process for the Girdwood Parks Plan. Because of the limitations to operating an indoor facility that were determined during the planning process, the department chose not to prioritize this over other park facilities at this time.

In the long-term vision for the community, an indoor recreation facility is identified as a need in the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan, and nothing has changed on that. It's just not something the department is identifying as a top priority right now. To address the comments on vehicle parking at parks, the Moose Meadow parking lot expansion is consistent with the Girdwood Trails Plan. Through the planning process, the Girdwood community has voiced the need for expanded or improved parking in multiple locations. The parking lot improvements proposed at both Lions Club Park and Girdwood Park are not new parking lots.

Um, we are just proposing improvements to existing parking areas in order to address drainage, enhance circulation, provide designated layouts, and provide ADA parking spaces. Lions Club Park is a popular picnic area where buses with tourists come to sit and eat outside, and it is totally reasonable to provide parking at parks where families are taking their children to use sports fields, picnic facilities, and playgrounds. The Girdwood Comprehensive Plan's proposed policies on parking state that parking should be the right size for the right place in the community. And lastly, to address the comment on the mixed-use parcel, the proposed park in this area is completely consistent with the mixed-use land designation in the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. During the planning process for the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan, the community wanted this entire area to be designated as parks and open space.

The planning team suggested to the community that this area should be identified as mixed use, as it's in the town center, and the community agreed to this with the understanding that parks are permitted in mixed use designations. Much of this area is within the floodplain and is not suitable for development. After consulting with the land suitability map that we created during the comprehensive plan, We have allocated the most feasible development area to remain as mixed-use development. Thank you.

Thank you. You have 6 minutes and 42 seconds. A question from Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, thank you for your presentation, and I appreciate how you have attempted to address Comments from Long Range Planning. My question relates to the parking provided at parks. While I can appreciate your response relative to the parking improvements themselves, I'm still left wondering the element of the comment around encouraging more active transportation in Girdwood. Can you speak to that, please?

Through the chair, Commissioner Rahn, we, um, we've proposed throughout Girdwood several pocket parks and playgrounds in order to try to provide a more walkable park system for Girdwood. At Moose Meadow Park, we are showing a small playground so that families that live in that area can walk, um, to a playground instead of driving to the currently the only existing playground. And we show other neighborhood developments as having future parkland.

I see no further questions.

Uh, wait, don't— uh, Commissioner Rahn is— Commissioner Rahn first.

Thank you. Through the chair, um, separate question but related to, um applicant response to comments. And turning to the DOT comments now, you likely heard the Commission questioning staff a little bit about those. So please give us your perspective on need to resolve, ability to resolve, interest in resolving those comments with DOT. Thanks.

Through the Chair, Commissioner Rahn, we can address those comments. One of them was to remove non-designated trails from DOT areas, and we are comfortable with making all of those changes to address DOT's comments.

Commissioner Krishna.

Sorry, could you repeat or restate that about the DOT comments? Yes.

Comfortable with all their comments and can make changes to our plan to address them. All right, thank you. Um, going back to the long-range planning comments, um, so I'm just going to try and, um, restate I think what your previous answer was to make sure I understand. So I'm looking first at pages 304 and 305 in our packet, which show us the, um, sections of the Glacier Creek area that are designated as mixed-use. And I think I'm understanding that your position on these are that, um, mixed-use can incorporate parkland, and portions of this may still be appropriate for mixed-use consistent with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan, but you're suggesting that some portions of these— this land will be— the community wants to see as parkland.

So I think I'm understanding that. I think— please stop me if that's incorrect, but I think— could we talk a little bit about what we see on page 306 of our packet, which shows that the entire area shown as proposed parkland and proposed disc golf areas? I think I— yes. This one. Could you talk a little bit about how this is consistent with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan?

Yes, through the Chair, Commissioner Krishna. Um, let me use my pointer here. So it might be kind of hard to see, but this green dashed line, um, this is— we're not proposing any park uses here. It can remain as— or we're showing it as remaining mixed use. And this area is the most developable part of this whole area according to the land suitability analysis that we had done during the comprehensive plan.

We are showing the Frolf course in these purple, um, sections, and those areas are within the floodplain. And this area here is shown as a recreational vehicle campground, which was like a project separate from this where they're working on developing that there. Does that answer your question?

Yes, thanks.

A question from Commissioner McKee. Hi, so in the DOT's comments, they mentioned that there's an existing encroachment that is unpermitted. Is there any plans with the project to acquire that permitted encroachment, or is the design intent to, to redesign so that that parking lot is no longer encroaching?

Through the chair, Commissioner McKee, there are no plans to address that as a part of this plan, but Girdwood Parks and Recreation would have to address that in the future. And then on the Moose Meadow, the DOT has comments about the trails, uh, crossing DOT. So is there still an ability to provide connectivity if those trails don't cross DOT roadways? And, and then what would be the plan to do that? And then kind of similarly, if the intention was to utilize FAA property, the DOT, the airport there in Girdwood, is there a plan to— and sufficient space to accommodate the design without that land swap?

The trails aren't a focus of the parks plan, so we were planning on removing any non-official trails from our maps since this plan focuses on proposed parkland and the Girdwood Trails Plan addresses trails throughout Girdwood. Okay, and then I guess it's the same one for the, the next comment is about the FAA, the DOT, the Girdwood Airport? Is there sufficient— that's not a concern, the proposed land swap in order to achieve the desired intent?

Land swap was just a future item that, you know, it was something that came up during the public process that people wanted to see, so we included that as a potential thing that Girdwood could pursue, but it's somewhat outside the scope of our proposed improvements at Moose Meadow Park, which focuses on the, like, the parkland itself. Okay, thank you.

Question from Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. Um, just going back to the, the potential conflict with the comp plan identified by Long Range Planning and the mixed-use designations. I think, as with Commissioner Christian, I think I understood the point you were making. And in your original comment though, I just want to make sure I understand kind of the source of it when you mention the history of the development of the updates to the Comp Plan and the understanding that, um, parks could be used in the mixed-use designation.

And I guess my question is, was that just kind of part of the intent and understanding, or is there somewhere specifically in the plan where you can point to where it, where it says that? Is that written in there, or is that just more of kind of the history of the development and discussions with the community? I believe that parks are permitted in mixed-use through the planning zoning code.

Um, okay, so, um, Okay, I think that's good for now. Thank you.

I see no further questions.

With that, we will open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

Hi, uh, just press the button and state your name for the record. Good evening, my name is Brian Burnett. I am the Parks and Rec Supervisor for Girdwood Board of Supervisors. I'm here this evening to speak on behalf of this plan and urge Planning and Zoning to approve the the plan as it is presented in front of them right now. I have been part of a number of plans in Girdwood dating all the way back to like the Crow Creek neighborhood plan.

This plan has engaged the community on multiple levels and many, many opportunities for input from the community. I believe this plan is going to be a successful, a successful component of the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan and will also complement the Girdwood Trails Plan, which is included in that community document. So on behalf of Girdwood, I am urging Planning and Zoning to approve the plan as presented. Thank you. I see no questions.

Thank you for your time. Oh, there's a question. Commissioner McKee, please. Hi, through the chair. Um, the question for you would be, as a representative of the Girdwood, um, would you have any concerns if we asked the plan to be revised to address the concerns that DOT brought up about the encroachments and the trails crossing the, the roadways and the proposed FAA land swap.

Through the chair, um, I regret that I was planning on the public hearing starting at 7:30 this evening, so I was a little surprised when I came in and it was going on. Um, so I cannot accurately answer to your concerns at this time. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify on Girdwood Parks, speak now.

Seeing no one, uh, petitioner Mr. Miller, I believe you have about 6 minutes and 40 seconds of rebuttal. Would you care to use it?

The— they are yielding their time.

With that, we will close the public hearing. What is the will of the body?

Commissioner McKee.

Hi, I guess I have a procedural question. How do we— can we amend the recommendations that the draft plan be revised to address DOT's comments and concerns about the encroachments and, and into the right-of-way and the proposed DOT land swap? Well, the motion on the screen says subject to the condition shown on page 2 of the staff report with the addition of DOT and PF's comments as condition number 3. Now you can amend that however you see fit by stating it slowly and clearly.

You can also add to the findings. Commissioner Krishna. Before we start on discussion, I want to ask staff if they can maybe add a little bit more information about what we heard tonight about parks and the mixed-use designation, and if they have any additional commentary on that before we get into motions. This is Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. So again, our job is just to interpret the plan and sort of interpret the plan for all parties.

You know, these— any plan is not only, you know, a tool for the community, but it's a tool for people looking to buy land or make investments or make investment decisions and that sort of thing. So I think our main— the main concern in our comments was that it's just not very clear. I mean, we read the definition of mixed-use designation in the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan and says mixed-use includes commercial and residential uses. Commercial uses are sized appropriate for Girdwood. No large development footprints with expansive parking lots.

A full range of residential types are permitted, ranging from single-family style homes to multi-family buildings. So again, that may include parks, but just us reading that, it doesn't look like this is a designation designated, you know, intended for open space. And just sort of big picture, you know, this plan was just adopted and saying in the future this is an area where we'll see a different type of activity here. And so that's just sort of where the conflict is. And also, I think right now the area is zoned GCR-1, which has its own specific rules.

It doesn't exactly say you can put a park there as an allowed use. You can do trails. So I think that's just sort of the piece. A lot of the clarifications are helpful, and I think in general our comment would be any clarifications that can go into the plan to explain any of that would be helpful for anybody, right? So if anybody in the future is looking at this area and thinking, hmm, maybe, you know, maybe there's going to be a disposal, or maybe I could do a project here, or maybe I want to invest some money here, It's just adding the clarity.

So to us, you know, what the plans say don't really matter, just that it's clear to people using them is the most important thing. So when we read, you know, in long range of sitting down and looking at this and we read what mixed use means, it seemed to mean something other than that. And it's only parts and it's not totally clear. So that's really the essence of our comment. As long as it's clear and as long as it provides policy guidance that people can use, that's great.

And again, because this type of plan is not an element of the Comprehensive Plan, it could just be that the— this sort of plan stays the way it is, but then the Comprehensive Plan will still have that language in force. So that's why our recommendation is, you know, maybe potentially change the Comprehensive Plan to say that that should be open space or parkland or something like that. So that's kind of our thinking about it. Again, it's just reading what the map says, reading what the definition of mixed use is in the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan adopted last year, and just going from there. Thank you.

Thank you.

Unless there's any more questions for staff, we're ready for a motion.

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? Sure, thank you. Um, I'll move in case 2026-0078 to approve the Gerdwoods Parks Master Plan Um, and I guess just for starting purposes, I'll make it subject to the condition shown on page 2 of the staff report.

Thank you. That was seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, thank you. Um, I think I'd be willing to support the motion in its current form, although I'm open to amendments if anyone wants to address DOT's comments with this. In general, it looked like, as we heard one member of the public speak to today, there was a pretty robust public process through this. It looked like it's well supported by the community, although I do support the request to resolve with Long Range Planning the consistency with the Gerdwood Parks Master Plan, um, with the Gerdwood Comprehensive Plan. I think just from my own read, I found confusing some of the items that Long Range Planning identified, and I think for someone who maybe wasn't as familiar with the development process of those plans, it could be helpful to have that clarified.

Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Abaza.

Um, I know we discussed adding a third condition of approval to meet DOT comments. I just worry that if we add that in, it's going to present difficulties, um, specifically that encroachment item.

So I, I guess my inclination is to not add a third condition of approval. Do you support the motion as stated? Yes. Perfect. Commissioner McKee?

Um, I, I do not intend to support the motion as stated. I, I do support adding a third condition that they address the DOT's comments because in the revised— the, the, the planning document, these are their encroachments into and utilizing area that's not available to them. In the plan as proposed.

Thank you. Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you. I, I do intend to support the motion. I would like to add a comment. I had raised a question around active transportation, and then in looking after the petitioner's response To that question, I, I still feel that the plan is lacking around that element of how people get to and move around parks if they're not in vehicles. So I would like to see in the implementation phase of this plan that emphasis be given to that element.

Lots of talk about vehicle parking improvements. What about the bikes? So thank you.

Commissioner Eber. I just wanted to say that I intended to support the motion as written. Um, we received no public testimony against it. We actually received public testimony from the Gridwood Board of Supervisors supporting it, and they've actively worked with everybody for this plan, so I intend to support it.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Hearing, seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next item, may we please have the staff presentation in case 2026-0095?

Thank you, Chair. The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, in coordination with the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions, is seeking a review of the 65% Plans in hand reveal for the Mountain Air Drive extension project in compliance with the municipal code. This project will construct less than a mile of rural collector roadway connecting Sandpiper Drive to Rabbit Creek Road, providing viral secondary access for Fire Station 10 Bairdville Elementary and residents. The submission represents the final step in the Municipal Context Sensitive Solution Transportation Project review process following previous review by this, by this body in 2022 and 2023. The applicant has satisfied all prior conditions of approval established in Resolution 2023-009, including the added memorandum resolving school impacts in coordination with MOA Traffic Engineering and the Anchorage School District.

As of this writing, the Planning Department has reviewed no public or Community Council comments. Review agents' comments are available in Attachment 3 in the original format with no objections noted. The Planning Department recommends approval of the case 2023— sorry, 2026-0095, subject to the conditions shown on pages 14 and 15, this staff report. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Commissioner Krishna. Yes, I'm looking at page 99 of our packet. I'm, uh, was just having a little bit of trouble following this.

Traffic engineering is currently working with HDL to resolve the comment in Resolution 2023-009. I don't believe that was in our packet. Could you update us on what that's referring to?

Sorry about this.

And actually, may I just ask for the question to be repeated?

I see the resolution 2023-009 in our packet, but, um, I think I'm a bit confused about what the comment is that is mentioned here on page 99.

I can only imagine this number 4, resolve with traffic engineering concerns for queuing impacts on roadway adjacent to Bear Valley and one tree, would be that—. Yeah, uh, through the, uh, Commissioner Krishna, through the chair, um Hopefully this will— let me know if I'm not answering the question, but it— the— there was a memo included that, uh, that addressed queuing at the elementary school, the Bear Valley Elementary School that's nearby. And so that, that resolved one of the, the original conditions of approval from the design study report.

And then—.

Yep, so that's the—.

Hang on one sec.

Okay, the, uh, the original comment on Resolution 2023-009, so that was from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the DSR, Design Study Report, uh, it said resolve with traffic engineering concerns for queuing impacts to the roadway an adjacent intersection at Bear Valley Elementary School. And so with the addition of the memo provided, we felt that condition was resolved. The other conditions of that resolution, um, there were 3 others. The first is one we put on most everything that just says what you build has to be generally in alignment with the plans. And then the 2 other substantive ones were to adjust the right-of-way width to follow typical sections for rural collector streets And then adjust the design to meet street and intersection lighting standards that are in Title 21 and in the Design Criteria Manual.

So we felt all, all of those are met, basically. And the remaining conditions of approval here are that the approval is subject to the plans that they submitted. And we would like a copy of the updated drawings for the pathway alignment, and then to provide additional information about the grade of the pathway and ADA compliance. So basically, we found all, all of the conditions of the DSR approval were met. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I think I'm following. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Sorry for the brief confusion and a minute for us to look that up.

Unless there's other questions for staff, we'll invite the petitioner up for their presentation.

You have a presentation, Matt? Yeah, I've got a presentation.

Is someone from staff going to help the petitioner get their presentation up? Yes, uh, we are having a bit of a technical difficulty. I don't know if— I think we can resolve it relatively quickly without— if it takes a minute or two longer, I'll suggest a recess, but I think we can resolve it relatively quickly. Sounds good, we'll try to not pressure you.

Came up earlier. I saw it earlier. Okay, we are ready to go. Let me just hit the button. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you. Okay, before we start the presentation, my name is Stephanie Mormillo. I am with HDL Engineering Consultants and I'm part of this project team. But just to resolve and kind of finally answer that question, when, um, when he made that comment on July 10th, we were in the process of reviewing that memo that has been included in your packet. So if you see starting on page 9 of your packet, and there is a signature— actually, yes, there's a signature on page 12 from the municipal traffic engineer Brad Koi, we actually received that later in the day on the same day that he made that comment.

So he was saying he knew we were in the process of resolving that comment and that they had nothing else they needed to resolve with us. So just, that's the clarification of that comment on page 99. Thank you. And this is Connor Eshelman with DOT who will be making the presentation. Yes, hello, my name is Connor Eshelman.

I'm the project manager for the AMATS Mountain Air Drive project. With DOT and PF.

There we go, that works. So this is an AMATS project. It is federally funded through their program. This roadway is currently owned and will continue to be by the municipality Anchorage. It is maintained by the South Goldenview Rural Road Service Area.

This project is currently listed as a short-term priority in the MTP and the TIP. And next.

All right, so this project includes a construction of approximately 1/2 mile of new roadway connecting Mountainaire Drive and between Rabbit Creek Road and Sandpiper. This will include, uh, excuse me, multimodal transportation, drainage improvement, a large diameter crossing at Little Rabbit Creek, signage and lighting, utility work, clearing and grubbing.

So here is our proposed typical section. The road is nominally meeting the section throughout the entirety of the corridor.

Uh, so right now we are, uh, coming to you with our 65% level design. We are looking to start our right-of-way process, uh, which will take approximately 2 years, putting us into construction, uh, in 2029 or 2030. Uh, so we completed our environmental document in 2023. That includes wetland delineation, cultural resource reports, traffic noise and analysis.

To now, we have continued to advance design and come to our 65% level where we are looking to move forward.

So, quick summary of our public involvement to date. We have been to both community councils, that is Bear Valley and Rabbit Creek. 3 Times for Bear Valley and 4 times for Rabbit Creek. We held our first open house meeting in 2021. We came with our concept report in '22.

We've been to the Transportation Fair every year since the project began. We have presented both to AMATS technical and policy committees, and we held our most recent open house April of this year.

Uh, so Resolution 2309, uh, as discussed, we were approved with 4 conditions. Uh, we are substantially in compliance with the previous narrative submitted to Planning and Zoning. Uh, we have adjusted our design right-of-way to fit the typical section for a rural collector. Uh, we have continued with intersection lighting designs, uh, per Chapter 5, and the— we have continued to work with Bear Valley Elementary. Uh, they have a concurrent project to redo their grounds, so we're working with them to, uh, coordinate and resolve those queuing issues.

Uh, thank you. I'm available for questions.

Commissioner McKee. Hi, thank you. Through the chair, I have a couple of questions for you. Um, in the plan set that we have in front of us, it shows cut and fill limits that go well outside of the right-of-way, but you mentioned that the typical section has been revised to fit within the right-of-way. So is the intention to acquire enough right-of-way to fit the full typical section as it's shown in our plans, or is, is it intended to fit within the right-of-way as shown?

Uh, the intent is to fit, uh, as drawn. The cut and fill limits there are reduced. Okay, so, and then, so I have a couple questions. So it's also showing as proposed that the pathway in several locations, it goes out of the existing right-of-way. So the design can be redone to fit within the existing?

Because I'm just looking at your, your vertical alignment is pretty closely following existing ground with those proposed cut and fill limits going pretty far out of the right-of-way, including over structures like a building. Yes, and we do have, uh, we are currently working with our survey crew go out since our last survey. I think 4 additional homes have been built along the corridor, um, so we're working to refine that, uh, in those areas. And then my— so I have 2 more questions. The next question would be, the vertical profile has a run of about 1,500 feet that's over 6%, which would make it pretty challenging for somebody who needs ADA compliance So what's the project team plan to, to be a little bit more friendly?

Uh, so we, where possible, have flattened grades. I did see a comment that the steepest grade is roughly 9.5%, and that is following the existing Mountainaire Drive. So the pathway following would be along— would be following PROWAG guidance, which is to not exceed the, um, grade of the roadway adjacent. Um, it's on upper hillside, there's pretty hilly there. It's only so much that can be done to try and reduce that.

And then my last question was, um, any consideration, um, for a bridge instead of a large diameter culvert? I know that it is more costly but can have less impacts to a waterway. Yes, uh, the decision bridge versus culvert was, uh, debated hotly. Several designs were put through. Um, at the end of the day, a culvert had, um, effectively the same level of impact as a, uh, bridge did.

It is a small creek at that crossing location, and, uh, bridge would be a significant increase in cost and maintenance, uh, throughout the life of the roadway. Thank you.

Um, just following up on Commissioner McKee's comments on the right-of-way, the— are the right-of-ways existing? I— the maps I was looking at didn't show the right-of-ways. So the project does propose to acquire right-of-way along almost the entire length of the corridor. Yes. Thank you.

And then I had one more question on the lighting.

I know a portion of the road exists up in the neighborhood and then maybe a portion down by the school.

Would those— where can you explain the lighting? How, like, I guess, would it— because those— I don't know about down by the school, but I know up in the neighborhood there are no street lights. And I was just curious how much lighting there would be, where it would stop. Uh, so the project only proposes intersection lighting, uh, so not continuous lighting along the entire way. So that would be the intersection with Sandpiper, Rabbit Creek, uh, 149th, and at the elementary school.

Thank you. I see no further questions in the queue. You have 5 minutes and 37 seconds. That's for rebuttal. I'm good, thank you.

One thing I do want to say, I don't know quite where to point it out, but on page 5 under department recommendations, number 1, it says as prepared by Dowell in September '25. That would need to be revised to HDL in '26.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

All right, now we will invite anyone from the public wishing to testify on this matter. Please step forward.

Just need to figure out how to turn that mic on.

No, it'll light up. There you go. How about now? Yep. Can you hear me now?

Yeah, we got you loud and clear. State your name for the record, please. My name is James Michael. I'm a lifelong resident of Alaska and majority of that in Anchorage. Members of the Commission, I stand before you again as I have multiple times in the past to speak regarding this Mountain Air Drive construction project.

I'm a second-generation born, third-living-on-the-property in the area of this project, and I am intimately familiar with both the area and the development of it. I want to firmly state that I support the construction of this road. It has been badly needed in the area for many years, but I do have a concern regarding the project and regarding the impact it'll have on the area. The understanding that I and many members of the public have had based on public meetings with project staff and published documentation regarding the federal grant for this project was that it was intended for, quote, emergency access and egress. However, the project only appears to access a single neighborhood.

No apparent meaningful work has been done to factor in a connection to Jamie Avenue and further into Bear Valley, and this seems to conflict with the purpose of a federal grant. As currently there is only one means of access to Bear Valley via Clark's Road, a connection to Jamie would open up a second route and could easily be the difference between life and death for residents in the valley in the event of a wildfire. It would be disingenuous of me if I did not acknowledge that following the original plotted route, which is often referred to as Alternative B in documents, it would benefit me more than the current proposed route. However, I will state that this route Route B was not platted with the intent of the development of the lots between Mountainaire Drive and Little Rabbit Creek, but rather with the idea that it would allow development of alternative access into Bear Valley. The lots between the road and the creek were subdivided after the road was platted originally.

I would strongly encourage this body to further push for clear answers regarding the ultimate goal of this project, for whom the road access is actually intended to benefit, and what the long-term impacts of the current alignment will be. I would also, since I have a moment here, really want to express my appreciation to the project development crew for not putting in non-motorized pathways on the west side of the road. I was very concerned that that was going to create the potential for some bad tragedies. I've seen the traffic in the area during school times, and I could see a student trying to cross the road from this— from the west heading east to get to the school, and it would not be a good thing.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Chelsea Bailey, and my husband and I are the property owners at 15985 Mountain Air Drive, which is located between Stations 16 and 18 of the proposed project. Um, I'm here tonight mainly to speak to some of the concerns that have already been raised by the Commissioners, Commissioner McKee, and some of the questions that have been discussed We recently purchased our home and immediately reached out to the project team upon learning of the extension project to discuss its potential impacts. Two weeks ago, we met in person with the project manager and the design team, and we're grateful to them for taking the time to meet with us and listen to our concerns. At that meeting, we reviewed the plan and profile and raised our concerns regarding the slope cuts and the right-of-way impacts to our property.

While we appreciate them taking that meeting, uh, we did walk away feeling concerned that nothing was going to change with the current design, and that's why we're here before you tonight, uh, to once again raise our concerns, uh, and ask, uh, for your help. So the 65% design before you applies the typical design section throughout the entire project without any sort of structural mitigations or design alternatives for the local topography and the steep adjacent lots. The addition of the 7-foot buffer and an 8-foot multi-use path paired with a 2-to-1 drainage ditch and back slope requires a significant right-of-way acquisition and will have a disproportionate impact to our property. Mount Air Drive is planned to become a rural collector, and as the staff analysis notes, the local topography varies from 10 to 30%. Under the context-sensitive solutions, which we understand Title 21 as well as the Hillside District plan call for.

On steep hillside terrain, we believe that implies minimizing earthwork and adapting pedestrian facilities to the local topography, not causing disproportionate slope impacts on private property. Bear Valley Elementary has frequently been referenced in previous discussion and project documents regarding connectivity and the multi-use path. As parents of a young daughter, uh, who will eventually attend Bear Valley Elementary, I think it's important to highlight that the local reality is Mountain Air Drive has steep grades up to 9.5%, as previously mentioned. And even for the closest homes, which we are one of those on the, uh, south side of the existing road, on that east side, it's nearly a mile walk. I know personally we're not going to allow our daughter to walk down and then back up that hill with an unlit pathway, especially in the winter during the school school year.

Uh, so because formal— informal discussions with the project team have failed to yield alternative designs and solutions, we're relying on the commission tonight to establish binding conditions that protect our property. My husband Brett McKinnon is here also tonight, and he'll present our site drawing data and our requested amendment.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Brett McKinnon, and as my wife mentioned, we both own a home on the developed portion of Mountainaire Drive. So we recently met with Connor and Stephanie, and again, we do appreciate the time they took, uh, to go over the project in detail with us. Our goal tonight is to encourage municipality to consider design adjustments to the typical cross-section in order to minimize the right-of-way impacts, and particularly, um, to the properties that are already developed, uh, on Mountain Air Drive. So again, our home is on the east side of the roadway, uh, which is the side of the roadway that that multi-use pathway is planned to be, uh, located.

And for us, being on that east side, our front yard, uh, faces the street, and currently our front yard is the only usable, um, yard on our property, and it also contains our well. Um, so in the plans in hand plan set, so sheet F1, which I believe is on page 72, uh, it shows our property adjacent to Station 17 on the east side. It shows our property line, uh, the cut line and the right-of-way line, uh, that's already been alluded to by the commissioners previously, uh, and it cuts approximately 45 feet into our parcel. Uh, what it does not depict, however, is the existing structure or our home on that plot. So during our meeting with the project team, again, we learned that the properties along Mountain Air Drive, as Connor had already mentioned tonight, have not been surveyed since the house was built in 2017.

So one of the proposals that we would like to see in place is that the design does not necessarily get approved and move forward until we see that survey with the existing structures already plotted out to depict the right-of-way impacts, to those existing structures, uh, from there. Um, we do have a packet, if the commission would desire, that, uh, includes a memorandum outlining this, uh, discussion, as well as we have an outline of the plot on page 72 over the MOA GIS, which depicts our property as a rough depiction. If you want to see what this cut line actually looks like in relation to our house, I'm happy to— Brett, provide that to the commission. In addition, we also seek that the design team evaluate reasonable localized alternatives that do minimize that right-of-way depth into these properties and this— these constrained segments of this project. Some of these examples could include reducing the width of the multi-use pathway, reducing the buffer, narrowing the shoulder, using a sidewalk, and place of the multi-use pathway again in specific segments, and then replacing the open ditch with closed drainage, and then potentially using localized retaining structures for those steeper topography sections, or adjusting that 2:1 slope to accept a slightly steeper grade.

These are all standard tools that can still meet the code as well as the overall intent of the project. This is also— has cost efficiency benefits.

Thank you. Thank you. Your time is up.

I, I have a question real quick before the other commissioner. What's your address, sir? It is, uh, 15985 Mountain Air Drive. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Krishna, I was going to ask if you'd like to finish your thought that you were in the middle.

Middle of.

Yes, thank you, Commissioner. Um, the last thought was just that we think it would be more cost efficient to the municipality as well, uh, for the right-of-way acquisition, for the cost to cure as well as the remainder damages during the right-of-way acquisition, because it would require relocation of our well and it would take away the only usable yard on our property.

Uh, question from Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, through the Chair. Mr. McKinnon, did you mention having a memo that you were interested in submitting to the Commission? Yes, Commissioner, I do. Would you like it?

Um, yes, please.

I do have multiple copies for everybody if you would like.

Uh, thank you, Mr. McKinnon. I see no further questions at this time. If the commission comes up with any questions before we close the public hearing, we can call you back up. Thank you for your time. Uh, now I just want to invite anybody else Wishing to testify, please step forward.

Doesn't appear that anybody else is here to testify.

Um, if we'd like to leave the, leave the public hearing open. For just a little longer if anybody has any questions for Mr. McKinnon or staff.

Hearing— oh, Commissioner Eber. I have a question for staff. Will we see this again after the 65%? I can't remember.

No, this— no, this is the final.

Okay.

Commissioner McKee. I have questions for the petitioner. The petitioner does have 5 minutes for rebuttal, so that's next up. So, uh, you want to go ahead and use your— you have 5 minutes and 22 seconds of rebuttal.

Mic, microphone, please.

Happy to answer any questions, uh, the committee, committee has. Um, just in reference to what we just heard, uh, I want to thank, uh, the Baileys for being so thorough. We did meet with them and have every intention of re— uh, taking a closer look at sections, uh, near their area once we have updated survey information. We have started working with our surveyors to get that. So thank you.

I guess just out of curiosity, I'll ask, when we talk about mitigating impacts like usable yard and the existing well, how does your process work with— I guess I'm assuming installing a retaining wall rather than a giant cut. How can you just explain a little bit about your process and thought process on mitigating that? Yeah, so there are several different options that we could pursue. Uh, we tend to shy away from retaining walls as they require significant amount of maintenance, and they have a, um, when they do fail, it is much more damaging than slope sloughing off. But, uh, our first step would probably be to pull— reduce the buffer between the pathway and the roadway.

We have a 7-foot buffer. We can tighten that up a bit to reduce impacts to their house. Steepening slopes is also an option. In order to do a detailed analysis to actually determine what would be most effective, uh, we would need that additional survey data.

Thank you. Commissioner McKee.

Thank you, through the chair. So I do have questions.

You know, I'm looking at your vertical and your horizontal proposed alignments, and you're pretty much matching existing, so there isn't really a lot of opportunity to significantly reduce the, the footprint, and this is the cut line that, that the residents have shared shows the cut line literally going right up to the front of their property. And the DOT process would typically require that you acquire a right-of-way that encompasses your total project footprint, so your cut and fill limits would have to be acquired. With the extent of what's shown here, would this be a full acquisition acquiring relocation of, of these homeowners? Uh, at the moment, we do not plan to fully acquire along the project. Again, this is— we have been looking at this and some other properties to try and tighten up those impacts.

Difficult spot. The road effectively crosses a cliff, so to the left side, if you're heading north, is straight down into a valley, and right is up a hill, so we're trying to balance those impacts.

Are you finished, Commissioner McKee? Yeah, I was kind of trying to think, like, I guess without the additional survey, without us being able to see what the proposed revisions would look like, it's kind of hard to, to think of what we could ask you, like Is there a percentage that you anticipate being able to reduce the overall project footprint? Uh, so an easy reduction would be to remove the buffer between the pedestrian multi-use path and the, um, uh, and the roadway. Uh, that poses some safety risks to the pedestrians, but there is potential to bring that to a sidewalk, which adds some drainage. Again, all of this would require some pretty thorough analysis before I could give any real answers.

Was there strong— I'm a huge fan of separated dedicated pedestrian bike facilities. Was there significant— and, and again, you're providing access to a school— was there significant community support for a separated pathway? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Uh, Commissioner Eber, where is the survey? I guess the next round of surveys, like, when's that expected to happen in the next phase of the process or design? Uh, we're hoping to get it this season. Uh, we are rapidly approaching fall and snow on the ground, so, um, we're hoping to get it this season. Um, but we do need clear ground for that.

Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you, through the chair. What's the status of existing non-motorized facilities on Sandpiper Drive? Um, is the separated pathway creating connectivity to existing facilities, or is there nothing on Sandpiper currently? I don't believe there are existing non-motorized facilities on Sandpiper.

I guess I'll follow up on Commissioner Rahn's question. I don't believe there's— the, the neighborhood served by this road, I don't believe there's any pedestrian facilities besides off-street trails. On any of the roads. And so is there any— this is going to be funny question maybe— is there any consideration of stopping the pedestrian facilities sooner to lower, reduce your impacts?

Uh, that would be a conversation to be had. To be honest, some of the discussion and, uh, determinations for pedestrian pathways were before I was working on the project, so I don't have the entire history, but it was my understanding that that was specifically requested for and included within the project through the MTP and the TIP— a pedestrian pathway, excuse me.

Thank you. Question from Commissioner McKee. Hi, um, through the chair, I'm looking at sheet F3 in station 41 through 45 that goes through 2 full parcels. Do those parcels currently have homes on them?

No, they do not. Okay, thank you.

It looks like you still have 4 minutes and 50 seconds for rebuttal if you— either of you had anything more to add. Something to add?

Once again, Stephanie Mormello, HDL Engineering Consultants. Just to clarify, the requirement for a trail is an element of Title 21. All Class B rural zoning district collectors and arterial roadways are required to have a non-motorized facility on at least one side. So that is a requirement of Title 21. It is also a recommendation of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, also the Hillside District Plan for this area, for this being a— one of the primary connectors for the community.

So it— throughout the history of the project, we have never considered eliminating the trail connection. And asking whether or not there was public support, and there was actually a period of time the community was trying to petition us to provide one on each side of the corridor, and we are not able to do so because of the impacts for many reasons. But just wanted to clarify that there are multiple requirements for the trail. That's why I said it was going to be a silly question.

All right, um, I see no questions in the queue.

Petitioner, you're yielding your remaining 3 minutes and 56 seconds.

Uh, with that, we will close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

I guess I'll take this time to remind everybody that there is a suggested motion written. You're free to make that motion and suggest further changes or change the motion.

Commissioner McKee, could, could we propose to postpone approval until we can see an updated 65% design showing the modified typical section and reduced footprint. Is that something we could propose?

Um, let's— staff, I guess, what do you think of— what, what's your response? Uh, yes, uh, Commissioner McKee, through the chair, yes, that is an option, or that is an option as an action the commission may take, is to delay to, uh, I suppose it would be a— there wouldn't be a set meeting date you'd be delaying to, but it would— well, I suppose you could do it two ways. You could, uh, also add a condition of the approval if you just want to see the updated surveys and make it, uh, like bring updated surveys or a resolved comment, or you could motion to postpone postpone until you have that information to actually make your decision. Thank you.

Uh, Commissioner Abaza. So if we do postpone, does that mean that a second public hearing would happen and the public has a chance to comment again?

Commissioner Baza, through the chair, it would depend. So if there's— if there's no new information, then there would not be a public hearing. But if we got additional documents such as the survey, etc., then yes, there we would open the public hearing again because there's new information that that the public may want to testify upon.

And I guess I'll just ask one. Could we make a motion that waives all the codes requiring the pathway if we wanted to?

Uh, Chair Spinelli. You, you cannot make a motion to waive code because that's granting a variance, and there's a formal process to request a variance from the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals. So you cannot do that, but you can motion whatever way to approve or, or send back to the petitioner for redesign, etc.

Thank you.

Uh, Commissioner McKee, you— would you like to state your motion? Oh, sorry, I just— yeah, I wanted to give a point of information.

Uh, if they would— the variance would actually come to you because they would be a design variance. Just, just to clarify, because they used to go Dimensional variances go to ZBA, or Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals, and then the design variances formerly went to the Urban Design Commission, but they, they now come here. So anyway, if it's deviating from a pathway requirement, that variance would actually come to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So a minor point of information, but just thought I would say it because it's still relatively new that this commission reviews those types of cases. That's all.

Thank you. And I just ask, that would come separately? That would have to come separately? We couldn't just one-stop shop it here tonight? Yes, Chair, that is correct, because, uh, that action wasn't publicly noticed, etc., or evaluated.

Thank you. Okay, Commissioner McKee, would you like to state your motion?

I move in case 2026-0095 to postpone approval of the context-sensitive solutions transportation project review plans in hand for AMATS Mountain Air Drive extension until after a updated 65% design is submitted.

Okay, uh, that— can you— Commissioner McKee, could you please review what we have up here?

Confirming. I guess it would be, um, 65% design is submitted for review or is resubmitted to Planning and Zoning.

I concur. That is seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Commissioner McKee, would you like to speak to your motion? Um, yes, um, I intend to support, um, the motion as amended. I think I don't think that we've heard enough from the community members that showed up, and the plans here don't currently reflect what will be proposed in the design, which makes it difficult.

I think the Commission would like to see the impacts minimized so that we can review that design. I recognize that the department and HDL has a plan to modify the design. I think the postponement, as was talked to by the chair gives the, the community a chance to apply for a design variance and have that accommodated in a revised design that might potentially give greater opportunity to reduce the footprint even further. So I intend to support the motion as amended.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

I'll just say that I also intend to support the motion. I think taking time on this project in particular would be beneficial.

And something I forgot to ask the petitioner was about the comment regarding secondary access for Bear Valley, and it would just be interesting thing when they come back if we could hear, hear about that idea.

Seeing nobody else, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Now we will move on to Case 2026-0098. May we please have the staff presentation? Chair, can we take a brief recess? Uh, yeah, we'll go ahead and take a Recess. Dash 0098.

Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, pages 14 and 15, uh, show the— of the staff packet show the petition site. Chugach Electric Association is requesting conditional use approval to upgrade the existing Campbell Lake substation at 1000 Southport Drive. In the R-1 zoning district. Um, Chugach is also requesting variances from landscaping and fence height requirements.

The commission approved the original electrical substation in 1975. 3 Years ago, in 2023, the commission approved conditional use applications for both an electrical substation rebuild and a a 65-foot Type 1 telecommunications tower. The Commission denied a variance for an 11.5-foot-tall fence. It was a block wall.

The— and approved a variance from landscaping requirements along Southport Drive to replace required buffer landscaping trees with more— substituting more shrubs.

On appeal of the case, of the conditional use cases from the Southport Masters Association, the Municipal Board of Adjustment decided to remand both conditional use cases back to the Planning and Zoning Commission due to an insufficient community meeting early this year. Chugach started the project over from the beginning because of the remand and hired a different consultant to assist with a new public outreach process. Um, Chugach dropped from the project the conditional use request for the telecommunications tower, so there's no tower with this new application. Chugach replaced the 11.5-foot-tall block wall, with a 10.5-foot tall decorative fence with the blue band at the top. The landscaping plan shows the retention of mature natural vegetation surrounding the site, and new tree plantings where space allows.

Furthermore, the landscape plan retains, um, uh, the majority of mature trees along Southport Drive and will not seek a variance, uh, from the landscape standard along Southport Drive. So that differs from the previous, um, application. Municipal and state agencies had no objection to the applications for conditional use for the utility— for the electrical substation— and variances from landscaping and fence height. The Planning Department mailed 167 public hearing notices on July 1st. The department has received received 3 comments from 2 individuals.

One of the individuals commented twice. Also today, we received 3 additional comments, and those are in your supplementary packet.

So, um, the department finds that the approval— the 9 approval criteria for a conditional use for electrical substation are met, um, and, um, the department finds that the approval criteria for the first variance are also met. The first variance is to reduce minimum planning bed width on the north, northwest, and southwest property lines, to reduce the number of plannings on the northwest and southwest property lines. The west side of the site is fully compliant with the L2 buffer landscaping standard.

You can see the landscape plan on page 55 of your packet. So the, the code provision says the facility shall be designed and constructed to ensure visual and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. Compatibility may be achieved either by using similar architectural design and materials, as buildings in the surrounding neighborhood, or by screening the facility with L2 buffer landscaping. So that's where the L2 buffer landscaping requirement comes from on the, on the north, northwest, and southwest sides. Instead, they're just retaining existing natural vegetation and supplementing it where there's opportunities.

The proposed site layout was designed in collaboration with the Citizen Working Group, and the landscape plan achieves the intent of L2 Buffer Landscaping Standard, minimizes disturbance of existing mature vegetation. And Chugach cannot provide 15-foot-wide planting bed widths on the north, northwest, and southwest sides of the site because of the, of, of site constraints. First, it's a very tight site for an electrical substation vegetation. The property only has a little over 15,000 square feet. Second, Chugach is allowing the neighbor's fence to continue encroaching on the northwest and southwest sides of the site.

On the north side of the site, the L2 optional standard— design standard would allow a 15-foot-wide planting bed width to be reduced to 10 feet, but not when the landscape plan relies on existing vegetation as opposed to new plantings. Retaining existing vegetation provides better buffering than new plantings because the, the trees at this site are fully grown, hence the intent of the optional design standards met on that north, north side. On the northwest and southwest sides of the site, Chugach cannot provide 15 feet of required landscaping because of the neighbor's existing fence which encroaches on Chugach's property. Instead, they're adding 6 new white spruce trees in, in places where there's space, sufficient space. So the department finds that the approval criteria for the variance from landscaping is met.

With regard to the second variance request to allow an ornamental screening fence to exceed the maximum fence height, code states fences enclosing electrical utility substation shall be exempt from the height restrictions of this section, but shall not exceed 10 feet in height. If the electrical utility substation abuts or is within a residential zoning district, all stationary section of the fence built in accordance with subsection shall be ornamental fence. So they provide an ornamental fence and they— it's a, it's a decorative wooden fence, site obscuring, and it has a blue band that's found I think at the school or the fire station, but in other places within the neighborhood. The fence design is shown on page 37 of your packet. So the proposed ornamental fence is 10.5 feet tall— 9.5-foot-tall wood fence and then 1 foot of concertina wire.

This exceeds the maximum fence height allowed by Um, half a foot. Okay, um, so the intent of the regulation is to grant utility substations more fence height than other uses, uh, to protect the public from dangerous electrical equipment. The proposed 6 inches of additional fence height will help prevent, um, a public safety hazard, which is warranted at this site. The site improvement achieves the intent of the code requirement. So, um, the application states that the National The National Electric Safety Code requires a minimum fence height of 7 feet, and Chugach is assuming 3 to 4 feet of snow to maintain the requirement.

That's why they're proposing that a 10.5-foot tall fence. The department finds that the variance approval criteria for the fence height variance is met and is recommending approval. So the department is recommending approval of the conditional use and the two variances, um, ABC, and two conditions of approval on page 11 of your packet. Be happy to answer questions. And the Chugach is in attendance and is prepared to speak as well.

Commissioner Aron, I believe I have you in the queue, but I believe that's from the recess. Is that correct?

Um, I see no questions for staff, so we'll invite the petitioner up.

All right, good evening, Commissioners. My name is Taryn Olson-Yell. I'm a planner with R&M Consultants representing Chugach Electric Association for this conditional use permit and the two variances to upgrade the Campbell Lake substation. Campbell Lake substation has served this area for over 50 years. Due to the substation's age, which is now well beyond its useful life, as well as increased demands and service, Chugach is proposing to replace and modernize the substation to provide reliable service to the community.

When it was originally constructed in 1976, the facility served roughly 1,400 properties. Today it serves approximately 4,600 properties, which is over 3 times the customer base. The substation project and this upgrade is really essential, not just for the neighborhood but for the grid overall, and it's going to improve reliability, capacity, and long-term service to residents in West Anchorage. Thank you, staff, for the very thorough summary of the history of the project and what we're proposing with this new upgrade. We are here tonight presenting the results of a fresh start truly with this project, and it's results that we are quite proud of.

And it's been a really tricky situation and feel like we've come to a lot of really great conclusions collaboratively with the community. We did put substantial amounts of effort into public involvement So beginning in January, we initiated a comprehensive process that has exceeded municipal requirements and really stemmed around an open working group. So the working group was established and it was made up of residents from the neighborhood, the homeowners association representatives, community council representatives, and it was an open invitation to any additional members throughout the process. The working group met with our multidiscipline project team of Chugach staff, electrical engineers, landscape architects, and planners to collaboratively improve the site plan. We convened the working group 3 times.

Uh, our first meeting focused on identifying issues and concerns with the existing substation as well as the proposed, um, project back in 2023. The second work session, uh, we really workshopped the site plan, so we looked at all the different parts and pieces, the components that are required for a substation and seeing where we could reorganize or reorient some of those pieces to try to more find a more optimal layout. The third work session focused primarily on landscaping, including the fencing plan and additional screening details. Through those workshops— or, I'm sorry, through those working group meetings, we also hosted a public open house to community council meetings, and, uh, community members have really directly influenced the result, um, and what is before you tonight. The public involvement process was collaborative and productive, and it has resulted in a substantially revised site plan, uh, that better reflects the community character and addresses neighborhood concerns while maintaining facility safety and operational standards.

Uh, just a quick summary of the major changes and what is before you tonight. The project includes a complete replacement of the existing substation, so we are installing 2 new transformers for needed redundancy, and those 2 transformers are enclosed on 3 sides by a concrete barrier for additional visual and noise buffering. The transformer that's on site today does not have any additional buffering features. We are replacing two separate switchgear facilities with a single enclosure. We're paving the driveway, proposing to improve site circulation, and install a new ornamental security fence.

The fence area of the substation today is 9,179 square feet. Our proposal is to reduce that by 241 square feet And the slightly smaller footprint was made possible, uh, primarily through optimized equipment arrangement that maintains the clearances and access necessary for the safe operation and maintenance of all of the components inside the substation.

This included the relocation of a vault and 3 switch cabinets at the recommendation of working group members, which we were very excited to find, uh, and it's also allowed us to maximize the retention of the existing landscaping, particularly along Southport Avenue. This is really helping to improve that visual impact to the facility as well as maintain that community character.

A major focus was placed on ensuring compatibility with the surrounding Southport neighborhood. We feel that this project complies with— well, we know this project complies with all electrical and municipal code requirements and feel that we've really done our best to, um, comply with that community character and have included additional measures for reducing noise emissions and the perceived visual impacts of the substation.

The project is preserving significant existing vegetation. Uh, we are providing visual screening and supplementing it with additional landscaping that has been developed collaboratively with the community. Uh, the landscaping planting scheme was provided by the Southport Homeowners Association. Association, and we've done our best to use all of those same plantings that they have requested. We do have two variances that we're requesting, uh, the first relating to landscaping along the portions of the north, northwest, and southwest property lines.

These are due to the need to balance operational needs of the substation, which really includes security and sight lines, the ability to get maintenance equipment in and out of the substation safely, and to make sure that there are any conflicts with existing and proposed utility lines are removed. So we have a lot of different restrictions that we're working around, and because we're really trying to retain as much existing mature vegetation as we can and working around those physical limitations, as staff mentioned, including the existing residential fence that's on Chugach's property, we're doing our best to maintain that and make everything fit all in one site.

Uh, following the public meetings, we did have additional meetings with the adjacent property owner, and we have since incorporated 6 additional evergreen trees in between their residential fence and Chugach's proposed ornamental security fence. This is to try to continue to provide some additional visual and noise buffering for that adjacent resident.

I think staff adequately covered our request for a fence height variance. So we're asking for 6 additional inches to allow us to have 1 foot of that protective security wire on the top, and we have a 9.5-foot wooden fence that is a match as best as we can with the adjacent fences in the neighborhood.

So in summary, the Campbell Lake Substation Replacement Project upgrades critical electrical infrastructure that served the community for over 50 years. The proposal before you tonight reflects extensive public involvement that directly results in significant improvements to the site plan in the project, and the removal of the communications tower, preservation of as much mature natural landscaping as we can, and the additional neighborhood screening really has underlined Chugach's commitment to providing reliable electrical service for current and future residents. We agree with staff that the project is consistent consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with surrounding land uses, and meets the conditional use permit and variance standards. We have reviewed the public's comments that were submitted prior to this evening and are prepared to speak to those as well as answer any questions that you have. I'm joined tonight by many of our key members, so we have our electrical engineer and we have our noise analysis expert as well as our landscape architect available to answer any specific questions you Thank you for your time.

Thank you. I see no questions. Oh, a question from Commissioner McKee. You have 2 minutes for rebuttal.

Hi, through the chair. Um, I noticed that there were some comments about concerns about the barbed wire being on top of the fence Did the team consider maybe a taller fence without the barbed wire? Would that provide the same level of trespass deterrence, or—. I'll start, and Tim might have some additional feedback for us. Um, the 1-foot barbed wire is standard for electrical utilities and is standard for Chugach.

There have been almost daily reports to Chugach of attempted break-ins at substations throughout their service area. And so that is one thing that we're not really willing to compromise on, but it is a good question. And I think the other reason that we were looking at just the fence height variance for the barbed wire as opposed to higher physical structure is to reduce climbing risk and visual impact. The barbed wire is— well, yes, if you're right up against it, not the most attractive thing to look at,. It's not as imposing as a solid wood fence.

So that was part of the rationale there. Tim, is there anything you'd like to add? So I'm Tim Conrad. I'm the electrical engineer of record for the project. So there's a couple of things with barbed wire.

One, it's a standard feature on substations nationwide. It's a passive device, so it's not there to— it's not meant to harm people. It's meant to be a deterrent to climbing the fence. So you wind up with a pretty tall fence, you know, without barbed wire to create something that's equivalent to that same anti-climb feature. And that's really what the barbed wire is there for, is to prevent people from climbing that fence.

Thank you.

Commissioner Abaza.

Um, this might be kind of a silly question, but I don't have any electrical engineering background here. Um, there were several public comments about why CEA has not considered swapping out the transformer with a switchgear. Um, can you speak to that?

So again, Tim Conrad. Uh, so yes, it comes down to access, um, to be able to safely and effectively move that large of equipment into this little bitty site. It— you need appropriate access for that equipment. So it's going to come in on a big truck and trailer. They have to set up a crane to move that equipment, and moving that transformer foundation to the other side of the site, it just doesn't allow the space to do that.

And especially in a case where there— if there was ever an emergency or something like that and you had to get that transformer out of there quickly, it just does not allow for that.

Thanks, Tim. I'll add to that as well. Um, we have to be able to pull into the driveway to be able to service those transformers, and so if they were to switch— with the switchgear cabinet move closer to Southport, we would have to do one of two things. And one would be to rely on Southport right-of-way to get in and out, which we're not permitted to do, um, and obviously would have a significant potential traffic impact, as Tim was saying, during construction or an emergency. The other alternative— and I don't even want to use the word alternative because it may not fit, apologies Tim— but there's buffers around every piece of equipment for maintenance.

But if we were to make that switch, we would have to then rotate that three-sided concrete enclosure that's around the transformers. So if we were to do that, because it would have to surface inside the substation, which would end up removing the noise buffering that those concrete barriers are actually doing for the adjacent residents right now, because that would no longer be buffering— there wouldn't be a barrier between the transformer's open side and the residents.. So the way that it's oriented right now, that open side is actually facing Southport Drive and providing that buffering from adjacent residents.

Thank you. Commissioner McKee. And you might have just answered my question, but my next question was, we, we had some comments about the sound and the noise, and I, and I can see in my packet that, um, the, you know, the current noise level is well below requirements. And with this design, the increase was very minimal. But does the design team want to speak to what some of the things that they incorporated into the design were to help reduce noise levels, or at least to maintain existing?

I'll bring up our noise analyst.

Good evening. My name is Michael Travis. I'm with T3 Tier Alaska. We did the noise analysis for this subdivision here. There's actually two things that are occurring here that help mitigate any noise.

One, the new transformers, they're actually substantially quieter than the old ones that were put in in 1976. The other one is the concrete barrier that surrounds it greatly attenuates noise that comes out of these things here. So by the two of them, the reason why we have only a minimal increase in participated at the critical receptors around that area there.

Commissioner Gardner. Just a follow-up question on the noise. I am curious to what degree the reduction is attributed to the improved technology, I will say for lack of a better word. And to what degree is it tied to the presence of the concrete barrier?

Thank you. Again, Michael Travis through the chair to Commissioner Gardner. The manufacturer specs are showing about 3 dBA reduction from the current transformers we have.

Also, EPS was able to take some noise analysis of what's occurring at a similar substation. Although it only has one transformer, it does give us an idea of attenuation of the noise. We were able to take that and extrapolate that back to the present site to show that it's only going to be an extremely minimal increase occurring in that area. So actually getting more more specific to your— an answer to that, we're looking at probably about a 4 to 5 dBA reduction, decibels in the A-weighted scale. As when I say dBA, it's what the measurement we used for human beings to actually hear the type of noise energy that we're measuring.

And I guess my more pointed question is the— to understand how the noise— let's say the property of one of the northwest or south side— um, how it compares under the current design versus if the transformers were to be, as you spoke to earlier, with the— if they were rotated or moved to the other location, and the— that required rotating the concrete barrier so that that wasn't in place, um, along the side that faces the residences, are you able to speak to what difference that might make in the noise increase at the location of the residence? Uh, we did no modeling with that type of scenario. I didn't even think of it, quite frankly. But you're probably looking at about a 5 dBA increase of what's occurring right now. It's still below, uh, the required standard.

Thank you.

I see no further questions.

We will open the public hearing. You do have 2 minutes for rebuttal.

Anybody wishing to testify, please step forward.

Through the chair to the commissioners, good evening. My name is Janice Zilko and I live in Southport. I am here tonight on behalf of and in support of Nathan and Taylor Stevens who live in the home on Lot 61 adjacent to the substation. Nathan cannot be here tonight because he's a firefighter and EMT, works 24-hour shifts, and he could not find anyone to cover for him tonight. We both have already submitted detailed written comments.

I provided in today's packet a graphic which shows— is an enlargement of the existing features plan showing where the new transformers will be placed in relationship to Nathan's home. I'm acquainted with Nathan and his family, and I've spent time in their backyard, and I I participated in the CEA workgroup for this project. I attended Nathan's meeting with CEA in his backyard. I am here tonight to try and answer any questions you may have with regards to his concerns. Nathan and Taylor are a young couple with young children.

They have a beautiful backyard where their family spends a lot of time. Has a large deck, a fire pit, and terrace landscaping. Today their backyard view does not include large electrical transformers. Under this new site plan, two 15-foot-tall transformers would be located immediately adjacent to their property and less than 25 feet from their house. The transformers and razor wire would extend above the screening fence.

This design places the burden of the CEA rebuild disproportionately on the family next door when additional, additional options appear feasible. We don't believe this design meets standards of Criteria 4 nor 7 for CUP approval, nor does it meet the standard for variances, which states approval will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property. The existing CUP has required a tree buffer around this substation for the last 50 years, yet the location where the expanded facility will come close— closest to an existing home— CEA is asking for variances that reduce the landscaping requirement to virtually nothing. Before approving these variants, I ask you to picture yourself sitting on that family's back deck. Would you consider the proposed screening adequate if this were your home?

AMC 21.07070, titled Neighborhood Protection Standards, specifically gives the Commission the tools to address the situation. Its stated purpose is to protect residential neighborhoods from the adverse impacts of adjacent non-residential uses when approving a CUP. This section of code authorizes the Commission to impose conditions necessary to reduce or minimize adverse impacts on residential property.

I believe CEA can do better landscaping in this area. Between the two fences, the space is tight at the west corner, but there are very attractive, relatively fast fast-growing, ultra-compact landscape trees that are commonly used in tight spaces and anchorage. Thank you. Thank you.

I do have one question.

I guess following up on the earlier comments regarding the concrete barrier, the rotation of it. Does— do you have it? Are you able to speak for the neighbors on moving the transformers further away but having the concrete barriers not buffering the sound? Yeah, um, he did— Nathan did mention that to me, that he— that was one of his recommendations, is he thought that, um, the concrete did not provides a significant amount of buffer, um, and it would be less noise impacts if the transformers were moved away without the concrete surrounding it. And the opening of the concrete, um, is placed in a position where he feels it would still impact, um, the side of his house.

And so he doesn't see much benefit since the opening to the barrier is so close to his home.

Commissioner Gardner? Oh, sorry, you asked my question, so I can take myself out of here. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, Commissioner Mills. I just have one question. If I recall from the petitioner's presentation earlier, they talked about planting some trees. It was like, um, an add-on that they wanted to include. Um, is that adequate to Nathan, or am I understanding that he would still like additional landscaping beyond those trees and what, what his request is?

Um, yeah, he would like additional landscaping. The trees that were added will definitely help, but there, the fences are and 9.5 feet, and these trees will only be 6 feet tall. So it'll be years before they offer any significant benefit, but they will help, definitely. But the point on the diagram exhibit that I showed, which is the westerly— most westerly property or boundary, which is the closest to the house, has nothing. And I think the trees would be— some tall trees would be a big benefit there.

Nathan's fence will be moved by CEA in agreement. That's part of the settlement agreement. And when they move that fence, the additional trees that are there will be— need to be— they'll probably get damaged and be removed. The agreement requires those trees be replaced, but still, those are like 15-foot-tall trees that are offering the only significant benefit right now, and I don't I think, um, they'll be replaced with smaller trees. So it would— he does seem to want some taller trees in that area to, to just buffer the, the view of the concrete and the barbed wire, because he had asked for the barbed wire to be removed.

But since that isn't possible, trees would help buffer the barbed wire and the concrete.

Thank you. See no further questions. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

Good evening, my name is Bruce Schulte, that's S-C-H-U-L-T-E. I'm president of the Southport Master Association. I'm going to have a bit of a mixed—. Yes, go ahead. We're assuming you're speaking on behalf of the group.

Yes, thank you. I'm going to have a bit of a mixed message for you tonight, and I'll try and make, make clear why I feel that way. Having been involved with the initial appeal of the previous project, I will say that this, this reiteration, both the process and the design, are very much improved. The CHUH-GAAT did do away with the, the elements of the original design that were most concerning. To the community as a whole, and those, those efforts are very much appreciated.

Having said that, I do think that Mr. Stevens, the immediate neighbor, has some legitimate concerns, and I, I don't think those are, those are easily dismissed. To the previous questions about the acoustics, as a practicing architect, I've worked on industrial projects next to residential areas, so I appreciate the the balance there, the sensitivity of these different uses. I've not done— I've not seen any analysis of the noise source or the mitigation of the concrete walls, but my perception of that is that that is probably going to be a fairly effective handling of the noise from those transformers, both from the orientation and the density of the material surrounding it. I think, I believe that the visual screening is a more compelling issue but easier dealt with. I think the core of our original appeal was twofold.

One was the process, the appeal in which we over— the previous project was overturned. There was two components to it. One was the process. The other one was the landscaping around the site. And Mr. Stevens' concerns kind of focus again on the landscaping.

I think those are solvable. I think that some amount of trees either within Chugach property or on Mr. Stevens' property could solve that problem, and I would encourage Chugach to get with Mr. Stevens and get some resolution of that, something that both sides can live with, because other than that, I think this is a greatly improved project from the community perspective.

Thank you. Are you finished? Yep. Alrighty, I have a question from Commissioner Krishna. Yes, um, I'm just wondering, I'm just trying to understand, um, so it sounds like you do believe that if leaving the transformers in the location that they are but adding more landscaping and visual screening between the neighbor's property and the current layout would be a positive outcome for both Chugach Electric and this neighbor?

I believe so. Thank you.

Okay, thanks for your time. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

Uh, before we close the public hearing, do we want to ask Miss Zocco if she believes the neighbor that she's speaking on behalf of would like more trees?

I'm sorry, the question again, please.

I believe Commissioner Krishna was asking, uh, whether the last person to testify believed that more trees would be good. And since you were indicated as speaking on behalf of the property owner, just wanted to ask if you thought more trees would be something the property owner wanted. Oh yeah, if, um, you know, I had suggested in my written comment that several of the tall columnar trees that are easily available in Anchorage, the Norway spruce for example, would be excellent to, to add. It's an evergreen tree. It could be a hedge all around the concrete.

It would disguise the concrete and the barbed wire. So it would definitely help the situation. And I think it could fit in that very, very narrow corridor that they have between the two fences. Thank you. Thanks.

All right, uh, nobody left in the queue. Petitioner has 2 minutes for rebuttal.

Yes, thank you. Um, I think I would just like to reiterate about potential screening options. And first and foremost, we absolutely sympathize with the adjacent property owner. We know that this is not something that is an ideal situation. However, the substation has been in place for over 50 years, and the neighborhood has grown up around the substation, and We, in our conversations with Mr. Stevens, um, were under the impression that preserving the usable space of his property as is was a priority.

And so having conversations about adding landscaping on his side of the fence or in between the fences, it was our impression at the time, and maybe that's changed since we've had that meeting, was that preserving that usable space was a priority. And so appreciate the public comments and the suggestions for continuing to look for opportunities to get more landscaping in between the two fences. Um, we have done that to the extent that we feel is practicable for the security and safety of the substation. Uh, there are security cameras that are gonna be on the posts, and we need to make sure that we are able to retain visual sight lines all around the perimeter of the substation. Those cameras are looking down into the substation, just to clarify.

They're not looking out, but it's to make sure that, um, they have eyes on any potential hazards that could, you know, a tree limb falling down or somebody climbing in or going around the substation, that could be a security risk. And so we're trying to balance that as well. We did have the conversation with Mr. Stevens about relocating the transformers and appreciate the question, Commissioner Gardner, about opening up one side and if, you know, relocating and having an open side would be more significant. It is our professional opinion that that would be a larger noise impact impact. And so the way that the substation is oriented at the moment is a better solution in terms of reducing overall noise impact at the site.

Noise is subjective, and I— again, we do sympathize and have really put in substantial effort to try to accommodate as much of the concerns from the community and the neighbor as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Question from Commissioner McKee. Um, I have a question.

In our packet it says that there is a property owner whose fence is encroaching into CEA's property. Um, could you tell me which property that is? I can't quite tell from the map that I have in front of me. And is that the property that is in question, that if that fence were not encroaching, would the vegetation buffer requirement be able to be met? Yes to the first part of your question.

I can't commit to the second part of your question. Yeah, the adjacent property owner, Mr. Stevens, that Ms. Silco is representing is, is that one in between the what's labeled as the northwest and the southwest corner, and that is the residential fence there that's encroaching. They do have a settled encroachment permit that was with the previous property owner, and like I said, we've done our best to retain as much of that existing alignment as we can. There is a little bit of that rebuild that needs to happen to preserve a separation distance between the security fence of Chugach Substation and that residential fence. Thank you.

A question from Commissioner Gardner.

Thank you. Related question, um, and just kind of further, there was, there was someone mentioned a settlement Um, with respect to— I understood to be fence, and I, I recall seeing something about that in the packet, but I couldn't see where it was. And is that a different fence, um, or is that part of the same fence? Same fence, same residential fence. Yep.

Thank you.

Commissioner Baza, um, I just wanted to make sure I understood this correctly. So, um, I'm seeing that you guys are proposing 2 white spruce trees between the fences, and you're saying that we— you cannot fit any more trees between the two fences without compromising your security cameras. But if you were to relocate the fence back to the property line, then you would be able to provide more trees. Is that correct? We are not proposing to relocate the fence at this time.

We're trying to do our best to preserve that fence alignment as shown in the plans. There's a little bit of that corner that's getting bumped out. Yeah, but we are not proposing to move the fence to Chugach's property line. I see. And there's no way to fit any more trees between the two fences?

We do not believe—. Well, maybe I'll let Mark— do you want to come speak to that? I am not the landscape architect, but we have one.

Good evening, Mark Kimmer. I'm a landscape architect on the project. Um, could you restate your question? My question was regarding fitting in more trees between the existing fence and the proposed fence. Yes, from the plan, we've got about 10 feet where you see the two trees in the most northwestern part of the planting plan, and you can see the planting bed narrows as it goes to the southwest.

In order to preserve the sight lines, we did not feel like we could add additional plantings or additional trees with that vertical height to take care of that or to help out. And my other question is, um, somebody mentioned a different kind of tree that could be more preferable for Mr. Stevens. Is that something that can fit where those trees are? Um, we could try to get some in there. We chose the white spruce because they're native and compatible with the neighborhood and the surrounding existing vegetation, which you can see kind of crowds in amongst these.

So we place those trees very carefully in the space allowed. I think two other tree species were proposed: a columnar Swedish aspen, which is a deciduous tree which which I feel, well, there's a couple things with it. Number one is the leaves drop in the winter, so the visual screening goes away in the winter. Second, they, they have suckers that move and sprout other trees, and that's not compatible with the utility. Another columnar, Norway spruce, about a 6 to 8 foot spread, could be a possibility, but it's not a native tree, and I believe in the working group decided not a compatible with the neighborhood tree.

Thank you.

Thank you. I see no further questions.

With that, we will close the public hearing. Um, this case will require 3 motions: one for the planting bed width variance, one motion for the fence height variance, and a motion for the conditional use.

Commissioner McKee, would you like to state your motion? Sure, I move in case 2026-0098 to approve a variance from AMC 21.05.040J.3.B to reduce the minimum planting bed width on the north, northwest, and southwest sides and to reduce the number of plantings on the northwest and southwest property lines, subject to the conditions shown on page 11 of the staff report. Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner McKee, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, please. Um, I intend to support the motion, um, because the, the conditions as presented in staff packet have been met. Additionally, I feel that the, the petitioner has made significant efforts with the community to reach a compromise and incorporate their design considerations. As they talked about here, they've done a lot of effort to consider the types of trees and how they would continue to screen seasonally. Um, additionally, um, looking through— sorry, I need to get to where I marked this up in my packet.

Um, that in the north perimeter, the area preserved of native plant mass is over 50% of the area threshold required. The preserved vegetation and security fence will provide visual screening intended to meet the intent of the L2 buffer screening. The east perimeter is met, the southeast perimeter is met, the southwest perimeter, um, is, is 50— is 10 feet instead of the required 15, but part of that is because there's a loud fence that is encroaching. The CEA has worked with the owner, and it does sound like you are also amenable to potentially adding some additional trees if it can happen between the fence.

The substation security fence existing, native plant mass retention, additional plantings, and existing residential screen fence will provide sufficient screening to meet the intent of the L2 landscape buffer landscape. On the northwest perimeter, while the, the 15-foot is not required, the petitioner has proposed 2 additional spruce trees between the residential area and the substation fence to provide further screening.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing, seeing none, I'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next, we will be looking for a motion for the fence height variance.

Commissioner Krishna, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0098 to approve a variance from AMC 2107080H 3G to exceed the maximum fence height by 0.5 feet, subject to the conditions shown on page 11 of the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Mills. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I intend to support this motion.

I believe that the approval criteria have been met as shown in our packet. In addition, um, we have heard that the Applicant has made, um, significant effort to match the design of the fence with, uh, other fence designs found in the neighborhood, um, and, um, this was part of a long public process. I will also add that while we heard many comments or several comments tonight both written and in public testimony, and we did have some questions about the fence. None of the concerns directly pertained to the height of the fence. And furthermore, I'll add that we heard that the wire atop the fence is standard both for Chugach Electric and nationally.

So I intend to support the motion. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to to the motion?

Seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Last item to take care of, a motion for the conditional use.

Commissioner McKee, would you like to state your motion?

I move in case 2026-0098 to approve the conditional use for utility substation subject to the condition shown on page 11 of the staff report.

That's seconded by Commissioner Eber. Commissioner McKee, would you like to speak to your motion? Um, yes, I intend to support the motion. Um, the criteria as presented in the staff packet were all met. Additionally, I think, um, you know, the petitioner made a good point that the substation has been here for a significantly long time and that the community has kind of grown around it.

I think that they've made a really concerted effort to work with the community and reduce the visual impacts to create a facility that blends with the community. I think the removal of the tower is a tremendous improvement over the original design that was proposed, and, and these are the reasons I intend to support this motion.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Last public hearing case of the night. May we please have the staff presentation in case 2026-100?

Thank you, Chair. The Municipal of Anchorage Parks and Recreation is seeking a review of the Potter Mash Watershed Park Master Plan. The site is 303 acres of largely undeveloped land in South Anchorage, linking the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge at Potter Marsh and Chugiak State Park. The Planning Department has received no public or community council comments as of this writing. Reviewing agent's comments are available in Attachment 3 of the staff report.

There were no objections. Step 5, the Park Master Plan aligns with all existing plans, with the condition of approval to add the bicycle parking to conform to the Long Range Transportation Strategy. The Planning Department recommends approval of Case 2026-0100, subject to the condition on page 3 of the staff report.

Condition 2 requires the addition of bicycle parking at the Goldenview Drive main park entry and trailhead, which the design team has agreed to incorporate, along with advisory guidance for bike amenities at future long-term parking sites. Thank you, and I'm willing to answer any questions. And the project team is also here. Tonight to make a presentation and answer questions to the Commission.

Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, through the Chair. A request for clarification. I thought I heard staff indicate that no comment was received.

And I would like to direct attention to page 85 of the staff packet. Maybe I misheard staff's presentation. But would like to call out for the record, um, the Rabbit Creek Community Council's letter enthusiastically endorsing and strongly recommending PCC give final approval.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we'll invite the petitioner up for presentation.

Uh, gotta hit the mic first. Now we're green. Um, uh, through the chair, my name is Peter Briggs with Corvus Design and the petitioner's representative. With me this evening are Ellen Devine with Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department and Ryan Thomas with The Great Land Trust, and considering that it's 20 after 9, we had this amazing 9-minute-long presentation, or maybe a little bit shorter. We're going to save that.

If you have any questions, we may use that as exhibits to support what we're saying, but it was really just a summary of the master plan you had in front of you. So we will try to save some time this evening for you. We're here to answer questions and to really champion what we think is an amazing addition to the Anchorage Park system, uh, with the addition of a new natural resource area, continuing this great partnership with the Great Land Trust. So with that, uh, if you have any questions for us, we would be more than happy to entertain them when appropriate.

Questions for the petitioner? Commissioner Rahn. Uh, thank you to the chair. Any consternation from the petitioner about compliance with department recommendation number 2? Following from the AMATS comment to provide bike racks?

No, we've included that specific with the exhibit that they mentioned, and then also making sure there's a clear statement in the document that states that any future development will meet municipal code. Thanks.

Any other further questions for the petitioner? You have 9 minutes and 9 seconds for rebuttal. Record. Um, anybody wish to testify, please step forward.

Hearing and seeing none, would you like to use your 9 minutes for rebuttal?

No, thank you. Uh, the petitioner yields their rebuttal time. We'll close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body? Commissioner Krishna, would you like to state your motion? Sure. I move in case 2026-0100 to approve the Potter Marsh Watershed Park Master Plan subject to the conditions shown on page 3 and 4 of the staff report.

That's seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion? I'm very happy to speak to this motion and very happy to support the passage of this plan. I just really want to emphasize that this is a little bit different than the park plans we've seen in the past. It's truly the result of a collaborative effort and a community partner in the Greatland Trust.

And it's a little late for me to list every one of the partners and donors that made this project possible, I think, but it's clear from the, the efforts that have gone into this plan that there's deep community support, and this is the result of a lot of efforts over many years. Um, I really appreciated also the emphasis on volunteerism, and I will say that there's no one here to listen, I guess, at this point in the night, but I particularly appreciated how feasible the implementation table, um, for the development phasing of this plan was. That is not something we see often And I really read this plan and thought, with this set of partners at the table, you might get it done. And that is not something we see often with our plans. So I'm very pleased to support this.

And we don't also get people coming back to us and telling us what they've done. So I would just invite the petitioners, the applicants to consider doing that when you accomplish what's in this plan. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak? Commissioner Rahn. Thank you. I'd like to echo the prior commissioner's comments regarding the just positive energy story that this represents, a manifestation of work by many parties for the betterment of our community. Um, so thank you all, and also thank you to the petitioner for reading the room about the hour of the night that it is.

That said, I don't like to let good work go to waste, so if we could still receive a copy of it, um, the presentation, I'd be happy to flip through it at an earlier hour. Thanks.

Commissioner McKee. Sorry, I also appreciate that you read the room, but I also want to say, as a lifelong Alaska second. I have loved using this area. I've loved taking my children here, and my grandchildren are coming, and I'm so excited to take them here, and, and future generations being able to utilize this improvement. I, I'm super excited about this.

Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak before we call a vote?

Hearing, seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next item of business, Title 21 discussion. Anybody care to discuss Title 21? Hearing, seeing none, move on. Commissioner comments, any comments from the commission?

Hearing— seeing none, uh, entertain a motion to adjourn.

It's moved by Commissioner Eber, seconded by Commissioner Mills. Any objections? Hearing none, we are adjourned.