Anchorage Assembly: Zoning Board of Examiers and Appeals - July 9, 2026 - 2026-07-09 18:30:00

Good evening and welcome to the Municipality of Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals July 9th, 2026 meeting. Will the secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here. Craig Bennett.

Here. Jason Norris. Here. Jonathan Lang. Here.

John Willocka. Here. Mark Maisley. Here. Chris Schute.

Present. Andrew Romerdahl and Brian Bennett are excused. You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you.

Next item of business are minutes. We have minutes for Thursday, June 11th, 2026. May I have a positive motion, please?

Moved by Mr. Lang, seconded by Mr. Bennett. Are there any corrections of the minutes? Mr. Lang? Yes, on page 3 of 4, about halfway down, there is the comment, Vice Chair Lang noted that while the Committee of the Whole of the Board required more data information and a legal opinion I would like to change required to requested.

Thank you. Are there any objections?

Any other corrections? Mr. Chewton. Thank you. One more correction. This is on page 2 of 4.

It is in the lengthier section that begins Board Member Schutte, if you go down about 4 lines, it's a sentence that starts, given the lengthy philosophical the board. I think it's missing the word discussion, so please insert the word discussion after the word philosophical and before the board.

Any objections? Seeing none. Are there any objections to approval of the minutes with the corrections?

Seeing none, the minutes are approved and we move on to the next item. Special order of business: disclosures. Are there any disclosures this evening?

Mr. Masley? I abstained from the approval of the minutes because I was not at the last board meeting.

Thank you.

Any other disclosures? Seeing none. Nothing on the consent agenda. No appearance requests. Brings us to unfinished business.

There is one case on unfinished business. Petitioner was— is the Municipality of Anchorage Current Planning, and we do have a memo from them. Requesting that the case be postponed again to September 10th. Can I have a motion, a positive motion on that, please? Mr. Lang.

Yes, in case 2026-0076, I move that the case be postponed until September 10th, 2026.

And seconded by Mr. Norris.

Any objections to the motion?

Seeing none, the motion passes and the case is postponed to September 10th.

And the next item of business, the regular agenda— nothing on the regular agenda, which brings us to public hearings. We have two items on public hearings. And they are both variances. So I will go over the procedure. The procedure by which the public may speak to the board at the— at its meeting is: after the staff presentation is completed on the public hearing item, the chair will ask for the applicant to state their case.

The applicant, including all of his or her representatives, has 10 minutes for the presentation and may reserve time for rebuttal at the end of the public hearing. Throughout the proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the applicant, who must convince the board by a preponderance of evidence that the variance should be granted. A concurring vote of a majority of the fully constituted membership of the board, minus those excused by conflicts of interest, shall be required to grant a variance. For a variance to be granted, all 8 standards must be substantially met. On the conclusion of the applicant's presentation, the board members and the staff may then direct questions to the applicant through the chair.

The chair will then open the public hearing to public testimony. The persons who wish to testify follow time limits established in the rules of procedure. Representatives of groups such as community councils or PTAs have 5 minutes, and individuals have 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete You may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board.

Time is kept by the secretary. The display at the front will be green to within 1 minute of the time allowed, then will turn yellow. At this time, you should begin to sum up your testimony, and at the end of the allowed time, the light will turn red and a tone will sound. Any individual may have appeal rights related to any action the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals takes The parties have 30 days from the date of mailing or other distribution of the decision to file an appeal to Superior Court. With that, the first case is Case 2026-0068, petitioner Casey and Kirsten Brogan.

Are they here? Okay.

That's okay. Um, let's see, I'll get there.

Will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On June 16th, 2026, the Planning Department mailed a total of 125 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103020H. There were 2 public comments received in the last 2 days.

They are supplementary packet number 1 and 2. The Gertwood Board of Supervisors did not provide comments on the case.

Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant previously received a dimensional, dimensional variance from AMC 21-07020B 9, Table 2107-1, minimum stream setback to allow the cabin to encroach a maximum of 7 feet into the requested 25-foot stream setback. This variance was granted on December 12th, 2024, under ZBA Resolution 2024-010. The current request seeks to amend that variance to prevent the front cabin to encroach up to 9 feet, an additional 2 feet into the 25-foot stream setback.

The original as-built survey was completed in January of 2024. At the time of survey, accumulated snow on the site obscured the location of the outlying pilings supporting the structure, as seen in the bottom picture on page 14 of your staff report. This discrepancy was later identified by the designer and brought to the attention of the owner and surveyor. It was subsequently determined that the Piling supporting the existing structure extended approximately 2 feet beyond the exterior walls, resulting in a greater encroachment into the stream setback than originally documented. The department received 2 late public comments, mainly speaking to glaciation issues in the area of Girdwood— in this area of Girdwood.

The department did not receive any reviewing agency comments in opposition. The Girdwood Board of Supervisors received notice and did not comment. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets all 8 standards. The Department finds that Standards A through F and H are met and Standard G is not applicable. Therefore, the Department recommends approval of the variance request subject to Conditions 1 through 3.

Found on page 4 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner's representative and petitioner are in attendance. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff by the board?

Seeing none, will the applicant or the applicant's representative please come forward?

State your name and spell it for the record, please. Uh, Casey Brogan. You see, come forward. Sorry, right here. Okay.

Uh, Casey, C-A-S-E-Y, last name Brogan, B as in boy, R-O-G-A-N. Thank you. Yeah, and he's the landowner, and I'm the representative, Jeremy Hurst, H-U-R-S-T. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?

No questions at this time. Thank you. Then will you please present your case? Certainly. First of all, thank you, Madam Chair and the board, for, uh, hearing our case again.

Uh, as you were told, we were granted a variance for, uh, the structure to be in the stream setback, but, uh, like the planner said, uh, at the time of survey, in January of '24, which was a large snow year, all of the support pilings for the structure were completely obscured by the roof shed. Uh, because of that, and, uh, I did not see them, and, and I don't know if even the landowner was aware that they were there, so he didn't inform me of them, so they weren't shown in our original petition for the variance. Uh, and then now that we were granted that variance to actually use that structure again, to use those same pilings, we would need this amendment to that variance to accommodate those outboard pilings.

And, uh, unless, uh, you know, I think I'd like to reserve rebuttal time, but I'm open to any questions. You have approximately 9 minutes of rebuttal. Are there any questions of the applicant by the board members?

Seeing none, are there any questions of the applicant by the staff? No, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay, we're going to open the public hearing now. Thank you.

Is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 2026-0068?

Anyone at all?

Please come forward, state and spell your name for the record. Kevin Jensen, K-E-V-I-N-S-O-N-S-E-S.

Well, I do not personally have any objection—. Wait.

There we go. Good. There we go. Well, I do not personally have any objections to the variance. I do— I am one of the comments that came into, um, to this hearing late.

I just— so over this winter, we were hit with a glaciation on our property that almost destroyed our foundation.

It left almost 30 inches of solid ice through our foundation and then into our driveway, separated our main septic line and We were not able to close interior doors, exterior doors, so it was quite bad. Up until we got the notice for this hearing, we weren't entirely sure what possibly be— could be— could be causing it. So I just would like to be here to put onto record that we sincerely are asking for some review of the drainage that we are talking to, the creek. That creek does flow directly into our property, my neighbor's property, and it was— it created some damage. So we would just like to have some review of that drainage problem.

It just daylights onto land and free flows to the lots below. So I would just like to have public comment that we were here and we're really fighting this battle. So thank you so much for your time. Are there any questions of Mr. Jensen by the board?

Mr. Norris. Sir, uh, thank you for coming forward and testifying. I appreciate you taking the time. Uh, did you notice any changes that could have led to this? Um, and understanding that you You know, you're admitting you're not, you know, opposing the action, but just wondering for the record what you've seen.

Sure. Yeah. So the property in question is north— well, it's up the hill, one over. And so that stream does daylight out of a culvert that crosses the road on a higher terrace and just free flows down the lot. It then veers right into our property.

So that construction, I don't believe, is the result of any additional flow, if you will. The property next to them is also going through some construction that I believe started before this winter. And so I'm not here to cast blame or doubt or anything. But we have been there for 30 years, and this is the first time that we've seen something like this. The city had to come out and jackhammer out solid ice chunks to get free flow to the, to the culvert next to us.

And so while I don't know exactly what caused this event, um, it was damaging.

Thank you very much. Mr. Schuette. Thank you. Just a quick follow-up question. You referenced a separate construction project nearby.

What was it, a brand new construction? Can you give just a little bit of details about what kind of sort of earth disturbance may have happened? I would love to. So yeah, right next door They are putting in a brand new foundation. I'm not sure how many tons of organic soil had been moved and staged there on site.

So I would question whether or not the soil staging was accurate or meant to be there. But I was there just the other day. There's standing water near the foundation. So I mean, there is groundwater obviously coming down Maxis through higher terrace, but I don't know if that disturbance was the direct effect that, that caused this extreme flow. But with this current construction project happening and then the neighboring construction happening, it's our belief that maybe some disturbance has led to an increased flow that caused this.

Mr.

Masley. So just a quick clarification question. Um, under the department recommendations, number 2, it says request a stream mapping update. It sounds like what Mr. Jensen is saying is that the the stream actually just dumps out over the lower lots. And so I'm wondering if, you know, if that's going to be ordered or if we have— maybe that's a staff question.

Through the chair, Mr. Maisley, Kyle— as far as I know, Kyle Cunningham has already mapped— has already been out to the site and mapped the stream as part of this original variance from 2 years ago. And it's, again, it's an open channel stream, which a lot of the ones in Girdwood are.

I would point out that this winter was a very unusual winter. We had more cold weather than normal, very cold, cold weather. And so I'm not sure if that was an effect on how the stream affected— was affected. We have glaciation issues in Eagle River too. Mr. Bennett on the board can testify how Eagle River Road acts in the wintertime.

It's just an ongoing problem and it's something that the municipality is trying to work on. Thank you.

Are there any questions of Mr. Jensen by the staff? No, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you very much for your time. Is there anyone from the public?

Anyone else? Come forward and state your name for the record, please. Jim Mendenhall. M-E-N-D-E-N-H-A-L-L. You have to press the button. What's that?

Press the button. Turn on the mic. Jim Mendenhall. M-E-N-D-E-N-H-A-L-L. And I'm also— I'm right next to Kevin, right below the property. And we also submitted comments online.

And I will say I have no objection. I went up there and looked at it. Looks like they're building on the exact same foundation. Years ago, when you— up above my place is a— my wife and I's place. There's a gentleman who's lived there for years.

He talked about how there's a spring up there. At one point they built a culvert underground. It dumps out under their property, but then it goes down to the— where the power line is between the Upper Terrace lots, higher Terrace lots, and the Alyeska View lots. It's pretty wet in there and it comes down, but we know a lot of glaciation the last couple years. So I also would like to see if there's some kind of stream mapping.

Maybe it's been done, but, or maybe they can dig a better ditch to drain it. I don't know. That's all. So that was just our comments.

Any questions by the board for Mr. Mendenhall?

Any questions of staff? No, Madam Chair.

Um, I guess just a question to staff. Have you guys seen an influx of like glaciation cases? I know Girdwood specifically has a lot of concentrated flow just being close to, you know, the mountainous area. Um, but it seems like it doesn't glaciate unless it is slowed down. Um, so I'm wondering if there's any, like, have you seen like an influx of, of this kind of, you know, problem occurring, you know, both in Girdwood and also in Eagle River like you had mentioned?

Through the chair, Mr. Mlottka. Personally, I don't deal with that stuff, but I have heard that we've had some glaciation. We, we always do. I think this last winter again was, you know, we had that cold snap in December that was super long. We don't typically get that in the December time frame, and I know it caused a lot of glaciation issues throughout the municipality.

Even, even the spring they had issues up on Hillside, if I remember correctly, where they were basically steaming the culverts like every day because they were having flooding issues with the thaw.

Anybody else? Okay, thank you, Mr. Pendenhall.

Anyone else wishing to testify in this case?

Anyone at all?

Does the staff have any rebuttal? I have no other comments, Madam Chair. Does the applicant want to use his time.

You have almost 9 minutes.

Uh, yes, thank you. Um, I would like to say that I deeply sympathize with the surrounding residents, and glaciation is definitely a problem, um, and could definitely stand to see some improvements to the ditches in and around Girdwood. I will say that this year was an exceptional year. I've been in Girdwood myself for 20 years as a resident, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen the crews out steamwanding the culverts out in front of my house this year. On a typical year, it's maybe once or twice.

You know, it's anecdotal. I don't have any data to back that up with, but I would say it was definitely a worse year than I've ever seen. But with that said, you know, talking specifically about this drainage in this spot, the place that the drainage comes out of the culvert on the Asbil, you'll see there on the high side there as it enters my client's property there, it's highly channelized. The banks are very steep after it gets to about midway to 3/4 of the way down the property. Uh, that channel starts to dissipate, the channelization as it were, and it really doesn't have very good banks.

So I, I could see how the residents down below, you know, had some issues with even that drainage in particular. Uh, I just will say that, that this construction on the upper part of the property in the area where there's, uh, I would say 5 to 6 vertical feet between, the— to where the house site is, to, to the ditch bottom immediately adjacent to that. So I'd say that's not the area where the glaciation itself would be occurring, but I could imagine that down at the bottom of the property it very well— I'm sure it was. Um, that's all I kind of wanted to add to that discussion. Okay, thank you.

Then the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Schuette.

Thank you. I move in Case 2026-0068 to approve an amendment to a dimensional variance from Table 21.07-1, the minimum stream setback width per side to allow the front cabin to encroach into the 25-foot stream setback, subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of the staff report. Thank you. Um, seconded by Mr. Bennett.

So it has been moved and seconded that a variance be granted to, um, amend the dimensional variance to allow the front cabin to encroach 25 feet into the to encroach into the 25-foot stream setback.

Mr. Schuette, will you please speak to the motion? Yes, thank you. In addition to the staff packet, what we heard tonight satisfies all of the criteria for granting a variance, and I feel like this is a— this is an easy one. Although I'm similarly sympathetic to the issues that we heard from public comment about drainage and glaciation in Girdwood, and just know that Girdwood was not the only community, nor was Eagle River, affected by glaciation this year. We had a really bizarre year, and I know I personally watched my driveway rise about 6 inches, and then finally last month it settled back down.

So we saw some interesting soil movements this year. But I think this is a straightforward variance to grant. Thank you. Mr. Bennett.

Yeah, I'd just like to add that there were no reviewing agency objections, and all the standards are shown to be met. Thank you. Is there any further discussion?

If we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of a motion to grant a variance to amend the dimensional variance to allow the front cabin to encroach 2 more feet into the 25-foot stream setback.

A yes vote will grant the variance. A no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

There are 7 votes in the affirmative, no votes in the negative, and the variance is granted.

Thank you.

Next case.

This case, 2026-0074. Mr. Benson is the petitioner and Mr. Hurst is the representative.

Will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On June 16th, 2026, The Planning Department mailed a total of 254 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103-020H. There were no public comments received. The Girdwood Board of Supervisors did not provide comments on this case.

So any objection to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none.

Will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance from AMC Section 2109-060, Table 2109-6, Table of Dimensional Standards, Girdwood Commercial Districts, to allow a commercial building to completely encroach 8 feet into the 8-foot secondary front setback. This lot is unusual in that the stumpy way right-of-way abutting the east property line is a platted dead-end street that functions primarily as a parking lot for the Girdwood Townsite. This right-of-way was previously granted a variance from the requirement to construct a cul-de-sac bulb due to its established use for parking and as a pass-through for the U.S.

Postal Service vehicles. In addition, the lot is constrained by existing utility infrastructure, both underground and overhead, located along the west property line. These utilities further limit the buildable area available for any new structures. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards. Standard A is partially met.

The lot is constrained by existing utility infrastructure, both underground and overhead, located along the west property line. These utilities reduce the buildable area and effectively push any new structure toward the east property line adjacent to Stumpy Way. While this represents a physical limitation not shared by all properties in the zoning district, the proposed structure could be reduced in size or redesigned to comply with the required setback. Therefore, although the utilities create a unique constraint, it does not fully justify the extent of the variance requested. Standard B is partially met.

The required clearance from both underground and overhead electrical lines along the west property line limits the buildable area and creates an undue hardship not typically experienced by their properties in the district. This constraint reduces the applicant's ability to place a structure in a manner consistent with what is commonly allowed elsewhere. However, because of this— because the structure is newly proposed, its size and design could be modified to comply with the required setback. As a result, while the utility constraints impose a hardship, they do not fully justify the extent of the variance requested. Standard C is partially met.

The hardship created by the existing underground and overhead utilities along the west property line is not self-imposed, nor does it result from any action taken by the applicant. These conditions are inherent to the lot and extend beyond mere inconvenience. However, because the structure is newly proposed, its size and design could be modified to comply with the required setback. As a result, while the utility constraints contribute to a legitimate hardship, they do not fully justify the extent of the variance requested. Standard D is met.

Standard E is met. Standard F is met. Standard G is met. Standard H is not met. The proposed structure could be reduced in size or redesigned to either eliminate the need for a variance entirely or significantly reduce the extent of the required setback encroachment.

Because reasonable use of the property remains possible through modification of the proposed design, the request of variance does not represent the minimum necessary to achieve such use. The department received no public comments. The department did not receive any reviewing agency comments in opposition. The Girdwood Board of Supervisors received notice and did not comment. The department therefore finds that Standards A, B, C, and H are either partially met or not met.

Standards D, E, F, and G are met. Therefore, the Department must recommend denial of the variance. If after a public hearing the Commission finds that all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to Conditions 1 and 2 found on page 4 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions that the Board may have, and the petitioner's representative is in attendance. Are there any questions of staff by the Board?

Mr. Norris.

Thank you, Chair. Um, so I'm looking at what they've laid out here as far as— because everything seems to circle around the design of the proposed building. Um, if you're saying it could be reduced, I guess I'm going to ask this question of the petitioner of what that would mean. But when you say it could be redesigned, um, have you considered what it would look like to still fit within the dimensional standards of the underlying zone, GC-8, could they still achieve a similar, I guess, floor space and their intended use? Through the chair, Board Member Knorr, they showed us a box that's kind of maximized the whole size.

I did not take into account any additional square footage that they could somehow put somewhere else other than just redesign the structure to actually fit— or be less of an impact into the— into this secondary front setback. This one's unique because it has a secondary front setback onto a dedicated right-of-way that isn't used as a right-of-way. It's just really weird that it's dedicated right-of-way and not a side yard or something, something separate from that, which is normal for the rest of the new town center in Girdwood.

There is— sorry, there is also one caveat. So if you go to the center of Newtown Center across the street where Chair 5 is, there's— it's almost like a cross pattern. There's right-of-way that enters next to Chair 5, across from it, and at 90-degree angles. And you can actually build up to the edge of that pathway right-of-way that's dedicated. So it's kind of a weird— that's kind of a weird piece too that wasn't taken into account in this part of the Newtown Center.

I don't know if that made sense or not. It just, I think, lends a little bit of credibility to the idea that maybe they are not enjoying the same rights that other people in the district are enjoying. Correct.

Mr. Schute. Thank you. For staff, can you refresh my memory if a— is the entire building envelope counted as Um, uh, it has to remain outside of the setback. I guess, uh, let me ask it a little more clearly. If, um, if the building were 2 stories or more and cantilevered over a portion of the setback, is that allowable?

Through the chair, uh, Board Member Schuette, 2-foot roof overhang is allowed into any setback. Um, incidental architectural features like a bay window or fireplace chase, those are also allowed. But not an actual full-on cantilever of a second story.

Mr. Maisley.

What's the state of the right-of-way right now? Is it being used for anything, or does the muni intend to use it for anything? Is it going to be developed, or—. Through the Chair, Board Member Maisley, it is a parking lot. That's literally what it's used for.

There's parking— there's striped parking spaces in Stumpy Way, both on both sides. I've parked there myself many times when I go to Chair 5. That's, that's its intended use. And it's paved? It is paved, and it has Type 1 curb, if I remember correctly, all the way around it.

Thank you.

Any other questions of staff?

The applicant, please come forward. State your name for the record.

My name is Jeremy Hurst, H-U-R-S-T. I'm representative to the owner. Are there any questions of staff? Uh, I guess a question of staff, uh, through the chair. Uh, you'd mentioned that, uh, the other adjacent commercial district, the center of the square there, they abut a side right-of-way.

And although that, that there is GC-7 zoning, whereas my client's parcel is GC-8, even though it's just directly across the street, but GC-7 allows for a 0-foot setback to that pedestrian right-of-way, as it were. Uh, in considering Stumpy Way, uh, as is pointed out, uh, isn't used as a thoroughfare and it's more of a parking lot. I'd also like to add that the Stumpy Way right-of-way, um, is 78 feet wide instead of the normal 60-foot wide, uh, all of the other surrounding thoroughfare streets are. So that's already 18 extra feet of, you know, area that really wouldn't be necessary for a right-of-way. But as far in regards to another question of the staff, I did want to ask— bear with me just a second.

No, actually, I think that's all I have for questions of staff. Okay, then will you please present your case? Certainly. Um, thank you for your time. Um, I will, uh, not address the, uh, the, the items that the staff has illustrated that are fully met, and obviously we think they're fully met, and I think you will agree that those are fully met as well.

So instead, I'll focus on what the staff has identified as what they believe is either partially met or not met., in the criteria. Um, so the first criteria, letter A, there exists exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances of the subject property included but not limited to streams, wetlands, slopes, and all of those circumstances are not applicable to other land in the same zoning district. Uh, the planning staff did point out the utilities that constrain the lot, and As you will see from the as-built there, the utilities that are on the west side of the lot— excuse me— those are buried utilities. Um, but that, that power pole that's visible there, that is a, uh, a larger than typical power pole, uh, that where the, the overhead lines end there and they go out to the west. Uh, because of that power pole itself, which Uh, Chugash Electric has no intention of moving, and my client doesn't want to have to pay to move.

Um, it presents a physical presence that the— any new structure is going to have to accommodate for, uh, being, you know, proper safe distances from that pole. Um, and, you know, one might consider, say, 10 foot as an adequate distance with that 10-foot constraint from the pole itself. It really hems in any proposed building lot on there.

And then, and also being that the physical constraints of the, the lot itself, being even not considering the utilities, is only 70.5 feet wide. It is far narrower than most of the other lots in the commercial— Girdwood Commercial District. Uh, with the exception of course the, the immediate thought there, there are narrower lots around Town Square there, but, uh, almost all of those lots around Town Square are, uh, two or more owned by the same entity and are being used for a single business. And as such, um, only a couple of the lots, uh, there of the narrower, approximately 50-foot lots lots are being used by single use, and of that, um, to, uh, one of those lots, the building is taking up the entire width of the lot, which also happens to be the case with a good number of the other commercial buildings around Girdwood Town Square. The, um, the new health clinic there, I believe they're within— they obtain a variance to get to their front setbacks to build their new building.

Terra 5 is taking up the entire width of their lot. The laundromat takes up the entire width of their lot.

The, uh, the Crow Creek Mercantile doesn't take up the whole width, but it does impose upon what would be the normal setbacks. I'm presuming that that building probably predated the '86 date for, for that setback back requirement though. Um, and then moving on to some of the other conditions there, uh, Condition B, that, uh, applicants, uh, because of physical circumstances, the strict application of this code creates an exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owners and would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other property properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning ordinance. And I think that, that is, uh, I guess I partially talked to that effect there, that, um, the, the narrowness of the lot, the constraints of all of those utilities. But then I'd also like to point out what was, uh, asked of a previous question, that there in that commercial district, um, most, if not all, not all of the buildings, but most of the buildings, and especially the newer constructed buildings, do are, are larger, and they do take up more substantial portions of the lot.

I know that one of the other planned developments there on the peripheral, on the east side of Town Square, is a larger condo, mixed-use condo development, and the parcel behind the post office there is a townhome and commercial development. So what you're seeing is you're seeing both mixed use and heavy commercial use. There's no exclusively residential use in this area, with the exception of the one condo building down there, the, the Ski View condo in the southeast corner. Um, and then criteria C, the hardship is not self-imposed, and special consideration circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, and as such, conditions and circumstances do merely— do not merely constitute inconvenience. Um, it's, it's, it's definitely not self-imposed.

The, the size of the lot, obviously, and the utilities that are there, uh, they were there, uh, for quite some time. Um, the, the, the hardship I see is more— is, is not necessarily the, uh, the constraints of the lot. The hardship is then developing the lot, and that is the hardship that this landowner has to deal with. A commercial— commercially zoned area in the most prime, I guess, location of, uh, of commercial real estate in Girdwood. Um, you know, the, the hardship would be having to build given those constraints.

And D is standard met, E and F. And then H brings me to H. I guess I, I'm going to disagree, I think, with the Planning Department on this. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible— and I'll quote the criteria a reasonable use of the land. I'd like to read for you, uh, the municipal code for, uh, Zone GC-8 in New Girdwood Townsite, North Commercial District it's called. Part I identifies location, and Part II is the intent. The intent of this district is for the northward commercial and residential expansion of the new townsite core.

Buildings shall continue the human scale and physical character of the new townsite core and maintain strong relationship to the street. Properties along Hightower shall express a visible transition from the buildup environment around Town Square to a more forested landscape along the northern extension of Hightower Road. Residential dwelling units are permitted on upper floors above ground floor commercial. Uses. Uh, that's the intent of the zone, and that's the intent of the landowner and what he wants to construct.

Uh, the ability to do a mixed-use zone gets severely curtailed if that building envelope is limited too much. It just becomes a not cost-feasible, uh, property to develop for the intent of what that land is supposed to be or intended to be developed as. So I, I think that shows that there— that a reasonable use of the land would be the ability to do a commercially viable mixed— or I should say mixed-use building in the commercial mixed-use district that is intended here.

Um, but I think with that, I think I have, uh, demonstrated that these conditions have been met, but I would like to open— save my time and then open up for any questions.

You have about a minute and a half. Okay. For rebuttal.

Are there any questions of Mr. Hurst by the board? Mr. Masley. Thank you. Mr. Hurst, has Mr. Benson specced out any kind of a building that would meet the setback requirements? Uh, not to my knowledge.

I not discussed that with him. I'm, I'm going to presume— I'm not him to speak for that. I am aware of, of construction costs in Girdwood or in Chute and Alaska in particular, but in Girdwood And I am aware of other commercial developments that are in progress or have recently been finished in that given area. And the— I know that there is a cost analysis that the developers do under— they undergo. And if there's not a— it does not look feasible that it'll pencil out that something that can be developed that is cost beneficial to them.

Then it just won't get developed. So you would say that the current scope of this building is necessary purely for economic reasons? I don't necessarily say economic reasons, no. I mean, that certainly is a factor in whether or not something does get built or not. Economics is always going to play a factor.

But that's not the reason. I think the reason is— to develop the, uh, Girdwood commercial district in a— it not is obviously not an urban district, but in a more condensed building structure that allow for more housing and more businesses to be able to function within what is a reasonably small commercial district. Thank you. Mr. Norris, sorry I've missed your—. No, it's okay.

Thank you.

I know you— I don't usually use the button. Uh, Mr. Schutte's rubbing off on me. Uh, so I appreciated you taking the time to read us the intent of the underlying zone GC-8, and it really begs the question, are you able to meet the intent of the zone with the dimensional standards of the zone? Would you say that the dimensional standards themselves are a little overbearing here? Yes, I would.

I think that the setback constraints of this zone is— especially since it has this kind of quasi-double frontage that it has to contend with, you know, having a dual front setback, even though, as the planning staff has pointed out, you know, that second right-of-way isn't really treated as a right-of-way. Um, you know, it's— and I also would point out that the distance from the, the, uh, the, the back of the curb there of that parking area in Stumpy's Way to even to the property line itself is almost 13 feet there on the one side. So there's, there's a substantial amount— okay, that's, that's, I guess that's, uh, subjective. There is an amount of buffer that does exist there even if the variance is granted. You're not going to have, uh, you know, a car pulling in right up to the building itself.

There's, uh, you know, a reasonable, I think, a buffer there, um, for that. So, so it sort of maintains the character of, of the intent there. And, and like you point out, that there is, um, these oddly few oddly shaped lots that were created, I believe it was in the '60s, was the original yeah, '65 was when Town Square was platted. Um, it wasn't foreseen, uh, some of the building circumstances and the uses that would be done today. Yeah, thank you.

Um, one last thing, and it's a kind of point on Member Aisley's question is, uh, and I did ask staff and I said I was going to ask you, but maybe the answer is you haven't or you hadn't thought about it, but if you were to have to redesign this to fit within. Do you have an idea of what that would look like? And no is a fair answer, like you came with, you know. Yeah, I, I can't say that I know what that would look like, um, and whether or not that would be, uh, you know, reasonable, that something could be reasonably designed that would be, uh, fitting for, uh, the uses typical for that area. I couldn't speak to that.

Yeah, thank you. Um, I guess my closing statement then is You know, if, if you have to reduce it so small to fit it within it that it's not going to be developed, then that doesn't feel like the minimum. That feels like below the minimum. So thank you. Mr.

Schuette, uh, thank you. Um, earlier you spoke to the northern, uh, parcel, Lot 2, I guess, right above. Is that owned by your, uh, by your owner as well? No, no, that, that lot is not. Um, I'm not sure who owns that lot.

I know that they, they do have substantial utilities going through that lot. Yeah, yeah, you, you answered my next question, which was, are they similarly impacted or subject to the, the utility— it's not really easement, but utility presence? Yeah, that, that lot is going to be— with that, with that easement going right through it, I think that lot is going to be extremely difficult, uh, even more so than, than my clients. So they're similarly situated too. Yeah.

Okay. Um, one more question real quick. Um, you also mentioned the health clinic, and I'm pretty familiar with the health clinic. I don't recall them having zero-foot setbacks on the corner there. Do you know what their setbacks are?

Uh, GC7 is supposed to be Uh, 16 minimum, 20 max. And being that it's a corner lot, uh, usually the, uh, there's deemed a primary and then a secondary frontage for the, for the front. So the secondaries are half of those. But you don't know what their actual setbacks are? No, no.

Okay, maybe I'll ask staff. Thank you. Anybody else?

Mr. Masley. So I'm looking at the as-built here for the proposed building, and I'm wondering, you know, on the utilities that are there along the west side, is there a setback requirement from those utilities? Is there a reason that the building couldn't be moved over 4 feet, or? I do not, there's not a muni setback from utilities that I'm aware of, unless through the chair to the staff. Through the chair, Mr. Masley, electrical code requires a certain amount of separation from power lines, both in height and distance to them.

Like the app— the representative said, the majority of it's underground, uh, and then there's a pole that's a very substantial pole. You have to maintain certain separation for that overhead line. It's a Chugach Electric Requirement, not a municipality requirement.

Anybody else?

Are there any questions to the applicant by staff? No, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll open the, uh, the hearing for public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to, um, testify in case 2026-0074?

Anyone at all? Okay, then we move to rebuttal. Does the staff have any— anything else? I don't have anything else other than the— what Jeremy talked about, how there's about 12 feet, give or take, between the back of curb and the actual property line. It's—.

This parking area is not right up against the property. There is somewhat of a buffer area there. Uh, the property to the north is actually Heritage Land Bank. It's a very weird triangular, odd-shaped. And then there's the multi-family commercial development that's just north of that and the post office.

And then ACS is the structure to the west. Of this exit of this vacant lot, just for reference. Thank you. Does the applicant have any rebuttal? You have a minute and a half.

Um, I know, I think I just, um, I guess would, uh, like to add that the, uh, I just want to reiterate, I know I brought it up again, but I think given the the unique circumstances of Stumpy Way, uh, being a non-typical right-of-way that warrants a, uh, consideration, uh, in regards to what we would call a, uh, front setback. Thank you. Thank you.

Then the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Norris. Thank you. I'm moving Case 2026-0074 to approve a dimensional variance from AMC Section 21.08.060, Table of Dimensional Standards, Girdwood Commercial District to allow a commercial building to exceed secondary front setback requirements subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of the staff report. Seconded by Mr. Masley.

Mr. Norris, will you please speak to your motion? Yes, thank you, Chair. Uh, I think so. I'll agree first with all the ones that staff say are met. For the ones that they say are partially or not met, I think it does revolve all around the proposed footprint of the building itself, but it does beg the question of what is minimally needed to— is this the minimum variance required, right?

And if we're saying that, well, they could just redesign it to have a smaller floor plate, then I think that that's going to force a lot of redesign, and they may not be able to actually make it commercially viable. And the applicant is saying they're going to have 3 units of commercial with 3 units of residential on top. I don't think that we can just flippantly say that this would be perfectly fine if you just take that 8-foot chunk out. I don't know how that would affect the viability of the structure itself, and I haven't heard a good argument that it would be fine if you did. So I, I think that the petitioner is in good faith presenting something that works within the district toward the intent of the district.

Um, and for those reasons, I will be supporting. Thank you. Mr. Masley.

I'll echo what Mr. Norris said, um, and add that, uh, you know, this is kind of a, a very unique situation. It's a very unique property, and You know, the zero-foot setback is primarily due to the 4-foot roof overhang that's there, and then only 4 feet of that is actual building space.

And then also that 12.5-foot buffer that's in between the parking area and the actual lot line there would seem to be in would seem to be consistent with what they're trying to do, what they're trying to accomplish in the Gerdwood commercial zone there. I don't see that there's a risk of the right-of-way being redeveloped for another purpose. It seems like it's being used for its highest and best purpose now. It's already developed. It's already paved.

It's already actively being used for parking. And I don't see that this building being 4 feet off the additional 12 feet, 12.5 feet that's already there is going to negatively impact the parking area or the use of that right-of-way.

Is there any further discussion? Anyone else? Mr. Schuette? Yes, thank you. I'd like to also speak in favor of this, but I do want to highlight one thing that I do think was missed in the motion, and that is, you know, you talked about the staff partially finding conditions partially met, and I think one of the rebuttals to staff's findings was that it creates an undue economic hardship on development costs.

And I think we have to be careful because that's not really one of the criteria that we can use to justify approval or denial of a variance. So I think as long as we sort of disregard that— no offense— but disregard that and focus on the reasons why we think the standards are met, I think we're on the right track.

Mr. Lang. I would also like to add that, uh, as the petitioner presented, and I concur with, there is a uniqueness to Girdwood. And whether that be through, uh, creating a code where buildings already existed, or buildings being built, uh, flaunting the code, I have a lot of respect for the petitioner coming in and asking permission rather than seeking forgiveness., and for that I also support the motion.

Anything else? Okay, then if we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of a motion to grant a variance to allow a commercial building to exceed the secondary front setback requirements. Yes vote will grant the variance, a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

There are 7 votes in the affirmative, no votes in the negative, and the variance is granted.

Ready then.

So that ends public hearings. Next item are reports. I don't have a report.

Secretary, no August meeting, no committees. Board member comments?

Mr. Norris. Yeah, I just want to real quickly call back to, uh, item F, case 20260076. Just, uh, put it out there, I did send an email, a follow-up email to staff asking them to take a look at the dimensional standards, because if we're going to look at what is reasonable for a minor modification, I felt it was reasonable for us to look at the dimensional standards themselves and see if they were still applicable and still serving us well. Leave it up to the Planning Department what to do that— do with that, but I'm happy to support them and answer any questions they have, uh, off the record or in future meetings. Thanks.

Anybody else? Okay, I will entertain a motion for adjournment.

Mr. Masley moves. Second. Mr. Lang seconds. We are adjourned.