Planning and Zoning Commission - January 5, 2026 - 2026-01-05 18:30:00

Okay, it's 6:30. Everyone could please find their seats and quiet down. We'll call the meeting to order.

May we have the roll call, please?

Andres Spinelli. Here. Jared Gardner. Here. Radhika Krishna.

Here. Scott Bullis. Here. Brandy Eber. Here.

Alma Albaza. Here. Jeff Rahn is excused. You have a quorum. Thank you.

All right, next item up, the minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from Monday, December 8th?

It's moved by Commissioner Pullis, seconded by Commissioner Eber. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Hearing none, minutes are approved.

Next is special order of business. Are there any disclosures?

Commissioner Eber. Um, in November 2025, I was hired by a financial institution to appraise a property that the petitioner in cases 2026-005 and S12867 was purchasing. The appraisal was canceled in December 2025. I don't think I have a conflict of interest, but I'm just disclosing.

Um, I don't believe you have a conflict of interest either. I would direct you to participate. If any other commissioners feel differently, they might make a motion.

Seeing none, Uh, Commissioner Gardner. I was absent from the December 8th, 2025 meeting and will abstain from voting on the consent agenda.

Okay, and I will hand the gavel to Commissioner Krishna, and I will disclose that I am a home builder. I build houses and develop land. And sometimes I do it in Girdwood. The last case we had in Girdwood, there was a complaint to the ethics— the Board of Ethics— that I did not disclose this. It was not determined that I needed to disclose this, but in our recent ethics training, they said no amount of disclosures was too much, so I'm going to go ahead and disclose that.

I do not believe I have a conflict. I think I can remain impartial. I have no financial interest in the project, but that would be up to the commission to direct me to participate.

Would anyone on the commission like to make a motion to direct Chair Spinelli to participate in cases 2026-0005 and S12867, understanding that, um, that, uh, his disclosure pertains to having business interests in the community of Girdwood in general, not in the cases in particular.

Commissioner Gardner. Yeah, I'll move to direct Chair Spinelli to participate in those two cases, 2026-0005 and S12867. That is seconded by Commissioner Eber. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to make any comments?

Yeah, I don't see any— I don't see any reason he couldn't participate given that he has no direct interest, financial or otherwise, in those cases. Would anyone else like to participate in discussion on this? Seeing and hearing none, we will vote.

That motion passes, and Commissioner, uh, Spinelli is directed to participate in these cases.

Okay, next. The consent agenda. May we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Moved by Commissioner Pulis, seconded by Commissioner Eber. Anybody wishing to pull any items for discussion?

Hearing, seeing none, consent agenda is approved.

Now may we have a motion to combine cases 2025-0145 and 2025-0147 and 2026-005 and S12867?

Motion is made by Commissioner Eber, seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Anybody wishing to speak to the motion?

I'd call for the vote, or Any— are there any objections? Hearing none, motion passes.

The time limit allotted for testimony in those combined cases will be doubled. Petitioners will have 20 minutes, groups will have 10 minutes, and individuals will have 6.

Now I will read the procedure by which the public may speak to the Commission at this meeting. 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 limits established in the commission rules of procedures. Petitioners, including his or representatives, will receive 10 minutes per case. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, 5 per case.

Individuals will receive 3 minutes per case. 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 2103-050(a)(4)(a). Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable.

Following approval of the written fund— findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with 2103.050. 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.

Now, may we please have the staff presentation in case 2025-0143? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this is a rezone request initiated by Denali VI LLC to amend the zoning map for approximately 2.25 acres of land from R-2M Mixed Residential District to R-4 Multifamily Residential District. The Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan classifies this tract with the land use designation of Urban Residential High, Residential Mixed Use, and Transit Supported Development.

The property in question is currently zoned R-2M, which is not an implementing district for the Urban Residential High land use classification. The proposed amendment from R2M to R4 for the subject property would bring this parcel into compliance with Anchorage 2040's land use plan, as well as the— as well as bringing it into compliance with the implementation district for urban residential high land use classification. The planning department provided published notice to the University Area Community Council on December 10th, 2025. In accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.020H.3, the Planning Department also mailed out 373 public hearing notices on the same day. As of this writing, the Planning Department has received no public comments.

Other agency comments: Attachment 3 comments includes all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format. State and municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to the rezone. Approval criteria: the Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval, and the assembly may approve a rezoning if the rezoning meets all of the following criteria. A, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is met.

Criterion B, it would not result in the objective risk or to the safety or health of the municipality. This criterion is met. Criterion C: It does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances. This criterion is also met. Department recommendation: The department finds that.

The proposed rezoning meets all 3 approval criteria. The department therefore requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval for this proposed rezone from R2M Mixed Residential District to R4 Multifamily Residential District and refer it to assembly for adoption by ordinance. I can answer any questions that the board may have.

See no questions for staff.

We will move on to the petitioner's presentation.

Hello, my name is Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. I am the petitioner's representative. Staff covered this pretty well. I'm just here to answer any questions you might have.

You have 9 minutes and 54 seconds for rebuttal. Are there any questions for the petitioner?

Hearing— seeing none, we will open the public hearing.

Anybody from the public wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

I'm Joe Scarso. I own a house off of Kimberly Court. And what's the deal with trying to change this from an R2M to an R4, and how many fourplexes are going to be in that? Area? Does anybody know?

Um, this is time for testimony only. We are not here to answer questions. I mean, the road on that place, Kimberly, is really bad. We're going to have more traffic. We don't need it.

Who's the person who is going for this? I'm just curious, to try to change it to R4. Maybe the petitioner or staff might answer your questions during the—. Yeah, I'd like to see what they're thinking about what they're going to put on that lot. Is it going to go on Piper Street, or is it going to go on Kimberly Street to get out of there, the whole um, subdivision, Paul— St. Paul Smith subdivision.

Does anybody know? We are just here to hear the case. We know— we do not know the answers to those questions. That would be questions for the petitioner. Like I said, they can choose to answer those during rebuttal.

I'm totally against it if we're going to have more traffic on that street. It can't take it. Simple as that. So I like to find out this whole section, how many fourplexes are going to be on there? Is it going to go on Kimberly or is it going to go on Piper Street?

I don't think it's going to go on Piper Street. There's too many houses on that street. I'm totally against the R4 multi You know, if they put 4 on there, 4-plexes, we're going to have 16 more people, more traffic. We're going to have to do the road. Does that— I'd like to talk to the person who's doing that, who, who is trying to change it to R-4.

I don't— I— that's what I'm here for. Okay, well, unfortunately My name is Joe Scarso. I live at 2937 Kimberly Court. Thank you. Is that all your testimony?

What's that? Is that all your testimony? Yeah, this evening. So I've been there for a long time. I've been renting it for a long time, but I just want to know, I hate to leave the renter who has been there for 12 years with more traffic Maybe more crime.

I don't want to see it turn into an R4. I've had experiences selling places in Anchorage, and if it's an LL company, I'm just— I put routers in here for the first time a long time ago. I was an IT person for the city. And I just want to know, I know things have changed and I'm retired for a long time, but I want to know what's going on. How much more traffic are we going to need on that Kimberly Court?

And it needs paving. Is the city going to pay for it or is the people on Kimberly going to pay for it? And if so, all the prices are going to rise on people that just bought places there. On that thing. So how could I find out more?

Uh, thank you for your testimony. Your time is up. We will hear the rest of the testimony, and then there'll be time for staff or the petitioner to answer your questions. It's going to be another day? No, unfortunately, there's no time for you to— this evening to have discussions.

Yeah, this is— you— we've, we've got your testimony. I think your, your concerns have been And staff and the petitioner will be able to address your, your comments. Are you the person? I'm the representative. Okay, but, but okay, okay, I'll talk to her later.

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

Okay, we will move to— seeing nobody in the crowd, we will move to the phone testimony.

Your call has been forwarded to voicemail. The person you're trying to reach is not available. At the tone, please Yes. Is this Frances Cedar? Uh, this is she.

This is Paul Hatcher with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Are you, uh, for the public testimony of case 2025-0143? Are you testifying as an individual or representing a group? Both. What group are you with?

Uh, Functional Therapy of Alaska. Okay, you will have 5 minutes to give testimony. If you'd say your name, you can start.

Okay, and are you ready for me now? Yes, ma'am. Okay, um, I am a longtime resident, uh, in the area, 4041 Wright Street. I represent 4 generations of my family who've lived on Wright Street, which is near the property in question, um, for rezoning. And I, um, I understand the petitioner is Denali 6 LLC.

I'm having a bit of trouble identifying that entity. I am concerned that a large property off of Piper Street is going to be rezoned from I believe it's the same as this property, R2M, to— I believe it is going to— if it's there, there's an attempt to rezone it to a multi-family rezoning, R4.

And I want to oppose that. I believe this is a heavily residential area, although it is named the U Med.

Um, we are residential in this area. We want to keep traffic to a minimum. We also already have numerous multifamily dwellings in this area, and I would absolutely hate to see that beautiful piece of land turned into another set of condominiums that loom over my neighbors and their historic properties.

Is that all you had? That's all I have. Um, I'm interested in doing some more research with the Community Council. I'm not sure what their stance on this is on this, and I'm not sure what the owner of the property's stance is on it. I have not had a chance to speak with them, but we certainly would not like to see more traffic in this area, and we most certainly do not want to see an apartment complex or condominiums go on that piece of property that has been there for decades and is intact.

It's wooded, it's beautiful, and it's very.

Private, it's a jewel in the middle of Anchorage, which is still part of Alaska, and we should have larger properties like that. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Absolutely.

All right, anybody from the crowd want to step forward before I close the public hearing?

Actually, before I ask the petitioner back for rebuttal.

Yeah, make it snappy. 3, 2—. Hi, I'm Peter Johnson. I live also on Kimberly Court. We all discovered we all came.

I won't repeat a lot. Everything's been kind of said. I'm just going to just say I'm opposing the rezoning. Also, I kind of live about halfway, a few block doors down from the end of that street. I'm sorry, from the end of that property, I mean.

And I'm just saying it's— don't need anything else. Thank you for your testimony. Next, please step forward, state your name for the record. Let us know if you're testifying on behalf of yourself or a group. Myself, Corinne Heffington.

I own the property next door to this rezone. We just bought it in September for that wooded area. I strongly oppose this.

Thank you for your testimony. Yeah, I'm Julie Patty, also on Kimberly Court, and I also oppose Thank you for your testimony.

Hi, I'm Nate Reap. I also own a property on Kimberly Court. What was your last name? Reed? Reap.

R-E-E-P. Um, go ahead. Oh, okay. Uh, those are my neighbors. Anyway, uh, I oppose as well for a lot of the reasons mentioned, but, um, if you were to drive on, on the streets in our neighborhood and April, I think you would oppose as well. It's probably the most potholed street in Anchorage.

I have a— my 8-year-old also opposes. He's not here, but it's his bedtime. He's an aspiring ornithologist, and he thinks it would be a shame to destroy that habitat for the birds of our neighborhood. Um, we have a very expensive bird feeder. How much more time do I have?

2 Minutes. All right. Um, there's one other thing I wanted to say. Yeah, I agree with the gentleman with the puffy jacket who went first, but, um, and the lady on the phone, which is we have a lot of mixed residential in the neighborhood already, um, and I— some might say that's a reason to have more, but I don't think so. Um, yeah, I, I oppose.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Anybody else?

Last call.

All right, now we're ready for the rebuttal.

You have 9 minutes and 54 seconds.

Um, it seems there was a lot, so let's see. There's no current site design for this property. The owner does not currently have any specific plans to develop. This is currently just a rezone. It is the current zoning.

R2M already allows for duplexes and multi-family housing. R-4 also applies for multifamily housing with similar lot sizes down to 3,000 square feet. They could subdivide with the current zoning. They are not looking to subdivide at this point. This is not a subdivision that is happening.

It is a rezone that implements the comprehensive plan. Um, if they did develop the property with large multifamily and they had to apply for new driveway permits, that'd be something that Planning Department and the MOA would have to approve, and they usually wouldn't approve it for a road that is below standards that could not support the site and the applicable housing amount. Are there any other questions?

Uh, can you just state your name again for the record? Sorry, it's Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. And are there any questions for the petitioner?

See no questions. Perfect, thank you for your time.

Okay. We will close. Commissioner Krishna. I have a question for staff, so maybe I'm— we could close the public hearing and then do that. Sure, we'll close the public hearing.

And, uh, are there any questions for staff?

Yes, I'm hoping that staff can provide just a little bit of background for us and the members of the public who are here on this case. About the Urban Residential High classification in the Land Use Plan Map and where that comes from and any reasoning behind that. Thank you.

Through the Chair, Urban Residential High is primarily meant for high-density residential, which is based on the name, and also by purpose. It is fundamentally— now, I don't know exactly why this specific location was designated as Urban Residential High, because when the land use plan was established, I was not a part of the municipality. But as far as I can understand, it could be because of its location in the center of the city, as well as its, uh, the presence of public utilities that connect to this specific parcel, which would aid development. And it would also be, other than just being— other than just having this rezone implement the land use designation, it would also implement or work towards the goal 2 of the Anchorage Land Use Plan: infill and redevelopment, meeting the housing and employment needs of residents and businesses in Anchorage by using pre-established infrastructure. So other than that, I would say that this specific property is, I believe, again, centrally located, so there is some, some justification to it being from my perspective, from my individual perspective, it being designated as urban residential high.

Yes.

Thank you.

Just piggybacking off that a little bit, do we know, was this parcel changed in the 2040 land use plan? Did it change at that point, or was it, was it just carried through as the same? Zoning? You might not know the answer to that. Through the chair, uh, the zoning is, I think, a separate, separate condition here.

The land use designation specifically is for urban residential high, and I'm not sure about the 2020 land use plan and what it was designated as, but as, as for the 2040 land use plan, I believe there was a con— like an extensive public hearing process as well as approval process, a very strong democratic process that created this. Land use plan, and I believe that at the time that was representative of the wills of the municipality. Let's put it that way. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

If there's none, uh, what is the will of the body?

Commissioner Eber, would you like to state your motion? I move in case 2025-143 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone from R-2M mixed residential R-4, or District 2 R-4, multi-family residential district. That's seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Eber, would you like to speak to your motion? Um, well, we heard lots of opposition from the neighbors.

Um, meets all the criteria for a rezone. Um, there was no agency pushbacks, there was no comments from the Community Council regarding whether they supported or didn't support it. There's currently no site plans, but as stated by the petitioner, planning would look at the driveways, and there'd be a further look into this if it was replatted. So therefore, I intend to support the motion.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Commissioner Gardner. Um, I'll just add that, um, kind of, I think, implied in the, in the findings, uh, provided in the staff packet, which I agree with, is that this This zone does implement the land use classification, which is in the 2040 Land Use Plan, and that's reflective of— we heard staff speak to the process that went into setting that in place. And I, you know,.

I can appreciate the concern about losing a wooded area. I don't think that this— the rezone, uh, kind of changes that. You know, the, the owner would have the ability to develop under either, either of the zoning, um, districts, um, themselves. So this doesn't kind of change that fact.

Commissioner Pullis. Yeah, I also intend to support the motion and just wanted to add that, you know, one of the main things we're talking about right now is increasing housing opportunities in the municipality. And this has the opportunity to do that.

I will just add that I also intend to support the motion and echo the petitioner's comments that any future platting action that were to take place on this would require another public hearing and possibly requirements of improvements to the right-of-way, some of the concerns we heard. Also, a large multi-family development would likely trigger— of this size, what I'm seeing— would, could possibly trigger a major site plan review, which would possibly allow more time for comment. And it's typically required that improvements to substandard roads are made if they're going to connect to those. So, um, and then the R-4 tends to have higher landscaping requirements. So I think the community concerns are valid but, uh, are— will be addressed in future.

So I plan to support. Call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Now, may we please have staff presentation in cases 2025-0145 and 2025-0147?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, case 2025-0145 is a rezone request initiated by RCM Properties LLC per Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21-03-160-I to amend the zoning map for approximately 0.19 acres of land from an R-5 low-density residential district to R-3, a mixed residential district. The petition site is generally located north of Contrary Court, east of Short Street, south of Calamity Court, and west of Long Street in Anchorage. The Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan classifies this property with a land use designation of compact mixed Residential Medium, and R-3 is in an implementing zoning district.

Approval of this rezone— or rather, recommendation for approval of this rezone— would align the zoning districts of this parcel with the land use classification prescribed by the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan. The Planning Department provided a public notice, a published notice, and notice to the Bayshore Clat and Taku Campbell Community Councils in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code 2103-200-H-4. 3. As of this writing, uh, the Planning Department has received no public comments from the 152 public hearing notice mailers sent on December 10th. Uh, additionally, uh, Attachment 3 includes all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format.

The state and municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to the rezone. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval, and the Assembly may approve uh, a rezoning if the rezoning meets all the following criteria. Criterion A: It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that this criterion is met. Criterion B: It would not result in an objective risk to health or safety.

Staff finds the criterion met. And Criterion C: It does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances. And staff finds the criterion is met. Uh, the department's recommendation is that it finds the proposed rezoning meeting all 3 approval criteria. The department therefore recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this proposed rezone from R-5, low-density residential, to R-3, mixed residential district, and refer it to the assembly for adoption by ordinance.

I can answer any questions after.

Are there any questions for staff?

Hearing, seeing none, we'll ask for the petitioner's presentation.

Chair, if I might jump in, I believe that this is a combined case, and if we can maybe provide the staff report on the other case. Yep. Would that be all right with the chair? That's the way you should do it. All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a rezone request initiated by RMC Properties LLC to amend the zoning map for 9 parcels occupying approximately 1.58 acres of land from R-5 Low Density Residential to R-3 Mixed Residential District. The Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan classifies these 9 parcels with the land use designation of Compact Mixed Residential Medium. And transit-supported development.

The properties in question are currently zoned R5, which is not an implementing district for the compact mixed residential medium land use classification. The proposed amendment from R5 to R3 for the subject properties would bring these parcels into compliance with the 2040 Land Use Plan, as the R3 district is an implementing district for the compre— for the compact mixed residential medium land use classification. The Planning Department provided published notice to the respective community council on December 10th, uh, 2025, in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.020H.3. The Planning Department also mailed out 313 public hearing notices on the same day. As of this writing, the Planning Department has received no public comments protesting the rezone.

Other agency comments. Attachment 3, uh, comments includes all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format. State and municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to the rezone. Approval criteria: the Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval, and the Assembly may approve rezoning if the rezone meets all of the following criteria. Criterion A: it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

This criterion is met.

Criterion B: it would not result in an objective risk to health or safety in the municipality. This criterion is also met. Criterion C: it does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances. This criterion is also met. Department recommendation: the department finds that the proposed rezoning meets all 3 approval criteria.

The department therefore requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval for this proposed rezone from R-5, low-density residential district, to R-3, Mixed Residential District and refer it to the assembly for adoption by ordinance. I can also answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Hearing and seeing none, we will now ask for the petitioner's presentation.

Hello again, my name is Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. I am the representative for the petitioner. Staff covered this pretty well. This is a rezone that implements recommends the comprehensive plan, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have.

I see no questions at this time. 19 Minutes and 48 seconds for rebuttal.

Okay, now we'll invite the public to testify. Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

There's—. Are you an individual? I am an individual, but is this also the case of, uh, 2025-0147? Are you doing both at the same time? Yes, yes.

Oh, okay. So you— I'm guessing you want to speak to 147? Yes, I want to speak to 147. All right, thank you. You have 6 minutes.

Please state your name. My name is Jason Jeffords. I'm a Loflung Alaskan. I've lived on, uh, Gullivan Street in Moorshands subdivision for 47 years.

Okay, so they're trying to change it from R-5 to R-3, which would be multiple dwellings up to 3 or 4. These lots are 8,000 square feet. Okay, so you're putting 3 people or 3 houses or more on a very small lot.

Okay, the utilities were basically the Moorhand subdivision. I knew the people that built this subdivision. It's over 60 years old, so the utilities are basically outdated. The, uh, at one point a utility did try to sell the water utility to, to the municipality. They turned it down because it's such an old.

Dated utility, and the new people that are actually the owners of it now, or the caretakers of it, they have been doing all kinds of work on the street. They've had all kinds of problems. So putting more housing in an outdated utility is not going to help the situation. The, uh, whenever one utility took it over years ago, they raised the water from $45 a month to $120 a month. I asked, how can they do that?

They said, well, they're an independent utility owner, so they can do whatever they want.

So the other thing is or multiple. There's no sidewalks on these streets. Kids walking down the street getting off the bus, okay, have to dodge cars because we're right in line with the Fred Meyers on Abbott. So they use this street as a thoroughfare. And the other streets, not just Gullivan, Tolov, Elam, all the streets in the Moorhans subdivision are basically speed demons.

These people just race down the streets both directions.

Um, there's large businesses on both ends of these streets of Moorhans subdivision. Uh, there's a, a tire shop, there's other multiple businesses, and they take up the street. So sometimes it's one lane.

So more housing, more people, it's just going to congest the roads more.

Basically building a triplex or possibly more. I don't know, I've, I've understood that R3 is triplex, possibly fourplex on an 8,000 square foot lot.

You're bringing in more cars. They— where are they going to park? There's no parking. Whenever you put a huge house with multiple dwellings on such a small lot, and basically putting these multi-units in this subdivision is not going to solve the house shortage in Anchorage.

Basically, we have more of an affordability problem in Anchorage. Houses have skyrocketed. This is not going to solve the house shortage in Anchorage.

I totally oppose this. Like I said, I've lived here all my life. My dad came here in the '40s. I've lived on this street for 47 years. I don't or would not like to start seeing these— this subdivision turned into a multi-unit subdivision.

So I totally oppose this, and most people I have talked to on the street oppose it also. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

There's nobody else wishing to testify. We'll ask the petitioner up for rebuttal.

Hello again, it's Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. Um, from what I understand, the problem was the number of units. These lots are about 7,000 square feet. The R-3 zoning district allows uh, one and two-family dwelling units on lots down to 6,000 square feet. And then if you want to go three or more dwelling units, you have to have 6,000 square feet plus 1,000 per dwelling unit. So most of these lots could have up to three dwelling units.

That could be a triplex or a duplex with an ADU.

I think that was the extent of the issue.

Are there any other questions that the board might have?

Any questions for the petitioner? Commissioner Pulis. I've just got one question kind of hanging out in my head. Do you or does staff know when you have a private water company in a neighborhood somebody builds something that they don't think can, you know, the water main can support that, what is the process to go through? Is it like AWWS where they have to upsize the main?

I mean, who controls that? How would that be done? Does anyone know the answer to that question?

Through the chair, Commissioner Polis, ALPAT is a privately owned regulated utility, and so if upsizing was required for fire? Is that what you're basically saying? If you build a structure large enough that you need fire, they would have to prove that the LPAT system could actually produce enough fire flow and pressure to— for a sprinkler system?

So future permitting would occur with them, and correct, they would assess the situation, correct, from there? Yep. Okay, so that's a future—. It is a sewer in this area, it's just LPAT water. I saw that.

Yeah. Okay, thank you.

I see no further questions. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing, and we'll look for two separate motions in these cases. Or if there's questions of staff, now you could— now would be a good time for those also.

Commissioner Krishna, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2025-0145 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone from R-5 to R-3. That's seconded by Commissioner Polis. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I intend to support this motion, and, um, I think I will read the 3 criteria.

Um, because this is a case specifically implementing the land use plan map, the criteria are that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, um, it would not result in an objective risk to health or safety, and it does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances. So I just want to restate that, um, that is what the Commission is reviewing in this case, um, and I believe that it does meet the criteria and intend to support it.

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

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes. We looking for similar motion in case 147.

Commissioner Pullis, would you like to state your motion?

Sorry, I move in case 2025-0147 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone from R-5 low density district to R-3 mixed residential district. That's seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Pullis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I will note that I agree with staff findings that all the 3 criteria are being met. Um, there were no agency comments that needed addressing.

I do acknowledge the gentleman's need for street improvements and all that stuff. That stuff comes later. That is not part of this. The neighborhood is the land use map. They're moving it to that.

And this also has the ability to create additional housing opportunities, nothing with affordability. We get that. It's not about affordability. We can't really control that.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

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

That motion passes.

All right, now we move to case 2026-0004. May we please have the staff presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Case 2026-0004 is a rezone request initiated by Dmitry Valkylik per Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.160(i) to amend the zoning map for approximately 0.20 acres of land from RO, Residential Office District, to R3, Mixed Residential District.

The petition site is generally located east of Round Circle, south of Crescent Street, west of Helvetia Drive, and north of St. Gothard. The Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan classifies this property with the land use designation of Commercial Corridor, and R-3 is an implementing zoning district per the plan, quote, "where appropriate for housing opportunities," end quote. Both the existing zoning of R-O and the proposed zoning of R-3 are implementing zoning districts of this land use designation. The Planning Department provided public notice and notice to the Rogers Park, Midtown, and Tudor area community councils in accordance with Municipal Code, Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.200(h)(3).

As of this writing, the Planning Department did receive one public comment in support of a duplex in the neighborhood rather than a commercial enterprise. Attachment 3, uh, contains comments from all other, um, state or municipal reviewing agencies, and we found that there were no objections to this rezone. Moving on to the approval criteria from Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.160(i)(4): The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval, and the assembly may approve a rezoning if the rezoning meets all the following criteria. Criteria A, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds this criteria is met.

Criterion B, it would not result in an objective risk to health or safety. Staff finds the criteria is met. And criteria C, it does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances, and staff finds this criteria is met. The department recommends and finds that the proposed rezoning meets all three approval criteria. And the Department therefore recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this proposed rezone from Residential Office, RO District, to R-3 Mixed Residential District and refer to the Assembly for adoption of the ordinance.

I can answer any questions the Board may have.

Commissioner Krishna. Sure. RO is also an implementing district of the commercial corridor designation, correct? Through the chair, that's correct. I— maybe this is a question more for the petitioner.

I think I'm trying to understand the narrative, um, and the, the reason for this a little bit better. Um, according to the— I'm getting the sense from the petitioner's narrative that partly the reason is so that this, um, so that R3 better aligns with the Geneva Woods Homeowners Association covenants. Could you provide a little bit more, um, background on why, if both implementing zoning districts align with the commercial corridor designation, why this is a preferable rezone. Through the chair, absolutely. The petitioner, Dmitry, came to the Planning Department for a couple of conversations at our public counter.

As the owner, he had read the covenants in place by the homeowners association and found that the Some of the covenants provided restricted the use of the parcels to a standard of Anchorage Municipal Code that is no longer practiced. The covenants from the HOA would not allow for anything higher than a duplex. The RO standard for use classifications does not allow anything less than a triplex. The petitioner was left with a couple of options and determined that pursuing an abbreviated rezone to the R3 zoning district would be the— I don't want to speak for him, but I could imagine the most expeditious use of his time to, to develop the parcel. Thank you, that answers my question.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Hearing and seeing none, we will ask for the petitioner's presentation.

Yes, my name is Dmitry Vakulich, and I also agree with the findings, and I'm here to answer any questions.

Any questions for the petitioner? I see no questions. You have 9 minutes and 54 seconds for rebuttal.

We will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

Hi, my name is Eve Schoenrock, um, prospective buyer in Geneva Woods, and I just want to say that I agree with this rezoning, especially I just read the covenants as a prospective buyer and was seeing the R2D further restriction on this property, and so it makes sense with the R3 new designation. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify?

My name is, uh, Dave Forslund, and I'm a homeowner in Geneva Woods, and I'm also the current president of the HOA. We've been in contact over the last few months with Mr. Vakulich in the planning department, and we fully support changing it to an R-3, which allows for the development of a duplex on that property. All of the other R-0 lots, which are 5, are already— already have duplexes on them, so this would just add to what's already there.

Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

Uh, hearing, seeing none, we will ask if you like to use your 9 minutes and 54 seconds for rebuttal.

Uh, petitioner yields their rebuttal. We'll close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Pullis, would you like to state your motion? I move in Case 2026-0004 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone from R-O Residential Office District to R-3 Mixed Residential District. That is seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Polis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I'd like to note that it meets the criteria as noted in the packet by staff.

There are no public or agency opposition, and actually two votes of support tonight we've seen. And I sound like a broke record, but this amendment provides the ability to improve housing opportunities in the municipality.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Hearing and seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Does anybody need a break, or do we want to continue straight on through?

Okay. We are moving on.

All right. May we please have the staff presentation in cases 2026-0005 and S12867?

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, if you give me a moment, I will log Paul out and I will log in so I can get to my Drive.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Sorry for the delay.

My name is Daniel McKenna Foster, talking about Alton Hills PUD CUP case and just a little bit about the subdivision case, but I'm going to leave that to Sean, who's the expert on that. So this is again Case 2026-005, conditional use for a planned unit development.

Um, we talked about this, um, in the work session before the meeting, so I encourage anybody in the public or anybody listening to this after to, to see that. We had a lot of discussion about it. We have a little bit more information that we can provide on that as well. So I'll just quickly go over sort of the timeline of the case, a brief overview and the criteria, and then I think if they're running together, we can hand it off to Shawn or proceed as the Commission decides. So this project goes back 20 years to 2006 when the Anchorage Assembly adopted the Crow Creek Neighborhood Land Use Plan, the AO 2006-47, as an element of the comprehensive plan establishing as a government plan document.

The master plan, it's still in place. It doesn't expire. So if there's a requirement for a master plan, that piece is in place. In 2009, Heritage Land Bank submitted a subdivision plat for 40 lots. They were never recorded.

It was approved for 60 months. Girdle Water Improvement Transmission Line was constructed in 2010. HLB issued an RFP for disposal in 2021. Also in 2021, HLB did some wetlands and stream mapping work. In 2024, the Assembly adopted AO-2023-137, approving disposal of the Heritage Land Bank properties.

The ordinance also includes additional conditions. And in 2024, the Holton Hills subdivision tract was recorded, it's plat 2024-18. And in March 2025, the Assembly adopted AO-2024-114S, updating the GERD comprehensive plan. This is one of the newest components of the comprehensive plan, so it's really fresh guidance And that also indicates that there will be development here over time. And also mentioned that in 2025, the MOA also was working on the Hightower Road.

So during the work session, Commissioner Polis had a question about the traffic impact analysis. And, you know, in the staff report, we talk about this number of 600 versus 100, and I think that comes down to hourly trips versus peak trips or daily trips. And so in talking among staff, I think what happened is there was a lot of work on that while the project management engineering department was working on that road over the summer. And that's what came out of that. We're still trying to find the pieces to that.

So it was a great question. In general, going to the big high level, a future land use plan or land use plan map like you see here is sort of how the community envisions that things are going to look in the future. And so on the left, you see the 1995 Girdwood Area Plan, which indicated this area outlined in the black there would be single-family residential. So since 1995, you know, 30 years, over 30 years, it's been designated for some type of housing is going to go here. But then what's interesting in the 2025 plan adopted last year, now the Gilbert Comprehensive Plan, it also shows that this area will be, you know, designated for housing development, but now it's moderate intensity residential.

So between 1995 and 2025, the community through the Landis Plan map and the Comprehensive Plan kind of made the choice that, you know, there's going to be more development here, and it's not just going to be single family, it's going to be a range of different types.

Of moderate intensity residential. And the term moderate intensity residential, this is language from the Girdwood Plan— whoops, excuse me, um, it using this as opposed to multifamily allows for more broad types of housing developments along with some mixed-use opportunities. So based on what we've seen in the application, there's no mixed-use in this project, so that doesn't really apply, um, but it does allow for that sort of broad, um, you know, range of housing types, um, the vision of the plan, um, sort of come to fruition through this project. And the, the text in blue is a little bit more detailed information about that. So everybody knows there's been a lot of talk about housing.

Girdwood's no exception. This is also from the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan, page 2-47. They determined when the plan went through that Girdwood needs about 303 total housing units, both new and rehab, and they need those at all income segments. So this is sort of a bridge or a rainbow, whatever you want to call it, showing along the top bar income categories. So you have housing for lower income households, middle income households, and higher income households.

And there's a need for units at all of those levels. So for any discussion about, you know, what kind of people live in this or what kind of households, what kind of incomes, Girdwood needs enough housing and a lot of housing in all income levels. So I know this will be a mixture and it's just lots right now. It's not housing developments or it's not actually units, but Girdwood needs all of it. And so it's a pretty modest development, it's only about 39 lots.

And so, you know, those, those 39 lots, if they become multiple units, are not really fit into basically any of these categories. So it does seem to be meeting the need that was identified in the plan. Now speaking to the subdivision case S-12-867 and PCC case 2026-0005, basically the language is a little confusing, but what we're doing here is a planned unit development which allows a more detailed look at a development project done through a conditional use process. So that's a sort of a bigger procedure in code, and this is used in situations where you have a development site with special conditions or special characteristics. So that's why— well, you'll hear us talking, or the commission talking tonight, about a PUD versus a CUP.

The PUD is sort of a little process nested within the bigger process, which is the conditional use use. Um, comparing the PUD criteria— sorry, the criteria for approval and staff evaluation of these— this is all in the staff packet. Also in the work session, we showed a sort of summarized version of this slide. Basically, it has to be 1 acre or more. There has to be a minimum of open space.

There needs to be— design should be compatible with the residential nature of the development. Access and connectivity must comply with 2107.06.0. Utilities have to be installed underground. Homeowners agreements— the code says that the commission shall review articles of incorporation, bylaws of any such association. So Planning Department is required as a condition that those be provided to the commission for review at some point in the future, because right now it's maybe a bit premature to have those as we're only looking at lots.

But in order to follow the code, we need to make sure that those get reviewed not just by the Planning Department, but they need to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Development options— by doing a PUD, you get a little bit more flexibility in terms of lot size and height and dimensions and that sort of thing. And there's a table also in that section of the code that says you can have up to this density. So in Girdwood, the table says you can have whatever basically the water and sewer limitations will allow, and this area will have water and sewer. And then finally, the last condition is planned unit development in the Turnagain Arm District.

This isn't in the Turnagain Arm District, so that doesn't apply. Now, another long, boring slide, and again, this is just going through the criteria, and we did go through this in the work session as well. This is what you have to go through for a conditional use. So not only do you have to meet all those criteria of the PUD, but you also have to make sure that you're following the conditional use, or the commission does, in order to make a favorable recommendation. So the first thing is that the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all applicable provisions and applicable state and federal regulations.

So big picture, you know, looking at the plan, it really does seem to be in compliance with that and is— it is sort of affecting that plan. This has been, you know, an idea to develop this area since 1995 at least, and so now we are finally delivering on that. The second is that the proposed use is consistent with the purpose intent of the zoning district. GR3 is a residential zoning district, and this is just more residential development, so it is in line with that. The next is the proposed use is consistent with any applicable use-specific standards set forth in 2105.

So again, the CUP process is more intensive than the PUD process, more intensive than a master planning process. So it really covers a lot of that. But in any case, the Crow Creek Plan adopted in 2006 serves as that master plan. So the master plan is in place, but also the CUP process or the PUD process using the CUP process allows that flexibility to sort of make that decision. The next one is that size, dimensions, shape, location are adequate A lot of that really gets dealt with in the subdivision when you have just a lot of professional people looking at, is the slope going to be right?

Is the drainage going to be okay? You know, are we going to get fire up there? Can we place this unit here? Is this— does this lot really make sense? So that's a piece, and that's why it kind of helps to look at these two cases together.

Next, the proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or prevents other properties basically from being able to enjoy their uses or their properties. It doesn't do that as either, you know, it's It's a pretty low, uh, pretty low density development, um, and there's a lot of open space involved. So there's a big tract for open space. There's also a lot of yard space, um, and there's a lot of sort of space around there. And again, as the plan says, this area has always been sort of designed and planned for some sort of housing.

So this is, um, sort of finally reaching that goal. Um, the next is any significant impacts anticipated to result in the use will be mitigated or offset. To the maximum extent feasible. So yeah, again, looking at this development, this planning development, it doesn't seem like it'll be an issue. The municipality of Anchorage built the first part of the road, and they designed that— they built that in 2025.

And so they designed that, you know, knowing that something might happen here and expecting any sort of long-term travel behavior there. But also mentioned that, you know, Gerdwood plan is pretty clear about wanting people to use a range of different ways of getting around. I think one of the goals or policies says you don't have to have a car to live in Girdwood. We want our, you know, our driveways to be our trailhead. So they want to encourage.

Merge a lot of different stuff. So kind of right-sizing the transportation infrastructure is a great way to do that. Next, the proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation system, you know, planned streets improvements, street capacity, access, offsite, you know, all sorts of things like that. That also, you know, in staff's review meets this criteria. And there's language in the plan that would support that and also the MOA building the road and just making sure that there will be trail access, there will be, non-motorized infrastructure on the road.

And long-term, you know, this is more of a municipal responsibility, is thinking about long-term secondary access and building out the road network. Because Girdwood is in a valley, you have to keep building loops so that people can get in and out safely. Unfortunately, just the way that a lot of road building works is you need developments to build roads. So this is sort of moving closer towards building out that network that has sort of redundancy so people can get out in an emergency. And then finally, the proposed use is appropriately located with respect to existing water, fire and police, wastewater.

Stormwater, similar facilities. So public water and sewer will be available, served by Gurga Fire Station Number 4 and Whittier Police Department. So reviewing all those, the Planning Department has 3 conditions of approval. The first is just, uh, the applicant needs to follow, follow, um, the, the rules of a planned unit development and make sure that whatever they file with us, they, they follow through on that. And, and, you know, it's the same as what we talked about here tonight.

The next is that the applicant shall submit for review the commission the articles of incorporation and bylaws of any such association prior to the sale subject to the association. And, and we also said that this may occur at a later date for the Planning Department to forward on to the Planning and Zoning Commission, maybe submitted electronically. We have talked with the applicant. We know that they've begun working on this, but it's a little premature, I think, to have them finished. And so it makes sense to have these submitted a little bit later to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

And, and on this one, it's, it's kind of interesting because This case, the municipality, actually the assembly adopted an ordinance that was in effect was the development agreement for this project. So that's a little bit unusual because you now have the Planning and Zoning Commission weighing in a little bit, or just being involved in a case where the assembly has already made a certain decision. So that makes it harder, or probably let's not say harder, let's make it very inadvisable for the Planning and Zoning Commission to be putting conditions on an ordinance that has already been passed by the assembly, because a lower body can't really tie the— to the action— tie the actions of a higher body. We have a bunch of legal— some of my colleagues from legal here tonight, they can speak to that as well. Finally, a notice of zoning action and final approved site plan shall be filed with the state, and proof of such shall be submitted to the planning department.

So thank you very much. Glad to answer any questions or direct questions to the rest of staff as needed.

Commissioner Krishna. Yes, um, I see a couple of references in our packet to a land use study. I'm wondering if staff can provide a little bit of background about, um, what a land use study would entail and, um, how some of that may have already happened through other parts of this process. Uh, through the chair to Vice Chair Krishna, so I believe that's in a code section, maybe Title 25. I don't think it's part— I think it's part of HLB code.

It might be part of the disposal process. So technically, it's not part of the Title 21 process. And so I can't speak to that. We do have members of HLB here. But from the Title 21 perspective, the conditional use should be considered based on the criteria of whether it meets the conditional use criteria, and the same with the PUD.

So I would defer to my colleagues in HLB on that, as I don't think that's a Title 21 issue, but they might have an answer anyway.

Sure. Thank you, members of the Commission. Ryan Yell with Heritage Land Bank. The short answer is no, Title 25 doesn't apply to this development because this is a privately owned parcel. The longer answer is the Crow Creek Neighborhood Land Use Plan is the governing area master plan for the area.

The site-specific land use study is only triggered when the comprehensive plan is not definitive enough on what an appropriate use for that parcel is. So in this case, we have both the 2006 Crow Creek Neighborhood Land Use Plan that defines the priorities for the area, community priorities, as well as a conceptual rendering of what that development could look like. And we also have the updated 2025 Gerber Comprehensive Plan that gives the land use classification for this parcel.

Thank you.

Are we, are we calling that both staff presentations?

We would like to give a presentation on the platting case as well, if that works. Correct. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. This is case S12867.

This is a preliminary plat request to subdivide one tract into 39 lots in two tracts. The requested preliminary plat includes a two-part phasing plan, which in combination will provide 39 lots for future residential development in Girdwood as part of this development agreement. This includes a request for a variance from lot frontage and access, dedication of streets, and cul-de-sac length. All the variances are related to proposed Tract 1B, a private drive named Holton Hills Circle. The homeowner association will maintain the private road.

Tract 1A is an open space tract included for wetland protection purposes. Should be noted that none of the reviewing agencies had any objections to the plat of the variances. The majority of the subject property is zoned GR3, uh, Girdwood Single Family, Two Family Residential. The planned unit development will allow for an increased residential density and a more efficient mix in higher density land use. The proposed subdivision plat reflects the proposed PUD lot configurations and sizes ranging between 6,500 and approximately 48,000 square feet.

The PUD flex— flexibility allows the petitioner to provide a variety of sizes of lot configurations not constrained by a set minimum lot size. For road improvements and dedication, the, the subdivision has access to Hightower Road, which is a collector roadway in the Official Streets and Highways Plan. And the proposed Holton Hills Road would be a local road with the cul-de-sac being a private street. Our requirement of the plat is going to be to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way and construct the remainder of Holton Hills Road as a strip-paved road in accordance with AMC 2109.070(F)(5). Holton Hills Circle within Track B shall be constructed as a 20- to 22-foot-wide strip-paved road.

And as matters of the drainage, Watershed Management Services has requested a resolution with private development regarding the need and location of drainage easements and stormwater treatment and extending detention requirements will be included. Trails. The Aditara Trail enters the property at the southeast corner of the subdivision and meanders along the west bank of the Glacier Creek on the east side of the development. In 2010, the Municipality of Anchorage determined that while the original Aditara Trail was subject to 100-foot easement, the original alignment followed the Crow Creek Road right-of-way and is not in the current alignment of the trail. The municipality then determined that the existing alignment is subject to a 50-foot-wide easement, 25 feet each of centerline, and the existing portion of the trail shown on the plat is the existing— the trail is not subject to any RS-2477 provisions.

So the proposed plat will maintain the majority of the existing trail alignment in its current location and would realign a small portion of trail, which is approximately 300 feet, uh, to accommodate the development in the portion of lots 4 through 11. A recommendation condition of this preliminary plat is going to be that the petitioner work with the municipality, Girdwood Trails Committee, the Chugach National Forest staff, along with affected users to ensure that a trail location within this provided easement is appropriate for use in alignment with the Girdwood Trails Plan of 2024. On to the matters of the variance. So variance— there's 3 different variances. Um, the proposed cul-de-sac length There's— is measured approximately 670 feet.

Variant, it's required because the proposed plan unit development allows changes to density, lot size, uses, and dimensional standards and design standards, but the Chapter 8 subdivision standards are still applicable to the cul-de-sac length. Approvals of variances 1 and 2 would allow Holton Hill Circle to remain a private road within this access tract 1B.

Standard A is met for both variances 1 and 2. The steep slopes and portions of the property, uh, limit the location of structures and utilities. The location design of this private road will minimize the site disturbance envelopes for structures and slope disturbance. Uh, Standard A has been met for variance 3. There is no right-of-way connection available south of the property, the Girdwood Elementary School subdivision connecting the proposed Holton Hills Circle to Holton Hills Road.

Would require a grade greater than 20%, and this exceeds the maximum grade allowed in the Design Criteria Manual of 10%. Staff finds that Condition B is met for both Variants 1 and 2. The homeowner association will privately maintain the road improvements, and the private maintenance is desired due to the topography of the street and control of efficient snow plowing and sanding for faster response times. Staff founds Variance 3 for the cul-de-sac has been met. Granting approval of this variance will provide a road for the subdivision that both adequately serves the neighborhood and accommodates emergency response vehicles.

Staff finds Condition C is met for variances 1 and 2.

Private street design provides for compact development and is necessary with steep slope and other environmental considerations. All the— all lots within the subdivision of this cul-de-sac will have access via the private road. Staff finds that Variance 3 for cul-de-sac length has been met. The intent of this section is to discourage cul-de-sacs that are excess in length for safety reasons and to facilitate the safe and efficient access to the proposed lots. The proposed Holton Hills subdivision cul-de-sac exceeds the standard by 70 feet or 11%.

Which appears to be the minimum additional length required to provide access. Staff finds Condition D, variances 1 and 2 have been met. The topography of the property limits the design options. And staff finds variance 3 for the cul-de-sac length has been met for Condition D. Undue hardship would result from strict compliance with the subdivision regulations. Denial of the variance would affect the property.

Would greatly increase the development footprint and site disturbance envelope for a secondary connection down the Holton Hills Road, and it would also create shorter cul-de-sac, would reduce the number of residential lots, or it would in turn create possibly other variances required, such as flag lot length. In AMC 2108-04, which is the street variance standards criteria, staff has found that all three standards have been met. The private street will include any easements. It is a requirement for the developer to build a private road to a municipal standard. A homeowner association will maintain that private road.

The subdivision shown on the preliminary plat will provide access to the lots that— it provides a compact development and maintained to public standards through a homeowner association and is designed as a cul-de-sac which will not conflict to the orderly expansion of the street system. So with that being said, the Planning Department finds that the standards are substantially met, and we recommend approval of the conditions found on pages 9, 10, and 11 of your staff packet with the 4 different— you make motions on all 4 different cases. Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Hearing and seeing none, we go to the petitioner's presentation.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Brandon Marcotte. I'm a registered civil engineer with Triad Engineering, LLC. I'm here tonight on behalf of CY Investments, LLC as the petitioner's representative for the Holden Hills development. Also with me tonight is Tony Hoffman with the Boute Company, who provided much of the application narrative and designed the lots within the proposed plat that you see.

Jim McCollum and Holly Wells, both attorneys that can answer HOA or similar legal-related questions. Additionally, Connie Yoshimura with CY Investments LLC is also in attendance and will provide input on the residential market as well as answer any related questions the board may have. We are here tonight to discuss the concurrent actions in front of you, Case 2026-0005 and Case S21-2867. I'd like to begin by making it clear that the Holton Hills development has been carefully designed to help solve a well-established problem in Girdwood. Both applications, staff's findings, the adopted Girdwood Comprehensive Plan, Crow Creek Neighborhood Land Use Plan, and the local community as a whole have identified a lack of housing as a major issue in Girdwood.

The Holden Hills development has been a municipal priority for nearly 20 years, dating back to 2006 with the creation of the Crow Creek Neighborhood Plan. This plan serves as the governing area master plan for this project and was, uh, effectuated by the extension of Watermain into and through the original Holden Hills development in 2010. 10 And 11.

The application before you today identifies 39 lots and 2 tracts proposed within the existing Tract 1 of Holton Hill subdivision. This existing tract is roughly 16 acres in size with various physical constraints, including close proximity to Glacier Creek, existing water transmission main, steep topography, bedrock, sensitive areas that include wetlands and drainage crossings. Water and sewer utilities are planned for all lots in the development with the exception of the upper cul-de-sac. These lots are currently planned to utilize private wells for water service and public sewer extended for sewer service. The physical constraints of the site predicate that both the PUD and plat be structured in a proposed configuration— in the proposed configuration.

The centerline of the primary road alignment runs above AWU's existing water transmission main. The upper cul-de-sac is configured to reduce road grades while avoiding wetlands to the maximum extent possible. The upper cul-de-sac also is within one of two key tracks that help the layout fit the land. Tract 1A is an open space track set aside specifically for wetland protection and open space enjoyment.

The second is Tract 1B, which supports a private internal drive. The compact private access approach is intended to reduce disturbance to steep slopes tighten the development corridor, and it avoids creating a small internal road segment that would otherwise become a municipal maintenance obligation. The HOA maintains it, but it's still intended to be built to municipal standards. There is no current or future intention of gating this private road. I also want to address density clearly in that the application provides an approximate maximum computed density for the project at 8.2 dwelling units per acre.

This is an upper-end calculation and based on the assumption that 37 lots are developed as duplexes and then 2 multi-family lots are built out with 22 units. The—. This density is above the 5.2 dwelling unit per acre generally allowed with the underlying GR3 zoning. A more realistic density is likely closer to 7 DUA, which assumes that 37 lots are split evenly between single-family and duplex construction. With either result, the PUD mechanism allows the density flexibility while also maintaining open space for sensitive areas like wetlands.

It's important to understand why the underlying zoning alternative doesn't actually produce meaningful additional housing variety. While GR3 allows for two-family development, the dimensional standards require twice the lot area for two-family— for a two-family lot compared to a single-family lot. So in practice, GR3 tends to function like a typical single-family subdivision development with limited opportunity for additional or mixed density. That's why the PUD tool is critical. It gives the flexibility to respond to topography and wetlands in a way that still supports the community's broader housing goals.

Another of these goals is the preservation of the Adirondack Trail, which we all acknowledge is part of Girdwood's identity. The staff report includes specific conditions for the relocation and construction of the trail where the existing portion overlaps lots 4 through 10. Of the planned subdivision. Coordination with the Heritage Land Bank, Trails Committee, and other relevant stakeholders are all conditions of the plat and will ensure input is received from all impacted parties. So when we say this is the highest and best use of the property, we mean a residential neighborhood on plan— on land planned for residential use, built in a way that respects wetlands and topography, protects and maintains public trail access, and delivers needed housing with meaningful and enforceable conditions.

In closing, it's very important for both the Commission and the community to understand that this step is not the end of the process. It is an essential part of the framework that allows detailed engineering to move forward. After these approvals, more work— more work will be involved to complete and submit full road utility grading and drainage plans for review by the appropriate agencies, and the project will be required to meet all applicable code and design criteria before any final approvals and construction can occur. We appreciate staff's in-depth analysis of this request and agree with all recommendations. I'd like to thank the Commission for the time you've taken to review our applications, and we respectfully request the Commission's approval of both the conditional use and platting applications for the Holton Hills development.

With that, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. 14 Minutes and 7 seconds. Any questions for the petitioner?

No questions. We will open the meeting up to public testimony.

Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

Please state your name and let us know if you're testifying on behalf of yourself or a group.

Uh, my name is Amanda Tuttle, and I'm petitioning on behalf of myself as a business owner in Girdwood. I am Amanda Tuttle. I'm a Girdwood business owner, developer, and a contingency plan coordinator. I also am a longtime board member of the Girdwood Fire Department. This board right now has a chance to do some good for Girdwood.

And we need it. Uh, our local Girdwood economy has been killed. I know this. I have daily accurate data. I own Coast Pizza.

I know our economy well. We're suffering. But you have the ability tonight to say, "You know what? We need more information." And I ask you to do that.

I ask you to postpone the approval of the conditional use permit for a planned residential development due to the lack of environmental data and reviews that have been conducted for this project and the failures to identify the impacts on Girdwood's critical public infrastructure and community. This project already installed a paved road without ever completing a downstream assessment. This is a large-scale land disposal and development that has not even gone through a Phase 1 investigation or had a 10th conveyance route defined as required by MOA code. Girdwood's critical public infrastructure is failing, and it's managed by a real estate commission board. The Alaska Railroad tracks, the new Seward Highway, and the old Girdwood levee are an engineered, federally listed watershed management system that ensures that all of the Glacier Creek Valley's 62 square miles of temperate rainforest goes under both federally built bridges, the Alaska Railroad trestle and the new Seward Highway.

The failure of one is the failure of them all. The consequences will be devastating locally, statewide, and nationally. The largest impact to any surface flow is the installation of a road. They create barriers and deflect and increase surface runoff onto unintended receiving areas and waters. This project has not taken into consideration any wetland mapping despite disturbing a Class A wetland already.

Real estate agents are not qualified to do natural resource management or utility maintenance. HLB this last month stated they do not have any contracts with any of the other responsible parties for Girdwood's critical public infrastructure watershed management system. That is the Alaska Department of Transportation and the Alaska Railroad. The levee is failing. It cannot handle any more upstream development, especially a large-scale one.

We have had unprecedented and unregulated upstream development since the railroad trestle was built in 1917. Heritage Land Bank and the MOA must maintain Gerdwood's critical public infrastructure and must not cause further degradation to the infrastructure for the profit of residential development. We have no vote in Girdwood at the municipal level. This is our last stop to stop an environmental disaster from occurring in Old Girdwood. We beg you, please slow this development and ask for more questions until the resources and the responsible parties have been identified for Girdwood's critical public infrastructure.

Uh, are there any questions for the testimony?

Um, you said the railroad trestle is failing. So correct. Can you elaborate on that? Yes, absolutely. Do we take your word or does anybody know about that?

So here's what's happening. So the railroad tracks, as you know, they run completely perpendicular to the Glacier Creek Valley, right? That railroad trestle was built in 1917. It's the only throughput for all of Girdwood drainage to come out. And that railroad trestle is only 77 feet wide.

What— so the Alaska Railroad trestle is old Girdwood's northern— sorry, Alaska Railroad tracks is old Girdwood's northern perimeter. The eastern perimeter is the 1,600-foot levee that keeps the water going under the railroad, the railroad trestle. And then it goes directly under the new Seward Highway Bridge. It's an integrated watershed system. I actually brought you guys a map.

The Army Corps of Engineers has federally listed this as being built by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950s. So it is federally protected. It's a Katrina situation, what we have going on. So the railroad trestle, I will tell you, it's actually pretty dang stout. But where it's failing is immediately downstream because all of Glacier Creek and California Creek are in a head-on collision at the trestle.

We got two major drainages coming down our valley. They both hit the railroad tracks, effectively tee into it and run head-on into the trestle where they're forced to go into that 77-foot-wide area. What it does is it channelizes the main flow directly onto the levee. And the levee has never once been maintained or repaired since Girdwood was incorporated into the municipality in 1984. I've got a map.

It's only 12 feet wide. The rest of it is about 26 feet wide. It's actually catastrophically failing in two places and I saw it with my own eyes. The night the Ruan culverts failed on October 31st, 2021, the levee was going. I've been screaming for 3 years to get Heritage Land Bank to put the levee in their work plan, and they still have not done it to date.

That means that no environmental assessment, no downstream assessment, no MOA document to date has even identified this levee. And it's federally listed. It's, it's failing. It's got trees growing out of it. People don't even know it's a levee.

It's pretty scary.

Thank you. I see no further questions. Oh, we have more questions. Commissioner Polis. So I'm just brainstorming out here.

Yeah. So is your request that development can't occur until Gerdwood addresses this floodplain issue type situation? I absolutely believe that Gerdwood needs to be looking at a large scale at the, at the implications on HLB MOA-owned public infrastructure. We can't We can't keep on going with unregulated, you know, because we're fighting over Title 25. You know, you guys asked tonight if we're Title 25.

Well, we are Title 25. That's when the land use study was supposed to be completed. But they never did. It's never been identified. And now they're saying we're Title 21 lands.

What are we? You know, like, either way, we still got to complete a downstream assessment. Both Title 25 and Title 21 both clarify that they're needed. We were kind of told not to talk about Title 25, but—. But it got brought up earlier.

That's why. Yeah, no, I agree with you. Do you know the stormwater system for the municipality of Anchorage doesn't allow new development to increase runoff off the site whatsoever and has to do a massive drainage plan? I still have to do that part, but they've already inserted a road and they've redirected that water from the new road installation is actually going into the California Creek drainage, which cannot handle, which is where the ruin culverts are. Which is the road that the municipality installed, right?

You got it. It's the one that failed on October 31st, those two 64-inch culverts. And I've got video that I sent to the watershed department actually last week from earlier this year, just in a high flood. We just had a high rain event, had atmospheric storm that came through. The culverts were nearly on the verge of going.

The public's— our roads guy in Girdwood and I were picking out debris out of the culverts to try to stop them from going just earlier this year. Yep. So all that water— so they've already installed a road. That's the number one biggest implication that you can put on to a, on a surface flow. They've already done damage.

And so I do, I, I want us— I would love to see this board say, hey guys, we need some more information. We need, we need to know what— oh, we need Heritage Land Bank to identify contracts so that we've— if that levy goes, that it's not left on to us landowners in old Girdwood to respond to a levee failure. We need resources. But first we need the MOA to even mention that, you know, that they— that it is theirs. Thank you.

Thank you. I see no further questions.

Good evening, everybody. Crystal Hoke. I am a Girdwood resident for the last 12 years. Are you for yourself? I am speaking on behalf of myself.

I'm happy that I get 6 minutes because I wrote a poem because I have testified many times and it doesn't seem to make any difference. So I'm wondering if some art might have an impact on you guys. Holton Hills, Holton Hills, oh, where do I begin? When the community said we will need land for essentials, fill out an application, make it a potential. So we did what they said, submitted it with some 100 letters of support.

We had a specific specific request, ball was in their court. And what was their response? An RFP for 150 acres. Let's sell off Girdwood. Therefore, the takers.

We were in the aftermath of COVID when it all went down. The real estate office still closed to the public, meetings held when Santa was in town. Meanwhile, we asked, what will Girdwood get? Often finding ourselves left out. But are you ready yet to let us have a say, to speak without ridicule, to be taken seriously rather than the fool?

When you hear the testimony, is it all just nimbyism, or Or is it pot-smoking hippies, depending on your prism? We thought we had gotten to the— we thought we had gotten our point across when it first got voted down. The community showed up in droves. We showed what it meant to be a town. Asked for workforce housing and mentioned things we doubt, but full-page advertising budgets really can buy one clout.

Then the office was— then the project was reintroduced just out of the blue by an assembly member in another district. The powers that be decided what was true. 5 Real estate directors shuffled through the doors, yet the deal marched on, leaving us with sores. My friends and neighbors dragged through the mud, feeling run over and hopeless, lack of representation leading to bad blood. But let's not forget the things that make Colden Hills strange, like where are the other partners in the original RFP exchange?

I guess staying together only matters until they declare you win. Apparently, when what's made it whole.

Is irrelevant. All the partners now in the bin. Appraised for $2 million, 90 acres in GERD. Why, a price like that has never been heard. And here we have 60 acres of public land transferred to CY, the first 16 up for discussion tonight, the community wondering why.

So how much do you pay for the land in the corporation name? Oh yes, nothing. Splitting profits is the game. Oh, but yes, there's a benefit. GERD would get 2 lots.

What a disappointment when you connect the dots. Out of 60 acres in the first 39 lots, got to take the hint. We will be lucky to get the 2 lots if you read the fine print. I'm an advocate for housing, but this project is not what we need. It's built around self-interest, focused on the greed.

But the muni said, let's not stop there, let's build a road to the subdivision. Public money, $2.1 million for the road for a for-profit developer's dream vision. Our voice didn't matter when we spoke at HLB. Always outnumbered at assembly. 2 Of 12 votes can never set us free.

So here we are at P&Z wondering if you'll even have the discussion of what could be helpful to the community, or is it all a foregone conclusion? If we tell you there won't be places to live unless you make a difference by the conditions that you give, we are at the last stop, the grantor of the PUD. Only 2 lots for multifamily, mixed use barely visible to see. I'm asking you to consider and really give it some thought. Have you seen the project performa, or is your vote already bought?

And if you vote yes without question, I hope you understand what you vote for. The muni having major financial obligations, second access a big financial chore. If this were private property, I simply wouldn't be here, but because this land was public, a community benefit should be clear. And I still got 2 minutes left, so I will, uh, note that using the area plan as justification to imply this is what the project wants is completely false in my opinion. The fact that the new area plan has the density up in this area actually nulls the NIMBY argument and accusations that our community has received over years, including articles smearing people.

I am extremely concerned that you're just gonna give a rubber stamp and approve this, so I will just say clearly that I do not agree that this development plan as proposed is helpful to our community. This project was never in HLB's plan. They had to make an amendment to include the plan at the assembly disposal. I apologize for my unintentional snicker when it was stated that this will solve our housing crisis. This statement is hilarious.

Unless you set some conditions, this will do so little, and everyone knows it. If you have a thought in your mind that something isn't right here, that's because I think, you know, in your heart, in your mind, or in the back of your mind that it's not. And I completely disagree that this is the highest and best use of this land. HLB has 6,000 acres in Girdwood. All of private Girdwood is 300 acres combined.

So They're big brother in the room. Any effort to solve the housing crisis is going to come out of HLB. So if this is what HLB is working on as a priority, how are we ever going to get workforce housing done in Girdwood? I thank you for your time and appreciate you hearing my testimony tonight.

I see questions. Commissioner Krishna. Thank you for your testimony. Uh, certainly, I think the first time we've heard a poem as testimony, um, and it certainly, um, was very well written and got your point across. I do want to just state one thing for those in the public that weren't present at our work session, which is that this is not the final stop in the public process train.

We've heard from staff that the HOA documents will be reviewed by us at a future meeting, so there will be another opportunity to discuss those more deeply when those are before us. So just wanted to inform folks in the room that there will be other opportunities as well.

Um, I guess I do have a question. You made reference to, uh, restrictions or conditions. Conditions. But you didn't say what they were. Yeah, because I've submitted substantial comments and then nothing happens with them anyway, so I thought the poem would be more effective.

But if you do want to know what conditions I would suggest, I would reference the resolutions of support that came out of Girdwood Board of Supervisors that did go through Girdwood Housing and Economic Committee, of which I'm the— I'm a co-chair. They did go through Girdwood Land Use, I believe. They definitely got passed and approved at Girdwood Board of Supervisors. So if you guys want to give any credence to Girdwood having any kind of say in how this development is shaped, I would appreciate you guys looking at those suggestions.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions? I see none. Thanks.

Oh, Commissioner Christian is back. Uh, not quite a question, just a comment that I don't think that the items you're requesting are in our packet. So if anyone who is testifying would like to mention any of those, that might be useful for the commission.

Hello. Good segue. My name is Mike Hedgington. I am co-chair of the Go To Board of Supervisors. I'll be speaking on behalf of the board.

And also have responsibility for the supervisor for housing and economic development support. I was actually going to speak to the 4 resolutions Goodwood Board of Supervisors passed. I saw 3 of them included in the comments section in the packet. I did not see the 4th though. I saw one of them was in there twice, so maybe there's a mistake.

The 4 resolutions cover issues around lighting, issues around the Iditarod Trail, the Halton Hills Circle, and general aspects around housing. So I'll address those four in that order. Um, so Resolution 2025-20, about the issue of lighting— uh, Goodwood prioritizes dark sky friendly lighting. I believe in the variances on the S11— sorry, I don't know— S11-611 application, um, on page 10, item D11, small d, it says provide street lighting in accordance with 2109.070G. My understanding is that actually has— does not meet the dark skies requirement.

So what we are asking for, and we believe the developer is in agreement with, is that the lighting, the lighting in the development is focused on downwards and does not have the spill into the, into the atmosphere that's detrimental to our community. So that's the first one, that is in the packet. My second point is on the, is on the, um, sorry, just one second, new glasses. Okay, yeah, on the Iditarod Trail, again, I see reference in the, um, in the packet and the other comments, the Iditarod Trail. It's a very important part of the cultural basis of the community and the, and the space as well in the valley.

Um, we asked in— again, I don't know which page this is in, but in Resolution 2025-23 from GVOS, um, that there is a realignment of the trail as I think you've— as you've seen, uh, with a 25-foot non-disturbance easement either side of the centerline of the trail. And I think the 25-foot has been supported as well by staff, um, to be the alignment— to be— and the alignment in any trail improvements to be in accordance with the established plans for Girdwood, the both the Girdwood Trails Management Plan from 2020 and the Girdwood Trails Master Plan from 2024. But also that the costs of the realignment are borne by the development itself. It seems rather unreasonable that the, the land is taken, there's a forced realignment of the trail, and then taxpayers have to pay for that alignment. So the cost is quite an important point, I think, and we would like to see that borne as part of the development itself.

I will now move on to item number 3, which is the road. Houghton Hill Circle. I do not believe that this resolution was included in your packet, so if, uh, you'll indulge me, I'll read it for the record. It's Resolution 2025-24 of the Goode Board of Supervisors supporting variance reduced width and steeper grade but opposing a designation of Houghton Hill Circle as a private road. Whereas planning case 2026-005 includes several variance requests for Houghton Hill Circle to allow for narrower and steeper road than is allowed by Title 21, Chapter 8 of AMC, and whereas the developer specifically requests that the cul-de-sac be made a private road, citing the potential benefits of a private road contractor rather than municipal road service, and whereas municipal road maintenance services are already provided by a private road contractor under contract with the Girdler Valley Service Area, which questions whether the applicant has performed due diligence about local conditions and services within Girdwood.

And whereas, although a private road would provide marginal savings to the GVSA in maintenance costs, the service area would still be responsible for providing fire and EMS services to properties without the benefit.

Coordinated maintenance on both access roads and the subject road. And whereas other municipal-owned roads in Girdwood do exceed the grade requirements of current code, yet are still efficiently maintained by GVSA in both summer and winter conditions. Whereas the 2025 Girdwood Comprehensive Plan prioritizes public access through Policy R4.2, which states that new development, for example housing and transportation, is consistent with ensuring access and protection of trails and open spaces, and whereas the challenging topography and geology of the area does support steeper grades and reduced right-of-way with width of 50 foot within the Halton Hill Circle, therefore the Go— Go To Border Supervisors supports allowing a narrower 50-foot right-of-way and steeper roads on Halton Hill Circle if it remains a municipally adopted road, but GBOS opposes making a private road. Okay, and then finally I would like to talk about the housing aspects in my last 5 minutes.

I would say the original sin of the Holden Hills project is that it makes the assumption that may work in Anchorage Bowl, that if you just provide— well, in this case, if you provide lots which eventually will provide houses, that resolves the housing problem in a community. It doesn't. We have plenty of evidence from the existence proof. We have evidence from development over the last 3 or 4 years that it does not solve that problem. Mr.

Mechanic Foster showed some extracts from the comprehensive plan which showed the— an estimate of 303 new housing units required in Girdwood over the next few years. What he didn't mention, but I'm sure meant to, was that's 303 occupied units. If you look at the pattern of private development, of which Halton Hills is an example, over the last 5 years we've had, I think, nearly 90— 80 or 90 housing units developed, and about 85% of those are not occupied and are unlikely to be occupied in the near future. So we have a ratio of maybe 1 in 6 housing— new housing that's built is occupied. So we may get 4 or 5 units, depending on how the multi-family aspects of it work, we may get more than that, but it's a handful.

It's probably less than a dozen housing units that will actually come out of this that address Girdwood's housing problem. It may well provide many, many new second homes, potentially many commercial Airbnbs, but the actual how it addresses housing is minimal. The original sin of this whole project is that it never considered the, the need for occupied housing in Girdwood and made the mistake that private development solves that problem. It doesn't solve the problem in Girdwood. It's not solved the problem in any other community similar to Girdwood across the western United States.

After— at least over the last decade or two. So we had some specific requests. We've been told in the past that bringing these general policies and general ideas isn't very helpful. So we have some very specific requests and conditions we would like to add. These are covered in a good— in a GBOS Resolution 2025/22, which is in the packet as one of the comments.

The specific things we request are that the CUP be denied pending completion of the land use study as required by AMC 254025. I know that has been addressed in the past year. Today, add a note, plat note, to Block 1 Lots 12 and Lot 13 requiring their transfer to a Gurudwara nonprofit for development of community housing per AO 2023-037. Add a plat note to 3 lots. We have specified blocks— Block 1, Lots 1, 2, and 3, limiting their use to 2-family duplex only.

Again, we've heard that things could be built as single-family or duplex. Let's make them duplex and at least guarantee a higher minimum if housing does get developed. And the fourth one, which actually is probably the one most crucial to Girdwood itself, is require future conveyances from each of, let's say, 4 lots to be specified by this body. To include 30-year restrictive covenants that each dwelling unit constructed on those lots be used only as a principal place of residence for at least one person who do the— during the entire period of their occupancy of the property earns their living by working at least 30 hours a week for a business or public institution located in the servicing Goodwood Valley service area. So this is the sort of restriction that other communities across the U.S. have used consistently as really the primary tool for addressing occupation and housing to benefit the community rather than to benefit people who do not live in the community, for, um, for vacation homes, for second homes, for commercial Airbnbs, etc.

So this is something which we've been unable to get any traction on at earlier stages of the process, mostly because we've been told now is the time when the PUD comes in front of you, that's the time to make this request. So here we are making that request, and we would like you to take it up and consider it.

I think that's it.

Actually, no, I'll just say one more. So again, the, the 4 things, just to summarize, the 4 things we've covered are: one is the issue of lighting, which I think is in agreement with the developer; two is the issue of the trail; three is the issue of the private road— we support the other variances but not the private aspect of it; and the fourth is the aspects around housing. Thank you.

Question from Commissioner Krishna. Just more of a comment. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if you were listening to the work session earlier today. There's no way to listen to the work session, unfortunately. If I'm not physically here, I can't do it.

And we live 40-odd miles away in that direction. Yes, we were advised by staff and Muni Legal that tonight is not the night for the commission to look at the HOA bylaws or the leasing restrictions. So our understanding is that that will come before the Commission at a future date. So I just wanted to state that to your last point, that if there's no discussion today, that will be discussed at a future time. But we've been informed that today is not the day for that discussion.

So restrictions in terms of the covenants, what is that? Say, just to clarify, because I wasn't here at the earlier thing and there's no way of listening to it if you're not physically here. That will come in front of you as a case or for discussion. And is there public hearing in that case? I don't understand the mechanism.

I wasn't able to hear it. That would be a good question for staff. They weren't able to answer it earlier. Maybe they drummed up something better.

Chair Spinelli and Commissioner Krishna, the— that review will occur as an informational item to PCC. And along with that item, there will be a memo from Muni Legal just defining what that review will consist of. And the body may take action on that item if they choose to do so. To clarify, I guess I'm anticipating, will the public be notified? Like, will GERD— I mean, I'm sure— assuming GBOS would at least get a memo, but I guess, can you speak to the public notification?

Because this is an informational item, we would generally follow the requirements for informational items brought before this body. But out of courtesy to GBOS, I don't see any issue with letting them know that this will be before the body at that time. Thank you. Okay, I heard that. So in the, in the range of public involvement, we will be informed what the decision is.

It sounds like there's no— there's no opportunity for input. Um, yeah, I'm— I guess as an informational item, I don't believe there would be a public hearing. Is that correct? And then I, I had a question about number 4 on your list. Can you just clarify what exactly it's saying, require all future conveyances of each of 4 lots?

Can you explain that a little better? I know there are different ways of doing this. I think the language we used here was the assumption that was in the CCRs. It could also be done as a plat note. I believe that's another mechanism which would be under perhaps the control of this body today.

Um, the, the mechanism which is fairly common in other communities is to, is to take out, is to take elements of housing and say at least this housing has to be occupied by someone who works and lives in the community. And that's basically what the request is. So what we're requesting is that 4 lots out of the whole development be given that restriction, and we did not specify them. They're up to this body, or this body in combination with platting and the developer to add that restriction to their use. And it sounds like now is our only opportunity to ask.

So 4 lots are owner—. Owner-occupied, or not owner-occupied? Occupied, yes. Okay, occupied by somebody who lives and works in the community. Got it.

Not occupied by someone who works or lives elsewhere. That seems challenging to enforce, but at least I understand what we're going for now. So thank you.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Krishna.

I, I am not sure, did staff want to speak? I just want to clarify to GBOS just to wrap up this previous discussion that what we're talking about here is not necessarily just about public testimony. What we're talking about here is it's not even clear right now what level of, um, input this commission has onto any of the things you're talking about. We would need guidance from Muni Legal as to which parts of the HOA.

Documents or the leasing restrictions have actually already been decided by the assembly, which ones are even able to be discussed or decided by this body, and which ones— and if there are legal considerations that we should even know about, i.e., like, is that even something that the municipality or us could even do? Yeah. So maybe I'd just like to say one thing in response to that. Maybe the precursor to the original sin was that the original development agreement, which seems to have restricted anything we can discuss since, was decided behind closed doors without any assembly input, before the assembly even saw it. So there is this fundamental process problem where legal requirements were basically sort of— the municipality was tied to particular legal requirements before there was any legislative view of it and any public view of it.

Uh, Quincy Arms would like to speak. This is actually Ben Bowman, Assistant Municipal Attorney, on through the chair. Uh, and slightly related to the discussions we're talking about, the development agreement which was at issue, uh, went before the assembly as part of the disposal, uh, ordinances, went up once, as was referenced, was then previously voted down, then eventually brought back. And passed as Assembly Ordinance 2023-137. During that ordinance, the Assembly considered multiple of these potential restrictions on future alienation of the properties and potential deed covenants.

The decision of what covenants to place and what obligations to place on the tracks through disposal that the Assembly decided upon after that consideration is embodied in AO-2023-137, and they did that in full light and understanding of the nature of the development agreement and in approval of the development agreement as adjusted and written.

I guess we're Any of these concerns addressed in there?

I'm not you, I'm asking, well, MOA legal, I can answer for you.

Yes, that they were raised at the time in the public debate and comments. I, I guess, yeah, they were raised. I'm just curious, in, in the municipality's view, if they were addressed, Gerdwood's concerns. Mr. Edgington is—. I'm saying no—.

Indicating no.

Chair Spinelli, if I might jump in, um, the HOA agreement will be under review by Planning and by proxy Legal and by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine exactly that. And, and And I'm sorry, one more thing from legal, if you don't mind. And go ahead, Chair.

The assembly considered the concerns of Girdwood, many of which, as multiple members of the community have testified tonight, they have raised multiple times and have been heard by the body. And AO-2023-137 was the document and method and determination the Assembly chose to issue in response to those concerns. It may not have been fully satisfactory to some or all, but that is how the Assembly chose to address the concerns that were raised before them regarding disposal. Got it. Thank you.

And this body, again, is held to the limits of Title 21 and what we can do with that. All right. Thank you. I know I can't say anything else, but I just would like to say a number of the issues were deferred until this point, and I believe one of those issues was any restriction on future years. So around the issue we're discussing tonight.

So I think what we're hearing here is that, yes, some things were addressed, some things were deferred. Now we're at the point where they've been deferred to— we're told they'll be deferred again to the HOA, where there is no public input, no public process. Yeah, thank you for your testimony. I will have time to talk about this later. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

Anybody at all? Last call.

Petitioner's rebuttal.

Yes, again, Brandon Markout with Triad here. Wrote down some notes as best I could. I'll try and hit most of the points. There was comment made about no environmental studies being done whatsoever. This is not true.

A wetlands delineation has been completed to date. That is identified on page 3 that lists the schedule of what's been completed so far. Commissioner Pulis hit on it, I think, exactly in that a drainage analysis will be required after today. We'll have to go through private developments review. We also have watershed comments as well that are typically not typical of a plat, so those are in here as well.

So we're gonna have a little bit more scrutiny in that regard. So the drainage will be a hot topic Um, when we go through our subdivision design and review period, uh, there was comments about lighting. Um, our requirements meet Title 2109, which generally requires intermittent lighting, intermittent lighting, and also what's required by the traffic engineer. So basically, the traffic engineer can decide how much lighting we have to provide. The off-site improvements that we had to do, um, they required full street lighting, uh, those 10 streetlight poles.

That was way more than we were wanting to do. It's very expensive. It's again light pollution, as the community has identified. So we have pushed very hard for this phase of development to do at least an intermittent, uh, lighting requirement, which we're anticipating that to be 3, maybe 4 poles, mostly at intersections, far less than what's typically required by code. Discussions about the Iditarod Trail and the realignment costs being borne by the developer.

I will go on record and state that yes, the development team, the developer, will be paying for the relocation of the Iditarod Trail. She has agreed to that.

Holden Hill Circle, really the justification for the private roads is typical standard right-of-way width requirements are 60 feet. And so when you, um, which in turn takes away developable land from the neighboring lots, which in turn pushes out your shallow utilities, etc., it expands your road improvements. When we ask for the private road designation, we're trying to shrink that right-of-way with a track width a little bit to help narrow the road improvement requirements. And the trade-off generally is we offer to take over the snow management requirements. We understand that a third-party entity manages the snow in Girdwood.

We understand that. What we're trying to say is we're taking it off of their hands and putting into the HOA's hands, and therefore justifying the narrower width for the right-of-way. This pulls the shallow utilities and the road a little tighter. It decreases the sprawl of the improvements and makes the development a little bit more compatible with the surrounding area. The rest of Mr. Edgington's comments are identified in— on page 15, and staff has responded to a number of those, so I won't belabor those any further.

If there was any more that I missed, please let me know. But I would like to reserve some time for Monsieur Shimura to come up and speak for a few minutes about the market conditions, if I could. We're at 10 minutes and 39 seconds. You left out the Trestle levee, the failing levee downstream. If you want to just—.

Well, that's, uh, I didn't leave it out. That's coming up next. That's, that's part of the design with the drainage analysis and getting together with private development and watershed. So going over the, the drainage concept, the improvements required, and what we're going to do as part of the, the civil design that comes next after today. So once we have a full survey done, once we have geotechnical information completed, we'll have more information that we can use for civil design for those types of discussions.

And then a question from Commissioner Eber. Does that flow downstream? I mean, I realize this is upstream from that, so does that flow downstream to the portion that she's talking about? Correct. This site abuts— directly abuts Glacier Creek, and there's 3, uh, basically bridge crossings before you get to the inlet, and one of those would be the railroad, uh, railroad track crossing that she speaks of.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you all for your efforts and remarks tonight. It's a stormy night, and I don't know what the snow level is right now, but I'll try to be as brief as possible. I especially want to thank the CY team of Brandon Marcotte and Tony Hoffman, who were with, who were with me when we finished the RFP 4 years ago. I remember saying to them, what happens if we win? This has been a very long and bumpy journey to get to you this evening.

I also want to thank Holly Wells, who has kept me calm the last couple of years, and Jim McCollum, who has been a legal advisor for over 30 years, who has advised me what I can and cannot do, and his partner Taylor Rounds. This has been a truly unique public and private partnership, and I want to thank my partner here Heritage Land Bank, and specifically Tiffany Briggs and Lance Wilburn. 47 Days ago, we initiated a letters of interest campaign because I believed there was a silent majority of people, including Girdwood residents, that wanted new housing. As of 5 PM today, we have received 135 letters of interest for housing in Girdwood. Of those letters, 34 are from Girdwood addresses and 21 had specifically mentioned Houlton Hills.

80 Letters are from the other parts of the Anchorage Municipality, 10 from Matsu Valley, 6 from elsewhere in the state, and 4 from out-of-state addresses in which one specified interest in returning to Girdwood. Within all of the comments, we heard the desire for a mixed-density type of development, including interest in duplexes, ADUs, multifamily, condos, townhouses, and single-family homes. Now I would like to share with you some of the comments I have received.

Greetings. I am a lifelong Alaskan who is currently living in Oregon to be near my wife's family. We are interested in moving back to Alaska in the future and interested in living in Girdwood.

We are a young couple who have lived and rented full-time in Girdwood for 5 years. Our current home is a small condo, and we are very interested in a single-family home lot in Girdwood that we can grow into and raise a family here. We are lifelong Alaskans wanting to make Girdwood our home for skiing, exploring the mountains, and building community. We are young professionals. I'm in a— one, I am in aviation and the medical community who would love to stay in Girdwood instead of moving into Anchorage or down to the peninsula.

Single-family home inventory in Girdwood is very limited, and we are excited at the opportunity to potentially build a larger home that can be our own here.

I am interested in purchasing one of the Holton Hills lots. I am a longtime Girdwood resident and homeowner looking to build a new home that will be sustainable for me to age in place.

I have been actively looking for Girdwood real estate for the past 5 years.

I am interested in purchasing a lot to build a single-family home that will be our primary residence. We currently live in Girdwood but have outgrown our current home and would like to build. I would like— I would be interested in acquiring one of the smaller single-family or duplex/triplex lots. 3 Exclamation points.

Local mother and professional individual working in Girdwood for the last 8 years. As my children age and move upgrades in the local Girdwood K-8, we are looking forward to providing more space for them to play and grow. Please consider our interest in a property in Houlton Hills.

I was fortunate enough to grow up in Anchorage and learn to ski at Alyeska before the tram and Prince Hotel was built. My family had a condo and we spent every weekend in Girdwood. I want to continue helping my chosen community thrive. Both my sister and I choose to live back in Alaska. Through acquiring a lot in Houlton Hills, I could live full-time back in the landscape that shaped me and contribute to the funky vibrancy of Girdwood as it continues to evolve.

Please help out local man, not a lot of money, looking for a studio or one-bedroom condo for year-round living in Girdwood. Have dog.

Girdwood has always felt like home to me year-round. From summer trails to winter adventures, Girdwood has never left me disappointed. It is one of my favorite places in Alaska and would be honored to start our family there. The town where I grew up had a population of 311. I truly miss the tight-knit community where I knew everyone and everyone knew me, and I feel Girdwood is a magical place with wonderful people.

I would greatly love to call my neighbors and community. This is— these are not a poem. These are real quotes and comments from the letters of interest. I want to thank the commission for their time and would appreciate your positive vote to provide more housing in South Central Alaska. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? I do have one. What are your comments on the 4 lots to be occupied by somebody? By what?

The request for 4 lots to be occupied within the subdivision require future conveyances, 4 lots to be a year-round resident. It's page 86.

But I think generally it's a requirement to have somebody living in Girdwood in 4 of the homes, which I guess doesn't seem like a big request, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented. I was just curious if you could shed any light on any previous conversations that may have happened that this commission's not privy to. Sure. Can you just explain to us, there is like 2 or 3 lots that is it we're giving to Gerdwood or what's going on? Can you just kind of explain that whole thing and their comment on what Spinelli was saying from the Gerdwood Board of Supervisors?

I believe the AO, I guess I would prefer to have Heritage Land Bank answer that question. Because it is their, uh, responsibility.

Tiffany Briggs, Real Estate Director. Through the chair, um, AO 2023-137 as amended, one of the requirements that the assembly conditioned the disposal was that at least one multi-family lot for the development of at least 8 units lots per lot and at least one other multifamily or single-family lot, um, to be drawn from HLB's portion of profits from the total phases of the project will be designated for future disposal at HLB's sole option to a Gerdwood Housing Trust or nonprofit entity for the purposes of developing community housing for residents. If and only if a housing trust or entity is established which can legally receive and own property, and if and only if the housing trust or entity is established within 5 years of the recording of the plat for Phase 1 of Holton Hills subdivision and upon approval of the conditional use permit for the residential planned unit development. Otherwise, the multifamily lot reverts to Heritage Land Bank ownership. Yeah, I guess that, that answers a lot.

That's helpful. Thank you. Um, and was there ever a conversation about 4 lots being, um, occupied by residents? Year-round. Was there any discussion around— I mean, that's— it was alluded to.

It seems like this wouldn't be the first time this came up. This is Daniel McKenna Foster. So in the staff report, we said that was unenforceable. I believe you're referring to Resolution 2025-22 from the Goleta Board of Supervisors. I'll read it out.

It says, require all future conveyances of each 4 lots to include a 30-year restrictive covenant that each dwelling unit be constructed on these lots be used only as a principal place of residence of at least 1 person who during the entire period of their occupancy of the property earns their living by working at least 30 hours per week for a business or public institution located in and servicing the Girdwood Valley service area. So I, I think legal has identified some issues that I can just say from the zoning perspective, this would be really, really, well, impossible to enforce. I mean, for one, um, say somebody is working and they lose their job. Does that mean they have to leave their house? Because this would require them to be working in Girdwood.

Say they're working at a firm that is located in Groverswood but serves somewhere else. This specifies that.

It has to be a business or public institution located in and serving the Girdwood Valley service area. So the specifics of this type of thing from the zoning perspective, there might be bigger legal fair housing issues. They're impossible to enforce because it's just extremely difficult to pry in and figure this out and then manage it and be able to ensure. But a lot of these piece— also 30 hours a week, say you're a single parent and you say, I'm going to take half time. I'm going to go down to 20 hours.

Technically under this type of stipulation, you couldn't live there anymore because you'd be in violation of the covenant. So that's why in the staff report— and I'm only speaking to a small part of it— we said this is unenforceable. This kind of thing, it just— you can't really do it without a massive infrastructure in place to sort of be looking and checking on people all the time. So thank you. I was looking— that's exactly what I was looking for.

Commissioner Krishna. Yeah, I want to zoom out and kind of ask that same question maybe in a different way. I think this is something we've been talking about for most of the evening. Uh, just looking at the AO directly, it's actually very clear. It doesn't say at least 50% shall be restricted from being short-term rentals.

It says 50%, right? So I, I guess I would ask for an opinion from Muni Legal um, or maybe some speculation about whether, um, any part of the HOA bylaws, um, or leasing restrictions that we will see before us at a future date, um, are open to being decided or amended by this body, or whether because the assembly has already passed clear restrictions which I think we can— maybe should assume were not meant to omit any provisions that they meant to include, and it would be therefore inappropriate for us to add provisions, if it actually is just an informational item and there will actually be no opportunity for this body to review or revisit any of those decisions. Because I— that is the reading I am coming to from looking at the specific AO, and if that is the case, then I think we should be really clear for those members of the public who are here tonight that the things we are talking about were actually decided in 2023. Ben Bowman, Assistant Municipal Attorney, through the chair to Member Radhika or Member Krishna. Sorry.

First of all, I'd like to clarify that the— in AO 2023-137, it is It is not 50% of all units. It is CY Investments, LLC will restrict the use of single-family and 50% of the multi-family properties. So it is all single-family and 50% of the multi-family will be restricted to prohibit short-term rentals, except for the rental of an ADU. So just to clarify, it's actually slightly broader than just 50%. And then I'm going to turn the floor over to my colleague, Quincy Arms.

Sorry. Quincy Arms to the chair. Also, independent of the development agreement, you as a commission have the right to review the homeowners association agreement and add conditions if it doesn't already comply with code. So it wouldn't— I mean, they wouldn't be conditions about who lives there. But if you find things that— I'm sorry, I'm grasping for some kind of example.

But that is what our code says is you can review it and you can make additions. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think so. I think what we would— my understanding of what we would be doing is reviewing the covenants and restrictions declarations to make sure they adhere to the narrative and the documents that we've been given. Correct.

Commissioner Gardner, are you still in the queue? No, that answered my question. Thanks. Chair Spinelli, if I might jump in as well. Go ahead.

There was a change to Title 21 recently that the assembly took action on that did not come before this body. It's on the list of things that we were going to bring up later on in the Title 21 discussion section. And that is the, the registration and permitting of short-term rentals in residential districts in all of Anchorage, including Girdwood. So short-term rentals are now an allowed use in all residential districts in Girdwood, and they are to be registered by a date certain later on this year. And that does provide another vehicle by which we, um, as the municipality or the citizens of Girdwood might be able to regulate short-term rentals in their community.

Thank you.

Um, petitioner still has 4 minutes and 23 seconds. Do you Okay, do you want— I don't want to, I don't want to forget about petitioner's time, and if you'd like to use it, you have it. Uh, I'm just here to answer any other questions the board may, uh, the commission may have. I would like to make one slight clarification from one of the comments that we heard. Um, in my opening remarks, I said, uh, help solve the housing problem in Girdwood.

We're not intending to be the the end-all be-all savior of the housing problem, but this is 39 lots towards the 303 units that, uh, that Daniel alluded to in his opening statement. So this is, I think, a small step in the right direction, and, uh, we're trying to, to find a solution that meets the topography and the site constraints that are so unique to Girdwood. And I, I think we found it, and that's what we brought forward, uh, in front of you today. So again, I'm here to answer any other questions you may have. Thank you.

Uh, we heard from Gerdwood about the dark skies, and then you said something about intermittent lighting. Do you think— is there anything this commission can do to help the developer meet the request of Gerdwood for the dark skies?

I think there's a specific condition on the plat that speaks to, to the lighting. Let me see.

That would be page 9 of the second package.

11D, provide street lighting in accordance with 2109.070G. I don't know if somebody from staff could look that up for me real quick. I believe it speaks specifically to giving the municipal engineer kind of ad hoc authority on what they want. Um, I mean, if you'd want to delete that, I don't know that Connie would agree— I would disagree with you. I, I think the, the development team agrees that we want to limit or eliminate lighting as much as possible.

We, we hear what Gerd was saying, but we're—. I, I guess providing the municipal engineer ad hoc authority could work in Gerdwood's favor or against. Do we have any sense from the municipality on whether the municipal engineer is planning to add more lighting or dark sky lighting?

Mr. Chair, we don't. We just have the comments that were provided. The Section G requires street lighting and trail lighting standards. Location, it says street lights shall be installed where required by the traffic engineer for vehicle and/or pedestrian visibility and safety.

It goes on to speak about intersections at collector streets, and it gives different heights and local street intersections, as Brandon had alluded to, and arterial streets and trails.

It does appear to have fixtures, street and trail lighting shall be full cutoff as defined by Illuminating Engineering Society of America.

We could ask. It does kind of explain, um, you know, full cutoff lights, and it has, you know, the, the, uh, traffic engineer kind of discretion for the location. It says street lighting on local residential streets shall be avoided if possible. Chair, I believe that the development team has been working with traffic and development services on that very issue. And they may have further information for the Commission.

Sure, go ahead. Uh, thank you. Through the Chair, um, our team has had this experience before in another subdivision up on the hillside, uh, and we were able to successfully negotiate and minimize the number of regular street lighting, uh, so that it didn't look like a lighted runway going up the mountain. Um, I do think that we all agree that at the main intersection, uh, where the multifamily, uh, sites are, that we should have some, uh, significant lighting. But we also believe in trail lighting, uh, and mark.

Along the trail as far as lighting is concerned. And another option for us— not to discuss the HOA to any great extent— we can require in the building of the homes that there is automatic lighting turned on at a certain level of darkness. If we can put that in there, that also is helpful. At certain times, especially in the winter. So there are some options, and we are very supportive of the dark skies.

Thank you. If I could add real, real quick—. Go ahead. Through the chair, I'd just like to reiterate a little bit that standard street lighting that illuminates sidewalks and pathways along roads generally does not comply with trail lighting. So when you think about trail lighting, you're thinking of low-level pedestals, you know, about body height and spaced very close together.

So the two are generally, I would say, not compatible together. You either have one or the other. And so I think what we've proposed, or Connie's mentioned, is, you know, one street light at the intersection would make sense to us. But if you're talking about trail lighting, that's, that's a pretty extensive lighting schedule. We've been through this with Private Development and Traffic before on previous projects, and typically what they've defaulted to is standard street lighting.

Lighting the road is more important than lighting the sidewalk per se, not doubling up on the lighting. What I heard was less light, lower light, which to me sounds like a deviation from municipal standards And so that's why I was asking if the conditions of approval support you in providing that. I, I think it— well, I'll tell you the quick history. We, we asked for intermittent lighting on the off-site improvements, and we were told no, you'll give us continuous lighting. And the justification was the immediate vicinity to the school and safety for the kiddos along the school route, which I can understand that.

We've made it very clear to Traffic and Private Development that we will be asking for at least the intermittent lighting requirement with this phase. However, the, the code requirement puts it all on the traffic engineer's judgment. And so if you wanted to add some additional language that says recommend dark skylighting to that condition, that would be very helpful because I think that would that would direct us towards less lighting than more lighting. We're in complete agreement with, with the community on this one. Whatever you could add for language would be helpful.

Perfect. I think that that's exactly what I was looking to hear.

Um, one other item I had here: oppose the variance for Private Road. What's— what's your, like It sounds like Gerdwood supports 50-foot right-of-way and steep roads and whatever other things, but they want it to be municipally owned. How do you— how does the petitioner feel about this idea?

I guess no input either way.

Okay, thank you.

And that's all my questions for the petitioner. Any other questions?

Hearing none, you do still have 3 minutes and 44 seconds if you had anything to do— say. No, I'm good. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input. And again, any other final questions, happy to answer those. Thank you.

Okay, we are getting ready to close the public hearing.

Uh, what is the will of the body?

I guess while we're waiting for a motion to be made, I'll ask Sean what this— for, for the heck of it, can you explain if there is a way at this point in time to change the tract, privately owned tract that was a road, to municipal right-of-way?

At its 50-foot width? Is that even possible for us to do tonight?

Uh, Mr. Spinelli, um, so the OSH&P calls for local roads to be 50 to 60 feet, so it would meet that. Um, It would have to meet, you know, the requirements are, as it stands, that it has to meet all municipal standards for design.

I don't see any comments from private development that they stated that they wouldn't accept it.

Just to double-check with Brandon, it meets all municipal standards as it is. I guess I'll just add that— like, I reiterate that the OSHPD calls for a local road to be 50 to 60, so it would meet the requirements.

That's really all. There's still the matter of the cul-de-sac length, but it could be a public street, publicly dedicated street right-of-way.

And let's just say, uh, one of these commissioners wanted to move in that direction, how would you recommend they actually do something like that? Okay, um, so it would be— it'd be denial of variance A.

So denying that all lots shall have frontage on a street and denial of all streets or right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public, therefore, would make it that they'd have— and then you'd have to add another condition under the plat, you know, where to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way for proposed Holton Hill Circle.

'Cause you're essentially then you're dedicating it as right-of-way.

Is that clear? Yeah, I believe so. It sounds complicated. Scary. Does the petitioner have comment on that?

I guess I'd just like to clarify if I'm allowed to speak right now. It would be good to hear from you. In the spirit of giving everybody what they wanted somehow, if possible—. I would say the petitioner would be fine with going with a public road. The 50-foot right-of-way and the geometry of the road all meet municipal code from a platting level perspective.

And the design requirements between a private road and a public road are the same. So there's the same municipal codes, 10 to 12% maximum road grades, those kind of things. So I think in this case, if it's a gotta have it, then that's fine, we can do a public road. I don't think there's any issue with that.

Is there— does the petitioner prefer private versus public, or was that merely a permitting function? I guess it would be good to know the petitioner's perspective as well.

One of the, one of the reasons for the private road is Because then the owners of those wide lots will pay for their snow removal and maintenance and care. And it's unfair for the smaller lots, the lots that are 50 and 60 and maybe even 70-foot wide, to have to bear the burden of that expense, uh, for the larger lots on a percentage basis. That's the motivation.

So when you say the small— smaller lots, you're talking about all of Girdwood, not just this project? No, I'm talking— I'm sorry, we have lots that are 50 feet wide. I think we even have a 45-foot-wide lot, and we don't have that one anymore. All right, and a 60-foot-wide lot. All right, but these lots up here, the large lots are going to— are much, much larger, wider.

And so the expense.

Of the snow is greater on these lots. That's why I thought that they should be segregated, because the smaller lots shouldn't have to pay the burden, because it's done— the cost is not done on the lineal foot of the lot, it's just 37 lots or 39 lots and the snow maintenance is divided amongst the lots.

Doesn't have anything to do with the width of the lots or the amount of the plow.

And okay, does that make—. Yes, thank you. I don't want to go any further in the weeds on this, but it's fine, whatever whatever you would like. But that—. If you asked for what the underlying motivation was, that was the underlying motivation.

Yeah, I'm just here to referee, guide. These guys make the motions. All right, all right. We have—. Mr.

Chair, I would like to add one thing. Um, so if you do— if you do that, you deny, uh, uh Department recommendation A, you would have that dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way for Holton Hills Circle, and then you would also have to remove a plat note. That would be 11— let's see, where's the plat notes?

That would be 13C, which reads, the municipality will not now and will not in the future accept ownership or the maintenance of or responsibility of snowplowing or roadway improvements in Tract 1B. Ownership maintenance and snow clearing shall remain the collective responsibility of the property owners, the homeowners association. So you'd have to remove that because we're essentially making that public right-of-way. So we're removing that plat note, dedicating it as 50 feet of right-of-way, and then the denial of the variances. Yeah, that's what we potentially— somebody here could do it if they want to do it.

Okay. All right, thank you. Uh, we have a motion on the table from Commissioner Krishna. Would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0005 to approve the conditional use for planned unit development, subject to conditions 1 through 3 as shown on page 11 of the staff report.

That's seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I will start us off, um, although I very much welcome additional discussion from other members of the Commission given the complexity of this case. Um, I will start off by saying that I believe that this application meets the requirements, um, the criteria for approval of conditional use and also the minimum standards for approval. Um, and I would like to emphasize that point given the long, um, history of this project and the level of public involvement.

Um, while we heard substantial testimony and feedback, um, I believe that we have mostly heard testimony that is in accordance with the findings, um, for staff, specifically in regards to the conditional use criteria. And the discussion about adverse environmental impacts, I do believe, will be addressed at a future phase of the project that more fully addresses the drainage impacts in study.

Just in terms of other comments, I will say that I have a great deal of sympathy for the Girdwood Board of Supervisors. Requests for owner occupancy. I think that I would have quite happily supported such an amendment if that was possible, but I feel that the guidance we've heard from municipal legal is that, that may not be within the purview of this commission, given that the assembly has already passed an ordinance, um, with restrictions, and it would not be appropriate for this commission to further weigh in given that the assembly is the deciding body in this case. Absent any conflicting feedback, I don't see that there's a pathway for this commission to really weigh in on any of those leasing restrictions. Or bylaws.

Um, I will say though that we have spent many, many years talking about short-term rental restrictions, and this is the first case where I have seen them put into effect. So I want to stop and acknowledge that that is a huge step forward, um, and I am glad to see that there is some discussion and mitigation of those impacts. So would like to point that out and would welcome any further comments. Thank you.

Commissioner Eber. Just want to say that I agree with almost all of what Radhika said. Um, if I could say it again, I would definitely agree. Um, I respect, um, the residents of Girderswood's lack of representation with the municipality. I myself am from a community that is outside inside, I would say Anchorage proper, so I know what it's like to not feel like you're represented.

So I'm just going to start with that. That being said, everyone is asking for housing. I mean, Eager River needs it, Anchorage needs it, Girdwood needs it. But— and this may not be perfect and it might not be what your community needs, but it's bringing something to the table. So that's not potentially what I would want.

I hope that the developer can adhere to whatever the future drainage reports say. I am— I really do struggle with that aspect of it, and I understand what Amanda was discussing and talking about, and I really hope that gets addressed. I also hope that the HOA will listen to the needs of the community and that it doesn't leave any sour— any more of a sour taste in their mouth. I really hope that they can work together on this. So those are my comments on it.

Um, that being said, with what Radhika said, we can't really change and alter it. So I just want, wanted my voice to be known.

Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. I intend to support this motion, I think, for the reasons that were said. I do want to make one clarification. I think I agree that, um, you know, we're not in a position to override what the Assembly has done, and in particular with respect to the restrictions that they've proposed that would be included as part of the HOA, but I don't think that means we don't have any, any role in our review of those provisions.

And so we do still have a role and an obligation to review those to make sure that whatever is proposed does align with the provisions and intent of the applicable provisions or requirements. And also, I just wanted to note that I had personally some specific personal concerns with the proposed occupancy requirements, and just not only with respect to enforceability, as the Planning Department had mentioned, but also kind of implications of what that actually might mean, and fairness concerns for how that would be applied. But, um, we heard testimony about, you know, the intent behind that and concerns about how within the last few years the, the, um, developments that have been put in place and how few of those have actually had, had people that live in Girdwood And I am at least hopeful, and to me it makes sense, that the short-term rental restrictions that would be in place might have at least some effect on that and increase the incentive to have someone who's actually living in those units. Those are my comments.

Commissioner Polis. Yeah, I also intend to support the motion, following with a lot of what the other commissioners said. You know, I agree 98% of the standards have been met. Pending the HOA agreements and the drainage resolutions and stuff like that. Based on, you know, some of the other conversations we have that, you know, we can't really figure out a way to control cost of housing, enforcement of homeownership, stuff like that.

We do acknowledge, you know, the local concerns for dark housing. The STRs have been addressed here for the first time ever, as Commissioner Krishna noted. You know, there are a mix of lots providing different housing opportunities in the plan. I think that's great. I agree with the findings prepared by staff.

Um, and also one little weird thing is a note that the stormwater comments are in here but addressed in the next packet we're reviewing. So no findings for those, they're in the next packet.

And with that, we will call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Okay, that motion passes.

Which brings us to S12867, which requires several motions, one for each variance.

Motion by Commissioner Polis. Would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case S12867 to approve a variance from AMC 2108-030L.1 Lot frontage and access. All lots shall have frontage on the street. And the variance from AMC 2108-040-A1, dedication of streets.

All streets right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public subject to condition 1 as shown on page 9 of the staff report. That's seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Polis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I intend to support the motion. Um, I have seen this work on other areas, and I do acknowledge the Girdwood Board of Supervisors wanting this to be a public street, but I can't really find a reason that that would totally benefit them in that it's the same kind of street either way, and they're taking on the snow cost maintenance.

So I also expect there might be a slight variance to this. If someone else has a comment—.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing none, Commissioner Gardner. I don't know that I had anything really specific to say. You know, I was, I, I was on the fence, um, about just the notion of, of whether, whether this made sense as a private street, um, or not, and taking kind of the route that had been proposed by Grueter Board of Supervisors. I think in general I'd be happy to take them up on their request since the petitioner didn't seem opposed to it. I don't, I don't see a downside to that.

And maybe as part of that, just a question for staff to confirm my understanding. So the proposed course, if that were to happen, would be to deny this request, and then separately we would need to make an amendment and Item D to remove the plat note and So Part 13(c), and then somewhere as well include an amendment to dedicate 50 feet of the right-of-way, um, for Holton Hills Circle. Is that correct? That is correct. And where would that dedication—.

Uh, that would be D-16. Will work. It can be a standalone dedication. Okay, thank you. Um, so I guess from that perspective, my vote would be to I probably intend not to support this motion with the assumption that we'd make those additional amendments further down the line.

I'll leave it to other commissioners as to whether they want to go that route or not. That's it. That's what would be a 50-foot radius.

Yeah, I'll just chime in that I'm more than happy to go along with Commissioner Gardner's proposed course, but I think we need to hear from all the commissioners on how you intend to vote so that we can make an informed decision. Mr. Chair, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, take a look also on page 9, D4. Tract 1B is to be owned and maintained by the homeowner association. That's the tract that the private road is in.

So you would need to delete that as well. So if Lori's taking notes, that would be how it would be written up. MD5 too, because that says it's a private access tract. So that would need to be—. Oh, boy.

So you'd have to reword 5. See, it says designate tract 1B as a private access tract comprised of— you would just need to say— that's maybe where you could say— let's see. Let's take a look at this here. Designate tract 1B as a private access tract comprised of a 50-foot-wide corridor for Holton Hills Circle and a 50-foot radius for the cul-de-sac bulb.

I believe you just delete that one. And I'll give a point of information. Perhaps the Commission could vote on the Department recommendation A for the variance, and then we can talk you through what would need to be changed in the Department recommendation D to— if, say, you deny the variance, what would need to be changed? Because each— yeah, each of these—. Yes, maybe make your decision A, if you're going to approve or deny the variance, and then we'll figure out if, uh, Section D would need to be changed if you deny the variance.

That seems to be the cleanest way to do it as a point of information. Thank you.

Okay, anybody else wishing to speak to this motion?

Um, call the vote.

That motion fails.

So we are going to pull up a new motion.

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? Sure. I move in case S12867 to approve a variance from AMC 2108030F.6.A, cul-de-sacs to exceed 600 feet in length, for cul-de-sac measuring approximately 670 feet from the centerline of Holton Hills Road to the center of the cul-de-sac bulb in Holton Hills Circle, subject to condition 1 as shown on page 9 of the staff report. That's seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion?

Just briefly, I think, I don't think we heard any opposition to this particular item and the reasons for the variance set forth in the staff packet I agree with.

Anybody else? Commissioner Polis. Yeah, I intend to support the motion. I pretty much agree with staff and the packet that, you know, it would be hard to complete this road based on topo. And having seen this in other places, I know how squeezing these roads a little bit helps you fit these, you know, basement homes into the side of a mountain and stuff like that.

So I intend to support the motion.

Call for the vote.

A motion passes.

We have a motion before us for the phasing plan subject to Condition 1, as shown on page 9 of the staff report.

Pretty non-controversial item. Haven't heard much about it. Shopping for a motion maker.

Commissioner Gardner, thank you for the motion. Would you like to state your motion? You're welcome. I move in case S12867 to approve the phasing plan subject to Condition 1 as shown on page 9 of the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Eber.

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion? Just, I— for this one as well, I don't think we heard any specific concerns with this element of the, um, application, and I didn't have any concerns with the staff's packet in this regard.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

Mr. Chair, on D, would you guys like, uh, kind of a, a list? That would be excellent. Okay, before we go ahead and make a wrong motion, it'd be great to get some advice on the right motion if that's the route you want. Okay, so that would be, uh, uh Removing D4, D5, 13C, and then it would be adding 16, which would read— Lori, it would read, dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way for a proposed— for proposed Holton Hills Circle.

And that'll get the intent across, because if you read in there, there's some addressing wants the road names to be changed. But if we say Holton Hill Circle as proposed, it's on the plat and we all know what that is. Do we need to include any information about the plat? No.

No.

I have a question. I don't know if it's the right way to do this. Um, 11D, are we going to do something about that one? The lighting?

The— that would be up to the body. And but before we— Lori's going to put a motion up proposed that does not address the lighting. Before we A motion's made.

I would consider the idea of addressing 11D, and maybe we should ask staff how we would best address 11D, assuming we wanted to address 11D, and provide feedback on the dark Sky standards. Wouldn't 11D be another motion? Like, we do this one and then 11D will be another one? I guess that was my question for staff. Okay, Chair Spinelli, I would recommend a separate motion for that.

Perfect.

Are you— are you still in the queue, or you're good? Okay.

Hey, everybody, staff included, please review the proposed motion to make sure it looks right.

Okay, we have a new motion on the table that amends the conditions. We're keeping 1 through 3, we're deleting 4 and 5, keeping 6 through 9, 10A and B, 11A through C and E, 12A through C, 13A, B, 14A, 1 and 2, and 15. To delete condition D4 and D5 and 13C and add condition 16 to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way proposed Holton Hill Circle and to provide street lighting in accordance with 2109.070G with consideration for dark sky friendly lighting strategy as condition 11D.

That's moved by Commissioner Krishna. I just wanted to state it for everyone to hear and speak out about. Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to the motion? I intend to support this motion, as I believe the commission has already discussed why these conditions are And amendments are important.

Anybody else wishing to speak? Commissioner Gardner. I'll just note as well, I think, um, the amendments, um, address most of, I would say, the specific requests, um, that the Gerdwood Board of Supervisors presented earlier today. But one that isn't addressed by these was a request to have the Adirondack Trail realignment paid for by the developer, and I'll just note that we heard from the developer state that they had agreed to cover that cost.

I also intend to support the motion. Thank you, everybody, for your patience, and we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

All right, that concludes cases 2026-0005 and S12867. Next item on the agenda, Title 21 discussion, and The Planning Department's 2026 work plan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can go through this pretty quickly. We can always talk about it next week if you'd like. Um, there have been requests for us to talk about our work plan, so we put something together.

And every draft, every version of this is going to be a draft basically because it's always changing, but this is just a brief overview of what we're what we are looking at and what we are expecting for the next year. So you all have a full copy, but I'm just going to show the next 3 or 4 months. In January, we have more abbreviated rezones. Looks like we can take the Holt-Nielsen plot out. We've got a number of rezones with a concurrent comp plan amendment.

One second, Daniel. Can we please refrain from the conversations? Push those to the lobby, please. Thank you. Go ahead, Dan.

Yeah, thank you. Since the time that we even put this work plan together, things have changed a little bit. We could probably report on this monthly if you'd like. This is really just to give you an overview. There are going to be a lot of cases in January, a lot of cases in February.

Some of the big picture items we're looking at are food and agricultural AO coming next month— or next week, sorry. Some changes to R-6 coming next month. Omnibus 1, so that is published. Design Criteria Manual, not the exciting chapters in my opinion. It's chapters 3, 7, and 8.

It's like landscaping and lighting and some other things. Streets are going to come later. And then this— the Anchorage School District is an item that's coming before you in February now. We have to change that. And you're going to be hearing from DOT on their decision about what to do or what not to do with the Seward Highway.

And then in March, some more pre-empted rating zones, looking at sunsetting UDC, looking at long-term changes to child care uses potentially. Shop House Ordinance. There was an Assembly Ordinance on conditional uses on B-3, like, last July. That's coming back. Um, we had some big picture land use plan changes coming along Tudor, Muldoon, DeBarr to make it easier for some of our institutions to, to fulfill their long-term plans.

Midtown Plan will eventually be coming back, hopefully. Um, and then some other Huffman Business Park land use plan amendments and for legacy rezones. So legacy rezones are stuff like D-2, B-4, TR that have been in on the books for a long time but we need to get rid of. Big picture, probably a lot of reasons, implement the comp plan, changes the future land use map, 10-year targeted plan update, district plans as advisory, um, and updating the OSHP and wetlands management plans. So we can talk more about this next week.

I'm glad to answer any questions. Current planning's here as well, but just a quick overview of what we see on the horizon for now.

Maybe the only thing that I'll mention is that I see DCM for next month, and I will note that they have not attended the Downtown Community Council meeting yet, nor have they convened the working group. So just flagging for you that I likely will want to ask for a little bit more time in public process if February is the date that it comes before us. These are big changes to our streetscapes, and I'd like to make sure that there's some process. Thank you. I'll make sure they watch this part of the meeting.

I was wondering what R-6 hay and grocery stores, it means.

So next week you'll see an AO that's related to food production uses. And that kind of became a lot of different things, allowing, you know, more farmsteads, allowing more food production as an accessory use, food and beverage production. And then there were some other— recently there was a case at one of the boards about hay feed and sales in the R-6 zone, and it got a little bit contentious. And so it was looking at big picture, how do we make it easier for people to produce food or produce— help, you know, animals produce food or animals that we eat for food. So Those initially were two pieces together, but because that deals with a lot of R-6, Member Johnson is going to take some time to talk a little bit more with the, the communities down in District 6 and maybe look at, you know, allowing maybe some more grocery stores unlimited to a limited capacity along some of the bigger roads down in South Anchorage and that sort of thing.

So that's coming and still under development. But we might talk about it next week with the food production. Food production AO is a lot of stuff, and that was originally in it. So, all right, any, any other questions or comments on the work plan? Hearing— up.

Thank you. I think this might be the first time ever that we've received a work plan from the department, certainly in any of current commissioners' memory, for the first meeting of the year. So I really want to give a huge shout out to department leadership and staff for bringing this forward and allowing us to provide input in this way. Thanks for the work you do in making it happen.

Mute? Somebody calling?

Okay. Any Commissioner comments? Chair Spinelli, if I might jump in just really quick. Yep. Go ahead.

I am wondering if Long Range would be one willing to give just a very brief summary of the short-term rentals AO that passed the assembly that I mentioned earlier. We did say that we would bring those items to the commission when they happened.

Yes, um, I will bring that up. This was an item that came up. It went— it didn't go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I will just bring up quickly here our Title 21 updates page. Sorry, Lori, I'm going back to this one.

Um, so this is our Title 21 updates page. We do keep this updated as frequently as we can. If you ever have any doubts, this is the last time it was updated, so it was 12/26. But, um, AO 2025-115-S2 was adopted at the December 16th, 2025 assembly meeting. Not only does it, uh, require registration of short-term rentals, It also creates a new category of short-term rental, which is huge.

It's a— it's— so now that use can be regulated. So if somebody has an issue in Girdwood or anywhere else, for example, they can put in use-specific standards or change where the zones are— it's allowed. Um, and it removed the bed and breakfast use type. So this is actually, I think, pretty significant because it's just saying these things were always kind of similar and now we can sort of regulate them the same way. So I'd encourage you to check that out.

2025 S-12. This link doesn't work right now. I'm gonna fix that. Um, But that passed recently. Before then, let's see, they passed the MAS standards.

But we will keep updating this as we see more cases and more AOs get passed. And that AO will go into effect on May 1st, and there will be a, I think, 90-day time period where people will have a chance to get registered for their short-term rental.

Commissioner Eber. I had a question regarding that. I've had some people ask me already, what happens if you do not register? I don't think I've seen any news or seen anybody discuss what happens if you don't register, so I haven't had anything to answer back to them.

Do you go on the naughty list? I don't know, I'm pulling up the press release from the mayor's office. I don't know if it says, um, I'll, I'll— how about this? I'll read closely and give a report in a week's time at next, the next meeting.

Well, you know what you should also look up for next meeting? How we pay for street maintenance of roads based on lot width or size, because I'm, I, I, I was having struggling with some of the comments we heard tonight about larger lots not paying their fair share of street maintenance costs. Don't you let them pay their land taxes and then you let them pay for the snow on the side also? I think it would— no, I think it would be interesting to hear from Property Appraisal if bigger lots pay less for street maintenance than smaller ones. I think we might have heard some misinformation from the, from the crowd tonight.

All right, anything else? Any commissioner comments? Entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion by Commissioner Eber, seconded by Commissioner Krishna. We—. Any discussion? Any opposed? We're adjourned.