Mat-Su Borough: Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 2026

Call to order, um, roll call and determination of quorum. I hereby call the August 17th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Madam Clerk, will you please do a roll call?

Commissioner Carpenter?

What? Commissioner Carpenter? Oh, present. Commissioner McCabe? Here.

Commissioner Scoggan? Here. Commissioner Fonoff? Here. Commissioners Allen and Commissioner Glenn let me know they would not be able to make it today, and we have a quorum.

No, I'm here. I mean, this is Commissioner Allen. I'm here. Sorry, Rick.

Commissioner Allen is here. We have a quorum.

Are there any additions or changes to the agenda?

Nope. Any objections to approving the agenda as written?

Seeing and hearing none, the agenda is approved.

Would, uh, Commissioner McCabe, would you lead us in the Pledge?

To the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Regular meeting minutes, August 3rd, 2026.

Yeah.

Just that. That's right. I didn't know if there was more.

Introduction for public hearing quasi-judicial matters. There are none. Introduction for public hearing legislative matters. None. Are there any objections to approving the consent agenda as written?

Hearing and seeing none, the consent agenda is approved.

Committee reports? None. Agency staff reports? None.

Land use classifications? None.

If there is anyone on the phone who would like to speak about anything that is not on the agenda for tonight, please press star 3. Is there anyone on the phone that would like to speak? No. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak?

Seeing and hearing that there are no other persons to be heard, is there any objection to closing audience participation?

Audience participation is closed. Resolution Okay, public hearing, quasi-judicial matters. Resolution 26-12, a resolution of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission approving a conditional use permit for the operation of a marijuana retail facility located at 9701 East Palmer-Wassula Highway. Applicant: Little Flare LLC. Property owner: 900 Tower Holdings, LLC.

Staff Wade Long.

Mr. Long, in order to ensure a fair process on Planning Commission decisions, the following shall be read by— I guess I don't have to read that part. Do you or any member of the immediate family, or am I doing this correctly? Sounds off. Have a substantial financial interest in property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision? Do any of us up here have— we will see Commissioner Allen.

Yeah, I don't have a conflict. Thank you.

Uh, received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the app— applicant, appellant, or other interested parties or members of the public concerning the application either before, during, or after this matter was submitted for decision?

Commissioner Allen?

No, sir.

Are you— are we able to be impartial in this decision?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. So, okay, Mr. Long, please provide your staff report.

Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. My name is Wade Long, Development Services Manager, and I'm presenting the Planning Commission Resolution 2612 regarding a conditional use permit application for a marijuana retail retail facility. The conditional use permit application has been submitted by Jana Welton on behalf of Olivia Willis Little Flare LLC for the operation of a marijuana retail facility at 9701 East Palm Rosilla Highway. The proposed operation will occupy a newly constructed commercial building approximately 1,632 square feet in size.

Uh, Matsuburo, um, MSB 1760 requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a marijuana retail facility.

Uh, staff took the following actions to meet the public notification requirements. On June 16th, 2026, notices were mailed to all property owners within 600-foot radius of the Gateway and the Gateway Community Council. A total of 13 notices were mailed. Notice of the application was published on June 17th, 2026. Edition of the Anchorage Daily News, and application materials were posted to the borough website for public review on June 16th, 2026.

A request for comment was emailed to the Gateway Community Council on June 18th, 2026. The staff received no comments from the public or the community council regarding the application.

Staff has received no public comments, uh, on the application at all. State of Alaska DOT reviewed the proposal and expressed no objection to the operation. And the applicant is continuing to work with State of Alaska DOT to obtain a driveway permit for proposed access. Staff has included a condition requiring submission of approved driveway permit prior to operation of the facility. In conclusion, staff found that the proposed marijuana retail facility meets the applicable standards of MSB 1760-100.

MSB 1760-150 and MSB 1760-170. Staff respectfully recommends approval of the conditional use permit to operate a marijuana retail facility at 9701 East Palmer-Wassilla Highway with conditions.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Long?

To the applicant, please state your name, spell your last name, and give a report to the commissioners if you have one. Uh, thank you. Jana Waltzing, attorney for Little Flair, and this is Olivia Willis. I'm sorry I came in late. There was an accident on the way here and I was like, uh, We're going to be late.

Olivia has many, many years of experience in this industry. She's probably one of the people that has the most experience, starting back in 2015, going forward, operating and managing several marijuana retail stores. In fact, when I have questions about Metrc, which is the seed-to-sale tracking system, I go to Olivia because she really knows the ins and outs of it. And basically every store that she has managed, I don't think there's been any that have had NOVs, which are notices of violations. Issues, accusations, anything like that negative about how the store is run and how the marijuana tracking system has been working.

So this is, this is basically just going to be a small, roughly 1,600 square feet retail store in the Matsu Valley. She's already operating, managing one retail in the valley and then another one in Anchorage. So this one, she's actually going to be the owner, so it's very exciting. Um, and Olivia, did you have anything to add? Uh, and we just wanted to thank the staff for such a thorough report.

Um, we're sad to see Mark go, but we're excited for the new planners that are coming up. We're here for any questions. Thank you.

At this time, we'll— Commissioners, do you have any questions for the Okay, at this time we will proceed with, uh, opening public hearing. Is there anyone on the phone who would like to speak? Please press star 3.

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak?

Seeing and hearing no other persons to speak, is there any objection to closing the public hearing?

Seeing and hearing none, I now close the public hearing.

The applicant like to respond? Uh, no comments.

Public hearing legislative matters.

At this time, I will entertain a motion for Resolution 26-12. Commissioner McCabe, I'll make a motion that we move 26-12. Commissioner Fonov, I'll second that. The motion is seconded by Commissioner Fonov. Is there any discussion?

Is there any objection to approving Resolution 26-12 as written?

Seeing and hearing none, Resolution 26-12 has been Passed. Approved. Thank you.

Mr. Strawn, please provide your staff report. Oh, public hearing legislative matters resolution 26-17, a resolution of the Madanaska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission recommending approval of the borough's priority transportation projects for inclusion in the MVP 2027-2030 Transportation Improvement Program. Staff Alex Strawn, Planning and Land Use Director. Mr. Strawn, please provide your staff report. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So this goes back to 2020 when the United States Census did what they do every 10 years, and, um, the a portion of the borough and the core of the borough met a certain density and population threshold that we became an urbanized area, and that kicked off a lot of different things. One of which was the mandate to do transportation planning differently within that area. And as a result, we— the borough helped to form an organization called the Matsu Valley Planning for Transportation, which is the metropolitan planning organization. The executive director is in the crowd, so she'll be able to answer questions if you have questions about that.

But it was formed a year ago or something like that. 2024. Okay. And, uh, Kim and her staff have been working at breakneck pace to get a lot of different things in place, a lot of different federal requirements in place. And we have a technical committee and a policy board.

The policy board consists of the Matsu Burro manager, Matsu Burro mayor, has a representative from— it's the mayor of the city of Wasilla. We have a mayor of the city of Palmer. We have the DOT commissioner's office and one representative from each tribe. And, and that's the policy board makeup. And the technical committee is a lot of the same organizations, but it's a little more broad.

It has the railroad, it has a little bit more broad membership.

So one of the— sort of all of this work is leading to one thing, which is the Transportation Improvement Program, which is a list of, of short-term projects that will receive funding over the next It's, it's, it's a 4-year list is what it is. Um, and so leading up and at the same time is the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. And so the technical committee adopted a metro draft list associated with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which is a short-term list, which is 4 years, medium-term list, which is 10 years. Long-term, which is also 10, and then an illustrative list, which is a list of projects that we think are important, but not necessarily within the fiscally constrained list. Uh, so, uh, the, the way this worked out is there was a, um, there was nominations, uh, which had, uh, uh, from the various organizations.

The Matsuburo nominated a lot of projects that were pulled from different plans that have been adopted throughout the years.

And then there was a scoring criteria created, and, and the projects were scored, and the, the committee recommended a list to the policy board for short-term, medium-term, and long-term and illustrative, and that went to the policy board and was adopted. And ultimately, the short-term list is the list that will turn into what's called the TIP, the Transportation Improvement Program. Well, So, that, that list was adopted, and as we started developing the, the, the transportation improvement program, uh, the, uh, I guess, borough staff between the borough manager, um, public works director, myself, we took a look at that list and thought that yes, uh, we, we have a list that was created by the scoring criteria, but we do recommend some changes to that list based on several different things that I can go into. It's, it's the rationale for changes to that list is within a memorandum that is in your packet. Hopefully you've read that thing.

But if you haven't, I can go over, uh, the rationale for why we're recommending a change. Um, but I guess I'll start by saying this, this resolution that is before you tonight, which is at the end of the packet here, recommends 11 projects. It's the Seldon Church intersection improvements. Nelson Road extension, Mokatons Elementary path and crossing improvements, Seldon Road pavement preservation from the seal to Church Road, Carmel Road reconstruction, Seward Meridian Parkway pavement preservation from the Parks Highway to Palmer Lasalle Highway, Covington Street upgrade and extension. And then there's some planning studies.

There's an ADA assessment, a user conflict study, local road speed management plan. And then school zone signage standardization. And so, this does differ than the list, and I just want to be upfront about this. This differs from the list that was forwarded by the, the technical committee and adopted by the policy board in that we recommended— in fact, at the last technical committee meeting, which I am the chair of, I made a motion to change the list, and the changed list is what is reflected in your resolution tonight, and the changes would be to remove, um, KGB Elementary pathway and crossing improvements and Finger Lake Elementary path improvements and Foothills Boulevard reconstruction, and replace those with Seldon Road pavement preservation Lucille Road to Church Road, Carmel Road reconstruction, and then Covington Street upgrade and extension. And I have a memo in the packet that explains why we're recommending that and why, why we made that motion.

And essentially, I'll just give you the footnotes here. It was recommended that Foothills be replaced with Carmel Road reconstruction. They're, they're similar Um, the roads are actually not too far in geography from each other, and they're actually somewhat similar as far as the geometry of the road and what shape the roads are in. Big difference is Carmel Road just recently had a very large 186-lot subdivision that was approved. It's a substandard road that has been accepted for borough maintenance, and so we thought it would be wise to replace that, uh, one for one.

And then, um, the, the removal of, uh, Finger Lake Elementary and KGB Elementary pathways. Well, I think these are great projects, and, and I, I think they are super important. Uh, the number of pathway projects, it, it totaled like $24 million in the short-term list, and, and borough staff thought that was sort of not proportionate to how much road to pathway cost or expenditure should be in that list. Also, these are— these are— these projects are kind of like 3-in-1 projects. There are crossings and pathways and some different connections and things like that.

We thought that these could be broken up into smaller projects that could be more palatable. Potentially some portions of this could actually be covered by the RSA Road Improvement Program list. And so, uh, that was our recommendation, was to replace those, and that is reflected in the resolution that is before you tonight. The policy board will take up this list and the motion that the the technical committee adopted on Wednesday, and then September 1st, the assembly will have a public hearing on this matter. Uh, the draft resolution and the informational memorandum that will go to the assembly, or that has gone to the assembly and will be taken up September 1st, is also within the packet.

So, that being said, my recommendation is that 26-17 be adopted. But if you wanted to make changes, I'm happy to accommodate those changes as well.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Strawn?

I have a quick one, Alex. You mentioned the— I'm sorry, um, Church and Seldon intersections. That— what—. That— that church is being redone, that's state, and then Seldon is, is borough. That's a really— I use that intersection a lot.

A lot of people, it's a really bad one. Is that— where's that one fall? Because the state job doesn't improve it. Actually, I was surprised. What's going on?

Do you—. Yeah, you mentioned that intersection earlier, so that's why I asked the question. Yeah, so that intersection improvement project has made it to the list, which means that if the assembly approves the list with this in there, It will very likely be adopted by the policy board as being on the Transportation Improvement Program, which means it will receive federal funding. And, and so the borough will be required to do a 9.03% match, and the federal government will pick up the 91% of that project. So it would be a federal project, so these things will take more time because the state of Alaska will have to jump through all those hoops, but that should be funded and done.

It would be a ways down the road then. You talk about hoops, you're talking about years, actually, right? Yeah, I, I mean, this is a 4-year list, but I think it's safe to say that any of these projects that get approved will take time to get up and running because of all the federal hoops that they have to go through.

Commissioner McCabe, I have a question. Um, you mentioned, what was it, $23 million or $26 million is what the pathways were. What is— what percentage of the overall budget was that? I refresh my memory. Yeah, so that's a, that's a great question.

Um, and I have not added up all of the, all of the 11 projects on the, on the short-term list. That's— well, let's see here. Actually, we have— that is in the packet.

So I think the short-term list totals— See here.

We don't have the totals in here for the short-term list, unfortunately. Uh, Kim might be able to answer that. Okay.

Oh, she's—. Yeah, well, she— are there more questions while she looks that up? Just a comment.

Um, I agreed with the logic that was applied to changing the 3 out and adding the 3 in because I see road transportation with vehicles as moving more people than foot traffic does. And it affects our— what do you call it— the movement of business and commerce. Yes, there's the word. And all the people in the neighborhoods that have to drive over those roads put wear and tear on their vehicles. And we don't get much money in the valley for infrastructure, and we are sorely hurting for some really serious fixes to a lot of issues.

So, um, I appreciate that those were switched out. Thank you. Yeah, and I will say that this, this does not come lightly. I think it is important that children be able to walk to school. I think it's an American pastime, and they should be able to do it safely.

And I think these are, these are issues that we need to tackle over time. We do need to make our schools safe. And not that it matters to this list right here, but I did, um, when I made my motion, I did, uh, add to the motion to switch some things around to keep those projects on the, at least the fiscally constrained list, so that over the next few years, if we wanted to take those projects on and modify the TIP or, or whatever it may be, that those could go in there. I do I think they need to be looked at a little bit closer and broken up into smaller projects though. Right, just a follow-up comment.

I didn't mean to imply that I, I don't favor safety for children walking, but they're both important. Yes, they are.

Commissioner Carpenter, I would say that keeping our roads safe and maintained actually aids in to getting to school safely, whether you're walking next to or driving on. I think they both go hand in hand. You can't necessarily really separate them, but when you're looking at it like this, I think it's a smart move. My own opinion.

At this time, we will proceed with opening the public hearing. If there is anyone on the phone who would like to speak, please press. If we could, so she—. Yeah, she's next, right? Commission that she had.

So we had her questions and then is there anyone in the audience? Or do I just ask her to come up? Yeah, it's up to the Planning Commission whether you want to allow under—. She was going to answer the question of the total per year amount. Commissioner McCabe, I would appreciate an answer to my question.

Okay, I didn't mean to skip. I thought that she was like— it was like she's coming up anyway. That's what I was— sorry.

Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Kim Soley, and I'm the executive director of Matsue Valley Planning for Transportation, and I can answer your question.

I can answer that question most of the way. So the approved short-term project list total for Matsuburo projects before the changes were made were $54 million in federal funds and about $5 million in borough funds for the match. Now, when the borough made the adjustments, they added 2 projects that were over $10 million. So I think one's $12 and one's $14, and so that changes the mix a little bit more. But you can roughly say, you know, what, $70 million worth of federal funds and what, $7 million in borough funds going towards projects.

Does that answer your question? Yeah, so it's basically 10 cents on the dollar, so it's a really good deal to be able to utilize the federal funds to move some of these transportation projects forward. And I'm happy to answer any other questions if you have that. Did that get your question? Like, because you wanted to know like the percentage, right?

24 Of 54, was it? So about $70 million worth of like federal funds and about $7 million worth of non-federal share for—. From the borough. Um, thank you for that. The question was what percentage of the budget was the footpath or foot, um, projects in the original proposed list.

So the, the, there were 3 pedestrian pathway projects in our short-term list. Makaton's elementary pathway and crossing improvements was about $8 million. Um, the KGB was $7 million, the KGB elementary school crossing and pathway, and then the Finger Lakes was Um, about $7 million as well. These are planning level estimates, and so the number will go up. The projects that were replaced were a higher dollar value, um, and, uh, can only use certain funding.

So we have 3 pots of funding. We have special funding that goes to pedestrian pathways and projects that reduce carbon emissions, and so that does also change. The factor of federal funds that we receive in the share because the projects that were replaced can't use the pedestrian funds. So it changes the math, but I guess it doesn't matter for you. It's still a 9% share to the federal dollars.

You want to mention the improvement program projects too, because it's not just these projects, it's 7 or 8 other projects that are also really important. That's why I was going to go straight to Anyone in the audience who wants to talk? Yeah, so if I could, if I could address what this is, something that I don't know why it keeps escaping me, but also with that list of 11 projects, there's a further resolved in your resolution that talks about recommends inclusion of the gravel and asphalt surface maintenance and preservation activities identified in the attached MVP improvement program. And that is directly after this will be attached to your resolution. This is a list of pavement preservation projects, essentially, that are like mill and pave kinds of projects that will help just keep our pavement in good shape, our roadways, so that they don't further degrade.

So, It looks like this, and it's on the very end of your packet. It looks just like that. That's the one. Yep. Yeah, so that is also part of this resolution.

So, thank you.

Commissioner Fonov here. I had a quick question. I was wondering how many pedestrian Pathways remain on the updated list. Yeah, so the updated list has 1 pedestrian pathway project. That's like an $8 million project, and it is for, uh, Moketons.

It is a project the borough has been trying to get done for a long time, and it's sorely needed.

So I'm noticing, and I remember the conversation when we got the, um, is it the MPO, that this would be the parameters of the MPO are include— excuse me, include Wasilla and Palmer. So I see that part of the money in here goes to them and Those funds will have to be voted on by the city assemblies or city council. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, commissioners?

At this time, we'll proceed with opening the public hearing. If there is anyone on the phone who would like to speak, please press star 3.

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak?

Seeing and hearing no other persons to speak, are there any objections to closing the public hearing?

Seeing and hearing none, I now close the public hearing. At this time, I will entertain a motion for Resolution 2617. Commissioner McCabe, I'll move 2617. Mr. Fonov, I'll second that. The motion is seconded by Commissioner Fonov.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing and hearing no objections, Resolution 2617 Oh, is there any objections? Are there any objections to approving Resolution 26-17 as written?

Mr. Allen? No objections.

Seeing and hearing no objections, Resolution 26-17 has been approved.

Correspondence and information, none. Unfinished business, none. New business, none. Commission business. Commissioners, do you have any questions regarding the future agenda items provided in your folders?

Director and Commissioner comments. Um, Commissioner McCabe, anything to say? Um, just thanks for conducting the meeting, and, um, everyone don't forget to go vote tomorrow. Commissioner Scoggins? No comment.

Commissioner Farnoff? No comment.

Mr. Strawn? Mr. Allen, do you have any comments?

Just want to thank Commissioner Carpenter for filling in for me today. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. Strong. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I just do want to say that we have been running with one current planner for a while, and which is why you see the development services manager stepping up to the plate and taking on some cases himself. Which is great.

Uh, it's good experience for him, but it has been— we've been stretched pretty thin on the processing conditional use permits. We did just do interviews for 2 current— 2 more current planners. And so we expect some new blood to be coming, processing and presenting to you guys these larger permits. Um, but it does look like we might have a lull here. We have no introductions tonight.

And so we might have— we might get some Mondays off. So we have that to look forward to.

Cool. Thank you, everybody, for your patience with me trying to fill the footprints of Commissioner Allen. They're large, they're big. So I appreciate your patience and your help. It's very kind.

And I will call this meeting adjourned.