29

Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation
Page 2: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint meeting 2.27.20 

Gray Mesick – MJ3 Development LLC 

LUC 1909‐05: Variance from Collector Street Standards 

http://www.muni.org/CityViewPortal/Planning/Status?planningId=17066 

 

Anchorage Municipal Code 21.09.070F: https://library.municode.com/ak/anchorage/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT21LAUSPLNECOFFJA12014_CH21.09GINECOFFJA12014_21.09.070SIDEDEST

 

Official Streets and Highways Plan: 

http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/Publications/Documents/OSHP%20Complete%20D

ocument1.26.15.pdf 

GBOS Rules and Procedures: 

http://www.muni.org/Departments/operations/streets/Service/GBOS/GBOS%202018/GBOS%20RULES

%20AND%20PROCEDURES%202018%20update%20final.doc 

 

LUC Operating Principles: 

http://www.muni.org/Departments/operations/streets/Service/Land%20Use%20Committee/LUC%20O

perating%20Principles%20rev%202019.doc 

DOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts: 

 http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/transdata/traffic_AADT_map.shtml 

 

 

Page 3: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

Anchorage Municipal Code 21.09.070F: https://library.municode.com/ak/anchorage/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT21LAUSPLNECOFFJA12014_CH21.09GINECOFFJA12014_21.09.070SIDEDEST F. Transportation and connectivity.

1.Street types. The three street types are arterial, collector, and local, as set forth in the Official Streets and Highways Plan. 2.Municipal street standards. All collector and local streets shall meet the standards and requirements set forth in the Design Criteria Manual, except as specifically provided otherwise in this chapter, to preserve and enhance the unique character and aspirations of Girdwood.

3.Collector streets—General. Except as provided in subsection 4. below, a collector street has the following attributes:

a. The street shall be paved over an engineered base; and b. Paved shoulders shall be provided; and c. Swales or drainage ditches on each side of the street shall be provided to accommodate surface drainage and snow storage; and d. Swales and drainage ditches shall be planted with natural grasses and/or hardy perennials; and e. A paved pedestrian path/bikeway shall be provided on at least one side of the street and detached if possible; and f. Buffers of native vegetation shall be retained on both sides of the street; and g. On-street parking shall be prohibited, except where allowed in subsection 4., below; and h. Driveways, subject to subsection 21.09.070N., are permitted as follows: Swale and drainage ditch crossings shall use culverts. i. The dimensions of the collector street cross-section shall be as illustrated below:

Page 4: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

4. Townsite commercial area streets. Streets in commercial townsite areas shall differ in design from the general street standards in order to support the main street commercial and mixed-use environments intended for the old and new townsite areas. Townsite streets have the following attributes:

a. The street shall be paved over an engineered base; and b. Curb and gutter shall be provided where practicable; and c. The street shall be designed to accommodate on-street parking to the maximum extent feasible; and d. A paved sidewalk seven feet or greater in width shall be provided on both sides of the street, and may be back-of-curb; and e. Individual driveways for each individual lot are discouraged, in order to limit the number of curb cuts, minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, increase the continuity of main street pedestrian networks, and maximize the number of on-street parking spaces.

5. Local residential streets. A local residential street has the following attributes:

a. The street shall be paved, or shall be a non-dust-generating non-porous material, such as RAP or chip-seal, over an engineered base; and b. Swales or drainage ditches on each side of the street shall be provided to accommodate surface drainage and snow storage; and c. Swales and drainage ditches shall be planted with natural grasses and/or hardy perennials; and d. A pedestrian path/bikeway of at least five feet in width and either paved, or treated with a non-dust-generating material, shall be provided on at least one side of the street and detached if possible; and e. Driveways, subject to subsection 21.09.070 N., are permitted. f. The dimensions of the local street cross-section shall be as illustrated below:

Local Residential Street Dimensions

6. Neighborhood connectivity and distribution of traffic. a. Purpose. The purpose of the standards is provide a well-connected street grid. The design requirements do not mandate a rectilinear or uniform grid; the requirements shall, however, result in a network distributing traffic evenly and equitably, and ensuring good access for emergency services equipment. Such a street network reduces the daily miles of vehicular travel in the valley by providing direct, non-circuitous routes for drivers and by encouraging walking and bicycling.

Page 5: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

b. Connectivity standards. i. Within contiguous residential and commercial developments, no local street may be developed longer than 450 feet, unless

the street is connected to another street at each end. ii. Within contiguous residential and commercial developments, local streets shall have at least nine intersections per mile.

 

Page 6: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

Gunnysack Mine Road Variance 

 

My input to the board and LUC is to follow the LUC recommendation for a “letter of objection” to the 

variance for the road upgrade on Gunnysack. My reason is that the developer should provide some 

improvements to the road. It doesn’t make sense to upgrade the road to collector status, but we should 

require the developer to work with the community on improvements to the road/roads around the 

development. It has been said that the reason I’m in favor of the letter of objection is because I want to 

kill the project. This is not true. I feel multi‐ family development done correctly is an important way to 

help with our housing shortage. If the developer wants to put more than 5 units on the parcel, the 

details of the multi‐family development will be worked out during the conditional use phase of this 

project. The variance we are discussing now just has to do with the upgrade of the road and whether the 

developer needs to make any improvements to the road system. The typical way the roads get installed 

or upgraded is when new development is constructed. The more units that are added to the property 

the more traffic and the more road improvements the community should require. I think our community 

should work with the developer to come up with the right solution. My concern is that the developer did 

not come to the last two community meetings and it is hard to come up with a consensus of what road 

improvements should be made it the contractor doesn’t show up. By writing a letter of objection I would 

hope this would get the contractors attention and hopefully we could come up with a compromise. 

 

Jerry Fox  PO Box 1151 Girdwood AK 99587 GBOS Co‐Chair and Public Safety  Ph.907‐240‐5272 

Page 7: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

 

Jason Porter Input: Spencer Willard has very thoughtfully and thoroughly laid out many of the concerns and sentiments shared by myself and, as stated at the 2/10/20 LUC meeting, a number of the residents living adjacent to or near the proposed development. While I too am not against growth or thoughtful development I can not support development outside of the mandated requirements. These mandates are in place for a reason and if granted a variance this outside developer will do little to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood or do what is best for its current and or future residents. I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation.  Sincerely, Jason Porter 233  Gunnysack Mine Rd   

Spencer Willard Input: After the unanimous vote last night at the LUC meeting, Kyle Kelley ([email protected]) & 

Margaret Tyler [email protected]) asked that we help them draft a letter of objection to the 

Platting Board.  Please find the information I provided them below (italicized). If you so wish, please e‐mail them your 

points before the GBOS meeting on Monday, February 17th. I am asking for the Land Use Committee & the Girdwood Board of Supervisors to submit a formal letter of objection 

to 3MJ Development’s request to obtain a variance for relief from the requirements of AMC 21.09.070F.3 (collector 

street standards) for the following reasons:  The developer is not being transparent with their intentions.  

o No commitment to a specific density. 

o No commitment to any road improvements besides putting RAP down. 

o We do not have enough information to make an educated decision. 

  

The road improvement variance & density variance are interrelated & cannot be determined 

independently in this case.  

o The developer should have to obtain approval for a density variance before a decision is made on 

the road improvement variance. 

o For example, if the developer wants to build six dwelling units or less on the property, it would be 

reasonable to grant a road improvement variance with some conditions. 

o However, if the developer intends to build twelve dwelling units on the property, any relief from 

the requirements of AMC 21.09.070F.3 should be extremely limited. 

  

The developer has chosen to proceed to the Municipality of Anchorage Platting Board after 

receiving numerous rounds of negative community input & having their recommendation to seek 

approval voted down overwhelmingly at a GBOS meeting.  

o It is not the normal process to seek approval from the Municipality after being voted down at the 

community level. 

Page 8: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

o The developer stated that they were going to provide more details on their end goals & what road 

improvements they were willing to commit to doing. 

o After the developer submitted an application to the Platting Board, they declined a formal 

invitation to the LUC meeting on 2/10/20. 

  

A condominium complex that only has access from Sproat Road would be an anomaly & would 

need to be developed responsibly so that the character of the area does not change.  

o The proper access point should be off of Alyeska Highway, but DOT will not allow it. 

o A twelve unit complex will introduce ~ 24 additional vehicles making over 48 entries & exits on 

Sproat Road per day. 

o If the developer intends push the density to the maximum, they should be required to invest in the 

road system infrastructure more than just RAP. 

  

The proposed project’s financial viability does not rely on the road improvement variance.  

o The original developer purchased the land for $300k. 

o The developers have stated the price point for the condominiums would be ~$600k per unit. 

o If twelve dwelling units are built, the development would be valued at over $7 million. 

  With all of that stated, please note that I am not anti‐development. My recommendation is for the developer to 

reintroduce their agenda at the community level (LUC & GBOS), so they can provide more details. They also could 

wait on the Girdwood Area Plan to be updated in the future & hope for the best. I do not recommend that the GAP 

be amended just for this project, but would support modifications to the code that would benefit the community as a 

whole.   My main concern is that granting open‐ended relief from collector street standards will allow 3MJ to invest the least 

amount of money in the local infrastructure while proceeding to develop to the maximum density, thus passing on 

future related expenses.   Thank you for considering my points when drafting the letter to the Platting Board.   Have a great day,   Spencer J. Willard 

 Good Day, 

Thank you for the quick response Kyle. I do have a few more questions. 

When you say we invited them back, who is we (you personally, the LUC, the GBOS, etc.)? This issue has 

been decided by vote at a prior GBOS meeting.  

Why would the LUC & the GBOS not submit a formal letter against granting the variance to the platting 

board? Are the LUC & the GBOS independent of the community & their wishes? I think not, but maybe I 

am wrong. 

The Girdwood Area Plan was created for a reason. Until it is updated, the developer should have to work 

within the standards of the code. Can I pick & choose which codes I want to abide by too? 

There is no need for the community to support this project. If the developer decides to ram it through 

P&Z, they can advocate for themselves. 

Page 9: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

You are the community liaison & I believe your comments in the 12‐plex information packet are a bit 

misleading. You are supposed to be objective & not lobby for the developer to make more profits by not 

sticking to the collector street standards. 

If future road maintenance costs increase after the required improvements, so be it. That is typically what 

happens when a big development is placed in a rural environment. 

When did the community vote on the preference of paving versus non‐paving? Is this your 

interpretation, opinion, or fact? (See your comments below.) I believe the only thing that was formally 

voted on was whether a variance should be granted. 

  

Lastly, is the developer making a presentation next Monday or not? I just want clarification, so I know 

whether it is necessary to attend. 

I would like to submit our correspondence to the LUC notes either way. 

Thank you, 

Spencer J. Willard 

 

From: Kelley, Kyle T. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2020 10:50 AM To: Spencer Willard; Tyler, Margaret S. Subject: RE: LUC / GBOS Question(s)  Hi Spencer, I replied to your questions below in Red.  Let me know if I can help with anything else.  Kyle From: Spencer Willard  Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2020 5:46 PM To: Kelley, Kyle T. <[email protected]>; Tyler, Margaret S. <[email protected]> Subject: LUC / GBOS Question(s)  Good Evening Kyle & Margaret, 

I hope you both are doing well & having a fun winter season. 

How many times can an identical variance request be voted on by the public at a LUC or GBOS meeting? 

Are there bylaws for this type of thing? 

Usually only once unless something has changed about the land owners project and/or request.  In this case, The Project Developer is not bring this back to LUC on Monday but we did invite them to attend since it’s their case and public probably have questions.  Instead they have pushed forward with the variance to the  Platting Board even though they didn’t gain  written support from LUC and/or GBOS.   Our office received an application packet for the variance from the Planning board and the Platting board is seeking input from Girdwood for this request.  We put it on the agenda so residents are aware of the pending case and have the option to provide formal feedback.  Formal feedback can be completed through LUC where a resident can put up a motion to vote on having GBOS write a resolution of support, letter of non‐objection or a letter of objection for the variance request being presented to 

Page 10: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

the Platting board.  At this point Girdwood does not have a formal letter to send the Platting board.   We know  the resolution of support failed at the last meeting so it probably might not have much success at this meeting.  No bylaws for how many times some can present as usually a land owner only does once.  In case the Land Owner is not requesting another consideration.  If the Girdwood public votes against a specific variance request & GBOS denies the request to the 

planning commission, why should we have to vote again?  Nobody has to vote again unless they like for GBOS to write one of the three options above.  At this time GBOS has not written a formal letter to the Platting board showing where the community stands instead only voted against the resolution of support at their October 21st.  If LUC and GBOS decide to not vote on the motion for a formal letter then there will be no feedback from the community besides the action recorded in the minutes from the October meeting, which are included in the application packet.   It seems if the same issue can be presented again & again with the same result, the voice of the 

community is not being heard or respected.  

I believe the voice of the community is being respected but that voice is not formally written in a letter for the Platting to easily understand.   When agenda item LUC 1909‐05 is voted down again next Monday, I hope we can close the book on the 

developer getting a community recommendation for the collector street standard variance. 

All the best, 

Spencer J. Willard 

Page 11: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

Garrett Swygman PO Box 1359

Girdwood, AK 99587

Municipality of Anchorage Planning and Zoning Department PO Box 196659 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Re: Case 512532 Petitioner: Gray Mesick Request: To obtain variance for relief from AMC 21.09.070F.3 (Collector Street Standards) As a resident of the ‘mine roads’ neighborhood I am writing this letter in opposition to the request to obtain variance for relief from AMC 21.09.070F.3 for the following reasons:

The request for the variance from the Collector Street Standards and the request for a Conditional Use Permit to increase the density of the development are directly related and I feel the issue of density needs to be addressed before the residents can make an informed opinion regarding the road improvements

A condominium complex is out of character for this neighborhood and

if it is built out to the maximum density I feel that it must be patterned after the similar developments in that zoning area and exit onto Alyeska Highway.

Regards, Garrett Swygman

Page 12: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

  Municipality of 

Anchorage 

 

P.O Box 390 Girdwood, Alaska 99587 http://www.muni.org/gbos

GIRDWOOD VALLEY SERVICE AREA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Jerry Fox & Mike Edgington, Co-Chairs

Eryn Boone, Christina Hendrickson, James Glover, Jr. Ethan Berkowitz, Mayor

LETTER OF OBJECTION

February 17, 2020 Re: Case No S12532: Variance Request for relief from the requirement to AMC 21.09.070F.3 (Collector streets standards) The Girdwood Board of Supervisors (GBOS), after review and recommendation of the Girdwood Land Use Committee and the GBOS at their regular meetings in October/November 2019 and February 2020 objects to the variance request for relief from the requirement of AMC 21.09.070F.3 for the following reasons:

The developer is not being transparent with their intentions. 

o No commitment to a specific density. 

o No commitment to any road improvements besides putting RAP down. 

o We do not have enough information to make an educated decision. 

 

The road improvement variance & density variance are interrelated & cannot be determined 

independently in this case. 

o The developer should have to obtain approval for a density variance before a decision is 

made on the road improvement variance. 

o For example, if the developer wants to build six dwelling units or less on the property, 

it would be reasonable to grant a road improvement variance with some conditions. 

o However, if the developer intends to build twelve dwelling units on the property, any 

relief from the requirements of AMC 21.09.070F.3 should be extremely limited. 

 

 

 

 

Page 13: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

The developer has chosen to proceed to the Municipality of Anchorage Platting Board after 

receiving numerous rounds of negative community input & having their recommendation 

to seek approval voted down overwhelmingly at a GBOS meeting. 

o It is not the normal process to seek approval from the Municipality after being voted 

down at the community level. 

o The developer stated that they were going to provide more details on their end goals & 

what road improvements they were willing to commit to doing. 

o After the developer submitted an application to the Platting Board, they declined a 

formal invitation to the LUC meeting on 2/10/20. 

 

A condominium complex that only has access from Sproat Road would be an anomaly & 

would need to be developed responsibly so that the character of the area does not change. 

o The proper access point should be off of Alyeska Highway, but DOT will not allow it. 

o A twelve unit complex will introduce ~ 24 additional vehicles making over 48 entries & 

exits on Sproat Road per day. 

o If the developer intends push the density to the maximum, they should be required to 

invest in the road system infrastructure more than just RAP. 

 

The proposed project’s financial viability does not rely on the road improvement variance. 

o The original developer purchased the land for $300k. 

o The developers have stated the price point for the condominiums would be ~$600k per 

unit. 

o If twelve dwelling units are built, the development would be valued at over $7 million. 

__________________________________________________________ Mike Edgington, GBOS Land Use Supervisor Date _______________________________________________ Witness

Page 14: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

  Municipality of 

Anchorage 

 

P.O Box 390 Girdwood, Alaska 99587 http://www.muni.org/gbos

GIRDWOOD VALLEY SERVICE AREA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Jerry Fox & Mike Edgington, Co-Chairs

Eryn Boone, Christina Hendrickson, James Glover, Jr. Ethan Berkowitz, Mayor

LETTER OF OBJECTION

February 17, 2020 Re: Case No S12532: Variance Request for relief from the requirement to AMC 21.09.070F.3 (Collector streets standards) The Girdwood Board of Supervisors (GBOS), after review and recommendation of the Girdwood Land Use Committee and the GBOS at their regular meetings in September and October 2019 and February 2020 objects to the variance request for relief from the requirement of AMC 21.09.070F.3. Neighbors of the parcel have expressed a very strong objection to any multi-family development larger than the 5 units which can be built without a conditional use application. The petitioner gave an initial presentation at the Girdwood Land Use Committee (LUC) of September 9, 2019, and at the subsequent LUC meeting of October 14 community members voted down a motion to request GBOS write a Resolution of Support by 5-10 with 12 abstentions. At both presentations, the petitioner did not commit to any specific density or site plan. When the staff packet was complete and the issue came up again at LUC on February 10, 2020, neither the petitioner nor their representatives attended the meeting. Local residents are concerned that the road improvement variance cannot be considered independently of the likely conditional use request for up to 12 units to be constructed on the site. If a larger development is built, there will be increased use of Sproat Road and therefore significant improvements should be made. A smaller development would not require the same level of improvements. The decision by the petitioner to not engage in further discussion with the community at the February 20th LUC meeting does not give the neighbors confidence that their concerns are being considered adequately. Many local neighbors stated at this and previous public hearings that a 12 unit development would be an anomaly in an area of mostly single family homes and would drastically change the character of the neighborhood. At the February 20th LUC meeting a motion to request GBOS to write a Letter of Objection was passed 14 in favor with no votes against. GBOS considered LUC’s request to write a Letter of Objection at their February 17 2020 meeting and the motion was passed by a vote of XX in favor to XX against.

Page 15: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

__________________________________________________________ Mike Edgington, GBOS Land Use Supervisor Date _______________________________________________ Witness

Page 16: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

 

Page 17: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

GBOS Rules and Procedures Article 6: VOTING. E. Voting Conclusions: The community’s stated objective is to provide unified statements and recommendations from the Girdwood community. (Conditional Use Permit has its own resolution process.) However, three possibilities exist regarding agreement between the Girdwood Board of Supervisors and the Land Use Committee:

a. Consensus: The Girdwood Board of Supervisors votes in accordance with the Land Use Committee recommendations. In this case, all recommendations of the Girdwood Board of Supervisors shall include the official actions of the Land Use Committee without changes. The Girdwood Board of Supervisors may include additional supporting information and comments when sending forth the actions of both groups. b. Not in agreement; no time restriction: The Girdwood Board of Supervisors does not vote in accordance with the Land Use Committee recommendations and the requirement to report forth on the issue is not time restricted. In this case, the Girdwood Board of Supervisors will provide a written explanation of the dissenting GBOS action to the Land Use Committee, and will provide any and all additional and/or new information pertinent to the issue being considered, and request that the Land Use Committee reconsider their action in view of the additional and/or new information. An issue can be sent back to the Land Use Committee one (1) time for reconsideration by the LUC, and the issue in question must appear on the following month’s Land Use Committee agenda. c. Not in agreement; time sensitive: The Girdwood Board of Supervisors does not vote in accordance with the Land Use Committee recommendations and the requirement to report forth on the issue is time restricted. In this case, the Girdwood Board of Supervisors will provide a written explanation of the dissenting GBOS action to the Land Use Committee, and in sending the recommendations forward, will include the official actions of the Land Use Committee without changes, along with the official actions of the Girdwood Board of Supervisors and any relevant comments.

The Girdwood Board of Supervisors may also request an extension for advisory comments to be made, in which case the issue of dissent may be referred back to the Land Use Committee as described in “b” above.

Page 18: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

LUC Operating Principles Statement of Purpose - To advise the Girdwood Board of Supervisors (GBOS) on land use issues based on research and community input. We encourage all those in Girdwood Valley to take part in discussing land issues facing the community by attending the meetings. It is hoped that in this way, we will reach the goal of representing the community on routine and controversial land use issues in a broader way. Collaborative Process - The Land Use Committee (LUC) aims to apply the principles of the Collaborative Process, which is becoming common across the country for successfully solving community concerns. The Collaborative Premise states, “If you bring the appropriate people together in constructive ways with good information, they will create authentic visions and strategies for addressing the shared concerns of the organization or community.” Necessary conditions for successful collaboration include a group of participants who are broadly representative of the community, and a credible, open process that is not dominated by any one group or sector. Girdwood Valley is the area defined as “the Girdwood Community Association/Land Use Committee boundary area depicted on Map 10 located in AMC Section 2.40.090”. Girdwood Valley includes the community of Girdwood and the Upper Crow Creek neighborhood. As defined in this document, Girdwood Valley extends beyond the boundary of the Girdwood Valley Service Area (GVSA) tax district. Relationship Between the Girdwood Land Use Committee and Girdwood Board of Supervisors - The Girdwood Board of Supervisors is designated as the Girdwood Community Council ex-officio by the Anchorage Municipal Assembly. Because of this, Girdwood is not recognized as a Community Council District in Municipal Code 2.40.040.D – Establishment of community council districts. With the adoption of 2.40.035.B on August 12, 2003, the Girdwood Community Association Rules and Bylaws were over-ruled and suspended. Municipal Code 2.40.035.B Recognition of community councils; special ex officio community council recognition for Girdwood Board of Supervisors, states: “Girdwood recognized; special provision. The municipality recognizes the Girdwood Board of Supervisors as the community council, ex-officio, which serves the Girdwood Community Association/Land Use Committee boundary area depicted on Map 10 located in section 2.40.090.”

The LUC is a one-person one-vote organization, whereas GBOS business is voted upon by only the 5 board members. In consort with the ideals of community councils being the voice of the people with one-person one-vote, the LUC is designated by the GBOS to be the public hearing process for the GBOS. In the event that the voting in LUC and GBOS do not match each other, the rules under Voting Conclusions, below, will be followed. Conclusion of Business and Guidelines for Process – There are three conclusions that may be used for deciding the outcome of a petitioner’s presentation. Land Use can vote to recommend that the GBOS write a: Letter of Objection: When the vote is not in favor Letter of Non-Objection: When the vote is in favor, with no strong opinion or cause to write a: Resolution of Support: Used when the issue is of great concern and importance to the

community. A Letter of Non-Objection (LONO) or Resolution of Support should be provided to the GVSA Administrative Officer by the petitioner. This will be re-drafted to reflect the ideas and outcome of the discussions and final vote. These final actions will be passed to the GBOS along with comments from the LUC and the final vote count.

Page 19: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

Voting - Every eligible member (described under “Members” above) is qualified to vote (“one person, one vote”). There shall be a sign-in sheet displayed at each meeting (and maintained by the LUC Secretary). Votes are taken by a show of hands. Absentee voting by proxy is not allowed, but absent members are encouraged to submit written comments which will be read at the LUC and passed on to the GBOS. Discussion of major land use issues may require more than one meeting and every attempt must be made to ensure that the broad community has had ample opportunity to review and comment on issues before a vote is taken. The exact number of yeas and nays will be presented at the GBOS meeting.

Voting Conclusions - The community’s stated objective is to provide unified statements and recommendations from the Girdwood community. (Conditional Use Permit has its own resolution process.) However, three possibilities exist regarding agreement between the Girdwood Board of Supervisors and the Land Use Committee:

A. Consensus:

The Girdwood Board of Supervisors votes in accordance with the Land Use Committee recommendations. In this case, all recommendations of the Girdwood Board of Supervisors shall include the official actions of the Land Use Committee without changes. The Girdwood Board of Supervisors may include additional supporting information and comments when sending forth the actions of both groups.

B. Not in agreement; no time restriction: The Girdwood Board of Supervisors does not vote in accordance with the Land Use Committee recommendations and the requirement to report forth on the issue is not time restricted. In this case, the Girdwood Board of Supervisors will provide a written explanation of the dissenting GBOS action to the Land Use Committee, and will provide any and all additional and/or new information pertinent to the issue being considered. Either the Land Use Committee or the GBOS chair may ask the other group to reconsider their action in view of the additional and/or new information. An issue can be sent back to either group one (1) time for reconsideration, and the issue in question must appear on the following month’s agendas.

C. Not in agreement; time sensitive: The Girdwood Board of Supervisors does not vote in accordance with the Land Use Committee recommendations and the requirement to report forth on the issue is time restricted. In this case, the Girdwood Board of Supervisors will provide a written explanation of the dissenting GBOS action to the Land Use Committee, and in sending the recommendations forward, will include the official actions of the Land Use Committee without changes, along with the official actions of the Girdwood Board of Supervisors and any relevant GBOS/LUC comments

The Girdwood Board of Supervisors may also request an extension for advisory comments to be made, in which case the issue of dissent may be referred back to the Land Use Committee as described in “B” above.

Page 20: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation
Page 21: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

From: Spencer Willard  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:29 PM To: Mike Edgington  Subject: LUC / GBOS Joint Meeting Tonight  Good Day All,  Thank you for your thoughtful response & community service Mike.  I appreciate the clarification on the distinction between the LUC & the GBOS. It seemed a few GBOS Board Members were even unsure of their exact roles at the last meeting. I am not even confident that all of the GBOS Board Members were informed enough to vote on the issue, but that is the past.  I definitely thought I was going to receive answers to my questions. However, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt that they might have come across as rhetorical. They were posed to show how this specific road improvement variance request has strayed from the normal community input process.  In all honesty, it can be distilled down to one question. How many times has a special joint LUC & GBOS meeting had to be held for a variance request such as this? Since I didn’t receive any feedback, I will assume that this is an extremely rare circumstance. I would hope that the GBOS does not vote down LUC recommendations often and go against the input of the community members that they serve.  I believe their is a misunderstanding about the intent of the letter of objection. I realize that this issue will not be decided in Girdwood and that the Municipality of Anchorage Platting Board will have the final say on the outcome in March. The members of the community do not want to squash this project, we just want the developer to follow the normal variance request procedure of gaining community support before continuing to the Municipality. We want the developer to have to make another round through the LUC & the GBOS to provide the information that they promised. I am not sure why this is so difficult to grasp.  The petitioner is a professional developer and their presentation to The Platting Board is sure to be picture perfect. The are used to this process and have the resources & the network to push their agenda. The members of the community that have voted against & voiced their concerns about this variance request are not as savvy and do not have the same resources. Our individual voices might not be heard very loudly. However, a letter from our community councils would carry a lot of weight.  It seems to me that the default stance to variance requests is always leaning on the approval side. I saw, first hand, agenda items being approved and pushed through without even having the petitioner present. What precedent does that set?  I have lived in Girdwood for a decade and been a property owner for eight of those years. I should not feel bad for putting my foot down on one issue that is important to me. It’s okay to say no sometimes. In this case, it’s the right thing to do. Don’t turn your back on the community members that spent time & energy to be a part of the community input process.  The neighbors of this project & the community at large have already weighed overwhelmingly against granting this road improvement variance. In my eyes, when you have this many meetings about the same topic with the same outcomes, the results are not being respected.  I am not confident that any further testimony will have any effect or meaningful impact on the outcome of the joint meeting. Mike, you are a smart & charismatic guy. I am sure that whatever opinion you have on the matter will prevail. If I am lucky, the LUC will maintain their recommendation and the GBOS will send an alternative opinion.  

Page 22: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

I do find it amusing that so many people are scared to get infrastructure improvements paid for by the developer. Don’t think about Girdwood in 2020. Think about Girdwood in 2040 or 2060. Even Kyle Kelley stated that in the near future he will recommend that some dirt roads get paved to decrease road maintenance costs as the warm season gets longer & longer each year.   Finally, Sproat Road IS a collector road. There are only two entry / exit points in the Girdwood Valley. If the Alyeska Highway is ever blocked off, the only alternative route out of town is via Toadstool Drive. In order to access Toadstool, from any mine road, is by connecting through Sproat.  Also, Girdwood has a train station and the vast majority of cruise passenger land transportation, adventure guides, and independent travelers use Sproat Road to connect to the Alyeska Highway. Full size coach busses access Sproat regularly during the summertime. I would love for a section of Sproat to be paved to cut down dust pollution in the neighborhood.   Please include this correspondence in the notes for tonight’s meeting. I will also forward it to the Mayor’s Office and The Platting Board. Respectfully Spencer J. Willard  On Saturday, February 22, 2020, Mike Edgington  wrote: Hi Spencer,  Thank you for your involvement,. I hope you continue to be involved in the wide range of issues across the whole community.  I don't have answers to your history questions, maybe Kyle can help, but I'm happy to explain what I understand as the procedure from here onward.  The operating rules of GBOS & LUC state that we send both opinions on to the next level, in this case the Platting Board. We can't follow the "no time sensitivity" path since there isn't time to go through another round of regularly scheduled meetings. However, we do have a couple of weeks before the hearing, so GBOS requested a joint LUC & GBOS meeting to try to find a consensus. The joint meeting can't *compel* any specific action, but is an opportunity to find a working compromise. If we can't find a consensus then we revert back to sending both sets of recommendations to the Platting Board.  Whatever we send on locally, there will still be a public hearing at the March 4th Platting meeting..In my experience public testimony is very effective at making a case to board members, so I encourage you to attend and give testimony there if you can. Remember that we don't have the power to grant or deny the petition here in Girdwood, that's done at Platting.   Finally, I think there is also a misunderstanding about the distinct roles of LUC and GBOS. The LUC consists of interested members of the community who are free to represent their own personal interests, and generally do. There's nothing wrong with voting on an issue that you personally gain from, in fact there's no expectation that regular community members will attend unless there is a item related to their personal interests. That's what LUC is for. However, as elected officials, GBOS members are categorically different. We have to abide by a code of Ethics, can't participate when there is a conflict of interest, are expected to attend all meetings during our three year term and gain expertise in our areas of responsibility. It inevitably cultivates thinking about the longer‐term & broader issues for the community.. Girdwood benefits significantly from having both bodies working together on Land Use issues. Thanks, Mike.  

Page 23: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

121 Sproat Road Girdwood, AK 99587 October 12, 2019 To whom it may concern: This letter references the proposed multifamily project o Lot 3 USS 3042 (Gunnysack / Sproat Road Girdwood, AK 99587) originally being developed by the Helmbrechts and Z Architects; now proposed again by a new group. It appeared to me that by focusing on whether or not Gunnysack Rd is upgraded – the plan was still to move forward with more dwellings- perhaps as much as 2x more – than the proposed area is zoned for. It seemed rather disingenuous that the speaker focused solely on the road development and did not even mention their higher density building plans. I have no problem with the development of the property – just that the developers think that zoning requirements that others in the area liked and “bought into” should not also apply to them. I have attended two Community Meetings devoted to this project. They were well attended primarily by property owners from that section of Girdwood. I have been a “Mining District” resident since 1987 – first on Hottentot Mine Road and now on the corner of Monarch and Sproat Rd. We chose this area purposely – first and foremost because it was not adjacent to the resort – it was single family dwellings – at least that was our understanding when purchasing our property, and had significantly lower traffic numbers. One issue that I have with this project is that it has too many dwellings (by 2x) proposed for their project - and the part that affects / prompts me to write this letter to you is that all or at least ½ of the proposed cars (approximately 30+) will access the project via Sproat Rd, since access via the highway has been denied, per Z Architects. -Sproat Rd. is a dirt / gravel street used by runners, dog walkers, bikers, the local residents, and small children on bicycles. -It has limited or no shoulders, and is relatively narrow. -Typically 15-20mph is a reasonable speed limit. -Traffic from the highway already comes up through the neighborhood, including tour buses from the train depot. -Too think that cars can access property to and from Gunnysack Road in the winter is flawed thinking. That street and Hottentot Mine Road are impassable when we have a rain on top of snowpack creating a sheet of ice – i.e. a frictionless world. I know – I’ve slid down all three access streets to Sproat, including Monarch Mine Rd, and parked my car at the Candle Factory and at the DOT State Yard to walk home with cleats because I could not get there any other way. So, knowing that about Gunnysack – basically that places all traffic again on Sproat. Since this lot is proposed for multifamily units it makes sense to me, that a minimum, the cars on the lower half of the project access their property directly from the Alyeska Hwy. It does not seem logical nor correct that the state can severely impact my neighborhood by disallowing access to/from a state highway bordering the property. I realize this adds another crossing point for the bike path – but I think is a better alternative than markedly increasing traffic numbers, noise, and speed in a quiet residential neighborhood. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to a resolution we can all live with happily. Sincerely, Judith Onslow 907-242-5982 [email protected]

Page 24: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

To Girdwood Board of Supervisors and Land Use Committee:   As a permanent resident of Girdwood since approximately 2003, I have lived on the lot right next and just to the south of the lot (Lot 3 USS 3042) requesting the conditional use permit to increase the density from a 6‐plex to a 12‐plex unit and upgrading Sproat Road to Collector Street Standards. I am retired now but prior to 2007 I was an equipment operator for Girdwood Highway Maintenance. I have lived on my lot since approximately 2007 and have enjoyed the single‐family home nature of the neighborhood. To put in 12 units instead of 6 units I find repulsive. I would have lived in Anchorage if I wanted this as neighbors.The noise level from the people and traffic would be unacceptable. People renting here would have little concern or care for the neighborhood. Added dogs would complicate the situation. People in this area do not have city water and most have their own well. So there are definite potential problems affecting the  aquifer of the neighborhood. My well has been sufficient and without problems since 2007. As a retiree I could not afford to drill deeper. I have enjoyed the quietness of the neighborhood despite my driveway access to Alyeska Hwy. Twelve units is too much for this area and would take away the closeness and quietness of the neighborhood. Do not change this neighborhood by putting in 12 units with people who have little concern or care for the neighborhood and have little invested in it. Furthermore I agree with D.O.T. that for this multi‐family development the access should be on Sproat. From first hand experience with a driveway accessing Alyeska Hwy. I know there are several hazards that only increase multi‐fold with 12 units‐ steep icy driveways crossing sidewalks frequented by pedestrians, dogs, bicyclists, skiers, etc., and a busy Alyeska Hwy.   If I could attend the  Land Use Committee meeting on October 14th, 2019 I would vote no on this conditional use permit. I like the zoning the way it is with only 6 units allowed. Unfortunately prior commitments will not allow me to attend this meeting.  Sincerely,  Dana Durham 483 Alyeska Hwy (907) 317‐3411 (907) 783‐1187                        

Page 25: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

  Girdwood Land Use Committee,  I am not in support of the proposed Gunnysack Mine Rd development being granted a conditional use permit to construct a multi family dwelling exceeding the GR‐1 zoning UNLESS they are granted access from the State directly onto Alyeska Hwy.  I believe development exceeding the GR‐1 Zoning limitations will have drastic negative impacts on the residents of the “mine” roads and support neither a variance for no improvements OR the collector street improvements required.  Garrett Swygman 565 Toadstool Dr 

Page 26: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation
Page 27: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation
Page 28: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

Melissa R. List & Spencer J. Willard 

116 Jewel Mine Road 

Girdwood, AK 99587 

 

Spencer & I would like to voice our concerns to the Anchorage Planning & Zoning Commission about the 

proposed Helmbrect multi‐family development on Gunnysack Mine / Sproat Road. We vehemently 

oppose granting a Conditional Use Permit to the project which would allow the developer to build 12 

dwellings on the property for a variety of reasons that will be laid out below. 

 

Conditional Use Permits are supposed to meet all of the approval criteria laid out in Chapter 21.03: 

Review and Approval Procedures Sec.21.03.080 Conditional Uses. “The planning and zoning commission 

may approve a conditional use application if, in the judgment of the commission, all of the following criteria have 

been met in all material matters.” There are only nine conditions and I believe this development fails to meet 

many of them. 

 

1. The proposed use is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which 

it is located, including any district‐specific standards. 

 

2. The proposed use will alter the character of the surrounding area…  

 

The development does not fit in with the surrounding neighborhood at all. There are no 

apartments or condo associations on the mine roads. Most of the properties are owner‐occupied 

single‐family dwellings. This magnitude of the proposed development would be an anomaly in 

the area.  

 

3. The proposed use is not compatible with uses allowed on adjacent properties, in terms of its 

scale, site design, operating characteristics (hours of operation, traffic generation, lighting, 

noise, odor, dust, and other external impacts).  

 

This is exactly why they are having to asking for conditional approval that doubles the use by 

right. The development will significantly increase traffic, noise, and dust in the neighborhood. 

 

4. The proposed use is not appropriately located with respect to the transportation system, 

including but not limited to existing and/or planned street designations and improvements, 

street capacity, access to collectors or arterials, connectivity, off‐site parking impacts, transit 

availability, impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation, and safety for all modes. 

 

Sproat Road will no longer be a safe road for pedestrian or bike activity with 30+ additional cars 

utilizing the road daily. Sproat Road and Gunnysack Mine Road are not suitable access points for 

a development of this size. An Alyeska Highway access point would be the most appropriate. If 

that is not allowed then the project should be limited to the use by right of 4 dwellings per acre. 

Page 29: Links to source documents for meeting on GBOS LUC Joint ...€¦ · I hope that you consider Spencer’s well stated letter and any other shared concerns when making a recommendation

October 14, 2019 

Dear LUC, GBOS, and any others this may concern, 

We are writing this letter with regard to Agenda Item LUC 1909‐05 (Old Business), the Gunnysack Mine 

Road Multi‐family Development project.  It is our understanding that DOWL and 3MJ Development will 

be asking for a variance from the Municipality of Anchorage to allow Sproat Road to NOT be upgraded 

to Collector Street standard when development happens at the property located at the corner of Sproat 

and Gunnysack.  We support this variance request as we would like Sproat Road to remain unchanged 

from its current gravel surface (with no curbs, gutters, lighting, etc.).  However, we do not want to see 

the property be developed with more units than it is legally zoned for.  We believe that development of 

this property is inevitable, we would just like the neighborhood to retain as much of its current 

atmosphere as possible. 

While we appreciate the phased approach of the development team, we would like to be on record in 

opposition to multi‐family housing with greater than the allowed number of units per acre or 

development that requires a conditional use permit for this property. 

Thank you, 

Matt and Katra Wedeking Jewel Mine Road residents