GIRDWOOD VALLEY SERVICE AREA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Tracey Knutson, Chair;

  Victor Duncan, Marcus Tingle, John Gallup, Nick Danger

P.O. Box 390; Girdwood, Alaska 99587

http://www.muni.org 


MEETING MINUTES

Girdwood Board of Supervisors

May 16, 2005

Glacier City Hall

 

Present:  Supervisors Marcus Tingle, Victor Duncan, John Gallup, Nick Danger
Excused absence: Supervisor Tracey Knutson, Chair

 

Call to Order:  7:01 pm, by Marcus Tingle, acting Chair

 

Agenda:

 

Approval of Minutes:

1.     Regular Monthly Meeting April 18, 2005. 

Tingle notes minutes cannot be voted on as there is not a quorum of supervisors

present that were supervisors during the April meeting.  The minutes will be

voted on during the May GBOS meeting.

 

2.     GBOS quarterly Mayor’s Meeting, April 21, 2005.

John Gallup MOVES to approve the minutes with corrections; Victor Duncan SECONDS; Vote: 4-0, unanimous.

 

Announcements:  

3.     The GBOS welcomes new Board Members, John Gallup and Nick Danger, certified by the Assembly on April 19, 2005.  The GBOS supervisory positions were decided during Executive Session on April 20, 2005 and are as follows:  Tracey Knutson, Chair and Parks and Recreation Supervisor; Victor Duncan, Utilities Supervisor;  Marcus Tingle, Roads Supervisor;  John Gallup, Land Use Supervisor;  Nick Danger, Public Safety Supervisor.

     

4.     The Girdwood Post Office move is scheduled for the end of May.  Public Notices (such as GBOS, LUC, etc.) will continue to be posted at the new Post Office though in a somewhat different format than we were used to at the old Post Office.  We will update next month regarding the USPS new system of Public Announcement posting.  For online access of agendas. www.communitycouncils.org/Girdwood/girdwood.html

 

5.     Girdwood General Fund Balance Report.

Tingle reports the fund balance is presently at $107, 710.

 

6.     GBOS had its quarterly meeting with Mayor Begich on April 21, 2005; as the Chair is traveling, the report on that meeting will be done at the June GBOS meeting.  The next GBOS Quarterly meeting with Mayor Begich is currently scheduled for Thursday, July 28, 2005, from 12 to 2 pm in the Mayor’s Conference Room, City Hall. 

 

7.     The Federation of Community Councils alternate representative for Girdwood is Larry Daniels, Land Use Committee Chair.

 

Introductions, Presentations and Reports:

8.     Assembly Members Chris Birch and Janice Shamberg. Introduction of new  Assembly  Member, Chris Birch.  Update on Large Animal Ordinance.

The Assembly Members are not present.  Tingle will acknowledge them when they arrive.

 

9.     Heritage Land Bank update, Robin Ward, Art Eash.

Robin Ward, HLB director, is present and reads report.  Highlights include:

·       A base map for the proposed ski area in the Glacier Winner Creek area is due from the consultants shortly.  HLB plan to issue an RFP this month for survey of entitlement land in the area.

·       The Citizens Advisory Committee for the Crow Creek Neighborhood Plan wrapped up its seventh meeting with a review of Agnew:: Beck’s draft plan.  The group made recommendations to consultants and HLB, for presentation to the Land Use Committee on May 10.  The LUC voted 18 to 3 in favor of a resolution of non-objection (4 abstentions), moving the document to GBOS tonight.

·       HLB submitted to the Assembly the proposed land exchange of HLB land for a portion of the adjoining Alpine View Estates development, south of Alyeska Highway and east of Glacier Creek bridge. This is the Cabana land swap. The issue will be introduced May 31, with a hearing date to be set.

·       HLB delivered another letter to SkyView Condominium Association, requiring that one of two permit options be selected for use of HLB land adjoining to the south of the condo for parking.  Failing a response, or if both permits are delivered by June 15, HLB will remove the dumpster and prevent further access to the site.  Gallup notes SkyView Condo Association came to a Land Use meeting last fall and asked permission to use that land for parking.  Ward notes HLB has given them two permit options to use;  they simply haven’t responded.  Gallup acknowledges.

·       The well house on Glacier Creek was removed at HLB expense May 17;  the foundation will be taken out after the creek bed freezes up in the fall.

·       The Municipal Code prohibits overnight camping on municipal land throughout the Municipality, except where expressly permitted.  HLB typically gives notice to leave within 48 hours of posting of notices, after which the materials are removed.  Reminders of this policy will appear in the Turnagain Times starting in June, in an effort to reduce fire danger and sanitation problems.

 

            Board Questions:

 

            Duncan asks if HLB will be removing the concrete foundation from the well house.

            His concern is that it is dangerous:  it is 8’ (eight foot) drop to the creek and is afraid

kids could fall into the creek if they climb on it.  Gallup suggests knocking it down with a bulldozer.  Notes even if pieces go into the creek, it wouldn’t contaminate the water.  Ward promises to look into it.

 

Tingle notes an announcement that was missed and reads it into the record:

USFS:  Prince William Sound update, by District Ranger, Jim Fincher, dated May 6, 2005:

The USFS will be hosting a forum concerning recreation use in PWS.  The forum will focus on providing a progress report related to the issues identified in a public workshop held in 2003.  In addition, Dave Crowley from the AK Dept of Fish and Game will present the latest developments concerning black bear management in PWS and Brian Garber-Yonts from the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station will present the PWS Human Use Study.

Presentation topics will include:

·       Garbage and human fecal waste management update

·       USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station Human Use Study

·       Coastal campsite hardening projects update and proposed plan

·       Black bear management

The forum will be held on May 21, 2005 at the Begich Boggs Visitor Center classroom wing located in Portage Valley approximately 45 miles southeast of Anchorage.  The workshop will begin at 10:00 am and conclude at 4:30 pm.  Lunch will be ‘bring you own’ or can be purchased at the Portage Valley Lodge.  For more information please contact David Sanders by phone at 1-907-754-2330 or by email at dgsanders@fs.fed.us.

 

     

10. Legislative Teleconference: 7:15 pm: Senator Con Bunde and Representative Mike Hawker. Follow-up on discussion March 21 regarding Girdwood’s requests in the capital budget process.

Tingle notes this has been cancelled:  the legislature is in special session.

 

11. The Municipal Addressing Officer- Kristiann Rutzler- has given us a good deal more information on the Street Name Changes.  The information she has provided to us is as follows: (Marcus Tingle to read ).

Tingle reads Rutzler’s letter to the GBOS with the following information:

The MOA Street Addressing Department has identified some streets with naming problems in Girdwood, such as unnamed streets and duplicate street names.  They’re hoping to have suggestions and discussion at tonight’s GBOS meeting for these street names.  Note:  only the adjacent property owners and residents have a say in their own street name. The following is a list of all the street names being worked on:

·       Unnamed public right-of-way:  Have sent letters and fliers out seeking suggestions for a previously unnamed public right-of-way located off Agostino Mine Road.  Gave until May 27th to respond, then will begin the official street name change procedure with the selected name.

·       Duplicate Street Names:  Mayor-identified list of duplicate street names that need to change:    Aspen Road;  Cottonwood Street;  Dawson Street;  Echo Drive;  Glacier Drive;  Loveland Road;  Olympic Circle;  Tahoe Road.  (Examples of the letter to property owners and flier to adjacent residents are available from the GBOS secretary.)  Until May 27th to respond.  Then will go with the most popular suggested new name via the code-described process to officially change a public street name (AMC 21.15.133).

·       Private Driveways- named or not? There are twelve (12) private driveways that service more than one home.  Asked affected residents if they prefer to name it and have an address assigned off that named private drive, or have an address off the named public right-of-way that leads to the driveway.  Until May 6th to respond, but will be happy to consider suggestions from tonight’s meeting.

·       Street name “corrections” already in progress, not requiring discussion. These street names are commonly known by the name they’re being changed to.  They were legally named something else.  They include:  West Alyeska Avenue to Lindblad Avenue;  and Edelweiss Road to Alyeska Highway.

·       Contact info for MOA Street Addressing:  Kristiann Rutzler:  343-8222;  Mary Coburn:  343-8466;  Fred Carpenter:  343-8113.

           

            Public Comment:

 

Joseph White, Loveland Road resident:  Comments it is not an emotional but practical approach to the issue for him.  Has a hard time understanding the impact if the street name on Loveland Road is not changed.  Looked at the criteria of eleven (11) points; went to the data base for MOA roads.  Notes Girdwood is at a big disadvantage as there are no street addresses currently to preserve versus other communities that are part of the MOA.  Thinks ‘road, street, loop or circle’ is enough of an identifier to differentiate between same named roads for a ‘911’ identifier.  Conclusion:  no adverse effect for keeping the name “Loveland Road” as it is.  At the least, rename “Loveland Road Road”.

Katie Green, Loveland Road resident:  Has three (3) categories to cover re: street name change for “Loveland Road”:  1) emotional:  attachment to belief, traditions, principles:  property originally acquired in 1964 by Jerry and Marion Barnes. (Gives Barnes family history as Alaskans.)  Marion Barnes purchased lot 9, block 8, Alyeska First Edition subdivision specifically because the street name was Loveland Road.  Had skied there in the past and had fond memories.  The lot has been in the Barnes family for forty one (41) years.  2) legality:  AMC 21.80.260, design standards and street names.  The First Edition Alyeska Ski area plat was filed and recorded January 8, 1964, by Alyeska Ski Corporation.  The Eagle Glen subdivision plat was recorded August 12, 1981.  “Loveland Road” in Girdwood existed seventeen (17) years prior to “Loveland Circle”.  Also, AMC 21.81.007:  address changes:  ability of government to change addresses if unusual circumstances warrant such a change: according to Green,  none of five (5) conditions exist as concerns “Loveland Road”.  3) accuracy:  letters from MOA indicate there are two (2) “Loveland Roads”.  At best, Green reports a misrepresentation of facts.  “Road” and “Circle” are different.  Actual ski area name is “Loveland Ski Area” so MOA’s suggestion of “Loveland Basin Road” would be an inaccurate reflection of the ski area name.  Asks Mayor Begich to walk down Loveland Road, but ‘don’t tread on me’.

John Gallup agrees with Tichenors  that “Circle” and “Road” are good enough descriptors.  The “911” operator would just have to ask one (1) more question:

‘are you in the Eagle River or Girdwood area?’

Tingle wants to know ‘what if that one questions does not get asked?’

Katie Green notes Girdwood needs house numbers.

White adds that the “911” operators just need to ask the right questions.

 Tingle asks if Denis LeBlanc, City Manager, who is present whether he’d like to respond to the public’s comments and questions. 

LeBlanc introduces himself.  Then notes the history of the street name change effort which began several years ago before the Godfrey incident.  That tragedy shifted the MOA into high gear with the greatest sense of insuring public safety, Mayor’s mandate that the MOA have unique street names from Eklutna to Girdwood.  A massive undertaking predicated solely and exclusively on striving for 100% ( one hundred percent) public safety.  Technology doesn’t get there at this point.  In maybe three (3) to five (5) years, may have sufficient technology so that even with silence on the phone will know exactly where they are.  Wants to share:  no decision has been made.  Residents on affected streets have been notified of a process. This discussion is part of this process.  Clearly a recommendation has been put forward.  Citizens input, Mayor’s staff input, etc., put in:  the Mayor will then make a decision.  If the decision made by the Mayor is not the one the residents of Loveland Road in Girdwood want, they have the opportunity (if there is 33%- thirty three percent- of the residents)  to file a petition that goes before the Assembly in a public hearing.  It isn’t until that process is exhausted that a final decision is made.  A comment on a couple of things heard:  1) that the Mayor’s office has ‘an agenda’.  LeBlanc says they don’t.  The Police and Fire Departments work for LeBlanc.  Is in dispatchers office all the time.  Has no agenda other than trying to assure 100% (one hundred percent) accuracy for “911”.  Can quibble about where the caller is calling from, Eagle River or Girdwood:  in a fair amount of calls, the chance is not there.  The conversation is cut short or a person screams, the line goes dead, etc.  The real issue for the MOA:  right now, the MOA has 97% (ninety seven percent accuracy) in the street name data base and CAD systems with Police and Fire Departments.  What does the MOA tell the other 3% (three percent)?  Route the MOA has elected to take:  to go for unique street identifiers.  Issue from Police:  they use number ranges for identifiers.  There is an agreement between the MOA and the GBOS not to have lengthy street numbers.  Allowing numbers to start at 100’s (audience notes approval).  However, that defeats the Police Department’s ability to identify a location by number;  Girdwood will be numbered differently than the MOA grid.  Again, the unique street names can have a ‘north, south, east or west’ prefix, but the ‘trailer’ does not distinguish street names.  In many cases, ‘street, road, loop, circle’ is not used.  There are a fair number of people who don’t know whether they live on a street, road, circle, loop ,drive, etc.  For the example of Loveland Road vs. Loveland Circle:  the mail delivery to a greater number of impacted residents in Eagle River was the deciding factor in the decision to have a street name change for Loveland Road in Girdwood.  If technology in the next three (3) to five (5) years allows to go back to folks who dearly loved the original name they can take part in the process to do that.   There is a science why street name is unique in system.  Appreciates passion and energy of those present:  are doing exactly the right thing by following the process that is available to petition for Mayor not to sign an executive order not to change the name of Loveland Road.  Even if he does, you can appeal to the Municipal clerk and go before the Assembly in a public hearing.  Not here to discredit or argue.  Only to state it is the MOA/Mayor’s earnest desire to have 100% (one hundred percent) accuracy in “911” calls.

 

White comments that “drive” and “circle” do mean something.

Rose White opposes changing the street name changed for “Loveland Road” as whole neighborhood is alphabetical ( i.e. Northwood, Megeve, etc.)and if it changes and “Basin” is added to street name how will that affect things?  Can’t we just keep “Loveland Road” and have Eagle River change theirs?  We don’t have addresses, but we’re all registered to vote and have post office boxes.

LeBlanc:  Therein lies the rub.   We’re about doing good things:  assessing a recommendation that has come up and then being fair and respectful listening to people’s concerns and then ‘at the end of the day’, take a recommendation to Mayor Begich and he’ll make a decision.  If it isn’t the decision you prefer, you can hopefully appreciate the fact that you were listened to and were heard and that someone had to make a decision to move things forward.  Again, if it isn’t the decision you like, there is a process you can follow to petition for relief.

Rose White wants to know if the people of Loveland Circle in Eagle River have been asked if they want their name changed.  LeBlanc says no.  White requests that they be asked.  LeBlanc says that can be part of the process.

Kerry Barnes introduces himself as a skier.  Notes there was a petition not to change the name of Loveland Road signed by 100% (one hundred percent) of the residents of Loveland Road submitted on December 15, 2003.  His experience is that the process does not work.  Has been a surveyor for thirty (30) years.  He speaks in proxy for nine (9) other folks.  This isn’t going to happen.  Petition is in order.  A lawsuit is all typed up.  Ridiculous.  Going to have to change platting requirements.   Been misled.  The public process has not been followed.  Has been in direct communication with Fred Carpenter, Kristiann’s supervisor.  Informed MOA had not received petition.  In touch with Dave Sears in 2003:  knows it is in GBOS’ files.  Communication with Mr. Carpenter in July:  whole process on hold.  Next notification was the Turnagain Times article and flier on doorstep saying name is changing.  I can go on.  A matter of misinformation, a matter of mishandled technology.  Using the guise of ‘safety’ to pull the wool over Girdwood’s eyes.  Need safety from government at this point.  Have a process.  Item two (2) on criteria is to ‘resolve conflict’.  There is no conflict:  there is Loveland Road and Loveland Circle.  Can go point for point if anybody needs it:  it’s all public information.  If it’s about safety, ‘we’re all feeling safe’.  Tried to call Mayor and put off.  As of 3 pm today, have 90% of owners to file a protest and lawsuit.  We’re done.  This street needs to come off this list.  Clearly we all agree that addressing needs to happen.  We just don’t all agree that our road qualifies.  Will stand up in front of all meetings until I’m standing alone.  If you really want addressing, give us numbers.  This is messing around.   “Road” vs “Circle” matters.  We all have the facts.  Wish you’d read the facts.  I have the plats.  Appreciate the time.

Rose White asks how there can be an East Northern Lights Blvd and a West Northern Lights Blvd?

LeBlanc says that the four (4) points of the compass are allowed in determining street names (east, west, north, south) in the system.  The system isn’t perfect, but currently that is one of the rules.  There is nothing secret here.  The system is subject to change if need be.  There is one thing we won’t compromise on and that is the Mayor’s insistence that 100% accuracy be reached.  Right now:  we are told by our people (i.e. Police, Fire, ‘911’ dispatchers, etc.) that in order to reach 100% accuracy they recommend unique street names.

Kerry Barnes asks LeBlanc to check on what ‘his people’ are telling him because ‘it isn’t accurate’.  Please.

Kate Sandberg, resident of Davos Loop:  asks, after May 27th, what is the process?

The residents of their road have sent in their suggested name for the renaming of their road.  What happens next?  Will the residents be notified of the new street name, perhaps in June?

Denis LeBlanc: Yes, that’s the process.  I believe that is correct.

Katie Green asks when street numbers will be assigned in Girdwood.  Why isn’t that done first?

LeBlanc:  That doesn’t alleviate the problem.  Based on the recommendations we’ve received, Girdwood has the opportunity to have their own sets of numbers.  Right now, the numbering system in the MOA is north to south.  If Girdwood stayed with this system, the first number would have a five (5) digit number and we heard from the community that they didn’t want that.  With no other agenda in mind, trying to do the best for the most, decided to start with ‘100’ and go up from there.  Can’t remember the timing with the numbering (the GBOS remembers from the Mayor’s Meeting in April that it will happen this coming Fall). 

Katie Green asks why there different names used for roads such as ‘road, street, drive’ etc.? And why it isn’t a factor in other communities in the lower 48.

LeBlanc: Repeats Mayor’s desire for 100% accuracy.  The current administration isn’t willing to accept anything else. If it is inconvenient for some, that’s the decision.

Green: One man’s decision?

LeBlanc:  He’s the elected official, ma’am.  He gets to make those decisions.  We’re here to listen.  We want people to be heard.  We will take those comments under consideration.  And the Mayor will make a decision.  You have the opportunity to take an appeal to the Assembly.

Green:  We did petition in 2003.

LeBlanc:  Was there a street name change proposed?

Barnes:  There were public meetings about it.

LeBlanc:  Did you get a letter specifically letting you know your street was going to be renamed?

Green:  No.

LeBlanc:  We weren’t there then; we are now.  There is a process to follow.

 

Gallup:  I have a suggestion.  Kerry:  could you continue your discussion to the side so we could move the agenda forward?  Would that be acceptable to you?

Barnes:  We made our point.

Gallup:  Just want to make sure everyone has made their point absolutely clear. 

 

LeBlanc:  I have had good, productive, constructive conversations with Mr. Barnes.

Tingle:  Let’s move forward, then.

           

12. Girdwood Community Center/Library Building Task Force Update, Brooks Chandler.

Tingle calls on Diana Livingston who is filling in for Brooks Chandler.  Reads written report into the record.  Notes Task Force members include Chandler, Livingston, Kate Fariday, Denise Dargan, Lynn McNamara, Julie Doepken.  Highlights include:

·       Some disappointments:  Denali Commission denied grant application and the Legislature may choose not to include any funding for this project in the 2005 capital budget.  Still waiting for news.

·       Task Force members met with representatives from the Denali Commission to discuss shortcomings in previous application.  Have been encouraged to reapply for funding by December deadline.  Of the $5 million appropriated for multi-use facilities for FY 2005 $3.8 million remains available.  Girdwood was an earmarked community for the first application sequence.  The second RFP will be open for application from all Alaskan communities.

·       The Commission had a variety of reasons for denying funding.  Lack of 95% construction-ready plans; the amount of money requested and local contribution was only a proposal and had not been approved.  Financing plan requires about $500,000 to be contributed by Girdwood private property owners through a local improvement district.  Girdwood property owners who agree to pay a special assessment form an improvement district. 

·       Task Force is working to develop improvement district options for consideration by the community, GBOS and the Assembly.  Met with MOA finance officials and expect them to provide information about the cost per $100,000 of assessed valuation for a variety of funding levels and repayment plans.  Will review and present an option to GBOS in June or July. 

·       The Friends of Girdwood Library/ Community Center Building Project will be partnering with Turnagain Lions club to raise funds at Forest Fair with a dunk tank.  Thanks to the Turnagain Lions Club for agreeing to help with this effort.

·       As always, continue to welcome new members of Friends of the Library/ Community Center Building Project.  One can become a friend for a modest $10 contribution.  Checks should be made payable to Girdwood Inc. and clearly indicate they are contributed for the Library/ Community Center project.  Mail the checks to P.O. Box 1102 in Girdwood or dropped off at the Gerrish Branch Library in Girdwood.

 

13. Turnagain Arm Health Center Report, Anne Herschleb and Margaret Strachan.

Tingle reads brief written report:

·       TAHC:  fundraiser at Fly by Night Club.  The “Springtime in Spenard” show is May 25th.  Tickets:  $25.00 each and can be purchased by calling 279-SPAM (7726).

·       TAHC is participating in the Bird 2 Gird Bike ride on 7/30.  We encourage families to participate in this first annual event on the new bike path.

·       No concrete information on the next Community Health Center application due date.  Originally:  5/23, but postponed.  Speculated next date:  December, 2005.  Are working with grantwriter so are ready when the date is announced.

·       Closing on the Post Office site is slated for early July.

 

14. Renewable Energy Developments (Crow Creek) in Girdwood Presentation, Doug Wu.

Tingle introduces Wu.  Wu starts by thanking community for their participation and attendance at GBOS meetings.  Today:  introduces Renewable Energy Developments as it relates to Girdwood.  In conversation with Dick Tremaine, was encouraged to make a proposal.  Thinking of larger, longer term use.  Came up to Girdwood from California with a pair of solar panels on pick-up truck.  Has had a long-standing interest in renewable energy.  Considering world’s resources and over-population:  can anticipate changes in how we use energy.  Personally thinks Girdwood is in a prime position to be a leader for renewable energy for Alaska.  Alaska’s biggest asset are the natural resources.  A very strong environmentally friendly environment in Girdwood.  Formal steps taken so far:  been working with a graduate student at UAA:  president of energy society. Through him, have established relationships with Chris Rhodes, head of renewable energy of Alaska project;  also, Red Boucher.  Researching a television show based out of Girdwood to inspire and educate with visuals to property owners on shifting to energy independence, i.e. creating own energy, whether for community or home.  One of the big problems:  Title 21. A lot of home design systems that will come up against obstacles in Title 21.  No real comment now.  Definitely there would be some issues not in compliance with Title 21.  Primary reason tonight:  everyone, what do you think about this idea?  Needs feedback.  At a point, has talked with Crow Creek Mine and will represent them in this idea of energy renewance.  Talked with Chris Rhodes about creating a hydrogen village.  A lot of things in the works.  Main point:  get these ideas in public circulation.  Talked to the Mayor at his town meeting in Girdwood:  he said to go in front of GBOS and Assembly.  Don’t come out with budgets or plans;  get idea out first.  To the public:  please think about this.  Will send around a sign-up list for those interested in hearing more.  www.ogure.org for more information (website).

 

Gallup:  wants Wu to earmark parts of Title 21, Chapter 9 that he feels are in conflict.  Asks him to attend the meeting between the LUC/ GBOS on May 25th.

 

15. Land Use Committee and Federation of Community Councils Report, LUC Officers (Note:  will be reported during Old Business and New Business).

 

Public Comment:  Persons offering comment must state their full name and address.  Public Comment is limited to three (3) minutes per individual and must be on subjects not listed elsewhere on the agenda.

 

            Marie Griffin, Timberline Drive, representing Community Schools in Girdwood, Chair

            of Friends of Four Valleys:  quick update:

·       Summer program:  coming out soon:  classes fill quickly.

·       Advisory Board:  decided to do survey:  coming out in Turnagain Times.  Please fill out and send in.   New website:  www.fourvalleys.org

·       Always appreciate any comments from the public.

 

Old Business:  

            (Tingle notes the GBOS is moving agenda item # 20 forward as Beck and Ward

            are here from Anchorage.)

      20. From Land Use Committee meeting of May 10, 2005, Crow Creek Advisory

            Committee and Agnew:: Beck Consulting presented proposed draft plans;  will be

            looking for  a supporting resolution from the GBOS to be introduced this month and

            voted on during the GBOS June meeting.  John Gallup to report. 

            Gallup defers to Chris Beck for the presentation and report.  He is joined by Robin

            Ward.  (There is a brief recess while Beck puts up maps to use as visual aids.)

Beck notes the presentation is a proposal of the Crow Creek Land Use Plan as   presented to LUC last week.  LUC passed a motion of non-objection.  Tonight, to present same information for consideration with action on a proposed resolution set for June GBOS meeting.

Purpose of Plan:  to implement the Girdwood Area Plan (“GAP”).  Affects approximately 1000 (one thousand) acre parcel up Crow Creek Road.  Includes some Open Space, single-family residential and multi-family residential use.  Also, room for school expansion and other development.  GAP identified enough area for about 1000 (one thousand) units of housing development. 

Agnew:: Beck has also worked with Land Design North, HDR and Dowl Engineers in developing the CCNP (i.e. transportation plan, physical science, hydrology, etc.)

How did Agnew:: Beck reach this current point?   Citizens Advisory Committee including Diana Livingston as Chair plus approximately ten (10) others for guidance and help in planning process.  Started at the end of last summer.  First workshop: end of Fall.  Spent a Saturday walking around on site.  Used that information, more field surveys and mapping to aid planning.  In February, 2005, released a draft plan.  Had a workshop in March, 2005.  Sum of recommendation:  housing in areas indicated in GAP except one (1) area  which has been set aside for recreational Open Space value.  710 (seven hundred ten) housing units are planned (versus 1000- one thousand- units allowed for in GAP. 

A lot of public comments:  mostly heard that this was a project the community needed.  Also:  would like to see more private land available for people to put their homes on.  Clustering development allows housing and retaining of Open Space and maintains affordability for housing and lots.

Concerns in two (2) main categories: 

First category:

a.     being able to keep the things that keep Girdwood special (low density, lots of Open Space, access to trails, etc.);

b.      whole Crow Creek area:  wrong place for development; 

c.     some not sure if government should be involved in development;

d.      affordable housing.

Second category:

a.       want to buy a vacant lot, not a house

b.       bigger buffers needed between development ‘pod’ areas

c.       concerns with quality of construction of the development

d.       questions about how development will affect whole valley (approximately 1400-1500-fourteen hundred to fifteen hundred- increase in population over time added to current 1800- eighteen hundred- population base of Girdwood)

e.       over how much time will development happen (over 8-9 years, maybe;  more likely, 15-20 years);  how will this affect size of school, etc., in Girdwood?

f.        Make sure Crow Creek Neighborhood Plan (“CCNP”) has support of MOA Planning Department

Conclusion based on public comments:  ‘we recognize we’re going to have neighbors; seems like a reasonable plan’;  only a handful of changes since March, 2005 draft of plan:  three (3) main changes:

·       Recommendation that buffer area (in development pod nearest to Double Musky) be broadened from 75’ (seventy five feet) to 100’ ( one hundred feet);  actually, closer to 150’ (one hundred fifty feet) near California Creek;  1st (first) row of development behind the buffer be kept to single-family houses.

·       Same total number of units retained, but shuffled in higher concentration areas.  Answer to question:  what’s the right level of density?  Competing concerns:  affordability versus density.  Came up with 3.5- 4 housing units per acre.

·       Response to community request:  at least 10-20% of land to be sold as vacant lots.

            RE: zoning regulations.  Would like the flexibility of a Master Planning Process. 

           

 

           Board Comments:

 

           John Gallup (commenting on Barry Kirscher’s recommendation at LUC to increase

lot availability to 10-20%):  has heard comments since then that the public wants the percentage much, much higher than that.  Ward responds this is the prevailing comment on the project and has two responses:

·       Lots will be available on a competitive bid basis.  May not prevent builders from bidding, also.

·       The actual percentage of vacant lots will be determined in the Master Planning Process.  Beck adds that prices will reflect development costs (extension of road, water and sewer):  will be expensive to extend the infrastructure.

                                                               

            Public Comments:

 

            Steve Delatush: Is the 20-20% of vacant lots in overall development or one area ?

Ward answers the 10-20% vacant lots, first of all, is a minimum, and will be    dispersed throughout whole project.  It will depend on what the ground and market will support and will be in the single-family home area.

Kathy Frost (owner of Raven Glacier Lodge, Crow Creek Road):  If it costs so much to develop, the vacant lots won’t really be affordable.  Ward:  the cost of the infrastructure in Girdwood is expensive.  Wants to be clear and upfront about that.

Tim Cabana:  RE: the 10-20% vacant lot issue:  thinks it should be a higher percentage as well.  Also:  the remark about builders bidding on them:  one  way to stop that:  one person, one lot:  that way, one company can’t come in and buy them all.  Appreciates seeing change of seventeen (17) houses in South Fan to eighty (80) s-f housing units.  Concern is that the South Fan is the only area that will be built.  Should be able to get one hundred (100) single-family homes out of forty acres.  That’s industry standard and bigger lots than we’re talking about.  Should be able to get one hundred twenty (120) houses. 

Chris Beck:  The term ‘multi-family’ or ‘attached’ covers a wide breadth of kinds of units.  It could be small lot/ single-family detached versus fifteen (15) to (20) unit apartment.  Could be duplexes or beautifully designed triplexes that feel like you’re in a single-family neighborhood.  The overall density is still good.  The character you may want to see if possible.

Tim Cabana adds that he can see duplexes being built in the multi-family development areas; just doesn’t want to see three hundred (300) apartments going in up there.  Beck concurs that is a clear message from the community.

Larry Daniels from LUC:  after this presentation was heard last Tuesday, the LUC passed a resolution of non-objection (8-e, with 4 abstentions).  The community has put a lot of energy and effort forward in putting this plan together with the MOA and other land use plans and feel strongly that when the GBOS takes a position on this, need to have some statement from Community Planning meets the definition of a Master Area Plan; that this will be the plan that is moved forward with and not something else.  Ward responds states that it has always been their (HLB’s) intention to follow Chapter 9 guidelines and specifications for an Area Master Plan.  Have been working with Beck and Planning Department to craft this so that when this is adopted it will be designated as a Development Plan in the Master Planning Process. If is doesn’t meet the criteria, will continue to work with the Planning Department to achieve this. 

Jeff Sherman comments they have done a very good job.  One last comment on ‘land for sale’ issue:  don’t be confused about affordability.  What makes it affordable is they are buying a stake in Girdwood, even if it’s very expensive.  A person who is really  wanting to live in Girdwood and can’t afford a house is able to afford a lot.  Also:  covenants are a touchy issue for someone who is building ‘piecemeal’.  Most people in this room have done it that way;  I think you need to leave some latitude for that.  Agrees with Tim: could limit it to one (1) lot per person, two (2) to three(3) lots per builder.  Always good for local builders to have some lots in their pocket so when someone wants to build in Girdwood they have something to offer.

Gallup asks if Chapter 9 has to be place in order to proceed.  Ward confirms it would be nice.  A lot nicer developing when you know what the rules are.  Gallup wanted to confirm for the record that the next piece that has to get ready is the Chapter 9 piece.  Tingle comments the project can’t really proceed without it in place.  Ward says they don’t have a legal determination, but in her opinion, thinks it will be difficult without it.  Need to have rules to play by.  Beck says the CCNP will match the requirements of the Master Plan and will outline the general objectives that need to be met at the next level of Master Planning.  If the rules dramatically change in six (6) months that could be difficult.  The actually implement the plan, it would be very nice to have the rules in place.  Tingle asks if Chapter 9 is not in place, will they be able to proceed?  Ward says they don’t know.  Will have to get a legal opinion and recommendations from the Planning Department as to how they interpret that.  Other concern:  there is another project a whole lot bigger than this that concerns her:  Glacier/Winner Creek Project.  Outside developers looking to partner with the MOA:  can’t tell them what rules they have to play by yet.  Cabana wants to know if that section wasn’t taken out of Chapter 9.  Tom Nelson, director of the MOA Planning Department, states that the part was not removed; it states there is an on-going process going on right now.  Cabana says if Chapter 9 doesn’t pass, they would still be under existing codes and laws; there are rules in place.  A preliminary plat will be in place. Ward comments they have a little bit different standard to live by being the MOA than being a private builder.  Nelson says the concern is if you are trying to bring in an investor and you don’t know the rules, the developer’s concern will be he doesn’t want to invest a lot of money and find out he may not be able to do what is planned.  Ward comments she heard twice at the LUC that the MOA doesn’t make a good developer, so is trying hard not to be in that position. 

Carol Sanner voices a consideration to set aside some of the lots for a cluster development.  Has written Robin Ward, the Board and Habitat for Humanity.  An issue of affordable housing and maintaining young families in Girdwood.  Asks HLB to dedicate at least one (1) lot in each cluster development for a Habitat for Humanity home.  Believes the MOA can dedicate those lots.   HFH very enthusiastic about this possibility.  Their homes are built to code, spec:  don’t devalue adjacent property.  Homeowner has to go through an application process.  They need to provide at least five hundred (500) to seven hundred (700) hours of sweat equity and results in a 0% mortgage, the proceeds which go towards the next house.  HFH always likes to look for a sponsoring organizations such as Rotary.  Thinks it would be a natural fit for Girdwood.  Ward has worked with Jim Fredericks who is in charge of construction for HFH.  Has a very good working relationship with him.  Also has been in touch with Anchorage Neighborhood Housing  and they are interested in perhaps setting aside some houses.  Are looking at two (2) or three (3) different programs.  Thinks affordable housing is going to take some help.

Diana Livingston asks about the 10-20% for S/F homes:  would give Girdwood about seventy (70)  to one hundred and forty (140) lots.  Would like to ask if whether the percentage could get increased going into the process.  Would rather be beaten down from a larger percent.  Ward is open to an amendment to modify the resolution for the next action item.

Rose White says these sound like ‘planned communities’.  Will there be places for children to play?  Beck comments that part of the benefit of the cluster housing is that it creates big chunks of Open Space as well as pocket parks and trails.  Ward comments the Master Planning Process is a public process.  Would like the community to weigh in and make suggestions to try and help decide what needs to be there.

Kathy Frost comments on the multi-family housing for CCR:  wouldn’t it be more effective over by the school, on that side of CCR?  Beck notes the attached housing was designed to be closer to the school and town center as possible.  Topography indicated the best places to suggest placement.

 

Tingle reads GBOS Resolution 2005-06 into the record.  GBOS Resolution 2005-06 resolves that the Municipality of Anchorage approves the Crow Creek Neighborhood Land Use Plan, as amended by the Land Use Advisory Committee on May 10, 2005.  Action is deferred until June GBOS meeting per GBOS protocol.

       

16. Action on GBOS Resolution 2005-05 in support of AWWU ‘s planned water distribution system extension and sanitary sewer reconstruction project in the Town Square area proposed and read into the record at April 18, 2005 GBOS meeting.

Tingle MOVES to approve GBOS Resolution 2005-05 as presented; Gallup SECONDS; Vote:  4-0, unanimous approval.

 

17. Discussion and action on items to be included in Phase 2 of the $10 million Economic Grant; the GBOS discussed during last month’s meeting.

Tingle notes that after numerous GBOS meetings and workshops, the Board has reduced the projects slated for Phase 2 of the Girdwood Streets and Drainage Improvements Program into GBOS Resolution 2005-07.  Tingle reads the Resolution into the record.  The Phase 2 Program consists of: 

·       Girdwood Place:  total cost (conceptual):  $500,000

·       Town Square Park:  total cost (conceptual):  $550,000

·       Town Square Parking Lot:  total cost (conceptual):  $450,000

·       Alyeska Highway Gateway:  total cost (conceptual):  $1,200,000

·       TOTAL Phase 2 Program Cost:    $2,700,000

           

           Public Questions:

 

Larry Daniels asks for clarification on what a ‘gateway’ project is.  Diana Livingston responds that the gateway project hasn’t been designed, but the concept is to provide traffic calming into and out of the Town Square area from both sides. 

Livingston asks why it can’t be voted on this month.  Tingle explains that even though the option was proposed at the April GBOS meeting the month before, it wasn’t in resolution form.  Livingston asks if Jacques Boutet is alright with waiting.  The secretary notes Boutet as the author of the resolution and confirms the timing.

Livingston asks Tingle to read the breakdown of projects and costs.

          

18. From Land Use Committee meeting of May 10, 2005, action on proposed adoption schedule for Title 21, Chapter 9.

John Gallup asks Daniels to report.  He reports the LUC last Tuesday passed a motion that read, “in keeping with the deliberative process that the community moved forward with the May 18th and 21st   workshop meetings and then will decide at the July LUC how best to move forward and be allocated a minimum of thirty (30) days to review the next draft of Chapter 9, Title 21”:  moved and seconded, passed

thirty-eight (38) to zero (0) with thirteen (13) abstentions. 

 

Board Questions:

 

John Gallup:  Apologizes for not asking this question at the LUC meeting last Tuesday:  why wait until the July LUC meeting instead of the June LUC meeting ?

Daniels:  Fairly confidant that the intent of the motion was to provide some time to revise the current draft of Chapter 9 that comes out of the workshop sessions and, hopefully, a joint workshop session between the LUC and GBOS.  Also, the thirty day  (30) process would result in the July time frame.

Diana Livingston asks to clarify.  Livingston adds the joint meeting of the LUC and GBOS will be held on May 24th , at which time comments will be taken and passed on to Tom (Nelson) and Erika (McConnell).  Can’t remember what time the revision would be out.  Certainly going to miss the June 20th meeting.  Won’t be time for people to review and digest it.  That’s why the July meeting.

Gallup asks when the revision happens if it could happen in the form of an addendum rather than republish the entire Chapter 9 document.  Easier to crank out a few pages of changes.

Jeff Sherman says that Erika was very careful in not saying at the LUC that there would be an entire re-publishing of the document draft.  Would not commit Tom and his resources without authorization.

            Tingle asks Tom Nelson if the GBOS puts off to the recommended time from LUC

             will the community miss getting Chapter 9 before the Assembly before they go into

             their budget work this Fall?

             Nelson:  Yes.

 

 

 

           Tingle:  And if we do that, it’s going to put us off until 2006 in re-addressing it.  And

that’s really going to affect development of Winner Creek and Crow Creek  according to what Robin (Ward) was saying earlier.  Is there any way we can get this resolved a little faster so that we can meet that deadline so we can keep this thing moving?

             Livingston states the problem is not just people that live in Girdwood, but non-

             resident property owners who will be affected by Chapter 9.  And it’s a little more

            difficult than putting copies at the library for everyone to pick up.

            Tom Nelson offers the document the are just passing around at the meeting is an

            adoption schedule for Chapter 9, Title 21.  Initially, came down in February, 2005,

            based on the work program for the MOA Planning Department, this project is one

            committed to along with several others.  If there was a chance to get the Girdwood

regulations done this year, it would have to follow this admittedly tight schedule.  Saw there was a potential opportunity here to benefit everybody as well as Anchorage as a whole to address the design standards and regulations in Girdwood separately from Title 21 (Anchorage).  Put together the adoption schedule based upon the work program they had for everything this year (i.e. Title 21, Anchorage Land Use planning, Hillside District planning, Chugiak-Eagle River comprehensive plan, Anchorage Central Business District plan, etc.)  What were clear on:  if it was going to be done this year, had to put a public hearing draft out by the first of June to allow people a sufficient time to review it.  Recommending six (6) weeks before there is a joint public hearing date set before the Assembly in mid-July, so that the Planning and Zoning Commission could deliberate in August, 2005, and the Assembly could deliberate in September, 2005.  Part of the reason for doing that is that MOA Planning is going to be releasing the next complete draft of Title 21 in June, 2005.  There’s going to be a public review period through the rest of the summer.  That’s the opportunity for the staff to address Girdwood. That review of Title 21 ends in September and then will be consumed with making revisions to Title 21 (Anchorage).  That will involve a lot of public meetings and a lot of staff and time.  MOA Planning Department is bound by Assembly resolution to stay on schedule with Title 21.  So if it wasn’t clear enough in previous meetings, that is, the importance of adhering to the adoption schedule, I am here to tell you tonight ( and I’ve talked to Mayor Begich at 5 pm this afternoon:  he’s fully aware and in agreement) that if you cannot go forward with Chapter 9 with the public hearing draft in the first part of June, 2005, for a mid-July public hearing so that the Commission and the Assembly can act on it in August and September, we are going to have to put it off until 2006 because we don’t have the resources and the time to review it later this year.  We have other commitments already.  Can’t help but over-emphasize that point.  We’re not saying this as a threat.  I want to emphasize this.

We’ve been trying to be candid from the very first time we came down here that we saw this as a ‘window of opportunity’.  We’ve worked diligently with the subcommittee of the LUC and I laud that subcommittee, the members on it, for all the time they gave to try and rectify the concerns and issues of the document.  It’s not likely to be a perfect document.  But by putting it out for public review the first of June, there’s still six (6) weeks until the public hearing.  It allows time to try and rectify any other outstanding issues.  But we need to get the public review draft out;  you need to feel comfortable enough with the document that we can put it out the first of June and rectify any outstanding issues.  Now if the community is not comfortable with that they we can wait.  That’s an option.  If we wait, we’ve moved to ’06. 

Tingle comments that it’s human nature to put everything off till the last minute.  Seems like been going after this Chapter 9 for six (6) years and then it gets down to the last minute and they everyone says, “Wait’, and it gets put off again.  So if we have two (2) weeks left in this month and six (6) weeks left after June 1st, it seems to me that’s enough time. 

Gallup defends both sides.  It’s clear there’s a large number of people in Girdwood that are dissatisfied with the details of Chapter 9, for a variety of reasons- I may not agree, but I understand.  Personally think that they would like to see these regulations held off as long as possible, perhaps indefinitely and continue to function under the old rules which Tim (Cabana) pointed out still apply and would apply.  The LUC spoke quite clearly that that was the case and that they wanted to go forward in a more deliberative manner.  On the upside, we do have two (2) work sessions coming up on Wednesday and Saturday.  And it may be after the dust settles on Saturday, the document looks much different than it does today and people will feel better about it.  Right now, behind the eight ball.  It might be we put a bunch of work in this month and then pick it back up with staff in ’06.

Nelson comments the MOA is trying to make the optimum use of staff resources.  If the decision is to wait, I’m not here to criticize Girdwood’s decision.  You have to have the comfort level to go forward.  But if the decision is made to wait for further review, I don’t see any point in having the work sessions this coming week. 

(Unidentified male) comments:  But there’s a lot of work to be done.

Nelson replies, that may be, but right now, if the decision is basically made to wait until next year, having a work session next week or eight (8) months from now, I’d rather wait until eight (8) or twelve (12) months from now than do it next week. We’ll be in a whole different situation:  different people, etc. It’s better to have the work session closer to the time that you’re going to put a draft out for public hearing than do it a year in advance.

Larry Daniels, speaking on behalf of the LUC, notes the decision made at the LUC meeting:  seems there was going to be some level of meeting either in July or early August on behalf of the LUC that the staff was willing to support.  With the process outlined, even going until July to the GBOS, that the schedule is still do-able.  Also:

having gone through the Resort project many years ago, that Zoning action or regulations that were being undertaken were understood to be coming and the Planning Dept chose to enforce those ‘coming regulations’ even though they hadn’t been passed.  Any major development that would go on in Girdwood between now and ’06, would have to go through a conditional use process, is that not correct?

And then, if CUP, if the Planning and Zoning Commission has already heard and Assembly had to take action on it, it certainly would be completely within both the Planning Department and Zoning purview to simply enforce the regulations that they’re going to be heard later.  At the conditional use level, you can put any reasonable regulation on the developer in any event.  Think you could move forward, a fair ways down that line even if it ultimately doesn’t get to the Assembly.  We also know there are portions of Title 21 that Chapter 9 refers to and we don’t know how that is going to actually going to become regulation.  Still unclear in many people’s cases where and how all the rest of all the regulations in Title 21 not related to Chapter 9 will be enforced.  All those things being said, it is a very complex process.  I don’t disagree that the Planning Dept has a finite amount of time to put into it.  Guess when the ‘checkbook of time’ runs out guess that’s it.

Jeff Sherman asks if there isn’t a time period that the publication of the public draft before review:  doesn’t it have to be six (6) weeks?

Nelson responds:  right now there has to be a minimum twenty-one (21) day notice as required by law.  As a practical matter, MOA Planning is recommending there be the six (6) week review period given the complexity and significance of this ordinance.

Sherman confirms that if the LUC votes on some schedule on the current draft in July, then MOA Planning publish that if you have time, those meetings would have to be off a minimum of three (3) weeks.

Nelson:  Yes, by law, that’s so.

Sherman:  So a meeting happening in late July will make the adoption schedule not happen.

Galllup:  I only advocate keeping these planned work sessions/ meetings on the schedule as we’ve got everybody’s attention right now; it’s on everyone’s ‘front burner’.  Girdwood 2020 mailed everyone a schedule of the meetings to get people there.  Think we’ve got an opportunity to bring a lot of people into the process.  If it slows to idle, then we’ve got to fire it up again next year.  I think progress we’re making now would be lost.  If the document doesn’t go anywhere, it might get ‘dusty’ over the summer and fall.  Progress isn’t lost, I don’t believe.  When staff becomes available again, that progress will still be sitting there.

Livingston comments  agrees with John (Gallup).  Remembers struggling all last summer trying to get people to come to LUC meetings to discuss and learn about Chapter 9 and there was nobody here.  If we’ve got momentum built up now, people interested in coming to these meetings, it behooves us to hold the meetings and try to get these folks educated.

Sherman says, as a subcommittee member of Chapter 9, understands what Tom is saying:  we may have to redo the meetings, but it’s on everyone’s mind and on the schedule, I think we should just go forward with the two (2) workshops because you also don’t know what’s going to happen to all of your subcommittee members in the future.  Some knowledge there about how decisions were made;  some of the compromises;  reasons for some of the arcane dimensions that could be explained.

Having done that, the process can go on in 2006.

Denise Dargan offers there are copies of the current Chapter 9 draft at the Gerrish Branch Library.

Gallup:  Or online at ‘muni.org/ Planning’.

Tingle suggests the Board make a motion.

 

Gallup makes a motion of non-objection to the recommendation of the LUC to go forward with the May 18th and 21st  workshops at the Daylodge and the joint meeting of the LUC/GBOS, 7 pm, at the Daylodge;  then, present recommendations to the LUC in July at the July 12th LUC meeting with the understanding with this schedule it will cause Girdwood to miss the ‘window of opportunity’ for the Chapter 9 adoption schedule.  Victor Duncan SECONDS.  Vote:  2 ‘for’ and 2 ‘against ‘motion.

(Secretary begins to look up procedure in current GBOS Rules and Procedures in case of tie vote by Board.) 

Tingle calls for discussion.

 

Board Comments:

 

Gallup states: I’m very upset by the motion.  I’m acting as I’m being guided by the LUC, but thinks the LUC meeting was stacked with the idea that they wanted these regulations pushed back as far as possible; maybe even years.  Will be interested to see who shows up for the work sessions to find out if anyone is really interested in sitting down and taking this thing apart item by item and fixing it to their liking.  Let’s see who shows up.  But I’m voting the way I’m voting because I’m supporting the committee (LUC).  I want to be back on the old schedule so we can get this thing behind us so we can move on.

Tingle says to Gallup:  That being said, how can you vote for the motion?  You just gave a great argument for voting with me and Vic (Duncan).

 

Public Comments:

 

Tim Cabana:  I can see John’s dilemma.  John’s basically going with the LUC and the people that were there:  they were very emotional about this.  There has been a mailing just sent out in which everybody is expecting…..I mean, the LUC….it’s very rare that the GBOS goes against the LUC.  So that’s why nobody’s here.  I, for one, will be at the work sessions and I will contribute.  I’m not against the document; I’m just against a lot of things in the document at this point.  And I think there’s some compromises to be made because I think we need to get the public here.  The public’s out there listening:  you better show up at these meetings or nothing’s going to change.

Tingle:  I keep hearing, “We don’t like this, we don’t like this”, but I don’t see anybody saying, “I don’t like this particular thing.”  I would like to see one of these Chapter 9 documents marked up with yellow pencil saying, “This is wrong.  This needs to be changed.”  And have that submitted so we can move forward.  That could be presented in these next few workshops.  That makes the most sense.  Having said that, I’d like to make a motion…

Gallup:  We’ve got to get out from under our current motion.

(Secretary notes ‘tie vote procedure’ in GBOS Rules and Procedures for Chair.  Tingle reads:   ‘In case of tie, the Board will take one revote.  If the vote remains, the motion fails.’)

Tingle says the Board needs to revote immediately: if it fails, it fails.

Gallup states motion again:  resolution of non-objection to the LUC’s resolution last week that we go forward with the May 18th and 21st work sessions  and the joint LUC/GBOS meeting on May 24th, all to be held at the Daylodge;  and the changes be reported to the July LUC meeting with the understanding that this schedule will cause us to miss the Chapter 9 ‘window of opportunity’ for 2005.  ( Tom Nelson comments he appreciates the restatement of the motion.  Notes that if they cannot go forward with the public hearing and action this summer on Chapter 9, he sees no benefit for the Planning Department staff participating in the work sessions on the 18th, 21st and 24th.  Nelson notes they will likely not be in attendance.  Gallup notes the community will do their best without the MOA’s help;  the community will actually have to read the document.)  Nick Danger SECONDS the motion.  Vote:  0 ‘for, 4 ‘against’, motion fails.

Tingle suggests moving on to New Business. 

Julie Jonas confirms that the Board just voted to not hold the workshops;  that people listening on the radio who got a flier today should probably understand that there will be no workshops.

Tingle:  No, the workshops will go.

Nelson:  My understanding is the motion that was just made, failed.  So we don’t know what’s going to happen now.

Tingle:  We need a new motion.

Sherman:  Point of order.  The motion to support the LUC’s decision of non-objection to the revised schedule, failed.  So now perhaps you need to propose a schedule that you support and vote on it.

Tingle:  I’d make a motion that we re-install the work sessions and adhere to the original schedule from Planning. 

Gallup:  Can we get there?

Jonas:  Someone else needs to make the motion.

Gallup:  I’d like to make a MOTION that we uphold the May 18th and May 21st  work sessions and incorporate those changes as rapidly as possible to attempt to get back on the original adoption schedule.  Is that too vague? 

Tom Nelson:  We will make a commitment if we have a work session where we can turn around and make a revised public hearing draft by June 1, 2005, based on the outcome of those work sessions.  But we need a commitment that we will go forward.

Gallup ( to Nelson):  And you want your six (6) week clock to start ticking on June 1?

Nelson:  Yes.  To commit to a public hearing in mid-July with action taken by the Commission and Assembly in  August and September.

Gallup:  Okay.  Should I restate it from the top?  (Everyone:  Yes.)  Okay:  I’d like to make a MOTION that we go forward with the May 18th and 21st work sessions on Chapter 9, Title 21, at the Daylodge at the specified times and at that point in time, take the information from those two (2) meetings and bypassing the joint  LUC/ GBOS meeting, send them directly to MOA Planning Department so they can have ten (10) days to get an accepted public review draft. 

Nelson:  It’s only a joint hearing.  If you want a public hearing…

Erika McConnell (MOA Planning):  My understanding is that the workshops would be for answered questions, making comments;  but the actual community-recommended changes to the draft would happen through the joint LUC/GBOS meeting on May 24th.

Gallup:  That has to occur then?  Okay.  From the top:  I make a RESOLUTION (MOTION) that we retain the May 18th and 21st work sessions and that we have a May 24th joint LUC/GBOS meeting and that after that meeting, the recommendations be passed forward to the MOA Planning Dept with the idea they can turn it around and have a draft released by June 1, 2005.  Victor Duncan SECONDS the motion.

Livingston asks for discussion.  Adds:  when the MOA does the re-draft, asks if they will totally re-do the entire document. 

Nelson:  acknowledges there will likely be certain revisions and amendments.  Livingston says it’s hard to tell where changes have been made unless they’re done in an addendum.

Nelson: Your point is well taken.  For people familiar with the draft right now:  the changes that are included in that could be listed in a brief memorandum.

Livingston:  That would help.

Jeff Sherman: The upcoming June 1st draft:  I guess that has to be in tact, all one hundred (100) pages.  We can’t do tract changes. 

Nelson:  For a public hearing draft, you really want a clean draft. 

(Unidentified male):  You could do a ‘red line’ copy.   Then you see the original and you see the changes.

Larry Daniels: We’d have to go back and review the understanding between the LUC and the BOS, but as a point of order the agreement between the two (2) bodies essentially  says that the GBOS…..well, first, this particular motion is disregarding or taking a different position than what the LUC recommended and that the understanding when that takes place is that the BOS will write a letter to the LUC explaining why the GBOS chose not to follow the LUC’s recommendation.  Will have to do more research as to how the LUC will be able to respond to this process.

Gallup notes he will draft a letter to Larry (Daniels, Chair of LUC) and copy the Board.

Tingle:  No more questions? 

 Gallup (moving on to new agenda item).

 Public:  Wait:  you have to vote. You have a motion out there.  You have to vote.

Gallup:  I’m sorry.  That was my fault.  We have to vote.

 

Tingle asks for the Board’s vote on the motion.  Vote:  4-0, unanimous ‘for’; motion passes.

 

 

19. From Land Use Committee meeting of May 10, 2005, Case 2004-137, Large Animal Ordinance.

(Board skips over.  Note:  cancelled.)

 

New Business:

21. From Land Use Committee meeting of May 10, 2005, Platting Case S11375-1, Per Bjorn-Roli to subdivide two (2) lots into two (2) different lots:  east of Garmisch Road, Alyeska Subdivision, Block 6A, Lot H1A & I1A, located within the NW ¼ of Section 16, T10N, R2E, S.M., Alaska.  Fred Walatka & Associates (Hearing date:  5/30/05).

Gallup reports that this needs action tonight as it goes before P&Z on May 30th.  Notes it was presented at the LUC:  no objection to it at all.  Just the movement of one (1) line of a lot of two (2) adjoining lots to make the portion of the lot that does not contain his residence more usable for multi-family structures.  It makes it wider so that the setbacks don’t infringe on him quite so much.  Tingle confirms he is seeking a letter of non-objection.  Gallup confirms and PROPOSES the same.  Duncan SECONDS.  Vote:  4-0, unanimous approval.  Gallup to write letter.

 

22. From Land Use Committee meeting of May 10, 2005, no case number:  Tim Cabana Project:  fifty (50) room hotel on Donner.

Tim Cabana project:  fifty (50) room hotel on Donner.  Cabana gives brief presentation (floor plans, elevations).  Notes he has a case number now.  Structure:  log and rock lodge for commercial property across Alyeska Highway from Donner Loop on Kami Way.  Cabana shares it will have a bunch of office and retail space on the first floor.  Restaurant, bar, five thousand (5000) square feet of miscellaneous office and retail space.  Thirty-two (32) rooms on the second floor;  eighteen (18) rooms on the top floor.  A work in  progress.  Currently, a separate pool out front.  About one hundred (100) parking spots; am getting conflicting information on the parking. Approximately four and one half ( 4 ½ ) acre site.  Asks for questions:

 

Duncan confirms location of pool.

Tingle asks size of pool.  Cabana; about twenty five feet (25’) by fifty feet (50’).

Steve Delatush: Elevation?  Cabana: Forty some feet high.  It’s within the ‘thirty-five feet (35’) to the midpoint of the mast of the roof’. 

Delatush:  How visible from the main road?  Cabana:  Don’t think it will be visible from the main road. 

Delatush:  Was thinking back to the GAP.  Essentially everyone was going for a non-commercial corridor.

Cabana: It’s not visible from the road.  We have a thirty foot (30’) screening easement.   Also, Alyeska Highway is one hundred feet (100’) from the centerline to the edge of the property.  Then, there’s a thirty foot (30’) screening easement, then a twenty-five foot (25’) or twenty foot (20’) electrical easement, so it’s one hundred fifty feet (150’) just to the edge of the telephone and electrical easement from the centerline of Alyeska Highway.  It’s way off road.

Gallup:  I think you may be able to see it, but I don’t think it’s going to be hard to look at.

Tingle:  It’s a beautiful structure.

Gallup:  It’s nice to see a building that an engineer and architect thought about Girdwood first as a fundamental, principle of what the building was going to look like defending against snow and ice with the long eaves to the north.  I like to see that kind of thinking because it means the building is going to work for you fifty (50) years from now.

Jeff Sherman:  Tim, just want to say your solution for the roof valley is really slick.  A question:  what are you proposing across Donner from this? 

Cabana:  Some of this is still proposed in a land trade with HLB.  Other are commercial lots.

(Some discussion complimenting the structure and design. Comments about depth of peet and holes being dug to check. Cabana notes a stream setback.)

 

Gallup and Larry Daniels note the LUC sent forward a non-objection to the concept of the lodge as presented.  Gallup PROPOSES the GBOS agree with the LUC recommendation and draft a letter of non-objection to the concept of the lodge as presented.  Duncan SECONDS.  Vote:  4-0, unanimous approval.  Gallup to write letter to Planning Department.

 

Point of Order:  Tingle notes it is past 10 pm.  Gallup MOVES to extend meeting until the completion of Board Reports.  Duncan SECONDS.  Vote:  4-0, unanimous.

 

Board Reports:

23.Land Use Supervisor, John Gallup.

a.     From Land Use Committee meeting of May 10, 2005, Airport Master Plan  

Draft EIS.

Gallup reports the initial phase of the environmental assessment is going to involve the installation of rip-rap at the edge of airport on most of it’s western edge; involve a safety zone on the southwest end of the runway (Livingston notes on the north end of the runway:  the landing zone will be moved south by about twenty-four feet (24’) and at the south end:  a safety zone of four hundred feet (400’).)  Gallup adds the third major piece of this is the lowering of the fourteen thousand (14,000) volt line:  tried to talk them into lowering under the creek, but may wind up with overhead problems.  Livingston notes they didn’t commit to how they were going to do it.  Livingston adds the comment period for this ended on May 13th.

 

      24. Parks and Recreation Supervisor, GBOS Chair, Tracey Knutson.

                       As both the Chair and Chad Frank are traveling there will be no P&R report

                       this month.

 

      25. Public Safety and Fire Supervisor, Nick Danger.

b.     Fire Department Report:  from Chief Chadwick:

o      Twenty-one (21) responses this month;  sixteen (16) EMS calls;  one (1) false alarm;  three (3) rescue calls;  two (2) electrical problems

o      Average response time down from last year:  from six (6) minutes and thirteen (13) seconds to five (5) minutes and ten (10) seconds

o      Most responses were resort transport, motor vehicle accidents and service calls

o      Wildfire burning:  suspended right now. 

o      Implemented the new emergency hotline number:  783-0029

o      Fire wide training:  Girdwood School:  May 19th, 7-9 pm for kids

o      May 21st, Saturday, 10 am:  municipal foresters in Girdwood:  free home wildland  assessments:  meet in school parking lot

o      Whittier:  no EMS service:  will have hands full this summer

 

 

c.     Trooper Report:  from Girdwood Trooper station, Girdwood post supervisor, Sgt. Welch:

o      this time last year, had eleven (11) DWI’s;  this year has had thirteen (13)

o      a lot of calls for increased speeders:  if you call the Troopers on your cell phone, the Troopers will chase the speeder down

o      burglaries, theft, damaged properties:  numbers are up with eleven  (11) calls this year versus eight (8) at this time last year;  pay attention, give a call if you see something going on

 

      26. Roads Supervisor, Marcus Tingle.

d.      Roads Budget to Date,

e.     Monthly Roads Report:

o      $105, 756.75, current roads budget after last month’s billing 

o      road contractor has already started paving the roads to start preparing them for calcium chloride application;  as soon as the weather dries up a bit, that will be done;  might be able to get a second application in July if needed

 

27. Utilities Supervisor, Victor Duncan.

f.       Under-grounding Utilities

Nothing new to report.

g.     Water and Sewer:  Duncan reads the updates from Lynda Barber-Wiltse’s AWWU report.  Highlights include:

o      Girdwood Water Projects:  are partially funded with EPA STAG’s (State and Tribal Assistance Grant(s)).  AWWU is working with EPA to finalize/revise the grant applications so that we can secure reimbursement for portions of the project that are constructed and in service.  Tam Construction will finish surface restoration work in May or June, 2005.

o      Girdwood Water Improvements Phase IIB:  AWWU submitted comments to HLB and Agnew:: beck and continues working with HLB and ADOT/PF staff and consultants to coordinate future improvements.  Agnew:: Beck presented the Crow Creek Neighborhood Plan to Girdwood Land Use on May 10, 2005, which resulted in a motion of “non-objection” to the GBOS.  The Crow Creek plan is scheduled to go to the GBOS on May 16, 2005.

o      Girdwood WWTF facility Plan update: Findings and recommendations from the Girdwood I&I manhole repair project impact this Facility Plan.  The focus at this time continues on stemming the I&I problems.  The final plan due date has been changed to fall 2005 to allow AWWU to evaluate results from the manhole repair efforts.

o      Sewer I&I:  VEI continues to work with AWWU on the flow meter data gathering project.,  The CCTV crews videotaped several pipelines which did show  one area where the pipe had been hit by a backhoe.  The UAA senior design project was completed and several AWWU and other engineers (including Assembly Member and fellow Civil Engineer Chris Birch) attended the presentations.  The students did an excellent job analyzing the system and providing recommendations.  AWWU is preparing construction plans and specifications to repair an additional 150 to 250 manholes on the east side of Glacier Creek this summer.

o      PM&E Girdwood Town Square Street and Drainage improvements:  Discussions continue between ADOT/PF, PM&E and AWWU regarding the water, sewer and road projects for this area.  ADOT/PF and PM&E currently plan to construct the road work in 2006, however, AWWU is planning to install the water pipelines in Holmgren and Girdwood Place this summer.  In addition, AWWU plans to upsize the sewer pipeline in Hightower between the Alyeska Highway and the north entrance to the new Post Office to accommodate future upstream developments in conjunction with the PM&E project in 2006.  In order to satisfy the EPA STAG and NEPA process, R&M Consultants, Inc. issued a request for comments/scoping letter to interested agencies and stakeholders (which includes GBOS).  AWWU requested a Resolution from the GBOS supporting this work at the April 2005 meeting.

                        

Tingle comments that concludes the business of the GBOS.  Asks for a motion to

adjourn.  Terry Jackson from the public asks to speak.

 

Terry Jackson:  Want to say one thing.  What you guys did tonight by going against the LUC resolution:  I think the LUC resolution was made and voted on with incomplete information.  You got more information.  The decision you made tonight I think is good for the future of Girdwood.  I think you should be commended for that.

Tingle:  Thank you, Terry.

 

Gallup MOVES to adjourn;  Duncan SECONDS.  Vote:  4-0, unanimous to adjourn

 

Adjournment by 10:20 pm

 

Minutes respectfully submitted,

Jane Barber

Secretary’s note:  copies of the following reports are available by fax:

-        HLB report

-        MOA Street Addressing: letter toproperty owners, flier, and copy of letter from Diana Livingston and neighbors to MOA Street Addressing

-        Girdwood Library Building update

-        TAHC report

-        GBOS Resolution 2005-05/ support to AWWU for planned water distribution system extension and sanitary sewer reconstruction

-        GBOS Resolution 2005-07/ Girdwood Street Improvement and Drainage/ $10 Economic Grant, Phase II project list

-        Crow Creek Neighborhood Plan/ Development and Open Space drawing

-        Resolution 2005-06/approval of the Crow Creek Neighborhood Land Use Plan as amended by the Land Use Advisory Committee on May 10, 2005

-        GFD report

-        AWWU report