CityView Portal
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Sean R Marx | 12/13/2025 5:20:21 PM |
| I am writing as an Alaskan resident and Anchorage taxpayer to formally request denial of the proposed plat approval for the Holtan Hills development. This request is based on multiple procedural and legal deficiencies under Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) Title 25 and related planning requirements, as outlined below: 1. Lack of Site-Specific Land-Use Study AMC §?25.40.025(C) requires a site-specific land-use study when existing plans do not adequately evaluate the parcel. No such study was conducted prior to AO?2023-137, leaving critical issues—such as infrastructure, environmental sensitivity, and community compatibility—unaddressed. 2. Procurement Violations and Partner Withdrawals The original RFP (2021P015) awarded the project to a team including CY Investments, Pomeroy Property Development, and Seth Andersen. By early 2024, Pomeroy and Andersen withdrew, materially altering the proposal. AMC §?25.40.025(D) mandates competitive integrity in disposals; no re-bid or public re-approval occurred after these withdrawals. 3. Unsupported “Best Interest” Finding AMC §?25.40.025(B) requires a documented finding that the disposal serves the municipality’s best interest. This finding was unsupported: • No site-specific study was completed. • Public testimony, including strong opposition and GBOS objections, was disregarded. The ordinance therefore lacks a factual basis and fails procedural standards. 4. Expired Master Plan Under AMC §?21.09 (Girdwood Area Plan), GR-3 zoning requires a master plan. The Crow Creek Neighborhood Plan (2006) anticipated development by 2010 under a land-bank model, which never occurred. The plan has effectively expired and cannot authorize current platting. 5. Public Trust Breach and Irreparable Harm Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution requires maximum public benefit in land disposals. This transaction benefits a single private entity, resembling a “sweetheart deal.” Construction began in September 2025, clearing old-growth forest and filling ~6.8 acres of wetlands under USACE Permit POA-2021-00492. These impacts are irreversible and will moot any future judicial review. Requested Actions: 1. Deny plat approval for Holtan Hills. 2. Halt ongoing land disturbance until: • A site-specific land-use study is completed (§?25.40.025(C)), • A new competitive process addresses partner withdrawals (§?25.40.025(D)), • A documented “best interest” finding is provided (§?25.40.025(B)), • Environmental impacts are fully reviewed. 3. Preserve the status quo to prevent irreparable harm and allow neutral review. Conclusion: Approving this plat under current conditions violates municipal code, undermines public trust, and risks irreversible environmental and community harm. Denial is necessary to uphold the law and protect public lands for all Alaskans. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I respectfully request a written response. Sincerely, Sean R Marx, Alaskan Resident | |
| Sean Marx | 12/13/2025 3:02:18 PM |
| AO 137 original disposal ordinance is void for reason eluded to in no site-specific land use study, violation of procurement code and public notice claims blatantly ignored as many Alaskan citizens appeared and testified on-record against land disposal. Under Girdwood 21.09 E Area Master Planning Mandatory in GR-3 zoning district I surmise this is a bogus argument claiming the crow creek neighborhood use plan was adopted in 2006 and it had a development schedule that to build houses in 2010 (including plat approval) when land bank was going to be main developer. Abandonment of Master Plan. A and B. Expiration. You can’t approve this plat due to one or all the claims eluded to in the following arguments. A response is demanded. I seek to deny plat approval and preserve the status quo by halting ongoing irreversible harm to public lands from the Holtan Hills development. Potential third party scrutiny, such as a court of proper jurisdiction will find the plat and disposal violates municipal procedures, and this plat approval and continued activity will destroy wetlands and old-growth forest before a neutral "third party" can potentially rule on the merits. Plat denial is requested to prevent irreparable environmental and community injury. Heritage Land Bank (HLB) issued RFP 2021P015 on April 28, 2021; the selected proposal (June 2022) relied on a team including CY Investments, Seth Andersen, P.E., and Pomeroy Property Development. Pomeroy and Andersen withdrew by early 2024, materially altering the proposal without re-bid or re-approval. The Assembly approved the flawed disposal on January 23, 2024 via AO 2023-137. Notice was inadequate; no site-specific study conducted. The “best interest” finding was unsupported amid documented community opposition, including GBOS objections. Construction began September 2025, filling ~6.8 acres of wetlands and removing forest under USACE Permit POA-2021-00492. Further, neutral party review is requested for AMC Title 25 Violations because this land disposal and proposed platting lacks a site-specific study (AMC § 25.40.025(C)), undermined the competitive process by ignoring partner withdrawals (AMC § 25.40.025(D))— essentially “donating” this land to "one individual” for development— and features an arbitrary “best interest” finding under (AMC §§ 25.40.020, .025). Frustration of Purpose exists – party withdrawals altered the core proposal without re-approval, frustrating its purpose. There is a Public Trust Breach because the disposal and plat fails maximum public benefit (Art. VIII, Alaska Const.), again conveying the land to one “individual” in what many Alaskans have termed a “sweetheart deal,” serves to bolster procedural claims herein. Plat denial is probable given clear procedural lapses. Irreparable Harm Will Occur Absent third “neutral" party interventions because the ongoing clearing destroys wetlands and forest—irreparable environmental harm not compensable by money. Construction alters the status quo, mooting claims before potential third party intervention. Community impacts (infrastructure strain, loss of public resources) are imminent and irreversible. Denying the plat preserves public lands for all Alaskans- not just for the financial gain of "one Alaskan” and I stand behind my analysis as a Alaskan resident and Anchorage taxpayer safeguarding municipal compliance by enforcing Alaskan plat and land disposal laws and claim that protecting this resource serves the public interest (Art. VIII, Alaska Const.). | |
| Carl | 12/12/2025 3:37:34 PM |
| 1. AMC 25.40 – HLB Land Disposal Requirements AMC 25.40 requires that municipal land disposals: * be competitively solicited, * achieve fair market value, * and clearly serve the Municipality’s best interest. The Agreement conveys large, valuable tracts of Girdwood land to CY Investments without a guaranteed purchase price, without evidence of competitive solicitation, and without demonstrating public benefit — all inconsistent with AMC 25.40’s requirements. 2. AMC 7.20 – Procurement Code CY Investments receives multiple forms of compensation that constitute professional and construction-management services, including: * 3.5% project-management fee, * 3% marketing fee, * 1% administrative fee, * reimbursement of internal costs and overhead. Normally, these services must be competitively procured under AMC 7.20. If no RFP or RFQ was issued, the Agreement may violate procurement law. 3. Failure to Achieve Fair Market Value A December 2021 Municipal appraisal valued the Holtan Hills land at $2.1 million. Despite this, the Municipality conveyed the land with no upfront compensation and no public-interest justification for discounting the value. This raises significant concerns under AMC 25.40’s fair-market-value requirement. 4. Property Tax Undervaluation (AMC 12.05 – “Full and True Value”) The parcels deeded to CY Investments are assessed at approximately $260,000 each, totaling less than the City’s own appraisal. This contradicts AMC 12.05’s mandate for uniform and true-value assessment and constitutes an ongoing tax subsidy to the developer. 5. Developer Is Insulated from Risk While Receiving Multiple Forms of Guaranteed Compensation This is one of the most troubling aspects of the Agreement. In standard development practice: * Developers fund entitlements, engineering, and infrastructure. * Developers repay themselves through lot sales. * Developers bear cost overruns and unforeseen conditions. * Developers earn profit after risk is taken. None of this applies here. Under the Agreement: * The Municipality pays for all off-site improvements, including overruns. * The Municipality bears all extraordinary costs, including landfill remediation. * CY Investments is reimbursed for internal project expenses. * CY Investments receives guaranteed fees (3.5%, 3%, 1%) regardless of project performance. * Off-site costs paid by the Municipality are not reimbursed from project revenue. * Because the public finances the infrastructure, CY’s profit margin is artificially inflated — she earns more because taxpayers shoulder her usual costs. * No mechanism exists for the Municipality to recover its infrastructure expenditures, even though these expenditures directly increase the value of the lots CY will sell for profit. This structure exposes the Municipality to unlimited downside, while guaranteeing protected profit to a private developer. It is the opposite of prudent public-private partnership structuring and raises serious questions about compliance with: * AMC 25.40 (public-interest requirement) * Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution (maximum public benefit) * Basic fiduciary responsibility over public resources The economic structure of the Agreement cannot reasonably be construed as serving the public interest. 6. Alaska Constitution Article VIII – Maximum Benefit to the People Public resources must be managed for the maximum benefit of Alaska’s people. The Agreement shifts risk to the public, guarantees private profit, and contains no affordability or workforce housing guarantees. This imbalance is inconsistent with constitutional obligations. 7. Conflict of Interest Concerns (AMC 1.15) The developer may benefit from: * management fees, * administrative fees, * marketing fees, * profit-sharing, * real estate commissions. Layered financial benefit from public assets raises conflict-of-interest issues. 8. Open Meetings Act Issues (AS 44.62.310) If negotiations or deliberations occurred outside properly noticed meetings, they may violate the Alaska Open Meetings Act. The Holtan Hills Agreement relies on a financial structure that protects the developer from loss, exaggerates private profit at public expense, undervalues public land, and fails to meet the legal, financial, and constitutional standards required for public land disposal. These issues justify immediate pause, full legal review, and potential revision. | |
| Brooks Chandler | 12/9/2025 2:44:53 PM |
| The Platting Board/Planning Commission should postpone action on the plat application until an area master plan has been approved by the Anchorage Assembly. A valid and approved area master plan is required . “Prior to subdivision or development of any portion of” the GR-3 district. AMC 21.09.040(B)(2)(d)(iii)(A) . There was an area master plan approved in 2006, however that approval expired by operation of AMC 21.09.030( E)(7)(a): 7.Abandonment of area master plan. An area master plan approval shall expire if: a. Implementation of the area master plan schedule is delayed for more than seven years without a request for a schedule modification. The construction schedule in the Crow Creek Neighborhood Land Use Plan called for homes to be built beginning in 2007. CCNUP p.32. This schedule has been delayed for 18 years which is more than 7 years. It appears no request for a schedule modification was submitted or approved. Therefore the prior approval of the CCNLUP has expired. This means there is no existing area master plan. Platting must be delayed until a new area master plan has been approved. If the Board/Commission ignores municipal code the following changes/additions to the Plat should be made: Add a Plat Note to read: One of Lots 12 and 13, Block 1 has been designated for conveyance to a Girdwood housing trust or non-profit for the purposes of developing community housing for residents. See, AO 2023-037 Sec.1(D). Add a Plat Note to read: One of the following Lots has been designated for conveyance to a Girdwood housing trust or non-profit for the purposes of developing community housing for residents: a. Lots 1-11 , Block 1 b. Lots 1-19, Block 2 c. Lots 1-9, Block 3. See, AO 2023-037 Sec.1(D). Add a Plat Note to read: Any person seeking to develop lots must submit applications for land use entitlements to the Girdwood Board of Supervisors for review prior to seeking official action by the designated decision-making body. See, AO 2023-037 Sec. 1(C). Add a Plat Note to read: Use of lots for short term rentals is restricted. See AO 2023-037 Sec. 1(A). Comments on requested variances. Private Road- [Internal Tract B-Holtan Hills Circle] The variance should be denied. It appears all Lots in Phase 1 including the 2 multi-family lots (Lots 12 and 13 Block 1) would be expected to contribute to road maintenance of the proposed private driveway. (“The proposed road will be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association”). This would make housing costs more expensive compared to spreading the costs of road maintenance over the entire service area. This makes granting the variance “injurious” to these lots and detrimental to the public welfare. Injury to the public welfare results from making houses/lots less affordable. The purported faster response time reflects ignorance of the existing sequence of snow removal in the Girdwood Valley Service Area (all of which is done by a private contractor NOT “the municipality”) . Priority #1 is the road to the school and logic/efficiency will dictate the contractor move to Holtan Hills immediately after plowing the road to the school. I have no comment on whether a variance allowing a 50’ public ROW is justified. Cul de Sac Length The applicant has referenced the wrong code provision. The site development rules for the gR-3 district state : “Street connection- 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. This means the degree of variance requested is 242 feet i.e. a 53% variance from the standard. Perhaps the variance remains justified. Girdwood has quite a few cul de sacs. But I assume there are health and safety reasons for the existing 450’ standard. If the variance is granted a condition requiring connection with Crow Creek Road in the next development Phase as referenced in the application should be added. A condition requiring construction of a pedestrian walkway parallel to the proposed Holtan Hills Drive would mitigate pedestrian safety issues associated with an extra long cul de sac. Other Conditions Resubmittal of a proposed Iditarod Trail dedicated easement location should be required before a final plat is submitted for approval. Condition should make clear that trail relocation including trail construction and signage is an obligation of the applicant and must be completed and be acceptable to USFS and the Girdwood Trails Committee prior to final plat approval. | |
| Kate | 12/6/2025 12:06:29 PM |
| This plat application does not include an easement for the National Historic Iditarod Trail that did travel through land that is now Phase 1 of Holtan Hills. The trail is of national significance. See the 1986 Iditarod Comprehensive Management Plan. This trail should be surveyed, and an easement recorded on the plat and paid for by the development partnership of CY and HLB. CY Investments was quite aware of the significance of the trail when they applied originally. Too, this trail will become the main walking trail for Holtan Hills residents who walk anywhere in Girdwood, and CY has heavily advertised Holtan Hills as a walking, outdoorsy subdivision. A condition for approval of this plat must include the realignment of the Girdwood Middle Iditarod National Historic Trail and a 50’ easement (on either side of center line). This should be done in consultation with and approval of the Girdwood Trails Committee. This ensures that the national trail is protected, and the Girdwood Trails Committee--the people who live here--has had input in this realignment. It is critical that this trail be platted and approved for an easement now for the above reasons. | |