Planning and Zoning Commission - June 2, 2025 - 2025-06-02 18:30:00

Okay, um, sorry for the delay. We're having some technical issues up here, but we're going to call the June 2nd meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. We please have the roll call. Andres Spinelli. Here.

Jared Gardner. Here. Radhika Krishna. Here. Jim Winchester.

Here. Jeff Rahn.

Jeff Rahn.

Greg Stryke. Here.

Scott Pullis and Brandy Eber are excused. You have a quorum. Thank you.

We will just let the record reflect that we believe Commissioner Rahn is on the line but hard to hear.

First, we'll have the approval of the minutes for May 5th and May 12th. Is there a motion to approve? It's moved by Commissioner Krishna, seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Uh, any discussion on the minutes?

Any objections? Hearing none, minutes are approved.

Next, we will move on to disclosures.

Commissioner Winchester? Yeah, I was absent from the May 12th meeting, so I won't participate in the consent agenda on that case.

Commissioner Krishna? Yes, in cases 2025-0055 and S12832, The petitioner, which is the Alaska Railroad Corporation, sits on the board of directors of the organization I work for. I don't plan on recusing myself in these cases as I don't have any financial interest in these cases unless— but I'm happy to answer questions if the Commission has any.

Um, entertain a motion to direct Commissioner Krishna to participate.

Oh, that's moved by Commissioner Winchester, seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Uh, any discussion?

Any opposed?

Hearing none, you are directed to participate.

Uh, Commissioner Stryke, you have a disclosure? Yes, I do. I was absent for—. On the consent agenda, resolution for approval 1A, resolution 2025-010. I was absent for that case, so will not vote.

Thank you.

Any other disclosures?

Hearing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Move by Commissioner Krishna, seconded by Commissioner Gardner.

Any members wishing to pull anything, items from the consent agenda?

Seeing none. Any opposed? Hearing none, consent agenda is approved.

Um, at the request of staff, um, I— we request a motion to combine cases 2025-0055 and S12832.

Is there a motion to combine those cases?

Moved. It's moved by Commissioner Gardner, seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Any discussion? Hearing none. Any opposed?

The, um, that motion passes. We will combine those cases. The allotted time for testimony will be doubled. Petitioners will have 20 minutes, group representatives 10 minutes, and individuals 6 minutes. We'll move on to the public hearing portion of the meeting, and I will read The procedures by which the public may speak to the Commission.

After staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the Chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission rules and procedures. Petitioners and his or her representatives will receive 10 minutes. This time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representative of groups Community councils, PTAs, etc., 5 minutes.

Individuals, 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the Commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the Commission decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 2103.050(a)(4). (4)(A).

Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 21-03-050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the Planning Director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, The appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

Okay, uh, moving on to Case 2025-0056. Can we please have the staff presentation? Thank you, Chair Spinelli. The design study report abbreviated as the DSR is for the Academy Drive and Vanguard Drive area improvements project. This project is a collaborative effort between the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the Municipality of Anchorage.

This improvement project aims to enhance safety and bring both motorized and non-motorized facilities up to current design standards. These design deficiencies are identified as a lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, inadequate storm drainage, and a resident concern about speeding and difficult access to Abbott Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission saw this project initially as an information item for the first step of the process. We are currently on the second step in the Context Sensitive Solution Transportation Project review process. After the Planning and Zoning Commission review this stage, the project would go before the Urban Design Commission to complete the third and final step with the Municipality.

The primary decision of the Commission for the Academy Drive and Vanguard Drive area improvements is for determining which alternatives is to be used for the project, listed as Alternative 1, no build, Alternative 2, 3-lane roadway, and Alternative 3, 2-lane roadway, as preferred. There are 13 topic areas to be included but not limited to in the Commission's deliberations. The top carriers are existing conditions, design standards, alternatives, compliance with Title 21, long-term and short-term impacts to— for land use, right-of-way acquisition, utility infrastructure impacts, street illumination, maintenance, environmental constraints, no motorized access, public involvement, and cost. Based on the 13 topic areas and information included in the DSR, the Planning Department staff is recommending approval of the preferred Alternative 3, 2-lane roadway, subject to Conditions 1 through 3 in the staff report. The conditional approval will require the alternative to be substantially in compliance with the petitioner's application, narrative, submittals, and plans.

It is also required to satisfy municipal street and intersection lighting standards and furnish documentation verifying adherence to Section 3 of the English Stormwater Manual for Stormwater Treatment and Extended Detention. The Alaska Department of Transportation Public Facilities representative is HDL Engineering. They are here tonight to present upon the project and to answer questions. Thank you. And that concludes the summary of the staff report.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we'll move to the petitioner.

Thank you for your patience. Mike? No. The green button.

There you go. Is it on now? You can hear me. Yay! All right, for the record, my name is Stephanie Mormillo, last name spelled M-O-R-M-I-L-L-O.

I am the representative here from HDL Engineering Consultants to present the project. Most of this information was within the report, but I just wanted to highlight some of the big things as we go through. So welcome, I'm thankful to be here. I'm going to go through just a brief project overview, some of the history, The proposed work we are going to do, the preliminary typical section which is representative of our preferred alternative, the schedule, what we have completed to date, what we have done as far as public involvement, and then some of the response to comments as far as the staff recommendations and where we are going from here. So like I said, my name is Stephanie Mormillo and I represent the consultant side.

Julia Hanson and Tonya Hickok that are the PM&E and DOT project managers are here in the audience as well. So if there's any questions that I may not be able to answer, I might ask for help from them if there's any questions. But we have a pretty robust team here, both from design, public involvement, and agency coordination, because this, this is a joint project being managed by DOT. But when all is said and done, the road will be owned and operated by the Municipality of Anchorage.

So this is the project area of where we are. It is to the east of the Seward Highway to just a little south of Abbott Road. So between Abbott and O'Malley in this area, Independence Park, Patriot Park, that area is where we are in this community. And we are going to be realigning and improving Academy Drive and Vanguard Drive between Abbott Road and Brayton. And improving safety for both motorized and non-motorized users to bring us closer to design standards.

It is a short-term priority shown in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and meets our federal performance areas of safety, infrastructure, congestion, and system reliability.

This project has been around for a long time, so if you've heard it before, it actually originally started as an MOA project that evaluated 5 different alternative alignments And Alignment B was selected at that time and was advanced to a 95% design, but then was put on hold because the decision was made. It was a big enough project with big enough impact that they wanted to pursue federal funding to support the project. So project was put on hold for a number of years until it could be added to the Transportation Improvement Plan, TIP, which it was in July of 2021. And HDL was under— got under contract in June of 2023 and have been working on public involvement and concept and environmental since that point. So proposed work at this time, like we said, it's going to realign the roads, also going to be improving the structural section because as you can see there's some cracking, mainly due because there is no drainage.

Everything surface drains and runs all the way to Brayton Road right now, Brayton Drive, all the way. So that entire length of Academy east-west, the only inlets into the storm drain system are actually at the intersection of Vanguard and The system actually of Independence Park is over capacity when it comes to storm drain. So part of this project is going to help try to resolve some of the storm drain capacity issues in the area. We will make intersection improvements. There will be some right-of-way acquisition.

Some has already occurred over the years. There will be utility relocations and then your standard signage striping. As you can see, there actually is already lighting out there, but we'll be bringing lighting up to standards current standards, um, and then doing any vegetation clearing that is necessary to construct the improvements.

So this is our proposed preliminary typical section, and Claudia asked me to just make sure to tell you that this actually represents Alternative 3, which is the two-way roadway, which is what recommended within the document and that the Planning Department is recommending for approval. So this is the two-lane roadway to 11-foot lanes with 4-foot shoulders, curb and gutter, and non-motorized improvements on both sides. And we're proposing actually widened— typically a 5-foot is required on one side and an 8 on the other, and we're proposing an 8 and a 10-foot, um, for this corridor.

This is an overall view of the recommended improvements. It's a little grainy up here on the screen, but Uh, we are recommending the intersection of Academy and Vanguard to be a single-lane roundabout, um, since it will be turning into a T-intersection that with the realignment, no matter what alternative, um, the road Academy Drive will realign. Right now it tees into the side of Vanguard and is stop-controlled, so we are changing that right-of-way assignment. And at this time, we are recommending a signal at Abbott Road, the Abbott Road intersection. Um, that is contingent upon the connection under the highway.

So there is a separate project that is directly west of this, um, the Seward Highway project from Diamond to O'Malley, that will provide a connection underneath the highway and will connect into this project. And with the additional traffic volumes that are going through here, a signal is warranted at that intersection.

So like we said, we kicked back off in 2023. We've been working on the environmental document that has been approved at this time. We are currently in the design phase and we'll be moving forward with the design, working towards right-of-way acquisition and hopefully construction starting in 2027. So like I said, we've completed the categorical exclusion for the environmental task. We have completed the concept report.

We've done some traffic analysis, but we're actually going to be doing a little bit more. We've completed the draft design criteria and the 30% plans that were submitted with the preliminary design report that you reviewed. And from here, we are going to be advancing the roadway design, like I said, conducting additional traffic data collection, and then conducting the geotechnical investigations, doing our H&H analysis to look deeper into the drainage, and then preparing our full design study report that will go with the plans at hand development that is going to be at the next stage of, um, submittal for the CSS process.

We've done quite a bit of public involvement going to community councils and having open house meetings. Um, we actually are going to be going to the Technical Advisory Committee and Policy Committee for AMATS this month as well. Um, thus far most of our feedback has been pretty positive. There are concerns. There's a lot of questions related to the highway project directly adjacent to us.

And we have had comments come in asking us for some additional connections. We are actually going to be providing an additional sidewalk connection down the side of Vanguard to the first side street that has a sidewalk that we can connect to. So we're going to provide that connectivity into the neighborhood. And then there's been some questions about what we're going to do with the remnant right-of-way that we're going to have to determine once we continue further with design. But those are some of the questions that have come in thus far.

And then just wanted to provide with the recommendations to agency comments, designing to Section 3 of the Stormwater Manual, we plan on doing so. We identified in a report and we do have a WR online with us that is going to be evaluating our treatment and our extended detention. And some of those remnant pieces of right-of-way that we have will likely be— end up being used for that detention time. For the storm drain. And then when it comes to lighting, yes, we are going to be improving lighting.

One of the things we are aware of is Academy and Vanguard are actually— both have been proposed for reclassification in the official streets and highways plan. I know it's already been recommended, and it's about to be approved by this committee and recommended to the assembly. And it actually recommends changing it from a minor arterial to a collector roadway, which has the potential for changing those lighting levels. So just really wanting to know that we will light to whatever the roadway classification requirements are when we move forward with design. So that may be changing in the short future.

And that's everything I had for now.

Thank you. Are there questions?

Uh, Commissioner Krishna. Sure. Could you describe how the vehicle and pedestrian counts influence the level of infrastructure that's being considered to be developed here, especially the sidewalk sections and the roundabout?

Yes, when we were out here, there were a lot of people already walking and biking in the community, and there are no sidewalks or trails or anything in the community in this area right now. So with those counts and recognizing the improvements that have happened to those that are proposed for the western edge and eventually that are also on Scooter. We wanted consistency and continuity for that new east-west corridor and making sure that we are accommodating that. And then when it comes to the crossings, single-lane roundabout is easier to cross as you can do one leg crossing at a time, and it gives a pause rather than having to cross a full roadway and look at all directions of traffic. We have a refuge median in the middle for people to be able to cross.

So that was one of those considerations. And another consideration, we have heard from folks just when they're trying to cross Abbott Road themselves too. The nearest intersections of 88th and Independence are approximately 800 and 1,000 feet further down the roadway either direction. And this will provide people a more direct connection to get to the commercial district on the other side of Abbott Road.

Commissioner Gardner. Yes, thank you. Can you—. You mentioned at the beginning, I don't know that I caught— how far, how far advanced did this project get originally the first time around? About 95% design.

And how does, how does this design different— differ from what was contemplated at that time? We're providing a narrower roadway. That originally proposed a 3-lane section. And honestly, there's not a lot of turning opportunities, so providing that 2-way left turn lane just provides a wider roadway and the potential for people to drive faster, honestly, with that additional space. So we recommended eliminating that lane so that we could actually provide a more consistent buffer for the non-motorized users and have a— and more snow storage, honestly, because it's one of the things we heard from street maintenance is that they have no snow storage, no place to store the snow.

Okay, thank you. I missed that. Appreciate that.

I see no further questions.

Anybody from the public wishing to testify on this matter? Now is the time to step forward. Please step forward and state your name for the record and let us know if you're representing yourself or a group. You'll need to turn the mic on first. There should be a button somewhere.

And there, it's on. Robert Grande, G-R-A-N-D-E, representing myself. I live right I live right on the corner, literally, of that intersection. I see the traffic. I witness on a daily basis the near misses, the accidents, the pedestrians by the dozens, like probably 100 a day, pedestrians cross that intersection every day, summer, winter, doesn't matter.

Lots of people pulling out. I hear horns honking, tires screeching constantly at that intersection. Like I say, I could turn my cameras on if you guys wanted to actually watch like a 24-hour time period. You could really see in detail from my deck what goes on every day. So this is a very, very needed, important improvement in the in the neighborhood.

And I very much support number 3. The sidewalks are very, very important, and the roundabouts are a great idea. Anyway, that's all I had. All right. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to— [SPEAKING CHINESE] —please step forward.

Um, do you have some small amount of time for rebuttal? Would you like to use it?

Before we close the public hearing on this matter, we started your timer late, so we don't know exactly how much time you have, but you have some. I don't have any rebuttal. I actually just want to say thank you because I know that he has attended every one of our public open houses, and it's nice to actually have somebody come and testify in support of your project. So thank you, uh, but no, I have nothing else for rebuttal. All right, thank you.

With that, we will close the public hearing.

Uh, what is the will of the body?

Commissioner Chin— Commissioner Winchester, would you like to state your motion? I move in case 25-0056, the approval of Alternative 3, two-lane roadway preferred, as identified in the context-sensitive solution design study report for the AMATS Academy Drive and Vanguard Drive area improvements, subject to conditions 1 through 3 as shown on page 9 of the staff report. Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Winchester, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, this is a project that has been a long time coming. As we heard from members of the public, it's currently unsafe. It's a needed project. It'll help with storm drain improvements throughout the Independence Park area. So I'm— the package was very thorough.

This group is very experienced, and the work product shows that. It's an exciting project and partnership between the DOT and the muni. And, uh, we're thrilled. I'm thrilled to support it. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Seeing none, I will just add that we did have some public support and call for the vote.

Mr. Stryke, how do you vote?

Yes.

Mr. Rahn, how do you vote?

Commissioner Aran votes yes via text, and that motion passes.

Thank you everyone. Now we will move on to case 2025-005.

S-12832. May we please have the staff presentation? Thank you. The Alaska Railroad is requesting to rezone 6 parcels of land from I-1 Light Industrial to Planned Community District to match the rest of their property so that they can replat into one tract. All of the approval criteria for a rezone are met.

This is simply a housekeeping matter. No comments were received from the public and nothing from the Downtown Community Council. The rezone implements both Anchorage 2040 and the Downtown Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department is recommending approval of the rezone subject— well, as stated on page 6 of your packet. And next will be a presentation on the companion case, the re-plat.

Thank you. In Case S12832, this is a request for a subdivision of 23 lots into one tract and a vacation of a 60-foot by 140-foot right-of-way portion of A Street. The purpose of the subdivision plat is to consolidate the properties into one tract in a reversion to acreage. Staff has requested a conditional approval. For the rezone to be effectuated first, thus not creating a split zone tract before final approval.

The Planning Department supports the request for the waiver of a geotech report and for it to be submitted under any future building permit review process. No municipal or state reviewing agencies have objections to the proposed vacation or preliminary plat. The proposed plat in action is creating a single tract by removing the interior lot lines and vacation of undeveloped 8th Street right-of-way. There are 3 access driveways to 1st Avenue, and the condition of approval is that the petitioner move the existing parking lines located along the south side of West 1st Avenue and reduce the width of the existing driveway on West 1st Avenue as well. In the matter of the vacation of public rights-of-way, staff finds that all 6 conditions have been met.

The right-of-way is surplus to the current and future needs of the public. The right-of-way no longer serves as a throughway as intended in the original Townsite plat. The construction of the AC Couplet Bridge in the '70s eliminated the need for access from this right-of-way that dead-ends into the slope of Tract B. The portion of right-of-way is not part of the official streets and highways plan. The subject right-of-way originally fell on the half-mile grid with intended use for throughway traffic, but as stated, with the construction of the bridge, that portion is future is in excess of future needs for any right-of-way, as well as Condition Subject 4 for a— that the quarter-mile grid, the construction of the bridge has rendered that in excess of municipal need.

Condition 5, the vacation will not have any impact on traffic circulation. Other dedicated rights-of-way provide access to all the surrounding properties. And Condition 6, The vacation will not result in realignment of any existing right-of-way and does not impact existing traffic circulation. As stated, agencies expressed no objection to the request to vacate the portion of A Street. The utility companies will have the opportunity to review the proposed plat and request easements as necessary.

This includes Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility. Therefore, Planning Department believes that the right-of-way is in excess of municipal need. And recommends approval of the vacation and plat subject to conditions A, B, and C found on page 7 and 8 of your staff packet. Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff?

I guess I'll start with a question. Is, uh, PCD from old code, or where, where's PCD come from?

Through the chair, the Planned Community District's been around for forever. It's where the property owner drafts their own zoning, zoning designations, zoning requirements, and it's based on whatever code is in effect at the time. In the new code, it's changed from PC district to PCD district, but same thing. It's just a terminology, they added a word.

Okay, any other questions for staff? Going once, going twice. May we please have the petitioner's presentation?

Good evening. My name is Dave Whitfield with Arnim Consultants representing the Alaska Railroad here tonight on this request for rezone and replat of their property in the Ship Creek area of downtown. Joining me tonight is Kristi Terry and John Roder from the Alaska Railroad and Dave Hale from R&M Consultants. I won't be using my full 20 minutes tonight, but I would like to request that any remaining time be reserved for rebuttal. This rezoning of approximately 2 acres from the I-1 light industrial district is being done to move these properties into the planned community district under the Ship Creek Master Plan adopted by an ordinance in 2006.

This request, as staff stated, is consistent with and implements both the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan and the Our Downtown Plan. Anchorage 2040 designates the properties as City Center with the implementing district being PCD. The Our Downtown Plan adopted in 2023 identifies these parcels as being within the Ship Creek Subdistrict area, with the implementing zoning being also PCD. I would agree with staff that the approval criteria of AMC 2103 have been met in this case. The rezoning moves these properties into the PCD district like much of the other property in the area owned by the Alaska Railroad.

It provides the railroad with flexibility and the flexibility it needs to support rail-related activities while at the same time allowing for both commercial and residential uses.

It is in the best interest of the public, and it will not create any adverse impacts to adjacent property or impacts on the environment. With the approval of the Replat, in this case, the rezoning will not result in a split zone lot. The replat, as staff has stated, is effectively a reversion to acreage. It consolidates 23 lots originally created with the Anchorage Original Townsite into one tract of land and proposes the vacation of a 60-foot by 140-foot right-of-way known as A Street. We are also requesting a waiver from providing a full geotechnical investigation with the RE-PLAT.

While this property is in fact located in a seismic zone 4, it is also largely developed. Applying this requirement under a new building permit, uh, where the totality of the project can be considered, appears more appropriate. I would also agree with staff that all criteria for the right-of-way vacation have been met in this case. The right-of-way is not constructed and does not serve as a throughfare as it was originally intended. With the AC Couplet now serving north-south traffic, this portion of A Street appears excess to current and future public need.

So with that, the project team has reviewed all conditions recommended by staff for both plat approval and rezoning approval, and we have no objections. We want to thank you for your consideration of both cases, and we are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

You have 16 minutes for rebuttal. Um, Commissioner Krishna. Sure. I'll just start off with, could you describe the relationship of the bridge to the parcel? Is there an easement?

How does it— how will it limit future development? Just a little bit more on that would be helpful. Can you maybe expand on your question? When you say bridge, the couplet? The couplet, yeah, the AC.

So the couplet is actually— west of the property. A Street, the portion that we are vacating, is actually a small segment that actually is topographically challenged. And there is— that is principally the reason why it was never constructed. So the AC Couplet provides the thoroughfare accessing both Government Hill, the port and then further south, Midtown and other parts of Anchorage. But this portion of A Street, it's effectively a parking lot that was never constructed.

Sure. I'm not just about the vacated right-of-way, but just for the site in general. Maybe I'm not following you. What do you mean? [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] The bridge does run over this site.

Site? Over— it runs just west of the site, yes.

Yeah, that's—. That— you're correct, it runs. So I, I believe it's an aerial easement, uh, because the property sits lower than, uh, than the bridge. The bridge goes over the property.

OK.

Does the petitioner have any other information about— is there an easement with DOT? Is there some sort of agreement for the air rights or just a little bit more information about that? I'm going to ask Dave Hale, a professional land surveyor, to come up. Thank you. Thanks.

Hi, I'm Dave Hale. Yeah, there's easements for all of the structures that both hold up the AC couplet and for the bridge itself, there's air— they have aerial rights. So if you're going to build in there, you're limited to the height. There's a whole agreement. There's documents filed for both the, uh, there's easements for each of the piers that, you know, it's got like 4 supports and then it's got the overhead, uh, building and then there's air rights for that too.

So all of those have documents associated with them and it's with the Department of Transportation. So the owners of the property are aware that there's limitations for building underneath that. Okay. Thank you. And just a follow-up question, if I may, which is to my count, it looks like there are 4 requests for plat notes in our agency comments, and it does look like GCI's And I think watershed managements are already sort of covered under the Department recommendations of resolving utility easements and drainage easements.

But there are some other requests for plat notes. Do you have any comments on those? And I can find them. One is on page 39 from Traffic Engineering. And then the other one is from Private Development, and it is on page 49.

So I am just curious about the petitioner's response to either of those requests and if those should be included in our recommendations as well, or if you would have any objection to those being included.

Didn't those make the recommendations?

I think you're referring to Steve Ellison. We've got a page 3, there's the private development ones. Can you— whoever is talking, can you please just aim it at the microphone? The people on the phone can't hear. Yep.

Sorry about that. Page 3, there's the private development concerns, I believe, are in there. And the way they were worded, resolve these issues, we can certainly, you know, take care of that during the final plat process.

Sure, I'll just read them out loud if that's okay. Traffic Engineering on page 39 of our packet requests the following plat note to be added, quote, any additional access to First Avenue from Tract A will require approval from the Municipal Traffic Engineering Department. And then on page 49 of the packet, the Flood Hazard Administrator from the Private Development Division requests the addition of the following plat note, which is quote, portions of this subdivision are situated within the flood hazard district as it exists on the date hereof. The boundaries of the flood hazard district may be altered from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Anchorage Municipal Code.

And then there's another sentence or two. Yeah. Through the chair, Ms. Kristina, I don't think we have an issue with either one of those plat notes. I think they're fairly standard plat notes that we see on a plats commonly, and I don't think we have any issue with that.

Can, can I just follow up on that? Wouldn't traffic approval for a connection to a road within the municipality be part of the permit required to connect to that road, and therefore maybe be redundant as a plat note? To start specifying standard procedures of how we get permits and add them as plat notes? It seems redundant to me. Through the Chair, Mr.

Spinelli, you're correct. However, I don't think that the project team has any issue— No objection. —Working with the Traffic Department on that, specifically A Street. Maybe we add one that says you should pull a building permit for any buildings you build.

All right, so any further questions for the petitioner?

Hearing none, we will move on to the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify on either of the two cases?

Rezone and replat.

Going once, going twice. You have 16 minutes for rebuttal, Mr. Whitfield. Would you like to— oh, you're waving it. All right, with that, we will close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Gardner, you have made a motion. Would you like to state your motion? Sure, yes, thanks. In case, uh, 2025-0055, I move to approve the rezone from I-1, Light Industrial District to PCD, Planned Community Development District, per AO 2006-46SS.

Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion? Sure. Briefly, I think it's a pretty straightforward application.

I think the criteria as identified in the staff report are met for the rezone. I'll just note it's an implementing zoning district under the 2040 Land Use Plan. We didn't receive any written public comments on this, and we didn't hear any testimony today from the public one way or the other.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Seeing none, I will— State that I intend to support the motion, and I did not see any objection from the public. Call for the vote.

Mr. Stryke, how do you vote?

Yes.

That motion passes.

Now we will move on to case S12832.

We have a motion ready for a, a motion maker.

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion?

Sure, I move in Case S12832 to approve the waiver to AMC 2108.030I.1, Seismically Induced Ground Failure Hazard Geotechnical Investigation, subject to Condition 1 as shown on page 7 of the staff report.

Um, thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Um, yes, just briefly. I agree with kind of the analysis on page 2 of the staff report. The condition will require an investigation to be provided at the time of the building permit, and I think there will be kind of more contextual information that will be relevant to evaluating the investigation at that time.

Anyone else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing none, I will, uh, just state that I agree and intend to support the motion. Call for the vote.

Mr. Stryke, how do you vote? Yes.

That motion passes.

Uh, Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? I move in Case S12832 to approve the vacation of a 60-foot by 140-foot right-of-way, the portion dedicated per U.S. Survey Number 408, subject to Condition 1 as shown on Page 7 of the staff report. That's seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes.

There was— let's see— no objection from traffic engineering or any other agencies that reviewed this application. We didn't hear any public testimony on it this evening. There's nothing constructed in the right-of-way, and it precedes the current A Street-C Street couplet bridge and is not kind of necessary for that bridge. And I think we heard some testimony that the reason nothing was constructed was because the right-of-way dead ends on a pretty steep slope that isn't really ideal for constructing. And I guess also note, I guess with that in mind, I think the criteria and analysis identified in the staff report on pages 6 and 7, I believe, I agree with that analysis.

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

Hearing none, call for the vote.

Mr. Stryke, how do you vote?

Yes.

That motion passes.

Mr. Garner, would you like to state your motion?

I move in Case S-12832 to approve the proposed plat for 24 months subject to Conditions 1 through 6 as shown on pages 7 and 8 of staff report. Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to the motion? Yes, again briefly.

I think the proposed replat will facilitate future development of the project. I think the conditions of approval adequately incorporate the agency comments received, and I'll note that we didn't receive any public testimony one way or the other on the replat.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing, hearing none, call for the vote.

Mr. Stryke, how do you vote? Yes.

That motion passes.

That brings us— brings us to Title 21 discussion. Oh wait, one more. There is one more. Okay, I thought there was one more. Okay.

Sorry. Getting ahead of myself. That brings us to 2025-0067.

Can we have the staff presentation, please? Thank you. Verizon Wireless is requesting a conditional use permit for an 85-foot-tall Type I monopole telecommunications tower. Anchorage Municipal Code lists Type 1 towers as a conditional use permit in the Public Lands and Institutions, PLI District. The site is a 50-foot by 50-foot leased area accessed by a short gated gravel driveway at milepost 0— or 0.3-mile Portage Lake Loop.

A lease between Verizon Wireless and the U.S. Forest Service is on file. With the Planning Department. The tower will have capacity for co-locating additional cell phone carriers. This area of the municipality has no wireless coverage, and the department finds that all of the approval criteria for a conditional use permit are met, is recommending approval of The application subject to Conditions 1 and 2 on page 8 of your packet. Both conditions of approval are standard, and the department received 4 letters and resolutions of support that have been provided in a supplemental packet to the Commission.

Be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is also here to speak. To the motion. Thanks. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will, uh, ask the petitioner to come up.

You need to push your button until we see a light. I'll tell you it's green. Oh, there you go. You're on. There we go.

My name is Sierra Larson. I'm with New Horizons. My last name is L-A-R-S-O-N. I'm here representing Verizon Wireless on behalf of the permitting for the proposed tower under Case 2025-0001. 0067.

Um, first of all, just wanted to thank the Planning Commission for consideration of this request and thank the staff for their report and recommendations of approval. We agree with the staff that the approval criteria has been met and are here to request Planning Commission's approval as well. This is a really critical tower to fill a gap in coverage There's, as staff said, there's virtually no service in this area, and so this is going to be a great benefit to the area and increase availability of service to areas that are lacking. I don't really have anything further to add. Will reserve the rest of my time for any rebuttals.

Thank you. You have 9 minutes. Any questions for the petitioner?

I see none. Thank you. And we will move on to the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

Mic is already on, so you don't have to push any buttons. Please state your name for the record. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. This is a long overdue project. We need your name and if you're speaking on behalf of a group or for yourself. Sure. My name is David Goldstein.

I owned a charter business in Whittier for 20 years. I represent the Chamber of Commerce. I was also on the City Council, member of the Port Harbor Commission, Prince William Sound RCAC, and also the Prince William Sound Stewardship Foundation. So I represent those. I also know that the Girdwood Chamber of Commerce has sent a resolution also supporting this.

As I say here, I've lived in Whittier for now over 20 years, or over— yeah, over 20 years. I lived in Anchorage prior to that for 20 years and Fairbanks for 10 years. And I've been through the whole gamut of communications problems. From the time I hit Fairbanks and had a 10-party phone out near Allison Air Force Base. The one area that really has been kind of robbed of any communication improvements has been the Portage Valley.

The need for this basically falls into two categories. One is health and safety, and the other is just general communication. We have issues as far as health and safety on the Portage Lake. There have been deaths and injuries on the lake. There have been deaths and injuries on Portage Creek in the valley.

We've had accidents there. I think we just read something about a landslide over in the Byron Glacier area just last day or two. We also have accidents on the highway. And this cell phone tower will take care of so many health and safety issues over there and communication issues even for the tunnel control. Who will finally be able to utilize the wireless services there that the tower will provide.

So I would— in short, I would just ask the Commission to approve this and so the folks who are going to put this up can move ahead. Any questions?

Any questions? I don't see any. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Seeing none, um, ask the petitioner. You have 9, just a little under 9 minutes. Do you like to add anything?

No, just to thank Dave and all the groups there in Whittier and the local areas for their support for this tower. It's definitely nice to have a show of support for a project like this. So we appreciate it. Thank you.

With that, we will close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Krishna, would you like to state your motion? Sure. I move in Case 2025-0067 to approve a conditional use for an 85-foot-tall telecommunication tower subject to Conditions 1 and 2 as shown in page 8 of the staff report. That is seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to the motion?

Sure, I'm happy to support this motion. I think as the public testimony stated, this is actually a very heavily used stretch of the, you know, of road and a growing recreational area. And having better communication both for emergency services and for quality of life is a basic piece of infrastructure that I think we can all find it easy to support, probably.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Yeah, I would echo Commissioner Krishna's comments. I intend to support the motion, and thank you for Verizon for adding communication to the Portage Valley. Call for the vote.

Mr. Streich, how do you vote?

Yep.

That motion passes.

Now we're ready to move on to the Title 21 discussion.

Is there anything to discuss?

What?

Commissioner Krishna, sorry, I was distracted over there. That's perfectly fine. I think I would just add for the Commission that I attended an assembly work session last Friday, which staff was also present at. And it was an update on the Department's work plan and as well as a discussion on the targeted update to the Comprehensive Plan. This is a public meeting.

Anyone can go online and watch the recording. So I think I would just add that if any members of the Commission are interested in watching that recording, that it's out there.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Staff? Anybody? Hearing none, going once, twice, three times, motion to adjourn.

Moved by Commissioner Winchester, seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Any discussion or objection? Hearing, seeing none, we are adjourned. Thank you, Greg and Jeff.