Urban Design Commission - July 9, 2025 - 2025-07-09 18:30:00

Good evening. It's 6:30 PM, July 9th, 2025, and the meeting of the Urban Design Commission will now come to order. May we please have a roll call? Monica Sullivan. Here.

Edith McKee. Here. Alexandra Nanello.

Sorry, I'm sorry. Here. Ryan Lucas. Here. Trevor Strait.

Here. James Kolas. Here. Allison Lenig and Julia Fullen are excused. Do you have a quorum?

Thank you.

Uh, may we get a motion to approve the minutes from March— oh no, from June 11th, 2025?

It's been moved by Commissioner Sullivan and seconded by Commissioner Straight. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Are there any objections to the minutes being approved?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

Next thing, we'll move on to special order of business. Are there any disclosures this evening?

Nope, none. So we'll move on to the consent agenda. May we have a motion to approve Resolution 2025-003 on the consent agenda?

Moved by Commissioner Nanalo and seconded by Commissioner Sullivan.

Would anyone like to pull an item from the consent agenda for discussion or corrections?

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved. We don't have any unfinished business or items on the regular agenda this evening. Therefore, we will move on to public hearings, and I will read the public process.

The Urban Design Commission meets the second and fourth Wednesday of each month except holidays as regular meetings. If the Urban Design Commission fails to complete its agenda for its regular meeting, the commission carries over the remainder of the agenda to the following meeting date. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Urban Design Commission at its meeting is: one, after the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items The chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Number 2, persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Urban Design Commission Rules of Procedure. Petitioners, all of his, her, their representatives will have 10 minutes.

Rebuttal by the petitioner may be allowed when time has been reserved. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, et cetera, will have 5 minutes. And individuals will have 3 minutes. 3. 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. 4. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the Commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21- 21-03-050A(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.

Um, with respect to case 2025-0073, the petitioner is requesting review and approval of the Lois Drive reconstruction May we please have staff's presentation?

Thank you, Chair McKee. The Municipal of Anchorage Project Management and Engineering Department is seeking review of the 65% design for the Lewis Drive reconstruction project spanning from Benson Boulevard to West 32nd Avenue. The comprehensive project will upgrade Lewis Drive to current municipal standards, significantly enhancing safety and accessibility. Improvements include roadway reconstruction, storm drain upgrades, new pedestrian facilities, improved street lighting, traffic calming, signalization enhancements, and landscape improvements. Initially, the project included a portion of West 32nd Avenue, but this section has been separated into a distinct AMET founded project, uh, due to changes documented on April 2024.

Lewis Drive currently has significant problem with poor pavement, inadequate lighting, and insufficient drainage, as well as discontinuous pedestrian pathway. The CSAT transportation project review process includes 3 steps. The Conceptual Report served as an informational item for the Planning and Zoning Commission, which subsequently approved the Design/State Study Report. As outlined in AMC 2103-190B, the Plans in Hand review is the last step. According to the AMC 2103-190(b)(5)(b), the Urban Design Commission shall approve, approve with condition, or reject landscaping, streetscape, and pedestrian design plans at the stage no more than 65% complete for all applicable street projects.

The Commission's review of these planning rendered Design, SPAMC 2103.190(b)(5)(c) encompasses 5 specific items shown on page 3 of the staff report, and it lists as: 1, compliance with this title. The applicant closely abided by the CSS process and is seeking approval for the 65 design through a plan and hand review. All design elements comply with MOA Title 21, with the sole exception of the pedestrian buffer. The current design proposed a 5-foot buffer, which is 2 feet less than the required 7-foot buffer. The applicant will request a variance with the municipal engineer at 95 design— 95% design for the reduced buffer.

However, will be necessary to deviate from the DMC, Design Criteria Manual. Two, context of the area and the long-term impact on existing and projected adjacent land use. Lois Drive is a two-lane strip paved street with no curb and gutter located within a mixed-use area encompassing residential, public lands, and institutions, and residential office developments. There is a pipe drainage along a portion of the roadway that discharges to Fish Creek to the west of the roadway. The discontinuous pedestrian facility on the east side compromised safety by compelling pedestrians and cyclists to share the narrow roadway with vehicles.

The proposed improvements aim to significantly enhance safety by providing continuous dedicated facilities for non-motorized users on both sides of the roadway, incorporating traffic calming measures and improvement— improving lighting. 3. Initial cost of materials including installation. The project has an estimated cost of around $3.4 million. Construction for this project is contingent upon securing funding.

4, Long-term cost associated with operation and maintenance. Operations and maintenance cost will increase long-term due to the need to maintain proposed pedestrian facilities, striping, and street lighting. 5, Adherence to a design team Established through local area plans or prior public improvements. No design team exists for this corridor. The project complies with the applicable design standards and guidelines with the exception of the buffer between pedestrian facilities and the roadway.

The project team will seek a future waiver from the municipal engineer. 6, Effectiveness in meeting community design goals. The project team coordinated with Espinosa Community Council, Turning Again Community Council, local business, and the public in multiple occasions during design development. This coordination tailored the design to meet the express needs of stakeholders along the corridor. The project addresses the deterioration of the existing roadway and the absence of continuous pedestrian facilities along the project limits.

7, Accommodation of pedestrians and non-motorized users. The proposed design improvements will include a 10-foot-wide pathway on the east side of the roadway and a 6-foot-wide sidewalk on the west side of the roadway throughout the entire project length. The Planning Department hasn't received any public or community council comments. However, the application I seen in Attachment 1 contains numerous community support letters indicating significant public engagement throughout the project development, with detailed meeting information included in the application package. Agent comments available in Attachment 2 show no objective objections but offer several recommendations which are incorporated into conditions of approval and advisory recommendations.

The department recommends approval of the project, contingent on conditions found on page 5 of this staff report. The MOA PM&E representative is CRW Engineering Group. They are here tonight to present upon the project and to answer questions. Thank you, and that concludes the summary of my staff report.

Thank you. Um, are there any questions of staff?

Okay. Will the petitioner please come forward? Please state and spell your name for the record. You will have 10 minutes to present. Would you like to reserve any of your time for rebuttal?

You turn your mic on. Does that cut into the 10 minutes? It's a reservation, so you can say I would like to have 3 minutes reserved for rebuttal. 5 Minutes. 5?

Yeah.

But please, before you start, state and spell your name, please. Rob Burdick.

So when you reserve time, you will have 5 minutes for your initial presentation and then you have 5 minutes for rebuttal. Okay, um, I don't need any time for rebuttal then. Okay, then he wants all of his 10 minutes for his presentation. Sorry, thank you for clarifying. Okay, please state and spell your name.

Rob Burdick. That's R-O-B-B-U-R-D-I-C-K.

Okay, all right. I'll get started with introducing the project team. With the Municipality of Anchorage in project management and engineering, we have Charles Bang as our project manager, and Brooke Blessing, who's with me today, is our project administrator. On the design side, the CRW contract manager is Matt Edge. I am the project manager.

We have Lucy Whitlinger with Huddle AK leading the public involvement, and we also have Bettisworth North onboard as our landscape architect.

So background on the project. The original project limits included Lois Drive from Benson Boulevard to West 32nd Avenue and West 32nd Avenue from Lois Drive to Minnesota Drive. During this phase of the project, we completed a concept report and draft design study report, which we then presented the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval in April 2021. After that, we then submitted our final design study report.

The final design study report included different preferred alternatives for 32nd Avenue and Lois Drive, and also a preferred intersection alternative, which was a roundabout. Um, the original approved Preferred alternative for Lois Drive included two 11-foot lanes, 3.5-foot shoulders, a 4.5-foot buffer on each side, and a 5-foot sidewalk on the west side, a 10-foot pathway on the east side, which left 4 feet on each side of the footprint until we reached the right-of-way.

So after the final design study report, West 32nd Avenue was removed from the project, and then we did a draft design study report update in March of 2024. We then met with the traffic department to discuss this design, uh, study report update, which included intersection alternatives to tie into the intersection because it's anticipated that the West 32nd Avenue project will come along and reconstruct the intersection. We came out of the meeting with a few cross-section changes they wanted to Decrease the drive lane width from 11 feet to 10 feet on each side. So that left us, uh, 2 feet to add to 1 foot— or sorry, half a foot on each side of the buffer, increasing it from 4.5 feet to 5 feet on each side. And then the pathway was then expanded from 5 feet to 6 feet.

This left the overall footprint of the roadway the same, so we still have 4 feet on each each side from proposed improvements to install light poles and for grade matching.

Oops, sorry, I've skipped over one thing. We then, uh, submitted the final design study report update to the Planning and Zoning Commission in May of 2024.

So focusing on Lois Drive, the main purpose of this project is to improve non-motorized connectivity on Lois Drive. There is an existing pathway on the east side, but it ends about halfway throughout the project. Other proposed improvements were including our DCM-compliant roadway structural section, new pavement, curb and gutters, new storm drain, continuous street lining, landscaping, and traffic calming. Sorry, I skipped over one other thing. When we met with the traffic department, they also recommended we look at traffic calming elements, whether it be speed humps or speed radar signs.

And then to remove the proposed shoulder striping since the shoulders aren't wide enough for a bike lane, they wanted to remove the shoulder striping.

So this highlights some of the existing conditions. As I mentioned earlier, this is the existing pathway. It ends It's through Aquarian Charter School and it ends at Piedmont West Condominiums. So you can see the pathway is deteriorated and it has poor visibility. The existing roadway is cracking, has potholes.

There's no curb and gutter, so drainage has a hard way making its way to the catch basins that exist out there. This bottom right Middle photo shows that once the pathway ends, users are forced into the roadway walking on the shoulder or on the roadway. Top right photo shows Benson Boulevard sidewalk that ends, so there's no connection from Benson Boulevard here either.

This slide summarizes the— public involvement we've done for this project. So the original project limits in the design study phase, we had a project website with the interactive map where people could leave comments. We presented to the Spinard Community Council. We had 6 project mailers and e-newsletters and did 2 open houses. We also had business and agency stakeholder meetings.

After the project limit change, we Updated the project website to just include Lois Drive. We then gave two presentations each to the Spadarn Community Council and the Turnagain Community Council, one announcing the project limit update and then the second one to announce the open house for 65% design. We sent out two project mailers, which were postcards, and then sent four project newsletters. The 65% open house was held at Aquarian Charter School in April of this year.

So this is a, a view of the proposed improvements. Like we've seen before, it includes a 6-foot pathway on the west side— or 6-foot sidewalk on the west side and 10-foot pathway on the east side. Um, it's typically separated by 5 feet And we have two permanent— two areas where we need permanent easements. One is for a fire hydrant relocation, and one is for a catch basin. And we can— I split these, this project up into three different zoomed-in views so we can look at some, some more items.

So on the south end of the project, the roadway is necked down, and it doesn't include the 3.5-foot shoulders, just the 10-foot lane. This was done to provide traffic calming, and it helped tie into the Lois Drive across West 32nd Avenue. As you can see across the south side of Lois Drive from West 32nd Avenue, the right-of-way is only 40 feet wide, and the right-of-way is offset by about 14 feet, I believe. So we have the skewed alignment that will have drivers cross West 32nd Avenue without having to have more than a half a lane shift, and that was approved by the Traffic Department. It also avoids impacts to a high power transmission pole here and also avoids impact to Parcel 112.

The green area is proposed topsoil and seeding. We have a drainage swale proposed where we have a little bit more green space here to route drainage from this cross culvert into a catch basin. The drainage patterns on Loomis Drive are collected on the south and north end of the project where it travels to West 31st Avenue before it goes into oil grit separator and then leaves the project, which then eventually discharges into Fish Creek. These red— this red line work with tick marks are temporary easements just needed for construction. And then these pink symbols, these are light poles that are proposed on the east side of the project.

Middle of the project, this is the fire hydrant we need to relocate. This was requested from this property owner. Because when they have snow removal, it ends up piling up against this fire hydrant. They don't have anywhere to put the snow. So we moved it farther to the south.

And we— the easement is needed for access around the fire hydrant. The fire hydrant isn't— is still in the municipal right-of-way. Same with this catch basin. It becomes attached here because we start filling in an existing drainage ditch. So we needed the room from behind the pathway to the right-of-way to put the catch basin there.

Um, like the fire hydrant, the catch basin is in the right-of-way. We just need an easement so street maintenance can access the catch basin.

Uh, end of the project, we, um, eventually just tie into the existing curb on the east side and then are just doing pavement replacement through this existing island. On the west end, we connect the proposed sidewalk to the existing sidewalk, install new curb ramps and two new pedestrian push buttons, which are now an ADA requirement.

The next steps in the project—. I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you right there. You've got 24 seconds left. Okay.

Next steps is to begin working with utility companies for relocation, incorporate stakeholder and public comments, submit our design variance memorandum for any variances we have. 95% Design is scheduled for October. Final design is anticipated early 2026, and then we'll have construction, which currently does not have any funding. Whew. Nicely done.

Thanks. Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Commissioner Sullivan, uh, can you return to your last slide, the corner with, uh, Benson? Yes. Um, seems that the East, uh, pathway— I mean, first I see that there's a big improvement already in the street and what you're doing, so I really appreciate, you know, those really needs work, but there's There's so many entryways in that area. And then the east side pathway at the end, it doesn't kind of finish or connect. So I see like, there's anything, or maybe I don't, I'm not looking correctly, but to me it seems like it ends not very well to cross, or, you know, for the people that is riding in the east side, once they get into Benson, uh, seems to me that if you turn to the right, you're fine, but then if you would like to go up, it's kind of dangerous, right?

So just an observation. Yeah, of like, if you guys have take a look at that intersection and how it functions once you get to that point. Yes, so this pathway here connects actually to an existing pathway that leads to a overhead crossing here on Benson Boulevard. And then pedestrians, this is this dashed line here, can cross over to the island and then across Lois Drive. So does the island, you know, that what it's not defined well is like the island, right?

Like, does the island have pathway too? Um, it has some curb ramps here and it's all raised concrete, so So they can enter this curb ramp, travel over, and then cross Lois Drive. Okay. Okay. It's just visually not very— yeah, I get it.

So it's an easy path to cross. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Strait.

All right.

I've got a couple items here, and so I think we will probably— I'll try to step through them from hopefully the beginning at the south end to the north. If you don't mind swapping back to the first one there. All right. Looking at your plans, there's a stop bar there at the stop sign southbound. Yep.

And if you were to walk from the crosswalk across to— at both of the ramps that you're replacing on the north side, you would actually be walking through that crossbar. Um, I was wondering if it'd be possible to potentially angle that so it's kind of out of the way of the pedestrian traffic east-west on that north side. Yeah, the stop bar would be located so it would be before the curb ramp and any pedestrians entering the roadway. Okay. All right.

Um, I saw one of the public comments related to having concerns about removing a bunch of trees along the corridor. And so based on your description, it sounds like that's kind of at the south end by Aquarium. Is that—. Do you know if that's correct? Yeah, there's— I mean, if you've driven down, it's heavily vegetated.

So with the wide cross-section, that's one of the downsides, is that you end up wiping out some trees. But none of the trees that will be required to remove are outside are on private property, so it's all in the right-of-way. Okay, and I guess my question comes down to, is there any room behind the pedestrian facilities that you're putting in to potentially put some more trees in or try to replace some of that clearing area that we're doing? Yeah, this project, we looked at that on the— on both sides, but we only have 4 feet, and that typically isn't enough room for, for trees with without starting to compromise the pedestrian facilities with root intrusion. Yeah, okay.

And we also looked at doing something in the buffers, but typically street maintenance wants that area clear for snow storage. Yeah, okay. Um, let's go ahead to the, to the north end. If you don't mind. Yeah, right there.

And this is similar to the previous comment. On the east side at the north end where your pathway currently ties into the existing east-west pathway there, the existing east-west pathway does not really point you in a good direction to make it to the island. It doesn't really point you towards where that curb ramp is. Um, I— is there any possibility of including just kind of redirecting that, that pathway end towards the, the ramp on the island, I guess? Yeah, so we did talk about adding some like crosswalk striping to help, you know, aid crossers and, and getting to each curb ramp.

Um, we can definitely look at Maybe trying to realign this so it comes in more perpendicular with the curb ramp at the island.

Yeah, that's something we can look at. Yeah, my only concern would be someone that's visually potentially impaired that would have potentially trouble finding that opposing ramp to get to. Yeah.

Another thing on the other side of that intersection, I believe I read in here that you modified the radius of the return there. Yes.

I just— it would be good to— you may have done this already— double check and make sure that your design vehicle isn't going to be encroaching into the opposing queue traffic. Yeah, we have run some turning movements with some design software. But yeah, we'll make sure that won't be a problem. OK. And then— Lastly, I was wondering if you could maybe talk a little bit about any of the public comments that you've received about requesting changes to the design all throughout the process, and what— if you were able to make any changes based on that feedback. Yeah, most of the comments that we received that the public didn't like was just the, the vegetation removal.

And if we could do anything, um, we're, we're gonna maybe look at if there's any locations maybe we can put some, some shrubs instead of trees just to kind of get that feel back. Um, but yeah, we'll discuss that with the landscaping, uh, team once we move to 95% design. Otherwise, it's been pretty positive just getting this, uh, continuous pedestrian connection through this corridor.

All right. Thanks. Yep.

I have a couple questions for you. Yeah. And I'll walk through them. So first, I think that this is a is a good improvement, like adding all of the pedestrian facilities and the bike shared use pathway definitely addresses a lot of the comments that were received. I had similar concerns about the— a lot of comments received about tree removal and if there was some way to incorporate some landscaping.

So thank you, you've already answered that question. Um, would you mind just kind of describing some of the features that you've incorporated for on-site detention or that address MS4? I saw that they're using an oil grit separator. Yeah. So what other measures were used to kind of encourage onsite detention?

Yeah, so due to the wide cross-section and the utilities in the area, we looked at it and it wasn't quite feasible to put any like onsite detention anywhere. In areas where we did have a little bit more buffer room, We tried to incorporate that with like some grass swales here for like some filter strips. But as you see, just the improvements take up most of the right-of-way with only 4 feet to spare on each side.

And then, let's see here.

I also saw the comments about the traffic calming, wanting like the speed feedback signs or the speed humps, which I kind of agree don't work. They just aren't super effective. Were raised crossings considered, which in general do tend to slow people down quite a bit? I mean, they'll hit them once, and then afterwards, they're pretty good about slowing down. So were those considered as a traffic calming measure?

We didn't look at those.

Just, they did put speed humps on Lois Drive to the south, and we heard from the public that like they didn't work. They don't work. Yeah, um, so no, we have not looked at any, um, raised intersections as of now, but we can bring that up to the traffic department. I would meet with them, suggest it, especially because this I think the intent of this road is for it to be really— feel really safe for bikes and peds and to discourage speeding. And like, you've narrowed the lanes, you've done all these other things.

I think raised intersections really encourage speed compliance, right? I have speed humps on my road and they don't work. The second people realize they can line up and drive through the grooves, they just right through them. Yeah, I think the only intersection that would really benefit would probably be this West 31st, because the West 29th Avenue is really close to Benson. So I don't, I don't know if it would do much there.

I was thinking it more like some of the interior streets, like not at the Benson one, but like that second one that you've got in there that could be a raised intersection even though it's a T. There's a couple other throughout the corridor that could be raised intersections even though they're T intersections. It's still helps to slow people down who are traveling on the main, the main alignment. And then within the plans, I think, you know, because we're seeing it being pretty well documented within Anchorage that pedestrians are often being struck by vehicles that are coming in and out of driveways or side streets. So was there any effort— and I know that a lot of the public resists this concept, But was there any, you know, trying to consolidate driveways? I noticed in the plans near Station 1600, you've got two driveways that are really close together.

Is there any opportunity to consolidate those driveways? Consolidate as in combine them? Yep. They have to have a shared access easement. And it means that they— you would merge those two driveways.

You might have to modify access, but you tend to make like a wide driveway, right? And so they share the access on the sidewalk, so you don't end up with those two curb cuts. They just have a single point and then they split. And they do have to enter into a shared access agreement, but it is a way to, to help reduce driveways.

Um, and then my other question was between Station 1100 and Station 1200 That particular driveway is really wide. Is there a reason it's that wide? Could it be narrowed? Yeah, we did get a, um, review comment from the traffic department to narrow the driveway. Um, we narrowed it up a little bit more than existing, um, just to bring it closer into compliance.

Um, we'll have to look. This property, I think, was built in 1980, right around when that code came out for the driveway width requirements. Their first stab was to try to give them a wider driveway just because they have a garage right here and they park vehicles. So trying to give them back their parking if they maybe had some non-conforming determinations. But yeah, we did receive a comment on that, and that's something we're going to work with the traffic department on.

Okay. And then, um, and that was the same kind of here at the end with Station 1900 on the right, that driveway also seems really wide and could be, um, it's kind of a long distance for a pedestrian to cross. And I didn't know if there was some way also to narrow, especially because you've got two in sequence and then there's that really small little kind of island there. If there's some way to skinny those both up so that you give that center island a little bit of a greater length. Yeah, um, like I said, our first stab was to kind of give them back what they had if it met the— this driveway was— we maxed it out per the, the DCM, uh, width requirement for a commercial property.

But we did receive a review comment to maybe look at the impacts of, uh, narrowing this driveway, because right now that little island you talk about, it's not enough length to have a— the ramp go up and down, so it would just be at grade. So there would be like no barrier curb protecting the pedestrians. So that's another element that we're going to look at moving forward, is trying to narrow this driveway just enough so we could get some protection with a barrier curb. Nice. And then my last— I think it's my last comment— is kind of because I think what we want to do, or what I think would be a nice improvement, is to really give the bikes and the peds the priority of the sidewalk, especially because this is a road through a residential area, is that across the driveways and the side streets you maintain the elevation of the sidewalk or the pathway across and the vehicles have to ramp up and cross over and then ramp back down.

And that can really slow people entering and exiting from the side streets onto the main facility. And it gives the priority to the bike and the pedestrian. It helps them stay a little bit more visual. It also, for somebody who has mobility concerns, especially when you have so many driveways in such a sequence, it means they don't drop down and up and drown and up and down and up. They stay on a continuous elevation.

So it can also be easier for somebody who has mobility concerns, like somebody who's a shuffle walker or somebody who's using an assistive device. This makes their elevation continuous and the vehicle has to modify. And it can be a pretty significant improvement for the, for the bike and ped facility to have that maintained elevation. It makes them more visible. Yeah.

We did receive a review comment to look at that, too. And I guess we had two concerns. One was to go from accessible curb back up to the sidewalk elevation over 5 feet. That ended up being a grade of about 9%. So we had some concerns with vehicles maybe bottoming out, especially if you had a motor home or something.

The second more concerning thing that we found out when we started to look at it is that a lot of these driveways are pretty flat. So if we raise that, the elevation up to the sidewalk level, actually ends up sending drainage back down to the property. So the drainage would get trapped on the driveway and wouldn't be able to make it out to the roadway. Yeah, so you would end up needing to extend extend the length of your TCE so that you can modify the property owner's driveway a little bit to facilitate that drainage happening. And so sometimes it does require some, you know, some grading or modifications, sometimes a little bit further back on the driveway.

And, and, and so sometimes then what you're also doing is because I see that you're sweeping the crossing facilities to the front of the intersection, you leave them further back, and that gives you that room to adjust the grade of the ramp so that you don't have that concern of the grade difference for vehicles going up and over. It's just something to look at. If it works, it's a really nice safety improvement, and it's— and for people who have mobility, it just— if you're wanting to create a space, and I think Lois Drive is an area where you have a lot of people who walk and bike because it's not a vehicle-heavy area, um, that it can be— it can be a significant improvement and can be something to look at as you advance the design. Yeah, I think that was it. Those were all my questions, comments.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. I will now open the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify?

I'm not seeing any. And you don't have any. Are there any more questions from the Commission for the petitioner or staff?

The public hearing is now closed. The matter now rests with the body. We will move and vote.

May we have a motion to approve in Case 2025-0073?

It has been moved by Commissioner Straight. Mover, would you please state your motion?

I move in Case 2025-0073 to approve the context sensitive solutions plan in hand review for Lois Drive reconstruction between Benson Boulevard and West 32nd Avenue, subject to conditions 1 through 3 as shown on page 5 and 6 of the staff report. Thank you. It was seconded by Commissioner Sullivan. Commissioner Straight, would you please speak to your motion? Yes, I find that this project is in compliance with the Title 21, with the exception of the 5-foot buffer width that the applicant will be applying for a variance from the municipal engineer for.

It appears that this, this plan meets the needs of the community and the context of the area.

And is in— it is effective in meeting the community design goals, and it will improve accommodations for pedestrians and non-motorized users. I appreciate the applicant's ability to address comments that were received and their look at the, the review comments that were provided during the design study report and how they responded to those. And so I recommend that— I'm moving that we approve this project subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan, would you like to speak to your second?

Yes. I think it's a great improvement. There was some comments in— the intersection and some concerns from us, from the board. I would not like to add any conditions, but I would like to recommend that maybe you guys look into the safety of that intersection a little more. But I would like to— I would like to support and approve the motion.

Are there any other commissioners wishing to speak to the motion and/or add findings?

I will add findings. Um, the project is in compliance with title. All design elements do comply with MOA Title 21 except for the buffer between the pedestrian facilities and the roadway, and it looks like the petitioner intends to apply for a waiver.

Um, the proposed improvements enhance safety by providing continuous dedicated facilities for non-motorized users on both sides of the roadway, and you've incorporated traffic calming measures and improved lighting. Um, it's effective in meeting the community design goals. The project team coordinated with the Spanard Community Council, the Turnagain Community Council, and local businesses and the public on multiple occasions during design development. The project addresses the deterioration of the existing roadway and the absence of continuous pedestrian pedestrian facilities along the project limits. Um, the— you do accommodate pedestrians and non-motorized users.

The pedestrian design improvements will include a 10-foot-wide pathway on the east side of the roadway and a 6-foot-wide sidewalk on the west side of the roadway throughout the entire project length.

Um, the MOA Parks and Recreation Department supports inclusion of the traffic calming elements to the project as to enhance safe pedestrian crossings, intersections, and signage indicating a school in the vicinity.

Um, and the plans in hand that were presented here aligns with all conditions established during the design study report's approval, and all conditions have found resolution incorporation within the design. I do intend to support the motion, but I, I would I would like to recommend that you consider raised crossings and look at where there are opportunities to maintain the elevation of the pathway and/or the sidewalk across the side streets and/or driveway access points. That concludes my additions.

Are there any other commissioners wishing to speak to the motion?

Okay, there is no further discussion. May we have a vote on Case 2025-0073?

Mr. Collis, how do you vote?

I approve. Ms. Lucas?

I approve. Thank you.

Case 2025-0073 has passed with a vote of 6 in favor and 0 against and 0 abstaining. Thank you.

Okay, um, we'll now move on to Case 2025-0081. With respect to Case 2025-0081, the petitioner is requesting a design variance to allow a fence to exceed maximum allowable height and a front setback. May we please have staff's presentation? Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a request for a design variance from AMC 2107080H3AI.

To allow a fence to exceed the maximum height of 4 feet in a front setback with an increase of 2 feet to a total of 6 feet. The intersection of 15th Avenue and I Street is a high traffic volume intersection for both pedestrians and vehicles. With the volume of traffic at this intersection, headlight intrusion and noise is a common occurrence for the surrounding properties. According to the Official Street and Highways Plan, OSH&P, I Street is a major arterial 3, over 20,000 average daily traffic, ADT, and 15th Avenue is a minor arterial 2, 2, ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 ADT per day. The request from the applicant is to build a fence approximately 2 feet back from the primary front setback, mirroring numerous neighbors' fences along I Street.

The same construction and height will be copied along 15th Avenue. The secondary front setback along 15th Avenue— the intention is to build the fence approximately 4 feet from the lot line so as not to disturb any of the existing mature birch trees. The fence would be built to run diagonally, set back from the lot corner so as not to obstruct the traffic view, as recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials, AASHTO, Clear Vision Area. The applicant's objectives for the additional height request for the fence in the front setback is to accomplish the following: provide more privacy by reducing or eliminating headlight intrusion and noise, eliminate pedestrian traffic on property, i.e., persons transitioning to and from Valley of the Moon Park on the sidewalk and alleyway. This parcel is exposed without fencing.

A 4-foot-tall fence can be hopped over by pedestrians. Protect belongings. Out of sight is out of mind for passerby people. This home is very accessible and is in a very busy area. The intention of this is to build an aesthetically pleasing fence of natural materials with associated shrubbery, one that is similar in design to other I Street neighbors' fencing.

The effect of granting this variance will eliminate headlight intrusion, a safer environment for more privacy in a highly trafficked area, and a safe and secure lot. On June 16, 2025, a total of 251 public hearing notices were mailed in accordance with the procedures of AMC. 21-03-020H. Notice, as of this writing, 2 public comments had been received. They can be found on page 34 of your staff packet, and a supplementary— and a supplementary comment was issued, and that is packet number 1 that you were handed tonight— have been received.

A phone testimony email was submitted last minute that I will read to the commission. K. Jane McClure at 1504 I Street, and William— sorry, KJ McClure and William Eichmann, homeowners residing at 1335 I Street, which is about a block and a half north of this location, have viewed the property site for proposed fence and spoken with the owners of this property. The taller fence the petitioners of the variance are requesting will look attractive in the neighborhood and will help with the sound shielding they desire. We have no objections to this design variance and and urged the Urban Design Commission to approve it.

The South Addition Community Council did not provide comments regarding this case. In order for the Urban Design Commission to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards. Standard A is met. The proposed fence will follow municipality of Anchorage standards except for the additional 2 feet in height. A.

It will be set back meeting AASHTO Clear Vision standards with the fence at a diagonal on the lot corner. B. It will be attractively designed, maintaining the aesthetic of the neighborhood. C. The fence will be built appropriately following the property line to provide protection and privacy for the property owners from prying eyes and undesirable attention. D. And it will not impede both pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

The height of the fence in this location accomplishes the intent of subject design standard. Standard B is met. This site is designated as single-family and two-family per the 40 Anchorage Land Use Plan map. Character of this is residential building scale, lot coverage, landscape setbacks, and low traffic volumes contribute to a low-intensity residential environment. Anchorage achieves residential and commercial growth, which improves community resiliency and citizens' quality of life as it supports their vision for the future expressed in the Comprehensive Plan.

This plan acknowledges these concerns. Community resiliency is infused throughout the goals, policy strategies, and actions of this plan. Resiliency includes minimizing residents' exposure to risks from natural or man-made hazards. It also supports municipal initiatives that increase energy efficiency, public safety, and lasting economic development. Pending a future revision to the comprehensive plan, one of the goals of the land use plan is that development improves community, community resiliency and citizens' quality of life.

The addition of 2 feet to a fence in the front setback allowing a major— along a major arterial will provide a safe space outside and inside for the residents. Standard C is met. The applicant has worked with the Municipality of Anchorage MOA Traffic to eliminate any safety concerns with site triangles and proposed placement of this fence. This alternative is therefore equivalent to the subject standard. The installation of this fence will create a safe and secure yard space and minimize pedestrian cut-through traffic in the neighborhood, placing the public on sidewalks at the signalized intersection.

Standard D is met. This variance will not adversely affect the use of the adjacent property as permitted. The proposed fence— proposed fence will match what adjacent properties have constructed along I Street. The fence will be aesthetically integrated into the site. It will create a cohesive look that blends seamlessly with the adjacent properties.

Existing landscaping trees will remain and are planted adjacent to the fence. Standard E is met. This site is zoned R-2D, single-family and two-family residences. Are permitted use. Adjacent properties to the south and west are also zoned R-2D.

Properties to the north and east are zoned R-2M. To the north, south, east, and west are all single-family or two-family development. The character of the R-2D zoning district is focused on residential areas with low traffic volume. This request for a taller fence to create a safer outdoor space in a high traffic volume area will provide a beneficial separation from I Street, a major arterial road. If the primary frontage of this lot was the west property line, the current alley, and I Street was considered a secondary frontage, the property owner would be permitted to build a fence 8 feet in height along I Street given the classification of the road as a major arterial.

Standard F is met. The standard is not applicable to a single-family residential development. Standard G— sorry, Standard G is met. The applicant has worked with the Municipality of Anchorage MOA Traffic to eliminate any safety concerns with site triangles and proposed placement of this fence. The installation of this fence will create a safe and secure yard space along with eliminating headlight intrusion and road noise within the neighborhood, creating a safe and secure outdoor space for the property owner and the surrounding community.

Standard H is met. The standard is not applicable to single-family residential development. Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 35 of your packet. There were no objections to the variance. The department finds that all 8 standards are met for this variance.

Therefore, the department recommends approval of the variance subject to the conditions 1 and 2 found on page 5 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions that the commissioners might have and the petitioners in attendance.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?

Commissioner Nanalo?

Hi, yes, and I'm not sure if this is an appropriate question for staff or if it would be better made to the Commissioner. Um, my main concern was actually just looking through this packet where there was issues about sight and being able to see out into the roadway. It looked like on page maybe 40 Yeah, so the traffic engineering department came back and said that the height of this fence should not significantly impact the site and being able to actually see out into the road in terms of like— because so I grew up downtown and there is an issue of like if you drive up to an intersection, there's a lot of— it's very pretty downtown. There's been a lot of landscaping, which is really great for safety. But there's also been the issue of like some of it has grown up so much that you have to like inch out into the roadway steadily.

And I, as space where people go fast. So I can understand why the commissioner is looking for a fence on this property, but I did also have concerns about site distance here. And it looked like this had been looked into, like there had been a site distance triangle potentially drawn. Is that an accurate representation? And that was found to be minimal impact based on this recommendation in this memorandum here?

Through the chair, Commissioner Nalo. Yes. So I think it's on page 20. It's kind of a hand drawing scenario. Yeah.

There's that one. They did meet. You have to also remember this is one of the few signalized intersections along I Street. So— and you only have one-way on I Street. So people aren't making a right-hand turn off of 15th going south on I Street.

They're only making left-hand turns. Same with those going westbound. They're only making a right-hand turn or going straight through the intersection.

So it's kind of an interesting intersection just because of that. And I realize one of the comments was, you know, they got— they almost got hit. Well, somebody ran a stop sign. That's—. Yeah, there's not a whole lot you can do about that.

Correct. That has nothing to do with sight distance triangles. That wouldn't have helped necessarily. No, it wouldn't have. But as— so looking at page 20, then the figure drawn there indicates that the fence line would be pulled in a little, correct?

2 Feet into the lot, correct? Is that the recommendation of the traffic department? The traffic department, that it followed that line specifically, correct? Yeah. So it would not follow like the lot line, correct?

So it'd be set in 2 feet to the west from the east property line, and they're going to set it back 4 feet from the north property line. Yeah, if I can add, it looks like on page 6 of our other packet there's a— another graphic that's a signed and sealed design that shows that they've put the site distance triangle on there with the proposed fence line, and they're showing that the fence line is behind the site distance triangle. Yeah, I saw that they had gone through this process. I just wasn't sure if that was like per this recommendation that needs to follow this side triangle, the fence line needs to follow this or not.

That's—. Yeah, that's what I— yeah.

Any other questions of staff?

Okay. Will the petitioner please come forward? Please state and spell your name for the record. You will have 10 minutes to present. Would you like us to reserve any of your time for rebuttal?

Um, a few minutes, I suppose. I don't think I'm going to take more than a couple minutes to present, so Please state and spell your name. My name is Hallie Peterson. H-A-L-L-I-E P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N.

So, um, yeah, we bought the place just kind of a week before the holidays, I guess, in December, and quickly decided that fence would increase privacy and security to our new home. And so, yeah, we started looking at the code and kind of seeing what we could build. And on the front line on I Street, we're able to build a 4-foot fence, and then on 15th, you're able to build an 8-foot fence. It's the secondary front setback. And so we started kind of putting up stakes, my husband and I, with kind of string, kind of to visualize how it would look and how it would be.

And then it turned out, you know, the incoming traffic going west on 15th, the headlights kind of shine right into the living room and the kitchen. And so then we raised the string, kind of our twine design, to be at 6 foot and it it seemed to pretty much block those lights, you know, how we kind of visualize it, how we kind of stare out from our windows.

So that's how we— that's how we came to submit this variance application, just a 2-foot height difference in our fence design. And then we also chatted with the traffic engineering department as you can see in the packet, Travis Just, and he's the one who really, you know, guided us and told us about what the clear vision area is and, and gave us the proper calculations to, to draw that triangle in, which is actually 14 and 14 and a half feet from that curb face on 15th to where the driver is in the left lane on I Street. So That distance, 14.5 feet, is what he told us is the correct calculation. And so keeping that triangle exposed was kind of the proper way to, to design that.

Yeah. And we, we definitely want to make our— keep our neighbors happy. We, we moved there for a reason. We really love that neighborhood and the walkability of it and Definitely, definitely agree with that, what that comment we did receive about the man who was in the accident. And yeah, we definitely do not want to add to that.

But yeah, the correct line of sight triangle should really not affect that.

Yeah.

Any questions of the petitioner?

Commissioner Nanallo.

Sorry, I just had one more question. On page 13, photograph 5, you show your neighbor's fence. Do you know how tall that fence is? That's a 6-foot fence. That's a 6-foot fence.

So what you're putting in would be consistent with what your neighbor already has in place. Yep, exactly. We're gonna, um, do kind of the same design too, just kind of extend it, just a continuation. Okay, thanks.

Thank you. We will now open the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify? Yahweh.

Hi, please state and spell your name for the record. And whether you are testifying as an individual or a representative of a group. I'm an individual and my name is—. Oh yeah, thank you. I'm an individual and my name is Colleen Ray and, um, my concern here and the reason I'm here is to express my concerns about the variance for the, for the fence on I Street.

Street.

I think I completely understand everything that my neighbor who I just met is asking for. I would be asking for the same things if I were to move into that lot. I've lived 45 years just about 6 houses away down the street from where that is, so I frequently travel that intersection, and what I'm concerned about is the line of visibility and the height and how that's affected.

I Street, as indicated, has heavy traffic and the road and the sidewalks are used by cyclists that are often coming down 15th, going down to the coastal trail or coming up on that side of the street. Where their visibility is affected. So if that sign were to say walk and a cyclist was coming up and they kept cycling because it said walk, they're not really going to see or maybe have enough time to stop when the cars are coming up there at a high rate of speed often. Last night, for example, I stopped at the red light about 6 o'clock at night. Two cars after I stopped and the light turned red 2 cars went through the intersection.

There's 3 lanes there. And I don't know if they were— I don't remember if they were in the same lane or 2 opposite lanes. But 2 went. One followed the other. So about 2 hours later, 8 o'clock, I walked down so I could sit there and see, because my experience tells me it's just constant red light runners there.

Constant is an exaggeration. But— and within the 5 minutes I was at corner, someone ran the red light again coming down I Street, and then another person ran the red light coming down 15th. And I was only there 5 or 10 minutes when— for the course of that to happen. If my window is open at our house, I can hear the car crashes over the— I mean, granted, it's been 45 years, but, you know, or drive by the next morning and see the debris on the the lawn and the next door. It's kind of a known ticket.

You know, officers will often come for the people trying to get into work at 8 o'clock because those people are kind of always trying to make that light right as it turns yellow. And they don't have to wait very long to write a ticket for that. I've seen trees taken down by the cars that I don't know if they're the cause of the accident, or they're trying to avoid being hit by somebody coming through the intersection, but they kind of all pile up on the lawn across the street. So there's been a lot of changes in the landscaping and design over there because of the— well, I can't say it's because of, but there's been a lot of damage on that property over the years.

Um, I guess I don't want to rain on their plans because I think they have very good plans, and it sounds like an aesthetically pleasing fence. But I am concerned that I need to speak up to try to prevent a catastrophic accident or multiple accidents causing damage to property and to people. Um, I'm, I'm sorry, but, but you are out of time.

But so, like, I'm just going to ask for you to Okay, so it's both the height of the— it's the visibility that I'm concerned about, and any further reduction in the vis— in the visibility, I think, is only going to compound the problem. So even if you're— if they're saying it's in compliance with that line of sight diagonal and the height, it still gives the driver or the pedestrian less information to go through that, to go through that intersection. And I see that as really affecting the safety of the neighborhood.

So, you know, I think there's some different solutions that maybe could be discussed. I don't know if the shrubbery is going to add to that problem or be a negative. It's hard for me to visualize when I look at the lines they have up there that once a solid fence gets back there If it was a fence that you could see through, I have absolutely no objection, because visibility is the only thing I'm concerned about. I know that doesn't satisfy the petitioner's problem, so, you know, that may not be a solution. But my concern is just you have seconds when you go— I mean, if I'm sitting there at a red light and the light turns green, I'm not going to be the first person in that intersection.

I kind of creep up to see what's coming around the corner because they come up very fast and their goal is to get through that red light. And they can't really see you because the property sits up about a foot from the sidewalk. So even a 4-foot fence would probably interfere with my ability to at least see trucks and buses and those kinds of things coming through. I'm sorry, but we— but yeah, thank you. That's all I really wanted to say.

Thanks. Thank you.

Um, didn't we have some people who are calling in? Okay, Madam Chair, you have two phone testimonies. I'll dial them up now. Thank you.

Your call has been forwarded to voicemail. The person you're trying to reach is not available. I'll try the other one.

Hello, this is Michael. Michael, this is Paul Hatcher, Urban Design Commission, calling for public testimony in case 2025-0081. Are you testifying as an individual or representing a group? I am an individual. All right, you have 3 minutes to testify.

Please state your full name for the record and begin your testimony. Okay, uh, my name is Michael Teo. Um, I'm a resident of, on the same 1500 block of I Street as the petitioner. Um, I, uh, support, I support the petitioner, um, for, for a number of reasons. Number one, um, uh, on a personal level that property has been used as a short-term rental until the petitioner purchased it, and they're using it as an owner-occupied residence.

I find that as a valuable contribution to the microcosm of the general community, so just my block in general. So, um, I am a dad who walks, uh, what will be my third grader when the school year starts across that intersection during the course of the year, so I'm intimately familiar with the visibility and in general risks in the area. And I am not going to confuse people, anchorages, drivers, poor driving techniques with the need for someone else to surrender their privacy. So I teach my kid to stand at that corner and take a look at how the traffic is flowing and if they're respecting the fact that there's a pedestrian. On their side of the street in particular, they have roughly a 2-foot concrete retain— landscaped— concrete block wall for retaining purposes.

And when I cross that street, when I do with my son, when I ride home from work on my bike, I shield myself at that intersection by just standing behind that wall, but people can see me from the knee up. Generally the drivers, will see me out there, respect that, and I don't creep out. So I don't think that a fence that's set back even farther than that wall is going to change, uh, how I safely get across that street. So I, um, I'm supportive of the position. I understand living on the same block.

I can't imagine living on this block without the fence that I have at my home that provides security and privacy, um, and so I support the petition.

Any, any questions? No.

Thank you. All right, thank you.

I'll try the other one again, Madam Chair.

Hi, this is Hannah. Hannah, this is— hello, hello, Hannah, this is Paul Hatcher with the Urban Design Commission calling for public testimony in case 2025-0081. Are you testifying as an individual or representative of a group? An individual. All right, you will have 3 minutes to testify.

Please state your full name for the record and begin your testimony.

Hi, my name is Hannah Brewster. Um, I'm a resident at 1512 I Street, next door, uh, to the house that's looking to build a fence, and I wanted to voice my support. Um, we've lived— my family has lived in that house when it was a rental, and the road noise And street lights from headlights is a serious, you know, it's a real thing. And it makes it less of a nice place to live. And I'm sure that house was built long before I Street and 15th were as busy as they are now.

And I think that making that a house that's livable for the people that live there really adds to the community. And I would much rather it be a house with full-time residents in it than go back to being something like an Airbnb. Where, where that stuff is less of an issue. Thanks for your time. That's it.

Any questions?

We have no questions for you. Nope, we have no questions for you. Thank you for calling in. Yep, thank you.

That's, that's all the phone testimony, Madam Chair. Um, would the petitioner like to use their remaining time for rebuttal? You had 7 minutes 11 seconds remaining.

Say something.

Yeah. Um, hi. Thank you, Colleen, for your comment, and, um, also Lee, who had another comment, um, kind of to the same— to the same effect, kind of about the pedestrian experience on that sidewalk. I would just say, yeah, I think it— some of it boils down to just taking care of oneself, you know, at any intersection and kind of putting your safety first instead of trusting the drivers going through that intersection. It is a very busy intersection, and it's also ironic that that's exactly why we do want to build the fence too.

So Yeah, I guess that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Are there any more questions from the Commission for the petitioner or staff?

Commissioner Street? Yeah, I guess this would be for staff. If we were not in a situation where the petitioner is requesting a design variance for the height of the fence along High Street, uh, they would be able to build a 4-foot fence along High Street and an 8-foot fence along 15th, basically all the way out to the property boundary without any concessions for site distance. Is that correct? Through the chair, Commissioner Straight, that is correct.

It would— the 8-foot would have to start 20 feet back from I Street. I don't know that at the front setback, it's— it can only be 4 feet even wrapping the corner, I guess you could say, in that because that's still considered the front setback. But yes, it could be 8 feet tall on 15th, but they're not proposing that. They're just proposing a 6-foot-high fence. Okay, thank you.

And they could build the 6-foot-high fence 20 feet back from the property line without it— without a design variance. Okay, thank you. Does that help? Yep.

Are there any more questions from the Commission for the petitioner or staff?

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. The matter now rests with the body. We will move and vote.

We have a motion to approve in case 2025-008. It's been moved by Commissioner Nanalo. Would you please state your motion?

I move in case 2025-0081 to approve a variance from AMC 21.07.080H.3.8A.I. Sorry, that was long. To allow a fence to exceed the maximum feet height of 4 feet in a front setback with an increase of 2 feet to a total of 6 feet, subject to conditions 1 and 2 as shown on page 5 of the staff report. Thank you. It's been seconded by Commissioner Straight.

Commissioner Nanalo, would you please speak to your motion?

Yeah, I intend to support this motion. Um, the findings have all been met. It is a busy street. I do understand the concerns, as I voiced earlier, about site distance. I think you have tried to address that to the best of your ability.

And also, as a private residence, you are not responsible for Anchorage drivers speeding through that intersection. Um, it does seem like maybe at some point in the future that is an intersection that could be addressed a little bit better by maybe the traffic department or DOT or whoever that belongs to. But as a private citizen, you and your husband, I do not think, are responsible for that. I do think you have followed the standards as laid out here as is appropriate. Um, you've added the site triangle.

I intend to support the motion.

Thank you. Commissioner Straight, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, um, I would like to add some findings. Um, I find, uh, for in the approval criteria, for criteria A, that the proposed alternative achieves the intent of of the subject design standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard. Basically, the, the height of the fence in this location accomplishes the intent of the subject design standard.

For criteria B, that the proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard, basically, I find that the addition of the 2 additional feet to the fence at the front setback along the major arterial will provide a safe space outside and inside for residents.

Criteria C for the proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard, that that standard is met. The applicant did work with the Municipality of Anchorage Traffic Department to eliminate the safety concerns with the site triangle and the proposed placement of the fence.

Therefore, it's equivalent to the subject standard. For criteria D, if the variance is granted, it will not adversely affect the use of the adjacent property as permitted under this code. That standard is met. The proposed fence will match the adjacent properties that have constructed fences along I Street. For criteria E, the variance, if granted, does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located in keeping with the intent of the code and does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the district in which the property lies.

That standard is also met.

Um, the request for a taller fence to create a safer outdoor space in the high traffic volume area will provide a beneficial separation from I Street, which is a major arterial. Um, criteria F is not applicable to single-family residential development. Criteria G, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality. Um, the applicant did work with the traffic department to eliminate the safety concerns with the sight triangles at the intersection. And the fence will create a safe and secure yard, along with eliminating the headlight intrusion and road noise within the neighborhood, creating a safe and secure outdoor space for the property owner and the surrounding community.

Criteria H is not applicable. I would like to add, in addition to that, that I think this is a perfect location for a variance where we have a residential parcel abutting a major arterial, I think a 6-foot fence seems like a good solution to the property owner. I understand the issues with the site distance there. However, I don't think that that falls on the property owner to be responsible for providing that site distance. I think the, the design proposed in this variance is actually better than one that could be constructed without a variance potentially if the property owner were to go out there and to just construct the maximum fence allowable.

Um, and, uh, I think if the municipality or DOT would like to improve the site distance here, they probably need to acquire some right-of-way to do that at this location. That is all.

Thank you.

Are there any other commissioners wishing to speak to the motion and/or add findings?

If there is no further discussion, may we have a vote on case number 2025-0081?

Mr. Kolas, how do you vote? I support. Ms. Lucas? I approve. Thank you.

Case 2025-0081 passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 against, and 0 abstaining.

Thank you. We will next move on to the next item on the agenda, which we don't have any appearance requests, reports, or commissioners' comments. Therefore, this concludes UDC's business for this evening. Could I please get a motion to adjourn? It has been moved by Commissioner Nanalo and seconded by Commissioner Sullivan.

Are there any objections?

Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned at 7:56 PM. Thank you, James and Ryan. And Ryan, I hope your pet gets better. Thank you so much. Have a good night, everyone.

You too. Thank you.

You can. We want, we want, thank God. We want, we want, thank God. We want, we want, thank God. We want, we want, thank God.

We want, we want, thank God. The bread's done, now we working for the pie. Spent a whole damn house on your wrist to praise God. Spent like 15 workers' salary on your wrist. A place of chasing more You want when you want, if you want, till it's up in dust.

Billions burning in the clubs, I'll fire the police, no chasing peace. I must chase green, but honestly I feel.