Anchorage Assembly: PlanningandZoningCommission: Live

Brandy? Yeah, I'm here. Okay, thanks.

Okay, we will call the November 9th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May we please have the roll call? Andres Spinelli. Here. Jared Gardner.

Here. Radhika Krishna. Here. Scott Pulice. Here.

Jeff Raun. Here. Brandy Eber. Here. Amma Baza.

Here. Megan Mills? Here. Edith McKee? Here.

You have a quorum. Thank you. First item up, special order of business, disclosures. Are there any disclosures from the commission?

Hearing and seeing none, if anyone is here for case 2026-0136 and 2026-0137, they have been postponed to December 7th. Case 2026-0139 has been postponed to December 14th. On to the public hearings. The procedure by which the public may speak to the commission at its meetings is: one, after the 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, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., 5 minutes. Individuals, 10 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.

May we please have the staff presentation on Case 2026-01? -0133. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a rezone request initiated by the property owner to amend the zoning map for one parcel of land containing 1.33 acres from CE-I1SL Light Industrial District with special limitations per AO 87-49 to CER6 Low Density Residential District.

The existing single-family structure was constructed without permits. A permit would have— would not have been issued for this structure had one been applied for at the time of construction. This structure does not have legal nonconforming rights, and there is not a current enforcement violation regarding the use. This rezone will bring the structure into compliance with code. Variances are not an option for illegal uses.

The 2006 Chugiak State Park Comprehensive Plan update designates this parcel as residential less than 1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre. The CER-6 zoning district is an implementing zoning district for this land use designation. As such, the rezoning request may proceed under the provisions for rezonings that implement the comprehensive plan per Anchorage Municipal Code AMC 2103-160.

Attachment 3, starting on page 22 of your staff report, includes all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format. State and municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to the rezone. The Planning Department provided public published notice to the Chugach State Park Community Council and the Chugach State Park Eagle River Advisory Board on October 15th, 2026, in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code 21-03-200-H3.

As of this writing, the Planning Department has received no public comments. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval, and the assembly may approve a rezoning if the rezoning meets the required 3 criteria for a rezone to implement the comprehensive plan. The department finds that criteria A, B, and C are met and therefore proposes— sorry, proposed rezoning meets all three approval criteria. The department therefore requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this proposed rezone from CE-I1SL Light Industrial District with special limitations per AO 8749 to CER-6 Low Density Residential District and refer it to the assembly for adoption by ordinance. I can answer any questions that the Commissioners may have, and the petitioner's representative is in attendance.

Are there any questions for staff?

Hearing and seeing none, we will call the petitioner up.

Hi, my name is Garrett Moore, and I'm here on behalf of Adam Poole.

I do agree with the committee's finding of the report and don't have any questions or comments, and I yield the rest of my time for rebuttal.

All righty, you have 9 minutes and 51 seconds.

Uh, any questions for the petitioner?

Uh, seeing none, we'll open the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

I see no one coming in, but we do have two phone testimonies.

You could sit down if you'd like. You don't have to stand there.

Hello, is this Noah? Yeah, Noah, this is the Planning and Zoning Commission calling for public testimony in case 2026-0133. Are you testifying as an individual or as a group? Individual. Alrighty, you will have 3 minutes to testify.

Please state your full name for the record and begin your testimony. This is Noah Grosskreutz.

Go ahead.

Oh, yeah, I am, I guess. I don't know if there's a lag. I can't hear anything on my end.

Are you watching on YouTube? Yeah, I'm watching on YouTube. Yes, there is a lag. Okay. Okay, so yeah, my name is Noah Grosskreutz and I'm a— I own a lot in this subdivision, Lot 6.

I've had it for 20 years and I definitely strongly oppose this being rezoned to residential. And the reason for that is 20 years ago when I started my business, it was almost impossible to find any I-1 property in the Anchorage bowl. To operate my construction business out of.

And I think that the municipality of Anchorage outside of the bowl is severely lacking in I-1 for business owners. So we need more I-1, not less I-1. And then on another note, The, the current zoning is a 20-foot setback from commercial to residential. Now, this particular subdivision has a 25-foot setback.

And if you were to change, change the zoning from this lot to commercial, or from commercial to residential, Now you're going to impact Lot 5, which is next to it, and lose 25 feet of that property for I-1 commercial use, which would be either storing equipment or yard space or constructing a building. So, again, I just got to say, the municipality of Anchorage needs more I-1, not less, and I strongly oppose, and I thank you for your time.

Are there any questions?

I have one question for you, sir. When you're referring to the 25-foot setback, is that a CC&R of the neighborhood, or are you referring to the existing zoning in the subdivision? Well, this subdivision has special limitation which says where the commercial abuts the residential, they put a 20-foot, you know, set, which is the green space, trees and shrubs and that kind of thing. In the zoning, if you look up the zoning for this particular zone in Chugiak, the CEI-1, it's only a 20-foot setback. So there's a crepency right there.

But either way, it's still a lot of property. So if you take this— you, if you take Adam Poole's Lot 4 next to Rickard's Lot 5, my lot is Lot 6. So these are small commercial lots already as they are. And if you, if you take that side lot, which the zoning says right now if you were to get a building permit to put a commercial building up, it's 0 to 5 feet. And you now rezone this residential, now all of a sudden you've whacked off 25 feet of Lot 5.

And that's a lot of real estate, especially when you're paying taxes on it. So, and, you know, and if you want to talk about taxes, You know, you guys can look at this subdivision and see what kind of tax revenue you're pulling in on these I-1 lots, and the potential for the tax revenue that could come in on these I-1 lots is incredible. So, but, you know, everybody can't operate out of the Anchorage Bowl, and there's so few I-1 lots. I think it's really important to maintain that, and once Once you start pulling a lot at a time, it's kind of a slippery slope.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, I just, uh, wait your turn, sir. We're in the middle of public testimony. You'll have a chance to testify.

Do you want to Noah, are you still there?

Sir, you'll be next after this next phone call. Noah, are you still there? Noah is still here. Okay. Do you have any more questions for me?

Uh, no, no more questions. We're on to the— we're on to the next. Okay, thank you. Should we take this gentleman's testimony in person first? That'd be great.

That'd be a great idea. Sir, would you like to testify? You need to step up to the podium.

Yeah, I apologize we sat you down so quickly.

We're going to need you to— there's a button there. You'll need to turn the microphone on.

Okay, I turn there. Please state your name for the record.

I, I got a letter about the property of Peters Creek.

Yes, that's the case we're hearing, uh, Rancho Vista Drive. Rancho Vista Drive. I cannot— I hear good, but this deformed the voice, you know.

Yeah, well, we're currently taking public testimony for the rezone from too much— I— or from I-1 to R-6.

Can I get closer? We can talk close.

Sure. I cannot catch. But you'll need to do your public testimony from the microphone.

Oh, you just turned it off. If you'd like to tell us about the case, now is your time to testify. You have 3 minutes. I don't have 3 minutes.

Okay, then what would you like to tell us?

Oh, we need to turn the microphone on.

I need somebody like here so I can see his lips, or somebody who maybe can translate me from English to English, you know. I Cannot catch you when you're talking. Okay, say your name first. Huh? Say your name first.

Richard. Last name, please. M-A-R-K-I-E-W-I-C-Z. Now say what you want to say. I have a letter and other neighbors who are calling me.

Is some kind of voting or some kind of making decision? On the property of— in Peters Creek, you know, I have this album. Maroon Road. Maroon Road.

And I am the— I guess the owner left the state, Oregon. I was just told that.

And he bought it like 5, 10 years ago— 5, 6 years ago. The property was just commercial lot, you know, with the home, you know. And he, he want to make it residential property right now, you know. And if he make a residential, I'm affected 25 feet. I cannot do nothing.

And I have some stuff I cannot have anything because for Because for commercial, commercial property, and when border residential properties, have to be 25 feet buffer zone, you know. And now is— till now is a commercial to the commercial, so it's okay. I, I can put it next to the 5 feet away from him and I'm fine, you know. I have a house over there.

And I think I used to fix the car, you know, but the age, you know, right now I got problem with the legs. But I maybe get the better and I go over there back. And I don't want to have the change. I don't want to— I don't want to have the change. It's not like a public domain.

They are going to build a road or— because the road The road is going to our subdivision and then it's like a deep steep, you know, and it's go— it's just wild, you know. And then you have the extension of the road when get a flat, is asphalt and everything, you know. But there are two like a big levels, you know. And first I was thinking you guys doing some kind of big stairs or I don't know, maybe lift so you can get from there upper level to the lower level. Now I kind of— now I see it's working.

Yeah, on it. So I don't know if you guys need me and what is the impact on my property.

Um, I think all we're here to do is listen to you. We're here to listen to what you have to say, and I think we heard that you oppose the rezone. Uh, I didn't catch it completely, you know. Maybe try a little farther. Maybe I, I hear very good.

You're a thumbs down on the rezone? I—. You oppose the rezone because of the 25-foot setback? Yeah, the 25-foot, and I don't want to have a residential because there were lots of people moving in, and you only can be quiet. You have to be— you cannot bang with the hammer, with the angles all night.

Because you got the next— you got the 25 feet, but you got also the voice going on. Your time's up, but we understand what you said. Okay, good. So I— the other owners in the subdivision, because it's like 5 lots, all commercial, I'm the first one who bought it. All right, sir, thank you.

Your time is up. The time is up. Time is up? Time is up. Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, you guys have a very good— yeah, I want to— there's a guy who— you know, I have a contract when they were doing the remodeling, the latest one. Pinnacle Construction was the general, but I was the guy who— I got the contract for the oldest seal. All right, thank you. Time is up. Everywhere was still laying around.

Okay, but that was— keep moving. Okay, okay, next please. Okay, have a good evening. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

I tell you, we have one more phone.

Hello, is this Rick? Yes, it is. Rick, this is Paul Hatcher with the Planning and Zoning Commission calling for public testimony case 2026-0133. Are you testifying as an individual or as a member of a group? I'm sorry, say again.

Am I testifying as what? As an individual or a member of a group? As an individual. Alrighty, you will have 3 minutes to testify. Please state your full name for the record and begin your testimony.

All right, thank you. My name is Ricky C. Daniels. I'm an owner of, uh, 2 lots on Annie Pearl Circle in the light industrial I-1 property. The 2 gentlemen that spoke previous to me, I echo their sentiments 100%.

Noah spoke and he covered a lot of ground as far as setbacks and, and the likes. Again, I have 2 properties there and I have 2 large buildings on those properties. To have residential come in, it will change the whole dynamics of the commercial area that we all have, that we all reside in. The other lot I forget Herschel's last name, but he may or may not be there, or are you calling him? But I'm sure he would echo the sentiments as well.

So again, we all bought into commercial property, and all of the commercial property right now is occupied. The lot that is trying to be changed is at the very entrance of commercial lots, and if that changes, it changes the entry to those commercial lots. We have large vehicles that travel in and through and park out here. So to have a residential, it would not be safe for whomever is moving into that, and it would definitely not be safe for our drivers coming and going. So again, I echo the sentiments of Noah and as well as Richard.

Richard's— they both of the gentlemen have been on the properties for quite a long time. I was the first in, and as I said, I've got two large buildings on my two lots. Lot 4 is across, directly across from one of my buildings, and if If a lot for— if they parked out on the street, that, that by itself would hinder our comings and goings. So, it's a narrow road as it, as it is right now. And again, we have heavy equipment coming and going into the subdivision.

I'm a no as far as the rezoning.

Thank you. I see no questions.

Uh, that, uh, question from Commissioner McKee. I, I have a question for staff more so than any of the People who spoke? Okay, well, I think we can wrap up the phone call, and I will ask one more time if anyone wants to testify on this matter.

Seeing none, I guess Commissioner McKee, before we go to invite the petitioner up for rebuttal, you can go ahead and ask your question for staff.

If we, if we voted in favor of the rezone, since several of the, of the people speaking brought up concerns about light, sound, and the setback If this property were rezoned to an R-6, would that change any of the adjacent properties' ability to have light, sound, or work— have buildings' features right up to their property line? So would the setback only apply to the residential property? Would any sound restrictions or light restrictions come into play? Through the chair, Commissioner McKee, as I'm reading the AO, which is on page 15, the piece they're talking about, the top of page 15, says a 25-foot-wide natural or landscape buffer shall be placed around the perimeter of the I-1 SL zoned areas 'With'— and then there's some crossouts— 'with a 7-foot decorative wood fence along the eastern boundary, sha— with location and design suitable to Planning Department, the buffer shall be maintained by the I-1 SL property owners.' The way I read that, that's the 25-foot is not interior to these lots, it's the exterior.

I, I wish I could show you the zoning map I have, but This is basically sandwiched in between CER 7 to the north, CER 5 to the south. So yes, there are noise and light requirements, not any more than what would be to the neighboring properties on the— around them, I guess you could say. So there's always— there's noise ordinances. You can't operate things past a certain time when you abut Uh, anytime in the municipality, I think it's 10 PM or 9 PM, you can't go past that time. There are differences between what's allowed across the property line, decibel level, at certain times of the day between industrial and commercial, commercial and residential, those types of things.

They're already having to deal with that currently because they abut residential everywhere else. This is not a industrial abutting more industrial or commercial area in this area. It's abutting all residential. Um, I could probably pull it up there for you guys to see, but anyways, so yes, they, they already have to do those things. Adding, making this a residential lot or making this a residential zoning district would just bring one a little bit closer to an existing neighbor.

I guess, does that help? Can I just follow up on that? Your zoning map, does it have topography? The— some we heard in public testimony, it was hard to make out what exactly he was saying, but he was, I think, referring to some considerable grade changes between some properties and some others. Just curious if you have any input on Through the properties being buffered by elevation.

As far— through, uh, Chair Spinelli, as far as I know, I don't see any different elevations. The other interesting thing is, is if you look at CAMA data, not to nitpick or anything, but the lot, uh, Richard, who came and testified, CAMA data says his is a single family. There's a single family residence on his lot, which is not allowed in the I district, and then the property across— that was, uh, Rick who testified the last one— his says his is multifamily— sorry, mixed residential commercial. That's the CAMA data information. So I'm not sure what property appraisal's pulling from these properties to show that they have some, some residential or some element of residential.

Uh, residential is not allowed, like I said, in the, in the industrial zoning district in Chugiak Eagle River, a caretaker unit is an allowed use. And so I'm not sure if that's what those are and what they're referring to. So it's an interesting thing. I can look up the topography real quick.

I'm assuming it slopes from the— downwards from the east to the west because this is Chugiak Eagle River and it's maybe a 15- to 20-foot grade difference from east to west is what it looks like. It's nothing It's not— it's not extensive.

Does that help? Sure. Uh, we'll go to Commissioner Pulice. Um, question 1 is the structures can't go in the 25-foot setback, right? That is correct.

Adjacent structures? Correct. So by approving this, if you look at the picture on Page 8. Don't we put the property to the east and the property to the south out of compliance? Because now their structures are in the 25-foot setback.

So that— that— sorry, through the chair, Commissioner Pauls, that's what I was talking about. The AO, I believe, speaks specifically to the northeast, south, and west boundary of the whole zoning area, not the interior lot lines. Yes. Now, now you'd still have setbacks. Yes, correct.

And this one is interesting too. He was talking about the road. It's not a— it's not— it's a 40-foot— it's a platted 40-foot access easement, basically. There is not a dedicated MOA road that serves these properties.

Next up, we got Commissioner Gardner in the queue.

Thanks. Um, can you help me understand too, to the question of potential implications from, from the rezone and having an adjacent, I guess at least on that side, um, residential zone, um, what are the applicable landscape requirements and how does it work for Chugiak State Park, Eagle River? Because I don't see anything specific in Chapter 10, and it looks like for just the general landscaping requirements, there would be L2 for just an I-1 next to an R-6. And so is that what would apply, and what implications does that have for the existing adjacent I-1s? Through the Chair, Commissioner Gardner, that would apply if— yes, you're correct.

L2 in the Anchorage Code, L2 is required between R-6 large lot residential and an I, an industrial zoning district, that would only be triggered if they came in for a land use permit to either do an addition to the structure, and it would— it'd be— it'd impact both lots, actually. So if this petitioner came in with a land use permit, he would have to install or maintain some kind of L2 buffer landscaping. Okay, thank you. And And just another note on the L2, you can minimize— you can reduce that in size by adding the fence. So if you add a 6-foot fence, you can go from the 15 to the 10 feet in depth if you need, if need be.

Uh, next up, Commissioner Mills.

I just wanted to call out, um, It is my experience as well that there is a significant shortage of I-1 property in the Chugiak/Eagle River area. However, I recognize at the same time that this is in alignment with the comprehensive plan for Eagle River. Is that a new change on the most recent draft, or how long has that— do you know? I do, through the chair, Commissioner Mills. The Chugiak/Eagle River update to the comprehensive plan was 2006.

Okay. They are currently working on doing an update, just like Girdwood just did theirs. Yes, Chugiak River is in the process of going through that process to update their comprehensive plan. Is there discussion about implementing more I-1 elsewhere? That's just my concern with this, is we're going to continue to decrease what we have.

Is there talk about more? Through the chair, I don't Okay, Commissioner Mears, I don't know that particular question, especially for this area. This year, this area is very unique. Yeah, that it is this I-1, not off of a collector or arterial or anything in, in Chugiak Eagle River. Also, Chugiak, most of Chugiak River is wells and septics.

So it's kind of hard to do really good industrial without— yeah, sewer at least. Yeah. But for a laydown yard, which I'm pretty sure there they're using it more for laydown yards and storage of heavy equipment, which is good because it's needed. But most of the industrial-zoned property in Chugiak/Eagle River is right on the Old Glen. It's, you know, within a quarter of a mile of the Old Glen.

Yeah, thank you. Commissioner Rauen.

Thank you through the chair. I'm trying to understand AO 8749, so the zoning action that that occurred most recently that created the special limitations. In the header, it looks like, as I'm interpreting, maybe I'm wrong, it converted what was previously some I-1 and previously some R-7. Is it known if the lot in question was I-1 or R-7 prior to that zoning action?

Or maybe I'm misreading that, and you can correct me. Thanks.

Through the chair, Commissioner Rahn, give me one second.

Through the chair, Commissioner Rahn, it, it appears you are correct in reading how the ordinance is written, that it I don't know if the whole property or a certain portion of this property within— again, it's not a— which is interesting, it doesn't specifically say a plat as much as it does coordinates for sections and townships. But it appears that it was at one time I-1 and R-7. Granted, that's before the Chugach State Park addition of the Title 21, so that's why it doesn't have a CE in front of it.

And it was then— yeah, it was then created additional special limitations. I don't have the previous one as to how this was originally zoned. Sorry for not having that. I should have had that.

But no, if you, if you go to the map on page 16, It shows the petition area, and I believe what it's showing there is that there was a smaller I-1 SL area, which actually probably included a majority of the existing lot that we're talking about, but then made the I-1 larger, leaving the R-7 SL just along that northern boundary.

Did that help?

Um, Commissioner McKee, and then I think we should go back to the petitioner for the rebuttal after this, but go ahead. Thank you. Through the chair, um, so in our packet it says that the house was built without a permit. I mean, it wouldn't have been issued for this structure if they had applied for one. If we don't approve the rezone, what is the implication for the existing building?

Through the chair, Commissioner McKee, the structure was built in 2006. The property owner that's applying purchased this property, I believe, in 2019. If the commission does not approve the rezone, it still goes to the assembly. Yours is just a recommendation. You can even— and your recommendation can be a denial, but it would still go to the assembly.

If it does not pass at the assembly, then we start talking about issues that, that either it needs to be changed to be a commercial use, something that can be used in this zoning district, or— and yeah, does that help?

All right, uh, can we have you, uh, come back up? You have 9 minutes and 50 seconds for rebuttal. Need you to tell us what we don't know. You've heard all the questions. Hopefully you can tell us something.

Yeah, absolutely. So, um, in this transaction, I actually knew the original owner, the current owner, and the future owner here. Um, and basically, the— you know, these guys, as you can probably tell, is a real tight-knit community to begin with over in that area. It's at the backside of a residential neighborhood. One of the challenges though is that unlike some of the other properties, You know, this one was built kind of more as a— I would call like an Alaska house, right?

It's definitely like a guy's house, you know, for, you know, toys and, you know, equipment and stuff like that and cars. And, you know, be able to kind of work out of a little bit on your stuff. So, but that also makes financing and stuff challenging, right? For the, you know, this kind of property, it doesn't quite fit into any specific block. So, you know, in investigation of all this, You know, we found out that, hey, there is actually this, you know, preset thing to have a path to actually get it zoned up as residential.

Um, you know, I've been doing real estate for about 10 years, and I've seen lots of properties that were next to, you know, a light industrial kind of an area, and most people are kind of buying in those areas for those reasons, um, right? So that way they kind of, uh have those kind of freedoms and stuff. But in this case, um, you know, what really kind of makes this a little bit easier is, you know, we're kind of getting the use of the property kind of back to what it should be, um, hopefully without any impact on any other properties. Like they mentioned, it is sitting at the beginning of, of the drive when you go down to the road. So as you come down the road It's nothing but residential houses, and then this subdivision just kind of hooks right, right at the end.

As far as topography, it's all pretty flat, honestly. The back half of this property does have a small road that goes down to a lower section, but that's about it.

Yeah, any questions for me?

Any question? Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, through the chair. I, I think I heard you infer that the property is currently under contract. Is, is that correct?

Correct. Yeah. Thanks.

I see no further questions. You still have 7 minutes and 50 seconds. Would you like to use the time or yield it. Um, I'm just a proponent for voting yes. Um, the, uh, like I said, moving forward, um, not much of this use case of this particular property is really going to change whether it was zoned commercial or residential because the structure itself is kind of built the only way it can be built and where it's kind of set up against by the front of the road.

So it's not like much of it's really going to kind of change outside of that. And it shouldn't really impact anything as far as any of the surrounding property. So. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sir in the back, were you here to testify? All right. Perfect. Then we're going to close the public hearing. Um, what is the will of the body?

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? Sure. I move in Case 2026-0133 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of a parcel of land from CE-I1SL to CER-6.

Thank you. Is there a second?

That's seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, thanks. I, I intend to support this motion. I think the approval criteria are met as set forth in the staff packet, and this is an implementing zoning district for the applicable land use classification.

We heard some testimony from some of the neighbors this evening with concerns about implications from the rezone, and I think, um, those should be relatively limited for a couple of reasons. One is that it doesn't change the existing use. It's been a residential property for— we heard testimony that the property was built in 2006, so a significant period of time. And, um, from our review of the applicable special limitations, it doesn't look like it will materially add new buffer requirements. There is the potential for additional landscaping requirements for being adjacent to a residential district, but those don't immediately come into play, and that applies to both properties.

And no immediate requirements resulting from that.

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

Going once, going twice. We'll call for the vote.

Miss Eber, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

That motion passes.

Next item of business, Title 21 discussion. Is there any Title 21 discussions, staff or the commission?

Uh, next, Commissioner comments. Any Commissioner comments?

We'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner McKee. Any objection? Hearing none, we adjourn.

Thank God. Did something bad. I did something bad. Never question the Thank you, Brandy.