Planning and Zoning Commission - November 3, 2025 - 2025-11-03 18:00:00

Okay, we will call the, uh, November 3rd 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 Pullis. Here.

Jeff Rahn. Here. Brandy Eber. Here. You have a quorum.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, on our agenda we have the minutes for October 6th. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? It's moved by Commissioner Eber, seconded by Commissioner Polis. Any discussion on the minutes?

Any objection? Hearing none, minutes are approved.

Um, next item, disclosures. Any commissioners have anything to disclose?

Seeing none, we'll move on.

All right, uh, next thing I'm going to ask for, uh, Motion to reorder the agenda to hear item F5 before the consent agenda.

It's moved by Commissioner Pulis.

Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Eber. Any discussion on that motion? Any opposed?

Hearing none, that motion passes.

Uh, now that brings us to staff presentation in case 2025-0121.

Oh wait, nope, sorry, skip the page, we're not there yet.

Staff— that brings us to the staff presentation in case 2025-01 4-4.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will give a very brief presentation. Um, this evening before the Planning and Zoning Commission is the annual review of the capital improvement budget and 5-year capital improvement plan. Um, projects are proposed throughout the Anchorage Bowl. These projects are located across the municipality within areas under the purview of an adopted comprehensive district or neighborhood plan, including the East Anchorage District Plan, Fairview Neighborhood Plan, Hillside District Plan, Spinard Corridor Plan, Umed District Plan, and West Anchorage District Plan.

About 92% of the proposed projects directly support or align with at least one goal in the 2040 Land Use Plan and Based on this, we, the Planning Department, do recommend approval of the budget and have provided 3 suggested findings on page 2 of the attached staff packet. And with that, I will turn to OMB.

Thank you. So the slide deck that you have in front of you has a lot of the information that I sort of verbally shared just now. I'm happy to walk through the deck to detail what each of the points are. I'm not sure if the time allows for that or not, so I would leave that to Commissioner decision.

We have time for— to hear your presentation, so I would say move through it. Efficiently as possible. Give it a try. Um, so for those of you, um, that have the slide in front of you, the first page is the budget process that we go through, and it's an illustration of how and when we start our capital budget process, um, and the fact that we start our capital budget process, which has now been amended to start even earlier in the year, the year before those projects actually come forward. So we gather the data and then blend it into the department work, and then those recommendations come forward and, uh, we start the whole process over again once we get through our current budget in November.

That is the approved budget. We, uh, carry forward, do the bond, uh, passage on the ballot in April, as well as the, um, budget revisions that then adopt all of that bond activity into our annual process. And then we go through and operate with the bond allocation of the, of the year that was approved by voters. Um, the next page is a quick summary of the operating side of the house and the 2026 proposed general government operating budget. It's a $656.9 million appropriation, $175,000 under the tax cap, and $7 million more than 2025 budget.

Page 4 is an overview of the capital summary. This is available in the capital budget book, but this is the total roll-up of capital budget for 2026. So you'll see the $48.9 in the bond column. The state column has zero funding currently associated with it, and we expect that it will remain at zero. $30 Million on the federal side and almost $10 million in other.

This is a combination of private sector funding, um, departmental set-asides from capital or operating budget, um, uh, extra funding that can be set aside for these capital projects in particular. Excuse me. And you'll see the development services total, $990,000, the health department total, $350,000, and the IT total of $1.44 million. All of those are software capital investments and would be the items that are located located in City Hall, AKA downtown. The other downtown projects in PM&E and Maintenance and Operations and Parks and Rec would be identified specifically by location.

The next page, slide 5, is a representation from last year's capital budget book, so you can see the difference between the summary pages when we include the state roll-up versus the non-state roll-up. In 2025, the capital budget book represented that $166 million in state funding would be coming through, and that did not happen, and nor do we expect that to happen. And that is why we removed this column from the 2026 proposed going forward, so that people have a visual of what is actual being funded on our capital, um investments within the community. Slide 6 is the pie chart of the revenue that's coming in, so you'll see bonds, state, federal, and other by, um, category. And the next pie chart is the kind of, um, uh, capital improvement that falls into all of the $90 million of funding, whether that's a facility change, an information technology change, Parks and Rec, Public Safety, or Roads and Transportation.

This includes all of the revenue, not just the municipal dollars.

Slide 8 is the bond map, which you have seen.

And there is the capital funding lookback, slide 10. We start here with an operating budget comment that is specific to show the original sort of construct of our revenue, which is about 30% operating was funded by the state in 1984. And at this point, um, our operating, uh, funding from state revenue is less than, um, half a percent. Um, so that drop-off is very specific to what we are able to do as a municipality on the operating side, but it also impacts our capital side. Um, the next slide is a flat graph of our operating per capita over the last 20 years.

And so this is the representation of the spend when adjusted for 2025 dollars. Our operating totals over time are flat. The slide 12 is the bond look back over the last 25 years. So this is the total roll-up of municipal approved bonds since 2000 and the categories that they fall into. 2025 Was a very specific, uh, transition into funding more in the Parks, Rec, Library, and Museum column, um, as opposed to only funding roads and transit to sort of balance out the activity within the departments, but also the deep deferred maintenance need that we noticed at some of these locations that have not been funded in a very long time.

And you'll see that again in the 2026 proposed um, project list, uh, within maintenance and operations. There is a fire safety, um, panel, uh, capital improvement at the Performing Arts Center because that, uh, is a life safety issue and, um, is due for much-needed repairs. So that's on the 26 proposed bond. Um, 13 is the graph of state capital budget amounts that have come through over the last 20 years, 25-plus years, and the change there in page 14 is a total of that slide right before, and this is the callback to the State of Alaska capital funding and the community assistance and revenue sharing that the municipality received between 2005 and 2014 versus 2015 to 2024. And when we remove the Port of Alaska from the funding totals, The municipality has lost about $900 million, almost a billion dollars in the last 10 years from the previous funding levels within the 10 years before that.

So our road maintenance and the funding spent on road maintenance is significantly dropped off in the last decade.

Then capital projects by department. We don't need to go into that detail unless anyone has specific questions. Questions about those items. But to Commissioner Rahn's comments earlier, these all hold dollar amounts and totals for each of the projects and are listed on the summary page within the capital budget book, as well as historical information if we need to look for any old detail. When you look at slides 22 and 23, Those are the major differences between when we lived in a— this is what the state funds, this is what the state does not fund.

Slide 22 is Project Management and Engineering's list for the 2026 proposed capital budget. Slide 23 is Project Management and Engineering's project list from the 2025 capital budget that includes the opportunities for the state the state to fund everything in that second column, but none of those things happened as part of the 2025 legislative process or the municipal budget process. And, um, reflecting that those things exist in a capital budget might make people think that they are being funded and occurring, and we have heard from the community that they do in fact think that, and That is why there is some confusion.

And then slide 25 is just a roll-up of all the meetings and associated public hearings for the budget, available to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, any questions for staff?

Uh, seeing no commissioners in the queue, does that mean we're ready for a motion?

Well, thank you for the great presentation.

You've stumped everybody. It's my specialty.

All right, motion by Commissioner Christian. Would you like to state your motion? Sure, I'll move in case 2025-0144 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the proposed 2026 capital improvement budget and the proposed 2026 to 2031 capital improvement program. That's seconded by Commissioner Polis. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion?

Uh, no, except, um, we have before us some draft findings of fact. Um, is it helpful to read these out? Yes. All right. Um, the—.

Okay, uh, number 1, the proposed 2026 capital improvement budget and the proposed 2026 to 2031 CIB, Capital Improvement Program, provides municipal investment in areas with adopted comprehensive district and neighborhood plans, helping to implement goals, objectives, and action items desired and important in the communities that live within those areas. Number 2, the 2026 annual CIB CIP identifies projects that improve safety, quality of life, and right-of-way improvements with a variety of projects by contributing millions in funding to repair and upgrade multimodal travel facilities These projects include roadways and trails, transit support, emergency medical services, new fire equipment, and making improvements to parks and trails. Number 3, supporting Anchorage's unique quality of life through the capital investments proposed in the 2026 annual CIB/CIP contributes to economic development and can encourage private investments in new housing and commercial enterprises throughout the Municipality of Anchorage. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Just briefly, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Um, for the record, a few comments. First, thank you to OMB and the department for the presentation.

Challenging work that you've been up to the last 2 years and then some. As Commissioner, and perhaps more so as a member of this community, I would like to call upon all of us to get engaged in the path forward for Anchorage. I think what we see before for us in terms of a CIB and CIP is reflective of the current state of affairs. Personally, this community in terms of resources we have available to us moving forward over the next year in this planning cycle are not where I would like them to be for my family, for our neighborhoods, for our future as a community. When I travel outside, I see growth.

I see healthy and vibrant communities. When I come home, I'm reminded of the things that we once had but don't now and could in the future. So a bit of a soapbox, um, you know, it's not this commission's purview to look at revenue generation and sources therein, but I ask all of us as a community to understand the reality of what we're facing. Get engaged, get involved, and let's build the Anchorage that we want. Thanks.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion or, uh, from a soapbox?

Uh, hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Now we will move back to the consent agenda.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

It's moved by Commissioner Pulis, seconded by Commissioner Eber. Anyone wishing to pull any items for discussion?

On the consent agenda. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Uh, yes, I would like to pull Resolution 2025-29.

Okay, we will, um, if there's no other items that any commissioners wish to pull, we will now vote On the remaining items, that's the remaining two resolutions.

Is there any objections?

Hearing none, the consent agenda passes.

All right, now we have Resolution 2025-029 in front of us. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to— huh?

All right, for the purposes of discussion, I'd like to make a motion to approve Resolution 2025-29, and this would be the moment for any amendments to be proposed by commissioners if they so choose.

Okay, we have a motion. And is there a second?

Uh, moved by Commissioner Krishna, seconded by Commissioner Rohn.

Did you— Commissioner Krishna, did you wish to speak any further to the motion?

Now that we are officially in discussion, I would draw the Commission's attention to Section C in this resolution that has recommendations for the Transit Supportive Development Ordinance.

For those— I think everyone has it in front of them, but retaining the proposal to limit driveways to 20 feet, height limits, lot coverage. If the Commission is ready to pass this as written and believes that it reflects the recommendations that we did not vote on but discussed at the previous meeting, then I am— believe that I could agree with that. I have my own personal opinions on some of these items, but it's— I think that our role here is to have this broadly reflect the thoughts of the Commission. So open to any comments. Amendments, or if there are none, we can vote on it.

I guess before anyone— with— since nobody else has jumped in, I had flagged number C3, um, this afternoon as perhaps being an issue for larger multifamily developments. A 20-foot maximum driveway width doesn't seem quite possible, or it might lead to having multiple driveways into a project. And so I don't remember discussing that one when we heard the case previously, and so I wasn't sure if that was in there intentionally or contained as part of some boilerplate, but I did want to bring it up as an area of concern for me. So, Commissioner Eber, I don't recall that being there either, and I'm not opposed to taking it out.

Commissioner Pullis, um, I will third that. I know we discussed it, but I don't know if we made it a finding. So I guess while your mic's on, does 20-foot driveway width for multifamily seem—. For a Volkswagen, yeah, it's perfect. For a larger truck or something going to a residential apartment for something, it's very small for sure.

Yeah, okay. I thought it was almost impossible to, to be accepted, so especially in like a tight corridor on a, you know, on a tight road or something. That's, that's going to be pretty hard to navigate for a lot of vehicles.

Okay, so we have a motion to approve. Um, if anybody wanted to make a motion to amend, they could, and or Does anybody else have anything further they'd like to weigh in on?

Commissioner Rahn, are you making a motion? I am moving to strike item C3 from the draft resolution.

And that's seconded by Commissioner Eber. Any discussion on that amendment?

Any—. Commissioner Polis? Yeah, I support the motion. I think that's a decision better left to Building Safety on kind of a, you know, code and individual lot basis.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Any opposed to the amendment?

Hearing none, the amendment passes. Uh, any further discussion on the main motion?

Uh, hearing none, we will vote on the main motion.

Okay, uh, we're gonna do verbal vote. Is there any opposed to the main motion?

Hearing none, the motion passes.

OK, now we will move on to the public hearing, and I will read the procedures by which the public may speak to the Commission.

After staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the Chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limit 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., will receive 5 minutes.

Individuals will receive 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the Commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the Commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 2103-050(a)(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 filling— filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with 2103.050. 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.

May we please have staff presentation on case 2025-0022? Thank you, Chair Spinelli. This is a request for approval of a public master plan for Middle Lake Edmonds Lake Park. Middle Lake Edmonds Lake Park includes approximately 478.37 acres across 13 parcels. And zoning, public land and institution park, and PLI zoning district.

The park master plan replaces the outdated 1973 Edmonds Lake Master Plan. The original plan predates major regional developments including the Glenn Highway, which bisects the park, the acquisition of the Meadow Lake Picnic Wayside, the development of Middle Lake Middle School, the Glen Highway Bike Trail, and a significant 2006 land exchange with Eklutna Inc. The Glen Highway splits the park into an undeveloped inlet side to the north and the primary mountainside to the south, which is the main activity area and features major, uh, Middle Lake and Edmonds Lake. The new plan will serve as the guiding document for the park's management, maintenance, and development for the next 20 years with a focus on sustainability. The updated satisfied directives from several key planning documents such as the Chugiak/Eagle River Comprehensive Plan, Edmonds Lake Master Plan, Greenbelt and Recreation Facility Plan, and Area-Wide Trails Plan by committing to protect sensitive lands, develop a continuous multi-use trail system, including new system for winter recreation and mountain biking, and access infrastructure.

All relationship to the multiple existing plans can be found on pages 62 to 67 of the draft plan. Park recreation includes fishing and canoeing in the summer, to ice skating and fat tire biking in the winter, and includes over 5 miles of single-track mountain bike trails and 2.4 miles of multi-use trails connecting the two lakes on the mountainside. Access is primarily via personal vehicles using the Glen Highway exit. Park neighbors are Eklutna Inklund to the north and west, Middle Lake, Middle School to the southwest, residential areas and camps such as the Boy Scouts of America Camp Gorsuch and the former Camp Colquhoun to the south and east. The park also neighbors the Thunderbird Falls subdivision to the northeast.

The park has 3 creeks, Merrill, Edmonds, and an unnamed stream that flows into the Kinnick Arm, protected by mandated 100-foot setbacks and riparian zones to preserve anadromous fish habitat and ensure water quality. Future development is guided by organizing recommendations across 5 distinct use areas. And the plan also addresses internal park access by establishing 3 road classifications, with a condition of approval being the update of documentation for right-of-way and legal access for roads within the park. Reviewing agents and public comments are in attachment 2 of the staff report. There were no objections to approval of the Park Master Plan.

The Planning Department mailed public hearing notice in accordance with the Title 21 procedures. The Eagle River Chugiak Parks and Recreation Board of Supervisors formally approved the plan with a resolution included in the packet. The department recommends that the Commission approve the plan subject to the following condition: Added documentation, added documentation for right-of-way and illegal access to the plan, and consult with the Planning Department to ensure consistency with the listed acreage in the park. The main highlights of the Park Master Plan will be presented by the petitioner's teams who are in attendance tonight for a brief presentation and are available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff from the Commission?

Seeing no questions, we will Um, ask for the petitioner's presentation.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Lucy Barenko. I'm with Huddle AK. I'm here representing the Eagle River Chugiak Park and Recreation to present the public hearing draft for the Mirror Lake Edmonds Lake Park Park Master Plan. This master plan establishes a 20-year vision for park management, development, and conservation.

It integrates recreation needs, environmental protection, and community values, serving both as an update and an integration of previous planning efforts to create one comprehensive, cohesive plan for the park. Is this—. Sorry, is I was told this would go to the next slide.

Oh, okay. Thank you. The park spans approximately 700 or 478 acres in northern Chugiak and serves as a community meeting point between Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley. It provides unique access to lakes, trails, and forested recreation areas for residents and visitors.

The community vision and core values of the park reflect 2 years of community collaboration. The plan emphasizes year-round recreation, safety, accessibility, stewardship, and conservation of natural and cultural resources. Mero Lake Edmonds Lake Park is a regional family destination providing safe year-round recreation and connectivity to the communities it serves.

The planning process prioritized community participation. The planning team met with 5 community councils, held multiple citizens advisory committee meetings, a public workshop, and conducted an online survey that shaped the recommendations for the park master plan.

The top implementation— could you go to the next slide, please? Thanks. The top implementation actions for the park focus on improving visibility and access through park— through highway signage, expanding parking capacity, developing a park and bike hub to enhance connectivity, and creating dog-friendly trails that support inclusive multi-use recreation.

Tonight's hearing represents the final step in the plan approval process. This plan captures a strong community vision, aligns with municipal regulations, and provides a clear roadmap for implementation. The planning team has reviewed the staff report and the department's recommendations for approval and have drafted language to meet the conditions of approval. We respectfully request the commission's approval for this plan.

I would like to thank all of the community members, organizations, and agencies who contributed their time and input, including the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Eagle River Chugiak Parks and Recreation staff. Thank you for your time. Thank you. You have 7 minutes, 10 seconds for rebuttal. Thank you.

I got a question from Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, through the chair. My question is around engagement with other agencies. On page 5 of the staff packet, it looks like State DOT provided some input and The statement is DOT PF da da da da was not consulted during the plan's outreach. Can you give a little more context to that, both historically in the development of the plan, what it might mean for the plan's contents and going forward?

Yes, thank you for that question. The comments that were submitted by DOT, I think, are representative of any planning efforts that are to, um, continue as a result of the plan. Um, and I think specifically when talking about the right-of-ways and, and the, uh, connectivity of the trail north to the Mat-Su Valley, of course DOT would be included in any of those interagency discussions if any of the elements of the plan were to be carried forward.

Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. My question is with reference to the implementation table. I don't know if it's worth pulling it up on the slides. I think I saw it up there.

And I just noticed looking at that that I didn't see any that were tagged specifically to the inlet side. I see there's maybe one or two references. For maybe Parkwide or Mountain Core that also kind of referenced Inletside. And I was just wondering if, I don't know if I was missing something or if they thought that there should be maybe some of the Inletside ones specifically listed here or not. Yeah, that's a great question.

There is actually a second page to that implementation table. That's just the first 10 implementation actions. There are 14 in total, and if there is on item 7, that is connecting the inlet and the mountainsides of the park. So that's identifying a route to connect the multi-use trail network on this particular table, and as well as Plan Element 4, which are more multi-use trails, which also looks at the future expansion of the inlet side of the park with canoe connections to the Mirror Lake Glen Highway interchange, as well as the integration of more dog-friendly trails on the inlet side as well.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, and I guess I didn't mean it as a— it was more just maybe an observation than anything else, and I'm in the the printed copy that we have here, the key has colors for Inlet North and Inlet South, and just none of them were listed there, which just struck me when looking at it. So I don't know if, just for consideration, maybe in finalizing it, if there's not going to be any of those listed there to clarify in some fashion. Yeah, the key does have the park-wide, which are the multicolored ones. So that would be 14 Um, so plan elements 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 14 are all considered park-wide improvements.

Yeah, but thank you for the, for the question.

Uh, thank you. I see no further questions. Thank you.

We'll now open this, uh, up to the public— open the public hearing on this case. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

There's a button, and then, uh, I keep— oh, there, that you had it. There you go. Yep, got it. And then please state your name and let us know if you're representing a group or just for yourself. Sure, my name is Brittany Redwine, R-E-D-W-I-N-E, and I'm just representing myself.

All right, good evening. As I said, my name is Brittany Redwine, uh, and my husband and I own property accessed by Lakefront Drive. I've reviewed the materials for tonight's meeting and was glad to see that Lakefront Drive is identified in it as a public right-of-way. Uh, that's shown on pages 23 and 30 of the, the big packet that you guys have. Um, that acknowledgement matters because that's what we've been saying for years, but this is the first time we've seen Parks and Rec acknowledge that.

Our first choice has always been for the road to remain public and to be maintained by the municipality. There's a public trailhead and parking area at the end of Lakefront Drive that people regularly use, and it makes sense for the road that leads to it to maintain— to remain part of the public system. Our community council also passed a resolution in May of this year asking Parks and Rec to keep the road open and maintained for the public. Our concern has been that even though it's a public right-of-way, the municipality minimally maintains it. We first raised this issue in March of 2022 and have attended most of the Board of Supervisors meetings since then trying to get clarity.

The road was chip sealed back in 2007 and has deteriorated to the point that it requires equipment and resources that individual property owners simply don't have. The current plan proposes to reclassify Lakefront Drive as a private access road, a change from the earlier approved draft that was presented to the community in December of 2024 that called it a primitive park road. I'm not sure when or why that wording changed, but it suggests that there still isn't a clear plan for how access and maintenance will be handled moving forward. If the intent is to make the road private, that needs to come with clear answers. Who will maintain it?

How will that— excuse me— who will be responsible for existing damage? And how will that shift be communicated to the public? Because the public will continue to use it, especially to reach the trailhead and parking areas, and there's bound to be pushback once they're told they can't. How does the municipal— municipality plan to manage that? Before any reclassification is approved, I'd ask that these points be addressed clearly on record.

Again, who will be responsible for maintaining Lakefront Drive? Who will cover the costs and execution of repairs that it needs right now? And how will the public use be managed once the classification changes? And what steps will be taken to communicate that change and handle any public pushback? These are basic practical questions that deserve answers before moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you. Have you contacted Eagle River Street Maintenance?

We have. And do they accept maintenance of the road? No, um, for a couple different reasons, but mostly because Eagle River Parks and Rec owns that road. It's a park road, and, uh, so they cannot do anything on that road unless Eagle River Parks and Rec gave them permission to do so. Okay, thank you.

We need the mic on. Is it on now? Yep. Okay, you want my name? And yeah, name and let us know if you're representing yourself or a group.

Well, my name is Will Tagen, T as in Tom, A-Y, G as in George, A-N. And, um, I guess I'm representing a group. So I, uh, you guess? I, I'm gonna have to do better than that. Many hats in this, uh, in this thing, but I'm probably most well known as the executive director of Chugach Mountain Bike Riders. Okay, and we, um do the volunteer maintenance construction of the trails that are existing there.

And those trails were, you know, since the previous master plan was from 1973, there was no mountain biking really happening then. So we've been working with Parks and Rec for over a decade. We've brought in about $1 million of improvements to the park, and it was brought to our attention in in, uh, you know, cooperation with the Parks Department that there really needs to be a master plan for that level of development in a park rather than just doing it piecemeal. So we've been very involved. I've been very involved as a stakeholder in developing this project.

I'm also a 21-year neighbor of the park, so I'm very involved in this personal community, and I am on the Chugiak Community Council and the Chugiak/Eagle River Parks and Rec Board of Supervisors. So a lot of this has been discussed a lot, and the general feeling is this is a very well-balanced master plan that reflects current usage of the park. So there's no major changes. What it really does is acknowledges what's happening in the park now, and then it also has a plan for 20 years of improvements. To keep that character.

And so I know, um, as a long-term plan, it doesn't have every single detail worked out in it, but I urge you to recommend approval of this plan as is. With the amount of community involvement we've had, I think it's a really good compromise. So with that, um That's what I have to say. Thank you. I see no questions.

I don't— I never had to hit it, but there's a button there somewhere. I could tell you when I see the light, though. The light's on. My name's Brent Davenport. I am from Eagle River.

And I am not a neighbor to the Mirror Lake Trail system, the Miller Edmonds Park, but I am a taxpayer. I pay a lot of money for taxes, and I read this entire plan, and there's a lot of stuff in it. This is a phenomenal use of my tax money. This is 20 years of good planning of the things that I moved to Alaska for— uh, trails. My— I have sons who are in the Boy Scouts.

We use The Boy Scout camp. We paddle this lake. I ride my bike there frequently. I walk my dog there. This is more than just fixing up some maintenance and making the place a little bit better.

This is actually using pretty much the last usable land that we have in the Anchorage Bowl that's not being used for something that really is an attractive thing. And The money that we put into this is actually going to pay dividends. As you brought in earlier, we need more money in this municipality, and this attracts the type of people like myself who come and buy overpriced houses and pay a lot of taxes but want to stay here because things like this make it an attractive place. Like I did, where This is where I decided to have my family and raise and stay here. And these are the types of things that end up making it so the bonds pass, because I'm the type of person who will pay for this bond.

I'm the type of person whose kids will pay for this bond because they want to stay in this area too, because they have good planning like this that has their priorities in mind and their futures in mind. It makes them want to stay in Anchorage instead of going to Colorado Springs or Vermont. I am— I actually sat and read this entire thing. Well, not this part, I just got handed that, but the entire plan. And I think it's, as it's written, this is a great use of my money.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. I see no questions. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Oh no, you, uh, ask the petitioner to come back up for their 7 minutes and 10 seconds of rebuttal.

Thank you, Commissioners. Um, I would like to start with, um, the staff report and the recommendations that were made in the staff report regarding, um, the usage of the right-of-ways, um, within the park. And, um, we had prepared some information to go along with that in response to Gorsuch and Lakefront Drive. Lakefront Drive, they were constructed under a permit issued in 1968 by the state of Alaska to serve the parcels that were owned by the Boy Scouts of America. Administration of this permit was transferred to the municipality in the 1980s, and an intergovernmental use permit was issued in 2007.

2006 To the project management and engineering, um, uh, to permit and to construct road improvements. Since the initial construction, Gorsuch Road and Lakefront Drive have been maintained privately through the park, uh, and their primary use has been for private property access to the Boy Scout parcels. Uh, in 2023, the Eagle River Chugiak Parks and Recreation did perform some maintenance on portions of Gorsuch Road between the Old Glen and where the road tees to Lakefront Drive. Uh, this was to provide access to park users for the increased trail infrastructure along Gorsuch Road and, um, the consistent primary use for the remaining portions of Gorsuch and Lakefront Drive. Uh, yeah, you can see there in the map is for private access to the old Boy Scout parcels.

This is consistent with the recommendations for future development in this plan, and so no changes in the management of these road sections are anticipated.

I'm Jeff Urbanus. I'm the Eagle River Chugach Parks and Recreation Manager. And just maybe just for clarification, because I'm not sure that, uh, It was quite clear this language that Lucy read is in response to staff recommendation number 1, and this, this language would be included in the plan to speak to that.

Is that all the rebuttal?

I think it speaks to the issues that Mrs. Redwine spoke to about the history of the road and the understanding of the road. This has been somewhat of a discussion that has taken place both inside this process but outside. Um, there's a pretty clear history to how the roads came to be. There's a pretty clear history of how the roads have been maintained. Um, and there were recommend— no recommendations in this plan.

Um, you know, like new infrastructure along Lakefront Drive or anything like that that would, uh, lead to us reconsidering how we manage that roadway. Okay, um, so normally we would let you finish out your time for rebuttal and then we would take questions from the commission. So I don't know if you want to forfeit the rest of the time or if you had anything you wanted to do, say, first. But we do have questions. I think we're good.

I mean, I would acknowledge that there, there, there is somewhat of a discussion about these issue, and I think we've rebutted what we need to. Okay, so we— yeah, we can forward the rest of our time. Okay, question from Commissioner Bullock. I, I'm sorry, I don't know the road. I'm not familiar with the road and, you know, who's on it or what, but are there private residences on the road besides the Boy Scouts and, you know, an access point somewhere?

Do you have a Is there a laser on it? Yeah. So if you've ever been to the park and you're going back to Anchorage, as you leave the park almost immediately before you get to the highway that goes underneath, there's some mailboxes and that's Gorsuch Road. And that was constructed in 1968 as private access for the two Boy Scout properties. When it was done, it was actually under ownership of the the state of Alaska.

And, um, in 1980, that permit transferred to the municipality. Um, at either end, more specifically to your question, both at the Mirror Lake end and at the Edmonds Lake end, there are all three parcels that are there used to be owned by the Boy Scouts. I don't know the exact year, but, but say like the last 5 or 6 years, the Boy Scouts sold one of the private parcels to a party other than the Boy Scouts. That's where some of the confusion comes from, in that you have like a new property owner there and then maybe like a longer established practices. And I don't know that expectation and history and everything is all aligned.

Is there houses in there? There's just, uh, the Boy Scouts have an on-site manager, so they have a private residence there that's on the south end at Mirror Lake. And then on the north end on Edmond Lake is the Red Wines property, which I don't want to speak for them, is I believe they run a business out of there, but it is also their private residence. Okay, so basically there's like 3 big tracks accessing this road pretty much. Yeah, and actually the— if you go to where the green of the parkland is and the first large unshaded green parcel, that parcel is still owned by the Boy Scouts.

So if you were to access the property on the east side of Edmonds Lake, you go through parkland, then you go through Boy Scout land, and then you get to private land. Kind of a debacle, a right-of-way debacle. And it's not— yeah, and there's no dedicated right-of-way there. I mean, the— it's not even an easement. It was a permission from Division of Lands and Water at the state to access those private inholdings.

There was a— there were some road improvements that were paid for by PUMA&E. Which I think sort of emphasizes that had to go outside the normal process of Eagle River Street maintenance or Eagle River Parks and Rec to get those improvements done. We don't have a history of doing anything on that road, and for the majority of the time they were there, they were just— we simply, you know, like, I mean, we've talked about this before, you know, in other discussions. And before 2003, if we were done plowing at the boat launch We simply went back to Eagle River and just drove right by Gorsuch Road. That's changed a little bit with all of the new bike infrastructure, and we, as a management decision, we think that there will— it had slowly over time— there's a lot more bike infrastructure that crosses kind of as you get closer to the Old Glen, but I would— once you're past the T, the traffic both to the east and to the west, or, you know, towards, towards Island Lake and towards Mirror Lake It's primarily related to the uses that are going on on those two properties.

Okay, thank you.

Just for— to clarify, no right-of-way, no easements, maybe like a prescriptive easement over years of use? Sorry, didn't mean to talk over you there. There, there was an intergovernmental use permit that was issued to PM&E by Parks to do the improvements, but that was just to perform the, like, the chip seal that was done in 2000— it was signed in 2006. I believe construction was in 2007.

And that was kind of like a one-time— that was like a one-time intergovernmental use so that they could spend public money to do it. I mean, PM&E needs it, usually needs it to do work. And then, has there been any discussion to provide easements They have, they have an easement. So the, the original access permit came from DNR, that went, that went to the municipality. I talked a little bit with legal and the municipal surveyor today just to clarify, you know, our responsibility in that case is just not restricting access.

So the municipality does consider there to be an easement, an access easement? There's— they definitely have, they definitely have an entitlement for access. Yeah, okay. All right, thank you. See no further questions.

And with that, we can close the public hearing, I think, right?

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? Sure, thank you. I move in case 2025-0022 to approve the Mirror Lake Edmonds Lake Park Master Plan subject to condition 1, um, well, I guess both. Oh yeah, sorry, condition 1 to add documentation for right-of-way and legal access to the plan, and condition 2 to consult with the planning department to ensure consistency with listed acreage in the park. And both conditions are found on page 6 of the staff packet.

That's seconded by Commissioner Eber. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion?

Um, sure, briefly. Um, it, it looks like a, a— I found it to be an impressive plan, um, and we heard testimony today that spoke to the balance that It strikes for the various uses. Um, mostly the limited testimony we heard was in support. There's a resolution, um, from the Eagle River Chugiak Parks and Recreation Board of Supervisors in support. Um, one comment from the public seeking clarity on the status of Lakefront Road, and, um, we heard from the applicant that, um, they provided information about that, ensuring there is an access easement, and that With respect to Condition 1, to add documentation for right-of-way and legal access to the plan, they have language prepared that will be added to provide some additional clarity there as well.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Commissioner Eber. I intend to support the mission— or the, the motion. I believe that it's a great addition to the Eagle River community and then the greater Anchorage community.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next up, case 2025-0121. May we please have the staff presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a rezoning request for— from Cook Inlet Housing Authority to amend the zoning map for approximately 4.3 acres of land from R-4 SL, Multi-Family Residential with Special Limitations District, to R-4 Multi-Family Residential District.

The Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan classifies this tract with a land use designation of Compact Mixed Residential Medium and Transit Supported— Transit Supported Development. The property in question has been zoned R-4 SL since 1982. While the request is to rezone to R4, this is not an implementing zoning district of the land use designation as per the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan. A rezone to R3, multi-family residential district, would provide a comparable option to the applicant to remove their cell while still rezoning to a district consistent with the implementation objectives of the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan. The Planning Department provided published notice and notice to the respective community councils in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.200 H.3.

As of this writing, the Planning Department has received no public comments. Other agency comments, uh, Attachment 3 in page 22 of the packet shows comments. Comments include all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format. State and municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to the rezone. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities had an advisory comment prohibiting access off of Debar Road for any future developments.

The Traffic Engineering Department had an advisory comment about the peripheral improvements required to Columbine Court that would be necessary for any future development of the parcel. The current Planning Division, Long Range Planning Division, and Planning Director also had internal discussions to support the rezone recommendation to an R- R3 district. Approval criteria. Criteria— Criterion A: It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met with the recommendation to rezone to R3 instead of R4.

The request— the current requested rezoning to R4 would not rezone the subject parcel to a zoning district that implements the 2040 Land Use Plan. Thus, the department recommends a rezone to R3, Multifamily Residential District, and elimination of the special limitations per AO 82-148. A recommended rezone to R3 is in alignment with Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan Goal 2, Infill and Redevelopment Needs— uh, Infill and Redevelopment Meets the Housing and Employment Needs of Residents and Businesses in Anchorage. The proposed amendment also aligns with Strategy 9, Infill Housing Development Regulations, by eliminating special limitations that restrict heights to 3 stories and the transaction costs associated with a major site plan review. Criterion B: it would not result in objective risk to the health or safety.

The criterion is met. The proposed amendment removes special limitations for the subject property. The special limitations described in AO 82-148 impose direct height restrictions and indirect transaction costs in terms of a major site plan review stipulation on any proposed development of the subject property. Elimination of these restrictions will not result in objective risks to the health and safety of the neighborhood or the municipality at large. Criterion C: It does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances.

The criterion is met. This amendment does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances. Departmental recommendation: The department finds that the requested rezone to R4 does not meet the approval criteria. However, a rezoning to R3 meets all these approval criteria. Therefore, the department recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a rezone from R4SL, Multi-Family Residential District with Special Limitations, to R3, Multi-Family Residential District, and refer it to the assembly for further adoption by ordinance.

I can answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you.

Ms. Babb.

Through the Chair to the Commission, I just wanted to jump in and offer a little bit of a sort of a higher-level summary and some background on this and the decision of the Department to recommend a rezone to R-3 instead of R-4. As you all know, this is a— the removal of SLs and the fact that SLs are no longer available as a tool is new to the Department and to the Commission. And so we have found ourselves in a situation where in many cases, the removal of the SL just to bring it back to the underlying zoning district, which in this case would— you would assume would be R-4, makes sense. You know, it's just the removal of some special limitations in a zoning district that already exists. And is in line with the Comp Plan.

But in other cases, and there are many instances across the, the bowl and in Eagle River, where if you remove the SL, then you end up in a situation where that underlying zoning district is not in line with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent for that area. And unfortunately, Seeha found themselves in a situation where This is, this is true for this parcel as well. And while the project itself, I do believe, is in line with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the specific rezone action is not something that is supported as an implementing zone in that land use designation. So that is why the Planning Department came to that conclusion and is making that recommendation to you all tonight. Thank you.

Any questions for staff? Commissioner Gardner.

Um, thanks for that additional context. I guess, and I expect the petitioner will probably speak to this as well, but just kind of procedurally, is— I understood, I guess, the request was to rezone it to an R-4. And so is it— I don't know that I can recall seeing a case where, you know, we'd be looking to recommend or approve a rezone to something, to a district other than what was requested. And so is that even— I guess, is that even something that could be done or on the table properly? Through the chair to Commissioner Gardner, um, yes, you as a commission may make whatever recommendation you please.

And just for a little bit of added context, a— because it is not in line with the comp plan, a rezone to R-4 like that may also require a change to the comp plan. So if you did that, make that recommendation, then I would need to work with the applicant and the administration to try to figure out what the appropriate process for that would be if it were to go to the assembly, um, and the assembly were to consider that. Um, but I believe that you— that is not something that you necessarily need to solve tonight. That would be just a recommendation to the assembly. Thank you.

Um, I'd also just like to add that we are not rezoning the property tonight. We're making a recommendation to the assembly. The assembly will discuss the item The assembly has its own legal counsel, and I've seen the assembly legal counsel disagree with the municipal legal counsel over rezones in the past. So I don't know, I just throw that out there for the commissioners to hear. Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you, through the chair. I'd be interested in hearing more from the department about what some of the potential conflicts the department would like to see avoided. Um, when I say complex, I mean with respect to an R-4 without the SLs for the subject parcel and its underlying land use. Thanks.

Through the chair to Commissioner Rahn, um, the Planning Department in general, just because of the location of the parcel, the project itself, um, and the infrastructure, the existing infrastructure in the area, We aren't necessarily seeing any potential conflicts that would be caused by a rezone to R-4 in that location. It is, it is strictly a reading of the comp plan that is in the way of us providing you with that recommendation for approval.

Are there any other questions for staff? If not, we will move to the petitioner's presentation.

Good evening, Commissioners and staff. My name is Tyler Robinson. I'm a vice president at Cook Inlet Housing Authority. Just some history on this case. We began talking to staff back in July.

We purchased the property about a year ago. And once the ordinance passed, it really eliminated the ability to have special limitations and actually included kind of a streamlined or reduced fee to process a removal of special limitations. We approached staff to do that with this parcel. In the staff report, you heard the primary reasons were, you know, there were process requirements that are otherwise not required of residential development today. So it was like, if we can get that out of the way, then we, then we don't have to do that.

And then, and so we, we proceeded. We, we submitted an application in August. We were supposed to be here October 20th. We were postponed till tonight, and a week ago Friday we discovered, or we got a phone call saying staff was actually not recommending the R4 that we had led to believe was, was going to happen, but they were recommending the R3 for the reasons that, uh, Ms. Babb just, just spoke about. Um, what I would like to sort of just— obviously I could be here today in front of you as a conditional use permit process, which would be would have been the other avenue I might have chosen.

We have advanced development plans. We've spent close to half a million dollars on a building design.

We anticipate having two 3-story buildings and then the rest of the site developed with a single story as an elder campus. After I got that phone call, I went back to our project team on Monday and said, okay, what are the, what are the implications? Can we live with R3? And this is kind of where the rub is. There's two big things that happen.

And by the way, our project is currently envisioned would have a density about 80 units on this parcel. That equates to a density about 15 to 20 dwelling units an acre. It's not super high. It actually fits squarely in kind of this medium density range. But as you know, even if you have a higher density zone, you can build to a lower density.

We don't have minimum densities in acreage. Anchorage. Um, and so the, the big implications to us are twofold. One is when we have built elevated buildings, and, and we imagine two 24-unit elevated 3-story buildings, they have the past 5 ones that we've done, and I think we're— there are not many entities building 3-story residential elevated buildings in Anchorage. They've all come in above 35 feet, which is the height limit of R-3.

So we've all come in You know, 37, 39, 40, you know, it's been kind of in that range, average of 37 feet. So with R-3, I can't build the building that I've just actually designed. Number 2, the open space requirements increase. It doesn't sound like a ton, but it goes up from— I can't remember exactly what it is in R-4, but it jumps to 125 units or square feet per unit in R-3. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it actually adds up.

And the thing about our zoning code is, is when you talk about open space, you have the same open space requirement whether you build a studio apartment for elders as you do for a 4-bedroom unit that's going to have a lot of kids. And so what we do in our elder campuses is we build interior spaces, we build walking paths, patios, front porches, none of which actually meet the strict definitions of open space, which is, I believe, really much more envisioned for like kids and playgrounds and those sorts of things. So, so now I've got interior spaces designed as open space that don't count in the open space, and I'm scrambling to find the open space. So what I can tell you is this, and I, I want you to think about this a little bit. To build this development that I've just described that is absolutely consistent with the comprehensive plan I need a zoning district that, according to staff, is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

So how do you reconcile that? And I believe that you as a commission, your primary rationale is to move forward uses that implement our comprehensive plan above and beyond zoning districts. Now, if you don't agree with me, then I'll be back here in a couple of months, probably with a conditional use permit, having gone even farther out on that limb designing a project without that entitlement which we don't like to— no one likes to be at. And what you will primarily be doing as a conditional use permit for this use, unless you can see some sort of impact to surrounding properties, which I'd have a hard time imagining, uh, is finding that our project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That'll be primarily what you are here to do.

But you'll be there with a specific site plan. We'll have to produce elevations for you. We'll have to go through sort of that process. Again, that had we been told back in July or August that that was our path, we would have taken it. And so, um, you know, that, that's the background.

I don't, I don't mean to disparage Ms. Babs. You know, we're at the point where we are. Um, I don't know exactly where to tell you all to go. You could recommend R4. You could find that it actually is not inconsistent with the comp— what you're talking about is someone is looking at the coloring on a map map rather than a range of uses and suggesting that someone could actually build higher density.

And what you're also looking at is an implementation table in the comprehensive plan that says for that color, you have to have R3 or R2M. And what I'm suggesting to you is with that color being R4, you can also have that same use that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, um, you know, with that, I'll, um, reserve the rest of my time for, for rebuttal. Thank you.

You have 4 minutes.

We have questions. Who's your question for? Staff. Question for staff. Commissioner Christian, go ahead.

So I would say maybe more than half of the time that this Commission sees a rezone request, we see it paired with a comprehensive plan amendment. Could you provide a little bit more information about how the department evaluates whether to bring forward a comprehensive plan amendment along with a rezone request?

Through the chair, um, I'll answer that one. Um, Elizabeth Appleby, current Planning Division Manager. So my, uh, current planning— we process most of the rezone requests. Um, typically what we do is someone comes to us with a property, uh, we look to see if the rezone they're requesting is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh, if it is not, then we discuss whether or not the department would support a comprehensive plan amendment.

Um, I, I suppose for this property we probably would support a comprehensive plan amendment. It is unfortunate, just with the new process of removing SLs, that we did not discover that earlier, but, um, that could be an option, would be to, to come back with a comprehensive plan amendment as, as one option to make it consistent. So you'd have to amend the comprehensive plan from medium density residential to high density residential, and then you could rezone to R-4 and say it's consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um, does that answer your, your question? I, I suppose it's really internal discussion with long range, um, whether or not we support a comprehensive plan amendment, and we look to neighboring properties and, um, the plans that guide development for, for that area, whether or not we would support the amendment.

That's helpful, thank you.

Um, I really don't want to ask this question, but was, was there— was the pre-application meeting foregone because of the expedited process?

Chair Spinelli, yes, that is correct, because, because we, because there's this new tool to remove the SLLs that's meant to be expedited. So, so we did not have a pre-application conference. Not going to say anything more about that.

And then my other question, can staff speak to the densities of the projects relative to the designation in the comp plan?

Sure, Spinelli, I have the existing zoning district. It might take me a quick minute to pull up the comprehensive plan. Um, the purpose of the R3 district. I believe this text is also copied in the, um, uh, in the staff report, but the R3 district purpose is for gross densities between 15 and 40 dwelling units per acre. And then if I flip— hang on, I have R4 in front of me, one second.

Oh, and, uh, that's—. Do you want to jump in? Through the chair, so R-4s are primarily guided with respect to their densities by FAR, floor area ratios, instead of density as in dwelling units per acre. So I think there's a— it's a fundamentally different sort of criteria as to how density is defined in both of these. I, I guess my question, to restate it, as we heard from the petitioner, I think 12 to 15 dwelling unit per acre.

And what I— my question was, is what does the comp plan specify as a dwelling unit per acre for currently? Whatever the comp plan currently has this slated for. I don't know if it's light brown, stippled green, yellow, mustard yellow. Yes, Chair Spinelli. So compact mixed residential medium Uh, I believe if I'm looking at the right table, I flipped too quickly, is about 15 to 40 dwelling units per acre.

And then urban residential high, which is the next one up, which would support R-4, is over 35 dwelling units per acre.

So I'm just trying to verify that what we heard from the petitioner is correct, that the dwelling units that their project is proposing is within what's currently in the comp plan? Sure, Spinelli. Yes, that is correct. Okay, thank you.

Any further questions?

I guess, uh, would you like to come back up for your rebuttal? I mean, let me open it up to the public first. Anybody from the public wishing to testify?

Hearing, seeing none. Okay, let's go for rebuttal.

See how controversial a project this is. Just to clarify, I think on the, on the dense— and density is a weird, weird thing when it comes to the comp plan stuff. I mean, we have a 4 to 5 acre parcel here. Not dedicating right-of-way to any road. So if you had a public right-of-way and you had parcels, your density goes up.

If you have private driveways and roads, your density goes down. So it's, you know, that's— so I say we're probably somewhere between 15 and 20 right now, but if I sort of imagine that road as a right-of-way, it would go up. I think just to be clear, we build very, very little in this town to R-4 densities that are held out on the comp plan. It just doesn't happen that regularly. It's very expensive.

I guess I would, I would just suggest again on the height thing, I've heard a couple things from staff recently. One is that they're looking at this height limit in R-3, that to get 3 stories with that interstitial space and a parapet on the roof, I mean, I think if you take our last 5 projects, it's pretty good proof that 35 is hard to hit with the floor-to-ceiling heights that we want. And this isn't even luxury housing. I don't have 10-foot ceilings or anything like that. I guess I would say that based on, again, where you're at, I, I think we'll probably pursue two different avenues.

One is we would move forward potentially with this R-4, whatever your recommendation is. What we're not willing to do is restart the rezoning process all over the place. One thing, I just don't have the time to do it. I come to you one time for conditional use permit. I'd be restarting and coming to you and the assembly And my goal is to get in for building permits in March of this year, which is again why we started this process in July.

Um, uh, and so I think, uh, if we come back with a conditional use permit, um, that satisfies the, the sort of, uh, um, you know, site, site plan process. We've just, we've just kind of wasted, you know, wasted some time. The other thing just worth noting is I do like the process of removing special limitations. The fee is $200. If we came to you for a rezone, it'd be a $10,000 fee.

And that doesn't include my time or we hire consultants. Just the fee alone to change the language is pretty substantial. I'm pretty sure a CUP is less than that. I think I'll rest there. It's complicated.

It's unfortunate. I think we get— my personal opinion is we get hung up on philosophical and theoretical densities a lot rather than just sort of understanding what's possible to be built in Anchorage. You know, whether this is a, you know, a 24-unit building inherently is different than a townhouse-style building. So it's one of the higher density zones, but we're sticking to those 3 stories. If this was the old days, what I would be asking you to do is just amend the special limitation, make it so I don't have to have a conditional use permit, but maybe keep keep your 3-story height on there with that sort of explanation of 3 stories.

I could come in with 35 feet, 40 feet, right? We'd all, we'd all work. But now you can't amend the special limitation. So my only, my only path on this choose-your-own-adventure is get rid of the special limitations, accept whatever zoning, or do a comp plan amendment, or come to you under the terms of the special limitations that were put on this parcel in 1982. So thanks for your time this evening.

Look forward to hearing which way this goes. Real quick before you leave, what do you want us to do? Would you, would you like us to recommend approval of R4? You know, I, I don't know. I mean, I, I think that, um, I've thought about this a little bit.

Um, I think it's an interesting, you know, it's sort of an interesting test case. What I would not want to have happen and what would be still a risk to me is you all could recommend that, I could end up at the assembly with a legal opinion that says no, don't support it, and, and of course the assembly could go either way, which means I could be open to appeals, you know, all of that kind of stuff. So I think, um, you know, sure, just for fun, uh, but at the same time I'll probably submit a conditional use permit application by the end of the week, uh, because again, like I said before, I need to be in for permits in in, in March. Is that clear, Mr. Chair?

Uh, maybe it was clearer to others.

Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state your motion? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I move in case, uh, 2025-0121 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of a tract of land from R4SL multifamily residential with Special limitations, District 2 R4, multifamily residential district.

Seconded by Commissioner Eber. Commissioner Rahn, would you like to speak to your motion?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll get things started just briefly, um, with respect to the department's interpretation. I can see the arguments that they levied, um, where they came from, and I appreciate the explanation that they gave, um, in the context of where we're at that today, uh, with, as the petitioner said, what's our opportunity to build on this parcel and the arguments put forth therein, um, I find that Conditions 1, uh, A, B, and C can all be met through R-4, given the argument of use and intended development for this particular parcel. Um, in that total context, I intend to support the motion as is.

And my last disclaimer is the petitioner, I believe, as I understood it, did ask for this action from the commissioner, understanding that he also has recourse through a conditional use permit moving forward. So this action to me by the commission, if we approve it, gives him optionality moving forward, which I think is something that's important to move this development towards the next step. Thanks. Thank you. Any— Commissioner Gardner?

Thanks. I actually had a question for staff. Apologies, I didn't kind of get this in earlier. And I guess it's actually kind of two questions to understand kind of the process. If this goes forward as an R4, um, I would assume that, you know, at least I guess historically how what we would see is, as you mentioned, I think an amendment to the comp plan to kind of reflect that.

Is there, or what would the— what is the potential mechanisms to kind of make that happen, or does that necessarily involve and require kind of a, a restart process as well, similar to the CUP that might be filed later this week, um, and what went forward through this proposed rezone here?

Through the chair to Commissioner Gardner, um, that is a very good question, um, and it is something that I would need to work out with our legal advisors at the municipality. I can see a potential way of maybe moving this forward with a comp plan amendment, but who the, the petitioner for that would be, whether it be the planning department or the applicant, is— would be up in the air. So honestly, I can't answer that question right now, but I would like to work with the applicant to try to figure that out if that's That's the recommendation of the body. [Speaker] Okay, thank you. And then I guess maybe a similar question in terms of likely difficulty for answering, or maybe not.

With respect to the removal of the special limitations, I was just kind of looking to find briefly the, I guess, the provisions that govern kind of the removal and the speedy process. And my question is, is it— Is it clear that the removal necessarily has to be both of the special limitations, or is there, is there potentially a mechanism to just remove the one for the public hearing and CUP process and leave the height limitation in place without then having to go through this whole process?

If I understand your question correctly, I believe that The intent of that process is to remove the entire SL because special limitations are no longer a tool that is available to either the planning department or the Planning and Zoning Commission. So if we were to only remove part of an SL, I'm not sure exactly if that would meet the intent of the, the code change that removed them. So that is also something I would need to work with the legal department on, I think. Okay, um, thanks. I appreciate those comments.

And I guess as a finding that I would add, uh, I mean, I, I'm interested— I think we all are interested in figuring out a way to get this done most efficiently. It seems like a great development that the city would be, um, remiss to miss out on, um, either at all or in a timely fashion. Um, so it seems like maybe going our 4 is our best potential route, and hopefully we can find a way to kind of have a parallel comp plan that goes— comp plan amendment that goes along with that without slowing things down too much. And I also would be interested to know, recognizing that the intent is to remove all SLs, but if the comp plan amendment can't be done timely, if, if that SL removal process might still contemplate, you know, something is better than nothing and maybe removing one and allowing this to proceed in an efficient manner without having to do a rezone at all, I think is maybe worth looking into.

Through the Chair, if I may. Sure. One thing the Commission might consider is that if you are going to move this forward as a recommendation to the assembly, um, and you do desire a comp plan amendment, um, as part of that, um, that may be making that a, um, either a finding or a part of the, um, the motion might be something you should consider.

Commissioner Gardner. Thanks. I think that was kind of the intent of my finding. I'll just be kind of explicit. I think it would be helpful, um, and I'll be, I guess, careful about how I phrase this exactly, but, um, I think it would be a more, um, supportable, um, rezone if it were also paired with a comp plan amendment And I would recommend exploring ways to do that efficiently.

Commissioner Eber. Can we just amend the original motion to include the comp plan amendment?

We probably could. Me personally, I'm inclined to support the original motion.

Anybody else wishing to amend or speak to the motion, or, uh, just a point of information, um, through the chair, for Commissioner Eber's question, um The commission, uh, you can't approve of a comprehensive plan amendment because it's just this, the rezone before you, and there's a totally separate code process for a comp plan amendment. However, you could, as part of your motion, recommend that the amendment be made, or if you want to say that the planning department or the municipality should make a comprehensive plan amendment, you could You could address it that way, or you could say the petitioner should make it, however you want to phrase it. So you could, in summary, you could recommend a comprehensive plan amendment be made, but you can't, um, there's no like case to decide upon that. It would take some further follow-up action in a separate case to still come before you, if that makes any sense. That's what I meant.

My wording was incorrect.

And one more point of information, you could say come forward with a separate case for a comprehensive plan amendment, just so it's, it's clear that you don't have the action now to decide upon that request, but you could request that come forward in a future case. Well, couldn't we also recommend approval to the assembly to rezone it to R-4 and ignore the comprehensive plan?

Okay, I just wanted to throw that out there as a possibility.

Chair, was that a question for staff? Yeah, I, I saw, uh, Ms. Appleby kind of nod. It looked like a yes to me. I will say the commission, uh, Chair Spinelli, the commission may make whatever recommendation to the assembly that you would like. Uh, you, you still must use the review criteria in code.

Um, so you still need to address the review criterion that requires the rezone be consistent with the comprehensive plan. So I suppose you cannot ignore it, but you can make whatever recommendation that you want using those review criteria.

Shri Krishna. All right, just to move us along. Um, I suppose this might be a separate recommendation, but if it's an amendment to this current recommendation, that's also fine. Um, I would like to— can I make another motion? I think you can make a motion to amend the current motion, but I think, uh, we can't have a new motion while the old motion's on the table.

Commissioner— would Commissioner Aran be open to an amendment?

I believe it's within any commissioner's purview at this point in Robert's Rules to amend the main motion. So if you would like to do so, get on the table and we can discuss.

I think to keep things clear, I'm not going to make a motion now, but I might choose to make a separate motion later.

Uh, Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm happy to walk back through some of my thinking in support of my main motion. Appreciate the discussion by commissioners and question response from the department.

With respect to criteria 1A, the department found that the criteria would be met with a rezone to R3 instead of R4. I believe in my interpretation of the comp plan's intent with respect to the context of this parcel and the proposed development, or at least what we've heard about it. We heard some numbers around dwelling units per acre, um, CRM— excuse me, CMRM 15 to 40 and UR High. So that's equivalent to the R4 as 35+. I see some overlap between those two.

And that overlap is still well above what we're hearing from the petitioner in terms of proposed development for this property. We've been reminded tonight that there are no minimum densities, there's just a cap. And so I'm not too caught up in this maximum that an R4 would allow, given the intended development for this property as we've heard it tonight. I think items 1B and 1C carry as well. Um, no objective risk to health or safety.

Um, might be a stretch, but I'd say further delay or keeping this development from happening would be a risk to, I think, what this community is facing, right? Um, and Item C, uh, does not conflict with municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances. Again, um, what can we be— what can we build here? Um, allowing this to happen in the way that I think we need to is where I'm at with it. And I think R4, um, with no amendment at this time, is a recommendation to the assembly, and it's the assembly's purview and responsibility to test it in terms of legal merit against the code.

If they find otherwise, they can rule otherwise, but I'm at the point of supporting my main motion as it is. But if commissioners feel otherwise, let's keep things going.

Commissioner Krishna. Yes, just to be very clear, I fully intend to support the motion, um, and I am only interested in, um, wondering whether a recommendation, um, from us to concurrently bring forward a comprehensive plan amendment has any efficacy here.

Which is maybe not a question for the Commission but maybe a question for staff.

Um, So, um, a recommendation to update the comprehensive plan to support this, uh, this rezone would add a factor of time to this entire process. Because it would need to go to the— to you, to PCC, and go through the, the whole process. So you, um, as a body may always recommend that the planning department bring forward that as a, um, as a potential change to the, the comp plan, but it does add, um, you know, uncertainty and time as well.

Commissioner Eber. Just going to add that I plan to support the motion as is.

Okay, I would— I also plan to support the motion. I will just say that we've seen the comp plan map be not completely accurate, or maybe just not kind of supporting what the comp plan says it supports, along DeBarr previous— in previous cases. So I'm kind of lumping this one in there as I don't think the comp plan map is gospel, and we need to look at what the plan says What the project is proposing, does it meet the goals? I think everyone agrees it does, and so therefore I am willing to support.

Anybody else? Commissioner Gardner.

I mean, I fully support the motion as well, as I mentioned. I think just another finding I will make is that I do think that the particular criteria we're looking at here are slightly different from what, I guess, how I would consider it if it's just a straight rezoning and that this is coming in under the removal of special limitations.

And I think from that perspective as well, it helps support the criteria that were identified here in that in that we're not really, we're not really looking to kind of change the rezone entirely. I think, I think it's just a slightly different framing for how we're looking at it.

Commissioner Pullis. Yeah, I intend to support the motion too, for the same reasons all the other commissioners mentioned. I think if we're intending to move the needle here on providing more housing opportunities across Anchorage, This is a, um, pretty important situation to, uh, get right. And I agree with, um, Commissioner Spinelli's note that it's just a color on a map also. So I get it, but we're moving the right direction, I think.

Um, with that, we'll call for the vote.

The motion passes.

Where, where did my ch-chi go? No, no.

All right, so, uh, that moves us through the agenda unless there are any— I don't— anyone wishing to discuss anything regarding Title 21 or any other commissioner comments? Commissioner Rahn, are you in the queue? I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just briefly curious about an update on the targeted review of goals and strategies. We had a flurry of activity and it's— there's been a gap. We've been focused on a few other things. Just curious moving forward if it will resurface or what the plan is there. Through the chair to Commissioner Rahn, there was a flurry of activity and The last time we brought something to you all, we understood that the request was for us to draft up the first draft of that change to the update to the comp plan.

So we are in the process of doing that, and it will take us a little while to sort that all out and get it into a good layout and everything. So it will be a little bit longer before you see anything, but We are actively working on it.

Commissioner Krishna. Yes, another question to staff. I understand the process has been started at the Assembly level to sunset the Urban Design Commission. Could you share any information you have about that and how that might change this Commission's roles or responsibilities?

Through the Chair to Commissioner Krishna, thank you for that question. The UDC sunset is still a little bit up in the air. The, the Assembly still does have to vote on whether to sunset that, the commission. But if they did, then the cases that UDC now hears would be split up between the appropriate boards and commissions to hear those cases. So you would hear probably about half of the cases that UDC hears now, and maybe A few of them might go to, to ZIBA.

So we're currently working with the administration on what that might look like and would be happy to share those proposed changes, that AO, with the assembly if you all are interested as an informational item.

Sure, I think whenever there is an update, it would be good to hear that and then to see if there is any additional training we would need to fulfill those additional roles. Thank you. Commissioner Rahn. Thank you. In case anybody missed it, Ms. Babb was recognized today by the YWCA as a woman of achievement.

Bob, personal thank you for the work that you do for our community and your team does in preparing for these meetings and keeping our Commission on the up and up. Look forward to continuing to work with you and seeing what we can all do together. Thank you.

Through the Chair to Commissioner Rahn, thank you. Thanks. And one thing that I didn't have the opportunity to say today at that event was that I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't be able to do the work that I do without the support of my staff, obviously. So I'm very, very lucky to have such a great group of people at the planning department, and I also appreciate working with you all and the work that you do here as well. So thank you all.

All right, I think that looks like Everybody's had something to say, so entertain a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Commissioner Eber, seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Any opposed? Hearing none, we adjourn.

Cut the loss.

Cut the loss. Just you.