Anchorage Assembly: Planning and Zoning Commission - July 13, 2026 - 2026-07-13 18:30:00

Okay, we will call this July 13th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May we please have the roll call? Andres Spinelli. Here. Radhika Krishna.

Here. Scott Pullis. Here. Jeff Rahn. Here.

Brandy Eber.

Here. Ama Abaza. Here. Megan Mills. Here.

Edith McKee. Here. Jared Gardner is excused. You have a quorum. Thank you.

Next is special order of business. Are there any disclosures?

Commissioner Krishna.

Yes, thank you. I'm not sure if Ms. McCardle, who's sitting in the audience, is planning on testifying today. Yes, maybe. But I just want to disclose to the Commission that she serves as a non-voting ex officio member of my board of directors.

And I have no financial or other interest in the case and have not had any ex parte discussions about it. Thank you.

Um, I don't believe— I believe that you should participate. If anybody objects, feel free to make a motion otherwise.

Uh, may I please have a motion to reorder the agenda to hear items G1, G2, G3 before More unfinished business.

It's moved by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Mills.

Um, any objections?

Hearing none, that motion passes.

I'll now read the process by which the public may speak to the Commission.

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 of Procedure. 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, 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.

Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with 2103.005 03-050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

May we please have staff presentation on case 2026-0080?

Mr. Chair, since the sunset of the Urban Design Commission, the work and duties of that commission were moved to the Planning and Zoning Commission. And so this is the first sign variance that the commission has ever heard, in modern times at least. And so it's both a variance, but it's a sign variance, and it's something the Urban Design Commission used to do. Um, but, uh, this is gonna be the first, um, one that, that you'll review.

Um, so, uh, this is a request, uh, for assigned variance from, uh, the location of a sign and the size of a building sign. The Planning Department, um, in the staff report, um, describes, uh, the sign, the issues, and finds that the 9 approval criteria— 8 approval criteria for a variance are met, is recommending approval subject to conditions 1 and 2 on page 4 of your packet. The applicant is, um, uh, in the audience, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Are there any questions for staff?

Commissioner Pullis. I just have one technical question. Um, on page 22, DOT has a comment. Did anyone talk to DOT about that? No, um, I didn't reach out to DOT about their comments.

But it, it seemed a little funny because, I mean, obviously there are other signs on that street.

So page 22 at the bottom, it— Alaska Statute 1925-105 prohibits outdoor advertising within 660 feet of the nearest edge of right-of-way visible from the main travelway on interstate, primary, or secondary highways. Is 5th and 6th secondary? Do you know?

I'm not sure. I'm just—. I'll stop.

Any further questions for staff?

Seeing none, well, would the petitioner like to speak?

Now it's on. Hi, my name is Kathleen McCardle. I'm the president and CEO at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce. I am representing the petitioner whose creative agency did the actual filing, MISH Medrano, I think, who's been contracted by the Odom Corporation to help support this project. Adrian Velasquez here today is here to also answer any questions on this petition if they come up.

Um, thank you so much to this commission for hearing the application and the petition and considering the request. Thank you to the department for all the help that they did in answering questions. This is sort of a non-traditional request for Anchorage, and we're excited to have the opportunity to present on it. The building— I've been president and CEO for almost 3 years, and I've been approached a handful of times over those years about, wouldn't that be a great wall facing west of our building for a mural? And is the building owner interested?

And I had preliminary asked questions about that, and he said he would be if certain conditions were met, making it easy for him and that the art was purposeful and meaningful. So I was approached late last year by Adrian and representatives of the Odom Corporation. They are a member of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, the Coca-Cola bottler in Alaska, and Coca-Cola nationally has this initiative to pay Paint the Nation in honor of the America 250 year. So they have offered in every state in the United States to put up a substantial local, um, culturally relevant, um, local artist-driven mural. And we were one of the first ones to get our preliminary agreement, and now we're a little bit behind the curve on getting the approval and installation.

Some of them have already been complete, is my understanding. But what a great initiative to have this corporate sponsorship of amazing local art in our community. Beyond the Beige has done so much to help with inspiring local art, but it is— cannot be the only mechanism, I believe, by which this is accomplished. To Radhika's point, I am an ex officio member on the board of the Anchorage Downtown Partnership, and also we co-serve on a coalition called AAA, or the Alliance to Anchor Activate Anchorage, in which our organizations, along with Visit Anchorage and the Anchorage Economic Downtown Partnership, discuss our correlated issues and how we can best align on resources. And that is unrelated to today's topic, but in the interest of full disclosure.

So the Anchorage Chamber Board did actually approve the official support of this initiative.

It's really inspiring to see the, um, private support of art like this in our community. Um, they're not without substantial cost. My understanding, some of the other artistic, um, endeavors, um, are still seeking funding for what they need, um, to be able to begin, um, their process as well. Um, our building owner's been entered into agreements where he's in, um, full support of this. Um, we have, um, plans to intend to help with stakeholder outreach, if approved, to help with ahead of the project's installation, community engagement during, and as well as to celebrate its completion.

But this is an incredible opportunity for a site-specific design. I think you've seen in the packet it was designed in collaboration with a local artist who was selected. There's a couple of designs, and this one really stood out to be impactful, draw the eye, and help with all of those lovely things we want to see in our downtown to help keep it vibrant and inspiring and energized. And I think that's all of my comments, but as we are co-representative, I didn't know if Adrian wanted to say a few words with our 10 minutes.

Thank you, Kathleen. I'm sorry about that. Um, Kathleen said that very eloquently, and when we got the opportunity—. Please start with your name. I'm sorry, Adrian Velasquez, marketing manager for Coca-Cola Bali Velasquez, Alaska.

It's a subsidiary of the Odom Corporation. Spell the last name, please. V as in Victor, E-L-A-S-Q-U-E-Z.

Thank you. Go ahead. As Kathleen stated earlier, she hit the nail on the head on everything that we wanted to accomplish when Koch gave us this initiative last year with the America 250 push and to really— it's a It's a love letter to America, and it's a way to express gratitude and patriotism and all the positive things. So when we were able to get, um, identify the Chamber Building as a potential possibility and, uh, push it forward, um, it was exciting because these are the, the things that we want to see downtown. We want to see beautiful murals for tourists And for people who live here to take pictures and really take in downtown Anchorage.

And I just can't see any other reason why we wouldn't want these things downtown. So yeah, if anybody has any questions or anything—.

Any questions for the petitioners? Question from Commissioner McKee. So I have a question for staff too, but so is the only way the mural could go forward is if it includes the Coca-Cola logo, just for clarification? Yes, that was part of the criteria. It had to be a local artist and it had to have some form or variation of the Coca-Cola logo.

Great, thank you. And then my other question And I'm not sure whether I can ask for staff now, or should I ask—. Should I wait? Um, will you just keep the petitioner standing there while you ask staff a question? You can always ask staff later.

Okay.

Okay, I see no further questions. You have 4 minutes and 34 seconds for rebuttal.

Um, we will open the public hearing now. Uh, anybody from the public wishing to testify?

Uh, seeing none, I'll go ahead and— do you have time. Do you have— would you like to use your time for rebuttal?

You don't need to yet, so— well, let's go with this. Now would be a good time to— we'll just ask, uh, any questions of staff now before we close the public hearing.

Commissioner Mickey. Um, so I kind of have a question. It pertains— so there's an existing sign there already that's 144 square feet, which exceeds the 100— the 84 square feet allowance for an advertisement on the side of a building. Does— is that sign waived, allowed?

Um, that sign predated our sign regulations. Thank you.

Yeah. Now, do you want to use your 4 minutes and 34 seconds for a rebuttal?

I'm not sure that I inherited the sign. I definitely predated the Anchorage Chamber sign on the side of that building. And to be fair, nobody sees it. Like, so many people have been like, oh, There is a sign on your building after it's pointed out, but this I think would be— I think it's tastefully integrated, and as well as the placement and positioning of the Coca-Cola branding as well. As much as it is included and mentioned, it is still fairly subtle and not too forward with a call to action.

It really does celebrate Alaska and the wilderness and the Midnight Sun.

Thank you. Um, any further questions for the petitioner or staff? Go ahead, Commissioner Krishna. I just want to get at the bigger issue, and I think I've encountered this one other time in my career, which is that the reason we're here for a variance is because of the branding elements, right? That's what takes this from being a public artwork to having the entire surface of the entire dimension of the mural being considered to be a part of a sign rather than a piece of art.

That's correct, right? That's correct. Is there— has there been contemplation of updating our code so that just, you know, more specifically logo or branding-related items constitute the part that triggers uh, sign code review? No. Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Any further questions for anybody, from anybody on the commission? Seeing none, you now have 3 minutes and 54 seconds for rebuttal if you'd like to use it. Feel free. Otherwise, we'll yield it and close the public hearing.

Okay, the public hearing is closed. What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Kee, would you like to state your motion? I move in case 2026-0080 to approve variances from AMC 21.47.030B determining building frontage and building unit and AMC 21.47.060A, Basic Standards for Building Signs, to allow a 3,500-square-foot mural and signage on the west facade of an office building as shown in the sign elevation plan, subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of the staff report. That's seconded by Commissioner Baza. Commissioner McKee, would you like to speak to your motion? Um, please.

I intend to support the motions. Um, Um, the various criteria that were— are included in the packet are all met. The proposed sign is a painted mural on the west side of an office building. This mural would face vehicles traveling eastbound on West 6th Avenue. The mural achieves the intent of the subject design standard.

Criteria 2 is met. The location size of the proposed mural will beautify the building with a fun Alaska-themed scene. The commercial element of the mural is very small and advertising is not the main impact of the sign. Criteria 3 is met. The mural will beautify the building and this section of 6th Avenue.

Criteria 4 is met. The proposed sign does not adversely affect the use of the adjacent property to the west. Criteria 5 is also met. The mural will not change the character of the zoning district. In addition, signs are allowed in the B -2B district, so the variance is not related to a prohibited use of the property.

Um, the, the component of the mural that is an advertisement is, um, approximately 29 square feet, which would normally fall under the allowed threshold of 84 square feet. Additionally, I think that the logo was incorporated in a really aesthetically appealing way and that the mural is beautiful and is a definite improvement to the side of the building.

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

Seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

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

That motion passes.

Um, next item is— may we hear— have a motion to combine cases 2026-0085 and 2026-0086? 6.

Okay, we have a motion. Commissioner Polis has made the motion.

I move to combine cases 2026-0085 and 2026-0086. And that was seconded by somebody previously that disappeared. Seconded by Commissioner Baza. Any discussion?

Any opposed? Motion passes.

The allotted time for testimony will be doubled.

May we please have the staff presentation on cases 2026-0085 and 0086? Thank you, Chair. These are requests initiated by the owner to amend the comprehensive land use plan map and the zoning map for one parcel. Case 2026-0085 amends the land use designation for the parcel from compact mixed residential medium to Town Center. Case 2026-0086 amends the zoning map for the same parcel from R-5, Low Density Residential District, to B-3, General Business District.

The Planning and Zoning Commission will provide a recommendation to the assembly for these requests through resolution. The assembly is the decision-making body for rezonings and comprehensive plan map amendments. The department received no public comments against the rezoning, and the comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. The department received no reviewing agency comments in opposition either. The Abbott Loop Committee Council received notice and did not comment.

The department finds the rezone request and the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request meet all approval criteria and therefore recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission provide an approval recommendation for the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to Town Centre and the rezone request to B-3 to the Assembly. I'm available for questions of staff, and the owner and his representative are here tonight to speak on the petitioner's behalf. Thank you.

Commissioner Krishna, I saw in the application that the current use of the site is residential, and I see that single-family residential is not a permitted use in B3. So I'm just wondering if that— if there is a single-family residence on that lot and if that poses any complications to this case.

Um, given the circumstances of the nearby corridor, it made sense to support the rezone to the B-3 district and I think there's been some internal discussions in the department as well to— yeah, I think there have been some internal discussions in the department as well to think about approving single-family residential in B-3. So I think Daniel is trying to speak to that. I'm not sure. But—.

Yeah. Daniel, do you want to speak through my mic? Yes. Yeah.

Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. Yeah, we have looked at this because, as you know, this Commission has seen a number of rezones and land use plan changes in this area. And we've really been looking at it. And it does seem to be that when the land use plan was done, it didn't really maybe consider Abbott as a corridor in the way that people make land use decisions based on the road design alongside it. We talked about this a little bit last month, I think, when we talked about the work session for B-3.

And people do make decisions based on the design of a road, the expected carrying capacity of a road. And since we've seen so much interest in a lot of conversions to B-3 in this area, to us, you know, if you have a one-off, maybe it's a one-time problem. But if you see it a couple times, it's a trend. And then the trend probably should be addressed with some higher-level policy guidance. So we're looking at— talking a bit more with Abbott Loop about what they foresee for this area, or maybe with that community council.

But again, if the community council, at least from our perspective, the community council didn't express any concern about this, I think they maybe kind of see that too. And in long range, we did meet with a few representatives from Abbott Loop a month or so ago, and they were kind of asking, you know, what's going on down here? And we had a long, a really good long discussion about it. So from our perspective, yeah, it does look like Something is changing there and maybe what the reality of what is happening on the ground is different from what the plan imagined in 2040. So that is why we didn't see a reason to object to this.

And some of the others in that area have also been approved. So it could just be that, you know, the way that the corridor along Abbott is going to be a little bit different than people expected in 2017 and the 2040 Land Use Plan. And through the Chair to Commissioner Krishna, if you don't mind me jumping in as well. To answer your question, it does create a situation in which that residence becomes a legal nonconforming use on the site, so there would be complications if they wanted to expand on the building. But since it's the property owner requesting this rezone, we did not see any reason to object.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, invite the petitioner up for their presentation.

Hello, I'm the petitioner's representative, Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. Thank you for your time. Staff did a great job on this. This is supported by staff. There's no objections by any of the agencies.

I think this is pretty straightforward, and I'm just here for any questions that you might have.

Any questions for the petitioner?

I see none. You have 19 minutes and 49 seconds. That looks like a new record. Thank you.

Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

Hearing none, we'll go back to the petition. And the commission, any more questions?

Hearing none, uh, would you like to use your time for rebuttal? Yielded the time for rebuttal. Close the public hearing. What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion?

Uh, my move in case 2026-0085 to recommend Anchorage Assembly approval of a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation in the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan from Compact Mixed Residential Medium to Town Center. Thank— Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Commissioner Pulis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yeah, I intend to support the motion.

Um, I know the area pretty well. The site is an appropriate distance from Abbott Road to be considered a buffer to what is becoming a denser residential and mixed-use area. Um, it meets the 7 approval criteria for the comp plan amendments as noted in the packet. Um, we also heard no public or agency opposition to the amendment.

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

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

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

That motion passes.

Now we'll be looking for a second motion for case 2026-86.

Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion? Yeah, I move in case 2026-0086 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of one parcel of land from R-5 district to B-3 district. That's seconded by Commissioner Mills. Commissioner Polis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yeah, I intend to support the motion for basically the same reasons I supported the comp plan amendment.

Um, the site is appropriate appropriate distance from Abbott Road to be considered a buffer to what is becoming a denser residential and mixed-use area. It meets the 9 approval criteria for the rezone as noted in the findings, and we heard no public or agency opposition to the amendment.

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

Hearing and seeing none, call for the vote. Miss Eber, how do you vote? Yes, thank you.

That motion passes.

Now we will move on to unfinished business, the public hearing in cases 2026-0034 and 2026-0035. -0035 Are still open. Those who testified during the April 13th meeting may testify again. May we have the staff presentation for case 2026-0034?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. Uh, these are the B3 cases. We've been talking about them a bit over the past few months, and they've been in, um, items of discussion at the assembly since last summer.

Um, so I'll just give a quick overview. You've seen most of this information before. I don't think we made, um, I don't think we made any changes since we last spoke. And I'll do— I'll provide— this presentation is pretty much about both of them, um, and I, I do include a summary of, of what I gleaned from the discussion during the work session, um, so please correct me if I'm wrong on that. And in my recollection, the last time the commission talked about this, there was some talk about maybe bringing some amendments forward or some proposals proposals for changes.

So, um, we're glad to talk about that. So, um, we have again PCC Case 2026-34, uh, review and amendments to AO-2025-63, which was introduced by the Assembly last summer. This is the stick. And PCC Case 2026-0035, expanded uses in B3 and simplifying the definition of mixed use. This is the carrot.

Um, more specifically, uh, Case 34 changes the purpose statement of B3, limits self-storage, storage yard, and large parking lots to conditional rather than permitted uses. And that's only as a standalone use. That's not as an accessory use. So if you're building something and you're putting parking on site, um, that's not restricted in this way. And Case 202635 is expanding uses in B-3, simplifying the definition of mixed use, um, allow all forms of housing in B-3.

This was sort of trying to aim for the shop house concept, um, clean up the definition of mixed use and eliminate lot size and restrictions on the number of structures in B-3. So what problems were these proposals trying to solve? Discourage car-centered uses in B3. There's been a lot of talk about that and how B3 is an urban zone. In urban areas, we want more stuff like human-centered uses.

Encourage more housing, more flexibility in housing in B3. Maintain a balance of zoning that supports light industrial commercial uses or businesses. And meeting the intent of the sponsors. So as everybody here recalls, and maybe people in the audience remember, there's been a lot of discussion about what we're looking for in this, and there have been a lot of pieces to it. So that's why it's a pretty all-encompassing set of ordinances.

So timeline again, just for reference. In spring 2025, the Assembly introduced 2025-63. In the summer of 2025, the Assembly referred that AO to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In autumn of 2025, there were more discussions with the sponsors, and we were trying to, you know, understand what people were looking for. April 13th, at the PCC meeting, this commission had discussion and referred to a work session.

And then we had a work session on June 1st, 2026, and then today's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 13th. Um, in April, the questions were about potential, potential effects, questions about parking on separate lots, business development, data on how many properties this would affect, and, um, uses for conditional as well as locations. Um, on the June work session discussion, there was a lot more, so forgive me, it's a wall of text here. But the Commission talked about how much of B-3 is currently being used for vehicle storage or parking lots, B-3 zoning and how to protect what makes it an attractive zone. I think it was something like, let's not kill the golden goose, or let's not ruin the things that have made this successful.

The role of street design and road planning and adjacent land use, especially in town center areas, sort of contrast of road design versus how adjacent land is zoned, how certain areas of B-3 seem appropriate for vehicle-centered uses like Old Seward, for example, while other places Zone B-3 seemed more appropriate for more urban uses, like Spenard Road, for example. And we talked about, you know, affecting this through changes to B-3 overall. You could do a specific overlay, you could do a new type of B-3, you could do use-specific standards, zone-specific standards. I don't think we got anywhere in particular on that, but it was a good discussion. And then parking lots versus parking garages as an accessory and primary use.

And desire to avoid removing the parts of B-3 that make it successful, attractive for businesses. This one is, if you recall, there's some sort of cleanup pieces we need to do in the code that would distinguish between a parking lot or parking structure in some places. We also got a comment too that recommended separating it out by the number of spaces. These are ideas we're interested in, and I think we're going to try to address them maybe through the omnibus ordinance. We just didn't want to get it too much into this because it would be a bit too complicated.

Once we start changing the use table— so, you know, say right now we have parking lot or structure as a use. Once we start saying parking lot or structure 0 to 10, 10 to 25, then it changes the entire use table. It changes all sorts of zoning. And although it wouldn't be a huge change, it would just sort of be a little bit bigger than what this— it would get a little off topic from what the B3 was. So that was a great comment.

And in the comment, the discussions we had here, we were taking that under advisement. I think we're going to try and do that through the omnibus too or something like that because it really— all the points are really good. It would help clarify things. There was some talk last time about where travel behavior is heading, you know, some observations that it seems that most people want to drive and then other observations that a lot of people want an alternative. And then the link between housing, infrastructure, the budget, long-term sustainability, financial sustainability, and then the potential for additional amendments at this next meet PCC meeting tonight when this case returns.

So we'll be happy to hear about that. So this, again, we saw this before. It was just sort of looking at where different types of existing uses would become conditional, whereas now they're permitted. So this is just showing in the I-1, B-3, I-2 districts how many lots there are with that designation, at least according to the assessor data. This is parking lots, um, 50 spaces surface, uh, 50 or more spaces, and just showing where many of them are.

So this would also be a conditional use. Again, if the code changed, if you have an existing use, and then if it's legal when it was built, it has non-conforming rights. And then I believe this was parking lots, 50+ spaces as a structure, and most of them, they're all downtown. So, and these are in the B-2 zones and the B-3. Again, B-2 zones are only downtown, and what these ordinances are looking at, or these proposals are looking at, are B-2— excuse me, are B-3, not B-2A.

And sorry, there's one at the airport in the TR zone.

So again, just an old slide, just remembering how we got here. Years ago, there was a lot of talk about car washes and then about garage condos. And so I think that's just sort of where a lot of this came from. So comments, general support or no objection. One comment stating making larger parking lots conditional use could affect development.

And then, um, after the last meeting, comment about splitting out types of parking lots in the use table. Um, this is where most of the B-3 zoning is now. So if there was a change, these are the areas that would be affected. And with that, I'll leave it open for any questions or, or comments or anything else.

Questions for staff?

Commissioner McKee. So if it were a conditional use permit, and let's say a developer had multiple parcels and they were building buildings, and one of their parcels they're using for parking, how much time would going through a conditional use permitting process add to them being able to develop multiple parcels?

Through the chair, I think a conditional use permit takes, what, about 6 months maybe? Is that generally— because you apply and then it takes a couple months to get it on PCC, and conditional use has to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, if I'm not mistaken, not the assembly. So probably I'd say 3 to 6 months. To do that.

Commissioner Pulis, um, on page 14, when we're rewriting the purpose, um, it's like the second sentence, and it says these uses are intended to be located on primary transportation corridors And we got rid of arterials. Is there a definition of primary transportation corridors? Are we trying to be kind of general in that description?

Through the chair, I think that language came from, uh, Vice Chair Voland, if I'm not mistaken. I think it came from the assembly in particular. In terms of do we have a definition of primary transportation corridors, I don't think we do.

Maybe it's something we could look at in the upcoming Official Streets and Highways Plan, but I, I don't— I think that was more of a descriptive description rather than a technical description. But that is language that we got from assembly members. Okay, Commissioner Mills.

So I heard you say that this memorandum would not change existing properties or existing buildings. It would just impact future development. Um, and my question is, what, what type of project or work on an existing property would require, like, an additional permit review?

Through the chair. Do you mean like, in what case might this make things a little bit more complicated, or—.

Yeah, so I understood you saying that the site is like legal nonconforming in the event that this passes.

What would— what type of construction or work at a property would risk the property losing that status?

Through the chair, and I hope the director will help me on this because we did just make some changes to the nonconformities code, but traditionally it was that if you had a nonconforming use, as long as you didn't expand the use significantly, you could keep operating. So if you had to do basic, um, sort of changes, and then I think in the last year or so we did update the nonconformities code to be a little more flexible. So as long as basically everything was more or less the same, I, I believe maybe if you expand it, it's still there's a restriction there, but I might defer. Through the Chair to Commissioner Mills. Um, yeah, you are correct, Daniel.

The, um, the work required to create an issue like this would be, um, at least, I think, 50% of the value of the, the property. Um, and then, um, if you wanted to expand the footprint, then that would be, um You know, you'd have to go through a new process for that, but otherwise, it's, it's a pretty significant trigger to, to cause any issues on the site, on an existing site. Thank you.

Any further questions for staff?

Seeing none, we'll continue the public testimony. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

Seeing none, we'll go to the staff rebuttal. Does staff have any rebuttal to that testimony?

No, Chair, thank you. But I do have another— I think I have another question. We're glad for more questions. We're glad for recommendations or proposals to make changes. I think as we all saw, the chair of the assembly was here last time.

Explaining that they really are interested in anybody's insights. So, Commissioner Mills, I wanted to ask about the B-3 zoning. Um, just the, the definition of the B-3 zoning kind of links back to auto-oriented uses, and it specifically says, um, meeting the needs of auto-related and other auto-related uses And then it also comes back to say that it accommodates, you know, personal mobility in other forms. And my question is trying to understand if this is in line with the definition of B-3 or if the municipality is, you know, intending to change the definition of what B-3 is supposed to be. And I guess just a little bit of clarity.

Yeah, thank you through the chair. Yeah, I think you've identified, which is a pretty big— you know, most of the time we're focused on dimensional standards and the specifics of what might get built, but that change of the purpose statement I think is pretty significant. And that was policy direction we got. And it is different from what it traditionally has been. From what I understand looking back through, you know, the years of files is B3 was always sort of understood to be along big roads.

And then the piece about, you know, facilitating mobility in other forms was maybe a sort of compromise or was added in when they were working on the new Title 21. And that's always maybe sort of been a bit of a— just a compromise that didn't do that much. And with this change, change of this purpose statement, it really would be taking a new direction different from what the municipality has taken. And that's why, from our perspective, you know, that language came from the assembly, and from our perspective, we were still thinking, well, there are places where B3, like an old Seward, is pretty auto-centered and is going to stay auto-centered, and it's very useful for that. Um, and there are other places it's not, like at Spinard.

So I think you've identified, uh, what's a major policy change, significant policy change. In terms of how that actually changes things, that kind of comes down to questions of uncertainty. If it's— you can go one way or the other. Yeah, in the future it could be that— if this commission had to make a decision of maybe approving a conditional use or something else, that purpose statement then could weigh into that. So really, I think the big question here is, is Anchorage urbanizing, or is Anchorage becoming maybe a place with slightly different travel patterns or not?

And if it's not, I mean, that's okay too. But this is also a purpose statement that's saying that's what the intent— the municipality is changing sort of the idea of B-3 could be something different in the future than it's been in the past. So just again, it's a big policy question and a departure from probably the last 10, 20 years. Commissioner McKee. Hi.

I just kind of have a comment. I'm not sure if it's a question, but keeping arterials is— that's like a defined roadway classification. We're saying primary transportation corridors is up to interpretation. Like keeping something that's actually a defined classification that you can look up and see what that is, I think is better than something that is up for interpretation. Like maybe put a vehicles per day classification on it if we're wanting to have flexibility across different types of roadway classifications.

But as a person who has to go to these to look that up, like, that leaves it up to somebody's personal interpretation on whether or not it's a primary transportation corridor or not versus arterials, or saying, you know, X number of vehicles per day to X number of vehicles per day is something like that you can definitively look up.

Through the chair, if I could. Yeah, that, that could be tricky too, because in some of our zones we actually have a zone-specific standard or locational requirement, right? It says like R-4A, for example, says you can only be on this type of street or in this In a purpose statement, if you wanted to make that requirement, say B-3 can only be on arterials, for example, I would say that should probably go in a locational requirement. But here in the purpose statement, it's more, I think, of the sort of philosophical idea of where it should be, but not specifically a technical piece. So if we were looking at a rezone and somebody said, I want to go to B-3, I don't think we would look at this and say it could be on an arterial or it couldn't.

If there was interest in requiring that, I would recommend putting it into locational criteria. In terms of this in particular, I think maybe you've highlighted a potential conflict of having it as arterials that then people might wonder, oh, is it— was it intended to be a locational requirement just in the purpose statement? I can't speak for, I guess, the source of that, but I guess I would guess that the idea was that B-3 is going to be in central areas where we have transportation corridors. So I don't know if getting to the specifics of a functional classification would add to that or not. I don't know if anybody else has any comments on that.

I don't know if anybody else has questions, comments on that, but Commissioner Rahn is in the queue with a question.

Thank you. Through the chair, I appreciate an earlier commissioner raising the topic of the purpose statement. My question is on that topic as well. My interest is in the recommended changes to the latter portion of it, specifically, um, the sentence that reads, it is also the municipality's intent that the B-3 district change will encourage replacing also shall provide for safe and convenient personal mobility in all— striking other forms. Can you help me understand the context of that proposed change?

Should I read that as the municipality admitting defeat in this instance? Is it that the language was previously or interpreted to be an unachievable mandate?

To me, it just feels like moving in a direction that I think we want to understand the intention of, given the importance of this purpose statement driving policy and application of B3 development going forward.

Through the chair, that's a tough one.

So yeah, for anybody following along, I think we're looking at page— or line 25 and 26 of page 14 of 64, and it says, it is also— let me municipality's intent that the B-3 district will encourage— and it used to say also shall provide for— safe and convenient personal mobility in, in all forms. It used to say all other forms. I don't know if I could speak to the intent of, of that change. I could say that we could take a step back and, and think about how a district encourages types of travel behavior versus how different types of right-of-way improvements or public investments encourage different types of travel behavior. One thing, I guess this is maybe my opinion, personal opinion as a planner, sometimes purpose statements, they're— it's sort of the floweriest part of the zoning.

And so it's really trying to get to the ideals. But when you drill down to it, it's sort of unclear, like, what does this actually mean? So I don't know if I have a good answer. I might kick it back. To the director to see.

I—. When I read that, I— it doesn't seem like, um, there's an abdication of some sort of interest in doing that. But I would say at the same time, many of the other discussions we're having in the municipality, we're focusing on addressing the needs of all sorts of users but doing it more through the OSHMP. So like the actual road designs and the DCM. And so this is maybe a bit of a shift away from from let's try to change travel behavior through zoning, which occurs in land use, to let's try to provide options for travel behavior in the right-of-way, which we do through changing the Design Criteria Manual and the Official Streets and Highways Plan.

But maybe you have additional insight on that. Through the Chair to Commissioner Rahn, that's actually a really interesting question because I kind of read it the opposite way in that— Providing for Other Modes of Transportation has just provided a 5-foot sidewalk on the edge, right on the edge of major arterials, right? So we've provided for that other mode of transportation, but we haven't encouraged it. So my reading was that this would take that a step further and encourage other modes of transportation in these areas. Um, but I think it's worth clarifying if that is actually the intent.

And I don't know if that was our language. I think it was probably from Dr. Voland, but we will ask and maybe see if there's a way that we can try to clarify that that was indeed the intent and maybe provide alternative language to, to support that idea if that what he intended. Um, I had a quick follow-up question on that question. Was the shall provide in any way related to some of the issues where sidewalks later in the code are— the code states that you shall install sidewalks on any B-3 adjacent to any road or right-of-way, even in some instances when the sidewalks don't make sense? Would that might be why the shall was being struck and moved to encourage?

Through the— sorry, Chair Spinelli, I don't think that— and again, I don't want to speak for the sponsor, but I doubt that that was on Dr. Vohland's mind when he was drafting this up, but that is also a very interesting question because that is a code requirement, and I have seen cases where it just does not make any sense to provide that sidewalk in those— in that context. So I don't know, another, another question to bring to him. If I could, Excuse me. So I'm looking at the email we got from Dr. Volland, and he did say maybe something like this: it is the municipality's intent that the B-3 district also shall provide— or shall provide safe and convenient personal mobility in all forms. Planning design shall accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transit.

That was an early draft. So I wonder if it is that having shall in a purpose statement does create a weird situation, because how shall it do it? So that, that does make sense, and I don't think that came from the assembly member. It is probably something, because we're— we do try to be careful about where we use shall and where we use other stuff. And in a purpose statement, I think it's probably better to use the positive language of like aspirational language rather than the restrictive language.

Commissioner McKee.

I guess I'll just kind of also Thinking along those lines, that shall means— it's a lot stronger language, but it also guarantees that it happens. So I would think we would always want to guarantee that we're providing safe and convenient personal mobility in all forms for all roadway users, whereas encourage is really soft language versus shall, which is definitive, but I mean, for me as a transportation person, the purpose statement carries a ton of weight. It's the purpose and the need together that define what we do for a project.

So I think having the stronger language, because like the Planning Director mentioned, I mean, you could have a 5-foot shoulder, or you could have a 10-foot one. That kind of flexibility happens in design, but I would think you would always want to provide for all users, whereas the encouraged might potentially allow you to not, let's say, include ADA-compliant bicycle, ped, and transit facilities. Through the Chair to Commissioner McKee, if you don't mind me taking this. Question, Daniel. We have found more and more recently that there are multiple— there are many situations where it actually does not make sense to provide structurally, you know, physically provide a separate facility for each mode of transportation.

Often there are situations where the, the different modes can can share space. Or it might, for instance, it might not be appropriate to put a bike lane, for example, on every single road in Anchorage. So I think if we are going to include the shall in there, we have to be very careful about what exactly it is that we are requiring, if that makes sense.

Uh, yeah, Mr. McKenna, first. Thank you. I'll just read a few, just some other examples of what purpose statements in sort of similarly envisioned areas. So in R3, for example, it says the commercial aspects of this mixed-use district are intended to serve local neighborhood needs and promote pedestrian access to support local shopping. Others, like R-4, I think it says something slightly different.

The— for multi-story buildings, development is intended to be oriented to sidewalk and windows to provide strong pedestrian connections to nearby services. So I think every purpose statement is a little different. I do agree, I think the shall in the purpose statement might make things a little bit complicated. And it's really just intended to be sort of a last-minute sort of vibe check on which way something is going. If they're— the specifics of requiring something for the zone should probably go into the aspects of the zone itself, either dimensional standards or use-specific standards or, you know, locational standards.

But I would also encourage anybody just to look at some of the other ones, and you'll see there's kind of a wide range. Um, in R4A, it says this district is intended to implement land use plan, meet housing needs for the community, and establish a pedestrian-oriented environment. So sometimes we say promote pedestrian activity, establish a pedestrian-oriented environment, encourage pedestrian uses, that sort of thing. So I really— I think it's— there are many ways to do it, and I, I would agree. I think shall should probably— any shall language should probably be below in the specifics of the zone.

Thank you.

Commissioner Pulis. Just a quick comment. I mean, I have some personal experience with some of the stuff on some design projects where You know, there's probably some B-3 districts that are smaller than arterial corridors and stuff like that and tight right-of-way. And quite often everyone demands, you know, you have to have everything in here. But when you get to it, it's 60-foot right-of-way.

You put everything in there, it's 75 feet wide. It goes to condemnation. The whole project falls apart and you can't do anything. So, you know, I'm not saying I'm not for Shell or the other. I'm just saying I have personal experience where you sometimes just can't fit everything.

And that this seems like a situation where that could apply to.

Commissioner McKee. Yeah, I can see as long as we are defining in other locations where pedestrian, bike, and other types of facilities are required so that the encourage doesn't give the leeway for that not to happen. In other locations where it really should be accommodated. That's my kind of concern with taking that language out and having softer language. But if enforcement type shall language is included in other places where it's really appropriate and drives the design to the desired outcome, then I think that language is good.

I think we're also sensitive to that as well. We hear a lot of desire for that. And that's something that we're trying to write into the Official Streets and Highways Plan update and the Complete Streets typology, which is the, the movement is kind of thinking about you should have context-based streets. So an arterial in one place might look like this, an arterial in another place might look something different. So ideally, if we do that sort of context or the street typology, whatever they are, it's putting that walkability in the places where that makes the most sense.

But in the places where the walkability could function on a quieter, smaller road with a narrower right-of-way, Or it might not make sense at all because the way the road is designed. So we are— I think that's another piece of this too that isn't quite in the zoning is that we're trying to get to that through the right-of-way stuff. So, and there definitely is a big interest and there's a lot of policy support for that. And through the chair, sorry, if you want to say—. I agree that is a very good goal because we do need corridors that are for moving vehicles and freight and whatnot, and we definitely we need more corridors that provide connectivity for bikes, peds, and transit.

So I would love to see that happen.

Director Babb. I was just going to jump in and say that you— I think you missed the entire site access saga because you weren't on PCC at the time, but that is one of the main questions that we addressed. During that rewrite of that section of code is when is it appropriate to include a sidewalk in the development and when is it appropriate to maybe leave it out. And so there is some very strong language in code right now that speaks to like what are the thresholds at which a sidewalk should be required and where, like how the traffic volumes, the adjacencies to schools and parks and things like that. So we do— I feel that we do have that covered in code now, but we are, like Daniel was saying, we are addressing that with those projects that he mentioned.

And then also the DCM rewrite is happening at the moment, so PM&E is also currently working on this question.

I have a question. Um, we've spent a lot of time on the purpose statement, Section E, Table of Allowed Uses.

It's— some of the presentation showed self-storage and car washes were the spur of the issue. Does this have any effect on car washes?

If I'm not mistaken, car wash in the code is actually minor vehicle repair, and this doesn't touch the minor vehicle repair use. But to change that, you could either separate out car washes as its own use, and then you have to go through the whole discussion of where, where is it appropriate, where isn't it, or you potentially take out all the minor vehicle repair, which you know, might fit somewhere else. So that is another interesting quirk of the code that we don't have car wash separated out as an individual use. Sorry. My second question: what would happen if the commission really liked the purpose statement but not the table and decided to only adopt the purpose statement?

The commission can make whatever recommendations that they like to the assembly, and the assembly makes a final decision.

I see nobody else in the queue. The public hearing is still open.

Um, there was no testimony. Anybody want to testify?

Nobody wants to testify. Does staff have any rebuttal?

It's the next item before I close the public testimony. No? And then we'll close the public hearing and look for a motion from the commission.

Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0034 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the review of AO 2025-63, allowing self-storage as a conditional use in the B-3 zoning district. That is seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Commissioner Pullis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yeah, um, while a little murky, I, I agree the revision of the B-3 description removes some extra language that's mostly covered elsewhere in Title 21.

And emphasizes all forms of mobility. The conditional use process for 50+ parking structure uses is an appropriate opportunity for NISPPAL to review the context of large parking facilities and more industrial-type uses in the B-3 District. We heard no agency opposition and public support for the amendment.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you, Chair. I intend to support the motion as well. I concur with the findings of the previous commissioner and don't have any specific findings to add. My commissioner comments are as follows. I appreciate the responses provided by staff regarding my questions on the purpose statement and appreciate the additional look into those elements.

With the originators of the AO and amendment at the assembly level. Secondly, I acknowledge the intent of this as an improvement to hold space for housing in the B-3 district, noting that an overwhelming body of evidence has shown B-3 district as um, apparently ideal for residential development in our community. And the competing uses and potential for uses at play here, I think, are balanced by not disallowing something that has existed but changing the way in which it could be allowed in the future. I intend to support the motion. Thanks.

Commissioner Mills.

Thank you. Um, I appreciate the support of all uses, um, being included in this memorandum, um, particularly the discussion about not keeping rigid requirements in there, um, but trying to support all different forms of transportation. However, I have concerns about the 50+ parking spaces being conditional. My concern being just hurting existing businesses, prohibiting development, or hurting future businesses that we would like to welcome to the area.

Commissioner Krishna, um, maybe I'll just start by saying that amendments can be proposed right now. Um, I, speaking not to any potential amendments but just to this ordinance as written, um, I am struggling with it a little bit, but I think I intend to support it. I have two comments. One is that I, I generally support support and like the purpose that has been drafted and agree with previous comments on it, but I, um, and maybe just struggling with the fact that I don't think that this purpose or this project is sufficient to achieve the intent of the zoning district. Um, so if we have a recommendation, I would like to ask the assembly to, to propose a project to find out what it would take to achieve such density, because I don't think language edits such as that we're contemplating now get us that far down that road, which we want to be down.

And then my second very minor thing is, is only that I would ask that this be retitled, because I think we've spent an equal amount of time talking about parking lots as self-storage. Thank you.

Commissioner McKee.

Um, I also intend to support the motion but also have a couple of concerns that were brought up about if somebody who is, you know, legally allowed but wants to change the development on their lot could be triggered, but that it has to be a 50% above seems like a pretty high threshold, um, so I feel like that's okay. The other part is that they can— there is a conditional use permit process that they can follow. I'm a little concerned that delaying somebody's development process by 6 months in Alaska, where we have limited construction season, could be a little bit inconvenient, but there is a path forward, so I do also intend to support the motion.

Um, nobody else in the queue. I do not intend to support the motion as written. I'm happy with all the work in the purpose statement. I like it. I don't like conditional use situations.

Um, I think they prevent development. They They prevent people from purchasing the land to get to the point where they would apply for the conditional use. They stop projects in their tracks before they're started, even though there is a way forward. Often landowners don't want to wait 6 months while a proposed developer figures out if conditional use can be approved. So with that, I do not intend to support.

Commissioner Krishna.

Um, I, I think since we're talking about it, I would like to go ahead and propose an amendment to omit the parking lot or structure conditional use requirement.

Okay, um, that's a motion to amend, which will need a second.

I second.

Commissioner Krishna, does that look right? Yes. Seconded by Commissioner Mills. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I thought I would propose it since multiple commissioners have talked about it.

I do think I intend to support this. This has been my biggest concern with this is just the scale of the uncertainty and that we might be— that this might result in for retail businesses who I think firmly fit in with the intent of B-3. So I welcome any further comments.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion to amend?

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

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

Oh wait, there's more people down here I don't see.

That motion passes.

Okay, back to the main motion.

Anybody wishing to speak to the main motion as amended?

I just have a quick question since I'm not there. Go ahead. Um, did the self-storage stuff get taken off as a conditional use as well, or is that— was that Just the parking garages. That was just the parking lot structures. Self-storage facilities and storage yards are still conditional use.

Okay, I think as amended, I support the— well, I would further like to add on, I don't support it without the, the, the, um, storage units being on there. I think As you said, or you stated, that it prohibits, um, developers from wanting to develop, so I shouldn't think it should be included. So as even as amended, I still don't intend to support it.

Did you say you do intend to support it or you don't intend to support it? Do not.

If the self-storage stuff was included, then I would support it. However, since it was not included, I do not intend to support it.

Well, you could offer an amendment to do the same change that Commissioner Krishna just amended, but for the other uses, if you chose. Otherwise, I see nobody else in the queue, and we're ready to call the vote. So it's up to you.

I would propose a motion to include self-storage in the last— I guess I don't know how to word it, and I'm not there, so I think Lori knows what to do. Did you want to Include the self-storage and the storage yard and change them to permitted, similar to the last amendment. Yeah, essentially any of the conditional uses.

Okay, Commissioner Eber, the motion we have is to amend to include self-storage and storage as permitted uses. Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Mills. Commissioner Eber, would you like to speak to your motion?

Um, I just, uh, believe that if we— I don't— well, I guess essentially I don't believe in putting conditional uses in areas and making zones more restrictive. Um, if we want to see development, we need to make them less restrictive. We've done that in other things in the past. So, um, I just don't approve of the conditional uses.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Commissioner Rahn.

I do not intend to support the motion. While I can appreciate the comments from previous commissioners and the reasoning behind putting forward the motion, I go back to what problems the proposal is trying to solve. Clearly, the will of the Commission with respect to discouraging car-centered uses was already spoken to. This element of encouraging more housing and more flexibility, I stand firm on and believe that a conversion from permitted use to conditional use, again, does not take the use off the table. If the development makes sense, there's a pathway for it to move forward.

Commissioner Pulis. I'll speak up this time. I don't intend to support the motion either. I think existing grandfather rights basically protects most of what's out there unless they go and spend what 50% of their site replacement value is. So at that point, they're required to move towards conformance.

If it's a brand new situation, I think it should be evaluated, and that's why I don't intend to support the motion. Commissioner Krishna. I, I don't intend to support this motion either. Um, maybe it's just been the self-storage facilities and storage yards I've encountered in Anchorage, but I don't see them as being primarily street frontage and, um, uses that are oriented towards the street and offer pedestrians direct access, or, um, I, I see them as being potentially more appropriate for more industrial types of land. And so I do think that— I do agree with the general intent of the B-3 district as we have drafted in this ordinance, and don't think I'll support this one.

Commissioner Mills.

One comment, I guess. I just want to share about why I intend to support this motion is just the shortage of industrial land types available to develop in Anchorage. You know, the beauty of B-3 has always been that it's very versatile in going towards, you know, more multi-family or towards, you know, these light industrial, you know, storage type uses, is that it allows you know, both types.

Um, I'll just add I intend to support because I stand firm against conditional uses, making things hard in code, making things cost more money and take more time. That's why we are not getting our 250th anniversary mural on time.

As we heard tonight, that it was one of the first selected but one of the last to get painted because it came to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Nobody else in the queue will call for the vote.

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

That motion fails. Back to the main motion as amended.

Anybody wishing to speak to the main motion as amended before I call for the vote?

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

Miss Heber, how do you vote? No. Thank you.

That motion passes.

Now we move to the carrot.

Maybe, please, uh, can I start with a motion to reopen the public hearing? Oh wait, nope, never mind. Um, Chair, before we get started, I think the commissioner is in the queue.

Uh, yeah, we'll take a 5-minute break.

Okay, now may we please have a staff presentation in case 2026-0035, aka the carrot?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel McCann Foster again, Long Range Planning. This case, um, was built on the back of the other case, or, you know, thinking about how can we make it easier to do some other things instead of just doing the restrictive pieces. So basically, it allows all forms of housing in B-3.

It simplifies some of the dimensional standards, and it cleans up the definition of mixed-use development. So the mixed-use development isn't totally about B-3, but it just makes it a little bit simpler. So it— if you wanted to have one dwelling unit and one commercial activity it'd be okay. The way it was worded previously was a little bit confusing. So I'd be glad to answer any questions.

Are there any questions for staff?

May I jump in really quick? Director Babb. This is the proposal that would make single-family residential permitted use in B-3. So I know we were discussing that earlier. This would also address that issue.

And also, just jumping in on the relationship between the two AOs, when the sponsors brought the original— the stick AO— to the Planning Department, our response was similar in some ways to your response as a body, in that we did not see the direct correlation between restricting uses and promoting housing in B-3 in that AO. And so this was our— an AO that we worked with Member Brawley on in order to actually take it a little bit further and create an AO in B-3 that would actually promote the development of more residential in that zoning district. Are there any other questions for staff?

I have one. Commissioner Mills, I just have one question. Um, what is the background or reasoning behind why wouldn't you just rezone a lot to the applicable residential use, um, opposed to trying to accommodate like a single family in B-3? Through the Chair, um, to Commissioner Mills, that the rezone process is dependent upon our future land use map. And there are many areas in town where single-family exists in B-3, but a rezone to a residential district would not necessarily be supported in that area by the plan because that area is envisioned as a, a commercial district.

I don't know if Long Range Planning wants to jump in with any more information on that point.

Yeah, Daniel McConville, Long Beach Planning, through the chair. This was originally thinking about if people are doing garage condos and they're living in garage condos, which may or may not be happening. There's some anecdotal data or not. And so maybe there's a type of living that's desirable to do that. And then we didn't really have a category for garage condos.

So that's how we came all the way around to sort of think about, well, what if you could just permit it as a single-family house with a large garage, and then you could do a bunch of small lot, like narrow lot, single family with a large garage. So that was the intent to get to the shop house concept and make it so it's— we can use what already exists rather than create a new use for like a garage condo. But yeah, also, there are many places where the, the land is B-3, but the land use plan wouldn't support going to like an R-3 or something else, then you have to change land use plans. So It was really just kind of opening up the flexibility and allowing— if people can be creative for— there's a lot, you know, fewer restrictions on the size of a garage in B-3, then maybe they could do something comparable to what people have been trying to do in R-3 or other places, or doing as garage condos, and maybe there is residential activity happening there or not. So that's kind of how we got to this.

And to add on that just a little bit too, in most of our residential districts They are very restrictive about the, the size of the garage compared to the size of the dwelling unit. So this was a way for us to provide an avenue towards building something that seems to be popular in other parts of the U.S. that we don't have a lot of land available for here in the Bowl at the moment.

Commissioner Krishna. Could you speak a little bit to the overall thinking on relocatable dwelling units and relocatable dwelling unit communities? And I'm guessing that that's a synonym for what's called on page 20 in our table a manufactured home community.

Through the chair, yeah, I think the table— I believe you're referring to the really small font table, is that right? Yeah, so the, the manufactured dwelling units, manufactured dwelling community, those are renamed with a recent ordinance. I think maybe this might have started before that renaming. Happened, so that table just didn't get updated, or it might have been done from—. That's correct.

This actually started before that AO passed, and one, I think, one recommendation that the planning department might make to the assembly— and Daniel, jump in if I'm getting this wrong— but I think we had suggested to the sponsor that if we didn't discuss it here, that we would suggest updating this AO to match the more recent relocatable dwelling unit AO and allow relocatables in B-3 as a permitted use. So this— that would be an amendment, I think, to what you actually have in front of you, and that would not—. In our packet it says this, it would be Permitted. Okay, then never mind.

I guess I'm asking if you could speak a little bit more about the reasoning behind that.

Behind allowing it in, in this? Yeah, it's been, you know, we've, we've seen it come up in multiple ordinances over the last few years. I guess I'm looking for the larger trend towards It sounds like it's part of this larger effort to allow every single type of housing that's allowable in the municipality in within B3 specifically. Is that correct? Yes, yes, that's correct.

Yeah, and if I could build on that through the chair, so the, the muni has been doing a lot of work on thinking about modular housing and manufactured housing, and there's a lot of work across the state actually looking at that. When a couple years ago we applied for the HUD Home Pro or Housing Pro grant, and our project was we wanted to figure out if, if we could figure out a way to value engineer modular homes and then make it a lot easier to site them. And so throughout those processes, often the municipalities come up with sites like, well, there's a good site and somebody has a B3 site, they want to try it. So yeah, it really is sort of looking for the places, trying to allow as many opportunities as possible where it might make sense.

Yeah, because these days, I think the modular home or the manufactured home or the relocatable dwelling of the future will probably look a little bit different, I think, from what we've seen in the past with the sort of HUD standard from 1976.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Chair, if I could make a quick comment. Sure. Sorry to interrupt. I—.

So I'm looking in, um, let's see, I'm looking in the draft and I'm looking at the use table in Section 3— excuse me, the dimensional standards table in Section 3. I think there might be an error in here because I'm also looking at the existing code, and if I could, I'll bring that up.

And so I wanted to bring that to the attention of the Commission so you can make a decision about it. So this is the existing code.

Okay, let me just check the date on this. April 15, 2026. Yeah, so the existing code, it doesn't have the max number of principal structures in a lot, and the side setback requirements a little bit different. So I'm wondering if some pieces of the deleted text might have gotten removed from this. So I, I guess, and I'm sorry for making it more complicated, but I would bring it to your attention just to be aware of what this code says now and what's shown as deleted or not deleted is slightly different in this.

I think the intent is still, at least from what we brought forward, is to remove restrictions, but the code itself may— might be slightly different, and I don't know if this AO shows those deletions. For example, side setback in B-3 General Business currently says 5+1 foot for each 5 feet in height. Exceeding 35 feet in height. On this, on this page, we don't see that. It just says 5.

So that's our omission and our error. And then the other piece about max number of principal structures, not a lot. As you see here on the, the official version, there is no column. I think that column for max number of principal structures is only on up to the residential zones, the R zones, and then you get down into the Bs and the, and the ROs and MCs, and it— I don't think it has. Those.

So I don't know if, Lori, if there's a procedural piece there or if you want to address those or if you have any questions I could answer.

My question is, I think you need to clarify for the Commission what staff intends for us to vote on, what you would like us to— would you like us to make a motion to amend Section 3 table. I think that's the table we're talking about. Yeah, our— so our proposal, and this again is on page 10 of 40 of this packet, Section 3, it's sort of starting at line 10. Our proposal would be to make the amendment so it appears as in this table, even though— and then also include the deleted text that should be deleted. Now you don't have to take that if you don't want, but So the change there would be saying this, this current version is not showing that this side making, um, all of the uses and residential uses to a 5-foot setback.

That would be a change from existing code. So I guess I can zoom in here. So as you see here, it'd be basically putting this in brackets. So the motion might be to, um, use the dimensional standards as shown in this table if you like them., and then correct the ordinance to show the, the proposed deleted text. And then I think this column here of— on here that says max number of principal structures per lot, I don't see that in the existing, and I'm assuming this is the correct Title 21 online.

So just to clarify, staff's recommendation would be to amend the current Section 3 in our packet to match the current code setbacks, correct? It would be to add in the text that we've proposed to be deleted but sort of omitted, showing that. Yes. Yeah, so staff's proposal is for us to change Section 3 to match current code setbacks, right? To change Section 3 to match current code and then make the amendments that would make the dimensional standards look like they do in the packet as it is.

So instead of, for example, a long way with saying instead of residential household living uses just being 5 side setback, we would propose deleting 5 plus 1 foot for each 5 feet in height exceeding 35 feet and setting it to 5. Or we could come back and whatever's easiest for you. Honestly, the easiest thing would be for me to open public testimony and somebody from Staff, write that down really fast and give it to Lori.

Okay, let's hear from the public.

Anybody wish to testify, please step forward.

Hearing, seeing none.

Um, staff rebuttal.

Yeah, I think so. I mean, I don't get to make motions, but that would be my recommendation. One and done.

I'd like to make a suggestion about the, uh, the edit that we just discussed. Sure. Um, I would suggest that the commission just address address the proposed change, which would be the proposal to delete the extra requirement for 5 feet in height exceeding 35 feet, and just address whether or not you support that in your findings or your comments for this particular vote, and then also direct staff to correct the table in the AO so that it matches the current code. That would be easier.

And I can show you on the screen so everybody can see what it should look like in about 90 seconds.

Hey, we have a motion.

Sharon, would you like to state your motion?

I move in case 2026 -0035 to recommend the Anchorage Assembly approval of an ordinance amending Title 21 to permit shophouses in the Anchorage Bowl. Seconded by Commissioner Baza. Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state— speak to your motion? Thank you, Chair. I intend to support the motion, um, and would direct staff to correct the table in Section 3 as discussed this evening.

Um, a few findings, um, as we are tonight, uh, this is a companion ordinance intended to incentivize, um, development in the B-3 district in a way that is more flexible to help achieve Anchorage's housing goals.

We did not hear tonight any public testimony in opposition to the proposed ordinance.

We received one comment from a member of the public included in the staff packet, highly supportive of the proposed changes.

With that, I intend to support the motion. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Commissioner Krishna. I have one clarifying question that may potentially lead to an amendment, if you'll allow me to ask a question to staff. Ask away.

All right, so if I'm understanding the intent of this correctly, it's the shop house allow— falls under mixed use, and that's why we're amending the definition of mixed-use development.

That's correct. Okay, um, so what— so just to clarify before I make my motion, removing— making a— making an amendment to remove single-family detached dwellings as permitted uses within B-3 would not be contrary to the intent of expanding the uses of shophouses in this District. Through the Chair, I think that would run contrary to the intent of allowing for the shophouse. The thinking was that at first it was kind of attached single-family and then detached sort of became part of that. But I think it was also allowing for small lots— small lot development of single-family.

So—. That need not include, uh, commercial use. Sorry, that did not include in commercial use? Yes, because if I'm reading this correctly, um, the change definition of— on page 9, um, mixed-use development is defined as one or more dwellings in the same A dwelling that is located on the same lot or in the same building as a non-residential use. So a single-family home that has a shop, shop on the same lot falls under mixed-use development, not under single-family.

Well, so I think the way we put it was that a single-family with a large garage is just a single-family with a large garage. And other— in other districts, there's specific standards about garages where you can't have such large garages. So the thing was, if people really want a single family with a huge garage, they could maybe do it in B-3 and figure out a way to do it. So I guess that wouldn't be considered a mixed use. It would not be a mixed use.

Yeah, just the shop houses. That was, that was the alternative is do we create a new use type for shop house? And then the more we talked through it, we thought, you know, shop house is really just a single family with a big garage. So that was the other way to do it, create a new use and then have it figure out which zones it should go in or shouldn't go in. And then we looked like— and B-3 doesn't have those restrictions on garages already, and so it was just a matter of connecting that big garage to a living unit.

All right, I think I understand now. And through the chair to Commissioner Krishna, if I can add one more thing. The— I think the intent of this AO also evolved a little bit since it was originally titled. Um, the sponsor, um, Member Brawley started with the idea of promoting a specific type of dwelling unit in B-3, but then through discussions with her and internal to staff, we decided to propose other changes to the AO that supported all kinds of housing in B-3. So it doesn't quite match the title anymore, Um, but that was the intent behind that particular change.

Thank you.

I'm not able to make any motions, but I would just throw it out there, we could rename it the carrot.

Okay, anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

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

That motion passes.

Okay, can I please have a motion to reopen the public hearing on Case 2026-0036?

That's moved by Commissioner Krishna, seconded by Commissioner Pullis.

Any discussion? Any objection? Hearing none, motion passes. May we please have a staff presentation on Case 2026-0036?

Hello everyone, Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Reach Planning. This is PCC Case 2026-0036. Updating the Wetlands Management Plan. This is Phase 1, it's kind of Phase 1.5 at this point. So this is about the wetlands that the Anchorage municipality has jurisdiction to manage and regulate.

Anchorage has a lot of wetlands, it has both federal wetlands and local wetlands. This— we, through the zoning power, have power to regulate the local wetlands even if the federal says they're not. And so this is a discussion on on the plan that is both the policy guidance and the regulatory tool to manage those. So what problems are we trying to solve? Wetlands permitting is not clear in Anchorage.

Regulatory landscape has changed. There was the loss of the municipality's general permit in 2021, and then the Sackett decision at federal Supreme Court in 2023. The Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan is very specific about who can implement and really only says that we in Long Range can implement. And there are other sections of the municipality that have more expertise on this than we do. The Anchorage— the wetlands management plan is set up to be both policy guidance and regulatory, and they should be separated out.

And the wetlands plan is out of date. The mapping is out of date, and map changes require assembly review and approval. So that's kind of the main thing that changed since we went through the work session, is just allowing the municipality to make updates to its wetlands map without going through the much longer process.

Let's see, this is a lot of sort of historical context, but basically the wetlands plan was adopted in 2014. The 2014 plan built on plans that came from before that. In 2021, the municipality did not get their general permit reviewed. The general permit allowed us to issue permits for C-class wetlands if they were federal wetlands. So then it put everybody in this weird situation where If it was a wetland, you always had to go to the Corps and determine— the Corps didn't have as much staff, and so we sort of hit a bit of a backlog.

And then in 2023, Supreme Court decision Sackett v. EPA narrowed which wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. So it used to be you could have a pond or something, and if the federal government said it was a wetland, it was probably a wetland. The Sackett decision really said that you have to be connected to the waters of the United States, so maybe a stream or something, and that gets sort of legislated over, adjudicated a little bit. But so it meant that if you have a wetland and it's not connected to an ocean, basically it may not be a wetland for the federal government. But again, the federal government still makes the jurisdiction about what is their federal government federal wetland or not.

Um, so the plan overview— the plan is sort of policy guidance and enforceable policies and specific actions for wetlands. So right now we have these sort of general ideas of how we're supposed to deal with wetlands and anchorage, but then also very specific guidance and rules about what can or can't happen there. So if you come into the municipality, you say, I'd like to build here, we say, well, that's mapped as a wetland on our mapping tool, and it's map number— it's wetland number 164. Then we go into the wetlands plan and it says for 164 you need to do A, B, and C. Sometimes it's really specific, sometimes really broad. So this is This is something else we'd like to update in the future.

Here's some specifics. Maybe you can't see on the screen, but basically, you find the wetland unit, 60 South, and it tells you development of the parcel may consider directing surface water runoff to Clapp Bog or other measures. And so it gives some specifics, but not really. So as regulators and also sort of implementers, it's really difficult to do this. Long-term, we are looking to update the way we manage wetlands so we can manage them safely, we can manage them effectively, we can use them because they do provide a great benefit to our community, but we can also provide certainty to people who are building in, in the urbanized area.

So issues with the existing plan: the framework relies on the MOA still holding the US Army Corps general permit, the plans both regulatory and policy, plan specific about which divisions of the MOA can enforce, and the regulatory maps are out of date. Timeline, we had initial discussion at the May 11th meeting, PCC meeting. We had a work session on June 8th. We discussed this last week at the July 8th, 2026 Watershed and Natural Resources Commission meeting. And Michael, if you want to jump in, how did they receive that?

I think they were pretty favorable about this. They're pretty excited about it. They love the flowchart that Paula France put together. And then we have a second session today for decision. So proposal for this case: make needed functional changes, change the language to allow MOA staff to update the new wetlands map— excuse me, update the wetlands map without assembly approval.

So that doesn't mean we just change the map whenever we want, but it would be as verified and approved and information becomes available. So if somebody comes in and they're, you know, a certified— and we haven't, I don't think, quite figured out what certification would be engineering firm or engineering water professional firm, and they say, yeah, we've done this delineation, it makes sense, and it meets the core standards, then we can go through the process and just update the map and then establish an in-house flowchart for reference, mostly for the public. With that, be glad to answer any questions anybody may have.

Commissioner Pullis. Yes. The questions on page 35 of 51 from Paula France, can you just kind of quickly go through those and note whether you guys think you addressed those or not? I don't need a lot of detail, just yes, no, that kind of thing. Let us know if there's any hanging out you couldn't deal with.

Sorry, did you say 25 of 51? 35 Of 51. Paul's final kind of comments.

Did we address all those the best we could?

Yeah, through the chair, we've worked really closely with Paul and Steve and CJ and Greg Soule. So I believe we've hit all these. We did talk to Paul this afternoon, and I think everybody's on the same page with that. Michael, can you confirm that? Paul's seen all this and we've gone through it.

This, I think, is from April 17th, and so we've had a lot of meetings with them since. Yes, we developed this particular case working closely with development services. Lately they have also been joining us at the commission to follow it very closely.

Yeah, so if anybody has any questions about that too, recommend watching the July 8th Watershed Natural Resource Commission. Paul was there and I think CJ was there as well. So we're— this has really been a pretty collaborative project. They were a little surprised at first. They didn't quite know what was going on.

We had a couple of sit-downs and everybody felt a lot better. Can I ask one more quick question? Who's the phone number now?

The phone number still remains, um, Greg Suley, the Development Services Director.

Commissioner Aran. MR. BOLL] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Staff, I'm interested in on page 8 of 51 of the staff packet, exemption to wetlands map amendment, Section A, line 15. I'll give everybody a minute to flip there.

Again, page 8.

Proposed language, wetland delineation prepared by a qualified professional, da da da da da. Not more than 5 years ago. Can you help me understand the basis of the 5 years statement? Is it scientifically founded in wetland science, or is it arbitrarily selected, or other? Michael, do you— I'm thinking that we probably just picked 5 years.

I mean, we have something sometimes in— we require an as-built that's no more than 2 years. But Michael, is that Do we have any more specifics on that number? We chose 5 years to make what the Corps of Engineers uses. So every delineation according to the Corps of Engineers is valid for 5 years. And so we set that as the standard for this amendment.

Any other questions for staff?

So were any other amendments made made since the original introduction or any?

The major amendment will be Section 4 of the packet, which is on page 8 of 51. I think the concerns from the first meeting was about the substance of the AO draft itself, and so we thought putting in Section 4 would really give the AO some substance.

Seeing no more questions for staff, we will ask for public testimony since we have reopened the public hearing. Hearing, seeing none. Ask for staff if you have any rebuttal.

See none.

We'll close the public hearing.

Uh, what is the will of the body?

There is still time for questions for staff if you're not ready to make the motion.

Uh, Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0036 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan Update Phase 1.

That's seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I intend to support the motion. Um, the proposed revisions reflect responses to comments received from municipal regulatory staff who will enforce it. Um, the revisions clarify who at the The municipality is responsible to complete wetland regulatory review process.

Having a method in place to modify wetland boundaries is an important development process that needs to be managed by qualified individuals. We also heard no public opposition to the wetland management plan revisions.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

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

Okay, Title 21 Discussion. How is the Commission feeling about hearing from the department on their work plan? Would we like to do that this evening, or would we like to not do that?

Uh, I'm hearing that the next This meeting has 8 cases. Was it in our packet?

No, it was not in our packet. It only has 3 cases, but you have some cases in August, and you have a number of cases in August.

If— let's just say we said yes, we wanted to hear it, how long would it take How about 5 minutes? Okay, I'll distribute whatever we've gotten. Commissioner Rahn, what are you thinking?

I'm thinking I'm here in 5 minutes. I'd like to learn about the work plan. All right, let's, let's have the work plan.

I'll just add that the last meeting was over in 30 minutes.

Would have been a perfect time to discuss the work plan.

Okay, Daniel McEntee Foster, Long Range Planning. We'll do this very quickly. This is just sort of the second half of 2026, looking at, um, some things we've all accomplished together and the things we have coming up. Um, you see the July cases. In August, you, you're probably going to have a number of current planning cases.

You'll have unit lot subdivision, which we were supposed to look at this month but got postponed. So it looks like you have at least 3 current cases in August, on August 3rd, and then you've got maybe 3 more on August 10th. Uh, oh, 4 more on August 10th. And then in September we have some changes to the Parks and Recreation zoning category, just like allowing Parks and Rec to do some of the stuff they're already doing, like selling tree plugs, and maybe, um, it's something like school activities or something like that. We might have the CSS process, the context-sensitive solution street review updates potentially, and then looking at the Tozier tract land use plan designation.

That is a case, so we looked at the future land use designation of that a couple months ago with the case that just went through the assembly, and we're going to look at that again. Um, in October we might be looking at some R2M edits. We're looking at another omnibus, and we're also trying to get rid of old Title 21. So you all just did— we did that legacy rezone, getting rid of TR and B-4 and D-2, but there's still a few pieces of Title 21 that say you have to go back, and if you do a project in certain areas, you have to follow the code as it was in 2014. And we're trying to just make it so if you have an industrial district but it has to go back to that 2014, it just allows us to implement or to use the 2026 industrial district.

So we're still working out how to do that. Um, Michael, it might have some district neighborhood plan hazard mitigation stuff incorporation. Um, that's just sort of looking at what different areas can do for hazard mitigation. That's a, uh, one of our state grants. We'll be looking at some capital improvements project stuff, um, including with the school district.

And then, um, the recreational trails plan may be coming in November if it— if they decide to make it a component of the comprehensive plan. And then maybe some childcare uses, um, in November. So that's pretty exciting. Midtown Plan, it's going to come back eventually, hopefully, change to child care, I think November. South Addition has been working on a plan for about 10 years, and we're waiting for them to bring it forward so we can— if they want to incorporate that into the Comprehensive Plan.

Some other stuff, we've been working with other divisions about, you know, the school district and site designs and, and how kids get to school. Official Streets and Highways Plan, major update, we're almost getting that RFP out. Wetlands Plan, Management Plan, major update. So we just looked at Phase 1. Phase 2 will be coming in the next 6 months, hopefully, or at least we'll start talking about it.

We're trying to update all PCC materials to get to be searchable PDFs. That's something we're really excited about. Probably going to see more abbreviated rezones. I think we have 18 so far. We're expecting more.

So we're looking at that, and we're looking at where, especially with R-5. So R-5 is a zone that's actually not even called out in 2040 Land Use Plan. Wasn't expected to implement anything. I think it was expected to kind of go away. So we're looking at going out to the community councils where they have the most R-5 and just explaining, if they see more abbreviated rezones, what it looks like, why, you know, because a lot of these— it was always expected that R-5 was going to change, and so we want to just sort of help people understand how that process works.

Um, 10-year Targeted Comprehensive Plan update, we're looking at a sort of third-party review of our process to make sure that somebody with some fresh eyes who also knows Alaska can look at that. And then the Design Criteria Manual updates depends on PM&E, but that will be coming. So we're collaborating a lot with PM&E on that. So that's pretty much it. Glad to answer any questions, or if you have any questions, we can bring them back for next time.

Thank you.

Any questions?

I see no questions. Thank you for the work plan.

Any Commissioner comments?

Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Chair.

Reflecting on a comment that staff made in a case tonight about the respective role of the streets and highways plan and management of land use with respect to access, using that as a tool, um, relative to the role that management of zoning plays in that space, and trying to put words to this.

I guess I have concern based on the way that I interpreted the comment that there may be a deflection of responsibility away from zoning in that space and fully to transportation planning. And I guess I would caution— raise caution if in fact that's the movement that's that's being taken.

I could provide some background or I could just take that under advisement. A quick response if you have one ready, sure. Yeah, thank you. That's a big question that we've been talking about for many years. I think the thing, you know, one of the first cases I worked on was R-4A, the R-4A zone, and R-4A was really trying to figure out about how to use zoning to create great spaces and great public places.

And every developer we talked to who wanted to do the kind of walkable, mixed-use density, that kind of stuff, they bristled at sort of every single requirement we did about like, don't put parking between the street and the building. Or we want nicer facades against the building. And so that really got us thinking more about if you want a walkable environment or a different transportation environment, you have to focus on where that activity exists, or at least that's going to be more effective. Really, you have to do them both together, right? So, um, and then I think also we saw with site access, if you remember site access that came through in 2022, a lot of that was trying to control how people, uh, traveled based on what happened where in all the places they weren't traveling.

And that became really complicated and problematic. Um, they do have to work together, right? It's like the width of a driveway affects how you interact with a building, how much parking you have in front of a building. But then we have the practical realities like we saw tonight of the way transportation behavior is right now. And so we were sort of— a lot of us went to this NACTO conference, which is the National Association of Transportation Officials or something.

And they were from PM&E, from capital improvements. And we came back kind of energized to look at how we can think about using the, you know, treating the right-of-way as a public asset and really achieving the goals of municipality also in the right-of-way, also in zoning. So some of that is like in zoning we need maybe to let up a little bit because the site access project was not very successful, I think we can say. I mean, it took a year, it was immediately very unpopular, the municipality or the assembly put a moratorium on it. That approach didn't seem to work, but we still have problems in the road.

So We're really trying to get to, let's work closer together with the way we design the roads. So that's on the DCM and also on the way we plan the roads, which is OSH&P. And that's a component of the Comprehensive Plan. So that's an interesting piece that in OSH&P comes through planning, DCM goes through PM&E. We're hoping we can be working on both those things together.

So, um, yeah, I absolutely— it's a, it's a difficult question and it's going to take, um, a sort of a creativity for Anchorage, and Anchorage sort of growing a little bit, the department's growing and learning together. But it is something. It's not that we're trying to move away from that responsibility or give that up as a priority, because if you look in our long-range transportation strategy, the first few pages are people, you know, the community, the public have been talking about a different transportation environment for decades. And that still seems to ring true. And I think we see that even— I was reading the state transportation plan.

People are asking for something different. So that's on our mind, and now we're just really trying to get to whatever works, right? I'll leave you with one final thing is something that came out of Site Access was moving away from requiring sidewalks everywhere, which looks like a big flashing siren, moving away from walkability. But what we got to was that we might actually— at first, these smaller streets, it's pretty expensive to put in a sidewalk. Maybe we just treat that West Street truly is a place where multiple users really do have a right to be there.

And that's a bit of a philosophy shift too. So there are a lot of these discussions going on. And I think when you see the OSH&P information come out, you'll see it's really looking at things a little bit differently. But I think in the past, we spent too much time maybe looking at zoning as a way to control travel behavior. And that produced some bad impacts.

And now maybe we'll focus a little bit on a more balanced approach, you might say. Thank you.

Any other questions or Commissioner comments?

Hearing and seeing none, Director Babb. I just wanted to thank the Commission for hearing the wetland plan proposal again. I know that it was a little bit rocky to start with, and I appreciate the time that you spent in the work session and in allowing us to come back with this proposal to the commission. So thank you very much for that.

And with that, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Moved and seconded. Any objection? Hearing none, we're.