Anchorage Assembly: Planning and Zoning Commission - June 8, 2026 - 2026-06-08 18:30:00

Yes, sure. Okay, we will call the June 8th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. May we have the roll call, please? Andres Benelli. Here.

Jared Gardner. Here. Scott Pullis. Jeff Rahn. Here.

Amma Abbaza. Here. Megan Mills. Here. Edith McKee.

Here. Radhika Krishna and Brandy Ebert are excused. You have a quorum. Thank you.

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

Hearing and seeing none, we will move on to the public comment period. Public hearings, and I will read the process by which the public may speak to the Commission.

After staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the Chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission rules 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 2103-005 2103-050. Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable.

Following approval of the written finding of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 2103-050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, The appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

May we please have the staff presentation on case 2026-0063?

Thank you, Chair. This is a request initiated by the property owner to amend the zoning map for 3 parcels of land containing 1. 6.3 Acres. They want to rezone from Chugiak/Eagle River RO residential office with special limitations per Assembly Ordinance 85-198 to, uh, CER3. That's a multi-family residential district.

Um, those, uh, special limitations from 1985 are found on pages 15 and 16 of your packet. Uh, the department finds that the 3 approval criteria for approval of a rezoning are met and is recommending approval of the rezoning, and a draft assembly ordinance is enclosed on page 6 of your packet. I'd be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant's representative is here as well. Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff?

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Jonathan Lang of Lang and Associates Professional Land Surveyors. I'm here as a representative of the Petitioners: Shane and Amber Toms and Extreme Heating and Air. Thank you for considering this request. We agree with the staff's recommendation to approve this petition to remove the special limitations.

These special limitations were enacted in 1985, and as you are well aware, Title 21 has changed substantially since back then. Removing the SL will remove the— primarily remove the requirement to install several hundred feet of landscaping along the north property line, which will be a pretty big expense. I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal if necessary. Thank you for your time, and I am available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

You have 9 minutes and 19 seconds. Are there any questions for the petitioner?

I see no questions. Thank you. Now we will hear from the public. Anybody from the public wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

Is it going once, going twice? Appears nobody from the public wishes to testify. Do you want to use your time? With that, we'll close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state your motion? Thank you, Chair. I move in case 2026-0063 to recommend the Anchorage Assembly approval of the request to rezone 3 parcels of land from CEROSL, residential office space, with special limitations to CER3, Multifamily Residential District. That is seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Rahn, would you like to speak to your motion?

Uh, thank you, Chair. I concur with staff's findings that all three criterion are met, A, B, and C, on pages 3 and 4 of the staff packet. And we did not hear any public testimony in opposition to the proposed Action tonight. Thanks. I intend to support the motion.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Uh, hearing, seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes. Moving on, next item. May we please have the staff presentation for case 2026-0064?

Thank you, Chair. This is a request for a design variance from— to allow an accessory garage to exceed the gross, uh, the gross floor area of the principal single-family residential residence, 21507 Twin Peaks Drive in Chugiak. The 1,426 square foot detached garage exceeds the gross floor area of the principal residence by 235 feet, an average of 19.7%. The property is zoned CE-R12SL, low-density residential, alpine slope, and is 4.6 acres in size. The building permit for the living area was submitted in 2019, followed by the garage permit in 2023, which is designed as a designated as a child permit on the main permit.

A total of 79 public hearing notices were mailed in accordance with the procedures in Title 21. Neighbors of Lots 5 and 8 provided formal letter of support for the variance. The reviewing agents expressed no objections, and the Chugiak/Eagle River Advisory Board and Chugiak Community Council provided no comments regarding this case. The department found criteria A and C are partially met, and criteria B and D through H are met. Therefore, the department recommends denial of the design variance.

The two criteria found to be only partially met are: A, the proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design standards to the same or better agree that the subject standards, and C, the proposed alternative results in benefits for the community that are equivalent or to or better than compliance with the subject standards. If after the public hearing the Board finds that all 8 standards are substantially met, including criteria A and C, the Department requests approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Um, are there any questions for staff? Commissioner Gardner.

Thank you. Um, I guess a general question about the context of this application. I don't have a good sense of what it means to I'm looking for the language— to kind of close the open building permit. And I don't know if the R-19 designation for the permit suggests that that was from 2019. Can you give me a sense of the timeline and what closing it out means in practice now, 7 years after the fact?

So when, uh, when he applied for the permit in 2019, so that was only for the house. I The petitioner can explain when actually the garage was built, is uncertain, but in 2023 he applied for the, for the garage. So I don't know between 2023 and 2019 when the garage was built. And so that's why we call the 2023 like a child permit because it is under the main permit. So for him to close the permit He need actually be— this variance need to be approved for him to permit the garage so he can close the permit, the original one from 2019.

Did I explain? Yeah, I have another question unrelated, much more specific and technical. Um, I saw in the application that it said that the lot was 70— or sorry, not 70, 4.7— 45 times the minimum lot size in this district. And I was trying to get a sense of how it did compare to the minimum lot size. I didn't see anything that looked like it would be 45 times, but I was wondering if you know what the number is or if that's correct.

We are looking right now on the computer.

We're just going to tell you the minimum size. It's just, as I said, it's on a CR-10, and we're looking right now for the Um, so, uh, Commissioner Gardner threw the chart. So this is in the, um, CR-10, so that's Chugiak Eagle River R-10 zoning district. Um, the R-10 is the low-density residential, um, alpine slope district. So the minimum lot size requirement for that zoning district varies based on the slope.

Based upon the slope. Um, so I can, I can look that up very quickly. Uh, there's just one other reference where there's like a short little table that tells you the minimum lot size based upon the slope. If I'm trying to recall from memory, I, I think it's like it ranges between 1 and 4 acres, I want to say. Don't, don't quote me without me looking at the text citation, but that, that's about it.

That's fine. I think I saw the table. I wasn't sure it was in the right spot, but I see 1.25 is the smallest, and it goes up to 7.5 in what looks like a pretty extreme slope. Yes, that, that sounds correct to me. Yeah.

And, um, I guess the only other thing I'll note to answer— to probably try to answer your question is the, the petitioner, I believe, was in the application, and we noted in the staff report was that this is a, a very large lot, and the— so the, the overage might not be as noticeable because it's such a large lot.

The lot also appears to be very flat in the pictures.

Any more questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will invite the petitioner up.

Uh, you gotta first turn the mic on until you see a green light. There should be a button somewhere. There you go. There we go. Good evening, everyone.

Please state your name. I'm Derek Lampert. I'm the owner and the builder. So if, uh, about 2 years ago when I submit— or excuse me, 3 years ago, I applied for the permit for the garage. It was an amendment to the original the permit for the house.

I didn't build a garage prior to that, so I went through the proper channels and got the garage design approved. Unfortunately, during the building process, I made a couple of layout choices that compounded and resulted into this 235-square-foot overage. So that's what I'm here seeking a design variance for. I had no ill intent. It was simply a mistake that compounded.

If—. I mean, to be frank, if you can look at the pictures, my house is barely visible from the road. The lot's 4.5 acres in size, and if you were to approach the house, no one would ever be able to tell. So in my estimate, I mean, I will admit that I am in violation of the code, but I think in the spirit of the code, which is in my estimation to maintain the aesthetic of our city and the neighborhood. I don't think I'm in violation, at least in that regard.

So I guess I'll reserve the rest of my time. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Commissioner Rahn has a question.

Thank you, through the chair. I appreciate how you've approached your presentation tonight and talking us through how it came to be. I'm curious, um, if this specific limitation were not in place, would you have built a larger garage on your property? To be frank, I wish I'd built a bigger house in the first place. Uh, my intent was to match the size of the house.

Uh, I— looking back, I had to kind of recreate what happened, uh, after the design was approved. I had chosen then to what— how I was going to build it, and I decided to use ICF Nodura brand ICFs. Well, those are extremely thick. They're about 16 inches in width by the time you get all the finishes on. And then in a mistake, I built on the exterior of the layout line instead of the interior of the layout line.

And when you do the math, that comes out to almost exactly 235 square feet. So this— that is, I think, what happened looking back. I was not aware that I was in violation until I went to close the permit last summer. Uh, Commissioner McKee, thank you. Um, through the chair, I have a question.

One of the conditions if the variance were approved was to construct a driveway that's compliant for fire turnaround. Do you have any concerns about being able to meet that condition if the variance were granted? No, and when I went to close the permit last year, I spoke with a fire department representative and they have already approved what I've done. Thank you. On the asphalt.

Thank you. Thank you.

I see no further questions. We'll now invite members of the public to test— up to testify? Anybody from the public wishing to testify on this matter?

All righty, we're going to close the public hearing.

Um, we have staff in the queue. Do you have something to add?

Uh, yes. Okay, go ahead. Sorry about that. Thank you, Chair. So, uh, he mentioned that he already got the approval from the fire department.

Uh, I just— he needed to go back and talk to the fire department because, like, uh, this design has been shown to the fire department and these comments is from last week from the fire department. So it is a condition of approve for this, if in case you approved. So he needs to get an approval from the fire department. Okay, just want to let you know. Thank you.

Very good. I will— I will see what the commission decides to do. Uh, Commissioner McKee. I had a follow-on question for staff. Is it okay for me to ask it now, or should I wait?

Yes. Okay. Um, in the packet, it, it kind of— it says that if we don't grant the variance, then the expectation would be they would have to demolish part of the garage. Yes, demolish portion to get the permit approved, the project approved. Yes.

Thank you. Just add another option would be to expand the size of the house. That was my other question.

Yes. And I had one other point of information, if that's okay, Chair. Um, it was just, uh, because there's the question on the, um, the minimum lot size, and then, uh, there's also a question of the petitioner about the special limitation. So I just, I pulled up the, the ordinance, uh, 86-14, 4-3, so that's the special limitation. So, there— the special limitations do actually include a minimum lot area.

It's, it's still a larger lot size, but the overall point was just the special limitations did not affect the size of this garage, basically. So, it's, it's more just the regular rule in code that is affecting the need for this variance because, uh, because the garage exceeds the size of the single-family dwelling unit. Um, so that's all, just because I know we've been talking about special limitations a lot lately. Thank you. I'll just follow up with one quick question.

If the garage was not garage space but considered, uh, I don't know, gym, home gym, some type of living space. Would, would we still exceed the code allowed size? Is the code because it's an accessory use, or is it because it's an accessory structure? Chair Spinelli, it— if this was, say, a gym, but it was still like in it, it was still in an accessory garage, then, then yes, it would still be in violation. So it doesn't, doesn't really matter how he's using accessory garage.

It's more that the, the structure of the accessory garage is larger than the, than the living area of the residence. I suppose if you're talking about like square footage of, oh, what if we're counting the like living area above the garage? I suppose maybe that's a different question, but it's, it's really the structure, not the use. That's the issue. Yeah, I guess that was my question.

Is the code that prohibits the size of this garage directly related to accessory structure versus accessory use. Uh, Chair Spinelli, accessory structure. Thank you. Uh, and then Elizabeth, are you in the queue still? Oh, uh, no, I— okay, I'm removed now.

Thank you. All right. Um, with that, we will close the public hearing. Or the petitioner, you still have time for rebuttal before I close the public hearing. Would you like to use your time for rebuttal?

All right, the petitioner yields their rebuttal time. We'll close the public hearing. What's the will of the body?

Commissioner McKee. I move in case 2026-0064 to approve the request for design variance from AMC 2105070.D.9.7 to allow an accessory garage to exceed the gross floor area of the principal residence, subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of the staff report.

Uh, that is seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner McKee, would you like to speak to your motion, please? Um, I intend to support the design variance. I think the, um, the conditions are met. I think, uh, Criteria A, that the proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design standards to the same or better degree than the subject standard.

I think due to the significant size of the lot that the, the accessory, the garage, does not dominate the residential lot. I also think it's consistent with the rural lifestyle of the district and does not visually dominate the property. Um, the other criterion, Criterion C, that says the proposed alternative results in a benefit to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with subject standard. I feel that this criterion is significantly met and that having an enclosed garage structure so that your recreational equipment, vehicles, and other things that we all like to store in our garages is in an enclosed structure versus open to public view, I think that that is a— it is a betterment and in compliance with the standard. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner McKee. That— anybody else? Commissioner Gardner. Oh, sorry. Thanks.

Um, I intend to support the motion as well. I'll just note, um, in addition, we didn't receive any public testimony this evening, but there were 2 letters included with the application from what I take to be neighbors., supporting the requested variance, and as well that there are photos that I think further emphasize both how the property, including the garage, is offset, not easily visible or at all visible maybe from the road, and that when facing both structures, the garage, um, looks much smaller than the house the way that they're oriented.

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

Hearing and seeing none, call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next item on the agenda, Case 2026-0065. May we please have the staff presentation? Thank you, Chair. This is a rezone request initiated by the owner to amend the zoning map for one lot from CEB-3 SL General Business District with special limitations to CEB-3 General Business District, uh, without a special limitation. The special limitations are outlined in AO-2002-129 in pages 15 through 18 of your packet.

The department received 2 public comments against the rezone. The department received no review agency comments in opposition. The Eagle River Community Council received notice and did not comment. The department finds the rezone request meets all 3 approval criteria for an abbreviated rezone. And therefore recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission provide an approval recommendation for the rezone to CEB3 to the assembly.

I am available for questions of staff, and the owner and his representative, I believe, are here to speak on the petitioner's behalf. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?

Hearing, seeing none, we'll invite the petitioner up for their presentation.

Good evening again. I'm still Jonathan Lang from Lang and Associates Professional Land Surveyors. I am here as the representative of the petitioners, Mr. Dale Wahlberg and Blythe LLC, who have owned and operated Mile 5.2 Greenhouse on the property for more than 20 years. The special limitations require a minimum of 13 dwelling units be constructed on the property. It's 12 dwelling units per acre, and the property is just big enough that it would require 13 at a minimum.

Removing the special limitations will allow a lower density residential development to proceed on the property. Thank you for considering this request. We agree with staff's recommendation of approving the petition to remove the special limitations, and I would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal, if necessary. Thank you for your time. I'm available to answer questions if you have any.

Are there any questions? I see none. Oh, nope. Commissioner Gardner. Sorry, thanks.

Um, one of your comments got to a question I was curious about, so I figured I would just ask it since it fit well. You mentioned that it would— that removing the special limitations would allow building a lower density than would otherwise be required. Were there other special limitations that you were aware of? I'm not—. Sorry, not lowered—.

Well, yeah, lower kind of density. Were there other special limitations that would limit the intended new use of the property? So if you look at the special limitations, I believe it's right on page— sorry, let me jump ahead to page 15. 15 Here. I don't know that I've marked it.

I think they're— I assume accurately on pages 2 and 3 of the packet we received as well. I don't know if that's what you're looking at or your application.

Yeah, the—. If I could interject, it's page 15 of your packet, 15 through 18. The special limitations are listed under Section 2. So again, as you're well aware, Title 21 has gone through a lot of changes since this was rezoned in 2000, and a lot of what's here is kind of redundant or does not apply in the current zoning.

So part of this is cleaning that up, but the major concern was again the density because it is a minimum requirement based on the LSL, whereas rezoning will open that up. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

I see no further questions, so we will open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward. Uh, good evening, Commissioners and staff. My name is Heiner Leon. I am the northeast resident of the property here.

Pardon me, can you spell your name for the record? J-E-I-N-E-R First name, last name, Leon, L-E-O-N. And I would like to say that I already did some comments and those are on the ones that I provided on page 21. So I'm not sure if it's okay and you guys had a chance to read those comments, otherwise I can just read them for you out here. Go ahead. So I have concerns about removing special limitations, grading, leveling, compacting, and paving to hold a multifamily structure with parking space.

Will reduce the permeability of the soil and increase the runoff and load on the already compromised storm drain system. Just this past winter, groundwater overflowed on the corner of Santa Maria Drive and the Old Glen Highway, resulting in very icy conditions.

Actually, the ice conditions extended to the sidewalk and the Santa Maria Drive right lane and the Old Glen right lane. So driver— driving over these areas requires extreme caution and slows down during the inversion temperatures. Basically, it turns into a very slippery road and sidewalk. Also, adding any large structure in this property will increase the vehicular load of an already busy intersection. We're already seeing this happening now, so adding any other structure, I see just increasing the already strong vehicular load.

Reducing or removing the 20-foot vegetable easement on the northeast lot lines will result in loss of privacy for the residential properties. That's one of my— that's where my house is at, basically. And the height restriction of zoning designation will basically allow for a very tall structure that will result in obstructive views from the other properties and deprive them of sunlight, especially during the winter months.

Class A improvement area requires sidewalks. Santa Maria Drive is a narrow residential road with a steep grade and no sidewalk as of now. Added vehicular load traffic from commercial activities poses and increases the risk, uh, of, uh, pedestrians and residents. So, uh, yep, that's all I got. Thank you for your time.

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

Good afternoon, my name is Jeanette Navas. I am the owner of the residence that is the northeast on this lot area. I'm sorry, can you spell your name for the record also? Jeanette, G-I-N-N-E-T-T-E, Navas, N-A-V-A-S. —Nancy, Amy, Victor, Amy, Sam. Thank you.

Please continue. Okay, so keeping the special limitations in place works, is reasonable and important because the 20-foot setback from the northeast and east lot lines covered in bush and mature trees is a natural movement corridor for terrestrial wildlife. Moose use this pathway year-round to feed and have safe travel along the neighborhood of Santa Maria This buffer landscape is a windbreaker barrier, hides the electrical power lines, and serves as a physical, visual, and noise barrier to the traffic from coming from the Old Glen Highway. Chica-ri-ri, nut hatches, magpies, and Stellar jays nest and forage in this buffer landscape. Protecting these areas preserves their natural breeding and wintering ranges.

This property sits on a steep slope. Limiting the structure height to 30 feet, that it is right now, will continue to allow views and sun exposure to the other properties, especially during the long winter months. This property is limited to one driveway access. Maintaining the current traffic flow from Santa Maria Drive into the intersection of— will with Old Glen Highway preserves a dynamic vehicle flow that helps all the users get in and out smoothly during peak hours, especially during the wintertime when driving conditions are more challenging, and it also helps emergency vehicles get into the street rapidly.

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

Uh, last name Moore, M-O-O-R-E, first name Jim. I am a resident, uh Actually, I'm their neighbors, so I live in visual distance of the greenhouse. I've lived in that property for probably about 10 years, and the greenhouse is, is a location that I can look out in my backyard and I can see the greenhouse, and that's beautiful. I am concerned if there is no greenhouse there and there's a multi-unit living arrangement. Uh, it would take away the views, especially in the wintertime when the foliage is not blooming and there's leaves blocking the trees and whatnot.

But, uh, it is a bad traffic area currently trying to get out onto the Gunn Highway from that— that hill is pretty bad as it is. So my concern is traffic Is the plan for someone to put stoplights in, make some type of arrangements for the extended traffic that's going to come from the housing? Um, and there is water issues already, so what the plan would be for that is a concern because I am one of the citizens that did call the city to come out and fix the ice this winter. So I do hope that, that, that— there, to me, there seems like there's a lot of things that need to be resolved before there's a multi-unit complex built in our neighborhood. And if it happens, it happens.

I have seen rumors and reports that it could be up to 5 stories. They just built a new one behind the L House. It's 3 stories, and I thought that was a monster. So I can't even fathom a 5-story apartment unit in my backyard. So questions and concerns for what the plan is if it's approved to build this, because I think there's a lot of things that need to be done to make it successful, because right now it's kind of not.

And you haven't even built anything yet. So that's, that's all I have. Thank you. I see no questions. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

If that is it, would the petitioner like to use your time for rebuttal?

Yes, thank you. Uh, first, thanks to the neighbors for coming and for bringing your concerns. Um, most of those were brought up in the online comments, and I appreciated that.

Uh, as I said in my presentation, Mile 5.2 greenhouse has been on the property for more than 20 years. Um, loss of the vegetation is an understandable concern The owners intend to develop the property and retain ownership, so they're not going to build it and sell it. And as owners of a greenhouse, they understand, understand landscaping and the importance of natural spaces. It is their intention to landscape the property and to keep it as green as possible, creating a beautiful space to live. The petitioners intend to develop the property with duplex and triplex residences.

So, um, the rumor of a 5-story building is pretty, pretty incredible. But no, the intention of the developers is duplexes and triplexes. It's unlikely that these structures would exceed 30 feet in height. This morning I spoke with Anthony Windsor, Deputy Officer with the Chugiak-Birchwood Eagle River Road Service Area, about the glaciation at the intersection of Santa Maria Drive and Old Glen Highway. He said the issue was with a frozen storm drain in the right-of-way of Old Glen Highway and the problem was resolved immediately when State DOT came and thawed the drain.

Mr. Windsor verified the problem was not caused by the greenhouse property. Looking at the development of this property, stormwater runoff from the site onto Santa Maria Drive will be addressed when the proposed residential development is submitted for approval. Again, thank you for considering this request, and I'm available to answer any questions that you might have.

It seems the residents— I, I guess it's understandable that they don't like the idea of a multi-family in their backyard. Um, there's currently a 20-foot easement. Do you happen to know what code would require as a landscape separation between a proposed multi-family project and the neighboring properties?

The— so, uh, yeah, the, the property, uh, next door, their, their property is zoned RO, which is residential office. Uh, I believe, uh, staff can correct me on this, I believe the landscaping is just, uh, screening. Um, in addition to the landscaping, they'd also have a 10-foot setback, site setback, that have— they have to maintain. So that's not really affected by the special limitation. So there's, instead of 20 feet of separation, there's probably going to be just 10 feet.

It's pretty much it. Um, I think— did I hear that correctly? Are you saying there's 20 feet or just the 10-foot side yard with the landscaping in the 10-foot separation? Uh, If you look at the special limitations, it speaks to separation as well as screening easement. So I'm talking about just the width of the separation.

It's going to go from 20 to 10 feet as a prescription because in the special limitation it says 20 feet, but if you look at Title 21 and based on uses, adjacency, use adjacencies and current zoning restrict and dimensional standards, they'd have to maintain a 10-foot side setback. Yes. Okay. And then the landscaping is also 10 feet. But within the 10-foot side yard setback, I guess the question was what's the landscaping requirement?

Um, to the chair, there would be no landscaping requirement as per Title 21. Yeah, no, no landscaping requirement as per Title 21. Okay, thank you.

Uh, question from Commissioner McKee. I think my question is for, for staff. Is that okay to ask at this time? Yes. Um, so in the special limitations, it says that the building height is limited to 30 feet.

If it's rezoned, um, to commercial, what— is there a building height restriction? To the chair, could you give us just a second to take a look at that?

B3, the maximum height is 45. Also, the adjacent property is 20 feet higher than, than where the pad currently is on the greenhouse property.

Um, are there any more questions for the petitioner before I close the public hearing?

We will still be able to ask questions of staff. Commissioner McKee, so you just brought up a, uh, something that brought up a question for me. So drainage is currently coming from— it's kind of— it's flowing down Santa Maria Drive towards the Old Glen Highway. The road drainage is, yes. So if this parcel had vegetation removed, it's not going to contribute runoff towards the properties up the hill.

It would add drainage to the Old Glen Highway. Correct. And all of that would need to be addressed. Uh, the site drainage is addressed in the building permit process. Great, thank you.

And do you know what the properties, uh, the adjacent neighboring properties are zoned? I believe that's in the staff report.

On page 8, so immediately to the north, CERO, and immediately to the south, CERO, and then CERO-1A to the east.

Just to interject, immediately to the south it's CEB3. We just checked the online maps. Oh, right, the heavy line. Thank you.

Um, does the petitioner— you have 7:30 minutes and 35 seconds. Are you done? I see no questions. Close the public hearing. What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? Um, yes, thank you. I move in case 2026-0065 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the request to rezone attractive land from CEB3SL, General Business with Special Limitations, to CEB3, General Business District. That's seconded by Commissioner Abaza. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion?

Um, yes, I intend to support the motion. I think it meets the review criteria as set forth in the staff packet, um, including for the fact that this is an implementing zoning district from— for the land use designation under the Chugiak/Eagle River Comprehensive Plan update from 2006 that was put in place after the ordinance that, um, added the special limitations to this property. Um, we received some testimony from neighbors in opposition, um, to the rezone, um, which seemed to go primarily to concerns about adding, um, some multi-district housing to this property. I think a lot of the concerns, um, can and should be addressed through the building permit process. Um, not something that really plays into the criteria for the rezone directly.

And I also will just note that one of the implications from this rezone with respect to some of the concerns that we heard is that this actually removes an existing minimum requirement for housing density, um, and will allow, um, potentially lower densities on the property than currently required.

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

Um, I will just say that I also intend to support the motion. My main reasons for doing so is that the motion will allow lower density, as Commissioner Gardner stated, and that a lot of the drainage plan requirements will be required by the building permit. We'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next up, are we good to keep going, or does anybody need a break? Keep it going. Next up, case 2026-0062. May we please have the staff presentation? Uh, yes, thank you, Chair.

Uh, this is a draft assembly ordinance Uh, so this would be a recommendation for the Assembly decision on a text amendment to Title 21. It would clarify the review process for park master plans in the Turnagain Arm area. Uh, this area does include Girdwood. This came to light because there, there is a draft Girdwood parks plan. Uh, it has not yet come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing.

Uh, it has been, uh, uh, I know the consultant working on that project has held public hearings and, uh, has spoken with the planning department about it. And so that's how we discovered, uh, this, this confusing piece of code where it, it basically directs that plan and other plans of that type to go through a site plan review process. And so it asks questions that are very specific to the site, and it doesn't make sense for a planning document such as a park master plan or the forthcoming draft Gridwood Parks Plan. I'll note that we received no objections from state and municipal reviewing agencies, and while not included in the packet, I do actually now have documentation formally from the Parks and Recreation Department the Municipal Parks and Recreation Department, that they have no objection to this change. And then I also do have a resolution from GBOS, or the Girdwood Board of Supervisors.

Um, so unfortunately, I, I was not able to, to get those prior to, to this meeting tonight, but I wanted to note that I do have that documentation on file with the department now, and I will include it in the packet that goes forward to the assembly. Um, thank you, and I'm here for any questions.

Any questions for staff? I'm seeing none. Sure, I do have— oh, at least one. Commissioner Rahn. Thank you.

Through the chair, uh, question staff. Uh, in the proposed ordinance language, um, item B1, it looks like, um, in brackets, some proposed added language such that the new ordinance would read all master plans and any development projects costing more than $1 million.

And then, um, in subsection 2, um, also see that mention of $1 million, um, or less. And then jumping down to proposed added language in subsection 4, items B and C are acreage-based. Um, can you help me understand, um, the bridge between the two, the relationship? Is there a conflict? Is there not?

Thanks. Uh, yes, Commissioner Aran, through the chair. So the, the first item, uh, so B1, the, so the brackets show a, a deletion. So that's, uh, so it says right now— any master plans and development projects more than $1 million have to go through a major site plan review process. So, so those brackets delete the reference to master plans, um, just so that it's, it's clear that a master plan wouldn't have to go through that process.

Um, the rest is existing code. It, uh, that matches Anchorage language for the $1 million threshold as, as to whether or not there's a public hearing review for a parks project, basically. And then, uh, the underlined language that is the addition for, uh, for park master plan proposals, uh, it matches some similar language in Anchorage. Uh, so I suppose— let's see, I see what you're saying. So, so it's It's saying, um, master plans for parks classified— okay, if it's saying if the, the plan covers a park that has a classification in the Anchorage Park Greenbelt and Recreation Facility Plan, if it's classified as community use area, special use area, or if it's any other area that's that's not classified in that, that plan.

If it's over 30 acres, then it has to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. And if it's 30 acres or fewer and it's not classified in that plan, then it can be approved by the director. So, so basically, if it still has that park classification in the plan, it would come to PCC. But if it's just, uh, like some other natural area that is getting some kind of parks plan, it, it would only come to PCC if it's over 30 acres. Does that make sense?

Okay.

I'll just add that $1 million in 2014 is $1.4 million in 2026.

I do have one brief follow-up, if I may. Go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. Um, in Item 4A, um, first section of proposed new language, uh, the wording is, for all park master plan proposals, uh, the Parks and Rec Commission shall hold a public meeting. And I just want to make sure I understand the intent of the wording as it's phrased and would seek to avoid any confusion.

Are we talking about the master plan in total or individual proposals within a master plan. Just curious if some cleaner language might be helpful there. Uh, Commissioner Aran, through the chair, let me just pull up the existing code for Anchorage because I, I think I pulled that because it was the same language used for the Anchorage Bowl, but I can double check really quick just to make sure we're not, um, adding any confusion.

Uh, okay. Yes, I did find the language for the Anchorage Bowl, and I basically copied the language that is in the Anchorage Bowl. So it's, it's just applying it to the entire municipality. So, so that is why it is worded that way. Um, I suppose I, I would suggest if we're taking out the word proposals in this, then we should also do it for the Anchorage Bowl.

I could note it as, um, like a future, uh, we sometimes do like cleanup ordinances or like Scrivener's errors. Like, I could note it, uh, for that because it should be done for both the bowl and turning an arm if we take that out is my suggestion.

I see no further questions for staff. We will go to the public hearing.

Anybody from the public wishing to testify? Please step forward. Seeing none, we will close the— there's nobody testifying.

We'll close the public hearing. What is the will of the body?

Uh, Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? I move in Case 2026-0062 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of a text amendment to Title 1, uh, Title 21, excuse me, Chapter 2105.040G.2B, the use-specific standards for turning-in-arm public or private parks, to clarify the review process for park master plans. Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Baza. Commissioner Gardner, would you like Wish to speak to your motion?

Just briefly, I intend to support the motion. I think it's a straightforward clarification that tracks the process that occurs in the Anchorage Bowl that's necessary to remove some ambiguity in the code, and I think it meets the approval criteria as set forth on page 1 in the staff packet. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

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

That motion passes. Uh, moving on, any committee reports to be made?

Seeing none, um, Title 21 discussion. Oh, Miss Appleby. Uh, yes, I just wanted to note that tonight was the first design variance case that the Planning and Zoning Commission heard. Those previously went to the Urban Design Commission. The Urban Design Commission is officially sunset and is totally, totally done now.

Um, so So you will be seeing those types of cases in the future and other, other types of cases that previously had gone to the Urban Design Commission. Um, I wanted to just note that, and then, uh, I suppose there are some other items, uh, going to the Assembly that could affect Title 21 in the future. But I, um, to be honest, I didn't really prepare to speak on that because I was focused on, uh, this, the other case tonight and just noting the Urban Design Commission, but, uh, most of those items are for introduction at the meeting tomorrow night and then will be set for a public hearing in the future. Um, I suppose that's about all I have for now unless anyone has questions. Um, I just have one comment that maybe we should— the department should consider changes to Title 21 that would prevent the need for the design variance case we saw for the accessory structure.

And then thank you to Commissioner McKee for your, your leadership, stepping up on your, with your urban design skills. We needed that. And any commissioner comments?

All right, last item, move to adjourn.

Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Any objection? I'm sure there's none. We are adjourned.