Anchorage Assembly: Planning and Zoning Commission - September 21, 2026 - 2026-09-21 18:30:00

We'll call this September 21st, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. May we please have the roll call? Andres Spinelli. Here. Jared Gardner.

Here. Radhika Krishna. Here. Scott Polis. Here.

Jeff Rahn. Here. Amma Baza. Here. Megan Mills.

Here. Edith McKee. Here. Brandy Eber is excused. You have a quorum.

Thank you.

Uh, first we want to announce that if anyone's here, here for case 2026-0116, Um, that case has been withdrawn, so we will not be hearing that case this evening.

Next is the special order of business. Any disclosures?

Commissioner McKee? Um, yes, the company I work for does contract work with DOT MPF, who is the petitioner for Case 2026- -0115. I have no prior knowledge of this project and I have no financial gain associated with it.

I do not see anything that would prevent you from participating.

Any other disclosures from the Commission?

Hearing none, we'll move on. Will staff provide a brief presentation on information item 2026-0115?

Good evening. Thank you, Chair. This is the State of Alaska DOT MPF project to rehabilitate the existing Rabbit Creek Road between the Seward Highway and Goldview Drive, spanning just over 2 miles. The scope of the project Project focuses on improving roadway condition, drainage, safety, and multimodal accessibility, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists. The concept report includes a review of existing condition, a preliminary review of guiding plans, street concept options, and a stakeholder involvement summary.

Members of the project team are present tonight to answer any question regarding the concept report. Please note that this is not a public hearing item. Rather, it serves as an information item to familiarize the Commission with the project ahead of the 35% design study report, which you will review during a future public hearing.

Thank you. Thank you.

If the Commission wanted to provide some input at this point in time, would there be a recommendation from staff on how we would do that?

Chair Spinelli, you may ask questions of the— you can ask questions of the project team that's here if you have specific— are you saying you want to provide like specific guidance and recommendations for the project? I don't have anything specifically in mind. I was just curious if any other commissioners did, if there was a process that we would go about doing so. Chair Spinelli, I might need to— I think you would just discuss it. And to be honest, I'm not exactly sure.

Yeah.

I think you're just like, I could— would be able to give like recommendations for the next— for the 35% that they would be presented to you in a later date.

Okay, possibly in like the form of a resolution or something, a motion and a resolution.

I would—. I would say that like in a later date, like, uh, they would— when they presented the 35%, they would need to to actually answer or work through your questions to what you have. Okay. Through the Chair, Chair, if you don't mind me stepping in, if the Commission would like to discuss and provide recommendations now, you might pull this and make it into an action item or you could just discuss and we can take notes and the project team can take those notes away with them today. Thank you.

Commissioner Rahn. Thank you through the Chair. I do have a question about what's driving design. There's mention of available crash data, which is not included in this concept report. And the two alternatives that are shown both heavily focus on left turn movement.

And so I'd appreciate additional context from the project team to confirm that in fact, it's the left turn movements that are driving the crash issues of concern. Commissioner Wren, the project team is right here, ready to answer any questions that the Commission may have.

Hi, for the record, I'm Rory Van Nortwick. I'm the project manager with the design team with DOT and PF. So currently, this is an AMATS-driven project. It was something that was proposed to us to take on. One of the big things that's pushing the concepts that we've presented is some preliminary input from the community councils in the area, mostly to avoid doing the two-way left turn lane, which is why the left turn pockets are currently being being analyzed.

There has been traffic data pulled, but we will be doing further analysis of the corridor as we go further along in the project.

Thank you. I see no further questions from Commissioner Marohn. Commissioner McKee. Hi, thank you. Through the Chair, I had similar kind of comments, questions, concerns.

Also was asking for the traffic data, in particular, ped and bike crashes, or if ped and bike data had been collected.

I also had some comments or concerns about any other alternatives beyond the two-way left turn lane being considered. Two-way left turn lanes tend to be more car-focused, you know, giving priority to their movements over potentially reducing bike and ped crashes. Additionally, like, the 85th percentile speed is exceeding posted. Two-way left turn lanes also don't tend to help Moderate speed, they tend to help people continue to drive at rates above posted. So also hoping that maybe the design team would consider something that restricts left-out movements and potentially considers that 14-foot space that's being utilized for the two-way left turn lane could maybe better be served with a median and then potentially small diameter roundabouts at the 19 different intersections.

And the DOT did a small diameter roundabout in Wasilla as an interim project, but it was so successful at managing traffic and reducing crashes that they didn't need to expand it. So hopefully they would consider something that encourages right-in, right-out behavior only, which does help protect pedestrians and cyclists. And that by reducing the take might, you know, a median may also significantly reduce the amount of right-of-way that needs to be acquired to accomplish the project. But I really did like to see that one of the objectives is to improve bike and ped safety and provide them dedicated facilities because right now they're using the shoulder and that always makes them very vulnerable. So I like, I like that that's one of the objectives of the project.

Thank you.

May I just speak because it wasn't a very— it wasn't a— it was more recommendations, not a question. But may I speak to the traffic just one more time? Please do. So we actually have a consultant on board that we were able to pull on and we will be doing a more thorough analysis of the corridor. Again, we're in very preliminary stages of this project.

Project, and we are just now trying to get kicked off in the CSS process.

Thank you. Ms. Babb. My comment can hold if anyone else has any other questions. I see nobody else in the queue. In that case, through the Chair to the Commission, I just wanted to let you all know that we are currently considering some changes to the CSS process itself to perhaps change this particular step of CSS to make it a public hearing where the Commission can provide official recommendations on the projects prior to them getting to the DSR or 35%.

As it stands now, your next chance to review and provide comment on this will be at 35%. So I do expect that the project team will have a little bit more information for you at that point, maybe even some alternatives and a more fleshed out project to present then. But you will have another stab at this later.

Thank you. I see nobody else in the queue.

Nothing further. We will move on.

Next item, we will begin the public hearings. I will read the procedures by which the public may speak to the Commission at its meetings. 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 will receive 5 minutes. Individuals will receive 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the Commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission.

Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable.

Available. May we please have the staff presentation on case 2026-0102?

All right, thank you. Good evening. Luke Bertram, Senior Planner, Long Range Division. Um, so on PCC 2026-0102, we have an ordinance before you to amend uses in parks As a bit of background, this spring we rezoned about 9,345 acres of parkland over 742 parcels to the PR zoning district. When we brought this to the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 8th, 2025, this had originally included Russian Jack Park and Centennial Park.

But afterwards, with some discussions with Parks and Recreation, we decided to remove them because they had use uses there that are not permitted in the PR zoning district. So as a result, we are looking at making a few changes to allow this to happen. So first, we will be looking at making camper parks a conditional use in the PR zoning district, and we will be looking at amending some of the language in the, uh, accessory uses for parks and natural areas to include greenhouse, sale of goods grown on site, and childcare programming.

First, with camper parks, the Parks and Recreation Department operates a camper park at Centennial Park with 84 sites. So adding this as a conditional use will allow Centennial Park to be rezoned to PR without creating any new nonconformity. And additionally, if hypothetically in the future there were a future camper park that Parks and Rec wanted to start up, they would have to go through the conditional use process and with the public hearing and everything that goes with that. So moving on to some of the accessory uses that we're looking at of greenhouses and sale of goods grown on site. This clarifies greenhouses as an accessory use in parks, and additionally, the Parks and Recreation Department sells tree plugs at a loss from the greenhouse at Manley's Memorial Greenhouse in Russian Jack Park.

So similarly to the camper park, allowing this would allow Russian Jack Park to be rezoned to PR without creating any new non-conformities. And lastly, with child care programming, Trailside Discovery Camp uses Kincaid Park and other Anchorage parks for their child care programming. Including this as a listed accessory clarifies that it is permitted in Anchorage parks and creates less friction down the road for any future childcare programming or any, say, summer camps or anything like that. And that is it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff? Commissioner Gardner. Yes, thank you. I was wondering if The temporary sales of products grown on the premises, is that defined somewhere? What's the implication of the temporary in that description?

We did not have it defined, but I mean, it is something that Parks and Rec— I mean, it is the parks and natural areas with mostly Parks and Rec property, so that is kind of a self-regulated temporary. Yeah, I guess maybe my question was if the temporary potentially just adds confusion there, or if— like, I don't know if that implies that they just periodically have stuff available for sale. Is that the goal? Or if they kind of more generally have things available for sale, if it's better just to not have the word temporary in there. It leaves it open generally, so or for some flexibility.

However, we can amend that to more— make it more specific if the Commission would like.

Thank you.

I would just echo Commissioner Gardner's comment. I think that it's the Planning Department's job, or maybe the Commission's, to clean up the code, even though the Parks and Rec might not see it as an issue, it could be an issue in the future. Commissioner Mills.

Listening to that question, I wondered if maybe what you were going for was the word seasonal instead of temporary. My question though is different.

I wanted to ask you about the camper parks. And when you make them conditional, I'm just thinking about other uses in the future. What, what is the qualification process for something to be conditionally approved as a camper park?

Through the chair, could you elaborate on that, please? I'm just thinking about other, uh, rezones in the future if it opens the door an opportunity for other parks to potentially be used as campsites. So this would potentially open it. However, it would have to go through the conditional use procedures. Yeah, so what is the procedure?

Uh, what are they— what is the restriction? What are they looking for?

I think Commissioner Mills fairly new. You may explain. They would come to us in a case, and we would approve it. So it's just subject to approval, and staff can elaborate on the condition. Yes.

So, um, in Chapter 3, we have a set of approval criteria for conditional uses that any use that is conditional would have to meet. And then from— so they would have to go to a pre-application meeting with staff before filing for an application. They would have to do a community meeting. And then it's a— something with public notice and public hearing. So they go to Planning and Zoning Commission, then the Assembly for ERT.

Yeah, it's the— —kind of foster long-range planning. So conditional use, it goes to Planning and Zoning, and you all set the conditions. And basically, if you don't, you know, you set a condition, and if they don't meet the condition, it doesn't go forward. And I think it has a lot of criteria to meet the conditions for conditional use. But basically, if somebody, if Parks and Rec came forward and said, we would like to do a camper park, and a camper park very clearly is not about like a, you know, long-term shelter or housing.

It's about sort of a tourist camper park, like RV park essentially. So if Parks and Rec came and they said, we'd like to do this in one of our parks, Planning and Zoning could say, well, we will allow it, but only if you meet these conditions. That could be where the stuff is cited, how many are allowed, pretty much anything you can imagine. The Planning and Zoning Commission could set a condition on that. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, my concern was just about future implications.

Uh, next, uh, Commissioner Krishna. Thank you. Two questions. The first is, apart from Centennial, Russian Jack, and Kincaid, are there any dedicated parks that are not yet zoned PR. Um, yeah, through the chair, um, so just for a bit of clarification, Kincaid Park was rezoned, um, this, uh, with the child care programming.

It wasn't necessarily like a full-time accessory use, um, and staff felt that it would not have created any nonconformities. This more for clarity. Um, but getting to the main part of your question, uh, we had found one park that was missed through like GIS selection process at, uh, Nanaka Valley. Um, so when we come back around for part 2 of the parks rezone, we will include if there are any loose parcels that got missed. Okay, thank you.

Um, but there are no other use Nothing else was missed or omitted due to use table issues? Correct. Correct. Okay, so this is— this would get us a long way towards the cleanup. Yes.

And then my, my second question is about the child care use.

So I think what I'm wondering is, is is if childcare is just a facility rental use at the Chalet, and this is making me wonder that there's really nothing else in code about what facility rentals can be used for. So I guess I'm wondering what the utility is of including only childcare when I, I won't try to list all of the things that a municipal facility rental could could be used for. Sure. So the main purpose here is to really just clarify, just to prevent any snags or anything like that in the future, especially since, like, after-school programs, say, are licensed child care programs. So this just provides more clarity for that in the future.

Is there, is there some sort of special status for the Trailside Discovery Camp versus any other facility rental at the Chalet? Uh, not that I believe. Um, this is just, again, this was an example of a, of a child care pro— like, child care program at the Chalet. Um, this was more illustrative than comprehensive.

List them, I guess. Um, this would make it a permitted or a conditional? This would make it permitted under the definition of park or natural area. So if you look at the ordinance, um, in the section where there's the definition of park or natural area, um, at the end it includes like permitted accessory uses include, um, so it falls under that. And that's more for clarity to the definition as well.

Yeah, and I won't go down this path too far, but it's making me think about, um, you know, I think in Russian Jack Springs there's classroom areas that have been built. Um, I guess I'm worried about getting too far into the, you know, every possible use of these public spaces, but, um, I'm trying to understand a little bit further the necessity of including this as a use versus saying that municipal and public lands and facilities can be used for, you know, any— by any set of the public for any, you know, allowed thing that they want to do.

Sure. And part of it too is this is partially prescriptive, partially illustrative of what the use is. So again, it really just helps provide clarity for, say, if someone wants to do a program and is checking in with planning, just to really just have all their i's dotted and t's crossed. If I could weigh in too, as well, to the chair. So a lot of this started with us talking to Parks and Rec and trying to figure out if they needed anything else to fix up.

So this, I think, is under— starting from the Parks and Rec Department, where they look at their existing operations, existing programming, and figuring out that this would work with it. So I think this sort of clarifies any sort of uncertainty, but we, you know, we weren't trying to make a major change on this. A lot of this was let's make sure that Parks and Rec is able to fulfill their mission with these changes.

My last follow-up is programming is doing a lot of work here, right? Like there's a difference between the child care facility and a child care program. And what the specific language is doing is saying that a commercial building housing a child care center might— it is not included under this. We're just talking about programming in current facilities and spaces. Is that correct?

Correct. Okay, thank you.

Um, Miss Appleby. Uh, yes, I believe the questions about the conditional use process were answered pretty well, but I had put myself in the queue while it was being asked, I guess. So I don't know that I have too much to add, but just to review, there's 9 review criteria for conditional uses. Uh, we would also look at use-specific standards for camper parks, uh, as As my colleagues in Long Range explained, there would be a community meeting before. It's usually with the Community Council, but it would have to be advertised by the petitioner.

And I guess the only point of clarification was just that you are the decision maker for conditional uses. They don't go forward to the Assembly. That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

I see no further questions for staff.

Chair? Oh, yeah, sorry to jump in really quick. Similar to Elizabeth's comment on the conditional use, I wanted to also remind the Commission that most of our— especially the larger parks in town— have master plans, and anything that they do in the parks will need to conform with the master plans that you approve. So if somebody is proposing a new camper park, that would be the first part of the process, is going through, um, an update to the master plan that would be discussed here in the commission, and then they would have to go through a conditional use process.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Um, we'll move on to the public hearing. Anybody wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

Uh, seeing no one, we have nobody in the phone. Does staff have any rebuttal? Oh, sorry, do you like to testify?

Okay, just, um, turn the mic on. Yeah, there should be a button down low somewhere.

Now it's on. And please state your name for the record. Okay, I, I'm Renee Nicholson. And we got this paper, and I'd like to have somebody explain what does it mean, um, for the hotel, Windham Hotel.

It says they want to rezone. What does that mean? I believe what you have there is a notice of an upcoming zoning action. And that's probably not something we'd handle in the public hearing, so I think staff will assist you. Oh, I don't understand it.

Okay, yeah, not yet, not yet, not yet.

Okay. Okay. I am going to close the— does staff have anything to add before we close the public hearing? Oh, Commissioner Gardner. I guess not part of the public hearing necessarily, but a follow-up question for staff if anybody knows this goes back to my original question about the sales of products— to understand exactly what the nature is of the sales that are done at Russian Jack.

Yes, through the chair, the Parks and Recreation Department does seasonal sales of tree plugs at a loss with the surplus that they have. After they're done planting for the season.

Oh, I see. Okay, that's the comment from the other commissioner about seasonal maybe being a better description. Thank you.

Commissioner Krishna, final question, I think. Um, so I think— correct me if I'm wrong, but what we're talking about here is two separate categories of things, right? The camper parks are actually being changed in the use table to a conditional use. The other cases we've talked about, like child care and seasonal sales, I see them included in the draft, um, Title 21 changes as may include. So I read that as being, um, language that is essentially for guidance ordinance, but is not providing any sort of regulatory limitations on necessarily what can happen in parks.

Am I, am I correctly differentiating these things? Through the chair, so the first part, yet the conditional use with the camper park, that's a separate change to the use table. That's the only change to the use table that we're making with this ordinance. The second part with the may include. It is both descriptive and regulatory since it does list out accessory uses that are permitted in that use category.

So this, if anything, it also just clarifies it as something that is permitted there so that we can clarify that goods temporary sale of goods grown on site and the childcare that that's permitted in that use type.

Allowed but not the only things allowed. Is that a good way of putting it? Correct. Okay, I think that answers all of my questions about those uses.

Okay.

Seeing nobody else in the queue, nobody wishing to testify, staff has been offered their chance of rebuttal. We'll now close the public hearing. What's the will of the body?

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? Sure, thank you. I move in case 2026-0102 to recommend the Anchorage Assembly approval of an ordinance amending AMC Chapter 21.0 05 use regulations to support existing uses and Anchorage parks. That is seconded by Commissioner Polis. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion?

Um, I intend to support my motion. It's a pretty targeted change here to capture some existing uses to permit, um, the rezone of two parks to the PR zoning district. And, um, I think we had some questions today. They got clarification on some concerns that the Commission expressed, understanding that, uh, camper parks is a conditional use process that will go through us for any future camper park uses, and that the uses described in the definition of parks and open areas, um, are understood to be inclusive of existing uses and are not necessarily, um, limitations.

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

Commissioner Polis, would you? Oh, look at you. Yeah, I'll just— I intend to support the motion. I second Commissioner Gardner's comments on the situation and will add that we heard no agency or public opposition to the amendments today. Commissioner Aran.

I'm going to throw this out as an amendment. Amendment. Well, I, uh, I support the intent of what the department is attempting here. I have concern over what was raised by previous commissioners around the element of the use as deviating from what's currently in code. So I propose to amend the motion on the floor by striking childcare programming and temporary sales of products grown on the premises.

And that would be striking those words from 2105.040.g.

I think before— I think what we need to do is Make a motion to amend and get it clearly written up so everyone can read it.

That's what I just did. Okay, we're— can you restate it? Is it everything that's highlighted?

The child care forms, the templates, are provided. Yeah.

Okay, so what we have here on page 7 of 23, uh, the yellow highlighted text in lines 23 through 26, strike everything but greenhouses.

Did that look correct, Commissioner Rahn?

Yes.

All right. Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Rahn, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Chair. This might die quickly, but I wanted to throw it out there. Appreciate the discussion that was had prior to the making of the main motion.

In rereading this section of Title 21, my interpretation of of the previous text, starting with line 22 on page 7 of 23. That last sentence, accessory uses may include listing here: clubhouses, playgrounds, maintenance facilities, concessions, caretakers' quarters, and parking. My interpretation of that text is those are all physical improvements and uses associated with the physical nature of those elements, not something as transient as a sales activity or a program. Um, in interpreting it in that manner, and the department chair reminding us that these parks have master plans, I'm questioning why are those two elements not addressed in the master plans themselves or other sections of code and not here? So that's why I threw it out there.

Thanks.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Commissioner Krishna. You know, I thought I got all the way to supporting that, that language, and now I'm coming all the way back. I am inclined to support this amendment for two reasons. One is that I don't believe that many of these phrases are defined in the accessory use table. And so I'm worried that these are— they're only mentioned in code.

My second reason, and I would welcome any additions by staff, is that I don't believe Title 21 is the place to make— to encourage uses. I believe that the code should be reserved for very clear regulatory guidance, and I'm reading this language as encouraging or supporting potential uses in a non— one of a large list of uses and programs and activities that we might want to see in our parks. I don't believe code is the way to do that. I believe the master plans or other guidance are. And I will put on the record that I, of course, and I believe this Commission very much supports childcare programming in all of these uses and parts, but I'm not sure that this has utility in Title 21.

Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Commissioner Mills. I just wanted to ask you a question, Commissioner Krishna, out of I'm trying to be collaborative. I'm not trying to question your, uh, your comment, but other types of zoning do lean into what type of use they're recommended to cater towards. And so I'm just, I guess, trying to understand a little bit more about why we would have it different for the parks.

I'm just curious. It's— there's not a wrong answer.

Please respond, Commissioner Krishnan.

I'm open to that. I think I'm just—. I'm open to that understanding. I think I could just take it a million ways, right? Like, I personally run vendor events in parks.

I personally do a lot of other things in parks. I read this language as being encouraging of certain activities, and I don't think that's— I have no actual issue with this language. I think we've just been on a multi-year cleanup operation of Title 21, and so I would— part of my— I will say I do not feel strongly about this. That. If I had to vote, I would say that I do believe that I've got some ideas about what code should be used for and how it will be interpreted in the future.

And so that's— that's— I'm inclined to support this one. And while we're sharing, I'm just a little concerned that it doesn't specifically say skate parks, but I'm— I was over it until now. I've got— I had to share it. Commissioner Gardner. Thank you.

I guess just two quick items. One is I similarly don't feel super strongly about the amendment. I think I lean towards opposing it because I do read this as a list of potential uses, and I also think that it— I actually like that it emphasizes childcare programming as a use available in parks that kind of comes to mind. The temporary sales of products, I feel less that way about, but on the whole, I think I'm maybe would be inclined to oppose it. But I am curious before we vote to know if, I guess, staff has any thoughts or concerns with the proposed amendment.

All right, through the chair. So with the temporary sales of products grown on-site, this cleans things up with sales of pre-plugs because otherwise the next best use would be commercial horticulture. To allow sales of the tree plugs that are grown on site at Russian Jack Park. So that was our angle with that.

As to the— I also do want to add that the sale of goods grown on site is a listed accessory use of the hobby farm accessory use. Use. And we also do have before or after child— or be at before or after school child daycare as an accessory use that's listed under the educational facility use type, just as a bit more context here.

If I could jump in as well, to the Chair, I think this discussion has highlighted an interesting quirk of the code, maybe, is that here in the description of it, we have them listing accessory uses, but then they're not listed in the accessory use table, which is kind of weird. So when I look at this, I think maybe in the future it would be more appropriate to say not accessory uses here, but components of this use or something like this. Because, you know, some of these— I think greenhouse is listed as an accessory use in the accessory use table, but childcare programming is not. So maybe that's the source of this sort of part of this confusion. And it sounds like there's other places in the code too where the code probably shouldn't say this is what accessory uses are unless it's listed in the accessory table.

I think more, at least my understanding, and anybody else can weigh in, is maybe that this would be better thought of as, you know, components of this type of use include that. So it's not like, oh, you have a park and then this is an accessory use to the park. It's really, yes, it's part of what happens in a park. But that might be something we need to clean up later.

Uh, Commissioner Abaza. Um, I was just going to ask why we're keeping greenhouses. Um, because I'm reading this, or from what I understand from what staff said earlier, accessory uses may include—. It's not an all-inclusive, like, this is— it's not limited to these. So what's the point of stating them again?

Through the chair, it helps us really provide a bit more clarity, especially if there's something that's maybe not a clear use. These accessory uses help guide us generally through the use table to put us closer to what the intended use is. That's maybe a little less apt here. With the Parker Natural Area. But that said, really our main purpose here was just to clarify so that, say, if someone were applying for a childcare license, that zoning checks out there, that they can have their afterschool program there.

The sale of goods grown on site that takes out a lot of the concerns that Parks had that they wouldn't be able to sell something that isn't necessarily listed and keeps it from being a separate use on the site.

And then— what was the other— and then greenhouses, again, it's illustrative. We can we can take it out. I mean, since we do have it in the accessory use table, um, so we're just— yeah, it's illustrative. Okay, if I may jump in one more time as well, and just to echo what Mr. McKenna Foster said earlier, I think that this is more of a description of the park use rather than a list of accessory uses that are allowed in parks. Parks.

So the language is confusing, I think, but that is the intent of the— that section of code is to describe what a park may look like rather than what accessory uses are allowed.

Next in the queue, Commissioner Krishna. Yes, I think I'm convinced by that, and if it's not too much of a bother to Commissioner Rahn, I think I would like to withdraw my second. Because I do think that Mr. McKenna Foster has identified the issue that I'm getting hung up on, which is that in other sections of Title 21, accessory uses are very strictly defined, especially for the residential and commercial uses. And so I think if we just rephrase the words accessory uses, which in other parts of Title 21 are more— have more regulatory weight than I think what we are talking about right here. And I don't know what to call it.

Programs and facilities may include or something like that. I think then we can throw in all of these. I see no issue with it. And I don't think it is— has any other implications for the code. So that's my preference.

Okay, with permission of the chair, um, can we please withdraw the motion to amend? Okay. Um, Commissioner McKee, are you still— you want— I have you in the queue. Do you—.

I'm a little— and maybe if we're withdrawing it, my question doesn't need to be asked any longer. So, Commissioner Rahn, are you still in the queue or you're good? Uh, sorry, I guess I jumped ahead of Commissioner McKee. My apologies. So yes, again, asking permission to withdraw.

Yeah, if there's any objection, we That—. The motion withdrawn. Back to the main motion.

All righty, any more discussion on the main motion?

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

And that was— that motion passes.

Next item of business, may we please have the staff presentation on case 2026-0112?

Good evening, Commissioners. Daniel McKeown Foster, Long Range Planning, again. Tonight, this is a case of the Tozier Tract future land use redesignation, PCC case 2026-0112.

Let's begin. So this here, this is Tudor along the north of this map, and that's Elmore going north-south. The parcel we're looking at is this parcel on the left. It used to be the starting point of the Tozzer Track, of the dog racing track that went through all those trails in that area in Bicentennial North, but they've since relocated down MLK Drive. So now the Tozzer Track starts over there.

We're still referring to the Tozier tract because it is still a tract of land and it's sort of what it's colloquially known as. So currently this piece of property is zoned PLI, but when you look at the land use plan map, it has 3 different designations on it: Parker Natural Area, Town Center, Community Facility Institution, and the Transporter Development Overlay. So the issue is, if anybody ever wanted to rezone this parcel. It's confusing for us because it's hard to say with one parcel with, you know, 3, 4 designations what it should go to. The plan— the 2040 Land Use Plan provides pretty clear guidance about which zones implement which designations.

So if one parcel has multiple designations, technically there's all sorts of potential implementation zones. So we've been trying to fix— there's a number of instances of this around town. And actually, as you can see on the image here, This issue actually extends to a number of other properties here. This is the, you know, the building— Elmore Building Permit Center complex, and there's a number of parcels, and these designations cover several of those. We're just focusing on one.

You may have seen in the news there's been a lot of discussion about this at the Community Economic Development Committee, the HLB Advisory Commission, about a future development on this property, future trade of this property. As I mentioned, right now it's PLI, Public Facilities Lands— Public Lands Institution Zone, and that's pretty limited in the kind of development you can do. So there is interest in some sort of rezone. Our recommendation is that this— we change the land use designation so that they can go through that rezone. Because right now, if somebody tried to rezone it from PLI, we would say, we don't exactly know what it should be, and it's hard for us to decide what the recommendation should be.

So this went to agency review, and we also went and talked to the present Campbell Park Community Council on August 20th and the U Med Community Council on September 2nd. Both were favorable or in support or not opposed. People were interested in it. This, you may recall, was also initially part of the Case 2025-138, I believe, the future land use designation changes we looked at last year, but then it got removed. Moved because they were doing a little bit more planning on the site.

So with that, I would be glad to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, through the Chair. Staff, thanks for the brief presentation. Could you expand a little bit on the purpose of future land use designations? What role do they play?

Through the Chair, so the 2040 Land Use Plan is, of course, the adopted land use plan or future land use map. So it's thinking in general terms. You know, it's a 2040 plan. So in 2040, the idea was land use will generally look like this. Some areas will have compact mixed low residential.

Sometimes they'll have urban high residential. Some will be more of a town center. So I'll go back to the designation here. In these big colors, this is what you can see, if you can see on the key there. The future land use is a generalized idea and a generalized plan of what the land use will probably be.

And the next step of that is changing the zoning to allow that sort of development to happen. So there are some areas of the city where currently, maybe it's designated as this was going to be a library. And now we say, you know what, that's probably better as like a port facility. That would be in a case where you change the land use designation and then later the zoning would change and then everything is in line to make those changes. So it's kind of looking at big picture, how might things change over time over the next 20, 15 years or so.

I see no further questions. Commissioner Pullum. ¡Hola! So you guys talked to the two community councils and they— you told them that you were going to propose it to be Town Center and they were—. They thought that was a good idea?

Through the chair, I think, yeah, I talked to the two that are— the one kind of the north and one to the south. The one to the north has been more involved in this. They've expressed they'd love to see something happen there. And the one to the south, they were more interested in the Abbott Loop area. The discussion actually got into them looking at wanting potentially to encourage more town center around Abbott Loop.

That's something we'll maybe get to in December.

So, yeah, in general, I think U-Med is the most engaged with this, and they seem favorable because I think a lot of people want more sort of uses that would connect with the university. So there was no opposition. We didn't have any comments from opposition. Proposition. AKDOT commented just in the future, you know, they're going to be concerned about access onto Tudor where you'd say, well, of course, this is a land use thing, so we're not exactly doing development yet.

But that— any development is going to have to figure that out. You know, there's a bus stop there and how to access Tudor or there's access off of Tudor. But right now, it's just thinking about, you know, big picture, is this appropriate to be something else that, you know, in Town Center, I think it could— Generally, you see down below, it says the implementation zone. So right now it's PLI. Changing this would allow the property owner to rezone through the abbreviated rezone process to B-3, B-1B, CCO, or R-3 or R-3A.

I see no further questions for staff. We'll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to testify, please step forward.

Good evening. Jason Norris, South Anchorage. Just want to speak in favor of this. Anything we can do to streamline the eventual placement of housing on this track would be, in my opinion, a good thing. Obviously, U-Med has developed over time to become a major employment center, and starting to place more housing near our major employment centers where people can get there by mode other than vehicle would be a positive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify?

Hearing none, staff have any rebuttal?

Then we'll close the public hearing. What is the will of— Commissioner McKee. Hi, sorry, I had a question for staff on the proposed figure. It looks like in, in the tract they've removed the white dots, which the white dots were what indicated residential mixed housing.

Is that correct? Yeah, through the chair, I think we did not carry that through. That's the, the speckle, the residential mixed-use development, just because functionally it doesn't really make a difference in this particular instance, I think, because somebody now who wanted to rezone could go to any of the implementation zones. So having that there It could be included, but, you know, wouldn't necessarily make that much of a difference. The way that that speckle gets used, generally when it's on the— I'm going to get really into it here.

When it's on the dark brown, that's when you can do an R4A. But this, it plays less of a role, right? If the speckle was there or not, I mean, potentially there Having the speckle might limit only to R3 or R3A, but I don't know if we would really focus on that or not. In general, it seemed that by not including that speckle, it can use maybe the full range of the implementation zones.

Commissioner McKee, go ahead. Sorry, so just for clarification, the proposed— because a member of the public came up and commented that they were supportive of the development of housing in this tract— mixed residential, varying density could all be constructed in this tract as proposed pending a rezone. So currently it's PLI, so they have to rezone So say if it went through as it is, then the property owner would have to decide, do I want to rezone this to B-3, B-1B, or R-3, or potentially R-3A. Within those, you can do a pretty wide mix. I think B-3 allows the most flexibility.

That's where we even see a lot of housing developers are really interested in doing that. R-3 does not really allow much mixed use. R-3A allows mixed use, but it has a lot of sort of restrictions to it. So we've never actually seen anything built in R3A. So yes, somebody could rezone now to any of those, and B3, B1B, and R3 all do provide a lot of housing.

B3 provides the most housing and other stuff. R3 is the most housing-focused. I don't think there are many other uses other than a couple of adult care and some other things in R3.

Commissioner Christian. Could staff speak to the comments that Parks submitted about future trail access easements and wetlands?

Yeah, through the Chair. So some of the comments, I think this is step 1 of maybe 2 or 3. Say this happened one way or another, the next step would be a rezone, and the step after that would be permitting. The time to look at sort of access would be— and wetlands would be during permitting. And in terms of, you know, recording an easement or something like that, the time to do that would really be if there was a property change, if the property was changing hands or there was a subdivision process.

Now, I know the Assembly has in the past made conditions on rezones or say rezones come into effect when this has been recorded or not. But again, this is just changing the land use designation. So even, you know, one interesting thing about this is that the green squares is there to sort of— in the plan, it says this should be considered in the future. But we don't really have any tool. Like, where the green is located physically on the map, it doesn't mean that that specifically should be where the park is or something like that.

So at the land use plan stage, there's pretty much nothing we can do through the land use plan to require or maintain access or maintain wetlands protection or anything like that. It might be through— it wouldn't even be through zoning, it would probably be through another step. So those are— and that's— it's kind of the same with the DOT access comment. As we said, great, this is something that everybody needs to be aware of, but there's nothing to do through the Land Use Plan that can really create a functional tool to address that. I guess I just want to— I know that we received these comments, but I just want to make sure that the Assembly has these comments when they're actually actually considering the swap, and they do?

Okay. Through the Chair, all the packet that we received will go through. It all goes, so they hear, they get the minutes of this meeting, the resolution you pass, and anything that happens. And that will all go through. And this because, you know, currently this is owned by HLB, and there's discussions about some sort of trade.

I think there are a lot of bodies that are involved in this, so it seems like there will be a lot of attention on this.

I guess I have to ask, you've mentioned R3 being an implementing zone, but you— why is R4 not?

I don't know. That's— I think that's been the way it's been since 2017 in the 2040 land use plan. Okay. Let me ask the question another way. Does it make sense to have R3 but not R4?

I mean, it's okay to say the plan is not perfect.

I think in— when 2040 was created and adopted, the thinking was that there would be these new mixed-use zones, R3A and R4A, and that was And R-3A was supposed to meet some of— provide some of the functions that R-4 did in these certain control areas. So far, that hasn't quite panned out. So R-3A and R-4A haven't really been very successful. So beyond that, I don't know. I get that.

I guess I just don't know why the plan would allow for R-3 but not R-4. Like, we want some housing but not too much, I guess. But either way, let's just— Seeing nobody else in the queue, nobody ready to testify, we will close the public hearing now officially. What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Mills, would you like to state your motion?

I move in case 2026-01 0112 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of an amendment to update the future land use designation of a single parcel in the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan to the Town Center designation with transit supportive development as a growth supporting feature.

That is seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Mills, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yep. So in our findings Um, that this meets the general approval criteria, being that it aligns with the 2040 Land Use Plan. It does not change the internal consistency of the comprehensive plan. It supports the public interest, health, and safety of the community. It also aligns with the 4 goals outlined in the 2040 Land Use Plan.

Um, we heard about 2 community council meetings. That the municipal went through during their review process, and we did not hear any opposition to this motion.

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

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

That motion passes. Next item, staff presentation, case 2026-0113.

Oh yes, thank you, Chair Spinelli. So this is an— a proposed amendment to Title 21 in Chapter 3, and it would change the threshold for minor modifications from 5% to a 15% encroachment, and it would also amend 3 of the 8 review criteria for dimensional variances. And I'm just going to give a little brief context to, uh, to those items. So a minor modification, uh, it is an administrative approval of an encroachment. Right now code says is that we can administratively approve those if the encroachment is 5% or less.

So, uh, so the most common would be property line setbacks. Could also include certain stream setbacks, anything that's a dimensional standard. And the proposal is to increase that to 15% where we could approve that encroachment administratively. The minor modification fee is $135. The dimensional variances, uh, if it's over— right now, if it's over 5%, with this code change, it would be if the encroachment is over 15%.

Those are sent to the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals, or ZBA, and they are reviewed with a public hearing. Uh, so the idea with the minor modification changes, it would, uh, it would allow some additional encroachments to be approved administratively and not go to a public hearing. The fee for those public hearing variances ranges from $710 to around $4,000. Um, most are in the $710 to $1,300 ballpark range. It's only if you're a commercial development or if you're multifamily that's 6 or more units, you really would fall into that $4,000 category.

But it is a higher fee than the minor modification, and you have to go through the public hearing process before ZBA. I took this code change to ZBA at 2 separate meetings. We had originally proposed a threshold increase from 5% to 10%. After some additional research that's included in the memorandum to the Commission, we felt 15% was more appropriate. And then finally, I won't go over every single question I heard from Ziba.

I just wanted to touch upon a few of the questions that they asked that I thought might be common questions that this Commission might ask.

Uh, in code, there is alternative equivalent compliance where you can propose basically an alternate way to meet a code standard, uh, that is administratively approved. I'll note that that is not applicable for dimensional standard requirements. It's, it's more for design requirements. Uh, I also wanted to highlight that we recently reduced the setbacks from property lines for the R-6 zoning districts, and we did try to account for that in the research in the memorandum. Uh, but it's just that the, the setbacks are what drives something to encroach in the first place.

So it's, uh, so this change isn't the only thing that would affect whether something needed a variance or not. It's, it's really the, the requirement in the first place. Um, and we did recently reduce the R-6 setbacks. When a dimensional variance goes to the ZBA board, they do have to find that all 8 standards are met in order to grant the variance.

And then I'll just speak quickly to those 3 criteria. So G talks about ADA accessibility. It's just clarifying that it's it's only for when it's applicable, so they can find it met more easily if the standard does not apply, which it does not apply for most residential properties. And then the changes to review criteria A and B are to permit the board to, to formally permit some additional extraordinary circumstances in addition to just purely physical circumstances. So it's expanding to account for surveying or construction error, uh, or, uh, things like lot shape.

Uh, so what I am hoping from— for from the commission tonight is, uh, your formal recommendation, uh, to be, uh, formalized in a resolution of your recommendation to the Anchorage Assembly. And I will send forward, uh, both your recommendation and the, the recommendation from ZIBA. I did already try to include the changes that ZIBA wanted to see already in what is presented to this Commission, and those are highlighted in the memorandum. That is my summary. I am here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff? Commissioner Mon? Thank you, through the Chair. Thank you, staff, for that presentation. And I'll ask one question, then let it go around and might have some more later.

This question is with respect to the term de minimis. Is that still— or I guess, was it ever used in code with respect to administrative variance approvals? If so, what's the department's position on 15% relative to that term de minimis? Thanks.

Through the chair, Commissioner Rahn, I, I'm not sure of that. I will say that the review criteria H for a dimensional variance says that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible a reasonable use of the land. So I think that might cover what you're asking, but it— that criteria, it's— we usually look and see if the property owner is requesting the, the least amount of deviation from code requirements necessary. So, for instance, if it's a new construction and there's room on the property where they could redesign an addition or located a little differently, we, we typically find that that review criteria H is not met. Whereas if it's, um, an existing structure and they, it would be very difficult to move.

It's— it's the minimum is usually just where the structure is already built. I hope that answers your question. Let me know if it did not.

Not fully. Maybe I was misinterpreting the first part of what I think this case is about, and that's whether or not something needs to go before ZBA or it can be administratively reviewed and approved. Approved by the department. That was the focus of my question.

Got it. Um, through the chair, I suppose my answer to that would be just based on our, on our research with the statistics of cases we've gotten. We've— that's how we landed on the 15%. But, but it is correct, it is a question of of basically whether an encroachment into a setback for a dimensional standard should be approved administratively or go to a public hearing. I will say I do have someone from our legal department here if we really get into the legal questions, but I suppose that's my answer.

I think that the director might want to add to that, though.

I'm wondering if your question is really based on the diminu— diminuis and how we're defining that? Like what qualifies? And I think that the data shows that the board considers anything around 15% to be something that is small enough that they generally just approve it. So in our mind, that felt like it met that standard. Standard.

Does that help answer your question?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

Uh, Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. Um, I've got, I guess, kind of two questions, but the first one— both relate to the approval criteria, the proposed amendments. Um, and the first is not kind of previously having I don't think ever really looked at this before. It looks like in, in Approval Criteria A, and I think the way that this is described too in the second bullet on the first page of the staff packet is describing these as generally to be considered extraordinary circumstances.

And I think it looks like it originally was exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances. And I understand part of the effort is to get away from physical, but I think how it reads now just strikes me a little odd in that I think it's saying that the, the initial threshold for the types of circumstances that can support a variance is that it needs to be exceptional, extraordinary, or practical. And practical to me feels very different from exceptional and extraordinary. And I was— I guess, I guess that's my kind of more of a comment, but I don't know if there was some thinking associated with that that I'm not picking up on. Through the Chair to Member Gardner, we did ask legal to help us draft this one for that exact reason, and I think that the practical circumstances speak to what is possible on the site, whereas the previous criteria or the current criteria require truly some exceptional aspect of the site to be in evidence in order to approve the variance.

But the Commission, ZBA, the Board has been tying itself in knots repeatedly over the past couple decades trying to come up with a way to meet that criteria in instances where it's a practical barrier. Rather than an exceptional physical barrier.

Okay, I thank you for that explanation. I assumed that, yeah, from the experience that Ziba has, there's kind of some background there that I didn't have. That's helpful. And I think my other question is— maybe it's two-part, but, you know, with the addition of surveying and construction errors, one is— the first part is to just clarify if if the intent is that the error needs to be a result of both surveying and construction or one or the other.

Through the chair to Commissioner Gardner, that is an excellent clarification and something that we will take a look at. Thank you. I think that it's intended to be or, either or, not both. Okay, thanks. And then, and then maybe related to that same criteria or circumstance maybe is whether and to what extent that particular one is read to be consistent with some of the other criteria like the hardship not being self-imposed.

I don't know that that necessarily is self-imposed, but there seems to be a tension there between those and also maybe even H that it's— make possible— rather, the minimum variance that will make possible a reasonable use of the land. That criteria seems to really apply only to the physical circumstances, maybe more so than some of the other ones. And maybe it can just be applied in that way. It's just kind of not applicable for the practical circumstances. But I noted that as well.

Through the chair, Commissioner Gardner, related to the first part of your question.

Excuse me while I try to figure out what was the first part of your question, if you don't mind. Yeah, no problem. The relationship between self-imposed hardship and construction errors. Thank you, I'm sorry. So that is something that usually comes up when a current owner is trying to create an addition or make some changes to their property, and a previous owner has, um, had built something on a setback or something like that.

So that is the instance that that one is speaking to, if that helps clarify why it's written the way it is and how it would relate to the, the previous criteria. And I, I can expand upon that. So The encroachments we see there, they're either for an existing or proposed structure. And so the practical part of that criteria, it's often where the only way to remedy the encroachment would be to, like, cut off part of a house, basically. Um, and then the self-imposed is still there because it's to prevent someone from— from us, because the variances you're asking not to follow the law, essentially, and the code requirement is to prevent someone from just building a larger addition because they want a larger addition.

And so that's sort of the— that can't be like a self-imposed encroachment. I think a lot of these are really to address if the existing structures where they're already in place, there's not much the owner can do to remedy what was already there. And I do appreciate also the note for the and/or. We'll take a look at that. I think the intent was to have an or.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you to the tribal. Follow-up related to one of the prior commissioner's questions, and that's the tension between the addition of a human-caused, now potentially admissible issue and the hardship. I believe I heard staff provide a scenario in which this might play out. Full disclosure, I served on ZIBA for 8 years, and so I'm I'm familiar with the tension here, but I'm worried about the direction this is heading in. If I heard staff correctly, they talked about the scenario in which a current owner is trying to remedy something that they bought into.

Um, I believe the intention is not to allow a current owner who's created the issue to get, um, um, that approved. The scenario I'm thinking is one in which there's a transaction, a real property transaction, the seller who's created the issue, it, it slides by, you know, title doesn't pick it up. There's not a new as-built. New owner is trying to do something and realizes there's an issue. The only reason that that's gone through and made okay is because it wasn't caught the first time.

But if it is caught the first time, it doesn't get approved. So I'm not sure if if the objective or intention is allowable based on the changes that are being proposed. And by say allowable, I mean practical perhaps.

Long-winded way of saying I'm struggling with this element of it and the addition of construction errors and surveying errors, which I see as human-caused, different from physical. So any more context or input from why Ziba put that forward would help me.

Through the chair, Commissioner Aran, I can answer that. So I had originally added surveying errors, and it's, it's because I know that we had a couple cases within the last year or two where it was an updated as-built showed that something encroached, whereas the previous as-built showed that it met the property line setback. And it was only with improved surveying technology over the years where we realized there actually was an encroachment. So I had added surveying. And then ZIBA had recommended the addition of construction error.

But I will say there are several surveyors on ZIBA. So it might be because they— because sometimes a construction crew can build something in the wrong place. It's not— that's another error that's not really the fault of a homeowner, but that's how it got there.

Commissioner Polis. I just have a process question. When we do a minor mod and it gets— does it get approved solely by the director, or does it get routed through other departments and they get to provide input too?

Commissioner Polis, through the chair, I believe we don't— we don't always route the minor mods to all of the reviewing agencies that we do for a public hearing. They are approved by the director. If the Director would deny a minor modification, the appeal process is to go to ZBA, so it essentially just sends it to a public hearing. But there is not the same level of agency review as there is for variances.

Through the Chair to Commissioner Polis, the Director will occasionally request the review from— a review from other agencies if they seem Applicable. All right. Nobody else in the queue. Let's open the public hearing. Anybody wish to testify, please step forward.

Yeah. Good evening again. Jason Norris. This is a weird one because I do sit on ZIBA. And so I did hear this, but I'm testifying on my own behalf.

During the course of looking at this, I did send a comment over to Director Bath and Ms. Appleby, and we decided to treat this as my own personal comments. Just over time, the aforementioned change in R-6 setbacks, bringing this forward, indicating a change in culture around how strictly we look at the dimensional standards we have. I just took it one step further and asked, why don't we do a— wholesale review of our dimensional standards and really took some time and looked through what the dimensional standards have been and how long they've been there. And there are many that predate unification of the municipality. And I can't think of a single, you know, government policy or regulation that hasn't changed in 50 years.

And certainly the state of the planning science and urban urban planning has changed a lot in 5 decades. And certainly there are some places where our dimensional standards probably do serve us well. R-6 changed a little bit, but R-6 up through R-10 may be just fine. But the others, there may be opportunities for us to have a code that serves us better. And so I offered that to Director Babb and Ms. Appleby.

They included it in your packets, and I thought I I wanted to come here tonight and just reiterate that I think it is a good idea and also approve of this. I think it is a good idea even outside of sitting up there where you are sitting now. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify? Hearing and seeing none. Any staff rebuttal?

Hearing and seeing none. The public hearing. What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? Sure, I'll move, um, in case 2026-0115 3 to recommend the Anchorage Assembly approval of an amendment to AMC Title 21, Chapter 2103-120, minor modifications, and Chapter 2103-240, variances, to update review criteria for dimensional variances and increase the threshold for director approval of minor modifications. That is seconded by Commissioner Pullis. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion?

Uh, yes, I intend to support the motion. It looks like it is based on a thorough review of data of analysis of variance requests within the past 10 years and is intended to simplify and expedite the process for variances that would be expected to be approved by ZBA while at the same time clarifying some of the approval criteria. I'll note just kind of two items on the amendments to the approval criteria. One is, after discussions with staff, it looks like there's an intent to go back and confirm the surveying and construction errors, whether that's intended to be conjunctive or either one of those could qualify. I assume it would be either one of those given the intent of these changes.

And I also interpret those errors to be true errors and not something that's intended by the homeowner such that it would not be a self-imposed hardship.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, through the chair. I intend to support the motion for the reasons that prior commissioners stated. And also underscoring that the addition of surveying and construction errors, the construction errors element coming from ZBA, you know, leave it to that board to come forward with a solution to how they stop tying themselves in knots.

I would second like to underscore the request to review the dimensional standards that we heard briefly briefly from public testimony tonight and is found in pages 18 through 20 in our staff packet. I, as Commissioner, find a compelling argument made there and look forward to the department's response to that. Thank you.

Commissioner Pullis. I also intend to support the motion. I agree it meets meets approval criteria as noted by staff. We heard no agency or public opposition, and I will second Commissioner Rahn's recommendation to review the dimensional standards if that's a possibility. Seeing nobody else It's in the queue.

Commissioner Baza. Um, I also intend to support the motion. I have a question, or I don't know if this is appropriate, but can I propose an amendment to delete or strike line 6 on Page 8 of the packet, it references the Urban Design Commission as an entity that can approve minor modifications, and I don't think that's true anymore.

Um, one second while we figure out technical difficulties.

Uh, we're— sorry, I've been informed— I guess a point of information— I've been informed that they're— we're having some technical difficulties. I understand the amendment that Commissioner Abaza is bringing. There There is one reference still to the Urban Design Commission. We confirmed that that no longer exists in codes. It was just, um, I, I did write this a bit ago, so I, I still had— the reference was put there in error, but, uh, it is no longer in code, so it should not be in the AO.

So I support the amendment to strike the Urban Design Commission reference.

Although I suppose the commission can make the decision to support it, but I understand the amendment and I think it's a good one. Thank you for that.

So we have a motion to amend. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, everybody who's in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that amendment passes.

Maybe we'll take a— should we take a break?

We'll take a 5-minute break.

Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order. Computer's down, we'll go all verbal.

We are back. The amendment has passed, so we're back to the main motion as amended.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. Um, any opposed?

Hearing none opposed, that motion passes.

All right, that is Case 2026-0113. Next we have comments from staff.

On the right-of-way strategy. Long-range planning. I wonder if we could also talk about the potential work session or if that should be something later for the district advisory plans. Maybe that's at a different agenda item, but—. We're in the Title 21 discussion, which is where we're generally putting you.

So whatever you want to tell us, now is the time. Both or either or? Let's start with the right-of-way study and then we can address the scheduling for the work session at the end of the meeting during announcements and—. Okay. I think.

And I'm sorry, we're in Title 21 agenda item? Yeah. Okay. We're in J. Maybe I'll jump, I'll do the update and then I'll jump to the right-of-way.

That's right. Okay. Good evening again. So I think last week or maybe last month we promised we'd provide you all an update on some of the Title 21 changes. Many of them originated right here in this room, so even at some point years ago.

So this is just a very brief overview of what we've been seeing. There will be an informational item coming probably next month, but it'll have a lot more detail. But this is just kind of a quick overview. So as everybody's probably noticed, First, you know, we— there have been a lot of changes to Title 21 recently. This is the Title 21 updates page where we're sort of tracking the cases and the AOs and what's getting approved.

And if it seems like a lot, it is a lot. It does seem to be more than there used to be. This is a graph that shows all the ordinances amending Title 21. So even if you amended the comprehensive plan, it's on here. And you can see there's a little peak in 2017.

You know, new Title 21 came in 2014. And then it kind of slowed down in 2018, and then ever since we've been kind of increasing. In 2025, we had 23 ordinances amending Title 21. This year so far, we have 18. So there has been a lot of change, and you all have been a big part of a lot of that.

In the memo or the informational item when we put forward, we're going to talk about some of the big ones or the things that we've seen where there are big changes. Honestly, there have been some AOs, and we haven't seen that many changes to Title 21, but removal of parking minimums, ADU reform, 3 and 4-plex reform, limiting the creation of new— set actual limitations, design standards moratorium, the tax incentive, not really land use, but it does impact land use pretty heavily, rezone reform, site access nonconformities, short-term rentals, easing restrictions on agricultural uses, changing setbacks on R-6, meaning they changed the 2040 land use plan, and allowing adult care in I-1 zoning district. So again, some of these have had pretty clear changes and others not that big. And some just removed— maybe removed friction that— so now nobody notices anymore, but at the time, they were pretty salient. One thing that's interesting— I'm just including this slide because Ari Gupta made it.

You can tell he's an academic. It's so— I can barely understand the words he's saying here. The main thing is that the moratorium— design standards moratorium has had a clear correlation with the reduction in zoning review cycles. So the number of times that somebody has to sit— you know, it goes around the review in the Permit Center and then has to go back if somebody says, OK, you need to go back and check this. So it does seem to be reducing those number of cycles.

So that's— anecdotally, we have a lot of information that the Design Standards Moratorium has been very helpful, interestingly, because it eliminates that one admin site plan review. But also internally, when they're reviewing the permits, it does seem to reduce timelines as well. ADUs, these were sort of cause du jour 5 years ago or so. And, you know, Anchorage did 3 rounds of ADU reforms. And in the last one, it did seem to make a pretty big difference.

So in 2025, we had 41 ADU permits. The previous high before that was 28 in 2024. And before that, it was 22 in 2023. This year, we had 15. We might even have more than that.

But it does seem to be that ADU reforms— and that's also honestly with the home reforms from 2 years ago. Has had a pretty good impact. And again, 41 units is not that much. 41 Units overall. We don't permit that much.

So it's a big— you know, the graph looks great, but in the scheme of things, we still don't really produce that much.

A pretty big one that which you all seen is the number of rezones. So AO-2025-40S changed. It created a new streamlined rezoning process, a new muni-led rezoning process, and changed some other things. So in 2026, we've seen 17 rezones so far. That's all types, both abbreviated and regular.

So that is a noticeable increase. We have seen the rate of rezones increase as well. And, you know, one example of that is I think you've all seen— Commissioner Raunder asked earlier about the 2040 Land Use Plan. This is the 2040 Land Use Plan in Abbot Loop. That brown area means this area is supposed to be compact mixed residential medium, so higher density residential development.

Um, until recently, this was all R-5, which is a sort of lower density. But now you see, you've seen, you know, there have been a lot of changes where that is through the abbreviated rezoning process. It's changing from R-5 to R-3. So it is implementing the plan. So this is what, you know, this is what was imagined in 2017.

And here we are in 2026, we're kind of getting there, which is kind of cool. One thing that we've heard a lot about on both sides is the new rezone procedures created by AO-2025-40-S. So one new procedure was a rezone to implement the Comprehensive Plan or eliminate a special limitation. And another was a rezone initiated by the Assembly Administration or PCC. So UO could also initiate rezones for area-wide rezonings or target areas rezonings and overlays.

This we've used, I think, twice so far, but the main one was the parks rezone that Luke mentioned earlier. So it was over 9,000 acres. And again, this didn't actually change that much. It just— there's a lot of parks land that was zoned R-2M or something else that's now zoned PR. So if we didn't— previously, we didn't have that tool.

So this was called out in 2017, 2040 Land Use Plan. But we didn't actually have a means to go out doing a big rezone like this. And one of the changes, as I mentioned, is the mailed notification. So if you're trying to do a really big big rezone, if you do that notification, it becomes, you know, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000. But another piece of that is we have been looking at in the past when we track— and I'm sorry, it's pretty small in here, might be a little bit easier to see up here— is when we do track the mailed notice that goes out, in generally— in general, we get, you know, mailed notice yields like 2%, maybe less than 2% response in general.

Maybe 5%. So we're thinking about maybe there's a better way to do this, more direct information, more updated information that we can provide. You know, we're trying to get more direct information digitally. But so far, you know, mailed notice doesn't seem to produce that many responses. Now, that's written responses.

So a mailed notice might come out and more people do come. But even then, I think on a really busy night here at PCC, you see, you know, if you saw 10 commenters, that would be a pretty big deal. But you look at the numbers that go out, and sometimes it's hundreds of notices go out. And you only hear from— even if you heard from 20 people, and you notified, you know, 291, you know, it's less than 20% basically. So, this will be coming soon.

We'll have this for you. And it will be a little more detailed. It will just be an informational item. And then we'll And we'll probably forward it to the Assembly as well, similar to what we did in the right-of-way management study. One thing that we've sort of been talking about internally is we do— we want to get to— you know, we have new permit software coming.

There's a lot of high hopes for it. We'll see what the realities are. But one thing is just to have a map where people could see what's going on. So you could see the cases on the map. And you click it— this is an example from a place in Oregon.

You click it and it says, you know, here's a rezone case going on here, or here's this kind of case that's going on here. And it's live updated, so everything is integrated together. That's a dream. We don't have that. We'd love to have that.

But another thing I'd like to say before I get to the questions is just thank you all to the commissioners. A lot of these things start here, and maybe they start in one format here, and they end up at the Assembly in a different format or different, you know, slightly changed. But many of those changes did start here, and it has sort of made a difference. So any questions on that? Otherwise, I can jump quickly into the right-of-way management strategy, which I think I'll pull up.

So another thing we included last week for your consideration was the right-of-way management strategy, which 4 years ago when the Assembly removed parking minimums, they also funded a right-of-way management and snow management strategy because the thinking was, well, If off-street parking minimums are regulating the street, we need to have, you know, it's sort of that scene in Indiana Jones where he removes the golden skull and he replaces it with something of equal weight. We have to sort of make sure that we're catching that. So the Assembly funded the right-of-way management strategy and the snow and ice is still going. But this one is now complete. And it is available online.

It's been posted since July. And really, it's just about You know, rights of way are a public asset. It's public property. And it should be managed just like any other public asset. The same as like a swimming pool.

Like, if you have streets that aren't managed, it's sort of like you have a swimming pool with no lifeguards and no chlorine. It works for a while. It can maybe work if you have a lot of them. But in general, we have a lot of these assets. This picture, some people love it, some people hate it.

But it's a really good example of of the challenges of right-of-way management, right? You have somebody storing their vehicle there long-term, obviously. You have snow clearance problems. We have trash problems. And this, I think, encapsulates a lot.

This is a new development. The development was required to put in sidewalks that are unusable. People who want to use the sidewalks also can't use them. There's some trash issues. There's some snow clearance issues.

So a lot of this, we look at this as this is a right-of-way management issue. So there's a strategy. It's not a plan. It's not policy direction. It's sort of identifying how much capacity we have on our streets, our curb space, and what to do if there becomes a problem.

So I encourage anybody to look through it. There's also two appendices here. One is looking at some research that they did. And we also have data from the Spinard parking analysis. None of the data found that there was a major capacity issue, meaning there's never really a parking problem.

But I don't want to take away from— if you're driving somewhere, you want to park right in front. It makes sense. Like, we've all been there. And that sometimes does feel like a problem. So there's a perception of space exactly where you want it versus the total reality of space that's available.

This gets into that a little bit. But mostly, this is a starting point for if the municipality decides to go down that road of managing rights-of-way a little more actively. Actively. This has the tools to do it. You know, there's— I think they came up with about 8 main things to look at, and there's some good data.

So we sent that last week. We're also sending it to the Assembly. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions, or we can leave it at that.

Commissioner McKee. My question is just why Why even include the word storage in the plan, which implies allowing people to keep their cars in the right-of-way for an extended period of time? Why not just managing vehicle parking? Great question. I think it is because in many instances in the study— so again, it's not a plan because it doesn't really have set policy recommendations.

Guidance, or it hasn't been adopted by the assembly as policy guidance. But I think it is because many times in Anchorage, people are storing their vehicles in the right-of-way long-term. Either long-term, or they have an expectation that, you know, they have a right to store their vehicle there. Which can be done. You know, in many cities, people have sort of a permit system or something to park right out in front of their house.

And it really is just It could also be called maybe how to allocate space within the right-of-way. But I think it is really getting to the idea that oftentimes in Anchorage, when we run into these problems with right-of-way management, it is because people are storing private property in the public right-of-way. Especially with plowing, right? I'm sure we've all heard people say, "Well, we can't plow there because they're never going to—" It's like, yeah, that's a big problem. Somebody is basically— it's like, I couldn't store a refrigerator out in the street, right?

But if the refrigerator happened to have has 4 wheels and an engine, all of a sudden I can. So that is kind of— it is looking at it a little bit more differently. But really to get just thinking about how do we manage this public asset.

I think your refrigerator would probably need a license plate. Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you, the chair. Staff, thank you very much for talking us quickly through a number of very big things, working backwards and starting with the parking management study. I can't help but acknowledge that cover photo and the rolled curb that that vehicle has rolled over.

My interest is in better understanding the relationship between managing the right-of-way relative to parking and active transportation. Something I'm hearing a lot recently is voicing perceptions of conflict between on-street parking and pedestrian or bicyclist safety. And I haven't gone digging, but I didn't see apparent in this plan coverage on that topic. So I'm curious if you have any thoughts about that, how, if any work is being done about it, who to learn from more to better understand, is that an element that's being underlooked, or should it be looked into? Through the Chair, I think I'd start with, as you all remember, site access was a really big change.

And one of the really big changes in site access was actually reducing the requirements for sidewalks and really thinking more about Anchorage, as the costs really build up and we find it's really difficult to build sidewalks, thinking about we have lots of right-of-way, but how do we manage the right-of-way, allocate the right-of-way? And then it really becomes having a harder conversation about more users in the same space. So sidewalks is fundamentally about getting the non-motorized away and the motorized— like, completely separating them. From what we've seen, Anchorage doesn't really have that luxury anymore. So now it really is getting getting to we're going to have to figure out how everybody's going to share the space together, people on bikes or in cars or on motorcycles or whatever.

This will be part of that. Although this doesn't, you know, because it's not a policy plan, it doesn't really say we want to get to this type of non-motorized use or not, or we want to manage vehicles in a certain way. It just provides the tools if somebody wanted to manage towards one of those ends as they could. But I think you've— there are a lot of discussions going on right now with how we design our streets, how we make sure if we give up some of those things like sidewalks, if we're then ensuring that the remaining rights-of-way we do have protect all users equally. Some of it might be through types of enforcement.

There maybe could be pieces of design. I mean, you know, a whole roadway that's slower is safer for all users. But— and that's a little more design than management. So I don't know if I got exactly what you're speaking about. This doesn't get into that too much, but it's all part of the conversation.

And it's all actually tied to cost and budgets and what Anchorage can afford. And maybe in the future, looking a little bit differently at how we all use the rights-of-way and what our expectations about it are, just because we can't really afford the alternative anymore. And through the chair to Commissioner Rahn, if I I might jump in. I don't want to give the impression that we're giving up on sidewalks altogether. We still are requiring sidewalks under certain circumstances.

But that is a question that the departments internally have been struggling with more and more lately. And I do think that we are attempting to address that question via both the updates to the DCM the upcoming updates to the Official Streets and Highways Plan. Thanks for that. And if I can clarify the intent of my question, it's not to espouse the belief that on-street parking creates a less safe condition for a pedestrian or bicyclist. It's that I don't see that represented here.

And if that's part of the community discourse, how do we better understand the situation as it exists to be able to have informed discussions with people about on-street parking? Parking. To the Chair, I—. Oh, I— yeah, if the contention is that people parking on the street makes it less safe, I think in general when there are more cars parked on the street, it actually slows everything down. And speed is one of the biggest factors in all sorts of, you know, crash risks.

So I— yeah, I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

The queue is working now. But if anybody had any comments— Commissioner Krishna. Just related, but I would encourage the Commission if they have some extra time to take a look at the recently published Downtown Streets Engineering Study, which the Department also completed. And which I think maybe takes this a step further in a targeted area and provides some scenarios of what that right-of-way could look like in the Downtown District. Just some reading for anyone who's interested.

I guess I'll ask.

So is any— is the Administration doing anything with the strategies?

Are we designating municipal parking administrator anytime soon? Have we heard anything?

Chair, I have not heard anything from the administration yet as to what they would like to do with the recommendations in this study. They are just recommendations. Again, this is not a plan. So we're hoping that This will be helpful and relevant if parking does become a major issue in any of our neighborhoods or urban areas in the future, specifically as it might relate to potential upcoming code changes that could change development patterns, things like that. So I'm not aware of any specific movement in the administration any of the departments to take up any of these recommendations yet.

It's just merely an informative potential tool for the future. I guess I— to elaborate on that, has there been any thought given to who the municipal parking administrator would be if there were going to be one? Because in my mind, it's like you have right-of-way and it's their right-of-way and they're pretty serious about owning it and policing it. But then traffic seems to be the decision-making body. So I'm just curious.

That is an excellent question and something that we would definitely have to work out internally if it came to that. One thing that I can say is that we have been working very closely with the ACDA on this. And asked their opinion of some of the recommendations that they expand their, their area where— of enforcement. And they are very excited and enthusiastic about the idea that they might be able to help administer a strategy of sort, whatever that turns out to be in the future. Thank you.

Commissioner McKee. And maybe you already answered this, but because it doesn't seem that there's a particular strategy being pursued, but is there any like prioritization of maybe adopting a winter strategy over any other time of the year strategy? Because in winter, you know, the snow, the parking in the street or the parking/storage in the street preventing snow removal at some point actually does block fire emergency school buses from being able to get through the streets. I noticed that you selected Airport Heights, and in the winter in Airport Heights, on-street parking/storage on several streets prevents fire trucks, emergency response, school buses from being able to get through certain times of the year. Yeah, through the chair, so initially this The study was— it had a snow and ice component and the sort of parking component.

It did get spun off. I think snow and ice is still with Public Works. I think they're still working on that. So this touches on it a little bit. And I think some of the data was collected in January.

But again, similar to, you know, as was pointed out, we also did the downtown streets engineering studies. Like, why do these studies and not plans? Really, so that if somebody chooses to make that choice to do something, this tells them, here's a number of things you could do, rather than what to do with this. So if it does become a problem or somebody says, OK, I want to figure this out in Airport Heights, we can start here and with the snow and ice, fortunately. And I think, you know, going back to the other presentation is one thing with the removal of parking minimums is there was a lot of concern that people would just stop building parking when they were developing.

We haven't seen that that's the case at all. I think every new development we've seen still provides parking. I've only seen maybe one residential unit that didn't. So in general, I think most private property owners are still providing plenty on-site. But again, this is to be prepared in case something changes and people start taking different types of risks.

But again, if, if somebody wishes to pursue that snow, that's the problem they want to solve, this could hopefully help them get to that and paired with the right— the snow and ice, which I think still is forthcoming.

All right. See no further questions in the queue. Move on to Commissioner comments. Are there any Commissioner comments?

Just briefly, Chair, the work session, have we aligned on that?

Staff, do you want to address the work session? Yeah, thank you everybody for responding to me today. So we— I think Commissioner Christian brought up potentially we— the Commission has the discussion without any pressure of that item coming back as a public hearing item and maybe at the work session, then you can decide. So we also proposed, oh, what if we, you know, have a work session on October 5th and then have the item come back on October 19th? And the idea was, well, what if you all— you have the work session, then decide if you want to have the public hearing.

I think that seems quite reasonable. And so what remains to be decided is October 5th. I know that some members unfortunately can't attend, but we were still thinking— it sounded like in the evening does tend to be a little bit better. But we are also thinking potentially we could do it at the Permit Center, which is maybe a little bit farther out, but it's easier to get in and out of. We don't have to go upstairs.

And here, the thinking that it would be nice if everybody could sit around the table. And there we do have the audiovisual, so it's easier to record and all that sort of thing. So we're ready to do whatever you all think would be best.

Any questions? Commissioners with any input for staff?

Is there a need to find an alternative to October 5th, or in your estimation, is there enough of the Commission available on that day to initiate conversation? Sorry, alternatives for the work session on the 5th for another day? I think at the other meetings, I believe we had the CIP work session, is that right, Lori, in advance? And then November, I won't be here. We could do later in November after the— maybe immediately in advance of the second meeting potentially.

Commissioner Gardner. I mean, nothing crucial here. I just hadn't responded to your email, but I would be available on the 5th in the evening, either 5:30 or 6:30 at either location. So you have that. And I think Commissioner Rahn's question was whether— I don't know how many people are available on the 5th, but whether we need to be looking at an alternative based on availability on the 5th or if we've got enough of a group to make something useful on that day.

I believe two said they couldn't. I mean, it would be great if everybody could so we could push it to November if everybody would prefer. I mean, or— I don't have the calendar. I have it. Uh, it would be November 2nd, or let me scroll down, or November 9th if you end up pushing to November.

For me, it'd be better November 2nd because I'll be out the 9th. Apologies to those commissioners that aren't available. I have an interest to move forward. Quicker rather than slower on this.

Um, a month is a month.

We can also record the work session so that those who are not able to attend can have access to the audio later. And I'll just repeat the dates again. So it's October 5th would be the earliest date. You cannot have it at the second meeting because there's already a work session scheduled for October 19th, and then otherwise it's, uh, October 2nd, and I think the 9th is when you said you— or sorry, November 2nd. Commissioner Krishna.

And this is an item that's a recommendation to the assembly, so my strong preference would be that we pick a date where an assembly member who's interested in participating in this can attend. Um, and I think that would have the most utility for the discussion that we're going to have, um, if one chooses to. Um, if not, then we can move forward ourselves. How about I can send around a Calendly or something and we'll make sure that the assembly member can attend, or one or more.

One more question on planning for dates. Are we locked into those Monday evenings? I heard mention of during the day, which makes me think that we're not locked into Mondays, but it's a commission decision. I think it's just tradition. It would be a special meeting instead of a regular meeting is all, if you deviate from your regularly scheduled Monday nighttime.

I guess I'll add we don't have the assembly chambers reserved, so you— I don't know that you could hold it here, but it sounds like you weren't going to hold it here anyway.

I'll just say that my preference is to have work sessions either directly before a meeting or not at night, because I don't want to take up too many of my evenings. Personally. But I understand that some people aren't able to make meetings during the day, so I'm easy with whatever. But that's— that would be my preference, is to keep the meetings lined up with an actual meeting, so I'm doing two things in one night rather than two things in two nights. We will take another stab at the schedule with a Doodle poll and share that Doodle with the assembly member who's interested in attending and let you all know what the results of that poll is.

Just saying, we might need more than an hour for this work session. I— yeah, maybe.

Ms. Rambazza. I can't make it on October 5th, but I appreciate the offer of recording it so we can listen in later.

Thanks. Chair, I have one more note to add if we're through with the scheduling discussion. I think we are. Go ahead. Great.

I just wanted to mention we had— we heard some testimony earlier, and there was a discussion about dementia. Standards in Title 21. And I wanted to note that long-range planning has been doing a deep dive on lot coverage requirements and how they— the history of lot coverage requirements in the Muni per zoning district and how they compare to other, other communities across the U.S. So if the Commission is interested in seeing that information, I think I think that it is possible that I might be able to talk Long Range into bringing that to you as an informational item. And I'm seeing a lot of nodding, so it looks like you're interested.

That's great. Thank you. Sounds good. Any further Commissioner comments?

Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Commissioner Abaza, seconded by Commissioner McKee. Any objection? Hearing none, we are adjourned.