Planning and Zoning Commission - March 9, 2026 - 2026-03-09 18:30:00

Okay, uh, we're gonna call the March 9th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May we please have the roll call? Andres Spinelli. Here. Radhika Krishna.

Here. Jeff Rahn. Here. Amma Abaza. Here.

Megan Mills. Here. Edith McKee. Here. Jared Gardner, Scott Polis, and Brandy Eber are excused.

You have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Next is special order of business. Are there any disclosures?

Commissioner Mills? I will abstain from voting on the consent agenda as I was not yet seated on the commission then. Thank you.

I was absent from the February 9th meeting, but since then I have listened to the audio of case 2016-0015 and I can vote on resolution 2026-0015. -014. Thank you for listening.

And anyone else?

Commissioner McKee? Um, I need to disclose that I will be abstaining from voting on the consent agenda as I was not yet seated on the commission, and I also need to disclose disclose with regard to case 2026-0010 that I serve on the Urban Design Commission.

Uh, thank you for that disclosure. Um, is it your intent to participate in tonight's, uh, case? Um, it is if I am directed to by the board. Okay, um, I guess I'd entertain a motion to direct Commissioner McKee to participate.

Commissioner Krishna, would you like to state your motion? Sure, I move to direct Commissioner McKee to participate in case 2026-0010.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Baza. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, we're hearing this case in our legislative or advisory capacity, and I believe that your experience on the Urban Design Commission makes you perhaps the most qualified to participate in this case, so I direct you to do so.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Any— Any objection? Hearing none, motion passes.

Um, next we'll be looking for a motion to reorder the agenda to hear the consent agenda after public hearings and to combine cases 2026-0025 and 2026-0024.

Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state your motion? I move to reorder the agenda to hear the consent agenda after the public hearings and to combine cases 2026-0025 and 2026-0024. Thank you. Any objection or discussion on the motion? Hearing and seeing none, that motion passes.

On to the public hearings.

I will read the procedures by which the public may speak to the Commission at its meetings. One, after staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the Chair will ask public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow time limits established in the Commission rules of procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal.

Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., 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.

Uh, the time allotted for testimony in combined cases will be doubled. Petitioners will have 20 minutes, groups 10 minutes, individuals 6 minutes. Uh, may we please have the staff presentation in case 2026-0025 and 24?

All right. Good evening, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I am Luke Bertram, Senior Planner in the Long Range Planning Division. Oh, hold on, wrong PowerPoint.

One, one sec, we just need to get the correct presentation up.

All right, as we were, uh, we have, uh, two cases on the agenda, uh, PCC 2026 2025 to amend the land use plan and, um, 2026-0024 to amend the zoning map. Um, just for a bit of background, um, in 2012, uh, the municipality had rewritten Title 21, um, and removed some zoning districts from it. So as you can see Uh, here, um, that involved removing the D-2, B-4, and T zoning districts from, um, the next edition of Title 21, which we currently use. Um, so all properties that were still zoned those districts had pretty much been left to fall back to the old code for anything with zoning entitlements of any sort. Um, so the main purpose of this, um, land use map amendment and rezone is to address it, finally get those off the map after, um, more than a decade at this point.

Um, also with that, we are, um, doing an area-wide rezone Since the municipality has the authority to initiate rezones on parcels within the municipality, this is just in the Anchorage Bowl, so not affecting anything in Chugiak/Eagle River or down in Girdwood or Turnagain Arm.

So starting with the comprehensive plan amendment, this will change the land use map designation of 2 parcels from community facility or institution and one parcel from Town Center, all of them to light industrial/commercial designation, uh, right down here at, uh, Huffman Road and Seward Highway area. Um, so with the two parcels up here at 1401 LaBarre Street, staff contacted the Anchorage School District to confirm whether they had any plans to expand their facilities to, these parcels here since we did have them kind of marked with their, existing facility here. Um, but they do not have any long-term plans to do so. Um, and then going down here to 1400 LaBarre Street on this south parcel here, um, it's —just overall separate from the remaining town center area off of Huffman Road. There's no actual direct access between here, and the general nature of that kind of development right here on LeBar is industrial.

So kind of in the spirit of Anchorage 2040 Goal 9, we are really looking to preserve industrial uses. Uh, so with this project, we are looking to, um, change the land use designation of these 3 parcels to light industrial commercial. This will also come into play with the rezoning, which I'll get to in a little bit.

Uh, the Planning Department finds that the proposed land use— land use amendment meets all the required approval criteria established in AMC 2103070C2.

And the department recommends approval of the amendment to change the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan land use designation of those 3 parcels. Um, and moving on to the rezoning, um, as I said earlier, B-4, uh, B-4 SL and D-2 zoning districts are no longer in Title 21 and must follow the code, uh, from February 2013. Uh, we have the TR zoning district, which refers back to the old T zoning district. However, everything that's TR, that still has to go back to the 2013 code anyways, even though it's a new name. New doesn't— and so we're using the targeted area rezones to implement the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan, break down roadblocks for property owners and staff to get rid of that discrepancy between old code and new code.

Um, and also for more information on those old zoning districts, since we don't really have them come by here much, I included some more information off of Munich Code here.

Um, so just some things to keep in mind as we get to each individual area that we have the rezone Um, the D2 district was intended as kind of an eventual residential use area and calls to the R2M district for permitted— for residential densities, permitted uses, permitted accessory uses and structures that either is exactly the same as R2M or very similar. So Um, of existing, uh, D2 properties, we're looking at that R2M and R3 zoning district. Um, B4, uh, is most similar to B3 zoning, so we're looking at general, uh, general business, B3 general business for those parcels. And T, as I said earlier, is what TR is now.

Um, as public notice, as kind of a courtesy, planning staff sent mailers out to property owners. We'd received correspondence from 2 property owners asking for more information, but nothing in favor or in opposition. And we held an open house at the library here last Wednesday. We had 1 property owner with their parents attend the open house, who I believe are in attendance right here. Um, so now kind of getting into where we're breaking down the area rezones across 23 parcels around town.

There are 13 TR-zoned parcels in the Sand Lake area near 64th Avenue and Cranberry Street near Conners Lake. Um, the current designation in the 2040 land use map is for single and two-family residential, which the implementation zoning district for that is R-1. Properties are already subject to R-1 standards. It's a bit small here, but land contiguous to zone— land contiguous to land zone for less intensive use. So pretty much the T zoning requirements need to be in line with that R-1 unit since it is the least intensive use.

There is also a requirement that property owners of residential-owned land within 1,000 feet of T-owned property shall be notified in writing of the issuance of a building or land use permit. Effective date of the permit shall be no earlier than 30 days after the date of mailing a T-use land use determination notification. So part of this too just removes that extra barrier for those property owners there. Um, and also here, the, um, pretty much anything built there needs to conform with the comp plans there. It functionally already follows R-1, so we're really formalizing the map here and moving it from TR to R-1.

Um, going back to that Huffman Road, Seward Highway area, Um, the current designation is Town Center and Community Facility or Institution. With the proposed designations that we'd gone over, everything here that would be in the Town Center designated area, we are looking at rezoning to B-3, and everything up here in the proposed Light Industrial Commercial designation, we'd be looking at rezoning to I-1 in alignment with the industrially zoned areas over here.

And then the area by Totem Theatre at Muldoon Road and 32nd Avenue. The current designation is neighborhood center. The— we do have a separate Planning and Zoning Commission case that came through last week that proposed to change the land use designation here to commercial corridor. Um, so with that, um, one of the implementation zoning districts is B3, which is why we're looking at going from, uh, B4 to B3 at these two properties. So that's the old, uh, Totem Theater site and the McDonald's there on Muldoon Road.

And then the last area we're looking at, um, is on DeBar Road in the Airport Heights area. We have two D2-zoned parcels. This one up here to the north has mixed density residential low designation, and down here, uh, this has mixed density residential medium designation. So to clean up the map since there is some split zoning here and to get rid of those old zoning districts, we are Uh, looking at, uh, changing the zoning designation of this full parcel here to R2M on the north here, and then this one here in the mixed density residential medium designation to R3 zoning. Um, going to the criteria of approval, um, it is consistent with the comp plan.

These zoning districts are going to the Implementation— implementing zoning districts as set in the comprehensive plan. It would not result in an objective risk to health or safety. This— there's no development proposed with this. This just is really cleaning up the map, and it does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances, as municipality has the authority to uh, rezone land. Um, so the department finds rezoning request meets all approval criteria as outlined in AMC 2103160L4, and we recommend approval of the request to rezone 23 parcels.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?

Commissioner Krishna. Sure. In general, we don't see that very many municipality-initiated rezones. Could you just give us a little bit of history as to why these weren't completed in 2012 and any Any reasons there? And then, um, are there any, uh, sort of, um, changes to setbacks or allowable uses that we should be aware of as we consider the zoning of these properties changing?

Yeah, so to get to the first part, um, we did have the opportunity— we actually did find mailers to the property owners from when code came out, or the new code was, uh, being written. Those were well before 2012 in our files, but it never got completed for whatever reason. Um, our ordinance to, uh, initiate rezones as area-wide rezonings, we didn't actually have that passed until last year. Um, so now we're using that really to clean up the zoning map. Um, and then to the second point, there are some changes from B-4 to B-3, but since these are municipality-initiated rezones, um, one provision we have in code is that these would be legally nonconforming uses if anything is brought out of conformance, um, in terms of setback or use, but they generally overline or overlap.

Thank you.

Uh, Commissioner McKee. Hi, I have two questions. Um, for the parcel that is, um, the community facility or institution, which is the school, which proposes to have the adjacent property re- zoned as industrial. Did the school express any concerns? I mean, they don't have a plan to expand into that area, but do they have any concerns about commercial or industrial development being adjacent to the, to the facility?

When we contacted ASD, they had no concerns. And then my other question regarding the parcel that's located in the vicinity of Airport Heights and DeBar, reclassifying that from a residential industrial to a two-family residential. That area is primarily like trailer homes. Yes. So would that reclassification, if somebody should put forth a development plan, require those folks to move or no longer be allowed to live in trailer home style?

One sec, we'll just double-check our R2M requirements.

All right, so this came after our ordinance on relocatable dwelling units. They are permitted in R2M with a major site plan— or sorry, with an admin site plan review. So would those folks have to come before a board and be given a variance to be allowed to remain in a trailer style home in this parcel if it's rezoned?

It would, it would be non-conforming, um, if there are any setback issues. Since, um, going to that text from the municipality-initiated rezones, um, any non-conformity that is created is legally grandfathered in. Chair, if Current Planning can just weigh in on that question as well. Sure. Through the chair, Commissioner McKee, it's a— like Luke was saying, it's in the R-2M zoning district.

It's a new mobile home— or sorry, relocatable dwelling unit park would be under an administrative site plan. This would be a de facto— they would, like he was saying, grandfather rights, but it's de facto. So if they ever came in and needed something, they'd Anything administratively or any entitlement, they would basically fill out an administrative site plan and put de facto because there's no case. Does that help? Yeah, thank you.

That was my concern. Yeah.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing.

Anyone wishing to testify on cases 2026-0025, 2026-0024, please step forward.

Um, nobody wishes to testify.

We can, uh, probably not ask staff for rebuttal, but, uh, we'll close the public hearing.

She can't hear, and we're not sure where you're at right now. Is that the two properties you're talking about, Michael? Are you talking about closing this up? Are you talking about this right now? Yeah.

These cases, uh, okay, uh, maybe staff can talk to these folks and find out what case they want to have, but I just closed the public hearing, so—.

Chair Spinelli, would you be willing to reopen the public hearing? Yeah, I I, I, it's unclear to me if this is what they want to testify about. Yep. Um, just hopping in, uh, is the property owner of this parcel right here with, uh, 2026-0024 on the rezone? Okay, so we will go ahead and reopen the public hearing and you can, uh, okay, well, you could just come on forward.

Step up to the mic, turn it on, state your name for the record.

All right, hello, can you hear me? Nobody can hear me. Okay, can you hear me? Yeah, um, maybe pull it up a little bit higher. Yeah, there you go.

Speak under it or just anywhere at it, which should be fine. Yeah. Oh, okay, sorry. Yeah, just state your name for the record. Okay, my name is Fred, last name is Kring.

It's K-R-I-N-G. And, um, we spoke with these gentlemen the other day and everything went well. Um, once again, we were the only ones that were there, you know, so they had a lot of time to speak with us and go over the issues and everything. And I honestly don't have any issues with what they're proposing. I was just— and we went over some things. I just, I think I just feel like, um, well, for the properties down below in the large parcel, their homes are already complete.

They're full, they're there. And this parcel that I purchased, there was a home there, but one of the conditions at the time with me and the realtors and everything were that it was— it didn't have a foundation. A lot of things were changed on it. It was old, it was pieced together. So they were going to basically get rid of it and then I could build anything I wanted to on it.

So as transitional, when I spoke with someone at the municipality, a lady there, she said— I didn't understand what even transitional meant, you know. And she was basically saying, you can do all these things with that property. And I'm like, okay, great. So then we purchased it, or I purchased it really. But if it changes to a residential, and I know that they did say we can do a lot of things with it still, but I'm not sure if that increases my taxes by a lot or if that'll mean, okay, you can only have one house with so many bedrooms or this or that.

They did go over height requirements and a lot of stuff, but I feel like, you know, when you buy something at one point and then just a few years later before you actually get to put something on it you're losing— I just feel like I'm losing something. So I don't know, I don't know, I don't know much about the whole process, you know, and all that stuff. So we just thought we'd come down and listen and see what happened.

And well, okay, that's about it, I guess. Okay, I don't know. You do have 4 minutes left. I will ask you, um, you, you mentioned that you felt like you're losing something. Yeah, I think it would help us to know if you're if you object to, uh, the, the rezone from TR to R1, uh, just to kind of clearly state it, um, for the commission.

Yes, I guess I— when I did buy it, that when I did go to the municipality and spoke with the lady there, that she basically just, and like I said, informed us of all the things you could do with that. You know, um, as far as building and whatever. So it just gives you— it seems like a wide range of options, options that you're purchasing. You know, you can do from here to here. And I don't know if residential, by going to that, would be like— that closes that gap.

You know, you can still do these few things, but if you change your mind at any time and you want to put something else on the property, you can't do that now. Because she said I could like subdivide later down the road put, you know, anything, all these things on it. I don't know. So, but yeah, I guess that'd be a yes. I don't know.

Yeah. And, um, maybe would staff like to weigh in on the currently acceptable uses for TR zoning?

All right, so, um, there are a wide variety of uses that are permitted in TR generally. However, we do have this provision of kind of an extra condition for land contiguous to land zone for less intensive use. So Um, land zone T, or in this case, TR, um, now post-2015, land contiguous to residential zone land shall be permitted to be used only in accordance with provisions and standards less intense or equal to provisions and standards allowed under this title for the least intensive land use zone within a 1,000-foot radius. Um, so in other words, it's saying the use and intensity— so going to setbacks, heights, those kinds of standards Um, are only permitted to be the same as the least intensive land use within 1,000 feet of that parcel. Um, so, you know, when you're, um, going through the parcels within 1,000 feet of there, you know, the least intensive zoning district in there is R-1, so you are subject to R-1 at that property.

Okay, and then this— I'm trying to get to the bottom of what I heard. So you did mention the TR does have a lot of other allowed uses. So without whoever the staff person he may have talked to wasn't looking at the actual map, and maybe that note about the less— the least restrictive adjacent zoning, they— it could have been mistakenly told that he had several allowed uses. Is that correct? Yeah, that's definitely a possibility.

Okay, um, so do you— does that kind of— do you understand that what that means is like, I, I believe the way the code's written now is you may have been told that you were allowed to use all these other uses because the TR zoning would allow it, but in this particular instance, when you're adjacent to R-1 You would be held to R-1, so it doesn't sound to me like you're losing anything. Um, but I have another question from another commissioner. Commissioner McKee. Okay, and this might be a question for staff, but, um, one of the things I heard— the, the person speaking before us, um, Fred, was asked if he'd be allowed to still subdivide this property. So would he be allowed to subdivide this this tract of land under R-1?

In terms of size requirements, it is much larger than 2 R-1 lots. Um, I don't know if I can answer that right now, right here, given any other constraints with, you know, water, sewer, site access, that kind of thing. So we would need to have a bit more discussion, a bit more of a look in the property before, um, getting to anything, anything really solid there. And it looks like under R-1, he'd be allowed to have single-family and, and two-family buildings. What other types of buildings would have been allowed under TR that may or may not be allowed under this, um, R-1 classification?

Since the R-1 is with— or since this TR parcel is within 1,000 feet of R-1, it is the same uses, um, what is permitted now versus what is permitted in R-1.

Would you mind sharing a little bit about what those structures might be, please? Yes. Well, Um, so in R-1, uh, we permit, uh, single-family detached homes, uh, two-family dwellings which can be attached or detached, um, relocatable dwelling units, or, um, similar to a mobile home, um, assisted living facilities with 3 to 8 residents are permitted. With 9 or more residents, it's a conditional use.

Um, Habilitative Care Facilities, up to 8 residents are permitted and are conditional use with 9 to 25 residents. Um, otherwise we got Adult Care Facilities, 3 to 8 residents are permitted and it's a conditional use with 9 or more. Um, Child Care Centers are a conditional use for 9 or more children. A Child Care Home, up to 8 children is permitted there. I think that's about— um, and then I mean some other, uh, public buildings like libraries, neighborhood rec center are permitted with an admin site review, but I think—.

And those would all be allowed under the R-1? Yes. Okay, thank you. Um, and also, since we had discussed this before, um, accessory dwelling units are also permitted. So, um, you're really allowed up to 3 dwelling units on a property with that— a duplex that is permitted and an accessory dwelling unit on top of that.

Um, just that third one would be, um, subject to accessory dwelling unit size requirements, other use-specific standards we have in code. And yeah, so it would be again very, very dependent on what you would build there as a house. I— you have my business card if you are interested in building one in the future. Yeah, oh yeah, I'm definitely putting something on there. Yeah, it's just, it's just a huge chunk, and I was just thinking it's almost like having a clean slate, you know, and it's the size of 4 the residentials next to it, and having a clean slate as opposed to the others that have things on them.

I know they can't really do a whole lot, you know, because they're kind of locked into the houses that are on their property already, where this is like, do what you will, you know, as far as places. And, but yeah, I— okay, uh, Mr. Hatcher. Thanks, Chair Spinelli. Through the chair, Miss Commissioner McKee, and in answer to the development of this lot, I'm going to put on my AWWU hat for a hot second here.

This lot's all connected by extended connections. It's at the end of a dead-end cul-de-sac that's actually not a cul-de-sac. The adjacent property is park property, so there's not even right-of-way to actually connect to this parcel. So subdividing this parcel would be very difficult, not impossible, but probably really difficult. You'd probably have to do mainline extension for both water and sewer to serve if they were to try and do that.

So—. But I would like to remind the Commission that this proposal does not change their ability to propose a subdivision. They can still propose to subdivide and try to solve those problems.

Could I weigh in too? I just want to point out that the, the minimum lot size in the T or TR zone is 7,000 square feet, and the R-1 zone, it's 6,000 square feet. So that's another piece of this. Thanks.

So they're just letting you know that if you were to choose to subdivide The R-1 would actually allow smaller lots, or essentially more lots in theory. Okay. I see no further questions from the commission. So thank you for your testimony. Thanks for everybody being here.

Yeah, I appreciate it. Is anybody else wishing to testify on this matter? Please step forward.

I can turn it off. Yeah, you're good. Okay, thank you.

Um, last chance before we close the public hearing again. Anybody? All right, we're closing the public hearing. Staff, did you have any rebuttal you wanted to add?

Uh, not at this time.

All right, uh, I will remind the commission we will need two motions, one for each case. What is the will of the body?

Uh, Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state your motion? Thank you, Chair. I move in case 2026-0025 to recommend the Anchorage Assembly approval of the amendment to the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan, land use map classification from community facility or an institution and town center to light industrial/commercial.

Uh, commission— that's seconded by Commissioner Baza. Commissioner Rahn, would you like to speak to your motion? Thank you, Mr. Chair. A few findings of fact.

Um, these land use plan— these land use plan changes will facilitate updating the zoning in the area to modern zoning. Updating these parcels to modern zoning will simplify the Anchorage land use system and provide additional certainty and consistency for property owners. Uh, an additional finding: the municipality has at least 91 acres of property that are still using the zoning districts of old Title 21. And as we heard in testimony tonight, the Anchorage School District, which is an adjoining landowner, expressed no opposition to the proposal. Thank you.

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

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

That motion passes.

Next, we'll be looking for a motion in case 2026-0024. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0024 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly Approval of the rezoning of approximately 90.8 acres of land in the Anchorage Bowl from B-4, D-2, and TR districts to R-1, R-2M, R-3, B-3, and I-1 districts. Seconded by Commissioner Baza. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, I intend to support this motion. I would add as findings that the municipality has at least 91 acres of property that are still using the zoning districts old Title 21. Updating these parcels to modern zoning will simplify the Anchorage land use system and provide additional certainty and consistency for property owners, and that this case meets the approval criteria of AMC 21.03.160L. I would also add as comments that, you know, we've heard about this many years ago, and that with this change, the Department has, I believe, finally moved our land use regime entirely away from being dependent on districts that are not found in current Title 21, a process that was first initiated, as we heard, maybe even before the year 2012. And with this, they've completed a more than decade-long process for our city-side I would like to very much thank staff for their work on this.

Point of information. Not quite. Unfortunately, not quite. Okay. We're getting there.

This is a good first step. Well, staff has made significant progress towards that goal, which has been many decades in the making. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak to the motion?

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

That motion passes.

Next item, Case 2026-0010. May we please have the staff presentation?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. Um, I'll just give a very quick overview. Uh, PCC case 2026-0010 is Planning Department, um, and PCC review of a draft ordinance to sunset the Urban Design Commission.

Um, Member Brawley was here earlier talking about this. She has sponsored this. For just to clarify any confusion, you may have seen AO 2026-12 go through the assembly. That was not this one. That was to change the sunset date to give a little more time for this case to go through.

So this item was sponsored by Member Brawley. We recommend referring to the material she provided. We can corroborate there are some difficulties in getting quorum for this board or somebody having enough cases to review. The functions can sometimes be confusing. Some of the functions have been incorporated into code over time.

The UDC currently looks— Urban Design Commission currently looks at cases like appeals of administrative site plan reviews, major site plan reviews for non-residential development of certain size, certain types of preliminary plats, plans in hand for streets that are a certain size or larger, certain types of variances, appeals to director's decisions about green characteristics and compliance, and something called small area implementation plan, which has never been used. I'll note that in the work session before this meeting, the commission talked about the types of work the UDC does, how many of the those types of cases the Planning and Zoning Commission might absorb. Um, and they talked about how there really aren't that many cases, you know, maybe between 7 and 10 each year, and it doesn't seem too onerous to do that. And maybe in the future there'd be a discussion about some cases, if it was, um, Sunset, would go to ZBA, some might go to PCC. But fundamentally, um, they— it seemed like the workload would not be too much.

Um, also Planning and Zoning talked about getting more training for taking on appeals. How many members might be needed on different boards using alternatives. So I recommend anybody to look at the recording from that when it's posted. Um, there's some discussion on that as well. Um, so just in 2025, for example, UDC heard 7 cases, an approximate cost of staff time of $28,000 to compile the staff reports, attend the meetings.

Approximate volunteer time from the commissioners, UDC commissioners, was about 350 hours. So asking a lot from our, our volunteer commissioners. Um, staff finds that This meets the— as a text amendment, it meets the criteria in Anchorage Municipal Code 2103-210D. We did provide some suggested findings in the packet. You can test and see if we did that right, considering our discussion last week.

And I might propose another one that, you know, the commission also held a work session discussing the UDC and its functions prior to the meeting. So with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions. We have a bunch of staff here as well. Thank you. Any questions for staff?

Um, hearing and seeing none, we'll move to the, uh, public hearing. Is there anyone from the public wishing to testify on case 2026-0 010.

Were there any questions, uh, for staff?

Well, the public hearing is open. Anybody wishing to testify, please step forward. Uh, hearing, seeing none. Last chance. Oh, did you want to come forward, testify on this case?

Nope. Okay, uh, hearing, seeing none, we're going to close this public hearing.

Uh, what is the will of the body?

Commissioner McKee, would you like to state your motion?

I move in case 2026-0010 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the amendment to the Anchorage Municipal Code, Title 21, to sunset the Urban Design Commission. Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner McKee, would you like to speak to your motion? Sure.

Um, I am the current Urban Design Commission chair, and I've served on the UDC for several years.

Based on consideration of staff efficiency and cost of time and demands to the people who volunteer to serve on the committee, the Urban Design Commission does not currently meet municipal needs, and the Planning Department did not receive reviewing agency or public comments in opposition. And as a current member of the UDC, I do think it would be efficient and best use of volunteers' time and staff resources to roll over the cases that come before UDC into another commission.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A comment. I intend to support the motion and would like to thank all current and former members of the UDC for their work on the commission, um, and, uh, the proponent and the department for moving forward with this efficiency, um, in recognizing, um, uh, forward-moving direction for our boards and commissions. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

I will also add that I intend to also support and echo Commissioner Rahn's thanks to staff and UDC members, and especially Commissioner McKee. And thank you for agreeing to join us. Ms. Babb.

Chair Spinelli, and to the Commission as a body, and especially to Commissioner McKee, I just wanted to say again what I have already said to UDC. In a previous meeting a little while ago that the municipality recognizes the, the value that UDC has brought to the community and has a deep appreciation for the time and energy that the commissioners have spent over the years helping our community realize our goals and our vision for the municipality. So thank you again.

All right, anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Hearing and seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Mr. Gardner, are you on the bridge?

Mr. Gardner?

Yeah, we're gonna have a couple-minute break here while we try to get Commissioner Gardner on the phone.

So if anybody needs to get up and move— reflect that Commissioner Gardner has joined us via phone, and we'll ask for the staff presentation on case 2026-0042.

Thank you, Chair Spinelli. For those who were in attendance at the February 9th meeting, this is the corresponding title or Chapter 9 amendment to the Gerdwood Airport Rezone. For those who remember that one, that was Case 2026-0015 for the State of Alaska property. If you'll turn with me to page 6 of the staff report.

Under the zoning district, the changes are those that are underlined, proposed that are underlined, and everything that is capitalized and within brackets will be deleted. So that's the change to Chapter 9 for the definition of Girdwood Airport. On page 7 is the correction to the table.

This is eliminating There were two governmental services in the table. It was listed twice, and we're eliminating the one listing and changing that up. And then we're also adding at the bottom of page 7, you'll see that all underlined under governmental services. Governmental services is in Chapter 5. There is not one in Chapter 9.

This is adding it in Chapter 9 specific to the use that the state of Alaska will be using on that lot. Current planning staff attended the Girdwood Board of Supervisors, GBOS, on January 26th, 2026. GBOS provided a resolution 2026-01 in support of the rezone and update to Chapter 9. State and municipal reviewing agencies had no objections to this ordinance. All comments can be found starting on page 9 of your staff report.

Planning staff has found that all 3 approval criteria for a Title 21 text requirements of the text amendment have been met. Therefore, the Planning Department recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to the Anchorage Assembly of the text amendment to Anchorage Municipal Code, Title 21, Chapter 9, to align with the newly adopted 2025 Curdwood Comprehensive Plan. I can answer any questions that the commissioners may have. Are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will move on to the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify?

Hearing and seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Staff, do you have anything else to add? I do not, Commissioner Spinelli.

Uh, with that, we'll look for a motion. What's the will of the body?

Commissioner Krishna, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0042 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the amendment to Title 21, Chapter 21.09, to align with the newly adopted 2025 Girdwood Comprehensive Plan.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner McKee. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion?

Sure. I believe that I will support this. Um, this was previously discussed by the Commission, um, in relation to a previous case. Um, I'll add its findings that the text amendment meets approval criteria in AMC 21.03.210, and the Planning Department did not receive any comments in opposition. And furthermore, I believe that we have, uh, received a resolution of support from the Girdwood Board of Supervisors.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing, seeing none, I will add that I also intend to support. I will add the comment that I only wish that we would have cleaned up more things with Chapter 9.

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

Mr. Gardner, how do you vote?

Yes.

Yes. You're abstaining?

Why? She heard the case.

She was abstaining because she didn't listen to none of it. She just heard the case. This That motion passes.

Next up, a motion to approve the consent agenda.

I mean, it's moved by Commissioner Krishna. Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Rohn.

Since this is a little unusual, is there any staff comment on the consent agenda?

Chair Spinelli, the only reason we're doing the consent agenda, like we explained a month ago, is so that the Girdwood Airport rezone for the state property and this Chapter 9, Title 21 could both go together. And thankful that Commissioner Baza was able to listen to the hearing. So we have 5. That's why Commissioner Gardner's on the phone. So we have 5 for that consent agenda item.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Chair. Just briefly acknowledging for the record that Consent agenda includes a resolution on the case with which we just heard.

As a commissioner, I am comfortable with the language used in terms of the findings of fact, noting that the GBOS resolution is not included. However, that doesn't stop me from voting yes for approval.

Um, I guess it should be noted that we could add that to the— we could make a motion, amend the motion to add that finding if you'd like to. Otherwise, I don't know that— I think we could pass it as is. Uh, for completeness, let's go ahead and move to amend. All right, move to pull this item from the consent agenda.

Uh, Mr. Hatcher, sorry, as long as Chair Spinelli is in town, we could, we could modify it as long as he could swing by and sign it in the next couple days, the resolution.

Um, I'll be in town. Well, I'll be in the municipality.

So if you'd like to add that, the GBOS.

All right, uh, Commissioner Rahn, would you like to just go ahead and state your motion to amend?

Okay, okay, okay, okay.

Um, is there a motion to Pull.

Okay, sorry, I, I think we're good here. At least I am. Let's move on as is.

Call for the vote.

Mr. Gardner, how do you vote? Yes, yes. Thank you.

That motion passes.

Are there any committee reports?

Uh, Mr. Gardner, your presence is no longer required, so, uh, we're gonna, uh, close the bridge. It's causing major problems over here.

Thank you.

All right, we'll try this again. Are there any committee reports?

Uh, seeing none, any Title 21 discussion?

And hearing none, are there any commissioner comments?

I should just welcome our new commissioners, Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Mills. Thank you for joining the gang.

Um, any other comments?

Is there a motion to adjourn? Chair Spinelli. Uh, Miss Babb, just very briefly, I just wanted to say thank you to the commission. Um, it seems that our conversation at the last meeting about findings was taken to heart, and we appreciate the effort to, to provide some clarity in regards to findings versus comments. I think that'll make it easier for staff while we're creating the minutes and the resolutions.

Thank you. And now we will entertain a motion to adjourn And we usually like to have new members make the motion. Oh, move— motion by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner McKee. Any objection? Hearing none, we are adjourned.

What do I really care about? Am I afraid to make it known? What if this were forgotten?

I hope there was none. What do I really care about? Nothing.