Urban Design Commission - June 11, 2025 - 2025-06-11 18:30:00

Good evening. It is 6:32, June 11th, 2025, and the meeting of the Urban Design Commission will now come to order. May we please have a roll call? Monica Sullivan. Here.

Edith McKee. Here. Allison Lenny. Here. Julia Foland.

Here. Alexandra Nanello. Here. Ryan Lucas. Here.

Trevor Strait. Here. James Kolas. Here. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, may we get a motion to approve the minutes from March 12th, 2025?

It's been moved by Commissioner Gordy. It's been seconded by Commissioner Folland. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Are there any objections to the minutes being approved?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

Next, we'll move on to the special order of business. Um, are there any disclosures?

Commissioner Ninalu. I think I just need to comment that I was absent from the previous, so I can't be part of any of the motions to approve from previous consent agenda. Yes, thank you. I couldn't think of what that was called for a minute there.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sullivan. Um, I was absent on Case 2024-01-22, variances for keeping up sheep, geese, and comb. Um, I would like to omit from voting on the resolution.

Thank you.

May we have a motion to approve Resolution 2025-002 on the consent agenda?

It's been moved by Commissioner Straight and seconded by Commissioner Folland.

Is there any discussion on the consent agenda?

Hearing none, may we please— would anyone like to pull an item from the consent agenda for discussion or corrections?

Okay, hearing none, the consent agenda is approved.

Um, we don't have any unfinished business or items on the regular agenda this evening, therefore we'll move on to the public hearings, and I'll read the public process.

The procedure by which the public may speak to the Urban Design Commission at its meeting is: 1, after the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. 2, Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Urban Design Commission Rules of Procedure. Petitioners, including all his/her/their representatives, will have 10 minutes. Rebuttal by the petitioner may be allowed when time has been reserved. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, et cetera, will have 5 minutes.

Individuals will have 3 minutes. 3, When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the commissioner— by the commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the commission. 4. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the planning director within 7 days of the commission's decision made on the record, a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 2103050A(4)(a).

Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 2103050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

With respect to case 2025-0061, the petitioner is requesting review and approval of the Downtown Trail Connection, a multi-use trail connecting the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and the Ship Creek Trail. May we please have staff's presentation?

Thank you, Chair McKee. The Municipal Park and Recreation submitted a trail review application to construct a 1-mile non-motorized multi-use trail. This segment will complete a trail system in Anchorage by connecting the Ship Creek and Tony Nose Coastal Trail, creating a continuous 14-mile non-motorized corridor in the downtown area. The Alaska Railroad Corporation holds ownership of most trail land within the project area. The Municipality of Anchorage owns a vital section near the project's beginning, located between Eldenberry Park and Second Avenue.

The project design plans are 65% complete, with construction anticipated for summer 2026. Once finished, the Municipal of Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department will maintain the trail. This project provides a 15-foot pathway including an 11-foot path and 2-foot shoulders for diverse users. Beyond the pathway, improvements include essential, essential signage, drainage features, and lighting improvements. Furthermore, this project offers enhanced control over pedestrian trespassing on railroad facilities, provides scenic waterfront views, and enhances the recreational experience.

The application includes a resolution of support from the Parks and Recreation Commission and numerous letters of support from the community. It also shows extensive public engagement with documented meetings available in Appendix C on the application. The proposed trail aligns with Title 21 and elements of the comprehensive plan including the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solution, AMATS, no motorized plan, downtown district plan, Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan, and the Ship Creek Master Plan. The Urban Design Commission may approve with or without condition, reject the trail, or review the application tonight during this public hearing as described in Anchorage Municipal Code AMC 2103-190(c), Trail Review. The department recommends approval of the 1-mile no-motorized Multi-Use Downtown Trail Connection, consistent with the application dated April 2nd, 2025.

The Municipal of Anchorage Parks and Recreation representative is REM Consultants. They are here tonight to present upon the project and to answer, answer questions. Thank you, and that concludes the summary of the staff report.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?

No.

Okay. It doesn't look like it at this time. Will the petitioner please come forward?

Please state and spell your name for the record.

And then you'll have 10 minutes to present. Would you like us to reserve any of your time for rebuttal?

Your mic. There you go. How many minutes would you like us to reserve? 5 Or 6. 5.

5 Or 6. We'll reserve 5. Okay. Um, okay. Yeah, so for the record, my name is John Pekar, J-O-H-N P-E-K-A-R.

So through the chair, as I stated, my name is John Pekar. I'm with Kinney Engineering, and I'm the design project manager for the AMATS Downtown Trail Connection project, representing both the DOT and municipality. With me here tonight are members of our team. We have Christina Bush with the Department of Transportation, Tanya Hickok with the, the MOA's project manager, Dave Whitfield and Terson Nelson-Yeal with R&M Consultants. Also on our project team is Mark Kimmer with Pettisworth North.

And we have reviewed the planning department staff report, and we agree with their analysis that all criteria for the trail review is met. This over 1-mile connection is a much-needed link connecting the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and the Ship Creek Trail to form a 14-mile continuous use corridor.

The proposed trail will provide access to the small boat launch in Ogla Park will improve safety by providing a route that does not have at-grade railroad crossings. The project will significantly improve non-motorized access and offer scenic views. This project was first identified in the 1997 Anchorage Area-Wide Trail Plan and is supported by current municipal plans.

The Same Ants project began in 2022. It's involved substantial public engagement throughout. Um, we've hosted open house meetings, um, attended the Anchorage Transportation Fair on an annual basis, um, presented at the South Addition Community Council, Downtown Community Council, Government Hill Community Council, and also at the Parks and Recreation Commission.

In those interactions from the public, we've had very— it's been very well supported.

One thing that we have heard from, in particular, the Downtown Community Council and Government Hill Community Council is that they would like to see additional connections of this type. Um, but we received their support for this project.

Um, there have been several technical and environmental challenges during the planning and designing phases of this project, um, including impact avoidance to the railroad's operation and leased properties. Um, we got coastal hydrology and coordination with the reconstruction of the railroad's bridge over Ship Creek.

This project, in order to avoid those at-grade crossings of the railroad, goes underneath both the railroad's bridge and the small boat launch road bridge.

That concrete U structure is designed to prevent the tidal action from coming over the top of the trail. And then we've— throughout the project, we've performed cultural resources integration, wetlands mapping, and permitting. We're happy to say that the Alaska Railroad Real Estate Board is in support of the trail, and they recently approved our— the right-of-way permits at their June 4th meeting. And they recommended that the project be advanced and approved by the railroad board for their upcoming meeting on June 25th. I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration.

And as always, we're available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Are there any questions of the petitioner? Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan. Hi, through the chair, just want to know a little more about the pathway with a flood wall, how it drains, and how do you maintain that phases? Sure. The U-shaped structure will be drained with an electronic— we'll have a pump at the bottom of the structure that will pump out rainwater. The height of the structure has been set so that it— that the— or excuse me, FEMA's base flood elevation will be kept out of the structure.

So the pump's purpose will be to remove rainwater. If you were to have an event that exceeded FEMA's 100-year event, then it would take additional time to probably remove silt and a little more maintenance there.

Thank you.

Hi, I have two questions. On this map, the tiny little red X, the railroad crossing, is that existing or is that new?

Over here. That's where the— the— at Elderberry Park where the existing The connection to 2nd Avenue goes underneath the railroad tracks, and that's existing. Oh, got it. Okay. And then at the Hostetler Park where there's the overlook and the plaque, I was there actually randomly today, and I noticed that the whole ramp and the access to the— to get down was blocked off.

Is that going to be tied in to the Coastal Trail, or could it be, or do you know why it's blocked off? I don't know the background there. There was, there was not a plan to connect that to this facility. I believe that would have to cross railroad. It would have to cross the railroad.

Yeah. Does anybody know why that's blocked off, or— Do you know? Maintenance issue. Okay. I mean, I think that would be amazing if there's some other access point to the coastal trail if we're going to do this extension more central to downtown, it seems like that would be worth looking into.

That's it.

Commissioner Strait. Yeah. First of all, this is not your normal trail project. There's lots of engineering hurdles that you had to go through. It looks like a very nice design.

So great job. I have a couple questions, mostly unrelated to the design. There is a— on this figure that my colleague just referenced, there is a reference to existing restrooms down at the small boat launch. Are those municipally maintained? Do you know?

Yes, I believe they are. I don't believe they're currently open. Okay, okay. I, I guess my, my concern there would be that we're now going to be putting a whole bunch of perhaps additional traffic to this set of restrooms that they might not have had before. And so just letting whoever is maintaining those be aware that that might be the case.

And then my other question is, it looks like there is a set of stairs by the railroad bridge that's being removed. Do you know the existing purpose of that bridge? Is it just access for fishermen to get down there, or—. Yes, those stairs were originally installed for fishermen access. The ice flows that come in and out Ship Creek have heavily damaged those stairs and they're now closed.

The railroad's planning to remove those stairs as part of their— with their bridge project, but I think it's mile 114 of the railroad. Okay. And there's not a plan to put stairs back in just because there's— because of the damage they've sustained, that they're not something that's been maintainable. Okay. All right.

Those are my questions. Thanks.

Commissioner Gordy? Commissioner Lennig? Lennig. It's okay. We'll update it.

I just had a couple of really quick questions. I saw that there were plans to groom this all the way.

From Kincaid basically to Mountain View. Is that true in the winter? That's the maintenance plan for winter snow removal. As I understand it, we've designed the trail— I mean, we will design the trail the same way, whether it's plowed or groomed. Right.

So really, that's a maintenance decision by Parks and Rec. Yep, that makes sense. And then I noticed that there was some talk of lighting. Being added to the trail. I know that there's quite a bit for those underpasses, um, and I probably just missed it in the plans.

I did look at them, but I might have missed a couple symbols. Is that a pretty well-lit path between those two trails? That— I know it's only a mile stretch, but is it kind of following in line with the rest of the Coastal Trail? Um, it is not continuously lit. Okay.

The lighting that's being provided is underneath the bridges. Okay. Just because there's a contrast between Anyway, at day outdoors. Yeah, okay, perfect. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions for you. Um, on, on sheet B2 of the plans, um, there's an exception table, um, where it shows the the wall and the embankment, it says top of existing bank. Just as I was reviewing, it would have been helpful to see where the elevation is for the tidally influenced area. I think it would just give you some assurance that, that we definitely don't expect water to come over the retaining structure.

And then my other question was also The lighting is— I know that we have, you know, there's a history of folks being in tunnels and underground crossings that can make people feel really uncomfortable using those spaces. And with this being channeled for a pretty significant distance, is there visibility of this, you know, just as, you know, if you're riding your bike in there walking through there, you could feel like you don't have a real method of escapement. Is it— is this channel underneath these structures visible from the roadway, or the— you know, is there visual ability to, to see the folks that are in there using that space? Um, the lighting will aid in the visibility.

There's no escaping the fact that it is channelized. So we've taken the steps we can given the scenario that the constraints we have with the tidal influence. So on the interior wall, we have lowered it. That wall was lowered to provide a sight distance around the inside of the first corner.

But those are the steps we've taken so far. So was there discussion in making the determination to go under with essentially it's a tunnel versus keeping people— I understand that it would introduce, you know, road conflicts and potentially railroad conflicts, that the safety of the users being visible and not in a tunnel?

Early in the project development, I mean, there was discussions of— or not in this project, but previous— this has been studied previously. Flyovers have been considered in the past, but those also have similar concerns in that there's no escape from— if you do an overpass, it has a very similar situation. It may be even less.

And then some of my other ones were— it's again that same kind of question on the typical sections is just including that because it has bottom of creek. I think it would be helpful to— because you've got pedestrian barrier there to also see the top of bank and whether it's a tidally influenced area. That was on B3. And then, and then I think, so also the culvert diameter of the 18-inch pipe, I didn't know. I vaguely have recollection that there's a preference for climate considerations to move to a 24-inch minimum diameter pipe.

I didn't know whether that was feasible here or not, or whether it was a cover issue, or is that just We could look at that. Yeah. And then my other question is, in the tunnel, like, the grades going into it are approximately 8%. A little bit concerned that if somebody has mobility concerns, you know, they're using a wheelchair or some other mobility assistive device, that that grade is You know, it's about 100 feet on each side at that 8%, that that could be really steep for somebody using a wheelchair. Yeah, we tried to— we looked, we examined lengthening and that slope and decreasing that grade.

There are some pretty significant utilities, there's fuel pipelines, and so We, in order to avoid those fuel pipelines and building a permanent structure over them, that was— we found that to be a constraint with the grades.

And then ADA compliant. Yes, meets current guidelines.

And then let's see here.

There was a couple of locations where there's the— I think it's— there's a detail for the petroleum line crossing, and that seems to apply in a couple of different locations in the plans.

Just maybe like identify where that particular detail applies. I thought that would have been helpful.

And then in your public comment record, Sorry, I'm going through— I've got notes everywhere. JBEAR made a comment that said that they would like to be consulted, and I didn't know if that— was JBEAR consulted? Did they have any comments, questions, concerns about the plans? All I know is that they were reached out to, but we never got any feedback. So We— I received that at one of the transportation fairs, and we never received anything official from J.Bear.

Okay, I just wanted to close that loop. And then— okay, I think that those are all my questions. Thank you.

We will now open the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify?

I don't see anybody.

So this— you had 6 minutes remaining. Would you like to use your remaining time?

No, I think that'll conclude it. Yeah, thank you.

Don't leave just yet. Are there any more questions from the Commission for the petitioner or staff?

I mean, I have another question. So same detail, pathway with flood wall. We have the properties next to where you lower the wall.

How drainage works there? It seems like it will drain and potentially go over the wall. Water or do there's— I mean, I'm not sure what's the whole topography, but how do you prevent that from happening? At the low point in the structure, we're providing a sump, and there will be a sump pump at that location that will remove rainwater from the structure. Okay, so the idea is that it does— it will flow over that, I mean, potentially.

And then the sump pump will— and when it freezes?

It's going to freeze, yeah. Like all the bridges. It's going to require maintenance.

Okay, thank you.

I'm good, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Okay, the public hearing is now closed.

The matter now rests with the body. We will move and vote.

May we have a motion to approve.

Case 2025-0061.

Moved by Commissioner Lennig.

Sorry. Mover, would you please state your motion?

Yes. I move in case 2025-0061 to approve the trail review of a new 1-mile non-motorized Multi-use trail connecting the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and the Ship Creek Trail.

It's been seconded by Commissioner Nanalo. Commissioner Linnig, would you please speak to your motion? Yes, I intend to support the motion. I think this is a really well put together project, especially considering the hurdles in this area to be able to connect those two trails. I think it's a pretty critical connection to kind of make that full loop of our— one of our greenbelt systems, which we're very proud of in this city.

So it's a huge improvement. I know, like you said, there's some compromises on how we get there based on some of the engineering requirements and the restrictions based on what's already existing utility-wise and on the railroad properties. But, um, I think this is a great solution and a great addition to the city. Um, and my findings are in agreement with the municipality that this aligns with Title 21 and the municipal plans for Anchorage. Thank you.

Commissioner Nanalo, would you like to speak to your second?

Um, sure, yeah, I agree with Commissioner Gordy. Very well done. Um, difficult to engineer and get this to come together correctly, so well done to the design team. Um, yeah, excited that the trails will be connected. I think that's something that is very consistent with the overall plan for the municipality.

So yeah, great work. Thanks.

Are there any other commissioners wishing to speak to the motion and/or add findings?

I also agree. I'm really pleased to see that they'll be connecting these two trails. I know I like to ask a lot of questions, but, and, but I also understand that there's a lot there to weigh and balance and make work and lots of different stakeholders in that area. So you've done a really nice job. Thank you.

If there is no further discussion, may we have a vote on case number 2025-0061? Ms. Lucas, how do you vote? Approve. Thank you. Thank you.

Case 2025-0061 passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 against and 0 abstaining.

We don't have any appearance requests, reports, or commissioners' comments. Therefore, this concludes UDC's business for the evening. Could I please get a motion to adjourn?

It's been moved by Commissioner Strait. It's been seconded by Commissioner Sullivan. Are there any objections?

Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned at 7:05 PM. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. I love you, Gavin.

It's all the same.

It's all the same. Yeah, it's all the same. It's all the same.