Urban Design Commission - May 13, 2026 - 2026-05-13 18:30:00

Good evening. It's 6:30 PM, May 13th, 2026, and the meeting of the Urban Design Commission will now come to order. May we please have a roll call? Edith McKee. Here.

Alison Lanning.

Here. Julia Folland. Here. Alexandra Donnello. Here.

Trevor Strait. Here. James Collis. Here. Monica Sullivan is excused.

You have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. May we get a motion to approve the minutes from April 29th, 2026?

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

Are there any objections to the minutes being approved?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

Um, we'll now move on to the special order of business. Are there any disclosures this evening?

This is Commissioner Kaulitz. I was not present at the last meeting, so I won't be able to vote in a minute. Okay, thank you.

May we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

It's been moved by Commissioner Straight and seconded by Commissioner Nanalo. Would anyone like to pull an item from the consent agenda for discussion or corrections?

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved.

We don't have any unfinished business or items on the regular agenda this evening. Therefore, we will move on to the public hearings, and I will read the public process. The Urban Design Commission meets the second and fourth Wednesday of each month except holidays at regular meetings. If the Urban Design Commission fails to complete its agenda for its regular meetings, the commission carries over over the remainder of the agenda to the following meeting date. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Urban Design Commission at a 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, etc., will have 5 minutes, and individuals will have 3 minutes. 3.

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.

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 21.03.050A.4.

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 21-03050. 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 2026-0052, the petitioner is requesting for design variance from AMC 2107080E for relief from landscaping standards on the west and south property boundaries. May we please have staff's presentation? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for some context information that's not contained in the staff report, I wanted to provide the commissioners with some information. If this property owner was not seeking or needing this variance, they are permitted by right to build the proposed 36 additional units.

They're without an additional entitlement at this time due to the moratorium that the assembly passed regarding multifamily more than 31 units requiring a major site plan review. So there would not have been— there would be no entitlement if they were not seeking this variance. So just so you can separate those two parts, knowing some of the comments that were submitted late and laid on the table. With that, the petitioner is requesting a variance for relief from Anchorage Municipal Code 2107-080E required landscaping standards on the west and south property boundaries. The applicant is requesting modifications to the required L2 buffer landscaping standards, lack of the L2 buffer along the north half of the west property line, and a reduction in the required width of the L2 buffer along the south half of the west property line and the south property line less than 10 feet with a 6-foot screening fence.

These adjustments are necessary to maintain existing access along the north half of the west property line to accommodate the layout of the proposed new buildings. Resident parking areas, and required fire apparatus turnarounds. Despite the reduced buffer width along the south half of the west property line and south property line, the applicant will still provide the full number of required trees and shrubs along both the south half of the west property line and the south property line. In order for the Urban Design Commission to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards: I will only touch on standards that are not met or are only partially met. Standard A is partially met.

The intent of the L2 buffer landscaping is to separate one land use from another land use that may be incompatible for reasons such as the intensity of use or the visual character. Along the west property line, the adjacent parcel is commercially zoned and includes a platted 30-foot-wide screening easement on plat 86-160. Given that the proposed multifamily residential use is less intensive than the existing commercial use, the lack of or reduction of the L2 buffer landscaping in this area continues to achieve the intent of the standard by maintaining adequate separation between uses of differing intensity. Along the south property line, however, the adjacent property is zoned R-1. Although the code allows a minimum 10-foot buffer when paired with a 6-foot-tall screening fence, the proposed reduction does not achieve the intent of the design standard.

Single-family residential uses are less intensive than the proposed multifamily development, and the reduced buffer diminishes the level of separation and visual screening intended to protect lower-density residential areas. Standard B is partially met. The 2040 Anchorage Land Use Plan classifies this site with a land use designation of Compact Mixed Residential Medium. This designation provides for multi-unit apartment and townhouse living and mix of compact single-family and attached housing in a cohesive neighborhood. It makes efficient use of residential land near service, shopping, jobs, and commercial mixed-use center.

Apartment and townhouse development supports greater housing opportunities near jobs and services, efficient public services, and frequent transit service. It meets Goal 7 of the Comprehensive Plan: Infill development is compatible with the valued characteristics of surrounding properties and neighborhoods. Yet it does not meet Policy 7.2 of the Anchorage 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Ease the transitions between more intensive uses adjacent lower-density neighborhoods in terms of the built scale, height, level of activity, and character. Standard C is partially met. The lack of or reduction in width of L2 buffer landscaping along the west property line adjacent to commercially zoned land that includes a platted 30-foot screening easement provides an alternative that achieves an equivalent level of screen— of buffering given the lower intensity of the proposed multifamily residential use compared to the adjacent commercial use.

This alternative maintains the functional intent of the standard and results in a benefit comparable to compliance. Compliance. However, the proposed reduction in the width of the L2 buffer landscaping along the south property line does not provide a community benefit equivalent to or better than compliance. This area, but an R1 zoning district where greater separation and screening are typically expected to protect lower density residential uses, the reduced buffer diminishes the level of visual and spatial separation intended by the code. Standard D is partially met.

The property to the west is again a zone commercial use. The proposed lack of or reduction of L2 buffer landscaping along that west property line maintains the intent of design standard as proposed, as the proposed multifamily residential use is less intensive. The property to the south is zoned R-1. Again, while the code allows a minimum 10-foot landscape depth when paired with a 6-foot-tall screening fence, the proposed reduction landscaping along the southern property line may have an adverse effect on the adjacent lot. Density Residential District— the diminished buffer could reduce visual screening and separation typically expected between R-3 and R-1 uses.

Standard E is met, Standard F is met, Standard G is met, and Standard H is not applicable to the— due to the variance not being related to signs. Reviewing agencies' comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 23 of your packet. There were no objections from reviewing agencies. We did receive 2 late comments from an adjacent property owner and the Sand Lake Community Council, which are supplementary packet number 1. I would recommend reading the 3 advisory comments also included on the staff report.

These are not conditions of approval, but advisory comments. They're found on page 6 of your staff report.

The department finds that Standards A, B, C, and D are partially met, Standards E, F, and G are met, and Standard H is not applicable. Therefore, the department recommends denial of the variance. If after a public hearing, the Commission finds that all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to Conditions 1 and 2 found on page 6 of your staff report. As additional information to the Commission, the Commission may choose to separate the variance for the west property line and the south property line into 2 motions if after hearing from the public and discussing the matter, they determine this would be a better course of action. I can answer any questions that the Commission may have, and the petitioner's representative is in attendance.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?

Will the petitioner please come forward? Please state and spell your name for the record.

Hello, my name is Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. I am the petitioner's representative. Thank you for your time today. This variance for landscape— please hold on. You'll have 10 minutes to present.

Would you like to reserve any of your time for rebuttal? Yes, please. How much? As much as is left. Okay, thank you.

This variance for landscaping is being requested to allow for infill development for an established multi-family development residential site. The site currently has 44 units on it. 4 Of those units are being demolished and 36 new units are being constructed on the site, adding much-needed housing to the municipality. The site's existing structures and interior drive present some design constraints on the project. On the west side of the property, there is an existing access drive which is roughly 8 feet from the boundary of the property and cannot be moved as it wraps— as it wraps around one of the existing residential structures.

This means that the required minimum landscaping bed width of 10 feet is impractical regardless of building placement or optional design standards. In the staff packet, staff expressed that the reduced buffer width on the west property boundary achieves the intent of the standard for all approval criteria. On the south side of the property, there is an existing paved parking spaces that encroach on the required landscaping bed. The petitioner would prefer to keep this paved parking area as it exists for the benefit of the existing residents. To meet the intent of the design standard, the full number of required trees and shrubs will be provided despite the reduced width of the landscaping beds.

And a 6-foot decorative fence is proposed along the west and south boundaries of the parcel to buffer the abutting properties from the site. Additionally, further landscaping throughout the open space of the site is proposed. The approval of this variance will allow for 36 new residential dwelling units that exercise the most reasonable use of land, and I'm willing to answer any questions that the Commission has.

Thank you. Are there any questions of the petitioner.

Commissioner Street.

Hi, I've got a couple questions. Um, I guess the first one relates to, uh, your comments about the petitioner preferring not to, uh, provide the landscaping buffer on the south end. What, what's kind of the reasoning there? It's just because the existing pavement extends into the buffer, is that right? Yes, so there's just existing parking spots there that we'd rather not get rid of.

Okay, all right. Um, On the— some of the exhibits provided, it looks like, um, there's 3 new structures that are being built. Is that right? Correct. Okay.

And then I guess I was a little confused on one of the figures. It showed a rough size of like a footprint of about 4,800 square feet or so. And I— none of these structures that are shown on here, at least when I scale them out, really match that. Some of them are quite a bit smaller than that. Is, is the figure that's here, I guess the landscape exhibit, the, the footprint that's identified here for the structures, is that accurate?

Yes, I believe so. Okay.

And these— the size of these structures are different from each other. They all supposed to be identical. They're all supposed to be identical. OK.

OK, another question, I guess. One of the comments received from AWWU was in regards to providing additional width to the Sanitary sewer, I believe, easement on the west side, adding an additional 5 feet. Um, it looks like the structure edge as it's drawn on the landscaping exhibit at least is basically at 10 feet off of the property boundary. Um, have— has there been discussion, I guess, with AWWU as far as their desire to have an additional width to that utility easement? Yes, we have had discussions with AWWU.

Um, essentially they're not really sure where the sewer is. We're going to have to dig it up and find it and then, uh, go from there, basically. Okay. But we are aware of the sanitary sewer system along the western, uh, property line and the southern property line, and we will have to excavate that. Okay.

All right, that's all I got for now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hatcher. Through the chair, Commissioner Straight, AWU—.

AWU can ask for additional easement in a platting action. In a design variance, they can comment that they need more easement, but like Kate said, they don't know exactly where that sewer line is. There's also like a 10-foot grade difference between the car— the old Cars, or sorry, the old Safeways. That's the APD site and the bottom half of this site. So there's question as to whether how deep that sewer line will be or is, and that's why there's the additional advisory comment.

If they are at the 10-foot property line, typically AWU asks that foundations be built or designed to a deeper standard to act basically as a trench box so they don't ever undermine if they had to excavate that sewer line, they don't undermine the existing— found a new foundation or an existing foundation, compromise a structure.

Thanks.

Commissioner Folland. Hi. I'm just— so I heard that clearly, the 3 new structures are supposed to be the exact same size? I believe they are, yes. Okay, they're not the same on this plan, just not, um, yes, it does look like the one to the north does look a little bigger.

The one in the north is wider and longer by a lot. Um, what are your plans for snow removal?

Snow would have to be removed if it was not did not have a good place on site to store it, which this plan has some areas where you could still store, but not many. I mean, what's— I mean, this is a new development, growing development. What are your— what's your plan to deal with the snow? Remove it offsite or pile it up? And if you're going to pile it up, where are you going to pile it up?

Because it sounds like in the comments we got today that there's an issue with the snowmelt running down on the southern border. Into neighboring properties?

I was only able to briefly review the comments as they were submitted late, but I am not aware of snow drainage issues in the area. I do know that where the, the spaces on the lot where they would store snow will be going away. We're going to put parking spaces and buildings there, so you would have to remove snow off-site. I mean, it sounds like some of these problems have been existing for a long time, and I didn't notice that there's a comment requesting a runoff plan. Um, we are aware that there are drainage areas in the area, and the engineers are going to have to make some sort of retention pond for drainage so it doesn't go off-site.

Okay, so that is a known issue. I have a question. I'm not sure who this is directed to, um, or, or how to do this. Is there any way to make— or do I do it now to make a motion to separate this? Because it seems like the west side is one issue and there, there's a lot of problems with the southern side.

Through the chair, Commissioner Folland, that's kind of the So again, that's kind of why I put that caveat there in the front, that this is— if they weren't coming for this variance, they would just be permitted by right to do this. Now, what, what I didn't talk about and what's in the advisory comment is when they go for a building permit, today's code— and Chair McKee's shaking her head because she knows, she's an engineer— they're going to have to retain so much of the waste of the drainage on site before they discharge it. There is a manhole— there is a storm drain catch basin in the bottom right corner, southeast corner of this. But yes, so I know Kate's trying to talk as much as she can and give as much information she can, but until it's designed through the building permit process, we won't know that. But yes, that's why I suggested you might want to separate these two variances, because of the issues along the south property line that don't exist on the west property line.

Okay, I mean, it seems like there's a lot of issues on the south line, and I'm not sure if— how many parking spots are there altogether total and how many units? Um, I don't remember how many total parking spots, but to meet the landscape width for the south side would be removing 2 parking spots, and the petitioner would be willing to do that if that is a sticking point with the Commission? I mean, I would say that that would be really reasonable to remove those two. I mean, there's a— I mean, there's— our parking requirements have come down that—. Through the Chair, Commissioner Folland.

Correct. There is no parking requirement. There's no parking space requirement unless you're providing handicapped or ADA accessible parking spaces, then you have to provide so many. And I would I would guesstimate, and I'm sure Chair McKee and Commissioner Ninala probably know better than I do, that they're going to lose a lot more than that many parking spaces to put in a retention pond down on that south side. Yeah, given this lot's 100,000 square feet, you know, it's a very large lot.

That just seems like a minimum kind of, uh, given that I wouldn't even really fight that if I were you. I would just pull that back. Um, I mean, there is a There needs to be a buffer between these two properties and the concerns that were brought up by the Sand Lake Community Council and the neighbors. That's— I mean, you have to be a good neighbor to your neighbor. And if there's noise and visual impedance and— I mean, I have water running onto my house.

I mean, just—. It's not—. That's just not— that's— and it shouldn't be a surprise because it sounds like there's a— there's already some issues with this site. But minimally, I would just— I would really recommend getting rid of maybe even 4. Unfortunately, that's not something I can do at this point.

You guys could separate. I know that, yeah. OK.

That was it for now.

Commissioner Nanalo. Yeah, some of my questions actually were just answered in that discussion, so— but the second part of all this, like, one, I, I mean, yes, I do know that you guys are going to have to show water retention on site and how that's going to happen, and I don't see space for that on this plan as it exists, so I would suspect you're— you are going to lose those parking spaces already when you go for that permit.

So from that perspective, I think that might somewhat answer the question here of what's going to happen with the border, the southern border of this site. Also, I do think we should split this. I think we should need to separate these out. That's just my opinion at this point.

I'll clarify for the Commission, we will, when we vote, vote separately for the west and for the south. I, I do intend to do that.

Are there any other questions of the petitioner?

Okay, we will now open the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify?

So please come forward. There's a— oh, hold on, hold on, hold on. Please turn your microphone on.

And then please state and spell your name for the record and whether you're testifying as an individual or a representative of a group. I am testifying as an impacted homeowner. Okay. So I— my name is Kyle Peterson, K-Y-L-E-P-E-T-E-R-S-E-N. I live at 3600 Mirror Circle.

I'm adjacent to the property that's adjacent that borders up on the south side of this property. I wish I had more than 3 minutes here, but pretty much the The snow storage is a pretty significant issue that they're doing right now where they push the snow up against the fence. I have a photo of the existing storm drain that is woefully insufficient. I'm a licensed civil engineer, for whatever that's worth, but the amount of infiltrate, the amount of runoff that comes from that site and the amount of snow that they push up against the fence has created a situation where all the homes pretty much on their side of Muir Circle all either have flooding issues or have had to install French drains at quite a bit significant expense in order to mitigate that issues. I'm not saying that the property itself is 100% responsible for what's going on in those homes, but it certainly is not helping the issue.

The homes that are most adjacent to that property are the ones that are most significantly impacted. I know this is a landscaping issue, but, you know, pushing a pile of snow, which is the current practice, up against the fence is significantly creating a problem over to my neighbor Paul. I have a photo of the existing storm drain, if you, you know, for whatever it's worth. But if you like were standing at the site, you would see that like it's pretty much woefully inadequate for the amount of snow that they pile up against the fence that just melts and the liquid pretty much just runs off and on his property. So, um, I, you know, I know this landscaping and like there's two issues in my mind and that, that are getting created here.

But the landscaping practices— I feel like the landscaping should be done in at least in a manner where it significantly reduces the, the amount of runoff that's coming from that site at all possible. So I can retain my time if anyone has questions or anything.

Sorry, I only get 3 minutes, but thank you. Um, thanks. Other questions?

Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Please come forward. Please state and spell your name and let us know whether you are testifying as an individual or as a representative of a group. My name is Wes Skinner. That's W-E-S and the last name S-K-I-N-N-E-R.

I am the principal business officer for Diamond Boulevard Baptist Church, which is the property adjacent to the property in question here on the east side. And in my particular case, personally, I have been the man responsible for just over 3 decades of supervising the physical plant of our property. Um, if you have the image in front of you, the aerial image, you'll note that, um, from our parking lot, there's a, a clear area that is gravel that's about 50 foot across, and then below that, there's about 75 to 80 feet of vegetation going south down to the border. At the bottom of that per code, um, inset from the edge. There's an at least 2-foot-high berm that goes across there, um, redirecting any water that's made it that far if it got all the way down there.

Our goal, um, with the snow removal, the snow management, the snow gets pushed to the south end of our paved parking area, which is not the gravel parking area. It gets pushed to the paved parking area and then offset right onto the gravel so that it's sitting on the gravel and perking out through that, then going into the vegetated area. All that being said, we on an every several year basis have had conversations with individuals inside— what is it there, the circle that's just to the south of us, Merlot or something? But Paul Kirschak, who had written a comment that's included in the add-on, and I stay in contact over whether there's stuff coming off of our property. The way the drainage sets up in there, it comes down off our property, then offsets gently to the west.

Okay, so if there's flooding— in those 30-plus years, we haven't had a, a situation where there's been more than an inch or two of groundwater happening because we've worked so hard to maintain it. Up above and back away from the fence. Um, the property to the west of us, their pavement goes much further south, almost right to the property line. And when the snow gets stacked down there, the water melt has nowhere to go except into the residential properties on the other side. And I'm telling you from 3 decades of experience of literally walking out there, pulling it, making sure that we're not contributing to issues with the homes— we're trying to be good neighbors— The other item that may not be known in this, our property was originally acquired as a homestead.

The homestead building is gone now, but when we first filled for our lower parking lot, that was a drainage happening from across Diamond Boulevard and higher up to the north. It came across that area before Diamond was built, came down along the east side of our property between where there's apartments now, went down to the bottom corner of our place and then out. So as we have managed that with the neighbors to the east of us, um, we're very careful to make sure that that water is slowed and as much of it as possible percolates into that 75 to 100 feet of vegetation we have. There's a very good thatch of vegetation along the east side of our property south of the center line. One of my other concerns with this is, um, the, the image shows a new building going in on the northeast corner of the property in question, and right now there isn't a vegetation offset that's in there.

It'll have to be revegetated because everything that's in there is dead, knocked over, been pulled out. The recent utility development along the Diamond Boulevard, they put a big utility pit in there and they took out a whole bunch of vegetation that was on the corner. So that area needs to be reinstated as well, and it's not mentioned at all in this, this conversation that's going on. But that's on the, the northeast corner adjacent to the back of our main facility that's out close to Diamond. But giving you that It is a— to not make fun of the word, but our vegetation area definitely during breakup is a soggy bottom area to be walking in because there's enough water percolating from Diamond Boulevard South.

Whether there's snow put in one place or another, the drainage runs down there. There are drain holes up right by Diamond Boulevard, but once you're about 20 to 30 feet into the properties along there from Diamond Boulevard, it all goes south. And so if there's— if there's concentrations along the R-1 property line area on the south that accelerates water movement, it damages those homes as Paul Kirschek has described. And I have seen the damage with my own eyes as we were walking along and assessing to make sure it wasn't our problem.

Questions?

Commissioner Nanalu? Yeah, I just want to follow up with you. So you're telling us that there was vegetation removed on the northeast corner of this parcel? Well, where this— the, uh, the Sourdough Condominiums landscape exhibit, as shown in the document, the building that's up in the northeast corner, right now that's an entirely undeveloped section of scrubby stunted trees and a couple of conifers. Okay.

But in that corner, in the very northeast corner alongside the utility line with, uh, that goes adjacent to Diamond, is they're burying the utilities. They took out— they put a new box in there, great big concrete box, sunk it down, and they took out quite a bit of vegetation on that corner. And as well, some of the action they did opened up the, the older stunted trees to more wind activity. There were spruce trees at the corner that were blocking wind from hitting the little stuff in the center. Well, a bunch of that's been knocked down.

So as they come in and pull all that out to develop it, there will be no, no vegetation in place between our building and their building. And that's not mentioned at all in here. And even on the drawing, it's it's not shown on the drawing as being vegetated, which will be a violation of what's required. We—. When we built our latest addition out close to Diamond Boulevard, we had to work very carefully with the city to make sure, because that occurred during the expansion of Diamond Boulevard, we were right in the middle of our building permit, and they required us to move the building back 50 feet from what is now Diamond.

Cost us $50,000 in re-engineering and architecture fees. But we also were very careful to make sure we complied with the vegetation requirements because we're a single-use kind of facility tucked in between two very nice neighbors of condominium-type stuff. So we try really hard to be a good neighbor, but just to know that that's not shown on here either. Okay, so how recently was that— did that removal happen? Did that happen in the last 6 months?

Did it happen a year ago? When, when did that actually occur. That utility work was done last year. Last— it was last summer. Yeah, it was last summer.

Yeah. And not to their credit, the, the contractor has been rather careless in how they've operated equipment through those corridors. Um, they tore up our front yard, tore out a quarter of our hedge that was along between us and Diamond Boulevard, and they haven't redone any of it, but But that's an issue with the utility people. Okay. Yeah, I would recommend you pursue that.

All right, thank you. We're having the conversation with them, trust me. I'm sure. Thank you. Yes, Mr.

Hatcher. Thank you, um, Chair McKee, uh, through the Commissioner— Commissioner Nalo, the church is on an R-3 lot. When you're abutting an R-3 to an R-3, there is not a requirement for landscaping. However, a religious assembly abutting a residential zoning district does require L-2 buffer landscaping on their site. So that's why there's no additional landscaping showing, is because they're abutting a common, common zoning district.

If I have a question of staff, can I ask it now, or should I wait? Oh, okay. Commissioner Folland.

Okay, I know this isn't, uh, directly related to the landscaping, um, variances, but is, is this a fully developed, uh— I mean, I'm having problems with the fact that the buildings are wildly different. Scales if they're supposed to be the same. We're looking at a site plan that is not scaled. Through the chair, Commissioner Folland, this property is 100,650 square feet in the R-3 zoning district. They could build—.

Permitted—. They are permitted up to 98 units. They currently have 44. Kate said they're getting rid of 4 and they're going to add 36, so they're only going to be at 76. As long as they meet the dimensional standards for setbacks and lot coverage.

Yeah, I totally understand that. I'm just— I'm concerned if we're evaluating a site plan and no, the— what we're looking at is not scaled. What else is not scaled on this site plan? That's, that's a great point. Um, the only thing we're looking at tonight is the landscaping and whether or not it meets the minimum setback, minimum requirement for L2.

Along the west and the south property line, as there is no requirement along the east property line because it's abutting an R-3 zoning district. Um, that'll be handled in building permit when they go in for building permit and they have to submit a site plan for zoning review. That's when that'll be handled. Okay, addressed. Okay, thank you.

I have a question of staff. So you just clarified that the, the R-3 abutting an R-3, there is no landscaping requirement. On the south side— or I'm sorry, on the west side— they're counting on the 30-foot screening that exists to meet their screening requirement. Is there a landscape screening requirement between, um, a B-3 and this— and this R-3? Yes, Chair McKee, that's— that's why they're asking for the variance for the north half, no landscaping because of the drive aisle, and then a reduction in the width along the south half of the west property line.

But yes, there's a requirement. L-2 is required between R-3 and B-3. It just so happens that the B3 lot has a platted 30-foot screening easement that they could go through— the municipality could go through a platting action and remove it. But as of right now, that's not on the table, and it's just going to remain. And so they have an additional— not on their property, but on the adjacent property, there is 30 feet of screening already.

So if, if the property owner of B3 3 chose to reduce their vegetation down to, let's say, the 10 feet minimum plus a fence, then this west side would then no longer meet. So are they, are they counting on that 30 to each meet a 15, or is that what's happening on that? Chair McKee, this is one of the questions that May-Lisa keeps bringing up. Are we requiring that each property owner in different abutting zoning districts both have 10 feet, or is it the last one in gets dinged and has to put in the 10 or the 15 or whatever they're supposed to do? And so that's something that May-Lisa is kind of tackling because there's a concern that, well, you could end up with 30 feet of landscaping ease, you know, buffer landscaping, 15 on one property and 15 on the other.

So yes, if, if the MOA site came in, eliminated the plat, eliminated the plat easement, and which would be a redevelopment of the site, they would still have to maintain their 15 feet or 10 feet with a 6-foot screening fence. This variance is literally no landscaping that north part of the west half. On the west side and a reduction on the south part of the, you know, basically midline. So they are— they would not put any landscaping as the design— as the drawing shows in that exhibit. There's no landscaping on the west side in that north half.

Okay. And they're not proposing any. And so if the adjacent property B-3 reduced theirs, then there would be no vegetation? They couldn't reduce less than 15 or 10 with a screening fence. Okay, so if they were to eliminate cumulative total that we're trying to achieve, it's—.

And that's where the— yeah, that's why we keep trying to figure out how much landscaping are we really trying to require. And again, and is it always the last one in that gets dinged with this responsibility of creating it? Okay, because that— that— thank you, that helps me because that was my question. It's just like, is parcel, you know, L2 required to have 15 or 10+ offense, and then B3 is also required to have 15 or 10+ offense. It's kind of a cumulative 30 or 20+ offense between the two, correct?

So, okay, thank you.

Um, I will return to public testimony. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to testify?

Please state and spell your name, and please let us know whether you are testifying as an individual or as a group. As a group, president of the Sand Lake Community Council. For the record, Elizabeth Vasquez. We met on Monday evening, and we have a resolution that was passed with no objection. There was at least 23, 24 individuals attending the meeting.

And I will read the resolution. Basically, the bottom line is we are concerned about the residential community south of this property, R1, and primarily, uh, Mayor Circle and Road— Runstadt Ruth Circles. These properties, uh, individual homeowners are very impacted by this type of variance. Um, the bottom line is that this particular, um, developer has not been a good neighbor. It does not dispose of the snow appropriately.

It pushes all the snow. And by the way, before I continue, I have actually been on site, so it is a very tight— it's really tight as far as structures and parking and so forth. But the main concern is the gradient. It slopes down. They push the snow.

They do not remove it. They push it against the fence. There's no landscaping, and homeowners have to bear the brunt of this decision. This particular homeowner, there's a letter that's attached to the resolution, and it is— it's alarming how much they've had to spend, install French drains, and continuously battle the situation. In essence, This variance will simply aggravate an existing malfunction.

Um, this neighborhood is battling, um, this developer that doesn't remove snow appropriately, and it's— the property is not graded appropriately. It's just downsloping into Mears Circle and Ronstadt Circle, so the homeowners are bearing the brunt of this situation. Um, for the record, the developer has a 44-unit apartment complex. Um, they want to add an additional 36 apartments, and, um, in an area that is approximately 2.3 acres. Uh, there is presently no buffer between the homeowners, um, R1 and the R3, which this development sits in.

So there's no buffer right now. So this will simply aggregate— aggravate what's going on. Um, for the record, our community does not necessarily object to further development. We are in support of 54-unit townhouse complex that's being— going to be constructed on Northwood Street in our neighborhood in West Anchorage. So we're not— for the record, we're not necessarily opposing this because it's a new development, but there are serious concerns before this new development should be approved, serious concerns that should be looked at, and I have a resolution here.

I apologize, you know, we met on Monday night. I could see from the postmark that notices were mailed out April 30th, and today is what, May 13th? I respectfully request that the commission perhaps provide 30 days notice, which would be more comfortable for most folks that are doing— living their life. So I do have copies of the resolution, and the bottom line is that we— 2.5 pages— but we state, um, the Sand Lake Community Council supports the homeowners living adjacent to the proposed development and opposes the present proposal to add 3 apartments on 3640 West Diamond Boulevard, and a transitional R-2F zone is created to provide a buffer between present high-density 44-unit apartment complex and the adjacent single-family R-1 properties. Now be it further resolved that clear and timely notice be provided to adjacent property owners that the developer will be constructing constructing 3 multi-story apartment buildings, which will result in adding 36 apartments to the present 44-unit apartment complex.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we have the time restriction. And they did— just so that you know, the commission was provided with the resolution, so we all—. Thank you—. It was emailed to us and also provided to us in hard copy. Thank you, appreciate that.

But if you'd like to just kind of conclude your I didn't, I didn't want to. Are there any questions?

I have a question. Do you have any concerns or about the, the west side?

The west, west side was not mentioned. I think the main concern was the south border, which is the borders with the R-1 residential community. I'm not aware. Does any—. Excuse me, huh?

Excuse me, we can't, we can't do that. I'm sorry, we can't. He's already testified. I don't know the answer to that question, Commissioner. I'm sorry, we were focused on the residential area south of the border, um, the R1, uh, residential area.

Sorry, I can't— I'm not privy to that. Okay, thank you. Any more, Commissioner? Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Thank you. Um, so we do have somebody who pre-arranged to testify, um, and they are on the phone. So it'll take us a second to call them.

Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please consult your directory and call again or ask your operator for Styled.

Hello, this is Paul. Hi, Paul. This is the Urban Design Commission calling for public testimony on case 2026-0052. Will you be testifying tonight as an individual, or are you representing a group?

Uh, individual. Okay, thank you. Uh, as an individual, you have 3 minutes to testify. Please start by stating your full name for the record, and you may begin your testimony. Okay, my name is Paul Allen Kirschak, K-U-R-I-S-C-A-K. Um, my wife Darlene and I live at 3601 Mere Circle, directly behind 3640 West Diamond Boulevard.

Which is the Salem Apartments, which is a commercial high-density complex, which is also property that Sourdough Dreams is petitioning for a variance for relief from landscaping standards, which we oppose for the following reasons.

We purchased our property in 2014, and there's never been an adequate landscape buffer along 3640's south boundary, which is adjacent and adjoins our property line. We built a berm and a 6-foot fence along our property line, as well as adding extensive landscaping including 6 large trees and a retaining wall. But Selamatov Apartments has never attempted to to number one, create or maintain any landscape buffer at all, or remedy their snow storage and rain runoff from their 8% grade that runs downhill in their parking lot towards our property, 200-yard parking lot, onto Mere Circle neighborhood. As a result, over the years, the velocity of water runoff has damaged our yard and driveway and even seepage into our foundation walls.

We have spent time and money repairing, preventing more water damage, including a $17,000 French drain around our property, not counting the landscaping, the trees, retaining wall, and 6 loads of material to create a berm between the two properties. Therefore, we strongly oppose the variance based on the fact that three more buildings and adding 36 more apartments would only aggravate the existing problems because there is no existing buffer zone or adequate landscaping or proper snow storage and water drainage at the present time. The inadequate landscaping, water drainage need to be addressed before even addressing or considering building 36 more apartment units.

That's all we have to say. We thank you for your time and listening, and we've also addressed this in written form as well to the Commission.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for listening, and we're done here now.

Hold on, are there any questions for the person who called in?

Um, no, it doesn't look like the Commission has any questions for you at this time. Okay, thanks for your listening. Thank you for your time. Good evening. Thank you.

You too.

I'm not seeing anybody else who would like to make public testimony. Would the petitioner like to use their remaining time for rebuttal?

Hello again. Again, it's Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. One, I did contact an associate, and he did tell me that the buildings are different sizes. There is one building that is larger than the others. So that is correct on the site plan. Uh, two, I've heard a lot of things about the petitioner being a bad neighbor, and I would like to let the commission know that the petitioner in this case purchased the property 4 months ago.

So there is a new owner on the property. It is not the owner from previous. Um, my associate also said that there are plans to remove the SO off-site as I previously said. And let's see, the drainage, like we said, is going to have to be dealt with, with the building permits. And the— we are not asking for a variance for landscaping on the north edge of the property where it's required because we are planning on meeting that in full.

And does the Commission have any additional questions for me?

Commissioner Foland. Thank you. Through the chair, these, these renderings, are these the building? Uh, yes, I was given those as a representative, as one of the buildings. Okay, it's not this, it's not— it doesn't match the site plan anywhere on the drawings.

Do you know if it's just— I mean, are we in like super early— is this just schematic design? Yes, this is the very beginning. The engineers still haven't completed any site design work. We're still finishing up the surveying. This is the very beginning.

Okay.

Yeah, because this doesn't scale to the site plan either, but that's okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Straight. Yeah, I guess just for my own clarity here. So I understand the request for the, the variance on just on the west side, on the northern portion where the drive currently exists. Are you seeking a variance for the southern portion of that site as well? Uh, the variance is required for the entire side.

I do believe that if you ignore the north side of the western boundary and just focus on the southern portion of the western boundary, uh, the parking spot turnarounds cut into the bed width along with the fire turnaround.

If you have the full-size copy in front of you, you'll see where it cuts in so that cars can back up and then pull forward. Okay, but other than that, it would meet the 10-foot width of fence width requirement for the landscaping on the southern portion? Okay, all right, thank you.

Mr. Hatcher. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Straight, it's 6.2 feet. I don't know if it's really visible on your large— do you have the 11 by 17s? Yeah, there's a block Right above the S-4, it says L-2 landscaping required.

It says minimum width 15 feet, average width provided 10.75 feet, minimum width 6.2. And it is like Kate said, right where that turnaround— that fire turnaround/parking area is. It's just in that little piece that it's the reduction below 10 feet.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I have a question since you brought up the fire turnaround. Are you— you're counting on this space for a fire— for an emergency vehicle to be able to maneuver within these buildings? I mean, and in the picture you're showing vehicles parked there, so how, like, how are you ensuring a fire truck has adequate access? Uh, if you'll see the red dotted line, that is for the fire turnaround. So when we had the pre-application with the city, uh, fire was very insistent obviously on having adequate fire apparatus turnaround.

And so this is based on their design standards, and it was okay with them that it utilizes the parking spaces that could be occupied. Uh, the fire turnaround doesn't go into the parking spaces, Chair McKee. You're seeing the overlay drive of the existing parking and the existing cars. Those, those won't be there. Okay, okay, thank you.

Yeah, yeah, it's—. I know when they overlay it with that, it's kind of hard to tell that. Yeah, sorry, that's aerial image overlay.

Yeah, but it has dedicated parking spaces in it, so I was concerned that they're like counting this, but so those will be vacated. Okay. Commissioner Straight. Sorry, I'm back into this again. Um, so again, that, that fire turnaround there, the The reduction in 10-foot width for the additional turnaround area there at the very end of that, that strip, is that necessary?

If we— if you took off the last 2 parking spots, could that go away and you would have a 10-foot landscaping buffer all the way along there? Possibly. I would have to speak with my associates. I am not sure on that. I'm sorry, I can't speak to that.

Okay.

Are there any more questions from the Commission for the petitioner or staff?

Uh, this is Commissioner Collis. Just a quick question on the overall slope of the property on that north side where it's called Unit 1. Does that also slope to the south, or does it flip towards Diamond Boulevard?

Through the chair, Commissioner Culles, this slopes south from Diamond, and there's about a 20-foot grade difference from Diamond to the south property line. It all slopes to the south.

Okay, so they'd be looking at either retention pond or some type of underwater storage retention, correct? Yep, you are correct.

Are there any more questions from the Commission for the petitioner or staff?

Petitioner, you have 7 minutes remaining. Which—. Would you like to use any of it? I believe I've said everything I need to. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. The public hearing is now closed.

The matter now rests with the body. We will move and vote on each variance, so we'll separate the west boundary from the south boundary as we vote.

So may we have a motion to approve in case 2026-0052, the variance, um, for the west property boundary.

It's been moved by Commissioner Nanalo, um, Mover, would you please state your motion?

I move in case 2026-0052 to approve a variance from AMC 21.07.080E for relief from landscaping standards on the west property boundary, subject to the conditions shown on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report.

No, I need a second.

Um, do we have a second?

It's been seconded by Commissioner Folland. Commissioner Nanala, would you please speak to your motion? Um, yes, for specifically the west boundary, I do intend to support this variance as it is. The standards have been met, or the purpose of the standards— let me rephrase that— have been met per the staff report. They have not all been met perfectly, But the standards are met in terms of the— why they are there.

So I do intend to support this. I can go through each one if you'd like me to, or do you want me to do that, read through each one?

Okay. All right. Findings for approval criteria.

Standard A, the proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design standard to the same or better degree than the subject The standard is partially met. I'm going to only— okay, for this, I'm only going to read for the west, what they say for the west property, the western boundary property line. Excuse me. Um, the intent of L2 buffer landscaping is to separate one land use from another land use that may be incompatible for reasons such as the intensity of use or the visual character along the west property line. The adjacent partial is commercially zoned and includes a platted 30-foot-wide screening easement, plat 86-160.

Given that the proposed multifamily residential use is less intensive than the existing commercial use, the lack of or reduction of the L2 buffer landscaping in this area continues to achieve the intent of the standard by maintaining adequate separation between uses of differing intensity.

Standard B, the proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard. This standard is partially met. The 2040 Anchorage Land Use Plan classifies the site with a land use designation of compact, compact mixed residential medium. Compact mixed residential medium land use designation, 2040 Land Use Plan. This designation provides for multi-unit apartment and townhouse, townhouse living and mix of compact single-family and attached housing in a cohesive neighborhood.

It makes efficient use of residential land near service, shopping, jobs, and commercial mixed-use center. Apartment and townhouse development centers greater housing. Supports, excuse me, greater housing opportunities near jobs and services, efficient public services, and frequent transit service. Goal 7, Anchorage 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Infill development is compatible with the valued characteristics of surrounding properties and neighborhoods.

Um, policy number 7.2, Anchorage 2040 Comprehensive Plan, ease the transitions between more intensive uses and adjacent lower density neighborhoods in terms of the built scale. Height, level of activity, and character. Specifically for this, the lower intensity is on the southern border, so that's not applying to those western border. Um, the variance request achieves part of the intended code of the code and is compatible in scale with the adjacent uses up to the west.

Uh, C, the proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard. The standard is partially met. The lack of a reduction in width of L-2 landscaping along the western property line adjacent to commercially zoned land that includes a platted 30-foot screening easement provides, provides an alternative that achieves an equivalent level of buffering. Given the lower intensity of the proposed multifamily residential use compared to the adjacent commercial use, this alternative maintains the functional intent of the standard and results in a benefit comparable to compliance. I'm going to skip the next paragraph because it applies to the southern portion.

The, uh, criteria D, the variance, if granted, if granted, will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property as permitted under this code. The standard is partially met. The property to the west is zoned for commercial use. The property— this proposed lack of or reduction of the L2 buffer landscaping along the west property line maintains the intent of the design standard as the proposed multifamily residential use is less less intensive than the adjacent commercial use. As a result, the reduced buffer is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on the commercial property.

E. The variance, if granted, does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located, is in keeping with the intent of the code, and does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the district in which the property lies. This standard is met. Because it's met, I'm going to move on.

F, persons with the disabilities are provided with access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and reasonable accommodation. This standard is met. G, the variance, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality. This standard is met. H, in evaluating the request for a variance from the maximum sign height, the Urban Design Commission may consider whether there are special topographic circumstances that would result in a material impairment of visibility of the sign from the adjacent roadway, which significantly diminishes the owner's or user's ability to continue to communicate adequately and effectively with the public through the use of the sign.

The standard is met because it is not applicable.

Do you want me to do the department recommendation? Are we good on that? I don't need to read— sorry, through the chair, I don't need to read the department recommendation, correct? Yeah, I didn't think so. Yeah.

Oh, just—. Okay, okay.

Commissioner Foland, would you like to speak to your second? Uh, yes, I have. Um, she got all the points, but I have just some recommendation for the petitioner. I would, uh, strongly recommend the new owner and you and the whole design team going to the next Sand Lake Community Council meeting and bringing the plans, meeting your neighbors, talk to your immediate neighbors. That's just a really good way to all be on the same page and bring everybody up and hear the concerns before you get really, you know, $50,000 into design or something.

Just build it into the beginning because this You know, I mean, we need housing in Anchorage. It's great to build new housing. If this is a new, new neighbor, I would recommend just starting on a strong, solid foot and take all— work the concerns into the site plan and make sure it is a positive development. That's it.

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

Um, I have a few things that I'd like to just mention. They're not findings, but they're comments that I think should be conveyed to the new owners. It's, it's great that you have a new owner, and I hope that the new owners do better than the previous owners with respect to your adjacent property owners and neighbors. Particularly there's an adjacent property owner that has spent over $20,000 to remedy drainage from this site entering their property. And the schematic that's before us will have significantly less infiltration when you remove all of that vegetation, thereby increasing the runoff, and that the new site plan should address adequate onsite detention so that the the flow from this property, current and future, doesn't impact adjacent property owners in a way that causes property damage.

So I think that that's really important. I think it's great that there's a new owner and an opportunity to do, to do better and have a better relationship with the existing neighbors, but also recognizing that there'll be a significant amount of increased vehicle traffic and that they are attentive to the potential for oil and, and fuel and other potentially hazardous materials that need to be also contained and remedied in their future site development.

If there is no further discussion, may we have a vote on Case 2026-0025 specifically? With the west, with the variance with respect to the west boundary.

Miss Linnick, how do you vote?

Mr. Collis?

Approved. Thank you.

Um, so the Case 2026-0052 to approve a variance with respect to the west side for relief from the landscaping standards has passed with a vote of 6 in favor and 0 no and 0 abstaining.

So we'll now move on to the second part. We have a motion to approve a variance from—. To—. For relief from landscaping standards on the south property boundary.

Was moved by Commissioner Straight. Mover, would you please state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0052 to approve a variance from AMC 21.07.080E for relief from landscaping standards on the south property boundary, subject to the conditions shown on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report. And that was seconded by Commissioner Nanallo. Commissioner Straight, would you please speak to your motion?

Yeah, I, um, I plan to oppose this variance for the southern boundary. Um, I, I think it's really important to keep this, this buffer in between the R-3 and the R-1, particularly given the historical issues that the, the southern property owner has experienced here. I think the increase in traffic is only going to exacerbate the existing issues. And so, um, for findings, I'm going to go through the approval criteria that I believe, uh, do not— are not met by the application.

For criteria A, the proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard. Um, the intent of an L2 buffer landscaping is to separate one land use from another land use that may be incompatible for reasons such as intensity of use or the visual character. Along the southern property line, the adjacent property is zoned R1. Although the code allows a minimum 10-foot buffer when paired with a 6-foot tall screening fence, the proposed reduction does not achieve the intent of the design standard. Single-family residential uses are less intensive than the proposed multifamily development, and the reduced buffer diminishes the level of separation and visual screening intended to protect lower-density residential uses.

For Criteria B, uh, the proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard, the standard for the southern boundary is not met.

For— excuse me— Goal 7 of the Anchorage 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 7.2, ease of transitions between more intensive uses and adjacent lower-density neighborhoods in terms of built scale, height, level activity, and character, the southern boundary does not meet this when removing the L2 landscaping buffer. For criteria C, the proposed alternative results in better and benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than the compliance with the subject standard. This standard is not met for the southern boundary. The proposed reduction in the width of the L2 buffer landscaping along the southern property line does not provide a community benefit equivalent to or better than compliance. This area abuts an R-1 zoning district where greater separation and screening are typically expected to protect lower-density residential uses.

The reduced buffer diminishes the level of visual and spatial separation intended by the code. For criteria D, the variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property as permitted under this code. The standard is not met for the southern boundary. The southern property is zoned R-1. While the code allows for a minimum 10-foot landscape depth when paired with a 6-foot tall screening fence, the proposed reduction in landscaping along the southern property line may have an adverse effect on the adjacent low-density residential district.

The diminished buffer could reduce visual screening and separation typically expected between R-3 and R-1 uses. Uses. For criteria E, F, G, and H, the southern boundary for the landscaping standard variance is met. However, I would say overall that not all 8 standards have been met, and therefore I plan on opposing approval of this variance on the southern boundary.

Thank you. Commissioner Donahue, would you like to speak to your second?

Um, sure. Commissioner Straight pretty much covered it. I also do not intend to support the variance for the southern boundary. Um, I am also glad to hear that there is a new owner, and I hope that there is a marked difference in how this is approached going forward. I also know it's breakup season though, and it's spring, and I think if there was a marked difference, I'm assuming that would've been mentioned somewhere in here.

So I hope that maybe there's an ongoing conversation here from a community perspective. But, um, yeah, in terms of whether or not we have in place a system that is going to provide this community with the same or better standard. It doesn't look like that's in play here, so I also do not intend to support this variance.

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

Um, I'll, I'll go ahead and speak to it again since we separated the vote and restate my previous statement that, um, Again, also glad that there's a new owner. Hopefully that they do better. And, and again, they're planning to clear vegetation, which will decrease infiltration and increase runoff. The— hopefully the future plan has significant measures for onsite detention and treatment of runoff before it flows into adjacent properties. I'll mention again that the property owner that came before us and testified has done well, upwards of $20,000 in repairs and/or mitigation efforts to prevent the runoff from entering their property.

What— and they didn't even include the cost of the retaining wall that they had to build, um, and that snow storage and management needs to be, um, significantly better moving forward. So I, I'll just mention that again since we separated the votes. That the adjacent property owners have had. It sounds like other additional issues with the, with the management of the, of the property. So again, hoping that the new owner does significantly better.

And I'll repeat what Commissioner Folland said with our first variance, is that the new owner should make an effort to reach out to the Sand Lake Community Council and share their plans and involve community in their site development.

Um, if there is no further discussion, may we have a vote on Case 2026-0052 with respect to the south property boundary? Miss Lanning, how do you vote?

I vote against the motion. Mr. Collis?

I vote against. Thank you.

So, um, that motion has failed with a vote of 6 against approval of the variance and 0 commissioners voting yes.

Um, so we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. We don't have any appearance requests or reports this evening, so we'll be moving on to Commissioner's Comments. I'll just mention that tonight is the last night that the Urban Design Commission will be meeting, and we will be sunsetting So I will thank those of you who came tonight to testify, that we appreciated you and your time. But I will open up comments first to the commission and then the chair and then to staff.

Commissioner Straight.

Yeah, I wrote something because otherwise I was going to forget to say something I meant to It's not long. I just want to take a moment to express how grateful I am to have served alongside all of you. Thanks to my fellow commissioners, both in the past and the present, for all your time and effort and dedication to our city and this commission. I also want to thank the Planning Department for all their hard work and for the excellent job that they have done preparing cases and working with petitioners. Serving on this commission has been a true honor, and I'm proud of what we've accomplished together and grateful to have been part of it.

Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Nanalo.

I thought we had to evacuate.

Well, way to go out with a fire. I don't know. I don't know, the bang. OK, well, I also— I mean, Commissioner Straight said it very well. I just want to thank you all.

I've loved being on this commission. You guys have all been wonderful, and I'm very thankful to have served with all of you. So thank you all.

Would anybody on the phone like to make a comment?

Yes, this is Commissioner Lennig, if I may. Um, I want to echo Commissioner Straight. I think, um, he said it very well. I, I, it's really been a privilege to serve with all of you on the Urban Design Commission. We've seen some really interesting cases, um, and it's been really wonderful to be involved in our community, um, and I will definitely miss this commission.

I also want to thank planning, um, they put in a lot of time and effort into preparing all these staff reports, um, and we wouldn't be able to do what we did without them. And I also want to have a special shout out to Lori, um, who supports us every time we meet and before and after and all of the things in between. And I I want a special thank you to her for all the work she does. And thank you all for a great time. Thank you.

I have comments and I will probably— oh, sorry, go ahead. I was going to say just a big shout out to the staff for always putting in the legwork and then just making the onboarding process easy to a newbie like me. Their orientation is pretty rock solid and the progress pretty seamless.

Thank you. Um, I also echo the commission's comments, um, and I'm super grateful to staff. Everybody knows I always have a million questions, and you've answered all of them through all of the years. And also to Lori, who keeps me straight and keeps me online and keeps me knowing what I'm doing when I have no clue. But it's been an honor and a privilege to serve with the commission and the community of Anchorage.

We are volunteers and it means so much to us that we are here to serve you and hopefully make things better for, for the community. So it is— we are sad that we are sunsetting, but So thank you. You got to have be our last presentation, our last cases, and, and it was our pleasure.

Um, Miss Appleby, uh, yes, uh, oh, sorry, Lori, uh, I have a proclamation to read from the mayor, so I'm going to move to that podium actually. Can I speak in between? Yes. Yes, and, um, just make sure the—. I—.

Anyway, go ahead, Madam Chair, if I may please. Please. I put it in writing also, Trevor, because yeah, I have the deepest gratitude and admiration for your service and commitment to the— commitment to the municipality's mission. Your integrity, decision-making, and compassion for the community through many challenges has strengthened and enriched the lives of those we serve. Your contributions have shaped not only policy but also the spirit of teamwork, accountability, and public trust.

I consider you family and am honored to have served you. Your impact will be felt for years to come. May your days ahead be filled with the same passion and purpose you so generously shared with us. And you will get your nameplates. Thank you.

And I'll throw it, um, Commissioner Folland, just in case you wanted to say anything before I read the mayoral proclamation. Just want to make sure.

Okay. Elizabeth Appleby, current planning division manager. I have some proclamations from the mayor. So these are— they're hand-signed from the mayor, and I'm just going to read them. So Municipality of Anchorage Proclamation.

Whereas boards and commissions are designed to give citizens a voice in their government and allow them to influence decisions that shape the quality of life for the residents of our city. Participation on a board or commission is one of the most effective steps citizens can take in becoming an active voice in their government. And whereas the Urban Design Commission is charged with implementing the Comprehensive Development Plan and Title 21 land use planning while conducting public hearings and decision-making authority over public facility site plans, landscape plans, screening along major highways, and sign variances. And whereas you all were appointed to the Municipal Urban Design Commission by the mayor of Anchorage And whereas, during your terms, you all offered valuable information, advice, and counsel on matters pertaining to planning and zoning, and you volunteered your personal time and effort for public service. And whereas, cumulatively, uh, you all have a combined 40 years and 8 months on the commission.

And whereas, the Urban Design Commission is officially sunsetted as of May 31st, 2026. And now therefore, Suzanne LaFrance, the mayor of the municipality of Anchorage, recognize— your individual names are on here, so I've been grouping you, but they recognize each of you as individuals in Anchorage and encourage all residents to honor and congratulate you for your commitment and dedication to the commission. So thank you. We, we as staff have appreciated working with you. We hope maybe you'll consider joining another board or commission, and the sunsetting of the commission in no way means that your input and insight has not been appreciated.

I'll also note that others on staff would have liked to be here in attendance but were unable. There's, um, an out-of-state conference that many of our staff are attending, so including the director, Mili Sabab. But they, they did want to be here. Thank you. I will hand out the proclamations to you, and then we also have some, some food to celebrate with at the end.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so this concludes UDC's business for this evening and for forever.

Um, could I please get a motion to adjourn?

It's been moved by Commissioner Nalo and seconded by Commissioner Straight. Are there any objections?

Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned at 8:03 PM. Thank you, Ali and James, and I'll mail you your proclamations.

Thank you. Thank you, Lori.

Thank you, guys. There will be a special meeting though to approve the resolutions and the minutes from this.