Planning and Zoning Commission - August 11. 2025 - 2025-08-11 18:30:00

Okay, we will call the August 11th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May we please have the roll call? Brandy Eber. Here. Jared Gardner.

Here. Scott Polis. Here. Jeff Rahn. Here.

Andre Spinelli. Here. Greg Stryke. Here. Jim Winchester.

Here. Radhika Krishna is excused absent. You have a quorum.

Okay, uh, there are no minutes to approve.

Any, um, commissioners have any disclosures? Commissioner Streich. Thank you. And through the chair, um, possible, possible conflict, but you'll have to make that case. Case number 2025-0019.

This is for a rezoning Um, rezoning request. I do live in an adjoining subdivision to this area, but I will note that I did not receive any public notice in regards to this meeting, and therefore I would assume I'm outside the distance requirement. But I want to put that forth to the commissioners.

Um, I don't see any conflict there. If anybody else has anything to— if anybody disagrees, they could make a motion to, to consider it, but otherwise I would direct you to participate.

Uh, any other disclosures?

Hearing, seeing none, we will move on.

We have no items on the consent agenda for approval, correct?

And that will take us to G, public hearings. And I will read the procedures by which the public may speak to the commission at its meetings. Are one, after staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow time limits established in the commission rules of procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes.

Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., will receive 5 minutes. Individuals will receive 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the Commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission.

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 2103050A4A.

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 2103.050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant The appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

With that, we will move to case 2025-0019. May we please have staff presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the property owner is requesting to rezone approximately 5 acres of land from R1 and R2M to the R3 district.

These 7 parcels of land are all undeveloped.

Approval of this rezoning will get all the property into the same zoning district, the R-3, and is necessary to effectuate the recording of the, the final plat of the properties into one tract of land.

Pages 34 and 30— 35 of your packet have, um, public comments as well as a supplemental packet that has, uh, public comments received after the staff packet was finalized. State and municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to the rezone.

This proposed R3 district is compatible with surrounding land uses The site borders townhouses, um, to the south, uh, single-family home, uh, to the west, and a single-family home neighborhood to the east across Lake Otis. And then to the north, it's the Chester Creek Greenbelt. The Anchorage 2040 land use plan map identifies this site as compact mixed residential medium, and the primary implementing zoning district of that land use designation is the R-3 district, the request before us. There are PeopleMover public transit routes on both Northern Lights and East 15th Avenue. The site is west of Lake Otis Parkway, which is a Class 3 major arterial, and south of East 24th Avenue, which is a local road.

The department is recommending approval of the applicant's request to rezone to R-3, and enclosed is a draft Assembly ordinance for the rezoning on page 7 of your packet. I'd be happy to answer any questions, and the petitioner is here as well to make a presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?

Yeah, of course.

Um, seeing none, we Oh, Commissioner Pullis. Is Lake Otis a DOT-owned road at this location? It is, right? Do we know?

I believe that it is, um, but, um, I think that Lake Otis is all DOT until you get very far south, um, near, uh, like Huffman. But, uh, that's, um my sense of it. And then can I ask one more question? Yeah. Um, R3, can you remind me of allowed uses?

Is there multi-use development? I didn't get to do my homework this depth on this one. Um, can you remind me that what's allowed in R3? Um, yes.

Um, single-family, two-family, uh, single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family housing is allowed. There's a limit on how many townhouses in a row you can have, so to try and regulate sort of the size of a building. But it is a multi-family residential zoning district that allows a wide variety of residential uses and some community uses. Residential only though, basically? Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Streich. Yes, thank you. And through the chair, in regards to density, the current R-1 and R-2M zoning, you did mention 5 acres. I'm seeing 2 and a quarter acres. Are we looking at 5 or 2.5 or 2?

Through the chair, Mr. Streich.

Oh yeah. There's an error on page 1 saying that it's, uh, the site acreage is 2.25 acres. All the properties together are 4.93 acres. So at 5 acres with the higher density level of— and you show on page 2, 40 housing, up to 40 housing units. So 40 housing units times 5, we're looking at the possibility of 200 units.

Allowable under this new rezoning. Is that correct? Um, uh, I, uh, don't have that. I'm not a calculator, but, uh, yeah, it's, it's a, it's a medium density residential district, correct? District allows 15 to 40.

I'm just taking the higher limit of 40 times 5 acres, 200 units. Did the, um, staff take into consideration that this is a one-way street in, out, no other real exits. When you looked at the approval process, I mean, I'm looking at the density and the number of traffic flow that might take place, which I also note is a significant number of the comments that we've seen in the package.

Yes, the traffic department had no objection to the rezoning. I could point to the page 44, Traffic Engineering has no objection to approval of this rezone. Um, this is just about, um, you know, what zoning law would apply to the land. It would be the R-3. It does not determine, um, uh, you know, uh, what the property will be used for, whether it'll be developed or what it'll be developed with.

There are site constraints that, and certainly they will not be granted a driveway onto Lake Otis. That's highly unlikely, right? So their access will be to East 24th. There is topography, road building is, or driveways, it gets expensive. So there'll be constraints.

I guess the thing I'd leave you with is uh, the sites within the building safety, police, fire, parks, recreation areas, and a building permit will be required. Both Lake Otis and East 24th are built to municipal standards. It's a—. East 24th is a two-way street. It is a dead end, as you say, but the traffic engineer when, uh, when and if they see, um, building plans, um, will review those and can invoke, um, the requirement for a traffic impact analysis, um, at any time, um, during the process.

So that is to say that they don't— they're not showing us any development plans. I don't believe they have any development plans, but when those do come, um, that could reduce the number of dwelling units allowed to be developed. Fully understood and appreciate that. Um, just have to take a look at what a developer would— what he's entitled to pursue under the current— under the change in the zoning. And also at the end of that street, I believe it is a single-family home or two.

Uh, yeah, I think it's just one single-family home with maybe like a large shed or something. With what? A large shed, maybe. Well, it's a large home. Correct.

Okay, thank you. Thanks.

May Lee Sabeb.

Through the chair, just to answer the question from earlier, Lake Otis in that area is owned by the municipality.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

May we please have the petitioner's presentation?

Did you not say earlier that the public hearing people would talk first and then I would talk? No. Okay. No, I didn't say that. Okay.

If I did, I apologize because that was incorrect. Um, petitioner goes first, but you do have 10 minutes, I think that's what I said, and you can reserve some time for rebuttal if you would like. Thank you. Um, hi, my name is Ron Thompson. I'm with Scope Permitting and Engineering.

The owner of the property is the Joe Ashlock Estate. Everyone probably knows Joe passed away. The family is looking to move this property, not develop the property, but make it available that is in the form of that someone would like to purchase. It's been our— it's been kind of dual zoned for a little while. The only way to make this work to be able to rezone was to combine the two together and break the, the two apart.

Obviously, almost half the lot in the back is behind what the municipality installed as a drainage, um, I would say underground drainage, kind of like a curtain drain, caught and moved and turned into the creek. So I mean, it can't be fully developed on the entire parcel. Almost half of it is subject to distances away from that. We do have a I think they mentioned that there is a replat. The replat has been filed and been to the point where it's almost at the end here.

Basically, you can't replat till the rezoning is the same. So to replat it, it takes the rezone to take place. In this manner, the owners took a look and worked with me and saw that in the 2040 plan it calls for the medium dense density housing. Therefore, it's the only zoning without having to change the 2040 plan map. We believe that the, the amount of traffic— we, we met with the city, we met with the community council.

I've only seen in the last couple days a couple of emails that with regard to comments against, I would just say the comments against, obviously most of those had to do with items that will be addressed during any development or whatever development takes space. We think that that is left for that part, but we wanted to make this rezone match the municipality's rezoning plan, and therefore it'll make the property much easier to possibly have someone take a look at it and take it off the hands. Obviously, the, the Ashlock family is, is ready to let the property go, and they feel that this is the, the best way to be able to move the property and in the manner that the municipality wanted us to go to, and we've tried to meet everything with association to Title 21 that planning requested in our, in our pre-application process. So I don't think there's a whole lot more needed to be said. It's in the, in the packet.

This is not about development. We think the questions and concerns that are out there have to do with development, and, and that will come up at the time that someone develops. At this time, we're just talking about rezoning and then being able to combine the lot lines, which make this property much more functional, and be able to, to have an ability to move forward in the future. So with that, I'll reserve the rest of my time at the end. Thank you.

Thank you. You have 6 minutes. Any questions for the petitioner?

I see no questions. Thank you. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward. State your name. Let us know if you're speaking on behalf of yourself or a group.

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Henry Penny, last name is P-E-N-N-E-Y. I live at 2091 Sheppardia Drive, which is in Woodside East, adjoining the property to the south, and I've lived there for over 20 years. Um, as a little bit of history and a little bit of disclosure, um, I also served on the Planning Board from 1994 to 2000 and on this Commission from 2001 to 2003, um, and have chaired both organizations. Um, was born and raised here in Anchorage. I'm a licensed real estate broker for over 30 years, um, and I've known the petitioner and their family for over 40.

Um, I understand that this property is going to be developed. It will be. Um, the question is how it gets developed, and there are two concerns I have. First of all, the comp plan has already defined R— that it's to be rezoned to R-3. Under the current density with the current plat, we're talking 29 dwelling units.

Once it's rezoned— and by the way, the, uh, there was a short plat action that was approved by the Planning Board on the 21st of July, and so that short plat to combine all the property lines, to vacate the property lines in one parcel, was approved on the 21st subject to the resolution of this matter. And some of my comments were— would be better reserved for the plat action, but we didn't have an opportunity because a short plat doesn't require a public hearing.

Two concerns. One is the density.

The proposed density will take this— as Commissioner Streich pointed out, 197 units is possible. Lake Otis and 24th, 24th dead ends onto— well, it intersects Lake Otis. It's at the bottom of a valley right there near Chester Creek between Northern Lights and East 20th. There's no way to signalize that intersection because it's at the bottom of the hill and you have signals at 20th and at Northern Lights. I guess I'm going to run out of time here.

Stability of the slope is the other issue. I've talked with residents who have lived in Woodside East for over 30 years, and at one time that used to be a swamp down there, for lack of a better term. Staff noted there's vegetation on the, on the, on the slope and on the, uh, the petition site itself. That wouldn't— that didn't exist 30 years ago until they put that storm drain in and essentially drain the, the property. Um, the concern is stability of the slope, and so what I would like the commission to consider is a special limitation putting a 50-foot development setback along the toe of the slope to do a couple things.

One, maintain stability of the slope, and it would also maintain the tree structure and consequently the buffer from the higher density residential property down below, so we'd have a visual buffer from the trees that have grown up over the period of time. Thank you. Are there any questions for the testifier? Uh, question from Commissioner Streich. Yeah, I'm, I'm interested.

You, you talked about the density. Um, did you want to elaborate further on the density?

Mm-hmm. 197 Units on 4.9 acres is intense. And again, our concern is accessing traffic off of 24th onto Lake Otis. There's no way the traffic engineer is going to allow for that kind of density on the, uh, because it's, it's a two-lane or it's four lanes, no turn pockets. The right-of-way isn't wide enough, and, and staff is correct, that is a municipal right-of-way because Woodside East, the fence along the eastern boundary of our property, is actually owned by the municipality, and they're going to be replacing that fence later on this year because it's deteriorated so badly.

Good. Thank you. And in regards to the special limitation that you mentioned, I think I'll reserve that to the petitioner to see. Um, I, I want to know their feelings on any, any type of special limitations that might be placed. Sure.

So thank you. That makes sense. It just seemed to me to be a viable way to preserve the bluff, to preserve the slope, and it doesn't really impact the, uh, the developable area of the property. I mean, I fully support— I'm a real estate broker, I support developing the property, but we just need to do it right.

Anything else? Uh, Ms. Babb.

Through the Chair, if I may remind the Commission that special limitations are no longer a tool that the Commission can use by code. Thank you.

Okay, uh, anybody else wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

Pardon the glasses, I just had surgery. Uh, my name is Don Skewis. To the chair, my name is Don Skewis. You spell that S-K-E-W-I-S. Thank you.

I lived in the closest unit to the bluff that we're talking about. Um, the Ashlocks, uh, were— brought this up before for single-family dwellings, and that was— I don't know whatever happened, but Bill Jones and Dick Pope were my neighbors, and we all built at the same time. We bought the units from a man called Don Galt. I don't know if he was a partner of Mr. Ashlock or he was working for him, but when we bought the units, we were promised that nothing would ever be built in front of us. When I first built my unit was 40 years ago in 1984.

I started building it, I could see the mountains— excuse me— and all of downtown. Well, since then the vegetation has grown up. We had a little problem of settling with our 4 units. The building is 4 units and we had a separation in our driveway, so we all refilled the driveways. Since then, more vegetation has grown up back there and that's has stabilized that area.

And it just seems to me that that area, if at one time was wetland, and sometimes I think it still is, because I used to be worried about abatement back there, but that's so green back there, and the stream kind of runs back there. That area to me should be more like a greenbelt or wetlands area, because the moose come down from the mountains when snow is deep, and we get moose in our backyards all the time. It just doesn't seem like a fitting place to put it. And like I said, we were promised when we built there nothing would ever be built on that property. Now all the people I'm talking about are all passed now.

I'm probably the only existing person on the bluff that's an original owner. But anyway, I'm just against this, this thing going through because we were against it before, and the engineering department said it wasn't going to go, it wasn't safe. I don't know what's changed, but anyway, that's what I have to say about that.

Thank you. I see no questions. Oh yes, Commissioner Polis, have you read the geotech reports in the packet? I could— I can't read right now. Okay.

I'm having to use a magnifying glass through my watch and my phone. Okay. But the engineering thing, I don't know. We had some engineers back in the Bill Pope and Bill Jones were general contractors, and they went and at that time fought it. I'm sure there's documentation but somewhere back in the archives about what happened back in that time.

I'm just saying that, you know, there's a whole lot of people in the neighborhood not crazy about it, and for different reasons. But I just don't think that land, especially when you look at the density, what they're talking about putting more more people on that little piece of land than all of Woodside East, which is probably twice the size. Can I ask you one more question? Um, what's— does anyone know like the slope that you guys are talking about, like percentage-wise? Is it 2 to 1, 3 to 1?

What are we talking about, this slope? I know I'm on the steepest grade. In fact, I had to cut the top of my fence off because when people go by, they were tearing my pickets off. Now they're grabbing a hold and they're pulling the whole fence back. It's that close to the thing.

We were the last 4 units built in Woodside, and we all bought them. The 3 of us bought them. We all built them ourselves. We got them from Sticks Up and just did the whole inside. And then one doc— the other one on the far end was a doctor, and I don't know, he probably had his contracted out.

But I mean, it's pretty steep. But if you were to walk by my house, back behind my place, it's pretty tempting not to grab the fence. It's that close. And it's— no, but the thing is, we, we don't know. It's, it's— let's put it this way, like I said, it's much sturdier than it used to be because our homes started recessing from the driveways.

It's— but now it's about a quarter of an inch. That's probably just shrinkage. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

See no further questions.

I'm sorry. Okay. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward. State your name for the record.

Diana Birch, B-U-R-C-H. I just want to make it kind of clear. I heard in some of the earlier comments that there hadn't been any maybe written comments to the commissioners about this property. I live at 2211 Sorbus, which is overlooking— it's right in the middle overlooking this bluff. And I have lived here since 1950, and I've lived in Woodside East since 2017.

And there we did have a homeowners meeting. We had a little group get-together. Probably 15 of us attended the community council meeting. And we have, although I don't think our HOA president could make it tonight, it's important to note that there were several of us that have met to talk and worry about this rezoning and the fact that there's standing water always at the bottom of this bluff and kind of throughout it. There's spots where there's big, little, medium-sized ponds that are just standing water.

And that bluff is not very stable. We certainly don't wander down there. And one of the units, I know she has had the bluff right next to her where the greenbelt part is that has sloughed off into her crawl space. So there's real concern for the stability of the ground if they start building and redoing big things down there. And the density, of course, from 24th onto Lake Otis is hard to imagine how that would work.

And I know there are a couple of DOT highway transition spots in the works. Part of the—.

What is it—. Seward Highway to the Chester Creek Alternative Highway, that's one of those options, is kind of right through that area again. So I— there are several people that are concerned and that we have met about it and talked, and I'm sorry we weren't all here in force tonight. Thanks for your time. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

My name is Terry Jackson. I live at 2020 or 2075 Chaparral Drive. I'm a neighbor of Mr. Penny's there, been there for 20 years or more, and my concern is the traffic. I've been down there in that area on 20th Street, have recreated down there, ridden my bike around. Since this came up, I've trapped the property just a little bit to see what's going on.

I've stood at the corner of the of the 24th there and Lake Otis, watching the cars whipping by, looking at the sidewalk. And of course, I've gone up and down Lake Otis for years in the winter, and it turns into— you lose half a lane with the snow every winter when they plow in there, and that sidewalk gets buried every time it snows. If you're putting hundreds of units down there, uh, where are the kids going to get to school? How are they going to go up to Windler and the elementary school up there? It's going to require a bus, and a bus is going to have to go down Lake Otis and make a left turn in a spot there's no left turn area to go.

It's going to go down that street that dead ends. It's got to make a U-turn at the end of that dead-end street and come out. Those are things that are not impossible to fix, but a little bit difficult. It seems to me that we should fix the infrastructure first before you rezone it for the— allow multi, uh, mobile units. So if there's proper sidewalks, proper turn lanes, things of that nature, it'd make this development a whole lot easier and more practical.

So I don't know, like I said, I've walked the property. I don't know if any of the staff members walked the property and looked at it or not, but anyway, that's my concern, and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward. We're coming down to final call here.

Okay, if that's it for case 20— oh yeah, yeah, all right, we'll take your rebuttal.

Hi, um, again, we're not planning on developing right now. We have no idea what will be developed. Um, some of the concerns with regard to geotech— geotech is done on every commercial project. If this is a commercial multifamily, geotech will be done again to see what it is um, at the present time. Um, we've been having some real trouble over the years with homeless in that area lighting fires.

I think that would be even worse than what we're talking about. I think we've been able to try to get, um, that cleaned up. We're over there, the owner is over there cleaning that up at times. Um, anyway, at the end of the day, we've tried to meet what Title 21 said to do with this property. The owner would like to proceed with meeting the, the Title 21 requirements that are in front of him.

He feels like he's put together a package and worked with people over the years. We've met with traffic, we met with everyone in, in the municipality. Obviously, with my background being at the municipality for 25 years, I know a lot of the same things. I've heard the same concerns. Building has happened in a lot of places that the exact same concerns have happened, and things turn out very nice.

We don't know what the finish, the finished product will be here. That'll be up to someone else, but we believe that we've done everything to meet what Title 21 says to do a proper rezone. Of a piece of property to what we feel is meeting the intent of Title 21's rezoning process and also the need for the municipality to have and meet the housing needs that are going on and being broadcast through the mayor's office as well as throughout and about most public meetings. The housing is a what they consider a crisis. We believe that as well in the industry, most of the people that are working in it.

Therefore, we believe this follows all the guidelines that were in front of us. We believe all of the guidelines were met. I appreciate Melissa, because I'm saying that the special limitations are no longer allowed. We're trying— I think the city and the municipality is trying to not have spot spot zoning and, and things like that. So I think that's a good idea to not have special limitations, but there's plenty of other opportunity for this.

There'll be opportunity at the assembly for the rezone, because once it goes from here, it goes to the assembly, and then that'll be another public hearing, as well as the possibility of whatever someone does in the development, if any of that development needs a public process. There'll be more of those things, but at that time, you know, we want to stick to the rezone rules and the rules that we've applied, and we feel that we meet all of the criteria that's in front of us. So hopefully with that, it helps answer all the questions that we had in our position. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Streich, has a question. Thank you, and through the chair, and thank you for that, um, from the petitioner. But the current property is split zone. You've got an R-1 and an R-2M, and you've chosen to go to R-3, which is obviously a higher density of both of those prior current zoning. Was any consideration to rezone to fully R-1 or fully to R-2M?

Um, yeah, we talked to the municipality, and it is not in the 2040 plan. We're moving toward exactly what they would like this zoned as in the 2040 land use plan.

So the plan is to meet what the 2040 plan use— that's what the 2040 land use plan is all about, is if we rezone, you rezone toward that, or you can apply for amendment. But an amendment is trying to move away from what the municipality wants. So we're moving toward what they really want this property to be, and that's the feedback I got in all my meetings with the municipality, and we proceeded down that path. Thank you.

You good? Um, I had a question. You mentioned meeting with traffic. We heard a lot about, uh, traffic. I imagine if a project of 200-some units or 196 or anywhere in those range that we've heard talked about would trigger some sort of traffic review.

What has traffic indicated its thoughts are on the intersection? Traffic has not voiced any concern at all with the intersection. Uh, it's all based upon traffic counts and at that point in time, they probably wouldn't make a comment until such time they see a development. So we're not developing it, we're not answering that, so we can't really— we didn't ask them that question, but they have no concern. This is the zoning that has been meant to, to be for that property, and we're just moving toward what is in front of us and what's in the rules with regard to Title 21 at the present time.

All right, any further questions for the petitioner?

I see none. We'll close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Pulis, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move to approve a request to rezone from R-2M mixed residential and R-1 single-family residential districts to R-3 mixed residential district. That is seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Commissioner Polis, would you like to speak to your motion? I would love to.

Um, I intend to support the motion. It meets the approval criteria for rezone as noted in the staff analysis. That's just the rezone. It meets the comprehensive plan zone designation. It's R-3 in the comprehensive plan.

There are no negative agency review comments, including the MOA traffic Regarding traffic, 100 trips triggers a TIA. So if they develop 200, it's definitely going to trigger TIA. Turn lanes could be added, lots of stuff could be done if it goes that route. Um, opposition to the project mostly based on issues of developability, but submittal has proven it's possible, and complaints about Lake Otis, which will be addressed by the TIA. Um, it also supports the current push in the MOA to increase housing availability across the across the municipality.

I'll leave it at that.

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

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

That motion passes.

All right, moving on to case 2025-0087. This item has been postponed. No.

So, uh Case 2025-0087 has been postponed, so we will move on to Case 2025-0089.

May we please have staff presentation? Thank you, Chair Spinelli. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is asking for review of the 35% Design Study Report for improvements to the Glen Highway and Highland Road interchange. The Planning and Zoning Commission initially reviewed this project as an information item for the first step of the process. We are currently on the second step in the context-sensitive solution transportation project review process.

After the current review of the project by the Planning and Zoning Commission The project will go before the Urban Design Commission to complete the third and final step with the municipality. The proposed project will make short-term improvements to the Highland Road interchange, which was built in 1975, to address traffic issues, improve safety, and reduce congestion. The plan aims to optimize lane uses, reduce traffic queues, and improve efficiency for all access points. It also seeks to improve conditions for both drivers and non-motorized users while preserving the existing bridge structure. The preferred design is Alternative 4, also known as the divergeabout.

This design was chosen for its safety and operational benefits, including a significant reduction in vehicle conflict points. While the plan requires a small land acquisition and a new traffic pattern, it is the most cost-effective solution. This alternative also avoids the costly relocation of a major gas main and power lines. The public has been involved in the process since early 2025 through open house and meetings with the community groups. Maintenance for the new interchange, primarily snow removal, will be managed by the State of Alaska in coordination with the Municipality of Anchorage.

There are 13 topics areas to be included but not limited to in the commission's deliberation. The topic areas are existing condition, design standards, alternatives, compliance with Title 21, long-term and short-term impacts for land use, right-of-way acquisition, utility and infrastructure impacts, street illumination, maintenance, environmental constraints, number of access, public involvement, and cost. Based on the 13 topic areas and information included in the DSR, the Planning Department staff is recommending approval of the preferred alternative for diverge about, subject to condition 1 through 3 in the staff report. The Alaska State of Transportation and Public Facilities representative, Dow, is here tonight to present upon the project and to answer questions. Thank you.

And that concludes the summary of my staff report.

Thank you.

Do we have, uh, is there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, would the petitioner like to speak?

All right, okay, okay. All right, we're in business. Uh, good evening, my name is Galen Jones. I'm with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. I'm a project manager.

I'm here with Kelly Kilpatrick, who's with Dowell, the contractor hired by the department to design the project.

Okay, so we're here to talk about the Glen Highland interchange. Uh, just some quick background and project area slides. So this first one, you can see The dashed blue line is where the interchange is. This is up, uh, also known as the South Eagle River informally, um, exit, but it ties in with Eagle River Loop Road here, and Highland Road is close by. Looks like there's some issues with the slide, you can't see it very well, but I'll do my best.

To the west we have the Anchorage Regional Landfill and To the northeast, we have Eagle River High School off of Wolf Den Drive, and to the south, we have the weigh station. There are some other, um, elements there as well, but for time's sake, I'll move on. So the project purpose and objectives. So the department intends to improve operations and capacity and safety for non-motorized users and motorized users at the interchange. The objectives are to mitigate queuing issues in the morning peak, enhance highway merging for the southbound on-ramp onto Glenn Highway, and to preserve the bridge and extend its service life.

So that will require some maintenance activities on the bridge.

So just a quick and interesting story about the interchange. We like to call it the little interchange that could because it was originally only built to accommodate Highland Road that tied directly into the interchange back in the '70s, and also this dead-end road which was Hesterberg Road, and it is now called VFW, but back then it was just a dead-end. So these are both dead-end roads, and so it wasn't built to accommodate very much traffic. Um, And then in the 1990s, it was tied into the connection with Eagle River called Eagle River Loop Road, and that carries quite substantially more traffic than the small amounts of traffic that it was originally accommodating.

So that— the moral of the story there is that the interchange has not been modified besides just adding one additional westbound lane since it was originally built.

So just looking at the right-of-way real quick, or the property ownership, we have MOA to the west with the landfill. The gray is all federal government, so JBAB land. To the northeast, we have some— the MOA street maintenance station and we have the green is the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority.

Talking about the existing bridge and how the project will propose preservation activities to maintain that bridge and extend its life. It was originally built— bridges are typically built with 75-year design life, so it has about 25 years left. So this project will maintain that existing bridge. And because it— inspection reports show it's in good condition. And it's already been widened once, and our bridge engineers say that it wouldn't be feasible to widen it again at this time.

So next, I'm going to show a series of 4 photos that basically show the issues with the interchange. And notice in every photo, there are substantially long queues vehicle queues that extend up to 1.2 miles towards Eagle River to the east. On this slide, I just wanted to highlight that the southbound merge is near capacity at the moment. It's also built in an older style, which is called a taper merge—. Tapered merge—.

That just kind of shoots you right on to the freeway. Nowadays, all on-ramps are designed as a parallel merge that actually give you time to run parallel with the traffic and then find a gap to enter and merge onto the highway. So this project will transition that merge into the contemporary type of merge, the parallel merge.

On this next one, you can see in the morning— so all these slides are in the morning, so between 7:00 and 9:00 AM. And you'll see this traffic queue. Because of this queue, it's just a constant, constant queue. Traffic on both sides of the interchange, VFW Road, the northbound ramps and the southbound ramps, they can't get in. So you're basically— all the vehicles are waiting here.

And the only way that they can really get in is with what's called a courtesy gap. Most of you have probably experienced that, where somebody will wave you in. And, um, I know personally I don't ever feel comfortable taking that. But that's what people are forced to do, which increases safety risk.

Again, you can see this queue extends close to 1.2 miles on a regular basis, but we have heard anecdotally that it can stretch all the way to the Briggs Bridge or even to Walmart on certain days. And also notice that there's poor lane utilization. So there are two eastbound lanes, all the traffic stacks up in the inside lane, and that is one of the major issues causing the long queues because there's only one left-bound turn lane onto the Glenn Highway on-ramp.

So the project aims to maintain or improve existing pedestrian facilities and transit facilities that exist at the bridge. There's currently a park-and-ride in the northeast corner along with a PeopleMover bus stop. And then this is the primary connection for non-motorized users to get from Eagle River along VFW Road. So the, um, a bike path and people that can walk that way, and then they cross the bridge here at Eagle River Loop Road, and then they can access the Glen Highway Trail. So it's really important that we maintain or improve that connection on this bridge.

And there is, as mentioned by staff, major utilities, a 20-inch gas line. And I'm going to pass it off for the alternatives overview to Kelly. Thanks, Galen. Thanks, everybody. All right, I'll try to make this quick, um, go through our alternatives review.

That's interesting. Okay. Oh, okay, I'm going to make this real quick. Um, alternative constraints, I won't make it too long. Galen went through most of it, but it's, um, preserve that existing bridge.

We don't want to replace it. We want it— whatever alternative we choose, we want to make sure it maintains. Whatever we do, we also want to make sure we maintain or enhance pedestrian facilities and the transit facilities. The solution must address each of those operations and capacity issues that we're seeing out there, and Galen went through on those 4 slides. I'll get through that.

All right, so when we start, we want to look at what would the traffic be in the future design year. Our design year is 2050. So we took the existing traffic, grew it out here. We're forecasting just under 1% annually in growth out there. So looking at these numbers— sorry, you can't see the white streets, but the— The Fs and the Ds are all not meeting capacity in the future years.

So if we don't do any improvements, obviously it's going to get worse. So everything else does operate in now and in the future year at Level C or better. But it's— so it's these movements that we're focusing on within the interchange. So looking at our alternatives, the first thing we wanted to do is we kind of wanted— we wanted to take that incremental approach. What's the least amount of improvements we can do and get the biggest improvements?

Given this is a one movement that's causing the whole issue within the interchange. So first we looked at, OK, let's make sure the folks are using both lanes. So we said, OK, let's convert that through lane— oops, wrong one. Let's convert that through lane right here to adding a left. So let's see if we'll get them using both lanes.

Then we would get them on the ramp and zipper merge onto the highway. Overhead signage, so everything we can do to try to get people using using those two lanes. What it doesn't do is it doesn't fix operational deficiencies at the rest of the interchange. We can get them through faster, but that doesn't allow gaps at the rest of the interchange. So we're really looking at just one movement here.

Then we go on to the loop. We looked at a loop ramp. So instead of making that slow left turn, still dual lane, we looked at, can we get them going faster with a loop ramp? We can get them faster through the loop ramp, but the queue is so long that it still does not— getting them through faster, more traffic, still does not allow for vehicles to get through at the rest of the interchange. That queue is still long.

It also has major utility impacts. We'd put a pedestrian tunnel to separate the pedestrians from that free-flowing movement. It'd be potential acquisition— well, acquisition from J-Bear, which would be delay in schedule, higher cost. So we said we need to go bigger and better, but still keep our improvement impacts low and try to see if we can get lower cost. So we looked at the divergent— diverging diamond with roundabouts.

So similar to Glen Malden, but roundabouts instead of signals. It doesn't warrant signals out here. And what this does is it allows those gaps in the roundabout, which roundabouts typically do. We— the only lanes through the roundabout that are double are that left turn movement. So they still have the free left, gets them on the other side to have the free left onto the southbound ramp.

We are It does not have the high-cost utility impacts. It has some, so we're going to be working with AWU to make sure we're not adding too much material on the ramp improvements. We don't think we are. Should I stop? Yeah, I think, um, we got through all 3 alternatives.

Is there any other alternatives we should know about before you finish? Nope. Any other questions for the petitioner?

Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, the chair. I heard the words maintain or improve non-motorized— maybe it was connectivity— and yet I didn't hear any design details to back up how you'll achieve that goal. If I look at one of the design graphics on page 50 of the staff packet, 36 of your report, I count 8 potential bike, ped, vehicle points of interaction, um, which I haven't ridden or walked current conditions, but I don't think it's 8. So talk to me about those crossing points.

Um, are they grade separated? Um, what, what's the plan for actually achieving the goal of maintaining or enhancing? Yeah, through the chair, thank you for the question. So those crossings are all one-direction crossings. So whereas before a pedestrian would have to look both ways and then cross both directions of travel of vehicles at the same time, what this does is it puts pedestrian refuges in the middle of each direction of— at each roundabout leg.

So when a pedestrian goes across, they only have to look one direction. They can then get into the refuge, look both— look the other direction to see if there's a vehicle coming. If there is, they have a safe place to hold up until the vehicle passes going the other direction and then cross that leg. So they only have to cross one direction of travel at a time, and now they have pedestrian refuges. It's also designed for slower movements for the vehicles with the roundabout.

So our slower vehicles—. Put on the mic, please. Speak it, please speak in the mic. Sorry, go ahead. Oh, I was sorry, through the chair.

I was just saying that it's the Roundabout is also designed for slower vehicles. We reduce the speed of vehicles going through the roundabout, which allows for the safer pedestrian crossings.

Quick follow-up. Thanks for the response. I appreciate the additional sharing of information. Helps me understand what some of the design thoughts are. When I hear the words— I'm blanking on the term you just used— pedestrian refuge, I think temporary snow storage.

Uh, so not so much of a refuge for most of the year. I'm curious about interaction with stakeholders on this point of pedestrians and bikes. Page 270 of the staff packet says, uh, project team is meeting with other key stakeholders, Salt Bay Services, Bike Anchorage. Um, what's happened with Bike Anchorage? How do they feel about this alternative?

Yeah, thanks for the question. Through the chair, the pedestrian refuges will be maintained throughout the winter. And we've met with Bike Anchorage multiple times. We've included them in our interchange workshops and had numerous interactions with them, and they have no objections or concerns with the proposed design.

Thank you. I see no one else in the queue.

And you have no time for rebuttal.

So, um, we will ask for any public testimony. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step up.

Seeing and hearing none, we will close the public hearing.

Okay, we have a proposed motion on the table for anyone willing to move.

Okay, the motion is made by Commissioner Pullis, seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Commissioner Pullis, would you like to state your motion? Yeah, I move to approve a context-sensitive solution, CSS transportation project review, DSR, for Glen Highway and Highland Mason Road Interchange Improvements, state project number CFHWY 00917. Um, yep.

All right, uh, that's seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Commissioner Pulis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yeah, I intend to support the motion. Um, I appreciate the highly detailed DSR you guys turned in. It's one of the better ones I think we've seen in a while.

The traffic analysis completed supports the proposed alternative number 4, um, PI effort seemed more than adequate, and generally overall public support is for Alt 4. Um, Alt 4 addresses issues on both sides of the highway rather than just one. Um, and I saw in the packet that bike anchorage has been coordinated and confirmed they're satisfied with the ped improvements. It was in there somewhere of the 300 pages.

Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Eber. I just want to say that I intend to support the motion. However, I am concerned about the pedestrian safety. As a frequent user of that trail, I know how— I, well, I know all about it as far as traffic and pedestrian safety, but I'm just kind of surprised that bike anchorage was okay with 8 crossings and snow.

Yeah, so that's—. I don't really know how to articulate that. I think that it's going to be interesting with pedestrian traffic. So I still intend to support it. I hope that there can be some future work on that section of it.

Uh, Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I intend to support the motion as well. I think my prior concerns were well voiced, won't repeat them here.

With respect to the motion, uh, for the record, would like to ensure that we're including the department recommendation numbers 1 through 3 on Pages 9 and 10 of staff packet.

Commissioner Pulis, can you confirm? Agreed.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

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

That motion passes.

Now we will move on to case 2025-008 3.

May we please have staff presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the Girdwood Board of Supervisors, uh, supports, uh, increasing the opportunities for commercial development in, uh, the Girdwood Commercial 10, uh, District. It's the Upper Alyeska Highway, uh, commercial zoning district.

Um, on April 21st, 2025, uh, GBOS voted to request this text amendment to the Curdwood zoning regulations. The GBOS resolution can be found on pages 12 and 13 of your packet. This text amendment will allow office uses and most retail uses in the GC-10 district. Currently, most of these uses are prohibited. The GC-10 district is only 3 tracts of land all of which are located on the south side of the Alyeska Highway between Timberline Drive and Glacier Creek.

The northern two tracts are already developed with the Girdwood Chapel and Girdwood Brewing Company. The third tract is privately owned and is undeveloped. With regard to the approval criteria for a code amendment, a text amendment, approval criteria one The department finds that the criteria— criterion is met. This text amendment promotes the general welfare of residents of Girdwood and the municipality overall. The purpose of the text amendment is to provide economic development opportunities in Girdwood.

There's a small amount of land available for office and retail uses, and this text amendment will expand the potential for those uses. The text amendment makes 2 changes to the zoning regulations. First, it deletes one word from the intent statement of the GC-10 District. The intent statement says that the district is intended for non-retail commercial uses, but the amendment is to eliminate that word non-retail since this amendment would be adding— making those allowed. Second, the text amendment changes the table of allowed uses to permit all office uses, and most retail uses.

Fueling stations and seafood meat processing will continue to be prohibited. The change would permit buildings less than 2,000 square feet by right. Buildings up to 4,000 square feet will require administrative site plan review, and buildings up to 20,000 square feet require a public hearing, major site plan review. Buildings over 20,000 are prohibited.

Um, with this change, uh, business or professional office uses could have larger buildings than code currently allows in the GC-10. The current limit is to 10,000 square feet. Changing that 3 with a circle in the table to 4 as requested by Gerdwood allows, uh, business and professional to be larger overall, potentially. Approval criteria 2 is met. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the Gerdwood comprehensive plan, which identifies the area of GC-10 as mixed use.

Mixed uses are already permitted by right in the GC-10 District. The proposed text amendment will allow office and more retail uses. There is no change to the rest of the table of allowed uses. Approval Criteria 3 is also met. The need for more economic development has grown since the Assembly enacted the zoning regulations for Gerdwood in 2005.

State and municipal reviewing agencies have no objection. There have been no public comments on the— on the case tonight. The department's recommending approval to make office and retail uses allowed in the GC-10 district, enclosed is a draft assembly ordinance that begins on page 3 of your packet. I'll point out, or I have to apologize, I made 2 mistakes in the draft ordinance, and I'd like to tell you how to correct that.

So on page 5— sorry, page 6 of your packet, if you turn to page 6 and then turn it sideways, um, you know, in drafting this, I made the error of leaving it blank where the GC-10 column crosses a liquor store, that should be a 4 with a circle around it, as well as the line directly below it, lumber yards and building material storage, should be a 4 with a circle around it. Everything else stays the same. So those were two mistakes that I made. Again, I'm sorry for my error. I hope that in approving or recommending approval to the Assembly of this ordinance that you'll correct that.

There's also a supplemental packet here, additional comments for your review. I'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Streich. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for that presentation. Just for clarification, the 3 properties that are currently zoned GC-10 on that right side of the road, on this side of the road. One is unoccupied, two by the church, and three by the brewery.

The retail element that you mentioned, does this now get those three sites in compliance with the retail allowance with that change that you're making on the retail? Um, uh, potentially, Mr. Streich. Potentially. So let me, let me rephrase. Is the brewery zoned currently to do retail?

Um, so, uh, this is awkward because, um, we've discussed this before. Um, we discussed it about 5 years ago. Yes. Um, uh, The department finds that the brewery is in compliance. However, you are correct that the retail uses, with the exceptions of the, uh, the two that I mentioned, will be permitted or allowed in, in the zoning district.

I just want to go on the record, they will now be allowed This was first brought up about 5 years ago, and we had the petitioner at that time with the brewery come in here and stipulate that nearly 40% of their revenue came from retail at that time. So I just want to go on the record, we're just now cleaning this up over 5 years later, and that's, that's my only point I want to make. I'm glad we're cleaning it up, but this was put forth before as an issue some, some time ago. It should have been cleaned up a long time ago, and there was no enforcement, there was no hand slapping, there was nothing done at the brewery level, at the enforcement level, when it became known to the city what should be done.

And with that, I'll get off my soapbox.

Um, Commissioner Gardner.

Thank you. Um, I was hoping to get a little more, um, I guess, clarification on the comments from Long Range Planning and what the recommendation from the Planning Department is with respect to those, um, comments. And, and I guess also just— I guess that's a general question. More specifically, I'm not sure I understood the comment number 2 for the use table correction.

Through the chair, uh, the long-range planning comments are kind of looking at big picture and also some very specific. So there are a number of— some— the number 2 was at the time they were submitted, there was an error in the table, and so it was to correct that error. The other things are generally that the Girdwood community just finished their comprehensive plan. They spent 5 years on it, and it seems likely that it's going to take them a while to implement it, right? So we're looking at this from the long-range perspective and thinking if you're going to make a change like this, that you're going through the entire process, you're doing the notification, there seems to be an opportunity there to have some efficiency and actually start to implement the plan the way intended.

And some of the things the plan that was just adopted says is increase commercial office space, provide space for light industrial. You know, there's support for this kind of thing and changing some of the uses. Other thing it says, encourage mixed use and also encourage expansion of child care facilities. So long— the long-range perspective is looking at that and thinking about, if you're always— if you're going to change the use table and you're going to go through the process, it seems like a good opportunity to also potentially implement the plan that was just adopted, thinking that, you know, the plan— they, they made all these decisions, they spent a lot of time on it, so the need is there, and this is the chance to take care of that. Just because to do the other thing is— GC-10 has about 3, 3 properties, 3 or 4 properties So this is a lot of work for only 3 properties when there might be a whole range of other zoning districts that could benefit from the same thing.

And the plan guidance is here potentially to support that, or maybe it's not. But so our comment was really just that if we're going to go through this process, you know, while we're there, we might as well think about is there another way or is there something else Girdwood can do to implement their plan now rather than waiting, you know, might take several years for them to do it. So it's really about just the efficiency of the process and thinking about opening the use table. So maybe this is a chance to fulfill some of the other directives from the Gerber Conference Plan.

Thanks. And I guess I would just say, I think I share your general sense. Maybe it's just a follow-up question is, given where we are in the process now for this one, is that something that still makes sense? And is there a recommendation from the Planning Department as to whether at this point we take a further look at adding to this amendment. Through the Chair, I think that that is a decision that we would like to leave up to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

We have recommended approval of this, and this recommendation from Long Range is maybe something to consider as we move forward on any other changes for, for Girdwood. Just trying to step back and take a longer view. We do have— you as a commission have several options. You can approve this or recommend this to— for approval to the assembly as is, or you can postpone and we could bring something else back that has more changes that would implement— that would further implement the comp plan, or whatever the Commission desires. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, uh, we'll open the public hearing.

Anyone from the public wishing to testify on Case 2025-0083. Hello, I'm Mike Edgington. I'm on Girdwood Board of Supervisors. I'm not going to take very long talking about this. I guess we're kind of petitioner.

I just wanted to touch on a few things that have been discussed so far. As As planning has mentioned, Gerdwood has gone through a long process. I think I heard 5 years. It's depending how you count, it's between, uh, possibly between 9 and 14 years of rewriting our comprehensive plan. There were a couple of things which were already in the pipeline for small changes which we had identified before we do the major work that's required to update Chapter 9, which will come from the comprehensive plan.

This was one of the two. There was also another change to commercial zoning. As you see by this being called GC10, there are actually 10, but at least 10 commercial zones in Girdwood, which is sort of ridiculous for the community size it is. There's a lot of rationalisation that needs to be done in the future. This is really just a very small targeted specific fix to to fix an issue that's slowing down potential short-term projects or medium-term projects.

We still want to do the bigger project. We'd like to get support from both this body in planning to do that, and I look forward to maybe in a couple of years bringing forward an update to Chapter 9.

I can't remember, I didn't, I wasn't able to catch everything else that was said earlier in the questioning, but I will just stop now. And if there are any further questions, happy to take them. Thank you. Thank you. I see no questions.

Anybody else wishing to testify?

With that, we will close the public hearing. What is the will of the body?

That motion is made by Commissioner Stryke. Commissioner Stryke, would you like to state your motion? Thank you. And this motion is to approve a review and recommendation by Planning and Zoning Commission of an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 9.040, and Table 21.09-2 to allow office and most retail uses in the GC-10 Upper Alyeska Highway commercial district, found on page 2 of the staff report. With 2 corrections on page 6 of the table— liquor store and lumber supply needing a 4 with a circle.

Thank you. And that's seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Would you like to speak to your motion? Yeah, I intend to support this motion. Uh, it's well overdue, and I think it's working to clean up the, um, current, um allowed uses that are in this area, and this is a great step forward.

I will further note that there was no public testimony for or against on this public testimony done tonight.

Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. Um, I intend to support the motion as well. I'll just note we received some comments from long-range planning about using this opportunity to maybe make some broader changes to implement the recently adopted, uh, comprehensive plan for Girdwood. Um, although I took the comments from the Girdwood Board of Supervisors that we heard to ask for this as a timely and targeted, um, process, um, understanding that there will be a larger effort needed in the future to fully implement the new plan.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing— seeing none, we'll call for the vote. That motion passes.

That brings us to final case of the night, 2025-0096. May we please have staff presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a rezone request initiated by the municipality per Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.160L to amend the zoning map for approximately 1.1 14.83 acres of land from R1, Single Family Residential, R2M, and R3, Mixed Residential districts to PR, Parks and Recreational district.

The Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan classifies these 13 properties with the land use designation of park or natural area, and PR is an implementing zoning district. Approval of this rezone would align the zoning districts of these parcels with the land use classification classification prescribed by Anchorage 2040 Land Use. The 2040 Land Use Plan classifies these 13 properties with the land use designation of park or natural area. Okay. The Planning Department provided published notice to the representative council— community councils in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code 21.03.200(h)(3).

As of this writing, the Planning Department has received no public comment Other agency comments. Attachment 3 includes all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format. State and municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to the rezone. The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, DOT and PF, had an advisory comment regarding the two projects in development along the border of McDowell Sanctuary that may impact the subject parcels. And hoped to continue collaboration and communication with the municipality.

The MOA Parks and Recreational Department supported the rezone as unified zoning would help them in management of the parks, implementation of projects, and maintenance of spaces for public use. Watershed Management Services commented that portions of the properties are within the flood hazard district. AMC 21.03.160L.4 Approval Criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval and the assembly may approve a rezoning if the rezoning meets all of the following criteria. Criterion A: it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

This criterion is met. The proposed amendment to the zoning map would rezone the proposed lots to PR, Parks and Recreation District, which is in alignment with their Anchorage 2040 land use plan, land use classification of park or natural area. The rezone also implements Action 8-4 of the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan to conduct housekeeping rezones of dedicated parks to PR District. Criterion B, it would not result in an objective risk to the health or— health or safety. This criterion is also met.

The proposed amendment unifies the zoning of several lots with consistent historical use as parks for recreational activities under the PR District. According to the comments from the MOA Parks and Recreational District Department, this would help in the management of the parks, implementation of projects, and maintenance of spaces for public use, which may see an increase in levels of public health. Criterion C: It does not conflict with municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances. This criterion is again met. This amendment does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances.

The department finds that the proposed rezoning meets all 3 approval criteria. The department therefore requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval for this proposed rezone from R1, Single Family Residential, R2M, and R3, Mixed Residential districts to PR, Parks and Recreational district. I can answer any questions that the board may have.

Are there any questions for staff? Right here.

First strike. Thank you. And through the chair, help me understand. I mean, we, we heard one case already this evening where we're taking properties from R-1, R-2M, going to R-3 under the pretext that we need more residential housing density. We've been in a meeting here earlier today that talks about the need for residential land area, and we've taken 14 acres right in the heart of Midtown Anchorage, and that is already zoned R-1 and R-2M, and we're going to convert it to park.

Years ago, we did a review of the total park area within the Anchorage area to include the schools and so forth, and it's actually quite extensive. How does this rezoning, this taking into the park, how is that going to fit into the needs requirements for the residential housing elements that we're looking at in the 2040 plan and beyond? What type of impact are we going to see on that plan?

May lee sabap. Through the chair to Commissioner Streich, that's an excellent question, and I understand your concern, especially considering the, the housing crisis and, and what appears to be an effort to take those properties offline for residential. However, this specific property is under a conservation easement at the moment, which is in perpetuity, and so there is no chance that would be developed for housing of or anything else in the future, and it is currently functioning as a bird sanctuary. So this effort is more of a house cleaning effort in order to get the zoning to align more closely with the actual function of that property. Thank you for that explanation.

Chair, if I may. Go ahead. I believe Long Range also has one comment regarding DOT's comment on this project.

Mr. Chair, if I may. Go ahead. Following up on the Director, I just wanted to say that in the 2040 Plan, Action 8.4 says conduct housekeeping rezone. Of dedicated parks, and this is a dedicated park, to the PR District, some T-zone and lands to PLI.

So you're absolutely right, we've been talking about we need housing, we need housing land, but another big piece of the plans is also land used for parks. We want to dedicate it as parks, and then we can think about using the other land sort of more efficiently, maybe. And I also just do want to make one final kind of note. In AKDOT's comment, they, they say project teams are working on designs that will try to minimize impacts the sanctuary, but some impacts may be unavoidable. Just want to emphasize that in design, you know, the purpose of good design is to avoid the things that are unavoidable or deal with what seems unavoidable and find a way to mitigate it.

So this, um, this is something that's been a priority for the municipality, evidenced by it's one of our explicit action plans in 2040. People want these parks protected, and so the comment from AKDOT that there might be unavoidable impacts it might maybe not be recognizing that this is actually a pretty big priority for the community, as evidenced by it's been used as a park, it's called out in the plans, and it was recently designated, I think last year, by the assembly as dedicated parkland. So there's not much more any municipality can do to say this is important land for park use. So I just want to call that out, that, you know, something that says may be unavoidable in the design stage, nothing is really unavoidable. So thank you.

All right, I see no further questions. We will go ahead and open the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify on case 2025-0096, please step forward.

Hearing and seeing none, we will close the public hearing. What is the will of the body?

Motion by Commissioner Rahn, seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state and speak to your motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I move in case 2025-0096 to approve a request to rezone 13 parcels of land from R1 single-family residential, R2M, and R3 mixed residential districts to PR Parks and Recreation District. Um, I intend to support the motion. I concur with, uh, staff's findings with respect to the 3 approval criteria.

A few additional notes. I'd like to commend Long Range Planning and the department in total for the comment with respect to DOT's written comments and would like to echo those as well. DOT, please recognize the importance of this parklands for what it is and seek to avoid, not just minimize, impacts to those things that are important to our community.

This park has received a lot of recent stresses, human-caused and institutional and project-based as well. Perhaps in the future. I just spoke to that with respect to the DOT projects potentially in the queue. Human stressors, as community, we're all aware of them. So I think housekeeping is an interesting term when it comes to this and what we're doing here, perhaps not just an on-paper housekeeping, but as community enabling us to better manage the parklands that we have.

So with that, I'll stop talking and reiterate that I intend to support the motion. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to the motion?

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

That motion passes.

Any reports or Title 21 discussion or commissioner comments?

Uh, hearing saying none, we'll, uh, move for the adjournment.

Moved and seconded. I hear no objection. We are adjourned.