Planning and Zoning Commission - February 2, 2026 - 2026-02-02 18:30:00

Okay, we will call the February 2nd meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May we please have the roll call? Andres Spinelli. Here. Jared Gardner.

Here. Radhika Krishna. Here. Scott Poulos. Here.

Jeff Rahn. Here. Amma Al-Baza. Here. Brandy Ebers, excuse.

Do you have a quorum? Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? We have the minutes of January 5th and January 12th.

Moved by Commissioner Krishna, seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Any discussion on the minutes? Any objection? Hearing none, minutes are approved.

Uh, next item, special order of business disclosures. Any commissioners having anything they wish to disclose? Commissioner Krishna. Yes, in case 2026-0013, I would like to disclose that I've had a number of contacts with the project team on the design criteria manual updates. Um, I have both emailed and met with them in October and I believe in January, um, and have had some email conversations as well.

I understand we're here in an advisory capacity and not in our adjudicatory capacity. Some of these contacts started before I was aware this was going to become a Planning and Zoning Commission case, so I just want to be quite clear that all of those contacts were in my professional role and not in my role as a Commission member. I am happy to either recuse myself just out of an abundance of clarity or to participate however the Commission directs.

Thank you. It's my opinion that the— your involvement in things such as this is why you are on the Commission. And so I would be inclined to see you participate. It's really no different than any of our involvement in any of the Title 21 or the plan update, the comprehensive plan update that we're currently all have looked at and worked on. Or talked about.

So unless any commissioners feel otherwise, I, I would say, uh, we would direct you to participate.

And anybody disagree? Want to make a motion? No? Okay. Uh, next I will hand the gavel over and disclose I have two disclosures.

First, I was absent from the January 12th meeting, so I will abstain from voting in the resolution in case 2026-007. And second, I'd like to just go disclose that, um, the subject parcels in the Great Land Holding LLC cases 2026-001 0006 and 0007. Um, Spinel Homes owns property across the street and had gone through a similar rezone, um, some time ago that came before the commission. I was out of the room during— while it happened.

And I don't believe I have a conflict. I had— it is a recommendation to the assembly, and I think I can remain impartial, but I think the commission should decide. Commissioner Aron.

Are you disclosing, or are you weighing in on my disclosure? If you need somebody to weigh in, I, I can, if you want to go through the motion process and get on the record. But I was going to make my own disclosure. Oh, well, I, uh, actually passed the gavel over to Radick, so she— I'm Commissioner Krishnaswamy. Yes, would anyone like to make a motion to direct Commissioner Spinelli to participate in these cases?

Commissioner Aran, would you like to make your motion and to speak to it? And that's seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, um, Commissioner Spinelli, thank you for the disclosures. I don't believe what you've described rises to the level of a conflict that would move me to ask you to recuse yourself, and I look forward to your participation.

Thanks.

Any other discussion?

Any objections to that motion?

Do we need to take a formal vote? No. Okay. Hearing no objections, we're going to say that that motion passes and hand the gavel back to the chair.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was absent from the January 5th meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-001 through 2026-006.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other disclosures? Hearing, seeing none, may we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Moved and seconded. Anybody wishing to pull any items?

Hearing none. Any objections? The consent agenda is approved.

Next, um, we're looking for a motion to combine cases 2026-0006 and 0007.

Should we do it by voice?

All right, um, computers don't want to work, so may we please have a verbal motion to combine cases 2026-0006 and 2026-0007?

Sure, I'll make a motion to combine cases 2026-0006 and 0007. Is there a second? Second. That's moved by Commissioner Krishna, seconded by Commissioner Polis.

Any discussion? Any objection? Hearing none, that motion passes. Uh, next I'll read the procedure by which the public may speak to the Commission at its meeting.

After the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission Rules of Procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., will receive 5 minutes.

Individuals will receive 3 minutes. When your testimony is completed, you may be asked questions by the Commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission. Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable.

Uh, and in the matter of Case 2026-0006 and 0007, Where they were combined, the times will be doubled.

May we please have the staff presentation on cases 2026-0006 and 2026-0007? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yes, thank you, Chair Spinelli. These two cases are recommendations to the Assembly for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation of one parcel from compact mixed residential to town center. And then the rezone is, uh, for two adjacent parcels that would rezone them from ROSL. So that's residential office with special limitations.

Um, and from R5 low density residential to B3, which is the general business district. Uh, so the first one, case 2026-006, that's the, uh, land use designation change to town center. There are 5 review criteria that the department finds are all met. Uh, so the first one is the proposed amendment is necessary in order to address one or more of the following. So change in product projections or assumptions from those on which the comprehensive plan is based, identification of new issues, needs, or opportunities that are not adequately addressed in the comp plan, a change in policies, objectives, principles, or standards governing the physical development of the municipality.

Or any other geographic area addressed by the comprehensive plan, uh, or errors or, or omissions in the comprehensive plan. Uh, then the second review criteria is the proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the comprehensive plan and it's consistent with other elements of the comp plan. Uh, the next one is the amendment is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the community. 4Th one is the land use designation is found to be equally or more supportive of the comprehensive plan goals, objectives, policies, and guidelines than the old land use designation. And the 5th one is that the site is consistent with the adopted description and locational criteria for the requested land use designation, that it's physically suitable to accommodate the proposed designation, including but not limited to access, physical constraints, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding designations and development patterns.

Uh, so the department finds all 5 of those criteria are met for the first case, 2026-006. Uh, there have been, uh, other recent changes to the land use designation to other nearby parcels to town center in that area. Case 2026-007 is the rezone request. Uh, there are 9 review criteria for that rezone. Um, I'll read those quickly and then I'll just summarize a few other points that the department made in the staff report for these 2 cases.

Wrong document.

Okay, so in summary, the, the 9 review criteria the commission should use in evaluating the rezone request. The department found all 9 of these are met. So it's that the rezone is in the best interest of the citizens of Anchorage and promotes public health, safety, and welfare. 2, The rezoning complies with and conforms to the comprehensive plan. It—.

This rezoning will, if you also approve the, the aforementioned amendment to the land use designation. 3, The rezoning is generally consistent with the zoning district purpose in the requested zone and the purpose of Title 21. For the rezoning is compatible with surrounding zoning and development, and it protects areas designated for specific uses on the zoning map from incompatible land uses or development intensities. 5, Facilities and services. Uh, so these could be utilities, roads, emergency services, that those are capable of supporting the uses allowed by the zone.

6, That the rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater, wildlife, vegetation, or that those impacts will be mitigated. 7, The rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon adjacent land uses, or the impacts will be mitigated. 8, The rezone does not extend or exacerbate a land use pattern that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. And 9, the rezoning shall not result in a split-zoned lot. Uh, the department found all 9 of those review criteria are met.

Uh, B-3 zoning permits multifamily and mixed-use residential. Uh, the current R-5 zoning for, for one of the parcels permits single-family and two-family residential. B-3 permits many commercial uses that are not permitted in the, uh, current residential zoning districts. The property is near Abbott Road, and several adjacent properties have been rezoned from a residential zoning district to B-3 to reflect the location of these parcels. Development requirements would include L-2 buffer landscaping along the north and west property line that borders the residential R-5 zoning.

No reviewing agencies objected to either of these case actions. The Abbott Loop Community Council did not object. The department did receive a public comment from a neighbor that objected to these actions. This, this comment has been submitted to the Commission as an item received after the staff report was finalized that was distributed to the Commission for your consideration. That's my summary of the staff report for these two cases, and I am available for questions.

The petitioner's representative is also available in the audience to give a presentation and to answer questions. Thanks. Thank you. Any questions for staff?

Commissioner Polis. The TSDO hasn't been approved yet, right? Commissioner Polis, that is correct. TISDO was put on pause by the Assembly, so it's— there's no pending decision to be made right now for TISDO. Okay, and then I have one more comment.

Um, on page 6, the last sentence of the department recommendation, the area is likely not going to be developed for residential uses and the comprehensive plan should be updated to reflect the municipality's intent for the area to be B-3 general commercial. Um, this is a big residential neighborhood, and I don't agree with that statement really at all. So I drive this neighborhood every day. There's a lot of residential. I agree with the first statement that it should be looked at, but I kind of have an issue with that last sentence.

I'm just going to say that now.

And I guess that wasn't a question, but it was directed towards staff, so I'll just say that the— you could make that finding when you evaluate the case.

Okay, there's no more questions for staff. We will move on to the petitioners. Oh, sorry, I have a quick question. So you said that on the north and west sides there landscape would be required if it's developed. How much landscape do you know, like width?

Uh, Commissioner Abaza, through the chair, it would be— so landscaping that would be required is perimeter landscaping between— if you approve the rezone, it would then be between the B-3 zoning district and R-5. I believe offhand, I think it's L-1. I would need to just double-check, But it's, um, L1 is 8 feet.

I could pull it up in about 10 seconds, or one of my staff will. It's L2.

Okay, updated response is it's actually L-2 landscaping would be required, which is the requirement for that is 15 feet average width. Thank you.

Thank you, and we will now Ask for the petitioner's presentation.

Hello, my name is Kate Sauve. That's S-A-U-V-E. I'm the petitioner's representative. The staff reports for these cases were very thorough and appreciate the time and diligence spent on them. Both cases meet all the approval criteria, including the location criteria for both Town Center and B-3.

It is true that the L-2 buffer— or yeah, buffer landscaping would be required for the west and north boundary lot lines touching any R-5 zoning, which is a minimum average planting bed of 15 feet, which includes 2 trees and 6 shrubs evenly distributed every 20 linear feet. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Um, any questions?

Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you to the chairman. So, uh, appreciate your quick presentation. If you've had a chance to take a look at these laid on the table comments from an Aaron Bashaw, I'm curious about what your thoughts are about them, if you have any responses, and then I'd be interested in the department's responses as well. So you first. Uh, definitely.

So the, the commenter cites Chapter 7 of Title 21, but I believe they meant to cite Chapter 8, as AMC 2107.030 regards private open space and does not have a subsection E. Of course, AMC 2108-030E also does not have a subsection 3, so they could be referring to an older version of code. Um, regardless, Chapter 8 regulates subdivision standards, not zoning standards. If in the future the petitioner wished to combine these two lots into one larger lot through the platting process, um, in that case, the new lot would be required to meet Chapter 8 subdivision standards. Um, let's see, regarding traffic, the commenter states that this property should not be rezoned due to high traffic volumes in the hour— in the area. However, the existence of heavy traffic in the area is a location criteria for both Town Center land use designation and the B-3 zoning district, which supports the proposed changes.

In item number 3, they— even though previously they said stated this was heavy traffic area. They say that this is a minimal traffic area, um, and this would increase the traffic in the area. So I'm not sure about that one. For the light pollution, I do agree that light pollution is a problem in the municipality, including in residential areas. I don't believe it's a problem just in commercial areas.

Um, I also believe that their pictures they've given are a bit misleading. As the one picture is from the— let's see— the southeast corner of the undeveloped Lot 21. Therefore, there would be no lights. Any other questions?

I see no further questions. Do you have night 15 minutes and 20 seconds for rebuttal. Thank you. I will remand those for rebuttal. Thank you.

Okay, we will open this up to the public. Any from the public wishing to testify, please step forward. Um, all the way up. Uh, state your name first, turn that mic on if If you can find the button. And then state your name for the record and let us know if you are testifying on behalf of yourself or a group.

Okay, thank you very much. My name is Erin Bashaw. I'm a resident in the area of this proposed rezoning. I apologize that I incorrectly referenced the, uh, the code. I own the lots directly behind this subdivision, and in principle, I oppose of this this rezoning to general business.

And like the commissioner said, this is a very heavy residential area. It was a residential long before all these stores got put in this neighborhood. I have 4 arguments tonight. The one first argument is Lot 20 does not meet the building— the municipal code, and what you need, 110 feet from Abbott Road to a to a driveway to a commercial building. The lot is only 60 feet long.

I don't understand how this could possibly work. Both lots combined is only 120 feet, so even then it wouldn't even work for a moderate business. Abbott Road is a major— my point 2— Abbott Road is a major collector with heavy traffic. Adding a commercial driveway less than 110 feet clearance from Abbott Road creates unsafe egress. Increases congestion, introduces through-of-fare traffic through Elm Street, which was my point that wasn't very clear in my letter.

I apologize. And that through, through traffic now along Elm Street was something that wasn't there or is very rarely there now. Driveway accesses to— if you rezone Lot 20 to B3, violates the code which prohibits access points from compromising traffic flow and safety. And if you wonder if that would be the case, go one street west at Tolof and Abbott where that business access is only 40 feet from Abbott. So when one— somebody wants to take a turn into that parking lot, they back up the traffic on Abbott.

There's literally no room for the traffic to pull in or pull out.

My key point 3 is, is that this is a neighborhood And I do not agree that it's business, and I don't understand why the Planning Commission is saying— or these planning people are saying that it should be developed for more business. I don't understand that. It's a very quiet residential corridor, and it's changing it to B3 just increases the traffic that erodes the neighborhood integrity and sets a dangerous precedent of changing a residential lot to a commercial lot in a neighborhood.

We just heard about rezoning these other lots where you increase the housing. We have a housing shortage. So again, why would you change a residential lot to a commercial lot in an already overwhelming busy street? My fourth is the light pollution, and I appreciate the petitioner, uh, recommend— recognizing that light pollution in Anchorage is horrible, and it should be something that is considered. And not that your particular petition should, should rectify the situation, but certainly should be considered.

In closing, because this rezoning cannot comply with municipal code without a variance, and those variances would compromise the safety and the neighborhood integrity. I urge you to deny the request. Before you decide, consider this: imagine if your neighbor built a two-story building and massive floodlights. Would you like that? This is a quiet street.

Elm Street is a quiet street where kids play. It's dark. It's just a very nice street in the middle of Anchorage that's a nice residential area, and adding a business would deter that. If you do consider rezoning this despite the code violations, I encourage you that Lot 20 cannot have access to Elm Street because there's not enough room between Abbott and the lot property line. I also encourage you to restrict it to a single building since this is a residential area, and please provide requirements that it's low-level lighting since not just trees would improve the neighborhood's character with these commercial buildings.

You still have these people that put up massive lights and they're on 24/7 and they're on very tall poles. So if you do consider rezoning this, please require low-level exterior lighting. And I thank you for your time, and you guys do a fantastic job, and it's usually pretty thankless. So thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

Commissioner Pullis. Um, so I've watched this neighborhood for a long time, and what I see is commercial developing along Abbott as it's kind of supposed to. I, I believe a buffer in there is good, but like I stated to planning, I don't think the whole neighborhood needs to be wiped out and turned to B-3. Um, do you see the same trend as you've been there? How long have you been there?

Uh, lived, uh, in this area all my life. Yeah. Um, do you see the same trend, kind of more of business development along Abbott? I know the road to the north is like The tire changing places, I mean, they're pretty much all commercial along that road. And that's pretty much what I picture happening along Abbott as it gets, you know, turned in.

If the TSDO goes and stuff like that, I think that's the intent of the overall plan is for that to happen. So I'd highly recommend that that does not happen because the traffic on Abbott is already difficult. So if you keep adding businesses on that little strip that's right along Abbott Road, you actually create worse congestion. So I would encourage no more commercial buildings on Abbott. Well, it seems, and there's only like 3 residential lots left against Abbott too in that area.

I think the rest of it's turned commercial already, right? Except for right in your little spot. Uh, that's true. That is correct. Okay.

Yep, it's a tough spot. I get it. Yeah, it didn't used to be.

But again, it doesn't fit the— I don't see how you can make it a commercial lot when you— it doesn't meet the access code from Abbott. We kind of just got these comments, so I didn't get to pick apart your case, but I basically— the residential lot sitting right next to Abbott, and that's why I think they're not being developed. You know, they're low-density residential lots. Nobody wants to invest in that. So the intent here, I think, is just to change the zoning and see what happens.

Nothing will happen right away. They still have to make— just like you said, they would have to combine lots and put a subdivision in place, and that would be also reviewed for these types of things you're talking about. Then I see no further questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

If not, we will invite the petitioner back for rebuttal.

Hello again, it's Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. In regards to the driveways, again, that's a subdivision standard. Both of these lots already have driveways, so no additional driveways would be needed unless there was a site plan that happened. If the lots got combined, that would need to be looked at, but as they are currently, they currently already have driveways. I'd like to reiterate that both these cases meet all the location criteria for Town Center and B-3, including an area with heavy traffic and next to other businesses.

Also, Lot 20 already operates as a business. It is a residential office zoning So this would not change it. B-3 also allows residential in the zone along with commercial uses. If there were no other questions, I think that's it. Any other questions from the Commission?

Commissioner Krishna. Could you speak a little bit more about light pollution and if there are any criteria or findings that you'd be open to to minimize any future higher levels of lighting on adjacent residential lots?

Light pollution is an issue in Anchorage. I think the main issue for businesses is they want lights to cut down on anyone parking in their lots overnight, breaking into their buildings. It's not really something that is covered by code. Code does stipulate for subdivisions and streets like where light poles are going to be. It would be up to the individual business or resident to put lights on the side of their building or their house.

Anchorage Planning could— or Building Code could look into restricting those, but that's not something zoning could do.

Does that answer your question? Thank you.

Any further questions before closing the public hearing?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion? I move in case 2026-0006 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the comprehensive plan amendment To change land use designation of a parcel of land from compact mixed residential medium to town center, with the caveat that we strike the last sentence of the department recommendation in the packet.

That is stated and seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Polis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yeah, I agree with the approval criteria is met as noted in the staff packet, with the note that the TISNO has not been approved yet. I agree with the department recommendation with the strike of the last sentence, considering we're trying not to decrease residential opportunities in the, in the municipality. Commercial along Abbott seems appropriate, but not the whole neighborhood.

There was no agency opposition, but there was two public comments in opposition. The last meeting we had, there was a guy that Lived here and didn't make it back this meeting, it looks like.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Um, hearing none.

We will call for the vote.

Uh, that motion passes.

Next, we will be looking for a motion in case 2026-0007.

Commissioner Gardner, would you like to state your motion? Sure. I'll move in case 2026-0007 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of 2 parcels of land from R-5 A and R-O with special limitations to B-3, uh, General Business District. That is seconded by Commissioner Polis. Commissioner Gardner, would you like to speak to your motion?

Um, yes, I plan to support the motion. I think the, the criteria is laid out in the staff packet is met, um, and just wanted to, um, emphasize a couple of them. First, with the changes to the With the comprehensive plan amendment in the related case, B-3 is an implementing district for the new land use classification. And I also wanted to note in criteria 8, um, you know, I think the rezone will help expand opportunities in the area. It's been vacant for 15 years, this particular lot has, and I think it's proximity to Abbott is a reason likely for that as well.

With Criteria 7, just to note the buffer landscaping that will be provided along the western northern property lines where it borders residential zoning districts, and that future development of the property will need to meet applicable use design and development standards to help as well with potential impacts on neighboring properties. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Commissioner Rahn. Uh, thank you through the chair. Um, I would like to acknowledge the public testimony we heard tonight, uh, the reasoning for the arguments, um, well noted. Um, appreciate from my commissioner's perspective coming forward with some potential solutions, um, as they're phrased in the sense of conditions. Just a reminder to ourselves and the public, unfortunately this commission— not unfortunately, but this commission did take the action of limiting our ability to create special limitations on actions to create parity for development across Anchorage.

So while I can personally agree with some of the requests that were made, it's not within our purview to be able to do so in, in this light. With that, I do intend to support the motion. Thanks. Oh, one more thing. I'd recommend that the public stay engaged.

If there is development for the property, there'll be other opportunities to make your concerns heard and hopefully addressed. Thanks. I will just add that both of these are recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly, and they will have a public hearing and make the final call.

We'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next up is case 2026-0012.

May we please have this staff presentation? Thank you, Chair Spinelli. Case 2026-0012 before you tonight is an ordinance to update the setback requirements in Table 2106-1 and Table 2110-6 for the R-6 and CER-6 zoning districts, the Anchorage Low Density Residential 1 Acre and Chugiak/Eagle River Low Density Residential zoning districts. The proposed amendments would maintain setback distances in the R-6 and CER-6 districts that would no longer be an outlier and would be comparable to other rural alpine and low-density zoning districts such as the R-8, CER-8, R-9, and CER-9 zoning districts. The R-6 setback requirements also affect lots in other zoning districts.

If a lot does not meet minimum lot size requirements and ends up following R-6 setback requirements per 2113.050(a)(1), nonconforming lots. They therefore have to meet those stricter requirements. There are currently 728 R-9 and CER-9 lots that fall into that category. Just to geek out a little bit, there are 8,700 R-6 lots in the Municipality of Anchorage. There are 720— Sorry, 720 R-9 lots that meet that requirement total, with 1,294 vacant R-6 lots and 69 R-9 lots that meet that criteria.

This amendment would reduce the front setback from 50 feet to 25 feet in Anchorage. R-6, the front setback in Chugiak/Eagle River, uh, CER-6 is already a 25-foot front setback. Reduce the rear setback from 50 feet to 25 feet in Anchorage and Chugiak/Eagle River. Reduce the side setback from 25 feet to 15 feet in Anchorage and Chugiak/Eagle River. That is comparable to the R-8 and R-9 zoning districts for setbacks.

Planning staff sent a copy of the amendment to all community councils, the Chugiak/Eagle River Advisory Board, and the Chugiak/Birchwood/Eagle River Rural Road Service Area Board of Supervisors. Planning staff attended 7 community council meetings in Anchorage. That would be the Bayshore Klatt, Bear Valley, Glen Alps, Hillside, Huffman O'Malley, Rabbit Creek, and Sand Lake community councils, as well as the Home and Landowners Organization, also known as HALO. Staff also attended 4 community councils in Eagle River/Chugiak. Those were the Birchwood, Chugiak, Eagle River Valley, and South Fork community councils.

Presentations of the proposal to reduce setbacks in the R-6 and CER-6 districts were generally well received. Rabbit Creek Community Council expressed concerns specifically regarding front setbacks and visibility of structures from the right-of-way. Staff also presented the proposed amendments to the Federation of Community Councils during their meeting in September of 2025. State and municipal reviewing agencies had no objections to the ordinance. You will find all comments in Attachment 2 of your staff packet.

The Planning Department received 2 public comments after the report was written. They are Agenda Item G3, Supplementary Packet Number 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a Title 21 text amendment if, in the judgment of the commission, all 3 criteria have been met in all material matters. Planning staff has found that all 3 approval criteria for a Title 21 text amendment have been met. Those criteria are the following: 1, the proposed amendment will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; 2, the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and the stated purpose of this title.

And 3, the proposed amendment is necessary or desirable because of changing conditions, new planning concepts, or other social or economic conditions. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Title 21 text amendment. I can answer any questions that the commission— commissioner members may have.

Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. Um, I just have two quick questions if I could. The first, I think, is just to confirm you noted the Rabbit Creek Community Council expressed some concerns. I take it that was just a summary of kind of the verbal conversation from the meeting and not a written submission, which I didn't see.

Through the chair, Commissioner Gardner, that is correct. So we took meeting minute notes. Um, it was— they were our very first community council. We we met with, they do an all-Zoom one. They don't do in-person.

They did— they brought up some concerns that they were concerned that 25 feet from a front setback, you'd be able to see structures more with less vegetation. We explained that that would just make it the minimum. That doesn't mean you have to put your structure that close. It was interesting also that the month before that, they had provided ZEBA, Zoning Board of Examiners Appeals, with a resolution to approve a gentleman putting a detached garage within 25 feet of his front— at 25 feet from the property line. So I asked him about that one.

I was like, well, you just provided a resolution in favor of someone doing it. So it was like—. It was a very interesting conversation, let's put it that way. OK, thank you. And then if I may, through the chair, ask a follow-up question.

Go ahead. Um, and maybe kind of related to that, I guess, can you give just a little more context for what prompted this and kind of the background leading to this proposed change? Is it driven by that type of experience and your note about the, the number of dimensional variances that are coming through in this regard, or, uh, is it just a broader effort to just, uh, synchronize to some degree the setbacks, or what, what was the trigger? Thank you. Through the chair, Commissioner Gardner, there are multiple factors.

First of all, the R-6 zoning district, as noted, is 53 years old. So it's almost as old as me. Yes, I'm that old. So it's been around for a long time. It was the original large lot, so you could go acre and a quarter.

It started out as an acre and a quarter, 2.5, 3.75. You could do 1 unit on an acre and a quarter, 2 units, and it just kept going. You just had to keep adding an acre and a quarter. And so it's kind of a carryover. As you can see, Chugach River in 2014, when we did— they did the Title 21 update, they, they kind of saw the writing on the wall, and so they asked for that 25-foot front setback and got it.

And so that's part of it. You also, as, as noted, there's a lot of R-9 lots that don't currently meet the R-9 2-acre size or width, so they default to a more stringent, more Setback regulation, and yes, a lot of variances. We've had probably more variances in the R-6 zoning district and the CER-6 zoning district than most other zoning districts because of that. Um, typical R-6, CER-6 lots are steep, might have wetlands, might have streams, might have, uh, other impacts to the site. And yes, they can typically get a variance, but we find that most people will come in with their plans, they want to sell, buy, remodel, or do something, and their shed's in their setback and it's more than 200 square feet, or their structure's in the setback, and now they have to go through the variance process.

It's not super expensive, it's $710, but it's 4 months of their life. And if they come in in May, they're not getting their variance until September or October with the resolution, and so now they've just wasted the whole construction season. And so yes, we've, we've seen that. So we're trying to— that is one of the reasons we're trying to reduce those setbacks to be more in line with the R-8 and the R-9, so that there's consistency across all the board. So when people come in or build new or do remodels, they know what they're coming in for.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will open the public hearing.

Anybody from the public wishing to testify on case 2026-0012?

Um, going once, going twice, public hearing is closed. Uh, staff, I'm assuming you have no rebuttal. I just wanted to mention that the one comment from— was it Linda Harter? Yes. I, I had a pretty decent conversation, a couple different conversations over the phone with her a couple weeks ago, and, and we went through most of this stuff.

But that was the only one that— she was the only one who actually called or, or sent in any, any comments. And I'm grateful that she actually did because I wish more people would actually comment. Uh, the, the commission— sorry, the community councils were going to send in resolutions when we did our, our initial presentations. This was not an AO. We were just going out to get a feel for what the community councils felt like was reasonable and acceptable.

And I was kind of surprised that none of the community councils provided any comments because they were all talking about if, if we wanted one, they'd send us one, and— but they didn't do it. They didn't do that.

I think we also need to note that there were some instances where this was posted as Case 2025, uh, And it's actually 2026-0012. If anyone was confused by that, it's now on the record.

Um, public hearing is closed now. Closed. And, uh, is there, uh, what's the will of the body?

Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state your motion? I move in Case 2026-0012 to recommend the Anchorage Assembly approval of the text amendment to Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Tables 21.06-1 and 21.10-6 to reduce the setbacks for the R-6 and CER-6 zoning districts.

Thank you. That is seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Rahn, would you like to speak to your motion? Uh, the text amendment meets approval criteria in AMC 21.03.210, and the Planning Department did not receive any agency comments in opposition. As we heard tonight, there were two public comments, uh, written comments received, one in support, one in opposition.

Which was spoken to by the department. I intend to support the motion. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

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

That motion passes.

Next up, we have Case 2026-0013. May we please have the staff presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Case 2026-0013 includes updates to the following chapters of the municipality's Design Criteria Manual.

I'll refer to that as the DCM moving forward. Chapter 3, landscaping. Chapter 7, public transportation. And Chapter 8, Plans and Specifications. The Project Management and Engineering Division is updating those chapters to implement strategies for the Safe System Approach and the Movement in Place framework, update graphics and code references, and shift towards a consistent organizational look.

Planning management— excuse me, Project Management and Engineering drafted Chapters 3, 7, and 8, which were made available to the public and then further edited by staff during the public involvement process. The Planning Department reviewed the draft chapters for conflicts with Title 21 and recommended a couple of Title 21, um, changes that have been adapted into Chapter 3. Additional edits were further identified by, uh, Project Management Engineering and are also incorporated into Chapter 3. No additional edits were identified for Chapters 7 and 8, and as such, these chapters are available in the staff packet as they were originally provided by the Planning Department. In the staff packet, you'll find the original version of Chapter 3 along with Chapters 7 and 8.

That is included in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 starts on page 216 of the packet and includes a summary table of the, of the changes to Chapter 3. The changes are then visible on, in Attachment 3 starting on page 221 in the clean version of Draft Chapter 3 with the proposed edits fully incorporated is available in Attachment 4 starting on page 265. The Planning Department makes the following recommendations: that first, the, uh, proposed edits for draft Chapter 3 be incorporated and submitted to the Assembly along with the original Chapters 7 and 8. And second, if the Assembly approves the sunset of the Urban Design Commission before this item is heard, that references to the Urban Design Commission are removed and replaced with the updated relevant Title 21 sections.

I am available for questions. Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to testify on this case, please step forward.

Wait, we're going to back up.

Would, would, uh, petitioner's representative, uh, like to uh, present as a petitioner.

Yes, thank you. I'll try to keep this brief here. Um, good evening, my name is Brennan Telford. I'm the engineering manager of the project management and engineering department. One of my duties as the engineering manager is keeping PM&E's design criteria and specifications updated.

In 2024, we completed an update of our specifications, and since then we've moved on to updating our design criteria. With the exception of Chapter 2 on stormwater which was updated in 2017 to fulfill a requirement of our stormwater permit with the Department of Natural Environmental Conservation. The last time the full Design Criteria Manual was updated was in 2007. PM&E is focused on delivering road and drainage projects for the municipality, and the Design Criteria Manual primarily focuses, uh, on providing guidance and criteria for road and drainage design, although some criteria is specific to parks and trails, and the stormwater chapter includes regulatory requirements for development on private properties. For the most part, the DCM is how PM&E communicates to our staff and consultants the expectations for road and our drainage project design.

It does this by adapting nationally recognized industry standard guidance and regulation to the topography, geology, and climate of Anchorage. The DCM as a whole was adopted by the Assembly as regulation in 2014. The resolution adopting the DCM as regulation outlined the process PM&E would be required to follow for future amendments to the DCM, which includes submitting amendments to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review before submitting the amendments to the Assembly for approval. The chapters we are bringing forward this evening include Chapter 3 on landscape, Chapter 7 on public transportation, and Chapter 8 on plans and specifications. We started the updates for each of these chapters separately under separate timelines, but we were able to align the delivery of the chapters to allow them to proceed through the approval process together.

We tailored the stakeholder involvement efforts for each chapter to capture an appropriate sample of impacted stakeholders. Chapter 8 is focused on how to develop plans and specifications for PM&E projects, so the primary stakeholders were staff and our consultants. Chapter 7 is focused on designing transit infrastructure, such as locating transit stops, providing signage, shelters, lighting, and other transit stop amenities. The stakeholders in, uh, for this chapter included planners from the Public Transportation Department, transit operators, staff from the MOA Traffic Engineering Department, and maintenance staff from Public Transportation, MOA Street Maintenance, and DOT Street Maintenance. Chapter 3 is focused on the design of landscape for streets, sites, and parks.

The stakeholder involvement for this chapter included the widest range of disciplines, including landscape architects, landscape contractors, planners, MOA Parks and Recreation, MOA Horticulture, MOA Street Maintenance, and a state forester. We published drafts of the chapters for a 45-day public comment period, during which we presented to the Assembly Transportation Committee, the Federation of Community Councils, and the Urban Design Commission to solicit feedback on the draft, on the drafts from the public. We received comments from several community members, members of the Urban Design Commission, an engineering consultant firm, and from MOA staff. Those comments and responses to the comments are included in a table within the packet. In some cases, chapters were revised based on the comments received, and the chapters with those revisions are what have been presented for review here.

After the public comment period closed, we had an additional stakeholder reach out on the landscape chapter that we had not previously coordinated with, the Anchorage Downtown Partnership. We had several discussions with the Anchorage Downtown Partnership, including one discussion that occurred after the public hearing draft was provided to Planning. The discussions with Anchorage Downtown Partnership prompted some additional review by the project team centered around the guidance provided in the various downtown district plans. The review led to a few additional changes that were referenced in the staff presentation and are included in your packet. I've also, following up on the question we had from Chair Spinelli, I've reviewed the section on design variances, was able to locate this policy and procedure that that section references, and I believe the reference is sort of out of date.

The policy and procedure is specific to developments— well, private development reviews which no longer fall under PM&E. And so I would propose, in addition to the other changes we've proposed, removing the last sentence of the last bullet on 3.1(c) where it says— states, appeal of decisions regarding variances shall follow their procedures detailed on the Municipality of Anchorage website in Policy and Procedures number 10, Consenting and Appealing Decisions. Because I think it's not applicable given the, the content of the PNP.

So was that your recommendation, was to delete the sentence on appeals altogether? Um, is that—. Yes, yes. So there is no appeal?

We could follow up. Dave and I had some discussions. We believe the appeal to a municipal engineer decision is probably through the court system.

Um, personally, I would probably work my way up the administration first, but what— that's just my comment.

All righty. Is that all? Are there any questions? Is that— are you concluding the— is that the conclusion of your presentation? Yes.

Okay. Is there any questions for the petitioner?

Commissioner Rohn.

Thank you, through the chair. Um, I'm interested in learning more about the incorporation of the movement and place framework. It's a fairly new concept to me, so anything you can share about it that you think would be beneficial to this commission with respect to how it's infused throughout the chapters we're looking at would be great. I do have a more specific question on page 2, um, in our staff packet, it's page 7 of Case G4. At the bottom, there's a paragraph that talks about the movement-in-place framework, and there's a sentence that caught my attention, um, and it's talking about roads that are high-place and low-movement.

Should have slower speeds. Okay, that makes sense to me. We're talking about a road that is oriented towards a place more so than efficient movement through it. And it's a little bit directive saying that these types of roads should have these types of slower speeds. The next sentence, I'm wondering if you could help me better understand.

It says roads that are high movement and low place, so the opposite or converse of what what we were just talking about, such as limited access motorways— this is the phrase that I'm interested in— may prohibit pedestrians. Um, is that language intended to be permissive, like we're looking to prohibit in fact pedestrians on these types of roads, or is it more like conditional, like there's the potential for prohibiting pedestrians? Um, words matter. I'm curious about that one. Thanks.

I guess I have a question. Was that part of the staff packet? Where did— is that within the chapter itself?

PM&E Design Criteria Manual starts on page 5 of the staff packet. Looks like a title page. And then what looks like it's stamped as page 2. Okay, looks like an intro section to the, to the manual. Okay, that's the memo we provided to accompany, um, the package.

And maybe rather than splitting hairs on the exact language, I think you get the sense of my questioning. Just curious about, you know, the approach and strategy around pedestrian movement in this context. Understood. Yeah, so in some cases, um, within the movement embrace Place framework, yes, it is appropriate to prohibit, um, pedestrians that would be on an access-controlled interstate, essentially. So there are provisions that do in fact limit or restrict pedestrians on access-controlled interstates.

Um, the— what was provided in the memo was real general. It wasn't specific to kind of our context and kind of our intentions. It was just—. It's material that came from kind of the frame— the framers of that concept. And so we anticipate as part of the Chapter 1 update, when we get into the streets chapter, to really refine that down to what it— what it's going to mean for Anchorage.

Thanks for that. I look forward to seeing the Chapter 1 update, and I, I guess I would question, are there access-controlled interstates in the municipality? If not, then should that be the basis that is presenting a construct that could be misconstrued or contrary to a strategy of keeping pedestrians safe in Anchorage?

Yeah, and I believe that there are But they're all owned by DOT, so it's not particularly relevant to the MOA.

Any further questions?

You do have 4 minutes. And, uh, 5 minutes for rebuttal.

Um, are you going to do the public? Yeah, we'll open up public hearing now. Yeah, I'll reserve that time. 5 Minutes. Yeah.

All right, any from the— anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 2026-0013, please step forward.

Hearing, seeing nobody. We will invite you back for your rebuttal.

Uh, yeah, you can waive your rebuttal. Okay, the rebuttal has been waived. I am going to close the public hearing.

We still, we still have time to ask staff or the petitioner's staff, uh, questions if need be, or we can, uh, move forward on this case.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Pullis, I guess to staff, um, is there any issues with deleting the last sentence of the last bullet on page 272, 3.1C?

Page 272 in the packet.

That's what they were telling us.

Appeal of decision. This doesn't exist anymore. Policy procedures.

It's chapter 3. It's the final chapter 3. Yeah, it fell apart.

Uh, through the chair, um, there wouldn't be any ramifications for deleting that last line. We would just recommend it be removed prior to, um, moving the packet to the assembly.

Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in Case 2026-0013 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the DCM updates to Chapters 3, Landscape; 7, Public Transportation; and 8, Plans and Specifications, subject to Conditions 1 and 2 as shown on page 2 of the staff report, with the change to 3.1(c), Design Variances, to remove the last sentence to the last bullet on page 272, to strike: Appeal of decisions regarding variances shall follow the procedures detailed on the Municipality of Anchorage website in P&P number 10, contesting and appealing decisions. That is seconded by Commissioner Baza. Commissioner Polis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes.

While there's always room for improvement, as we noted, we got some textiles and some table of contents to clean up. As a civil engineer who will be impacted by these updates, they seem reasonable and a step in the right direction for all three chapters. There's no known agency or publicly position. Just some comments about edits that the municipal staff responded to and implemented when needed. And as we did, we removed the last bullet on page 272.

Commissioner Krishna.

Sure. You know, I think we see a lot of plans up here, and I think some of them elicit more warmth and feeling from us than others. But for this being a, a technical update and a technical manual, I actually think it does a remarkably good job of, um, outlining in a very clear way our priorities as a community and the things that we value. Um, so I just want to say that I personally found this to be a lot more, um, of a fulfilling process both to read this and to participate in it, and I'm pretty proud to I intend to support it.

Thank you. Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. I intend to support as well. I just wanted to note briefly, um, as outlined kind of in the materials and presented to us earlier today, there really were a variety of representatives and stakeholders that, you know, provided input to this process, um, who came at it from different angles.

And it was apparent throughout that a lot of that input was considered and accounted for and implemented into these updates. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Commissioner Rahn. Thank you.

I'll echo the comments from previous commissioners around the work that was done by the project team. Stakeholders— the stakeholders involved are either exhausted and too tired to continue to comment or had their comments addressed and incorporated. So, so nice work, team. And also, for the record, we'd like to acknowledge the importance of prioritization of modes. And in Chapter 7, it's very clear that public transit buses are a priority.

So thank you for that. I intend to support the motion.

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

None. We'll call for the vote.

That motion passes. All right, are there any reports?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rahn, uh, just briefly, I did attend an AMATS Citizens Advisory Council committee meeting, my first, last week. A couple of brief updates, uh, there were 4 items on the agenda. 3 Of them currently open for public comment. The first is Amendment Number 2 to the 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

A couple of changes in this amendment. One is a new project description for the Seward Highway O'Malley to Diamond project, and then the addition of 2 new projects, one for Atelier, life and safety, and then Potter Valley, also a life and safety project. If you're interested, That plan is available for public review and comment. The second is 2023-2026 funding program for the Transportation Improvement Program, or the TIP, also open for public comments. One change there is that the Downtown Transit Center project has been added to enable AMATS as a funding source for the Downtown Transit Center project.

Third item, 2027-2030 TIP, so out 3 years We're going to have a special meeting, the CAC is, to formulate some comments on potential changes there. The fourth and final item I want to discuss is that in that meeting, Safe Restored Highway, the environmental assessment, was an agenda item. It's a DOT-led project. This commission heard about it recently. That EA is out for public comment.

That's been extended to the end of February. I think public meetings are now concluded. The CAC is going to formulate some comments on that EA. I'm abstaining from any formal vote or the development of comments. I understand this commission will likely hear that project at its next stage.

Those are my CAC updates. Let me know if you have questions. Happy to talk about it more after the meeting.

Thank you. Any Title 21 discussion or Any commissioner comments?

If none, uh, entertain a motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Baza, would you like to state your motion?

No, thank you. I think we have a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Uh, no, any objections? Hearing none, we are adjourned.

I lost me again. Why don't you go visit the summertime? Does it miss you? Don't throw those freckles in the water. Why don't you go sip in on tea?

Go get yourself some love. Why don't you follow that dream? Grab peaches, grab peaches, all you deserve. Sweetness, serve sweetness, serve.