Urban Design Commission - September 10, 2025 - 2025-09-10 18:30:00

Good evening. It is 6:30 PM, September 10th, 2025, and the meeting of the Urban Design Commission will now come to order. May we please have a roll call? Edith McKee. Here.

Allison Lanning. Here. Julia Folland. Here. Alexandra Ninalo.

Here. Ryan Lucas. Here. James Kolas. Here.

Monica Sullivan and Trevor Street are excused. You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, may we get a motion to approve the minutes from July 9th, 2025?

I can move.

We need a second from somebody on the phone, please.

I'll second. Ali Manalo. Thank you. Um, are there any corrections to the minutes?

Are there any objections to the minutes being approved?

Uh, hearing none, the minutes are approved. We'll next move on to the special order of business. Do we have any disclosures tonight?

As Commissioner Foland, I was absent from the July 9th, 2025 meeting and will abstain from voting on the consent agenda. Thank you. Any others?

Yes, this is Commissioner Lennig. I was also absent for the July 9th meeting. Uh, however, I did watch, um, the video and audio link for the meeting, so I can vote on the consent agenda if directed to do so. Thanks. Thank you.

Do I need a director? Are there any other disclosures? Okay, uh, may we have a motion to approve Resolution 2025-004 and 005 on the consent agenda.

She can't. Um, we need somebody who is on the phone to please make a motion to approve.

This is Commissioner Lennig. I'll make a motion to approve. Thank you. I can motion to second. This is Ali Nanalo.

Thank you. Would anyone like to pull an item from the consent agenda for discussion or corrections?

Okay, hearing none, the consent agenda is approved.

Uh, we don't have any unfinished business or items on the regular agenda this evening. Therefore, we will move on to the public hearing, and I will read the public process. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Urban Design Commission at its meeting is: 1, after the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. 2, Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Urban Design Commission Rules of Procedure. Petitioners, including all his/her/their representatives, will have 10 minutes.

Rebuttal by any by the petitioner may be allowed when time has been reserved. Representatives of groups— this includes community councils, PTAs, etc.— will have 5 minutes, and individuals will have 3 minutes. 3. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the Commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission.

4. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the Commission's decision made on the record. A written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21-03-050A-4A.

Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 21-03-050A-4A 03-050. 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.

Um, with respect to Case 2025-0103, the petitioner is requesting a variance from AMC 21-550B to allow 3 outdoor play areas. May we please have staff's presentation? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for clarification also, before I go into my staff report, if you will turn to page 12 of the staff report, right above the picture, the original application says that they're going to install a 6-foot-tall screening fence. They're actually going to install an 8-foot-tall.

There's no design variance needed for the 8-foot-tall. They just wanted the commissioners to know that that was going to take place so that there was not some— any confusion later on if something came up. Thank you. Now, with that, this is a request for a design variance from AMC 2105050B 2(b)(1) to allow 3 small domestic animal outdoor play areas on the north side of the proposed animal boarding building. The use-specific standards for animal boarding comes from the animal shelter uses.

Animal boarding definition: a commercial establishment where small domestic animals such as dogs and cats are boarded. This use includes animal daycare. Use-specific standard: animal boarding establishments shall comply with the use-specific standards for animal shelter. Animal Shelter, AMC 2105.050(b)(2)(b): Use-specific standards also apply to retail and pet services, animal boarding, and veterinary clinics. And Roman numeral I, General Standards, when use is within 100 feet of a residential use.

All facilities, including all treatment rooms, cages, pens, kennels, and training rooms, shall be maintained within a completely enclosed building. Title 21 establishes the measurement for distances of separation of land uses being measured from the nearest property line to property line. The applicant is proposing a new animal boarding facility, Camp Bow Wow, at the corner of Burrowood Street and East 64th Avenue. Animal boarding facilities aren't allowed use in the I-1 zoning district. However, all treatment rooms, cages, pens, kennels, and training rooms shall be maintained within a completely enclosed building.

The applicant is proposing 3 fenced outdoor play areas on the north side of the structure, furthest away from the resident— residentially zoned district across East 64th Avenue, therefore requiring a design variance. The Planning Department mailed a total of 112 public hearing notices on August 12th, 2025, in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103-020H. As of this writing, the Planning Department received no public comments. The Abbott Loop Community Council did not provide comments regarding this case. In order for the Urban Design Commission to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards.

Standard A: The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard. Standard A is met. The intent of the code regarding this case is to ensure an appropriate separation distance between incompatible uses, noisy animal activity, and residential. The actual separation distance from the nearest residential structure to the proposed fenced outdoor play areas will be approximately 315 feet. The distance from the fenced outdoor play areas to the closest residential property line is 228 feet.

This separation distance achieves the intent of the code. Standard B: The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard. Standard B is met. The site is designated as light industrial commercial per the 2040 Anchorage Land Use Plan. Light industrial commercial areas provide for multi-sector employment in an industrial setting.

It gives priority to light industrial uses. Rezones. The variance requested achieves the intent of the code and is compatible in scale with adjacent uses. The area is mostly industrial with heavy truck traffic operations for the proposed animal boarding facility. Will be conducted primarily indoors.

The proposed fenced outdoor play areas will face an existing industrial use on the lot to the north. Location of the fenced outdoor play areas on the north of the structure will mitigate negative impacts to adjacent residential properties all to the south. This lot being developed is zoned I-1, Light Industrial District. Animal boarding facilities are a by-right permitted use in the I-1 District. The site plan considered the neighborhood to the south.

The building and fenced outdoor play areas are located on the north side of the property, as far away from residential property as possible. Standard C: The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard. Standard C is met. The use-specific standard aims to ensure an appropriate separation distance between incompatible uses. This facility can be located on this lot and not require design variance if they were not proposing any exterior areas to be used by the animals.

The separation distance from the nearest residential structure to the proposed fenced outdoor play areas, as stated in a prior standard, will be approximately 315 feet. The distance from the fenced outdoor play areas to the closest residential property line, again, is 228 feet. The separation distance proposed is an alternative that benefits the community, community, and results in a better site plan. Standard D: The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property as permitted under this code. This property fronts East 64th Avenue and Burrowood Street.

Both are classified as local streets in the Official Streets and Highways Plan. The proposed building is set back from East 64th Avenue 88 feet and East 64th Avenue is a platted 60-foot right-of-way. This will provide a minimum of 148 feet from the structure to the nearest residential property line. Increased traffic is not anticipated to have an adverse effect or impact the— impact the adjacent properties. The adjacent properties on the site are all industrial or commercial uses with daily moderate to high traffic volumes.

Standard E, the variance, if granted, does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located is in keeping with the intent of the code and does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the district in which the property lies. Standard E is met. The granting of this variance does not change the character of the I-1 zoning district. Animal boarding is a permitted use within the I-1 zoning district. This use is in keeping with the intent of the code.

Standard F, persons with disabilities are provided with access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and reasonable accommodations. Standard F is met. The development of this property will meet all ADA and reasonable accommodation requirements. Standard G, the variance, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality. Standard G is met.

The variance being requested does not affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Anchorage. The distance from the fenced outdoor play area to the closest residential property line is again 228 feet, meeting the intent of this code. Standard H is met and is not applicable to this variance request, is not being related to signs. Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 57 of your staff packet. There were no objections to the variance request.

The department finds that all 8 standards are met for this variance. Therefore, the department recommends approval of the variance subject to Conditions 1 and 2 found on page 5 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions that the commissioners may have, and the petitioner's representative is in attendance.

Thank you. Um, are there any questions of staff? Okay, doesn't appear to be. Will the petitioner please come forward? Please state and spell your name for the record.

Um, you will have 10 minutes to present. Would you like to reserve any of your time for rebuttal? Whatever time remaining for rebuttal, please. Thank you. Good evening, my name is Dave Whitfield with R&M Consultants representing Gordon Sloan and Camp Bowell on this request.

My last name is spelled W-H-I-T-F-I-E-L-D. This property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and is located at the northeast corner of East 64th Avenue and Burlewood Street, just north of the Rokoshule Charter School, in a residential neighborhood that's zoned R-5 low-density residential district. The variance request, uh, as Mr. Hatcher pointed out, is from the use-specific standards for animal boarding and animal shelter, which requires that all facilities be maintained within a completely enclosed building, uh, when the use is within 100 feet of a residential use. This is the case where the intent of the code is clearly met, but the letter of the code is not. Title 21, Chapter 15 establishes the separation distances from uses is measured from lot line to lot line.

In this case, Camp Bow Wow does not meet the code required separation from a residential lot, but rather meets the intent, uh, with the building and outdoor play areas being 148 feet and 228 feet respectively from the residential lot. We agree with staff that all standards, all 8 standards required for approval are met in this case. The granting of this variance would allow for 3 outdoor play areas for staff and pet owners to spend time outdoors with their animals on the north side of the building furthest from the residential neighborhood. We very much appreciate your consideration in this request, and we are here to answer any questions you have, you may have. Thank you.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

This is Commissioner Lennig. I have a couple of really quick questions. Um, my first is, what is the max capacity of animals for this facility? It might have been in the packet, but I wasn't able to find it offhand. Through the chair, that's a great question.

I'm going to ask Mr. Gordon Sloan to come up and speak to that.

Thank you.

Hi, this is Gordon Sloan. We have 94 kennels in the property to accommodate daycare and boarding.

The max pets could be more if they are doubled up. And the outdoor play yards— we have 3 indoor play yards with potty parks in the design. The outdoor play parks would only be used more in the summertime to let the dogs in and out to kind of cool down. So the majority of the time, the dogs would be inside the building.

Perfect, thank you. Yep. And then the other question I have is, I know we're within 100 feet of a residential use for the property line to property line, but what is the actual distance? I'm— again, it might have been in this packet, I just wasn't able to find it quickly. Through the chair, um, to the commissioner, actual distance lot line to lot line, or actual distance structure to structure, structure to property line?

Can you provide just a little bit of clarification there? Yeah, I guess lot line to lot line, if that's what we're in violation of, right? Is that 100 foot? Like, how, how far under are we? Lot line to lot line, I believe it's 60 feet because I think, um, 64th Avenue is a 60-foot dedicated right-of-way, right?

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you.

I have a question. Would the dogs have access to the outdoor area on their own or at night?

No, the dogs would not. The, the hours would be 6:30 to 7:00 PM. Um, they are locked up, uh, pretty much from about 6:30, 7 o'clock at night, and they don't, they don't go out unless someone's out there with them. And they're not— that play yard is not to like leave them out to, out to make a lot of noise and play in. It's more to go out to go to the bathroom.

Yep, got it. Okay, thank you. Yep.

So I kind of have a following question to that because it looks like there's 3 individual indoor play areas and then those connect to the outdoor play area. So how many dogs potentially could be in an outdoor play area at any one time?

Um, boy, if you put them all out there, I mean, because it's not a huge space, so I was like, how many dogs would really be out there in the outdoor space at a time? Maybe 15, 20. Okay, at a time. It's They're not real big places, and they're screened by an 8-foot solid vinyl fence, and then the property itself is screened by an 8-foot chain link screened fence as well. So yeah, that— it's not to— we wouldn't ever push all the dogs out there, no.

Um, so then my other question is, and I saw that the comments were mailed out to the, to the people in the area, there's So the property that's directly to the north, so it is a commercial property, and I'm assuming that person received a notice and chose not to respond because it looks like— maybe this is a question for staff— but nobody responded to the, the mailing. Uh, through the, through the chair, Ms. McKee, yes. Um, my understanding is we received no comments, um, you know, from our— well, actually, I should say from the Planning Department's mailing. And certainly being directly north of the subject property, they would have received notice. Through, through the chair, or Madam Chair, that's correct.

There was no, no comments from anybody in the public. And that structure to the north is actually a— it kind of looks like a Quonset hut type structure. It's just storage for the structure to the east. So it's not even a— it's not an office building or anything, it's just storage. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions? Do any of the other commissioners online have any questions?

Okay. Doesn't look like it. We will now open the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify?

I am seeing a lot of no.

Would the petitioner like to use their remaining time?

No. Okay. Are there any more questions from the commission for the petitioner or staff?

Commissioner Hatcher?

Mr. Hatcher, sorry. That's okay. Chair McKee, um, the one thing that, uh, the presenter did say is that it's across from the Rilke Schulke School. They are no longer there. They moved to Abbott Loop, so there's even less traffic and less interaction.

I don't think there was much pedestrian action. It was basically a drop-off pickup school. So just so the commissioners know, that's gone too. Thank you. That's a good point.

I mean, I guess I'll open it again to those online. Were there any— did that raise any other comments or questions for petitioner or staff?

Okay. Hearing none, the public hearing is now closed. The matter now rests with the body. We will move and vote. Um, may we have a motion to approve Case 2025-0103?

It's been moved by Commissioner Folland. Would you please state your motion?

I move to approve the request for a design variance from AMC 21.05.050B.2.B.I to allow 3 small domestic animal outdoor play areas on the north side of the building.

Do we have a second?

This is Commissioner Lennig. I'll second. Lennig. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Folland, would you please speak to your motion?

Yes, I, um, I think all the approval criteria are met. Standard A, the proposed alternative achieves intent of the subject design standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard. Standard B, the proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard.

Standard C, the proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance. With a standard— subject standard. Standard D, the variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the use of adjacent properties as permitted under this code. Standard E, the variance, if granted, does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located, is in keeping with the intent of the code, and does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the district in which the property lies. Standard F, persons with disabilities are provided with access as required by the ADA with reasonable accommodation.

Standard G, the variance, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality. And Standard 8H is not applicable. Um, so I think this is a pretty easy, straightforward project, and it looks like a great project for the community.

Commissioner Lennig, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, I agree with Commissioner Foland and with staff that all of the criteria are met for approving this design variance. I also think this is a good addition to the community, and it seems like a very appropriate location, and I agree with the petitioner that, um, this meets the intent of Title 21, even though it doesn't meet the exact letter of the law. Um, of the code, um, but I, I do feel that it, it definitely meets the intention of keeping that 100-foot separation. So I intend to approve the motion.

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

Um, I'll, I'll add a couple of findings, um, that, that the department mailed out over 112 public notices and that there were no objections or comments received. I'd also like to note that animal boarding facilities are by right permitted in this particular district, and that while the layout— they've done a lot and given great consideration— and that the outdoor fenced play area will be approximately um, at least 228 feet away from a residential area, that they'll use 8-foot screening.

And, and I also think that dog boarding is a much-needed facility in Anchorage, and I appreciate that you've put some thought into your layout to direct what might be outdoor pet noise as far away from the residential area as possible. So thank you.

If there is no further discussion, may we have a vote on case number 2025-0103?

Miss Lanning, how do you vote?

Yes, I approve. Miss Lucas?

I approve. Ms. Nardello?

I approve. Mr.

Collis?

I approve. Good. Case 2025-0103 passed with a vote of 6 in favor and none against and none abstaining. Thank you.

I'll continue on with the agenda here. We don't have any appearance requests, reports, or commissioners' comments, and therefore this concludes— concludes UDC's business for the evening. Could I please get a motion to adjourn?

It's been moved by Commissioner Folland. Do we have a second online? Commissioner Lennig will second. Thank you, Commissioner Lennig. Are there any objections?

Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned at 6:58 PM. Thank you, everyone online. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Good night.

Say hi to Alfie.