Anchorage Assembly: Planning and Zoning Commission - August 3, 2026 - 2026-08-03 18:30:00

All right, we'll call the, uh, what day is today, the August 3rd meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May I please have the roll call? Andre Spinelli. Here. Jared Gardner.

Here. Radhika Krishna. Here. Scott Pullis. Here.

Jeff Rahn. Here. Brandy Eber. Here. Amma Abaza.

Here. Megan Mills.

Edith McKee. Here. You have a quorum. Thank you.

May we please have a motion to approve the minutes of July 6th and July 13th. Moved by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Any discussion on the minutes? Any objections? Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

Next is special order of business. Are there any disclosures From the commission, Commissioner Eber. I was absent for the July 6th meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-031 through 2026-033. Thank you, Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Chair.

I also was absent for the July 6th meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-031 through 2026 -033. Thank you. Commissioner McKee? I need to disclose that, uh, the company that I work for, HDR, does contract with both Huddle, which is on case item G1, case 20— 260078, and we contract with the Municipality of Anchorage, which is item G1 and item G6, Case 2026-0069 and 2026-0078. However, I have no prior knowledge of these items that are on the agenda and have no personal financial gain from either of these cases directly.

Thank you. I don't believe a motion is necessary and would direct you to participate if anybody disagrees. Please make a motion otherwise.

Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. I just want to disclose I was absent from the July 13th meeting, and I'll abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-034 through 2026-039.

Thank you. Any other disclosures?

Hearing none, May we please have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Moved by Commissioner Pulis, seconded by Commissioner McKee. And is anyone wishing to discuss or pull any items for discussion?

Uh, hearing and seeing none, the consent agenda is approved.

On to the public hearings.

The first— I'll start by reading the procedure by which the public may speak to the Commission at its meetings. 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 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, et cetera, 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. Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable.

If anyone is here for Case 2026-0078, Girdwood Park's Master Plan, it has been postponed to August 10th.

Um, so the next item of business is Case 2026-0091. May we please have the staff presentation? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a rezone request initiated by the owner to amend the zoning map for parcel— for one parcel from R1 single-family residential to I2 heavy industrial.

Uh, the Planning and Zoning Commission will provide a recommendation to the assembly of this rezone request through resolution. The assembly is the decision-making body for rezones. So the department sent out 591 notices and received no public comments. The department received no reviewing agency comments in opposition, and the Bayshore Clack Community Council required—. Was—.

Received a notice and did not send any comments in. And with that, the department finds the rezone request meets all 3 approval criteria for an abbreviated rezone and therefore recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission provide approval recommendation for the rezone request to I-2., to the assembly. The owner is here and can answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff?

Uh, hearing, seeing none.

We will invite the petitioner up to present.

Hi, uh, I'm Glenn Ball with, uh, Leona LLC, and, um, I've done some due diligence on the property here, and yeah, we're looking to rezone that from R-1 to I-2. The intent is to use that for a construction laydown and equipment storage yard, and we feel that it's consistent with the 2040 municipal long-term plan, and there wouldn't be any negative impacts to the community with the approved rezone.

Thank you. Are you—. You have 9 minutes and 24 seconds for rebuttal. I mean, is, is there a lot? I've never done it before, so I mean, is it— is there, is there more that you want from me here?

Uh, I will— now if there's any questions for the petitioner, please ask. We got a question from Commissioner Krishna, but you still have 9 minutes and 24 seconds for rebuttal. After we open it up to public hearing. Commissioner Krishna. Sure.

I'll just ask one question, which is that the only comment in our packet that had a question about this lot was about whether— was about the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan. And so I just want to make sure that you have seen the packet and you've seen that question and you're aware that there may be some wetlands on the site. Hopefully you've had a chance to talk to staff or someone at the municipality about that. Yeah, we do. We are aware that there is some wetland on the property.

It is definitely diminishing wetlands. It's— it used to be a lot wetter than it is now. You can walk out there in your tennis shoes and not get your shoelaces wet or the bottoms of your soles. For the most part, there's very little wet, wet, like standing water of any kind. I did do some test holes out there.

So we know that there's about 9 feet of peat out there, and we're easily able to walk across to do those test holes. Thank you.

I see no further questions. You can have a seat. We'll open the public hearing, and you'll have 9 minutes and 24 seconds if you want to respond to any of the testimony. That's provided. Okay, anybody wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

You take a seat.

Anybody wish to testify on this matter, please step forward.

Uh, okay, Mr. Ball, please step back. Would you like to use your 9 minutes and 24 seconds of rebuttal?

Well, if you're looking to see me beg a little bit, I mean, I guess I would. But I mean, I've been to the property. It's surrounded by other I-2 property. It's, you know, it's designated on the long-term outlook, like I said, as expected to be used as industrial property.

It seems— It seems consistent with what the intent has been for the property, um, since it was zoned.

All righty, thank you. Okay, all right, um, we will close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Pulis, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0091 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of one parcel of land from R-1 district to I-2 district. That is seconded by Commissioner Eber. Commissioner Pulis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I intend to support the motion.

Um, It meets the 3 abbreviated approval criteria noted in the packet. We heard no public or agency opposition. Um, in regard to wetlands, development of the lot will require municipal permitting, which includes a wetland permit.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Chair. I intend to support the motion as well for the reasons stated by prior commissioner.

I would like to add a finding regarding wetlands, although already noted. That development of the lot should be in accordance with the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan. Thanks.

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

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next item, Case 2026-0092. May we please have the staff presentation?

Thank you, Chair. This is a rezone request initiated by the applicant to amend the zoning map for 2 parcels from B1A, Local and Neighborhood Business District, to R2M, Mixed Residential District. The PCC will provide a recommendation to the assembly on this rezone request through a resolution. The Assembly is the decision-making body for rezonings. The department sent out 476— 476 notices and received one public comment supporting the rezoning request.

The department received no reviewing agency comments in opposition, and the Scenic Foothills Community Council received notice and did not comment. The department finds the rezoning request meets all three approval criteria for an abbreviated rezoning and therefore recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission provide an approval recommendation for the rezone request to R2M to the assembly. I am available for questions of the staff, and the applicant is here tonight to speak. Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff?

Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you to the chair. Could staff help the commission understand what the intent and objectives of this rezone request is for what appears to be an established and developed parcel of land. Um, thank you. Through the chair, I believe the applicant, uh, as part of the homeowners association of a condo association that exists on this parcel, which is currently zoned B1A, and rezoning it to R2M, I believe, uh, fits the current land use objectives, the current land usage, as well as sort of adapts or modifies the living document that is the Comprehensive Plan to existing realities on ground as compared to what the vision was when it was written back in 2017.

Thank you.

Any further questions for staff before we invite the petitioner up?

Hearing none, can we please have the petitioner's presentation?

Good evening. Paul Hatcher, H-A-T-C-H-E-R. I'm the president of the Patterson Townhome Condominium Association. For full disclosure, I'm also employed by the Municipality of Anchorage as a senior planner in current planning, and I was not the planner on this case and did not have any interaction with Mr. Gupta regarding this case other than some banter this morning about the one comment. Uh, to answer Commissioner Rahn's question, B1A does not actually allow dwelling multifamily, which we are in our zoning district.

And since the comprehensive plan is R2M, and with the nicety of the municipality changing the abbreviated process to a very easy $200 fee, we thought it was an ample time to not only rezone our property but the Tudor Townhouse Condominium Association., which we are adjacent to, to bring us basically into compliance. I don't know why it was originally B-1A. I'm assuming they thought at one time back in the early '90s that they were going to make it some commercial property, and then it got developed in the late '90s as residential condo association. So hopefully that answers some of your question. We agree with staff's report.

Uh, that was one of my comments, that it just wasn't a use currently. It's not a use that's allowed in the B-1A, and so with the abbreviated reasonable process, it was He kind of begged that we should probably do this. I can answer any questions you have. David Goggins from the Tudor Home— Tudor Townhome Condominium Association, the president, he's in the back also, and there's a couple of other members here, and they can answer questions too if you have anything for them.

Any questions for the petitioner?

I see none. You have 8 minutes and 29 seconds for rebuttal. Thank you. Anybody wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

Going once, going twice. All right, uh, would you like to use your— okay, we'll close the public hearing on this matter. What is the will of the body?

Commissioner McKee, would you like to state your motion? I move in case 2026-0092 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of two parcels of land from B-1A Local and Neighborhood Business District to R-2-2M Mixed Residential District.

That's seconded by Commissioner Pullis. Commissioner McKee, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, please. I intend to support the motion. The criteria that were presented in our packet have all been met, and additionally, the intent of the application is not to build additional homes within the designated area, but to bring the designated area into compliance with what is already built.

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

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

That motion passes.

All right, next up, may we please have a motion to combine cases 2026-0096 and 0097? It's moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Polis. Any discussion? Any objection? Hearing and seeing none, motion is approved.

May we please have the staff presentations for cases 2026-0096 and 0097? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request to amend the land use, uh, designation and Anchorage 2040 land use plan for 5 properties from light industrial/commercial to general industrial. This includes removal of the Greenway Supportive Development growth-supporting feature.

The comprehensive plan amendment will allow for a corresponding rezone of the same properties, approximately 9.5 acres of land to rezone from B-3 general business to I-2 heavy industrial. The department is recommending approval of both the comprehensive plan amendment and the corresponding rezone. This is an industrial area because of its proximity to the Ship Creek Industrial Area, the rail yard, and the port. Historical use of the property has been for an electrical utility, you know, their storage office and heavy equipment parking. The department finds with respect to the comprehensive plan amendment, MAP amendment, that the 5 approval criteria are met and is recommending approval.

Enclosed is a draft assembly ordinance for the MAP amendment. Turning to the rezone, the department finds that the 9 approval criteria for rezone are also met if the comp plan amendment is approved. And therefore, the department's recommending approval of the rezoning subject, well, as stated on page 5 of the G5 packet, and there's also a draft assembly ordinance on page 7 of that packet. I'd be happy to answer questions, and the applicant's representative is here as well. Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff?

Commissioner Pullis. Do we know the stream setback for Ship Creek? Is it 100 feet? Do we know? I, I don't.

Commissioner Gardner.

Thank you. Um, I was wondering if you could just give a little more context for the Greenway supportive development feature and kind of the history of that and how it relates to the proposed amendment here. Um, I, I don't have a background on that. I know that having visited the site and looked at the environmental maps available on the municipal mapping webpage, that there's no sensitive environmental feature on these properties that are subject to this rezone and comp plan amendment. The growth supporting feature Only a smidge of that overlay touches the edge of one of these properties, but I don't, I don't, I don't have an answer for, for why.

There's no stream or wetland, or I mean, there's certainly a slope in that area, but I, I don't know why that is on the plan.

Uh, yeah, long range, have any insight? If I could jump in, this is Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. Um, the Greenway Sportive Development feature in the 2040 Plan is kind of a, an interesting feature that I think doesn't get used that often, and it's sort of hard to tell exactly what it was intended for. I think in this case it was really intending to somehow support a future connection from north to south if something happened with Gamble-Ingra, and really just to encourage whoever was doing something here to think about that. Although it's just not really clear how it would be used.

As Francis mentioned, on this site in particular, there's not, you know, it's not like there's a stream going through there. So I think the reason it extends north through this area is because there was eventual discussion of some sort of connection through Fish Creek— excuse me, to Ship Creek after the Fairview project went through because there's also, you know, the Fairway— Fairview Greenway they were going to have going down the center of Fairview. So I think that was sort of the intent. I don't know too much more about it, but this was also one of our comments that it maybe doesn't make a lot of sense. I think one of the reasons or one of the ideas about the green sportive development feature was that during a redevelopment there could be some sort of process through which you could— there could be some sort of trade or engagement to get, you know, enhancing a nearby stream, something like Fish Creek.

But yes, Francine's mentioned up here, it's harder to understand how that would be applied. Thank you. Commissioner Krishna. Yes, staying on the same topic, I guess just more specifically, I'm wondering if you could confirm that the designation of Greenway Supportive Corridor doesn't create any requirements for any property owner within that designation, either currently or at the time of redevelopment?

I'll—.

Say what I'm thinking, and then if Daniel thinks of something else to add to that. Um, uh, I think in practical terms, so if someone made application, um, to the Commission for a conditional use permit or a major site plan review, um, then, uh, the— for the conditional use permit, Approval Criteria 1 deals with conformance to the comprehensive plan. And so we would have to analyze under that approval criteria, the applicant would have to justify that their conditional use site plan, you know, conforms to all the designations in the Comprehensive Plan to include the Greenway Supportive Development.

Thank you.

Director Babb.

Just to answer a question from earlier, the setback requirement for Ship Creek is a 25-foot streamside zone and a 25-foot riparian edge zone for a total of 50 feet on each side of the creek.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rahn. Thank you. Through the Chair, one more Greenway Supportive Development question. I think I heard it previously mentioned that it only applies to a portion of one of the Tracts or parcels, can you help us understand which one that is? Is it Tract 4 that on page 35 of our staff packet appears to be undeveloped and a little bit green?

Commissioner Rahn, this is Francis. You said on page 35 of the packet.

Yes, that shows an aerial image, and if you look at page 34 of the staff packet and you compare the two, you can see track numbers. Yeah, right, that's the perfect page to direct us to, page 34. I believe that that hatch is showing the overlap, the Greenway Supportive Development on the, that property on Fourth Avenue and a little bit.

Yeah, thank you. All right, uh, let's invite the petitioner up for their presentation. Uh, just remind everybody that the Because there's two cases, the time has been doubled, so you have 20 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Carly Lamotte, and I'm the petitioner's representative from Dowell. Last name is L-A-M-O-T-T-H-E, and I will reserve any of my unused time for rebuttal.

So this is for case 2026-0096 and 0097.

Thank you. Um, this request is for 5 parcels that make up Chugach Electric's North Campus. The area shown in the dashed line is all of Chugach Electric's parcels, and then the subject parcels are shown in blue. These are generally located at the corner of 3rd Avenue and Post Road, and then the southwest corner of 3rd Avenue and Carlock Street. These requests are for the comprehensive plan map amendment and rezone aimed to correct zoning inconsistencies and support the utility infrastructure that has persisted in that area over the past 60 years.

At this time, no new development is proposed, and these amendments aim to bring consistency across Chugach Electric's North Campus area.

Originally developed as municipal light and power, the subject parcels have been providing Andrews Utility electric utility since the 1960s, um, where the area has remained industrial, um, since its development started. These requests bring regulatory consistency to the region. The longstanding industrial use of the properties and surrounding zoning don't align with the current zoning or land use designation, which shows light industrial and, um, general business. Based on the permitted uses and industrial district's purpose and intent, the I-2 Heavy Industrial District is the most appropriate zoning for this site.

Dowell attended the May 14th Fairview Community Council, um, and attendees and the board were supportive of the rezone. Um, Dowell has not heard any, um, concerns or questions with the proposed requests.

So I'm going to focus on the rezone first. This is Case 2026-0097. This request is to rezone the 5 parcels from B-3 General Business to I-2 Heavy Industrial. This aligns with the current uses and comprehensive plan map designations that we are requesting to be revised. This rezone supports the existing uses and historical industrial development pattern of the region and brings consistency to Chugach's North Campus.

And then Case 2026-0096 is the comprehensive plan map amendment. This request is to revise the current designation as Light Industrial Commercial to General Industrial, which has an implementing zoning district of I-2 Heavy Industrial. The surrounding areas, including the remainder of Choogatch North Campus, is designated as General Industrial. This amendment would implement the 2040 Anchorage Comprehensive Plan, the 2014 Fairview Neighborhood Plan, and the 1991 Ship Creek Waterfront Land Use Plan. And to get into a little bit more detail, these These two figures show the maps on page 34 and 35 of your staff packets.

The Greenway Supportive Developer hatching is shown in the green. It's a little bit on the southwestern two parcels, and the intent of this was back in 2017, the sewer to Glen connection had a few different iterations and alternatives. Um, and so the idea behind this specific Greenway Supportive Development was to provide like a buffer park in case the highway was routed through this area. Um, but based on the extensive, um, planning and environmental linkage studies and projects that have been going on with this, um, potential connection, it's clear that the future connection for Sewer to Glen is not going to impact these properties. Um, therefore, we feel that the greenway-supported development is no longer appropriate for this location.

Um, and just a few key takeaways. This request is in alignment with adopted plans. It supports the multiple adopted plans emphasizing the need for industrial land preservation and infrastructure access. The strategic location of these properties is appropriate for the I-2 Heavy Industrial District due to its close proximity to the port, rail, and truck routes which support these industrial uses. The proposed amendments improve consistency by aligning zoning maps and land use with adopted policies and what we see in the built environment.

And finally, this request aligns Choogatchee Electric's north campus with municipal plans, supports infrastructure, and preserves industrial land and resolves zoning inconsistencies. And we have representatives from Choogatchee Electric if you have any specific questions for them. Thank you. Thank you. You have 15 minutes and 17 seconds for rebuttal.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Commissioner McKee. Hi. Have you cross-referenced the proposed action in the Seward Glen Pell to confirm— my understanding is that that was recently adopted by the MTP 2052? Has it—. Have you—.

Has it just been cross-checked and confirmed that it wouldn't potentially have a conflict with the proposed action? Yes, thank you, Commissioner McKee. Um, on page 18 of your packets, we go into a little bit more detail. Um, the 20— the October 2025 draft Planning and Environmental Linkages Study recommends Alternative 5 and 11, which do not impact these properties. Um, additionally, the 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan does not include funding, um, for projects in this area.

Um, so we feel like it is safe to make the assumption that these properties won't be impacted by future development of that Glynn to Seward Highway linkage.

Commissioner McKee, you have another question? Question on— yeah, so the part of the sewer glen pell proposed alternatives includes the development of a Warnerf on Hyder that I think goes all the way down to 3rd or 4th. Do you think that would potentially conflict with the rezoning of these areas?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner McKee. Dowell had our transportation planning engineers take a look at the October 2025 draft plan, um, and felt that there was no impact on the potential rezone and Comprehensive Plan map to remove that greenway protected corridor. And I would imagine if a project does— if the alternative changes, there will be extensive planning to ensure that appropriate greenway development is implemented. With any future highway linkage regardless of where it goes.

Uh, Commissioner Rahn, uh, thank you. Through the chair, I'm interested in, um, hearing your perspective and then, uh, staff's as well, if appropriate, on, um, Finding 7. Um, proposed rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon adjacent land uses, or such impact shall be mitigated through the area of interest I have is the parcel to the west that's PLI identified as being occupied by the Brother Francis Shelter and the Navigation Center. Can you give the Commission some perspective on the relationship between this rezone from B-3 to I-2 with respect to potential to impact existing or future similar operations on that adjacent parcel? Yeah, great question.

Thank you, Commissioner Aron. The rezoning representatives from the Brother Francis Shelter and the Third Avenue—. Um, Radicals. What was that? Radicals.

Oh, I was going to say the Third Avenue, um, the Navigation— Navigation Center. Thank you so much. The Navigation Center were notified when we went to the Fairview Community Council, and we spoke to a few business owners in the area And since Choogachie Electric is not proposing any new uses, they feel like this is still an appropriate designation to do I-2 since that region is and has historically been developed industrially. So the folks down there, including the Navigation Center, Brother Francis, and the Auction House, were in attendance at the Fairview Community Council and did not speak up about any adverse impacts that they are anticipating.

Thank you. I see no further questions. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

It looks like nobody stepped forward. You have 15 minutes and 17 seconds for rebuttal. Would you like to use it?

No, thank you, Chair. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion? Yeah, I move in case 2026-0096 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation of change 5 parcels in the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan from light industrial commercial to general industrial and remove the Greenway supported development growth supporting feature.

That was seconded by Commissioner Eber. Commissioner Pullis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yeah, I intend to support the motion. I pretty much agree with the suggested findings. It meets all the approval criteria noted.

We heard no public or agency opposition from anyone, including the neighbors. And the basic overall trend is industrial in that area, so I think it's a good, good reason.

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

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Now we will move on to the second case, 2026-0097. Looking for a motion.

Commissioner Pullis, would you like to state your motion? Yeah, I move in case 2026-0097 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of 5 parcels of land from B3 District to I2 District. That's seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Pullis, would you like to to your motion? Yep, um, for the same reasons as the Comp Plan Amendment, um, I intend to support the motion.

I agree with the suggested findings that it meets all the approval criteria, and we had no agency or public opposition. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

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

That motion passes.

That takes us to case 2026-0069. May we please have the staff presentation? Good evening, Commissioners. Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. Uh, we— you'll— I think we looked at this a little bit, um, and apologies, had to be postponed.

We had to do a little bit extra notification for Eagle River. But, um, the item before you today is a kind of minor change, small change to the unit lot subdivision, and that I'll jump into it. So unit lot subdivisions are currently only allowed in multi-unit zones, and this proposal would expand them to all urban zones in the bowl. They're thinking that with the HOME Initiative, it allowed more units on, say, an R-1, R-2A, R-2D lot. And this would allow that tool to apply there.

So it's really more about ownership than built form. It's sort of a way that you can have fee simple ownership of a similar sort of build out.

And that has some affordability issues or some sort of affordability gains. Doesn't change the underlying permitted density. So, you know, if you have an R-1 lot and currently you're allowed to have 2 units there and an ADU, you could have now about the same, it would just a different ownership structure. And there are only a few examples of the unit lot subdivision in the bowl since 2017. So this might kind of crack that open a little bit since there's a lot more R-1, R-2A, R-2D land available.

So 2 of the recent examples are Case S12-722, which was a R-4 zone is a bunch of attached single-family off of boundary, and also one in Mountain View, S-12-785. This is zone R-3, and this became a duplex. So again, what the zone— what the proposal does, expand the zones where the unit lot subdivision allowed in the Anchorage Bowl, allowed multiple units to a lot where the unit— the zoning allows it, and simplifies some of the HOA rules. What it does not do, it does not change where unit lots are allowed in Chugiak, Eagle River, or Girdwood. So some of those zones already allow this tool, but we're not touching those.

It does not allow greater density than allowed on the parent lot, and it does not change any design standards that currently exist in the lot subdivision section of AMC 2108, and it doesn't change lot sizes. So throughout this process, we've had a lot of discussions with AWU. One of our colleagues from AWU is here tonight, so they've been really helpful, and I think we got a lot of code language that worked for them, worked for their needs. AWU, of course, they have to follow their tariff, and that's sort of set in a different way. So they— great working with them, and so I hope if you have any questions, you'll ask them directly.

One of the main things is that AWU always needs— I'm sorry, you haven't been seeing my slides. So AWU always needs certain distances between when they put in water and sewer. And so that's sort of one of the minimums about the, you know, having a minimum lot width so that there's always enough space between a water line and sewer line. There's 10 feet separation, 15 feet separation. And so that informed a lot of AWU's comments.

They're really looking for buildings that are unit lots that can be designed to be safe and accessible and also ease of billing. And we'll get into that for a second. So ideal for AWU from our discussions with them were clear billing for each resident. So there's one service going into each unit. That's the best.

So if you have somebody who's not paying their water bill,— you can address them directly rather than going into one building and then having to figure out who's in charge of it. Now, you can do that through an HOA or another agreement, but this, this was pretty clear throughout the process that for AWU, the best unit lot subdivision, the ideal unit lot subdivision would be one which each unit has its own service coming from the street. And so from that, it helps— you need about a 30-foot width of frontage. So if this was the case and we were doing ideal unit lot subdivisions, we would probably only apply it maybe the wider an existing lot that was about 90 feet wide. And that's wider than most lots.

So that's kind of a consideration. Less ideal for AWU, again, is single billing for multiple residences. So say you do a unit lawn, but the access comes in through the side. Then you have this issue where, say, the third housing unit here didn't pay their bill. And so now there's an HOA, because part of the requirement is to have an HOA.

But the other two units are sort of on the hook to pay for that. And it's a lot easier to address directly, to turn off service directly, if you have to address that. AWU also talked about how it's just ideal when you don't have to cross any lines, even if you're not crossing unit lot lines. And so they really prefer stuff coming in from one direction and not crossing anything. Another thing, with alleys, it's really helpful if you have alley-serviced sort of sewer infrastructure and then street-serviced water infrastructure.

That makes for a really good environment where this tool might work. Work. So there's a lot more that AWU had, and we put this all in the staff report. But basically, AWU and ASU tariff require main frontage along one full side of a parcel to be considered served by public water and sewer. AWU prefers that all unit lots have individual connections, and developers should exhaust all options for frontage, including mainline extension, prior to using the parent lot to determine frontage.

Not all parcels intended for unit lot development can achieve full frontage. AWU requests developers schedule pre-design meetings with AWU to determine water and sewer service. So also, AWU tariff state that a service connection shall serve no more than one parcel, and no service connection may cross a parcel line. This can be satisfied each unit has its own water sewer connection. Where multiple buildings occupy one parcel, AWU will allow a branched extension, but again, the extension can't cross property lines.

And now, AWU does— the tariff does have a shared service provision allowing for service extension to cross parcel boundaries after all other development options have been exhausted. Private development. And if shared services utilized, the unit lots must incorporate an HOA, be the owner of the common water and sewer elements. So the proposal already requires an HOA, so that's sort of covered. But AWU is sort of— they're subject to their tariff rules, so there's a lot of the stuff they have to do.

Now, as part of this, we've heard an interesting idea last week, kind of too late to put in the packet, but— and actually, maybe I'll jump to that initially— is thinking about what could this tool be used for. And there's some interesting ideas. And I think fundamentally, unit lot probably isn't the tool for that. And maybe it's another discussion. But for example, say you had a 1-acre— 1 acre of R-1, and a lot of it is limited.

Maybe there's wetlands or something on there. One way to develop that at 5 dwelling units per acre would be something like this, with a little more road— better road infrastructure than I've drawn there. But another way to do it would be something like this. So somebody asked, could you do something like this with a unit lot? I think what we've determined is this sort of requires a different project.

This would be something like a conservation subdivision or a cluster subdivision. So now I'll go back to that. Title 21 interestingly has a number of tools to do sort of similar things. We have unit lot, we have conservation subdivision, we have cluster housing subdivision, we have the narrow lot housing subdivision, and then we have the planned unit development. So in the past few years, we've seen some changes to planned unit development.

But many of these others have never really been changed. And each one is a little bit different. So we're focusing on unit lot. And again, unit lot is really more about the ownership structure, not really the layout. But just the other things available, they're all slightly different.

And so I think it might be worth a conversation in the future. For example, conservation, you need 2 acres minimum, but you're limited in floor area ratio. You can have some lot coverage. Cluster housing, it's allowed in some zones. Density and site area limits, you have to go to PCC review for R-1, R-1A.

Narrow lot is only allowed in certain zones. Only detached single family allowed. If you build 3 or more units, you have to start having different models. Garage must be at the rear or the side. So each one of these has a lot of specifics.

And there might be an interesting conversation in the future to talk about maybe taking the best of all of these and simplifying a little bit. And also maybe to get to the idea of what somebody had mentioned with this. So with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions. Also, Kaylee from AWU is here if you have any questions for her. So thank you.

Commissioner Krishna. I see that Director Babb is also in the queue, so maybe—. Director Babb, would you like to take the lead? I just wanted to add on the tail end of that presentation just an overall view of what you just heard from Daniel. The main message here is that this is a minor change of a tool that already exists in the BOLE.

It is a change to the ownership structure of a property, not to really anything else having to do with that property. All the design standards and everything remain the same, so that if those unit lots disappear, The parent lot still is in compliance with Title 21 and all of the setback and height regulations and everything. And then finally, that if someone is looking at doing a unit lot subdivision, really the main message from AWU is that they would like to know about it and have a chance to talk to the developer about their options. Regarding the utilities on the lot prior to any, you know, prior to the developer getting into the design too far and discovering that they may not be able to serve their property with the utilities in the manner that they were hoping to.

That is it for me. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Krishna. Thanks.

I'm just going to ask a couple of basic questions just to get caught up on the unit lot subdivision. Tool, um, and I understand it hasn't been used very often, so I guess I'm just trying to figure out— obviously we have existing developments that are attached, um, properties that are sold to individual owners, and I guess I'm wondering where you would use a unit lot subdivision tool versus another model that still allows for attached— dwelling units to be sold individually?

Through the Chair, I think, you know, at least the way we've been looking at it, probably applies more to a sort of detached housing unit type situation. In the attached, it's more of the traditional condo, and those often do have their own discrete lot, I think, like the townhouse lot or something like this. And so this is kind of an interesting— you really would just own the unit and maybe a little bit below the unit, but then there might be some shared space in common, which some of these places also do. I think the difference maybe is sometimes— well, now that I think about it, in all these cases, there's an HOA. And so in this, an HOA is also a part of it.

So I think generally, without— a developer's perspective, I'd say those are generally used for when it's more of owning, owning the lot and the piece of the lot outright, and it's more an attached situation. You could do an attached unit lot, but this, this seems to be maybe in smaller instances. And especially the way we're looking at it now with expanding this into the R-1, R-2a, R-2d, it's really looking at maybe existing detached rather than a townhouse use type. I don't know if anybody else has any Comments on that? Thank you.

Can I ask one more question? Um, my only other question is just about how the new, um, ADU, uh, since now I assume only one of the unit lots could have an ADU to be in compliance with our, um, current ADU, uh, regulations. Is that correct? And so it would be up to the HOA to decide which lot could house that ADU. Is that how that would work?

Through the Chair, yeah, that's correct for the kind of R-1, R-2D, R-2A zones where there's a limit on those. In other zones, you could have an ADU and then it would just become its own structure. But some— I think in Washington State, they allow an ADU to get its own unit lot subdivision. For our proposal, We said if you— say you have 2 units and an ADU, one of those units has to be— has to have the ADU attached to it as part of the unit lot. So there would never— because you couldn't have 3-unit lots as separate on an R-1 or R-2A or R-2D.

Thank you. Next up, Commissioner McKee. Hi, thank you. Um, my question is, so with the lots and the ADUs potentially having separate owners, would each parcel— I'm going to call them a parcel even though they may not get zoned that way— have right to have direct access, or would the, the whole unit be given a single access point? Because the more access we add onto side streets and roads creates more risk for pedestrians and cyclists that might be using the sidewalk as somebody enters or exits the driveway or a garage.

So would that be— how would they manage the access onto the roadway from these units?

Through the chair, I don't think we heard comments from traffic about requiring separate accesses from for additional unit lots. And in other— I think in Washington, one of the sort of benefits is using that shared access. So I think at the smaller scale, if you have 2 or 3 units, at least the comments we got from traffic or PM&E or the other departments didn't flag that as an issue. I don't know if anybody else has any comments on that. Through the chair to Commissioner McKee, um, the access would— the requirements for access and the allowances for access would be governed by the parent lot.

So whatever is allowed for the parent lot would be the limit of what is allowed for the unit lots altogether. And if they needed to share access, and they would have to use the HOA as a tool to determine, you know, the guidelines and the rules for who has access and where.

Thank you. Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. I guess my question is about the HOAs. I am not very familiar with HOAs, but looking at the proposed amendment here, I guess I see in the description on page 2, you know, references changes to simplify the text requiring HOA for managing the parent lot.

And it looks like there's a fair bit of content that looks relatively prescriptive that's being removed from that. And I guess my question is, not being very familiar with HOAs and how they would work, it— I read this to be pretty flexible. It says, you know, one is required but not having a lot more included than that. And we've covered a bunch or discussed a couple of potential issues that need to be worked out, um, between the unit lots, and I can think of a few more. And is there any, any concern about how those might be managed in the way that this is provided here, or is there any benefit to including some things that should be addressed as kind of helping them think forward through the concerns that might come up in this arrangement.

Through the Chair, do you mean additional guidance on how to set up an HOA or what to look for or what kind of—. Not necessarily how to set it up, but— and again, this question is coming from not being familiar with— I have never even looked at an HOA, like, document, right? I don't know how it works. And so maybe it is sufficient to just say that if there is something that is not specifically covered for how to be addressed, I don't know if it is just a vote. Or what, but if you think there is any benefit to giving some guidance on types of concerns that should be considered and addressed in advance for this structure.

Through the Chair, I think that would be something helpful we could put out as sort of an informational piece, because one of the comments we got about this was people said— people interested in doing it said, oh, this is way too complicated. We will figure that out, or we can figure that out on our own. But you're right, because if somebody says they can figure out and there's a problem anyway, it becomes maybe somebody else's problem. But that to me seems like the kind of thing where we could do a handout. I mean, unfortunately with a lot of our code, it's pretty complex.

So with like ADUs, we have a handout and we developed that with development services. So a lot of the common questions that people have, we have that. That seems like something we could do. I think we generally opted to remove some of that stuff from code So it reads less like this is the HOA specifically. And the language we did put in, I think a lot of that was to clarify for AWUS needs.

But I wonder if anybody else has any— does that seem reasonable to— it's sort of the battle between being too prescriptive and descriptive in code versus, you know, somebody getting into something that maybe is a little over their head, I guess. Yeah. That's a good thought. And I don't— I guess I lean away from being too prescriptive myself as a general matter, so that approach makes sense to me. But I like the idea of just kind of some guidance if people are going into this, and maybe almost think of it like premarital counseling a little bit, right?

Like, you don't know what issues you're going to be dealing with until they come up, but if there's someone who's seen it before that can give some advice, that would probably be helpful.

Commissioner Eber. Yeah, I saw that this was written into code in 2017, um, in the— some of the other zones. Is there any examples of this actually being used in the other zones? Um, has it been approached? Has it been approved?

Not approved? I guess, what are— you mentioned Washington several times and you haven't said anything about Anchorage, so I I'm assuming there's been none. Through the chair, I think I forgot to turn on the slides when I was talking through them. But we have at least two examples. So on the left is S12-722.

This is zoned R4, and it was doing some attached single family. And on the right is a duplex in Mountain View. That's S12-785, and that was R3. So currently, it's only allowed, I believe, in R2M and up. And so I don't know what was imagined at the time, if people thought this would be used to do sort of fee-simple unit lots in R-2M, R-3, R-4.

But these are two of the cases, the published cases we have on that. There might be one more, but it really hasn't been used very widely.

Do we know if those— I guess, have there been any issues with those? I mean, like, pertaining to potentially like an HOA or—.

Through the chair, I don't know if these are fully built out, but I think one of the big issues is always service connections, right? So if you are building out a larger one, if you're building a lot of attached single family and you have to do 10 service connections, that's going to be a pretty significant cost. So I think that has sort of been a point of discussion. And again, Kaylee from AWU might have more experience that or can share more about that. But that's kind of what I've heard is that there's that balance between doing this fee simple, but then having all these sewer and water connections, which can be really, really expensive.

So you get sort of like— you get some density, but then you lose some of that value by having to do so many other connections.

Uh, Commissioner McKee. Um, so my— thank you. My question is, I can see how this is intended to be a great benefit to increase homeownership, you know, provide potentially affordable housing. Is there any intent to restrict how these units could be used? Because I could also see it being a huge increase in Airbnbs or VRBOs, and that doesn't necessarily necessarily achieve the intent?

And I mean, not that we want to tell an owner what they can and can't do on their property too much, but is there any concern that this leans more into vacation rental versus affordable homeownership? Through the chair, I think, um, I'll put this on the screen. So the, the approach that the Assembly's taken recently is to address short-term rentals— as a use, as an allowed use. And I think addressing those uses in that way, so then it can be addressed as it comes up rather than writing it into the subdivision. Because even if we wrote in something in this subdivision code about a future use, um, it would just be maybe just not the right place to do it.

So I would say, um, in general, anything with short-term rentals is now addressed through Chapter 5 in the use table.

Director Babb.

Through the chair to Commissioner McKee, and again, the— that use is already an allowed use on R-1 lots. So you could have, you know, 3 dwelling units on an R-1 lot that you can rent out as short-term rentals already. So I can see where the question is coming from, but This is just a simple change to the fee structure of something that can already exist. So I think that in the future, as we gather more data— because I, I don't know if you're aware, but we have started requiring short-term rental operations to register with the muni. As we gather data about where they're located and how long they're rented for and all of these other things,, then maybe we can use that data to refine what we're doing with the zoning code.

But until then, this is mostly, you know, just keeping status quo in regard to that use.

Um, I have some questions for AWU and Planning, but I think first I'll just add that I think there's a few more unit lot cases in Anchorage. I was involved with a Habitat project that turned one property into 6 unit lots, and that's— those 6 unit lots were 3 duplexes. The duplexes had one water and one sewer per duplex, and the HOA was set up to I guess the intent was that the HOA would pay the 3 water and sewer bills to those 3 buildings that supplied 6-unit lots. And so that would be my first question to AWU. Are, are you guys billing individual units even though there might be one service to a building, but then billing the individual units as residential services rather than a commercial service that would typically be done in that scenario?

In reference to like condo units? Well, actually unit lot units, because that's what we're talking about. But I guess it doesn't really matter if they're condos or unit lots in my mind to AWU. But I guess unless you guys look at them differently, that's what I'm wondering. Why, like, I guess, are you billing residential units in— if there's a building with multiple units but one water and one sewer to it, are you guys billing existing unit lots as individual units for water and sewer rather than billed to the HOA?

This is Kaylee with Anchorage Water and Wastewater. So the way that with— that's normal. There hasn't been any unit lots that have been consistent, so we don't have the data to really, I guess, explain or how to set up billing for unit lots. So this is our way to make it simpler. My understanding for unit lots was that this was supposed to be fee simple, more kind of single-family-esque, and typically with single family you have your own water and sewer billing.

Um, the current unit lots that we have examples of, they do have HOAs and they are billed by the number of units, or they're metered. That's depending on the number of units, that's the choice of the HOA.

Okay, um, so the HOA gets to choose how the billing works?

Did I hear that correctly? It's based on the number of units. So single-family and duplexes typically billed at a single-family rate or a duplex rate, and then if I remember correctly, 3 units or more have the choice to be metered, and then those are billed at a metered rate.

Okay, that's— that's— I guess that's what I understood. Um, and then I guess I want to back up, and this isn't really a question, but I think it will help everybody. So when unit lots were originally conceived, they were to replace condominiums because condominiums were having— there were— there was becoming the, the housing finance organizations started putting a lot of rules and restrictions on condominiums. And so the idea was to build a condominium-type unit but to get away from the stigma of condominiums because there was nationally a lot of condominium projects that were failing. So the banks and lenders started putting weird rules on them.

And so this was to provide the same sort of unit in a fee simple manner.

I, I think that might be helpful. But so then my next question is, I guess I don't— this is for planning— I guess I don't understand why there's so much about AWWU's rules in the unit lot section when I guess as a developer it's pretty clear to me that any— whatever I'm developing, a condominium, a single-family lot subdivision, multi-family, or whatever, that I'm gonna go talk to AWU and follow their rules. So why in this particular section do we have all this stuff about AWU?

I think the main thing, and Mr. Chair, your last comment reminded me too, is the big change here is it's now extending into R-1, R-1A, or R-2, you know, sort of the lower density zones. So the thinking is now we might have people who aren't traditionally doing a lot of developments getting into this type of development potentially. So including a lot of the specifics in AWU is kind of what Member Gardner was saying, is providing people with some awareness of what they're getting into. And a lot of the AWU pieces do speak specifically to the dimensional standards we're talking about.

So like 30 feet is a dimensional standard, and it's nice to have that set by the AWU, or showing that AWU has these standards. So I think we— for us, this was a good chance to sort of update the tool, to expand it to more places. We're also sort of thinking that it might be used by a different type of developer, maybe just a regular homeowner trying to do it. And so that's why there is more about those specifics, I'd say. I don't know if anybody else wants to add anything.

I guess my only reason— my concern, and in response to that, is that if AWU decides to change the way what they like or change the way they want to see or service a unit lot, but we have it written in Title 21. We're kind of in a weird place where the decision-making body, AWU, wants to allow something, but now we have Title 21 kind of jumping outside its lane and specifying AWU stuff. I guess, I guess that's just my concern. And maybe I'm being paranoid or haven't read through it carefully enough, but have we thought about that? No, I think it's a good concern.

I mean, it's always dangerous to sort of hardwire something into code and then something else changes and it basically goes out of date. I wonder if— I mean, we could ask Kaila, how likely does it seem that these pieces would change? Of the pieces of code that we put in this section, at least from AWU's perspective. I think from our perspective, this seemed like these, these seem like pretty standard needs for AWU, and they're unlikely to change, but maybe let Kaylee speak to that.

The references that are being made are to our tariff, and to change tariff, we have to do the— we have to go through the RCA and things like that to alter it., which is a task to do. Um, I think the goal for what is being added into Title 21 is to, I guess, make sure that the— we're viewing unit lots as individual parcels because they're being sold as individual parcels. Um, and so we want to confirm and I guess make sure that our tariff is being followed. A lot of the unit lot developments that have been done in the past, we normally are kind of coming in last minute and there's things that either need to be changed or altered or variances, waivers, things like that. So we kind of wanted to get in in the beginning and be a part of the development kind of plan, so then that way we can make sure that tariff is being followed.

Okay, one, one last, like, technical question. If I was— if, if somebody had a duplex, an existing duplex that's serviced by one water and one sewer in the front, and then they built an ADU in the back that would take water and sewer service through the existing building's foundation, extended into the backyard, and then build the ADU, and then divided them all three into unit lots. Is that allowed? No. Okay.

Well, it depends on the zone, maybe.

If you were in an R-1, probably not, right? Or it's tricky too because the size of an ADU is contingent upon You know, anybody can have an ADU up to 900 square feet, but above that it becomes— it can't be larger than 40% of the principal structure. So potentially you have that duplex, and one of those units could be considered the ADU, and then you could have two-unit lots. So you build the new structure, that's just another unit. But long story short, it's complicated, but probably not.

I guess that's, that's from the use perspective. I don't know what AWU would say from the actual connection. I guess for, for my question, for my question to AWU, let's just say it's— okay, we have a duplex and then we divide it into 2 unit lots and they're all serviced off one service. Would that be a— would that violate your tariff?

And like, I guess if, say, first question is I wanted to do it to an existing structure, second question is I wanted to build a brand new one the same way. Would that be allowed? To— for the existing structure, to take a duplex and divide it into 2 unit lots, you would have to go through the process of, at that point, shared services because it's existing. So you would have to incorporate an HOA. There would have to be common elements included in the HOA.

It's not our— it's not our preference, but it would— there are provisions in tariff that would allow it an existing structure. And then if there were to be a new structure— actually, we have an example of that that happened in Mountain View. They took the existing stubs and just ran them under the foundation, and so they did have to do an HOA and do shared services to, to accommodate that. Our preference, especially for new construction, would be like for the example in Mountain View, they had water in the front and sewer in the alley, and so they have the opportunity to do individual connections, and then that lessens the requirements of the HOA to just the common roads, fence, like the driveways, fences, that kind of thing. And it takes AWU out of the picture because they could do individual billing there.

Right. I mean, I guess just for everybody's background, an HOA document like this I would expect to be $5,000 to $10,000, where the additional water and additional sewer would be more like $20,000 to $30,000 to $40,000 depending on the road that you're tying into. So it's significantly less expensive. It's a pain in the butt for everybody at Maywoo and the builder, developer, owner to have HOAs with rules, but It's less expensive, I guess, is what I was wanting to say. Uh, I'll give up or quit for a while.

Commissioner Mills. Um, I thought I would maybe just make a suggestion or throw out an idea. Um, these seem very unique. Um, just, you know, a lot of us are obviously learning about it. Um, and I was thinking back to the Wetlands Management Plan and how there was kind of like a roadmap that the Muni provided that someone could look at and follow, like a step-by-step process.

And I was thinking that that would be really beneficial to implement with this and like start at square one. I'm assuming that most of these aren't going to be on well or septic, but that's probably one of the first questions that's addressed. And then, you know, moving forward AWU gets involved as you work down the roadmap. But just kind of making it something that other people would be able to, be able to reference and then hopefully implement would be a great tool and probably would help people like us too.

Through the chair to Commissioner Mills, I think coming on the tail end of Commissioner Gardner's recommendation as well. It sounds to me like we need to develop some sort of handout or guidelines for this separate from code that we can give to developers and new property owners who are interested in this. So thank you for the suggestion. We'll definitely take that into consideration. You're gonna love this.

I'll just add that Shared driveway easements, common access easements, a lot of them used to be done kind of you hired an attorney and got it done and the muni accepted it. At some point in time, the muni decided that so many bad agreements had been brought forward and resulted in problems in permitting that the muni actually created its own legal documents, blanks, And now you really can't do a shared driveway agreement in the municipality without using their document. And I could see where if you— if this got used enough and presented enough problems the way the shared driveway did, the muni might end up with a template HOA. It's not necessarily my what I want to see, but I believe that history kind of led staff in that direction.

Commissioner Krishna, I have a question about the actual proposed ordinance. So let me just preface this by saying that I think I feel a little bit of confusion about the requirements and the goals of this, but I can see how this tool could be used to create a more affordable entry point. But I feel that to be effective, it needs to work for some of these existing structures that we're talking about, that is the majority of the housing stock in our city.

And I— I won't start talking about what I wouldn't support, but I think writing in requirements that are almost certainly going to add an enormous cost to this, I think doesn't support to me the goals of what this tool would do. So here's my actual question, which is if we retain, I'm looking at the highlighted portions in our packet on pages 10, 11, and 12, If we retained only 3B, which is just a requirement for a predesign meeting, and 6H, which says all unit lot subdivisions shall conform to AWUD tariff requirements, and dispensed with the rest, does that still, um, fulfill the intent of this while allowing some of those details details about agreements and exactly how the tariff requirements should be implemented.

Is that sufficient, I think, to get us through what we're trying to do here?

Through the chair to Commissioner Krishna, yes, I believe so. I believe that would be sufficient. Um, it doesn't quite address some of AWU's concerns about the finer details of this, um, but I think it does cover the, um, the basic requirements.

Does AWO want to comment?

We got nobody else in the queue.

Um, with that, we will open the public hearing.

Anyone from the public wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

Hearing, seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Well, staff, any rebuttal?

I, I, if there's a desire to make changes, I can bring up a Word version and we could make edits, or just so there's some instruction about how to make changes, but And can we give Awu one last chance to rebut, um, just in case you have another opinion about the changes, the proposed changes?

Yes, we can absolutely give Awu as much time as Awu wants. Kaylee wants.

I have a question. Can you repeat your suggested edits? Sure, and I guess I'll pose them as a question, right? And my question is is retaining only 3B, a requirement for a predesigned meeting, and 6H on page 10 of her packet, which says all unit lot subdivisions shall conform to AWU tariff requirements. I—.

My question is, is all of the other language essentially explanatory to things that potential applicants will find out when they go to these meetings or floor the tariff requirements. If there's anything else that is a new requirement, I, I think I would appreciate hearing that now. Um, but if not, my question, I guess, is whether retaining those two requirements is sufficient to, um, allow the rest of the process to be worked out behind the scenes. Yes, I believe so. Um, the biggest thing is the pre-design meeting and then following tariff requirements.

Everything else is listed out in tariff. Um, none of those are new, they're all existing requirements.

Thank you.

And I guess I have a follow-up question to staff, which is that the intent of this, um, suggestion, I guess, is to— is, is because I feel that even, um, today we've had some, um, differing opinions on whether, um, unit lots that have a single structure would require separate service lines. And, um, I feel like the rest of these sections are pointing towards that, whereas we might not want to, um, give off that impression if there are truly other lower-cost ways that someone might achieve, um, a unit lot subdivision using this tool. And so that, that is the intent, and I would appreciate, uh, you know, any any opinions from staff on whether this would help us use this tool in the most, you know, hopefully widely adopted way possible.

I'll weigh in. I think we're all in agreement that we want to make the tool more useful, an existing tool, and make it more useful. I would just say, as long as it doesn't end up giving AWUA a lot more pre-design meetings that don't result in actual unit lot subdivision processes. But I'm glad to— I think we're glad to follow any recommendation or include any recommendation.

All right, well, I think we can officially close the public hearing now and move on to a motion if somebody chooses to make one.

A draft has been presented. It doesn't have to to be your motion. It can be amended.

Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state your motion? Thank you, Chair. I move in Case 2026-0069 to recommend the Anchorage Assembly approval of an ordinance amending Chapters 21.08, Subdivision Standards, and 21.15, Definitions, to update the unit lot subdivision tool Amending the proposed ordinance as follows: striking items 5E, 5J, and 7C and 7D.

And I believe that was 5E and 6J.

Yes, Chair.

You want to take a look at that and confirm that it should be on your screen?

Here's 5E: the minimum width of individual lots shall be determined in accordance with MASS in order to protect public health by maintaining physical separation between potable water service lines, sewer lines. Correct. Then 6J: if the parent parcel cannot be subdivided in a way that each provides water and sewer main furnished to each individual lot, then the developer shall provide engineered plans complete with AWU private System process prior to connection: if a private system is constructed, the developer must enter into a shared service agreement with utility to allow the water and sewer extensions to cross unit lot parcel boundaries. And then 7: all proposed unit lot subdivisions shall prepay any estimated pending AWU assessments on the parent parcel prior to the recording of the final unit lot plat. And : if an AWU private system is constructed, the lot owners must incorporate a homeowners association which must own and maintain the private private water and/or sewer system.

And just to go up, so the remaining is this requirement at 3B, that the applicant shall meet with AWU for pre-design meeting, and 6, all unit lot subdivisions shall conform to AWU tariff requirements. Uh, thank you, staff. That aligns with the motion as I laid it on the table. Okay, that was seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Rahn, Would you like to speak to your motion?

Thank you, Chair. Just briefly, I intend to support the motion. I concur with staff that it meets criteria for approval of a text amendment. Um, the amendment will promote public health and safety. It's consistent with comprehensive plan goals as stated, um, and, um, uh, proposed amendment is desirable in order to equalize access to unit lot subdivision process, um, with the changes recently made based on discussion had by the commission and concurred by AWU and Staff, it seems that we've cleaned things up a little bit to the benefit of all.

I, in terms of my findings, also concur with staff that the process has not been widely used to date, that the adoption of the AO as stated did allow units on all residential lots, and extending this process to more zones would allow more properties to take advantage of it. Um, also concur, unit lot subdivision process does not allow for increases in density from the parent lot. And AWU provided comments and elements of their changes have been incorporated into the draft ordinance, and they were present tonight to assist with further amendments for what is included in the motion as stated. That's all for now. Thanks.

Thank you. Commissioner McKee.

Um, I have a question, or I guess it's discussion on the proposed amendment. Can I—. Or just go for it. Okay. Um, with respect to 6J, if I own the parent lot and I don't allow a shared access, the utility may not cross my property to prepare services or repairs to a parcel that is not owned by that individual.

So in other words, if I own the parent parcel and the utility crosses through my property to reach the other property, I do not have to allow access through my property without shared access. Is that correct? My guess is the HOA would have solved all that. The required HOA would have solved all that. Um, but AWU probably wouldn't be going through private properties anyways.

That would be on the owners. But AWU, do you want to comment on that, or anybody else besides me?

That would be part of the HOA agreement, is access to, um, ability to access utilities for repair. So, so just to clarify, just I want to just to be sure, 6J is kind of redundant with whatever would be required by the HOA because shared access, like with respect to driveways and stuff, means it's a big deal. Like it makes it so other people can't go through. So this would be covered by an HOA. Through the Chair to Commissioner McKee, it would be covered by the HOA and it would be part of the process of setting up the utility service to the individual units and unit lots.

So that would be part of the agreement with AWU as well.

If I can add in, also in 7B, it does talk about access easements, joint use and maintenance agreements. So it also mentions that this shall be established and recorded with the State Recorder's Office. So 7B might take care of some of that as well.

Yeah, and I'll just add that not all legal documents are created equal, which is why the municipality now has its own shared driveway document.

Oh, and it says—. Okay, thank you, I didn't see that it says underground utilities, which would obviously cover water and sewer. Thank you. Commissioner Krishna. Um, I intend to support the motion Um, I'll just add a few, uh, comments.

Um, I just want to thank AWU for attending today and for answering questions and for clearly all of the work they did with the planning staff to get us this draft. Um, I, you know, I will say I think this isn't a tool that I have seen before, so I think we are both learning and attempting to find our way to the best possible code at the same time, but I'll just add that I think I would personally be very open to a future work session or future amendments if we find that this tool is not yet, even after tonight, designed in the way to meet the goals that it has set out. So I'll just say I think that we don't often get reports, but I think on, on specific zoning tools, but I would be very interested in hearing in a year or two how well this tool has worked as we might have amended it today. So thank you.

I will just add that I also intend to support the motion and second the thanking AWU for being here and all your work on that. Even though I support the amendment of removing some of the AWU requirements, I only because Title 21 has enough stuff in it already, and I think everybody knows they should follow AWU's rules. Um, I do wish that the ordinance went a little further. I think unit lots could be a really powerful tool for housing affordability, but similar to what happened with ADUs Sometimes it takes a few steps to get to where you need to be.

Anybody else wishing to speak before I call for the vote?

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

That motion passes.

Next item of business, committee reports.

Commissioner Rahn, do you have an AMATS Community Advisory Committee report to provide? Thank you, Chair. Just briefly, there was an AMATS Citizens Advisory Committee, CAC, meeting on Thursday the 28th. While I didn't attend that meeting, I did listen to it after, and I'm happy to report out on my learnings.

CAC took up a few administrative items, updating of bylaws.

Two letters to the AMATS Policy Committee were put forward, which the CAC approved both of. The first letter was regarding a request of consideration to all available safety measures in project design, project road design. Again, that's a letter that went to the AMATS Policy Committee, which kind of sits at the top of the hierarchy of the CAC committees. You've got policy, you've got technical, and then you've got citizens advisory. So citizens advisory reports up through the policy committee.

Citizens advisory saw some items developing in recent projects where they felt like the designers were focusing in on one or maybe just two available safety mitigation measures, and CAC said, hey, let's look at all available measures. And so that's what that letter is about. The second was requesting that the Policy Committee reconsider their recent vote to include the Safer Seward Highway project in the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. So if commissioners are familiar with that project, it was on the MTP and then it was voted off the MTP and it was recently voted back onto the MTP. So again, that letter acknowledges the work that the CAC did in reviewing project documents, providing comments, and requesting again that the Policy Committee reconsider their, their vote there.

A little bit of learnings around where that project currently sits were shared. The funding of the project is currently coming from state funds that have been allocated to the project, and elements of it in the MPO are not available for reimbursement from the federal government. So it sounds like some work is continuing on the project. Um, but that's, that's what was discussed there. The last item that was discussed is that AMATS is undergoing a regular effort to redraw its boundaries for the MPO, for the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the MPO boundaries for AMATS.

It's a required element of an MPO after every census, and so there's been some ongoing interaction with DOT, who is not agreeable to the current new boundaries as AMATS is proposing them. Stay tuned for more. Apparently there's a 0.8-mile extension to the south along the Seward Highway in question, as well as some other areas along DOT roads relative to parks in, in the MPO. So the back and forth continues. Can you just— do you know roughly the AMATS boundaries?

Can you just like generally give us an idea? I could bring a map next week. That might be helpful.

No, seriously, Chair, I, I can't off the top of my head. Yeah, I was just curious if it's like the bowl or the— so it's kind of like similar to the— no, it goes into Eagle River. I don't know the date on this map, but this is— it's essentially most almost all of the bowl and a lot of Eagle River does not include Girdwood. And it doesn't extend down to like Bird and Indian. And are we looking at the blues and the reds?

Yeah, the, the blue is like the 2010 area, so it's more or less that. This is just the first Google, but it's more the green actually. Sorry, it's the darker green. Oh, that's right.

Yeah, this one.

Thank you, staff. That's my report. Thank you, Commissioner Raulston. All right, next item, Title 21 discussion. Any discussions from the commission?

Staff, anything to discuss?

We'll keep track and bring back a report. I, you know, the abbreviated rezone, which didn't go to Planning and Zoning, we're at 19 of those abbreviated rezones, so that seems to be a pretty popular, successful tool. I, I just add that my idea, well, the idea I had in my head was a, with a duplex and an ADU and 3 individual owners, 3 mortgages. It would make, you know, like a little miniature community that it would just be an affordable housing type that we don't currently have to offer. So that was my idea there.

Commissioner Babb— I mean, Director Babb. Thank you, Chair. Um, I just wanted to make you and the public aware of a problem that we've encountered at the planning department having to do with a scam, a phishing scam related to our data that we publish on CityView. There is a group out there that is using AI to mine the information that we publish on CityView for, you know, contact information, case information, so on and so forth, and they are sending applicants' emails with requests for funds to pay, quote, fees for their application. And those emails come from me, and they look very legitimate.

The invoices that they include look legitimate. People have actually fallen victim to this and lost thousands of dollars. So I'm trying to make everyone aware that this is going on, and if you get an email from me asking for money, please do not wire me any money, or the department, or any of the other, um, you know, staff or boards. Um, I'm sorry, Chair, to tell you that your name is included in some of these. Um, so just be on the lookout, um, because they are using CityView.

This is starting to impact our alcohol and marijuana license applicants as well. And then when you go to report the activity to the federal website where you're supposed to report this, this type of activity, they are also subject to something similar. The first thing on their website is a scam alert for something very similar to what I'm talking about. So if you have any questions or you know anyone who's applying and has encountered a really large fee that they weren't expecting, please give us a call directly and we can help sort things out. And if you do encounter that, if you would be willing to forward us the information, whatever invoices or emails you receive so that we can forward that to our IT department who is working with law enforcement to try to figure out who these people are and, um, hopefully shut them down.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rahn. Thank you. Question for staff: do we have another copy in our next week packet of, um, Girdwood Parks and Rec Department, or should we take home and bring back?

We should probably look inside.

Trying to decide if I should recycle the old one here or bring it home and recycle it there.

Is this is the packet for the— sorry, the Parks Master Plan for Girdwood? Is that—. Yeah, 2026-0078, which was postponed tonight, is the Girdwood Parks and Rec case. I'm wondering if some of the thickness of this packet for next week includes the staff packet for that case or not. I think it's actually that thick and you got to keep it.

Thank you for solving that mystery.

Yeah.

Hey, any, any other commissioner comments? Or Title 21 discussion?

Hearing, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Commissioner Eber, seconded by Commissioner Baza. Any discussion? Any opposition? We are adjourned.