Planning and Zoning Commission - September 15, 2025 - 2025-09-15 18:30:00

Okay, now I got this. All right, this is the, uh, September 15th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. We'll get started here. Can we have the roll? Jerick Gardner.

Here. Radhika Krishna. Here. Jim Winchester. Here.

Scott Polis. Here. Greg Stryke. Here. Andres Spinelli is excused.

Brandy Eber. You have a quorum. Thank you. For the record, Commissioner Aran is here as well.

It's okay.

Okay, little hiccups here at the beginning. We got through that. Uh, moving on, I guess next item on the agenda, we've got no minutes to go through, so I'll just open it up if any commissioners has any disclosures.

Okay, seeing none, hearing none from the line, we'll proceed to, uh, our public hearing. Before we begin, I'll read the public hearing process. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Commission at its meetings is After the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission Rules of Procedure. Representatives of groups, community council, PTAs, etc., will receive 5 minutes.

Individuals 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. Um, first case is 2025-0095.

Can we have presentation from staff?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Megan Rolfing. I'm with the Current Planning Division of the Planning Department, and I'm here to present the staff report on the proposed text amendment to Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 7, Section 0.080(f)(1). .4 Titled Installation of Landscaping.

In October of 2024, the updates to the Municipality of Anchorage's Standard Specifications, otherwise known as MAS, came into effect. This text change will reflect the updates in MAS. The first goal of this amendment ordinance is to update the timeline of the second inspection to reflect the updated MAS standard from 2 years to 1 year. The second goal of this amendment retasks municipal code enforcement officers with the completion of the second inspection. And finally, the third goal of the amendment ordinance provides examples of what accessory or supplemental support structures cannot remain in place during the time of, of second inspection and after.

The Planning Department finds all three criteria to meet, uh, amend the code are met. This amendment promotes general welfare is consistent with the stated title purpose of this title and is necessary given the updates to changing conditions. State and municipal employees provided comments with no objections. As of the time of the staff report's writing, no public comments were received. I'm happy to answer any questions the Commission may have, elaborate further on the staff report as needed.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from Commissioners?

Okay, I guess, I guess I just had a question just to confirm my understanding that the change from the 2 years for the warranty guarantee to 1 year, that was part of— needed to align with the Standards and Specifications with MAS? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's correct. The 2024 update reduced the period between the initial inspection and then the second inspection when applicants can ask to receive their warranty back.

So they reduced it from 2 years to 1. Thank you.

Seeing no other questions in the queue, we'll go ahead and open for the public. Open the public hearing, and I will ask if there's anyone in the public wishing to testify. Seeing nobody here or coming forward, um, I guess I'll give staff an opportunity for any further comments or rebuttal before we close the public hearing. Okay, nothing further there. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

I have—. Oh, sorry. No, go ahead and close it. I have a question afterwards. Okay, I'll close— I'll still close the public hearing and then go ahead if that's Commissioner Stryker.

Thank you. Uh, question for the staff. Um, I'm trying to ascertain what problem we're trying to solve. I know that we were moving the inspection period from a 2-year down to a 1-year period, but having gone through this process in my own with my own work. The question I have is a lot of the— or a comment I have is a lot of the work that we do for the landscaping and so forth usually takes place in the latter part of the summer, early fall.

We put the barricades up for the moose so the moose don't come in there and get the fingerlings or whatever for the trees or the apple trees or whatever is being planted. They strip it bare that winter. We get through that winter. We come up to the next summer.

I'm telling you that the cages and stuff that you need around a lot of this moose— I call it moose food— is really needed much beyond 1 year. Yet, in order to pass the warranty period, all of that apparatus has to be taken down for that 1-year inspection. Does that preclude the owner putting it back up?

I mean, I've seen moose cages go up around tree stuff for the first 2 or 3 years of that growth of vegetation before it takes hold and takes root and gets enough that it can survive the moose attacks that happen in the wintertime.

Thank you for your question. As a certified arborist myself, I certainly understand the importance of early twig, uh, like survivability and keeping the leaves and branches on for a robust second growing season. The issue that individuals in Project Management Engineering noted is that because the 2-year period was ongoing, the cages weren't being maintained. And so there was the issue of the plant material growing into the moose cages and then making it difficult for that to be removed in a manner that didn't also damage the trees. So I think the intent here is certainly to answer your question, it would not prohibit the owner from putting up a moose cage again.

However, in order to receive the warrant, the bond or whatever financial instrument the applicant put forward, the inspectors need to witness the removal of these accessory support structures to ensure that as the tree grows and these initial periods after its planting, there are no conflicts that would require more rigorous maintenance needs like pruning so shortly after being installed. So to answer your original question, no, certainly an owner could put up the moose protection fencing after the second inspection is complete to get the warranty period. It would just need to— it's just required to be removed based based on what folks are seeing happen over the 2-year period and tree branches essentially growing into them. Thank you. [Speaker:JIM] So, to carry that question further, so as a landowner, I follow through with this, I remove the apparatus, I come through after the 1-year period, you've inspected it, you check it off, and the following year, the moose come in, and I do nothing else past that point, the moose come in or the— what else happens?

I've seen moose come in. I've seen road graders come in and destroy certain vegetation and take down because they pile up snow or whatever just beyond the right-of-way. And the plant life dies. But because I passed my warranty period, I'm done. There's no further inspection, but I fulfill my role and responsibility.

And have no further obligation to replant or to revegetate?

Thank you for your question. So the trees that we're talking about today, or any plant material, are being installed on private property, not within the municipality's right-of-way.

If the material does not survive past the warranty period and the bond was already returned, there is no requirement, there is no means of enforcement that would make municipal code enforcement officers return to the site other than if an individual noticed a degradation of, like, a landscape buffer, and then it could be a conversation at that time. But after the warranty period has ended and that, that financial instrument is returned, um, the municipality does not have an additional means of requiring replacement of plant material. Thank you. Okay. And an additional question.

I see that the part of the enforcement ability, the bond, the ability to put up a monetary bond, or— I'm going through my notes here.

There's different security that can be put in place. Has the municipality to date that you are aware of required a developer to put close to bond along this line?

To— uh, thank you for your question. To my knowledge, yes. Um, I personally haven't, uh, been a part of that process over in the planning department, um, but to my understanding, that is the case. Okay, thank you. Through, through the chair, Mr. Strike, Private development's the one who carries that bond.

It's not through planning. It is through development services, but it's the private development side of the, of the house, just like they do for roads, storm drain. AWU does it for water and sewer main line extensions. They have warranty bonds once the project's been completed and done final inspection.

Okay, I know that this commission has has previously required a bond on certain types of development follow-through, and there wasn't a procedure to follow up with that within the planning committee— planning office. So I'm just wondering which, which area of the planning office was responsible for that. But I see that there's a separation here, so thank you.

Did the audio drop off? No, no, no, you're— we're still here.

Okay. I guess just as a follow-up to Commissioner Stryk's question, it's just, you know, I'm not familiar with— I'm not an arborist or familiar with the landscaping kind of process, but I took from the kind of context of the question and some of your responses that it sounded like kind of the The 1 year is because the temporary systems, um, I guess when it's first installed, it's not really sized for something that might make sense over a 2-year period, but, uh, but maybe not that temporary systems might not still be valued or have a benefit over, over a 2-year period to ensure the success of whatever material is planted there. Is that a fair summary? Thank you. Um, yes, I would say so, depending on the accessory structure.

For example, tree stakes are something that's commonly used in the industry. However, most certified arborists would tell you that the staking of trees might be redundant to the tree's overall development. As the, as the trunk develops a nice taper, that happens as the wind moves the tree and the tree starts to generate response growth. So there are some things that while they might, to the general public, seem like an asset to the tree, they might hinder it. I would say the moose cages are one of those things that absolutely provide a protective buffer.

Um, they're the perfect height for a moose to just wander up and start having a snack. Um, but they do end up causing long-term inhibitions to the plant material. And then some things are just industry standards that As we continue to grow and develop, hopefully we move away from having those things over time. So, but I think your assessment is fair to say. Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Uh, I don't see any other questions in the queue from the Commission, so I think, um, what's the, what's the will of the body?

Commissioner Winchester. I move in Case 2025-0095 to recommend to the assembly approval of an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 21.07.080F4, Installation of Landscaping, to permit a second inspection by municipal code enforcement officers of required landscaping 1 year after installation. Thank you, Commissioner Winchester. Your motion is seconded by Commissioner Polis. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, uh, welcome, uh, to the team, Ms. Rolfeing, and thank you for, uh, providing insight as an arborist, uh, in addition to, uh, the planning duties that you're doing. Um, I think this kind of makes everything more efficient and provides clarity and consistency to both the landscaping community that works on these projects and the enforcement officers. I think it's a needed, a necessary, or a welcome improvement to Title 21, and I look forward to supporting it.

Commissioner Polis. Yeah, I'll just add, um, The amendment meets the text amendment approval criteria as noted in the memorandum. There was no agency or public opposition, um, and as Commissioner Winchester noted, this promotes the general welfare of required landscaping in the municipality.

Okay, seeing nothing else pending, we'll go ahead and call the vote.

Mr. Strike, how do you vote? Yes. Miss Krishna?

Yes. Thank you.

Okay, that motion passes, uh, 6 votes in favor, none opposed. Um, let's see what else we've got. I think any commissioner comments?

Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and I guess just look for a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Commissioner Winchester, seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Any objection? Seeing none, that passes. We are adjourned.

Thank you. Thank you, guys.