Planning and Zoning Commission - March 2, 2026 - 2026-03-02 18:30:00

All right, we will call the, uh, March 2nd meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May we please have the roll call? As soon as I find it. Where am I? Andre Spinelli.

Here. Jared Gardner. Here. Radhika Krishna. Here.

Scott Polis. Here. Jeff Rahn. Here. Brandy Eber.

Here. Alma Avasa. Here. You have a quorum. Thank you.

May we have a motion to approve the minutes?

Moved by Commissioner Krishna, seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Any discussion on the minutes?

Any objection? Hearing none, minutes are approved.

Next item of business, disclosures. Are there any commissioners with any items to to disclose.

Commissioner Eber, I see that you pushed your button. Would you like to speak?

Yes, I was absent from the February 2nd meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-008 through 2026-011. Thank you. Commissioner Abaza. I was absent from the February 9th meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-018 through 2026-015. Thank you.

And Commissioner Polis, I see that you also have pushed your button to speak. Sigh. Yeah, in case 2026-0019, um, I have to admit that I am personal friends with the applicant, um, to the extent our kids went to preschool together, played soccer, did birthday parties. Um, I have known nothing about this case until 4 o'clock when I reviewed the packet yesterday, but I am personal friends with them. I want to disclose that.

Do you believe you can remain impartial? Definitely. And have no monetary gain of any sort whatsoever?

I'm inclined to see that there is no conflict. Uh, thank you for the disclosure. If anyone else in the commission wishes to speak on this matter, please do so.

Commissioner Krishna. Just, just to move things along, I think that if Commissioner Polis believes that he can remain impartial and has no personal, financial, or other interest in this case, I would direct him to participate in the case mentioned.

Okay, a motion to participate was made. Is there a second?

Second.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Hearing and seeing none, any objection?

Motion passes.

Any other disclosures before we move on? Seeing none.

Uh, may we have a motion to reorder the agenda to hear the annual election of officers after the public hearings?

Moved by Commissioner Eber, seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Any discussion on that motion?

Hearing and seeing none, any objection? That motion passes.

Next, may we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Moved by Commissioner Pulis, seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Is there anyone wishing to pull any items for discussion?

Hearing and seeing none, the consent agenda is approved.

For the record and members of the public, Case 2026-0033 has been withdrawn due to conditional use review, with a public hearing no longer being requirement, with the rezoning of the property from R4-SL to R4, as noted in Assembly Ordinance 2026-17.

On to the public hearings. I will read the process by which the public may speak to the Commission.

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

Excuse me. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the Commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 2103.050(a)(4)(a). Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with 2103.050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality.

If the appellant is not the applicant, the The appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

All right, um, may we please have the staff presentation on case 2026-0019?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The property owner is seeking approval of a conditional use for a new large Domestic animal facility structure to exceed the maximum allowable square footage. The subject parcel is located at the end of Ptarmigan Terrace Avenue. The two parcels already have a single-family home, a barn with stables, outdoor pens, a wooden corral, a shop building, a greenhouse, and several other small outbuildings.

The applicant has submitted an abbreviated platting action, Case S12796, to remove the interior lot line to allow the construction of this arena. They could not construct the arena without removing the lot line because accessory uses are not allowed on a vacant lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 10,080-square-foot indoor riding arena on the property. The purpose of this building is to create a safe, weather-protected space for riding and training horses. The applicant has stated that the arena is for personal use only and that they will not be using the arena for commercial purposes.

AMC 2105070(d)(13)(b)(IV): The square footage of any single large domestic animal facility structure shall not exceed 10% of the lot size, up to a maximum of 8,000 square feet. AMC 2105070(d)(13)(c): Large domestic animal facilities that exceed the use-specific standards listed above for site area, structure size, or number of animals may be allowed by conditional use pursuant to Subsections 21-03-080. Since the applicant is proposing an arena less than 10% of the lot size but larger than 8,000 square feet, a conditional use permit is required. The applicant held a pre-application conference with the reviewing agencies on August 11, 2025, per AMC 21-03-080(c)(2). The applicant attended the Rabbit Creek Community Council meeting on October 25, 2025.

Per AMC 2103-080(c)(3). The Rabbit Creek Community Council provided a letter in favor of the conditional use with questions about what would happen in the future if this property were sold and used in a more commercial manner, such as riding lessons for the public use, etc., creating additional traffic. This can be found on pages 46 and 47 of your staff report. The Planning Department mailed 96 public hearing notices on February 5th, 2026, As of this writing, the Planning Department has received one public comment found on page 53 of the staff report. Municipal reviewing agencies had no objection to the conditional use for a large domestic animal facility structure to exceed the maximum allowable square footage.

That's Attachment 3, comments starting on page 52 of the staff report. Include all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format. The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a conditional use application if, in the judgment of the commission, all 9 criteria have been met. In all material matters. Planning staff has found that all 9 approval criteria for conditional use have been met with conditions of approval, and all 3 use-specific standards have been met with conditions of approval found on page 9 of your staff report.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of this conditional use for a large domestic animal facility structure to exceed the maximum allowable square footage, subject to conditions 1 through 4 found on page 9 of the staff report. I can answer any questions that the Commission may have, and the petitioner's representative is in attendance.

Any questions for staff?

Commissioner Maran.

Thank you, through the chair, staff. Thank you for that presentation. I've—. My questions are around the allowance of this conditional use with respect to commercial and non-commercial activity. Um, there seem to be some inconsistencies in the packet in terms of family use only versus family and friends.

And then there's discussion of commercial as well. So can you help me and the Commission understand what the granting of this conditional use is specific to? Is it the size of the building, or is it the commercial versus non-commercial nature? And a corollary to that question is, if the applicant or a future owner would want to engage in commercial activity, would this conditional use in and of itself allow that, or would additional approvals be necessary? Thanks.

Through the Chair, Commissioner Rahn, this approval is specific to the size because 8,000 square feet is the allowable size unless they acquire a conditional use. So at this particular point in time, it's just for the additional 2,080 square feet that they're requesting for the arena size. Secondly, as on the commercial instance, no, they would not have to come back before the Commission or any other body because commercial Depending on what kind of commercial use they're— okay, there's a caveat there. Depending on what kind of commercial use they're talking about, if they were going to do riding lessons, that's an allowed commercial use for an arena for a large domestic animal facility in the R-6 zoning district. You, you've probably heard of other applications that were selling extra feed or, or selling extra stuff.

That is not— now, if they did that, that's something completely different, but they could offer riding lessons. There is a existing facility just to the west of this on this same street. I don't know if you know which one it is. I can't, I can't remember which— something bar. Anyways, they've, they've had some issues with the surrounding area with access, and I don't want to say it's trespassing because there's, there's access and stuff like that.

And so yes, that is a concern with the neighbors, with the community. That's why As you can see in the Rabbit Creek Community Council's comments, they were fine with it. But what happens when they sell it, if they sell it? Who's going to take over it? You've got a 10,080-square-foot arena.

Granted, it only has 2 stalls in it. That's all that's designed into it. I don't know if you saw the floor plans, but yeah, what, what happens to it when it changes hands? That's always a good question.

Commissioner Krishna. I just have a few clarifying questions. So just to sum up the pre— previous question, if any future owner, um, was interested in some sort of commercial activity, they would need to seek, uh, an additional conditional use permit? Through the chair, Commissioner Krishna, it depends on what kind of commercial use you're talking about. If it's just like riding lessons, no, they That's an allowed, that's an allowed use.

Now, if they increase their numbers of horses to larger than 4, 3 or 4, they then have to start going through additional criteria with the health department, with registering their, registering the size of their facility to basically meet standards for, you know, proper sanitation, proper control of the animals, noises, all those types of things. And that's not through, that's not through you, That would be through the Health Department. I think— help me understand how recommended condition of approval number 1, which says that this approval is subject to the petitioner's application narrative and the following plans on file, would relate to that answer. I guess in the past I've taken it to mean that the specific—. It limits them.

Okay. To what— that's what you're trying to—. If we—. If you prove that only 2 horses can be at this facility and it's not used as a commercial site, that that's limiting them to the conditional use as of now, and that's not what they're coming for. So it's an allowed use.

More— you can have more than 4 animals. You can have, depending on— it's, it's like 5 acres. They could have even, I think, up to 10 or some crazy number without any kind of conditional use requirement. This is just for the structure. Okay.

So that draft condition of approval would not limit the applicant to noncommercial uses? Correct. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

And then just one more clarifying question, if I may. In the packet and in staff's presentation, staff had mentioned that there was one comment returned from the public mailing, and I see a few more comments on pages— 48 and 49, um, could you just clarify, uh, the public comments? Those were included in the application. Okay, thank you. Yes, so those were, um, those were provided by the applicant.

Okay, kind of like letters of like— well, in the zoning, in a variance case, you might get letters from your neighbors to say, hey, we don't, we don't object to this variance or this encroachment. Okay, thank you.

Uh, seeing no more questions for staff, we will ask for the petitioner's presentation.

Hi, my name's Ron Thompson. I'm with Scope Permitting and Engineering. Thompson is my last name. The only issue I had with this is all the definitions, all the codes that he mentioned were for large domestic animal facility. The definition of large domestic animal facility is for 4 or more.

We never have asked for 4 or more. We've always asked for less than that. They still made us do a conditional use. I didn't feel like it was necessary. I voiced my concern that we're— how do I write up a conditional use for 2 horses when it doesn't meet the definition of large animal facility?

Um, it, it is what it is. I did the best job I could to meet that. So if this is approved, it will be for a large animal facility, even though we didn't ask for it to be for 4 or more. We asked for it to be 2 or less. That doesn't meet the definition.

But in the end, um, we did what we had to do, as, as my argument for not meeting the definition, which is where the code says what a conditional use is for, um, was still overridden. Therefore, um, this owner had to pay a large sum of money to get this conditional use. It's a large sum of money, over $7,000, to get something that we didn't think that was absolutely necessary, and it also was told to us previously that we could build it without a conditional use, filed for the building permit, and then it was turned in at that point in time after we filed, after we had the pre-meetings, that they then needed the conditional use. So it delayed the purchase, it delayed the, the building of this almost 9 months now. And so I appreciate the staff recommending approval.

I think that's what should be done. I think in the end it now will approve it for 4 or more, whether we were going for 2 or, or fewer. But in the end, I just wanted to make sure you were aware why it was really tough to kind of write a conditional use for something that I didn't think met the definition for what it was we were doing. And so I wondered You know, part of it was trying to point that out, see if that was a discussion amongst yourselves, because I think that if there's agreement there, I think this owner should be given the opportunity to work through the assembly for a refund on a, on a conditional use that may not have really been needed. But in the end, we appreciate the approval, working with Paul and the recommendation of approval, because we think that this is for her use, her kids' use, for a specific style of riding, that her kids have been injured for having too small of an arena.

And this was to help make it larger, to make it safer for her family and her children. So, um, there is no intent to be a commercial. There is no intent of other animals, never has been. And so anyway, that's where we are. I'll reserve the rest of my time if there's any questions after.

Thank you. You have 6 minutes and 49 seconds.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Um, seeing none, we will move on to the public hearing.

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

State your name for the record and let us know if you're testifying on behalf of yourself or a group. My name is Tony Reetz. I'm testifying on behalf of myself. Can you please spell your last name? R-E-E-T-Z.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

So, uh, I am the next door neighbor. My wife and I own 3 2.5-acre pieces and a little strip of land that connects to Rabbit Creek Road. Uh, Ptarmigan Terrace goes along one part of our property and it goes up to the neighbors. It is a dangerous narrow road Um, they have to maintain it themselves. The— their north piece of property, I don't see how they could sell it as a residence because you'd have to drive through the front yard of their place.

So I was wondering, is this a move to change this from 2.5 acres to 5 acres and disregard the property line? That's one of my questions. It's not— doesn't have to be answered right now, but I'm just saying that nobody could really build on that middle piece. There's no access to it. I have the same proper problem with my property.

I've got 3 pieces of land with no city street that goes through them. So for me to sell a piece, I'm going to have to, you know, have people drive through my yard anyway. Uh, So, uh, Ptarmigan Terrace cannot handle any kind of, of increased traffic up that hill. Now, the people down the road, they have the Rockin' R Ranch, okay? They've got an 8,000-square-foot facility, and they put it right in front of this guy's house, and it is ugly.

It's really ugly.

The 10,000-square-foot facility is huge. I've been in that 8,000 You can— they've got a lot of horses they're boarding down there, and they do riding lessons too. They ride right through my property. I found one of their checks on my land. So that's a different story.

But 10,000 square feet, that is huge. How tall is this going to be? Is it going to be one of those vinyl-covered things, you know, that's going to block out the sun? So my middle piece of property is gonna be degraded just by the fact there's a gigantic structure there. Is it gonna require to— need to be blown up with air?

Am I gonna have to listen to fans? Is it gonna have sewage? Is it gonna have a septic system? And yes, people are gonna come up there. They are gonna come up there.

So, I have other concerns. Where's the runoff gonna go? That used to go straight into the ground. Now, the previous owners cleared that whole lot while I wasn't there, but anyway, where's that runoff going? It's going to go right down on my land, which is what happens already with their current barn and their corral.

Now, they keep it in good shape. I'm not— you know, we did have one issue with stuff being dumped on my property line, but when they're gone, I'll still be here. And somebody else is going to buy that place and turn it into a commercial outfit. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I see no questions. Anybody else from the public wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

Nobody's wishing to testify, then we'll call the petitioner back up for rebuttal.

Hi again, it's Ron Thompson. I'd just like to say that we are doing a platting action. I think it was mentioned in the report to combine the 2 lots into 5 acres, so it's going from 2.5 to 5 because of exactly what he was talking about. I think you, you can't really build on the back lot unless you do the platting action. That's so part of the permit is contingent upon that platting action that's happening.

So we can't get the building permit until the platting action finals, and that I believe has been filed or being filed this past— this month. So, um, other than that, this owner and all of the issues with regard to drainage is done during the building permit process. We have to keep all drainage that's created and these type of structures on property, as in every other development and every other building that we do in a building permit process. So that's all I would say, is we would continue to do the things that are supposed to be right and done and correctly done, and the inspectors will inspect that. So we appreciate your involvement, and hopefully we can get this approved so this owner can get this built this summer.

Um, was, was there any previous permitting done on the property? We heard comments about stormwater runoff, inappropriate stormwater runoff. I guess part of a new permitting process might be this— the drainage might be improved given it'll have to meet current standards. Was there anything done on the property before that required a permit and a drainage plan? Not that I know of, not part of this owner's project.

We've submitted everything for— with regard to this size structure, the setbacks, everything's been approved except the conditional use that initially was said we didn't need, and then during the permit process was revised and said we do need it. So, um, that delayed everything from having a permit last summer And we have been working on this conditional use since that period of time. And then I heard a question about the building type and— type and size, height. Can you comment on the height and whether it's a dome that requires a fan? It does not require a fan.

It's a metal building, so it's not— it's not going to be see-through and not going to be glass like a like a, um, greenhouse, but it's a metal building with a steel structure and metal siding, metal roof, as far as I know, like almost every other barn arena type that you see throughout the hillside. All right, uh, Commissioner Rahn, are you good?

Thank you. Those were the questions I had. Any other questions for the petitioner?

You have 4 minutes and 57 seconds left. Do you have anything to add? Oh, Commissioner Pullis. I'll just note that I read someone here, it said the building was 16 feet tall. I'm pretty, pretty sure I read that.

Uh, Mr. Hatcher. I believe it's 16 feet at the eave. It might be 18 to 20 at the ridgeline.

All righty, I believe that's everything.

Um, if there's no more questions for the petitioner, we will close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Uh, Commissioner Gardner. Thanks. Um, just a question for staff. I'm curious for the, the concern about, you know, whether this is a large domestic animal facility and if the conditional use permit was required. If you could just speak briefly to the the thinking on that.

Through the Chair, Commissioner Garner, thanks. So if you turn to page 31, you'll see the proposed arena in the— I guess it'd be the northwest corner. There's also an existing barn, and the new arena will have 2 stalls, but the existing barn has it, as far as we can understand, has at least 2 stalls if not more. So in theory, you could have 4 animals or more at this facility, even though the new structure only has 2 stalls for 2 animals. And so the thought was, yes, you're only having 2 animals at this facility, but you could have more.

You have room and you have space for more than that, because there is no plan, as far as I know—. And the petitioner can correct me if I'm wrong—. To tear down that barn and that corral area in the west side, west of the house. Does that help? [Speaker:COMMISSIONER STEINGASSER] Yes, thanks.

And then I guess does that suggest then, maybe explains why some of the analysis and discussion was done with respect to both of those structures, I think? So like on page 7, talking about the percentage of the lot that's taken up, it's referring to the existing and proposed structures. So that's referring to the the barn plus the arena? That is correct. And that, and that's also one of the conditions of approval for measurements to the well.

So this new structure is going to be considerably far enough, will be far enough away from the well, but we don't know how in proximity the existing corral and the existing storage of manure would be in proximity to the domestic well because that was not provided. But that's one of the conditions of approval. Thank you. You're welcome.

Commissioner Krishna. Yeah, I have more questions along that line.

Um, so leaving aside the number of animals, because I understand having fewer than 4 large domestic animals— I'm assuming horses— is allowable as a personal or accessory use and requires no further permitting or interaction with the municipality. Is that correct? Through the chair, Commissioner Krishna, I'm going to read to you the amount of horses or large domestic animals they can have.

So 4 is what triggers a large domestic animal facility. You have to have—. I'm sorry, you have to have at least 40,000 now Trying to find it. I'm sorry. The minimum lot size for a large domestic animal facility of 4 animals is 40,000 square feet.

So just under an acre. An additional 10,000 square feet is required for each animal over 4. So that's permitted by right. You don't have to— so if they were— so this is 5 acres. That's 98— was that 98,000?

96,000? 97,000, Right? Give or take. 198. 143,560 Times 2.

Well, but they're—. But they're—. Sorry, it's smaller than that because they're eliminating right away because of the plat. The plat's eliminating some of their, their lot size. But anyways, they could have— sorry, thanks, Commissioner Spinelli.

Um, so they could have 4 at $40,000, and then if it was $100,000, they could have 6 more animals with By right. So the, the reason we're here is because the size of the structure exceeds 8,000 square feet. Correct. And it's allowable to increase that size by conditional use only. If they wanted to go to 11 animals, they would have to come back before you for a conditional use for over the amount.

If it was 100,000 square feet lot, the two lots together, if they wanted more than what was allowed by right, that's another thing they could come back before you for a conditional use, right? So I don't see, um, I don't quite understand how the number of stalls has bearing. So, so the applicant basically says that the new arena only has 2 stalls, there's only going to be 2 horses. That doesn't fall under the large domestic. You have to hit 4.

If it's less than 4, it's not cons— it's not it doesn't trigger a large domestic animal facility. That's what they're trying to say. That's what they're trying to point out. That's why they were saying they didn't think it was necessary. But because they have an existing barn with a minimum of 2 stalls and a new barn, new arena with 2 stalls, that gives you 4 spots.

You could have 4 animals and would trigger a large domestic animal facility. But regardless of the number of stalls, we're here because of the size of the structure, correct? [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Um, but I think my question, and going back to the petitioner's, um, explanation, is in providing a conditional use specifically for a large domestic animal facility, we are now then also, um, allowing a a number of other things such as commercial use. That's a, that's a by-right allowed. Commercial use is also a by-right allowance.

Riding lessons, things like that, is a, is a by-right allowed use. So that could be happening anyway? Correct. Okay, so really we're just here for the size of the structure? Correct.

So if they, if they'd come in with a permit for an 8,000-square-foot arena, we wouldn't even be here. Okay, but they could now with this conditional use have more than 4 animals. They could have had more than 4 animals, period. Okay. Prior to this.

All right, so this is entirely about the size of the structure? Completely about the size of the structure. You're welcome. We got there.

Um, Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state your motion?

Thank you, Chair. I move in Case 2026-0019 to approve a conditional use for a large domestic animal facility structure to exceed the maximum allowable square footage, subject to Conditions 1 through 4, as shown on page 9 of the staff report.

Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Abaza. Commissioner Rahn, would you like to speak to your motion?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I agree with staff's suggested findings, reading them for the record. Um, conditional use criteria 1 through 9 are met. Um, large domestic animal facility use specific standards are met or met with conditions of approval.

Uh, the Planning Department did not receive any comments from reviewing agencies objecting to the conditional use. Uh, the department also states that they did not receive any comments from the public objecting to the conditional use, noting that Rogers Park Uh, excuse me, um, Robert Creek Community Council had no objection to the conditional use for the narrative and intended use as stated, and we heard today. And there was another member of the public with written testimony that had questions but not directly stated objection. We did hear an additional member of the public testifying before us tonight that also had questions that were answered by staff and/or the petitioner. Um, I Intend to support the motion.

I'm glad that as commission, we seem to have gotten to the answer of why we're here tonight, and that is just the size of the building. If it were an 8,000-square-foot facility, as we heard tonight, there would be some by-right commercial uses allowed. So that's no longer a hangup for me and my intention to support this, uh, support this motion. That's all for now.

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

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

That motion passes.

Next, we'll move on to Case 2026-0020.

May we please have the staff presentation?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. This is a rezoning request initiated by the property owner to amend the zoning map for approximately 0.97 acres of land from R-2M mixed residential to I-1 light Light Industrial Commercial. The Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to the Assembly on this rezone request through resolution. The Assembly is the decision-making body for rezoning.

The Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan classifies this tract with a land use designation of Light Industrial Commercial. The subject property is currently zoned R2M, which not an implementation district for the light industrial land use classification. The proposed amendment from R2M to I-1 for the subject property would bring this parcel into compliance with the Anchorage 2040 land use plan. It specifically supports Goal 9 of the plan, which seeks to maintain a predictable and strategically located industrial land supply by preventing the displacement of the industrial sector by non-comparable use. The site currently operates as an auto body shop.

This rezone brings a long existing land use into legal conformity with both the current operation— operational reality and the comprehensive plan. Future development under the I-1 District will continue to comply with all applicable standards in AMC, Anchorage Municipal Code, Title 21 and 23. Attachment 3 includes all comments received by the Planning Department in the original format. The Planning Department finds that all 3 approval criteria for this abbreviated rezoning are met. No objection were received from the public or the local community councils, and all reviewing agencies have indicated no objection.

AWWU provide an advisory comment stating that the parcel is not currently served by public water or sewer. While sewer availability requires further research, a water main extension across Diamond Boulevard will be necessary for service. The department finds the proposed rezoning meets all three approval criteria. Under AMC 21-03-160i. The department recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this proposed rezone from R-2M Mixed Residential District to IU-1 Light Industrial Commercial District to the assembly for adoption by ordinance.

I can answer any question for the commission may have, and the petitioner's representative Is in attendance. Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Hearing, seeing none, we'll ask for the petitioner's presentation.

Hi. Again, my name is Ron Thompson, T-H-O-M-P-S-O-N, with Scope Permitting and Engineering. I worked with the new buyer that bought this parcel. It was going through a lot of tough times trying to be sold, and it's all because they had always been in that area commercial buildings, but they had nonconformings for specific uses, and all of the uses that people wanted to buy were not buy right and did not follow the conditions of nonconforming determination. So with that, we worked with staff And they were very informative about how the, you know, the 2040 plan shows this as an industrial area.

And I did go knock on the doors of a few of those over there hoping that they would jump in and we'd get the whole area done, but nobody really wanted to jump in and participate. This owner did, and the new process that this was submitted under was a new one that's been adopted by the, the muni about if it meets the buy right or meets the 2040 underlying zoning, that we can do an abbreviated process to get the rezone. So I don't know if many people have used it before, but I think that in this case the muni was super helpful throughout the whole process and made this happen quicker. That their help in the meeting that we had with them allowed the new buyer to be, um, not as weary. So he actually went ahead and bought the process— bought the property, um, and we're hoping that this gets approved and therefore he can use the use that he wants to use that's— that is by right in the industrial one.

It's a fence lot The building has been there for many, many years, and we think that the use as a general contractor office will be much less impactful than an auto body repair yard anyway. So I think it's a good use, a good rezone, and the muni helped out a great deal with moving forward and, and making this owner feel comfortable with going through the process and doing it the right way rather than buying it and kind of undergrounding a use into the, into the area. So I appreciate the process, and I, I know you guys probably approved that before it went and got approved by the assembly. So it's a good new process, and I wanted to make sure that was mentioned.

Thank you. You have 7 minutes and 17 seconds for rebuttal.

See no questions. We'll open this up for the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify on this matter, please step forward.

Uh, hearing and seeing none, ask the petitioner, do you like to use your 7 minutes?

Any questions before I close public hearing?

Seeing none, Close. Public hearing is closed. What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Pullis, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0020 to recommend the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezoning of one parcel of land from R-2M to I-1 districts.

That's seconded by Commissioner Eber. Commissioner Pullis, would you like to state your— or speak to your motion. Yeah, I don't have a lot to say other than, um, I intend to support the motion, and I agree with staff findings and department recommendations. The findings, as noted, were rezoning approval criteria A, B, and C are met per AMC 2103-160(i)(4), and the department did not receive any comments from reviewing agencies or from the public objecting to the rezone.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Hearing and seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next, we'll move on to Case 2025-0138. May we please have the staff presentation. Good evening, Commissioners. This is Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. I'll just give a brief overview.

This is kind of a pretty high-level, big-picture policy case. It started out of some discussions we had with South Central last year where they were looking at trying to update their campus. The land use plan didn't really align with what their vision was, even though they've already got the zoning to do what they need, more or less. And they were looking for a solution. As the more we got into it, the more we realized that there were some issues with the land use plan map.

And then as we had more conversations, we had found more people who were interested. And so that's why this, this project went from, you know, doing about 6 or 7 properties to a number of properties across East Anchorage. And eventually we're probably going to do some on the west side of Anchorage as well. So the main focus of tonight is— if I can switch over to there we go— is changing the future land use map in support of our institutions in Anchorage. The 2040 Land Use Plan directs us to support institutions, so that's really where we focused.

There are a lot of places we could work on the land use plan map, but this was looking at, you know, institutions in the community like University of Alaska Anchorage, Southcentral Foundation, St. Mary's Church, HLB, other properties. And in one case, it was related to our Legacy Rezone Project. So with that, I'll provide a brief overview. So just as a sort of heads up and a reminder, the future land use plan map, which is the 2040 Land Use Plan, is the general idea of how land use will look in the future. It's not zoning, but it's sort of the policy picture of in the future things will look like that.

The case you just heard, that was one where the zoning, or actually the land use designation in 2040 said that area should be industrial. That's why we were able to go through that, 'cause it's R-2M, but when they passed the 2040 Plan, they said this area makes more sense as industrial. And that enabled that rezone. So prior to the 2040 Land Use Plan, we had the 2020 Plan, which was adopted in 2001, and we just had this land use policy map, which just had some kind of big picture conceptual ideas. Um, it said these are going to be some major employment centers, these are going to be some mixed-use areas, these are going to be, um, some corridors we develop, and these are some town centers.

But that was about it. It didn't really have too many specifics. My understanding— there's a bit of history that I'm not totally certain about— is that the expectation then was that all these local district plans or neighborhood plans or area plans would take care of the little specific land use designations. So when people were going through rezoning or other things, they would have to go to these specific plans. A few problems with that: we've never finished doing all of the plans, and then, you know, you finish one plan, then you work on another plan, takes several years, so these fall out of date.

Where things change. You'll see here, this is, I believe, on the top left, the Fairview Neighborhood Plan from 2014 or so. To the right is the West Anchorage District Plan. Lower left is the East Anchorage District Plan, and the right is the Hillside District Plan. Again, it, it's too small to see, but on, on these, each of them have slightly different land use categories, so it makes it a little bit difficult.

So if one— in one area, let's say, you know, the light yellow is low intensity, in another area It's the same yellow, but it's low intensity and medium intensity. This kind of created a problem and a need for the Land Use Plan Map that came out in 2040 to sort of standardize that. Um, you'll see here are 4 examples of similar designations in 4 different plans. So to run a city like this is really, really, really difficult because it would mean that every time you go to a different area, you're basically starting over with a new set of rules, a new set of designations. Um, so out of all that, came the 2040 Land Use Plan, which was adopted in 2017, which is a lot more tightened up and has sort of a fewer number of total designations overall.

And I'm sure you've all seen this. We refer to this quite often when we're looking at rezones. This is sort of like the, the Rosetta Stone of when you look at what the land use designation is and what the zoning districts are to implement it. This is really helpful, and it makes a lot simpler, and it makes it more transparent for the public, right? So if somebody says, okay, I have a town center designation, I know I can get to X, Y, or Z zone, or have single family, two family, I can get to R-1, R-1A, R-2A, and R-2D and attached two family areas, that sort of thing.

So the 2040 Land Use Plan is adopted policy and it's a regulatory map. We've talked to the lawyers on that. So the lines on the map do really matter. Now, unfortunately, within the plan itself, there are a lot of issues and we're finding more and more of these the way we go through. Here's one, for example.

This is in East Anchorage. It's a current mobile home park. So you see there are 3 designations going kind of north-south, but the property lines go east-west. So each one of these properties has 3 designations on it. If we were going through a rezone process, we'd be in a really weird spot because we'd say, well, the pink speckled area can go to, you know, B-1B and B-3 and B-1A.

The brown speckled area can go to R-2M. The yellow speckled area can go to R-2D. Now, you can't split zone lots, so this creates a bit of an issue. So as we've been looking at the 2040 Land Use Plan, we found there are a number of areas like this, sort of Neapolitan ice cream, where the plan doesn't actually provide us very clear guidance. It's not very transparent for the public.

So there are a number of pieces we need to look at. So again, this is a private property. We'd love to look at this later, but the focus of this project was really the sort of nonprofit institutions in general, and that's what you'll see in this case. But more examples of this. This is, um, a lot downtown, and you see again it has 3 designations.

So the way the land use designations look, it's almost as if this should be divided into 3 potential zones. But again, then we run into the problem of split lot zoning, which we don't want to do. It's also almost presupposing a subdivision action, right? Those aren't actually lot lines, the lines at the square. But this puts us into an odd situation.

So this is one of those examples of, um, issues we're dealing with. Here's one in Ship Creek Creek where the green, which is sort of the open space, it covers some of the lots. So say somebody wants to use one of those lots and they want to rezone it, maybe it's I-1, they want to go to I-2, we'd be in a weird spot as the Planning Department because we'd say, well, you know, technically it should be green space or it should be open space, you can't really do that. So here's another one that you probably saw in initial versions of this, uh, of the packet, but we took out because we're doing a little bit more work on it. This is the Elmore area.

Where we have multiple designations and they cover different parts of the lot. So the purple speckle is like a— allows for a town center designation, uh, the green allows for open space, and the blue allows for public facility. Those were written into the plan. They say these are conceptual even though the rest of the map is not conceptual. So these are some of the issues, because if, if somebody was trying to rezone— for example, on the left, that's the Tozier tract, the long skinny one— if somebody was trying to rezone that it would be a really odd position because we'd say, well, the top part can be B-3, this lower part can be PLI, but that other part that's not subdivided could be a park.

And that— we just can't do that without subdivision. So there are some others. I guess I had to sneak this one in. This is not necessarily institutional, but it's one where the land use plan map designated residential density in an area that probably will never have it, mostly because this square here— this is Dowling and Lake Otis about— is actually where there's a radio tower. So it's probably unlikely that anybody will ever be able to build housing there.

So on the map, it seems like a great spot, but in reality, these radio towers are really hard to build. They're probably never going away, and you don't want to build anything within the fall radius of that, you know, except for sort of non-residential uses. And then there are other examples, and this is a little bit hard to see, but in some places, the Landis-Plan map wasn't really doing as much planning as just reflecting what was there. You'll see here there's this kind of enclave of residential kind of in the middle, you know, next to the highway and near some business areas, or this one also on the other side. So there are a lot of pieces to work on.

But this project in particular is looking at 10 sites, a number of properties, and I'll go through them quickly and feel free to stop me or we can discuss any questions at the end. So this is the list of sites in the packet. And again, I apologize, when it first went out, we also had 10 sites. One of them was the ones around Elmore. We, talking with HLB, we decided to take those out.

They're going to do a little bit more work on that to figure out viability studies for that. But at the same time, there is a lot going on with Track J up by the port and getting a subdivision process done there and getting a park done there. And so that worked out very nicely because the Government Hill Community Council was really in favor, the port was really in favor, They wanted to apply for a rezone, and so we thought, well, we can do this land use plan designation or go through this process, and then you can do the rezone later. So to start out, this is a CIHA property on DeBarr. This has actually sort of already been realized.

This was a few weeks ago, you saw this case where the land use plan said this should probably be R-3. It was an R-4 SL, and the planning department, we had to say, to be consistent with the plan, it should probably be R-3. The planning commission said kind of makes more sense as R-4. The assembly agreed, and that was successfully rezoned, and now Cook Inlet is building senior housing there, which is great. So this is just updating that designation so R-4 is sort of in alignment.

This is another one. This is Providence Drive and Lake Otis. This is a UA property that they're right now just mostly using as kind of a laid-down yard or a parking lot. They would like to maybe try something here, consider trying something here, so this would go to that Main Street corridor designation. So, you know, we spent— as I mentioned at the beginning, we talked a lot with South Central Foundation, and they said, we want to build up our campus around, you know, the Tudor area because it does feel like a campus, and we want to build here.

We don't want to build in the valley. We want to keep people here, our administrative stuff here, but we need a little bit more flexibility to do that. So UAA is also sort of in the area, and they were interested in that too. An initial version of— they said, well, you know, maybe we could change the blue designation so that could implement B-3. We thought that would really sort of completely change what the blue designation means.

So we proposed instead, let's just change the land designation of certain parcels and not change that whole category by itself. Here's another one. Oops, excuse me. St. Mary's Church. Muni's been working with St. Mary's for a while now, just looking at St. Mary's' interesting, pretty cool innovative housing project here.

And we've been looking at how to help them get that to work, right? This would be a really expensive rezone. It aligns with a lot of the policy directives we've gotten, and so there's been a lot of community outreach in this, a lot of support. And I believe some representatives are here from St. Mary's this evening. They might be able to speak to that later.

Here, as I mentioned, is the kind of ANTHC South Central Foundation campus, and we recommended, you know, just do this whole area. This whole area is already zoned B-3 or B-3 SL. We recommended going to town center, which is what you see sort of across the way here, so they could just go to B-3 and basically affect what they're already doing without— in some cases, maybe removing the SLs, but some are already B-3 anyway. Here's another one. This is the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation building along Tudor and I think it's where MLK goes north, but big property.

You know, they didn't have any plans, but this was one where it's also currently B-3. So we're just going to align the land use designation with the zoning. Here is another one. This is at— I think it is at Patterson and Tudor. This is the kolates at the curve.

A couple years ago, you saw a case where they had to get— go through a process to do a greenhouse here because the SL required it. This is also B-3 SL, and so this would allow South Central to remove that SL and just go to regular B-3. There are some comments about that, and I'll address those specifically in a moment. This is the Totem site. This is along Muldoon.

So initially, we had talked, again, with including the entire site, the entire square, which is owned by the municipality, but they're going to do a little bit more work on that. But this, as you can see, is another one of those examples where this is one parcel but it's split designated. So if somebody wanted to rezone this, they're going to have to change land use designation because right now it says, well, the top should be PLI and the bottom should be like R-2A, R-2D or something. Um, so we're changing these two or proposing to change these two in part because we are also along with the legacy— these are Zone B-4. B-4 is an old pre-2014 zone.

Um, and so this has gone back and forth and we, we ended up sticking with this just so it's easier for that B-4 to go to B-3. And then two more, one from CIHA over here. They, they want to designate this area to town center so they can do— fill in the Creekside Town Center, probably go to B-3. And this one, which is the Walmart site and the vacant lot next to it, because this is another one of those examples where it's split designated. There could be, you know, there's a lot of discussion about a new, you know, public transit facility on the east side, and we were trying to remove any obstacles to that in advance.

Again, doesn't change the zoning, just change the designation. So if somebody wanted to go through a rezone in the future, this piece would be taken care of. And the final one that we added at the end, and really only because we had so much support from the Port and Government Hill Community Council and the Assembly seemed inclined to kind of do it anyway, was a section of this area up here to parkland so it could be rezoned as a park. Now this one is kind of tricky. It's sort of set up like a mousetrap where There's a subdivision case here.

It's going to carve off a piece— this is all called Track J. There's going to carve off like a Track J-2. So this one would really only come into effect once the subdivision was complete. It would change the designation of that section to open space and park, and then they could go through the rezone. Um, another interesting thing about this, this sort of mosquito netting color here— I don't know if you can see it— this is actually not a designation.

It's just sort of like a placeholder in the plan that requires an extra process. So we weren't totally sure what to do with that. We talked to Tom Davis, who's around. He said, if you remove this, the whole point was for this park, you could remove this potential open space alternative, and then it would revert to the underlying designation here, which is port airport facility. So that isn't reflected in the original materials because we were just kind of working that out.

So that might be something to consider. That in the AO, we would make a change to Section 1 that rather than saying it's going to just park or natural area, or it would say, Exhibit B shows the one lot changed from potential open space alternative to park or natural area. We'd say from potential open space alternative to park or natural area and the underlying designation of airport, port, or other facility. So that is one recent change.

With that, just addressing some of the comments. There's some comments about notification. There's also some comments about, you know, specifically the case of the South Central Foundation at Patterson and Tudor. As I mentioned, this is a policy change. It's a pretty high-level change, but it's about looking at the land use plan map and seeing, is the land use map still serving our needs, or are we serving its needs?

South Central is a great example, right? Southcentral was designated for that section blue, even though it's all zoned B-3. They've been operating under B-3, trying to develop under B-3, and they're saying, we want to develop more stuff here so we don't develop out in the valley, but this blue designation is getting in the way of our development. And, you know, Southcentral, ANTHC, all those institutions are crucial for Anchorage, crucial for healthcare they provide, the services they provide, community they provide, the jobs they provide. So it's just one of those things that it's normal that over time, you know, you have to look at these maps and think, is this really meeting our needs anymore?

So that's kind of the main thing in looking at the Tudor-Patterson. The plan right now, it's, it's Zone B-3 SL. The plan would require to go to B-1B. So if they came in and they asked for an SL, we'd go through that same situation again where we would say, well, it's B-3 SL, we don't recommend you go to B-3 SL, we would have to recommend it goes to B-1B. And that is a bit of a change from maybe what the property owner is expecting.

That lot is all owned by South Central Foundation, including a little part in the bottom. Um, and, and also, you know, B-1B is about neighborhood commercial. That area is pretty much completely cut off from the neighborhood. This is the backside of the alley. You can see on, on almost every side, like, that commercial area is really oriented towards Muldoon.

Like, it is made to be accessed off Muldoon. So this isn't like Chickadee Coffee in South Edition or something like that. Here's the one we're talking about. So it makes sense. And the other thing, too, is when this was rezoned in, I think it was 1985, it was rezoned from B-1, which was a predecessor of B-1A or B-1B, to B-3 SL.

So the question is, if they wanted it, if it was supposed to be B-1B, it could have been B-1 SL or whatever. But so really, it's just about things change. It's okay that the land use map changes. And fundamentally, this is— we're asking the Commission for policy guidance and, you know, policy thoughts about that. Because in general, sometimes the map does need to change so that people can implement the rest of the plan or carry out whatever plans they have.

So with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions. Yeah, and I think St. Mary's is here, but they'll be glad to speak, I think, during public comment. Any questions for staff?

I see no questions.

Commissioner Pullis.

Uh, sorry, a little technical difficulty back here with buttons may or may not being pushed.

Um, Commissioner Rahn, push your button, ready to talk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did press my button and now I get to speak. Appreciate being acknowledged.

Uh, staff, appreciate the thorough presentation walking us through the individual elements of this case. Question about public comment received by Jason Norris in support. My read is he's in support and also asking for something that we— you may have touched briefly on, but I would like to hear more about, and that's whether or not the AO could, should, may also change the zoning itself. Can you speak to that briefly? His comments on page 43 of the staff packet.

Yeah, through the chair, We, you know, sometimes this body looks at both rezones and comp plan changes at the same time. We wanted to focus on sort of the big picture, general, like, are you okay with the way this policy change is going? So we didn't envision any specific rezones right now. Even when they started with South Central, they said we don't want to remove the SL right now, we just maybe want that flexibility for planning in the future. So For us, uh, I think we would recommend make the land use plan change and then give it some time, and then people can go through the rezone process because all these would have to go through the rezone process.

So we didn't anticipate any immediate rezones, at least not sponsored by the muni. This was more about opening up the opportunity, and it does allow property owners to use the abbreviated rezone process, but we didn't have any specific plans to do a muni-led rezone. I guess the one exception is, um, case number 7, where it's the— it's like the McDonald's in the old Totem Theater, where we're trying to go from B-4 zoning to B-3, because we're trying to get rid of B-3, B-4, DR, and TR.

I see no more questions for staff at the moment, so we will go ahead and, uh, open the public hearing.

Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please come forward.

Oh, we— hold on, we— there's a button to push.

There we go. Hi, good evening. This is— I'm Maggie McKay representing St. Mary's Episcopal Church. Thank you. We will add 2 minutes so you have 5 because you're representing a group.

Perfect. Thank you. Um, back in 2020, St. Mary's started a process of dreaming our future on what we were going to do with our land. We have an excess 9 acres of property, and on our property we have 3 different zones. So from the get-go, we recognized that rezoning would be part of our process.

It was identified. So right now we're envisioning 3 different housing units to bring 120 different units onto our property. As a church, when we looked at it, we said we often refer to it as a triple bottom line. We need to do good in the world, we need to have it make financial sense, and we want to do proof of concept. So we do want to do a proof of concept that other churches in the area, we can all, we have excess land that's available and we can do supportive housing.

So that's kind of our, in a nutshell, what we want to do on our property. And when we had, we subcontracted with Dowell Engineering, one of the first things that they flagged for us is you're going to have to do this rezoning process and it's going to cost a lot of money. And then when we did our RFLOI we put it out, we flagged it as something that would be a problem, and every single letter of interest that we received back also flagged that we would need rezoning. So we are very supportive of this 2040 land use plan because it simplifies our process of moving forward. Now, I think reserve time for any questions, is that possible?

You don't need to reserve any time. Okay, you can talk away or or we'll ask questions if they— if we have any. So I don't know that you need any more information from me at this stage in the process, if I'm understanding it correctly, other than we are very supportive of this process and we really appreciate the work that we've done with the assembly and, um, the mayor's office on this. So thank you so much. Thank you.

And I see no questions. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

Good evening. Paul Hatcher, H-A-T-C-H-E-R. I am the president of the Patterson Townhouse Condominium Association. We are a 24-unit multifamily development along the north property line of Site Number 6, used to be Site Number 7 until it changed. In your packet, the site is owned by the South Central Foundation at the corner of Patterson Street and Tudor Road.

This case proposes changing the site's designation from Neighborhood Center to Main Street Corridor in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This parcel is currently zoned B-3SL from AO-85-104. These special limitations were placed on this parcel 41 years ago because of the code prohibiting certain uses. Today, the majority of these uses are permitted by right in the B-1B zoning district, as shown on the right-hand column of page 4 and 5 of the supplementary packet number 1 that you have in front of you. Page 6 shows the gross floor area requirements in B-1B.

Page 7 shows what has changed from the original conditional use requirements and the requirement for a Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. The bottom of page 7 and 8 show the dimensional standard differences from the AO and today. In April of 2025, the Anchorage Assembly passed changes in Title 21 allowing parcels to rezone for $200 that implement the 2040 Comprehensive Plan or remove a special limitation. South Central Foundation could have applied for that and removed their special limitation and zoned this parcel to B-1B while retaining all existing structures and uses. This would have eliminated the need for a public hearing site review before the Planning and Zoning Commission before any expansion of the existing structure or external new construction.

This site is a unique location within the Anchorage Bowl, being along one of the few 50-mile-per-hour major arterial 3 classified roads. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is proposing a median along Tudor Road restricting all left-hand movements going eastbound on Tudor Road, impacting both of the existing driveways to the site and the Patterson Street intersection, and there's no plan for signalization at Patterson. The site is also the only means of egress through an access easement in the southwest corner to provide access to the 20 condos abutting the west property line, which are not part of our association. There is only a paved separated path along the front of this property. There is no path along the south side of Tudor Road in this area.

There are no signalized intersections in this area. And again, the speed limit is 50 miles per hour along this portion of Tudor, the third fastest speed of any road in the Municipality of Anchorage, with only the Glenn Highway, the Seward Highway, and Minnesota being faster. Patterson Street does have separated pathways along both sides with a 35 mph speed limit, and Scenic Park Elementary School just north of Tudor has a school zone and pedestrian crossing. The site meets the definition of neighborhood center and should remain this, and if the property owners want to remove the special limitations, they could rezone to B-1B. The 2014 East Anchorage District Plan is not as new as the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that was published in 2017.

However, This plan does not call out this area of East Anchorage for any type of redevelopment or expansion of the existing commercial uses stated in the Main Street corridor first paragraph from the Comprehensive Plan. The site is also not listed in any of the example locations. The area is not a similar street grid— smaller street grid with slower traffic speeds with frequent street and sidewalk connections abutting all sides. This may qualify for the Patterson Street side only. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies this parcel as neighborhood center, and that is what it should stay.

I would like to add South Central Foundation is a great neighbor. Their snow removal contractor, on the other hand, likes to remove snow at 2 or 3 in the morning on a weekday. That's a really great sound, hearing backup lights, horns, and the dump on the front-end loader clink clanking into dump trucks. That's all I have.

Uh, question from Commissioner Gardner. Thanks. Um, can you help me understand specifically the, um, I guess the concern? If, if, if the thought is that they could remove the SL and get a B-1B, um, what with this designation, is it potential different zones that are on the map that that are concerned for you, or what aspects of it, given the possibility of removing the SL? Sure.

[Speaker:MR. BOLL] Through the Chair, Commissioner Garner. So rezoning it to straight B-3 would allow them to go from a 40-foot height to a 60-foot height with a conditional use for a 100-foot height in a—. Basically a neighborhood center area. Now, this is probably one of the tallest areas in the bowl outside of the hillside. I don't know if any of you drive the Tudor-Maldoon Curve, but you're at 320 feet or more at that section.

In fact, if you drive westbound at night, you can literally see all the planes landing with the lights from the planes. That's how high you are as you drive down Tutor towards the airport. It's a really high area of town. Okay, thanks. So it's really the potential for some of the other zoning districts that are, that are identified, that additional height?

40 Feet? I mean, right now the SL limits it to 25, but 40 feet, 45 with a conditional use, that, that seems reasonable given what's there. There is a multi-family on the other corner, and it's about 30, 35 feet tall. Yeah, and it, and it's kind of in scale with the rest of the neighborhoods in that area. It's mostly single-family or townhouses.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

I see no further questions. Thanks.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward.

Let us know if you're representing yourself or a group.

There you go. Uh, I'm Steve Callahan representing, uh, the new U Med Tutor Community Council.

Name is Stephen, S-T-E-V-E-N, Callahan, C-A-L-L-A-G-H-A-N.

Okay, in your packet on page 34, just want to point out we did pass this resolution with overwhelming support.

Some of the areas, the U Med Tutor area includes South Central, ANTHC campus, and a parcel, uh, the UAA parcel. Uh, right now, you know, it's quite clear South Central wants to expand their facilities. They already have some pretty tall 60-foot buildings on that campus. I don't think this will adversely affect the, uh, the neighborhood. Um, at one time there was discussion about bringing more commercial to the permitting area.

You familiar, Elmore and Tudor? That's supposed to be, uh, at one time there was discussion about bringing housing, taller buildings, possibly a Trader Joe's, that area. That, that hasn't happened, probably will never happen, but we really probably could use some more commercial services in this area on both sides of Tudor Road. The area within the U Med Tudor Community Council is rather— it is not overwhelming. It's just that one parcel for UAA, number 2 and number 4.

I think that's it, possibly number 5. I can't remember, is that Baxter or Boniface? I think that's Boniface. Yeah, AHFC area is in our community council as well.

But, uh, just want to point out, yes, we did overwhelmingly support this, and we also look forward to the additional potential commercial that would be on the south side of Tudor as well. Thank you. I have a question. Are you finished? Yeah, I'm done.

I have a question from Commissioner Rahn. Uh, thank you. Through the chair, for clarification, is the parcel identified as number 6 SCF, is that within your Greenway Council district? I'm thinking no, likely Baxter or another, but just curious if we lost—. Our boundary is now, uh, Boniface.

We lost the area between Boniface and Baxter. Uh, parcel number 6 was not in the U-Med, the previously known University Area Community Council District. That is now Scenic— that is Scenic Foothills, and it still is, uh, Scenic Foothills.

Thank you. See no further questions.

Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward. Any other? Last chance.

Going once. Going twice. Staff rebuttal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the main thing is, again, that, you know, the 2014 plan is over 10 years ago. There is a lot of stuff in there that hasn't really changed. Changed or needs to be changed. And this is fundamentally about helping the institutions grow to the way they need to grow, not get stuck in what the vision was in 2014. And plus the 2017, uh, 2040 Landes Plan changed things, but things are always changing.

I think that's kind of part of it. The thing about it is it's easy to say, well, they can just go to B1B, but B1B has zoning district-specific standards, it has fewer opportunity, it has 'cause it's sort of more restrictions. And it's kind of what we saw with the Seehaus case. This is a very good example of that is the property owner's thinking like, oh, I have R-4, I have R-4 SL, just remove the SL. They come to us, we say, well, actually, you can't go to B-3.

You're gonna have to go to B-1, B, or B-1A or something like that. And they'll say, but there are all these pieces of B-3 that we wanted or we needed for our plans. And again, there must have been a reason that they went to B-3 back in 1985 instead of B-1 SL or something like that. And fundamentally, it's just that You know, the city is going to change, it's going to grow. This is a South Central, uh, the whole property is owned by them.

The plan directs us to sort of help them and really encourage them to do what they can with that. And, you know, how they do their snow plowing, I don't think is totally relevant because they— that is something that would happen regardless of this future land use designation. This doesn't change the zoning designation. And, and currently I think they're restricted to, I believe it's 25 feet So again, they have this sort of zone that doesn't really get them where they need to be. They're maybe expecting that they could get to B-3, but if they went to the SL, we would have to say, technically, you're not allowed to do that.

So that's why, to us, it makes sense. If you read the description in the 2040 Plan of what a Main Street corridor, which is the designation we're aiming for, says, this land use designation provides for commercial and mixed uses within urban neighborhoods that can evolve as pedestrian-oriented, transit-served Main Street development. It includes specific corridors, recommended neighborhood district plans, Main Street features, transit access, wider sidewalks, pedestrian amenities. Again, that's just the description in 2040, but this is really just about, you know, giving them the flexibility. It is— it's on one of the busiest roads.

But if we can't have sort of urban-level development on one of the busiest roads in Anchorage, then, you know, where can we have it, right? So that's sort of what we're thinking. This isn't a rezone. It would allow them to remove the SL, but it's, it's a known institution. They— we'd love to see them continue to thrive and develop in Anchorage.

So from our perspective, it's let's give our institutional partners as much flexibility as we can, or at least make that proposal, and then the policymakers can decide.

Can you just elaborate on allow them to remove their SL? —For the record? Like, explain the process of what that would be, how that would look. So to remove an SL, it still counts as a rezone, but it can go through the abbreviated rezone process, which I think is AO240S. And so doing that, it has to go through the full rezone process, has to go to the assembly, but it's the sort of 3 criteria instead of the 5 or 7 criteria.

And so in some cases they're pretty easy, but the thing about that is one of the criteria for us, the planning department, is it has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. And so as I mentioned, you know, back 10, 20 years ago, maybe before 2040, it was easier to use the planning documents and say, well, it kind of fits here, it doesn't fit here. But now, I mean, 2040 does— it is a regulatory document and it does provide us pretty strict guidance. So that puts us into that position where we would say You cannot go from B3SL to B3 in this case. We just couldn't make that recommendation because we want to be faithful to the plan and we want to maintain that sort of the consistency and integrity of that tool.

So that process would be a rezone just like anything else. Even if they went to another zone, same process.

And then there's no longer the ability to use SLs as a tool to restrict. Is there— would— if— there was a rezone and there was public hearing and there was complaints about heights, is there any way— is there any tool for anybody to consider?

I think from our— the strict planning perspective, we would say then maybe that zone isn't appropriate there, and maybe the assembly shouldn't make that decision to allow that rezone. They could propose a different zone, and again, the assembly can do whatever they want. They can set all sorts of rules. We just can't propose them, and I don't believe the Planning and Zoning Commission can propose them. Um, you know, they could say— somebody could talk to the property owner and say, we'd love for you to do this.

But in terms of the regulatory power of the zoning to do it, not necessarily. But again, if, if that site is truly not appropriate for B-3, then the assembly would probably hopefully make that decision and say, this isn't appropriate for B-3, it could go to something else. But That again, you know, in many of these conversations, it's imagining the absolute worst case that may or may not happen. Um, and B-3 without the SL provides a wide range of flexibility. I mean, some of the use-specific standards— or sorry, district-specific standards in B-1B— there's gross floor area limitations for non-residential uses.

Um, there's stuff about if you have a grocery store, you have to go through an extra review. Nursing facilities with up to 16 residents are permitted use in B-1B. More than 16 residents are allowed by conditional use approval in the B-1B. That stuff doesn't exist in B-3. And again, I don't know what the— I don't know if property owner's planning anything there, right?

But from our perspective, we look at that and these, these are the kind of things that throw up a bunch of flags. So I don't know. Thank you. I see no further questions.

Any last questions before closing the public hearing? Seeing none, public hearing's closed. What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Krishna, would you like to state your motion? Sure. I'll move in case 2025-0138 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan Amendment to update land use designations along Lake Otis Parkway, Tutor Road, DeBar Road, and Muldoon Road.

Seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes. I believe that I can support this motion. I do believe that You know, almost all of the proposed changes are, if not a cleanup, then at least supported by the landowners and would support many of the other goals in the comprehensive plan and that support the growth of our city. I will say that Um, I would welcome any motions to amend or discussion from the Commission.

Seconded by Commissioner Rahn.

Um, anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Commissioner Rahn. Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I intend to support the motion, um, as stated.

That said, um, don't let that preclude exclude any other commissioner from putting forward a motion to amend. Um, I concur with the discussion that was brought forward by the Planning Department, and I appreciate the responses they provided to questions of interest and concerns relative to that Tudor parcel. Uh, you know, it's not a formal disclosure, but just this morning I was in the U Med district for an appointment, and I wanted a coffee afterwards. I could have gone back towards Midtown, which is where I actually needed to be, or I could have gone east. And I went east to the Claudi brother in question.

It's, you know, to me, not being— not living in that neighborhood, it's a unique space and parcel, one that I actually go out of my way of— go out of my way to attend and enjoy. The Greenhouse case we heard a year or two ago, and another commissioner said Is there an easier way? And this to me feels like the easier way. My final comment is one of alignment. Prior commissioner said cleaning things up, and to me it's cleaning things up in a forward-looking direction more so than a rearward one.

And I think we need more of that as, as a community. So I intend to support it. Thanks.

Commissioner Gardner.

Thank you. Um, I intend to support the motion for the reasons that have been discussed. Um, and I was going to make a comment about appreciating kind of the, the forward-looking effort to kind of consolidate some of the updates that are needed. Um, and we'll just note too, you know, we did receive a comment about asking for potentially including rezonings as part of this. Um, I understand the reasoning why Maybe that wasn't done, and I think some of these, you know, the parcel at Tudor, for example, that we're looking at is intended to permit flexibility in the future, and there's not necessarily a zone in mind at the moment.

And on that point, wanted to just note too, we heard some positive feedback earlier today, not in this case, but from an applicant who had gone through that abbreviated rezone process and spoke highly of it. So it's good to hear good feedback on that, and I think that will facilitate any, any rezones that are needed to better implement the plan.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next item of business: anybody interested in serving as chair or vice chair?

You don't have to push your button, just raise your hand and let somebody else know.

Um, Commissioner Gardner.

Um, yeah, I feel like— I don't know how many times I've been, I've been through this and I forget what the process is. I don't know if there's a motion in general, but the comment I was going to make is that, um, I feel like if, if If you're looking for a change, then you should figure that out in advance, André, because I know I would totally— I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna look for anything new. It's been— I've been, I've been— I feel like you've done a good job steering us forward. Radhika likewise as vice chair. So if a motion is needed, I'm happy to throw one out.

Motion is needed. Okay, I, I move to retain Chair Spinelli as chair and Vice Chair Krishna as Vice Chair. Um, Commissioner Krishnan, would you like to speak to that motion? Oh, I don't have to. Either way, um, I'm happy to continue serving.

Commissioner Krishnan? I would also be happy to continue serving. Okay, so any objections? Hearing none, that motion passes.

Any committee reports?

Commissioner Rahn indicated no report from AMATS Community Advisory Committee. Any Title 21 discussion?

I have a comment on findings, but that might be under staff comments later.

Commissioner Christian, go ahead. I think I have read in the department's newsletter about an upcoming department open house. You really teed me up. Thank you. If I may, Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Beach Planning.

We were given some funding by the assembly to publicize a little bit more the stuff we've been working on. So on April 14th, we're having an open house in the library. It's going to be during an assembly meeting, so we're hoping to catch people coming and going and through the lunch break. And it's really just going to— or the dinner break— just talk about stuff we're doing, trying to reach, you know, a different segment of the population, maybe get more people subscribing to our newsletter, but just talk about all the change we made, stuff like the abbreviated rezone process. We're We have the 10-year targeted plan update.

We're bringing that back. You may have seen that. UL did a lot of work on that last summer, but finally bringing that back to be a case so we can get that work taken care of. Exciting thing about that, we're using the term contractor. We're combining 2020 and 2040, trying to make as few changes as possible, but it'll be one document so everybody can just look at one document instead of going to two.

And that'll be part of that 10-year update. So thank you, Commissioner Krishna, for that reminder. April 14th.

Thank you. Um, there's no Title 21 discussions. Any commissioner comments to be made? If none, then we can entertain a motion to adjourn. Can I make one comment?

Sure, go ahead. Staff, take it away. Daniel McKenna Foster, if you'd like to continue with your comment on the the findings, and then I have a comment after that. Thank you. Yeah, you all do a great job at findings.

I know we have some legal eagles up here. We— but just findings of fact, we're kind of going through all our processes and making sure all of our findings are consistent. But sometimes, you know, Commissioners have— and we might even— sometimes Commissioners have other comments they want to make. They say, we want to thank the applicant, or this or that. And we're looking at that, and we've been talking to legal, and they're like, that's not really a finding.

But we don't want to, you know, abbreviate that. So We're looking at putting a new section in, you'll see in the minutes potentially, that just says Commissioner Comments. But the findings should always be things the board agreed on or things that everybody voting in favor agreed upon that could be used in the future if somebody's looking back and say, well, what did they use to justify their decision? So you might see some changes with that, but you all do a great job doing findings. And so, but we also don't want you to feel like you can't add comments too, right?

You might say, well, I have a finding I'd like to add in, just a comment, and we'll put those in the minutes as well. But some changes you might see.

Let me just ask, hypothetically speaking, if I was to say, make a finding, yeah, it would be bad to have 60-foot buildings next to a homeowners association, but Anchorage needs to grow, and that was my, maybe my personal opinion, that would be a That would be like a bad finding. I would say out of that you could say—. That would not be something we hadn't discussed that, and everyone might be like looking at me like, why'd you say that? You could say there's documented evidence that Anchorage needs more housing potentially. If, if maybe we presented something, maybe if we didn't, then maybe you couldn't say that.

But yeah, to say that this is bad or good, unless there was something introduced during the meeting on the record that sort of demonstrated that and you were all convinced by it and believed it, I think I would— that would seem to me like something to avoid. I mean, I guess it's just pretty tough to make some— for a commissioner to make findings and be really confident that everyone else agrees. Um, and I guess if you heard a finding that you didn't agree with, you could always make an anti-finding. Uh, but I guess I just figured I'd bring that up for, I don't know, some more feedback, or Commissioner Rahn My takeaway from the discussion is that there will be a separation of findings from comments, and not wanting to preclude Commissioners from making comments to that effect, whether or not you make it an opinion of good or bad, that's up to you, but a distinguishing between comment for awareness or interest or just because I want to say it versus official finding. Yeah, look, we all agreed the person was wearing a red shirt that day.

That's a finding, and we made a decision based on that. Whether you like this shirt or not, that would go in the comments, I guess.

Commissioner Pulis. Um, two little comments. Um, there's seven of us. I think I heard there's one more coming in. Is that right?

We're gonna maybe have one more. Um, if the UDC disappears, I was thinking it might be good to get the landscaper from that committee onto here. I don't think any of us are that good at landscaping. I was just going to make that comment. And then my second comment is actually, I think me and Commissioner Eber are going to be gone next week, so we're already at 5 for next week.

That, that's a comment, not a finding. I'm really good at landscaping.

Good, you can review those.

Commissioner Ebert. So if one of us doesn't agree with the finding, do you want us to speak up? What's— how do you procedurally want us to deal with that? I—. This is where I'm getting into legal territory.

I would say maybe I wouldn't vote for a finding I didn't support, but the finding should generally be the things that everybody on the prevailing side agreed upon, because that should be, you know, if If you all found like, okay, we all agreed it met the criteria, and if you really don't think it meets the criteria, I would say probably don't vote for it, or just say, or voice your opinion, but maybe I could.

Yeah, again, I think this might be something, a detailed question that the legal department might be better placed to answer. So I can bring them in if you all would like a little presentation on findings. I'd be happy to ask them to do that. As to the specific question, I would agree that it's really the— those who voted for the— in favor of the decision are the ones who are creating the findings to back up their decision. And maybe if you don't agree with the decision or the findings and that might be a comment to add to the record.

Well, I guess to go back to my hypothetical, if I made the finding, I'm gonna support the motion 'cause I think we should have tall buildings on the side of busy roads 'cause I'm a real TSDO guy, and another commissioner made the comment of, I'm going to support the motion even though I, you know, have some, you know, reservations about tall buildings on next to condo associations that we've heard public testimony on. Both of those would be findings. Both of those would be statements from commissioners voting in support. I guess, how are you going to deal with it at that point? I, I would say I don't think those are finding.

Just say I think I like it or I think it's good. I think you would have to make your decision like, did it meet the criteria? Is there a need for this change? Will the change do something like clear or not? You know, like a finding might be that, uh, well, I don't even— I mean, I think that I think 60-foot buildings will be good or bad isn't really a finding because it has to be that a 60-foot building— you could say 60-foot buildings can be built safely under current engineering standards.

That's something probably everybody can agree on. Or 60-foot buildings can be built safely with sprinklers, or something like that. But it has to— when we go back through the minutes and we're looking for the findings, we do sort of piece those out. And you'll see the ones we recommend are almost always like, there's a need for this, it followed the criteria, and nobody came and spoke in opposition, or most people came, spoke in support. Some— because I think it's about when a judge or somebody's going back and trying to find out, how did you justify the decision?

Was it justified? So it kind of has to pass the factual— was it established as a fact? Commissioner Gardner. Thanks. Um, just a couple of quick thoughts on this.

I appreciate the suggestion of having a presentation from legal. I think that would be helpful. And maybe as part of that, um, a couple of things that occurred to me hearing the discussion. And one is that I assume when we're talking about findings of fact, we're talking about the findings of fact that are included in the resolutions that, that go from us. And so I guess for the Commission, and I know we've seen times before where someone has kind of pulled a proposed reso and, and we've made changes to the finding, so that's a process that can exist if someone disagrees with the finding.

I think it'd be helpful and interesting to know how these get generated, because I know we see our comments in the minutes, um, and it looks oftentimes like the findings are kind of— someone goes through the comments and kind pulls out findings, but I don't know exactly what that process looks like. Um, and if in— if there are helpful ways for us to kind of frame things when we're providing comments on a motion, um, to kind of clarify it. It sounds like that's probably kind of where we're going, but if that could come from legal or the planning department on, on being clear on some of those distinctions, um, to facilitate getting in the resolution what as a body we're interested in having there, that would be helpful. As well.

Through the Chair to Commissioner Gardner, I— that is the direction we are heading, and some commissions are more versed in findings than others. This, unfortunately, is an area that I am a little bit cloudy on myself, so I could— I would benefit from a presentation from the legal department as well. So I will try to get that set up for you all. In the meantime, if you are interested in watching another commission and their the way they handle findings. ZIBA does a pretty good job of incorporating that process into their, into their just regular vote so that they establish right there and then what the findings are as they're voting.

And instead of us or staff going through and picking out the pieces here and there and putting it together for your approval later.

With that, I will just add I'm much more of a commenter than a finding maker and ask for a motion to adjourn. Chair, if I can please add one more thing. I'm sorry to keep us here later. Go for it. [Speaker:DR. LINDSAY WILSON] I just wanted to let you know that I've been working with Current Planning and Long Range to a certain extent on the presentation of the case reports at these meetings.

You will note a change in the upcoming meetings where the staff will not be reading their reports or as much of their reports. So just wanted to let you know that that change will happen within the next meeting or two. And so that you can be prepared to read all the materials beforehand because we will not be summarizing the materials for you. And one of the reasons that we are making this change is in anticipation of the potential sunsetting of the UDC. If you all are going to be receiving more cases to review, then we'd like to facilitate faster meetings and make good use of of your time because you are all volunteers.

You have limited time and resources like all of us. You're very busy and we just want to respect that. So we'll give that a try. If it turns out not to work, if you do prefer us to summarize the case for you, then we can make the change back to that practice. [Speaker:ANDREW] I heard two things.

I heard we will not be reading the entire case, and then I heard we will not even summarize it. So does that mean you won't say anything? Because I think a brief summary would be good for, like, at least the public. Right. And that is actually what I'm working with the division managers on at the moment, is to just figure out exactly what we will be saying.

You'll notice at the assembly meetings, there really isn't a summary at all. It's just reading the title of the AO, right? So that's our starting point, and then we may add a little bit more information, just like you're saying, for the sake of the public to that. But we haven't quite nailed that down. So if we start this practice and you would like more information than the little bit that we do give you, we can make some adjustments to at the next meeting.

So, um, we're— we will be looking for feedback on whether— yeah, my only—. My only thought on that is that a lot of the big assembly issues are usually vetted out in committee meetings, so they're kind of introduced and the people interested have already following along. But, but either way, I'm sure whatever you come up with will be fine with me. Commissioner Krishna. No, I was just going to add that I think some level of summary really helps members of the public be able to follow along with what is happening and why.

I don't think— I agree that, you know, going to a summary and not reading the entire staff packet seems like it could work, but just referring people to where they can find that information is probably helpful. And it sounds like maybe we'll discuss this at our work session. Coming up when we talk about the UDC sunsetting as well and what to expect. But thank you.

Now I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

That is moved by Commissioner Eber, seconded by Commissioner Baza. Anyone object? Hearing no objections, we are—.