Anchorage Assembly: Planning and Zoning Commission - July 6, 2026 - 2026-07-06 18:30:00

Okay, we will call the July 6th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order, and we please have the roll call. Andres Spinelli, here. Jared Gardner, here. Radhika Krishna, here. Scott Pullis, here.

Amma Abaza, here. Megan Mills, here. Edith McKee, here. Jeff Rohn and Brandy Eber are excused. Do you have a quorum?

Thank you.

First item of business, is there a motion to approve the minutes from Monday, June 1st and June 8th?

It's moved by Commissioner Pulis, seconded by Commissioner Abaza. Any discussion on the minutes?

Any objections? Hearing none, minutes are approved.

Next is special order of business. Are there any disclosures from the Commission?

Commissioner Krishna? Yes, I was absent for the June 8th meeting, and I'll abstain from voting on the resolutions that are before us today that were heard at the June 8th meeting. Thank you. Any other disclosures? Commissioner Gardner?

Thank you. I was absent from the June 1st meeting and will abstain from voting on RESO 2026-026.

Um, all right, next item, the consent agenda. May we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

That is moved by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Mills.

Anybody wishing to pull any items?

Hearing, seeing none. Any objection? Hearing none, consent agenda is approved.

Now we are moving on to the public hearings. First, I'll just mention that Case 2026-0069 and 2026-0078 have been postponed. So if you're here to testify on those, those cases will not be heard tonight. Now I'll read the procedure by which the public may speak to the Commission at its meetings. After staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the Chair will ask for public testimony on the issue.

Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission rules of procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., 5 minutes. Individuals, 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the Commission.

You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission. Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable.

Please silence your cell phones.

Uh, may we please have the staff presentation on case 2026-0049?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a rezone request initiated by the Don Young Port of Alaska to amend the zoning map for a portion of a tract of land from I-2 Heavy Industrial District to PR Parks and Recreation District. The plat for this portion of land was approved at the planning board meeting last Wednesday, case S12879. The Planning and Zoning Commission will provide a recommendation to the Assembly on this rezone request through resolution.

The Assembly is the decision-making body for rezonings. Attachment 3, starting on page 20, includes all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format. State and municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to the rezone. State DOT and PF opposes— sorry, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities— opposes the rezone until a replat resolves right-of-way issues that are identified in the Official Streets and Highways Plan. This rezone will be subject to the recording of the plat.

The Planning Department also mailed out 276— 267 public hearing notices on May 7th, 2026, in accordance with AMC 21-03-020-H3.

As of this writing, the Planning Department has received no public comments on the rezone. The Planning Department provided notice to the Government Hill Community Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval, and the Assembly may approve a rezoning if the rezoning meets the following criteria.

This is an abbreviated rezoning process, so there's only the 3 criteria. Criteria A is met. Criteria B is met. Criteria C is met. Department finds that the proposed rezoning meets all 3 approval criteria and recommends approval of this proposed rezone subject to the recording of a suitable replat.

I can answer any questions that the Commission may have, and the petitioner's representative, PTS, is in attendance. Are there any questions for staff?

Commissioner McKee. Hi. In the packet, it mentions that there's a private well and on-site septic system. What would be the impacts to these entities if this is rezoned? Through the chair, Commissioner McKee, this is MOA property, so I'm assuming they have to do a— go through on-site.

If it's, if it's not an on-site, it's a DEC to decommission the well and the septic system. I don't believe there's any plans for possible out— you know, like public facilities at this site. But there could be— there is public water and sewer in the street on the south side of this property.

And then the DOT had a couple of comments or concerns. Is there a plan to— because if it is rezoned as a park, it does introduce 4F and 6F Issues to the existing road, should they choose to be upgraded or remodeled or have anything done to them, is there a plan? And I think there's a comment in here about the 30-foot right-of-way. Um, is there a plan to dedicate that right-of-way with the rezoning? Through the chair, Commissioner McKee, I don't believe DOT is worried about the 30-foot dedication right-of-way as much as they're worried about the Kinnick Arm Bridge going through this area.

And I—. Because it's still, again, it's still in the OSHMP, the Official Highway, Streets and Roads document. It's still, it's still out there. And I believe that's their main concern, is that if this is again dedicated as a park, it creates some issues similar to what happened along New Seward and Tudor when we dedicated that to park, and they have some—. Yeah.

Does that answer your question? Yeah, kind of DOT's comments and concerns that if, if it's a dedicated park and it introduces 4F and 6F, correct, does make any kind of roadway improvements because the boundary does include, it looks like, Roger Graves Road and potentially East Bluff Road. Any improvements to those roads that impact the park. If I can jump in through the Chair to Commissioner McKee, forgive me for interrupting. This is, this is for, in the first place, a rezone, not a dedication.

So that is not actually at play right at this moment. It could still, even as a rezone, introduce some 4F and 6F elements, but those are being resolved. The right-of-way questions are being resolved as part of the plat process and will be addressed prior to the final plat. The department has been working with DOT on the plat itself to ensure that the right-of-way that they are worried about, which is a floating, like a book right-of-way, is preserved as part of the plat process. With the comment, and that any other existing right-of-ways are also protected as part of the replat.

So this rezone— if, forgive me, if I can defer to staff on whether or not this re— the, the final effective date of this rezone would be after the plat is finalized. Is that correct? That's correct. So it has to replat first. So all of those issues that DOT is concerned about have to be resolved before this rezone is finalized.

Thank you.

Seeing no more questions for staff, would the petitioner like to Speak. Hello, my name is Mike Frosinski with PTS, and speaking on behalf of Case 2026-049, just to bring up the point of the right-of-way, we had the Planning Board meeting on Wednesday, and we are They did recommend, and we're going to dedicate 30-foot right-of-way along East Bluff Road. And we're also going to put a plat note on the plat that designates a floating right-of-way for future development of the Knick Arm Bridge right-of-way.

So—. If you're finished, you have 9 minutes and 22 seconds for rebuttal. Yeah, that's all I have to— To add. All right, are there any questions for the petitioner?

Uh, seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

Uh, seeing none, we will ask the petitioner, would you like to, uh, yield your 9 minutes and 22 seconds for rebuttal? All right, thank you very much. We will close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Uh, Commissioner McKee, would you like to state your motion?

Um, I move in case 2026-0049 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of a rezoned from I-2 Heavy Industrial to PR Parks and Recreation District. That's seconded by Commissioner Polis. Commissioner McKee, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, please. I intend to support the motion.

Um, the three conditions are, are met. One, it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed rezone conforms to the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan and the Government Hill Neighborhood Plan. Um, it would not result in an objective risk to health or safety. The petition site is 7.9 acres of sloping land.

It's adjacent to other parks. The rezone to the PR district will not result in an objective risk to health or safety, and it does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances. I also think that they have a plan forward. For development in the area and potential road that would mitigate the 4F or 6F requirements that would pop up and make any improvements to the road or development of the Knick Arm Crossing difficult. So I think they've addressed some of the concerns that were brought up by other agencies.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Commissioner Pullis. Yeah, I'll just add that I intend to support the motion. And as a finding of fact, you know, we heard no public opposition, and the replat will resolve DOT's comments on the rezone.

Seeing nobody else in the queue, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes. Next, move on to Case 2026-0077. May we please have staff presentation?

What's going on? Oh yeah, we, we're ready for the staff presentation on case 2026-0077. Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Uh, this application is a rezoning request for approximately 0.27 acres of vacant land from R-5 low-density residential to R-2D two-family residential. The Planning and Zoning Commission will provide a recommendation through a resolution to the assembly, which serves as a final decision-making body for rezoning map amendments. The Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan designates this lot as a single-family and two-family with a transit supportive development growth supporting future. Because the current R-5 zoning does not implement this land use designation, and the rezoning to R-2D would implement this land use designation consistent with the comprehensive plan.

On June 8, 2026, the Planning Department mailed 223 hearing notice to the surrounding community. To date, the Planning Department has received no public comments. The Abbott Loop Community Council did not provide comments, and all reviewing state and municipal agencies have expressed no objects. That you can see, Natasha Tree, on the staff report on the original format. The Planning Department finds that this abbreviated rezoning meets all 3 approval criteria, uh, in Chapter 3 of Title 21.

Therefore, the department recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the assembly for adoption by ordinance. I'm now available to answer any questions the commission may have, and the petitioner representative is also here with us tonight. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we'll move to the petitioner's presentation.

Good evening through the chair. My name is Tony Hoffman. I'm, uh, with the Boutet Company, and I prepared this rezone application. I really don't have much to add. Um, this short process This is for rezoning.

This is the ideal situation for it. It's— the comp plan was changed to reflect this, and this, this is what that, that this abbreviated process is for. So I'm basically here tonight to answer any questions you have about this. Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner?

I don't see any questions. We'll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward. Hearing and seeing none, you have 9 minutes and 30 seconds for rebuttal. Would you like to yield?

I relinquish my time. Alrighty, we yield the time. Close the public hearing. What's the will of the body?

Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion? Yeah, I move in Case 2026-0077 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of a tract of land from R-5 district to R-2D district.

And that's seconded by Commissioner McKee. Commissioner Polis, would you like to speak to your motion? Yeah, I intend to support the motion, noting that it meets the 3 rezone criteria noted by the department and also no public or agency opposition heard today on the rezoning.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? I'll speak to my second. Um, thank you. Go ahead.

Um, I'm— I also intend to support the, the motion. Um, the reclassification from R-5 is 5 houses per acre to R-2D is 5 to 8 houses per acre, so I don't see it as a largely significant revision.

So I intend to support the motion.

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

That motion passes.

Moving on to Case 2026-0073, may we please have the staff presentation? Again, please have the staff presentation.

We are very patient here, but we just want you to know that we are ready for the staff presentation.

Experiencing minor technical difficulties.

All right, thank you. Luke Bertram, Long Range Planning Division. Um, in front of you today, I have PCC case 2026-0073, an assembly ordinance addressing site perimeter landscaping. Um, so the ordinance that you have in front of you in your packet, uh, is basically to exempt 3- and 4-family lots from being required to, um, have the site perimeter landscaping as established in 2107-080., from being needed for completion of that permit. So it streamlines development of 3- and 4-dwelling unit lots, cuts down on required landscaping design and installation costs.

But I just also want to note that this does not exempt them from needing to provide trees as required by 2107.08. 4 For residential lots needing trees, and it does not change anything for 1- and 2-unit lots or 5+ unit lots. We have received no comments. So, uh, as it stands currently, if you have— if you're developing lots in, say, R2M, R3, R3A, R4, R4A, that you are looking at doing 3 units or 4 units currently, You would— say you're in R-4 adjacent to R-2M, you would need to provide that L-2 landscaping buffer, which I will pull up here.

So that would add that Um, minimum average planting bed width shall be 15 feet, minimum width at any point not less than 10 feet, except as modified by optional design standards, in which case overall minimum planting bed width shall be 10 feet, with requirements set for plant materials required and some additional optional design standards. So this would functionally just be exempting those lots from needing this additional landscaping work. And that is it for the presentation. I am available for any questions.

Thank you. Question, Commissioner McKee. Um, so I have a question on page 4 of 24. Item number 2 says the landscaping requirements would still apply to this type of development. If you look at those landscaping requirements, they're almost exactly the same as L2, so I'm I'm not sure I understand.

Does like— does the item in number 2, is that in addition to what's in L2, or is— are they— because it's almost the item 2 basically says it's 15 feet with a 10-foot minimum plant bed, 2 trees, 6 shrubs per 20 feet, 50% coniferous, and all ground cover is required. So I don't understand how this Dippers. Through the chair to Commissioner McKee, if I can take a stab at answering that question, if staff is okay with that. Okay, um, so currently in code, if you're developing a single-family home— and I may ask Chair Spinelli to jump in if I get this wrong because he has more experience with this than I do— um, if you're developing a single-family home in a zoning district that normally would require L-2 landscape in between your lot and the adjacent zoning district, then you are exempt from the L-2 requirements or the L-1 requirements for that adjacency to the, the next door zoning district. So this code would make it so that that also applies The code change would make it so it also applies to 3- and 4-plexes as well, that exemption.

But for all other developments, you would still have to provide that, that landscaping. This is based on policy direction from the 3- and 4-plex reform that happened a couple years ago, where we're trying to treat 3- and 4-plexes the same as we do single-family homes, provide them with all of the benefits and exceptions that currently exist in, in code for single-family. So it does give them a little bit of a break, but again, it's, it's not removing all landscape requirements for developments adjacent to other zoning districts when those developments are 5 or more dwelling units or something other than a residential development. Does that answer your question?

I'm sort of— I just, I couldn't I, I didn't see where it was actually reducing any obligations unless the other landscaping requirement, the AMC 20, the 0.4, would also be waived. So I was like, I believe that the 0.4 just requires one tree per, per lot for residential. It doesn't, as far as I understand, it doesn't include any other requirement except for one tree per lot. And then Um, you know, land ground cover of some sort for the, the property, for everything that isn't developed with a hard surface or a structure. Oh, okay, because when I looked it up last night, it was— it basically was the same.

So I was like, I didn't understand how this actually— if that's— if 0.4 still applied, then I didn't understand how it actually helped. So I was like wondering if maybe we wanted to revise this and make it so that 0.4 wouldn't necessarily still apply so that they didn't have that same level of requirement. Okay, yeah, I see. I think I see what your, your question is, but I, I'm pretty sure that 0.4 does not require that same level of landscaping that you would normally have to provide with like an L2 or an L1. It's just site enhancement.

It's basically grass and a tree and one tree.

Okay. But we will, we will take another look at that just to ensure that we have the code right. Thank you.

Commissioner Abaza. I have a question about the language that we're changing it to. So it says on individual lots developed for 4 dwelling units or fewer. My question is, why are we deleting the part that says, um, that are not being developed as part of a subdivision?

Through the chair to Commissioner Avaza, um, that came about because we were hearing from developers and also permit reviewers that that language was adding a lot of complexity to the review because it's hard to tell, especially when you're doing infill. Is an infill lot part of a development because it occurs in a subdivision that was subdivided 10 years ago, or is it just an infill lot? It was just hard to really define that section of code and when it actually applied. And so we decided that it wasn't actually giving us any real guidance one way or the other and that it probably should be deleted from code.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mills. I just want to acknowledge I appreciate you providing the background on how it came about because that was one of my initial questions about the presentation, but that information is very helpful. Thank you.

Are there any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

Does staff have anything else they'd like to add?

Nope. All right, we'll call for the— well, I guess we'll ask for a motion.

Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in Case 2026-0073 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 2107, Development and Design Standards, related to perimeter landscaping requirements.

That is seconded by Commissioner Abaza. Commissioner Polis, would you like to state your motion or speak to your motion? Yes, I intend to support the motion. I believe it meets the criteria for approval as noted by the staff department. No public or agency opposition to the ordinance was heard today, and I pretty much agree with the staff-provided findings also.

The three in the back.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

I will just add that the I concur with staff that the wording on being part of a subdivision was confusing, and thank you for fixing that. Call for the vote.

That motion passes.

All the other cases, the other two cases were postponed, so that leads us to Title 21 discussion. Is there anything to discuss on Title 21? Commissioner, or, uh, sorry, Miss Babb, Director Babb.

Chair Spinelli, I think Long Range Planning would like to give you an update on their work plan and some upcoming projects.

Good evening, Commissioners. Daniel Ken Foster, Long Range Planning. Um, we— I think we owe you a work plan, a full work plan. We're going to try and bring that to you maybe next month. But just coming up, we have wetlands, um, sort of phase 1— I guess it's more of phase 1.5— coming up next week.

Also the B3 case is coming up next week. The unit lot will be coming up next month. That had to be re-noticed to meet some notice requirements. And then we're looking at a small case to amend some of the uses in parks and recreation zoning coming up in September. So we will get you an up— a larger update, and you'll see all the other cases coming in the next 6 months or so at the next meeting.

Or excuse me, sorry, let's say in August. It's not going to be in the next meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Any Commissioner comments?

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

Moved by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Abaza. Any objections? Hearing none, we are adjourned.

My eyes are laser beams and I can't jump over buildings and I'm afraid of everything.