Planning and Zoning Commission - February 9, 2026 - 2026-02-09 18:30:00

In warm, in your own bed, and in front of the storm.

Okay, we'll call the February 9th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May we please have the roll call? Andres Spinelli. Here. Jared Gardner.

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

Jeff Rahn. Here. Brandy Eber. Here. Alma Abaza is excused.

Do you have a quorum? Thank you. Thank you. First item of business is, uh, are there any disclosures?

Um, I was absent from the February 2 meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-08 through 011, and then, um, in the case of 2026-0014, I live in the neighborhood near the subject site. Um, I was not part of the mailing, but I was in a group text message chain regarding the subject property rezoned from BSL to B3. I don't— I think I can be fair and impartial, but just disclosing that I was a part of that messaging neighborhood group.

Um, I don't think there is any conflict there, and I would direct you to participate. If any commissioners disagreed, now would be the time to speak.

Commissioner Krishna, just to clarify Commissioner Eber's disclosure, it sounds like you were a recipient of, um, some messages but did not actively participate in any ex parte communications. Is that correct? I participated in that I sent them the ordinance. They asked what the ordinance was related to, what the SL was, and so given my position as an appraiser, I know how to access a municipal website easier than they do, so I provided it for them.

Um, I, I think I would direct Commissioner Eber to participate in this motion.

Anybody else?

Hearing none, we'll move forward, uh, with disclosures. Anybody else with anything else disclose?

Seeing none, we'll move on. Uh, may we hear from the SAFRR Seward Highway project consultants? Oh, actually, a point of order. Can I, can I, can staff just say one word? Just, I'll be brief.

Well, you asked for one word. Well, a little more than one word. Okay, go ahead. Okay. Um, so this is a— the Commission has been given a comment response matrix, uh, from the project team.

Um, they're here to speak to it. This is on the Design Study Report Case 2025-0087. This was before the Commission on October 8th, 2025. Per, uh, Title 21 covering the CSS review process, the agency furnished the Commission and, uh, a written statement of the reasons for its decision to proceed. And now they've also provided this comment response matrix.

And it looks like it was pulled from both comments received and the text of the staff report that was for the CSS design study report case 2025-0087. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Hello?

Oh, you got to press a button somewhere. Button? Yep, there you go. All right, thank you. Hi, I'm Catherine Wood.

I'm the communications lead on the Safer Sewer and Highway Project. And just wanted to give you a bit of an overview of where we are and how this document fits into what has come before. We are conducting the NEPA process, which DOT has to complete for federally funded projects before we can move forward into design and indeed to decide if a project should move forward into design. Currently we have a draft environmental assessment and a lot of supporting documents out for public review. The public comment period closes on February 28th.

July 27th. So the NEPA process and the muni CSS process don't match up perfectly, but both have at their core the opportunity for and desire for public comment. And that is why we are here again. And now is the time in the NEPA process when comments from anyone have the most potential to affect change in decision-making. So we provided, as Elizabeth mentioned, a letter, a follow-up letter on December 29th, that said a lot of your— all of your comments and concerns, we believe, were addressed in the draft EA.

However, when we were thinking about that, we thought, you know, we didn't really make your job easy to find where those things are addressed. And that's why we put together this comment matrix to provide some more information and to let you know where we had considered those thoughts in our draft documents to date. Um, so right now the kinds of comments that we're looking for in this NEPA process are things like, did we miss any impacts? Are there any resource categories we haven't accounted for? Are there mitigation ideas that we didn't consider?

And what else should the DOT take into their decision-making? After the public comment period closes, we will respond to every single comment that was received during the public comment period. And we will revise the documents as needed, and the DOT will make a final decision on whether they will move forward the proposed action or no action. Um, but this project is going to be constructed in phases over time if it moves forward. So every— if it moves forward, it would be broken into multiple pieces that would be funded and designed over time, and every single one of those child projects, if you will, would come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for input before they could do more.

And that is the time at which we are going to have all the details that the CSS process is looking for. So we just wanted to give that context. And if you have further comments after looking over this matrix we have given you, we would welcome those on the draft EA.

Thank you. Any comments or questions from the Commission? Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Wood, nice to see you and part of your team again. Is the Commission to understand that these comments in the comment matrix we have before us will be included in the NEPA record, understanding it's currently an EA, so I refrain from saying administrative record. But I, as a commissioner, would like some assurance as to what the position is on the inclusion or exclusion of these comments. Thanks.

We had intended to include them as comments on the draft EA when we submitted you that letter on the 29th. We are certainly happy to do so and respond to them in the final. My guess is that the responses that we give in the final would very likely be something similar to what you see in front of you. So if you feel that the comment you— or the response you have received isn't sufficient, then we would need additional information.

As a quick follow-up, to let the Commission know where I'm my head's at with this. We just heard from Ms. Wood, and if you look through the comment matrix, there's a lot of referral back to the ongoing NEPA process in response to the questions we're asking. Therein, to me, that shows the position that DOT recognizes the importance of the EA in responding to, uh, Commission and Department questions and comments. I, as Commissioner, would like to see the loop closed and for this matrix and the comments contained in it to be part of the official record for the EA and the NEPA process that's ongoing.

I think we can commit to that. Thank you. And then, Commissioner Rahn, I believe that will conclude the question and answer period. And if you'd like to make a motion to that effect, we can— the commission can go on record as such, assuming people would support you. Any other questions?

Not seeing any. I do have a cheat sheet here, Commissioner Aron, with a suggested start of, I move to provide the following comments to DOT for the Safer Sewer Project, dot, dot, dot. So moved.

That's all you want to move? Just dot dot dot? You don't want to add anything to it?

Commissioner Aron, would you like to state your motion?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I primed the pot— primed the pump with my prior comments, and the Commission likely knows where I stand on, on the issue. I'm happy to enter into any discussion if Commissioners want to at this point, but I intend to support the motion as stated. Thanks.

I, I think the motion just needs to be elaborated, would be my comment. But that motion was made by Commissioner Rahn, seconded by Commissioner Eber. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Mr. Chair, if I may.

Yes, please. Thank you. I now see the plain language of the motion, and I'm happy to add some clarifying text.

Can we do that as a friendly— okay, let me restate my motion for the record.

I move to provide the following comments to DOT for the Safer Seward Highway project for inclusion in the ongoing NEPA process.

Does this look good? Uh, yeah. I think, may I give a point of information, or can, I think you're trying to say that you're directing, you want to provide, your comments to DOT for the Safer Sewer Project is to include this comment response matrix in the record for the ongoing NEPA project. Does that make sense? Is your, you're directing them to include this comment?

Document. Is that correct? That was my understanding from what you were trying to say in your comments earlier.

I believe so. And so we might want to reference C2 in the motion, but it's your motion, so my interest is including the comments themselves.

I think it's up to DOT to determine how they respond to them formally through the NEPA process, public input and involvement. Point of information, Chair, if I may. I think, Commissioner Aran, I think we all are on the same page when it comes to what your intent is for the motion, but I think that the motion just needs a little bit more information about which comments you're referencing. And what to do with them.

I'm slow to catch up tonight, but I think I, I can add I move to provide the comments in item C2.

May I? If the intent is that those are Planning and Zoning's formal comments on the draft EA, that would be very helpful language. Or just comments, it doesn't have to say formal. I think that's what you're— no, that's not what you're saying. Okay.

I think what we're being asked is to— for the Commission to recommend to DOT to include the comments in the NEPA process. If we wanted to get the commission's comments, and that might take a little more work. Okay, to be clear, is that going to include the comments and responses? Just the comments. Okay.

Commissioner Rahn, can you confirm that the motion looks correct?

It does not look correct. My intent is for the comments themselves, not the responses, but the comments themselves to go into the record as part of the NEPA process. So there's an ongoing environmental assessment that's out for public comment. I would like these comments to hit the books for the EA. That makes sense.

Yep, close enough. It works.

Commissioner Aron, would you like to speak to the motion? I would, and I appreciate the team effort in helping us get there. So thank you, Laurie, Commissioners, and, and Planning Department. For the record, while I have stated my intent and interest, I would also like to call out row 38 in this matrix on page 19. You know, the Commission just received this this afternoon in hard copy today.

I understand that there were a lot of comments levied, and I appreciate DOT addressing those comments and responding to them. But again, we just got these this afternoon, so I as a Commissioner am scrambling to read through and see if there's anything worth you know, questioning you about since we have you again here tonight. But again, comment number 38, um, and I'll quote, there is not enough evidence in the CSS DSR to support the 4-lane divided highway concept, the proposed action for the Safer Steward Highway project. Pretty plain statement, hearkens back to the DSR that this commission reviewed, our position on it issuing the finding that we did. We're all aware of DOT's action in response to that.

The comment response is this, for the record: The CSS DSR is not intended to provide complete evidence to support the proposed alternative. That is the role of the environmental assessment. Please refer to the draft EA. And the comment continues. That underpins the action that I took in making this motion and speaks to my intent to support it.

If the Commission agrees, then we will get to tie these two processes together. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Commissioner Polis, there are buttons. Yeah, I, uh, I intend to support the motion. Um, I appreciate you guys providing these comment responses we asked you to. You did. Um, I think you didn't get a lot of questions today because we didn't get to review them very much before we got here, so you probably would have got a few more than that.

Um, yeah, thank you for responding to these comments, and we'll see you guys again on future phases, is my understanding.

Um, any further comments before we call for the vote?

Please, let's vote.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Next up, case 2026-0039. May we have the staff presentation, please?

Mr. Chair, before the PCC this evening is case number 20260039, Anchorage School District 6-year capital improvement plan from July 2026 to June 2032.

The draft CIP focuses on deferred facility sustainment needs. It includes deferred sustainment projects and funding for design and planning for capital improvement projects, as well as construction funding for capital improvement projects.

The planning department reviewed and provided comment where the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan or other adopted elements of the comprehensive plan contain applicable policies. The projects listed in the draft ASDCIP for 2020— 2026 to 2032, including its proposed capital improvement projects and deferred requirement projects, are consistent with the direction of development in the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans. Any building expansions will require municipal reviews for infrastructure needs when proposed designs— and when proposed designs are subject to municipal site plan and building safety reviews. The Planning Department recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward the proposed ASD CIP for 2026 to 2032 with the planned guidance and discussion points outlined above, and with a recommendation of approval to the Anchorage Assembly and the Anchorage School Board. Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, uh, Commissioner Polis, there's buttons. Commissioner Polis, please speak. Um, can you guys just talk about suggested finding 3? Is our intent to review all improvements at a school and comment on their infrastructure needs? Is that what we're saying?

I'm sorry, could you come again? Um, suggested finding 3, is our intent there that now we have to review all ASD projects and weigh in on whether they need bike trails, bus pads, or parking? Is that what we're thinking there? That kind of stuff, I mean. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Any project or any expenditure by any institution that has a special manifestation have to come through the PCC. And so we are just using the opportunity to rehash that the expenditure as outlined in the CIP will— the projects within the CIP will have to come through the PCC for review.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

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

Would ASD like to present on the record?

I have no further comments, as already mentioned in the work session, but if you wish me to summarize, I can do so again.

It's really up to you. This is the, uh, this is the part that gets recorded on YouTube and watched by the public, possibly. So this is your chance to represent ASD. If that's all you want to say, it's your choice. Um, no further comment pending your questions.

Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner?

Hearing, seeing none.

Um, there's no public hearing in this case, so we will go with what is the will of the body.

Commissioner Pulis, would you like to state your motion? I move in case 2026-0039 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the Anchorage School District's 6-year capital improvement plan. That's seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Pulis, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, I intend to support the motion. Um, it's a 6-year plan funded by bonds and some extra stuff. It's not impacting the current school talks that we're talking about. I agree with suggested findings 1 and 2. I'm not going to support 3 unless someone else wants to put that in there.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Mr. Gardner. Thanks. I'll just know briefly, with respect to finding 3, I think I do support it, but from the lens as I what— understand what it is saying is that, um, building expansions or other projects through the CIP require municipal reviews for infrastructure needs when proposed designs are subject to municipal site plan and building safety reviews. And I, I view the municipal review to be a general kind of statement, um, not necessarily Planning and Zoning Commission, but that those projects are done in coordination with the municipality. And I think that could cover, um, a wide range of potential considerations, um, to try to just ensure that there is collaboration, um, both when required by the code and otherwise.

Um, so I, I'll, I guess, make that finding myself.

Commissioner Eber, um, on the supplemental packet that we were given, there's a fourth finding. I don't know if anybody looked at it that said representatives from the Anchorage School District gave a presentation to the Commission and answered questions during a work session conducted directly before the regular scheduled meeting.

Commissioner Eber, thank you for— was that you putting that, uh, finding on record? Yes.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Commissioner Krishna. Yeah, I do support the motion. I support the previous findings made by the Commission. I would say that I don't necessarily support the discussion points as presented, not necessarily because I object to the discussion points themselves, but because I believe that they are not something that we've seen before, and I won't— wouldn't feel comfortable forwarding them to the, to the assembly as things that we are specifically recommending from this body without additional discussion and, you know, evidence. So I would just say that I support the findings.

I do not support moving forward the discussion points at this time.

All right, anybody else wishing to speak before I call for the vote?

Let's call for the vote.

The motion passes.

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

After the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the Chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow time limits established in the Commission Rules of Procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes. Representatives of Groups, community councils, PTAs, et cetera, will receive 5 minutes. Individuals will receive 3 minutes.

When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the commission. Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable.

First up, case 2026-0009. May we please have the staff presentation?

Mr. Chair, case number 2026-009 is an omnibus ordinance amending several sections of Title 21 to correct errors, fix inconsistencies, and provide better implementation of the comprehensive plan. The ordinance is a textual amendment to the AMC Title 21. It specifically seeks to ensure accuracy of all information noted in table— all information in Title 21, correct all instances of misspellings, remove or update the font cross-references, correct missed changes in Title 21, add in missing footnotes, and ensure land use designation names reflect designation names under Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan, and then remove duplicate definitions and introduce definitions— introduce a definition for building official.

2026-009 Is part of a department-wide effort to ensure that Title 21 is easily accessible and easily usable by everyone. The Planning Department received several comments from Traffic Engineering, Private Development, Ewo, Ego River Street Maintenance, and Right of Way, none of which raised any objections. Staff recommends approval of this ordinance and your recommendation to assembly. I welcome, I welcome your questions.

Please, are there questions for staff? Seeing no questions for staff, We will move to the public hearing.

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

Anyone on the phone? Uh, seeing and hearing none, we will close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Kristina, would you like to state your motion? Sure. I move in case 2026-0009 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of an omnibus ordinance amending Several sections of Title 21 to align with current practices and provide clarity for implementation of code and related matters. That's seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, I intend to support this motion. Um, I see this as a true cleanup ordinance that affects no content within Title 21, but only clarity, grammar, and references. And have no, you know, reason to object or any further comments on this.

Anybody else? Commissioner Polis.

I intend to support the motion. I'll just add that there's no public or agency comments in opposition of the amendments.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next item of business, case 2026-0014. May we please have the staff presentation?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Uh, so this is a, a rezone Uh, as a reminder, the Planning and Zoning Commission provides a recommendation to the Anchorage Assembly for rezones. This is a rezone for a parcel from CEB3SL to CEB3, so that's Chugiak Eagle River General Business District with special limitations to just Chugiak Eagle River General Business District. So the effect would be to remove the special limitations on the zoning district. Uh, the SLs currently in place, uh, that would be removed include restrictions on height and the use of the property.

Uh, since the rezone is consistent with the land use designation in the comprehensive plan, it may go through the abbreviated rezoning process. Therefore, the commission has 3 criteria to use in evaluating the rezone request. These are that the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That it would not result in an objective risk to health or safety, and that it does not conflict with municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, and ordinances. The department finds that all 3 of these review criteria are met.

The department did not receive any comments in objection from reviewing agencies, members of the public, or community councils. Therefore, the department recommends that the commission provide an approval recommendation to the, the assembly for this rezone. 2 CER 3. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for staff?

Hearing seeing none, we'll open the public hearing. May we please have the petitioner's presentation?

Good evening. I'm— good evening. I'm Skyler Quinn with Q2 Holdings LLC, the property owner of this parcel. It would help me make this presentation a little more clear if everybody could please turn to page 16 of your staff packet.

So you can see here the petition site. Lot 101B, and you can also see Lot 101A immediately to the west of it. And this parcel is part of a, a master site plan. We've already developed a Lot 101A, which currently has 2 buildings on it. They're multi-family units.

We have a 12-plex and an 18-plex, um, just completed as of very recently on Lot 101A. When we were going through the permitting process for that parcel, we ran into issues with this SL for the building height. Um, we really wanted all 9-foot ceilings. We have two 3-story buildings, and we wanted all 9-foot ceilings throughout the, the two buildings. And because this SL in our 12-plex, we had to do an 8-foot ceiling on the main floor, and then the second floor was 9 feet, the third floor was 9 feet.

And then on our 18-plex, we had to do an 8-foot ceiling on the main floor, 8-foot ceiling on the second floor, and then I was able to grab an extra 6 inches on the third floor. So we went, we went with 8.5 feet on the third floor. That was not our choice. That was purely to abide by this SL. Anyone that has any experience in this industry kind of feels the difference between an 8 and a 9-foot ceiling.

A 9-foot ceiling just, you know, there's more volume to it. It, uh, it just feels a lot better. And that's, that's really our intent here, is to try to remove that SL. So on our second phase on Lot 101B, B, we can do all 9-foot ceilings. The other thing that I think is worth noting is this whole site has already been master graded, and there's a natural slope from the east to the west.

So the far west side of Lot 101A is the, the lowest grade point, or it was the lowest grade point, and the highest grade point was on the far east side of Lot 101B. So I do think it's worth noting that we are not starting at existing grade on Lot 101B. There's actually a cut that varies from approximately 6 feet to 9 feet along the east side of Lot 101B. So we're already starting at a, a lower elevation before we start construction. And with that, I want to thank the MOA staff with all their help through this process.

They were very responsive, very helpful, answered all questions, and we agree with all their findings. And I'm here to answer any questions that you all may have. Thanks. Any questions for the petitioner?

Uh, hearing, seeing none, you have 7 minutes 8 seconds for rebuttal. We'll open the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

Hearing, seeing none, uh, uh, invite the petitioner back up. Any rebuttal? I have nothing else to add, but still open to questions if they arise. Thanks.

Last chance for questions before I close the public hearing. Closed.

Uh, what is the will of the body? Commissioner Pulis, would you like to state your motion? I move in case 2026-0014 to recommend the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone to attractive land from CEB-3SL to CEB 3 District.

That's seconded by Commissioner Eber. Commissioner Polis, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, I intend to support the motion, and I agree with the recommended findings. Um, meets the approval criteria, and we didn't receive any comments from reviewing agencies or public objecting to it.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing and seeing none, call for the vote.

That motion passes. Next item. Case 2026-0015. May we please have staff presentation? Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Uh, if you'll, uh, go to page 4 with me to fix an error that I missed at the bottom of the page, department recommendations. It calls out Girdwood GA as mixed residential. That is not correct. That's supposed to be Girdwood Airport.

And with that, this is a rezone request initiated by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Uh, it's an abbreviated rezone, so it's 3 criteria for approximately 43.62 acres of land currently zoned GDR, Development Reserve, to GA, Girdwood Airport District. The Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to the assembly on this rezone request through resolution. The assembly, of course, is the decision-making body for rezonings. The Girdwood Comprehensive Plan 2025 classifies this property with a land use designation of industrial.

GA is an implement— implementing zoning district. Approval of this rezone would align the zoning district of this parcel with the land use classification prescribed by the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan 2025. However, during review of this proposed rezone, staff discovered that current zoning district of GDR does not align with the land use designation in the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan and will need to be updated concurrently with this rezone. Attachment 3 in your packet includes all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format. State Municipal Review Agency had no objection to the rezone.

The Planning Department provided public notice— published notice— published notice and gave notice to the Girdwood Board of Supervisors in accordance with AMC 2103-200-H3. One of the comments was from Long Range Planning with a recommendation to approve the rezone along with some minor changes to Title 21. The comments were developed after consultation among planning— amongst planning staff, and the planning department has proposed a pending code change to AMC 2109040F-8. This would broaden the purpose statement of the GA district to include this property, and a code change is consistent with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. This code change will be before the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 9th, in one month.

As case 2026-042. All their comments were either non-objection or in favor of the rezone.

Uh, abbreviated rezone has 3 criteria. Criteria A, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That criterion is met. Criteria B, it would not result in an objective risk to health or safety. This criterion is met.

Criteria C, it does not conflict with other municipal, state, or federal codes, regulations, ordinances. This criterion is met with an amendment to Chapter 9 of Title 21 to align with the newly adopted Curdwood Comprehensive Plan 2025. This amendment does not conflict with other state or federal code regulations and ordinances. The amendment does not currently align with municipal code. As stated before, AMC 2109040F2, other districts, Curdwood Airport District That will be headed by Case 2026-042.

Currently, the location definition reads as follows: The GA District consists of State of Alaska-owned property where the Girdwood Airport is currently located. The airport property is located north of Alyeska Highway and straddles Glacier Creek. The airport facility itself is on the east side of Glacier Creek, but much of the airport property is either wetlands or river floodways. The proposed code change would edit the location to read the GA District is appropriate where the Comprehensive Plan designates it as an implementation zone. Therefore, the department finds that the approval criteria for rezone is met with an effective clause of the rezoning to include adoption of the proposed code changes in Case 2026-042 to amend the location of the GA District in Title 21.

The department recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a rezone from GDR Development Reserve District to GA Girdwood Airport District and refer it to the assembly for adoption by ordinance after the adoption of the code change in Case 2026-0042. I can answer any questions the commission may have, and the petitioner's representative, R&M, is in attendance. Uh, question from Commissioner Krishna. Yeah, I have a question for staff, and it's a little bit more broadly about how the Girdwood zoning districts are structured more than about the specific case. But, um, you know, in, in sort of doing research for today, I, I was kind of struck by the fact that the Chugiak/Eagle River zoning districts map cleanly onto the zoning districts for the rest of the bowl, but the Girdwood districts don't seem to.

And I think even just the description of the Girdwood Airport District is, um, a little bit surprising to me in that it seems to, um, mention ownership and really seems to be purpose-designed for, I think, one specific parcel. Um, and I guess I would ask just more broadly for staff's, um, opinion about, um, either some history or, or why the Girdwood zoning districts are structured this way, and if, um, if there's any sort of feeling that maybe they're so specific as to maybe that some revision or some updates could be helpful for the code. And I see— I'm curious to hear staff's thoughts on this. Through the chair, Commissioner Krishna, Girdwood is special. They like their zoning districts.

They've just always been different. I don't know why specifically. Girdwood Airport was— is state-owned, of course. Luckily, this, this property is state-owned. It's supposed to be used for a new avalanche control system, hence the need to make it Girdwood Airport so they can have a heliport as a primary allowed permitted use, and then they're going to come forth with a conditional use for storage of those explosives.

Backstory, not that you want to know all this stuff, uh, they're going away from the howitzers. So they don't— unfortunately, there's too many wars in this world, and so ammunition has gotten very expensive. And so now they're going to a tower system that actually releases charges. And so they can't pick these up and take them over residential areas. So they couldn't do this at the airport now because it would they'd be transporting explosives over residential and over— and so they have to keep it close to the inlet and to the highway so they can go up and down the Seward Highway and install these charges in the fall and then take them out in the spring.

But as for Girdwood, Girdwood just always had a different zoning. They like their specific zoning. I realize that Chugiak River has something similar to us, but not even Not exactly. They have a couple zoning districts that we don't have in Anchorage also, like the CE-5A. We don't have a 5A in Anchorage.

It's kind of a weird little zoning district too. I hope that answers your question. Probably not.

Girdwood is special. Girdwood is special, and with their comprehensive plan, they don't— they want a different type of code. They, they don't really want to match Anchorage. They want to be separate and different and have their, their own code. I, I guess if I could ask one follow-up while we're in, in, in here amending Title 21 for zoning districts.

I realize that staff can recommend that we not touch anything, that this becomes a bigger issue, but to me it seems sort of funny that we would name specific locations and ownership when describing a zoning district. So I'm just wondering if that's best practice or if that's typical. No, through the chair, it's not, Commissioner Christian, it's not atypical to— and again, that's why Girdwood, if you look at any, some of the Girdwood districts, they, they, they're location specific. You know, Crow Creek of course has its own zoning districts. They're all site-specific to Crow Creek.

That's why we kind of wanted to limit it to location, but limit it to who owned it, and because they're state-owned, they're state-owned properties, they're both state-owned, and they'll both stay state-owned properties. Does that help?

It's interesting background. Yeah, thank you. I think May-Lisa wants to say something. We'll see if she does or not. Can we rein it in here a little, folks?

There's long-term planning comments regarding suggestion of changes to code. Maybe we stick to the case for now, and then in Title 21 section we can talk about Girdwood code and whether— debate the specialness of it. So if I could give one point of info, I'll just say the 2025 Girdwood Comprehensive Plan does have a line describing future zoning districts. I, I was trying to find the exact wording, but just, just know that the newly adopted Girdwood Comprehensive Plan does speak a little bit to updates to the existing zoning districts. That's all.

And then was there any comment from staff on the— somewhere I saw long-range comments about an Option A and Option B? Through Chair Spinelli, yes, that's That's what the code change is that you'll see in a month at the March 9th meeting. That's their suggestion to change the location. That's what I read to you. Those, if you look on page—.

Okay, perfect. Yeah. Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you to the chair. Question about the corollary case. In similar instances, the commission hears cases that are similar, they get combined. On the same night. Why is it that that's not the case tonight?

Due to notification to— oh, sorry, through the chair, Commissioner Aron, through proper notification and proper, uh, of, of GBOS, basically. So we did actually go— not that you want to know this too, but we went to GBOS a couple weeks ago and, and explained that we were going to come forward with a Title 21 amendment, and they were completely fine with it. We we presented to them on the 25th. But yes, proper public notification process to make sure it meets all the criteria, and there's no, no question as to how we did it properly.

If I may, a quick follow-up to that. Is there any harm in holding the commission's action on this case tonight until we see the corollary case? Through the chair. So, Commissioner Rahn, the plan is we will hopefully— and Lori, back me up— we will reorder the March 9th meeting to where you guys will hear the case and then approve the consent agenda, and you'll also approve the resolution for this case. So you'll approve both resolutions on March 9th so they can go to the assembly at the same time.

Does that make sense? Perfect.

All right, any further questions for staff?

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

Yeah, good evening. My name is Dave Whitfield. I'm with R&M Consultants representing Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities on this request for rezone tonight. DOT's Snow Avalanche Program operates with the goal of improving safety for highway users by reducing avalanche hazards in susceptible areas. To further the goals of the program, the DOT have identified a need for a new avalanche control facility.

This rezoning of approximately 44 acres from GDR to GA is being done to prepare the property for that future development of an avalanche control facility that would serve South Central Alaska. This request is consistent and implements, uh, the 2025 Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. Page 3-13 of the plan mentions this property and the state's plan for a new avalanche control facility in this location. The 2025 Girdwood Comprehensive Plan designates the property as industrial, uh, with implementing district being GA Girdwood Airport District. I would agree with staff that the 3 approval criteria are met.

The rezoning moves this property into the GA District and would be a step forward towards allowing the state, uh, to develop a new avalanche control facility, which would improve public safety along the Seward Highway. This amendment does not, uh, conflict with other state, federal codes, regulations, ordinances and would not result in a risk to public health or safety of Girdwood residents.

We appreciate your consideration, and I'm available to answer any questions. Thanks.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Hearing, seeing none, we'll open this up to the public. You have 8 minutes, 14 seconds for rebuttal. Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward. Hearing, seeing none, do you have any rebuttal?

We will— any questions for the petitioner? We will close the public hearing. What is the will of the body?

Go ahead, Commissioner Krishna. Process question for staff. So in approving this case, we are also moving forward that Title 21 amendment? These are together? Through the chair, Commissioner Krishna.

No, the Title 21 will— like I said, it'll come before you in one month on the March 9th meeting. The resolution for this case will also come at that same date to be on the consent agenda, and we'll reorder the process. The thought is we'll reorder the night's meeting kind of like you guys have done with the CIP/CIB. Like, you'll reorder it, you'll hear it, and then you'll have the consent agenda afterwards. Okay.

Yeah. And then you'll consent it. You'll have this on the consent agenda and you'll have the resolution for the case you hear that night at the same time. I know that can kind of cause a little bit of issue, but we'll try and make sure it's all clear as mud. All right.

Thank you. You're welcome. Through the chair to Commissioner Krishna, there is an effective clause written into this to ensure that this does not move on without the associated code change. And in addition to that, part of the reason that we'd like to take care of these both in that same meeting is that the— this is time sensitive. We are hoping to ensure that DOT can meet their goals for the summer, just for the, the sake of public safety.

So we're going to try to have that— both of those resolutions completed by the end of that evening.

Commissioner Rahn. Uh, thank you, the Chair. I have a question of staff about that effective clause. I'm looking on page 6 of the draft assembly ordinance, and Section 2 has a 'shall be effective upon adoption' But that is tied to changing the location of the GA District. I was under the impression that what we would be hearing around Title 21 changes is about use for the heliport.

Maybe I'm confused. Through the Chair, Commissioner Aronoff, if you turn to page 4, it's italicized. You see A, location. Third one down. So existing is that, that's the GA district, and what we're proposing is the two lines below it.

So it's just removing the location description. There's a little bit more to it, but it's basically removing the location description of just the airport in Girdwood to just— so that's more general, I guess, or less specific to what the GA district could be. Does that help? Sorry, I've got to— Commissioner Gardner. Sorry, I wanted to be done.

But I'm looking, I'm looking at the description for the Girdwood Airport District as we've been kind of having the discussion, and I'm wondering if the intent maybe could be updated as well, in that it's intent of this district— Commissioner Rahn's point about the helipad, I think I understand this. It references uses that are primarily aviation-related, so that seems to kind of check that box, but it says It's for continuation of uses that are primarily aviation-related. And, um, I'm wondering if it's just worth considering in that other case if that should be revised to contemplate new uses, which it sounds like this is. I guess I'm just throwing that out there for consideration. I don't know that it affects what we do tonight necessarily.

Through the chair, Commissioner Gardner, not really, mainly for the fact that the comprehensive plan changed all, all these into one industrial, like, parent area. So they're just all like children of the, of an industrial. And so they, they lump GA specifically in with the industrial to kind of generalize it a little bit more in Girdwood and not have it be specific to being an air, you know, industrial as an airport, and industrial is just an industrial area. I don't know if that really answers your question as much. But the primary use of this site will be a heliport.

Okay, thank you.

Since we don't have any motions, I'll just ask, what's the zoning of DOT's right-of-way, and why don't they just make this right-of-way?

[SPEAKING GERMAN] Zoning does not apply in the right-of-way, to answer your first question. And the second question, I don't know that DOT has contemplated turning this into right-of-way. I don't know if that would be helpful in this case, but I guess it is an option for DOT to consider in the future.

Commissioner Krishna, would you like to state your motion? Sure. I move in case 2026-0015 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of one parcel from Gerdwood Development Reserve District to Gerdwood Airport District. Seconded by Commissioner Garner. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, I do believe I intend to support this motion. I believe that re-zoning approval criteria A, B, and C are met. Um, I'll read some of the suggested findings. The department did not receive any comments from reviewing agencies or from the public objecting to the re-zoning, nor did we receive a comment from the Girdwood Board of Supervisors. And we will be hearing the, uh, Title 21 amendment in a month Um, so yes, I intend to support this motion.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

Next item of business, Title 21 discussion.

Anybody have anything to discuss further on Title 21?

Chair, if I may speak for just a moment. Sure. I just wanted to speak to Commissioner Krishma's comment on the omnibus. About it being purely technical fixes. We have a whole list of fixes and proposed changes to Title 21 that we would like to bring to the Commission.

And we have sorted those out into what we are calling 3 tiers. The one that you heard tonight— excuse me. The one you heard tonight would be what we would call Tier 1 fixes, which is purely technical changes that do not include any policy changes or, or affect the content of Title 21. We will be bringing forward what we are going to call Tier 2 changes, probably in the next omnibus, and those Tier 2 changes are also technical edits to Title 21, but may tweak the, the content a little bit, may have a little bit of a policy change and deserve a little bit more attention and debate and consideration from this, this Commission. And then Tier 3 changes would be the larger Title 21 text changes that we bring before you separately.

They are considered part of our omnibus effort because there are a whole bunch of those as well. But we will be continuing to move these items through the Commission as we get to them. So you'll see probably in the next omnibus, you'll see some Tier 1 and then a separate package that would be omnibus Tier 2 coming through in about, probably about 4 months.

Anybody else?

I'll just add one thing on the comment on Title 21 and Chapter 9, the Girdwood Code. Staff has heard this from me before, and we were Starting to allude to it a little bit, some of staff's comments about Girdwood's code being special and maybe not making sense. There's always been this feel, this feeling, I think, within the industry and staff included, or those working with Title 21, that Girdwood code doesn't make sense and it's just for Girdwood. But my thing is that Girdwood is the municipality of Anchorage. It's the municipality's job to administer the code.

And I think it's the municipality's responsibility to not give in to codes that don't make sense because it's Girdwood and just say, oh well, well, that's Girdwood and that's them. 'Cause they're really, they are a part of the municipality. We have to hear it. It needs to make sense. And so I'm just curious, that's my personal opinion.

And I'm just curious, if anybody has— any other commissioners have the appetite to weigh in. 7:39, So we're still before 8. Yeah, and maybe I'll just clarify, like, um, I think this was actually my first time going in and looking at the zoning description, so I think I was just a little wondering, right? But I'm just— I would, I would say that the— we don't need to open the discussion up all the way wide, but I would— I'm just curious from staff's professional or educational backgrounds if there are basic best practices in zoning descriptions such as including locational criteria or anything else that we can standardize across all the bull zoning districts and if this is— if we are getting close to an opportunity to do so. So I think that's kind of— and maybe that doesn't exist, right?

I'm just like asking a question that I don't know the answer to. But I think that's my question is like, are there criteria for how we define— how we describe zoning districts in our city or around the country that we should be aware of when doing amendments to these sorts of descriptions? This would be my question that I'd be curious about.

No need for an answer now. That's a big question.

I will jump in really quickly with an answer. It's going to be a very vague answer, of course. We are not aware of any standard practices when it comes to zoning district descriptions. I think that cities tend to copy-paste each other's work a lot, so one zoning code often looks very similar to another. You will find some basic locational descriptions in the Anchorage Bowl Title 21, maybe not quite as specific as, as the ones that you see in Girdwood, but like R-4A, I believe, has some very specific locational requirements, but they, they aren't necessarily tied to ownership or to specific lots.

It's more, you know, they need— it needs to be near major roads or on corners and things like that. So I think standard practice would probably favor being a little bit more generic about it than the Gerdwood code has been in the past. And I think we had another case come before the Commission that was a, a rezone of just a specific lot, right? Like it it, it can be hyper-specific in, in Girdwood, in that, that particular rezone, it happened to be the only lot in existence in that zoning district. I mean, it's that specific in, in Girdwood that there's only one lot in, in that entire zoning district in Girdwood.

So I, I'm hopeful that in the future Girdwood code will move away from that hyper-specific location approach, but we— that will also be reliant on, on Girdwood itself and GBOS and the desire of that community to, to help us understand what it is that they want to see in their code, because ultimately they will be in charge of directing the, the rewrite of their, their zoning code based on their comp plan. Don't know if that helped at all, but that's a general vague answer for you. If, if you have any questions beyond that, I, I guess maybe I'll just add, if you want to get real specific to Girdwood, see page 3-19 of the 2025 Girdwood Comprehensive Plan, there's a table where it, uh, it shows the existing zoning land use designation, and there's a column that talks about what future zoning might look like. So if you, if you do want to see what the 2025 Girdwood Comp Plan directs for potential future changes to zoning districts in Girdwood, again, that's page 3-19, uh, table 3-4.

All righty. I see nobody else trying to talk. Chair. Oh. Just one last thing.

Go ahead. I wanted to remind the Commission that the UDC sunset is potentially approaching. The— I believe— can you remind me the dates on—. Yes, March— the cases for them, March 11th for the code change, and then March 9th, that's their second meeting in March, and then it would go through May. Okay, so you will be seeing the case that includes the code change language in March, and then it should go to the assembly in May.

Um, which means that you will be seeing, uh, assuming that the Assembly adopts the code change and agrees to sunset the commission, you will be seeing the UDC reviews here at PCC. So for instance, the, the school site plan reviews that were referenced in, in the ASD case those usually go to UDC. They would come here instead. And then again, plans in hand review of the DOT project for Safer Seward, that 65% review will come to PCC instead of going to UDC. So you will start to see slightly different cases in the future, assuming that that code change is adopted by the assembly.

Assembly. Thank you. Any further comments, questions?

We can entertain a motion to adjourn.

It is moved by Commissioner Eber and seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Does anybody wish to speak to it? Sorry, no. Any objections? We are— laser beams, and I can't jump over buildings, and I'm afraid of everything.