all right we will call this November 18th meeting of the Planning and Zoning commission to order can we have the roll call please Andre Spinelli here Jared Gardner here Rica Krishna here Jim Winchester here Scott pulus here Jeff Ron here Brandy Eber here Daniel George here Greg strike here you have a quum okay we have no minutes to approve uh that'll take us on to disclosures any of the commission have anything to disclose seeing none takes us to our next item which I would ask for a motion to hear item F5 that would be a non-public hearing presentation on the uh Capital Improvement budget and we will hear that prior to the consent agenda that motion was made by commissioner pus seconded by commissioner Ron any opposed to that motion hearing none can we please have staff presentation on case 2024-25 yeah thank you Mr chair I'll be very brief uh before the Planning and Zoning commission this evening is the annual review of the capital Improvement budget and 5-year Capital Improvement plan the planning department has reviewed um the proposed budget and several of these projects are located across the municipality under the purview of areas with adopted comprehensive uh District or neighborhood plans to include East Anchorage Fair viiew Hillside spinard Corridor the um and West Anchorage District plan uh we do recommend approval of the budget um and have provided three suggested findings on page two of the attached staff packet and with that I will turn it over to the uh om so thank you would would anyone from om care to speak to this item this is uh we did just have the work session but we do typically give you time to speak to it on the record and please uh State and spell your name for the record through the chair my name is Ona Brouse o n a b r a i Am the director of The Office of Management and budget um I'd like to thank the commission for allowing our presentation during the work session and um it was good conversation to sort of be in front of this commission for the first time and understand the direction that you were looking at things particularly in regards to the capital uh program for the municipality uh if there are any additional questions from the presentation feel free to let me know either now or at a later date and um we really appreciate the opportunity to present the budget to you for the input from the body any questions from the commission uh seeing none what is the will of the body never mind I guess we will no no public hearing no there up yeah there is no public hearing it's official all right that moves us on to the consent agenda e okay okay so we have a motion recommending approval our commissioner commissioner Ron would you like to State your motion thank you Mr chair I move uh to approve a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning commission to the Anchorage assembly of the proposed 2025 Capital Improvement budget and 2025 to 2030 Capital Improvement Capital Improvement program that is second commissioner Winchester would you like to speak to your motion uh just briefly I appreciate representatives from from uh the administration and various departments being here this evening to answer any questions the commission may have noting that we did have a healthy and robust uh work session uh prior to uh me making this motion uh we do have a few findings of fact uh presented to us I agree with all of them and would incorporate them for the record um items a one through three and B um in our draft um resolution um few additional comments uh recognizing that um budgeting is a challenging process at the municipal level um I personally believe as commissioner that um there's been a good faith effort to do uh the best that all can with the limited funds we have available and the sources of revenue that um our community does or doesn't have uh we heard earlier about um removal of State funding to the tune of um $100 million back in 2014 if you do the simple math over 10 years that's now a billion dollars uh that our community doesn't have that we did previously uh something that I Ponder as a resident of this citizen how we pay for the things that we need to sustain and improve our quality of life so thank you all to those who prepared this I intend to support the motion anybody else wishing to speak to the motion seeing none we'll call for the vote commissioner strike yep thank you that motion passes now we will move on to the consent agenda is there a motion to approve the consent agenda the consent agenda has been moved and approved is there anyone wishing to pull any items for discussion hearing seeing none we will call for the anybody opposed hearing none the consent agenda is approved next we this takes us to the public hearing portion I will read the procedures by which the public may speak to the commission as meetings after staff presentation is completed on public hearing items the chair will ask for public Tes issue persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the commission rules and procedures a petitioners including him him or her Representatives will receive 10 minutes part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal representatives of groups Community councils ptas Etc will receive five minutes and 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 any party of Interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the planning director within seven days of the commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21035 a4a commission recommendations to the Anchorage assembly are not appealable following approval of the written findings of fact and decision any party of Interest May with within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with 21035 the notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on the form prescribed by the municipality if the appellant is not the applicant the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant now can we please have the staff presentation on P 2024-25 thank you Mr chair good evening uh Commissioners my name is Daniel M Foster I'm a planner in the long- range planning division the planning department um case before you is uh assembly ordinance 202499 it was uh introduced by the assembly in October um they initially waved um Planning Commission review um and I just want to note the review was waved by the assembly when this item was introduced it appears as a case um but the assembly sponsors were not petitioning the planning zoning commission they were not expecting to appear were not asked to appear um so this information is presented by staff to give the commission an opportunity excuse me to ask questions or take action if desired um and there will be two other uh ordinances like this they're probably going to come to you in a different way we're still just trying to figure out how to do that in the right way so it gives everybody the time they need to review everything and the appropriate um sharing of information do you have anything else you want to add um so what are special limitations special limitations are a tool in title 21 um that allow the policy makers decision makers to apply special limitations on a rezone case they can do uh four potential things limit residential density prohibit structures or uses require compliance with design standards require compliance with a site plan uh require construction installation of improvements including public improvements oh five things excuse me or impose time limits for taking subsequent development action so it's a pretty powerful tool that can do a lot of things um there are many types of SLS that over time appear to have been incorporated into title 21 so it's a pretty old tool and we all know that title 21 has sort of been adding things and dealing with issues over time um a big one public meetings and site plan reviews those are now sort of established in 201103 and 2105 for uses um and we'll get into it later but it's interesting if you look at different SLS around town in different areas you see sort of different trends in the way the SLS were happening and and I think that really reflects that at that time the code maybe didn't have what people wanted and since then the code has been revised uh another thing is access requirements you see a lot of that on malun road where they say can't access this have to access here and a lot of those things are now uh regulated or or managed through site plan reviews and agency comments and then density standards and density requirements so and that's both limiting density or mandating density um some of these are now the r3a and r4a zones that that's another big one you see a lot of rezones from R3 to B3 in Midtown um really worried about the loss of residential capacity and then over time they eventually said okay R3 and r4a are supposed to be the zones that are fulfilling that need while also providing that flexibility um one thing when you map them you see there are indeed a lot of sl's that are on high slope areas especially in Eagle River and the hillside area in fact all of r10 I think is SLS um and so we referred this to the geotechnical advisory Commission for discussion we gave it to them in in October um and they'll be discussing just the concept at their uh November 26th meeting next week and really we asked them um are there rules in building codes now that address the original intent of these SLS because you'll see a lot of these they talk about slope they talk about erosion they talk about water and some of that maybe now is in building code some of it maybe now is in zoning code in 2107 um so let's dig into the the exciting interesting pieces here um this is as you look through you do see some of these themes and in the moldun area there are a lot of uh SLS that that speak specifically to uses um and so these are just a few examples and you'll see I mean there are lots and lots of SLS um all over moldun this is just a snapshot but every one of these is sort of having a a particular set of uses which is allowed um and we'll get into that a little bit later but it's kind of confusing right if you're a property owner looking to buy a property or use a property you think oh great it's B3 I can do X Y and Z and they say oh it's b3s so have to go find what is allowed what isn't allowed make sure everything's up to date um so it really is quite fascinating you can spend a lot of time digging into this and it's really sort of peering into kind of the thinking of the time and you'll see these range from 1984 to to basically 2018 um in Hillside area generally a lot of them deal with slopes a lot of them deal with site plan reviews um but a lot of them deal with other things too like the way things should look special types of easements um permitted uses and structure um for example there's one it's an r3l and it says you can only have single family homes um and you know density is limited to three dwelling in breaker six DS per acre so that's generally a lot of them are like this but not all of them like this every SL is sort of unique in its way but there are some interesting uh Trends uh Midtown area a lot of reviews and uses this I got to thank Paul for this he pointed this out that almost all of the ones here they call for a sort of public meeting or an administrative site plan review which was covered in subsequent versions of the code maybe that use now in the use table says this needs an admin site plan review or the entire code says when you do this type of development you always have to have a public meeting back in maybe the 80s 90s 2000s those those standards weren't in place um but again this and this is also an interesting area with uh thinking about as this area as Anchorage was moving south and you had all this sort of unrestricted or R3 land converting to maybe a more flexible category people and and people were worried like how do how do we control what's happening here and sl's were the tool they were kind of using um whether they were successful or not is another question and actually r4a is a really interesting one uh I know we we talked about that about two years ago initially people thought well maybe we'd have r4a be a B3 with an SL that's the archives property and we can get exactly what we want um so that's an instance of where r4a was now fulfilling the role of what the SL a B3 SL might have previously um Eagle River a lot of stuff about slopes and vegetation and um sort of rivers and preventing impacts and that sort of thing but also a lot of stuff uh too limiting development or uh density this one had left no more than 230 or 320 dwellings may be constructed that's on the whole site sometimes they say per acre sometimes they say per trct sometimes they have other types of restrictions um this is one of the more recent SLS this is uh Benson up here and this is Arctic this is a b3l and an r4sl for uh a manufactured housing community and you can see this is where there's a lot of design standards it says the the way the building should be oriented what should be allowed there it should have a what type of environment it should be so it's a really prescriptive SL and it covers both B3 and R4 um and this one's interesting because a lot of this also did end up these regulations or these the specific the specific pieces that were being regulated did end up in r4a or the site access code or r3a or in in parts of code that no longer apply um so it and sometimes it does feel like maybe this was a tool that people were using to meet a need and now maybe we have a different tool um so what are the issues with SLS um I think the big one especially for the Department is transparency it's hard for people to find them um we often get calls and people say hey I I found this lot it's a b3l what do it what does it what does that mean you know where do I go in some cases you can look on the mun website and you can find the link to the ordinance which is great GS has done a great job on that in other places it's not listed even on our own internal side of the gis it just hasn't been uploaded or it's not clear what it is and so in some cases we have to go up to the front and get out those massive big Maps and look at something that was printed probably 20 years ago and find it and then go back and find the ordinance so for us you know we can do that but for the average person it's very difficult to figure out what exactly this means um they don't show up in a title search um they might apply in IR regular ways like you might oh SLS are about uses well sometimes they're about uses sometimes they're about density sometimes they're about access sometimes they're about design standards every single one uh is different some are very simple some are one or two lines some are 10 or 11 pages um consistency some SLS apply to sections of code which are long out of date um I think common ones they say oh um you have to go through an administrative site plan review according to 2145 a section of code that doesn't exist anymore you might say oh well we we have the same public process it's just numbered differently possibly right say you have an SL from 1985 it refers to a piece of code that existed in 1985 but then you have to go back and look at what that code said for that particular process in 1985 because that code could have changed between 85 and 87 right or 85 and 90 so that's just another piece where sometimes even a very simple one it ends up with a piece of code that maybe has changed or maybe doesn't exist or maybe is now taken over by something else um and then fairness um there are some SLS that limit housings for reasons that might not be related to health safety and Welfare health safety and Welfare of course is is the sort of legal rationale for zoning established by Supreme Court in the 1926 uid vers Ambler case um here's just a couple more examples that are just kind of really hard to deal with this with the dotted line This is an SL it crosses multiple properties so it results in a weird split Zone lot and the SL actually says that 100 foot strips of these properties so it only regulates a very tiny piece of adjacent properties um so these are two different Lots so that's a complication um here's another one this I think might be the smallest SL this is spinard and where the railroad tracks cost it's this tiny little SL maybe it's 7,000 squ ft and it just regulates this one little part of the building um which again is a weird situation to be in what happens if that building gets demoed and somebody's building a new building and then somebody say oh actually for this these four closets you have to do a sight plan review or something like that um this I think is another one of the smallest ones is uh 36 in Lake Otis this tiny little uh 12,000 ft lot um is B1 ASL and it says you have to have a non-public hearing site plan review to change it um and I include this just because I think in general the zoning code or the code says that you you shouldn't be rezoning anything less than 1.5 Acres um or something maybe it's 1.75 Acres so you end up with these little pieces of zones that don't apply anywhere else and have all these unique um kind of characteristics another P thing I kind of mentioned this is in people can go to the map and code does say it has to be listed r3l code doesn't say necessarily that you have to be able to find the ordinance immediately um and this is something we're already working on the director has kind of put us to work on making sure that we have everything C categorized cataloged that will be happening but again for right now if you are maybe want to buy this property or look at this property and you go to any publicly available Source you cannot find it um and it would be very hard for somebody to find it where even to begin looking for that without calling one of us in the planning department and we can find it but for this one we'd probably have to go to the front and dig through you know the the mass of old plats which again we're glad to do it's we're we're happy to do it but for the average person who's just looking for transparent information it's very complicated um here's another one another b3l um let's see these are just some examples and I probably I'll go through much more quickly this is what I'm talking about it's referring to 2145 sections of code that um maybe are somewhere else now maybe not um this is another really interesting one this is uh from 1997 it's an r3l the r3l you know 3 is a high density Zone it's right next to the base great place to have housing um it only allows uh single family dwellings and six dwelling UNS per acre it also requires that you have to have a mix um of of developments and most of it should be single family and each single family dwelling shall have a minimum size of 12,000 ft and a two-car garage so that that is what the law says if you're building in this area you have to have a very prescriptive type of house um again it's you look at it say why is it R3 it could just be R1 essentially right um here's another r3l this is really about overall density for the tract so you know these are actually pretty small lots and um this is an interesting one because this might be in a case before we had conservation subdivisions so they they wanted maybe smaller Lots they wanted a little more compact housing maybe they wanted to save this green space but there was no tool in code to do it so they ended up with the SL that sort of establishes that for them because I think these uh property sizes yeah this is a 2,991 ft lot so there are other ways to do that excuse me um here's another one has a lot of really complicated stuff uh 600 feet of of usable open space per unit uh it also talks about you can't block certain views a minimum of 20% of overflow parking um so again and just for one site it it it's really complicated again every single one is different in most cases um RL uh I don't even remember this one again it's got a lot of complicated uses and general principal structure what they should look like how should how you know that sort of thing um this one another one it requires a special uh setback on this side I think for the benefit of of these Property Owners this one is is a fairly recent one this 2017 the zoning Mac Amendment says uh maximum dwelling units is 30 and Commercial uses and manufactured home communities are prohibited um that that's the kind of thing where it it's hard to make a good case to say why this site would not be appropriate for a certain type of house right when housing is just housing um this um is a is a really interesting one it's a SL from 1991 this is Northwood this is over by spinard um spinard road is up here but the spinard rec center is down over here so basically it said uh the number of dwelling units is limited to I think it says 180 and that was down from 200 so you can see the negotiation that was going on uh maximum 35 foot so so pretty limiting what can be done on this pretty Prime site interestingly enough you look back um in I think 2014 somebody proposed 680 units here um great spot I think it's in a Transit supportive Corridor maybe or at least parts of it anyway they wanted to uh changed the zoning they wanted to rezone to R4 uh planning zoning commission denied it they said no r3l is fine um and again there's probably a lot going on there but it just shows that these limitations do play into sort of a a bigger um kind of story of of of how housing has been built in Anchorage and so you know ultimately they just said okay that's fine we'll we'll just resend the case and so it's still a vacant lot today and again we can speculate who knows if it would have gone through or not but it is interesting that we have a big it's something like 9 Acres or something site that somebody tried to build 680 units 10 years ago and today we have we have no units there um the main thing and I we talked more about this in the staff report is that SLS are a tool and in many ways I I think they're sort of like a relief valve but it's almost like a relief valve that isn't supposed to be where you release the pressure because for policy makers decision makers you're facing these issues and you somebody wants to change their property and you're probably going to hear some sort of feedback that pushes in the other way and for somebody in your old position or anybody's position it's hard because you think Well I this seems like a good project but I hear that uh the neighbors needs aren't being met or there's some other environmental concern that I have and I don't have a tool to deal with that and I think SLS have traditionally been that tool um and so it's a way to sort of allow something to go through um that sort of it sort of provides a compromise um there are you know some issues with that and and I can get into the the public comments a little bit um just because in doing that it sort of ends up with a very specialized set of regulations that uh are hard to find it's it's difficult to manage them um and it and there's also a bigger question of if you are approving a reone that might not totally be appropriate for that area then maybe the rezone really shouldn't be approved or the other piece is that if you're approving a rezone that implements the comprehensive plan then the comprehensive plan already sort of calls out that um that implementation zone is appropriate for that so you know I I see in the public comments some people said well we got more flexibility we had an R3 in hell sidew we wouldn't have been able to do it I think my response would be well perhaps that wasn't appropriate for R3 right do we really want R3 density or R3 standards down on Hillside if it if it isn't following the plan maybe it shouldn't be approved um because fundamentally again the land use plan says where things should go this is the agreement of what's appropriate and if a rezone isn't appropriate then it's just not appropriate um and if by using SLS it can almost in some ways subvert that a little bit because it's allowing something that maybe isn't appropriate um but with some of that compromise so there's a lot to it but with that i' I'd be glad to answer any questions thank you we have a question from commissioner Krishna sure I'll kick us off so I'm looking at the draft and I am wondering if you walk us through how swapping the word special limitations or other for Effective Clauses what what does effective Clauses mean what is different about that tool than special limitations thank you through the chair um the I think the effect the effective Clause is a way to get the thing established but it's it's almost like one thing that has to be done for it to be established whereas the special limitation is something that lasts forever for example when the r4a lot at The Archives was passed they passed it with an effective clause and they said this this reone comes into effect as soon as there's an easement recorded over Fish Creek so once that easement goes in then the it can go through versus um an SL there might have said in the future you know no development can ever happen where in this area it it's just sort of a one-time thing that fulfills a specific task or specific problem U versus an SL which applies basically permanently forever regardless just to clarify when we look at rezones and we say recommend approval subject to the conditions on pages eight or whatever that those conditions are what effective Clauses are that's what we're talking about that's a great question I think it really depends um I I would say because I haven't been involved in that many resons with those specific conditions but I I think it depends on what the language is if it says and and it depends what the condition is if if the rezone is subject to the condition that the following uses be prohibited from The Zone I'd say it was an SL but I don't um I don't to me an example of the condition she would be referring to is like an one example would be this will take effect when the plat is recorded um those those type of conditions so I I don't NE necessarily think that they would be what you're referring to but I guess in in the fish creek instance it could be that this zoning will take effect if this easement were to be recorded or something maybe a condition like that I don't I don't know yeah I think you're right because it is often it show subject to recording at the state recorder's office that does feel more like an effective clause and maybe that's honestly something we could look at um in terms of the specifics of the language but I guess saying a a special condition is not a special limitation at least in defined in code can can I ask one more question on this train of on this L line I think yeah I think a little bit more information would be helpful here as to like what the bounds Are For What in effective Clauses um frankly I hadn't seen those bounds for for what a special ation was I don't think ever um makes me wonder if we have been using them correctly on this commission um but I I I'm hoping you can spell out a little bit more what an effective Clause would be the effective Clause is listed in code as something that um actually maybe maybe I should back up I I think the effective Clause comes into effect when the the assembly is adopting the the rezone when the the Planning and Zoning commission recommends with conditions I think that's a separate thing but I I think we can provide you a clearer answer to that because when I'm thinking through in 2103 it mentions effective Clauses as something that the assembly can do um whereas the Planning and Zoning Commission in providing a recommendation could make conditions of the recommendation I think a lot of those conditions would be affected through the sort of the changes that the staff and the applicant will make before it gets to the assembly but it sounds like we probably owe you a little bit clear explanation maybe on paper on that uh commissioner Ron thank you the chair um first question uh what's the process for changing an SL when an SL has outlived its intended life for events have ch changed is there a process and what is it through the chair it's a rezone it's the same process as a full rezone at least in code it says that to remove an SL uh you have to go through the reone process I've heard there are other ways that it has been done but in I think generally in code it just treats it as if it's a reone to just like any other reone so followup would be then for the data presented in the table and attachment c those items were SL proposed removed by assembly um there's not a mechanism by which the assembly just issues an ordinance and poof it's gone well so I I think if I'm so excuse me through the chair I I think some of those the SL was sort of riding on the AO when it got to the assembly and the assembly had removed it from the AO before it got adopted um in terms of can the assembly just make the call and remove one that is a question that I think becomes a lot more complicated than anything I can answer because it gets into how the assembly do a reone um in that whole process I don't know if you have any yeah so and that that's my wording error but in in some of those like on the um the towers in spinard that was the and maybe the properties down an abot Loop those were the SLS were proposed and the assembly removed them from the ordinance so they never got adopted um I guess I'll just add that I have been a part of a rezone in Eagle River where a property had SLS that made development impossible and during that time assembly member bill star initiated a rezone of the property bypassing planning and zoning and I happened to be a part of several emails between the assembly member and planning staff where planning staff pushed back rigorously on his effort to do rezone directly but ultimately he was successful in doing that and so I think sometimes the assembly and planning staff disagree on what the assembly can do but uh it has been done commissioner George thank you uh to the chair so I just want to make sure I get the process here correct I've got some questions for the department but is it the intention to take public testimony on this item and then come back to it is is that a question for me procedurally are we are we opening this up to the public or we just um well that's a that is a good question it's listed here under the public hearing section of our agenda so whether that was our intent or not I I feel like that's what we're going to do I mean I read that whole Spiel so always happy to defer to the public process so uh then I'll I'll be brief uh initially and um maybe just ask some procedural questions I I know that when we as a body took up the the home initiative earlier this year there was a lot of talk about special limitations uh both here in the chamber and then in our work sessions as well as well um I know this was considered to be at the time some loow hanging fruit something that was achievable um to address and I I seem to recall from one of the memos that the department provided us previously that they had identified 105 SLS that they had uh been able to identify at the time um I had made a request for a list of those SLS so that we could review what they are and what they do I think it's very difficult to to make a policy call on such a um a versatile tool in our toolbox um without knowing what these all do and having a systematic uh approach to them you know it may be that most of them are outdated or really just unfair to the owners uh but without a process to identify all of them to know what we're talking about before we we change uh our own powers um I just I think that uh if that's something the department working on I want to make sure that I defer to them and maybe they've got some thoughts on that but that's kind of where my mind is going thank you I guess I just want to clarify that what that we all understand that we're not removing SLS here tonight or rezoning any properties we're only removing the tool which I I guess I'll in my words I would characterize it as a torture tool for planners and developers and and so I guess that's what just to clarify that is what we're doing that's what's up for discussion tonight thank you it it may be less of a scalpel more of a hammer uh and certainly a tool that was very popular in the past and so uh just knowing how it's been used in the past I think would be very helpful you know if we're going to say no more um you know how has it been used and what might we not be able to do in the future thank you uh commissioner Ron uh thank you to the chair I'll adopt a prior Commissioners uh what I understand his intent uh and interest to be in the form of a question back to the department um so whether it be 105 or fewer or more than that of the SLS that the department has reviewed and taken a look at can you weigh in on that question of what percentage of them were uh discouraging of development and which were in fact enabling uh development um so again not looking for hard numbers but uh we're hearing the word pain um but also noting that there maybe some beneficial elements of these SL at the same time thank you commissioner through the chair um yeah just want to reiterate that the the ordinance is about stopping the tool and the ordinance also instructs the planning department to do a comprehensive review and and look through all of them so we've already started doing that um we we found a document recently that shows all the SLS from the 1980s to 2000 I think just looking at that this there's 545 in this list and that's that's a you know part of them right and that's an older document that was collected back in the day some of those might have been changed or not um but this document itself provides some pretty interesting uh context just kind of doing some quick analysis on it most of the rezones were from R3 most of the rezones were to B3 not necessarily always R3 to B3 um but most of the the SL limitations were about use um or height or density or things like that um so we're going through the process of trying to catalog and categorize them all but I think in general SLS are a restrictive tool I don't think they're I haven't seen any case where they're used to provide something that wasn't provided before um again in the case of using an R3 in the hillside area that seems like oh it's making it more flexible because you're using more flexible Zone but then you look at the SL itself and it's requiring an admin sight plan review and all these other things and density at like below what you could get in R1 um so it's really tricky but I I think in general SLS are always a restrictive tool and never really a a I don't want to say productive but a sort of generative tool um but eventually we will be able to get you the data to show most L SLS were about this kind of thing but the problem is because so many SLS have so many pieces attached to them it's extremely difficult to categorize it to say okay this is you know AO 2017 95 it has restrictions on use density access this and to categorize all that it it just becomes this massive um document um but it's something we're we're already working on and we will provide that report and you know internally when we're talking about it what would we even do about this we would have to look at are these still serving a purpose or not you couldn't just get rid of these and say get rid of them all because there's so many pieces you need to look at and make sure that it's solving a problem or not solving a problem um and so that comprehensive process is is going to be that um but yeah this particular ordinance is just saying no more going forward um but the process of removing them that's another longer discussion commissioner pus I can think of several special limitations throughout my career that were actually about self and uh health and weight selfy health and safety sorry um I'm not going to sit here and list them out I do agree that probably 90% of special limitations are not necessary I think your guys' effort to go through look at what's being listed um and just get rid of the ones that are already covered in code obviously things have changed over the last 30 years if it's that old and it's already covered we should just start scraping those things I completely agree with that um I can give you an example right now where I'm getting a variance for converting um uh covered parking to self storage and there's a weird little caveat in title 21 that says Self Storage is an allowed use in industrial area but it cannot be it has to be at least a half an acre and can be no bigger than 10 acres and because I'm on an 11 Acre Site I have to go through a variance that then now records that we're going to propose less than take 10 acres and because we have to do it in two phases I don't know how else we'd be able to record that you know that we're going to come back and do it again there has to be some type of document sticking around um that says otherwise we'd have to come back again for phase two so we're asking for approval of both and it's going to get recorded um that's not exactly health and safety but that's a situation where this could come up um so I just you know I support 90% of this I don't think getting rid of special limitations is a good thing though I think there's a few spots here and there that they are a good tool so I'll just leave it at that commissioner Gardner thank you um I think I have two questions but the first one maybe goes back to where we started where I think commissioner Krishna was asking questions about just kind of the terminology and what tools we're talking about in the box and I'm I'm looking at the approval criteria for rezoning and one of them is um pretty focused on the conditions on the ground and that's the one that's the the rezone is not likely to result in and significant ADV adverse impacts upon adjacent land uses and then it says or such impacts shall be mitigated through stipulations and I guess my first question is that word stipulations in that context um what that what that means to the planning department and what tool that is because I read that and I think like something like a special limitation and is there is there something else that that is maybe contemplating through the chair that's a great question I don't have a good answer for you I think we'd have to ask okay thank you um and then I guess I can go another question is um I think my question is I'm just looking for since I don't work actively with special limitations I'm not um you know building things or having to deal with them but the chair's reference to them is a torture torture limitations um as as I Envision the process it occurs to me that part of and some of the examples you gave earlier are that one of the challenges we have is that a special limitation in a sense even even though code might be revised through time and the allowable uses in a particular zone or certain limitations on development within a Zone could change but a special a special limitation at least with respect to the content of that limitation just kind of locks it in Amber um whether it's 40 years or 30 years I mean you pointed to some that were from the 80s and is is part of problem as we're thinking about what the underlying issue is I guess I guess my question is to what degree is it a function of the fact that we get stuck with stuff that's way outdated and it doesn't have the flexibility to kind of naturally update itself as the code is updated um and how much of the issues that you see do you think are a function of that kind of problem with special limitations versus other concerns through the chair I I think be answering the question but if I'm if I'm getting too far off please correct me I I maybe we could think of a specific example that everybody's seen recently down on Abbott Road there's a a a lot that was being rezoned from R5 to B3 right and it also required a u 2040 land use plan change if if you start seeing a lot of those to me that would indicate that maybe there's an issue with either people are trying to do something that's really not appropriate for that area or maybe that the framework in the land use is not designating that area correctly um because again the 240 landage plan is really supposed to say look this is kind of what we decided we're going to have the industrial stuff over here more housing stuff over here this over here and if you know individual property owners are are saying No this actually makes more sense to do this and they're getting approved so the land use changes to the map are approved and the rezones are approved that to me would indicate that maybe there's an underlying problem with that designation and and that designation is interesting too right because it's City Center it's industrial and then you have this big clump of single family and and one family um and you know talking with Paul sorry to drag Paul into this but there might have been issues with the water system there back in the day where the water system couldn't handle enough so they designated it as one to two family now maybe that's been updated the land use plan map still says it's not really appropriate to have it but in these processes those rezones are still going through and the land use plan designation changes are still going through um so I I think you're right that's identifying that something isn't quite working in some piece of the system is not hasn't been updated necessarily um but it it could be both the plan but it could also be the zoning right if for example say you're getting a bunch of B3 rezones and people say I don't want I don't want a gas station there right and you're seeing that with every single one I I mean maybe the gas station should be an administrative site plan review or maybe it should be a conditional use so that gets built into the Zone um and so in terms of alternatives to this tool there are many in the code it just would take changing the code slightly differently right to say okay if this use is a big issue maybe it should be a conditional use if this is a big problem in this area maybe it shouldn't be designated one and two family the land use plan maybe it should be designated something else um so I I think that got to what you're asking but let me know if it didn't I think I think it did to degree and I think part of the part of your challenge answering my question is that there my question maybe wasn't totally clear even in my own head so I think you're I think you're helping move me along so thanks for your response commissioner Krishna yeah and maybe this is another very broad question that's not really possible to answer but I'm wondering if you can walk us through how the department is thinking about existing SLS if there are 500 of them out there is there and I'm not asking for necessarily action items right now but just is there um Talk of doing a review to find out if some change or having some percentage of them removed through some action is beneficial is it really just a you know we leave them until there's some um development or a property owner comes forward with some desired change um could you talk about how you're thinking about that because you know I I I think when we talk about Fair application of the code I do worry a little bit or wonder a little bit about um a tool that is used this year and then goes out of use right um does somebody get an opportunity this year that they didn't get last year um what does that look like over time I'm hoping you can talk to us a little bit about that yeah through the chair I'll answer then I'll defer to the director because she might have a a bigger higher level picture um yeah so you know in the AO it sort of instructs us and the AO hasn't been adopted yet but we're just thinking about it and it seems like good practice anyway to go through and catalog every single uh a um SL that exists and to commissioner P's point I I agree there are many that are very clearly related to health safety and Welfare I mean a lot of the stuff on the slopes a lot of stuff in Eagle River that is said you can't build within 70 feet of a stream like there was Environmental Protection stuff that went in because that's before we had that section in 2107 um or that's before building codes regulated whatever um and that's one of the main reasons we brought it to the geotechnical advisory commission to ask if you know and what we asked them is if these went away do you would you feel there was a health safety risk in these areas could people build a safe building in r10 um without a special limitation there without whatever process and we're talking with them about that next week everybody should come um join us and in terms of how to move to the next step in the equal application I mean the first step we'll have to be looking at each one of them and trying to figure out is this really addressing a health safety welfare need or is it addressing something else right because we also have that other unfair application where you might have an R4 lot here where somebody can do something and an R4 here lot lot here where they can't do something um so it's it's going to be a a very big task but I think key Paramount to that is making sure that nothing or any recommendation to remove anything is not creating an unsafe condition I think that's how we said it to GIC would would this removing this create an unsafe condition I don't know if you wanted to weigh in through the chair um my name is meisa Bab I'm the planning director for the Anchorage planning department um as you are all aware um but I think just to summarize that um I did direct the planning department to start investigating these because it looked like an unequal and uneven application of the zoning code um and there are so many of them um and they are all so different from each other so I was curious to see see what they contained um and in the little bit of investigating that we have done so far it does seem that um a lot of the content of current SLS especially the older ones um are duplicative of what actually um exists in code regulations now um either via IBC IFC um title 21 or all of the different um the various regulations that are govern governing development so if these are in place now um all over town and they require a rezone in order to remove them it seemed like a good idea to start maybe maybe cleaning those up um as we um discover which ones are not related to health and safety in hopefully in preparation for more development more housing um just smoothing the way for for for um higher density development in some areas commissioner George thank you to the chair um I appreciate the the comments about um SLS many decades ago having to do with uh health safety and Welfare uh in ways that are not were not protected at the time but are now uh provided for in code state law federal laws that have passed since those days um some things that come to mind uh contaminated sites uh institutional controls that are ongoing um those are excellent reasons to have limitations for undevelopment um that might not otherwise appear in code um our code has greatly evolved since a lot of these were put in place shortly after unification of the buau um I think there's a lot of interest among the body here it appears to to delve into how many of these are still relevant and uh whether they're useful tool um it seems maybe premature to uh restrict this power that the body has without knowing how it has been used or how it might still be valuable um the you know we talked about in some of the uh SLS limiting size of homes garages that sort of things that that that reads like a plat note or a ccnr from an old development that's just carried forward um that's what it seems like those were doing at the time and it it makes me wonder you know the city can put a limitation on a property for development but so can a private owner as well and they can put covenants and they can restrict development I see it all the time in title reports and by day I help folks buy homes and I see title reports and we look on uh the tax assessor database and um there was some public testimony submitted that uh requested that the SLS be tied into C and be searchable and I think that's a fantastic idea um because these are currently binding SLS um I think it would be great to see where if you looked at any property on the arcgis or on the tax assistor database it would say with the L is and you could click the link or you could look at it or you could it would say how to go right to it um I think anything we can do to make that more transparent uh would be fair uh but also it seems like there needs to be a systematic review of all the SLS that are out there and this appears to be the appropriate body to do that at some point um you know the Constitution and the state statutes give Burrows and cities the authority to plan regulate land land use and plat land and um removing the ability to put in place those stipulations um might be premature without knowing all the ways it can be valuable or helpful or useful thank you um that didn't sound like much of a question so I just want to clarify for you guys that this section of the meeting is for questions of staff so let's because we are going to have a public hearing at least I don't know if anyone's going to talk to us but so questions for staff right now commissioner chrishna yes I understand we making a recommendation to the assembly because they've already introduced this item is that correct what's our um deadline by which we have to make that recommendation if we don't do it at this meeting will we get another opportunity before the assembly hears this item if you decide to make a recommendation um you may do so at the next meeting if you would like to wait if I could add to the chair the the item is scheduled to go back to the assembly on December 17th so the assembly or PCC has a meting on the 2 and a meting on the 9th commissioner Winchester uh do you know offhand how many resoning special limitations have been used in say the last 5year period is this something that's been happening uh quite a bit currently uh through the chair in the packet we have a list it's in the last 5 years since 2019 I don't know I'm going to guess maybe four or five I I don't know I could give you a more precise answer there there the numbers are in here um but then there are also some that where the SL was proposed and it was removed by the assembly but I could you know the spinard tower reone some of the uh Abbot Loop rezones um a couple in Eagle River actually have happened recently um those are the top three I can think of in the last two years and would you say in those instances it was helpful to uh facilitate the reone or they've since um seemed shortsighted in retrospect would you say I don't think I could comment on that I think fundamentally it comes down to is is the zoning appropriate or not and if you ask me I'd say you you can't really reone something something to of a zone that doesn't implement the comprehensive plan right so you can't be in in one and two family and say I want this to be B3 but if you make if you amend the comp plan map the 240 land use plan map and then to a zone that or to excuse me a designation that allows a Zone to implement into that then technically you're following what the plan says now if you have the land use plan map with little pockets of different designations that might be an indication of a bigger issue um or if you have in any c i I guess I guess that's what I would say if because that's also what maybe has has happened in certain cases the spinard tower for example it's a tiny square of a very specific type of land use designation and well the SL if I recall was related to design and and that sort of thing to sort of accommodate that and and again it it doesn't really matter what I think it's it's whether the Zone implements the plan and whether the assembly or the planning zoning commission recommends that so I it's hard to say if to what ends they were being used or if they were being successful or not okay see no more questions for staff so we will move to the public hearing um hold on Daniel hold on for is anyone wishing to speak to this item please come forward please uh state your name for the record and let us know if you're speaking uh for yourself or on behalf of a group yes sir my name is Luke Smith I am uh a resident here I'm speaking on my own behalf not as a business business or any entity like that thank you go ahead um a few questions I did have for uh the real estate side of this I see that the special limitations are subject to certain properties and such a lot of them I see outdated if the this tool were to stay would those uh SLS be uh revised and maybe relooked at I understand that the safety reasons of having a a house on Hillside stuff of that is subject to more safety concerns because of higher winds worse weather Etc so I I would probably go to say that it would be a good idea to look over those older uh SLS and see if maybe that there can be some revisions in that as far as um safety and uh wellness and that no further questions uh thank you and to just to answer your question no this would not change the existing SLS or that would be a something that the property owners would need to apply for rezone to rezone the SLS off their property thank you sir for your time is anyone else wishing to speak okay we have have two phone testimonies we're ready for those Nancy p it is this is the Planning and Zoning commission calling for public testimony on case 2024 124 very good are you testifying as an individual or representing a group I'm representing rabbit Creek community council okay you will have five minutes to provide your testimony please State your full name for the record and you can begin yes my name is Nancy peas representing rabbit Creek community council I hope you receive rabbit Creek's written comments by email this afternoon you'll see that rabbit Creek raised several concerns and questions and voted unanimously to oppose the ordinance and thereby retain the use of special limitations I'll summarize five concerns from rabbit Creek first the lack of evidence that special limitations have been misapplied there are numerous special limitation zonings in the rabbit Creek area and across the hillside that pertain to inadequate infrastructure and natural terrain conditions such as lack of secondary erress or steep slopes second the council disagreed with a staff memo describing the removal of an SL as unnecessary and burdensome through an ordinance is unnecessary and burdensome special limitations are not lightly approved and they should not be lightly removed third the staff raised the issue of transparency and we find that Parcels with s are clearly marked on uni zoning maps and that is not true of plat notes or effective Clauses or conditions of approval so in some ways SLS are far more obvious to the public than other conditions of approvals our council's highest concern for transparency is whether the commission and the staff use an open and fair process on a controversial rezoning case so what we look for is robust analysis of both the proposed development and the comp plan full public notice and participation and no expart influence it's not clear to us whether SLS are more or less Incorruptible than other means to to solve a complex resoning decision um we'd like an audit of the planning toolbox um regarding how how and when um to use special limitations and effective Clauses and so on um fourth this is perhaps our greatest concern that under the pressure of of a flagging local economy without SLS there would be higher likelihood for approvals of resoning that do not comply with a comprehensive plan and that create more pressure for peace meal amendments to the comp plan which defeats the intention of zoning given a choice between SLS and repeated areawide rezoning through text amendments SLS appear to us to be a means to protect the overall comp plan from dismemberment and this is sort of a stealthy element in this proposal uh the planning memo asserts that special limitations should be applied only for reasons of safety health and public welfare and this is a major policy statement that doesn't comport with the comp plan um multiple adopted plans and policies commit to building a well-designed city that Embraces our natural setting Northern climate and fosters distinctive neighborhoods consider chapter 2 of the 2040 land plan which talks about creating great places there are two pages 34 and 35 they're intended to guide discretionary landies decisions such as rezonings or site plan reviews so in conclusion I'd like to risk a metaphor I'm hoping that some of you are committed gardeners as am I um you know that for long range growing such as an orchard you lay out your pattern you plant your trees and then it takes time to bear fruit you don't re disrupt the zone of your orchard by planting a redwood tree or a magic beant stock in it but if there's a rezoning application for the orchard for trees or beans you could consider it and make it work through special limitations such as a dwarf spruce or low growing Bush beams so in conclusion special limitations can continue to be a useful resoning tool and we urge an audit of all of the conditions of approval for rezoning to ensure transparency and consistency with the comp plan thank you thank you for your testimony I disconnected I'm sorry should I call back if there questions I apologize I don't I see no questions are there any questions for testimony for Mrs pce we have no questions but maybe you could send her a note to say thank you this is Diane hello is this Diane Holmes Yep this is the planning zoning commission calling for public testimony case 2024 0124 are you testifying as an individual or representing a group I'm speaking for myself okay you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony please State your full name for the record and you may begin thank you I'm Di homes this uh AO before you originally had been had waved your review and I'm glad that that did not occur however the short time frame has not allowed many councils nor individuals to provide you with comments although the few that who have commented wlon and rabbit crit Council are in your packet and I believe are worthy of their reading mostly though I'm disappointed in the staff report which hasn't provided you with fuse You may wish to consider and in my opinion does not reflect certain assessments accurately I'll expedite a few key arguments as to why you should keep this useful tool SLS do not keep properties from developing rather a reone can be viewed as being able to do more with a a parcel with an NL such as more intense development while further ing the comp plan goals and mitigating adverse impacts consider the compatibility of adjacent land uses for each res Zone as well as other challenges and how SLS May provide options is there really a basis for SLS based only on safety health and public issues welfare I think there's much more to consider while current may not have their AOS listed on all plat Maps making some a mystery there is no reason to delete them as the city is working to correct that situation the zoning map helps provide certainty for long-term investment and neighborhood stability yet without the possibility of SLS there could be more halfhazard zoning map amendments which defeats the purpose of zoning without SLS pnz would likely end up denying more rezones or applying them out of compliance with the comp plan so please keep this planning tool and I wish you could ask for the real reasons as cases before you however since the staff report recommended removing the L's sls's I know they cannot always speak freely and that sometimes is unfortunate because I know they have different op opinions thank you very much for considering this I've been listening to what you've been saying thank you uh I see no questions anybody else wishing to come forward and testify last call for public testimony okay we closing the public hearing so now we are at the tricky part where we can actually just walk away from this or we can uh make a motion commissioner Ron thank you through the chair not ready to make a motion um appreciate that you're trying to get us there I would actually if you're okay with it like to hear from staff as to what progress they think they can make over the next two weeks um understanding we convene in early December I appreciate that they have started to take a look it sounds like we'll continue to do so um before I plant my own seeds for what I'd like to see um I'll let staff respond as as to my question through the chair do you mean a report a comprehensive report of all the SLS and what they contain I do not um I'm intending to ask how far uh you think you'll get with whatever effort it is you're on and perhaps we can have some discussion about what other Commissioners would like to see um I guess I'll start and then um so we've started land use review is already looking through and they're just trying to get all the ordinances up um but that I think will take until next year probably probably January or so um for going through the rest of the reviews and and to be honest it it's going to be very interesting project so it's not like we don't want to do it I don't we're because we have a couple of other items we we'd like to bring before for you in not this exact way but something similar to the B3 and the multif family residential um I don't think we would get very far on that we I could give you everything we have I could give you the the document that has the 545 from 1980s to 2001 I I could send that very easily but I I'll defer to the director through the chair I would agree that we do not have time within the next two weeks to give you a comprehensive view of sl's um but we can provide you with the materials that we have discovered so far if you would like us to do so commissioner Krishna sure I have sort of a different request that maybe will also benefit us and the assembly's review of this which is you know would it be possible to do a couple pages on um what's possible with SLS what's possible with um you know the the words effective Clauses what that means and then um I'm looking at page three of our packet recommended alternatives to special limitations my my fear and I um if you want to respond please do is making sure that we do some review at this point to make sure that we don't swap SLS for a different tool where we're doing the same thing right where we're saying oh well now we'll switch to using deed restrictions or conditions to also um you know require Landscaping buffers and limit density or or whatever we could be doing through our CS right so I I guess I would love to see a discussion of um what isn't isn't possible with those different tools to make sure that we're not just taking off one thing and then leaving three other options by which we could still apply um code unfair L right that that would be my main concern because if so if if it turns out that all of the things that we have been using SLS for are still possible through all of these other methods and I would assume that this body or a future body um might just re revert to doing those so I think that would be my main concern and I I wonder if that's something that we can um do an analysis of in the next couple of weeks uh excuse me through the chair I I think we could put something together uh but right off the bat I think I'd say that you know all those tools already exist right so people could already do that I think the difference is is a lot of those require a different type of contract or a different type of agreement whereas an SL comes out of a very different process and and it it sort of exists in a way that most people might not be familiar with or even know to look for it whereas a plat I mean a lot of people don't know what a plat is unfortunately but people a plat note isn't understood thing but also to get a plat note you go through the platting board so we have these procedures to do a lot of that um and again I think some of those procedures are in place to serve you know a health safety welfare need and again health safety welfare is the basis of zoning according to the Supreme Court um and so my immediate response would just be kind of that you know covenants sometimes they're unattractive to some people but they're they're private contracts right and deed restrictions also so and I I think that's maybe the thing with SLS they're created in a way where it's sort of contingent upon somebody getting an approval for something whereas a deed restriction or a plat note or something else is created through a different type type of process which which requires a a sort of different type of contract um but I I think we could put something like that together um but at the same time you know those are all existing tools and I I don't think we would go far to say we want to limit any of those tools I think much of what we maybe what I was trying to say in any this is there's there are ways to do this already and so if there really is a need for some of these things there are the tools we we just don't need to duplicate but I guess to clarify I have maybe the opposite concern of commissioner George which which is I want to make sure that if we are considering removing this tool that is actually well and truly removed right that there's not a backdoor way that this body or a future body could end up doing the same things with a different tool and that that's what I'm I'm really asking for clarification on through the chair if I may um I think we can send you clarification on the effective Clauses and conditions and use of special limitations if that's what you're asking for and then um in addition to that I think just summarizing that our investigation so far into SLS is um considering if this is if this is an appropriate use of a zoning action uh commissioner George thank you to the chair I I appreciate uh commissioner Christa's point I think it's an excellent point um a excellent case would be I I have a real estate listing right now with that has uh a recorded change of plat notes through assembly ordinance assembly uh resolution 2-10 which changed um buffer setbacks Creek setbacks all all that stuff um can be changed by the assembly um on a plat note and we have plating board Powers I believe at the Planning and Zoning commission we could sit as the platting board if we wish and um amend a plat note and put a platin note restriction on if we wished um I mean is that that's probably more transparent than an SL because I believe that it have to be recorded one of the biggest critiques I think is that oftentimes these are not recorded and does does the department have the power to see how many SLS have been recorded and if they're not recorded record them I think that would take a lot of investigating um per property and in town so that would be a pretty big effort but we can maybe attempt to discover that through coordination with the Department um with DNR thank you I I appreciate that the concern being that SLS don't necessarily show up in a title report okay we're um not making motions and not talking since there's no requirement to make a motion on this item it was somewhat informational we can just move on we have the option to postpone [Music] um I know that there are some reports to be given after this commissioner Eber um I'm just going to throw this out there I think if we don't say something that the assembly is going to get just as frustrated with us as they were when we dealt with the home initiative so I don't know what we should do or what direction we should go but that disconnect the last time was pretty frustrating I think for all of us so maybe it's just something to consider commissioner Gardner yeah just maybe it's a question for staff at timing clarification I thought I had heard that under the current schedule that um this wouldn't be next picked up by the assembly until after our December meetings is that correct so the chair yeah it's scheduled to be back for public hearing on December 17th and the next planning zoning commission meetings are December 2nd and December 9th thank you uh motion by commissioner Gardner seconded by commissioner Christian M commissioner Gardner would you like to State your motion yeah I mean I'm putting this on the table just for discussion but um my motion is to move I guess to postpone um making a decision on this case until our December 9th meeting um to allow the planning department to provide some additional information that we had discussed with them um and I guess opened up other specific items that Commissioners are interested in hearing about I know we discussed um maybe a better understanding of some of the Alternatives that were provided in in the report um and I think I would be curious to know too I think there was some discussion about improving kind of the ability to identify special limitations and maybe some more information as to what that process um looks like and what expected outcomes um might be anyone else wishing to speak to the motion commissioner Ron uh appreciate the commissioner's motion to postpone I I intend to support that um I would add to that list of um desired items uh a little more knowledge to the extent that it's um feasible uh to be presented to the commission around um the functionality of existing SLS to um as code currently states require the construction and installation of improvements including public improvements um and the nature of that request is um in interest of the upside of ss so not limited to just that element but others um perhaps like it um while I appreciate the discussion around existing code being updated to negate the element of mitigating mitigating adverse effects of development under um certain natural environment conditions um would request that the department continue to to look at that and just make sure they've they've answered that one thoroughly um there may be some instances where um code hasn't fully covered that ability um and SLS are in effect um what's making the right thing happen or would make the right thing happen and I would also ask uh the department if they could forward with um proposed language changes to SLS in the code um if there's an you know interest by the commission to not yay or nay this in total but rather adjust language in a different way and propose that to the assembly in doing so um I would like to see the Department's take um on that again with the interest of further enabling development um or it makes sense and not not overhanded restricting it all right thanks um I also intend to support the motion to postpone and would appreciate there's a section in the packet referring to other jurisdictions um mention of a few in Washington something in Arizona with some similar items I guess my question is how many jurisdictions do not have anything like an SL and I'm just curious the way I mean this reads it would seem that we're a a a minority in the um in the SL Department with a few other similar cases but nobody else having SLS other than the jurisdictions that we know copied our code um so if we could get a little more background on what is standard planning practice that would be great thanks seeing no one else in the queue call for the vote for that one just to be clear oh here is the actual motion we are voting on commissioner strike a question it was my understanding that we were post poning there there it is it just popped up correct postponing to the December 9th meeting correct then I vote yes thank you that motion passes um next we'll move on to reports um commissioner Winchester so I serve on the community advisory committee for amats it's a seat that Planning and Zoning occupies we haven't met for about the last half year due to staff constraints but they will reform that Committee in 2025 I just wanted to point out that amatz policy committee has a meeting on Thursday 11:21 at 1 to 3:00 8 8th floor city hall or on teams the agenda is currently posted on amt's website Amat also is working on tip amendment number three and MTP amendment number one and there should be a public comment period in early 2025 if anyone on the commission or in the audience has a question you can ask me and uh happy to update you I think that takes care of all our reports and I believe we were going to discuss the Planning and Zoning commission case number FYI under Section J title 21 discussion this is a handout you received uh November 15th to the Planning and Zoning commission um Mrs bab would you care to speak to this through the chair I don't have a formal presentation to give you on the FYI memo but um I am hoping to introduce this as a item that will be on your agenda in some form or another um from this point forward we were here at the last meeting I was listening um and I would like to keep you as informed as possible about um any assembly actions regarding title 21 and also give you a formal vehicle for requesting information from the planning department um for introduction during meetings thank you and are there any Commission ERS that would like to take this time to ask questions of the director or staff commissioner Ron who lining up thank you the chair not a not a question just a a simple um thanks and commodation for this memo total and also for the Department in bringing forward case 2024-25 looked at more than just giving the department more work to do but exemplifying the process and improving upon it so thank you commissioner Gardner H that's exactly what I was just going to say so nothing further from me thank you commissioner George exactly the same as well thank you commissioner Krishna I have a question but I also want to say thank you this is wonderful and I really appreciate it um my question that I and not going to put you on a spot here but I'm going to maybe ask that um the department think about this and bring us back an answer at our next meeting is just if we do choose to hear an item or make a recommendation on an item that um we have the option to do so um what what could we then expect right would we could we ask for a staff report could we ask for a presentation could we ask um an assembly representative to come here and make that presentation to was a little bit of guidance on what that might look like so that process goes smoothly would be helpful through the chair commissioner Krishna thank you for the question we'll look into that and get back to you I see no speakers in the queue so I will just Echo the thank you Al righty any commissioner comments before we entertain a motion to adjourn now accepting verbal motions to adjourn so moved moved by commissioner pus second by commissioner Winchester you were almost there commissioner strike thanks for hanging in there any opposed hearing none we are adjourned