[Music] okay we will call the January 29th meeting of the Planning and Zoning commission to order roll call Andre Spinelli here Jared Gardner here radica Krishna here Jim Winchester here Scott pulus here Jeff Ron here Brandy Eber Brandy Eber she was just on Daniel George here Greg strike here you have a quorum thank you is there a motion to approve the January 8th minutes is moved and seconded any corrections or objections on the minutes hearing none the minutes are approved any disclosures hearing is there a motion to approve the consent agenda move in seconded anybody wishing to pull any items from the consent agenda for discussion hearing none consent agenda is approved now move on to our regular agenda can we please have staff's presentation in case 2024 d001 0 uh yes thank you Sher Spinelli since 2018 improvements have been made along segments of 4th Avenue West of the project area between East Street to Cordova Street and I'll just uh reiterate the project so this is the context sensitive Solutions or css Transportation project review of the design study report or DSR for amats Fourth Avenue signals and lighting upgrades Cordova Street to ingr Street um so since 2018 there have been improvements made along portions of West Avenue that are west of this project area um this project would extend those improvements um from Cordova Street to Inger Street so on Fourth Avenue between those cross streets with the purpose of the project to being to upgrade signals and Lighting systems the 35% DSR is the second step in the contact sensitive Solutions Transportation project review process after the Planning and Zoning commission's review the project would go before the Urban Design commission to complete the third and final step of the process the primary decision of the commission for the DSR is of the alternatives for the project the DSR describes a no build alternative alternative one to replace signals lighting and make roadway and sidewalk improvements and alternative two that would just replace signals and lighting alternative one is preferred because uh if those concurrent roadway and sidewalk improvements are not made then the street would be out of compliance with Municipal plans and design criteria Municipal Traffic engineering provided comments highlighting the improvements for non-motorized users uh this includes a wider sidewalk additional curb bulbs for easier Crossings and additional Street lighting the new lighting would also improve conditions for motorized users and replace aging infrastructure the department recommends approval of the preferred alternative one traffic signals lighting roadway and sidewalk improvements subject to conditions one and two in the staff report which require submission of the public Improvement plan to the planning department the applicant and their representatives are here tonight to present upon the project uh this is not a public hearing thank you and that includes my summary of the staff report any questions for staff we will have the petitioner presentation please state your name and Pou the button my name is Will web I'm with Kenny engineering um we're a consulting firm that is working for DOT to uh design and uh push forward the project as Elizabeth indicated uh this is the amats 4th Avenue uh signals and lighting Cordova to ingra project um with me today I've got Art Johnson the Ken engineering project manager Julia Hansen the dot project manager as well as Julia MAA Who is the owner's representative working for project management and Engineering um so this project area is shown here on the uh slide goes from Cordova to ingr Street uh the Cordova Street intersection was rep uh constructed several years ago now with the municipality's first phase of this project uh so we'll be extending those improvements from that intersection um East through the remainder of the central business district dot is managing this this particular project since it is federally funded through amats so in 2018 we worked with the municipality to do an inventory of the traffic signal and Lighting systems throughout downtown from about 9th Avenue to uh first and then from uh L Street to ingr Street uh what we found was that Fourth Avenue was most in need of improvements of all of the the corridors um primarily the problems we were observing throughout downtown it involved the power supplies um grounding issues Foundation failures as well as uh corrosion on much of the equipment out in the field the municipality is previously funded improvements on Fourth Avenue from E Street to Cordova Street and is currently working on design from G Street to E Street so this is a separate phase going from Cordova to ingra that the municipality was able to get funded through the um the amats program since it is federally funded the program is a little bit different the project uh process is a little bit different than the ones that have been managed by the municipality primarily the differences include um environmental process so ensuring that uh that we're not adversely impacting the environment and the built environment as well as uh rideway clearance and certification and adherence to the um tip the Amat tip language uh the photo shown here is uh of 4th Avenue East of gamble or ingr sorry gamble Street where the RightWay is 60 ft wide so we've got a narrow sidewalk uh three lanes no parking and uh the lighting system has overhead wires and um is otherwise rather dated so the proposed improvements for this project include upgrading the traffic signals at gamble Street and anger Street uh that will include um as well as new polls and new traffic signal controllers and cabinets and all of that uh traffic signal indications over each lane which should improve safety through the corridor um we'll be upgrading the street and pedestrian lighting as well as electrical load centers to bring those all up to current standards um which will be similar to what was done to the previous phases to the West since we will be basically digging up the sidewalks to put in all the electrical equipment we'll be replacing the sidewalks and curb Rams to meet Ada standards and then we'll be uh adjusting the lane widths to meet uh DCM criteria which generally is narrowing those down um we'll also be replacing traffic signal interconnect uh through the corridor as well to current Municipal standards and so this photo shows uh Fourth Avenue West of a street um this is going to be very similar to the proposed improvements where we have three travel Lanes our in our section the travel Lanes all go eastbound but regardless three travel Lanes two parking Lanes sidewalk uh we'll have this the blue gray light poles that match the downtown comp plan as well as uh supplemental Street Street lighting as I mentioned we'll be adjusting the travel Lane widths uh the goal here is to is the idea is that since we're Excavating so much of the street anyway to deal with the electrical improvements that it um we need to also change curb line to meet Ada grades and so since we're going to be replacing so much the infrastructure anyway it makes sense to uh narrow the travel Lanes to widen the sidewalks to better comply with title 21 and the downtown comp plan uh this shows what's going on West of gamble Street where we have 80 ft of RightWay um we'll be narrowing the lanes to 11 ft uh parking Lanes to 7 feet and then the sidewalks will basically uh take up the remainder of the rway up to 14.5 ft um we've got a few areas where the rideway is is constrained um and we'll we may need to use up to a foot of the RightWay to deal with constructibility and great changes uh at adjacent properties similarly um east of gamble we're doing a essentially the same type of thing but the right away in that segment is only 60 ft instead of 80 ft in that segment there is no on street parking and then the sidewalks will end up being a little bit narrower than the Western segment and again as with the previous segment we may uh need about a foot of RightWay to deal with constructibility so the sidewalks will be up to 11 and 1/2 ft but um in some areas will be only 10.5 ft and then um finally I guess to go over what we've been doing to date with our public involvement we've discussed the project with the downtown and Fairview Community councils as well as uh coordinated with the anger downtown partnership and provided information for their newsletter going for I I want to step back um KY engineering has been working with the municipality on the previous phases as well so we've uh actually been working with the local stakeholders uh for a number of years on these previous uh phases and on the improvements that have been occurring downtown so we've got a bit of a history thankfully with with what uh folks expect and what they'd like to see on this project specifically we've talked to uh the major stakeholders and then going forward we will have uh Presence at the Anchorage Transportation Fair which I believe is in March um a project open house when we get to the 95% design phase uh we will continue Outreach with the community councils and ADP and as we get closer to construction we will work with the individual business owners so that we can um work with their business hours and ensure the traffic control plans are not too onerous on their operations that is all I have prepared for you all I'd like to let the record reflect that we were joined by commissioner Eber over the phone are there any questions for the petitioner commissioner Krishna sure so of course I work at the downtown partnership um so maybe I'll just um take a few minutes to to kind of um both explain a little bit more about the maintenance challenges with sidewalks downtown and then maybe ask some questions about how we minimize that so um of course the downtown partnership does all of the sidewalks s clearing downtown up to gamble um east of that it's the state I believe um but it's a very different sort of sidewalk clear than that happens there than anywhere else we're actually moving snow entirely out of the sidewalk width rather than blowing it back into the right of way behind the sidewalk so I just want to acknowledge that every time we add um pavement right we add sidewalk width we also add a lot of Maintenance challenges so um I guess my first question is just about how we um two things specifically to that right one is how do we decide when a curb bulb um is the right um design feature and then second how do we minimize the amount of RightWay installations because just for everyone's awareness basically the more things you have in the sidewalk the smaller the equipment you can use to get around it right so if you've got a 10-ft stretch we can take a bobcat and run a straight path once you've got a a trash can a foot away from a pedestrian light pole we're essentially having staff hand shovel that right so the costs kind of go up and up as you have more things installed in the sidewalk so um first question Kur Bub's second question um how do we decide uh right of way installations and then how do we make those easiest for maintenance I appreciate that question and that's something I believe we'll have to work with your group as we go forward on um I don't think that's something that we've taken into too much consideration on the previous phases um curve bulbs and General we planning to install those I believe at all of the intersections which is consistent with the downtown comp plan that calls for you know making pedestrians more visible and all that um as far as the installations in the right away we do try to install signs on the light poles where we can but often it's not exactly in the same place that we'd like it to be um further to the West I know that there's more more streetscape type item like trash cans or by RS and whatnot um at this point we haven't discussed those types of installations on this project um so that might be a good opportunity for us to work with you all to be proactive about that um going forward I think it'll be we'll need to meet with you all to um identify opportunities to make the design more maintenance friendly thank you I oh commissioner pulus thank you for your presentation um it was a pretty good one I get the project it's it's continuation of previous phases um with RightWay respect you guys have no major impacts besides driveways and sidewalks that's pretty much it you've met with all RightWay owners as you basically just said um nothing's come up with anyone pushing back uh commissioner pus we actually have not met with everyone at this point we our current design assumes that all the driveways that are out there will stay in place uh we plan to work with property owners and MOA traffic to reduce the driveways where we can and where they're not being used um the municipal traffic department is very interested in reducing the driveways that are well that are out there altogether um so that's something we'll be working with the property owners on as we go forward um however the design that we have can accommodate all the driveways that are there now so there's that um as far as far as RightWay impacts we don't anticipate any permanent RightWay acquisition uh we've got adequate RightWay to to put everything in that we'd like to see in the corridor um so we might have some temporary impacts as we we build things and match driveways and whatnot but beyond that we don't expect anything permanent okay one more follow-up question um regarding like green infrastructure talking about things in the sidewalk um was there any talk to the M MOA green infrastructure people about that or um how's that going you guys did that on previous phases right had some silver cells in them we on previous phases we have put in tree Wells with the silver cells as you mentioned uh we had less fewer travel Lanes in those uh phases so we had more room for sidewalk and more room for trees and whatnot um in this phase we're not planning to do trees due to the narrower sidewalks um we are working with the municipality and watershed management on uh investigating green infrastructure we don't really have a whole lot of room in the RightWay I mean I know that the the the criteria starts at at RightWay wider than 60 ft um so we're in talks with them but I I don't know at this point what what if anything that's going to look like given the fully developed nature of the area okay thank you commissioner Ron uh thank you through the chair uh Mr Webb thanks for the presentation um my interest in this question is around bicycle amenities um you knowe in the draft DSR that the comp plan downtown comp plan identifies Fourth Avenue from Cordova to Eagle as an on Street Bicycle Connection it's unclear to me what consideration has been given to bicyclists uh in this design so if you could help me better understand that would that would be great yeah commissioner Ron thank you for that question um we are we don't have any bicycle dedicated bicycle facilities in the corridor um my understanding of the plans were that it was on Street shared Lane kind of a use for that that that connection which I know is isn't necessarily ideal but given the what else has been going on in the in the corridor and what not it seems prudent to maintain consistency with with that with that approach um so they their sidewalks there's travel Lanes that's what we got commissioner George thank you to the chair uh thank you Mr web for your presentation um you already answered half my questions um particularly about not needing to acquire any right of way that's good to hear um I'll note this is a much older part of our our town and um when you start digging in to older properties I know you find things you didn't quite expect um in this stretch of the project area are there any notable or potentially significant RightWay encroachments that will have to be rectified since we're using the full 60 foot rway now when we hav't before commissioner George that's uh there we do have a list of of encroachments in the right away most of them are fences and fairly minor there are a few uh building awnings and entry you know vestibule type things that that are encroaching into the RightWay and the municipality is working on either getting those permitted or getting those cleared because that is as part of a federal project that's one of the distinctions between a federal project and and a city funded project is we have to have uh clearance of the RightWay um and so the municipality is working on that and I believe the major um encroachments will be permitted rather than required to be removed but that is something project management engineering is working on right now just for clarification say are permitted encroachments are those required to be paid annually as a permit I honestly have no idea can I ask uh one of my teammates that's here I apologize that might not be your your Billy Wick so if I may do youie okay we we don't know sir we can follow up if you'd like just curious if we're going to have any surprises for folks that any Community landmarks that might be in question that's all I'm looking for I suspect it's more of a paperwork issue than it is a a fee payment but that's purely speculation on my part I see no further question oh commissioner Winchester I just want to follow up with commissioner Ron a little bit you know even at this stage it would be nice to see uh some bike amenities on one of those 11t Lanes even if it's just striping you know just even if it doesn't make it to the final thing thing there's a big outcry in town about dot not being um uh sensitive to the needs of bikers and uh it seems like a missed opportunity we do appreciate the improved lighting anyway just want that on the record thank you uh I think we're out of questions all right thank you very much I appreciate the time what is the will of the body commissioner pus would you like to State your motion I move in case 202 24-10 to approve all alternative 1 traffic signals lighting roadway and sidewalk improvements identified in the contact sensitive Solutions designed study report for the amats Fourth Avenue signal and lighting upgrades Cordova Street to Inus Street subject to the conditions shown on pages six and seven of the staff report that was seconded by commissioner Krishna would you like to speak to your motion sure um I support this motion um I think the alter Alternatives analysis was appropriate um I will note there's Reg for a little more bike engagement um the proper alternative was chosen I think based on meeting project goals and adding pedestrian amenities where they could in a reasonable budget um it's a good next phase of the project obviously it's a continuation and um it's just more of the same and it looks like the design team is also doing good job of engaging and getting what they can into the project and involving pi as much as possible anyone else wishing to speak to the motion thing none we will call for the vote Mr strike how do you vote Yes Miss Eber yes thank you that motion passes okay we will move on to our public hearing item the procedure by which the public may speak to the commission as meetings is one after staff presentation is complete on the public hearing item the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue two persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the commission rules of procedure a petitioners including his or her Representatives will receive 10 minutes part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal B representatives of groups and Community councils will receive five minutes individuals three minutes when your testimony is complete you may be asked questions by the commission you may only testify once on any issue unless question question by the commission any party of Interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the planning director within s days of the commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21350 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 within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 21035 the notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on the form prescribed by the municipality if the applicant is not if the appellant is not the applicant the appellant notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant can we have the staff presentation in case 2024-25 acres of land from R3 to r4a family residential mixed use District the site is located Southwest of the the intersection of East 40th Avenue and Denali Street in Anchorage the site is classified as Urban residential high with residential mix use development overlay for the Anchorage 2040 land use plan land use plan map because of the petition site's current classification is compatible with the proposed rezone and accompanying an amendment to the comp plan is not required no objections to this rezone were received from reviewing agencies the uh Midtown Community Council submitted a resolution of support found in the staff packet as 2023-the uh staff finds that criteria two has been met the reson re request both complies and conforms with the petition sit's designation of urban residential high with residential mixed use development overlay within the Anchorage 240 land use plan the r4a is intended is the intended zoning District uh for the area um that found in that plan uh it's also located within a underutilized residential lands well positioned for compatible infill or high density residential development near downtown or Midtown shopping Transit Parks schools or employment the site is also adequately served with properly sized Public Water and Sewer Services uh Additionally the reone is consistent with the Anchorage 240 land use plan goal one goal four goal two land use plan 1.2 and 4.1 um those deal with infield and rate development meeting the housing employment needs of residents and businesses in Anchorage it's also found uh Anchorage 2020 policy 11 and 14 and those deal with mixed density residential development shall be permitted in identified zoning districts staff finds criteria and condition three is met the reone is consistent with the purpose of the r4a multif family mixed use District um it also finds uh condition three has been met both a uh subcondition a b and c uh it's as I said it's it's it's classified as Urban residential high uh the petition site is within the city center and Transit supportive development corridors in the Midtown C has been met the site is located directly Southwest of the intersection of East 4th and Denali East 40th is classified as a collector in this area and Denali Street is classified as a Class 2 minor araral there is uh no point within the petition site that extends more than one4 mile beyond the intersection of these two arterials so as stated those criteria are met of Staff fines criteria four has been met it is compatible with their surrounding zoning districts and existing development surrounding the petition site the surrounding zoning districts include p and B3 staff finds condition five is criteria is met as stated Public Water and Sewer services are available this par so fixed route public transportation is currently available at site on 60-minute headways and 15 to 30 minute headways on tutor Road staff has found that condition six criteria has been met the prop the proposed rezone is unlikely to adversely impact the existing natural environment um while there may be noise originated from the site during future development sighted operations will not be permitted to exceed noise control standards staff has found condition seven criteria has been met so when we're analyzing a rezone the planning department uh can not only disc consider the plan use but rather the shift from what is and not allowed under the current zoning designation and what could be allowed under that proposed zoning so given this methodology rezoning the petition site to r4a would allow for a variety of commercial commercial uses that would not otherwise be permitted under the existing R3 however there are compatibility protections with the r48 district standards which call for a review of the mixed use development staff has found that criteria 8 has been met it's consistent with the parcels designation land use policies the immedate area surrounding the petition site is classified as City Center commercial Corridor and Community facility Park placing r4a zoning District within this area will be appropriate considering the the petition sites proximity to corridors intersections and two minor arterials also is important to note that the Anchorage has a known lack of residential housing capacity based upon the current zoning and this rezone will facilitate in the development of more potential residential dwelling units than what the R3 allows for the crer uh the criteria nine has been met it will not result in the split Zone lot so with that therefore the department recommends uh approval of the criteria and that condition is found on page eight of the staff packet thank you are there any questions for staff I should note that the uh petitioner representative and um Hobb is here tonight as well commissioner Ron the chair uh staff thank you for that cons um concise report uh for the record could you please um inform us all what the current use of the lot is through the chair sure yes so um as stated there in page two of the staff packet I'll read a little bit of background uh the parcel was originally purchased by the federal government in 2004 intended to be the National Archive Building the applicant would like to rezone the parcel land purchased by the M MOA in 2017 and uh there were improvements made to the site including Phill for a foundation and driveways onto Dali Street in East 40th but since then the site has remained vacant since it was been purchased by the mo MOA commissioner Ron if I may follow up I am a bit confused or perhaps just not understanding where this is going um so maybe I'll rephrase the question is the is the petition site being used for um anything currently is it is it being inhabited is it is it I would I know where you're going with that and uh I don't think the plan I mean we're here for a rezone of this R3 to r4a yeah there's it's currently vacant um apparently there's some homeless going on there but I don't know um that's not something that's uh worth stating as the planning department no okay thanks for your your response to the question and for the record my understanding is that um the petition site is currently being used um for unhoused people um it's my personal observation and driving by and my understanding as a member of the community um so thank you okay um would the petitioner like to come forward do you have a presentation for us push the button now there you go okay hi everyone my name is Brey I'm a landscape architect at huddle and I'm here today with Tiffany Briggs the real estate director and then my colleague Cass Frost also with hudle and um Sean did a great job going over all the details of the application um so I won't reiterate all of that but I will go over a few couple a couple things first I want to go over some background of the site um the proposed reone and then the factors to consider as outlined in title 21 to help guide your decision um so as Sean said a lot of people refer to the site as the archive site because it was intended for the National Archive Building that project did not happen but there was site development that did occur as you can see in the aerial and the site obviously is the the white box in the middle of that aerial um and the mo MOA purchased the site in 2017 um the proposed rezone again R3 which is uh mixed residential to R4 a multif family mixed use R3 is intended for uh lowrise multi-story buildings densities between 15 to 40 dwelling units whereas r4a has a minimum dwell density of 20 dwelling units per acre I'm sorry 20 dwelling units per acre the uh 15 to 40 dwelling units per acre for the R3 um but as Sean stated r4a also has opportunities for commercial um so really the intent of this rezone from Thea standpoint is to align the zoning with the vision from the community from the 20 240 land use plan um 2040 identifies it as Urban High residential and residential mixed use and although uh 2040 does say Urban High residential um is compatible with R3 R4 it's explicitly says it's um compatible with R4 4 a when the residential mixed use is overlaid so the rezone would uh make this site compatible with 2040 um and ultimately you know not on top of just making the zoning compatible with the vision um for the community it's really to encourage housing ultimately which is in a huge need um like Sean said uh this provides higher density opportunities than what currently is available with the current zoning um in terms of considering the factors uh to where R4 a zone is appropriate um title 21 chapter 4 States locate a land use designation um and a center or Corridor in the 2040 land use plan that allow for r4a so as stated the designations are compatible um with the r4a district uh another criteria is that it's near a major employment center or a major city center and um the Midtown City Center is identified by the purple on this map so it's kind of right at the heart of um Midtown City Center and then another criteria is that it's next to a Transit supportive development which is here you can kind of see it as the um horizontal striping along SE Street um it's immediately adjacent to that and then within a/4 mile of an arterial and collector intersection so uh Denali Street is the arterial and 40th running along the north is a collector Street um surrounding zoning is obviously PL here at the library P um as a part of CI family Midtown park that's kind of a funky parcel and that it has split lot zoning but the intent of the city is to make that all consistently p and then B3 surrounding that so um in terms of considering housing uh higher housing densities as appropriate for this area it's within walking distance of commercial opportunities such as a grocery store a hardware store uh and other amenities in terms of our process we um went to the Midtown Community Council um and as Sean stated they were supportive and did provide a resolution of support um so with that I think we'll save the remainder of our time if needed and then we're available for questions commissioner Krishna has a question thank you I think my question is a little bit about the market opportunities I know there's no development plan for the site immediately but I'm wondering if um the department is planning to put out an RFP this year or if there's um a a viable market and the reason I asked that is because has large parcels and I think it's no secret um on the public record um many times in this room um there's been a lot of talk about the current use right which is a large scale homeless Camp um and I think about the third and Ingress site right so I just want to make sure that um you know obviously uh the use and rezone certainly seems compatible with the land use plan the things that this commission has called on to to think about but also I do want to make sure that um that the timing works out right um even if it looks good on paper I guess I want to make sure that um this is in the the best interest of our city and there is a some Prospect of development in line with this new res Zone um because this is a city-owned parcel right yeah uh thank you commissioner Krishna um I think I'll start to answer that and then if it's okay have uh Tiffany br um the director Chim in um the intent is to uh seek an RFP process and um and that's one of the reasons for the rezone so that um someone proposing development would have to um abide by the r4a district which the site is intended for um would you like to add to that at all hi Tiffany Briggs real estate department um I don't think I have anything to add necessarily but the intent is yes to put on RFP this year and preferably in the first half of this year thank you I don't have any further questions I guess I will jump in with one question in this rezone to r4a did you find any r4a projects that exist in town something to look at as an example I might ask because we early on in the project like the prea meeting we discussed that a bit I might see if Sean has anything to add to that U Mr chair I believe just the one thing that was discussed is the R4 allow um not you know R3 right now is pretty Limited R4 is going to allow a little more uh other than residential you can have commercial and that that was kind of the selling Factor yeah I I mean I asked that question only because I'm a Critic of r4a and R3 because of a lot there's so many rules and restrictions in within those zonings but commissioner Krishna I I was going to ask a question to staff that I forgot to ask earlier which is the r4a is a very new zone right I believe we just approved it last year is this the first um r4a rezone that has taken place uh um I believe you did see um possibly a year ago um it was um over off of chash way that was an r4a rezone that that the planning zoning took a look at um I think that was uh was that JJ Brook or maybe Seth's project but it was over there off in near spinard off kind of over by chash way so this would be like kind of the second one since this has been gone through and it was very similar to this I believe Deon Ham's Artic near spard correct yeah I think just to kind of add to that is um to Commission Spell's concern about the restrictiveness hopefully the rewrite of the r4a district helps alleviate that issue that maybe came up before all right thank you I see no further questions we will now open the hearing to public testimony anybody wishing to speak please step forward see none we will close the public Tes oh would you like to offer a rebuttal you have five minutes and 23 seconds remaining okay what is the will of the body we'll close the public hearing and what is the will of the body commissioner puls would you like to State your motion sure I'm mooving case 202 24-13 to recommend to the Anchorage assembly approval of the rezone from R3 mixed residential district to r4a multif family residential mixed use District seconded by commissioner Winchester would you like to speak to your motion yes um I intend to support the motion um it meets the approval criteria as noted in the staff packet most notably it has the ability to increase needed residential housing units and the proposed reone fits the comprehensive plan um I'd also like to note that it's um support from the community council and no objections from reviewing agencies anyone else wishing to speak to the motion I will add that it is nice to see the municipality stepping up and committing to the r4a uh commissioner Ron uh thank you Mr chair um and prior commissioner for putting the motion on on the table um I I do ultimately intend to support the motion um I I agree with staff in terms of its um findings uh consistency against the criteria that we have um before us um you may have noted from my prior questioning of staff that um of interest to me is is current use of of this parcel um and I I appreciate a prior commissioner's comments around best interest for the community um and I'm I'm struggling with how to Levy that in this sense and and I don't don't currently feel okay approving as is without better acknowledgement of of that fact um so for the commission interest in either Improvement and adoption or rejection I'd like to um I think add a condition and the condition is going to look something like request that the petitioner provide um a transition plan for occupants of the parcel at time of sale um and um I'm not sure if that's the right way to do that or not and be interested in thoughts from other Commissioners who may have more knowledge about this aspect if they feel so inclined um understanding that the RFP process will take some time um and um thereupon there may be sale of of this parcel and I I I'm a little unclear as to whether or not there'll be a change of responsibility um um at that time with current use of of the property and I would like to see um those who currently own it um put forward a recognition and plan for transition of those occupants the inous people that are there um so that they're not just um I guess disregarded in that sense if if that makes sense so with that I'll stop talking perhaps some input from other Commissioners and we can work this one out commissioner Krishna yeah I I I would not support that amendment I feel like that wads into very tricky and confusing legal territory uh when this is already a publicly owned parcel and the city is of course subject to federal state and local laws regarding Camp abatement and um many things that are outside the sort of knowledge and jurisdiction of this commission so I believe that um safeguards uh for current occupants if they uh should exist or not the purview of this condition nor an appropriate thing for this condition for this commission to um add as a conditional use um I do uh appreciate where you're coming from and um have sort of a a broad thought similar to that about just ensuring that the interest in this site uh I just want to as a comment this commission often sees um Property Owners uh who've newly purchased a parcel come back to us for a reason so I just want to make sure I guess that that doesn't happen in this case right so um I I don't have anything else to add I guess I I'll just add that I agree with commissioner Krishna I think that a the way you would add a condition to a rezone would be with a special limitation a special limitation zoning lasts with the property and tell that comes back before this commission so it seems inappropriate to put a lasting special limitation on the zoning that pertains to just current standards I will mention I guess I will state that my understanding of the municipality's relinquishment of any of its property would result in a public hearing at the assembly so I think that your time to to make that make voice those concerns would be given in due time um i' also just say that I don't know of any difference between what's currently going on at the property is affected by the difference in zoning so I don't see a negative impact in approving a rezone so commissioner pulis I would just follow up by saying that I I kind of agree with the previous Commissioners just on the economic financials of the situation um but maybe we could add a finding just noting something um to it I don't know what that finding would be but just adding a note it's a possibility commissioner Ron uh thank you Mr chair um commissioner polus I appreciate the offer I think the good dialogue we just had as a commission and it being recorded in the minutes is meets meets My Level of satisfaction so thank you anyone else wishing to speak to the motion seeing none we call for the vote Mr strike how do you vote v no yeah to to to clarify we're voting on the amendment excuse me through the chair the amendment was never stated he was just it never discussion so this is on the main motion main motion yes in favor of yes thank you Miss Eber yes thank you that motion passes moving on to case 202 24-12 may we have staff's presentation please thank you thank you chair members of the Anchorage assembly are proposing a text amendment to Anchorage Municipal Code AMC section 21 13060 Conformity characteristics of use the intent of this draft ordinance is to remove the requirement to place up to 10% of a development's project costs into a municipal public Improvement fund this requirement is used when no character characteristics can be brought towards Conformity without causing other characteristics to come out of compliance or if the only character characteristics left left to be addressed are so major as to require relocating the structure or something of similar magnitude amending this section uh of code does not eliminate the requirement of future development from improving non-conforming character characteristics when a project falls under the requirements of AMC 2113 060c the assembly has referred this ordinance to the Planning and Zoning commission for review and recommendation an Anchorage assembly meeting providing a public hearing for this ordinance has not been scheduled as of yet approval criteria text amendments may be approved if the assembly finds that all of the following approval criteria have been met also the Planning and Zoning commission criteria one the proposed amendment will promote the public health safety and general welfare the removal of this requirement to place funds into a municipal account simplifies the process of bringing characteristics into compliance of use this process is infrequently used and does not minimize the economic impact to the impro to the property owner the 10% is placed in a municipal account dedicated to public improvements within the community council area that the development is in criteria two the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the state of purpose of this title uh goal two infield and Redevelopment goal seven infield development is compatible with the valued characteristics of surrounding properties and neighborhoods the change to AMC 2113 060c can be considered an incentive to creating infill and Redevelopment opportunities for multif family commercial mixed use Community use commercial marijuana and Industrial Development projects this propos criteria three the proposed amendment is necessary or desirable because of changing conditions new to new planning Concepts or other social or economic conditions the removal of this requirement for excess funds to be placed in a municipal count is intended to provide opportunities to use those funds within their Redevelopment projects the proposed ordinance will provide some economic relief in the Redevelopment of existing structures to be used for housing the city's current economic conditions and the intent to increase housing opportunities and reduce housing costs make this a desirable change to title 21 there were no uh comments or objections from reviewing agencies uh regarding this code Amendment uh public hearing no notices were mailed to the Federation of community councils and to all community councils on December 12th um there were two attachments uh that were actually part of the plan they're the very last two pages in your packet uh that were comments from both the Anchorage Community Land Trust who actually had has used this process or did use this process back in 2016 2017 and comments from cook Inland housing therefore the planning department recommends an approval to the Anchorage assembly of pzc case number 2242 with a minor modification to the proposed language in number four which is on page three of your staff packet with the underling section adding the director in consultation with the applicant determines this way the director is able to decipher and figure out what if any major changes within compliance need to be brought into compliance uh I'm here to answer any questions are there any questions for staff commissioner Gardner thank you um I guess before reading this this packet wasn't aware of the um the municipal public Improvement fund and kind of this option to have the 10% um towards non-conforming uses just um be provided to the fund instead of into the project and I I was just wondering if you are able to provide a little more context for how frequently this is a thing that comes up and I you know some of the discussion here and comments relate to um the inability to kind of track or difficulty of tracking and and using that money and ensuring that it's um used in a way that is um you know in in the in in the relevant area it benefits the relevant area and um if you also are able to give any context on kind of what that what that process actually looks like in practice through the chair commissioner Gardner yes so the so this has been in place since code changed of course in um January 1st 2014 you could still use old code up until December 31st 15 there's only been two cases that this has actually been used um the first one is the um sorry the Anchorage land trust it was used in Mountain View uh kind of across from Clark where Airport Heights and Mountain View uh connect uh they did 107 so the 10% was they did $178,000 worth of improvements uh interior and they couldn't bring any characteristics into compliance so $177,800 was set aside and there is no there is no fund there's mention of a fund but no money ever is in the two cases no money has ever gone into a fund uh in both cases in this case the $177,800 was written straight to the Parks and Rec Department I have the receipt right here if you'd like to see it uh for improvements at Davis Park uh in in Mountain View the other case was in 200 sorry 17 yes and it was the Arby's on malun cross from Fred Meers I don't know if you're familiar with that that location there's a Taco Bell there's an Arby's uh the Arby's did about $200,000 worth of interior improvements and there was no way they could bring any characteristics into compliance and so uh $20,000 again was written to directly parks and wreck for CH channu Park the new one with the little skating oval and where they do the farmers market in in the summertime so yes and that's part of the reason of eliminating this commissioner Garner is because there is not really a way to track where these funds go and they and again they've never gone into some funding ho they've always gone straight to parks and Reich to improve facility improve things within the community that they're that they're in thank you I appreciate that context can can we just clarify real quick was there an um a change from number four in the packet did or is it already written it's yes Comm chair spelli um if you look at page I believe it's page eight eight seven if you if you look at page seven of your staff packet that's the proposed amendment changes so they are eliminating all of number three in title 21 and then they're eliminating basically the bottom half of number four and then we're staff is recommending additional language in four which will actually become three because three is being eliminated thank you uh commissioner Krishna has a question um I may reserve my question for after the public hearing seeing no more questions we will open the public hearing anybody wishing to testify please come forward state your name do I need or light is on so great hot mic hot mic thanks okay I'm John Isaacs I'm uh tan Community Council board member I'm co-chair of the land use committee and I live at 2418 Forest Park Drive the Comm are you sorry are you speaking on behalf of the group yes I am speaking on behalf of the group okay go ahead great um the tan Community Council board has reviews the proposed ordinance change in staff report and we have the following comments we understand the request for the ordinance change the need to facilitate Redevelopment at infill and the case made by the Anchorage Community Land Trust and cooking at housing that it creates a distant Center for renovating older properties the language we see added to the ordinance the director in consultation with the applicant makes the determination regarding conformance provides us with a certain amount of safeguard that this amendment would not be abused as a matter of convenience therefore we support the proposed change we have the following suggestions regarding process uh the process and considerations used by the planning director and working with the applicant regarding non-conformity determinations should be made transparent and provided to community councils and the public where there is an issue of non-conformance in a case made by an applicant the effected Community Council should be notified and asked for input prior to the decision a record should be kept of the decision regarding Conformity and distributed to affect the community councils and finally when it is apparent that an applicant determines their significant issues associated with code compliance and redeveloping a property we would suggest they notify the commi the affected Community Council and consider coordination with them uh other than that thank you for our comments I do have a copy of this if would be helpful to have um I think we're fine okay great okay thank you very much thank you any rebuttal from staff well I'm I'm hoping I can I got all that um again this is a very rare instance um and I'm not 100% sure that the community councils weren't notified but i' I'd have to look into seeing how that that would even be um Mr chair we in both cases that we have done there's not a planning case it was all done through the building permit process and so our staff doesn't even we didn't even review I mean we reviewed it it was done as a land use review so as you're aware when you come in for a building permit that's that's the process it was it was handled under and it was not it was uh it was triggered through the zoning review of a land use when when issuing a building permit so plan the planning department uh doesn't review it doesn't enforce it in that sense it was all done through land use um so I'm not sure how we would notify a community council when it's just a standard building permit process as currently is how it how it's handled um we have a question from commissioner pis I'm a little late in getting to it so I don't know who it's to but you can ask it of anybody it's it's a question to staff um Can anyone from the public pick up the site conformance reviews that you know the you guys do in the planning department do they have access to that or is that only for the person who owns the property through the chair commissioner pus everything that goes to the planning department is on the portal um and is and is either you can search either by the case number or you can search by the community council um and you can actually see back for many many many years but you can you know if you had a question about your specific Community Council any cases platting or zoning uh or variances or anything like that if you put in once you get in the portal if you put in the search your community council it will pull up everything from the last couple of years and the most recent ones and when they're supposed to be heard um but we don't notify other than again this doesn't go through the planning process so there is no public notification because there's no case it's all through the bill building permit process and land use review but if the owner of a property requests have a site conformance review of their property can the general public get a copy of that because then they could compare that to the case and then they could that's how they could get that information I'm thinking and that's I don't know if you have the answer I do not have that answer commissioner pul sorry thank you commissioner Gardner thank you um I guess I'll direct this question to staff but I don't know if you have the answer to this or if maybe some other Commissioners um might have a better sense of this but I I think when I first looked at this I I shared the similar concern that we heard um in the testimony and that it maybe it maybe creates an opportunity for um abuse in where certainly changes the incentives if nothing else cuz at the moment there's only been two cases but there's really no need for an applicant to to push to have this finding right because either way they're spending $110,000 and um and they'd rather have that go on the site than than not so they'd prefer to to find some non-conforming use that can be corrected um and as it relates to to those incentives I guess my question is if there are non-conforming uses that can be addressed um that 10 or I'm sorry not $10,000 I said earlier I think it's 10% um that can be addressed with that 10% in practice does that end up looking like it increases the cost of the project by 10% or is that able to be kind of allocated and built into improvements that we made in some fashion such that it has a smaller percentage of of of cost to the project and I don't know if that question makes sense but I'm just I'm curious I'm trying to understand what what what this process ends up doing to the bottom line project cost compared with putting that 10% into addressing non-conforming uses can you give me two seconds to find title 13 real quick because there is a there is a limit actually or a sorry a threshold that has before that even even the 10% kicks in um I think while I was doing that I'll give you my cloudy recollection of what I think is going on with this one um so like imagine just a big Square building in the middle of a lot they've got all their parking good Ada green infrastructure stuff it's all good except for their building slid over and they're 5 ft in their Landscaping easement on one side of their property so to fix that they'd have to Lop off 30 feet of their building and then put some trees in on that side which is a pretty absorbant cost and disruption to the site and if they have no other thing on site required to conform you know to put the 10% to basically what this would say is that you have to give us the 10% to this fund and it just goes to the local park and so what they're getting rid of is just that extra step of okay you know you you don't have to spend you can't fix anything else on site except for chopping your building off um so we're going to make you put this money into that fund but if they Lop that off they're not spending it on their property so they're thinking that's and it's been used twice since 2014 and so I think they're just saying well if I can't spend on my property can I just not spend that money knowing this option is never used is my belief of what's going on here that sorry did you want me to answer or no I I didn't find the threshold I thought it was 100,000 but um through the chair commissioner Gardner and thanks commissioner paulus part of that too is if if it cannot bring in if it can't bring be brought into Conformity there is also the aec which you guys uh don't see or or do I can't remember which is an alternative equivalent compliance so say they couldn't they didn't have enough space for Landscaping on one side of the building that doesn't mean but they do on another side or somewhere else where they could they could put some extra Landscaping to to meet the criteria of what the code requires for total landscaping for that area um again it doesn't eliminate that they like you said commissioner Gardner it doesn't eliminate that they don't have to do any to bring stuff into care up to compliance it's if they can't there's and that again through the director has to determine with the applicant that there is nothing they can do anywhere on the property or anywhere to bring anything into compliance thank you and and I appreciate um the comments from commissioner poas I I think I I'll just give one more stab at restating my question and then I'll leave it at that I think what I'm trying to understand is from the perspective of a developer someone who's working on this property if say your Baseline is whatever the numbers are you know threshold setting that aside say you've got a project that's $100,000 and so there's 10% that's supposed to be um contributing towards reducing the non-conforming and um the non-conformances and if I guess the question is if you can do that if you are able to do that you don't have to trigger this from the perspective of someone who's doing that do they end up saying okay this is going to cost me $110,000 and that still maybe you get some better Landscaping out of it than you otherwise would versus they do this it still costs $110,000 and they don't get that Landscaping so theyd prefer um you know they're trying to avoid this because they don't get any benefit of that but my question is from the perspective of developer is it still is it fair to say that it's $110,000 either way or if they are doing the non-conforming uses and they're they're needing to put 10% into that they're able to adjust the project in some way that ends up practically being a better deal than the this than this 10 than this other option and and the question is geared to understand the incentives now if this isn't if this becomes no longer a a requirement to spend the $10,000 if you if you can you know meet this trigger in discussions with the director showing that no non-conforming uses are available if how how strongly people will be pushing to try to get that finding or if that's not a fair concern I actually have sort of an answer for him commissioner Krishna I do have sort of an answer for you um so I worked at the land trust at the time that this happened essentially I my read is that these are very very smalltime developers right people who are doing one project ever who don't know how to navigate the alternative equivalent compliance system who are the only ones getting dinged with this people who have a little bit more knowledge of how to navigate all of the Code Compliance are not going through this process at all this is essentially a a surprise 10% ding or much more frankly if you end up embroiled in the whole system that lets you um think you were doing a small office conversion and then you end up paying $400,000 and bringing your building up to code that you never budgeted for right so this is um in my mind just one of the um very complicated bits of our code that um make infl projects um exorbitant right and and not just that they scare people away from doing them because they have no idea how much in the cost I I'll just add that commissioner Christian is absolutely correct because in the instances where ASD runs into this there are several alternative equivalent compliances and variances and that go into whatever they end up doing U case in point would be Aquarian Charter Schools like $300,000 landscape bill that resulted from a roof replacement and furnace replacement uh commissioner Jo uh thank you to the chair and I appreciate commissioner krishna's uh perspective on this I was a little bit familiar with that project uh having been the Mountain View Community Council president at the time and gladly spending all $177,000 on Davis Park um however um I think that for me it's more of a perspective of uh when you have a bond fund or Insurance of some kind if you're whether it's car insurance unemployment insurance workers comp insurance whatever it is you're paying a cost to put resources into a fund that will help you if you need it so if you had a developer that faced uh a very cost exorbitant um compliance issue if that fund came to your rescue and you got to benefit from it at some point then maybe taking this money from everyone else who does such development might make sense but that's not what's happened here what has happened is uh it's essentially a fee or a tax because it does nothing to improve the project in any way and what is measurable is the cost to a development and as commissioner chrishan mentioned these are smaller developers typically and what's not measurable are the projects that became uneconomical or questionably economical and didn't happen because of this disincentive in place so um I believe that we need to re renew our ability we need to increase our incentives for uh Renovations um redevelopments and infill and I think this is a fantastic way uh to do that to take away this disincentive um I'm actually kind of excited for the opportunity to consider this proposal I know it's small and it may have only impacted you know two developers that we could measure uh but I think the impact has been more than that uh I think think it has scared some developers from doing redevelopments so um I just I guess I'll leave it at that commissioner pus just to quickly follow up as soon as you said aec I was like H that's that's where they're going to go every time but two times basically so it makes total sense it just never impacts anybody hardly ever unless you know there's just no other way they can meet alternative equivalent compliance that's why it's been twice since 2014 so in my mind just just like the other commissioner said it's basically a small Financial reduction for the developers to promote housing increasing and and all that good stuff we're sitting here trying to do I see no more questions what's the will of the body oh we're closing the public hearing first what's the will of the body commissioner Krishna would you like to State your motion sure I move in case 2024-25 to remove the requirement to place up to 10% of a development's project costs into a municipal public Improvement fund that was seconded by commissioner George would you like to speak to your motion sure I intend to support the motion um I believe as we've uh discussed today and heard from staff this is not a process that's um been used uh it's been used two times in 10 years which is not um an efficient use of Municipal resources um or uh a and it clearly adds to infill development costs which is something that we're trying to spurn incentivize at this point in Anchorage so uh I intend to support it um I I guess I would also um strongly encourage the assembly and the department to consider um looking at the um 21360 um c um that compliance section in totality and um I I would be very interested in a report on how effective that is and what it does to development costs in our um Urban neighborhoods so yeah I do intend to support it but I I would actually be be very interested in taking it further commissioner Gardner um I guess just a a question for um the moving commissioner maybe a clarification if that motion includes includes um staff's recommended amendments on page three thank you it does um thanks and I I think um with that you know I support the motion as well I support the intent of it I I I recognize that there's a concern which I think was present in um the testimony we heard about how this maybe changes um the incentives in that if you know if you can argue that there is no um way to bring um the site towards Conformity with without causing other characteristics to come out of compliant it suddenly um makes it a lot cheaper than being able to put some money into actually bringing it towards Conformity but I think the the amendment that staff recommended um will help make clear that that the planning department will be involved in that conversation um and I think you know their interest is ensuring that it moves towards Conformity if at all possible and we also heard um testimony that that can include um through the alternative equivalent compliance process which provides additional tools towards improving the Conformity anyone else wishing to speak to the motion seeing none we'll call for the vote Mr strike how do you vote Yes Miss Eber yes thank you that motion passes with that we will entertain a motion to adjourn moved by Garder commission seconded by commissioner pulus thank you good night [Music]