let's call this meeting to order December 9th Planning and Zoning commission can we have the roll call please Andre Spinelli here Jared Gardner here Jim Winchester here Scott pus here Jeff Ron here Daniel George here Greg strike here radica Krishna and Brandy Eber excused you have a quorum thank you the first order of business will be a motion to amend the agenda to add two informational memorandums to the agenda item J title 21 discussion move by commissioner strike second in by commissioner Gardner is there any discussion on that motion any opposed hearing seeing none a motion passes are there any disclosures from the Commissioners see no disclosures we'll move on to unfinished business uh the public Hearing in this case 2024-25 has been closed uh does staff have anything new to present yes Mr chair we have a quick presentation if you'd like go ahead thank you Mr chair members of the commission uh you'll find in the packet um that we in the memo dat December 9th PCC case 2024 0124 uh we provided some information in response to some of your questions from the November 18th 20224 meeting uh we'll be glad to speak to any of those if you have additional questions and I'll just kind of go through a presentation I kind of gave to the cedc last week um going into some of that looking at a different data set that we found um so again special limitations can do one more of one or more of the following limit density prohibit structures uses of land require compliance with design standards um require compliance with site plan approved under this title and require construction installation of improvements and impose time limits for subsequent development actions um so we since the last meeting I've gone in and I looked at where we have on the zoning map a list of all the SL I think that's the most current um source of information so just looking in that I was able to pull that out and see how many we have it's about the same as what we I think saw before B3 SL most of the SLS um many types of SLS have now been Incorporated in 21 I think we talked about this a little bit last time that over time we've seen SL the types of rules that appear in sl's get incorporated into the code um count of sl's based on decade um we had about 79 unknown but again the 1980s saw the most at 131 and then slowly we've seen fewer and fewer SLS over time uh again most likely because a lot of those rules have gotten folded into the code um so since the last meeting I've gone through a lot more of them I think they're about between 300 and 400 SLS I think I've read about probably 350 of them sort of just lightly looking at what they include what the kind of things they cover um there's references to code sections which no longer exist actually let me step back a moment these are some of the issues that I've seen coming up so far with the existing SLS sometimes they refer to code sections that don't exist anymore um sometimes they result in Split lot zoning um sometimes they have really variable lists of what's allowed or not allowed for example sometimes they'll say the following 10 uses are allowed or the following 25 uses are not allowed uh so it kind of makes it difficult to to um assume Which Way one's going or not there are case-by casee stipulations um complicated ways of measuring restrictions there's one that says there's no new structure should be higher than the highest point of the existing structure on the property which of course could change and you know if the the wind like tonight blows something down that could change the entire entitlement for the property um there's another one that says Building height shall not exceed the lesser of 35 ft or maximum of 138 ft above mean sea level based on the gab1 1972 post Quake adjustment again these are standards that I don't think we use that much anymore in the planning department basing on height off of a mean sea level um very specific rules which require interpretation um one for example says you'd have to develop at a minimum of two drawing per Acer and a maximum of three um references to plans which not may not be in force anymore there's there's one that says you have to refer to the spinard district commercial strategy spinard commercial District development strategy um from 2003 and again I think that's probably been superseded by the spinard corridor plan by now but the AO doesn't reflect that um references to zoning districts that no longer exist there's at least one or or two that refer to an R2 uh Zone which today I think at some point became an r2m so that just adds another layer of complication where somebody says Oh My sl applies to R2 R2 doesn't exist anymore or R2 converted to r2m in most cases I'm assuming um and then a very long process to make simple amendments uh so finding one where you know one SL said 30 units are allowed on this property or on this tract or in this district and then to get it up to 32 they had to go back through the reone process there's another that limited all the uses and then in 1990 they had to um allow a single additional use in churches and synagogues so they had to go through that whole process just to allow one more use um there are many examples of SLS being used to limit housing production basically throughout most of the time they've been in existence here's page one I showed this at cedc here's another page I found since then sometimes it says explicitly you can't have above a certain density sometimes it says you can't have more than a certain number of units for the whole tract sometimes it it limits it by lot size and say you can't have a lot size larger than this or excuse me smaller than this um and and sometimes it just you know and this one it's a B3 Zone which does allow housing in in and it says the uses should be limited to parking and to 3,000 foot accessory structure so that's also limiting the potential H capacity for housing for that lot but doing it in a sort of roundabout way um a lot of SLS have also been used to limit specific types of housing um a lot of prohibitions on manufactured housing communities interestingly some you know they show up in these lists of other uses like resource extraction you know mining or impound yards motorized Sports um there's one it kind of groups them in with adult businesses um but also uh boarding houses and lodging houses and then this one I'm sorry you can't see it very well but um also limiting multif family so there are a lot of times where it either limit is limits the density of housing or just limits certain types of housing altogether on November 26th we talked to the geotechnical advisory commission um that recording is available online you can listen to the whole thing it's a very interesting discussion um GC didn't take any action on the item we you know we didn't have anything prepared or weren expecting it um and one thing they asked is if the GAC has ever been involved in the creation of SLS related to slope uh couldn't find any evidence that they had um you know several of the members have been on the JC for a few years not the whole time and they were going to look into see if if anybody knew if that happened but for now it seems like G the GAC hasn't really been involved in um sl's related to slope or health safety um and they recognized that some SLS are now covered by code um but they didn't do a comprehensive analysis right they we asked them say well if presuming everything went away do do you see any health safety risk and they're take and and check me on this you can listen to the recording was kind of well we you know we don't want to take them away but without knowing what they're covering right um but so far the the general agreement was sort of that it seems that a lot of this stuff is is covered now in title 21 there's a lot about slopes and slopes above a certain percentage and also in title 23 in the building code um and another thing that the commission asks is how many SLS are in seismic zones or Avalanche zones um and and we in looking just if you look at the map you don't see a lot of strong correlation between where the sl's most of the SLS are and where the seismic zones are where the Avalanche zones are um Avalanche I think the Avalanche controls in the code maybe I've gone beyond what what the sl's ever imagined um so anyway again that's November 26 2024 uh the recording is available it was a great discussion and we're thankful to the GAC it's it's honestly really fantastic to have a group of experts like that to refer a question like this too any questions commissioner Ron uh thank you uh Commendation to staff for um responding to the questions that were asked during during um the meeting in which the commission he this heard this case um the last page of what was provided to the commission um a statement around um see middle paragraph all the SLS the department has reviewed so far could have been applied through Normal departmental reviews plat notes effective Clauses or private covenants if desired um I interpret that to mean that other tools exist to effectively accomplish um the intention to the extent that we understand it what the SLS can be used for now um my question is around when SL enter the process how are they put into effect can you speak to the commission about that please yes through the chair um I I can't speak to every SL because a lot of that I think would it lives in the minutes and we haven't gone through all the minutes but from from what I've seen um SLS can either um come through when the applicant comes to the Planning and Zoning commission they can come from the municipality in some way they can come from the Commission in some way and they can come from the assembly in some way and I think each one is different um there are a number of SLS where you look at the original application and they're asking for sort of a straight reone from R1 to r2m and then when you see it's gotten to the Planning and Zoning commission it's now an r2m SL or um at the assembly level so I I don't think there's they always come from in the same way um again going back to our previous discussion to me it seems like SLS have been a tool where if if sort of pressure comes up in the process they've been a tool that's been used to relieve that pressure um and so in relation to your other comment about the other tools available um I I think maybe it would if if there was a there might be other points to relieve that pressure or other times when that could be um th those sort of conditions or changes could be put in place if I could follow up just on that on that point so um heard in the response that um this commission had has under current code and the allowances of special limitations the ability to apply those special limitations I'm trying to Overlay that on these other tools in the toolbox and see how that relates to either expanding keeping the same or decreasing the role of this commission um with respect to again the intention of of what this is all getting at so uh let's say sl's go away um what does that mean to this commission and our ability to um um address uh pain points that we see come before us through the chair um thank you for the followup because it helped me clarify um I I think it is important to note that from my understanding that the Planning and Zoning commission recommends the SL to be um added on to the rezone whereas other stuff like a plat note would be sort of imposed on it by the plating board or or given that power would exist in that way and so if the this AO um went through then the planning and zon wouldn't no longer or they could make that recommendation or actually I'd have to look exactly but let's say that the the language of the AO says you can no longer make the recommendation um my understanding is is that the Planning and Zoning commission as a as a body that makes recommendations to the assembly can always make all sorts of recommendations I don't think your your power to make a recommendation would be limited um maybe it would just be that the power to make that specific type of recommendation for that specific tool would be limited um I don't know if yeah I think that that answers the question yeah thank you appreciate that I I guess can I follow up on that question real quick assuming we changed title 21 and the mechanism within title 21 is no longer there for pnz to make recommendations of a rezone to the assembly the assembly ultimately creates every rezone through an ordinance the assembly could still do in SL if they wanted to regardless of having that mechanism in title 21 or not is that correct and that might be like an a question for legal but if you guys happen to know that that's it just kind of something interesting that I thought of during commissioner Ron's question through the chair um I believe that that would be a question for legal because the assembly as a leg legislative body is empowered to create legislation um however this would be um removing that specific tool and that specific formula for adding um limitations to a normal rezone so supposedly if this AO passed my assumption would be that that tool would no longer be available and whatever um restrictions the assembly decided to add after that point would be um a creative use of of zoning um and not uh regulated by title 21 hopefully that helped uh yeah thank you we'll go to commissioner George thank you to the chair I appreciate the chair bringing up that point um I to have come to the conclusion that I I think that's accurate that I have a copy of AO 2020 4 99 at least as introduced and the applicable section says uh resoning with spec with special limitations page 305 pursuant to the subsection the department and planning and zoning commission shall not recommend nor should the assembly approve the imposition of special limitations as part of a proposed rezone um so the way I interpret this and and I would be happy to be uh set correct if I'm not uh is that we would be prohibited from recommending an SL which we don't enact the assembly does as you correctly pointed out but the assembly continues to retain those Powers they're granted by the state constitution and title 29 of our state statutes their ability to enact zoning ordinances I mean they can't give away their own power um they could simply just pass another AO is my understanding to give that power back thems in a specific instance um also on commissioner Ron's point I appreciate um digging down into the Nuance of when these sl's might come up in the process um you know say an applicant or a petitioner comes forward and uh the body decides that an SL might be something pertinent to uh discuss um if we have other tools available to us as has been stated in the memo uh plat notes private covenants those sorts of things um I don't believe we can dictate private Covenant and a plat note probably would most appropriately be dealt with the by the platting board um though it may require an additional platting application or fee of some kind if if that kind of action is to be taken up so I don't know that I would feel comfortable having my only um pressure relief valve I think was the the metaphor used in the last presentation uh to be to send it to the platting board um I like having the ability to make recommendations to the assembly and I I think it's that's what it comes down to I think uh it's just a matter of process um and then lastly just a to follow up on the presentation the one of the items on the SLS dealt with manufactured home communities and mobile homes and you talked about how um title 21 has evolved over the years to no longer address or to Encompass many of the concerns uh is it correct that um in Anchorage additional manufactured home communities can no longer be established through the chair manufactured home communities are conditional use in a number of zones but it has gotten more difficult over time to do it there are a lot of um additional requirements for that that specific use type and it's only a conditional use in certain areas and it's got a minimum acreage so it's it's pretty Limited in the code already to put in a new Momo home park um and actually we just finished a study uh we contracted a study to look at that and that'll be coming out in the next couple months but the study did find that it's very difficult to do it and they recommended some changes to that to facilitate more of that housing type um but yeah right now and I I don't think a new mobile home park has been created in several decades and this is something that was called out in the 2040 plan is something that you know we need to sort of preserve this or deal with or or or provide similar opportunities for that level of Housing and in the 2020 plan if I'm not mistaken thank you through the chair I I thought I had read in the news recently that the Matsu bur had passed uh an ordinance of some kind that um restricted the creation of future creation of uh manufactured home communities and so I didn't know uh that we still had the ability to establish new ones here in Anchorage thank you uh commissioner Gardner thank you um and thank you staff as well as commissioner Ron mentioned for the effort to kind of respond to our questions um it's really helpful to have this additional information um my question that at the moment is with respect to kind of this notion of tools and the toolbox for the relief valve and this may have been covered last time around when we talked about this I don't see it uh discussed in in detail here um in this most recent packet so apologies if we've this is retreading some ground but what is the planning Department's view on the availability of um conditions of appr approval for rezones I know that in the AO and I think for the rezone um criteria it's not specifically listed as an option but I think um where it's introduced in title 21 it's kind of treated as like a generally applicable option so is that is that a tool that's in the Box for rezones uh through the chair that thank you for that uh that was a a good question and we looked into that and that's something that we also want to bring to the assembly when we put forward our assembly information memo that there are these stipulations conditions um and other effective causes that need to be looked at I think from my understanding a condition of approval is sort of a one-time thing that has to be done before the reone can go into effect may maybe it could be something like well um you know it's usually go to the state reporter's office do this I don't know how far you can go with that before it becomes a sort of contract Zoning for example to say well this becomes effective as soon as you demolish that building or something like that um so that looks to be a tool because it's mentioned conditions are mentioned in the code I think we maybe don't have a totally clear answer on the limitations of that tool at the moment or it needs a legal opinion okay and I guess just to just to make sure we're talking about the same thing the the conditions as a as kind of a one-time thing we're talking about conditions of approval and not effective Clauses or maybe there's some overlap between the two of them potentially clearly through the chair yeah I think there's some overlap and you've identified a and some aren't they they're really not clearly defined so it is I think in practice people might be able to tell you but when you really pour into it it's it's tough to say commissioner pus yeah I'll just Echo that I pretty much agree with all the other commissioner statements um I think you know the um conditions of approval seems like a tool that we could apply often but I didn't think about the fact that maybe sometimes we can't apply it under certain conditions so that's a good point right there um I was just wanted to walk through like a situation that was in this this memo today on page five where um we point out that improvements might be prohibitively burdensome um I kind of agree sometimes things are prohibitively burdensome but in this one I think I sniffed out this is to cot new mall and basically we put the cost of intersection improvements and roadway improvements on a giant developer that can pay for that where the municipality couldn't um in today's you know planning department um building department world how would that work out is it just traffic recommends that because of the Tia and then it's made as a requirement in the building permit how does that work today that's my question uh through the chair we we've had this discussion a lot looking at where traffic gets their authority to impose the sort of cost and I think in in modern code today it's generally that traffic controls where a property can access the street so they only make an approval based on the conditions that they set for that sort of thing so they say okay we we'll GL we'll Grant you the the connection to the RightWay here and here but only if you do the following improvements and that's I think where that piece of you have to develop you know improve the entire Street you have to put an intersection you have to put in the stoplight that's the way that that works now um and generally they they do have that so I I think that would come through when the development process when it goes through the the round of reviews that that is traffic's comment that holds up the permit until that condition is satisfied so so in title 21 there's nothing that says the traffic has the ability to make you do roadway improvements if they say so I mean that's my only question is are we eliminating you know specific stuff that keeps the municipality from having to pay for it through the chair this ordinance would just eliminate the ability to create SLS but it it doesn't change any of the sections of code the traffic uses in I I think it's 21107 to get those sort of De those uh improvements out of it so it it doesn't touch any of the existing procedures that they use I'm I'm going to look and because we've looked at it there's like one paragraph that says you can only do this once youve satisfied the the needs of the traffic department but this AO doesn't touch that section thank you I would just follow up with I've I've NE have you ever seen an SL that required offsite improvements that's that's kind of rare okay okay commissioner Gardner thank you um just a I guess two things a quick follow up on the conditions of approval I looking at um just for reference um 21330 M do3 and it this is it says unless there's a time schedule stated as part of the approval or conditions of approval all conditions of approval shall be met within one year of the date of approval unless the condition is ongoing such as the specification of hours of operation so it seems like at least in some context conditions of approval in title 21r contemplated as kind of an ongoing um restriction and and I guess through that lens and I'll just you know one of the one of the concerns that I have um with this proposal and I get for the folks that deal with SLS that they're just a nightmare in the way that they've been put together um create a lot of problems um it seems like just looking at the history of of when they've been implemented that a lot of the updates to title 21 have um reduced dramatically the need for sels um as a kind of release valve um but I don't know that you'll ever get to the point where um a a generalized planning document will always be able to account for like all of the specific on the ground situations right that you might encounter and so I am interested in finding options um that provide a little bit of flexibility um where it's appropriate and I I read the approval criteria too as contemplating that I know you're proposing an amendment um to criteria seven there that previously referenced stipulations um but I think criteria six also reference or at least contemplates the notion of mitigating um potential adverse impacts and I think I think inherent and that is some notion of some way to do that and I'm I'm exploring that the idea of conditions of approval as kind of one way to do that but I I guess my question is if if if that's a possibility uh to what degree do conditions of approval just create the same problems that we've seen with SLS right and so how are how are conditions of approval tracked What mechanisms are available to understand what condition of approval are applicable to a site if there is one that extends beyond the default one-year period you want to start through the chair I I think you've highlighted an issue right whether it's a condition or stipulation if it becomes something that can't be accessed in the normal way it it's more likely to be lost or forgotten or it's more likely to to lead to issues of non-compliance inadvertent non-compliance um I think as we've gone through this looking at it it's not just that it's kind of frustrating to implement it's also an issue of sort of the the consistency of the code overall as a set of regulations that's transparent and consistent every time um so if there's an issue of mitigating adverse impacts and and a zoning district for example allows a use that might have some sort of adverse impact I think one way to look at that is well maybe that use needs a use specific standard within the zone so every time the same problem comes up people who don't have the wherewithal maybe to go through the process to to get it through or get the SLS so or the the surrounding area that needs those protections so everybody gets those same equal protections for example if somebody um say somebody wants to rezone to B3 and somebody say you know I don't I don't like this particular use in B3 so we're going to prove it but a B3 with an SL and so that you know maybe protects the area against some some um adverse impact but it's only that area now that gets that special protection from B3 so the bigger question might be if if there is something and if there are adverse impacts that aren't dealt with in the zoning code and in the use table perhaps there's a better way to address that and really go into it another one is gas stations I think we could pick on is is a lot of people say I don't want a gas station near my house well then maybe a gas station shouldn't be a permitted use maybe it should be a conditional use or an administrative site plan review and then that sort of builds that sort of release valve into that process but really it's just about maintaining a consistent process so every time it is consistent so even a body like this you could still deal with some of those things and you could apply those conditions but as a condition of approval and a conditional use rather than an SL which is sort of like a condition on top of you know the rest of it so I think that's sort of um it's sort of cracking open a bigger problem that if there are these uses or these Z these zones maybe that aren't appropriate right if somebody says well I want to rezone into this uh land use designation and I it says I can use r2m and people say that that really isn't appropriate then the other thing is well maybe that r2m is in a good implementing zone for that category or maybe there are pieces in r2m that are causing problems and so I think from the the strict planning perspective it would be ideal to address those problems within the existing system so that every time somebody goes and interacts with this process they're doing so in in a consistent way and finally to bring it all the way back around because as you mentioned if there are conditions of approval then I'm just thinking to find those you probably have to go back to the the resolution or the meeting or the AO and we're back in the same position but also as you pointed out it says you can do conditions approval regulating the hours of operation um so that I think you've you've highlighted some piece of code where it's not quite clear and it could create some some uncertainty thank you commissioner strike yeah thank you did didn't we have a near that exact exact example when we were dealing with the um homeless shelters in B3 am I recalling that correctly there there was a whole outcry about this massive rezoning and all of a sudden all um homeless shelters were going to be allowed and it looked like it was a backdoor approach to Bringing homeless shelters into areas that wouldn't otherwise have been allowed and all of a sudden and it wasn't a knot in my backyard but it was a tool that was being used within the process to acques homeless shelters but that was a special limitation that was placed am I am I not recalling this entirely correct I'm but you know and that was the B3 example here and the other comment I wanted to put out there is we talk about large parsel of land being developed they're being replanted they're going down in size but these special limitations can be put in place for any number of different reasons a lot of these large tracks and we used to CAU new Commons as an example and this is going back shoot 30 years probably but you know I believe that was part of a larger land trade that was used that was a land Swap and so the access to Elmendorf through this proper property was something that was conditionally um identified to be able to put through and so therefore I imagine there was a special limitation placed on that track of land that the ultimate developer at whatever point it was feasible to develop would be required to put the the road system in place that not only went to the development but to the Elmendorf Gates and if you look at it it also went in and and tied into Bartlett High School and went into the native um Heritage Center so all of this was tied together as part of a land trade so we got to be careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water because so I believe some of these special limitations have had a use that goes back to the large track that that gets we may not see the repercussions of that effect for 20 years when it finally gets developed but it does happen and I will point out another piece of property that was off of um between um tutor and international right behind the hotel row there was a road that goes through um behind Motel 6 and all these motels and it stopped well there was a large track of land and it was a continuous land that went from Sea Street all the way back into the um St Elias Hospital it was replanted but when it was replanted the agreement was that the developer was responsible for the utilities and the road construction to put the road through at that point and in the meantime as a development it got reduced tax property taxes it got a benefit for not having done it but the agreement was when it does go in the developer was required to put the road that was a special limitation placed on it and it impacted the value of the property itself um St Elias just so edification St Elias came forth went down to Juno got a grant from the state handed the money over to the city and the city put the road in through grant money from the state so all the parties got it for free basically anyway but the rest of us taxpayers ended up paying for that but my point is special limitations start you a lot of times they start on a larger track of land and then as it's replanted and comes up forth for development the the true intent of those special limitations become evident and my last point was nine special limitations in 2020s and as noted by another commissioner they've tapered off significantly since um title 21 has been put into place and I think you started going through the um purpose of some of these nine that were out there but it it strikes me no pun intended that the problem seems to be curing itself and the problem seems to be older SLS that are out there and how do we get rid of them and and just to wipe them off the old sl's off and say they no longer apply well the the process for not applying an old SL that no longer applies because the code has been updated or because it it doesn't make sense from a um statutory or it's in conflict with a statutory requirement it would seem like an ease of mechanism to fix that would just be an administrative action that doesn't need to come to the assembly it doesn't need to come to the commission it seems like some these fixes can be done handled administratively and I'll close with that um does staff have any response to commissioner strik comments not quite questions uh so we neither of us were involved in I was just looking up the case on the the homeless shelter in B3 I think it was case 2021 0025 um I can only I only saw what was on the Planning and Zoning agenda but it looked like that was a case to update the use table um so that in the way we're looking at it that's going through the process where it's determining whether that's appropriate is the you in that zone or not so I I I would say that that's separate from a special limitation and that's the kind of thing where you can have the broader conversation of is this appropriate in all B3 zones um or not um and I just do want to emphasize that this AO it it doesn't remove SLS it just um kind of blocks the creation of future SLS and in in the sort of that subdivision case in in the plat note discussion we were talking about that those kind of could be um added on there and then to the the final comment about removing through SLS through administrative action uh that's beyond what we've been asked to contemplate um the AO did direct the the planning department let's see to initiate a comprehensive review um and make recommendations for zones and Parcels to be considered in a later ordinance removing the special limitations so that might be something that would come out of that process but in this we we weren't um asked to to look at that specifically thank you and I'll just um emphasize that the current process for removing NSL is a rezone a full rezone as if it was to any other Zone thank you commissioner Ron uh thank you to the chair um did I hear uh staff say that next a Next Step from the Department would be an information memo uh to the assembly um if so could you um give us some insight as to what that might include my assumption is that it would include all of the recommended text changes that we've seen both in the first packet and our last but if there's anything else in there I'd be interested to know thanks through the chair it would include anything that happens here tonight and hopefully include some of the questions that you all asked tonight it'll include um we've we've kind of responded to a lot of the public comment we've heard anyway but it'll just include that in a table um and if I could sneak in one more thing for commissioner George uh mobile manufacturer housing communities are allowed as a conditional use in r2m R3 R4 and r4a and R5 thank you um and commissioner George thank you the chair I'm happy to defer to you procedurally where you want to go with this um not sure I wanted to make a few more points we're we're making questions of staff not points okay that's that's technically what we're supposed to be doing fair fair enough um one of the questions that's been asked previously is how many SLS do we have when we went you know I raised this question last meeting um when we discussed this I think we had uh originally thought it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 105 and then last meeting um I think it was over 500 the memo before us I think says 394 of them um and we've seen quite a few examples and from the from the hard work the staff has done putting together the presentations for us to give us you know the the Salient examples um of what uh you know basically is the Crux of the argument but without seeing how many there are and what they do it's really hard to make a determination of whether there is utility with these or not um trying to get to a form of a question but um you know it each of these SLS had a public process I imagine that uh involved public notice and public hearing um would it be appropriate to remove them all without similar notice to affected property owners through the chair um I'll just note again that this ordinance wouldn't remove any it would just prevent them from being created in the future um and the assembly did direct us to if if we were good if it does go through and the next step would be looking at them closely and and I think the ga the geotechnical advisory commission's advice sort of weighed in on this too is it would be a lot of work to look at each one and make sure that the codes we have today are serving um a similar purpose um and to the question about how many there are you're right the number has jumped around a bit and Al the reason for that is that some SLS they come as one ordinance but they touch on multiple different zones um and every time you do an SL really you're creating a new Zone um we mentioned this at the cedc meeting but we say that Anchorage has 15 or some zones but if you add in all the SLS we have like 300 zones right like R I think R1 and r1a aren't very different in terms of Zone they just have a lot sized difference you can have 10 B3 SLS that are much more different than the difference between R1 and r1a so that's one of the reasons that we see that it's kind of hard to give a number because you might have one AO that touches on four zones and so does that count as one SL or multiple SLS then there's another one that's up by the Glen Highway the first one is from 1979 it says you can't have residential here you can have this this this and this and then in 1990 they amended it to say you can also have a church and a synagogue so that's another one is that one or two CU most of the the content is in that first SL and and the other is in the second so the reason why we're giving you a variety of numbers is the first one we were we had a list that said it was counting every single zone as a different SL wow we have you know 500 or something and then we went down and said oh we actually don't have that many and now looking at the internal GIS I I would say we have around 3 or 400 um but we still I think haven't come down on well one AO one SL or is it multiple SLS um so that's the the reason for that thank you um this this whole process reminds me of something I encountered years ago working as a legislative staffer for the house finance committee in Juno um in State Statute um legislatures over the years had added tax credits Revenue expenditures foregone Revenue whatever you want to call it um and they never expired and they just piled up and piled up and so no one knew how much money the state was giving out each year or not collecting because it never came in the door and so what the decision uh that the legislature came to was was to create um a sunset an automatic sunset for all revenue expenditures and to have a commission create a report to identify them all and to start a sunset cycle of eight years or however however many it was and to review them and make recommendations to the legislature to keep or repeal them um maybe an accounting of all the SLS which ones are no longer applicable no longer have utility and which one are right before presentation to the Planning and Zoning commission might be appropriate obviously there's cost and staff time involved and so that's a recommendation that we could make to the assembly but I think simply quantifying the problem and allowing them to be looked at you know when you're dealing with several hundred of them um might be appropriate thank you okay um I got a question so ccnr are required in the code in certain areas like say for example unit lot subdivisions are required to record a set of homeowners documents I I don't know if they specifically call them ccnr but I'm just going to call them that for now so would a condition of approval would it be reasonable to assume that conditions of approve like cc&rs or entering into Improvement to public place agreements in in the in the instance of improving rways or making connections or recording easements through large tracks that Grant access in the future all of those things could be used as conditions of approval in a rezone is that correct um for the reference or yeah for the reference the section is 21807 that talks about unil lot subdivisions and it says uh homeowners Z association with covenants conditions restrictions is required for each unil lot subdivision in order to ensure the long-term success maintenance cohesive appearance and curve appeal of a small subdivision I I don't think I have a good answer for you I'll defer of course to the director it might be a a a legal thing I'm just I'm thinking that because the code here says you have to create ccnr but it doesn't specify what the ccnr are it's not getting into that that gray area of who is holding the contract or who's the contract between um so just saying you have to have a contract that manages these things these things I guess if you're asking can a a condition of a reone say you have to have ccrs um looking at this since the code already says it or it already already has a precedent it seems to me but I I think that's a would have to be a legal question I and I mean I'm just I guess I'm just trying to get a feel and give everybody a feel for what these conditions of approval could be um and I mean just like commissioner strikes examples I mean it sounded like a a lot of those things sounded like things that would come out of a plat and you know may we may or may not be seeing a plat with a rezone but the plat would have you know requirements typically if you're going to require roads to be built and rideways to be granted that would be in a plat not a rezone and I I understand why we want to get rid of our CS just to eliminate sloppy zoning and out ofd zoning um my other well I I'll go to commissioner strike I I I was going to speak to the ccnr and this body has and I've brought up ccnr in the past over the last 10 years and what I've been directed by the planning board is that we don't address ccnr at this body we don't look at ccnr we don't look at the homeowners associations we don't control we don't enforce we are not tied to a homeowners association and there ccnr at all and separate from the zoning um then it was thrown back here about a uh in the last year that one of the overrides for the adus could be the C cnrs A homeowners association could have ccnr that would restrict adus and in those cases those homeowners association rules would override any of the zoning it's not by right so that's between the developer and the homeowners not between the city yeah well like you're you're correct that there are neighborhoods like the one surrounding Campbell Lake for example that have ccnr unenforced but they do say that you will not have an Adu even though several adus exist in that neighborhood but so that that that's true but that doesn't stop that doesn't stop title 21 from requiring homeowners documents already so I would say whoever told you that we the city doesn't do anything about it was either in error or was be pre before title 21 started requiring it but the city doesn't enforce the cc&rs no they don't and as far as the unenforced ccnr that various Community various neighborhoods might have that becomes a community issue doesn't make it right but all it takes is one homeowner even in the unenforced to step up yeah one might argue that the city doesn't enforce title 21 Beyond a permit approval yeah okay any more questions for staff that being said I is this an actual question because we can make all the points we want while we're speaking to the motion okay go ahead just just in summary to commissioner Gardner's question um Can we pretty much put condition of approvals on any process or are there a couple that we we can't I don't think I fully comprehended a response on that one my fault not yours through the chair no it's it's I'll take that one it is I didn't give a very comprehendible response because I I think this body has identified that that is not quite clear I we were just looking back through a number of uh AOS on rezones and it seems like most of the conditions are usually something about um you it'll automatically expire unless you get written consent for the SL it's sort of that like procedural stuff um I I don't think we can give you a good answer on what the extent of those conditions are without talking to legal counsel right so I apologize that one is on me all right what is the will of the body oh commissioner Ron is in the queue do you have a question or I do have a question and it has a question mark at the end um seeking clarification um pointing the department to um proposed language changes in our first staff packet page four of 27 it's on the issue of a effective Clauses um while I appreciate the Department's definition of effective Clauses on page two of the packet from December 9th 2024 I just want to test that definition and um make sure I understand it because my bias around effective Clause is that it's a very simple statement indicating that you know this shall become effective on xate um that's how I'm currently interpreting the language that I'm reading in title 21 um but if you could shed some light on on that so that I understand what the Department's intent is in adding that effective language uh effective Clause language to the to the AO through the chair we added that um I believe because there's another stipulation elsewhere in code that says a reone may be approved with effective Clauses and so that was just adding it in another place so that it was and it might be that the I I believe it's a says the planning zoning commission can add an effective clause and then the other section is where it says the assembly can approve with an effective Clause so us adding that in there was to just remove any sort of uncertainty um and that that came from since it already existed it was just sort of putting it back so it's at at every level of the process consistency sorry consistency yeah consistency I guess one one more question while we're still on the questions I feel like there was a time in Anchorage where um Park and cell Lots were popping up everywhere and I'm just curious out when you were going through the SLS how many of the SLS appeared to limit the outdoor parking of vehicles for parking cell lot because I feel like that's the majority of the ones I seem to find Park and cell lot like vehicle storage it's it's kind of like before your time it's they used to park a car you would like rent a spot in a parking lot and you would sell your own car at this parking lot and they used to be all over Anchorage and I feel like there's a lot of SLS regarding outdoor storage of vehicles or parking of vehicles that were a response to the parking cell lots that were popping up all over because it was a way to make money off of land without doing any improvements whatsoever I have gone through a lot of the SLS I I haven't seen a reference to park and cell in any of the minutes but I haven't gone through all the minutes yet I have seen a lot of references to vehicle storage but that you know that didn't pop up as something that seemed to be a big problem but I but we we're going to do a deeper analysis next month okay we we are ready for a motion if somebody like to make one Ron would you like to State your motion I moveing case 202 24- 0124 to recommend to the Anchorage assembly approval of the removal of special limitations from code due to their varied application and negative impact on development just looking for a second here um that is seconded by commissioner Gardner commissioner Ron would you like to speak to your motion uh thank you uh chair and fellow Commissioners I appreciate um the level of effort that we' applied to this case um it's one that uh wasn't initially destined to come before us um and I think it's uh again thanks to the planning department and their appreciation and understanding for the roles of the various bodies at play here and how to best balance um those bodies to effectively achieve solutions that are better for our community um and I think through this process of the public hearing that we had um the Department's um followup to response to our questions um I feel um um in a good position to support the motion that's that's on the table um we've heard quite a few comments from um the public um many in opposition um again those having been responded to by the department in I think a very level way um for me uh what what bears most in this instance of when you talk about removing a tool from the toolbox you know why are you doing that and what tools are you left with um I think in many respects uh what I've heard uh through this process is that the framework the landscape has changed in the time that this tool was first created um and while it's intended to give flexibility to the process we've heard that there are now other uh circumstances uh the landscape the framework title 21 um uh having changed throughout in a way that I don't want to say make the need for flexibility ility obsolete that's not what I'm getting after here but at least have provided um supplementary tools that can in effect continue to enable um consideration where consideration should be given um I appreciate the Department's intent to improve upon the AO um and I would like for the record um my support for the Department's proposed changes um to carry forward in in in that memorandum that goes to the assembly um with that all um SE the floor and give it to other Commissioners thanks anyone else wishing to speak to the motion commissioner strike yeah as point of clarification um the motion has written does this include the STA the staff's additional language that was the intention from my commentary if it needs to be stated in the motion we can uh amend it as such but um otherwise believing that'll be captured it I believe it needs to be captured in a motion or Amendment to the motion um because it's only with those additional comments am I somewhat agreeable to moving this forward otherwise I'm an AB not an abstention but I I I don't like the motion um as written I need that additional staff language so maybe you should um make a motion to amend to add that this is a motion to amend the current motion to add staff language as presented in our last meeting and the additional language that they've Incorporated at this meeting something pardon I can't hear you staff recommendations to add sty all staff recommendations from prior meeting in this one for okay the motion has been moved and seconded I see Commissioners flipping paper I will give everybody a second to find out if they agree commissioner strike would you like to speak to the motion to amend any further no I think that with the amount of discussion we've had I think it has been the staff's recommendation and recommended um input has been invaluable and gives certain Clarity to the um tool as it's been used or not to so as we can move forward with this motion but um that's all commissioner Gardner thank you um I guess I'm not really sure how how this ultimately gets transm to the assembly and so I I guess I'll make some comments about the proposed amendments from staff just to be taken into consideration and some concerns I have with adopting them wholesale um I I do recognize and fully appreciate the perspective that we want to have the code be applied in like a uniform and Equitable Manner and that there certainly are occasions which we've seen here through the commission and I think we've seen too in some of the example special limitations that you've identified where um there's kind of a a oneoff patch for something that really identifies and reflects a need for broader change in the code and sometimes that change gets made and sometimes it doesn't um but I'm I'm hesitant to remove entirely the ability to take into consideration um conditions that may be unique to a particular um piece of property or area um and I'm I'm concerned that some of the proposed changes um I'm looking at page for on the original staff packet um could be read to remove all of that discretion including the ability to consider conditions for approval by striking the reference to um other modifications or or modifications and I'd like to have some I think it could be valuable to have some generalized language that uh keeps the possibility for um a condition of approval even if it's not you know an indefinite one but for a period of time um something that is more targeted I think through this process both the the the commission and the assembly is more cognizant of some of the concerns and issues that could come up with those types of modifications um and so for that reason I think I would ask for considering um revising those changes um to maybe still reference effective Clauses but keep in a generalized reference to modifications I think with the other changes in the AO uh special limitations would still be prohibited and similarly for the change proposed in 2103 1607 um I think I would still be interested in seeing a reference to mitigating impacts and just striking through stipulations and I think that's consistent with um criteria six um in the approval criteria which also references mitigations and so I guess either considering keeping the reference to mitigations in seven or just looking more holistically at the approval criteria making sure they're all consistent with how they address mitigations um so those are I guess I'll I'll vote no for the amendment for what it's worth but um those are the concerns that I have commissioner Ron uh thank you uh Mr chair I concur with the prayer Commission comments um I would uh look to vote no uh to the motion to amend that's currently on the table and request the previous commissioner put forward um a revised Amendment um that's where I'm at with it commissioner strike would you like to amend your motion based on this well or do we want to just call the vote we can we can call the vote but again my my intent was that if we didn't make any motion to amend none of the staff's recommendations were going to make it in to our recommendation as the motion was originally written I believe commissioner Ron's intent and he did State this that in his speaking to the motion he did intend to include the the recommendations which is what my motion did and then we're going to vote now all the discussions been but except for different points my point was I I I'm willing to withdraw the motion and let's we can start it all over again but my concern was that the original motion lacked any reference to staff recommendations and it was a as written I think it was very limiting that's my concern I guess I'll just point out that this wasn't actually sent to us this is here as a courtesy this is the assembly taking action on title 21 which they have the right to do and so I'm not real concerned other than that our voices are heard the findings are on the record is that that's me personally that's kind of my take on it then then I'm willing to withdraw the motion okay commissioner strike withdraws the motion we are back to the main motion anyone wishing to speak to the main motion commer Gardner I'll just note briefly just for clarification you know I'm I'm I I support the general intent of removing a confusing um and element of code um and I just would ask that you know in in the manner of the department thinks most um effective that my prior comments you know make it into whatever information ultimately makes it to the assembly commissioner George thank you to the chair I just I want to acknowledge the chair uh for making space on our agenda uh for allowing us to hear this item which was not sent to us uh this is a very unusual situation where we are hearing an item that's not been referred to us and we're consuming Municipal staff and and uh commissioner time and resources so um I commend you and appreciate the tremendous latitude you have allowed this commission to take uh this evening and and previously on this item uh I don't want to overlook that um many of the points that I have uh already made I still stand by um I think for me it comes down to uh merely the powers of the commission and our ability to effectively convey and encapsulate you know the public hearings that we have before us the people that come before us the input the assembly doesn't have the time to do all of these actions otherwise they wouldn't have a Planning and Zoning commission and so they have uh seated a commission comprised of ourselves to hear these cases and to make recommendations to the assembly um I love having the ability and the flexibility ility of this item in our toolbox um you know the assembly is not removing their ability to have this power before them they could uh they could all they're doing essentially is they're telling us not to tell them uh to put a special limitation on something and uh I don't think that that is in furtherance of good government and for that reason alone um I would oppose this thank you um I see nobody else in the queue so before we call the vote I intend to support the motion um I just want to restate that this does not remove existing SLS um I think title 21 requirements are robust and with conditions of approval and the other tools I think we have the guard rails needed to promote responsible development and then just restate that ultimately Z does not enact any zoning but recommends to the assembly the assembly will still retain the ability to create special zoning if it chose to and pnz can deny zoning and in its findings indicate that one special thing may may or may not have made it pass so I I really don't think we're losing much and that and then the just the massive consequences of special limit outdated special SLS that I've seen and heard about it seems it seems okay for me to try try changing it try life without it and we've definitely rolled the dice on 20 21 before so I'm okay with it commissioner Ron thank you chair uh just to close out my commentary and uh underscoring the comments from the prior commissioner about retaining language around approval with modifications um seems like it's not the will of this commission to amend the motion it looks like it's going to carry or not as it's currently stated but again underscoring that um that element of flexibility thank you seeing no one else in the queue we'll call for the vote Mr Winchester how do you vote yes thank you that motion passes now we will move on to section J title 21 discussion number one AO 2024-25 District take it away step through the chair we have not pre um prepared a presentation on either of these items tonight um this is again a special circumstance where Planning and Zoning commission hearing was waved on these items by the assembly and we are bringing them to you um and you may take action on them if you would like to um but we wanted to give you an opportunity to discuss thank you um commissioner Gardner thank you I guess just a question it seems like um you know having looked through these um I appreciate as always kind of the staff's input um and and consideration and the experience it it brings to reviewing these the information that's in these packets including kind of the recommendations to bring some of these through the um Planning and Zoning commission how or in what way would that make it to the assembly I through the chair um yeah this is sort of uncharted waters of how this goes so I think our plan is to take what we hear tonight whether there's action or not but at least go to the recording and sort of try to synthesize that and summarize that and bring that to the assembly um and I guess I ask in part is there is there a mechanism that available to us that would be helpful to kind of put a fine point on it like in terms of I don't know like a resolution or something I mean I'd be interested to just say please take a look at this um you know from the from the planning zoning commission if that's a way to do that this this happened a a while back when I first got on the commission and what we did is we passed a resolution if we determined that there was something that we felt important enough as a body to send along we passed a resolution stating that and it was as simple as that so through the chair if I may this is not under an action item it was not noticed as an action item what I would suggest is asking staff to draft a memorandum with your suggestions or requests thank you I stand corrected we can send a memorandum commissioner Ron thank you Mr chair a question to you if you're um fit for answering if not then uh perhaps party response um could our action include a direct request um in the form of a resolution that um this come before um the Planning and Zoning commission to enable public hearing process uh I don't see why we couldn't put that in the memo to say we wish you would send this to us um you know just to kind of speak to that idea personally I I guess I I kind of take a little different stance than most like if something if I feel strongly enough about a title 21 issue that's going before the assembly I will submit written comments and possibly testify at the public hearing at the assembly and so I wouldn't necessarily be want want to request that it come before us personally because if I if I felt strongly enough about it I would go there and make comments myself that's that's just me my kind of my my personal two cents on it through the chair one addition you could have it come before the PCC but when you testify before the assembly it's as an individual you would not do on behalf of p no I don't yeah I don't pretend to represent all of you when when I say things as long as you state that you can go as an individual now I'm to the ball question we're positive like the assembly's put out the Public Notices required and stuff because that's what we keep hearing is nobody's you know been informed of all this they don't they don't have enough time to react the assembly is meeting all their time requirements right I mean that's the argument I want to have but I feel like if they're meeting their requirements it's pretty hard to argue that so are we are we positive there meeting their 21-day notice on this specific case through the chair from what I understand the assembly has met all of their legal requirements for noticing on these I mean my personal experience is that people miss things and then kind of say oh there's there's not enough notice here it's similar to you know last meeting we had people saying that the 500 feet noticing all owners within 500 fet isn't enough and that our our process is broken and I mean as a developer I would say that you know I'm I'm not I'm not looking to increase the burden I think the 2014 version of title 21 or the current version of title 21 has increased the burden quite a bit and we've been hearing that a lot lately commissioner Ron yeah I guess the 500 Fe could be 2000 uh thank you to the chair I guess question of staff on page two um does the department intend to include um language either as it exists or similar to it such that staff recommends the assembly extend the period for public review and consider an additional opportunity for the public to review the materials via the Planning and Zoning commission public hearing process uh to repeat the question will that be in the memo that goes to the assembly um or is it intended to include that language through the chair that could absolutely be in the memo that we would send to the assembly on tonight and that's something we would include sort of of passing that along um and in the existing commissioner Ron can I just clarify we're we're talking about the B changes to the B3 is that correct uh title page subject information on AO if I may through the chair uh on page two um we said staff recommends the assembly extend the period for public review and consider an additional opportunity for the public to review the materials via the Planning and Zoning commission public hearing process um and I think in that was on B3 I think in the other one we recommended a a working group so in in both we did um recommend additional sort of getting additional eyes on both of these items but we'll be glad to pass along that members of the commission also emphasize that that'd be important to them question it based on that comment on page two top paragraph if this body does nothing is it the intent of the um planning and zoning office to send that recommendation to the assembly regardless yes this memo was written with the intent that it would be part of the information sent to the assembly from from your office from our office not necessarily from this commission correct but if the commission agrees with that motion and gives gives its Ted approval here this evening you would just incorporate pnz commission as party to that memo yes thank you do we want to do anything Now's the Time wouldn't be a motion it would just be a direct I guess it won't be a motion it would be just a direct St you can if you want I mean so what if we don't all agree on what we want to do except two cor I guess um we're our hands are really tight here so I think if you feel strongly about this you should write the assembly but commissioner Gardner go ahead no I don't I don't see any reason why we couldn't do emotion to have something that reflects you know the intent of the body so I I'll just I'll just move uh whether anyone we'll go along with it or not but um to um on your screen I don't know if that'll help but what do you want to add to it oh um I guess for the to direct the planning staff to draft a memo that incorporates you know the materials they've already put together on both of these items and also um um include um information that the Planning and Zoning um commission agrees with the recommendation on with respect to AO opportunity for the public to review the materials via the Planning and Zoning commission public hearing process that's my motion okay wait I can't restate that so look what I got and throw it in please yeah I would just finish off the recommendation of considering additional opportunity for the public to review via the PCC hearing process even I'm not there yet I'm sorry with the recommendation of what with the that's it oh wait is on the screen so what am I putting consider staff recommends this recommendations of planning staff planning staff that the assembly extend the period extend the period of public review and consider an additional opportunity okay wait a minut quick reading I'm okay but you know where it's at just you don't want this in there this hasn't go in there or does this go in there agrees with ofing staff to consider consider and you don't want this in there he was trying to underline consider from okay cuz I was am I yeah I was looking at what here what you had already once you get that I think we can delete the line right before it okay so it should be on your screen dra m to the assembly that incorporates material and information the pcre e okay commissioner Gardner we have a motion on the table seconded by commissioner Ron would you like to speak to the motion or state and I think it's I I'll just I'll just just speaking briefly to it I think there's a lot that goes uh into this proposed ordinance and I think um I think we have an opportunity to provide some some information that could be useful to the assembly to kind of work through some of those specifics as a body take fact finding and help distill some of that into a recommendation um that would ideally lead to a better outcome commissioner strike yeah the the the public process is important and whether it it's minimal or not but the process itself so and and I I support the move that this commission presents and supports the staff to see more public involvement especially when we see changes of this type that reach this magnitude um we have comments that come from the public we have comments that that come from the the um um City coun the different Council groups neighborhood councils Etc that I think are invaluable for us to hear when this type of um piece comes so I support the motion commissioner George thank you to the chair um I'm not quite sure what I'm potentially voting for or against the first half says to have the staff draft a memo to the assembly that incorporates material so what material are we incorporating the staff recommendations the the two memos that we have so we're incorporating memos that are already going to the assembly well these ones are addressed to us but we're just confirming that they will go to the assembly so we're forwarding the memos to the assembly but we're not we're not we can't take a stance for or against them or opine on whether they are correct or whether we support the underlying items because that would require public hearing correct I believe commissioner Gardner can speak to this but the intent was like we support this and then we highlighted one section which was consider extending the public process by adding public hearing at planning and zoning commission so my understanding is the intent is just to confirm that this information makes it to the assembly as part of the memo and that that memo includes cludes our our request to support specifically the the um proposal to include uh go through the Planning and Zoning hearing process thank you commissioner um with that understanding that this is merely forwarding this item and stating the commission's desire to see this additional input with it being limited to those items I would be comfortable supporting the motion thank you I do not intend to support the motion um I've heard from several people in the multi Housing St multi-housing industry that they need these changes sooner than later and that's why I believe the assembly has taken them up and so therefore I will not be voting to support the recommendation to extend the public hearing longer and seeing no one else we can call for the vote Mr Winchester how do you vote yes thank you okay that motion passes um now we're moving on to item number two the establishing a moratorium on residential design standards do we want to do what do we want to do on this one Daniel uh McKenna Foster thank you Mr chair we just wanted to note that um there was an S version introduced on the moratorium on residential design standards 2024 10 sorry um that that was at the December third meeting I think so that I think expands the scope of this so just as for information Comm Ron uh thank you the chair clarification requested from staff the last sentence uh first page under overview acknowledging this is not a public hearing item and that planning department will not be providing a formal staff report to the commission got it uh or the assembly Beyond this memorandum is that intended to mean that this memorandum will go to the assembly I'm seeing nods in the positive through the chair yes we were planning on um sending this to the assembly in a formal staff report goes through the criteria goes through the formal process and it looks at all that stuff and so again because we're sort of in uncharted waters again this would be um we'll we'll provide this and anything from tonight of course as well um at this point I think our role is to sort of just transmit the information commissioner Gardner so just to clarify kind of where we are in this I know for myself I don't have any particular points of emphasis that I'd be interested in making just along you know am making sure that this goes forward to the assembly it sounds like it will so if if we're all kind of of that mind then there's no motion that's required correct rather I guess if someone does have a point of emphasis then they could or should make a motion I would be surprised if you didn't want to request that the assembly extend the public process by adding a Planning and Zoning meeting like you did on last one but I I didn't support that one either so happy to let this die alrighty well if nobody has anything else on item J2 we can move on to commissioner comments looks like people are reading and thinking down here I don't want to rush him all right or or we can move to a journ moved by strike seconded by Garder hearing no objections we are adjourned and I am really sorry that I completely forgot what time it was and night it was I was just so distracted by the weather I was definitely not watching a football game thank you Jim thank you have a good night e for