it'll are we ready okay we will call the uh March 10th meeting of the Planning and Zoning commission to order can we have the roll call please Andre Spinelli here Jared Gardner here Scott pus here Jeff Ron here Brandy Eber here radica Krishna Jim Winchester and Greg strike are excused you have a quorum thank you okay first we will I think the uh planning department has something to announce uh thank you chair Spinelli just a a point of information uh we just wanted to say ahead of time that uh item G1 so that's case 2025 D16 or review of the commission of the Eastchester Park master plan uh we just wanted to announce that it's it's only a review of the Eastchester Park master plan it's uh it's not connected or or a review with the state uh do Seward Glenn connection planning en and environmental linkages or pel study it's just a a review of this Commission of the Eastchester Park master plan thank you next item is disclosures uh are there any Commissioners wishing to disclose through the chair commissioner Ron uh thank you uh carrying forward myed disclosure in case 2024 d0100 and also applying to case 20256 you've heard this before but I'll say it again my spouse is on the executive leadership committee for the Rogers Park Community Council I have not discussed these cases with her I have no financial interest in them and I have not parti have been involved in any action that Community Council has taken on these matters thanks thank you and I will note that commissioner Ron was previously directed to participate and that will be the plan for tonight um next on the agenda unfinished business for case the public hearing on this item is still open can we start with the staff presentation uh yes this is uh Tom Davis with the municipal planning department uh the commission has received this evening uh three additional items for this case including an updated staff memorandum uh dated March 10th that provides the planning Department's updated recommendation to uh approve the October 2024 public hearing draft uh committee Council boundary recommendations and secondly an updated attachment 7 this was this is updated from attachment 7 that the commission received along with attachments 1 through six updated attachment 7 contains the uh resolutions or comments of all 26 Community Council that have submitted resolutions or comments as well as all the review agencies and members of the public who have commented through this past Friday uh that we've received these public comments collectively uh recommended uh 11 changes to the public hearing draft boundary recommendations and the um the memo uh the updated staff memo provides a brief uh staff recommendation in response to those and uh the details of the staff's comment response is in attachment 8 which is new so in some the commission has attachments 1 through six which comprise the public hearing draft materials the commission received those on January 6th when it opened the public hearing and in addition updated attachment s and attachment 8 which provide the full comments and ISS isue responses to those public comments and tonight's memo which provides the Department's recommendation um just briefly the uh documenting the process the public hearing draft materials were released on the project web page on October 30th 2024 notification was sent to the community councils and the Federation Community Council Center the next day November 1st 2024 and then the public hearing draft materials were posted on the cases online system uh and distributed for public agency a public review on Mid November the public hearing was open on January 6th and uh was continued uh to February 3rd but was postponed to this evening so this evening is a continuation of the public hearing which uh began on January 6 the memorandum that you've received tonight contains six recommended changes to the public hearing draft recommended boundaries uh those are listed on pages one and two of the memorandum of this evening's rent memorandum um there are uh four um extra copies of all six attachments from January 6 six uh they're there on this counter in front of us here and in case anyone from the public is here for the community council boundaries uh those include the uh maps of the public hearing draft recommended boundaries and Boundary study areas and other information thank you Mr chair thank you um one question I should have asked you earlier Tom there is a short board when there when when there is a short five member board or commission and a postponement is offered to and agreed to by the petitioner they will be moved to the next regular agenda meeting this should occur within 30 days which is not does not require Ren noticing the case if the petitioner is willing to postpone but unable to attend the next available meeting date within the 30 days the petitioner has one time only option to choose the next date certain he she can attend at no extra fee this is a question for you Tom did you want to move CA forward with the uh case 202 24-100 tonight uh we would recommend moving forward with the public hearing I my understanding is that there are uh folks here this evening who are here to testify uh be the commission's Choice whether it wishes to postpone or not postponement uh there's no uh uh you know um deadline so to speak uh if the commission is more comfortable deliberating and acting uh the planning department recommends postponing not to the next meeting the first meeting April but to uh April 14th which is the second meeting um there's currently not a meeting scheduled of the pling and Zoning Commission on the first meeting in April but you do have a work session scheduled on the 14th so we would recommend if you postpone you postpone action uh you hold the hearing this evening postpone action you could either close the hearing or continue the hearing but uh to post if you wish to post uh postpone your deliberations uh we we suggest postponing to April 14th so to be clear you're not suggesting we postpone you're just suggesting that if we were to postpone we do it to the 14th of April correct that's correct that's choic commission thank you any other questions for staff from the commission just both briefly uh chair go ahead thank you through the chair uh Tom I appreciate the uh extensive work that has gone into this uh deliberation engagement with the community uh multiple work sessions um also should have asked this earlier I understand that um a an advisory committee was stood up and played a strong role in helping shape where things are today since we last met here as a commission has there been any engagement between the department and that advisory commission no there has not but thanks for reminding me I do want to acknowledge there were hundreds of hours of work put into this by the advisory committee it's 12 Members Plus the U ex official member being the uh Municipal Ombudsman that committee operated its meetings basically as a city commission would with uh public notice open public meetings uh resolutions minutes and uh those are all documented uh in the among the attachments one through six I appreciate that and I should have also acknowledged that 26 Community councils spent time to to U develop resolutions uh there is a 27th I should have mentioned that is um Hillside Community Council it is scheduled to vote on a a resolution regarding the Glenn Alps question that we covered in the work session um in uh uh it's meeting in April which I understand is in early April um and they're comfortable with that being in time for consideration by the assembly so but uh there there's a lot of the materials in here an information isn't necessarily just from the municipal staff it is a lot of volunteer time thank you uh seeing no more questions for staff we will continue the public hearing is there anyone wishing to testify on community council boundaries case I thought somebody was here on no this on yes well I'm not prepared yet but I'll go first just because um okay my name is Kathy gleon I'm currently serving as president of again Community Council so thank you so much for being here tonight to hear our input on the 10e review of community councils and thank you to Tom Davis and the plan department for all their work on this um I'll speak to two items first spinard beach park and I want to clarify just the history of spinard beach park with regard to community councils um way back when spinard Beach Park was in spinard Community Council boundaries when Midtown Community Council was formed part of spinard community council bar boundaries was put into Midtown and as a domino effect part of turnig was put into spinard and at that point in time I guess the plane Department it wasn't something chigan requested but spinard Beach Park was then given to turn again and it it it's and has remained to this day now just to clarify as well it was not spinard Community Council who requested spinard Beach part to my knowledge because that was actually my idea when this whole boundary proposal came up I thought you know it used to be spenards it's now ours we initiated a big master plan for or they don't airport doesn't want it to be called a master plan major improvements to the park we collaborated with the airport they gave their okay and we said we should include smard in this it's not in their Council boundaries anymore but it's important and so we collaborated on that and after that effort a couple of years ago we did phase one and now we'll still do phase two I felt like that was a good thing to maybe just include and have an overlapping boundary so you guys can take all that information and go from there with it uh we support the overlap but at minimum we certainly would not want spinard to um re retain that that part of that area because it is just south of chigan residential um with regard to Coastal boundary change I think maybe Tom's somewhat mixed messaging with regard to how clear or how muddy no pun intended the coastal uh boundary issue is I can give you a pure example of when turnon Community Council was absolutely not notified of anything and we had to inject ourselves into the process and that was the jet fuel pipeline from the port to the airport and there was a working group turning again Community Council nor Sand Lake or excuse me South Edition or downtown there was no council representation representation on that working group um myself and three other people inserted ourselves and crashed the meeting and they then reluctantly agreed to include us in the working group and we gave good input that they actually took into account and um it was a good process but by no means did that start out that way so you can see why turnning again Community Council is very hesitant to support the heiming tide as our Coastal boundary um there's other projects that have occurred in the past as was referenced a reroute of the coastal Trail into mud flats farther out we don't have any details as to what that would look like yet as part of the fish creek trail connection project we have no details yet we're anxious to see what's going to happen because that's all within our boundaries um there's a proposal on the master plan at the airport to do a second north south Runway which we have fought more than once but if that happens that will have a huge impact on the coastal trail to the West uh west of Municipal property point waren off Park uh for example um so these kinds of things come and go with regard to activity and and was as was also mentioned Point warns off point where there's a major erosion issue that will have to be a multi- agency we want to be at the table not when public hearing happens or when there's a comment period of a month we want to be there at the beginning to so that we are part of the discussion part of the collaboration and if it's not within our boundaries we feel like we'll lose standing and we'll have an have a reoccurrence of what happened with that jet fuel pipeline thank you very much chair are there any questions we have a question from commissioner Gardner thank you um with with respect to the boundary issue I guess I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying is the suggestion that the issues that you had experienced previously had anything to do with the actual location of the boundaries or you just saying more generally that you feel like you've got a stronger position to to try to inject yourself into the conversation if it is something that is within the boundaries absolutely and and it was that was in our boundaries as it still is now um part of that section of the pipeline and yet that didn't seem to make any difference in terms of reaching out to our Council for collaboration in any way so we know what it could look like if it's not in our boundary that's what that's what happened when it was in our boundary and is in our boundary but if we're left out and and I'm sure other community councils would feel the same way um if if actions are taken projects are proposed that would potentially have some major impacts councils would want to be part of that process and not just hope and have some kind of vague assurance that oh I'm sure they'll notify Community councils it doesn't sometimes work that way if you're out of the realm of the municipality uh formatting and process thank you thank you I I have a follow up on that don't do you think it makes a difference if we draw your community council lines outside of the municipality lines do you think that that makes a difference because I what I'm assuming is happening is there's a projects happening outside of the municipality lines and that's why your community council mayor may not be informed because the city of Anchorage has no jurisdiction there and so just because we draw the lines out there I mean you it might make you feel like you have a voice but do you think it actually does anything technically speak it did for the jet fuel pipeline once we injected ourselves and said hey this is this is within some Community Council boundaries you need to collaborate us you we need to be part of that working group discussion when decisions are being being made as it's moving forward not wait until they have a proposal and then maybe you see an ad online which really scares me if that's that it's that if that's how DNR notices well we'll post it online you can see how fragile that is in terms of notification so any leverage that Community councils can have say at least that's you know on a line on a map that's within our boundaries whether it's municipal or not I think it's something that we have to um lean towards and you know and then as Tom alluded to nobody really knows where those boundaries are right now and so I guess at the very least until that happens I think we ought to stick with the status quo okay thank you anyone else wishing to testify please step forward state your name otherwise we will go to the phones okay let's go to the phone testimony please um I was planning on testifying you want to do the phones first that's fine what do we want to do do we want to take okay you can you can testify now then we'll go to the phones next okay yep don't slack people I'm gonna I'm gonna move right past you sorry about that um well thank you thank you for hearing the case thanks to the planning department and everyone's efforts involved in the uh this uh uh boundaries of the community councils I uh my name is Steven Callahan c a l a g ha an I represent the university area Community Council tonight um basically in a nutshell we disagree with the change between Baxter and bonfice we would like to keep Baxter and bonfice in the university area Community Council okay and we the other item is the combining T tutor area in the university area we combine we support that uh you know that decision that boundary change per se um the uh tutor area people are already attending university area Community Council from the tutor area um and there's two resolutions that were included in the packet one from tutor area one from the university area that support the merger of the two Community councils um regarding the area between bonafit and Baxter uh we have very little residential you know very transi Community we have very little residential in the university area Community Council that's one of the reasons we'd like to retain the area between bonafit and B axter uh the other reason is the University District plan matches up to the current boundaries of the community council which extend to Baxter the university expressed an interest during the meeting that you know they would like to retain that boundary because it's very clean for the university the umed district plan um can't think of anything else but in a nutshell yes we would like to retain the area between backer bonfice in the university area Community Council any questions can you just restate that the the boundary that includes the bonfice Baxter area it matches the university plan yes there's the umed district plan it was just there was an update done to it 2016 actually well I think the plan was done in 2016 was completed in 2016 there was a uh uh traffic demand study completed well I think it was completed a 2020 beginning 2024 uh that that's the District plan that's used for uh capital projects planning and moving forward uh the university has as well as Providence and some of the other larger medical facilities have a have a say in that plan that that plan matches our current Community Council boundaries got it thank you yes okay next next person please uh state your name for the record let us know if you're speaking for yourself or for a group yeah my name is Todd Butler I'm the interim president of the tutor Area Community Council I've been interim president for about the past five years because we have not been able to generate enough interest and and uh participation within our area which is bounded by 36th Avenue Lake Otis tutor and new Seward um a big about a quarter of our land area is occupied by by Geneva Woods um subdivision and um they have their own homeowners association and most if not all of their businesses is conducted through their homeowners association so they are not you know participants within our community council area for the most part there's a few people once in a while that we'll wander in and try to find out what's going on and truthfully we don't don't have a lot going on I and thinking back I've lived there since 1983 I've been in that area since 1969 and um so you know it's a very compact welldeveloped um area for the most part and um we have very little um controversies or problems um you know with building or you know replatting that those kinds of things in fact the last really big issue we had was in you know the mid to uh late 80s when um we went up against Pete zarell um who wanted to um uh replat I guess part of the wetlands over on the tutor um Lake Odus corner there and we you know I was just a young guy at the time and and luckily we had a engineer slash um lawyer that uh lived within our subdivision in fact Jim Winchester does too um but anyway he led the um charge uh against that and we thought we had all our ducks in a row the assembly turned it down Planning and Zoning turned it down there was some misunderstanding with the Army Corps of engineer and one night my wife and I uh woke up um because we back up to that wetlands area which is partly called University Park and uh uh 180,000 cubic yards of gravel was being dumped into our wetlands and not you know uh shortly after that Pete zel went bankrupt the contractor that dumped the gravel went bankrupt because he didn't get paid made and so 20 years later I guess our next big issue was the re um Paving and widening of mckinness Street which runs straight through the middle of our sub of our subdivided areas there and um that turned out to be a very nice and useful uh addition to our uh neighborhood as far as having sidewalk and um speed bumps for the fire engines um that go you know up and down mckinness and the last thing we did was get a stoplight at mckinness and East 36 Avenue so that people could get out on a 36 easier in the morning for headed you know wherever they were for work and um since then we really haven't dealt with much we of course you know were part of the uh the um big controversy about uh turning the um hotel motel down there which um huh yeah yeah anyway sorry I'm spacing it at the moment but anyway that was our last big controversy and seems to have been resolved so that Geneva Woods in particular can live with that and um also um they're a little concerned about you know the proposed overpass of Seward Highway over 36th Avenue that the dot would like to implement at some point so anyway um we did have a a um Quorum for our vote and um I we had five people show up and that's what we needed and we voted unanimously to go go ahead and merge with university area which we're very happy to do very happy to be part of a larger um organization or or group there and really impressed especially with Steve Callahan and his knowledge of land use planning and all those things so that's all I've got thank you see no questions okay any anybody else from the public wishing to testify before I open up the phones okay let's go to the phones hello hello hi is this Penny Gage yeah this is the Planning and Zoning commission calling for public testimony in case as a group representative please state your name for the record and you may begin thank you good evening members of the Planning and Zoning commission my name is Penny Gage and I serve on the board of Northstar Community Council as the elected Federation of community council delegate thank you for the opportunity to speak today and thank you for the virtual accommodation because I have two young kids um I've been getting down to bed I'm here to to voice the strong support from the Northstar Community Council board for adjusting our community council boundary to include Valley of the Moon park within northstar's designated area this is not a current recommendation from the planning department in the documents um in your meeting packet today so I'd like to be making our case here and as outlined in a formal resolution that our board passed at the February meeting um our membership passed excuse me Valley of the Moon park has long been seen by our Community is a natural centerpiece of the Northstar neighborhood it's proximity geography topography it's within um our side of the Valley and the way our residents engage with the park make it feel like an extension of our community in fact many of our residents myself included were surprised to learn that the park technically lies within the South Edition Community Council boundaries if you go to the FCC uh website and you navigate to the Northstar Community Council page you will notice a long-standing homepage photo for our community council which is none other than the Valley of the Moon rocket ship playground so this is a a park I was at just an hour ago with my three-year-old daughter um it's clearly a strong image that's aligned with our community council's culture and feeling of place and practically speaking this proposed change would not impact any private property owners or residents only the park itself would shift within our boundaries and we've also maintained a strong collaborative relationship with our neighbors in South Edition and fully expect that collaboration to continue regardless of where the boundary line Falls however we believe that formally including Valley the moon park within North Stars boundary would strengthen our community's ability to advocate for Park improvements receive timely Municipal notices and ensure that engagement around the park aligns with the community that uses it most this is similar to how South Edition has a natural connection to the Delaney park strip or Margaret Egan Sullivan Park uh Westchester Lagoon so in our resolution we also expressed openness to a shared boundary Arrangement if that is seen as a reasonable compromise but our preference and our request today is for full inclusion of Valley of the Moon park within the narar boundary this is a common sense adjustment that better reflects how the park is already used valued and understood by our community and we appreciate your time and consideration and hope that you'll support our request thank you any questions from the commission hearing none thank you for your testimony all right we will close the public hearing um staff did you have any thing to add I do not unless there are further questions see [Music] none all right what is the will of the body um motion by commissioner Ron would you like to State your motion yes thank you Mr chair I moveing case 202 24-100 to recommend the Anchorage assembly approval of the October 2024 public hearing draft assembly ordinance which is attachment one and the community council District Maps which are attachment two in exhibit a including changes 1 through six as shown on pages 1 and two of the March 10th 2025 staff report memorandum uh that was seconded by commissioner Gardner commissioner Ron would you like to speak to your motion thank you Mr chair uh fellow Commissioners I I do intend to support the the motion um as I noted in my question to staff earlier acknowledging the amount of work that has gone into this thus far uh has been impressive uh the amount of dialogue and engagement the standing up of a a fully fledged and empowered committee um and uh the extension of this public hearing to enable more engagement with the community and receive the comments some of which we heard tonight um in my estimation uh the department has um has taken a hard look at the latest recommendations evaluated them made the commission informed about their decision-making process and given me the information necessary to uh fully support the motion that said I would like to acknowledge some of the testimony that were heard tonight uh turnig Community Council put forward a compelling case uh around their interest in retaining that as they said the status quo for boundaries out to um low low water um with respect to the interest of being engaged uh and having what they see as an existing um premise of right to to be engaged for for projects in their area um that said given the Department's position around uh the lack of definition uh for what lowow water is may or may not be and my understanding of the title Flats is a very Dynamic area in which that intertitle zone changes quite a lot uh giving it quite a different look and feel to the landscape as opposed to the other parts of that Community Council um above ordinary high water for those reasons I support the Department's position in in making that change with respect to university community council's uh position around the area uh between bonfice and Baxter I can appreciate the interest in looking to retain emblems of residency within their Community Council and would like to underscore the Department's position that although they're recommending this go forward to the assem as is they're noting there's a strong opportunity for continued discussion at the assembly meeting if not before with respect to that issue so would recommend that university community council stay engaged um and and make your case heard to to the assembly um those are the items that I wanted to highlight um and I will um shut my part down for now thanks thank you uh anyone else wishing to speak to the motion commissioner Gardner thank you um this will be this will be brief I'll just you know appreciate again staff's efforts to to put this together clearly um a lot of thought went into this I just wanted to comment briefly with respect to a couple of parks that were identified as maybe you know which Community Council was the best fit um I do think that the the administr or the the planning Department's position that kind of having overlapping boundaries kind of creat um some administrative and mapping challenges that make sense to me to put it in one or the other um but that um under the applicable notice rules um for public Outreach with respect to any projects involving those Parks all Community councils within a th000 feet of the park should receive notice and so um there is still a process in place and would obviously encourage all affected Community councils to continue um working um through that process on behalf of the parks that affect them and our community thank you thank you commissioner Eber yeah I just want to state that I Echo what both commissioner Ron and Gardner said regarding um the work that the staff has put into it the working group on top of that um everything they echoed with the community involvement um so I intend to support the motion as well anyone else wishing to speak to the motion seeing none we call for the vote that motion passes all right we will move on to case 2025-the this time we will start by asking the parks and wreck department if they would like to postpone due to the short board situation that I presented earlier thanks Mr chair uh no I don't believe we do okay um in that case can you please state your name and I'm assuming you will be doing the are you doing the staff presentation or no um chair chair spell we still have a staff presentation um to summize the staff report and then the petition Parks and Rec will present can we get your name for the record please yes Nicolette Dent n i o l e TT last name d n t okay um on the on the topic of short boards we can we uh ask staff for case 2025-the the Mr chair this is Daniel can foster long planning yeah we we were planning to proceed with that one okay same question for case uh 25- 0021 also Daniel M Foster longrange planning that's the one with parks and rack and we talked with them and I think we'd like to proceed with that one as well perfect thank you all right now we will proceed with the staff presentation on case 2025-the 05 040 g2b e Chester Park includes approximately 8 87 Acres across five parcels and Zoning pip public land institutions Park joing zoning District the park is bounded by East 20th Avenue to the north lake or Parkway to the east subdivisions to the South and the S highway to the the West the SE Highway in Lake otus Parkway run north south through the park forming District East and West section of the park there are a few develop facilities throughout the East Chester Park including Trails event areas Open Fields and two neighborhood play areas known as Woodside Park and H strand Pond Park the East sest Park master plan sets 20y year vision for the future of the park encompassing management maintenance and development the main highlight of the park master plan will be presented by the petitioners team that are in tonight attendance um agents review and public comments are as follow addressing right away and waste shed Management Service has no object and no comment the Anchorage water and waste water utility has no objection but their com the proposed project will result in the need for aww to relocate Pump Station 06 isest and adjust the inflow and outflow means accordly private development has no objection but the advisory comment recommend looking at no no storage at the end of East 20th Avenue in any drainage areas that do not have drainage easements the state of Alaska Department of Transportation and public facilities has no objection but commented commented no vegetation will be permitted within the do public facili right away Along the Seward Highway and currently the department is conducting the Seward to Glenn PL planning environmental linkage a transportation study that's not under review tonight traffic department recommend approv of the plan but devis that parks in Recreation needed to apply for the title 23 site permit for proposed modification to access from the railway and propose parking improvements Flo Hazard administrator comments are that shista Creek it's a FEMA mapped stream located on a special Flo Hazard area zone AE with Flo way work in this area requires a Flo Hazard permit the restoration of a Chester Creek discussed in the master plan will require full FL flood the knowledge and the work in and change of the to the floodway will likely require FEA letter of map revision uh public comment the department M hearing notice to propose to Property Owners residents and Community Council in accordance with the title 21 notice procedures all the community council that surrounds the area were involved throughout the development of the East Chester Park master plan no comment were sent directly to the planet Department however resolutions of support for the plane were included in the application from the fa view Airport Heights in Roger Park Community councils the department recommends the commission to approve the plan with an advisory comment to update sismic Zone to mat the depiction in the historic seismically induced ground failure sustainability map made available by the fpal of Anchorage members of the petitioner team are in attendance tonight for a brief presentation and they available for questions thank you are there any questions for staff from the commission seeing none we will go to the petitioner's presentation great thank you Mr chair thank you Commissioners my name is Nicollet Den I'm a park planner at Anchorage Parks and Recreation here to introduce the Eastchester Park master plan and the purpose of this master plan was to work closely with the community to identify and prioritize Future Park Investments with a 20-year Outlook so just an overview Eastchester Park is an 87 acre Municipal Park it's part of the Chester Creek Green Belt and classified as a natural resource area so it contains significant wooded areas Wetland habitat Chester Creek um it also contains two developed neighborhood play areas a Hillstrand Pond which is near near Lake Otis Parkway and the Woodside play area which is near the sewart highway it also contains a on M segment of the Chester Creek Trail and some single track trails in the park so this park was first protected and developed uh as Anchorage was developing around the green belt in the 1970s urban renewal projects the construction of the highway and the channelization of Chester Creek were significant changes to this area that really defined how the park looks today today so on the image at right you'll see an aerial of the original route of Chester Creek through Woodside Park um that's just near the Seward Highway and this is a larger look at Wetland extent in 1950 so in the dark blue um you can see the what's today the park boundary and the original alignment of Chester Creek that meanders uh through the park along with the North Fork of Chester Creek today um obviously there's been a loss of wetland habitat around the area as um this park is surrounded by relatively dense and diverse housing types and uh neighborhood landmarks like the Anchorage senior activity center and the Shiloh Baptist Church some issues that we identified in this plan um there is an AO lift station in one of the Open Fields of this park AO currently has to clear snow and drive through a field to get there so it causes some damage to the field Fields there's a lack of parking um the parking lot that does exist is gravel and has poor drainage there's a lot of barriers to using this park in the winter including lack of lighting and snow management around the park the playgrounds are becoming outdated and were last improved in the early 2000s over 20 years ago there are invasive species in this park um namely European bird cherry and there are some pedestrian access concerns especially from the the Fairview area so along East 20th Avenue um you can see there's a lack of traffic caling and no separation between uh pedestrian space and traffic and there's also a gap in access to this park from the north side so uh if you are familiar with s Street park near Merill field um there's not a direct Trail connection to this park there so we worked with a community Advisory Group over the last two years that included members of uh surrounding community councils we did an online survey with 100 responses and hosted a number of public workshops uh in the park and at the Fairview Recreation Center we also worked with a bunch of great Partners including AARP the senior activity center um Catholic Social Services to create this plan together and create a vision so the common themes that guide this plan are to protect the natural environment provide safe year round Recreation especially in the winter improve connectivity and safe access to the park and to make the park an intergenerational place for all ages and abilities and also to make the park a place to celebrate and gather so I will go over five Focus areas that are um described in more detail in your packet and in the plan starting with the Woodside Park area so this is near sew Highway um south of East 20th Avenue and you're looking at the park as it is today Chester Creek Creek and the Chester Creek Trail are kind of bisecting the park and this is the master plan Vision so what the master plan envisions here is to create a larger more continuous park space by restoring Chester Creek to natural meanders and moving it South we would then centralize the parking area and the playground to and also expand on the recreation opportunities offered here by adding a community garden Fitness area uh a picnic Pavilion we would also recommend um narrow single track flow style Trails developed in the bluff sou um just north of Rogers Park or the Juno streets spur and just want to note that channelizing or dech analyzing the creek restoring the creek in this section was explored in depth with our community Advisory Group and we also consulted awo to discuss how this might work um but we're motivated by the benefits of the restoration of the creek which would be to create that more continuous and purposeful park space we'd be able to improve utility access for AO and create a defined pathway for them to get to the lift station we'd also be able to improve access to Creek viewing and public interface with the creek um all at the same time we'd be protecting water quality and reducing the effects of erosion into Chester Creek moving to Hillstrand Pond this is near Lake Otis um this is a quieter section of the park it's further from Den's housing but still popular walking destination so we recommend selectively upgrading the playground equipment here creating a walking loop around the lake and um looking to uh add some skateboard features in the park that focus on skill building and then replacing the bridge and the fish passage coverts that are at this section the Sitka Street Trail connection is another Focus area of this plan and this would be to address the Gap in access to the park from the north So the plan recommends a trail connection formalized between the Maplewood spur traveling north to Sika Street Park where there is an existing paveed Trail and playground and we also recommend providing that direct neighborhood access to East 20th Avenue the plan also discusses Park wide improvements that are important for improving the space such as adding seaing and amenities for all ages and to promote Gatherings to improve signage and wayfinding throughout the park and honor denina place names and also to find ways to honor the history of this neighborhood and um the important annual events that travel through this park like the idod and the tour of Anchorage for our timeline if approved we would proceed this Fallen winter with design and Engineering for phase one of the master plan as we already have bond funds in hand to to begin improvements and our priorities would be to begin with the parking and play areas at Woodside Park in the Fairview area having this master plan approved will allow us to pursue additional funding and work with Partners to realize this Community Vision thank you thank you are there any questions for the petitioner commissioner Ron uh thank you through the chair um I'll admit that this is likely the most used park for myself and my family um in our community um and that's due to its convenience we're Midtown residence and while I say most used it's also um the most transited so we Transit from point A to point B passing through this park but not staying in Residence so I'm thrilled to see um the effort applied to potential improvements of both the West End and East ends of of this park couple of questions on the the West End um is there consider has there been consideration around improved um vehicular access parking or things like that to the pond and the play area there and then the second question we can move to next but go ahead and answer that one thank you for the question so around the Hillstrand area so I guess the near Lake Otis um we did not look into adding parking um there is street parking available off of I believe it's 24th Avenue um and that's acquirer street so at the time it sort of meets capacity for how it's used but um due to the density of housing on the sewer Highway side of the park that's why we focused parking there if I may a second question can I just clarify you said Westend but I'm thinking East End directionally challenged in in my question you're right the opposite so now I'm moving to the West End they're in the Woodside Park and um I don't know much about the history of Westchester but Westchester Park in Lagoon is it's a gem of the community right it is a destination Park and I understand that there is a concessionaire that operates there um was that model considered for the Woodside Park area um just curious because there is good parking access there off East 20th and obviously the trail yeah thanks for that question it definitely played into I believe the communities wanting to really activate the Woodside Park area and by bringing that parking lot and the playground and all of the opportunities to recreate Central to that street and Central to the park I think it sets it up really well for that potential especially if there's a picnic Pavilion or picnic shelter added um we think it would be um something that could be easily activated by concessions or special events or even just neighborhood birthday parties and stuff like that thank you I see no further questions you have two two minutes and 307 seconds for rebal next we will open up the public hearing anybody from the public wishing to testify on this is case um yeah just one at a time please step forward state your name let us know if you're representing yourself or a group am I on or off my name is Mel langon I live in Rogers Park and um I'm here to um support this plan and hope for your approval of it I was a member of the community Advisory Group and we were engaged with the park staff through very very robust Outreach and uh facilitated meetings even biking through the park to identify concerns that we have along the trail and Parks also as they Illustrated in their presentation had the pop-up events and a solicited input from Neighbors that use the park and people traveling through the park as commissioner Ron pointed out it has both kinds of Park visitors I think this plan reflects uh um a robust uh short and long-term enhancements for the park a lot of thought went into it a lot of details are there to help support the um implementation of the recommendations in the plan and it will serve both those who travel through the park and those who use it as a destination for their events and for their children's activities and um a lot of thought was also put into not just children but a multigenerational venue for people to um come and recreate so um want to applaud the staff for their involvement and their detailed work in developing the plan and providing Community input and opportunities for that and basically just want to ask you to support the plan thank you I see no questions anyone else wishing to testify please step forward state your name and let us know if you're representing yourself or group my name is Barbara Riley and I represent myself thank you very much I thank you all for inviting us to this meeting I just love transparency I had a question one of your slides was very confusing to me that one where you showed it was um um please uh she can answer your questions in rebuttal she has time for rebuttal but um please speak into the mic for the people watching sure okay okay personally I've lived there since 1990 I've been I'm not speaking of as the president of Eastridge 3 homeowners association but I am and I have been for very many years I have protected and worked to maintain that greenb belt area from Lake Otis up to Orca street from 15th and then as far south I've worked as hard as I can since 1990 that's 34 years to keep that as a Grain Belt area that's just a corridor of animals and transport and I have seen salmon in that stream that runs along there when I'm told that there's no transmission from 15th Street through that little Trail down to Sitka Street and such like that I get really confused because you can walk right straight through the park down Sitka street so so there does not need to be any more development of that also generally about every 7 to 10 years a plane crashes coming into Merill field so this is not the place as was previously years ago suggested to build a a hospital or shopping malls or anything else from looking out my living room window I've seen moose bear um red fox BOS Hawks bald eagles Ravens this is a regular Corridor I would ask you as a person who lives there and is my neighborhood leave it alone we're just fine the other thing that happens is as as you increase transport through that Park uh it also increases homelessness that we've had through that Park the other of it is is that when you speak about Park development we already have parking problems on Sitka Street already from events that are hosted there during the park so it's really doing quite fine as it is and I would ask you to go ahead and leave it alone save the money and put it somewhere else um maybe Valley of the Moon wants newer bigger better equipment we're doing just fine thank you very much for this opportunity to speak I appreciate it thank you anybody else wishing to speak please step forward state your name for the record let us know if you'll be testifying for yourself or a group um just myself thank you I'm Dean Potter I'm a resident of Easter idge uh Condo Association at the East End of Eastchester Park and I've looked over the master plan it's fantastic this document should be a model for what other plans look like the Park Service did a great job involving in the public and coming up with a great product I know this is not about the pel tonight and that you don't have any administrative grip on that yet but it is relevant um if you look into your packets for uh attachment one comment from reviewing agencies page 15 you have the input from do and PF uh in regard to 2025 d016 what they note as being relevant for input from them at this stage is about vegetation planted along Seward Highway and the replacement of the Culvert and pedestrian tunnel uh over Chester Creek not a word about their alternative D that would obliterate half a mile east west through the very Park that this master plan makes it planed for so that should put you on notice about how do is playing this it's not straight why do they think it that that they should not mention this plan at all in their uh agency review to the Planning Commission and the department and the public I don't know you can't answer that question I can't answer that question but we're going to have years of dealing with um do and this Seward Glenn pal and project and uh here's where we can start to learn how do is going to go about it thank you thank you please state your name and let us know if you're speaking on behalf of group uh my name is Cody Gibson speaking on behalf of myself um I also live in Eastridge on the East end of this park and I think the majority of us are well in support of this we are very excited um one thing I would like the parks to consider is if expanding the Hillstrand Pond from Lake Otis from fth from 20th to 24th there is no access on the West End of the Street and it would be nice to consider some additional sidewalks anything to make access to the park a lot easier um I've seen many people jwalk across the road back and forth between these areas just for lack of access to the park um so that's just one little comment I have thank you thank you anybody else wishing to testify please step forward uh I'm Craig canuteson uh representing myself although I like many of us live in EAS idge one and um I do like many of the uh Concepts put out on improving the easn West Ends the Woodside Park and the Hillstrand P Pond Park uh but in my my opinion one of the true beauties of this area is the undeveloped area where Chester Creek is Meandering through the flood plane and um it's mostly winter access only because it's so wet but it's a beautiful beautiful area and uh a lot of the neighborhood people ski and bike through that area all winter and I would like to know if there's any ideas about how that area in between the two parks will be preserved or what the plans are because it's actually as somebody said it's it's about a mile long in between and the um proposal is really about the East End and the West End and there's very little about the distance in between so I'd like to make sure that that is addressed in the 20-year plan thank you anybody else wishing to testify please step forward Steve calan c a l a g h n um I'm speaking on behalf of myself I'm sure people in the university area would also agree that this is a good plan we tend to use this the trail that goes through that whole area um from Goose Lake to Teisha um to U basically um Chester Creek and then take that trail down to the Westchester Lagoon all way so just to express my interest and supporting it and like I said I think a lot of people in the university area would support the improvements in the master plan for the the East Chester Park thank you anybody else wishing to testify last last last chance sorry thank you chair members of the commission planning department um this just popped into my brain while I was listening to this great testimony about a proposed Park master plan um are you representing turnig again or yourself excuse me I'm Kathy gleon representing myself okay thank you yes uh our Council has not discussed this at all uh what we have discussed however is the upcoming um H or not so much hints as directives that comprehensive plan land use plans are going to be updated um as the months come forth and that also a proposal being discussed is that um District plans and neighborhood plans won't be elements of those plans they'll just be advisory quote unquote so it made me think about Park Master plans and where they may fall into the hierarchy of being maybe advisory only or and hopefully the parks department could clarify this um or if Parks plans there's no intention that they know of by um this body or the assembly to make Park Master plans only advisory because that would be unfor forunate um we've all probably in this audience have worked on Park plans in the past I know I have so thank you so much alrighty anybody else wishing to testify on case 202-1638 um one of a few my families that's bringing up uh three littles in the community and currently until pel really starts to grab hold of uh that that track um we're not planning on moving anytime soon so uh as we I'm really in favor of this plan there's a lot of issues with that stretch as well as a stretch that that that goes beyond and hopefully that'll get taken care of eventually but I tend to venture e East from that area because the the way west as we get closer to the Seward Highway is just it's uh it's uh it's kind of boring and you can tell the erosion has uh uh has created problems with um with the uh the drainage of the of the river the parks are completely uh uh derelict and um I believe a problem that is you know eventually going to get addressed but this will help it is uh fire mitigation uh with the um within the park there's a lot of you know overgrowth and there is concern within the communities that we've discussed between some people so I think that's part of uh that'll that'll help the case and then also um that drainage on Hillstrand park on the East uh uh on the east side it is eroding quite severely into uh starting to encroach on that Eastridge subdivision uh so that'll also obviously be be taken care of in this plan so overall completely ins supportive thank you anybody else um rebuttal thank you Mr chair yeah just to address some of those items um someone brought up the trail connection to s Street Park and concerns about um impacts to wildlife habitat and natural resources in the park and they were correct there is already a social Trail there um shown in the dotted yellow line so there is already use of this area um we feel that formalizing a trail connection considering Paving widening it lighting it that generally provides a much safer place for humans to be and encourages more traffic through the park more positive traffic someone also brought up um a question about what we would recommend in the middle of this park where Chester Creek is naturally Meandering um basically it's working well as it is it's beautiful it's one of the only original alignments of Chester Creek um in the green belt and um it does get a lot of winter use so basically we'd work continue working with our natural resource team to manage um Spruce Park Beetle concerns invasive species concerns and allow it to keep thriving um a gentleman brought up that the um do comments did not address the pel they did address it on page six um and just to note that our department has been engaged has attended the open houses for those um for the sewer to Glenn study and we're keeping track of it um and recognize that it's still in a planning phase uh gentlemen brought up access from Lake Otis um that's a great point and that would be something we would work with uh the streets department to implement in the future and yeah overall just appreciate the supportive comments from the public and excited to work on this plan thanks thank you any questions seeing none we will close the public hearing what is the will of the body motion by commissioner Gardner would you like to State your motion yes thank you um I move in case 2 25-16 to approve the Eastchester Park master plan thank you that is seconded by commissioner pus commissioner Gardner would you like to speak to your motion yes I will uh briefly thanks I I um seems like there was a a a thorough kind of process in developing this plan um I'm also a user of the park in that area um and I'm excited about the plan I think it provides a lot of valuable elements um both with respect to access and also um for preserving um and improving some of the natural elements of the park the area and the river um two general points um also I wanted to specifically highlight I think there was some testimony earlier which I had noted going through the packet as well that um I appreciate the the focus on the multi-generational facilities and access um to the area um and I think one benefit um of the proposed um restoration of the path for Chester Creek there on the west side is that I think that will make a significant um um effort in and an outcome towards kind of connecting the communities there with the the neighborhood just to the north of 20th and the Rogers Park areas there because I know for myself just speaking when I pass through there it feels like the neighborhood to the north of the river there is really is really separate um and not connected and I think having that be one continuous area will um will facilitate Community connections between those two different areas which is something that I'm excited about anybody else wishing to speak to the motion commissioner pus yeah I also intend to support the motion um I agree that the uh public process was was long and thorough um we have at least three resolutions of support and multiple testimonies tonight in support of it um and even further the agency review with this including AO and people like that that's going to go a long way AO has some big facilities in there and I just I feel that it was an overall just really good public support from for this project and um that's I intend to support it anyone else I'll just add that I also intend to support the motion for several reasons but I particularly appreciate the inclusion of skateboard facilities let's call for the vote that motion passes does anyone need a break or do we want to keep going going okay moving on can we please have the staff presentation on case 2025-the 2025 0020 is more changes to the B3 District this came out of an earlier initiative that was started by the assembly at the end of last year and it got to the assembly um earlier this year and the planning department reviewed it we had a number of and I think Planning and Zoning reviewed it last year um we had a number of additional comments that we thought could make the or the ordinance even better um the assembly members generally agreed with that but it it got a little bit too complicated in making floor amendments and last minute changes so they encouraged us to go back and rewrite um the proposed changes as a separate AO so that's what is before you now um quick overview it's there three sections in the in the ordinance the first section removes special height increase for residential development um again going back to the initial kind of phase 1 B3 ordinance it was really about normalizing or equalizing the the requirements that applied to residential and commercial in B3 so previously you know a commercial building in some parts of B3 could go up to a certain height whereas a residential building could not um and so this was just sort of standardizing that so um section one talks about removing special height increases um and and and this is also about just making everything a little bit more standardized uh the code as it is has a lot of um sort of paths you can go down to potentially get to a change and this is sort of standardizing it and there are a number of reasons to do that one for the public it makes it a lot more clear what is or isn't allowed and also for development it makes it a lot clearer to know kind of what what they're going to be getting um it allows a greater height increase up to 100 feet through a conditional use um it removes special requirements for mixed use development including floor area ratio bonuses in general we've never seen the bonuses get used that much um we we took them out of the downtown code chapter 11 um in favor of a more sort of streamlined code and we removed some references that were part of the site Access Project or site access code um which you saw recently so some things like enhanced Street sidewalk um which was seemed to be would be eliminated in in favor of something else in the site Access Project um section two clarifies the heights for residential uses and all other uses and make sure they apply in the same way uh it allows up to 60 ft of height in a standard B3 areas with allowance up to 100 feet through a conditional use process um in section three restructures the section to list where the rules do or do not apply so some of that is just organizational to make it so it's a little bit clear clear to read um and this proposal would exempt B3 from the site design roles of 2107 1110e which are currently suspended under the design standards moratorium anyway um but when we were writing this we didn't know which way that would go and the moratorium could be removed at any moment but and that was determined to be an important piece of this so I'd be glad to answer any questions commissioner Gardner thank you um my question is with respect to section two the height uh limitations and I just wanted to make sure I understood them so as a I guess as a default um you've got 60 feet by right uh and up to 100 feet with conditional use as as a as a starting point is that right that's correct although there are special Heights in certain areas allowed okay um and then and one of those would be University Area Medical Center Town Center that chunk where by right it's up to 75 and then you can go up to 100 with a conditional use permit yep okay and then and then the part that I wasn't sure of is then for the Midtown area uh bounded by sewer tutor Artic and fire weed it says no maximum height in that area and so my question was does that does the 100 foot limits still apply um or is that truly no no maximum height no so that so that area has no limit um and that already existed for non-commercial uses so previously in the Midtown area and B3 you could build some commercial use as basically there are height limits in downtown probably based on what Ted Stevens International says there's there's an airport Contour so you can't build the that Tower like they have in Dubai but in downtown you could build a really really tall commercial building but you couldn't build the same tall um residential building so that piece was really just saying the same rules that apply to commercial apply to residential in mid in in that Midtown area Okay um but the but the university area that is still capped at 100 with a conditional use permit the university area is capped at 75 ft um University Medical Center Town Center um can it go up to 100 with the cup yeah up to 100 with the conditional use permit okay I would wonder I guess I just just for consideration maybe clarifying um that that 100 ft with the cup applies to the 60 and the 75 but not the other ones because I I guess my reading through that I wasn't sure how how that 100 foot with the cup like which which it applied to if it was just the general of 60 or the 60 and the 75 or if it also carried through to the Midtown area just for consideration if that makes sense that's a very good comment thank you any other questions for staff okay we will open the public hearing on this item any members of the public wishing to testify on case 2025-the of the body commissioner Gardner would you like to State your motion sure I move in case 2025 uh- 0020 to recommend to the Anchorage assembly approval of the phase two changes to the B3 district with the section 1 through section three proposed changes as shown on pages one and two of the staff report thank you that is seconded by commissioner Ron commissioner Gardner would you like to speak to your motion um yes the um I guess I support the motion um the changes seem like they are helpful clarifications um relatively um self-explanatory we didn't receive any testimony today um one way or the other and I note that the packet refers to comments and support from the rabbit Creek community council and um and I'll just note you know discussion I had with staff earlier for the record here to consider um clarifying in section two with respect to the maximum height limitations um which areas are capped at 100 feet with a cup um since at the moment it's just listed for the 60-foot general um limitation but it also applies to the um University Medical Center and other areas that have 75 feet by right thank you thank you anybody else wishing to speak to the motion seeing hearing none call for the vote that motion passes we that brings us to case 202-21 can we please have the staff presentation thank you Mr chair Daniel McKenna Foster again longrange planning uh this is a pretty straightforward ordinance um we're really brought it forth for our colleagues in Parks and Recreation who are fortunately here tonight it's about the cost threshold which is written in code at which Parks and Recreation needs to go through an extra site plan review um and this you know this set 10 years ago costs of course have increased um even in subsequent discussions even after this we wondered if maybe the the cost threshold should be increased even more to sort of future proof this ordinance so that might be something worth considering currently it's um we we proposed it moving from 500,000 to 750,000 but maybe it go up to 1 million um and basically the you know talking with Parks and Rec and talking with staff they do a lot of work on Outreach on their own whether or not the code requires it or goes through the site plan process so that's why we we felt pretty pretty happy about this and everybody we talked to was pretty happy about um you know their process and making sure they they do Outreach I think as we saw as the with the East Chester Park plan um but Parks and Rec staff is here tonight so I'd also encourage anybody to ask direct questions of them since they know a lot more about the the complexities of complying with this section of the ordinance oh commissioner pus thank you um I don't know if you said it or not but do we know exactly when the last time it was adjusted was it 10 years ago did is that what you said through the chair my understanding is I don't think this has been changed since code title 21 was was uh sort of recreated in 2014 or 2015 um so yeah I I think it was set then and just the way things have gone you know with inflation over the last few years and you know potential changes in costs and materials it does seem like it's a a good thing to do this now and maybe we could even change it to protect against do in in the future thank you uh um any other questions for staff commissioner Gardner yes thank you um yeah your comments I that was the one question I hadly written down was if this was enough of a jump uh seeing the note here about the 1.8 times increase in construction costs in just three years but um I guess more generally thinking through kind of future proofing options how many uh how many like monetary thresholds are there like this um built into title 21 and I'm wondering I'm wondering if it makes sense to kind of think more holistically about ways to I mean if we're going to try to Future proof this or go through updates here if if it makes sense to look at a broader um way to kind of deal with with these types of of triggers through the chair I might lean on the current planning manager Elizabeth applebe for that one um through the chair commissioner uh commissioner Gardner I I don't I actually do not know um I can't think offhand of anything in code that has a monetary threshold like this um so I I don't know if it's something we need to to look for but um yeah I guess my answer is I I can't think of any offhand but I I'm not 100% certain without doing a thorough code code search okay thank you um I guess while we're here did Park staff have anything to add okay right let's uh open the public hearing oh commissioner Ron sorry apologies chairing commission um question is is there any information to support uh what the average cost of a major site plan review by parks would be an apologies if I if I missed that um through the chair and commissioner Ron I I would maybe lean on Parks and Rec staff to speak to that if they could please state your name t Hickok hi k k um Park planner and civil engineer for the department and just for clarity if you look into the memorandum we did state that um it's an excess of 20,000 for the specific project for T Kish Park um and it did add over three months of you know planning um applications um and then going through the public hearing process and to Kisha was a fairly small project so it could be an excess of 50,000 or more well we got you the previous amount was 500,000 I'm guessing $500,000 in 2014 is more like $1.5 million in 2025 and I'm just curious what uh civil engineer with the parks would have to say um I think a million dollars would probably be more appropriate um I do understand that the last few years have been quite a steep increase in prices it had been fairly steady up until the the co era um so I would be pretty comfortable with a million if it did get raised to that limit what can you tell us about the process is do you feel it's the Public's benefiting from the process so Parks projects already have to go through the parks and recck commission we have our own commission and part of that process is we have to go to community councils and get support for those projects when we go to the Parks Commission and so it's almost like a a second um public process that we have to go through thank you see no further questions oh commissioner Ron uh since we're on the topic of this million dollars question back to staff um if the commission were to elevate that to the amount of a million would this need to be Ren noticed or do does the department feel that that's within the purview of this commission to take that action uh tonight thanks to the chair yeah I think that's within the purview um and it's I mean a lot has happened actually since we even wrote this uh staff report that indicates that there might be higher costs coming and to a previous question uh we did find one other monetary threshold it's for public facilities it's in 201103 140 and I think it says over $500,000 so it sounds like that was maybe the the number they were using back and then so maybe that is something we'd also look at so thank you and all of these are recommendations to the assembly am I correct so I think we could recommend just about anything okay let's open the public hearing anybody wishing to testify please step forward push a button here you go you me to spell my name again nope all right years ago I worked on Park projects there was a slight impediment to moving projects forward was the Urban Design commission there was a very low dollar amount for projects to go in front of Urban Design B held up every Park project sometimes you know months even a year or two they were so booked up they were booked up like 2 three months four months 5 months 6 months to get a project even on the agenda so my recommendation make this like the limit to threshold like 1.5 million or something it costs 10 million to do a road mile a road we're trying to do a Mile Road in for in in umed it's a $10 million project that's a road project I mean construction costs only got to go up I mean 1.5 million is basically the cost of building three houses put things in perspective that's really all I have to say I I support of course I support this but uh I think you should make the threshold even higher what do you think about getting rid of the review alog together I probably would support that too I mean I mean I would support getting ritten of major site plan reviews for totally different reason but you know an administrative site plan reviews but someone's got to keep those developers in place all right well thank you anyway yeah well that that's yeah I mean I would support getting rid of the review we we got that gotcha no more no further questions anybody else wishing to testify all righty we'll close the public hearing what is the will of the body commissioner pulus would you like to State your motion I move in case 2025-the approval of text amendment to title 21 updating the requirements for site plan review of Park projects and I hope someone has an amendment um that is seconded by commissioner Eber commissioner pulus did you already speak to your motion or do you that was that was it okay thank you anybody else wishing to speak to the motion Ron uh move to amend the motion on the floor uh to adjust um all references of the dollar threshold um upwards to $1 million so replacing the 750,000 with um 1 million clarify when you said all references is that in this particular section or in the other section referenced by staff as as well uh thank you chair my Amendment only pertains to the section of code we're hearing in this case um number 20 25-21 um and that's AMC 215-4 hey we will get this up and just uh take a look and see if this looks acceptable to you um so the motion to amend is made by commissioner Ron second by commissioner Eber commissioner Ron would you like to speak to them this uh no chair I think we've had adequate discussion on on the item this far thanks anybody else wishing to speak to this seeing none call for the vote that motion passes bring us back to the main [Music] motion as amended anybody else wishing to speak to this before we vote seeing hearing none oh commissioner Gardner I'll just make a quick finding um I don't know if this for the assembly or just kind of for staff but we had a discussion about other um areas within title 21 that had equivalent um or not necessarily equivalent but also had monetary thresholds that may or may not have been updated since um the code updates in 2014 or 2015 um staff identified one section I don't remember offand what the particular citation was but I think it may be worth um either with this or separately um providing other um um increases to monetary thresholds um consistent with this change uh I will just up commissioner pus thank you I just wanted to add the recommended findings um that construction and labor costs have increased over the past decade as a civil engineer it's at least a third to half since I think 2014 so I think we did a good Amendment there this proposal will help the Parks and Rec Department deliver projects that will benefit the community all right we'll call for the vote that motion passes [Applause] okay the next item on the agenda is commissioner comments are there any commissioner comments I see none we do have a handout from staff staff would you like to speak to these title 21 yes thank you Mr chair so we at the beginning of the meeting we distributed um sort of of a a teaser about what we're going to be working on with the 10-year targeted update so as we mentioned at the last meeting U we're instructed by the assembly to do a 10-year targeted review of the comprehensive plans and that's looking about the 2020 and 2040 and we've think been thinking about how to do that um and the targeted aspect is really focusing on housing and really making sure that the policies actions strategies of the plans um are are what the community needs to achieve its goals a lot of the goals in 2040 and 2020 still seem pretty relevant today so this is the first um two pages of of the document that we're probably going to give you next month and and really what we'd love for the commission to do is sort of work through these policies and and think about you know does this still align with the goals of 2020 and 2040 is there language I'd like to see changed here is there something else I'd like to see changed here do I want to see this removed and then we'll also provide some recommendations which are just recommendations um and maybe some proposed language and that will hopefully be a starting point for you to think about how to how to improve this and then that will lead to a composite document so we have all the 2020 and 20 240 stuff together so in the future when people are looking for policy guidance it all be in one place and it all be on you know 20 pages instead of 60 pages over here and over here and over here just so so we're it's it's going to be a lot of work but I I think this is a great place to do it and to be able to have that discussion here with this body and have everybody able able able to see the exact same materials um so one other thing you'll see on page two there are two lines 18 and 19 that are gr out so we wanted to include all of the recommend all the existing policies actions um and strategies but some we want to emphasize that these aren't really related to housing so we probably don't need to spend too much time on them so you'll see the two that are great out there are about the central business district and locating Central offices these are you know they may still be important policies but they're not totally part of the targeted review in terms of housing so this is a hint of the way things may look um it'll probably be something more or less like this and we'll be providing these um at the next me meeting as we kick things off we'll also be sending an email about of some important documents to review basically studies done in the last 10 years um policy documents the mayor's 10,000 home strategies just to get and and of course the 2020 and 240 plans um just to think about the sort of policy context and the um economic context that we're operating in as as you make these decisions so thanks for the chance to um give you a preview on this and glad to answer any questions or we can just look forward to discussing the next time uh commissioner Ron thank you the chair um this will be my first uh go around through a targeted review and keying in on um what I agree is an important issue for our community right now and that is that is housing but I'm curious as to the context of focusing on that in this targeted review is it a housing first and then we get to you know the whole um this is where we live first and then work and play what we do work and play next uh or or what what is the thought there um Interest being in kind of the all the above and total approach to land use planning and in Anchorage uh through the chair thank you commissioner Ron um this really came out of an an assembly resolution passed last year um I think it's AR well I'll send it to you um which was said to focus on housing so we have pretty clear instructions in that resolution to focus on housing um where it goes beyond that I think is well let me go back a step I think we all agree that it's definitely time to to just do a targeted review of this and look at everything unfortunately as we've gone through this we've seen there's a ton of stuff to do and we think even this might take six seven maybe eight months just to go through these doing the targeted review so I I think generally we'd all agree that we should do the whole review what comes after that um I can't say but our main Direction right now is to focus on the housing piece coming from that assembly resolution um but you're right the you know the issues of sort of industrial lands of Commercial location those are also very important and need to be looked at but for now I think this is going to be the the priority Target I was curious on like General land use number three staff recommendation update this policy or remove is there supposed to be a question mark there um it that's the that's the draft recommendation to look at that so you see there's some pretty specific numbers of dwelling units and it's up to this commission are those still appropriate numbers um do you want to remove this do you want to have spe those specific numbers somewhere else maybe combin somewhere else um or just upd update them um so I think that was more of a a statement thank you any further [Applause] questions and so you said you're going to be um sending more information via email that's what we should be expecting we're going to be sending it's kind of a list of unfortunately it's a growing list of sources but it's stuff like the 2020 2012 housing market analysis 20 240 housing space needs appendix from the 2040 plan um 2023 kind of white paper acda reports um some stuff that the University of Anchorage has put together the mayor's 10,000 home strategy um Alaskan population estimates other resolutions we've gotten um the cdbg the Community Development block grant sort of um Consolidated plan and action plans just to help provide the context on what we're working in and what the needs are and what you think as some of these really specific recommendations which of them still fit or not so those it would be great if everybody could go through all of them we understand you might not be able to but they're really there for the reference if you're thinking well I don't know how to answer this one or I'm not sure if what the policy guidance might be then we can refer to those other documents and find well the you know the Consolidated plan has been saying for 10 years that we want to move in this direction so I think that supports it um that's another thing we we'd really like to encourage is that as the commission Works through these if you can find support in either adopted policy documents or other sort of materials um that would be really helpful just for making the case for that change and then when the assembly gets that level for them to make that decision thank you and then I'm assuming something like this would require a work session at some point and this is a question for you guys do you prefer something during the daytime or something during the evening like prior to one of our normal regular meetings commissioner eer I prefer evenings evenings yeah okay anybody else I second that unless uh 11: a.m. on Sundays is an option I see evenings as well Mr chair if I could interject yeah go ahead our our initial thought was that this could be done as part of the title 21 agenda item in a regular meeting so in a regular scheduled meeting so we don't get spending the rest of the year doing work sessions I mean the commission is of course welcome to you encourage us to move in whatever Direction you like but when we initially conceived of this we thought we could fit it into the existing schedule so we're not creating extra meetings outside of these meetings the I mean I like it because at the end of a meeting we're ensuring that there won't be a lot of extra talking so I'm I'm I'm okay with that that's not the intent but it's kind where it is on the agenda okay uh I think that wraps us up for tonight let anybody had anything else to add uh just brief question sorry chair um the assembly updates thank you to the department for providing those um the March 4th meeting item 10 B2 um what's the context with that item will we see something something coming to the commission um so it's ar20 25- 067 I believe we heard something relevant to that in testimony about neighbor um Park plans and discussing it next time is fine as well through the chair we that was just adopted or just agreed upon I think last week and I'm not sure they set a date you know I I believe the AR said uh to get a response to the assembly by September of this year but we have not we have not reviewed the the materials in that resolution um but I believe the direction is to bring it to PCC and get a response to the assembly by September we good uh Lori has something to say through the shair a couple things I will be um reaching out to you for a special meeting so that we can adopt all these resos and get them to the assembly hopefully maybe this week or the first part of next week when you guys are available also April 7th there is not a meeting I'll send reminders out but no meeting April 14th there is a work session at 5:30 um Midtown District plan but no case it's heard that evening so it would be just the work session thank you mentioned that uh the necess the need for that work session has been question with staff and they will let us know is there a motion to adjourn moved motion is made is there a second seconded any objections hearing none good night [Music] anything at all how do [Music] I get