>> Okay. We will call this July 13th. Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to Please have roll call. Under Spinelli at Christian, a here list here, Jeff. Ron, your friend, neighbor. here, Megan males. Here it Mckee. >> Chair Garner's excuse. You have a quorum. Thank you. >> Next is special order of business? Are there any disclosures? Commissioner Christian a yes, thank you. I'm not sure if McArdle who's sitting in the audience is planning on testifying today. >> Yes, maybe. But I just want to disclose to the commission that she serves as a non-voting ex Officio member of my board of directors. I have no financial or other interest in the case. And have not had ex parte discussions about Thank you. believe. I I believe that. You should participate anybody objects feel free to make a motion other ways. And please have a motion to reorder the agenda to hear items G One G 2 G 3 before unfinished business. Moved by Commissioner McKee. Seconded by Commissioner Mills. Any objections? And efforts. Well, now read the process by which public speak to the commission. After the staff presentation is completed. A public hearing items. The chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow time limits tab listing the commission rules of procedure. Petitioners, including has or representatives or receive 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for battle. >> Representatives of groups Community Council's PT Essex Cetera. 5 minutes individuals, 3 minute when your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless question by the commission. And the party of interest wishing to appeal show first filed with the planning director within 7 days of the commission's decision made on the record, a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with and see. 21. 0, 3, 0, 5, 0, commission. Recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable following approval of the written findings of fact and decision. Any party of interest me within 20 days file an appeal by for. Filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal. See and deposit in accordance with 21. 0, 3, Oh, '05, o 3, 0, 5, 0, the notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, the pellets notice of appeal show include proof of service on the applicant. May we please have staff presentation and case 2026 Dash 0, 0, 8, 0, Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Since the Sunset Urban Design Commission, the work duties said that commission were. Moved to that planning and Zoning Commission. And so this is the first sign variance commissions ever. I heard modern times at least and so it's both a variance, but it's a sign variance, something unsigned commission used to do. But at this is to be the first one that you'll review. So this is a request >> for assigned variance from. >> The location of a sign and the size of building site. >> The planning Department. In staff report. Describes sign the issues and finds that 9 approval to prove criteria for variants are met is recommending approval subject to conditions one and 2 on Page 4 of your packet. The applicant is. In the audience and happy to answer any questions you might have. Are there any questions for staff? >> Commissioner pull so one technical question on page. 22 DOT has a comment. Anyone talked to dot. >> know I didn't reach out to dot about their comments, but it. It seems little funny because I mean, obviously there are other signs on that street. So. 22 at the bottom. It. Alaska statute 1925. 105, prohibits outdoor advertising within 660 feet. there's edge right away. >> Visible from the main travel interstate primary or secondary highways. and 6th secondary. I'm not >> A further questions for staff. Seeing none. The petitioner like to. Now it's on. Hi. >> Kathleen McArdle and the president CEO at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce. I am representing the petitioner whose creative agency did the actual filing niche Medrano? I think was the contracted by corporation to help support this Jarvis gets here today is of her Also answer any questions on this petition if they come up thank you so much to this commission for hearing the application and the petition and considering the request. Thank you to the department for all the help that they did in answering questions. This is sort of a non-traditional request for Anchorage and we're excited to have the opportunity to present on it. The building I've been pretty is president CEO for almost 3 years. And I've been approached a handful of times over those years about wouldn't that be a great wall facing west of our building for a mural and is the building owner interested? I had preliminary ask questions about that. And he said he would be if certain conditions are met, making it easy for him and that the art was purposeful and meaningful. So as approach late last year by Adrian and representative. So corporation, they're a member of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, the Coca-Cola bottler in Alaska and Coca-Cola nationally has this initiative to paint the nation in honor of the America to 50 year. So they have offered in every state in the United States to put up a substantial. >> Local culturally relevant local artist driven mural. And we are one of the first ones to get our preliminary agreement. And now we're a little bit behind the curve on getting the approval and installation. Some of them have already been complete its my understanding. But >> what a great an initiative to have this corporate sponsorship of amazing local are in our community beyond the base has done so much to help with inspiring local art. But it Cannot be the only mechanism I I believe, by which this is accomplished to write a cause point. and ex Officio member on the board of the Anchorage downtown Partnership and also We co serve on a coalition called AAA or the Alliance tank activate Anchorage and which are done shuns along with visit Anchorage, the Anchorage Economic Downtown partnership discuss our core related issues and how we can best align on resources. And that is unrelated to today's topic. But in the interest of full disclosure. So the Anchorage chamber boarded actually approved the official support of this initiative it's really inspiring to see the private support of art like this in our community. They're not without substantial costs. My understanding some of the other artistic and divers are still seeking funding for what they need to be able to begin their process as well. Our building owners into been entered into agreements or he's full support of this. We have plans to intend to help with stakeholder outreach if approved to help. ahead of the projects installation community engagement during and as well as to celebrate its completion. But this is an incredible opportunity for cite specific design. I think you've seen in the packet. It was designed in collaboration with the local artist who is selected. There's a couple of designs and this one really stood out to be impactful. John, the eye and help with all of those lovely things we want to see in our downtown to help keep it vibrant and inspiring and energized. I think that's all my comments. But as we are Co representative, I didn't know if wanted to say a few words with our 10 minutes. >> Thank you, Kathleen of said about Kathleen said the very eloquently and when we got the opportunity, please start with your name. I'm sorry. Ayden loss cause marketing manager for Cocoa Bali blast subset of subsidiary of the Corporation spell the last name. V as in Victor E L a Q you easy. As Kathleen stated, are there. She? Hit the nail on the head on everything that we wanted to accomplish. One Cook gave us this initiative last year with America to 50 push an to really it's it's a love letter to America. And it's a way to expressed gratitude and patriotism and all the positive things. So when we were able to get identify the chamber building as a potential possibility push it forward. It was exciting because these are the things that we want to see downtown. We want to see beautiful murals for tourists and for people who live here could take pictures really take in downtown Anchorage and I just I just can't see any other. And the other reason why we would want these things downtown. So, yeah, anybody has any questions or anything. Any questions for the petitioners? Question from Commissioner McKee. >> Have a question for staff to but is the only way the mural could go forward is if it includes the Coca-Cola logo just for clarification. >> Yes, that was a part of the criteria to be a local artist. And they had to have some form or variation of the Coca-Cola Co. >> Thank you. And then my other question. And I'm not that I can ask for staff now or should I ask they wait. We're just keep the petitioner standing there. Let us quit staff a question you can staff later, OK? Okay. I see no further questions. You have 4 minutes and 34 seconds for rebuttal. >> We will open the public hearing now. Anybody from the public wishing to testify. Seeing none. Go ahead in. Do you have time? Do do have would you like to use your time for rebuttal? you don't need to yet. Let's go with this. Now would be a good time just asked any questions of staff. Before we close public hearing. Commissioner McKee. >> So I can have a question pertains there's an existing sign there ready. That's 144 square feet which exceeds the 100 84 square feet allowance for an advertisement on the side of a building. >> Does is that sign? Waived allowed? >> That predated are assigned regulations. Now, do you want to use your 4 minutes? 34 seconds for rebuttal. I'm not sure that I inherited the sign definitely predated the Anchorage chamber. sign on the side of that building to fair know when the so many people >> There is a sign on your building after its pointed out that this I think I think it's tastefully integrated and as well as the placement and positioning of that Coca-Cola branding as well as much as it is included and mentioned, it still fairly subtle and 2 forward with a call to action. Really just celebrate Alaska and the wilderness and the Midnight Sun. Thank you. >> Any further questions for the petitioner for staff. Go ahead. Commissioner Christian. >> I just want to get at the bigger issue. And I think encountered this one other time in my career, which is that the reason we're here for a variance, it's because of the branding elements, right? That's what takes us from being a public art work, too, having the entire surface of the entire dimension of the mural being considered to be part of a sign rather a piece of art. That's correct. Right? That's correct. hasn't been found inflation of updating our code. So that you know, more specifically logo or branding related items constitute that part that triggers sign code review. >> Any further questions for anybody? From anybody. Seeing none. You now have 3 minutes and 54 seconds for rebuttal. If you'd like to use it can feel free. Otherwise will yield close the public here. Okay. The public hearing is closed. Is the will of body. Commissioner Key. Would you like to stay in motion? >> I move in case 2, 0, 2, 6, 0, 0, 8, 0, to approve variances from AMC. 21 47.0 3, 0, Be determining building frontage in building unit and AMC. 47021.0 6, 0. A basic standards for building signs to allow a 3,500 Square foot. Mural and signage. On the West side of an office building has shown in the final of ation plan subject to the condition. Show my page for the staff report. >> That's seconded by commissioner about the commissioner McKee. Would you like to speak your motion? >> Please. I intend to support the motions. The various criterion that are are included in the packet are at the proposed site is a painted mural on the west side of an office building. This mural would face vehicles traveling eastbound on West 6th Avenue. This mural achieves the intent of the subject. Design standard criteria to at the location size of the proposed mural will beautify the building with a fun Alaska themed scene. The commercial element of the Merrill's very small and advertising is not the main impact of the sign. Crutcher. 3 is that the mural will beautify the building and the section of 6th Avenue Crutcher for at the proposed site does not adversely affect the use of the adjacent property to the criteria. 5 is at the mural will not change the character. Of the zoning district. In addition, signs are allowed in the B dash to be district. So the variance is not related to a prohibited use of the property the the component of the mural. That is an advertisement Approximately 29 square feet. Which would normally fall under the threshold of 84 square feet. Additionally, I think the logo was incorporated in that really a static Lee appealing way and that the mural is is beautiful and is a definite improvement to the to the side of the building. >> Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. Seeing called for the vote. >> Missy Berhad evil. That motion passes. >> Next item. >> And we. >> Sure have a motion to come by cases. 2026, Dash, 0, 0, 8, 5, in Twenty-twenty, 6 Dash 0, 0, 8, 6, Okay. We have a motion Commissioner Polis made the motion. I move to combine cases 2026 testers are 8, 5 2026. Testers are 8, 6, >> And that was seconded by somebody previously that disappear. >> Seconded by commissioner buzzer. Any discussion. Any opposed? Motion passes. The a lot of time for testimony will be doubled. May we please have the staff presentation on cases Twenty-twenty 6 Dash 0, 0, 8, 0, 0, 8, 6, Thank you. quests initiated by the or no to him and to the comprehensive land use Up and is up for one post them. >> 2026, Dash, 8, 5 amends. A land use designation for the Boston from compact next presidential medium to town center. He's 26 doesn't 6 amends as up for the same parcel from our 5 low density residential district to B 3 general business district. The Planning and Zoning Commission will provide recommendation to before these requests to resolution. The Sunday is the decision-making body free zones and comprehensive up amendments. The department received no public comments again, city zoning and the confidence bottom up amendment. The Department Motor viewing agency called into the position to be the. The going to notice and did not comment. The department finds that he's on to quest and the comprehensive up amendment request. Meet all approval criteria and then commends the Planning and Zoning Commission provide an approval recommendation for the comprehensive up amendment to town center. he's on a quest to to I'm available for questions of staff and a one, a and as a percentage here tonight to speak on the patient's behalf. >> Commissioner Christian us on the application that the current use of the site precedential. I see that single-family residential is not a permitted use. And the threesome just wondering if that. >> If there is a single family residence on that lot enough that poses any complications to this case. >> Given the circumstances off the nearby a corridor. It made sense. To support that he's on to 3 district. I think there's been some internal discussions and the department is low. 2 of I think that into but some into discussions about from love to think approving single voters, attention be 3. So I think Daniel is trying to speak to that. not Thank Do want to speak to my mic? Yes, yeah. >> Daniel Compass or long-range planning. You know, we have looked at this because as you know, this commission seen a number rezone, land plan changes in this area. And we've really been looking at it and it does seem to be that when the land plan was done it and really maybe consider at it as a corridor in the way that people make land use decisions based on the road. Design alongside it. We talked about this a little bit last month. I think when we talked about the work session for be 3 and people to make decisions based on the design of a road expected carrying capacity of a road. And since we've seen so much interest in a lot of conversions to be 3 in this area to us, you know, if you have a one-off, maybe it's a one-time problem. But if you see the couple times to trend and then the trend probably should be addressed with some higher little policy We're looking talking a bit more. The Abbott loop about what they foresee for this area are made with that community Council. But again, if the community has least from our perspective, the community Council didn't express any concern about this. I think they may be kind of see that too, than in long-range. We did meet few represents from Abbott loop a month or so ago. And they were kind of asking, you know, what's going on down here. And we had a long, really good long discussion about it. So from our perspective yet, does look like something's changing there and maybe what the reality what's happening. The ground is different from what the plan imagine 2040. So that's why we we didn't Syrian to object to this and some some of the others in that area of also been approved. So it could just be that, you know, the way that the quarter long Abbott is going to be a little bit different than people expected in 2017 to 24 win this point. >> And through the chair to Commissioner Christian, you don't mind jumping in as well answer your question, it does create a situation in which that residence becomes a legal nonconforming use on the site. So there would be complications if they wanted to expand on that building. But since it's the property owner requesting this rezone, we not see any reason to object. >> Any other questions for staff? Seeing invite the petitioner up to their presentation. >> The petitioners representative U V E thank you for your time. Staff did a great job on this. This is supported by staffers. No objections by of the agency's. I think this is pretty straightforward and I'm just here for any questions you might have. >> Any questions for the petitioner? I see none. You have 19 minutes and 49 seconds. It's like a new record. Thank you. Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward. Hearing none. We'll go back to the petition and the commission more questions. >> Hearing >> would you like to use air time a better yield the time for rebuttal. Close the public hearing. What is the world body? Push or pull a study like stay motion. >> I move in case 2026. Testers are 8, 5, recommend Anchorage Assembly, approval of a comprehensive plan Amendment. To change land use designation in the Anchorage 2040 land use Plan from compact mixed residential medium to town center. >> Hugh, that seconded by Commissioner Ron Commissioner. Polis. Would you like to speak your motion? >> Yeah. Intend to support the motion. I know the area pretty well. The site is an appropriate distance from Road to be considered a buffer to what is becoming a denser residential in mixed use area. It meets the 7 approval criteria for the comp plan amendments. As noted in the packet. We also heard no public or agency opposition to the amendment. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. >> Hearing none. We'll call for the vote. Missy Berhad vote. That motion passes. Now. We're looking for a second motion for case. 2020 success. 86. Commissioner. would you like stay motion. >> Yeah, I'm moving case. 26 testers are 8, 6, recommended the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of one parcel of land from R 5 district to be 3 district. That seconded by Commissioner Mills Commissioner Post. Would you like speech emotion? Yeah. Intend to support the motion for basically the same reasons I supported the comp Plan amendment. The site is appropriate distance from Road considered a buffer to what is becoming a denser residential mixed use area. It meets the 9 approval criteria for the rezone is noted in the findings and we heard no public or agency opposition to the amendment. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. Here and seeing none. Call for the vote. Missy Berhad Eva. That motion passes. Now we will move on to unfinished business. >> The public hearing. In cases 2026. 0, 0, 3, 4, 2026 Dash 0, 0, 3, 5, are still open. Those who testified during the April 13th meeting may testify again. May we have the staff presentation for case 2026 Dash, 0, 0, 3, Thank you, Mr. Chair Dan. I'm kind of foster long planning. These are the B 3 cases. We've been talking about them a bit over the past few months and they've been in items of discussion of the assembly since last summer. So just give a quick overview CMOS this information for think we meant the committee changes since we last spoke and I'll do old provide this presentation is pretty much about both of them. And I do include a summary of of what I glean from the discussion during the work session. So please correct me if I'm wrong and that and and my recollection last time the commission talked about this. There are some talk about maybe bringing some amendments for some proposals for changes. So we're glad to talk about that. So we have again PC case. 26 34 review in a 25 63, which is introduced by the Assembly last summer. This is the stick and PC case 2026. 0, 0, 3, 5 expanded uses in be 3 and simplifying the definition of a mixed use. This is the care it. More case 34 changes the purpose statement of the 3 limit self storage storage yard March parking. Lots to get additional rather than permitted uses. And that's only as a stand-alone use. That's an as accessory you. So if you're building something and you're putting parking on site, that's not restrict in this way. And case 20 snowy 6.35 is expanding, uses and B 3 simple. Find the definition mixed use, allow all forms of housing and B, 3, this was sort of trying to aim for the shop. House concept clean up the definition mixed use and eliminate lot size and restrictions on the number of structures in be 3. So what problems with his proposal trying to discourage car centered uses and B, 3 has been a lot of talk about that and be 3 is an urban zone and urban areas. We want, you know, more stuff like Human-centered uses, encourage more housing, more flexibility in housing. Be 3, maintain a balance of zoning that sports light industrial commercial uses or businesses and meeting intent of the sponsors. So as everybody he recalls and maybe people in the audience remember, a lot of discussion about what we're looking for in this. And there's been a lot pieces to it. So that's why it's a pretty all encompassing set of ordinances. So time line again, just for reference in spring 20 to 5, the assembly introduced 2025. 63 in the summer of 2025. The Assembly referred to the Planning Zoning Commission in autumn of 2025. Or more discussions with the sponsors. And we're trying to, you know, understand what people are looking for. April 13th, PC meeting, this commission had discussion and referred to work session and then we had a work session on June. First 26 and then 2 days planning Zoning Commission meeting on July 13th. In April. The questions are about petition potential effects. Credit parking separate. Lots business development data on how many properties this would affect and uses for conditional as well locations. On the June work session discussion. There was a lot more. So forgive me a wall. Text here. But the commission talked about how much to be 3 is currently being used for vehicle storage of parking. Lots be 3 zoning and how to protect makes an attractive zone. I think it was something like let's not kill the golden goose or let's not ruin the things that have made this successful the role street design road planning and Jason Land use especially town center areas. So contrasts of road design versus how adjacent land his own certain areas of 3 pro prefer vehicle centered uses slick old Seward, for example, whether places on be 3 see more appropriate for urban uses likes Bernard Road. For example. And we talked about, you know, affecting us through changes to be 3 overall, you could do a specific over lake. Do a new type of the tree. You could do. You specific standards, a specific standards? I don't think we got anywhere and party on that. But it was a good discussion. And then parking lots first parking garages as an accessory in primary use and desired or of water. Moving to parts of tree. Making Cecil tracked for businesses. This one is if you recall, there's some sort of clean-up he says we need to do in the code that would distinguish between a parking lot or parking structure in some places will get a comment to that recommended separating out by the number spaces. These are ideas were interested in. And I think we're going to try to address some maybe through the omnibus ordinance. We just didn't want to get it too much into this because would be a bit too complicated. Once we start changing the use table. So, you know, right now we have parking lot or structures use once we start parking lot of structure 0 to 10, 10 to 25, then it changes the entire use table. It changes all sorts of zoning and although wouldn't be a huge change would just sort of be a little bit bigger than what this would get a little off topic from what the be through us. So that was a great comment. And in the coming the discussions we had here, we are taking that under advisement. I think we're in a trend that she's on a bus 2 or something like that because it it really all the points really good would help clarify things there's some talk last time about where travel behaviors heading. You know, some observations that team's most people want to drive and then other observations that a lot of people want an alternative. And then the link between housing infrastructure, the budget. Long-term sustainability finished and ability and then the potential for additional amendments at this next meet PC meeting tonight when this case returns. So we'll happy to hear about that. So this again, we saw this before. It was just sort of looking at. Different types of existing uses, would become conditional. Where's other permitted? So this is just showing in the eye. One be 3, I-2 districts. How many lots there are with that designation, at least according to the Assessor data. This is parking 50 spaces surface 50 or more spaces and just showing where many of them are. So this is would also be a conditional use again, if this co change, if you have an existing use it in, if it's illegal and it was built, it has nonconforming rights. And then I believe this was parking lots, 50 plus spaces as a structure and most of their all downtown. So. And these are the B 2 zones and the be 3, again, be season's early downtown. And what this these ordinances are looking at these proposals looking at B 2 excuse me, RB 3, not be too and sorry this. There's one at the airport in the TR. So. So again, just note slide. Just remembering how we got here years ago. There's a lot of talk about Carla says and then about Grosse Condos. And so I think that's a sort of where a lot of this came from. So comments, general supporter, no objection. One comment stating making large parking lots. Can issues could affect development and then after the last meeting comment about splitting out types of parking lots and the use table. This is where most of the 3 zoning is now. So if there was a change, these are the areas that would be affected. And with that illegal any questions or comment, sir, anything else? Questions for staff? Commissioner McKee. If it were a conditional use permit. And let's say a developer had multiple parcels and they are building buildings and one of their parcels are using for parking. >> How much time would going through a conditional use permitting process. Add to them being able to develop multiple parcels. >> Threw the chair. I think a conditional use permit takes what about 6 months? Maybe is that generally because you apply and then it takes a couple months to get it. Pc and conditional use has to approved by the planning Zoning Commission from a mistake not the assembly. Probably say 3 to 6 months to do that. Commissioner Pulas. >> On Page 14. >> Rewriting the purpose. Sick. The second sentence. >> And it says these >> uses are intended to be located on primary transportation corridors. And we got rid of Arterials. Is there a definition of primary transportation corridors? Are we trying to be kind general in that? Description? To the chair? I think that language came from. Vice Chair volunteer the state can think it came from the assembly in particular in terms of do we have a definition of primary trustees quarters? I don't think we do. Maybe it's something we can look at in the up. Coming up for streets and highways plan. But I don't think that was more of a descriptive description. Resin, the technical description. But that has language that we got from assembly members. Commissioner Mills. >> So I heard you say that this memorandum would not change existing properties are existing buildings that were jus. >> Impact future development. And my question is what? What type of project or work? >> existing property would. Require flick. It additional permit review. So the chair, mean like in what case might this make things a little bit more complicated or >> yeah. So I understood you saying that the site, which is like legal nonconforming in the event that this passes. >> What would what type of construction or work at a property you would risk the property losing that status. Threw the chair. >> I hope the help me on this because we did just make some changes to the nonconformities code. But traditionally was that if you had a non-conforming use, as long as you didn't expand the you significantly, you could keep operating. So if you had to do basic sort of change and then I think in the last year. So we did update the Nonconformities could be a little more flexible. So as long basically everything was more or less the same, I believe maybe a few expanded its still. There's association there, but I might differ. >> Threw the chair to Commissioner Mills. Yeah, you are correct, Daniel, the the work required to create an issue like this would be at least I think 50% of the value of the property. And if you wanted to expand the footprint. Then that would you know, you'd have to go a new process for that. But otherwise, it's it's a pretty significant rickert. to cause any issues on the site on existing site. >> further questions for staff? Seeing none. We'll continue the public testimony. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward. Seeing none. We'll go to the staff rebuttal. The staff have any rebuttal to that testimony. >> No chair. Thank you. But I do have another. I think I have another question. We're glad for more questions are glad for recommendations are proposals to make changes. I think as well. So the chair of the assembly's or last time explaining that they really are interested in anybody's insights. Commissioner Mills. >> I wanted to ask about to be 3 Just definition of the be 3 zoning kind of links back do oriented uses. And it specifically says. And meeting the needs of auto related and other auto related uses and then it also comes back to say that accommodates, you know, person, mobility and other forms. And my question is. Trying to understand this is in line with us. That definition of be 3 or if the municipalities. Intending change the edition definition of what the 3 supposed to be. And I guess just a little bit of clarity. Thank you. Threw the Yeah, I think you've you've identified which is a pretty big you know, most of are focused on dimensional standards and the specifics of what might get built. But >> that change the purpose statement I think is pretty significant. And that was policy direction. We got and it is different from what it traditionally has been from what I understand looking back through, you know, the years of files is the 3 was always sort of understand, said to be around a long, big roads in the piece about you facilitate mobility and other forms was maybe a sort of compromise. There is added in when they were working on the new title. 21, and that's always maybe sort been a bit of just a compromise that didn't do that much. With this change changes purpose statement. It really would be taking a new direction different from the municipalities taken. And that's why from our person, you know, that language came from the assembly and from our perspective, we were still thinking, well, there are places 3 like an old Seward pretty auto Senate is going to stay out of center and it's very useful for that. And the other place. It's not like it's been art. So I think you've identified major policy change, significant policy change in terms of how that actually changes things that kind of comes down to questions of uncertainty. If it's, you know, one way or the other yet in the future could be that if this commission had to make a decision of they be approving a conditional use or something else, that purpose statement then could weigh into that. So really, I think the big question here is, is Anchorage urbanizing or is Anchorage becoming maybe a place with slightly different travel patterns or not? And if it's not, I mean, that's okay, too. But this is also a purpose statement saying that's what the intent, the municipalities changing sort of the idea of 3 could be something different. future been the past. So just again, it's a it's a big policy question. And departure from the last 10, 20 years. A key. >> So it's kind of a comment. not sure it's a question, but keeping arterials It's not like a defined roadway classification. We're saying primary transportation quarters is up to interpretation like keeping something that's actually a defined. Classification that you can look up and see what that is I think is. And something that is up for interpretation like maybe put vehicles per day classification on it for wanting to have flexibility across different types of roadway classifications. But as a person who has to go to these to look that up. That leaves it up to some buddies, personal interpretation, whether or not it's a primary transportation corridor not versus Arterials. Or saying, you know. X number of vehicles per day to X number of vehicles per day is something like that. You can definitively look up. >> Threw the chair if I could. Yeah, that that's could be tricky to because in some of our zones, we actually have a zone specific standard, a location, a requirement, right? It's it's like our for example, says you can only be on this type of street or in this in a purpose statement, if if you wanted to make that be 3 can only be on our arterials. For example, I would say that you're probably going location requirement. But here in the purpose statement, it's more I think of the sort of philosophical idea where should be, but not specifically a technical If we're looking at a rezone and some said, I want to go to be 3. I don't think we would look at this and say it could be in a car to lure. Couldn't. So if if there is interest in requiring that I would recommend putting it into location criteria in terms of this in particular, I think. Maybe you've highlighted a potential conflict of having it is arterials that then people might is it intended to be a location requirement. Just in the purpose statement, I can't speak for I guess the source of that. But I guess I would guess that the idea was that be threes going to be central areas where we have transportation corridors? So I don't know if if getting to the specifics of a functional classification would add to that are not Anybody else has any comments on that. I don't know if anybody else has questions comments on that. But Commissioner Ron is in the queue of the question. Thank you. Threw the chair. I earlier commissioner raising the topic of the purpose statement. My question. Is on that topic as well. My interest is in recommended changes to the latter portion of it specifically the sentence that reads it is also the been spotted in 10th be 3 district change will encourage replacing also shot provide for safe and convenient personal mobility in all striking other forms. understand the context of that proposed change. Should I read that? Has them in a spotty admitting defeat in this instance? Is that the language was previously? Contributed to be an unachievable mandate? To me, it just feels like moving in a direction that I think we want to understand the intention of given the importance of this purpose statement driving policy application to be 3 development going forward. To the chair. That's a tough one. So, yeah, for anybody following along, I think we're looking at page or line. 25 26 of Page 14 of 64 and it says it is also out municipalities intent that the be 3 district. We'll encourage You say also shall provide for safe and convenient person. Mobility in. In all forms used to say all other forms. I do. If I could speak to the intent of of that change, I could say that. We could take a step back and and think about how a district. Encourages types of travel behavior. Bird versus how different types of right away improvements or public investments encourage different types travel behavior one thing I'm guest is made in my opinion person. as a planner, sometimes purpose statements there, it sort of the flour part of the zoning. And so it's really trying to get to the ideals. But as when you drill down to it, it's sort of unclear like what does this actually mean site? I don't know. 5 a good answer. I kick back to the director to see when I read that, I it doesn't seem like. There's an abdication of some sort of interest in doing that. But I would say the same time many of the other discussions we're having a municipality. We're focusing on addressing the needs of all sorts of users, but doing it more through set up. So the actual road designs and the dcm. And so this is maybe a bit of a shift away from let's try to change travel behavior through zoning which occurs and land use to. Let's try to, you know, provide options for travel behavior in the right of way, which we do through changing to Secretary Manuel and efficient recent. I was plan but maybe of additional insight on that threw the chair to Commissioner That's actually really interesting question because I kind of read it to office it way. >> in that providing for other modes of transportation has just provided a 5 foot. Sidewalk on the edge, right on the edge of major arterials, right? So we've provided for that other mode transportation. But we haven't encouraged it. So my reading was that this take step further. And encourage other modes of transportation in these areas. I think it's worth clarifying if that is actually the intent. And I don't know if that was our language. I think it was probably from. Doctor Bill and but we will ask and maybe see if there's a way that we can try to clarify that. That was indeed the intent and maybe alternative language, to support that idea if that was, but he intended. >> And quick follow-up question on that question. Was the shall provide in any way related to some of the issues where >> sidewalks. Later in the code, our the code states that you shall install sidewalks on any be 3, the adjacent to any. >> Roeder, right away. Even in some instances when the sidewalks don't make sense. With that might be why the shower was being move to encourage. >> Through sorry tariffs finale. I don't think that again, I don't want to speak for the sponsor that I doubt that that Dr Von Spine to any of drafting this up. That that is also very interesting question because that is the code requirement and I have seen cases where it just does not make any sense to provide that sidewalk in those in that context. So. I don't know. Another another question to I could. Excuse >> so I'm I'm looking at the e-mail we got from Dr Vaughan. And he did say maybe something like this is the MIS peleas intended to be district also shall provide or shall provide safe and community. mobility on farms playing design show comic possessions, bicyclists and use of public transit. That was an early draft. So I wonder if it is that having shall and purpose statement does create a weird situation because challenged do it. So that does make sense. And I don't think that came from the assembly member is probably something because we're we do try to be careful about where we shout and where we use other stuff. And in a purpose statement, I think it's probably better to use the positive language of like desperation language rather than the restrictive language. Commissioner McKee. >> I guess just kind also. Thinking along those lines that shall means. It's a lot stronger language. But it also guarantees that happened. So I would think we would always want to guarantee that we're providing safe and convenient personal mobility. In all forms. Roadway users, where is encourage? Is really soft language for says Shell, which is. Definitive. But I mean, for me as a transportation person, the purpose statement carries a ton of weight. It's the purpose and the need together that define what we do for a project. Having. The stronger language because like the planning director mentioned, I mean, you could have a 5 foot shoulder. Or you could have a 10 foot one that kind of flexibility happens and design. But I would think you would always want to provide. For all users. Where's the encouragement potentially allow you? To not let say include ADA, compliant bicycle, PED. And transit facilities. >> The charity Commission are the key. If you don't mind me taking Question, Daniel. We have more and more recently that there are multiple. There many. Situations where it actually does not make sense to structurally, you know, physically provide a separate. Facility for each mode of transportation. there are situations where the different modes can can share space or might. For instance, it might not be appropriate to put a bike lane. For example, on every single road in in Anchorage. So I think if we are going to include shall in there, we have to be very careful about what exactly it is that we are requiring. That makes sense. Yeah. >> It's a McKenna Thank I'll just read a few to some other examples of purpose statements in. Similarly envisioned. In our 3, for example. It says the commercial aspects of this mixed use district are intended to serve local neighborhood needs and promote pedestrian access to support local shopping. Others like our for. I think it says something slightly different for multi-story buildings. Development is intended to be oriented to sidewalk and windows to provide strong protection connection. Standby services. So I think every purpose statement is a little different. I do agree. I think the show on the purpose statement might make things a little bit complicated and it's really just intended to can to sort of a last-minute sort of vibe check on which way something is going. If they're the specifics of requiring something for the zone to probably go into the aspects of the zone itself with a dimensional standards or you specific standards or, you know, location standards. But I'd also encourage anybody. It's just a look at some of the other ones and you'll see there's kind of a wide range in our it says this district is intended point Lane is planned. Meet housing needs for the community and establish a pedestrian oriented environment. So sometimes we say promote pedestrian activity, establish a pastor's pedestrian or environment. Encourage petition uses that sort of thing. So I really think it's there are many ways to do it. And I I do agree, I think show should probably any shelling which probably and the specifics of commissioner. Plus, just a quick comment. I mean, I have some personal experience with some of the stuff and some design projects where, you know, there's probably some bees, 3 districts that are smaller than arterial corridors and stuff like that and tight right away. >> And quite often everyone demands, you know, you have to have everything in here. But when you get to it is 6 foot right away. Put everything in their 75 feet wide. It goes a condom mission. The whole project falls apart. You can't do anything. So, you know, I'm not saying I'm not for shell or the other. I'm just saying I have personal experience where you sometimes just can't fit everything in that. The seems like situation where that could apply to. Commissioner McKee. >> Yeah, I can see as long as we are. >> Defining in other locations. >> Where? Pedestrian? Bike and other types of facilities are required so that the ING courage doesn't give the leeway for that not to happen. >> In other locations where it really should be accommodated. That's my kind of concerned with taking that language out and having softer language. But if enforcement type shower language is included other places where it's really appropriate and drives the design to the cup to the desired outcome. >> Get through the chair it which is good. I think we. >> We're also sense of that as well. We are a lot desire for that. And that's something that we're trying to write into streets and highways plan update and the complete streets Typology, which is the movement is kind of thinking about. You have Kante context based and arterial in one place might look like this under to another place might look something different. So ideally, if we do that sort of context of the street, technology, whatever they are, it's putting that walkability in a place where the makes the most sense. But in the places where the walk, when it could function on acquire smaller road with an era right away or might not make sense at all. Costs meant the way the road designed. So we are I think that's another piece of this, too. That isn't quite zoning. Is that we're trying to get to that through the right of way stuff. So and they're definitely big interest. And there's a lot of passport for that. And I threw the chair. I I agree. That is a very good goal. >> Because we do need quarters that are from moving vehicles and freight and what not. And we definitely need more corridors that provide connectivity for bikes that's and transit. So. But love to see that happen. >> Director bat. >> I was just going to jump in and that you think you've missed the entire site access because you weren't on PCC at the time that that is one of the main questions that we addressed during rate right of that section of code is when is it appropriate to include a sidewalk? In the development? And when it appropriate to? Maybe leave it out? And so there is some very strong language in code right now speaks to. But what are the threshold at which a sidewalk should be required and where have the traffic volumes that adjacent seas to to schools and parks and things like that. So we do. I feel that we do have that covered in code now that we are like Daniel is saying we are addressing that with those projects that he mentioned and then also the TCM rewrite is happening at the moment. money and also currently working on this question. So I have a question. We've spent a lot of time on the purpose statement. Section E table of allowed uses. Some of the presentation showed self storage and car wash is where the spur of the issue. Have any effect on car washes. If I'm not mistaken car wash in the code is actually miner vehicle repair. And this doesn't touch the minor vehicle repair use. But to change that you could either separate out car washes. That news and then you have to go through the whole discussion of appropriate. Where isn't it? Potentially take out all the minor vehicle repair, which might, you know, might fit somewhere As another stink work of code that we don't have car wash, separated out as an individual I second question. What would happen? If the commission really like the purpose statement but not the table and decided to only adopt the purpose. The commission can make whatever recommendations that they like to the assembly and Assembly makes a final decision. >> I see nobody else in the queue. The public hearing open. There was no testimony. Anybody want to testify. Nobody wants fight. Does staff have any rebuttal? The next item before I close the public? No. And then we'll close the public hearing. >> And >> look for a motion from the commission. Commissioner Polis, would you like to stay motion? Yes, in case 2026. Testers are 3 Florida or recommend to the Anchorage Assembly. Approval of the review 2025. 63. >> Allowing cell storage is a conditional use in the be 3 zoning district. >> That is seconded by Commissioner Ron Commissioner. Polis. Would you like to speak to your motion? While a little murky, I agree. The revision of the be 3 description, remove some extra language that's mostly covered elsewhere and title. 21 and emphasizes all funds mobility, conditional use process for 50 plus parking structure uses is an appropriate opportunity for this powder view. The context of large park in cities and more industrial type uses in the be 3 district. We heard no agency opposition and public support for Met for the amendment. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. Commissioner Ron. Thank you. Chair intend to support the motion as I concur with the findings of the previous commissioner and don't have any specific findings to My commissioner comments are as follows. I appreciate the response is provided by staff regarding my questions. >> On the purpose statement and appreciates the additional look into those elements with the originators of and amendment at December level. Secondly, I acknowledge the intent of this as an improvement to hold space for housing in the be 3 district noting that an overwhelming body evidence has shown be 3 Dist district has. Apparently ideal for residential developments in our community. Ands the competing uses and potential for use is at play here. I think are balanced by not disallowing something that has existed but changing the way in which it could be allowed in the future. And support the motion. Thanks. Commissioner Mills. >> I appreciate. >> The support of all uses being included in this memorandum, particularly the discussion about not keeping rigid requirements and there. >> But trying to support all different forms of transportation. However, I have concerns about the 50 plus parking spaces being conditional my concern being just hurting existing businesses prohibiting development or hurting future businesses that we would like to welcome to the area. Commissioner Christian, a maybe I'll just start by saying that amendments can be proposed right now. Speaking not to any potential amendments, but just to this ordinance as written. >> I'm struggling with it a little bit, but I think I intend to support it. I have 2 comments. One, it's that I generally support and like the purpose that has been drafted in agree with previous comments on it. But I. And maybe just struggling with the fact that I don't think that. purpose for this project sufficient to achieve the intent of the sewn in district. So if we have a recommendation. Like to ask the assembly tip to propose a project. To find out what it would take to achieve such density because I don't think language such as that. We're contemplating now gets that far down that which we want to be down. And then my second very minor thing is only that. I would ask that this titled Because I think we've spent an equal amount of time talking about parking lots of self storage. Thank you. >> Commissioner McKee. >> I also intend to support the motion but also have a couple of concerns that were brought up about if somebody who is, you know, legally allowed but wants to change the development on their lot could be triggered, but that it has to be a 50% above. Seems like a pretty high threshold. So I feel like that. Okay. The other part is that they can. There is a conditional use permit process that they can follow. I'm a little concerned that delaying some buddies development process by 6 months in Alaska where we have limited construction season could be. A little bit inconvenient. But there is a path forward. So I dew also intend to support the motion. >> Nobody else in the queue. do not intend to support the motion has written. I'm happy with all the work in the purpose statement. I like it. I don't like. Conditional use. Situations. >> I think they prevent development. They. They prevent people from purchasing the land. To get to the point where they would supply for the commit conditional use. They stop projects in their tracks before it started. Even though there is a way forward, often landowners don't want to wait 6 months while a proposed developer figures out of conditional use can be approved. So with that, I do not intend to support. Commissioner Christian a >> I think since we're talking about it, I would like to go ahead and propose an amendment to. Parking lot structure, conditional use requirement. That's a motion to amend, which will need a second. I second. Commissioner Christian that look right? Yes, seconded by Commissioner Mills Commissioner Christian. When speak, your motion. Yes, I thought I would propose it since multiple commissioners have talked about it. I do think I intend to support this. The suspend Biggest >> concern with this is just the scale of uncertainty and >> we might >> But this might result in for retail businesses who I think firmly fit in with the intent of B 3. So I welcome any further comments. >> Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion to amend. Hearing none. We'll call for the vote. >> heavy vote. >> I think there's more people count here. I don't see. And that motion passes. Ok, back to the main motion. Anybody wishing to speak to them. Main motion as amended. >> Quick question for Sturridge second taken off of the conditional use as well or that that just the parking garage us. >> That was just the parking lot structures, self storage facilities and storage yards are still conditional. Use. >> Thanks. As amended. I support the well. Further like to add on. I don't support it without the storage unit staying on there. I think as you said, are you stated that it prohibit? Developers wanting to develop depression and should be included. So even of the men that I don't intend to support a >> did you say you do intend to support it or you don't intend to sport? >> Do not. The storage step with included. Then I would support it, however, that was not included. I do not intend to support >> Well, you could offer an amendment to do the same change that Commissioner just. Ended. But for the other uses, if you chose. Otherwise. I think nobody else in the queue and Ready to call the vote up to you. >> I would propose a motion to include storage. I don't know how to word it. And I'm not >> Think Lori knows what Did you want to include the self storage and the storage yard and change them to permitted? Similar to the last minute. >> Yeah, especially any the conditional uses. >> Okay. Commissioner Uber, the motion we have is to amend to include self storage and storage as permitted uses. Is there a second seconded by Commissioner Mills Commissioner Uber? Would you like to speak your motion? >> I jus. Believe that if don't look I I don't believe in putting conditional uses in areas and making zones more restrictive. If we want to see development, we need to make them restrictive. We've done that and other things in the past. >> So don't approve the conditional >> Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. Commissioner on. I do not intend to support the motion. Malik, appreciate the comments from previous commissioners and the reasoning behind putting forward the motion. >> I go back to what problems the proposals trying to solve. Clearly the will the commission with respect to discouraging car centered uses was already spoken to this element of encouraging more housing and more flexibility. I stand firm on and believe that conversion from permitted used a conditional use again, does not take the use off the table if the development make sense, there's a pathway for it to move forward. Commissioner pull All speak up this time. I don't intend support the motion either. I think existing grandfather rights basically protects most of what's out there unless they go and spend. >> What 50% of their sight replacement value is. So at that point, they're required to move conformance. If it's a brand new situation, I think it should be evaluated. And that's why I don't intense part motion. >> Commissioner Christian. I I don't intend to support this motion either. Maybe it's just the >> self storage facilities and started shards. I've encountered and encourage, but I don't see them being primarily street frontage uses that are oriented towards the street for pedestrians, direct access 4. I see him being potentially more appropriate for more industrial types of plants. And so I. Do you think that I do agree with the general intent of the be 3 district as we have drafted in this ordinance don't think I'll support this one. >> Commissioner Mills. One comment, I guess I just want to share about why I intend to support this motion is just the shortage of industrial land types available to develop an Anchorage. You know, the beauty of B 3 has always been that it's very versatile in going towards you know, more multifamily towards, you know, these light industrial storage type uses is that it allows, you know, both types. >> I'll just sad. I intend to support because I stand firm against Conditional uses making things hard and code making things cost more money and take more time. That's why we are not getting our 200 50th anniversary mural on time. As we heard tonight that it was one of the first elected. But one of the last to get painted because it came to the planning and Zoning Commission. Nobody else in the Q A call for the vote. Missy Berhad vote. That motion fails. Back to the main motion as amended. Anybody wishing to speak. To the main motion as amended. Before I called for the vote. Hearing none. We'll call for the vote. Missy Berhad boat. You thank you. That motion passes. Now. move to the care it. Very can I start? With a motion to reopen the public hearing? Oh, wait, no, never mind. Chair before we get started. I think the commissioners McHugh. Yeah. We'll take a five-minute break. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> Dow may we please have a staff presentation and case 2026? Deaths. 0, 0, 3, 5, AK the carrot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, can foster again, long-range planning this case was built on the back of the other case or, you know, thinking about okay, make it easier to do some other things that are just doing their strict up. He says so. Basically it allows all forms of housing in be 3. It simplifies some of the dimensional standards. And it cleans up the definition mixed use development. So mixes to is totally about the 3. But it just makes it a little bit simpler. So it if you want to have one dwelling unit and one commercial activity and be okay. Joy is worded. Previously was a little bit confusing. So. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Are there any questions for staff? May I jump really quick? Director bat. >> This is the proposal that would make single family residential a permitted use and be 3. So I know we're discussing that earlier. This would also address that issue and also just jumping in on the relationship between the when the sponsors prop the original stick to the planning Department. Our response was similar in some ways to your response as body in that we. Did not see that direct correlation between restricting uses and promoting housing. Inbee in And so this was our and that we worked with number probably on in order to actually taking a little bit further and create O and P 3. That would actually promote the development of more residential and that zoning district. >> Are there any other questions for staff? I have Commissioner Mills. I just have one what is the background reasoning behind? Why wouldn't you just to rezone? >> A lot too. The applicable residential use. opposed to. Trying to. Like a single family and be 3. >> Threw the chair tea commissioner holes that the reason process dependent upon our future land use map. And there many areas in town where single-family exists in be 3 rezone to a residential district would not necessarily be supported in the area by the plan because that area is efficient as commercial. District. I don't know if long-range planning wants to jump in with any more information on that point. >> Yet in bulk of us along as planned through the chair at this was. It was a nice thinking about. If people are doing garage condos in their living in Rusk and those which may or may not be happening, there's some anecdotal date or not. And so maybe there's a type of living that's desirable to do that. And then we didn't really have a category garage condo. So that's how we came all the way around to sort of think about, well, what if you could just permitted as a single-family house with a large garage and then you could do a bunch of small. But Mike narrow lot single family with a large garage. So that was the intent to get to the shop. House concept and make it so we can use what already exists rather create a new use for like a garage condo but yeah, also there many places where the land is B 3, but the latest plan would support going to like an artery or something else and his latest plan. So it was really just kind of opening up the flexibility in allowing if people can be creative for there's a fewer restrictions size of a garage in be 3. Then maybe they could do something comparable to what people have been trying to do in our 3 or other places or doing as garage condos and maybe there is residents like to be having their not so that's kind of how we got this. And to add on that just a little bit, in most of our residential districts. >> They are very restrictive about the the size of the garage compared to the size the dwelling unit. So this was a way for us to provide a avenue towards building something that seems to be popular in other parts of the U.S. that don't have a lot of land available for here in the fall. The moment. Commissioner Christian. >> Could just a little bit overall thinking on real, okay. Double drilling units and relocate Abul tolling communities. And I'm guessing the bats. A synonym for what's called on Page 20 in our manufactured home community. >> Threw the chair. Yeah. I think the table if believe your friend of the really small font table, is that right? Yeah. So the the manufacturer dwelling units, manufacturing community. those are. Renamed with the recent ordinance. I think maybe this might have started before that renaming happened. So that table Dustin get updated or might have been done from. That's correct. This actually started before past. >> one, I think one recommendation that the planning department might make the assembly Daniel Trump enough and getting this wrong. But I think we had suggested to the sponsor that. If we didn't discuss it here, that we went suggest updating to match. more recent we look a double telling unit and allow. Relocate a bulls in 3 as a permitted use. So that that would be an amendment. I think to what you actually have in front of you and that can in our packet. It says it would be permitted. Okay. never mind. I guess I'm asking if you could speak a little bit more about >> the reasoning behind that. Behind allowing it in in this. Yeah. So the industry, you know, we've we've seen it come up in multiple ordinances over the last few years. I guess I'm looking for the larger trend towards. It. Sounds like it's part of this larger effort to allow every single type of housing that's allowable municipality in within B 3, specifically. Is that correct? Yes, yes, that's correct. >> I could build on that to the chair so the meeting has been doing a lot of work on thinking about modular housing and manufactured housing and there's a lot of work across the state actually looking at that when a couple years ago we applied for the Home Pro or Housing program. And our project was we wanted to figure out if if we could figure out a way to value engineer modular homes and then make it a lot easier to cite them. And throughout those processes, often the municipalities couple sites like, well, there's a good side. Somebody has to be 3 site. They want to try it. So, yeah, it really is sort of. Looking for the place is trend that make allow as many opportunities as possible where it might makes sense. Yeah, because these days I think. modular home with a manufactured home of the relocate going into the future will probably look a little bit different. I think from what we've seen in the past with the sort standard from 1976. Okay. March Arafat could make quick comment. Sorry to interrupt. I so I'm looking in. Let's say I'm I'm looking in the draft and I'm looking at the you save on Section 3 skewed in that mental Sanders table in Section 3. I think there might be an error in here because I'm also looking at the existing code and if I could help bring that a and so I wanted to bring that to the attention of the commission. So you can. Make a decision about it. So this is the existing code. Okay. We just checked the date on this April 15, 2026. Yeah. So the existing code, it doesn't have the max number of principle structure in a lot. And the site setback requirements a little bit different. Some wondering if some pieces of the deleted text might have gotten removed from this. So I guess and I'm sorry for making more complicated. But I would bring it to your attention. Just to be aware what? This code says now and what's shown as leader not lead to slightly different in this. I think the intent is still at least from what we brought forward is to remove restrictions. But the code itself may might be slightly different. I don't know if shows those deletions, for example, site setback N B, 3 general business currently says 5 plus one foot for each 5 feet night exceeding 35 feet in height on this. And this page it we don't see that. It just says 5. So that's our mission and our air. And then the other piece about max numbers, principle structure, not a lot, as you see here on the official version, there is no column. I think that Colin from X number of principal structures, he's only on up to the residential zones, the are zones and then you get down into the bees and and rose season it. I don't think it has the so. I don't know Lauren is a procedure piece there or if you want to address those or she have any questions. Thank you answer. My question is. I think you need to clarify for the commission what staff intends for us to vote on. What you would like us to. Would you like us to make a motion to amend section 3 table? I think that a word document. Yeah, our so our proposal and this again is on Page 10 to 40 of this packet, section 3, sort of starting on line 10. Our proposal would be. To make the amendment. So it appears as in this table, even though and then also include the deleted text that should be deleted. Now you don't have to take that if you don't want, but so the change there would be saying this. This current version is not showing that this side making all of the uses and residential uses to a 5 foot setback. That would be a change from existing code. So because I can zoom in here. So as you see here be basically. Putting this in brackets. So the motion might be too use the dimensional standards as shown in this table. If you like them. Correct. The ordinance to show the proposed deleted text. And then I think this column here of an here that says Max number principal structures per lot. I don't see that in the existing. And I'm assuming this is correct title. 21 online so just to clarify, staff's recommendation would be to amend the current section 3 in our packet to match. Current code setbacks. Correct? It would And in the text that. Proposed to be deleted but sort of omitted showing that yes, yet. So staff's proposal is for us to change Section 3 to match current code setbacks, right to change Section 3 to match current code and then make the amendments that would make that mental standards look like they do in the packet as it is. So instead of, for example, a long way with saying instead of residential living uses just being 5 side setback, we propose to leading 5 plus one foot for each 5 feet in height exceeding 35 feet. And setting it to 5 or we could come back in. Whatever easiest recon. That's the easiest thing would be for me to open public testimony and somebody from staff write that down really fast and give it a lorry. Ok, let's hear from the public. Anybody wish to testify. Please step forward. Hearing seeing none. Staff rebuttal. I'd like to make suggestion about the the at it that we just discussed. >> I would suggest that the commission just address the proposed change. Which would be the proposal to delete. Extra requirement for 5 feet in height exceeding 35 feet. just address whether or not you support that in your findings. Are your comments for this? This particular and then also directs staff to correct the table in so that matches code. >> Work that night. That would be easier. And I can show you on the screen so can see what it should look like in about 90 seconds. We have a motion. Sure on what he likes to your motion. I move in case 2026. Dash 0, 0, 3, 5, to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly, approval of an ordinance amending title. 21 to permit Chop Houses in the Anchorage Bowl. Seconded by Commissioner Ball as a commissioner on would you like to state speak your motion. Thank you, chair. I intend to support the motion. And would direct staff to correct the table in Section 3. As discussed this evening. A few findings as tonight. This is a companion ordinance intended to incentivize development the beat 3 district in a way that is more flexible to help achieve. And housing goals. We did not hear tonight. Any public testimony in opposition to the proposed ordinance. We received one comment from a member of the public included in the staff pocket. Highly supportive of the proposed changes. With that. I intend to support the motion. Anybody else wishing speak to the motion Commissioner Christian. I have one clarifying question that may potentially lead to an amendment. If you'll allow me to ask a question to staff. >> Ask away. >> All right. So if I'm understanding the intent of this correctly, it's shop House. A falls under mixed use. And that's why we're amending that definition of mixed use development. That's correct. Okay. So what? So just to clarify before, make my motion. Removing making young making an amendment to remove single family. Detached dwellings as permanent uses within B 3 would not be contrary to the intent of expanding the shop houses in this district. >> Threw the chair. I think that would run contrary to the intent of line for the shop house. The thinking was that >> at first it was kind of attached single-family and then the test sort of became part of that. But I think it was also a line for small lots smaller development of single-family. So that need not include commercial use. Sorry, that did not include and commissions. Yes. Because if I'm reading this correctly. Change definition of. On Page 9. >> Mixed use development is defined as >> one or more. >> Dwellings in the same. long that is located on the same lot are in the same building as a non residential use. Single-family home that has a shop shop in the same lot falls under mixed use development, not single family. >> Well, so I think the way we put it was that a single family with a large garage is just a single fan with a large garage and other another districts, their specific standards about garages. We can't have such large garages. So was if people really want single-family, the huge garage, they could maybe do it in the 3 and figure out a way to do it. So I guess I wouldn't be considered a mixed use. It would not be a mixed use yet. Just the shop houses that was that was the alternative is create a new use tight for shop house. And then the more we talked through, we thought, you know, shop really just a single family with a big rush. So that was the other way to do it. Create a new use and then have it. They figure out which zones it's going shun going and then we looked like be 3. Doesn't have those restrictions on garages already. And so just a matter of connecting that bigger rushed to a living in it. All right. I think understand now and through the chair to Commissioner Krishna, I can add one more thing. >> The I think the intent of sale also halt a little bit since it was originally titled the sponsor member probably. Started with the idea of promoting a specific type of of dwelling unit and the 3. But then through discussions with her and internal to staff. We have decided to. Propose other changes to that supported all kinds of housing and P 3. So it doesn't quite match the the title That was the intent behind that particular change. >> Not able to make any motions, but would just throw it out there. We can rename it. The carrot. Okay. Anybody else? Wishing to speak to the motion. Here and seeing none. We'll call for the vote. >> Missy per heavy vote. >> thank you. That motion passes. >> Can please have a motion to reopen the public hearing on case 2026 deaths or 0, 3, 6, ♪ That's moved by Commissioner seconded by Commissioner Polis. Discussion. Any objection hearing? None. Motion passes. May we please have a staff presentation on case 2026? Deaths 3 things. Everyone, Daniel, kind of foster long-range planning. This is PC case 2026. 0, 0, 3, 6, >> Updating the wetlands management plan. This is phase one's kind of phase 1.5 at this point. So this is about the the wetlands that the Anchorage municipality has jurisdiction to to manage and regulate. Anchorage is a lot of wetlands is as both federal wetlands and local wetlands. This through zoning power have power to regulate the local wetlands. Even if the federal says they're not. And so this is a discussion on on the plan. That is both the policy guidance and the regulatory tool to manage those. So we're trying to solve well, as burning is not clear in Anchorage, Rio, landscape has changed. That was the last of the municipality's general permit 2021. And then the second decision at federal Supreme Court in 2023, they encourage well as management plan is very specific about who can implement and really only says that we in long-range can implement. And there are other section the municipality that more expertise on this than we do. The Anchorage, the well as management plan is set up to be both policy, guns and regulatory and they should be separated out. And that well, as plan is out of date, the mapping is out of date. And changes require simply review and approval. So that's kind of the main thing that changed since winter. The work sessions just allowing the municipality to make updates to its wetlands map without going through the much longer process. Let's see this is a lot of sort of historical context. But basically the wetlands plan was adopted 2014, the 2014 plan built on plans that came from before that in 2021, the municipality did not get their general permit reviewed. The general permit allowed us to. Issue permits for S-class wetlands. If they were federal wetlands so then it put everybody in this weird situation where it was a wetland us had to go to the core and determine the court didn't have as much staff. And so we sort of hit a bit of a backlog. And then in 2023 Supreme Court decision. Second for CPA narrowed which wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. So used to be you could have a pond or something. And if federal government says wetland is probably well and the second decision really said that you have to connected to the waters, the United maybe a stream or something in that gets sort of legislative allure educated a little bit. But so it meant that if you have a wetlands not connected to an ocean, basically it may not be a wet one for the federal government, but again, the the federal government still makes the judges jurisdiction about what is their federal government, federal women or not? So the plan overview the plan is sort of policy guidance and enforce policies and specific actions for wetlands. So right now we have sort of general ideas of how we're supposed to deal with wetlands in Anchorage. But then also very specific guidance and rules about what can or can't happen there. So if you come into the municipality said like to build here, we say, well, that's mapped as well. And on our mapping tool and its map number, it's wetland number one, 60 for that. We go into the wetlands planning. This for one. 64. You need to do a B and C sometimes it's really specific. Sometimes really broad. So this is something else we'd like to update in the future. Here's some specifics. Maybe can't see on the screen, but basically you find the wetland unit 60 south and it tells you development a person may consider directing surface water run-off to Klatt fog or other measures. And so it give some specifics, but not really so as regulators and also sort of implementar is it's it's really difficult to do So long term. We are looking to update the way we manage wetlands. We can manage them safely. We can manage effectively. We can use them because they do provide a great benefit to our community. But we can also present certainty to people who are building in urbanized area. Issues with the existing plan. The framework relies on holding us age. The Army Corps general permit the plan's both regulatory policy plans specific about which divisions of them I can enforce. The regulatory maps are out of date. Timeline. We had initial discussion. The May 11th meeting PC meeting with a work session on June 8th. We discussed this last week at the July 8th Twenty-twenty 6 watershed and Natural Resources Commission meeting and Michael's jump in. How did they receive that? I think they were pretty favorable about this. They're pretty excited about it. They love the flow chart that Paula France put together and then we have a second to session today for decision. So proposal for this case make needed functional changes, change the language to allow Emily Staff to update the new Atlas Map. update. Well, as Matt without Assembly approval. So that doesn't mean we just change the map on everyone, but it would be as verified and approved and information becomes available. So if somebody comes in and there, you know, certified and we have I don't think quite figure out, but certification would be engineering firm engineering water professional from they say, yeah, we've done this delineation. It makes sense and it meets the core standards than we can go through the process and just up to the map and then establish an in-house flowchart for reference, mostly for the public with that, got to answer any questions. Anybody may have. Commissioner plus. The questions on page. 35 of 51 from P******, France. Can you just kind of quickly go through those know whether you guys think you just those are not I don't need a lot of detail. Just yes, no, the kind of thing let us know if there's anything I couldn't deal with. So did you see 25 one? 35 of 51 Paul's final kind comments. just saw those the best we could. Yet through the chair. We've really closely with Paul and Stephen CJ and Greg So I believe we've. Hit all these. We did talk to Paul this afternoon and I think every on the same page that Michael, can you confirm that his poll seen all this and we've gone through it. This, I think is from April 17th. And so we've had a lot of meetings with them since. It's we. We developed this particular case what you close to with little bit ad. >> Lately, the outflow so be joining at the company should too very closely. Yeah. So if anybody is any questions about that to recommend watching the July it's Watershed Natural Resource Commission. Paul was there. And I think CJ was there as well. So >> where this has really been pretty collaborative project. They were a little surprised at first. They didn't quite know what's going on. We had it couple sit downs and every felt a lot better. That's one more quick question. Whos the phone number now. The 4 us, though, really is great city. That's that's >> commissioner on. Thank you to the chair. Seth. I'm interested page. 51 of the staff. >> Hackett exemption, wetlands Map Amendment lying 15, all give everybody a minute to flip Theragun pitch 8. Proposed language and donations are back factional >> Not more than 5 years ago. you help me understand the base of 5 years statement? Is it scientifically founded in? When science or is it art bitterly salt selected or or other? Michael to 8? I'm thinking that we probably just pick 5 years. I mean, we have something some of these car and has built. That's no more than 2 years. But Michael, is that we have any more specifics on the number we chose 5 years to make. what the coffee use this. >> So everybody in the nation, according to the coffee is is valid for 5 years. So you said that as this time, not for Amendment. Any other questions for staff? So were any other amendments made sense of original introduction? Or any? the vigil amendment will be such an fall off hook. It switches on 8, 8, off. If you are. I the cause says for the first meeting was about the substance of the just itself. So we talked to session forward. Really good. some substance. >> Seeing no more questions for staff. We will for public testimony since we have reopened the public hearing. And seeing none path for staff. If you have any rebuttal. Seeing none. Well close. The public. What is the will of the body? There is still time for questions for staff. If you're about ready to make the motion. Commissioner Polis, would you like to stay motion? >> Yes, I move in. Case 2026. Test 0, 0, 3, 6, to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly. Approval of the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan update. Phase one. That's seconded by Commissioner Commissioner Post. Would you like state motion? Yes, I intend to support the motion. The proposed revisions reflect responses to comments received from municipal regulatory staff will enforce it. The revisions clarify municipality is responsible to complete wetland regulatory review process, having a method in place to modify wetland boundaries is an important development process that needs to be managed by qualified individuals. We also heard no public opposition to the wetland management plan. Revisions. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. Hearing none. We'll call for the vote. >> Missy Berhad vote. >> Okay. >> Title. 21. caution. How is the commission feeling about hearing from the department on their work plan? Would we like to do that this evening? Or would we like to not do that? I'm hearing that the next meeting has a case. No, it was not in her back. You know, last 3 case. But you have some cases in August we have a number of >> let's just say, we said, yes, we want to hear how long would it take? 5 minutes. Distribute whatever gotten Commissioner. Rob, what are thinking? thinking I'm here in 5 minutes. I'd like to learn about the work plan. All right. Let's let's have the work plan. You I just add that. But last meeting was over in 30 minutes. The been a perfect time to discuss the work plan. don't come. Foster long-range planning will do this very quickly. This is just sort of the 2nd half of 2026. Looking at some things we've all accomplished together and the things we have coming up, you see the July cases in August, you you are pregnant, have a number of current planning cases if you know, lot subdivision, which supposed to look at this month postponed. So it looks like you at least 3 current cases in August on August 3rd. And then you get maybe 3 more on August 10th. O for more August 10th. And then in September we have some changes to the parks and recreation zoning category, just like allowing Park's and rec to do some stuff 30 doing like selling tree plugs and maybe. It's something like school activities. Something like that we might have to. Css process the Contact Center Solution Street view updates potentially and then looking at the tolls are tracked land use plan designation. That is a case. So we looked at the future land use designation of that couple months ago with the case that just went to the assembly. We're going to look at that again in October. We might be looking at some are to him at its. We're looking another on the bus and we're also trying to get rid of old title. 21. So you all just did we did that legacy rezone. Getting rid of TR before Indy 2. But there's still a few pieces of title. 21 that say you have to go back and if you do a project in certain areas, you have to follow the code as it was in 2014. And we're trying to just make it so if you have an industrial district, but it has to go back to 2014 just allows us to import or to use the 2026 industrial districts or so working out how to do that. Michael might have some district neighborhood plan hazard, mitigation, stuff, incorporation. That's just sort of looking at what different areas can do for hazard mitigation that sir, one of our state grants will be looking at some capital improvements project stuff, including with the school district and the recreational trails plan may be coming in November. If it if they decide to make it component of the comprehensive plan and then maybe some childcare used in November. So that's pretty exciting. Midtown plan. It's going to come back eventually hopefully chant Chance vote to childcare. Really think November South Edition has been working on a plan for about 10 years and we're waiting for them to bring it forward so we can if they want to incorporate that into the conference of plan, some other stuff we've been working with other divisions about, you know, the school district in sight designs and and how kids get to school. Official streets. I was planned major update. We're almost getting that RFP out. What lands Plan? Management plan. Major update. So we just look at phase one. Phase 2 will be coming in the next 6 months, hopefully or at least we'll start talking about it we're trying to update all PC materials to get to be searchable, PDF. So it's something we're really excited about. Probably going to see more abbreviated reasons. I think we have 18 so far. We're expecting more. So we're looking at that and we're looking at especially with our 5. So our 5 is on. That's actually not even called out in. 24, you ladies plan wasn't expected to implement anything. I think he's expected to kind of go away. So we're looking at going out to the community councils where they have the most are 5 and just explaining if they see more abbreviated reasons what it looks like. Why, you because a lot of these it was always expected our fy was going to change. And so we want to to sort of help people understand how that process works. Tanya Turner, Conference of Plan Update. We're looking at a sort of 3rd party review of our process to make sure that somebody with some fresh eyes who also knows Alaska can look at that. And then the design criteria manual updates depends on PM Monday, but that will be coming. So we're collaborating with him money on that. So that's pretty much got answering questions or questions we can bring him back for next time. Thank you. Any questions. I see no questions. Thank you for the work plan. Any commissioner comments? Commissioner on. Thank you, chair. Reflecting on a comment that staff made in case tonight about the respective role of the streets and highways plan. >> Management of land use with respect to access. Using that as a tool relative to the role that management of zoning place in that space. >> Trying to put words to this I guess I have concern based on the way that I interpreted the comment that there may be a deflection of responsibility away from the zoning in that space and fully too. Transportation planning. And I guess I would caution. Where is caution if, in fact that's the movement that's been taken. I could provide some background you could just take that under advisement. A quick response. If you have one ready? Sure yet. Thank you. That's that's a big question that we've been talking about for many years. I think the thing, you know, one of the first kids I worked on was our for a for his own and are for it was really trying to figure out how to. Use zoning to create great spaces and great public places and every developer we talked to who wanted to do the kind of walkable mixed use density, that kind of stuff. They bristle that sort of every single requirement we did about like don't put parking between the street in the building or we want a nice surface odds against the building. And so that really got us thinking more about if you if you want a walkable environment or different transportation environment, you have to focus on where that activity exists or at least that's gonna be more effective. Really? You have to do in both together, right? So and then I think also we sell a side access. If you remember site access that came through in 2022, a lot of that was trying to control how people. Traveled based on what happened all the places they weren't traveling and that became really complicated and problematic. They do have to work together, right? Like the width of a driveway effects. How you interact with a building, how much parking have in front of a building. But then we have the practical realities like we saw tonight the way, transportation behaviors right now. And so we we're sort of a lot of us went to the snack to conferences. The National Association, transportation officials are something and they're from PM MONEY from capital improvements. And we came back kind of energized to look at how we can think about using that, you know, treatment right away public asset really achieving the goals of municipality. Also in the right way. Also in zoning. So some of that is like zoning we need need need to let up a little bit because the site access project. Was never successful. I think we can say I mean, it took a year. It was immediately very unpopular them in Saudi or the assembly put in more time on it. That approach didn't seem to work, but we still have problems on the road. So we're really trying to get to let's work closer together with way we design the road. So that's on the dcm and also on the way we planned the roads with his those HP and component conference of plan. So that's an interesting piece that in be comes to planning to goes to money. We're hoping we can be working both those things together. So yeah, I absolutely it's a it's a difficult question and it's going to take search some creativity for Anchorage in Anchorage, sort of growing little bit. The department's growing and learning together. But it is something it's not that we're trying to move away from that responsibility or give that up as a priority. Because if you look at our land long transportation strategy, the first 3, pages are people, you know, the community, the public have been talking about a different transportation environment for decades. And that still seems to ring And I think we see that even those reading the state transportation plan, people are asking for something different. So that's on our mind. And now we're really trying to get to whatever works right people One final thing is something that came out of sight. Access was moving away from acquiring sidewalks everywhere, which looks like a big, you know, flashing siren moving away from walkability. But what we got to was that we might actually at first the smaller streets. It's pretty expensive up front sidewalk. Maybe we just treat. That's street truly is a place where multiple users really do have a right to be there and get it. And that's a bit of a philosophy shift, too. So there are a lot of these discussions going on. And think when you see set up information come out, you'll see it's really looking at things a little bit differently. But I think in the past we spent too much time may be looking at zoning as a way to control travel behavior and that produce and that impacts and now they will focus a little bit on a more balanced approach. thank you. >> Any other questions or commissioner comments? >> Hearing and seeing >> Director Babb, I just wanted to thank the commission for hearing wetland >> Proposal again, I know it was a little bit rocky to start with. And I appreciate the time that you spent in the work session and allowing us to come back with this proposal to the commission's. So thank you very much for that. >> And with that entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved and seconded. Any objection? Airing number. ♪ >> In news.