>> Okay. We will call the February second meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission order. pleas have the roll call under Spinelli here. Jerry Gardner here, right? Okay. Christina here, Scott plus. Brand Evers excused if a crime. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the minutes we have the minutes of January effect in January. 12th. >> Moved by Commissioner Christian a second by Commissioner Polis. Any discussion on the minutes. Any objection? Hearing? None minutes are approved. Next item. >> Special order of business disclosures. Any commissioners having anything they wish to disclose. Commissioner Christian? >> Yes, in case 2026 Dash, 0, 0, 13. I would like to disclose that. I've had a number of contacts with the project team on the design criteria, manual updates and I have both emailed and met with them in Tobar and I believe in. January. And have had some e-mail conversations as well. I understand we're hearing advisory capacity and not in our adjudicatory capacity. Some of these contact started before. I was aware this was going to become a planning and zoning Commission queso. She want to be quite clear all of those contacts were in my professional role and not my role as a commission member. I'm happy to either recuse myself. Just abundance of clarity or to participate. However, the commission directs. >> Thank It's my opinion that. >> The your involvement and things such as this is why you are on the commission. And so. I would be inclined to see you participate. It's really no different. Then. Any of our involvement in any of the title. 21 or Plan update the. The comprehensive plan update that we're currently all have looked at and worked on. Talked about so. And less. Any commissioners feel otherwise. I would Lee would direct you to participate. >> And >> anybody disagree. Want to make a motion. okay. Next, I will hand the gavel over disclose. >> Have to disclosures first. I was absent from the January 12th meeting. So I will abstain from voting in the resolution and case 2026 Dash 0, 0, 7, And second. I'd like to disco disclose that. The subject parcels and the Great Land Holdings, LLC cases Twenty-twenty 6 Dash 0, 0, 1, 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7, Spano Homes owns property across the street. And had gone through a similar rezone. Some time ago that came before the commission. I was out of the room during happened. don't believe I have conflict. it is recommendation to the assembly. And I. >> think I can remain impartial. But I think the commission should decide. Commissioner on. Are you disclosing? Are you weighing in? On my disclosure if you need some of way and I can, if you go through the motion process and get on the record, it's going to make my own disclosure. >> Oh, well, I actually pass the gavel for 2 reks. She I commissioner. >> Krishna said yes. When anyone like to make a motion to direct Commissioner Spinelli to participate in these cases. Commissioner on, would you like to make your motion and to speak to it? And seconded by Commissioner Gardner. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly Commissioner Spinelli, thank you for the disclosures. I don't believe what you've described rises to level of a conflict that with Move me to ask your future self and look forward to your participation. Thanks. >> Any other discussion. Any objections to that motion? Do we need to take a a formal vote now? Okay. Hearing no objections were going to say that that motion passes ants hand the gavel back to the chair. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Ron. Thank you, Mr. Chair I was absent from the January 5th meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026. Just 0, 0, 1, through 2026, Dash, 0, 0, 6. Thank you. Thank you. >> Any other disclosures? >> seeing none. >> May we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? >> Moved and seconded any many wishing to pull any items. Hearing. None. Any objections. consent agenda is approved. >> we're >> looking for a motion to combine cases 2026 0, 0, 0, 6, 0 0 0 7 >> All right. Computers don't want to work. So may we please have a verbal motion to combine cases Twenty-twenty 6, 6, Dash, 0, 0, 0, 6, and 2026 Dash 0 0 0 7 >> Sure. I'll make a motion to combine cases twenty-twenty 6 Dash 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 7, >> Their second. That moved by Commissioner Christian seconded by Commissioner Polis. >> Any discussion? Any objection? Hearing? None that motion passes. >> read the procedure by which public may speak to the commission. At its meeting. After the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items. The chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow time limits established in the commission rules of procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal representatives of groups. Community Council's PTA, Zeke Center and will receive 5 minutes. Individuals will receive 3 minutes when your testimony is completed, you may be asked questions by the commission. You may only testify once any issue unless question by the Commission commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. And matter of case 2026 Dash, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 7, Where they were combine the times will be doubled. May we please have a staff presentation on cases Twenty-twenty 6 Dash, 0, 0, 0, 6 0 0 0 7 >> Yes, thank you. Chair Spinelli. These 2 cases recommendations to the assembly for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation. One person from compact compact, a mixed residential to town center. And the rezone is for 2 adjacent parcels that rezone them from selves. That's residential office of special invitations. And from our 5 low density residential 2 B 3, which is the general business District. So the first one K strain. 26, 0, 0, 6, That's the land use designation change to 10 center. There are 5 reduced review criteria that the department finds are all met. So the first one is the proposer it necessary in order to address one of work. The following. So change and protect projections are assumptions from those which the comprehensive plan is based identification of new issues needs are opportunities that are not adequately addressed in the comp plan. change in policy is objectives. Principles are standards governing the physical development of the municipality or any other geographic area. I just read the comprehensive plan. Or errors or omissions and the comprehensive plan. Then the second review criteria is the proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the comprehensive plan. It's consistent with other elements of the comp plan. The next one is the amendment is not rental to the public interest, health safety, convenience or welfare of the community. 4th one is land use designation is found to be equally or more supportive of the comprehensive plan. Goals, objectives, policies and guidelines and the old land use designation. And the 5th one is that the site is consistent with the adopted description and location criteria for the requested land use designation. But it's physically see double to accommodate the proposed designation, including but not limited to access physical constraints, provision of utilities and compatibility with surrounding designations and development patterns. As the different finds. All 5 of those criteria are met for the first case. Stranger a 6 Dash 0, 0, 6, There have been. Other recent changes to the land use designation to other nearby parcels to town center in that area. Case turning. 26 Dash 0, 0, 7, is the rezoning request. There are 9 review criteria for that rezone. I'll read those quickly. And then I'll just summarize a few other points that the department made and the staff report for these 2 cases. Okay. So in summary, the 9 review criteria the commission should use in evaluating the rezoning request. The department found all 9 of these are but so it's that the reason is in the best interest of the citizens of Anchorage in from its public health safety and welfare. 2, they're rezoning complies with in car can foresee the comprehensive plan. This rezoning will. If you also approve the the aforementioned amendment to the land use designation. 3 the rezoning is generally consistent with the zoning district purpose in their requested zone and the purpose of title. 21. 4, the rezoning is compatible with surrounding zoning and development and that protects areas designated for specific uses on the zoning map from incompatible land uses or development in 10 cities. 5 facilities and services as these could be utilities, roads, emergency services that those are capable of supporting the use is led by the zone. 6 that the rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment, including air water noise, storm water, wildlife vegetation, or that those impacts will be mitigated. Arizona is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts adjacent land uses or the impacts will be mitigated. It's three-one does not extend or drugs as a a land use pattern that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. And 9 the rezoning sell not result in a split zoned lot. The department found all 9 of those. criteria are met. The 3 zoning permits. Multifamily in mixed use residential. The current are 5 zoning for for one of the parcels current single-family and two-family residential. The 3 permits many commercial uses that are not permitted in current residential zoning districts. The property is near dirt road. And several adjacent properties have been rezoned from a residential zoning district to be 3 reflect the location of these parcels. Development requirements would include all for landscaping along the North and West property line that borders the residential are 5 zoning. No reviewing agencies objected to either of these key sections leaves community council did object. The department did receive a public comment from a neighbor that objected to to these actions. This this comment has been submitted to the commission as an item received after the staff report was finalized. Those are suited to the commission for your consideration. That's my summary of the staff report for these 2 cases. And I am available for questions. The petitioners representative is also available and the audience to give a presentation and to answer questions. Thanks. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Polis. >> That his doesn't been approved yet. Right? >> Commissioner Polis, that is correct. Does do put on pause by the assembly. So it's there's no pending a decision to be made right now for to Stow. Okay. >> And then I have one more calm. >> On Page 6, the last sons of apartment recommendation, areas likely not going to be developed for residential uses and the comprehensive plan should be updated to reflect the municipality's intent for the area to B B, 3 general commercial. This is a big residential neighborhood. I don't agree with that statement really at all. So drives this neighborhood every day. There's a lot of residential. I agree with the first statement that it should be looked at, but the kind of an issue that license going say that now. >> And I guess, though, is question. But it was directed toward Stossel to say that the you could make that finding in and when you evaluate the case. >> There's no more questions for staff. We will move on to petitioners. >> So I have a question. So you said that on the north and west sides, their landscape would be required if it's developed. How much landscape, you know? >> Commissioner buys a threw the chair. It would be some landscaping that would be required is perimeter landscaping in between. If you have the rezoning would then be between the P 3 zoning district in our 5, I believe. Offhand. I think one I would need to just double check. But Owen is feat. I can pull it up and about 10 seconds. One of my stuff. So Okay. Updated response is it's actually a LT landscaping and be required, which is the requirement for that. I-15 the average with? >> and we will now. Asked for the person the petitioners presentation. >> I love my name is Kate. So that you Ve I'm the petitioners representative. The staff report of these cases are very thorough and appreciate the time and diligence spent on them. Both cases me, all the approval criteria, including the location criteria for both town center and B, 3. It is true that the bill to about her landscaping would be required for the West and north boundary. Lot lines touching any are 5 zoning, which is a minimum average planting 15 feet, which includes 2 trees and 6 shrubs, evenly distributed, every 20 linear feet. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> Any questions. Commissioner Thank you to the chairman. appreciate your quick presentation. If you've had a chance to take a look at the laid on the table, comments from an errand curious about what your FOX are about them. If you have any responses and then I that. Interested the department's response is as well. So you first. >> I definitely. >> So. >> The >> the commenter sites chapter 7 of tactile. 21 believe the believe they meant to cite Chapter 8 as MC 7, 0, 3, 0 regards private open space. It does not have a subsection e of course and see 21 0, 8, 0, 3, 0, E also does not have a subsection 3 so they could be referring to an older version of code. Regardless Chapter 8 regulates subdivision standards, not zoning standards. If in the future. The petitioner wished to combine these 2. Look lots into one larger lot through the planning process. In that case, the new law would be required in the chapter 8 subdivisions standards. see him. Regarding traffic. The commenter states that this property should be not be rezoned due to high traffic volumes of the hour in the area. >> However, the existence of heavy traffic in the area is a location criteria for both town Center Land use designation and the be 3 zoning district supports the proposed changes. And item number 3. They even though previously they said it stated this is heavy traffic area. They say that minimal traffic area. And this would increase the traffic in the area. Some not sure about that one for the late pollution. >> I do agree that light pollution is a problem in the municipality, including residential areas. >> I don't believe it's. The problem just in commercial areas. I also believe that their pictures they've given are a bit misleading as the one pictures from the C D. South East corner of the undeveloped lot. 21. Therefore, there would be no lights. Any other questions. >> I see no further questions. You have 19 minutes and 20 seconds for >> Thank you. I will remain this rebuttal. >> Okay. We will open this. Up to the public any from public wishing to testify. Please step forward. All the way State. Your names first turn icon. You can find the button. And then state your name for the record and let us know if you are testifying on behalf of yourself or groups. >> Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Aaron And then resident in the area of this proposed rezoning. I apologize, say incorrectly reference the code. I own a lot strictly behind this subdivision principle. I oppose of this this rezoning general business like commissioner said, this is a very heavy residential area. It was a residential long before all these stores got put in this neighborhood. I have 4 arguments tonight. The want first argument is lot 20 does not meet building, the municipal code and what you need. 110 feet from Abbott Road to a to a driveway to a commercial building. The law is only 60 feet I don't understand how this could possibly work. Both lots combined. Is only 120 feet. So even then wouldn't even work for moderate business. Abbott Road is a major, my point to. Every road is a major collector with heavy traffic ending a commercial drive le less than 110 feet clearance from Everett Road creates unsafe egress increases congestion introduces through of fair traffic through Elm Street, which was my point. That wasn't very clear in my letter, I apologize. And throughs through traffic. Now along Elm Street was something that wasn't there or is very rarely there. Now. Driveway access is to if you re zone lot. 22 be 3 violates the code which prohibits access points from compromising traffic flow and safety. And if you wonder if that would be the case, go one street west at toll often and it where that business access is only 40 feet from Abbott. So when one somebody wants to take a turn into that parking lot that back up to traffic on Abbott, there's literally no room for the traffic to pull or pull out. Mike. He picked 0.3 It says that this isn't neighborhood. Do not agree that it's. Business and I don't understand why the planning commission is saying or that these planning people are saying that it's should be developed for more business. I don't understand that. It's a very quiet residential corridor. And changing it to be 3 just increases the traffic that and erodes the neighborhood integrity and sets and dangerous precedent of changing residential lot to a commercial lot in a neighborhood. We just heard about rezoning these other lots where you increase the housing. We have a housing shortage. So again, why would you change to residential lot to a commercial lot in an already overwhelming busy street. My 4th is still light pollution and I appreciate the Punisher recommend recognizing that light pollution in Anchorage is horrible and it should be. Something that is considered. And not that your particular petition should should rectify the situation, but certainly should be considered. In closing because this rezoning cannot comply with municipal code without a variance. And those variances would compromise the safety in the neighborhood integrity. I urge you to deny the request. Before decide. Consider this. Imagine if your neighbor built a 2 story building and massive flood light. Would you like that? This is a quiet street. Elm Street is a quiet street. Kids play. It's dark. It's. Just a very nice street in middle of Anchorage, A nice residential area and adding and business. To turn that. If you do consider rezoning this despite the code violations, I encourage you that lot. 20 cannot have access. To Elm Street because there's not enough room between Abbott and the law property line. I also encourage you to restricted to a single building sense is a residential area. And please provide requirements that it's low-level lighting sense, not just trees, wouldn't it? improved the neighborhoods. Character. But this commercial buildings, you still have these people that put up massive lights and they're on 24 7 and they're on very tall poles. So if you do consider rezoning this, please require low level exterior lighting. And I thank you for your time and you guys do a fantastic job in Inc. Usually pretty thankless. So thank you. Thank you. there any questions? Commissioner Polis? I've watched road for a long time. And what I see is commercial developing along at it as it's kind of supposed to I believe a buffer in there is good. >> But like I stated the planning, I don't think the whole neighborhood needs to be wiped out and turn to be 3. Do you see the same trend as you've been there? How long you been there? >> Lives in this area. All my life. Yeah. >> Do you see the same trend kind of more business development along Abbott? I know the road to the north is like the tire changing places. I mean, they're pretty much all commercial along that road. And that's pretty much what I picture happening along Abbott as it gets, you know, turn. And if that he's though goes and stuff like that. I think that's the intent of the overall plan is for that to happen. So. >> I highly recommend that that does not happen because the traffic on Abbott, it's already difficult. So if you keep adding businesses on that little strip, that's right. Along Abbott Road, you actually create worst congestion. So I would encourage Nomar commercial buildings on at it. Well, it seems. And there's only like >> 3 residential, lots left against at 2 in that area that the rest of its turn commercial already, right? Except for right in your little spot. >> That's true. That is correct. It's a tough spot get it >> It didn't used to being. But again, it doesn't fit the I don't see how you can make it a commercial lot money. It doesn't need to access code from. We kind of just got these I didn't get to pick apart your case, but at basically the residential lot sitting right next have. And that's why I think they're not being developed. You know, they're low density residential lots. Nobody wants to invest in that. So. >> The intent here, I think, is just to change the zoning see what happens. Nothing will happen right away. They still have to make just like you said they would have to combine lots and put a subdivision in place. And that would be also reviewed for these types of things you're talking about that. >> I see no further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward. >> If not, we will make shared back for rebuttal us. >> Hello again. It's Kate. So the sku the E. >> Regards to the driveways. Again, that's a subdivision standard. Both of these lots are already have driveways. >> So no additional driveways would be needed unless there was a site plan that happened. The locks got combined. need to be looked at. But they are currently, they currently have driveways. I'd like to reiterate that both these cases meet all the location criteria for a town center and B 3, including a area with heavy traffic. >> And next, other businesses also lot 20 already operates as a business is a residential office Zoning. This will not change. It be 3 also allows residential in the zone along with commercials uses. If there are no other questions. I think that it. >> Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Christian? >> Could you speak a little bit more about light pollution and if there are any criteria, our findings that you be open to to minimize any future, higher levels of lighting on adjacent residential. Lots. >> Light pollution is an issue in I think the main issue for businesses is they want lights too. >> Cut down on. >> Anyone. >> Parking in their lots overnight. Breaking into their buildings. It's not really something that is covered by code code does stipulate for subdivisions and streets like where light poles are going to be. It would be up to the individual business or resident to put lights on the side of building with her house encroach planning could our building code could look into restricting most. But that's not something zoning could do. Does that answer your question? >> And the further questions. Before closing the public hearing. Seeing none close the public hearing. Is the will of the Commissioner Post. Would you like to state your motion? >> I'm moving case 2026 tests. There's there's there's 6 recommended the Anchorage Assembly approval of the comprehensive Plan Amendment. To change land use designation of a parcel of land from compacts mix, residential, medium to town center with the caveat that we strike the last sentence of the department recommendation in the packet. Is stated and seconded by Commissioner Krishna. >> Commissioner Post, would you like to speak your motion? Yeah, I agree with the approval criteria is met as noted in the staff packet with a note that his nose not been approved yet. I agree with the department recommendation with strike of the lessons considering we're trying not to decrease residential opportunities in the in the municipality commercial long at it seems appropriate, but not the whole neighborhood. There was no agency opposition, but there was to public comments in opposition. The last meeting we had there was a guy that live didn't make it back. This meeting that looks like. >> Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. Hearing none. mall call for the vote. >> That motion passes. Next. We will be looking for motion in case 2026 or 0, 0, 7, Commissioner Gardner, would you like State your motion? Shareall moving case? 26 0, 0, 0, 7, to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the rezone of 2 parcels of land for our 5. >> Hand with special invitations to the 3 General business district. >> That is seconded by Commissioner Police Commissioner Gardner. Would you like to speak your motion? Yes, I kind of support the motion. I think that the criteria is laid out and the staff packet just want it emphasize a couple of them. First with the changes to the with the comprehensive plan amendment a related case. The 3 is an implementing district for the new land use classification. And I also wanted to know and criteria. I think the rezone will help expand opportunities in the area. It's been taken for 15 years as particular lot has. And I think its proximity to. Abbott is a reason likely for that as well as criteria. 7 just to know the buffer landscaping that will be provided along the Western northern property lines where borders residential zoning districts and that future development property will need to couple used design and development standards to help as well as potential impacts on neighboring properties. >> Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. Commissioner Thank you to the would like to acknowledge the public testimony her tonight. The reasoning for the arguments. >> Well noted appreciates from my commission's perspective coming forward with some potential solutions as there are phrased the sense of conditions, just a reminder to ourselves and public unfortunate this commission not foresee. But this commission did that take the action of limiting our ability to create. Special invitations actions to create parity for development across Anchorage. while I can personally agree with some of the requests that were it's not within our purview to yield to do so in this light with that, I do intend to support the motion. Thanks. But one more thing I'd recommend that the public stay engaged. If there's development for the property will be other opportunities to major concerns heard addressed. I'll just add that. Both of these are recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly and >> they will have a public hearing and make the final call. We'll call for the vote. That motion passes. Next up is case 2026. Test. 0, 0, 1, 2, May we please have this? Death presentation? Thank you. Chair Spinelli case 2026. 0, 0, 1, 2, before tonight is an ordinance to update the setback requirements and table. 21 0, 6 Dash one. >> And table. 21 10 dash 6. For the are 6 and C E R 6 zoning districts. The increase low density residential, one acre and she get key river, low density residential zoning districts. The proposed amendments would maintain set back. Distances in the are 6 and C E R 6 districts that would no longer be an outlier and would be comparable to other rule out playing and low density zoning districts such as rate CR 8. Our 9 and CEO, 9 zoning districts. They are 6 epic requirements. Also affect. Lots and other zoning districts. If a lot does not meet minimum lot size requirements and ends up falling are 6 setback requirements 21 13, 0, 5, one nonconforming. Lots. They therefore have to meet the stricter requirements. There are currently 728 are 9 and CR 9. Lots that fall into that category. Just a geek out a little bit there. 8700 are 6, lots in the municipality Anchorage. Our 720. 7.20 are 9 months that meet that requirement. Total. With 100 and 1294 vacant are 6, lots in 69, our 9, lots and meet that criteria. This amendment would reduce the front setback from 50 feet to 25 feet in Anchorage. Our 6th, the pumps it back and she get your river. Cr 6 is already a 25 foot front setback. Reduce the rear setback from 50 feet to 25 feet in Anchorage and should get river reduce the site. Setback from 25 feet to 15 feet in Anchorage and should getting a river that is comparable to our aid and our 9 zoning districts percent backs planning staff sent a copy of the amendment. All community councils that you're taking a river advisory board and that you get Birchwood Eagle River, Rural Roads, Service area Board of Supervisors planning staff attended 7 community council meetings in Anchorage. That would be the Bayshore Klatt Bear Valley. Glen Alps hillside Huffman O'Malley, Rabbit Creek and Stanley Community Councils as well as the home and landowners organization, also known as Halo Staff also attended for community councils in Eagle River. Chugiak. Those are the birchwood she get Eagle River Valley and South Florida community councils presentations of the proposal to reduce setbacks and are 6 and C E R 6 districts. We're generally generally well received. Reddit Creek Community Council expressed concerns specifically regarding front setbacks and visibility of structures from the right away. Staff also presented the proposed amendments to the Federation of Community Councils during their meeting in September of 2025. State and municipal reviewing agencies had no objections to the ordinance. Your final comments and attachment to of your staff packet. The Planning Department received to public comments after the report was written their agenda item G 3 supplementary packet. Number one. The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a title. 21 text amendment if in the judgment of the commission, all 3 criteria have been met in all material matters. Planning staff is found in all 3 approval criteria for a title. 21 tax amendment have been met criteria the following one. The proposed amendment will promote public health safety and general welfare to the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the state purpose of this title. And 3, the proposed amendment is necessary or desirable because of changing conditions. New planning, concepts or other social or economic conditions. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the title. 21 tax amendment. I can answer questions that the commissions commissioner members may have. Commissioner Gardner. Thank 2 quick questions effect. Could the first I think it's just to confirm, you know, to Rabbit Creek Community Council expressed. >> Some concerns. I take it. That was just a summary of kind of verbal conversation from the meeting and not written submission tendency through the chair Commissioner Garner. That is correct. So we took meeting minute notes. They were very first committee counsel. met with. They all zoom one they don't do in person. They did. They brought up some concerns that they were. They were concerned that 25 feet from the front setback. You'd be able to see structures. Moore. With less vegetation. We explain that. That's that would just make it the minimum. That is when you have to put your structure that close. It was interesting. Also that the month before that they had provided Zoning Board of Examiners Appeals with the a resolution to approve a gentleman putting a detached garage within within. 25 feet of his front at 25 feet from the property line. So so I asked him about that. One is likely just provided a resolution in favor of someone doing it. So it's like it was it was very interesting conversations put it that way. Thank you. And try make the terrace at follow-up question. And maybe kind of related to that, I guess. Can you give just a little more context for? >> What prompted this and kind of background leading to this proposed changes that driven by that type of experience. And you know about that, the number of dementia variances that are coming through in this regard is it just broader effort to just synchronized to some degree the setbacks or what? What was the trigger? >> Thank you through the chair commissioner garnered there are multiple factors. First of all, they are 6 zoning. District is noted is 53 years old. So its almost as old as me battled. So it's it's been around for a long time. It was original large lot. So you could go a current a court. It started an acre quarter, 2 and a half, 3, 3, quarters. You could do one unit on an acre to quarter 2 units. And it just kept going just keep adding an acre and a quarter. And so it's kind of a carryover, as you can see to get river in 2014 when did that has 21 update. They the kind of saw the writing on the lawn. So they asked for the 25 foot front setback and got it. And so that's part of it. You also. As noted, there's a lot of our 9 lots that don't currently meet. We are 9, 2, acre size or with so they default to a more stringent more. Setback regulation. And yes, a lot of variances we've had probably more variances and they are 6 zoning district and the CR 6, district in most zoning districts because of that typical R 6 E R 6. Lots are steep. Might have wetlands might have streams might have other impacts to the site. And yes, they can typically get a variance. But we find that most people will come in with their plans. They want to. So by remodel or do something and their sheds and their setback in its more than 200 square feet or other structures in the setback. And now they have to go through the variance process. It's not super expensive. It's $710, but it's 4 months of their life. And if they coming in May, they're not getting their variants until September October with the resolution. And so now they've just wasted the whole construction season. And so guests weeks, we've seen that. So we're trying to that is one of the reasons we're trying to reduce those setbacks to be more in line with rate in the are 9 so that there's consistency across all the board. So when people come in build new order remodels, they know what they're coming in for. >> Any other questions for staff. Seeing none. We will open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to testify and case 2026 Dash, 0, 0, 1, 2, Going once going twice. Public hearing is closed. Staff assuming you have no rebuttal. I just wanted to mention that the one comment from. Lynda Carter. Yes, I I had a pretty decent conversation. A couple different conversations over the phone with her couple weeks ago and and we went through most of the stuff. But that was the only one that she was the actually called court 7 inning and in the comments and I'm grateful to check. She did cause I wish more people would actually comment. That the commission started. The Community Council's worst going to send in resolutions when we did our our initial presentations. This was not an we're just going out to get a feel for what the community council's felt like was reasonable acceptable and has kind of president of the Community Council's provided any comments because they were all talking about it. If we wanted one, they'd send us one, but they didn't do it. They didn't do that. I think we also need to note that there are some instances where this was posted as case 2025. And and it's actually 2026 dashed or 0, 2, Anyone was confused by that. Now on the record. Public hearing is closed now closed and the is there. What's the will of body? >> Commissioner Ron? Would you like take a motion? I move in case 2026 Dash, 0, 0, 1, 2, to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly. Approval of the Text Amendment to Anchorage Municipal Code title. 21. >> Table. 21.0 6 Dash one and 21.1 0 dash 6 to reduce the setbacks for the are 6 and C E R 6 zoning districts. Thank you. That seconded by Commissioner commissioner. Around. Would you like to speak your motion? The text Amendment meets a pro criterion. Mc 21.0 2, 1, 0, And the plane department did not receive any agency comments in opposition. As we heard tonight, there are 2 public comments written comments received. One and support one in opposition which was spoken to by the department. I intend to support the motion. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. Hearing seeing none. We'll call for the vote. That motion passes. Next up, we have case 2026 Dash, 0, 0, 1, 3, May we please have the staff presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Case 2026, 0, 0, 1, 3 includes updates to the following chapters of the municipalities Design criteria manual. I'll refer to that as the moving forward. Chapter 3 landscaping, chapter 7 public Transportation and Chapter 8 plans, specifications. The Project Management Management and Engineering Division is updating those chapters to implement strategies for the safe system approach and the movement place framework, update graphics and cold references and shift towards the consistent organizational planning management. Excuse me, Project Management Engineering drafted chapters 3, 7, 8, which were made available to the public and then further edited by staff during the public involvement process. The Planning Department review the draft chapters for conflicts with title 21 and recommended couple of title. 21 changes that have been adapted into chapter 3. Additional edits were further identified by Project Management Engineering and are also incorporated into chapter 3. No additional edits were identified for Chapter 7, 8, And as such these chapters are available in the staff report packet as they were originally provided by the Planning Department. And the staff packet. You'll find the original version of Chapter 3 along with Chapter 7, 8, that is included in attachment one attachment to start on Page 216 of the packet includes a summary table of the check of the changes to chapter 3. The changes are van visible on in attachment 3 starting on page 2.21 In the clean version of draft chapter 3 with the proposed and it's fully incorporated is available and attachment 4 starting on page 265. The planning Department makes the following recommendations that first proposed at its for Trap draft chapter 3 B incorporated and submitted to the assembly along with the original chapter 7, 8, And second, if the Assembly approves the sunset of the Urban Design Commission before this item is heard that references to the Urban Design Commission are removed and replaced with the updated relevant title. 21 sections I am available for questions. Thank >> Any questions for staff? Hearing seeing none. We will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to testify on this case. Please step forward. were going back up. Would the petitioners representative? Like to? Present as petitioner? Yes, thank you all. Try to keep this brief here. Good evening. My name is Brandon. Tougher time. The engineering managers, a project management engineering department. >> One of my duties as the engineering managers keeping money design criteria and specifications updated in 2024, we completed an update of our specifications. And since then, we've moved on to updating our design criteria with the exception of Chapter 2 and storm water, which is updated in 2017 for filler requirement of ours stormwater permit with the Department of Vinyl conservation. The last time the Florida secretary manuals updated was in 2007. money is focused on delivering road and drainage projects for the municipality in the design criteria manual primarily providing guidance and great here for road and drainage design. Although some criteria is specific to parks and trails in the storm or Shepard because regulatory requirements for development on private properties for the most part, the dcms how pm Monday communicates to our staff and consultants. The expectations for road in our drainage project. Design. It does this by a deputy nationally recognized industry standard guidance and regulation to the topography, geology and climate of Anchorage, the DC him as a whole was adopted by the Assembly's regulation 2014, the resolution adopting the dcms regulation outlined the process PM any would be required to follow for future amendments. The Dcm, which includes submitting amendments to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review before submitting the amendments to the Assembly for approval. The chapters we are bringing forward this evening include Chapter 3, a landscape chapter 7 of public Transportation in Chapter plans and specifications. We started the updates for each of these chapter separately under separate timelines. But we were able to land the delivery of the chapters to allow proceed to the approval process together, we tailored the stakeholder involvement efforts for chapter to capture an inappropriate sample of the pack to stakeholders. Chapter 8 is focused on how to develop plans and specifications for PV projects. So the primary stakeholders are staff and our consultants chapter 7 is focused on designing transit infrastructure. So such as locating transit stops, providing side shelters lighting another transit stop amenities, stakeholders for this chapter included planners from the public Transportation Department transit operator staff from the NY Traffic Engineering Department and maintenance Public moisture eat Meat, Inc and Dot street minutes. Chapter 3 is focused on the design of landscaper, street sites in parks, the stakeholder involvement for this chapter included the widest range of disciplines, including let's keep architects landscape. Contractors planners and parks recreation Emily Quarter quarter culture. Emily Street means in a state forester. We publish traps of the chapters for 45 day public comment period during which we presented to the Assembly Transportation Committee, the Federation community Councils in the Urban Design Commission to slip solicit feedback on the draft. On the dress from the public received comments from several community members. Members of the Urban Design Commission and engineering consulting firm in from Emily staff. Those comments and responses to comments are included in tables in the packet. In some cases chapters revised pace of the comments received chapters with those revisions or what have been presented for review here. After the public comment period closed, we had an additional stakeholder reach out on the landscape chapter that we had not previously coordinate with Think Ridge Downtown partnership. We had several discussions with the Anchorage downtown partnership, including one discussion that occurred after the public hearing. Drafters provide to planning discussions with Anchorage downtown partnership. Prop prompted some additional review by the project team sent around the guidance provided and the various downtown district plans. They're viewed led to a few additional changes that were referenced in the staff presentation and are included in your packet. I've also following up on the question we had. From chair I've reviewed the section on design. Variances was able to locate this policy and procedure that that section references. And I believe references sort of out of date, the policy and procedures specific too developments. Well, private development reviews. Bush no longer fall under PA money. And so I would propose in addition to the other changes Proposed removing the last sentence on the last bullet on 3.1 C worst as state's appeal of decisions regarding variances chef. All the procedures. Details on municipality of Anchorage website and policy procedures. Number 10, consenting and appealing decisions because I think its not applicable given the content of the few P. Was that your recommendation was to delete the sentence and appeals altogether. >> Is that yes, yes. So there is no appeal can follow up. Dave and I had some discussions. We believe the appeal to miss it. This near decision is probably through the court system. >> Personally, I would probably work my way up. The administration first that. Just my comment. >> Already is that O has there any questions that you have? You concluded the that the conclusion apron states, yes, okay. Is there any questions for the petitioner? Commissioner on? Thank you to the chair. I'm interested learning more about the corporation, the movement and place framework. It's a fairly new concept to me. So anything you can share about it you think would be beneficial come commission with respect to how it's infuse throughout the temperatures looking at would be great. I do have a more specific question on Page 2. Our Seth packets page, 7 of Case G 4 at the bottom. There's a paragraph that talks about the movement in place framework and there's a sentence that caught my attention it's talking about roads that are high place and loan movement should have slower speeds. Ok, that makes sense to me. We're talking about a road that is oriented towards a place. More so sufficient movement through it. And it's a little bit directive saying that these types of roads should have these types of slower speeds. The next sentence, I'm wondering if you could help me better understand it says roads that are high movement and Lopes So the officer converse what we were just talking about, such as limited access motorways. This is the phrase that I mentioned may prohibit pedestrians. Is that language intended to be permissive like we're looking to. Pretty. But in fact, pedestrians on these types of roads or is more like conditional like there's the potential for putting pedestrians words matter. I'm curious, a pop that one. Thanks. I guess of the question was a part of the staff packet. Is that within the chapter itself? Pne Design Criteria Manual starts on Page 5 staff packet. Looks like a title page. And then well, looks like it's stamped as page 2. Looks like an interest section to the to the manual to get it. That's the memo we provided. the package and maybe rather than splitting hairs on the exact language. I think you get the sense of my questioning. Just curious about, you know, the approach and strategy around pedestrian movement in this context, Anderson, yet so in some within the movement and priests place framework, yes, it appropriate to forget it. Pedestrians. That's would be access controlled interstate. Essentially. So. There are provisions that do, in fact, limit or restrict pedestrians on access controlled interstates. Was provided in the memo was real. General. It wasn't specific to kind of our context and kind of our intentions. It was just it's a. Material that came from. Kind of the framing, the framers of that concept. And so we anticipate as part of the chapter. One update when we get into the streets chapter to really refine that down to what what it's going to mean for Anchorage. Thanks for that. I look forward to seeing Chapter one update. And I guess I would question our their access controlled interstates in the municipality. If not, then. Should that be the basis that presenting construct that could misconstrued or contrary to a strategy of keeping pedestrians safe and Yeah, and believe that there are, but they're all of a dot. So it's not particularly relevant to the Emily. Any further questions. You do have 4 minutes and 5 minutes. For rebuttal. Are you going do the public? Yeah, open here. And now as the owners are that U.S. any from anyone from the public wishing testify and case 2026 Dash, 0, 0, 1, 3, please step forward. >> Carrying seeing nobody. We will. Invite you back for your rebuttal. Yeah. You can weigh your rebuttal. Okay. Vital has been waived. >> I'm going to close the public hearing. >> We Jill. We still have time to asked staff. The petitioner staff. >> Questions if need be or we move forward on this case. What is the will of body? Commissioner polls? >> I guess to staff. >> Is there any issues with deleting the lessons of the last bullet on Page 2.72, 3.1 C. Pitch to 72 in the packet. They were told us. >> final chapter. >> Threw the chair. There wouldn't be any ramifications for deleting last time. We would just recommend it be removed prior to moving the packet to the assembly. Commissioner. Plus, would you like to state your motion? >> I'm moving case. 2026 testers are 1, 3, to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly. Approval of the Dcm updates chapters 3 landscape, 7 public transportation in 8 plans and specifications. Subject to conditions wanted shown on Page 2, the staff report with the change to 3.1 See design variances to remove the last sentence. The last bullet on pace to 72 to strike appeal decisions regarding variances to follow the procedures detailed in this pile of Anchorage website. Np Np number 10 contest in appealing decisions. >> That is seconded by commissioner about the commissioner. Polis. Would you like to speak to your motion? >> Well, there's always room for improvement. As we noted, we got some textiles and some tables, Constance cleanup as a civil engineer will be impacted by updates. They seem reasonable step in the right direction for all 3 chapters. There's no known agency of public opposition. Just some comments about edits that municipal staff responded to an implemented when needed. And as we do, we move the last bullet on Page 2.72 >> Commissioner Christian. >> You know, I think we see a lot of plans up here. And I think some of listen more warmth to feeling from us than others. But for this being technical update and the technical manual. I actually think it does a remarkably good job of. Outlining in a very clear way. Our priorities as a community and the things that we value so I just want to say that I personally found this to be a lot more. Of a fulfilling process, both to read this and to participate in it. And I'm pretty proud to support it. >> Thank you. Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. Intend to support as well. I just wanted know briefly as outlined kind of in the materials and presented to us earlier today that really? For a variety of representatives and stakeholders that, you know, provided input to this process who came at it from different angles. And was apparent throughout that input was considered and accounted for and implemented into these updates. >> Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion commissioner on. Thank you all echo the comments from previous commissioner's around the work that was done by the project team. The stakeholders involved are either exhausted and too tired to continue comment or had their comments addressed and incorporated. So so nice were team and also for the record like to acknowledge the importance of purges ation of modes. And in Chapter 7, it's very clear that public transit buses are Purdy. Some thank you for that. And 10 sparked motion. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion. None will call for the vote. That motion passes. Right there. Any reports? just briefly, I did attend Mats. Citizens Advisory Council committee meeting my first last week. couple of brief updates. There are 4 items on the agenda. 3 of currently open for public comment. The first is amendment number 2 to the 2050, Metropolitan Transportation A couple of changes in this amendment. One is a new project description for the Seward Highway amount to Diamond project. And then addition of 2 new projects, one for a tell your life and safety and then Potter Valley. Also life and safety project. If you're interested, that plan is available for public review and comment. The second is 2023 2026 funding program for the Transportation Improvement program. With a tip. Also been for public comments. One change there is that the Downtown Transit Center project has been added to enable mats as a funding source for the Downtown Transit Center project. 20's. 27 to 2030, tip. So out 3 years we're going to have a special meeting. CAC is to formulate some comments on potential changes there. The 4th and final item, discusses that and that meeting safer sort highway. Ramos s was an agenda item. It's a DOT lead project. This commission heard about it recently that is out for public comment. It's been extended to the end of February. I think public meetings are now concluded the CAC is going to formulate some comments on that. I meant abstaining from any formal vote or the development of comments. I understand this commission will likely hear. That project at its next stage. icac updates. Let me know if you have questions. Happy to talk about it. More to me. Thank you. Any title. 21 discussion or any. >> Commissioner comments. If entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner of that would you like to state your motion? No. Thank you. I think we have a motion to adjourn second by commissioner. Let's you know, any objections hearing and we are adjourned. ♪