this meeting to order can we have the roll call please Andre Spinelli here Jared Gardner here Rica Krishna here Jim Winchester here Scott pulis here Jeff Ron here Brandy Eber here Daniel George here Greg strike here you have a quorum thank you is there a motion to approve the minutes from Monday December 11th that is moved by commissioner pus seconded by commissioner Winchester are there any corrections or objections to the minutes hearing none minutes are approved moving on any disclosure no disclosures this evening that brings us to the regular agenda um case 20 24-4 can we please have the staff presentation yes thank you Mr chair the Planning and Zoning commission has requested to review and forward to the assembly its recommendation regarding the annual update to the Anchorage School District six-year Capital Improvement plan after the Planning and Zoning commission receives and discusses the six-year plan its recommendations will be forwarded to the assembly for consideration and approval uh the purpose of the Planning and Zoning commission annual review of the capital Improvement budget is primarily to evaluate the proposed ASD CIP and its projects for consistency with the overall direction of for public infrastructure and Urban Development called for in the comprehensive plan the Acres 240 land use plan identifies schools as a key component of the community and States these institutions and facilities are integrated with the neighborhoods and provide a community service or Focus for the area or wider Community public institutions and Facilities help Define their Community because of their permanence Civic design and public service function the following policies support this process and may be used when considering uh these materials before you those would be 20 240 land use policies 5.1 and 5.5 the planning department has reviewed the six-year uh CIP we do recommend approval uh of it uh a favorable recommendation to the Anchorage assembly uh we did provide a draft resolution for the commission's consideration this evening that has some suggested findings that's included an attachment three um and just given the school uh budgeting process uh they are requesting that the commission take action on the resolution at its next scheduled meeting of January 29th so that they can forward it on to the school board and assembly in a timely manner and I believe the petitioner was here for a work session prior um but I believe they have departed so thank you that is all are there any questions for staff hearing and seeing no questions what is the will of the body move by commissioner Ron second am commissioner pus commissioner Ron would you like to speak to your motion I move in case 2024-the believe approval of the proposed Anchorage School District's six-year Capital Improvement plan 2024 through 2030 anyone else wishing to speak to the motion commissioner Gardner would you like to add some findings I was just going to note that I agree with the findings included in the staff packet um on page three findings one two and three commissioner George would you like to speak to the motion thank you very much appreciate the recognition Mr chair um I just want to reiterate for the public record that we did have representatives from the Anchorage School District here to do a work session for nearly an hour uh just before forther anyone who wants to review the record of this meeting um I appreciate them taking the time answer our questions be on the hot seat about these things um I just you know out of deference to our presenter who spent a lot of time with us who wasn't able to be here right now I'm not going to ask questions or anything because I think they did a good job answering you know what was on our mind but I just want to draw attention to the table on page 39 of our packet that is the historical and projected enrollment for the district and that was really the Crux of much of my comments during the work session um and you'll see that it is projected to decline in in that document um and that uh there seems to be some concern about um when we will see an austerity plan of some kind with regards to footprint and I think that was just some of the discussion that we had earlier in the work session that I wanted to note that was had for the record thank you all right I see no further comments we will call for the vote Mr strike how do you vote no Miss Eber how do you vote no thank you that motion passes 7-2 okay we will move on to the public hearings and I will read the procedures by which the public May testify after the the staff presentation is complete on public hearing items the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the commission rules of procedure a petitioners including all his or her Representatives will receive 10 minutes part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal B representatives of groups Community councils ptas Etc 5 minutes individuals 3 minutes when your testimony is complete complete you may be asked questions by the commission you may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the commission any party of Interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the planning director within s days of the commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21035 a4a commission recommendations to the Anchorage assembly are not appealable can we have the staff presentation on case additional parking and site access cleanup amendments uh that you find in your packet for case 2024 0011 uh these are uh additional set of cleanup amendments to uh make Corrections clarifications resolve inconsistencies and avoid unintended consequences in the um recently adopted code updates for parking AO 222- ads and site access AO 20235 uh these are supplemental this is a this case is supplemental to a recent case of the planing zoning commission can saw which is case 20231 0h which identified a similar batch of cleanup amendments to the parking and set access uh regulations the commission acted uh on that earlier case in October and then the planing Department identified additional Corrections and clarifications needed to uh further Implement those two big ordinances uh once just as with the earlier batch some of the changes are technical uh some are clarifications uh some are subsi of changes to uh ensure consistency clarity or avoid unintended facts all of the amendments in this batch of cleanup amendments are corrective in nature specific to the site AIS and parking amendments uh we're talking too close to the microphone uh they do not uh revisit or intend to change the assembly's policy Direction on those uh two major ordinances so it's it's really uh intended to be a mop-up operation that uh makes the code easier to use uh avoids uh uh uh inconsistencies and other problems so uh given that this is really the second batch of cleanup amendments the attachment the ordinance that you have um shows the additional cleanup amendments highlighted in light gray so in attachment one you have an ordinance and it has a fair number of of track change language line underline language added text or deleted text in Brackets but uh much of that if not most of that is actually what the commission already uh recommended in the earlier batch of cleanup amendments it's only the um highlighted light gray um uh amendments in in uh the public hearing draft that are really the subject of the uh request for PCC review um that are this the intended subject of the public hearing and the agency uh review so the unhighlighted portions of the public hearing draft ordinance um including those underlying Parts they are unchanged from what the commission's recommendations from October were uh the commission's already acted upon them uh and so we're really focused on the highlighted stuff um and that highlighted stuff is summarized in the table on page two of your staff report in the packet the staff report memo there's a table there that gives you a brief synopsis um once the commission takes action um these um additional cleanup amendments will be sent to the assembly um and they'll be sent to the assembly at the same time as the previous batch so the previous batch is sort of waiting for these to come forward and once the commission takes action we'll quickly turn around uh get these together and uh sent to the assembly so they can be reviewed and approved at the same time and they are intended to become uh effective immediately upon adoption we think that the um the sooner we have um action and uh adoption of this uh the better for the um users of the code public comments uh we received two comments from agencies and two comments from the public um um the there were no comments actually that were regarding the actual proposed amendments the the highlight gray um proposed public hearing draft amendments um one comment by uh agency traffic engineering uh recommended a clarifying intent statement the remaining comments uh from the public um one comment from Girdwood uh and uh comments from uh cook and Housing Authority uh were uh regarding uh other aspects of the site AIS amendments that were not covered in the in the public hearing draft um the um the response and recommendations in response to the cooking Housing Authority comments are provided in attachment 4 uh which planing Department's provided today uh not in the main staff report uh the materials that the commission has before it you have the public hearing draft which contains um the um public hearing draft recommended amendments in the staff report at the end of the staff report memo you have uh essentially two recommended edits or amendments to that public hearing draft um they appear on page four of the staff report which is Page four of your packet um one one recommended amendment is a addition of intent language any other recommended amendment is to change the effective date of the ordinance to immediately upon adoption so you have that public hearing draft ordinance you have uh those two additional amendments recommended in the staff report and uh in attachment for in the issue response to the uh comments that uh seaw provided uh at the end of that memorandum there are additional edits recommended two batches of edits recommended um that are in addition to um the ones you find in the staff report uh these recommended edits are in um response to the uh cooking the housing comments uh and uh they do not change uh any of the language recommended in the public hearing draft uh and they don't change the two additional edits in the staff report so they are uh supplementary to supporting in addition to those others so essentially you have three sources of of recommended amendments here tonight um public hearing draft the staff report and the issue response memo in attachment 4 in attachment 4 um these focused on the public comments and they were all from seaw that um identified issues of concern with the adopted parking and site access amendments issues uh um provisions of concern that were not addressed in the public hearing draft cleanup amendments that you have so they were focused on um um potential problems with um seven Provisions within uh some subsections of title 21 that um are from the uh parking and side AIS amendments they include title 21 section about walkway requirements uh title 21 section adopted by the uh created by the site access Amendment ordinance called The Pedestrian fronted standards secondly and then thirdly um uh a concern regarding the um bicycle parking requirements that were adopted last year by the um parking amendments ordinance so the um attachment three provides Department's issues responses and recommendations regarding those seven issues um the planing Department attempted to uh take uh a careful review um and uh uh regrets about the length uh we uh attempted to provide a get a documentation of our our response and review as uh as practical and um uh treat each of these um uh with care because uh of the concern for uh impacts to infill housing uh what we found was approximately half of them the um several excuse me for several of them the uh we found that the existing adopted ordinances that are in title 21 um or the the public hearing draft um cleanup amendments uh address the concern from seaw as we understand it uh and uh in another item um issue number uh five having to do with pedestrian ameni requirements in the The Pedestrian Frontage standards there is a requirement to provide um two pedestrian amenities uh from a a menu of pedestrian amenities uh that applies in as adopted currently to um all multif family and non-residential uh excuse me commercial non-residential um and we in that case we found that uh there staff agreement with the uh concern by seaw and so uh you see uh one of the two sets of amendments the end of that memo uh recommends amending that provision so that it apply equally across all housing types so it's not uh throwing favor one housing type over another and that it only apply to larger development so wouldn't wouldn't apply to small infi multif family developments such as three or four plexes uh so for those I've mentioned so far that there's either agreement or the uh we found that to best of our knowledge the uh the issue has been resolved or being resolved in the public hearing draft uh several of the items uh we we did not determine that uh um that there's a a barrier to housing uh or that uh uh or that a change could be made uh item one RightWay permitting uh we did not find that we could uh exempt walkways from rideway permits just because rideway permits are essential to safety uh it's important that everything that gets built in Street rights away get a review um we can uh answer questions about that um the required curb separation and I issue number two we took a careful look at that uh but we really um believe that the existing administrative relief provides the opportunity for um uh developers to propose to staff know without extra process or fee um alternative designs such as uh suggested uh by seaw uh we found that actually the uh curb Berry requirement wasn't created or amended by the site axis amendments so it really wasn't a subject of that ordinance uh that ordinance rather uh retained it as part of prioritizing pedestrian access and facilities and really essentially trying to protect required walkways from adjacent um parking areas and vehicles uh so we believe a a change to this item really would demand more public process uh it wasn't a public process item during the the site AIS amendments uh really would need more information and consultation um before uh determining if any change should be made um item number three limit on parking facilities in front of the buildings is the one we spent the most uh time on um and uh it our understanding is the one that's most concerning um uh uh to Sia and potentially other developers and that is that the that the pedestrian frage requirements limit the uh the extent to which parking areas um are in between or in front of building so um that the um [Music] that the majority of the width of the building facade facing the street doesn't have parking in front of it the idea is that they're the par parking is encouraged to be beside or behind the buildings and uh one of the main concerns is how is this practical on a uh uh three and four Plex development on a 50ft wide Urban lot uh so we spent the most time uh responding uh to that concern and um we found that it um first of all it's probably one of the most important standards in the site AIS amendments uh is an important part of that uh from the beginning um the parking and site access amendments uh that we brought forward including the one of concern never um never were brought to the assembly intending to eliminate parking minimums right um was these were designed to um an acknowledgement that there continue there would continue to be off-site parking in most developments uh that it was providing for uh byright reductions in parking um but uh none of this is intended to assume that there wouldn't be a parking in the development and that uh we've been taking care to make sure the site access amendments that it is practical to slip driveway beside a building to behind the building even on a 50ft wide lot and we believe it's just totally practical to do that uh and so this idea that uh you're not going to provide parking but you just provide a basketball court in front that's uh never never figured into this uh uh and uh we see see it being done elsewhere and uh we believe in looking at our situation that it is practical to do that um uh we have a number of of of uh topics that we cover in there but we would like to you know emphasize the importance of of uh great Street Frontage design in our infill developments that the extent that we avoid uh a general infield development pattern where new housing means parking lots in between the buildings and the streets is absolutely uh essential and a part of of helping Anchorage to uh uh improve a lot of things uh not just the street appeal of its neighborhoods but also uh the the quality of life in the neighborhoods um the function of the street that they're fronting on whether that's providing space for snow storage uh minimizing interruptions by driveways and parking for walkways uh and providing a strong visitability uh connection between our buildings in the street uh that are improves a variety of um social factors um uh um we would also like to remind um you know any reviewer that uh these changes it is a change it's difficult but it takes place in context of other changes that have taken place in amendments to title 21 um and that's in context of the Amendments allowing byright Park reduced parking uh um reduced driveway widths including allowing by right 10ft minimum driveway widths for small multif family developments and other cost reductions for parking um other amendments that have uh sought to increase or improve our pedestrian standards um and uh very significantly that recently with the passage of the three and fourplex ordinance that the assembly has opened up many more properties throughout the bull to three and four Plex development where before on that standard size lot only a single family home or a duplex uh was previously allowed and so as a result over time they're anticipated to be um many more infill Lots that's the objective many more infill lots to be developed with three and four units than were're ever possible before uh this is throughout the r2m Zone in particular and this zone is a substantial part of the residentially zoned urban areas of the city and so there is far more opportunity for infill development now between these three changes parking site axis and three and four Lex development than existed two weeks ago and in addition to these amendments the municipalities is also we are working on the rights of way and uh making hard progress on on dealing with snow management issues parking management issues in the right way uh we uh we do believe that uh it is possible although we're not practice at it to fit parking and a three and four unit development on a on a standard size Urban lot and anchor doesn't have a lot of experience with that except for in neighborhoods with alleys but the issue of concern from uh seaha is those standard Urban Lots without alley access how do you get to the parking if it's not in front of the building uh and that's a serious challenge in fact parking a three or fourplex on a standard size Urban lot is a challenge wherever you're going to put the parking if um a development is attempting to provide a fourplex and two parking spaces per unit as typical in a development uh they're going to have a hard time doing that on a 50ft wide lot even if they put it in front of the building and if they do put it in front of the building you're going to see the majority at least the front half of that lot if not the majority of the lot being a parking lot in front of the building the building isolated from its neighbors in the street uh really for these infield developments to work uh we are going to have to see uh less parking on site uh and parking closer to what our parking utilization studies show maybe for a fourplex development uh we're seeing like uh um or threx development maybe five five Park cars a peak uh so the page uh six in the uh issue responsive memo attempts to get out what we've tried to convey about uh different possibilities for how to fit fit developments on a site three or four units um still make the parking work uh we've taken a look at several types of configuration whether you had two duplexes on the lot with a parking in the middle to meet between with side side driveway slipping by the building or uh a house in the front maybe it has an Adu maybe it doesn't but a house in the front uh two units in the back uh townhouse style and we're we're looking at all the factors snow storage walkways uh parking engineering space needs uh as well as a typical dwelling unit size you know you people aren't going to T typically they develop a a townhouse unit uh not less than 20 ft wide Etc uh so we're looking at parking in the middle between the buildings uh we're Park looking at figurations behind the buildings um for uh few developments you could do tuck under parking that's expensive but that's where you could fit a fourplex maybe even a fourplex with an Adu and it the size a lot uh there's no question it's tight it's difficult uh as we looked at it it looks like it's possible and uh we don't have much experience with it it is a big change uh we uh we put in a grace period of six months uh since the adoption of The Pedestrian FR of standards and that's after all the public process that I mentioned in in response to the question the commissioner and the assembly adopted uh we don't believe that that grace period really worked uh uh it's clear to us that the development Community has not out an opportunity to uh its attention wasn't captured by that standard um unlike maybe some of these other standards it affects the overall site configuration of a development so if a developer is uh unknowingly develop developing uh uh uh a a site plan for permit review in 2024 building season they're preparing to bring that to the um municipality for approval you know it's one thing if if they're they're missing a pedestrian amenity or some item that doesn't take a lot of space it's another thing entirely if their stire site configuration is is a parking in the front and they they haven't realized that the standard of concern in item three is there uh we don't believe that the grace period worked is attended uh and that it's really uh nobody's fault it's the situation uh we do recommend that uh for the 2024 building season through 2024 that uh an exemption that already exists for duplexes an exception from this for duplexes that allows most of the building to have parking in front of it that that there be the second batch of amendments at the end of this memo uh expand that uh exemption exception excuse me uh to uh 3 and for plexes so that they may have uh the same benefit we recommend uh that that this standard uh uh be uh put in full effect in uh 2025 and we believe it's possible and can be shown to be done and that's extremely important uh part of the parking and S AIS amendments and uh that uh that it it's uh uh it's important and fair to provide this extra grace period for 2024 but it's also extremely important that this standard uh remain in effect and uh 2024 gives us time to you know if there is issues with it to uh course correct but uh at this point in the cleanup amendments we recommended not not reversing course on that item but to rather give the development community and applying Department more time uh and to give them the 2024 building season on that item um and uh we uh uh uh uh uh we U uh respect the concern and uh attempted to to take as best uh careful look at it as possible uh but believe we believe this is doable and acknowledge that is a big change thank you Mr chair questions for staff commissioner Krishna thank you I'll I'll kick things off and my hope is that we can maybe just move down the list of substantial changes um and try to work through them um first one just clarifying it looks like the uh in regards the covered visible residential entrances that the change proposed is that uh Sea's comments be accepted which is that um between one to half of the um primary entrances be uh visible from a street um that's correct right so the department that's correct okay the department concurs with that one all right I'll uh let someone else ask the next question I guess I'll jump in since I see nobody I'm curious on these pictures you did make mention that you had taken snow storage into consideration I'm looking at these pictures on page 8 and and seven as well and I see a lot of driveway to be plowed with not a lot of places for the snow to go and I was just curious if any of these driveways down the side of the building like that's a lot of extra snow and I'm just curious how you you did mention that it's possible and you had considered snow storage can you explain how you would deal with the snow in a situation like the lower picture on eight yeah and and you know these pictures are intended to kind of evoke the idea of different options for how to develop and I think for for them the most useful thing for Anchorage is to see that there's a driveway slipping by and uh we checked with a a local residential site designer and rechecked our our code and uh it it is um practical in Anchorage to have your 10t two-way Drive driveways slip by that building counting for you know the curbs and and whatnot um accounting for the sidey guard setback on the other side and uh to to slip that by the building and and that makes a lot of things possible what we found was that uh on some of these sites that that are pictured uh it would be difficult to provide snow storage and so for us what we looked at was uh you know just patterning it out um how would you deal with snow storage how would you deal with our our walkway requirements which in some way are less than the ones pictured but um they're their own thing private open space requirements of course are typical setbacks front rear side um and uh how does it fit uh what we find is you know what what I found in in our cursory look um is that it it's it's uh rather challenging to fit more than three units on a lot and get um you know four more than four parking spaces on the lot and provide for the snow storage and other items uh you can do it um and there's space um when there are four units um what we found is you have to go to Stacked units so in some of these cases you see rather large units like the one um okay the one you you you noted the bottom picture you have two little homes cute little homes in the front then the parking excuse me the driveway is slipping beside them or in between them excuse me to a back area back in the back of that lot is a three more units three more addesses three more units in that building and there there really isn't any room for parking um and the buildings are rather large back there they the units in front are cute and small but the ones in back is uh rather large uh and the upper photo upper left also rather large a townhouse I think three townhouse buildings um and so so in in those cases uh in Alaska you would need to find space in the rear to to provide for uh snow storage in that case which is what we attempted to do thank you I'm going to go ahead and summarize and say that there is no snow storage on these and so they probably wouldn't work here uh next question from commissioner George thank you Mr chair um I found myself uh already composing questions and um things that I want to delve into this with but I think that I should probably wait for most of that until after we've had the public hearing if that would be appropriate um but I did want to bring up uh one or two points uh maybe for clarification um I appreciated that you highlighted the the visibility that's in the memo here of the driveway down the side of a building and um something unique to Alaska is that we have to use snow plows um often times to move this snow it's not um you know they're large trucks sometimes 89t across on some of those plows and going down the side of a building I just wonder about um I've got great operators that work at my multifamilies but I know that they carry insurance for a reason that you know if you've got a fence on one side you're up against and then if the building is 10 ft away um and you've got a driveway you're backing down you know going forward and backing down um there's without any ball or separation I wonder if there's a safety issue there for striking a building or um also those Vehicles when they get to the back of the building have to have a turnaround radius uh the turnaround radius for a plow isn't insignificant and so um I fear that what may happen is that that driveway along the side of the building that which I imagine would have to be at least 10 ft wide is paved area on a relatively finite lot that can't be green space and that can't be parking and it can only be traveled by one vehicle at a time with a blind spot behind it um I just I wonder if we're adding an additional unnecessary risk with our environment here that's just um that would be my first point um I don't know if that's something that's already kind of been addressed by the chair's comments but um was something that was stuck in my mind uh yes in response to that you know our own checks into this uh account for providing a bit of a a barrier or space between the building and the um driveway to be plowed so you can imagine um providing um uh for that 10-ft driveway excess of a total of you know 13 ft of space for um and so um between that and the 5 foot yard set back on the other side you still have 28 ft left for the building itself which is a a fine building proportion um so there is uh space for this kind of setbacks and uh when we were looking at these configurations uh we were looking at adhering to um you know traffic engineering uh space uh layout requirements for parking areas so if uh you know any given parking area it's dead end it's only one way in one way out you're going to need turnaround space we counted for the turnaround space requirements uh that you find in in uh in uh you know in in title 21 and in our parking lots um but admittedly you cannot fit very many parking spaces on the lot that's the reality of it uh and uh to to fit more than four you're squeezing the size of the buildings uh and I'd like to to to remind the commission that on a 50ft wide lot um even putting the parking in front of the building uh you don't have space for a full parking lot with two bays on each side so you can have a single row of parking stalls you want to have one and a half stalls for every unit the fourplex you're going to have I don't know six parking stalls in a row and you're going to have 70 to 80 feet of parking lot in front of that building you're going to have a drive aisle beside it and your plow truck's going to have to turn around in that just the same way it's going to turn around in the in the uh um uh in the in the and a smaller parking lot you know that we were looking at uh so parking and snow storage is uh challenging and uh on these lots and it will be in whatever configuration uh I think the the challenge is the parking itself uh on these infill Lots that's the ultimate challenge is the parking itself uh and what it will do to the number of units and what it will do to the character of our city if we allow our development pattern to become one infi development after another parking lot in front of the building uh it's the parking itself that seems to be the worst challenge admittedly it's Tighter and more difficult when you have to slip it behind around the building no question about that but we are finding Solutions out there thank you thank you and if I can get clarification one or two other items that are textual in the uh the document Mr chair um commissioner Krishna brought up the um request regarding covered parking and and doors that face the street and I was looking at the the text in the document I think it's on page 13 um bottom of page 13 if if it's the same one that commissioner was referring to earlier um at least one primary entrance and at least one half of the individual dwelling unit primary entrances and a multi-unit development shall also be visible from a street um so we've got a primary entrance and then the unit entrances uh does this preclude in any way a multif family with internal uh entrances like a Triplex or fourplex where you go into a common area and then you have all the units that face in the common area uh does this does this cause any problems uh yes the chair thank you for that question so um the language is saying um that there be at least one primary entrance that comp wise and so if they the three or four units or however many units use a common entrance that that that would be the one entrance they that would need to comply that they could use that one entrance um like some developments maybe some multif family buildings have a back door you know back entrance um uh that that wouldn't need to comply it's just one one entrance on that that kind of site would need to comply does that answer the question uh would would that require a text Amendment from what is currently an addition and I'm assuming this is something we already took did previously where we added the words and at least half of individual dwelling unit primary entrances in a multi-unit development so not rear entrances the primary entrance to the units um I I'm sorry did the primary entrance would would would refer to the primary entrance in the in in the in the uh in the uh the unit so if you have a townhouse unit with a rear entrance to its patio or whatever that that is not even doesn't even apply to that so it's really only half of the you know the main front entrance of your townhouses see if you have four tow houses and they each have their own front entry you know where you ring the doorbell to go in uh two of those four entries four front entries need to comply perhaps if I could clarify or maybe you want to add some clarification yeah possibly I think if I'm understanding your question correctly the way I'm reading this language and Tom let me know if if that matches your understanding is that it's at least one primary interest in at least half of the individual dwelling unit primary entrances shall be visible um and and I think the key part is from a street or a common private open space a plaza or Courtyard or a housing Courtyard so I I would interpret that common private at open space without looking at the definition reference there to capture the interior um entrances that you were initially asking about I I appreciate the clarification and if the if the staff can clarify that you know heated internal common area qualifies under that definition that would satisfy my concern uh yeah common private open space uh would comply excuse me if they face a common private open space they would comply are you talking about facing like an Atrium or internal through the chair like um it's very common for fourplexes to uh have one main entry door you go inside two of the unit entrances are downstairs and two of them are upstairs inside the building oh okay sorry uh I'm catching up to you yeah that would comply that we're only worried about that One external entrance and then you enter into the atrium or hall or whatever and then none of those other entrances need to comply in there yeah thank you that that alleviates my concern with that one and then um one last item for language that I thought I might just get clarification on the record if I could um page 10 of our main packet um which is under 21630 and I realized that this is something we may have uh dealt with in a previous action before this body which I think are both going forward together to the assembly but um these are uh deletion of parking references and requirements within setbacks for Planned utility transmission facilities but lines 44 and 45 delete uh the words additional parking to that required by this title so we're deleting um what appears to be a Prohibition in a utility transmission facility setback which I think because this is additional parking that's um addition additional parking to that required by title so this is like optional parking so we're now allowing parking in a utility transmission facility setback by deleting that is my understanding but I could be mistaken uh thank you for that question uh through the chair so uh as I uh on page 10 of the packet which I'm using the big numbering the corner page 10 um starting on line 35 um what that Amendment does is it it basically takes three bullet items listing different kinds of parking including required parking and temporary parking and additional parking into that required by this title it just collapses them all into saying motor vehicle and bicycle parking it just says parking basically on line 38 is a replacement language so it basically is a kind of a simplification clarification uh no longer listing different kinds of parking whether required or not and now it's just listing parking so whether that's a list of exceptions or allows or entitlements or prohibitions it's really just simplifying it thank you I appreciate that I didn't quite catch the addition right above it there okay let's open the hearing to public testimony sure you can hand them to staff in case you forgot you need to state your name button okay am I on all right my name's Tyler Robinson um I'm with cooking L Housing Authority um Commissioners thanks for uh the opportunity and staff for the opportunity to provide some comments I I listen to staff's uh report and I just I just want to contrast that to some of the work that I've been involved with in the city where where we have been really been looking for ways to try to drive more housing units when I looked at the data before I came here today the number of permitted multif family units in 2023 that were not included in two larger developments were 19 19 multif family units in the city of Anchorage we simply are not building much at all and what I'm here to testify about is that this ordinance that was pass last year that's effective January 1 will make it even harder to do any additional development in fact some of our last developments that we've done would not be possible if we were to try to do them today um getting right to the point um every time I read code and I'm sure every time you read code especially on a large ordinance like this it's really challenging to try to figure out what the heck is going on what are the changes and I will say to the reason of why I think the development Community didn't really um participate or reply to the ordinance is when you have a big ordinance it wasn't until I want to say no November where staff shared with me an internal uh review draft of putting the ordinance language into the actual code so in other words you know you have the stuff that you have which is section by section but until you actually see it within the whole whole code you don't see how it works and really what's important how it interplays with other other sections of code right you can you can look at each each individual item and say yeah that sounds reasonable but it's until you layer it on all of those other things and I'm convinced here that I'm the only one here today obviously you have this ordinance coming back up uh because of a cleanup but I I figured it's an opportunity to kind of raise the alarm Bell I believe that when people realize what is contained in this ordinance there will be significant issues we will have we will lose units in 2024 and there will be other sort of push back and we'll be left with sort of messing messing with this what I what I would alert you to is that the the picture and the site plan that I sent out was a Triplex that we built on McCain Loop in spinard now we we designed it to be adjacent to a lot that had two duplexes on it but I want you to just look at that Triplex lot and that by the way that development and it's pictured there it's it was it was made to look small on the front so that it would fit in with the smaller homes in the neighborhood we really did a concerted effort to make this thing make it feel like it it fit uh but it it was a Triplex it was allowed by right you as a Triplex um McCain Loop can't support any on street parking zero zero in fact when we talked to the neighbors they said we're okay with what you do so long as you provide enough parking because we're worried that we won't get emergency vehicles through here if you rely on on street parking context matters I guess is what I'm saying there we we when I when I read the report at 3:00 this afternoon like I'm sure you all did and I see these driveways going to the back and around which by the way don't also have the walkways that are required to connect the unit doors right so so you'd have to make space for that walkway so that 28 foot wide building that would otherwise be allowed to be 40ft wide shrunk again so not even withstanding snow storage issues and all that kind of stuff we've got real real issues with how we get cars in the back how we get a walkway how we get visible covered entries again start layering that stuff not just the driveway layer all that stuff on there and you will find that we have intentionally again said we don't want this type of development in our community the problem is the Lots without alleys right with an alley I can comply with this stuff might be some things I have to do but but without an alley and there's plenty of lots without alleys major major significant issues as I read the staff report I have three options one is I can use the parking for the adjacent lot okay that's great if I have an adjacent lot that has parking that then doesn't send that lot out of whack I can drive it to the back or I can provide no parking none of those were viable answers in this situation because of the complexity because I can't give you one little change to do um and I know you have to move this on to the assembly I appreciate staff saying maybe this wasn't ready for prime time I'm telling you it's not ready for prime time don't wait don't just push it 6 months push it the whole year or until such time as we can come back and really viably test these things these things that I'm hearing staff say they tested site plans it's not been shared with the development Community I don't know what they're testing who they're testing with dimensional standards theoretically it could work but until we all sit down as a community and see that it actually does I'm worried we are not going to build needed units in Anchorage in 2024 thank you are there any questions I see people touching their screens but I don't see anything popping up commissioner Ron uh thank you through the chair uh Mr Robinson thank you for uh coming in tonight and sharing what you have um with with the commission um to to clarify um what would you like to see the commission do tonight yeah thank you commissioner I I was sitting there with my colleague as we were reading the things and I I've sat where you sat for a number of years and so you know the question is in now so what um I mean my my preface is we've made this stuff so complicated there are no longer any easy fixes I if I could and I and I tried I tried to go to the assembly and say suspend multif family design standards I'm proud of what we do I believe that we do stuff that is aesthetically pleasing and and functional and contributes to a winter City um but I'm telling you that our code trips us up and and and makes it harder and harder every year for us to do it and this this takes the only thing I can think of is to accept the changes but to also I mean this will see this will seem extreme but I don't know what else to do is to take table 2107 D2 and-3 and make it not effective until such time as we are com confident that we have not created all kinds of unintended consequences I don't know what else to do I mean we could exempt triplexes and forp plexes that's another option keep in mind my screen my my lens for looking at this because I had just participated on the assembly work group for triplexes and fourplexes and and we didn't review that group didn't review this stuff because it was in process had we had we had the opportunity to review it we we would have actually you know come up with something but my lens was only with triplexes and fourplexes I'm assuming and I think I think staff would sort sort of you know go along with this that the larger the lot that you have the easier it is to sort of make room and accommodate this stuff like that's sort of common sense but most of our lots are 50 and 60 foot wide lot wide lots and unless we start to say we're going to wait until we can assemble a bunch of them to do something we're going to be we're going to be waiting a while so I mean I I I racked my brain for those two hours and and all I could come up with is either either exempt this sort of small multif family in the interim or recommend to the assembly because your action here isn't final that there are some probably some pretty significant issues that the development Community has not reviewed that we've made here a policy decision that cars in front of buildings is potentially worse than no than than a sort of freezing of building housing like that's the sort of that's what I'm hearing as a and and where I sit when I look at you know our economic Outlook and everything else I that's a that's not the the deal that's not the side of the deal that I'm going to go on and I like good-look stuff so I don't know if that helps but I other than sort of taking the whole thing and sort of setting it over here and asking the planning department to really vet this site planning this site testing this costing out because there's a cost to doing all that and and sharing that with the development Community I I don't know what else to do thank you commissioner Winchester yeah just a quick would the extension to 2025 does that aay some of your concerns and give us something to go forward with to the assembly yet still give you the confidence that we can work it out within that year period is that thank you and to be clear I actually don't have I don't have a a project that I'm designing right now I'm just I'm sort of speaking on behalf of things that I've done in the past and things that I might do in the future it would affect how I might buy a lot I mean I might choose not to buy that same lot that I otherwise thought I could get three units on that now I can't and frankly even two with the with the with the thing in there I think is a heart I think it's yes and though come back and show how it works if we don't do that then we'll be here you know we'll just be here another year from now commissioner Krishna these two tables 27-2 and three are the the sort of the core of the issue here is that correct commissioner chrisan they are the the I I had as I went through things and you saw staff actually in their in their uh recommendations sort of Exempted TR and forp plexes from the G section of those tables basically if you read them it's it's things like create a Atrium and a like they're really big things that might work for a larger building but not for a small infill building so they they sort of acknowledged that A B and C are the are the hardest ones um and and as staff said a was really the hardest one if you don't have if you don't have an alley really it's you can't park in front of the building and it's the building not even the lot so so as that building shrinks down because of all these other things you you use similar lose any ability to put a parking space so so what I'm saying by these is it sort of captures everything look if we want to say if you have an alley you must use the alley right because because what I hear is these other you know these parts of our neighborhood which suddenly are going to have a bunch of triplexes ain't going to happen first of all but I mean if we thought it would if you've got an alley I think you've got a pretty easy out right you can put that parking on the back side but by by not suspending this you're impacting spinard you're impacting a good chunk of Midtown you're impacting most of malun that are already zoned R3 R4 and some R2 these are the places where we supposedly want multifamily zoning uh I guess just to follow up if we were to say dreaming big here we're going to exempt three and four plexes from table 2-7-2 a through a through c g um fngg whatever these ones that you've named are right um the ones that are in our packet plus A and B does that would that then make this uh cleanup um entire package sort of palatable yeah here here here's the here's the deal it it works for me because I'm not going to do something bad I mean in my opinion the thing is is right what I would hear over here is we would open the door for someone that would do bad development whatever bad means for that subjective person at that point in time so I I think yes it it solves it I I I just think coming back clearly staff is trying to solve a problem whether it's perceived or real I think it's more perceived than it is real but I think what you also want to say is come back and try to fix the things that you have right context matters a lot but we've written a code that doesn't matter what your context is you got to follow this thing so I'm I'm not answering your question directly it would help but I think coming back and fixing this in the right way to alleviate whatever neighborhood concerns there are or staff concerns there are in some way but if we flat out say the only way to deal with this is to drive a driveway behind a building I I think we need further convers conversation before that's that's where we go as a community like nowhere in that ordinance is there a picture of a driveway going to the the back of the building by the way the pictures show smaller driveways on the front doesn't say this is the first time I've actually said oh that's really if you read all this stuff that's where you end up I I guess this is a a comment if you'll allow me chair to the commission um but I I think just I want to note what we dealt with at our last meeting right which was broadly um trying to apply one and two family standards to three and four plexus I just want us to note that as we're thinking about what's an appropriate action here commissioner Gardner yes thank thank you I really appreciate the information um kind of the context that you've helped provide for this discussion and I one of the points or comments you made about um the kind of the policy goal here and what it is we ultimately pursuing I think I had made a note to myself that I I think I viewed it in the same way that there's a tension between the the walkability the efforts for the you know visual impacts and how our how our communities look with the goal of just increasing the available housing units right um and I think and and this is probably I think also goes to one of your points as well but for me I think inevitably an important part of how you how you balance those two things is understanding at least with with respect to this specific issue that we're talking about here is what really what that effect looks like on on housing that would be built and um you know part of part of the response to your comment that staff included was um identifying kind of other changes that have been adopted to try to increase the viability of of three and four unit um construction and I don't have a good sense I assume you have a better sense than I do but you may not have a great sense either off hand of what what this looks like practically we're talking about like how many standard lot size units are realistically available to put in a three and four you know unit um building if if um if you could and if you weren't subject to these types of to these types of things you mentioned 19 permits last year so it sounds like there's not a whole lot that's happening anyway and I don't know if you just have a have a sense of of practically speaking you know what to the extent that this limits those options how that compares to what may be potentially new construction options in light of the other changes in code thanks for that question I mean first of all like if I could if I could have the the trade back give me back the parking minimums and take all this stuff away I'd take it because I typically don't underp park a site even with affordable housing because I'm often in neighborhoods that can't support the spillover parking and and I often could use that additional part paring if I didn't need it for snow storage because the single biggest cost that I have in my performa these days is snow hauling it's absolutely killing us and so uh so again that said I that's said I support the the I supported it more like in in certain areas right especially you know like South addition if you had good streets if you're close to downtown if you're close to employ I get the fact that our minimums didn't work in some places but for the most part that wasn't the biggest deal killer for me the standards over all are um I think that um when you ask the question you know what what are sort of the opportunities out there I mean when when when we started with the assembly working group that Triplex and fourplex ordinance the primary push of that and some of you that know me know I was involved in a in a Fairview design competition where the the this the whole purpose we did it at the Museum the whole purpose of the design competition was just build a triplex on a standard R3 R3 not you know R3 lot and so we had some and and and and by the way which rules do you want to suspend you know and so people would suspend these rules because it's hard I I agree with staff it's totally hard to do but we have all kinds of zoning that says that we ought to be able to do it and if you want to talk Redevelopment you don't replace an old 1950s house with just a duplex you need the density to start to dig into the feasibility and the viability of paying for that Improvement paying for that demolition going in and getting that water line right so there's all that but we have a lot when we when we reone in the ' 80s and 7s and ' 80s we resed a lot to r2m R3 and R4 but it's a big misnomer that you can actually do a triplex in 4lex on these lots and so when we when the assembly undertook that what they were saying is where we can already do this by code how do we make it easier so that we're not up in the drainage requirements and we're not up in the on-site maneuverability and we're not doing all these things that sort of kick in really a cost and a and a sort of of design and everything to where people talk to people all the time I'll never do a Triplex again now the problem with that is when you do that you are then prone to say I'm going to do a duplex with large three-bedroom units or four-bedroom units right because you need you need the you need the C you need the C you need the pricing right whether you're selling a unit or renting a unit and the problem with that is that doesn't meet our housing needs we need a lot of one bedroom and two-bedroom and yeah we still need three-bedroom and four-bedroom units but we also need smaller bedroom sizes for these smaller households that we have and from an afford from just a market rate affordability I believe stuff like this takes us two steps back to the one step forward that we made this fall now we were doing it at the same time so I don't want to say we're doing this today we've already done it right but I think the moment we realize it we're going to say ah shoot why did we do that and maybe maybe Tom's right maybe there are some neighborhoods where we want to say we really get that context and we don't want to fill up those fronts of those but but that that site plan that I showed you what existed there before you cannot tell me that this is not a significant vast Improvement of seven units on those lots three on that one lot by the way we're all for pedestrians connecting onto a street that has no sidewalk that will never have a sidewalk because it's 30 ft of right you know what I mean like where does it start and where does it end in terms of whose responsibility but the moment we stop allowing higher density and new forget density just viable new infill development is the moment we won't have the money to clear our streets right like the bigger issue is we then stop growing and investing in these areas and this whole like we're going to park on the street thing really relies on us fixing those streets and pl and on my way here I drove by our development where we had put in a sidewalk and 11 on street parking spaces I you can you you know know what those on street parking spaces are today they're snow storage they're needed snow storage they're serving a purpose but the the solution is not suddenly hey you know we're going to fix it in the RightWay right like what comes first and and all I'm saying is I'm an incremental planner I believe that I Believe In the End Vision I just don't think that we we can go there yet without having kind of a more significant impact to what little Housing Development we're seeing right now commissioner George thank you through the chair uh just to clarify where we're at in the process we've now concluded the public testimony is there anyone online are we still taking public testimony at this point just we are questioning public testifier Robinson are there any other testifiers in the queue okay all right well then maybe I'll feel a little more comforted being able to ask some of these questions I appreciated the bringing up the the actions that we took um in reference to your comment about you know there only being 19 multif family units that were non-institutional built last year um that's something that was very compelling obviously as we looked at um what we did in our recent previous actions uh we effectively took r2m and made it R3 we reduced the for triplexes and forp plexes excuse me uh we took the side setbacks to 5 foot and we increased you know density we um we allowed buy rights on a 6,000 ft lot of fourplex in r2m and that's onethird of the land that's contemplated uh for within this ordinance um I think it's spelled out in the in the packet actually um so we haven't had an opportunity yet for that additional significant increase in available land for triplexes and fourplexes to really um have a building season yet so I think that's important to note um that there will be additional opportunities um but but a lot of what you said really has piqued my interest and I and I have concerns um you know I for years I've um been convinced that we have uh over required parking on developments and that that has hindered our abilities I mean we folks just walk around downtown and they say Anchorage has too much parking and that really has been ail a philosophy we've implemented to degree but um now I find us chasing our tail where we um have removed parking to the point and made it so hard to do particular with triplexes and fourplexes on these 50 foot wide lots that um an entity is unable to build the parking that they want to build um we're almost precluding them from from doing this so uh it's a really weird position maybe just I don't know if it's just me or if others share this concern that uh I'm now somehow advocating for the ability to do parking but I I agree with the the sentiment that an Institutional Builder will be held responsible more so than perhaps an individual might in the sense that um the developments that you build are often times with federal funds and um there is a concerted effort towards design functionality and so on but really we have to look at the code we're actually implementing and what is possible within that code um I think it was mentioned earlier that you know we don't have lot plans to look at I think it would be very helpful for this body to look at you know what is feasible on one of these Lots if it truly is feasible um and realistic then um it would go a long way to ease my concern to be able to see that um you know r2m is historically a one and two family dwelling neighborhood and now it's going to be a Triplex and fourplex neighborhood by right um the on street parking I have concerns about the ability to handle that I mean I I live in an r2m area a lot of people do an Anchorage it's it's a very common zoning type and when we don't haul the snow um those on street parking spaces go away um I I show real estate real estate by day so I drive through neighborhoods all the time and the number of times I go down streets in our city where you can't pass another vehicle you have to wait for someone else to pass I mean it's the first week of January and um the streets are it's going to be a tough year for the rest of the year for us um I don't know that we can push that level of parking into the street if we don't have on-site parking in some meaningful fashion for our fourplex whether that's one parking space per unit however the developer deems it necessary we shouldn't preclude them in my opinion from being able to provide that parking um because I know that providing on-site parking is typically to the detriment of other amenities that could make the site more meaningful um the comment about not letting snow encroach on walkways that's in the packet um kind of hit me a little bit um sometimes it's impractical for a small M multif family owner to haul snow uh I'm glad that you brought that up that that's also a big expense for Cook Inlet housing I know that for many uh Triplex and fourplex owners they only have one or maybe two of these buildings or they owner occupi these often they're they're important for the housing stock because they are financeable from everything from VA to FHA and they're owner occupiable they're really the entry level entry into housing for a lot of people right now and adding the removal cost for snow is a really a big swing and I think what you'll see is that small land owners like that won't pay that expense and it will reduce parking in general and it'll just kind of trickle from there uh the driveway on the side of the building I think we talked about that a little bit earlier um I can see liability concerns I can see um you know we have a turnaround radius that's contemplated but I don't know if it really contemplates an F250 which is what you need that or bigger to put a plow on really realistically uh with a plow on the front of it making a turnaround behind a building that's the kind of turnaround radius that would be required here to move snow also it doesn't go into Corners it makes a round swipe so you're not going to be able to truly clear snow back there um I do have a question maybe for the Department did we remove the requirement for um an on-site dumpster and dumpster enclosure with fourplexes is that still dumpster service uh yes through the chair let me check I'll double check that real quick thank you I I lost track of that one I think it was contemplated the last time we had um we were contemplating parking requirements on site and you know whether fourplexes and triplexes would be subject to two duplex and single family standards I think all the way up to a Triplex you can have can service but I think for fourplexes historically you have to not only have a site plan but a dumpster with a dumpster enclosure that can be serviced from the street by a municipal garbage truck so unless we're building these driveways to Municipal garbage truck standards uh and we want Solway services and others going down these I think we need to consider how those are going to fit on these Lots as well commissioner George sorry to interrupt but um you've started asking asking questions of Staff now we're still questioning Mr Robinson staff will then have a chance to rebuttal and then you'll have a chance to ask questions of staff and I have other Commissioners with questions in the queue for keeping me on task commissioner [Music] Ron uh thank you through the chair uh Mr Robinson getting back to um your response to my my question and if I heard that response right it um in some way would um effectively push out perhaps implementation um and uh doing so in a way that would create the space for proving Effectiveness if I could follow up on that last part um are there levers or mechanisms in your mind in place currently that would allow for the proving of Effectiveness if not what else would need to be done to get us there yeah thanks for the question through the chair I mean I I think obviously you'll hear from staff what their thoughts are on it I mean you know for starters again that lens with triplexes and for cor lexes I'd love to go back to that working committee or the sponsors of the ordinance um that brought that forward and say hey let's let's let's look at this thing as it relates to that use type did did did we actually you know the assembly sort of taken a Victory lap on some of that stuff they have a final another ordinance to pass tomorrow night you know hey this sort of changes what they thought they were doing and so we're sort of competing almost from a policy so so one of that comeback is like hey go back to that working group go back to those sponsors and say hey what do you think about this like when we can actually sit down and and and and look at stuff um I I I will say you know the the it's related to your question it's also related to what commissioner George was saying which was I originally was not in favor of that ordinance opening up r2m I I was primarily there to say where we can already do triplexes and fourplexes how do we how do we alleviate some of the additional requirement right and so and and the reason I was wasn't for it is exactly for this reason so now there's this concern that in all these areas where you didn't have it before you've got to layer in these other protections and the other protections are actually the things that create the thing that doesn't allow you to do it in the first place so you've treaded water and you've treaded water not just in the r2m but because of that you've now treaded water in the R3 and the R4 and the places you know what I mean that's my biggest beef of all this process and all this stuff is now now that we've got to worry you know worry about places where we couldn't already have you know so to your other point yeah you if if there are these areas of concern where we're really concerned about neighborhood context where you couldn't already do like what are the implication are those places that have alleys well then I think we're okay do they not have alleys well okay let's look at it maybe those aren't appropriate for try maybe we should just say that rather than making people go through this realitor saying you can buy a fourplex lot but no you can't right I mean this is what we deal with all the time and I just want things to be zoning code should be super transparent it should be super clear it should be a lot simpler than what what ours is and every time we layer one of these things on right and I and I had a conversation these are my colleagues over here I respect their work there's probably a need to look at the thing holistically and say whereit where do you know so we're not just doing one chunk at a time that takes resources that takes time that misses building Seasons you know that would be my other check is how do we get that high up you you kind of you know make recommendations to the planning Department's annual work plan put that thing way up high you know where is that in terms of your priorities for 2024 and 2025 hopefully that answers some of your questions uh commissioner Krishna this is a process question and I think you've actually started answering it um what would you recommend if the goal of course is to get to something that we can use that aligns with the work that this commission is already done what would you recommend as a process I think I would um again I think I told these folks and the people that are at the permit counter um get ready when people don't know this I mean this now applies to all use types by the way so like nobody on the commercial side knows this exist you know get get ready to to have your have your worksheets ready to deal with help people through this but I think the process an easy process would be to accept the recommendations um move it through 2025 like commissioner Winchester said um with a with a request to sort of come back and really look at it but like see that never happens right so like you know is there a date by which you know and and and you don't they don't work for you I get that but like you know how do we hold ourselves accountable because I'm I'm here because I'd rather be watching the Michigan game don't tell me who's who's winning or losing right now but like you know this is important because I think it affects Anchorage and it's import their concerns are important but so is this this bigger issue that we've just sort of unknowingly passed something that puts a big huge wrench in a lot of things that's the thing that's Mo right I'm the only person here because I'm the only person that sort of figured out that this thing doesn't work that scares me so process-wise you know also maybe to the assembly say are there resources for the planning department to take this and other sections seriously why does why does only multif family units of eight and more have to go through northern northern design requirements and multif family I could build a hotel or I could build a multif family housing development the hotel is easy the multif family has to jump through all kinds of on the same lot mind you right so why have we as a community other than the fact that we have hangover from the 1970s and 80s and then again from the site condos in the early 2000s you know what we have picked a use type that we most need that we need more than any other use type in this town and we've made it so ridiculously hard to deal with so I think it's somehow a a a a whereas statement uh you know a finding from you an urging of the assembly to sort of take this back up to make again they don't work for the assembly either but the assembly can form a working group and they can more easily introduce legislation that can come back around on the back right that can come back around by a certain time I I don't it's it's an imperfect response because I don't know I don't you know I don't I don't know the answer to it but I think I think there are real projects that'll get hung up in 2024 unless we do something next question commissioner pulus I think I know the answer to this question but I want to ask you out of all these seven issues you listed which one do you think is the biggest deal yeah it's it's that it's that table and that a and the table um I mean every time I look at this stuff I can say boy you didn't consider this or that and something's going to rear its head um you know that little thing about bike parking was just a sort of a a beef you know more than anything um but but I think it's it's what what this T if you read the table and you read the table imagining a lot without an alley I think that's where and and then you know because there's these percentages you know and you have to sort of play and the percentages to the building not to the lot and it's like well you know why we why don't we just say what we mean which is don't put put the parking around the back if that's what we're going to say and I think we didn't say that because it wouldn't be accepted by the general community I have a follow-up comment to that and I just you know I've been kind of quiet listening to everything and I know a lot of the dimensions you're talking about the requirements so I've just been listening um and my comment is that regarding basically issue number three the limit on parking facilities in front of buildings um I pretty much agree that on a 50ft lot you know unless you have a really long lot or an alley like he said one out of 10 times that might work out most of the time that this situation is not going to work out um and and this that's the one that bothers me the most um knowing what's going on something we haven't even talked about is like fire access and stuff like that I mean if fire truck had to get somewhere how's it going to get past a 10-ft driveway you know saddled between a fence and a building there's just a lot of stuff going on in there that I don't believe has been truly vetted out and uh that that one gives me a lot of heart bur yeah commissioner I mean I I think you just need to sight plan this stuff right I mean clearly there's been some site plan over there maybe there's some solutions you know share it with the development Community are those more are those a more costly site plan or more costly development to both build and operate or do they work and what are the trade-offs but but but until that's shared that's not that's never part of this process I'm always told well we we don't have a designer on staff so we can't draw this stuff out well as a result we're here today me drawing my site plan them drawing theirs none of us really right being on the same page age of of what what what we're trying to really get at from a from an aesthetic right this is an aesthetic standpoint primarily I would like to just point out to the Commissioners uh something that you made mention to which is the publishing of the code is that we don't actually have the entire table that you're speaking of we have a few sections of it and that so that just to kind of point out the the the draft of the code that you received nobody's seen yeah know and and and and and again I mean I think they put it out there as quickly as they can but that's part of that I mean a staff is acknowledging that there needs to be a bit of a bit of a push so we can get that out there they're saying that um I'm just saying makes more sense to get all the way through a building season you know and all the way through the you know again it's not just building season right like if I buy a lot what am I what I'm buying it to do something with what can I do I mean the the shorter we make the what do we have to deal with the better I just am being realistic that we're probably not figuring it out by June thank you one more question commissioner Krishna yeah I I guess I'll ask this to to Mr Robinson but is there a good reason that we shouldn't just postpone this and ask to work through some of of these issues and for them to come back to the commission yes and I think staff has rightly pointed it out I brought this up independent of the ordinance that they had moving forward so they had already found and identified some issues that needed fixing that are already in code effective January 1 um I think that there probably are reasons why they'd want to fix those things what I don't know is because I'm trying to sort of again raise the alarm or piggyback this ordinance with this issue is what the right vehic IC Le is to attach this to and so um you know I I wouldn't want to just say oh we asked to have to go and you know cuz I mean it's not nothing against them it's just then there's no urgency but um so I think that's why but I'd want to I'd want to hear hear there's probably some other things that need fixed and if they're not are still G because the ordinance is passed and so um yeah I mean on this issue and this issue again being me reviewing this whole section of code with a Triplex and fourplex without an alley in mind not with a 20 unit multif family development not with a commercial development not with this not with that not with a duplex with garages not with as far as I know none of that has really been vetted and looked at but for that you don't just P you can't just suspend this ordinance because we've already passed right the rest of it that's in code If I Could Turn Back the clock I would have asked you to pause it I see no more questions thank you Mr chair thank you Commissioners we will close the public hearing and or no we won't close the public hearing we will go to staff rebuttal and include that in uh thank you Mr chair uh just to um a couple of comments um were made I just wanted to provide some clarification first of all uh the code is available it's online and so the adopted table in full is available on the title 21 web page of the uh planning department uh and so uh everyone can see the full result of uh the adopted site axis Amendment um and um the urgency to uh act on this is um uh uh uh like Mr Robinson said that uh the ordinance is adopted it's out there and uh so these cleanup amendments including anything you do here tonight uh getting those to the assembly in uh as quickly as possible can help us us to uh make Corrections um and uh among those uh items that uh are recommended are are the items in response to seaw comments at the end of the memo including the exemption for three and four plexes uh for the the duration of 2024 uh or all dwellings with less than four units not only from um row a it's an exception not an exemption excuse me it's an exception um but not only from row a of the table which is the parking in front but also row b so it's an exception that would work for 20124 for the small multif family for both of those um and so uh getting that completed uh and adopted uh as uh soon as possible uh would be uh actually very beneficial for all parties uh just a couple of of points of information uh you know we as we looked at the site Concepts uh we did take into account the walkway requirement uh the 28t building provides for that uh and uh on these small uh Lots uh you know the standard Urban Lots uh fire access isn't uh an issue so there isn't the need there isn't a requirement to put uh a fire apparatus or fire engine up into the development uh the buildings just simply aren't that far away from the street to require that and so uh it's not like you would need a you know wider driveway for fire code reasons um that there there is simplest City and and in in the um you know as as much as we possibly could uh much of the table these two tables of concern is actually a consolidation of Standards from the the multif family design standard section uh which uh we reduced by Nine Pages uh and then combined with other pages of code uh we Believe by our count you know that one page of table really replaced between nine and 11 pages of code of the former title 21 so uh much of the material in table 27-2 and 3 isn't really new it's relocated it's been modified um but it isn't uh an unknown quantity um it could have been simplified further uh it's sort of a form-based sort of format you got an illustration followed by a table and there are your standards uh and it it would as uh Mr Robinson mentioned would have been easier and cut and dry to say no parking shall be in front of the building you sure why why in the world wouldn't we say that make it simple and easy and um the purpose is uh flexibility uh there are cases we've seen uh where uh you know having the ability to have part of a building behind the parking is helpful the site design and the purpose was to to leave uh some amount of flexibility in fact for example and the site plan uh that uh Mr Robinson provided uh the building in the northeast corner um with the it uh with the six and seven unit at 6 and 7 at 3807 McCain loop complies as is with the U row a because yeah there's a little bit of driveway over some of the front of the building that's okay uh and so uh in some commercial formats uh there's a lot of parking beside the long side of the building maybe the back part of the building is behind some of the parking it's okay uh the majority of the building is no parking in front of it so the purpose there wasn't to complicate uh is to uh the balance Simplicity with being flexible um and uh and that that flexibility you know shows in in that the building in the northeast corner of the site planine um couple other uh aesthetic I you know uh that this is primarily a aesthetic it uh you know uh I think most of the points we made in the ordinance or excuse me in the issue responses is really about um it's almost more about function and it's about prioritizing um site design where you know the getting to the site onto the site to the building is is not through a parking lot and that parking is more back a house uh it's not that um I think pavement is ugly or anyone thinks the pavement is ugly or parking lot is ugly it's it's really about the the kind of city and function that we're trying to build and and uh we're working on a number of fronts public and private to uh rebalance um uh pedestrian and uh um motor vehicle travel and uh so I I just wanted to mention that I uh this really isn't about being pretty or not uh and uh I have visited the main Loop site and and I find that the buildings very attractive personally and I they fit in very nicely with that neighborhood and so none of these amendments are intended to uh be some kind of critique of current development uh we we believe that um that there's uh we're certainly interested on in being able to um uh demonstrate to the assembly which is the next step the development Community uh you know these um what we're seeing in the site plans um and with the time available we have um and we haven't really had time to put something together uh through this process but um we are certainly um I think would share with um Mr Robinson and see how the um interest in the opportunity to do that um going to the assembly and during 2024 uh while we have this building season and um you know showing what showing what we're finding showing what's possible um showing the impacts of of you know either way uh so I think there is a motivation and interest on on staff's part as well to to to provide that provide that and so that we're not off in our own Corners in our own sketchbooks seeing what we see and uh they're seeing what they see um lastly I acknowledge that this is a really it is a really big change and uh that uh there's uh every interest on our part to uh support housing and and we believe that uh pedestrian oriented development in the end um does support compact development um is there anything else that I should thank you I've got a question for we yeah we have a couple questions in the queue I think uh I will I've heard the building season made reference to quite a bit and I just as the local builder in the room I just want to clarify for everybody that when I'm planning say a fourplex or a large home the building see it's a it's about a 4mon process from the day you decide you think you want to build something to that's assuming you make up your mind real quick to the day we might get a permit four months so the building season is disappearing quickly like as far as the building season is concerned you can consider this today April um commissioner Ron had a question then we'll go to you strike uh thank you chair uh perhaps in part to that last point you made um question of Staff um requesting perhaps a revisit to staff's uh uh prepared response to issue number three specifically around this um table row a exempting three and four unit projects without alley access if I'm reading staff's um recommendation um on page nine just above the bold face under Issue four um middle of the page it does acknowledge amending the footnote to expand the exception to include three and fourplexes in addition to duplexes for the remainder of the 2024 building season if I'm piecing that together properly what's staff's position perhaps on the idea of pushing that further out to the right and that 2025 time frame that the commission discussed um also adding um this without Ali access component I'm sorry um could you repeat that last part uh what what what were you uh proposing commissioner Ron uh the idea of amending the footnote to expand the exception to include three and four plexes in addition to duplexes without Al access through the end of the 2025 perhaps building season isn't the right term but I know the commission had some discussion with um and during public testimony about more time so I'm trying to get there and if other Commissioners are grasping what I'm trying to put together uh feel free to jump in and clarify in your own way I yes in response commissioner Ron my understanding is uh that uh the first part of your proposal is uh in there which is uh to expand the exception to four units or less so that's uh proposed in there so if you have a three or four Plex under the the recommended uh text Amendment here it would it already does propose expanding that exception uh extending uh the sunset period to the close of 20125 um that I I don't really have a I mean there's I don't I guess the the idea there would be to buy more time uh so for example uh like uh the chair mentioned that there's a four-month process to design a building uh so if a if a if a developer is finishing up the building season in 2024 which is the summer then in the fall and early winter they're turning to Preparing permits for 2025 and so this existing Sunset date proposed of December 31st 2024 would not help the developer in preparing their plans for 2025 because they would be uh fighting time to try and get their permit uh request in uh by December 31st which might make for Mees Christmas so the idea would be to um extend the sunset period to um um perhaps essentially their first half of 2025 or June june1 2025 mid year yeah you know at the uh this one second uh so you know Sunset of June 30th 2025 would uh allow that Builder who's designing their project in the latter part of 20 24 to get their permit in and uh the benefit could be to give um the the municipality the development Community a little more time to work you know work out any issues um and also you know we would hope to you know explore there's probably a lot of site plan options out there in the world uh that we could adapt for Anchorage and maybe give us time to provide more support um and also a little more understanding of these standards that in some ways they're not they're not as um you know they may not be as impactful as as some might U be concerned there they might be um so a June 30th date would be um uh probably appropriate thank you staff that I think answers the question that I had and provides some fodder for adjusting the recommendations thanks commissioner strike are you ready for your question I am thank you and to the chair um a question for followup for the staff and this is a followup of a question or a comment I believe the Mr Robinson when he testified and I'm trying to reconcile if there is an unintended consequence regarding for plexus and the trash pickup um so the fourplexes require a trash dumpster I think was an open question that had not been responded to and my question then BEC if it is is this one of the unattended consequences that um we're also looking at yes to the chair thank you commissioner strike for reminding us so uh title 21 does not uh require dumpsters and so uh a development can have um you know fourplex can have individual uh uh garbage uh containers like a duplex so again then one of the unattended consequences might be a um trash plus um recycle times four so eight containers sit in front of the complex where otherwise part would be because it obviously can't go in the driveway I guess that was a rhetorical question but it's just again another one of the unattended consequences that we may be looking at nobody's talking and I'm ready to close this public hearing any objections public hearing closed what is the will of the body e we have a motion by commissioner Gardner seconded by commissioner Krishna would you like to read your motion yes thanks I'll go ahead and get us kicked off here I'm moveing case 2024-25 three shown on page four of the staff report and the additional recommended co- attendants to the public hearing draft ordinance that are shown on I believe Pages 14 and 15 of the supplemental memorandum would you like to speak to your motion uh yeah in general you know we had a lot of discussion about um I think broader issues and I'm open um to amendments to address those but um as it relates to the specific um code amendments at issue here I think they are pretty targeted and um a reasonable and fair effort to to just clean up and make Corrections um to reflect broader changes that have been made through assembly ordinances in the recent past anyone else wishing to speak to the motion commissioner Ron uh thank you Mr chair a question for perhaps the entire commission and our staff um the motion as made include the date change on page 15 table 21072 to read June 30th 2025 if not I'll make a motion to amend so the motion did not include that date change move move to amend the motion by changing the language uh and table 27-2 um changing the date from December 31st to June 30th 2025 is there a second seconded by commissioner pus would you like to speak to your motion no thank you would anyone else like to speak to the motion call the vote call Mr strike how do you vote on the amendment yes Miss Eber how do you vote yes thank you that Amendment to the main motion passes commissioner Krishna sure I'd also like to make an amendment uh to rec add a recommendation that the assembly uh ensure that the recently adopted code updates to parking and for for parking and site access um including these um cleanup text amendments align with the uh recent efforts um regarding three and four Plex standards three four standard that is moved in seconded by move by commissioner Krishna seconded by commissioner commissioner Krishna would you like to speak to your motion no I believe we've discussed it commissioner Gardner um thanks I think I I just wanted to add um I know we've discussed it had nauseum at this point but just as a as a matter of the finding so it's included here I think a lot of the discussion we had was really focused on the relationship between particular the limitation on parking facilities in front of buildings and the effect that that has on the ability to construct three and four unit homes in particular and maybe in some cases even you know two unit um buildings on um standard lot sizes and Anchorage and I I think you know I view a a potential tension between some of the goals with respect to um you know as staff put it not not just Aesthetics although it's partly Aesthetics but that also has a you know has a real effect on how people understand and live in their communities um that goal with the goal of increasing housing and I know for myself um it seems like there's just a lot of unanswered questions still in terms of how this will play out on the ground with respect to the effect on the available housing um particularly in some of our older neighborhoods that have these smaller Lots where there has been a lot of focus in um providing new housing opportunities to increase um kind of the the the revenue and and the growth and just the nature of those areas um and so I think it's important to really understand the effect that these code amendments will have on that ability and um at the end of the day it'll be a policy decision to B balance um those two goals that I noted I see intention but um you can't really make that decision until you know what the effects will be on on both sides of the ledger so um for that reason I support this amendment commissioner Ron uh thank you I in I intend to support the the amendment as I think I um interpret its intent I I struggle with the the terminology around ensuring alignment and and that causes confusion to me as to what exactly we're asking the commission do and to me I see value in US recommending that the assembly um either establish a process or leverage existing processes to do as commissioner Gardner I think uh commented upon and that's evaluate Effectiveness um maybe I'm in my own Silo on this but um that's that's my concern with the current language of of the amendment commissioner Ron do you have a friendly text amendment to make commissioner Krishna uh no no friendly uh amendments on this commission I would however uh suggest something informally in terms of striking the word insure and uh replacing with um evaluate Effectiveness and Report upon um something along those lines all right I'll reward this amendment to make it a recommendation that the assembly evaluate the effectiveness of uh the recent ordinance the recent efforts for regarding three and four plexes in light of this amendment or whatever this thing okay this looks good to me thank you I I will add that I also intend to support this motion and the main motion having participated in the three and fourplex group uh lots of meetings lots lots of people lots of meetings all summer long it became clear what the intent of the assembly was and I think that not having the this code section and the code section the code section that this is amending not having that written in code and in front of everybody it definitely does not capture the intent of what that group thought they were doing and I think that the assembly definitely needs a recommendation like this one to bring this to light so that they can do as they see fit seeing no more we will call for the vote on the amendment Mr strike how do you vote Yes Miss Eber how do you vote yes thank you all right that brings us back to the main motion any more discussion seeing none we'll call for oh commissioner Ron thank you Mr chair um just for the record I intend to support the main motion my vote will reflect that and I wanted to acknowledge what we did here tonight and in terms of you know process through public hearing good discourse and debate staff thank you for putting things context um and the representativeness that we received although singular understanding that there's a broader community and stakeholders involved in in what we went through so that's it thanks now we can vote Mr strike how do you vote Yes Miss Eber yes thank you not motions passes we can now hear a motion to adjourn we thank you Brandy and Greg thank you