Sometimes [Music] I know the earth is turn [Music] alone or at least [Music] I really hope [Music] it doesn't hurt where I'm going to go. I hope that you take me seriously. My heart. Okay. Uh, we're going to call the September 8th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. May we please have the roll call. >> Andre Spanelli >> here. >> Jared Gardner >> here. >> Radica Krishna >> here. >> Jim Winchester >> here. >> Scott Pulis >> here. >> Jeff Ron >> here. >> Greg Strike >> here. Brandy Iber is excused. You have a quorum. Thank you. >> First item on the agenda, the minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from Monday, July 14th, August 4th, and August 11th? Moved by Commissioner Ron, seconded by Commissioner Pulus. Any corrections or objections to the minutes here? Seeing none, minutes are approved. Are there any disclosures? Uh, Commissioner Krishna. >> Yes. I have two items to disclose disclose. The first is that I was absent for the meeting of August 11th and so I will be abstaining from resolutions 21- 24. Um the second is that in the case of 2025-0102, this property is located within the downtown improvement district um which my organization manages and I have heard a presentation of theirs at the downtown community council. I did not vote and I don't believe that there's any reason why I um have a conflict in participating in this case. I agree that I don't see any conflict and unless anyone from the commission objects will direct you to participate. Any other disclosures? Hearing none, we will move on. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Uh that's moved by Commissioner Winchester, seconded by Commissioner Pulus. Anyone wishing to pull any items for discussion? Seeing none, are there any objections? Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved. Um, now we would like to have a motion to reorder the agenda to hear items E1 and E2 last, item G4 first, and combine items G2 and G3. Motion is made by Commissioner Ron, seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Any objection or discussion on the motion? Hearing seeing none, motion passes. I will now read the procedure by which the public may speak to the commission. After staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the commission rules of procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc. will receive 5 minutes. Individuals will receive three minutes. When your testimony is 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 7 days of the commission's decision made on record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 2110350A4A. Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Following approval of written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filling filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with section 213050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant. Moving on to staff presentation in case 2025-02. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Amend Health Company AKLLC is seeking a conditional use permit for a new large habilitative care facility to be located at the southeast corner of East Fifth Avenue in Gamble Street. The subject property is currently the Econo Inn Hotel and Dum Dummy Japanese Restaurant located on lot 1A and a surface parking lot on lot 6B. The property is currently zoned B2C, Central Business District Periphery. A large habilitative care facility is a permitted use through the acquisition of a conditional use permit. AMC 2111 050 use regulations. Table 211-2. This CUP application is proposing a repurpose of an existing low-rise 1 to4 level hotel motel into a large habilitative care facility. The purpose of this project is to help revitalize an existing underutilized structure in downtown Anchorage. A pre-application conference with reviewing agencies was held on May 8th, 2025 in accordance with AMC 213 080C2. The pet petitioner advertised and held a community meeting on June 26th, 2025 in accordance with AMC 21380C3. This was held held in place of a meeting with the downtown and Fair View community councils because they do not hold meetings in June. The petitioner did meet with Midtown, Downtown, and Fairview Community Councils on July 9th and July 10th of 2025. Attachment 2 application starting on page 10 of the staff report includes the petitioner's affidavit of posting, commuting meet, community meeting summary, and application submittal to the planning department. The planning department mailed 129 public hearing notices on August 12th, 2025. As of this writing, the planning department has received no public comments. The downtown or Fair View community councils did not provide comments. Other agency comments. Municipal reviewing agencies had no objection to the conditional use for a large habilitative care facility. The state of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities provided comments regarding encroachments into Gamble Street, which have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for the conditional use. Attachment three, comments starting on page 67 of the staff report include all comments received by the planning department in their original format. The planning and zoning commission may approve a conditional use application if in the judgment of the commission all nine criteria have been met in all material matters. Planning staff has found that all nine approval criteria for a conditional use have been met and all four use specific standards either do not apply or have been met for a large habilitative care facility. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this conditional use for a large habilitative care facility subject to condition conditions one, two, and three found on page six of the staff report. I can answer any questions that the commission may have, and the petitioner's representative is in attendance. >> Any questions for staff? >> Commissioner Ron. Thank you to the chair. Could staff please provide a little more context about the nature of the encroachment understanding it's a sounds like a DOT issue but if staff could provide some more background or information that'd be helpful >> through the chair. Mr. Ron if you turn to page 68 of your packet sorry it's on 71 69 the second page. Um it appears that there's some unpermitted encroachments. It doesn't some ballards and some overhang of the existing structure into Gamble Street. Um and then DOT is working on a the highway to highway or HSIP Gamble Street utility pole removal. Um so there's some encroachments there that they'll be working with the the property owner on doing. Anything else? Thank you. >> Uh, Commissioner Pus, >> I had one just, you know, we had a lot of reading for tonight's staff packet and, um, I got a little confused. On page four, um, requirement IV there at the top, you know, it's 2, three, and four. Um it says if the elements of the facility that are not directly related to residential uses such as administrative offices, classrooms, blah blah blah, then the facility shall require conditional use approval. And then it says plans are not provided showing this stuff. If this stuff um exceeds 20% of the total gross floor area, this conditional use will approve this requirement. It's basically saying they gave us nothing but if we approve this, they get anything approved >> through the chair commissioner poll. That's correct. So if if they had provided us plans and had this been in a residential area or some other application and it was more than 20% then they would have that didn't require conditional use they'd have to go for a conditional use. But since they're going for a conditional use it just meets the criteria. >> Okay. >> Hopefully I didn't confuse you too much with >> it's still a little weird but yeah >> it is it is a very it's a very weird caveat that Yes. >> Okay. >> Agreed. Okay, if there's no further questions for staff, we will ask the petitioner for their presentation. All right. Good evening, chairman board. My name is Craig Bennett. It's benn ne with S4 group staff gave a great um overview or did the overview very well and I agree with Commissioner Bloo. It is kind of confusing on how code works with the CUP and the zoning but Amand Health Company is seeking a CUP for a large habilitative care facility. I'll be brief. This should be a smooth uncomplicated case. planning and all the ME municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to this CUP. There are no public comments. Staff has agreed that all the approval criteria are met and we agree with the department recommendations and staff recommends approval of this case and I can answer any questions now or after any public comment. question coming from Commissioner Krishna. >> Sure. I'd be curious about um the not specifically the DOT um right-of-way encroachments. I understand they're redoing the electrical poles and lighting on Gamble. I'm not sure if it includes a full sidewalk reconstruction, but um if you have any any additional information there, but then I'm also curious about how big the parking lot is and if the driveway is going to go directly onto Gamble. >> Yeah, through the chair. I haven't seen DOT's plans. I know their encroachments, the main encroachment they were talking about is a awning or two awnings and those are uh I believe going away and that's part of the um permit process. And then for the parking, there's no visitor parking. This is only for staff. Um, so the parking has already been all resolved with traffic saying, "Okay, this is there's no visitor allowed here. It's just purely for staff." Did that answer it? >> Yes. There was a note also on page 69 about driveway permits for access onto Gamble Street, but you intend to access off the alley or >> Yeah. And that will also be part of the permit process moving forward getting the final approval from traffic once we have the approved CU. See no further questions. You have >> I'm good. >> You have at least eight minutes for rebuttal. >> Thank you. Um, okay. Anyone from the public wishing to testify on this matter? Going once, twice. Public hearing is now wait. Would you like to use your rebuttal time? >> I just want to say um planning supports this and I ask you to vote in favor. Thank you. All right. Now we will close the public hearing. What is the will of the body? Motion by Commissioner Krishna. Would you like to state your motion? Yes. I move in case 2025-0102 to approve a conditional use for a large habilitative care facility subject to conditions 1 through three as shown on page six of the staff report. >> Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Commissioner Krishna, would you like to speak to your motion? >> Sure. And um I I think I'd like to emphasize um that this is a a big facility that will have um tens and tens I think close to a hundred uh beds when fully operational and goes a long way towards meeting a really really really important community need um that I'm sure we're all aware of. I think that uh for those of you who are familiar with the history of social service facilities um which I I know this one isn't quite that within downtown and Fairview I think you'll know that they can be controversial because they're very very frequent in those areas. I I think having um seen a tiny bit of the public process, I will say that the lack of objection and comments from both neighbors and from the community council is a sign that um this operator has really uh developed and communicated their plans to make sure that this has very minimal impacts from a you know pedestrian frontage and street perspective, but also um that this goes a big way towards providing services to individuals experiencing homelessness or incarceration or behavioral health challenges um which we need. So uh yes, I think I'll just say for those reasons I I think this is a very important facility um to have in our community and I intend to support this application. >> Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Commissioner Pulis. >> Yeah, I intend to support the motion. I'll just add a couple more findings. Um, there was no public or agency opposition. The conditional use criteria is met as noted by the department review. Um, and this project reuses existing infrastructure in a positive manner for the municipality. So, anybody else hearing? Seeing none, we'll call for the vote. Mr. Strike, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> The motion passes. Moving on to case 2025- Z0087. May we please have the staff presentation? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The property owner is request sorry, jump in the gap for the next. Um, so this is a design study report abbreviated as a DSR for the Seward Highway mile post 98.5 to 118. Uh, also called the safer Seward Highway project. This segment of the Seward Highway is fully within the municipality. Uh there is a portion from uh milepost 112 to 118 that is within the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions or AAT's boundary. Uh the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities or uh DOT maintains the Seward Highway. There are 13 topic areas uh listed in title 21 for the commission to be included but not limited to in your deliberations tonight. Those topic areas are existing conditions, design standards, alternatives, compliance with title 21, long-term and short-term impacts for land use and right-of-way acquisition, utility and infrastructure impacts, street illumination, maintenance, environmental constraints, non-motorized access, public involvement, and cost. Uh the planning department found the selected alternative in the DSR. So that's the fourlane divided highway concept is inconsistent with the following municipal plans. The longrange transportation plan adopted in 2025. Anchorage 2020 anchorage bull comprehensive plan adopted in 2001. The anchorage 2040 land use plan adopted in 2017. and the 2040 uh metropolitan transportation plan or MTP for the Incredible Bowl and Chiaak Eagle River adopted 2020. Uh public comments received by the planning department were in opposition to approval of the DSR. Those comments included submitts from the Radick Creek Community Council in Bike Anchorage. reviewing agencies uh including uh including the long-range planning division and submitted comments with concerns for project costs and funding allocation impacts, impacts on staffing and maintenance and concerns about the design of the preferred alternative that was presented. There is a supplementary packet one that the commission received tonight uh that does show um comments that were uh mostly written uh in support of the raise grant application for the project. Uh so those included um Turnigan Arm Community Council, uh State of Alaska entities, um Girdwood Fire and Rescue, uh APD, City of Seward, Anchorage Park Foundation, the Alaska Trucking Association. Um so again, those are in supplementary uh packet one and were received by the department after the staff report was finalized. Um and they uh most of them did didn't seem to to fully look to a specific al alternative, but they were um in support of the raise grant application that uh that would make improvements to this stretch of the Seward Highway. Based on the 13 topic areas and information in the DSR, the planning department is recommending that the commission vote to return the application to the project management team for additional work to address the topic areas. Um I I'll just note that there is no uh like a deny option because some cases you see where you can like approve or deny. Um that that's the option to uh in code given to to not approve it. Um there's not uh the department found there's not enough evidence in the the DSR to support the fourlane divided highway concept um for the safer sewer highway project. Uh I'll throw it now to um Daniel McKenna Foster with the long range planning division. Um he's just going to speak to some of the comments that were submitted for this case from long range planning. >> Thank you, Elizabeth. Uh Daniel McKenna Foster, long-range planning. Uh yeah, our so our comments are in the comments packet. They're on page 18 of 39. I'll go through some of them quickly. We identified 14 things that we we think um merit consideration. And again, just thinking about the intent of the CSS process is to ensure that projects are contextsensitive and appropriate for their environs. Um and and as presented, we we didn't see that this proposal necessarily met that. Um, one is just making sure that the project design was not predetermined before it went through the standardized federal process, which is a a rule. Um, another piece that this it it looks like based on the project materials that this road project would have a significant impact on the area, including taking a lot of land from both the cliff side and the wateride. That could have serious adverse impacts to that area uh to the byway designation. You know, part of that that's one of Alaska's great scenic byways. And part of the byway is that it kind of is curveal linear and it has these views. And so it seems like some of these um designs could adversely impact that. Um another piece is the cost. This was originally scheduled to cost around $600 million and now it seems to be around $1.5 billion. Um and then as scheduled this would require either 24 to 25 years of 65 to $75 million per year or 10 to 12 years with about $150 million per year. So just looking at that in the context of Anchorage and all the other needs we have in Anchorage and again Anchorage is you know the most populous area of the state. Um we have a lot of uh traffic issues. We have a lot of traffic fatalities. Last year was the most dangerous uh year I believe for Anchorage. We had something like 15 pedestrian fatalities. There are a lot of needs on the system. So, in a climate of limited um financial availability, it it's worth looking closely at how we allocate funding and whether where we're putting funding so it it it benefits the most people um the most way. Um maintenance of course is always a discussion where so we're always asking about because we always hear from people, well, how are you going to maintain it? Is the funding there to pay for the long-term maintenance? We would love to see a little bit more detail about that because as we've seen, it's harder to fill positions. It's hard to get people maintaining the roads. So every time you build new facilities or expand new facilities, you're creating a larger maintenance obligation. And again, that that might be provided for somewhere, but it just seems like something that would be useful to be uh to include in here. Um another thing, too, is the the rationale of this project is about safety. Um and so it seems to be expanding capacity in in order to address that safety issue. But if you look at the numbers in the report, um most of the crashes happen in the winter. I think it's in December or January when the ca capacity is actually at the greatest. So there seems to be a disconnect there between um the times when the road has the fewest people on it is seems to be when the time the road is most dangerous. Um and that gets into the question of speed, right? As we've seen that speed kills, speed is a major factor in deaths and injury and safety. And so increasing speed or reducing obstacles to speed such as curves or things that slow people down might have uh the opposite impact on safety. Um there's some other issues with the design. The multi-use path seems to be in the clear zone. Um we've heard from people that that you know that that's kind of contradictory to a safe um traveling way for a non-motorized user. Um some of the diagrams we would might need a bit of clarification about scale. Um and additionally one thing about traffic growth or is this project predicts significant traffic growth over time. Um, but according to the numbers in the report, there's actually not that much traffic there, especially compared to other parts of the system. So, this would be a pretty significant investment, over a billion dollars in an area that doesn't have as much traffic as other places in the system with more crashes, more pedestrian um fatalities. And also, in in the research we've done, we found that a lot of times traffic projections do not pan out and they're actually um a little bit bigger than what ends up. And so, that ends up with a lot more costs. And again, we're really just focusing on long-term costs here. Um, finally, uh, just some talking about speed. Again, focusing on speed is a major factor in crashes and safety. And so, any sort of designs that lead to increased speed seem like they might be likely to um, go in the opposite way of that. I mentioned the byway. Um, and this project was removed by from the 2023 2026 TIP and 2050 MTP by the AATS policy committee for that section that is within the AATS boundary. Um and then finally the the long-range transportation plan which was adopted this year by the assembly and is a policy guidance for the municipality really looks at making the most of what we have um fixing the problems on the infrastructure we already have not expanding in risk we really have to kind of being targeted with our investments um and and thinking about creating a much safer system um and so there there are a few pieces that don't quite address that. So thank you for the time. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thanks. Any questions for staff from the commission? Commissioner Pulus, did the traffic department have any comments on this? They said they didn't in the back. Did someone help write this long range transportation? Did they review this >> through the chair? We we worked on our comments with uh a number of our colleagues, some from traffic, some from AATS. Um we circulated them around because again we wanted to make sure that you know we weren't missing something. Um but especially a lot of the stuff on the speed that you know we wouldn't have known about or the insight that looking at most of the crashes seem to be happening in the winter when the traffic counts are actually the lowest. That's another thing that we wouldn't have picked out without the help of our colleagues. So, >> and um just I'll the only other thing I'll add is the the traffic engineering comment uh just kind of kick the can forward said that they look they don't have comment at this uh stage of the project. Any other questions? Hearing seeing none, we will ask for the petitioner's presentation. Uh, thank you. My name is Chris Hughes, spelled C H R A S H U G HS. I'm here with my project team. I would like to Can I introduce myself first before I start? Sorry. I just want to introduce my project team. We got Edith McKe here as well as as well as PGrace uh Pantalone. I'd like to present for seven minutes reserving three minutes for rebuttal. >> Ready when you are. >> Thank you. Uh as the staff mentioned, we're here to look at the Seward Highway starting at mile post 98. That's down there in Bird Flats traveling all the way north to mile post 118. That's north of Potter Marsh at Rabbit Creek Road. Uh this is a 20-m corridor where we're looking at uh ways to improve it improve it. It's been a safety corridor uh since designated safety corridor since 2006. You can see the red lines on the map showcase a lot of the crash density areas and they they occur throughout the corridor. As mentioned, we've also noticed crashes that happen in the wintertime and quite a bit and uh um and also in July is a pretty high month as well. uh where we are in the process. We started the NEPA process for FHWA funding on this project uh almost three years ago now. We started off with a bunch of ideas. We slowly filtered them down um looking at different things from uh purpose and need how they address that um to to uh different impacts. And we finally are where we're at today where we're looking at both a build and a non-build alternative. Uh after this point, we will be in design phases. So there's a lot to come after we get through this environmental document. Where we are today, we're going through the CSS process. Uh we finished the first part, the pre-application. We've provided the design study report. That's where we are tonight. Um once again, after this, we'll take the recommendations uh from the commission and move forward. As we do this project through different segments, again, it's a 20-m corridor. It would be built in segments. Each one of those segments will come back to the commission uh to try to address concerns in the third phase of the CSS process. Uh public engagement on this project has been extremely significant. My 20 years in Anchorage, uh this is the most public involvement I've ever seen on a project. Um tons of stuff from uh uh table tents to, you know, listening posts uh throughout the corridor. Uh and in your packet also was provided a public opinion survey done by Dipman Research. That's a third party company who made telephone calls just to try to access people that don't normally come to uh public meetings. Lastly on that on that page is a stakeholder working group. We put this together at the very early stages of the project. Uh we met every single month with this group and uh we even took some time some of those meetings and instead of meeting as a group, we just met one-on-one with every different agency or or people you see here strictly so we could hear their concerns one-on-one for the project team. This included uh uh both agencies and uh groups but then it also included members of the public uh Turnigan Arm Community Council, Rabbit Creek Community Council, Bike Anchorage uh as you heard them, they were all part of this group. We started meeting probably a year and a half ago with this group uh and started in the beginning developing the purpose and need. So the purpose and need that was that we created uh really what the problem is we're trying to solve was really to reduce crash rates and crash severity. As I mentioned, it's been a safety corridor since 2006. This project started as Windy Corner uh and was worked on for a long time. And to this day, nothing has been built out there. Nothing has been done to improve safety. We recognize that all the conditions that were out there were really true, not just at the Windy Corner section, but really throughout this entire 20 mile segment, and that's where this project got reworked into the safer sewer highway. Uh second, improve mobility and reliability. This is really focused on uh people on the Kenai trying to get to Anchorage and uh uh and having a reliable source to do that. Mobility was really focused on the pathway. We have a 20-m pathway for the entire uh segment. And lastly, safely accommodate mixed use of the corridor. There's a lot of people traveling through there that are trying to see Chugat State Park. And then there's a lot of people that are trying to travel through. Um we looked at a lot of different alternatives, different ways to do the alternatives. Um, some of the things we noticed, we really got to the point where we looked a lot at a three-lane, which is an alternate passing solution, and then a lot at a four-lane alternative. As you can see, future crash rates uh are reduced significantly under the four-lane alternative. Um, from a mobility standpoint, um, really that threelane has limited passing opportunities. And what we find in that scenario is that people speed extremely fast to try to finish a maneuver at the end of a at the end of a passing zone. and that leads to some of the safety concerns. Um, that goes away with the fourlane. Um, as far as mixed uses in the summertime when we have tourism and the and the people who aren't as used to the corridor and they're taking in the scenic views and they want to get to a trail head, um, they're not intermixing with traffic that's trying to get down to the Keenai to go dip netting or something. So, it really kind of facilitates that. There's a couple other considerations I want to touch on that aren't really top of mind sometimes when you look at these alternatives, but from an emergency response standpoint, that four-lane extremely helps. We heard a lot from uh EMS and Gerwood and Anchorage about their ability to access a a crash site. Um that really lends to the reliability piece where we can maintain this road open. You know, as we talked to the mayor of Kenai, one of the things he said was that u uh without this road, they would be Kodiak. this is their way to get to medical facilities or get to airports. So the importance of reliability on this road because there's no other options I think becomes uh more paramount. Um again driver confusion when markings aren't as available. And then the other thing is on a maintenance, maintenance comes up a lot and um you know in the sense of a on a threelane alternate passing solution, especially when you divide the highway to try to address the head-on collisions. Um in that one lane section, if you're doing any kind of maintenance, if you're fixing a barrier, a guardrail or repainting, that kind of thing, you're essentially closing that lane of traffic. You almost have a moving closure. Um and that again lends to the reliability of the facility for everybody. Uh let's see. And so what you'll see is that um our proposed action or through the environmental process we're developing what is a proposed action to try to address the problems the purpose and need. Um and then we're also looking at that compared to a no action alternative. Um so again that that uh proposed action right now four-lane divided the dividedness is to try to address the head-on concerns and then the separated pathway. Currently, bikes and ped users are using the shoulder of the roadway. Um, and so this 10 this uh separated facility provides a separated uh 10-ft pave pathway for the entire length connecting to the current bird to gird um uh pathway that everybody's familiar with. Uh these are a couple renderings here at the end just to kind of show what they look like. We've used these in public meetings. We have public meetings. We always have them in Anchorage. We have them in Indian and we have them in Gerdwood. Uh on the bottom is Potter Marsh uh what it is today on the right and on the left would what it would be in the future and then above you can see some of the alternatives with pathway and uh and frontage roads in the bird area. And that's it. Thank you. >> A question from Commissioner Krishna. >> Yes. Just for a little bit of context, could you uh share with us the average amount or the amount of H uh FHWA funding that the Anchorage Bowl has received for the last uh couple of years >> uh through the chair commissioner. Um I don't have in front of me what the Anchorage Bowl has received in funding. Uh the focus of this project was to develop alternatives and solutions that meet the concerns within this corridor. uh and and look at this project individually. So I don't I don't have the numbers of what Anchorage has received in funding. >> Uh I see no further qu Oh, Commissioner Pis. Um my first question is I don't know if you know the answer to this. It might be a staff question. What impact does the project being pulled from the tip have on this situation? >> I I might be able to answer that. uh through the chair um without it being in the TIP and not supported um uh anything that's in the STIP has to be within the TIP for it to be funded. And so um this project was started as an environmental document from FHWA from milepost 98 to18. As we worked through that process and it got removed from the tip and removed from the LRTP, the DOT could no longer fund 98 to18 because it's not supported in the local documents. Um, so what DOT did is they went back to FHWA and they said, "We still have a safety concern in this area. We still want to move forward. It's a 20 mile corridor. We're not just looking at one section." And so the project has been reformatted into the STIP from 98 to 112. And the focus is we have funding and we have a backing to produ to start to continue the project forward at least from a funding standpoint. And if you notice those are phase two funds to get to design and the stip. So that's to focus on that part of the corridor. Um but the the original approval for this project from FHWA was for a project from 98 to 118. So we're continuing the effort to finish this document. I like to say this is real similar to the Seward Highway in town where there was an environmental document from the Seward Highway from Tutor to Rabbit Creek, but that's been built over phases through time. So, a lot of times there's these corridorong EAS. Uh, but then you build those things in segments through time. So, right now what DOT is doing is they're saying we're still we're still have a concern here. We still want to build improvements to this corridor. What can we do to continue to move this forward? And if I can add one more thing, um it's always been a concern to try to do something within this corridor, even as soon as we can, even without waiting for this document. Uh to that end, we've had what we've called safety express projects. There was one installed this last summer where we put out a bunch of signage, uh larger signs, um signs at um pullouts because we had heard from Girdwood EMS that people were pulling over at those pullouts, calling for help, and using mile post from the railroad rather than mile post from the road. So, if you drive there today, you'll see a bunch of mile post sign to try to give people a better way to um um um call in where their location is. Um so, that's one example of a safety express project. We're looking at another one to put a left turn lane in at McHugh Creek um right now that's just finished design. Um we're looking at another one to do some more of that rockfall protection that's out there. So, it's kind of been an effort to say, what can we do today to improve safety, improve safety, and that's a little bit behind the logic of saying, let's find a way to continue to move this project forward even though it's not in the tip and the step. Let's control what we can and continue to address some of the safety concerns. >> Okay. Can I ask one more question? >> Um, you can say no to this question. Do you have any responses to the long range planning document with their comments that they've released? If you don't have them prepared, that's fine. I'm just >> I'm thinking that that needs to be discussed. >> Yeah. I mean, there was a couple that I wrote down that I might mention real fast. >> Um, you know, and the concerns about appropriate for the context. I think one of the things that was taken into account a lot with this project was access to Chugat State Park. Um, certainly going through all the permitting needs for wetland fill and for beluga critical habitat. um we've done all those consultations within that um component of the context, but this project is within a really tight corridor of Chuach State Park. It's actually both on the mountain side and on the water side. Um so appropriate for the context, we've really looked at ways to access Chugat State Park better. Uh for instance, one component is a grade separated walkway at Beluga Point. Right now there's a lot of pedestrians that cross the railroad at grade there. Um there's been people that have been uh impacted by trains unfortunately and so to have a safe way for them to access that side of the park. Uh just one example. Um so uh there a large part of the project has been you know that plus the pathway a large part has been figuring out how do we access the area that we're in. Um I hear straighten a lot straighten the roadway. Um there is some flattening of curves but I think that there's a big distinction there. Um the intent of this project isn't to come in and just straighten it um to allow speeds to increase. Um there's been a lot of interest lately in how you design roadways from a safety standpoint, from a from a a um I can't think of the term, but where you're slowing cars down with your design, right? Um and so we've really looked at designing these curves to match the speed limit. Today out there there are curves that are designed at 80 miles an hour, maybe even 90 miles an hour. There are some that are designed at 50 miles an hour. Um we've really looked at maintaining the speed limits that that is out there and then looked at um having the curves that we create in the end uh maintain that 55 mph speed. So it tends to um um uh allow the driver to try to uh drive the speed limit more than have an 80 m hour c 80 mph curve where you're comfortable going 80 miles an hour. So, those are some things that we're trying to do to try to maintain the speeds as best we can, at least through the design. Um, you know, the the long-term cost, I know that comes up a lot. I'm definitely aware of that. And that's really the reason why uh this would be built in segments. It just there's no other way to do it and try to balance all the needs of the state that that are going on. Um uh and then you know the the idea of fixing what we have um uh that context within the planning documents. Um since this has been a safety corridor since 2006, there's been a bunch of projects. There's actually been over a hund00 million spent on small spot improvements within this corridor. Um that includes centerline rumble strips. Uh that includes rockfall protection. That includes slow vehicle turnouts. um within that hundred million dollars that's been spent to date um there's still not the level of reduced crashes, reduced severe and fatalities that we're seeing to remove this as a safety corridor designation. So it's kind of come to the spot where um there's been almost 20 years of time spent trying to improve the existing infrastructure and without a large project we're really not going to see those improvements from a safety standpoint. So >> yeah, you want to add? Sorry. >> Um, we got a question from Commissioner Gardner. I think you exhausted Commissioner Pulis's question, so we're we're good there. But we'll see what Commissioner Gardner wants to hear. >> Oh, >> sure. Um, thanks. I was I was curious, I guess, you mentioned at the start of your presentation kind of the robust public process, and I'm relatively new uh to this project. I don't, you know, I haven't been paying attention to it um throughout and coming at it relatively cold, I guess, and I'm sure you're familiar with the packet that we received it. There's there's a lot of concerns that are raised in the comments included in this packet and I'm wondering if you can speak to a little more detail about the process and and ways in which I mean I'm assuming these types of concerns this isn't the first time you're hearing them um and ways in which the concerns you know that we're seeing here in the packet maybe have informed um the the process as you've gone through it and changes um that may have been made to implement or or address those types of concerns. Um, I guess from the public involvement standpoint, you know, when we, um, when we started out and we had this stakeholder working group, um, what we really showed them was stuff that we weren't even shown to the public yet. It was brand new stuff that the team was working on. Um, so in a sense, the goal was to kind of bring them behind the scenes and get input from them to help shape uh, the project. And that started off with the problem and developing that purpose and need. We probably went through that for four months. Um we even we had four, we changed it to three, we removed some we changed the language a little bit. Uh and that was all through that input. Um generally that's not done in a public forum. Generally the project team puts together that and then goes out for uh public comment, but usually that's all done in in the beginning before you go out to public comment. Um that wasn't the case here. We kind of used that group to help shape what the problem was we were trying to fix. So that might be one good example there. Um >> I was going to speak to the the comment that was made about that the design was predetermined and how we involved the stakeholders in coming up with the solution that we've preferred as as our preferred recommended alternative. And it's that at the onset we had several concepts. We had eight different concepts. We looked at different speeds. We looked at different degrees of separation. Um we looked at undivided and divided. We looked at that threelane concept both at 55 and 65 mile per hours. Um, and then working with the stakeholders, we looked at one point putting the entire alignment on the existing alignment and doing all the widening out to turn arm and listen to the impacts that that would cause. And then we, you know, held it in one particular location and had all of the impacts at Chuggat State Park and listen to what those stakeholders had concerns about those impacts. And so the design that we're recommending now is really a balance of all of the feedback that we heard from the different stakeholders looking at all of those different concepts and what those areas impacted and their input and then revising the design to take into consideration a lot of the feedback that we heard. Um you know another one of those comments was bike anchorage about the multi-use path being within the clear zone. So bike anchorage is part of that stakeholder working group and and you know at one point we looked at a 25- foot offset and the significant impacts that that would either have to rock cut or fill within the tour arm and the the linear miles of railroad that would have to be relocated to facilitate that versus having the bike lane right on the back of the shoulder. You know, working with the stakeholder group and all of the input and balancing those impacts to these really sensitive habitats, we came up with that 10-ft offset. So, it's a 10- foot paved pathway with two foot gravel shoulders with a 10-ft offset from the shoulder. So, I feel like there's a lot of design considerations that were incorporated into this preferred alternative based on stakeholder and public involvement comments. >> Thank you. I see no further questions. Oh, Commissioner Ron. >> Thank you to the chair. follow up to the response I part of the response I think I heard to prior commissioner's question Mr. Hughes, did you say that um four lane, three lanes was used to develop the purpose and need? Uh and I I may be getting a little too technical here, but I just want to make sure I understand the process you're trying to describe. >> Yeah. Uh through the chair, Commissioner Ron, no, I would say not at all. Um we started off with no alternatives and uh we started off with the purpose and need to develop what the problem was we were trying to solve. Um once we once we started to develop the problem we tried to you develop the problem then we started to come up with different alternatives uh and look through different areas. So no would be the answer I'd give to that question. >> Thank you. I think we're done with commissioner comments. Um, you do have your three minutes for rebuttal and we'll open up the public hearing or invite the public up to testify. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward. Stick my neck out here. I'm a longtime Anchorage, Alaska resident. My name is Brad Nougower. been living here since 1984 and have used this highway many many times and appreciated the improvements that have made to it. Just some of the things that I heard tonight, $1.5 billion sound like an awful lot of money and I agree with the concern of how we going to maintain this. You're going to double the amount of asphalt that has to be cleared of snow, sand, everything repaved every few years. I see how they're always having to repave that highway all the way down to Seward, crunch off the top and repave it. It's a lot of money. Uh concerns I see now, and I'm not sure if the mileage even addresses it, is just all the people coming and going from the Girdwood gas station there at the corner. That is the worst intersection there. And you throw in the Girdwood Forest Fair and you got an accident waiting to happen right there. So, if you want to talk about safety that weekend and just in general weekends in the summer, that service station and all the stuff coming there, that is a really bad intersection. Um, let's see. One thing is where we've added all these extra passing lanes, what happens is you're trying to pass a guy and he speeds up as you're trying to pass him. Why don't we make a limit there when you create a passing lane that now instead of 55 or 65, make that guy slow down 10 miles an hour so I don't have to speed up 10 miles an hour to pass him. Does it make more sense to have the one guy slow down than the passing person to have to speed up? I mean, that's a simple change that should increase safety. uh wasn't wasn't clear tonight was what percent of the $1.5 billion dollars for this project is going to be federal dollars versus state money. I didn't get that. And uh the work that was done at the wildlife center to address the bus fatality crash that happened there what 10 years ago. It's awesome what y'all have done there. Um, I still question these last 20 miles. If you're going to shave off a couple minutes of time by uh, you know, changing the speed a little bit or something, is it really worth $1.5 billion? You know, I don't know. I just, like they said over here, we have so many needs in this community. You know, the roads on my street are crumbling. You know, there's crumbling highways all in this town. And if the MUN is going to have to m I guess the state will be maintaining this expansion but still we are strapped for cash in this state and that should be considered in whatever y'all do. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Ready? >> Uh yeah, please state your name and let us know if you're representing yourself or a group. >> Okay. Um, my name is Alexa Dobson and um, I'm testifying in my capacity as the executive director of Bike Anchorage. Uh, thank you. So, we urge the commission to reject this proposal to widen the Seward Highway for the reasons that uh, we detailed in our letter to this body. But in my testimony tonight, I'd like to expand on the core issue of safety on our roads. Um, traffic violence is high and rising in our city. 15 pedestrians were killed by drivers last year, and this year is on track to be even worse. Almost all of those deaths occurred on stateowned roads. Most recently, on August 29th, a pedestrian was hit by a driver and left to die on Northern Lights, also a state-owned road. Uh just yesterday, an intoxicated driver on DAR, a state-owned road, crashed into a motorcycle rider and sent him to the hospital with life-threatening injuries. The state has indeed taken action in the wake of these tragedies. This summer, quietly and with no public process or accountability, they implemented an internal policy to make road diets difficult or impossible to implement on state-owned roads in Anchorage. Road diets are a Federal Highway Administration endorsed proven safety countermeasure, and four such projects are currently programmed and matched with federal funding. This policy will kill those projects and prevent others from taking their place. The policy gates road diet projects behind hard cutoffs for level of service which the commissioners will recall from our letter on the Seward Highway Widening Project is a measure of driver convenience. Level of service has nothing to do with safety, takes into account no perspectives other than that of the driver. And the Federal Highway Administration itself affirms that level of service is not a practical metric in urban settings where many types of transportation, driving, uh, riding a bike, walking are all happening side by side. In other words, this policy is justified against FHWA guidance on the basis that road diets might in some projections have the future effect of making drivers have to wait a few more seconds. This is apparently unacceptable to the DOT, even if it would also save lives. So, here we are. The state is asking to spend $1.5 billion, probably more as the cost you've heard keeps rising, to widen a highway under the guise of safety while behind the scenes, it secretly sabotages real work to make our roads safer. I don't often quote the Bible, but there is a line that keeps coming to me when I think about this, and it's, "You shall know them by their fruit." In other words, don't look at the claims and the appearances, look at the actions and look at the outcomes, and that tells you the true story. So, to wrap things up, we ask that you reject this proposal and ask DOT to return with a safety first package. And that means speed management, protected crossings, and proven safety counter measures on streets in Anchorage where they are truly needed. Thank you. Thank you. I see no questions. >> Good evening. Uh Tim Alderson from representing Rabbit Creek Community Council. Uh, commissioners, as I stated, I'm here on behalf of Rabbit Community Council. Um, I am providing oral testimony. Uh, but my testimony today is based on written comments that we submitted and were approved by a vote of 15 to1 at our July 24th meeting uh reflecting significant community feedback. Uh, we've been following this project closely for three years. We have two of our uh members that sit on the stakeholder advisory commission. Rabbit Creek Community Council uh is one of only three community councils with portions of this project within its boundary. Our council strongly supports efforts to improve highway safety, but we are deeply concerned about the scale, cost, and environmental impact of this proposal. From the start of this process, community councils, conservation groups, recreational users, and residents have consistently asked that this project minimize its physical environmental footprint. Instead, the current design has uh has grown in scope and intensity in a way that does not reflect that feedback. Uh we have six key concerns. The first concern is the escalation of scope and costs. The scale of this design will dramatically increase long-term maintenance cost even as the state struggles to maintain the existing smaller road. Our second concern is the benefits seem disproportionate to the costs. This billiondoll project focuses on expanding capacity rather than addressing the key factors in winter crashes, weather, driver behavior, and maintenance. Many of these resources could be redirected to smaller, more effective safety projects. Our third concern is environmental and scenic impacts. This highway is part of the National Scenic Byway and borders the Alaska Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Yet the design includes major quarry cuts, five to six traffic lanes, and vertically separated roads that would carve into Chugat State Park. This threatens the corridor's ecological integrity and scenic value. We're also concerned about inadequate inadequate consideration of alternatives. The threelane alternating passing concept was dismissed too quickly in our opinion. It should be revisited, especially in areas where four-lane design would destroy parkland and trail corridors. Narrow medians with physical barriers like those south of Bird would also reduce impacts. We're concerned about community and access impacts. The loss of highway access points near Bird and Indian would harm local businesses and isolate these communities. Recreational trail access must also be preserved and enhanced. We also believe that this the current plan is misaligned with local plans. The Anchorage Long Range Transportation Plan prioritizes safety over high-speed high volume roadways. the current proposal does not align with those adopted policies or the values of local residents. Uh having followed this project for closely for three years, we have three four requests um that we'd like to see incorporated moving forward. We'd like to see the project scaled back to better reflect public input and fiscal realities to reconsider the three-lane and barrier center designs to minimize environmental damage. We'd like to revise the plan to better protect scenic, recreational, and wildlife values that make this corridor unique and further revise the van the plan to focus investment on practical safety measures and responsible long-term maintenance and planning. Uh again, as one of only three community councils with this project in its boundaries, we're deeply invested in finding a balanced approach that improves safety without fundamentally altering the character of this iconic corridor or placing an unsustainable maintenance burden on the state. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward. Hearing seeing none, we'll invite the petitioner up for three minutes of rebuttal. Uh, thank you. It's been a fun project to work on as you can see. Um, couple things I'll mention to uh to answer. You know, the Gerwood intersection, there's another project that's focused uh purely on that intersection at Girdwood. Uh, the question about percent of federal dollars versus state dollars. This is a national highway uh system facility, NHS facility. So, 10% of state dollars return 90% of federal dollars to build this project. Um, on that note, there's a lot of discussion about the ability to uh remove money from this project and put it to projects in Anchorage. Um, I don't know all the details, but if they don't fall in the right bucket, uh, you can't necessarily take $1.5 billion and put it towards projects in Anchorage. Uh, that that one that we put forth 10%, we get that return on a capital investment, but that doesn't mean that's the same for Anchorage. So, um, and the other piece of that is, uh, even if that money is not put into this facility, it would likely be put into another NHS facility. Very well could be in Anchorage, very well could be in Fairbanks, very well could be somewhere else. Um, so just to provide some clarity there. Um, I know there's a lot of talk about level of service and that's a tough one to get to. Uh, that was never a component of our uh, purpose and need. So, it wasn't um, the main any of the main pieces we looked at or the problem we were trying to solve. Um there's a ton of projects in Anchorage and there's a uh there's a whole committee focused on the pedestrian um concerns in Anchorage. Uh this what we're bringing here tonight is a way to look at this safety corridor. Um so all these projects are going to move forward at different paces at different rates. Uh and as this gets environmental approval, uh it might have sections where we can improve safety here and if sections in Anchorage move forward there the money is going to be spent to move those forward. So, um I think this what this really shows and what you're hearing from everybody tonight is that um this is a difficult problem and we're really trying to balance what would be a solution to fix this one. Um we've really looked at a lot of small spot improvements within the corridor for a really long time and what we're noticing is that's not that's not the solution. We it's still a designated safety corridor and that and that's reviewed every three years to make sure it still meets that criteria. Um so um with that I think we've come uh come up with the best solution to try to take into account um the and balance all the impacts within this really tight corridor. So thank you. >> Any uh further questions from the commission before we close the public hearing? Commissioner Gardner. >> Thanks. Um, with respect to the threelane options, I was just wanting to make sure I unerstood what information is available in the report. Um, and I see, so I don't know if you have it there with you or not, or if I'm going to be spitting off numbers, if that will mean anything to you or not, but um, maybe the easiest way to get at it is as I see kind of a reference to it at one spot. I see the a table that I think you included in your initial presentation with the um percentages of reduced crashes and then I see in one of the appendices um maybe a page or two about what I assume is that crash report. Is there are there are there other other elements in there that talk about the threelane um option and kind of considerations and the reasons for rejecting that? Yeah, I think both Edith, our engineer, can probably speak to a lot of that. >> So, when we did the when we did the traffic analysis, we did model it for both the four lane and the threelane facility. And in the crash reduction, you see a 68% crash reduction in fatal and significant injuries with the fourlane facility. And you see about a 35% crash reduction in fatal and significant injuries in the three-lane alternating passing lane. And we looked at that both divided and undivided when we did that traffic analysis. But what's in the final presentation is the three-lane divided and the four-lane divided facility. And then when we and when we look at crash data, we look at significant injuries and fatalss as any significant injury could just as easily have been a fatal crash. So that's why fatal and significant injury are grouped together. And >> and you asked about other stuff in there about the threelane. The other stuff in there uh is some level of service analysis to try to see if it functions right. And if you what you notice in there and it was referenced as follower density is that um the amount of vehicles that are out there especially in the summertime obviously um you don't really get rid of the queue. Uh so you kind of have a queue of vehicles. you open up for a passing lane that you people try to make their pass and then uh and then they end that passing lane and there's still a queue of vehicles. Uh if that's not the case and that follower density is below a certain level, that's when that level of service is a is a higher value. And so really what that's showing is like how well is the facility functioning based on uh the inner, you know, the different turnoffs that are there, based on the speeds, based on the number of vehicles, all those different things that factor into there. And so because you see that lower level of service, it doesn't function very well within this corridor um to just have alternate passing lanes. That's why you'll see those lower scores. >> Okay. Thank you. And then just as a quick followup with respect to the crash data um or the analysis that was done, is there I guess I guess I see on in this appendix that it kind of lays out those those numbers, but is there more information in here about kind of how that analysis was performed? Um yes. So we get the crash data and we um so we have the crash data that we utilize was from 2017 to 2021 and we plot it. So we look at where all of the crashes occurred. We looked at the types of crashes that occurred, the demographics, the conditions, the weather, the lighting, the time of the year, the time of the, you know, we look at all of that data and and plot it out. And then we look at, you know, could this type of crash have been mitigated by a particular type of solution? And so, you know, we look at all of that data when we when we consider um the potential solutions that could address that, which is why we said, you know, is this a corridor-wide issue or is this a a location where a spot fix could be um addressing the problem and alleviating the crash history? And I think on one of the first slides in Chris's presentation, it's not really clear, but that is a crash cluster map. And so what you see really clearly is that there are large crash cluster densities throughout the entire corridor, which leads us to believe it's it's it's a systemic problem throughout the corridor that wouldn't be addressed by any one particular solution in any one particular location. >> Thank you. >> Um I have a question for you. I have a motion prepared here by staff that says, "I move to postpone 2025-000087 to a date undetermined to allow Alaska Department Transportation and Public Facilities Project Management Team the opportunity to address topic areas 1 through 13 and provide evidence supporting the proposed four-lane divided highway concept for safer sewer highway project. Um, what have you has staff shared their intent to push this motion and what are your thoughts on this motion? I guess that was also for the commissioners as well to hear that what kind of motion has been proposed by staff and is sitting in front of me. So, go ahead. >> Uh, I have not heard that proposed motion for this project to push it. I I know uh there'll be another opportunity to come in front of the commission with each segment that gets moved forward at the 65% design level. Um so a lot of times these projects uh come in front of the commission when they're in design and one of the things that the DOT and the MUN has talked a lot about is getting this kind of input earlier on in the process. So here we are during the environmental phase. We haven't started the design of any one of the phases. Um, and so it's a little bit of new ground, I guess, for both, uh, agencies to navigate. So, um, uh, I think the intent would be to come back, uh, once we're in final design at a 65% level and showcase why or why not, uh, those things are connected or be able to address any of the comments from the commission. >> Thank you. I see no further questions. Last call people. Okay, we are going to close the public hearing. What is the will of the body? If anyone wants to propose a different motion, go right ahead. Commissioner Ron. >> Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, I move in case 2025-000087 to return the application to the project management team for additional work. I think. Would you like to maybe move to postpone that? Would you like to review the >> If you could pass that on down and I can >> see if I can read it. >> Yeah. Or >> I I'll just give a point of information. Uh just so the the commission may choose to to postpone. Um here I'll just read the from code. So you can uh you can act to approve approve with conditions or return the application to the project management team for additional work. Postponing um I guess it is similar to one of your choices but it it kind of uh delays it. Uh it doesn't you're not making a decision. You're you're just postponing your decision if that makes sense. >> Thank you. And I apologize. It sounds like returning is one of the options. I hadn't yet heard of that. So well Mr. Sure. I'm happy to add on to that motion that I made. Um so return uh the application to the project management team for additional work in accordance with department recommendations stating um addressing the topic areas 1 through 13 as indicated on page 12. Start back up. Commissioner Ron, would you like to formally state your motion now? The second time maybe for clarity. Uh, I move in case 2025-0087 to return the application to the project management team for additional work in accordance with department recommendations addressing the topic areas 1 through 13. Thank you. That's seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Would you like to speak to your motion? >> Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, I'll start by saying that I I don't envy the project team, um, in this situation. Um, uh, understanding a lot of work has gone into this. Um, you know, I appreciate the presentation here tonight. Um, but overwhelmingly, you know, not taking away from the work that's been done, overwhelmingly, uh, what I heard tonight doesn't meet muster. Um, I I heard the words, you know, we've come forward with the best solution. And, uh, my motion is intended to say, well, go do better. Um, and I trust that your team, the department, you know, has the skilled professionals necessary to do so. um this isn't the end of the project or the story, but an opportunity to perhaps um check ourselves and yourselves and say, "Okay, here's what we've heard. Now we go out and and do better." Um I appreciate the work that the department did, both long range and current planning in um lining things out against where the municipality has been, is wants to be on this project. and I appreciate the comments from the public um really putting in perspective for me as a commissioner where they think this project needs to be. So, a lot of um data points for you all to pull from um as you go forward and do more work on this. Thanks. Anyone else wishing to speak to the motion commissioner Polus? Um, I 100% intend to support this and I see this as a great thing for um, this project. Um, as a civil engineer, I can pick some of this stuff apart that long-range planning has put together. This is math and there's some word play in here and you guys need to respond to that. I think the community needs to hear that this is a federal highway. It's not a local road in Anchorage. Um, there's a lot more going on here than um, AAT's picking what projects goes next. Um, for those of you that don't know, AATS can select projects in this town to go forth. So, there's a good table in this now that says they can go and fund these projects. Um, in 2019, a $600 million project um is now 1.1 billion. COVID happened. Um, there's a lot going on here that nobody's talked about. I think you guys need to respond to that stuff with math, with data. Commissioner Gardner, >> thank you. Um, I think I I share the general comment that this is a hard uh issue to to manage and so I appreciate the work that's gone into it. Um, and don't mean to detract from that in any way. I think I agree generally with a lot of the concerns that were raised and identified in the staff packet um, and from the public today. The one point I wanted to just comment on specifically is the the concept of a threelane road. But I think from my perspective reading the materials here, I I don't see enough to kind of give me comfort that that was fully evaluated and and adequately rejected given the significant impact and cost associated with the divided four-lane um concept. And it looks it looks like the primary factor uh that's gone into it is kind of this analysis on on crash data. And I can certainly appreciate that a four-lane divided highway is um could probably be expected to more easily avoid crashes than a threelane road. But this is a you know a context sensitive analysis. There are a lot of considerations there and I think ways to evaluate and consider to um improve safety even with a three-lane road. Um given some of the factors that we've seen even in the report um that affect crash, weather being one of them, right? That's not going to change depending on the size of the road. um and fully understanding those impacts as well. >> Commissioner Gardner or Krishna, >> thank you. I'll just add that um this was some of the most eloquent, well-reasoned, and um frankly the some of the best testimony we've received um on on any case I've seen in many many years. And so I would really really like the project team to directly engage and respond to the testimony that um we've heard today, especially each of the points that the Rabbit Creek Community Council put forward. You know, my last comment that I don't really think has been um touched on, so I'll touch on it, is that every single person who visits the state drives that highway because of the viewshed. And any change that makes that highway look like a ring road around any city in the country is going to be a significant detriment not just to um the local community council, but to the state of Alaska and the economic benefit that that highway and that road brings to us. So, um, there's a lot of really, um, I think well well-reasoned testimony that you heard tonight, and so I'd like to hear responses to those. >> Uh, seeing no more comments in the queue, we'll call for the vote. >> Mr. Strike, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Thank you. That motion passes. Um, are we good to keep going? Does anyone need a break? Keep going. Okay. Uh, now we will move on to the uh cases 2025- Z0098 and S12. 846. May we please have the staff presentation? >> Yes. Uh these are um two cases, a uh reszone and a uh subdivision. The property owner requests uh a reszone of a 2.5 acre tract of land from the R10 district to the R seven district. None of the state and municipal reviewing agencies object um to the the reszone. And um we received uh five uh written comments um from the public um with staff packet. All were opposed um to the reszone. No comments were received from the uh Eagle River Valley uh community council. We did receive um two additional public comments that are uh provided in a supplemental packet, the G2 packet uh supplementary packet number one. Um, with regard to the approval criteria for reszone, the proposed reszone conforms to the residential density uh specified in the Chooiak Eagle River comprehensive plan update. The land use plan map identifies the site as residential 1 to2 dwelling units per acre and the implementing zoning district is the R seven district. The uh Mayor Suzanne Lefrance housing strategy of 10,000 homes in 10 years calls for 1,000 new units or rehabilitated units per year on average over the next 10 years. The reasonzoning to the R seven district will facilitate the subdivision of this property and potential new homes. Um with regard to approval criteria uh two uh their proposed reszone to the R seven district will not result in an objective uh risk to health or safety and approval criteria three criterion three um the reasonzoning does not conflict with the with municipal state or federal codes regulations and ordinances. Um, with regard to the reszone, the department uh finds that all three approval criteria were met and um recommends uh approval um of the reszone. Um enclosed is uh a draft assembly ordinance on uh page uh seven of your packet. Um the public comment section in the packet is on page uh 27. And now I'll turn to Sean for presentation on the subdivision. >> Thank you. So in the case of S12846 uh subdivision, so it's a preliminary plat request to subdivide one tract of land into three lots and vacation of the Stewart Drive remainder portion of rideway that was dedicated per plat 761 179. So the resone of the property as stated will allow the minimum lot size of 20,000 square ft. Proposed lots one and two have 40,000 square feet and lot three has approximately 39,800 square feet with the inclusion of the vacated rideway. So staff has requested a condition of approval for effectuation of the reszone first, thus not creating lots that do not meet the minimum lot standards of the CR10 district before final plat approval. Uh any easements requested by the utilities will replace the vacated rideway. No municipal state reviewing agency had objection to the vacation or the plat. The subject property meets the minimum lot size and width required by that zoning district. Proposed lot one, two, and three have access to Stewart Drive as it uh loops around. Traffic engineering has stated their comments to provide a common access point or to provide information that driveway access will not exceed the slope percentage allowed for a driveway. So, planning has recommended a conditional approval to resolve with traffic the need for information that ensures all proposed driveways can meet current code and municipal driveway standards from Steuart Drive. In the matter of the roads and rideway vacation request, the proposed platting action is creating three lots from the existing tract and requesting vacation of a portion of the undeveloped Steuart Mountain Drive. So, Steuart Drive Mountain Drive is a local road for the official streets and highways plan. Local roads require 50 to 60 feet minimum rightway width and Steuart Driveway has uh previously dedicated 60 ft of rideway. So no further dedication or uh additional improvements are required. So in the matter of vacating the rideway, the municipality must consider the following uh following criteria for any vacation. Uh staff finds that uh condition one has been met. The rideway is no longer uh serves as access to surrounding unsubided property as it was in 1979. So in 1983 there was a subdivision of the surrounding area which determined the final location of Steuart Drive. The new location and construction made this portion rideway in excess of municipal need. Staff finds condition two has been met. The portion of rideway is not part of the official streets and highways plan. Uh staff finds condition three and four has been met. It's not lying in the half mile or quarter mile grid. Staff finds that condition five has been met. This vacation will not have impact on traffic circulation. Other dedicated rights away provide access to the surrounding properties. And lastly, staff finds condition six has been met. The vacation will not result in realignment of any existing rideway and does not impact traffic circulation. So with that being said, agencies have expressed no objection to request that vacation portion of the rideway on Steuart Drive outside of the constructed rideway area. Uh the utility companies will have opportunity to review the pros plat and request easements as necessary. This does include Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility which has an existing water man in the rideway. So therefore, the planning department recommends approval of the vacation uh subject to the conditions approval and approval of the preliminary plat found on page six of the staff packet uh A and B 1 through six. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Um, I was reading through some of the comments. Uh, one of the neighbors is concerned about duplexes being built on these lots. Can you confirm that the lots are sized that would allow duplexes if it were reszoned R seven? CE R7. >> Um, yes, Mr. Mr. Chair, two of the lots have 40,000 square ft and one has less than 40,000 square ft. The R seven district allows um one house on 20,000 square feet and uh uh duplex on 40,000 square feet. So approximately uh one house on half an acre or uh two units on one acre. >> Thank you. Any other for Commissioner Krishna? >> Yes, I have a question for staff. Some of the uh testimony or public comments have um suggested uh alternate reasonzoning options. Um just before we get started today, I'm wondering if you could provide an opinion on the commission's scope here. Is the commission only to consider the proposed zone that's being requested or um is it within the commission's purview to evaluate whether other zones might fulfill the the you know the desires of the property owner as well. >> Um thank you through the chair u Miss Krishna. Um the the code says that the planning and zoning commission action um they shall uh recommend approval of the application or request um or uh approval with modifications at least as restrictive as submitted or uh denial. Those are the three options. So the commission could uh recommend a different district than what the planning department is recommending if that's kind of the bottom line question you're asking. All right. Um, any other I see no further questions for staff. We'll invite the petitioner up. I'll remind everybody time allotted for testimony will be doubled. So, the petitioner will receive 20 minutes. Take it away. Thank you. Good evening, chairman, members of the board. My name is Craig Bennett Bennett TT with S4 Group and staff did a great job again and appreciate their effort. I'm going to keep this short and I'll start with the reasonzoning case first. Um this property is located up the Eagle River Valley and totals approximately 2.8 acres with the land and the vacation of rideway. We are requesting reszone from CR10 to CER7 which is Chugiak Eagle River Medium density single family residential district is what it's called. The surrounding properties are zoned CR1ASL. However, the site's not eligible for that zoning. Um the comprehensive plan designates the area as residential one to two dwelling units per acre and the CR allows twice that density. Therefore, the proposed C7 zoning is the most consistent with both the comp plan and the surrounding lots. We held a community meeting um June 11th's not required for um this reszone, but we held it anyway. and planning staff and all reviewing departments support this request. It aligns with the comp plan meets all the required standards. Uh staff has detailed the platting case S12846. The proposed plat will create three lots from an old homestead parcel as shown on page 20 in the packet. It will also vacate some undeveloped rightway on the south side. These lots will be significantly larger than most of the surrounding um properties. No municipal or state agencies submitted any objections and all the approval criteria are satisfied. Staff recommends approval of both cases and we agree with all the department conditions. And with that I'll pause here and let the community h speak. Uh, one question. Are you do you have water and sewer or no water? No sewer. >> Good question. There's city water. There is no sewer. So, lots all have to be on septic in this area. >> They will be community water. >> Correct. All right. Thank you. Um, opening up public testimony unless there's any other questions from the commission. Seeing none, please let us know if you're testifying on behalf of yourself or a group. >> Oh, the mic's not on. We gotta wait till you see push things till you see the red button. There you go. Okay. My name is Adam Shiks, SHI CKS. I'm speaking on behalf of the Highland Crest Homeowners Association. >> Okay. Thank you. >> My intent is to to talk uh for five minutes and then open it up for questions after that. >> Perfect. >> Good evening. My name is Adam Shik, Lieutenant Colonel, US Air Force retired. I'm speaking on behalf of uh the Highland Crest Homeowners Association as a vice president uh of that association and I own the adjoining property northeast of Mr. Martin uh the petitioner's uh property. Uh I am also the neighbor who's collected 32 zoning protest petition signatures on behalf of the community. That's 32 signatures of 35 contacted around the area within 300 ft based on your uh limitations for what is a valid petition. Um as a community we are asking you to allow Mr. Martin the petitioner to reszone and subdivide his property in the manner he originally requested from the planning department. So I'm going to say that again so that we are clear as to where we stand with this. As the community, we are asking you to allow Mr. Martin to reszone and subdivide his property in the manner he originally requested from the planning department. a request of CER 1 Alpha, which was denied an error because of an over reliance on a 20-year-old land use map intended to guide decisions, not be the primary source for plotbyplot zoning decisions. This should be the easiest decision of the e evening for you. If you vote to allow Mr. Martin to reszone the land as originally requested, R1 alpha, Mr. Martin wins. The community wins with an R1 alpha because we want Mr. Martin Martin to zone the property as he originally requested and end the manner that very closely matches the rules of how we are zoned. The Anchorage Assembly wins because Mr. Martin, who is an accomplished builder, can add three more single family homes and ADUs to the housing demand the assembly is attempting to address. And you, the commission, win because you will be in compliance with the Chugiak Eagle River comprehensive plan in its entirety, not just the map, guidelines for growth, land use directives, and the desires of the community. This is a contested issue because Mr. Martin's original request to reszone as R1 alpha was denied by the planning department due to a land use map on page 61 of the comprehensive plan. A map color-coded to limit an area to one to two homes per acre. A map with an explicitly stated purpose explicitly stated purpose within there to be a framework for growth between 2006 and 2025 in a community that is now 99% complete in its growth. as a one alpha. It's already grown. It's there. A map. Excuse me. These guidelines for growth have no less than 13 explicit goals, objectives, and strategies that support this. And that's what I mean by you could be in compliance with the entirety of the comprehensive plan. Three examples of those. Preserve and enhance the identity of established communities. Consider the character of adjacent development. complement the scale and character of existing and planned development. I could go on, but I don't want to take your time reading the entire plan to you. These are the non-map guidelines for growth that reinforce title 21 tax 03 section 160 reszoning purpose and scope which says, and again I'm sure you're familiar with this, but I want to say this out loud so that we all hear what it's saying. Zoning is intended to provide a degree of certainty that is important for long-term investment and neighborhood cohesion and stability. So that is an explicit statement of the purpose of zoning. I believe the planning department's denial of R1 alpha for Mr. Martin came from an over reliance on a land use map in its last six months of utility for reszoning a plot of land in a community that is fully matured as an R1 alpha. I introduced myself as Lieutenant Colonel Adam Shiks retired. I was an E3 Awax navigator for 23 years. So I have extensive experience in building, interpreting, and using maps and charts. On my first annual flight evaluation, we were in route for a flight for a night air refueling over Minnesota. I was busy at work with my map and log and called a 30°ree right turn for the pilots toward an air refueling initial point. My evaluator smacked me on the back of the head hard enough to knock my hat off and pointed out the window 30° off to the right where I had just called the turn and asked me if those thunderstorms were on my map. Clearly, they were not. The point he was trying to make to me is don't get map itis. Don't get your head down in the map and lose the bigger picture of what's going on. And that's what I'm asking the commission to do. My job as a navigator and your responsibility here is to look beyond the map at the big picture and call the turn that makes the most sense. Zone this land as a CER one alpha just as the way the petitioner originally wanted it the way the neighborhood desires it and allows the Anchorage assembly assembly to get closer to solving its housing problem with three beautifully built Martin Construction Company single family homes. I look forward to and highly encourage your questions. And if I could be specific on areas that you might ask questions on equal application of the code as it relates to neighbors and I can give you a vignette on that historical nature of the comprehensive plan and amendments, right? Weighted weight of effort or aortionment of the comprehensive plan and what they say when it says one thing one place and another thing someplace else. what how do you weight what's more important the petitioner wording intent as originally put into that staff summary those are just some examples that I would encourage some questions on for this and I'll seed the rest of my time for questions thank you very much >> um you don't need to seed your time you have 3 minutes and 47 seconds for rebuttal um and >> or no you don't get rebuttal sorry >> I'm not the petitioner But I'll just say a point of information. Either you you lose it or you lose lose it in this situation. >> No, that's fine. I will stand here and take questions hopefully uh from each of you. >> I see no questions. >> Commissioner Pis, >> the main thing you guys don't want to see is a duplex built on these lots, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And and in that effort, we've explored various options for this. So, I had three meetings uh with the planning department last week talking about how we could approach this. Uh they gave me one alternative. I did speak to the petitioner about that that alternative, but that would require him to train change his original plan for dividing up the three lots. Uh and he does he's not interested in that. And quite honestly, I don't blame him for that. I was just looking for those options uh for that. Question from Commissioner Ron. >> Uh thank you through the chair. Um I'm going to cut to the chase. Uh Mr. Shik, I appreciate your testimony tonight. Um why are you afraid of duplexes? >> Uh I am not afraid of duplexes. There is a there's a nature to the community that exists uh there. The comprehensive plan I think is is looked at incorrectly. Uh and we want to maintain the nature of the community. >> Thanks for your response. Question from Commissioner Krishna. >> More of a comment really. Um, I appreciate your testimony. I'm uncomfortable acting upon it unless I hear from the petitioner or the property owner directly that there is an alternate zoning that they originally preferred and might still prefer. But, uh, I I'm not comfortable acting on the information from a third party unless I hear that directly from either the petitioner or their representative. >> Okay. And I think you might also be able to hear that from the planning department as well from the initial discussions. >> Sure. I'll I'll ask if anyone wants to corroborate what um the testifier is saying either from the city or from the property owner that um I'd be interested in hearing that later. >> Thank you. See no further questions. Anyone else wishing to testify, please step forward. Hi, my name is Royce Martin. I am the petitioner. >> I'm sorry. You uh you do have time for rebuttal, so you'll be able to speak at that time. Anybody else wishing to testify, please come forward. >> So, >> not you. >> No, I understand. So, she was asking specifically within my time. >> You're Yeah, we're good. >> Okay. Uh, anyone else wishing to testify, please come forward. >> Yeah, my name is Nick Weber. I'm a local resident. Um, I'm about four parcels down, so I'm not part of the HOA, but I am part of uh the local neighborhood area. Um, this uh topic came to my um u attention a few days ago, just before the weekend, and I thought it might be uh useful for me to come here and learn a little bit more about what was going on in my neighborhood. Um, I kind of prepared a speech and everything, but after hearing all the testimony, I'm not going to go through all that. I think Mr. Schik had uh quite a bit of information there. Um, I share the same opinion. Uh, as far as the R seven classification, um, if you look at a map, uh, Mr. Shik said don't don't look at the map, but I'd say look to the map and look at this hillside neighborhood community and you'll find that uh most of it is R1A SL. Uh my understanding since doing a little research over the weekend is the SL designation is no longer available. You won't find any R sevens anywhere on that hillside uh north, south, east, or west. Um, so it creates uh if you were to move forward with an R seven, in my opinion, it would create kind of a zoning island. This is a unique piece of property. Uh, this is a unique uh part of Anchorage. Uh, the Eagle River Valley has Chugat State Park to the southside and to the north. It's the second largest state park to my understanding in the state. Uh, we have Highland Crest Park that's just above that. It's a scenic road that people travel down to the nature center uh you know thousands of visitors every summer. Um maintaining uh that hillside is really important and I think the zoning that we choose to to what you all choose to put on that that parcel is really important. Uh and as I did more research I started to ask myself you know how important is it to change it from the current classification? Why does it have the current classification? So, I dug into the R10. My property is actually an R10 as well. Uh that's uh alpine sensitive slope area. And uh while I may not be on a slope uh a steep grade, this property is more located on a steep grade, uh I went out and looked at some of the elevations and you know, down on the uh the southern property line uh to the the north property line, there's over 110 ft of elevation. Um, so when you look at R10, uh, there's probably, you know, R10 allows for subdivision, but it's just saying you have to look at it and you have to look at each property individually, and you have to apply the calculations of how far can we subdivide this. What do we need to take into consideration as far as, you know, any detriment to the property, the people that live there, or the surrounding parcels that are impacted? Uh, erosion. you know, if you travel up and down that street, you start to see the road is starting to slide down. Uh, you know, those are things that we have to look at. And I think that's what R10 is saying is is that not that you can't do these certain things, but we have to take into consideration this this partic particular parcel and what's going to happen to it if we decide to develop it or subdivide it. Yes, there is public water available in the neighborhood, but another concern is the septic system availability or the management of that. Um, I too uh, you know, I'm not opposed to subdividing the property. Uh, I say we do it smartly, uh, with some research and that maybe R10 is still the most appropriate classification for it. Um, I would prefer not to see duplexes there as well. I don't have an aversion to duplexes. My family owns multi- family properties that we rent out in other states. Um, however, the uh my opinion for this is that you have an established neighborhood all around on all four sides of this parcel. It used to be the homestead there. It's unique. Um, if you make it R seven and if there, you know, in the future if these parcels again get subdivided, uh, and a duplex gets put there, it changes the character of the community. And this is not just a community of uh, you know, single family homes, but uh, it's part of that Highland Crest HOA neighborhood association. So, it makes it really uh, it it makes it really unique and it's different to have some kind of property right in the middle of an HOA that isn't part of the HOA. has a totally distinct classification, zoning classification of R seven, where you can look up and down the valley and anywhere north of Eagle River doesn't have an R seven in it. So, I asked myself, well, why why doesn't everything have an R seven? There's a lot of R sixs to the south, excuse me, to the east and to the northwest. Uh, and then all the adjacent properties immediately around it are 1A SL or 1A. So, I would ask you to probably uh evaluate your options uh and before approving it, go back and see if there's a better alternative. Uh I I know that's a possibility as I listened to the the Seward improvement uh which I thought was really interesting and that's what I think is probably the best case here. Uh is there something better that we can do? Can we look at this a little bit different? Because this is such a unique property and a unique part of Anchorage, I think it deserves a second look. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. I see no questions. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward. >> Yes. U my name is Vern RS. I'm one of the neighbors. uh live across Stewart Drive to the northeast corner of the subdivision. Uh my comments uh mainly I'm going to center them around septic systems. Um I my concern is the possibility of building duplexes which would increase the loading on the lots. Uh the subdivision main Highland Crest subdivision was developed in 1980s. At that time you could uh uh subdivide uh where you had public water available you could go to 20,000 square foot lots which which they did. The whole subdivision's been developed. Um this one section in the center is of course 2 and 1/2 acres and that was reserved out by the original property owners. The soils in the area are glacial till u silty gravels uh some shallow bedrock. Uh I' I'd say we're getting along with the septic systems here over 40 years approximately. Um probably a third of the sub of the septic systems have been replaced. the couple places around there's groundwater that's surfacing. Uh one is downgradient of of this subdivision proposed subdivision. It uh in 1990s early 90s there was some research done by state and municipality and they determined that you needed to have 40,000 square foot for septic system for single family dwelling. Uh that's municipal code uh uh 1565.410. If if zoning is put in place uh that would allow duplexes on these lots, you'd be back to the higher higher density development. Right now, there's one one uh dwelling on the 2 and 1/2 acres right in the middle of the subdivision. Um I I don't really have a problem if if it were developed in 40,000 square foot lots, but allowing duplexes on that, I'm thinking that's going to be a problem. And I think that should be avoided. I think there are some zoning options that would limit that. So, you wouldn't have the duplexes. That concludes what I have. Does anybody have any questions? Um, I see no questions. Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else wishing to testify? >> Hi, my name is Klay Davis. Uh, I'm not a neighbor. Uh, but I'd like to be. Uh, I'm a local resident. I'm 30 years old. I have a master's degree in engineering. Uh, I currently rent, but I'd like to buy a house someday. Uh, duplexes are affordable and Anchorage needs affordable housing. Uh, I'd love to be part of this community. It sounds awesome. Uh, all the neighbors care enough about it to show up tonight, which I think is really great. Uh, and lots of other people like me would love to join this community. Uh, plus it sounds like you guys need more housing if you're trying to build a thousand units uh a year. I know you're a math guy, Commissioner Pulis. Uh, sounds like we'd go from three to five if we build duplexes instead of single family homes. Uh, and I think that at least gets toward our goal of a thousand a year. Uh, for that reason, I recommend that you uh approve this zoning change to CR7 uh uh in this lot. Thanks. >> Thank you. Have no see no questions. Anybody else wish to testify? Please step forward. >> Hi, my name is Hannah Fletcher. Um I am testify on behalf of myself. I live right down the street um right across and then one house down. Um my husband and I moved up to Alaska last February. We had saved money for a long time in order to buy a house and we were ecstatic to find where we live now. The number one thing that drew us to the neighborhood was the character. Um, I grew up on slightly larger lots and finding the halfacre lots that backed up to such a beautiful park was fantastic. Um, every day I wake up and I'm just in shock that I live in this beautiful neighborhood. But the concern I have, I look up the driveway. Um, a it's a very steep lot and I am concerned about the potential of having multiple dwellings specifically if you have duplexes on it and you're adding up to six additional houses if there was a variance added for the third lot. We're talking up to the addition of six dwellings. Um, which at two cars per person would add another 12 cars that would come speeding down our hill every day in front of my house. They've already put a speed bump to address the speeding concerns. Uh, the biggest thing I'd like you to consider is the fact that since character is such an important part in the zoning process in Alaska that we at least consider the character of the neighborhood that we're building in Cyber Quest there be it be zoned back to the R1 alpha in order to not have duplexes. Any questions? Um, I see no questions. Thank you for your testimony. >> Hi, my name is Shane Taylor. I live uh probably within 300 ft of the property. Uh, and to address Commissioner Ron's comment or question about, you know, what do you have against duplexes? I don't think we have any problem against duplexes, but if you look at the surrounding area in this G2 document, it says north, south, east, and west single family residential. And this is right in the middle of the neighborhood, right smack dab in the middle. and they're not going to be part of the homeless homeowners association either. So there's no control over what goes on there. So any kind I mean we don't have any problem with as as Adam said with subdividing putting sing three single family homes there but we do want to maintain the um character of the neighborhood. So we we would like to see that the zoning reflect that if possible. Thank you, >> Commissioner Gardner. >> Sorry, I was late getting to the queue. I had a question for the last speaker. >> Yes. >> Um, with respect to uh the comment about um duplexes and and the preference for single family, um, I meant to kind of ask this earlier and I might be thinking about this wrong. I'll probably need to clarify my thinking with staff, but um but as I understand it roughly, I think that the parcel currently is large enough to in theory be div subdivided into more than just the three that are currently contemplated. And what would your thoughts be if it just hypothetically if it were subdivided into say five lots with single family homes on those five lots? So you still have, you know, five units. Um, which would be comparable to what you could have now if if duplexes were in fact built. >> Well, I think that still would would be, uh, within the character of their neighborhood because a lot of the lots are halfacre lots anyway currently. So um personally, I don't see a problem with that. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward. Otherwise, we're going to go back to the petitioner. Okay. My name's uh Greg Warick. I'm uh live at uh 10219 Silver Tip, which is a property adjacent to both the uh the variance that's being requested and the property being reszoned. I believe I'm the only one that's affected by the variance. And uh basically if the variance is granted as proposed uh my wife and I lose direct access to Stewart Drive. I would need permission to uh clean up that hillside uh go down to that street or whatever or I would be trespassing his property. So that's my main concern that I don't think anybody else is affected by. So if that variance could be slightly redrawn in such a way that anything south of uh our property uh either stay a variance or or not a variance but uh right away or needed to our property. Uh that would be pre preferable, but I hate to lose our access to uh Stewart Drive. >> Do you currently have access to Stewart Drive or like a an improved driveway? >> No, through the rightway. But if you >> But yeah, but do you have something built that you drive in and out on? No, but I do have a piece of property that goes into the rightway that I believe I don't know for sure, but when these property uh was originally laid out, when the plats were laid out, in order to meet the requirement to be able to build a single family home and have property, that little jaunt was put in there. So effectively I would lose access because next to between my property and the proposed uh uh properties that Mr. Royce is developing, there's also an easement there with a drainage and a walkway which I'm prohibited from doing anything on. But that little piece of property then would become an island that I really couldn't develop or do anything with. >> Gotcha. Um and so but currently you have no driveway or you're not accessing that right away, but you're just trying to maintain future access. >> There is a slight trail that you can walk directly from the point of my property to uh Stewart Drive. >> Okay. So there's >> but there's nothing. Okay. >> Yeah. Strictly by foot. >> Okay. Gotcha. I just want to understand. >> Right. But if I had to move my uh septic field and it's over 40 years old and I've had it airrated once about 20 years ago. If I have to move it in the future, that would be the only place that I can move it to. Well, I don't technically think they would let you put it in the rightway, but we don't need >> Well, no, not in the rightway, but it would give me access to that. >> I have staff wants to chime in here. >> Okay. >> Commission or Mr. Mclofflin. >> Uh, Chair Spanelli, I'm sorry. Um, my request to speak was to um clarify something with uh Commissioner Gardner, not with the current speaker. If you want to come back to me. Um, >> well, I have Commissioner Gardner. I think we're done. Oh, okay. Commissioner Gardner, go ahead. >> I think this will be quick. Just to confirm the property you're referring to, are you you're at on the corner of Silver and Stewart? >> Right now, it's a corner lot. If that uh variance is granted for the right away, it's no longer a corner lot effectively. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I think we're good. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Mclofflin. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you um, Chair. Um, uh, Mr. Gardner. Um, the with your last question, you were saying um, if there were many lots, then would you be comfortable with that if they were all single family, something to that effect? And I just wanted to clarify that the R1A district only allows uh single family detached houses on lots that have a minimum of 8,400 square ft. Um however um because this area um is all on-site septic systems, you need a minimum of 40,000 square feet in order to subdivide here. So it's this interesting sort of um uh there can't be lots with less than 40,000 square feet because they all require on-site septic. So that would govern even if um the R1A allows smaller lots. And I just wanted to clarify that point. It was it seemed like it it may relate to the question that you were discussing. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else that has not testified from the public that wishes to testify on this these cases, please step forward. Okay. petitioner, you have your 17 minutes and 56 seconds of rebuttal. >> Craig Bennett. Um, first I want to thank the community members that came out tonight to speak. Um, and I'll do my best to try to address some of the concerns that were raised in our early meetings with staff. We did bring up both SLS and the CR1A um options and SLS are no longer allowed and the C1 C1A um didn't match the comp plan. So it was a kind of a no-go right from the start and staff recommended not just recommended said hey CER 7 meets the comp plan it and meets the area and it's fits the neighborhood the best. um heard septic systems brought up and that's obviously before anything can be built, it has to go through on-site and have a septic review for um the amount of bedrooms prior to anything that gets developed. But it sounded like duplexes were the ma main issue that I heard and CR7 does allow two family dwellings if the lot's over 40,000 square feet. Um, I'll add that the SL and the surrounding properties is 19,000 square foot minimum. So about half the surrounding lots are generally about half in size. So this even if a duplex was built, it'd be the same density as that's existing. But all the existing lots can basically have a duplex cuz you can have an ADU on all the lots anyway in ex that are in existing. Um not that these lots are proposed to have duplexes. It's just a single family home. There's no plans for a duplex anyway. Um and I live just down the road and I just had an ADU built um on my property. So with that, I'd like to Is there any questions for me? >> Commissioner Kursa, >> this is likely not helpful at this stage in the process, but um I I will just note for you and for the petitioner that pro actually well well over half of the reason requests that this body has heard also include a comp plan amendment. So I will say that I don't believe that's a significant um barrier. So, um, do with that information what you will. >> If there was sewer, public sewer in the street, I think a comp plan amendment would be supported, but with only water. Um, and I'll leave that up to planning too. And if planning wants to chime in on, I guess, um, the mechanics of how tile 21 and the comp plan are determined. But if there's any questions on that, >> um, I got a question for the petitioner and staff. Um, special limitations are no longer allowed, but platnotes are still a thing. Is there an option staff would support or the petitioner with platotes to eliminate the ability to build duplexes on these lots? uh through the through the chair Mr. or actually m Mr. Chair uh on the subject of the uh plat you can put a plat note if the if that's the will of the commission acting as the platting board. I tend to resist any plat notes like that but it is up to the body. >> I agree just uh throwing options out there. Any other questions for the petitioner? Um, Commissioner Krishna. Um, okay. No more questions. We will close the public hearing. Thank you. What is the will of the body? We'll need two separate motions, one for each case. Ron, uh, you've made a, would you like to state your motion? >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I move in case 2025- Z0098 to recommend to the Anchorage assembly approval of the reszone from CER10 Chooiak Eagle River lowdensity residential alpine slope to CR7 Chooak Eagle River Medium density single family residential district. Thank you. That's uh seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Ron, would you like to speak to your motion? >> Uh just briefly, um we'll be interested in input from other commissioners. Um I uh concur with staff's findings. Um I appreciate the history given and input from the petitioner. Um uh I think uh a moving point for me is that um this opens the potential for the development of um a duplex on the site but does not require it. Um I heard a lot of concern uh from the community around character. Um, obviously, uh, those who we heard from tonight are very engaged and care a lot about their neighborhood and community, uh, which is amazing. Um, you know, but that we should all, um, approach our neighborhoods and communities in in in that way. Um but at the end of the day for me um I believe this alignment with the comp plan and the flexibility that's offered in achieving development that fits our community's needs, our broader community's needs um will be achieved through um the approval of this this motion. Thank you. >> Commissioner Krishna. >> Sure. I'd like to add a few more comments. Um, first I'd like to really commend uh the entire community that came out. This is a significant amount of public involvement um on a Monday night. Um, I have a few other comments which may not be incredibly compelling to some members of the audience, but I do feel the need to say them. Um, as somebody who lives in a duplex, um, I just want to encourage folks to not just think about duplexes as being only for renters or necessarily high intensity. I've lived in a duplex as a single person in a household of two. Household sizes are getting smaller. A duplex or half a duplex might not necessarily be that much higher density than a single family home containing a family of four or five or six. Um, duplexes can also be a really useful source of multigenerational living. I'm purchasing a duplex right now so I can live next to family. There are lots of reasons why someone might want to have multiple units on the same lot to support all kinds of um benefits to their lifestyle. So, I just encourage everyone to think about the range of housing that might be important to somebody to stay in your community as they age or as they grow their family or as other things happen throughout someone's life. So, um I feel the need to mention all of those things. Um ultimately I think I will vote for this because although we've heard some thoughts about alternate arrangements um not having heard directly from the petitioner that they have an interest um or find any alternate uh zoning to be viable. I think it's the commission's duty to respect the property rights of a property owner and not to impose some alternate zoning designation without directly hearing that that's something that a property owner is choosing to do. That's not the role of the commission. I believe that would be overstepping. So, um, with this being the option that's in front of us, I'm inclined to vote yes. Anybody else wishing to testify or I mean com anybody else wishing to comment, speak to the motion hearing. None, we'll call for the vote. Mr. Strike, how do you vote? >> No. >> Thank you. That motion passes. Okay. Now we will move on to Mr. Chair or we do have the plat. >> Sorry, I'm ready. >> With two motions, A and B. Gotcha. Commissioner Winchester, would you like to state your motion? I move in case S12846 to approve the vacation of a portion of rightaway Stewart Drive portion dedicated to plat 76-179 subject to recording a suitable plat within 24 months of its approval and any time extensions. Just looking for a second here, folks. That's seconded by Commissioner Ron. Commissioner Winchester, would you like to speak to your motion? >> Yeah, this has been a difficult case to hear. Um I'm encouraged by all the public participation of the neighbors but in the end I think it was well stated by uh both uh commissioner Ron and uh commissioner Krishna about uh the need to respect the the overall needs of the community and uh therefore I support this action. >> Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? Seeing none, we'll call for the vote. Mr. Strike, how do you vote? >> No. >> Thank you. >> The motion passes. So, we'll have the main motion on the plat, I believe. Okay, we have a main motion for approval of the PL up here. Commissioner Ron, would you like to state your motion? I move in case S12846 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to conditions 1 through six as shown on page six of the staff report. >> Seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Commissioner Ron, would you like to speak to your motion? >> Just briefly, I concur with staff's findings. um items one through six in the staff packet. Um we've incorporated the recommendations. I intend to support the motion. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion? >> Commissioner Pulis, I guess I'll just speak to the dissenting voice. Um I am so on the line here. It is a very hard call. Um I I support the move to provide housing. I do. Um I just know we've taken some moves recently that will impact R1's and you know based on the fact this whole neighborhood is R1. There's not a single duplex in it. You know it just it just barely gets me over the line to go against this. So that's the dissenting side. Oh, just final comments in support of the motion. As a home builder, I am doubtful that duplexes would actually be what the market would choose for these lots. So, I favor moving the petitioner through the process the municipality laid out as quickly and affordably as possible. That That's why I'm voting in favor. Call for the vote. Mr. Strike, how do you vote? >> No. >> Thank you. That motion passes. Now we will move on to our final two unfinished cases of the night. Mr. Chair, request for a brief recess. Sounds good. We are going to call this meeting back to order. really care. >> Can we please have the staff presentations in cases 2025-000030 and 2025-000034? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Daniel McKenna Foster, Long-Range Planning. Um so we had a request from the sponsors on the TISDO to that the commission consider continuing this to October. So we don't have a lot prepared. Um there's a new version that's come out of um a series of sort of public meetings and public outreach we've done. We continue to meet with anybody who wants to meet with us. We went to University Area Community Council last week, downtown community council. I went to Turnigan Community Council. Um we went to Rogers Park Community Council two weeks ago. We had a series of focus groups. We're putting out information um on our newsletter. Excited to say that we're getting more and more people subscribing to the newsletter. And with that, we're able to track how many people are opening it. We're getting more and more people. So, the information um progression is improving. Um but other than that, I I think the the major thing to report is that at this point, the proposal has been split into two concepts. one is an AO based on sort of allowing all the residential and dimensional standards and then the second AO is about considering the mixed uses separately. That's a bit of a bigger conversation. We did hear a lot in the public comment that some people loved more mixed uses, some people didn't. Um and then the question of course, you know, do you have 2,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet? So, all of these uh ordinances continue to evolve as we get more feedback and we we did have a request to continue that um the the discussion into October at least at the planning and zoning commission level. So, I'd be glad to answer any questions. >> Yeah. and and I guess I will provide a a quick um maybe overview of where the the current version is the sort of let's call it version one which is the main dimensional standards and uh the the residential not the mixeduse version um basically I think we ended up with um there's a a restriction on driveway so driveways would be limited to 20 ft um all the residential would be a permitted use uh lot size would be unrestricted. Uh minimum area, minimum width unrestricted, maximum lot coverage 100% and setbacks would be 5T. And the heights, this is a a pretty significant change. The heights are no longer 75 ft across the board. Actually, it's been two versions since it's been like this, but the heights are based on the street classification. So on a local road, it's 40T. On a collector, it's 55 ft. On an arterial, it's 75 ft. In a freeway or expressway, it's 75 feet. Um, I think those that's the general if there are any other changes. So, I' I'd be glad to take any questions or any additional information. Thanks. >> Um, real quick, just to clarify, is it your recommendation that we open up the public public hearing or continue the entire thing to October 6th? Well, I guess the public hearing is open. Is staff's recommendation that we take public more public testimony tonight? >> I think considering the the members of the public in attendance, we would encourage that. Have everybody get a chance to speak if they haven't spoken already. >> All right. Thank you. Commissioner Krishna, >> could you describe how the ordinance has been split into two ordinances and uh what each of them would now do? >> Yes. So, it it really came down to the uses that seemed to be a sticking point where a lot of people including the sponsors wanted to have more discussions about that because that really does get into is this about residential uses or is it about mixed uses. Um, so the the first ordinance it really just says all residential uses are allowed and they're allowed at these dimensions. So the 100% lot coverage, no lot size restriction, 5 foot setbacks, and the heights that I mentioned. The second ordinance would look at, okay, do we want to expand the number of uses or the types of uses that are allowed? So, the non-residential stuff, and I keep saying non-residential because, you know, things like a clinic or a school or something that's not quite commercial that might, you know, people might want it in in their neighborhood or, you know, churches and places of worship are already allowed in many places. So, that um I I think it's kind of focusing on that first one now, which is looking at the dimensions um of of the residential, and then the second piece later would be that other AO looking at the mixed uses. Commissioner Ron. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I I really want to ask a follow-up question about the splitting of the AOS's. Um, but I think I'll hold um perhaps until our next session. Um, but I will share, you know, kind of what the comp plan, as we all know, should and does, excuse me, what the comp plan previously said and does still say about about TISDOS and the role that non-residential or commercial um, you know, has with within a TISTO. So, I'll express appreciation that we haven't done away with that element and I understand a need to perhaps um, carry two conversations at one time. Um I will ask a question around the building heights and uh ask for a little more context about why changes were were were made there uh with respect to um you know density and massing on already busy streets um versus um an approach that looks at the entire uh corridors established by what's proposed with with the TISDO. Thank you, Commissioner Ron. Through the chair, it's a great question because in a lot of zoning codes across the country that have tried something like this, you do end up seeing a concentration of higher density along the roads that have the biggest adverse impacts, greater noise, greater asthma rates. You know, there's a lot of neg, you know, impacts that come from that. Um, I think in terms of why that was something that we got a lot of feedback on and so it was sort of thinking about I guess you could It is in a way maintaining the theme of tying our land use to our infrastructure. So if the OSHP this official streets and highways plan is sort of designating where we expect different types of activity and and it doesn't always have to be necessarily motor vehicle activity in the future, right? A an arterial doesn't always have to be all vehicle traffic, all single occupancy vehicle traffic all the time. It could also be those are also the a lot of the facilities where you can have more bus routes or other type of activity. So, I I guess I would call it a compromise, but I also might kick it to the the mayor's office to explain um a little bit about that if you have any other comments. >> Yeah, I can speak to that a little bit. Graham Downey, uh deputy chief of staff to Mayor Suzanne Lef France. And um I can only speak I think to the mayor's um intentions here, but I think members Baldwin Day and Martinez were also in agreement that the intention of the ordinance was never to allow apartment buildings sort of in the middle of neighborhoods. kind of that sudden single family home up to a 75 foot story building was not the initial intention. I think when it was initially drafted um we were told and I think still believed like that's unlikely to happen. A person's not going to make that $20 million investment on a property. Um but since it wasn't our intention um the uh building height sort of step down based on road classification seemed like a a solution to allowing the five over one style development on the major roads while still having some incremental change that 40 foot basically three stories one one increase in stories within neighborhoods but not the same sort of dramatic change. So since the goal was incremental change as well as more development on the major routes, it seemed like an appropriate solution. But more ideas are of course welcome for achieving those goals. Seeing Commissioner Ron, thank you through the chair. Um I understand that um some work around uh either um creating new or gathering old data has has happened with respect to tisto and I'd appreciate um input from the department or the sponsors to um share a little more information about what we now know that we may not have previously known >> through the chair. Um we we just posted some information cuz I guess on the question of data anchorage for most of the data we look at we're looking at assessing data. So it's not perfect because we're looking the way the assessor looks at property is a little bit different from the way we might look at it or you know we would love to get um the number of uh certificates of occupancy and permits connected to that but we don't necessarily so that's the caveat of this data but we have looked back um and thinking about you know big picture what are we doing why and and I've made this comment at some of the presentations as well right this idea is about 20 years old and so we're we're just we're trying to implement it we're going to try it we're going to see what works um and in looking back at the data since 2017 when 2040 was adopted and when the transport of corridors really sort of enshrined in a map. Um we just the first starting point was well how much development has happened in those corridors because a big piece of the 2040 plan was we want to focus development. There was a lot in there. Another concept was the concept of reinvestment focus area. Reading the plan the idea was let's focus our infrastructure and resources in in certain places and then we make the most of it. I think that still is um a value of the community that we've heard and it still makes a lot of financial sense as well. So we went back and we looked at where has all the development been in the last uh since 2017 and and we did find that you know and again we're working on KMA data so we're really just looking at when KMA when excuse me when the assessor notices that there's a new building constructed. So we use the year built. So we we counted that there's about 1,635 parcels which has seen new development since uh 2017 which was when 2040 was developed or excuse me adopted and only about 287 of those were in a transit corridor. So only about 17% of development has occurred in transit corridors since 2017. So and and about 78% has occurred outside of transit corridors. Um in designated centers it's about 9.2% 2% and in a designated center in a transit corridor is about 5.6%. So just big picture rough data looking at we haven't necessarily been achieving our goals in terms of focusing development in these core areas and that's why I think this proposal is it does look a little bit big but when we look at the only data that we have or the only way we can track data it seems like we haven't been following through on what we sort of all the we all agree to through the plan to do and that's let's let's put most of this stuff where stuff already exists and then you get these economies of scale and you get infrastructure stability uh excuse me efficiency and that sort of thing. I I'm not sure if that's what you were asking for, Commissioner Ron, but um that's kind of where we're at. We we posted that on our data page and um any other additional we we also we post all the data we look at. It's these big Excel sheets. Anybody's welcome to use them. They're all public data. Um and we're glad to talk through those too if anybody has any questions. Commissioner Krishna, >> this is a smaller part of the um our packet, but I just want to talk for a little bit about um what page am I on? Page two. Um the hours of operation in residentialbased zones. I understand what the intent is here, which is trying to provide some security for a neighborhood when there's a small business operating um in a residential area. But I I'm I'm worried that this isn't the right way to do this. Um 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and noon to 10 p.m. on Sunday. And I um I I completely understand the intention which is trying to prevent um excessive uses, but I think about the the quintessential business you want next to your house, right, which is the coffee shop bakery, and they want to be open on Sunday morning. Um I I'm confused about the you can have an inn, but it has to close at at 10 p.m. or can't open till noon. I just I think this needs a little bit more um refining to get to the thing that both protects the community and allows um something like this to actually be viable in the neighborhood context. >> Thanks. That's a really useful comment. Um and I think that's one one example of why I think the uses conversation deserves its own ordinance and own conversation is sort of working through some of those details. But great points. Okay, we will open it up for public testimony. These cases were combined at the July 14th meeting. The public hearing is still open and those who have testified previously may testify again. The time allotted for testimony will be continue to be doubled. So, anybody that's wishing to testify, please come forward. >> I got to press a button. I'll tell you when I see the red light. >> It's on. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Um I've never spoken before you guys or really the assembly. >> Please um state your name and let us know if you're representing yourself for a group. >> Yes. My name is Marilyn Pilont and you spell it uh like pill if aunt. Okay. And um I'm speaking as an individual tonight. I am a 59year Alaskan resident and um my community council does not meet in the summertime. So uh we were pretty um shocked and excited about what was going on with this TISDO thing. What is TISDO? What does that mean? And what what what does it all involve? what would the consequences of of this new building parameters be? Um, I know the Federation of Community Councils has their newsletter and they uh advertise and I I think it's called Local Lens and that's where I first saw the information and then of course um as people in the uh neighborhoods started hearing more about it, you know, all this stuff, everybody's getting excited and u we really didn't know anything about it. So, I picked up all the packet you had out there tonight and been reading through it and it's it's a lot to take in. There's a lot of lingo in there that, you know, I don't know anything about. I'm going to have to do quite a bit of research to figure it out. But, um, wondering where else would Planning and Zoning Commission advertise any of any of these kinds of new developments? I know you're talking about the comprehensive plan and it's like 20 40 years old already, but um where else would you advertise so people would know, especially in the neighborhoods that would be impacted? Anybody know? >> Um I guess we could respond if you're done with your testimony, but it's not really set up for interaction. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Well, I guess my my understanding is that the assembly is not really going to take this up until December. Another question I guess I have um and if that is the case um I I would be really urging you to provide more opportunities for public comment, public learning. Um um just to learn about this and understand what that would mean for their neighborhood and um um just maybe supply modifications if they have them. uh suggestions that way to TISDO. But um I I hope there will be many more opportunities for public comment before you you as a commission uh adopt it or or do whatever it is you're going to do. Um but u I guess that's my biggest thing is that people need more time. I certainly need more time. I I don't really understand a lot of what's in here tonight. Um, like I said, I've been reading through it and kind of getting a hint of what it is, but uh, if you could please postpone, uh, voting on these two. And also, I just learned that they were just, this was divided into two separate, um, ordinances. So, that's something else now, you know, that I just learned. I don't know if anybody else knows that my community, but um please reconsider more public comment and opportunity and advertising it, you know, widely so people know. That's all I have. >> Thank you. And I will just say that um we're just volunteers here. So, but the the staff in the mayor's office, they those are the people in charge of advertising and outreach. >> Okay. And maybe I should talk to them. >> Anyway, I hope they heard what I was saying. We'll pass it along to the mayor and um >> take it to heart because it's really important. >> And the recommendation is to continue the public hearing till the 6th um October 6th. So that means more time to digest and testify. Well, for me it does, but for me, >> and I will just say that we we make re we'll make a recommendation to the assembly and then there'll be another public testimony at the assembly where this will all get voted on soon. >> Well, I hope it's postponed at least till November. So, we have >> Oh, if we're it's going to be here till October. It'll be you'll be talking about it into November. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward. Hello again. Uh my name is Alexa Dobson and right now I am testifying as a homeowner in Fairview. Um, so I actually am an owner occupant uh and landlord of a forplex in Fair View and I love it and I think that more people should have the opportunity to have these sorts of living arrangements. So that's a big part of why um I support ordinances like this one. Um so you have heard from me before on the TISTO and I remain strongly in support of it. Uh you've heard me talk about why I think it's great and my hopes for how it will transform our community. Um, but today I want to talk about the opposition. So, here are some of the objections that we've heard, and I'll be kind of quoting or paraphrasing. There is no justification for changing the zoning when there are already unused lots elsewhere that could be used for higher density housing. Community councils oppose the change. I am comfortable the way it is and no changes are necessary. That one is a direct quote, by the way. We are concerned about sunlight blockage with the height of the developments. We are concerned about the impact on parking and traffic as a result of higher density. Higher density housing would negatively impact the scale and nature of our neighborhoods as well as the shared community resource of street parking. And finally, our community will experience change as Anchorage continues to grow. Higher density housing will likely be part of that development. The challenge will be to plan thoughtfully so that new projects can integrate harmoniously with existing residences and neighborhood qualities. Reszoning this single lot to such a high density in great contra contrast to the neighborhood in which it sits is not a step in the right direction. So that last one probably gave it away. Those aren't from the TISDO testimony. Those are pulled directly from the public testimony on the July 2016 resoning proposal that allowed the cottages at 11th and Cordova to be built. As we know that rezone did go through and those cottages were built. So nearly 10 years later, we should look back and ask, have the predicted disasters come to pass? Is 11th and Cordova a dark shaded wasteland of car traffic jams and blocked ambulances? Did adjacent property values plummet? Of course not. So I encourage you to keep this example in mind when you hear the exact same objections levied against the TISTO tonight and into the future. Um, and since I have a little bit more time, uh, one piece that I do want to, uh, talk a little bit more about, uh, that I have seen in the Tisto for real, the Tisto testimony so far is a lot of objection to the idea that there are going to be more cars in my neighborhood. And I really think that the point of the TISTO and if we execute this well, we are going to address that issue from both sides. Both by having denser housing in particular areas that is going to facilitate a more functioning transit system which allows people to make the choice to take trips other than by car. Because right now for so many people in our city, cars are the default, if not the only way that you can get around. And on the other hand, by allowing more mixed uses in neighborhoods, we can also eliminate some of those car trips if you don't have to get in your car and drive to go to the nearest coffee shop. You can walk next door, right? So the idea that the TISDO is going to result in higher car traffic in neighborhoods, I understand where that comes from because we live in a city that is laid out to really favor car use over every other form of transportation. But that is the reason why it's the transit supportive development overlay, right? We are trying to create more options for people to get around. So ideally that concern about cars, you know, if this really does go right, we will be addressing that concern. Uh, I think that's all I want to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. I see no questions. Next, come on up. >> Come on up. >> Uh, thank you. My name is Greg Shoemaker. I don't know if you need me to spell it out or it's fine. Uh I'm uh live in Rogers Park and I'm speaking on behalf of myself. I did attend the special presentation on Monday, August 25th uh by Mr. Downey I believe uh and Aaron Baldwin Day and um just wanted to I I guess Marilyn had stated earlier but she is uh left but I didn't know if there's ways to ask questions but did have questions that came up during the meeting uh and just some overall concerns with the way the presentation went. It sounded like from the presentation, especially from Marin Baldwin Day, that the transit supportive development overlay is presented to basically increase the use of public transportation. And I'm all in favor of high density uh housing or I'm against suburban sprawl, but the idea was presented is that if you have highdensity housing that will increase public transportation in Anchorage and I don't know, nothing was proven to say that that is the case or that if they do increase highdensity housing that more people will use public transportation. Um, which leads to my next point regarding the walkability of Anchorage and especially residential areas. As I mentioned, I live in Rogers Park and um, I walk three to four days a week in the neighborhood down to Chester Creek Trail and around the neighborhood. Um, in the winter, I'm one of the minorities who's out there walking and I don't see very many people at the bus stop to use public transportation. So, I don't see anywhere in the ordinance where it changes the overall walkability of the city. Does that mean increase in sidewalks? We don't have sidewalks or very limited sidewalks in Rogers Park. Does that mean increase in the plowing of the bus stops or access to the bus stops? Um, I don't see people who are going to be moving into these areas if they moved into a forplex, 3plex, or whatever that means. How are they going to access the public transportation if they can't get there? Or as a family, how are they going to carry their groceries through the street if it's snowed and it isn't plowed for a couple days? That's not feasible. So, it's not realistic if you're going to say we're going to have the high density and that's increase the public transportation. It's not one feeds the other. I don't think that's realistic. The other point that I have is regarding affordable housing. We had a young gentleman present earlier saying that he's looking for housing. I understand that. That's very good point. Housing prices, as were stated in the presentation, have gone up from 300,000 to 500,000. Rent has gone up 15% in a single year. That's ridiculous. But I don't see anywhere in the ordinance that this is going to change the affordability of the housing that's built in these areas. Is there any rent control? I didn't see anything that under that in the ordinance. Does that mean the people who are building to the mo full maximum usage of the lot and set up a multiplex are going to have lower rents than other places in town or is it just a supply and demand issue that you determine that that's going to lower the over lower the overall rentals across Anchorage? I don't think that anybody who's building a lot is going to do it out of the altruistic approach to say that they're not going to make the maximum profit off that location. Also, with the tax abatement, we have to wait 20 to 28 years depending on the bonus area for us to see the taxes of that individual who's getting the benefit for that lot to actually benefit the other people in the neighborhood because we're going to be covering their costs. They still have to pay for the land taxes, but they don't have to pay for the units. That's a pretty good deal for any developer, anybody who's got an opportunity to go in there and purchase a lot or has an empty space that they want to develop on. So, I think there's other ways to actually approach this. Uh, as Marilyn stated, I uh attend or listen to all the community council meetings. Uh, I get all the emails. The only reason I found out about this is during one of my walks, I met a neighbor who brought up this thing about Tisdo. And I was completely shocked that this had even been presented. Uh usually all the community council, especially Rogers Park, they're very good about getting all that information out to anybody who's uh available on the email system. I never saw one email. I never saw I said this can't be true. I had to look on the MUN and I did find out that it was true. That makes me question the timing and why this was presented during the summer when most community councils are closed for the summer. And it's nice that we're have an opportunity to prolong this till October. But as Marilyn stated, this should have plenty of open public comments because this is a huge change in the resoning to the entire city that of anybody who falls under the overlay. So, I just want to make sure that that's addressed and the concerns there are uh heard. So, thank you very much for your time and I truly appreciate it. Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else wishing to testify? Don't let me uh wait too long. I'll close it. >> Oh, sorry. Uh Brad Noikabar again. uh been living here since 1984. And you know, y'all should listen to the gray hairs in the room that have been here in the city a long time and we've seen all the changes. >> Can you uh state your name again? >> Brad Noabower. >> Sorry. Um >> uh spell that please. >> N EU geer. Thank you. Um I have a bachelor's and a masters in engineering and my whole career was in engineering and u this all smacks to me of the title 21 rewire we went through I don't know what it was 10 years ago you know it was just a mess the public was just up in arms again the same issue where was the public involvement you know we I don't know if y'all were here then but we've gone through this before and you're hearing again tonight and you probably heard it in some of the things you've gotten. You can't just force these things down as citizens, you know. Um I know y'all have jobs to do and y'all have things, but what's the deadline here? And what's the goal? It seems like you're trying to whack 50 moles at once with this thing. And I don't I don't quite understand that approach. I mean, there's the question of all the flight to the valley. Where's everyone moving? Um you you your statistics seem off where you said we had all these plans to do all these expansions along this corridor and yet you said like 90% of the new buildings that went in since 2017 were outside that corridor. Well, gee, that's where all the open land is. That corridor that you guys have whitewashed, that's all been developed. That's old housing. And you should look at when those houses were built in those areas. A lot of this stuff has been here forever and there's not very many lots open there. It's all these other South Anchorage and all these other places. Sure, the developers are going to go in where there's the land. They're not going to go in and tear down an existing structure unless it's true to be demolished. You know, it's just we have places like that in town. But there's just some really excellent testimony in here that people have have written about. And uh the thing that concerns me I guess is does this really address the affordability for young people like this gentleman here. I mean I was a young person when I came here. I was what 23 years old then. And uh it is a problem. Um bus routes. Well gee I used to be able to take the bus from the end of my street on Strawberry but y'all eliminated that route. So what's the guarantee you're not going to move the routes around again? You have this big plan. You're going to have all this development. Oh, we got to, you know, like y'all somebody said here is just because you do this, does that mean people are going to keep the buses full on those routes? Who knows? You know, so the routes may be eliminated. So that, you know, you're kind of hoping. There's a lot of hope in this. The other thing is you're just creating uncertainty. You know, if I'm a builder, I'm not, but I'm thinking, oh, I got all these projects I'm calling my guys, let's hold because there's this big new thing coming and we may want to change our plans based on it. Um, and this really affects me personally because uh we were going to do an ADU uh to our home a few years ago and when they when the MUN said we're going to allow that, but we were R1 and y'all kept us to the 30% lock coverage. R1 ADU 30% and we couldn't make it work and we did all this design and we came up with this little addition. and it was we didn't really like it and luckily we didn't put it in because this April you guys changed it again and you went to 40% lock coverage for R1 and I didn't know that was happening except my wife and I we walk through neighborhoods from our house and we see what is that guy doing over there he can't do that and then I looked at his permit 40%. I didn't even know that had been changed. So y'all don't roll things out very well for people. Uh, this is again just like the title 21 thing we went through 10 years ago or whenever it was. Um, I don't know. It just seemed like you're you're you're trying to capture too many things at once and maybe just focus on a few things and not roll out this massive rewrite basically. It's like a new title 21 looks like to me that uh is really complicated and a lot of normal people aren't going to understand it. They're going to have fears about like we heard the gentleman they were worried about duplexes changing characters neighborhoods. These are real concerns of people, you know, and you've got to address them somehow. And the other thing is I looked at your map where you whited out these new areas and it just looks so arbitrary to me is you had like a neighborhood where on that street one side of it was in this new thing and the other side of it wasn't. It's like you know it's the same neighborhood. So, it seemed like you need to kind of adjust your pencil a little bit to say, "Okay, the whole neighborhood is affected or not just half of it." You know, you're either in or you're out of this thing, you know, and not just I don't know if you use a onemile radius or how you drew it, but it doesn't make much sense to me. But anyway, I'll be back. And all I can say is buckle up because this is gonna as you roll this out, the people are going to ask a lot of questions and y'all better be ready to answer them in words that we can understand and not these pages after pages of tables and stuff uh that are just, you know, this is this is very complicated code here and I saw a lot of them in my engineering career. Thank you. >> Thank you. U Mr. Chair, can I ask a procedural question about testifying before I give my testimony? I testified at the last meeting as um chair of Rabbit Creek Community Council. I want to make sure it's appropriate for me to testify again on the same issue. >> Um I believe the answer is yes. >> Okay. And then I just want to also make sure that that's not going to preclude me from testifying in October when we see whatever these two ordinances actually look like because >> I believe when the substantial change to the case that we then allow people to testify again. >> Great. Thank you very much for clarifying that for me. So, Tim Alderson, uh, chair of the Rabbit Creek Community Council. Um, I'd like to preface my comments by saying this is not an official, uh, interpret, uh, position of the community council because we've not yet had a chance to meet and, um, weigh in on this. When I testified at our last meeting, we had met and voted on those comments. Um, they when they extended the discussion at the last meeting, they set up a uh, community council working group through the Federation of Community Councils. We were not on that. Um there was five community councils that were selected. Um which was appropriate because we don't have um Tisdo area in our um boundaries. Um but my comments today are based on my interpretation of the findings out of those meetings that were circulated amongst the people who did attend amongst leadership in the various community councils and I'll present this as I will present it to our land use committee to form an official position that we'll then vote on to bring back to you. So that's I just wanted to preface my comments. This is a lot of editorializing on my part. Um, the TISDO appears to rely on aspirational density thresholds 25 and 36 dwelling units per acre without providing any baseline data or modeling to demonstrate feasibility. There is no estimate of current dwelling units per acre within the overlay area, nor projections of how many housing units would be required to meet transit supported thresholds. Given Anchorage's negative population growth, this raises critical questions about the buildout timelines and capacity. If it will take multiple decades to reach these thresholds, then the overlay lacks both short and midterm utility. Section two item four uh undermines the very premise of transit oriented development by removing the commitment to concurrent expansion of high frequency transit service. Deferring transit improvements until wrership demand materializes is circular logic and contradicts FTA and supported uh um um TOD models. Transit investment must proceed or coincide with density to shift mode share. The overlay proposes 100% lot coverage allowances and eliminates critical dimensional standards setbacks height restrictions, private open space without corresponding analysis of uh infrastructure impacts. There is no modeling of increased impervious surface and storm water loading in already stressed drainage basins, traffic volume and circulation changes with added density and reduced setbacks, parking demand or associated spillover impacts impacts to solar access, wind corridors and microclimate in residential zones without infrastructure capacity analysis or a financing plan. This overlay represents an unfunded mandate. The TISDO presumes that land use regulations are primary barrier to development. Yet Anchorage has had supportive land use policies for over two decades without producing a single functional walk walkable urban node. This suggests that zoning is not the constraint. Economic, demographic, and market factors are. The TISTO does not address those. This process has bypassed fundamental best practices in long-range planning. There is no clear public-f facing analysis of development yield potential opportunity site targeting prioritization of underutilized parcels, trade-offs between commercial and residential land uses or community impact uh mitigation. We recommend the administration uh pause the process and redirect efforts toward data informed pilot overlay in one or two high potential areas where supportive zoning, community buyin, and transit investment can converge. This would allow for iterative testing, performance tracking, and scalable deployment. The TISDO, as currently proposed, lacks the foundational technical underpinnings to function as a credible tool for shaping an uh Anchorage's urban form. Without integrated transit planning, realistic growth modeling, and infrastructure financing, and overlay risks, producing uh diffuse development patterns, weakened public trust, and costly downstream impacts. Um, one last comment. I spent two years on the storm water utility uh steering committee. Um and I understand there's an initiative with the administration to get that process back on track. Um the storm water utility was an economic development project first and it was all designed to encourage um high density housing like the TISDA was supposed to support. Um, and the idea with it was through setting up the utility, you could offset some of the cost to developers to encourage this kind of development. The kind of zoning changes that are coming out of Tisdo is counter to all of the green best practices that were supposed to be supported with the storm water utilities. So, there's two competing initiatives that are getting back on track here and they're going to be working against each other. We were told during that process that Anchorage had a billion dollars in unfunded storm water infrastructure improvements that were um they had no plan for how to do it or how to pay for it. That's the problem the utility was going to solve. And on top of that that the discharge into the inlet was approaching levels that was going to put them in violation of their MS4 permit from the EPA. this Tisdo development as it is now with these 100% um lot coverages um no uh green spaces uh no consideration of how parking impacts is only going to exacerbate what their own analysis already shows is a billion dollar problem. It's a very small part of this, but it's a part of it that people aren't talking about. And as that storm water utility process gets back on track, I think it's important for that to be part of the conversation. Thank you. >> I'd just like to respond that this is the zoning code and storm water is regulated in the design criteria manual chapter 2 of the DCM. >> That's part of the building permit process. So by changing the zoning code, we have not changed our storm water regulations or the infrastructure that a building would be required to put in. So just >> can I comment on that? >> Nope. Actually, I think you have time. I don't I think you do have time. >> Your point is well taken. My point is it's a public meeting. You guys are public leaders and so it's an opportunity to raise an issue and um you guys you're a builder. There's other builders people here. This is a thing that needs to be discussed. So, I hope you'll take it in that spirit. >> Yeah. Thank you. And next, come on up. >> Uh good evening. My name is Jonah Rothlletter. Uh, R O T H L E D E R. I'll be speaking in a personal uh manner tonight. Um, so I've lived in Anchorage for over a decade now and I currently uh live in the Northstar area. Um, during my time here, I have rented from various uh corporations and have been able to uh purchase my current residence. I'm here to testify in support of the TSDTO ordinance as well as uh urge you to recon uh to recombine it with the mixeduse ordinance that was recently separated. I do this because I want to live in a city that allows for its citizens to have ways of uh building community and families. I envision a city where a family's where a family's winter routine involves not chipping ice and warming a vehicle, but rather walking to a child care center to before a parents take a bus from a transit center to their jobs, releasing them from the stressors of of driving in challenging road conditions in our winter. At the end of the day, this happens in reverse, but they're able to stop in at micro grocery stops picking up items for a meal. Later on the children are able to go the ch the family is able to go to mix like arcades or uh pool halls to spend time. The denser development will allow uh a planned out denser development will allow for this to be this will allow builders in the city to make more creative plans for the future concentrating already strapped resources and revitalizing older sections of the city. I hear what many of people are saying and that there are many aspects that need to be hashed out, but I do believe in this ordinance would create uh a much more vibrant city and we saw that many cities that have mixeduse areas uh had better bounce back postco and we see that it is those who live in these centers that are really what drive them and so I'm I like I said before urged for the mixed use to come back in. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Jason Norris speaking in my personal capacity. Uh I'm an economist and a planner and I was on the focus group formed after the first meeting here in July. And when I last stood before you, I brought facts and science about why this concept works and I urge the municipality to prioritize the basic needs of the future over the mere preferences of the past. I do apologize tonight that I'll instead appeal to a motion because what this pro public process so far has shown me is that motion gets results and facts and science are dismissed. I'm here to express my disappointment with the watering down of what was the great and aspirational proposal that came before you in July. Admittedly, that version needed some tweaks and consideration, but what's before you tonight is neutered to the point as to be unrecognizable. And why is that? Is it the natural outgrowth of a comprehensive public process that has placed great value on the positive beneficial outcomes that to be realized by our most marginalized neighbors and our future generations? No, it's the knee-jerk response to the house and protestations of our richest and most privileged. So, let's be honest with ourselves. Proposed ordinance has been weakened to appease those who will never be appeased. These are the same people who came into these chambers last June and screamed that duplexes, yes, duplexes, were in a front and would ruin their neighborhoods. And yet now they're being given outsized influence on this process when their only goal is to kill anything beneficial to housing or to water it down so that it has minimal effect. And so now we see lies, fear, anger, and conspiracy theories about this being introduced in the summer all being thrown around in our public discourse. We also see housing advocates being shouted down and disparaged in various public forums. And that commissioners is the enhanced public process that was begged for in July solidly at work. Meanwhile, those who would benefit most from TISDO are working their second or third job to hang on to a rental that's barely inhabitable, are looking at colleges in the lower 48, are already there and giving up on moving back to the city they love. I mean, Commissioner Polus, you mentioned at the last meeting there was a back and forth about people who do or don't show up, and you said maybe they have a job, maybe they have two or three, and maybe we're still not hearing from them, and we need to. So, I'm watching the clock tick on my own kids' time before they have to make their own decisions. And while that clock ticks, I'm forced to hear people drone on about neighborhood character and how that matters more than anything else. So, let's be clear. Neighborhood character is never used to be more inclusive or to build more housing. It's always used to exclude, deflect, or defend against a perceived horde of lesser than. Quite frankly, I'm sick of a public process that prioritizes voices who advocate for putting people who can't afford housing in jail while also advocating against anything that would make housing more attainable. It's unconscionable to me that someone could stand here at this podium knowing that there are still to this day race-based covenants recorded on their properties and argue that maintenance of their rich liy white enclaves be uni uniquely and universally respected. And perhaps most disappointing of all is a seemingly overwhelming desire to capitulate as evidenced by the proposal that's before you now. We still have time to salvage this. And if you don't, then please just acknowledge to people like me that the single mom living in her car or my kids just mean less. They matter less. There are far less consideration and consequence than those that got theirs decades ago and don't care what that means for anybody else. If we're a city that is legitimately more concerned about shadows from buildings than we are from people that could be in them, then instead of those shadows being monuments to our willingness to do what was right, we're going to have a city where the sun shines forever on our failure. So, please vote to send a bolder proposal than what is before you tonight to the assembly. Thank you. Uh, >> we got some questions here. Commissioner Krishna. >> Yes. You've described the the current proposal as watered down. I'm curious which elements do you think should be put back into the proposal? Is it the height heights being lowered off the collector streets? Could you give us some more detail >> through the chair? I do appreciate the question. Uh when I came before you originally, I said that 75 may not be the correct height. It may be too much in some cases, but not enough in others. And I stand by that. The problem is we haven't gone up from there anywhere. During the focus group, I did put forward um an idea where the town centers are are basically treated the same as anywhere else in here, although they should theoretically have a higher density. So, what I had suggested uh in line with the testimony I provided you is go taller in the town centers and then step down moving back each lot until you've equalized with the surrounding area so that you avoid what some people are bringing up about you don't want this uh forever situation where you have a great disparity in heights. Um I understand that not every idea I have can be implemented. Uh that was one of them. I don't see a reason for the setbacks being implemented because some of the great neighborhoods around the nation that we look at like the Painted Ladies in San Francisco or Brownstones in New York are right up against each other. Uh that also carries with it some great environmental benefits because when you have them together, you're not heating uh you're not fighting the cold between them. And so, I mean, those are just a couple of things and and to be clear, I I took a pretty negative tone in my testimony tonight, but there are some positive things that have come of it, too. So, I I do want to acknowledge that. >> Maybe less of a follow-up question than maybe a comment or question to staff, which is just that, you know, my understanding is that most town centers on our map are really at the intersection of two collector streets. I would imagine that we'd be at the 75 foot height limit for those anyway, but I'd be I guess curious to see the overlay when we look at the map next. Um, thank you. >> Welcome. >> I see no further questions. Thank you for your testimony. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else wishing to testify, please step forward. Maybe give uh Lori one minute or 30 seconds or Okay, go ahead. State your name for the record. Oh, first get the mic on. There you My name is David Evans and I'm a member of the Rogers Park Transportation Committee. >> Are you speaking on behalf of the group or you just member? >> Speaking on behalf of the transportation committee. >> Okay. Well, that's too much. >> Okay. Go. >> All right. So, you probably read it in the paper that the Writers Park Community Council passed a resolution at a special meeting on October I mean August 25th and I just wanted to re reiterate a couple items from that resolution. I'll read directly from it. Um, one of the whereases said the the TISDO process has occurred too quickly and without sufficient time for the council to consider a more nuanced response. And then it was resolved that the council one strongly opposes the TISDO as currently proposed August 18th edition requests that the TISDO be postponed indefinitely and supports adopted community values until a comprehensive public process amends them. And that resolution was um approved at 94 and 22 against with one abstension. And speaking for the transportation committee, um we support better transit and more affordable housing, but the current TISNO is not the right solution. And we hope that the TISDO process will be slowed down, that the project team will do a better job of public involvement and the and that Rogers Park can eventually pass a resolution supporting a reasonable TISDO. And uh postponing or extending your hearing until October 20th. Um so you have two two meetings on the on the calendar. One is October 6th and one is October 20th. and um because that that's because the 13th is Columbus Day and extending it to the October 20th would help Rogers Park um possibly passing a resolution that could support a reasonable TISDO and I hope that you will consider that when you debate which date in October you're going to extend the public hearing to and um I was one of the people that organized the special meeting um for Rogers Park Community Council and I I distributed I I and a number of others personally encountered over 30 homeowners in in in the distributing the flyer and only two of those 30 had heard of the TISDO and none of them are aware of the incredibly impactful proposed changes and none were aware of the July 14th PCC hearing and with due respect that indicates a woefully inadequate community community engagement process. Um cost of notice is not an excuse for lack of due public process for an action as impactful as this and it is not appropriate to primarily rely on volunteers such as community councils or me to spread the word. Um, prior to a PCC hearing on land use changes of this magnitude, the city has an ethical obligation, if not a legal one, to inform every affected land owner and attempt to include them in the conversation in a comprehensive community engagement process. And the the Tiso development should be put on hold until this important work has been done. And extending your hearing um to October 20th would be a great way to help with that. Thank you. >> And this might be like the engineer looking up at the um the guillotine about to come down and saying, "I see the problem." But you're giving um people 10 minutes and six minutes and not five minutes and three minutes. So, >> go ahead, >> Mr. M Mr. Chair. In response to the commission about that last comment, um my understanding is that we're hearing two cases combined and so we've doubled our time. We're abiding by the process that we've established. Yes, I I did read that at the beginning and it was a while back. Lots happened, >> but that is why I ask if you're speaking on behalf of yourself or a group. So, welcome. Let us know. >> Good evening. My name is Will Walker. I live in Spanard. speaking on um as an individual. Um I've previously spoken on behalf of Tisdo in support and want to reiterate my support. I love Anchorage. I think it's already a great place to be, but I think it can be an even greater place to to live. Uh especially for, you know, young people and people who are having trouble getting into the the housing market here. We know we have a housing shortage and I think that TISDO is one of the ways that we can address that. Um, I've lived and visited many great neighborhoods in many places. I lived in a neighborhood uh in Washington DC, Eastern Market. I lived on the ground floor of Low Rojo House. Uh, didn't have setbacks on the side. Kind of, you know, me and another young professional lived on that floor. Uh, and then a teacher and another young professional lived on the second floor. Um, and we had walkability. We had a dry cleaner across the street and like cafes nearby and public transit. Um, I currently live in Spanard and I could see Spanard having similar features. We have bus routes going through Spanard. We have mixed use on Spanard. We call for transit support corridors in the Spanard corridor plan. Um, and there's no reason we can't have great neighborhoods here in Anchorage. We've kind of maxed out a lot of the kind of easy kind of development in the region. And now we're kind of up against Chugatch and the inlet and the base. And so we need to figure out how are we going to maximize kind of infill development especially where we already have infrastructure along kind of bigger roads and bigger corridors and ideally have that kind of positive relationship between transit and housing. Uh and I think TSO can be a part of that. Um I see no reason why we can't you know have a positive vision for what it looks like to live in Anchorage. Um I think some of the changes to to this version um I would you know as um similar to Commissioner Krishna I consider looking at kind of the hours for uh kind of the mixed juice and residential areas because I think some of the potential um kind of great things like a cafe or bakery um would benefit from having some earlier hours especially on Sundays but also during the weekdays. Um I think that we should look at still minimizing setbacks, ideally zero. There's still kind of fire code things that would come in effect when that matters. Uh but you would again, as Pierce testifier mentioned, would exclude a lot of the neighborhoods that have been great in a lot of other cities. uh as I experienced in DC, as we might see in New York, as we might see in Boston or San Francisco where you have those row houses uh without setbacks and especially in winter environments where you have that one fewer actually potentially one or two fewer kind of sides that house with insulation and lower kind of heating and electrical costs um because you have kind of fewer exterior facing walls. Um so again very much supportive of Tisdo. Uh I think there another thing to to mention a lot of the comments I read uh in the packet were about kind of other issues whether that's kind of parking or snow removal or parking access on street parking um and those are certainly important things to be considering but you know this is related to zoning and zoning can't itself fix everything you know and so I think it's important to kind of keep those in mind but also be working on those, you know, any kind of spillover effects where it's appropriate and keep them in mind. But this is related to zoning. I don't think zoning is an appropriate vehicle to kind of be effect to fix every possible um issue. So, thank you and I encourage your support um uh to the assembly. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh anybody else wishing to testify in person before we move on to the telephone testimony? My name is Klay Davis. I'll be uh representing myself. Uh thanks for hearing our comments this evening. Really late, taking times away from your time away from your families. Uh a lot of the speakers here tonight and a lot of people opposing uh the Tasdau are current homeowners and have a secure place in Anchorage. Uh, I want to speak on behalf of the thousands of future Anchorage residents who would benefit from this project. Uh, my wife and I moved to Anchorage a few months ago. Uh, we were super excited, a little nervous. Uh, and we were hoping to buy a house and put down some roots here. Uh, when we started our search for housing though, looking on Zillow, uh, we realized that a house in a walkable neighborhood with access to trails or even a condo in one of those neighborhoods is probably going to be out of our reach. uh uh we both have good jobs uh we both work uh but even then uh prices were pretty exorbitant. Uh when we uh I think Anchorage uh desperately needs higher density housing uh to provide those options for younger people uh and new families that are just starting out. Uh Anchorage has the potential to be a worldclass city. Uh the access to the outdoors is unmatched. My wife and I go hiking in the shoe all the time. Uh we go backpacking. Uh and I think uh adding affordable housing and urban life is the one thing that the city needs to be absolutely perfect. Uh increasing density would allow new talent to come to the city and proide areas for new coffee shops, uh restaurants, and places for people to gather. Uh uh, additionally, it would increase tax revenue, which I think would be great uh to uh finance a lot of these public works projects that you uh hear. Uh, additionally, uh, I agree with Commissioner Christian. I think the business hours should be expanded. My wife and I's favorite thing to do on a Sunday morning, uh, is walk down to our local coffee shop and grab a coffee. And I think, uh, restricting hours to, uh, keeping businesses, uh, closed until noon, uh, would be a detriment to this plan. Uh the Tisdo will no doubt face efforts to delay it or halt it from those who already have a secure place in Anchorage. Uh but upzoning efforts like this uh are not made just for them, but also for all the people that want to move here and enjoy this amazing city. Uh and all the people are just starting out on our professional careers. Uh they are made for uh upzoning efforts like this are made for our children and grandchildren who deserve an anchorage with affordable homes. Uh and further delays uh are just going to kick this can down the road. Uh and it'll be 10 years later and I will still be looking to buy a house on Zillow. To the council, uh please uh do not delay the TISDO any more than you need to. Uh and to my fellow Anchorage residents, I know change can be scary. Uh but I ask you to join me in supporting the Tisdo uh to ensure Anchorage remains a wonderful place to live in the future. Uh specifically uh some changes I have for the TISDO are to uh revise the setbacks back to zero feet. I too have lived in cities uh where uh there are no setbacks uh and I think adds tremendous character having the buildings all uh next to each other and would maximize our limited space that other uh citizens have commented on. Additionally, I think we should extend the height requirement back out to 75 ft on collector and feeder or collector and local roads uh to maximize the space as well and allow that uh development to spread uh outside the main roads. Thanks for your time. >> Thank you. Okay, we're going to the phone. Or are we? Okay. >> Hello. Hello. Is this Duncan Fischer? >> Yes. >> Hi, Mr. Fischer. This is the Planning and Zoning Commission. We're calling for public testimony in cases 20250030 and 20250034. Are you testifying as an individual or on behalf of a group? >> As an individual. >> Thank you. You'll have six minutes to testify. Please state your full name and for the record and begin your testimony. >> Thank you. Thank you, staff. Thank you, commissioners. My name's Duncan Fischer. Uh I'm a resident of East Anchorage. I'm hoping what I have to say has some amount of impact on your opinions. TISDO as it stands today is an extremely encouraging and also slightly worrying proposal. I applaud the efforts to plan Anchorage as a truly urban city for the first time in more than 70 years. But I worry that crucial details are being misaligned in ways that could have unintended negative effects for years. TISO is great in that is widespread. The way that you mitigate individual concerns about redevelopment is by spreading it over a broad area. This is for people who are concerned about a seven-story apartment building going up next to their house. There's not many even if all of this went through, there's not many seven-story apartment buildings going up in 2026 or 27 or 28. If you spread this over a broad area, many the the amount of people who that is happening to is very small. The likelihood of new development near you drops off drastically as the area in which new development is permitted expands. It sounds counterintuitive, but the way to limit localized impacts is by broading broadening the urban area impacted. Dido is also a big bold step that hasn't been undertaken in many years. The 2040 land use plan is a misnomer. For anybody familiar, it is more than 50 plans all standing on top of one another in the trench code. There are for people who are saying there's not enough public comment. There are hundreds of hours of public comment on like 2040 land use plan over 40 years. Like this is a living document of many many many people's input. To say that there's not been public impact input on this of all things is silly. The uh 2050 2040 land use plan is yeah it's our zoning especially with regards to 2040 is not any better. It's reactive. It's fractured and it's inconsistent. Anybody whose day job involves land use can speak to this, especially the members of this commission. Fizz provides the uniform overlay that will provide much more flexibility in use and urban design that has been missing from acorage for decades. We don't need this hyper consolidation like we've been seeing. I don't know if you are familiar with uh Marston Manor for all this talk about neighborhood centers where we can put things. That was a neighborhood of 14 duplexes on the corner of Northern Lights and Spinard where Northern Lights Center is now. Walter Hickle owned that. He built those Fortune duplexes. He turned it into the Northern Light Center. He tore them down. That changed from a neighborhood of duplexes to now a shopping center and has been for 50 years. Like this stuff is malleable. We choose what we're doing. Tiso, that being said, also is full of small pain points. 100% lot coverage is crazy. I don't know how we got to 100%, but like it's not hard to look at other cities internationally and see how this is done properly. You can build to 75 ft and comfortably house well over 35 units an acre by just doing 50% lot coverage and putting the building to the front of the lot. It's very simple. No side setbacks, a big back setback. You get a courtyard block. You can urbanize all of Anchorage very comfortably by doing this and without all of this bickering over where the Tisdo lies and where the line is. 755 foot building heights do not create unpleasant urban areas. Lifeless zoning and anti-growth planning do. 40 foot heights with 100% lot coverage safe for setbacks will make neighborhoods exactly into what anti-change advocates are worried about. If you really want a miserable urban neighborhood, build 100% lock coverage at 40 ft. Go look at Zurich or Paris or Vienna and neighborhoods that are 60 to 75 ft very comfortably and much more light and airy and livable on a very different scale than what we do. Additionally, the distance from transit delineation is an abdication of planning. Like the gentleman earlier said, you have these neighborhoods that are carved up. It's very silly. You can have one house in Tisdo, the neighbor is not. One house across the street, the other one isn't. Rather than nitpicking the border in every neighborhood, so we should just be bold and apply this to all neighborhoods within a much larger radius. We can cover most of the bowl. Anybody where any neighborhood that has semi-truckss driving through it could accommodate apartment buildings. We already run them past apartment buildings as it is and homes. Let us build the city like a city. This ordinance as it stands excludes some of the neighborhoods most in need of redevelopment because of the arbitrary distance measurement. People travel all over the world to visit those world cities that I mentioned earlier and much more many dense cities without 40 foot lot restrictions in the middle of the city. The time has come to stop regulating every building as it is a woodframe single family home and allow the city to grow like a city. Thank you. Thank you. I see no questions. Thank you for your testimony. Good night. Okay, we've made it through. We uh have uh a motion to continue these two cases to October 6. On my uh notes here, Commissioner Ron, uh Commissioners, I I realize it's late. Um, I would have interest in a brief movement into a committee of the whole to discuss some of the things we heard tonight and see if um, staff and the petitioners would be re receptive to some of the changes that I heard advocated for and discussed. >> The only way we could get there is if you made the motion. Then we could just tell you what we think with our votes. >> I move the commission move into committee of the whole. Is there a second? >> Sure, I'll second. >> Any discussion on the motion to move into committee of the whole? >> All in favor? All any opposed say nay. Okay, we are now in committee of the whole. Uh thank you for entertaining fellow commissioners because um sometimes we need that. Um, I'd like to start off uh with what I heard a recurring theme around hours of operation. Um, uh, my position on it is this. Um, I don't believe we, um, restrict the hours upon which our neighbors can have their porch lights on. Um, I don't believe there are, you know, in code, um, things that would restrict a residential use and its potential nuisances to the neighborhood or community. Um, on those grounds, I am very hesitant to um, establish um, in this TISDO an hours of operation limit. Um I think there are other means and measures upon which that that can be achieved and would propose that it be um stricken from the proposed ordinance. I I tend to agree. I mean we do have a sound ordinance and other things to govern nuisances. Uh, second item, um, uh, building heights to 75 ft. I'm I'm a little split on this, but would like to hear input from other other commissioners. Um, I'm sensitive to, um, one of the written comments by Will Webb. Um and that actually prompted my initial question to staff on this matter um around the continued loading of those um arterial classified streets. Um and we heard multiple comments tonight around distributing um the opportunity for development throughout the proposed TISDO areas. Um I don't know that 75 is the right number. I I I just maybe I'm fishing here for anybody else who wants to weigh in on it. >> I think 75 comes from industry standard on the five over one that you've heard mentioned and I think it might take 75 ft to get there. I'm don't build that kind of product typically, but that would be my guess. Um, and while we're on the subject of five over ones, I have concern over the 20 foot driveway width. If you had a 50 over one building, a 20 foot wide driveway might be too skinny. I thought the 20 foot driveway was only for residential uses, not for mixed use, but I can check. it. Its phrase is residential in the table we have. Yes. Um, another item um of interest is um the 100% lock coverage which appears to be retained. However, there's been a pullback on this um uh addition of 5 foot setbacks. And I heard some compelling arguments tonight around reasons against a five-foot setback. Um, some of the things that weren't discussed but perhaps were previously are around allowing fire code in that process to dictate you know smart and safe design on the building side. Um, I see um, you know, five foot sex setbacks as creating unusable spaces that need to be managed and um, furthering the limitation of development on property. And I I would like to see the us walk back so that there are no no setback requirements. >> You were supportive of the 100 foot lot coverage and 5 foot setbacks. >> Uh no u zero setbacks and 100% lot coverage as it was previously presented to the commission. Um, >> I have a question maybe for Chair Spanelli, which is, you know, I I think I have uh a little bit of trepidation over that just because of the development pattern we saw 40 years ago, bread box eightplexes going the curb on in on Mountain View Streets and all new housing becomes old housing. So, I think just as our developer who's right here, um I've heard when we've talked about this in the past that there are building codes and other reasons why we wouldn't get that development pattern now and I'm curious whether that's true because I think that is my my real fear. I I don't think that's been a development pattern that's been healthy for neighborhoods and I would probably not vote for it. >> Um I guess there's two different things to respond there. The first thing I kind of want to add to that is that I don't think 100% lot coverage and zero setbacks is inappropriate in all locations. But I don't think it's appropriate in all locations. And I don't know how we solve that problem um besides zooming in much closer on the TISDO map everywhere you go because there's always going to be the lot where it does make sense and then the lot where it doesn't make sense. And then this is the tough part of putting codes in there that you can do a building that's 100% lock coverage but it's designed to have common space or outdoor space. it just happens to be covered per code and it might live great and be a great neighbor and maybe who knows maybe could let light through even. Um, but then there's the bad egg too. So, and those those are those those will be challenging to get to the bottom of. I'm curious if you could elaborate about where where you think it's appropriate and where you think it's not appropriate and to see if we can get closer to a >> obviously would be on a busy road without you know a ranch home sitting right next to it and in a in a wellestablished neighborhood of single family ranch homes. I mean that that would that's kind of my my vision of where it would be most obscene. >> So in the example you presented, I appreciate you coming forward with that. That ranch home is not built to the lot line, >> right? >> Yeah. Most most likely not. I mean in in Spanard anything goes. I would think that would be one of those things that are pretty self-regulating, too. Like, you have two 75 ft buildings right next to each other. They don't care about that 5 foot offset that much. They build firewalls that go together. But, you know, you got residential buildings, smaller buildings. Um, they're going to care more about that than themselves. So, it it kind of seems like it it's one of those slightly self-regulating situations also. >> And on that note, we don't build new apartment buildings in Anchorage, very rarely. And so the the the sponsor's effort I believe is to do lighten increase the opportunity to build anything. And so it's not like these things are just going to pop up on every corner the day we pass it. I mean we'd be lucky to see one project in the first year. I think would be maybe not even that likely. So, I I don't we're just trying to increase the odds of getting a housing project. >> I think maybe I would encourage folks to go take a look at the downtown code because that's the place where we have developed I think it's 100% lot coverage, right? And zero setbacks. Is that correct? Question to staff. So, I would encourage us to all take a look at that as we're considering this because the downtown code has a bunch of provisions that we don't have anywhere else like um percentage of windows on street frontage. And so, we we have kind of thought this through and solved this question and now I think the question for us is how much can we extrapolate that to other parts of Anchorage. Last item for me is is around the splitting of um non-residential and and residential. Um I um you know we heard commentary about what we see tonight being watered down and and I would have to agree with that comment in this respect. Um I saw great opportunity in achieving the objectives as I understood them in the comp plan uh to enable um you know commercial opportunities um along with with residential. Um my fear is that you know splitting of these will allow for one to pass and not the other. Um the flip side of that is continuing to risk the opportunity for one by combining them. I'm curious if other commissioners have any thoughts or comments about um the path that it's now on and whether or not we might want to redirect back to where we were. >> Do we even have the power to recombine these ordinances? Haven't they been delivered to us for our recommendation individually? >> Yes, I see a nod. I mean, when we when we get the when we get them, we don't we pass them with whatever recommendations we want and they just go as a resolution of support or denial with some comments and findings. I'm >> Go ahead. if it's helpful. Uh I I guess I would say the the intention is not to separate them so that one can pass and the other doesn't, but I think as we've talked a little bit about today, I think the use conversation deserves um some thoughts about whether it makes sense in all of the TISDO. How we're regulating uses to minimize impacts on neighbors, especially if we're not doing ours, which I think are all very reasonable points you made earlier. Which uses are allowed is still, I think, a big conversation to have. and um you know potentially does it make sense to take a bigger look at the use table in general which as we've heard from the community uh it's very hard to read the use table and use the use table. So there are sort of some potentially even more ambitious questions to ask with a mixeduse specific ordinance. I think your decision in part will be when and how you recommend it to the assembly. So um to some degree you can say yes we're moving both of these together and if you choose to delay in October you could in October say uh great you can have more time to discuss the uses but we think it's a good idea and we're just going to forward it to the assembly and the assembly then can take whatever process it wants with those ordinances but that's sort of I think functionally the way you could combine them is by moving them at the same time. I think our intention though or hope I think would be for the uses probably to follow second so that we can have a more focused conversation on it. But again, not because we don't want to do it, but because we do want to do it. If we didn't want to do it, we would have just taken it out. >> I would just add one thing. Um, I was thinking about I used to live on 11th and I Street and I lived in a three-story duplex. Next door to me, on either side of me, were two little ranch homes. Right behind the alley from me, was a multifamily building, singlestory with 100% lot coverage. And then across the street is the Pioneer Home, which is about probably 60 70 feet tall. So, if you think about that corner, you're really like we have it. Like, it already like what's proposed already exists in town. like so it is out there and uh so anyway random thought to add while we're just in committee of the whole uh thanks commissioners that's all I had on my list I'm happy to stay in the committee of the hole if anybody else wants to but good >> I'm not opposed to a motion to uh go out of the committee of the whole and possibly uh continue the public hearing to October 6th. Uh move to come out of the committee of the whole made by Commissioner Ron, second by Commissioner Pis. Any objection or discussion? Hearing none, we are out of the committee of the whole. What is the will of the body? staff have any comment on October 6th? There was some talk about other October dates. Any feedback? >> I'd say generally it seems like an extra two weeks wouldn't do too much harm if you wanted to have it be October 20th to give councils and others more chance to have input. I think that is consistent with what I've heard from the sponsors and their intent, but of course it is your choice. >> I'll be camping in the desert October 20th, so that sounds great. >> I also will be out on the 20th, so prefer the 6th. And it looks like we may be risking a short board. So sounds like the sixth might be better. Motion from Commissioner Ron. I move in cases 2025- 0030 and 2025- Z0034 to continue the public hearing to October 6th 2025. [Music] Seconded by Commissioner Pulis. Would you like to speak to the motion? No thanks. Any objections? That motion is approved. Okay, that concludes tonight unless anybody has some comments. Commissioner Ron, are you in out of the queue? Okay. Um, is there a motion to adjurnn? >> Moved by Commissioner Pulis, second by Commissioner Winchester. Any objection hearing? None. We are journ. >> Thank you, Greg. >> Thank you. >> Monday. Yeah. Does >> I know he [Music] strikes and diamond minds. A bloody stone, a dawn on mine. A morning wasted on trivial, an evening wasted on primitive things around here. Everybody knows everybody. The past lives documented to the closest. At what time does the conversation start and end? Yeah. Always the good guys coming to save