PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska. MINUTES OF April 12, :30 PM

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska MINUTES OF 6:30 PM A. ROLL CALL Present Excused Staff Nancy Pease Jim Fredrick Connie Yoshimura Arthur Isham John Weddleton Stacey Dean Toni Jones Bruce Phelps Al Barrett Mary Autor Angela Chambers Erika McConnell Tom Davis Tyler Robinson B. MINUTES - C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS / EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 1. Disclosures COMMISSIONER DEAN disclosed her business occasionally works for Providence Hospital's real estate division. She noted it is not related to the case before the Commission. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA made disclosures related to the Case She disclosed approximately 20 years ago she represented JERRY HARMAN as a listing licensee for some lot sales. She also disclosed she has real estate holdings in the general area and vicinity in

2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 Eagle River. In response to ACTING CHAIR ISHAM, COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA clarified she has no current relationship with MR. HARMON. She disclosed she is a principal in Driftwood Bay LLC, which owns Eagle Crossing Subdivision, and she believes it is several miles away from the property in question. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA stated she has no interest in the property before the Commission in Case D. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Resolutions for Approval a. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (ACC) A request to rezone approximately acres from I-2 (Heavy Industrial) to B-3 (General Business). Anchorage Village Subdivision, Tract A (per plat ) and Commercial Tract Fragment Lot Site Plan, Lots 1-15 (per plat ). Generally located south of 100th Avenue, east of C Street, west of King Street and north of 104th Avenue. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON pulled this item from the Consent Agenda for edits as follows: Page 3, Item 7, in the second to last line, change "parameter" to "perimeter", and Page 4, Item 11, line 3, delete the word "of." COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON moved to approve agenda item D.1(a), Resolution as revised. COMMISSIONER DEAN SECONDED. b. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (SDF) A conditional use for a 5-room bed & breakfast. Castle Heights #5 Subddivision, Block 9, Lot 14. Generally located north of Tudor Road and northwest of Vance Drive. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON pulled this agenda item from the Consent Agenda. He noted a modified version of the resolution was laid on the table for approval by the Commission.

3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON moved to approve agenda item D.1(b), Resolution , as modified and laid on the table. COMMISSIONER PEASE seconded. 2. Introduction for Public Hearings - 3. Site / Landscape Plan Approval a. CASE: PETITIONER: Grayling Land Development LLC REQUEST: Amending a site plan for an office/retail complex 4. Time Extensions; Expedited Hearing Requests; Minor Conditional Use Amendments 5. Other - COMMISSIONER DEAN moved to approve the Consent Agenda. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON seconded. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON pulled agenda items D.1(a) and (b), Resolutions and , from the Consent Agenda. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA moved to change order of the day to move Unfinished Business, Agenda Items E.1, Case , E.2, Case , and E.3, Case , to the end of the agenda. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON seconded., Barrett F. REGULAR AGENDA -

4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 1. Resolutions for Approval 2. Introduction for Public Hearings 3. Site / Landscape Plan Approval 4. Time Extensions; Expedited Hearing Requests; Minor Conditional Use Amendments 5. Other G. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: S11789 POSTPONED INDEFINITELY PETITIONER: Municipality of Anchorage School District REQUEST: Plat for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission 2. CASE: POSTPONED INDEFINITELY PETITIONER: Municipality of Anchorage School District REQUEST: Rezoning to PLI Public lands & institutions district 3. CASE: PETITIONER: Providence Alaska Medical Center REQUEST: Zoning conditional use for a master plan approval and medical buildings This is a request from Providence Alaska Medical Center (PAMC) for a conditional use for the Providence Hospital Northeast Main Campus Master Plan to allow final approval of health care facilities and related improvements in the PLI district. The site is Tract A, Chester Creek Subdivision, generally located south of Providence Drive, north of 40th Avenue, west of Providence East Loop, in Anchorage. MARY AUTOR presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality of Anchorage s Planning Department. This application is a request by PAMC for conditional use approval for phased development for a medical campus master site plan as a whole, and to allow planned future development to be reviewed administratively for approval by the Planning Department. The northeast main campus consists of approximately 36 +/- acres of Tract A. The Northeast Campus Master Site Plan shows the locations of the existing main hospital facilities and proposes infill locations and designs for future planned buildings on this site. Development is proposed in two phases:

5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 Phase 1 includes construction of Tower M, which will provide expanded hospital maternity facilities, a 25 stall additional surface parking, a new ambulance drop off area, and new pedestrian plaza adjacent to the building. Construction will begin in 2011 and be completed by Phase I will also include the Surgery Expansion project adjacent to the existing surgery facility. The Surgery Expansion will infill the area between the existing surgery department and west parking garage. Future development includes expansion of the cath lab, expansion of the chiller plant, and expansion of the emergency department, future surface or structured parking and a future medical tower. It is anticipated this development will be phased, beginning in 2015 and will be completed by The intent of this approval is to approve a northeast campus master plan and grant final conditional use approval for all of these buildings and to have the Commission grant final approval of the number and general location of the new buildings along with design standards. Then, as each structure is ready to come on line, the petitioner will submit site/landscape and building plans to the Planning Department for administrative site plan approval. The Department recommends approval subject to conditions 1 through 8 of the staff report. ACTING CHAIR ISHAM opened the public hearing. TIM POTTER with DOWL HKM represented the petitioner, Providence Alaska Medical Center, provided a presentation on the project, and responded to questions from the Commission. Also present were TANYA HICKOCK with DOWL HKM, and TOBIN THOMPSON with ZGF architects. There was no other testimony, and ACTING CHAIR ISHAM closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON moved to approve in Case a zoning conditional use for a master plan approval and medical building subject to conditions 1 through 8 on Page 12 of the staff report, and clarifying that the new pedestrian connections are as shown on the map called Sheet 1 on Page 57 of the staff report. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER PEASE noted an error Condition 2 which should read "2010" instead of "2009."

6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 4. CASE: PETITIONER: Pacific Alaska Leasing Company REQUEST: Rezoning to I-1 Light industrial district This is a request from Pacific Alaska Leasing Company for a rezone from B-3, General Business, to I-1, Light Industrial, for Lots 2, 3A and 4A, Nacla Subdivision. Lot 2 is located at 8401 Brayton Drive and Lot 3A and 4 is located at 8240 Sandlewood Place, in Anchorage. MARY AUTOR presented the staff report on behalf of the Municipality of Anchorage s Planning Department. The Department supports the rezoning to I-1 and recommends an effective clause requiring installation of highway landscape screening no later than 18 months from the date of approval by the Assembly. ACTING CHAIR ISHAM opened the public hearing. BRADY STRAHL, representing the petitioner, DAVID FAULK, Pacific Alaska Leasing Company, provided a brief presentation in support of the case. ACTING CHAIR ISHAM closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DEAN moved to approve in Case a rezone request from Pacific Alaska Leasing from B-3 to I-1 subject to the Department's recommendation of an effective clause on Page 9 of the staff report requiring installation of highway landscape screening no later than 18 months from the date of approval by the Assembly. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON seconded. COMMISSIONER DEAN stated the I-1 zoning is much more in accordance with the neighborhood than B-3. She thinks it is an appropriate rezone. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON included staff's findings on Pages 7, 8 and 9 of the staff report to the Commission's findings. COMMISSIONER PEASE noted in particular the Commission rightly scrutinizes carefully rezones for small acreages, and this is a fairly small acreage of 3.31 acres. In this case, the zoning to the east is I-1, zoning to the south is B-3, I-1, with a gas station, zoning to the north is B-3, but it is permanently developed in a fairly industrial use with a Municipal sediment pond, and then there is the highway on the west. She feels this is a reasonable adjustment which creates a more contiguous pattern of industrial land, and so it is an appropriate rezone.

7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 5. CASE: PETITIONER: Jerry M. Harman REQUEST: Rezoning to R-6 Suburban residential district This is a request from Jerry Harman, owner, to rezone from PC, Planned Community, to R-6, suburban residential large lot. The site location is on the south side of Eagle River Road, about three miles east of Eagle River Loop, at 8251 Harmany Ranch Road, in Eagle River. AL BARRETT provided the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality of Anchorage s Planning Department. The Department recommends approval with special limitations 1a, b and c, and two effective clauses. The proposed rezoning meets the general standards of the Comprehensive Plan. ACTING CHAIR ISHAM opened the public hearing. CHARLIE FORBES with Charles Forbes & Associates represented the petitioner and owner, JERRY HARMAN. He noted the petitioner had no objections to the special limitations and effective clauses recommended by staff. MR. FORBES noted the Community Council did not provide comments. He met with the Community Council twice on this case, and they had no objection to the rezone. ACTING CHAIR ISHAM closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA moved to postpone a decision in Case for 60 days in hopes that the petitioner can come back having resolved some of the issues that the Commission discussed. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA indicated she would like to give the petitioner an opportunity to resolve some of the questions and issues that seem to have been brought up by the Right-of- Way Supervisor, and then as a result of taking care of those matters, she would be in favor of the rezone, but she thinks there needs to be some demonstration of good faith. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON referred to the right-of-way issues discussed on page 17 of the staff report. COMMISSIONER YOSHMURA clarified she was concerned that the fines be taken care of prior to a decision by the Commission. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON proposed a friendly amendment clarifying postponement of a decision by the Commission until the issues with Right-of-Way on pages 16 and 17 and the fines on page 18 of the staff report have been resolved. The mover and seconder concurred. This was accepted as a friendly amendment. In response to what hardship this postponement would cause, MR. FORBES stated it was just time, and he liked the idea of postponing it until it can be resolved. He thought he could have most of this resolved quickly because they have already met with Code Enforcement and have a tentative agreement worked out pending MR. HARMAN S final approval.

8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 Based on this information, COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON supports the motion. COMMISSIONER PEASE will be supporting this motion. She noted the Commission heard that the timing of the rezone will not hold up the Corps of Engineers permit for a wetland bank, and that is an important community interest. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON added as a finding that the Commission heard from the petitioner's representative that he does not find this postponement particularly burdensome. COMMISSIONER PEASE noted it seems to be more just to require a fine of this magnitude, $68,000 that has been accruing for about 3 years. It seems just in terms of supporting the ordinances of our community to require some resolution of this before doing what amounts to a privilege of a rezone. The Commission heard that this could be developed under the PC, but rezoning to R-6 avoids a master plan and expedites the owner s ability to develop. She felt that is what is called a short-cut, it is a privilege, and to offer that privilege while there is such an egregious ongoing violation does not seem to support our staff and enforcement division, and the general concept of responsibly following our land use code. COMMISSIONER PEASE found this is a major reason for asking that this be resolved before the Commission takes action. COMMISSIONER ISHAM is opposed to this motion. He thinks the Commission needs to make a decision tonight, and with the conditions that were placed on it, noted nothing would happen anyway even if the Commission were to vote tonight. Pease, Fredrick, Yoshimura, Weddleton, Dean Isham E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: PETITIONER: Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department REQUEST: Title 21 Rewrite Follow-Up Sections #2 COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON moved to go into the Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER FREDRICK seconded.

9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 COMMISSIONER ISHAM noted this Title 21 rewrite follow-up pertaining to Sections 2 was to address Issue 13, FAR bonus menu choices regarding Pedestrian Interactive Uses, Issue 16, Vehicular routes on steep slopes, and Issue 17, Nonconformities. ERIKA MCCONNELL, TOM DAVIS and TYLER ROBINSON represented the Municipality's Planning Department. Issue 13, FAR bonus menu choices. MS. MCCONNELL referred to the amendments in Chapter 4 in relation to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonuses in the R-4A district. The Commission had asked staff for a phrase to replace "pedestrian active use" for which you could get a FAR bonus, and to provide an intent statement to more clearly express what the intent of the pedestrian amenity was. Staff provided an intent statement for what they described as a "pedestrian interactive use." Staff, in error, left a sentence in and asked the Commission to remove the last sentence in 16(a) on page 1 of the staff report. The sentence to be deleted read "To receive credit as a pedestrian active use, the use shall have the following pedestrian oriented development characteristics:" COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON noted staff had changed the phrase to "pedestrian-interactive use" at the top, but not throughout the text below. He noted this would need to be revised changing "pedestrian-active" to "pedestrian-interactive" through paragraph (f) on the Page 2. COMMISSIONER PEASE had wanted a better definition, and she thinks this does it. She thought "pedestrian-active" implied a lot of physical motion, and "interactive" seems to include visual access, and in addition, the new definition links it to local neighborhood resident-type activity rather than just pass-through traffic. She thinks this is clearer, and she supports it. Issue 16, Vehicular routes on steep slopes. MS. MCCONNELL discussed Issue 16, Vehicular routes on steep slopes related to the subdivision standards when the subdivision is steeply sloped. She noted the Commission asked that this language be revisited to provide a vertical height limit on bedrock retaining walls. Staff sought advice from Project Management & Engineering (PM&E). The conclusions were that there is no engineering basis for such a limit, and that the realistic limitations of steep slopes combined with the section as written create a practical height limit on exposed rock faces. Staff did not recommend any amendments to this section. In response to COMMISSIONER PEASE, MS. MCCONNELL noted disturbance has to be constrained within the right-of-way, or 15 feet outside of the right-of-way edge with the permission of the Municipal Engineer. She noted a retaining wall may be needed depending on the slope and the other situations of the road. COMMISSIONER PEASE noted on page 30 of 33 of the staff report, the last part of the sentence in the first paragraph of vehicular routes should be deleted or rephrased. She proposed deleting "but not embankment cut and fill limits" from the first part of the sentence. She felt it was open to interpretation if it specifically says embankment cut and fill limits are not limited by this. Staff felt it was limited to the right-of-way.

10 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 COMMISSIONER FREDRICK proposed deleting the phrase ", but not embankment cut and fill limits," and adding a last sentence that says "Embankment cut and fill limits may not extend beyond the right-of-way." Staff and COMMISSIONER PEASE concurred. This change was accepted. COMMISSIONER PEASE requested Issue 16 be held for the Commission to vote on separately. She would propose changing it by going back to page 30 of 33 of the Subdivision Standards 8(e) and taking out the sentence that says "vertical or near vertical surfaces that are formed from underlying rock need not be terraced" and then she would request a terracing height of somewhere under 15 feet. She did not have an exact number, but thought survivability might be 10 foot height. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON thought it should go to at least 15 feet. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA supported staff in this situation regarding not terracing. She thinks MS. PEASE is correct in there are examples of poor development, and South Point has its more than fair share of steep slopes and issues, but she does not think the Commission needs to use that as an example for the future. She is always concerned about the additional expense, terracing on rock would be extraordinarily expensive, and she does not see any aesthetic benefit for it since there will not be any landscaping on the terracing. She would not be supportive of COMMISSIONER PEASE S suggestions. COMMISSIONER DEAN concurs with COMMISSIONER YOHSIMURA and agrees with staff. She noted PM&E has far more experience to designate particular numbers at this time. She would prefer to keep it vague, rather than narrow. COMMISSIONER ISHAM tends to agree with COMMISSIONERS YOSHIMURA AND DEAN. He noted the Commission are not engineers, and cannot say whether it needs to be 10, 12 or 15 feet. He noted an engineer is not going to design something that will come down because he signed the design, and someone might sue him. He does not think an engineer would design something that was not safe, and is restricted by the width of the right-of-way and everything else they have to deal with. COMMISSIONER PEASE understands she is in the minority, but she would like to raise this point for vote so she can address her concerns in the record. COMMISSIONER ISHAM noted this would be voted on after the Commission comes out of the Committee of the Whole. Issue 16 was put on hold. Issue 17, Nonconformities. The Commission asked staff to revise the language to make redevelopment easier, and to consider reducing the percentage of project costs that must be spent to bring a characteristic of use towards compliance, if it does not comply with the new code. Staff did not recommend any additional amendments to this section and withdrew the amendment proposed for page 13. Staff noted any changes proposed to subsection C.2.a. (the section that lays out the 10 percent requirement) have not been noticed for the public.

11 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 COMMISSIONER DEAN indicated she reviewed the design standards and found the nonconformity issues to be onerous. She would rather not have it at all. She thinks it will be a big problem combined with the design standards causing many nonconformities in Anchorage. MS. MCCONNELL noted staff said that only certain sections apply to lawfully erected nonconforming single family, two family structures and mobile homes, basically exempting them from the characteristics of use provisions. The only thing applying to this type of structure would be if there was a nonconforming lot. Staff felt the issues with regard to single and two family homes were resolved at the time Chapter 12 was provisionally adopted (Section 020 of Chapter 12). COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON called for a point of order noting the Commission is dealing with one sentence the Commission left on hold, and it does not really relate to the nonconformity issues being discussed. He further noted the Commission had some issues with it, and staff has decided not to ask the Commission to make that change. He felt these were important questions, but noted they should be saved for another time. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON noted there is one sentence, and his interpretation of it was that staff is basically saying when you do have to come into compliance, the preference is for landscaping to be done over other things. He is okay with that change, or with pulling it out. He suggested the Commission follow the recommendation from staff to withdraw the proposed amendment. COMMISSIONER ISHAM clarified Section (G), Additions and new Construction, on page 32 of 33 would be as approved by the Commission, and the next proposed addition to subsection C.2.d. would be deleted as recommended by staff. The Commission concurred with staff's changes. The changes were accepted. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON moved to approve coming out of the Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON moved to approve Issue 13 with the changes made in the Committee of the Whole which accepted the additional language provided by staff in yellow, and took out the last sentence of Item 16(a), and used "inter-active" throughout, and in Issue 17 accepted the withdrawal of the proposed changes by staff. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded.

12 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 COMMISSIONER PEASE moved to approve the changes to the Chapter 8 subdivision standards as proposed by staff with the exception of a language change to Item 8, Vehicular Route, as discussed in the Committee of the Whole, and holding Item 8(e) for a separate vote. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON seconded. COMMISSIONER PEASE moved to approve in Item 8(e), deleting the sentence which says "vertical and near vertical surfaces that are formed from underlying rock need not be terraced" and urging consideration that the maximum height for terracing be less than 15 feet, approximately 10 feet based on safety recommendations for surviving if you fall off of it. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON was comfortable with the provision as stated, but might support adding a statement that "the determination of the height would consider safety issues." COMMISSIONER PEASE felt this would be acceptable phrasing with the addition that "vertical and near vertical services need not be terraced so long as safety issues are considered." COMMISSIONER PEASE further clarified safety issues included the hazards of rock falls, humans or wildlife falling, and add the hazards of attractive nuisance activities. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON found COMMISSIONER PEASE'S proposed the rewording acceptable, and put it forward as a friendly amendment. COMMISSIONER DEAN concurred. This was accepted as a friendly amendment. COMMISSIONER PEASE in speaking to the motion noted staff prepared a chart for the Commission showing that on slopes of 20%, 30%, and 50%, you could have constructed walls or bedrock walls of up to 26 feet at the edge, 15 feet beyond the right-of-way, and one would hope that would not be the case, but the Commission has seen some instances of development with quite high vertical embankments or walls. She thinks in the interest of community safety, the Commission needs to consider that these walls might attract rock climbers. Further, there may be places where dogs, humans, or wildlife plunge off the edge. Because of that, they may end up with chain link fences on the tops of them, and then there is the issue of rock falls which may require curtaining with chain link fence. These are all undesirable in terms of safety and aesthetics. She noted these were the reasons for the proposed changes. COMMISSIONER DEAN will not be supporting this motion. She would like to keep 8(e) the way it is written. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA will not be supporting this motion. She feels staff and PM&E have done excellent job describing the step slope examples, and she feels they are adequate.

13 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 ACTING CHAIR ISHAM will be deferring to staff s decision on this issue. Pease, Weddleton Fredrick, Yoshimura, Isham, Dean FAILED COMMISSIONER PEASE moved to approve passage of Issue 8(e) as drafted by staff. COMMISSIONER FREDRICK seconded. 2. CASE: PETITIONER: Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department REQUEST: Title 21 Rewrite: Proposal for Site Condo Design Requirements MS. MCCONNELL presented the report and recommendations from the Municipality of Anchorage s Planning Department. The Department is proposing design regulations and review/approval requirements for multiple residential structures on a single lot, which includes the type of development commonly called "site condos." The section is titled "Multiple Residential Structures on a Single Lot." The regulations are proposed to be placed in Section , Residential Design Standards. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON moved to approve moving into the Committee of Whole. COMMISSIONER PEASE seconded. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA proposed instead of trying to determine the maximum number of structures or the maximum number of dwelling units, that the Commission simplify it, and say "An administrative site plan review is necessary for up to 12 units", and then after that, go to a conditional use and bypass the major site plan review, which as she understands it

14 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 14 through the new Title 21 rules and regulations would be going to the Urban Design Commission (UDC) as opposed to the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA noted in reality it is not about structures, it is about units, and keeping the unit count reasonable is important, and feels staff would agree that infill has a significant impact on neighbors and neighborhoods. Also, she felt the goal was to try to create a level playing field, and staff indicated something could be approved at UDC and not approved through a conditional use. She thinks it needs to be one body or the other to demonstrate some consistency. She felt it should to PZC and not UDC. COMMISSIONER FREDRIK commented that the vehicle plug-in requirement was egregious. MS. MCCONNELL noted vehicle plug-in is a major air quality issue for Anchorage and referred to the "plug in at 20" campaign. She noted vehicle plug-in is a standard under planned unit development (PUD), and MR. ROBINSON noted the genesis of this section began with the PUD section. The Commission reviewed each section. Section A. No changes. Section B.1. In response to COMMISSIONER DEAN, Staff confirmed there is a definition for care takers unit in Chapter 5 under the "accessory uses" section on Page 108, and "accessory dwelling unit" is on Page 102. Section B.2. No changes. Section B.3. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA proposed a change that Table x and it would simply say "administrative site plan review for up to 12 units" and "conditional use for anything above 12 units." The "maximum number of structures" column would be deleted, and the "major site plan review" row would be deleted. She proposed the conditional use would be done by the PZC, and the administrative site plan review would be done by staff. ACTING CHAIR ISHAM clarified the proposed changes. The number of units would be 12. The maximum number of structures would be deleted. Major site plan review was taken out. This left two items, administrative site plan review for less than 12 units, and conditional use for over 12 units. Staff s counter-proposal to the Commission was if the Commission wants to go down to 2 processes, their preference would still be to put the design review in as a major site plan review process. From an administrative site plan review, whatever the threshold number of units, the next step would be major site plan review. This would eliminate a conditional use, which differs from the Commission's proposal. Sections B.3 and B.4 were put on hold.

15 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 15 Section C.1. The Commission discussed the phrase "some small developments." The consensus was to leave this section as written. Section C.2. The Commission discussed the phrase "dwelling units shall be oriented towards streets." No changes were made. Section C.3. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA proposed deleting the first sentence because it eliminates garages facing the street, and because in a row housing townhouse configuration, if you are not going to be able to have driveways on the street, or some of the driveways on the street, then you are eliminating front facing garages. She noted the word "dominated" means more than 50% and suggested changing that word. Section C.4. COMMISSIONER FREDRICK noted this was covered under minimum standards which refers to , private open space. He proposed taking the last sentence in C.4 and putting it down in E.1, and deleting the remainder of C.4. The sentence to be moved reads: "The open space shall not be simply the lot setbacks and leftover fragments such as corner bits that are unusable for other purposes." The Commission and staff concurred. This change was accepted. Section C.5. The Commission discussed the phrase "eyes on the street." COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON noted it should be defined in Chapter 14. COMMISSIONER ISHAM felt this section was okay as written. COMMISSIONER PEASE would like to keep solar access. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA noted the Commission has had these discussions in the past, and you cannot dictate your window placement or your living areas, and when you say "eyes on street," what is being said is that you want your living areas facing street, and that is not how all design works. She proposed deleting the entire sentence and replacing it with "dwelling units shall be designed and arranged in such a manner as to provide privacy for neighboring units yards." COMMISSIONER FREDRICK expressed concern regarding the use of the word "shall." He would rather word it in way that encourages design that takes advantage of solar access, eyes on the street and privacy for neighbors yards, but noted you would not always be able to achieve all those things in every situation. He felt it was too prescriptive. ACTING CHAIR ISHAM suggested putting solar access and the other items in there, and COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA concurred, if possible. Section C.5 was put on hold. Section C.6. Referring to Traffic's comments regarding the phrase "middle of long blocks," COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON proposed pulling from the subdivision regulations where it says that "residential blocks in Class A improvement areas shall not be less than 300 feet long, nor more than 500 feet long." He proposed changing the wording to "pathways shall be provided to large open space areas, and residential blocks shall not be less than 300 feet, nor more than

16 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page feet long." He proposed deleting the word "such that" and then the next sentence would start "pedestrian circulation should be convenient both within the development and to appropriate neighboring areas outside the development." COMMSSIONER FREDRICK noted concerns with not being able to have a block smaller than 300 feet in a private development. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON proposed alternate language setting a maximum of "no more than 500 feet." COMMISSIONER FREDRICK concurred. MS. MCCONNELL proposed that if the Commission wanted to set a standard that "blocks shall be no longer 500 feet" that it could be added as a minimum standard under Section E, and deleting "in the middle of long blocks" here in Section 6. COMMISSIONER FREDRICK concurred. The section would read "In addition to sidewalks required by pedestrian shall be provided to large open space areas." COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON proposed changing "pedestrian circulation is convenient" to "pedestrian circulation should be convenient both within the development and to appropriate neighboring areas outside the development." ACTING CHAIR ISHAM clarified C.6 would be taken out of this section and added to Section E, and that "blocks shall be no longer than 500 feet" and "pedestrian circulation is..." will be changed to "pedestrian circulation should be..." The Commission and staff concurred. These changes were accepted. Section C.7. The Commission discussed use of the words "creative" and "imaginative" in this section. COMMISSIONER PEASE proposed inserting the word "significant" and deleting "creative and imaginative." The sentence would then read: "The development is designed in a way that takes advantage of any significant natural features on site, and provides enticing usable open space and recreation areas." COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA proposed deleting the word "enticing." The Commission and staff concurred with both revisions. These changes were accepted. Section D, Development Agreement. No issues or changes. Section E.1, Open Space. The sentence from Section C.4 was moved to the end of this Section. The sentence reads as follows: "The open space shall not be simply the lot setbacks and leftover fragments such as corner bits that are unusable for other purposes." The Commission and Staff concurred. This change was accepted.

17 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 17 Section E.2, Buffers for Neighboring Uses. The Commission discussed developed density versus zoned density. No changes. Section E.3, Building Space. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA indicated this spacing requirement came out of the PUD and multi-family, and her point was that condominium development is going to be denser than a planned unit development community. She also noted there are structures being built in Anchorage that are 4-plexes that have 2 stories on one end and 3 stories in the middle. She suggested a requirement of 10 feet including three stories. After discussion, she restated her proposed language as follows: "Within the development no portion of any single or two story shall be closer than 10 feet from any other single or two story building." ACTING CHAIR ISHAM clarified that if it is a single, 2 or 3 story buildings, it would be 10 feet, and then anything bigger than 3 story has to be 1/2 the height of the taller building. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA concurred. ACTING CHAIR ISHAM noted the Commission is treating site condos differently as it is a special kind of development, it is going through special permitting and reviewing, and it is probably going to be a little more compact. The consensus from the Commission was that it is going to be 10 feet for 1 to 3 story buildings, and then everything else is 1/2 the height for anything above 3 stories. COMMISSIONER PEASE proposed that it should be a "minimum distance equal to 1/2 the height of taller building." Staff will reword this section and bring it back to the Commission. Section E.4, Vehicle Plug-in. COMMISSIONER FREDRICK indicated it is in the PUD. No changes were made. New Section E.5. The Commission previously added "blocks shall be no longer than 500 feet." COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON noted the intent of the section that this was taken from was that if a block was more than 500 feet, it would have a pedestrian connection through it. He sees this as a connectivity issue, rather than how long the blocks are. He suggested "blocks more than 500 feet long must provide a pedestrian pathway between adjacent streets." COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA noted there are some developments where there is nothing to connect to such as one long street. COMMISSIONER PEASE proposed a pedestrian access every 200 feet, or every 10 units. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON would like to see consistency with the subdivision standards, which say 500 feet. COMMISSONER YOSHINURA s point was the Commission has gone from single family subdivisions to PUDs to condominiums to site condos or full service condominiums. The whole idea is that you are going to lose some of those amenities that you have in single families and in PUDS for a higher density condominium development, and the public recognizes that. She indicated there is a place for that higher density in the marketplace and to apply single family

18 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 18 subdivision standards and PUD standards to condo development is defeating the purpose. MR. ROBINSON noted if the Commission went with original language and left it somewhat discretionary, the intent of that was that long blocks would be broken up by pedestrian pathways. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON indicated if long blocks was defined, then going back to the original language would be fine. MS. MCCONNELL noted it would be at the discretion of the decision-making body to decide if it is long enough that a pedestrian connection needs to be put in. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON noted he would rather not have that wording as a new Section 5, and would go back to Section 6 and leave it as worded then. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON clarified he would delete the proposed new Section 5, and go back to Section C.6 and reinstate the phrase "in the middle of long blocks." ACTING CHAIR ISHAM recapped the actions of the Committee of the Whole. No decisions were made on B.3 and C.5, and E.3 will be rewritten. "Long Blocks" was put back where it was before, and that was C.6 originally. The proposed new Section E.5 was deleted. In addition, C.6 was changed from "pedestrian circulation is" to "pedestrian circulation should be" COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON moved to approve coming out of the Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER PEASE moved to approve the amendments to Section as presented by Staff with the changes approved in Committee of the Whole, and this excludes B.3, C.5 and D.3 for the time being because final approval is being deferred, and all other sections are approved with changes made in the Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON seconded. COMMISSIONER PEASE noted that although there was not a lot of or any public testimony on this, the Commission went through very carefully and attempted to balance flexibility with the desire of the community for greatly improved standards in site condo type developments. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA'S intent for including site condos in the Title 21 rewrite was that as a condominium developer and land developer she has been told by almost every builder, engineer and designer that if they had to go through a public process that included the neighbors that were going to be impacted by their condominium development, and if they had to stand up before the community council or at a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to describe their development and to seek some sort of approval through a public input process that we would

19 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 19 have a much better looking community regardless of whether it was a site condo, a regular condo, a duplex, townhouse, etc. Further, the intent for her is that site condominiums have some sort of public process because she thinks a neighbor or community is entitled to know if there are going to be 12 new units in their neighborhood, what those units are going to look like, and how the traffic is going to be impacted. She noted this is the same process a developer would have to go through if they were going to create 12 single family lots, which requires a public process. 3. CASE: PETITIONER: Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department REQUEST: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, ZONING DISTRICTS, SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES AND SITE PLANS, TO DEFINE WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS), TO ALLOW WECS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS AS ACCESSORY USES BY ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND AS CONDITIONAL USES, TO SET GENERAL STANDARDS AND CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON moved to approve as presented Case regarding wind energy conversion systems. COMMISSIONER PEASE seconded. COMMISSIONER WEDDLETON noted the Commission had seen this before and generally supported it. The Commission did not have testimony against it at the public hearing. He noted this is an improvement over the earlier work based on greater knowledge gained by the Department since then, and it is something we need in Anchorage to start, and I think an important point too is that we are starting very slow, and we are not letting it take advantage of every place where these could be useful, but it is better to start slow, and let it be successful then to have a public backlash if we allow towers too tall and too large before we get used to these. H. APPEARANCE REQUEST -

20 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 20 I. REPORTS - 1. Chair 2. Secretary 3. Committee a. AMATS Committee - T. Jones, Pease b. School Site Selection Committee - Isham c. Citizens Air Quality Committee - Pease, T. Jones d. Airport Master Plan Committee - e. Parks Planning Committee & Chester Crk Sub - Pease f. Title 21 Committee - T. Jones, Isham g. Capital Improvement Committee h. ARR Policy Committee - Isham J. TITLE 21 DISCUSSION - K. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS - L. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA moved to adjourn. COMMISSIONER PEASE seconded.