Urban Design Commission - March 11, 2026 - 2026-03-11 18:30:00

Hello, we're ready, but due to technical difficulties, I will be showing up when I vote as UDC Guest 1, but we're going to go ahead and get started. It is— good evening, it's 6:40 PM, March 11th, 2026, and the meeting of the Urban Design Commission will now come to order. May we please have a roll call? Edith McKee. Here.

Allison Lanning. Here. Julia Foland. Here. Alexandra Ninalo.

Trevor Strait. Here. James Collis. Here. Monica Sullivan is excused.

You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, may we get a motion to approve the minutes from December 10th, 2025?

It's been moved by Commissioner Lennig and seconded by Commissioner Foland. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Are there any objections to the minutes being approved?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

Um, we'll now move on to the special order of business. Um, are there any disclosures this evening?

Commissioner Poland? Um, for Case 2026-0038, uh, the representative, Peter Briggs with Corvus Design, is a personal friend of mine. But I've had no knowledge of this project and nothing to do with it.

Do you stand to have any financial gain from the project? No.

May I please get a motion to direct Commissioner Foland to participate?

Is there any discussion?

It was moved by Commissioner Lennig. It was seconded by Commissioner Straight. Hearing no objections or discussion, may we please vote to direct Commissioner Foland to participate in case number— Oh goodness, uh, 2026-0038.

Thank you. Commissioner Folland, um, will participate in case 2026-0038.

Are there any other disclosures?

Great. The next item on the agenda is the annual election of officers, which we will not be holding tonight. We will hold elections at a later date if UDC is reauthorized. Can I get a motion to postpone elections of officers to a date yet undetermined? And can I get a motion to reorder the agenda to hear case 2026-0010 as the first item under public hearings?

It's been, um, moved by Commissioner Lennig and seconded by Commissioner Foland. Are there any discussions? Is there any objections?

Um, seeing none, the motion is approved.

The next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. May we have a motion to approve Resolution 2025-007 on the consent agenda? Was moved by Commissioner Straight and seconded by Commissioner Lennig.

Is there any, um, discussion or corrections, or would anyone like to pull an item from the consent agenda?

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved.

Um, we don't have any unfinished business or items on the regular agenda this evening. Therefore, we'll move on to the public hearings, and I will read the public process. The Urban Design Commission meets the second and fourth Wednesday of each month except holidays as regular meetings. If the Urban Design Commission fails to complete an— its agenda for its regular meetings, the commission carries over the remainder of the agenda to the following meeting date. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Urban Design Commission at its meeting is: 1.

After the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Urban Design Commission Rules of Procedure. A. Petitioners, including all his/her/their representatives, will have 10 minutes. Rebuttal by the petitioner may be allowed when time has been reserved. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., will have 5 minutes, and individuals will have 3 minutes.

3. 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. 4. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the Commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal.

In accordance with AMC 21.03.050A.4.a., Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal, filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 21 .03.050. 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.

And, um, just to add To update the meeting, I am now currently logged in as Commissioner McKee.

Thank you.

Let's see here. So we are— with respect to case 2026-0010, the petitioner is seeking a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and Urban Design Commission to the Anchorage Assembly to amend Anchorage Municipal Code to permanently sunset the Urban Design Commission and reallocate its duties to the Planning and Zoning Commission. May we please have staff's presentation?

Uh, thank you, Chair McKee. Uh, so there's— this information is summarized in the staff report memorandum and the draft assembly memorandum. But the ordinance would propose sunsetting this commission and then moving its reviews to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Uh, the reason for that is for efficiency. Uh, basically, this, uh, the commission has not met many times.

There have not been many cases in recent years. In 2025, of the 12 regularly scheduled meetings, 6 were canceled. Um, uh, there were 7 cases in 2025, so it wouldn't be a, like, a giant caseload if it was moved to another board or commission. Uh, sunsetting the UDC would not change review requirements as is proposed in the ordinance, uh, would not change criteria for the cases. It would just move to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and this would lead to greater efficiencies for staff time and also the volunteer time of the commissioners who serve We've had several vacancies on our boards and commissions, and, and this would help us make sure that we can maintain full capacity of our boards and commissions.

There is a work session for the Urban Design Commission that is scheduled for March 23rd. And that is the end of my staff report summary. I'll— every— everything else in more detail is in the staff packet, and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?

Commissioner Foland?

Through the chair, I have a question. Is now when we should bring up, um, Areas that we think the UDC could be improved, or would that be for the work session?

Through the Chair, Commissioner Folland, now would be fine. Okay.

To have the UDC just transfer over to Planning and Zoning exactly as it is, you know, I think that there could be ways to improve it. I mean, I agree, obviously we haven't met that much. Sorry, may I make a point of interjection? So yes, now during this agenda item is when you should bring those concerns up. Just, I would advise you to just ask questions of staff now and then open the public hearing and then bring that up during your discussion is all.

Okay. Have you guys talked at all about having the major site plans reviews coming for review earlier than, you know, at maybe like 15% design development instead of 65% design development? Because the Inlet View School, for example, you know, by the time that project came to us, there was, I think, already $3 million in design fees, and it was really too late. To incorporate any of our comments. So it feels frustrating when we are too late at the table.

So the major site plan reviews, I think, would be beneficial to have them under review much earlier in the design stage.

Through the Chair to Member Foland. To answer your question, we have briefly touched on that subject in the internal discussions in the Department. But had not gotten very far with it quite yet. Our initial discussion in the department is to examine the efficiencies in our boards and commissions, and then we will be potentially addressing some of the reviews themselves to see if there are ways that we might accomplish those in a more effective manner. So if you would be willing to bring that up again during the discussion, I think that is a point that we will want to get on the record, um, as a concern and something that we may be able to, um, you know, make use of later during our discussion of the reviews.

Okay. And then one other thing I wanted to ask, um, a lot of the cases that come in front of us are for variances that are— they're old, they're grandfathered in. It's a fence height variance or something akin to that that existed before I mean, some of them existed before I was even born. And there was no opposition to them. None of the neighbors cared at all or showed up or had any comments.

And in other cities that I've practiced in, the planning department was deputized to kind of just deal with those directly. And that would be— if there's any way to give power back to make— I mean, that would be a deficiency of everybody's time if some things that were really very basic could be reevaluated.

Through the Chair to Member Folland, um, Melissa Babb for the record, Planning Director. I'm sorry I didn't say that earlier, but that actually is something that we discussed with PCC as well. They had very similar concerns. And it will be something that the Planning Department will be doing pretty— in the future, pretty soon, I'm hoping. We'll be doing an audit of the various variance requests to see which requests were routinely recommended for denial by staff but routinely approved by commissions, or might involve the fence height questions where they— you regularly approved the variants despite the recommendation one way or the other by staff.

So just taking a look at those patterns and seeing if there are maybe some improvements we can either make in code or in our internal processes for review to improve the system in general. Got it. And then through the chair, the only other comment kind of akin to that would be maybe there's some other— if you've thought of having some other subset, if there is a project that is highly contentious with the community or the neighbours, then that would, I would think, elevate it to a public hearing.

Through the Chair to Member Folland, I would just encourage you again to bring that comment up during the discussion because I think that would be of value to us as well to have on the record as a concern, as a consideration for your vote on this. On this matter later on in the proceedings. Okay. Thank you. That's it.

Commissioner Strait. Yeah. Through the Chair, I was wondering if you could— I know it's somewhat summarized here in the report. Do you mind discussing at least a little bit the anticipated efficiencies that that the municipality anticipates from sunsetting UDC.

Commissioner, straight through the chair, I believe there's a line in the staff report that had a— it placed a dollar amount on staff time. Here we go. So in 2025, the commission heard 7 cases where we gave an approximate estimate for staff time of $28,000. An approximate volunteer time for the Urban Design Commissioners totaled 50 hours. So we're anticipating efficiencies in both costs to the municipality and in human capital costs in, in both staff time and volunteer time.

And through the chair to Commissioner Straight, if I may, um, we also were taking into consideration some efficiencies and the timing for meetings regarding the, the needs of the applicants, because if meetings are canceled due to the inability to make quorum or there aren't enough applications, then that can delay projects or approvals of variances as well. So that was part of the conversation as well. And, uh, one, one more point I'll add, uh, Commissioner Strait, through the chair, is just that The Planning and Zoning Commission, which is what is being proposed for all of the UDC reviews to be transferred to, they meet twice per month, whereas this commission only meets once per month. So it could potentially give an applicant a way to catch a second meeting per month that they would not have with just this commission.

Understood. Um, I guess a little And you may not know the answer to this, which is perfectly fine. I guess I'm just looking for kind of a percentage of the dollar amount and volunteer hours that you're expecting to be reduced, I guess. I mean, moving directly over, you'll still have staff hours and volunteer hours associated with those cases in the new location where they're at. I guess sunsetting the UDC What kind of percentage of that are you expecting to be eliminated?

Uh, Commissioner, straight through the chair, I, I don't have that information available. I just have the, the estimate of what we thought it cost in staff time for, for that 2025 year. Uh, it would, it would take some work to, to see how many cases Planning and Zoning Commission had an estimated percentage. Um, I mean, I suppose the argument is that this commission has not met as many times or heard as many cases, so it's, it's not a, a huge transfer to the Planning and Zoning Commission necessarily, but it does eliminate the need to schedule separately this commission, if that makes sense. Um, so I don't have that direct answer, but that's as close as I can get.

Yeah, that, that's fine. Thank you. I did have one other question. In the packet, it mentions under comments that there was one public comment, and I did not see that in the packet. It could be that I just missed it somewhere there.

Through the chair to Commissioner Straight, that public comment was one that we basically had in hand and were anticipating bringing forward, but it was retracted. So I can work with the, the person who was potentially going to make that comment to see if they might be willing to send it to the assembly. But the concerns mentioned in, in this staff report were a good summary of, of the comment itself. And I'm sorry I can't give you any more information about that because the comment itself was retracted, but it does basically summarize what the content of the comment was.

Sorry for the vague answer. That is just fine. Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions of staff? Is there anybody online with questions?

No? Okay. We will now open the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify?

Yes, please come forward.

Please state and spell your name for the record and whether you are testifying as an individual or a representative of a group. Peter Briggs as an individual. Through the chair, I just— since this might be the last time that I'm in front of Urban Design Commission, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you and retroactively all the commissioners before you. I am a past commissioner on the commission, and the work that you have done and those before you for shaping Anchorage in tandem with Planning and Zoning Commission is very much appreciated by residents. So I would just like to say that I try to avoid being nostalgic, but it's a little— with a little bit of a heavy heart that the Urban Design Commission might, might sunset, but it's understandable with the conditions that we see today.

So thank you very much. Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to testify?

Seeing none, the, the matter now rests with the body.

May we have a motion, um, to— I move in case 20 Uh, may we have a motion to approve Case 2026-0010?

It's moved by Commissioner Lennig. Mover, would you please state your motion? Yes, I move in Case 2026-0010 to recommend to the Anchorage Assembly approval of the Amendment to the Anchorage Municipal Code, Title 21, to sunset the Urban Design Commission.

Do we have a second?

It's been seconded by Commissioner Calls. Commissioner Lennig, would you please speak to your motion?

Yes. I will be supporting the motion, um, and that is not, uh, something that's come lightly. I think, um, we've had a few discussions about this, this impending sunsetting of the Urban Design Commission, um, and it's, it's something that makes me kind of sad because it's been such a great commission to serve on. And we kind of touched on this, I believe, at our last meeting where we were able to kind of acknowledge work that's been done here by past Commissioners and current ones. But based on kind of the summary here from staff and also some of the discussions we've had, the move to consolidate UDC and PZC makes a lot of sense.

Not just really financially. I feel like Urban Design Commission is kind of a small drop in the bucket, but I think As Elizabeth said, being able to fill the municipal boards fully rather than kind of spreading everybody thinner and hopefully creating some efficiencies for people that are bringing items to this commission, which will now be PCC, as stated, having more opportunities to do that and kind of keeping the thing rolling is, is helpful from a project side of things. But it does make me sad because I do appreciate this board, um, and I appreciate all the people that I've worked with here.

Thank you. Commissioner Collis, would you like to speak to your second?

Uh, yep, and I'm moving to sunset the Urban Design Commission committee because I think I think the municipality is right in the fact that they could probably optimize some of these smaller cases. And through the, uh, discussion workshops, we'll probably be able to better serve the community if we come up with some type of structure to help some of these other cases that don't get public input. Sometimes when they go for a variance and no one responds or contests it, it almost seems like those should be like an automatic approval and not have to come to a commission. But I think, uh, as an overall theme, this is probably going to be an improvement and help the community and helps the municipality, uh, serve the community faster, more economically too, I guess, even though it is small dollar.

Thank you. Are there any other commissioners wishing to speak to the motion?

I'll speak to it a little bit. I think that what UDC does is important. I think that while we do sometimes see some of the smaller cases, the variances or whatnot, that they are really important to the people who come before us that are needing the variance, and, and we give them careful and serious consideration before we vote on them. Planning and Zoning, I believe, will give the same level of consideration, and, and like it's been mentioned here, having that consolidated will be efficient, and not only for staff but also for the, the boards and for the public who come before the, the commissions, having more opportunities to do that more efficiently and more quickly, I think, is also a benefit to the community. So I intend to support this motion as well.

If there is no further discussion, may we vote on case 2026-0010?

Ms. Danello, how do you vote?

Ms. Danello, how do you vote?

Uh, Case 2026-0010, um, has passed with a vote of 5 in favor, um, 0 2 against, and 1 abstaining.

Point of information. Uh, yes, if the chair would be willing to indulge me just for a moment, um, I just wanted to— I've already spoken on this topic at a, um, at a different meeting. I spoke about it at PCC the other evening, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to say again Thank you to all the commissioners for the work that you've done. Reiterate what Mr. Briggs said earlier, your service has been of great value to the community, and it is with heavy heart that I say that, well, we don't know yet, of course. The assembly still needs to vote as well, but it's sad to potentially see the end of this commission, and the muni deeply appreciates work that you've done here.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um.

Hello?

Hello? Hello, Commissioner Nalalo? There we go. Yes, hi. Glad we got you back.

Um, we marked you as abstaining. Would you like to change your vote?

On which portion? I'm sorry. Okay, we're, we're going to leave it as is and move on to the next item on the agenda. Um, okay, which will be Case 2026-0038. Um, with respect to Case 2026-0038, the petitioner is requesting design variance from AMC 21.05.040C.2.B.III, traffic access, and a design variance from AMC 21.05.040C2.B.B.I, parking and setbacks.

Um, we will hear staff's report for each variant separately, and then the commission will vote on each variance separately as well. May we please have staff's presentation? Thank you, Madam Chair. The petitioner is requesting 2 variances for an existing structure at 6821 Wymer Road. The existing use for the site was a childcare center, and the petitioner is seeking to use the building as a church, i.e., religious assembly.

The first design variance request is from AMC-21-05040C-2(b)(III), which states Community centers and religious assemblies shall have at least one property line of the site that is at least 50 feet in length, and it shall abut a street designated as a collector or greater on the official streets and highways plan. All ingress and egress traffic shall be directly onto such street. This site abuts Raspberry Road, a major arterial which meets the 50-foot length but cannot take ingress or egress off of Raspberry. Therefore, the site access is currently taken from Weimer Road with a ±132-foot-wide driveway entrance, the width of which was determined to be a legal nonconforming characteristic of use according to the 2025 verification of nonconforming status. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting a design variance from the use-specific standard to permit ingress/egress onto a street not designated as a collector or grader in the Official Streets and Highways Plan.

The second design variance request is from AMC 2105040C2B Roman numeral VI, which states: In residential zoning districts, no parking or loading areas shall be placed in any setback except in approved driveways. The existing parking lot is situated within the primary front setback of the parcel, which is not allowable for the religious assemblies in residential zoning districts. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking a design variance from this standard to allow parking within the front setback. In order for the Urban Design Commission to approve these variances, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards. As Chair McKee said, I will present each variance standard separately for clarity.

For variance number 1, religious assemblies must take ingress and egress onto a street designated as a collector or greater. Standard A is met. Standard B is met. Standard C is met. Standard D is met.

Standard E is met. Standard F is met. Standard G is met. And Standard H is not applicable.

I'm getting there. In Variance 1, the department finds that Standards A through H are met and recommends approval subject to Conditions 1 on page 7 of your staff packet. For Variance Number 2, religious assemblies in residential zoning districts are not allowed parking or loading areas within any setback except approved driveways. Standard A is not met. The intent of the code provision in the context of this case is to keep vehicles from parking too close to rights-of-way and travel lanes.

The driveway enjoys legal nonconforming verification for its width, and right-of-way and traffic reviews did not provide opposition to the variance request. However, the nonconforming determination did not speak to parking in the front setback, which is a use-specific standard for child care use and religious assembly use. Approval of this variance would, would permit vehicles parking within the front setback near the right-of-way, could result in maneuverability and visibility issues. Therefore, the proposed alternative does not achieve the intent of the design standard to the same or better degree. Standard B is not met.

Allowing parking in the front setback of the subject property does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for Safe Streets and Walkable Communities, as reflected in the policy intent for the recent site access code changes and the long-range transportation strategy. Standard C is not met. The proposal to continue to allow parking in the front setback of the subject parcel does not benefit the community equivalent to or better than the standard Religious assemblies experience lower visitations to the site throughout the week, but have higher volumes of traffic on specific days of the week, multiple times a day, and a period of hours, often with vehicles attempting to ingress and egress within the same window of time. Parking in the front setback will result in patrons who park facing the facility to back up into the right-of-way. The difference here is the volume of vehicles at peak times entering the right-of-way along the length of the property instead of from one driveway.

Standard D is met. Standard E is not met. Granting this variance would allow a use on the site that would not otherwise be permitted in the zoning district by allowing a parking lot that does not meet minimum code requirements. Standard F is met. Standard G is not met.

Allowing parking within the front setback may adversely affect the community's safety by reducing visibility for pedestrians and drivers. However, the speed limit on Wyman Road is 25 miles per hour. Standard H is not applicable.

Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 25 of your packet. There were no objections. There were also no public comments from the Sand Lake Community Council or members of the public. In Variance 2, the department finds that Standard A, B, C, E, and G are not met, and Standards D, F, and H are met. Therefore, the department must recommend denial of the variance.

If after a public hearing, the Commission finds that all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to Condition 2 found on page 7 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions the Commissioners may have, and the petitioner and their representative are in attendance.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?

Commissioner Lanning. Hi, um, I just have a couple quick questions. Um, I didn't see any plans that identify a front yard setback. I'm assuming it's 20 feet per R3, is that correct? Through the chair, Commissioner Lanning I believe it's 10.

It's 10, okay. Yes, um, and this would be their— sorry, didn't mean to interject you. No, no, go ahead. So they, since they're on Raspberry, they have a primary and a secondary, right? Orientation is to Weimer, so this would still be their primary, so Raspberry would be their secondary.

And so they have side setbacks and no rear setbacks on the other properties. I don't know if that helps too. Got it, yeah, that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Okay.

And then the other question I had was, um, the non-conforming determination— was the parking not considered at all in that determination? I know it was mentioned in here that it was not— it was not spoken to by that, it was just addressing the driveway width. But is there a reason that that wasn't looked at also? Through the Chair, Commissioner Lanning, I'm not sure why the non-conforming determination did not account for the existing driveway, possibly because it's not allowed, and so they didn't want to perpetuate or intensify that nonconformity.

I keep getting these ones for you guys. You guys love these ones, don't you? We do love them. Uh, the other question, I guess, to follow up that one is, um, Is there any way to have that addressed through a nonconforming determination, or is it kind of past that point? At this point, like you said, it's not an allowed use, but it has— from what I understand, this has been used that way for like 50 years plus.

Through the chair, Commissioner Lanning. So it's not allowed use for child care either, right? And so with the change of use, that's what triggers that they can't keep using the— exactly, they can't keep using it. Understood. Okay, thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Folland. Through the chair, I have a question for staff. Um, where does the muni expect them to park on this property?

Through the chair, Mr. Folland, as far as we can tell, the, the playground area is just a gravel area. It's not even paved. So if they were to take parking, they can park in the street. There is no requirement for parking, as most of you guys know. That was taken away a couple years ago by the assembly, so they don't have to provide parking.

If they do provide ADA accommodation parkings, then they have to provide those spaces.

Whether or not they can finagle it, I would defer to the applicant. I'm sure Peter could probably discuss that better than I could, if there's actually enough space for them to actually have a parking garage or parking spaces, a parking lot. On the south side or not of the structure, given that they have to do landscaping, which they're not asking for a variance for anything. They have to provide landscaping against any budding residential neighbors. So the south and the west, they have to provide landscaping as a religious assembly.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

Um, will the petitioner please come forward? Please state and spell your name for the record.

Uh, good evening through the chair. Peter Briggs, B-R-I-G-G-S, petitioner's representative for this case. Um, you'll have 10 minutes to present. Would you like to reserve any of your time for rebuttal? Yes, probably a significant— say, 6 minutes.

Thank you. I'll try to be brief. The petitioner has no objections to the information presented within the staff report or the conclusions of it, and to be specific with that is that recognizing that staff support the variance for traffic access, and then staff recommended denial of the parking variance for the parking and site access— parking and setback. There is room— answering proactively, answering a question— there is room on the site to provide parking within the site's area. The hope was that because it had been previously used as a daycare facility with the parking in that location since 1972 or whatever, that because they have a similar but different traffic use over the course of a week, that it would be allowed to keep the parking as such, but the points that are made from a municipal code perspective are fully reasonable, hence no objection to that.

So just to restate again, happy to see the approval or recommendation for approval of the traffic access variance and accepting of the denial for the parking per existing conditions. And I think that wraps up. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Commissioner Foland, through the chair. Um, so in the playground area, you guys are removing the fence to the west. What's that going to be program— programmatically for the church? Pardon me, sorry, the—. Like the former playground area, how is the church going to use that area?

So in looking at the parking for the site, a single-loaded parking lot is possible across that area. So that chain-link fence is currently the head of the parking would be removed and the parking lot would extend along the face of the building almost to the back setback.

So that entire area becomes replaced. Replaced by a parking lot on site. And if it wasn't parking, how would the church choose to use it? Currently, it would probably just be left as being outdoor open space with future use, however chosen, for the site, but no plans for it.

That was all.

Commissioner Lennig. Yeah, mine— I actually— that was my question, you just answered it, as far as how the parking would then fit on the site on that south side. But to kind of follow that, is there a plan for accessible access to the building from there? I wasn't— it wasn't quite clear on this plan of how you get to the building. With the current site on the plan, you can see that the accessible parking is located in the northwest of it.

Right. With the site reconfigured, configuration, the accessible spaces would just be south of that to the southwest corner of the building with the access coming up and around to the front of the building. Okay, thank you. Or being closer depending on the, uh, the architecture of it. Right, perfect.

Thank you.

Commissioner Straight. Yeah, I guess I don't know if this is a church that is a new church or if it's another church that's moving to this location, but I was wondering if you had an idea of kind of what the expected needs are for the parking for the, the people visiting the church. Um, can't speak to the— I can't speak to the, the number of the needs for the parking. I can't speak to that. There's just a matter of how much the site will accommodate, and I think the site will accommodate approximately 12 spaces on it.

Currently, with the double loading that happens on the west with, uh, or tandem parking where the cars behind each other. I think it's about 14 to 16 spaces depending upon how it's parked. Um, so from an existing condition point of view, hopefully that answers your question a little bit. Yeah, that's, that's what I was looking for. Thanks.

I have a question. Um, if they relocate the parking, is there any plans to Um, reduce the size of the, of the access? Uh, the access, uh, would have to be reduced to, uh, maximum per city requirements, and I think that's around 30 feet maximum. But it'll have a 24-foot drive aisle coming into the parking lot, so there really wouldn't be much benefit to having an access wider than 24 feet. Thank you.

But it would definitely be limited by municipal maximums. Thank you.

Any other questions of the petitioner?

No? Okay, um, thank you. Thank you. Uh, we will now open the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify?

Doesn't look like it. Would the petitioner like to use their remaining time for rebuttal? He has declined.

Are there any more questions from the Commission for the petitioner or staff?

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. The matter now rests with the body. We will move and vote on each variance individually. May we have a motion to approve in Case 2026-0036 the traffic access variance?

It's moved by Commissioner Lennig. Would you please state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0038 to approve a variance from AMC 2105-040C2B3 traffic access subject to the conditions shown on page 6 and 7 of the staff report. Thank you. It's been seconded by Commissioner Straight.

Commissioner Lennig, would you please speak to your motion? Yes, um, I intend to support the motion. Um, this seems pretty straightforward, um, given the nonconforming determination and which addresses the driveway width, but also, um, the findings of staff, um, that support having that drive access on Weimer Road. It seems actually safer than Raspberry Road, which I think was pointed out a couple different times in this packet and in the application. From a, from a traffic flow standpoint, it makes a lot of sense.

The findings through the staff packet were pretty clear, but I'll walk through them just so we have them on the record. Um, so the approval criteria: A, the proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard. The standard is met. Um, the church being adjacent to a major arterial will keep traffic moving to the same degree as the subject standard without causing any traffic issues on Raspberry Road.

Item B, the proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree. The standard is met.

The variance follows Policy 5 and 7 in the Anchorage 2020 Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan, which keeps the variance in scale with the adjacent uses and consistent with the goals and policies of Anchorage 2020, um, and it avoids incompatible uses adjoining one another. Item C, the proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard. Um, this standard is met. Um, community members using Raspberry Road benefit from limiting driveway access onto Raspberry Road, onto the busier street. I think that's the only finding I need on that one.

The standard is met. D, the variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property as permitted under this code. This one is met. It's not going to affect the properties on either side.

Item E, the variance, if granted, does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located. Is intent Keeping in with the intent of the code and does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the district. The standard is met. It will not change the character of the zoning district, and it doesn't permit a use that's not otherwise allowed in the zoning district. Um, item F, persons with disabilities are provided with access as required by Americans with Disabilities Act.

Um, the standard is met, uh, to use the road as the access to the site, which will meet ADA once the parking is resolved. G, the variance, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality. The standard is met.

Uh, where are we at here? And we're on H, which is not applicable. No, because this does not involve signage.

Very good. Thank you. Commissioner Strait, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, um, I, I agree this is a pretty clear, um, cut case for a variance. It, it definitely makes sense to have the approach be on the local road in this case, particularly when it's right at the intersection.

You don't have to put a whole lot of traffic on the local road, drive them down the local road to get to this location. So it's— I consider it significantly safer to have the approach on the local road, and I think the community will definitely be benefited from having it at that location as well. Thank you. Are there any other commissioners wishing to speak to the motion and/or add findings?

Thanks. If there is no further discussion, may we have a vote on Case 2026-0038, Design Variance from AMC 21.05.040C.2.B.iii, Traffic Access.

Ms. Danello, how do you vote?

I vote in favor of the variance, please. Thank you. That variance passed with a vote of yes in favor, zero no, and zero abstaining.

May we have a motion to approve in case 2026-0038 8, the parking and setback variance.

It's moved by Commissioner Folland. Um, mover, please state your motion.

In Design Variance AMC 21.05.040C.2.B.VI, to allow parking within the front setback. And I actually do not intend to support this motion. But thank you. It's been commissioned, seconded by Commissioner Lennig. Commissioner Foland, Would you please speak to your motion?

Yes.

I think that the standards are clearly not met and there is not a compelling argument for us to grant the variance. I will just go finding by finding. And finding— approval criteria A, the proposed alternative achieves the intent of the design— subject design standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard That standard does not— is not met by allowing parking in the front setback. The finding criteria B, the proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of a Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard, and the standard is not met. And finding C, the proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard.

And the standard is not met by allowing parking in the front setback. In Approval Criteria D, the variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property as permitted under this code. Um, that doesn't actually— that is met for that. But, um, Criteria E, the variance, if granted, does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located E is in keeping with the intent of the code and does not permit a use otherwise permitted in the district in which the property lies. The standard is not met.

Criteria F, persons with disabilities are provided with access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and reasonable accommodations. The standard is met on that. Criteria G, the variance, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the— Municipality, um, the standard is not met and the standard is, um, criteria H is not applicable because there is no sign. That was it. Thank you.

Commissioner Lennig, would you like to speak to your second? Sure. Um, I looked into this one pretty in-depth just trying to figure out if there was a way to approve this variance. Um, and as much as we could argue a couple of these points maybe against, um, staff's recommendation, the bottom line is it just doesn't meet, um, it's not something that's permitted in this zoning district. And there was that item E was the one that I couldn't come up with a, with an argument in favor of the variance.

Um, and unfortunately, I know that's a It's a tough decision sometimes because I know it requires more effort on the petitioner's part to improve a site to add parking when a previous business was able to use it. Um, but our job is to, to make sure everything is meeting codes that were put in place primarily for safety in a lot of, um, circumstances. In this one particularly, I think, um, some of the issues with sight lines and People leaving the site en masse, I think, is, is a big concern as far as that current parking lot is concerned. So I unfortunately will also be voting against this motion, but appreciate the effort put in to provide findings for the variance.

Are there any other commissioners wishing to speak to the motion and/or add findings?

I'll speak to the motion. I appreciate that the petitioner indicated that the property owner concurred with staff's findings, um, and, and agree that they can find parking on the parcel that doesn't require a variance, um, as it would be a safety improvement for the traveling public to, to find a different way to access the, the road. So thank you.

If there is no further discussion, may we have a vote on Case 2026-0038, the variance to AMC 21.05.040C2.B Roman numeral 6, parking and setbacks.

Miss Anello, how do you vote? Um, I vote against the variant. Thank you.

So that variance, um, Failed with a vote of 6 no, 0 in favor, and 0 abstaining.

We'll now move on to the next case on our agenda. With respect to case 2026-0043, the petitioner is requesting a design variance from AMC 21.05.070D-01.

9.B to allow a hot tub to encroach into a 10-foot setback on the southerly boundary. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is a request to allow, as you mentioned, a hot tub to encroach 7.4 feet into a 10-foot use-specific setback.

So the code requires hot tubs to be at least 10 feet from all property lines, and the property owner wishes to maintain the deck and hot tub in the fenced backyard of their corner lot property for privacy and safety. Due to the location of the house where it was originally sited, there's approximately 13 feet between the property line and the house. The lot has frontages on West 82nd and Mentor Street, so it's a corner lot, and this, this functions as a backyard is pretty much the only place they have, um, to place for backyard enjoyment of a deck or hot tub. The applicant's objectives for the placement of the hot tub in 2020 in the small backyard area is for private privacy, safety, location, and ease of access from the rear entranceway of the structure. So for the private approval criteria, staff finds Condition A is met.

The intent of the design standard is to have a setback for noise and visual sight of a spa or hot tub. So the hot tub location in the small rear yard is between the house and a fence. Between the immediate neighboring home, there's a shed and mature trees acting as a buffer. The applicant states that the neighbors do not have any windows facing their rear yard area. The hot tub location in the small fence backyard area will provide for privacy for the property owners and accomplishes the intent of the subject design standard.

Staff finds Standard B is met. The 2040 Land Use Plan, Goal 1, Plan for Growth, Livability for Citizens, Quality of Life. Land Use Plan 1.6, Minimize Risk to Life, Safety, and Property. Goal 4, Land Use Plan 4.4, encourage property owners to preserve, rehabilitate, or redevelop properties in ways that minimize housing displacement and maintain health and safety for residents. Staff finds Condition C has been met.

The property owners, uh, worked with the building department originally to construct a carport on the side of the house, and that's when they learned of the encroachment, when the building permit was in their closeout phase. So that's why they're before you tonight, is for a variance. The backyard is very small As mentioned, there's only 13 feet between the property line and the house, and there's this 10-foot setback requirement for a hot tub. The primary front and secondary front yards, they both face streets, so it's not really a suitable location for a hot tub to have it in the front yard where, where it's not really that safe. There's a fence around the current location in the backyard, and therefore the alternative is equivalent to the subject standard.

Staff finds Condition D has been met. The variance will not adversely affect the use of properties adjacent— adjacent property is permitted. There are no structure separation violations. Drainage and runoff do not appear to be an issue in this neighborhood, and existing landscaping will remain and are adjacent to the fence. The adjoining neighbor has no windows facing the hot tub, and a shed is adjacent between the two neighbors.

Staff finds Condition E has been met. The site is zoned R-2A, and there are no non-permitted uses. The variance will not change the character of the zoning district. Standard F has been met. Standard G has been met.

Let me pull this out. And Standard H is not applicable, as it's not a request for a sign. So with that, the findings— staff finds that all 8 standards have been met and recommends approval of the variance, subject to conditions found on page 5. So also, as I mentioned in G, the granting of the variance allowing this hot tub to remain, it will create a safe and secure yard space and is pretty much the only available small rear yard area of the lot. And I believe the applicant's photos paint a perfect picture, 15 through 18, and 18 is really noticeable.

It's kind of an aerial view there, and you can see there's just a small backyard that's fenced for the for the owners to enjoy a hot tub and deck area. I'm happy to answer any questions, and the petitioner is here tonight as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?

Doesn't look like it. Um, will the petitioner please come forward? Please state and spell your name for the record.

My name is Jim or James Fowler, F-O-W-L-E-R. You will have 10 minutes to present. Would you like to reserve any of your time for rebuttal? I guess. How much would you like to reserve?

5 Minutes. Sure, thank you. Although I don't know what that's about, but anyway, I guess I don't have to argue very much. Given that Sean's kind of gone through it, as he said, this whole thing came up because we got a permit for a carport and Meany asked for an updated as-built. And by the way, in our original as-built 2018, there's— it's completely not to scale and you can't tell in that case that the deck is close to the fence.

That's a different issue. I'll be back in April or May for that one, the dimensional variance.

Anyway, one of your sharp-eyed planners saw that on the new as-built that the deck and the hot tub were too close to the south boundary line, so that's why I'm standing here in front of you. Yeah, the backyard is really small, and our 68-year-old bones really enjoy the hot tub. And I know there's no inalienable right to have a hot tub in your backyard, but It'd be really nice to be able to maintain it. And as Sean said, it doesn't look— doesn't work in the front yard or on the other, other side of the house. And it's the smallest hot tub that you can get.

It's 6-foot round diameter. And we went to the— I went to the neighbors to ask them if they had any issues before, you know, this. And the neighbor on the south side, which is the one that would be most affected, said they've been there for 5 years. They said, we didn't even know you had a hot tub. So clearly it's not an issue with any of the neighbors.

And as Sean said, there's no windows on the north side of their house, and there's a— their shed is blocking their view from the deck. So it's really private and there's no impact. So I— if you guys would approve it, we'd— I'd very much appreciate it.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

It's okay. So you got your building permit to build out the carport, and then they just needed an updated as-built. Okay, right. And the updated as-built showed the encroachment.

Yeah, it definitely, uh, does not match the old as-built. Yeah. I just— it kind of seems odd that they would ding you for something that was pre-existing. I know that it's like outside the scope of what their permit was approving, but I was just— when you went through the building process, when you did the original permit, they probably had you submit a plan, right, with the original builder for that carport expansion? Oh yeah.

Okay, so you had everything in place, it was just something extra they caught on the tail end? Yeah, it had nothing to do with carport. Okay, carport is complete and it's been inspected and bought off. I just can't close the permit until I resolve—. Because they're looking at some lines on paper, right?

I got no more questions. Thank you.

We'll now open the hearing to public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify?

Not seeing anybody. Did you receive any inputs from the flyers that you sent out? Um, it says—. Madam Chair, oh yeah, I can add to that. So if you look in your staff packet, yes, there was 3 letters of— I forgot to add this in the, in the staff presentation, but there's 3 letters of support for the variance starting at page 20— 27, 28, and 29.

3 Letters of support from neighbors wrote in for the variance.

We have good neighbors.

Um, would you like to use your remaining time for rebuttal? I don't think I need to. Okay, thank you. Push the green button. Okay, are there any more questions from the commission for the petitioner or staff?

Are you on the phone?

Who's Odell? I'm here, but I don't Are we good? Do I need to call on her? Um, Commissioner Odell, do you have any— or sorry, Commissioner Nanalo, do you have any questions?

No. Okay.

Um, let's see. Okay, I'll ask one last time. Are there any more questions from the commission for the petitioner or staff? Okay, I'm not seeing any. The public hearing is now closed.

The matter now rests with the body. We will move and vote. Uh, may we have a motion to approve in case 2026-0043?

It's been moved by Commissioner Straight. Would you please state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2026-0043 to approve a variance from AMC 21.026.070D.10.B.I to allow a hot tub to encroach 7.4 feet into a 10-foot use-specific setback, subject to the conditions shown on page Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Thank you. It was seconded by Commissioner Lennig.

Commissioner Straight, would you please speak to your motion? Yeah, I tend to support this variance. Um, I think this is a very good use of a variance in that there's not really any other place that a hot tub could be reasonably installed on this property, and I think it's a good case for a variance. And I will go through some of the findings. I agree with the staff report.

So for Criteria A, the proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard. The hot tub location is in the small rear yard. Between the house and the fence between the immediate neighboring home, there's a shed and mature trees acting as buffer. Basically, there's, there's no access from the neighbors to that side, and it's not causing any issues with the neighbors.

For criteria B, the standards met that the proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard. In this case, of the 2040 Land Use Plan, for Goal 1, the plan and growth and livability of— for the 2040 Land Use Plan, and also for Goal 4, the neighborhood housing, that it encourages property owners to preserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop properties in ways that minimize housing displacement, maintain affordability, health, and safety of the residents. Criteria C, the proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard. Standards met. The property owners did work with the municipality building department to construct a carport on the side of the house, and they found that they had an issue during the closeout phase.

Um, basically, the backyard is, uh, small, and so there's not room to, to place the hot tub anywhere that's not within the setback area. Uh, there's a fence around the current location of the hot tub. Applicant states that the adjacent neighbor has a shed as well as trees and shrubs to block the view of the hot tub. The alternative therefore is equivalent to the subject standard. For criteria D, the variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the Use of adjacent property as permitted under this code, standards met.

There's no structure separation violations. The drainage and runoff don't appear to be an issue in this neighborhood. There's not gonna, not gonna be changes to the landscaping or the adjacent fence, and the adjoining neighbor has no windows facing the hot tub, and there's a shed in between as well. For criteria E, the variance granted does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located, is in keeping with the intent of the code, and does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the district in which the property lies. The standards met— this is zoned R-2A and there's no non-permitted uses— will not change the character of the R-2A district in this location.

For criteria F, persons with disabilities, are provided and accessed as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and reasonable accommodation. This standard is met. Standard is not really applicable to this situation. Criteria G: The variance, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, welfare of the people of the municipality. This criteria is also met.

Granting the variance will not adversely affect health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality. Criteria H is not applicable in this situation. I also want to mention that the— from the public comments received, everyone that we received comments from were supportive of the variance, and I intend to support it. Thank you. Commissioner Lueddeck, would you like to speak to your second?

Sure. I feel like Commissioner Straight covered a lot of the, the findings there. Um, I also intend to support the motion, and I just want to say the deck improvement you guys did is lovely. I know that's not what we're here to decide, but, um, it seems like a huge improvement. Um, it's unfortunate that this is something that came up after you purchased the house while you were doing something that was totally unrelated.

Um, but I mean, this variance makes sense based on the constraints of the site, the findings that Commissioner Strait and staff walked through, and it seems like a really great space. I have no problem approving this one for sure. So thank you. Thank you. Are there any other commissioners wishing to speak to the motion and/or add findings?

Nope. Okay, looks like there's no further discussion. May we have a vote on case 2026-0043? Miss Ninello, how do you vote?

I vote in favor of the variance. Thank you.

Okay, that looks like case 2026-0043, um, passed with a vote of 6 in favor 0 abstaining and 0 objections. You get to go home and have a nice hot tub under this beautiful cold, crisp, clear sky.

Okay. Yeah, you can leave. Um, we don't have any other appearance requests Um, I don't have any reports. Are there any reports from the committee?

Are there any commissioners' comments?

Okay, looks like we've concluded UDC's business for this evening. Could I please get a motion to adjourn?

It's been moved by Commissioner Lennig. It's been seconded by Commissioner Straight. Are there any objections?

Nope. Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned at, uh, 7:57 PM.