PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska. MINUTES OF June 13, :30 PM

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska MINUTES OF June 13, :30 PM A. ROLL CALL Present Excused Staff Nancy Pease Jim Fredrick Connie Yoshimura Arthur Isham Stacey Dean Terry Parks Dana Pruhs Richard Wilson Bruce Phelps Al Barrett Margaret O'Brien Francis McLaughlin Sharon Ferguson B. MINUTES - C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS / EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 1. Disclosures COMMISSIONER PARKS disclosed in Case , Agenda item G(4), that he owns property adjacent to this location, but that he has no financial interest in the matter. COMMISSIONER DEAN disclosed in Legacy, Case , Agenda Item G(2), that she is occasionally a general contractor for Legacy, and she recently worked for them. She stated she does not have anything to do with this project, and she won t. She confirmed she has no financial interest in this case, and she feels she can be impartial.

2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA disclosed in Case , Agenda Item G(1), that she has previously been employed as an independent contractor by Carr-Gottstein Properties in the development of Hillbrook and Eastbrook Subdivision in east Anchorage, and she has upon occasion purchased properties from Carr-Gottstein Properties. However, she stated she is not a substantial part of the present action, has no financial interest in this case and feels she can render an impartial decision. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA disclosed in Case , Agenda Item G(3), Cook Inlet Housing Authority, that she is currently a project manager for Cook Inlet Housing Authority in the construction of Coronado Park, which is a planned unit development in Downtown Eagle River. She stated she is also the listing licensee for the lots that are to be platted in that area. With regard to this case, she confirmed she does not have any financial interest, and she feels she can render an impartial decision. D. CONSENT AGENDA - 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 E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: PETITIONER: Robert King REQUEST: Zoning conditional use for a change to the allowed number of units This is a request for a zoning conditional use for to allow an equivalent to 14 units per acre. The applicant is proposing a three story building with four dwelling units. This is a permitted and appropriate use for the area, but requires a conditional use due to the density requested. The site is generally located at 180 Taos Road, Lot 5, Block 6, Alyeska North #3 Subdivision, in Girdwood. This case was initially heard on June 6, 2011, and the public hearing was closed. This case was postponed pending further recommendations from Staff. MR. BARRETT presented an update on the case based on the Commission s request from the June 6 hearing. He explained the petitioner has chosen to not go the variance or waiver route,

3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 and has instead made an alteration to his site plan, which now meets code. He indicated the revised site plan was ed to the Commission and laid on the table at this meeting. COMMISSIONER FREDRICK moved to postpone this case until the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and reopen public hearing on the proposed changes. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. Speaking to his motion, COMMISSIONER FREDRICK noted the Commission had been given, and he has just seen in the last few minutes a substantial change to the submitted conditional use, and a number of additional comments that have come in since the last meeting, which he has not had a chance to review. He stated that he could not in conscious act on this particular issue at this meeting, and in light of the substantial nature of the change, he believes the public deserves a chance to comment on it, and such comment would need to be noticed. He believes the motion to postpone and reopen the public hearing is in order. COMMISSIONER PEASE noted the cover letter to the Commission says that the change is a total increase of 80 square feet developed on the lot, and she did not think that was a major change. She indicated she has not had time to read in detail all of the comments, but she did not want to delay this. She noted the Commission has been conscious in the past about delaying projects, especially during construction season. She suggested postponing this to later in the meeting in order to review the comments during the break. COMMISSIONER PEASE was concerned that the Commission has been sensitive before to the loss of time during the building season. She thinks this seems to be a minor change from what the Commission reviewed before, and there is no parking on the road, which was the big concern. She is not inclined to support the postponement until the Commission has a chance to look at the materials. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA noted she is opposed to a proliferation of materials being laid on the table, and thinks she is in favor of the postponement, but she is not sure the Commission needs to reopen a public hearing. She stated she is sensitive to what COMMISSIONER PEASE has to say about this is a construction season, and she knows how important that is. She noted it seems like the petitioner has worked out these issues with Staff, but asked exactly what the petitioner had done because she has not had time to read this material since it was just laid on the table. In response, MR. BARRETT referred the Commission to the site plan noting that in the two southern-most units the garages have been extended slightly, and there is a small zigzag in them that allows a second car to pull in all the way through at a slight angle for the parking. He noted that each of the units now provides the required number of parking spaces for it, plus overflow, and all spaces are on the property, and there is no longer any parking on Taos Road. In response to COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA S question on how the interior parking spaces in the garage area were calculated by the Municipality, MR. BARRETT noted it is just angled parking and that as long as the spaces are long enough and wide enough they are legal. He indicated Traffic has reviewed and signed off on the revised parking.

4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 MOTION TO POSTPONE Fredrick Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Pease FAILED COMMISSIONER PEASE moved to go into a Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER PEASE supported her motion noting that going into the Committee of the Whole would allow Commissioners to look at the materials placed before the Commission. She noted this is unusual, but thinks it would resolve the concerns people had of having additional materials laid before the Commission. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Pease Yoshimura, Fredrick The Commission went into a Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA moved to come out of the Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Pease Fredrick The Commission came out of the Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA moved to approve Case , zoning conditional use for a change to the allowed number of units, with the Department s recommendations 1 through 9 with the exclusion of Condition 10. COMMISSIONER DEAN SECONDED. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA thinks the petitioner has done a good job working with Staff in resolving the issues that the Commission heard previously during the public hearing as it relates to off-site parking. She thinks the solution is creative, if not a little unorthodox, but she is pleased to see the flexibility from the Traffic Department in allowing the angled interior parking, and also counting the additional parking spaces in front of the owner s unit. She finds in general the Municipality of Anchorage s parking requirements for condominium developments are onerous and excessive, so she is happy to see this flexibility. She thinks everyone has worked hard to resolve this parking issue.

5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 COMMISSIONER PEASE noted the Commission took an unorthodox approach in order to be able to review and make a final vote on this issue. She knows this did not sit well with some members of the Commission, and she hopes the Commission will talk about that in the future, but noted that what the Commission attempted to was to move this project expeditiously as we try to do with most projects before the Commission recognizing that time is of the essence in our short construction season. She thinks the Commission did do justice to the public comments. She noted the Commission had the public hearing at some length last week, and then the Commission took the time to look at the changes carefully. She stated that although many of the written comments submitted to the Commission were not particularly on the issue of the increased building of 80 square feet or the slight angle of the parking, she noted the Commission did take the time to look at those comments even though the public comment period was closed. She finds the 80 square foot addition to the building footprint is minor compared to the building footprint in totality. She noted that in general the density of this project is about 25 percent larger than the density on an adjoining lot of condominiums, but finds the effect of the density is mitigated by the staggered facades of the buildings and the architectural design features that give interest to the building and make it a handsome project. She will be supporting this motion. She stated she appreciates Staff and the applicant s creativity in resolving the parking on site, which seemed to be one of the big concerns of the public. COMMISSIONER FREDRICK reiterated that he thinks the Commission is rushing to judgement on this. He thinks that while this may or may not be the right solution to this, and may or may not be an acceptable conditional use, he stated he has not had time to review the material, and he thinks taking public time in the middle of a regularly scheduled session to do so is unacceptable to him. He will be abstaining from this vote. MR. BARRETT did not believe an abstention to be in order and indicated COMMISIONER FREDRICK needed to vote either yes or no. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease F. REGULAR AGENDA - 1. Resolutions for Approval 2. Introduction for Public Hearings 3. Site / Landscape Plan Approval 4. Time Extensions; Expedited Hearing Requests; Minor Conditional Use Amendments

6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 5. Other G. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: PETITIONER: Carr Gottstein Properties REQUEST: Site plan review for a large retail/commercial establishment This is a request for a limited site plan review for improvements to the north façade of the Sears Mall, a Large Retail Establishment in accordance with AMC ; and A. The site is a parcel of land located in the NE ¼ of Section 30, T13N, R3W, S.M., Alaska; generally located south of Northern Lights Boulevard, west of Gambell Street, north of Benson Boulevard and east of Denali Street in Anchorage. MS. O BRIEN presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality s Planning Division. Planning recommended approval subject to conditions. CHAIR ISHAM opened the public hearing. The petitioner s representative was not present. CHAIR ISHAM opened the hearing to public testimony. There was no one present to testify. CHAIR ISHAM closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PEASE moved to approve Case , the limited site plan review for the north facade of the Sears Mall, with the Department s recommendations suggested on Pages 8 and 9 of the Staff Packet with the following 2 changes: Condition 1. Insert the wording Resolve with Planning Staff that any planters will have plant materials suited to the low light conditions and relatively confined planting area proposed; if planters are not practical, resolve with Staff other design elements, or substitute design elements; and Condition 4. After the signage add, including the display areas called chicklets and then continue the sentence, which reads shall meet the sign code per AMC COMMISSIONER PARKS seconded. COMMISSIONER PARKS was not sure chicklets was the right terminology because he thinks that is the piece that runs across the façade at the top, not the windows. COMMISSIONER PEASE noted she was referring to the display areas that are insets, and referred to Page 3 of the Staff Packet, which says wall signage panels (referred to as chicklets).

7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 COMMISSIONER PEASE restated for clarity that section of her motion after the word signage in Condition 4 to say signage including the wall signage areas called chicklets. COMMISSIONER PARKS concurred. In response to COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA S request for clarification on the sign code regarding the windows, MS. O BRIEN noted she had been advised that they fall into the overall signage code and are allowed. She further noted they would have to go through review during the building permit process to make sure they conform to the signage code. In response to COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA S question on whether these were the first wall panels to be reviewed since the adoption of the revised sign code, MS. O BRIEN indicated her understanding was this was the first one that would fall under the sign code for those wall panels. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA asked if the sign code addressed these wall panels. MS. FERGUSON responded that there was nothing that specifically talks about wall panels, or advertising within them. She indicated they would simply get an idea from the petitioner on how often they intend to put the advertising up, and if it is a temporary sign, they would have to seek a temporary sign permit, which would allow them to keep any sort of advertising up for that period of time. She further noted that if the chicklets signage was intended to be permanent, then they would need to check to see if it fell within the overall signage they are allowed for advertising. COMMISSIONER PEASE noted this is a largely aesthetic upgrade to one of our older malls, a large retail site. In general, she thinks it adds to the appearance of the building and to the community friendliness of it to have the entryways better defined. She noted the chicklets, the wall signage panels do appear to be a new feature that this Commission has not reviewed in their recent memories. Therefore, she stated the Commission has noted that the wall signage panels are signage and do need to be reviewed in the building permit review to make sure that the dimensions, the illumination and those sorts of criteria are met. She noted it is the intent to make this an aesthetically pleasing façade and not a busy façade. She finds there is no change to the footprint of the building, no change to the services or commercial activities in the building, and therefore, no change to the traffic, noise and other environmental considerations, and therefore, it appears to meet the criteria for changes to a large retail establishment in accordance with AMC , and (A). She noted that Staff in looking at compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan raised the compatibility with Policy 48, which addresses the need for site development plans to be designed to enhance or preserve scenic views, and other significant natural features. She thinks it is irrelevant noting this is not about scenic views or natural features, but finds it is an improvement to the built landscape. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease

8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 2. CASE: PETITIONER: Legacy, LLC REQUEST: Amending a conditional use for an administrative building This is a request for an amendment to an existing final conditional use permit for a nursing home; and for concept approval for a conditional use for a nursing home. The amendment to the final conditional use permit for a nursing home is needed to make changes to the approved site plan. The proposed changes remain within the approved area and move the parking lot closer to the cottages, relocate the commons building, and provide additional landscaping where abutting the B-3 District to the south. This amendment is not an expansion. The petitioner is also requesting concept approval for a conditional use for a nursing home, which is essentially concept approval of a master plan of the entire site. The site is generally located north of Debarr Road, East of the Boniface Parkway and South of East 6 th Avenue, Tract A-1-1, Waldec Subdivision, Addition 2, in Anchorage. FRANCIS MCLAUGHLIN presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality s Planning Division. Planning recommended approval of the amendment to the final conditional use, and concept approval of the conditional the conditional use for the entire site. CHAIR ISHAM opened the public hearing. Representatives present on behalf of the petitioner, LEGACY, LLC, were: MICHELLE RITTER, DOWL HKM TANYA HICKOCK, DOWL HKM IVAN CLARK, DOWL HKM TIM POTTER, DOWL HKM JOHN HILL, PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES ALASKA JERRY HENDRICK, PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES ALASKA MS. RITTER provided a presentation on the petitioner s behalf. CHAIR ISHAM opened the hearing to public testimony, and the following individuals testified: JUDD WALKER with WALDEC ENTERPRISES MARC COTTINI with QUEST ENGINEERS for WALDEC ENTERPRISES CHAIR ISHAM closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA moved to go into a Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER PEASE seconded.

9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease COMMISSIONER FREDRICK moved to go out of the Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease RECOMMENDATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A FINAL CONDITIONAL USE COMMISSIONER PEASE moved to approve in Case , amending a conditional use for an administrative building regarding Legacy s nursing home on Boniface Parkway with the Department recommended conditions on Pages 9 through 11 of the Staff Packet with the following changes: Condition 14. In line 3, after the word driveway insert and crossings where any path crosses a driveway and in Line 4 replace it with pathways and sidewalks to read Verify with the Traffic Engineering Division and the Non-Motorized Transportation Coordinator that the width and design of the pedestrian pathways to the commons building and the sidewalk along the driveway and crossings where any path crosses a driveway to ensure that pathways and sidewalks meet minimum guidelines of the Design Criteria Manual and Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design. COMMISSIONER PARKS seconded. In speaking to her motion, COMMISSIONER PEASE noted the Commission has reviewed this conditional use permit fairly recently, and the main purpose of this amendment appears to be changing the location of the Commons Building to make it more accessible and convenient. She further noted the Commission has reviewed the various changes, and the sidewalks and pathways came up. She thinks Condition 14 enables further discussion; for example, to make sure that all the crossings are in place. She indicated the Commission heard that a five foot width of a sidewalk will accommodate a caregiver and a wheelchair, and there may be some need for two wheelchairs to be able to pass each other. She stated she is sure that the discussion with the Non- Motorized Trails Coordinator will resolve those design details. COMMISSIONER PEASE further noted that the Commission heard extensively from an adjoining property owner about drainage concerns and a request for an additional drainage easement across this property. She indicated the Commission heard a good explanation from Staff that there is in the plat, which was approved on June 1, a condition for resolving drainage

10 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 so there will be further discussions with Staff on that. She noted the Commission also heard that the current plat requires drainage across this property from the adjoining property, and she finds the current amount of drainage will be accommodated and that the Design Criteria Manual does not allow a substantial increase in the drainage once the site is developed. She indicated it appears that between the Design Criteria Manual and the plat approval the drainage issue has been resolved. She finds, therefore, under AMC , General Standards, and in particular D(4), the maintenance of compatible and efficient new development patterns will be achieved with regard to drainage. In addition, she finds that it appears that the Commission has met through the conditions AMC , Conditional Use Standards for Health Care Facilities and Related Institutions. She will be supporting this motion. COMMISSIONER PRUHS discussed a proposed amendment regarding an additional crossing sidewalk from the main parking lot to serve Cottages 3 and 4 to provide two equal distance sidewalks crossing pedestrian pathways on the open area. CHAIR ISHAM noted this would add a new condition 17. COMMISSIONER PEASE indicated the proposed amendment was not covered in her change to Condition 14, which requires meeting minimum guidelines for DCM and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and she thinks what COMMISSIONER PRUHS is talking about is something that is site specific; he is trying to reduce walking distances. She is amenable to the proposed change. COMMISSIONER PRUHS moved to add an additional sidewalk north of the pedestrian sidewalk that would split the difference between Cottage 3 and 4 from the main parking lot. COMMISSIONER PARKS seconded. Speaking to his motion, COMMISSIONER PRUHS explained that basically what this proposed amendment does is there is one existing sidewalk already through, for lack of a better term, where the snow storage is going to go or maybe some future parking lot, and this is just another access to access the northern cottages, specifically Cottages 2, 3 and 4 so that those people who park in the eastern large parking lot do not have to go all the way back to the main Commons area, proceed north across the road, and then back towards Cottages 3 and 4. COMMISSIONER PEASE thought if there is a shortcut to the parking lot, then she does not see a pathway through the parking lot and wondered if that was part of the proposed amendment. COMMISSIONER PRUHS indicated it was and that it is adding an additional pathway sidewalk from the parking lot to between Cottages 3 and 4. COMMISSIONER PEASE noted that would be from the parking lot northeast, but then asked what about when somebody crosses into the parking, how they would navigate the parking lot. COMMISSIONER PRUHS indicated there would be a crossing of the road there. COMMISSIONER PEASE asked for clarification noting there is no pathway that comes through the parking lot, but is just to get people in the parking lot over to the cottages and is not to get the

11 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 cottage people a shortcut access to the Common Building. COMMISSIONER PRUHS stated that is correct. Motion to Amend Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA indicated that a drainage plan is always site specific, and that there was no way, in her opinion, for MR. WALKER to know when he sold the property what the site plan, the elevation and the grading plan was going to be for this particular parcel when he sold it. On that basis, she explained that she has to consider MR. WALKER like any other adjacent property owner, and therefore, she proposed the following amendment to Condition 16. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA moved to amend Condition16 to read Provide to Private Development an acceptable drainage analysis and calculation to include adjacent property. COMMISSIONER PRUHS seconded. CHAIR ISHAM clarified the proposed amendment would add the words to include adjacent property. In speaking to her motion, COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA stated she had no other comments other than what she prefaced her motion with. COMMISSIONER WILSON asked for clarification noting the wording as typed in the condition cover the intent of the motion. In response, COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA stated she does not believe it does. COMMISSIONER WILSON asked if Private Development normally takes adjacent properties into consideration when reviewing a drainage plan. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA stated they do, confirmed it is not quite clear enough, and that she would like four more words. In response to COMMISSIONER FREDRICK, COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA confirmed she is not suggesting that LEGACY provide a drainage easement to WALKER or anybody else. She thinks what these words would mean to her, provide to Private Development acceptable drainage analysis and calculations to include adjacent properties, is that it is an issue yet to be resolved, but she wants it to take into consideration the adjacent properties. COMMISSIONER FREDRICK indicated they have to do that anyway.

12 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 Motion to Amend Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Isham, Yoshimura, Pease Dean, Fredrick With regard to findings, COMMISSIONER PEASE noted she made findings before the amendments regarding the drainage and the pathways will be resolved further, and that the conditions of approval were met under code. MAIN MOTION Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease CONCEPT APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE FOR ENTIRE SITE. COMMISSIONER FREDRICK moved to approve in Case the concept plan for development of the entire site, Tract A-1-1, Waldec Subdivision, Addition 2. COMMISSIONER PEASE seconded. CHAIR ISHAM asked COMMISSIONER FREDRICK for clarification regarding what this concept approval is. In response, COMMISSIONER FREDRICK stated that he thinks Figure 4 is the conceptual master plan, then 5A, 5B, 5C and 5D provide the alternatives, and that is what he said is included in the motion. In speaking to his motion, COMMISSIONER FREDRICK noted the petitioner has provided as requested by the Commission a concept development plan for the tract, and he believes, as staff has said, that it meets the general standards of conditional use for the tract for a nursing home. He plans on supporting the motion. With regard to Figure 5C in the south 10 block, COMMISSIONER PRUHS asked what the unlabeled building was for. In response, MR. MCLAUGHLIN noted the petitioner is calling it a transitional care unit. He explained this space is another type of health care/rehabilitative care type facility where someone who has been injured, had an operation such as a double knee surgery and could not return home would receive care for up to 60 days before returning home. He further noted they would transition from the hospital, to this place and then home.

13 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 With regard to Figures 5B and 5D, COMMISSIONER PRUHS indicated there is a building to the east of the Boniface walkway between the proposed two entrances that is not labeled and asked what the building would be. In response, MR. MCLAUGHLIN noted that the winglooking building in 5B is the proposed transitional care unit. He noted there would be descriptions of all of these buildings in a future submittal for an amendment to the conditional use permit site plan just acted on by the Commission. CHAIR ISHAM did not think the Commission should be overly concerned because the petitioner would have to come back to the Commission anyway. He noted that the Commission is dealing with these things in a conceptual nature. COMMISSIONER PRUHS thought as the buildings were mentioned that the petitioner might have a good idea of what it was going to be. COMMISSIONER WILSON asked, if the petitioner produced five alternatives in the conceptual plan whether that limits them at all, and if these alternatives were definitive or just suggestive. MR. MCLAUGHLIN responded that the answer is no, and the Commission and the petitioner are not limited by this concept approval in any way, and referred the Commission to the indented paragraph on Page 3 of the Staff Report. COMMISSIONER PRUHS asked for clarification on whether the Commission was approving this for 5 years or for 18 months as requested in the Department s recommendation. MR. MCLAUGHLIN indicated Staff had no objection to the petitioner s request on the floor for the approval to be for 5 years instead of eighteen months. COMMISSIONER PRUHS thought 18 months was short, 5 years was long, and suggested a compromise of 3 years. He noted the petitioner, at the Commission s request, spent some time, effort and dollars to present this package to the Commission. Motion to Amend COMMISSIONER PRUHS moved to amend the motion that instead of going for 18 months on approval of this conceptual development to extend it to 36 months or 3 years. COMMISSIONER PEASE seconded. COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA thinks funding for non-profits is always a tenuous and a difficult circumstance, and she feels the petitioner s request for 5 years is not unreasonable. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease FAILED

14 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 14 Motion to Amend COMMISSIONER YOSHIMURA moved to amend the motion to have a 5 year period for the conceptual plan. COMMISSIONER PEASE seconded. Speaking to her motion, COMMISSIONER YOSHIIMURA thinks non-profit funding is always a challenge, particularly in today s economic climate, and that it takes additional time for large non-profits to seek and secure adequate funding for large projects such as this. COMMISSIONER PRUHS noted that whether it is 3 years or 5 years, he agrees with the fact of raising money, but also in 3 years they could actually reproduce this same thing, put it in front of the Commission again, and give the Commission an update versus 5 years from now, which again, he thinks is a long time. He indicated he would like to see it in 3 years, and it may need some modification again. He felt it was more informative. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease MAIN MOTION With regard to the findings, COMMISSIONER PEASE noted she had asked MR. MCLUAGHLIN in an to expand on the compatibility of this proposal with the Comprehensive Plan policies that he had stated in his packet, but then not really addressed, and that he did provide an to the Commission. She stated his explanation provides findings, except she would put in a different finding for Residential Policy 14. She quoted the policy: Conservation of residential lands for housing is a high community priority, and new residential developments at densities less than identified in the Neighborhood or District Plan is discouraged. She noted we do not have a neighborhood or district plan here, and so the Commission is going by the density proposed under the R-3 zoning. She indicated that MR. MCLAUGHLIN has calculated that each bedroom constitutes a dwelling unit, and therefore, even if only the 8 cottages shown are built out at 12 residents per dwelling, we come up with 96 dwelling units. COMMISSIONER PEASE finds that is within the target for R-3 zoning noting it is not under-building. She further noted that she did not know whether it is a correct interpretation that an individual bedroom is a dwelling unit, but she thinks the Commission has achieved some degree of density, which is anticipated by the zoning. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease

15 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page CASE: PETITIONER: Cook Inlet Housing Authority REQUEST: Rezoning to R-O Residential-office district This is a request to rezone Tract D-1, Penland Park (Plat 75-83) from D-2 (Residential Development District) zone to R-O (Residential-Office District) zone. The 4.15-acre petition site is located north of DeBarr Road and east of Airport Heights Drive. MARGARET O BRIEN presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Planning Division. Planning recommended approval subject to special limitations. MS. O BRIEN provided a revision to Special Limitation 1 dealing with building height to change the wording from three to four stories and to add at the end of the sentence except by conditional use. CHAIR ISHAM opened the public hearing. TIM POTTER with DOWL HKM represented the petitioner, COOK INLET HOUSING AUTHORITY, and gave presentation on their behalf. Also present was TYLER ROBINSON with COOK INLET HOUSING AUTHORITY. CHAIR ISHAM opened the hearing to testimony from the public. No one from the public testified. There was no rebuttal testimony from the petitioner. CHAIR ISHAM closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PARKS moved to approve in Case , request to rezone from D-2 to R-O, the request to rezone this property by the petitioner with the changes on Page 8 of the Staff Packet from the Department s recommendations of 4 stories and by a conditional use if the petitioner wants to go higher than that. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. Speaking to his motion, COMMISSIONER PARKS thinks it has been proven here today that this is more for the sake of getting this property into the market place with an effective use, and he thinks what the Commission has heard at this meeting is that this property does meet the requirements of this new zoning request. He thinks it should be moved from that standpoint. CHAIR ISHAM finds this looks like it complies with Policy 5, 8 and 9 of the Comprehensive Plan and conforms to that. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick, Pease

16 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page CASE: PETITIONER: Daybreak Adult Day Care REQUEST: Zoning conditional use for a Habilitative care facility This is a request to amend a conditional use to allow an expansion of an adult care facility for individuals with Alzheimer s Disease and related disorders. Clientele require a specific program design that provides a therapeutic environment in an adult day setting. Due to increasing demand, Day Break is experiencing a need to expand their facilities to serve an ever growing population. The subject property is located at 9210 Jupiter Drive on the south side of Abbott Road and west of Jupiter Drive, Lot 33A, Government Lot, T12N R3W, Section 15, in Anchorage. SHARON FERGUSON provided the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Planning Division. Planning recommended approval with conditions. CHAIR ISHAM opened the public hearing. THOMAS FAULKENBERRY with FAULKENBERRY & ASSOCIATES represented the petitioner, DAYBREAK. Also present were MS. HUNT, Director of DAYBREAK, and GEORGE HALEY, the contractor. COMMISSIONER PEASE left at 10:12 p.m. CHAIR ISHAM opened the hearing to testimony from the public. No one from the public testified. There was no rebuttal testimony from the petitioner. CHAIR ISHAM closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PARKS moved to approve Case , request to amend a conditional use to allow the expansion of an adult care facility in an R-6 residential district subject to the conditions listed on Pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Packet, and add a condition that the Commission would like to see the parking reduced by 20% as a requirement. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. CHAIR ISHAM clarified and COMMISSIONER PARKS confirmed that he was adding a condition that basically states to pursue with the Traffic Department authorization to reduce parking requirements by 20%. CHAIR ISHAM noted this added condition would not be a hard and fast thing, and Traffic could say no, we want to have all 36 spaces. COMMISSIONER PARKS indicated he understood this.

17 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 17 CHAIR ISHAM finds the general standards for a conditional use under AMC have been met, and this amendment to a conditional use conforms to the standards and regulations. He noted that specifically it does not change the original non-conforming approval from the Assembly. He finds it is compatible with the existing plan land use and will not have a permanent negative impact on pedestrian and vehicular traffic, or the demand for and availability of public services and facilities. He finds it will not have a permanent or negative impact on noise, air, water, or other forms of environmental pollution, and it does maintain compatible and efficient development patterns in land use intensities. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick H. APPEARANCE REQUEST - I. REPORTS - 1. Chair CHAIR ISHAM noted the commissioners subscription to the Planning Commissioner s Journal was expiring. He indicated he could take care of the renewal, and Commissioners could reimburse him for their share of the cost. He asked Commissioners to let him know at the next meeting if they wanted to receive a subscription. 2. Secretary MS. FERGUSON discussed the planned tour by the Commission of the Mountain Air Drive extension scheduled for Thursday, June 16. In response to MS. FERGUSON, the Commissioners indicated a preference for having bottled water provided at the meetings. MS. FERGUSON advised the Commission that ANGELA CHAMBERS will be leaving the department to be the Supervisor of Land Use Review and Addressing. MS. FERGUSON noted MR. BARRETT would probably not be handling cases for several months as he will be assisting with the update for Title 21, Chapter 10 for Eagle River/Chugiak. MS. GRAVES advised the Commission that the box of reference plans and documents had been updated and will be stored in the Chambers for use by the Commissioners and staff. 3. Committee

18 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 18 a. AMATS Committee - Pease, Yoshimura, Isham CHAIR ISHAM provided an update to the Commission noting he has been attending the AMATS meetings. He indicated the Commission would probably be dealing with an AMATS amendment in the fall noting two plans are being combined resulting in the Eagle River/Chugiak Plan being melded into the Anchorage Bowl Transportation Plan. b. School Site Selection Committee - Isham, Phelps c. Citizens Air Quality Committee Pease d. Airport Master Plan Committee - Wilson, Pruhs e. Parks Planning Committee Pease f. Title 21 Committee - Isham, Parks, Dean g. Capital Improvement Committee - Fredrick, Yoshimura h. ARR Policy Committee - Isham, Phelps i. Midtown District Plan - Dean j. West Anchorage District Plan - Parks, Wilson CHAIR ISHAM noted a public hearing has been scheduled for July 25, 2011 on the West Anchorage District Plan and will be held at the Spenard Recreation Center. He indicated this was discussed at the last Director s meeting. It was suggested that committee members could contact staff for a briefing on the plan prior to the public hearing. k. ASD Capital Request Advisory Committee - Fredrick, Wilson l. Government Hill Neighborhood Plan J. TITLE 21 DISCUSSION - K. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS

19 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 19 L. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER PARKS moved to adjourn. COMMISSIONER PRUHS seconded. Wilson, Pruhs, Parks, Dean, Isham, Yoshimura, Fredrick The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.