CityView Portal
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Debbie Ossiander | 4/29/2024 9:55:01 AM |
| I am concerned with what appears here to be an overly simplistic response to a housing crunch. Our comprehensive plans have in the past targeted density to specific areas with infrastructure to support it. I see next to no discussion about who will bear the cost of the upgraded roads and utility expansions necessary, particularly within the Municipality‘s service areas. Targeted planned density increases are by far the better way to go | |
| Jason Norris | 4/21/2024 11:41:34 AM |
| All, I believe we have an opportunity to do something bold to reverse our city's population decline as well as meet the needs of a generation that is rapidly approaching their prime earning years and has shown a clear preference for more walkable neighborhoods, less reliance on automobiles, and greater access to public spaces. Anchorage has a clear opportunity to give these residents and future leaders what they crave. Alternately, Anchorage has an opportunity to ignore these very clear and overwhelming preferences, favoring the status quo, and accepting our recent moniker as a "city in decline". I urge you to take action on two points to ensure that this opportunity does not go unrealized. To that end, I urge action on two items. 1) Support an enhanced, even more people-centered (instead of car-centered) 2050 MTP Alternative for the Seward-Glenn Connection Study, including all measures including in Section 4.2.1, to include enhanced non-motorized vehicle facilities (discussed below). This is clearly the best option for Anchorage. 2) In implementing AO 2023-87(S) aka the "HOME Initiative", we should embrace the opportunity to use market forces in our city's favor to encourage smarter long-term development. My focus in this writing centers on Fairview. This community has born the brunt of Anchorage's car-centric development patterns since the 1960's. In righting this historic wrong, Anchorage has the first opportunity to encourage development of a people-centered neighborhood instead of a car-centered neighborhood. That is not to say that cars should not be allowed in the neighborhood, but they should not be the primary design consideration as they have been throughout Anchorage's history. Community interactions, pedestrians, and bicycles should have priority in this redeveloped area. It is important to note that the concerns raised in Section 4.2.2. of the Seward-Glenn study regarding congestion are fairly specious given the excess capacity of the roadway that exists today and the typical manner in which roadway designs are justified (level of service). Roads that receive a level of service grade of F are typically those which we would most like to live on, work on, walk on, and bike on. Furthermore, there is a mounting evidence that reducing the number of lanes of travel does not actually increase congestion, particularly when people-centered street design is incorporated. These streets become platforms for building equitable wealth, and by designing around the person rather than the car, we can bring greater prosperity and social cohesion to a community where disinvestment has been consistent due to the presence of the dual four-lane roadways. Alarmist predictions such as the ones in Section 4.2.2. are not only unhelpful, they are quite often inaccurate, leading to ill-advised investments. One note on the 2050 MTP alternative that I should note: while I am ecstatic that Anchorage has adopted the Complete Streets paradigm for road improvements, more should be done to ensure non-motorized facilities are used. For instance, including a bike lane on O'Malley was a great idea. However, its unprotected nature, tendency to go unplowed all winter (and unswept in the summer), as well as the 50-60mph traffic zooming past makes it an unattractive alternative. To that end, I humbly suggest we form a more robust design for non-motorized traffic in these cases using low cost measures such as Zebra dividers. The 2050 MTP Alternative should also include connections for non-motorized traffic to the Chester Creek trail system to facilitate greater usage of the broader non-motorized network. Moving on to the HOME Initiative, I believe that we do need to accept more density throughout Anchorage to one extent or another. There are certainly some cases such as the Upper Hillside where due to a lack of infrastructure, more density would be difficult to realize, and given the wildland fire risk, perhaps quite ill-advised. That being said, we are all residents of this wonderful city and need to do our part in a reasonable manner. However, I believe there is one area where the HOME Initiative is falling short. The area from roughly East 16th Avenue on the south, Merrill Field on the east, Ingra on the west, and East 8th Avenue on the north is due to be zoned "Mixed Residential - Low". Per the 2040 LUP, this type of zoning targets 5-15 residential units per gross acre. If we are truly serious about meeting the WHEREAS clauses of the Home Initiative including providing more access to starter homes, reducing urban sprawl, addressing growth in housing demand, and promoting efficient land use, I feel this zoning type is a huge missed opportunity. This area is in close proximity to the downtown core and the best candidate area for smart growth into a more urban center that compliments the existing downtown area. When mixed with the 2050 MTP Alternative, this area has the potential to be a vibrant, people-centered neighborhood. The area is specifically called out as one that has seen development disinvestment because of the current configurations of Gambell and Ingra. With this situation set to change, I humbly, but stridently suggest reconsidering the zoning of this area to something that encourages greater density in the urban core, while encouraging further measures in any redevelopment to avoid displacing current residents by offering them affordable spaces in any new structures to ensure the people disproportionately impacted by poor choices in the past are not the victims of better choices in the present and future. While I defer to you to make any final choices on this matter, an example of a bold alternative that could produce a vibrant area that is people-focused would be to designate this entire area as "Town Center". Such a bold step would incentivize reinvestment in the area by offering developers the opportunity to include both housing and smaller retail/commercial uses, including a very important increase to up to 40 residential units per gross acre. One of the consistent refrains from developers regarding a lack of investment in residential units in Anchorage is their unaffordability. In this situation developers are more likely to achieve economies of scale on residential units while also having the added benefit of small retail and commercial development. I am always reticent to cite examples from other places of how successful this kind of development can be. Such examples are usually met with the refrain that "This is Alaska, not X". This is a statement that is factually true, but the intent is bad. There is no reason our city cannot do better and we should use lessons learned to do so. I have recently found myself in Vancouver, Washington, particularly the Esther Short neighborhood where this kind of low-rise mixed-use combined with enhanced Complete Streets makes for a very inviting space where vehicles move efficiently, but pedestrians feel safe, bicycles move along, and there is a strong feeling of place. There is no reason we cannot have a uniquely Alaskan version of this in an area that has been historically underinvested in. It is an issue that we can now address, and do so in a way that makes the city better for the long term by providing much needed additional housing units, retail and commercial opportunity in the urban core, and a people-centered street network that fosters a sense of place and community. In summary, I suggest: 1) Endorse an enhanced version of the 2050 MTP Alternative for the Seward-Glenn project ensuring non-motorized transit is given adequate, not just minimal, consideration. 2) Re-zone the area described above to "Town Center" from "Compact Mixed Residential - Low". Thank you and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. As you can tell, I have put a lot of thought into this and am happy to discuss further. -Jason Norris | |
| Erik Peterson | 4/3/2024 4:05:51 PM |
| Thank you so much for taking on the housing crisis in this city. I wholeheartedly support the passage of this bill, and future actions to lower housing and rental prices across Anchorage. The youth of this city are leaving in droves, looking not just for higher wages, but also cheaper housing. As a young adult in this city, all of my friends and former roommates have left to purchase homes in other cities, half the price of Anchorage, or are actively planning to move out of here. We can see this in our population trends, more elderly and less younger workers. This has exacerbated worker shortages and made city and state services worse off. Housing in this city has effectively halted, with nothing being built and very little being sold. The inability of people to change residential status: empty nesters downsizing, young families buying larger homes, or lower wage workers struggling to afford rent, creates a huge amount of social and economic problems. This stagnation can be felt across the city, creating a sense of hopelessness about the future of Anchorage. This city is not an open-air museum, it must change based on the needs and wants of residents, both present and future. Doing nothing to address the housing crisis is as good as endorsing the decline of this city. Thank you again for putting this bill forward, I support its passage, and hope to see even more reforms, especially to the Special Limitations system the Anchorage Planning Department seems to use to stop any multi-family residential construction in this city. | |
| Michele Palatas | 3/25/2024 11:29:07 AM |
| Short term rentals on VRBO and Airbnb are already in the Room Tax database. These platforms already monitor complaints, activities and conditions of these rentals, and the Host would not be successful if their property were not safe and accommodating. The biggest problem I have experienced with both my long term and short term rentals is the street people. My observation is all the empty boarded up houses in neighborhoods, specifically Fairview, where homes should be fined for not appropriate maintenance and being vacant for years!!! How about these slum landlords and vacant properties being dealt with and not regulating people improving their properties for quality tenants??? | |
| Andrew Roos Bell | 3/24/2024 6:08:15 PM |
| I support the rezoning measure for a whole host of reasons, and while I acknowledge the concerns of its opponents, I think the issue is ultimately one of simple mathematics. There are more people in the world today than yesterday, and there will be more tomorrow (and when that stops being true, we may have a very serious economic problem without a younger generation to support the elderly). If there are more people, but not more housing, then they will either live in increasingly unsatisfying room-mate situations, or they will simply avoid the area entirely. Many of the concerns stem from a love for the kind of green suburban neighborhoods that contain a lot of single-family homes. I appreciate that environment, as I grew up in it, and I am not opposed to more neighborhoods like that existing - but they will have to go where there is room, in places not yet developed. In the center of a large city, with more jobs than other places, we will have to allow the construction of denser housing at higher volumes. It's simply a matter of space. For those wishing to freeze things the way they are, I sympathize - I have a great deal of nostalgia for the small cities of past history. My great-grandfather lived in the middle of Seattle a century ago, in a small house that he was able to afford as an immigrant house-painter, and it's easy to be wistful about the seemingly simpler world of those days. In some ways, Anchorage is still like that in terms of size and the height of its buildings. But the thing is, someone like my great-grandfather could never afford to live anywhere near his old neighborhood now, because the price has risen too much - and that's even with new housing having been built, but simply not enough. I've lived in other places besides Anchorage. Our housing is not yet that expensive in the grand scheme of things (though it is expensive relative to local incomes, which is what matters). But in the long run, failure to allow the free market to build more housing and keep up with demand may slow the growth of the city, but only at the expense of its economy - you can keep the physical character of the built environment the same, but only by displacing people who can no longer afford the increasing rents. Alternatively, failure to not just build more housing, but to build it at a rate rapid enough to meet or slightly anticipate demand could simply entrench economic stagnation. It's been pointed out that part of Anchorage's housing crisis stems from the state of the overall economy, which I think is true. But without helping decrease the percentage of each paycheck that goes to housing for those here, and without accommodating the possibility of growth, the economy will never improve, and it may in fact deter growth. At several points in the last few years, I spent months searching for a new job. I was open to moving almost anywhere in the country - but I had a rule to not even consider anything in the Bay area, even though there were more jobs there than in most other places, simply because the housing situation was so atrophied. We're a long way from that right now, but we have to take action now to avoid falling into that same mathematical trap. | |
| Cale Green | 3/21/2024 5:44:01 PM |
| As a 33-year-old who has lived in Anchorage all my life, I’m Cale Green, and I firmly believe in practical solutions for our city’s challenges. The HOME ordinance is a necessary step to address the clear mismatch between our housing supply and the needs of Anchorage’s residents. We're dealing with a stark housing shortage that's driving up prices to unsustainable levels, and it’s time for pragmatic action, not just conversation. Current zoning laws are relics of a bygone era, ineffective for today's Anchorage. They’re hindering our growth and our economic potential. By streamlining the residential zones and allowing for varied housing types, we’re not just modernizing outdated policies; we’re responding to the market’s demand with common sense. It's about stimulating development, reducing red tape, and providing the opportunity for more homes to be built where they're needed most. The truth is this ordinance represents a hard-nosed decision to get our city on the right track. It’s not about ideals; it’s about addressing a bottleneck that has stifled development and affordability for too long. For the sake of Anchorage’s future — a future where regular folks can afford to buy a home without a financial stranglehold — it’s essential that we move forward with the HOME ordinance. Let’s put the power back into the hands of homeowners and builders, not outdated zoning laws. | |
| Kathleen Metcalfe | 3/19/2024 10:17:42 AM |
| I oppose the proposed changes to 87(S). The Rabbit Creek Community Council wrote an in depth analysis of the issue and site many reasons these changes are flawed. Your own planning department opposes the plan - In specific: Staff Recommendation 3, includes these points: focus the scope of the zoning revisions on targeted infill and redevelopment areas with urban infrastructure and public services; maintain low density in hazardous, inaccessible and critical environmental areas; and address impacts of more intensive uses on surrounding properties and infrastructure as required by policies of the 2020 Comp Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan. I ask that you oppose this change. Thank you | |
| Tom Stephens | 3/19/2024 8:27:22 AM |
| I object to the rezone proposed by the Anchorage Assembly in case 2024-0006. There has been limited opportunity for public comment in this hasty, rushed process. I live in the South Addition because it is an attractive neighborhood. The rezoning proposed would turn our neighborhood inside out and violate the northern design standards specified in Title 21. The Anchorage Assembly has bypassed the Planning and Zoning Department and and no data has been presented to demonstrate that Anchorage's zoning limits housing stocks or result in unaffordability. The proof of that are the 70 some lots in the South Addition that have been vacant for years - in some cases, more than 40 years. Zoning standards are being cited as causing housing unaffordability here and that is ridiculous. Zoning standards make this neighborhood a good place to raise kids, walk to downtown and have a good neighborhood. That's why it is desirable. Please reject the initiative and send it back to the drawing board, have a decent public process and take the time needed. Thank you. | |
| John Riley | 3/18/2024 2:35:59 PM |
| I am writing in support of increasing the availability of affordable housing in Anchorage. For success in ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing we must first agree on a common definition of “affordable”. Thankfully the Anchorage Assembly has given us an answer to that question by providing an illustrated example in their slideshow promoting 87(S). The illustration shows a new ASD teacher (Mr. Lewis) and calculates what he can afford for rent at 30% of his after-tax income. Mr. Lewis’s ASD salary is $55,168. 30% of his after-tax income is $1076 for monthly rent. The price range for a 2-bedroom apartment shown within 3 miles of Mr. Lewis’s school on the Anchorage map as $1500 - $1800 monthly. The challenge here for Mr. Lewis is that market rate within his local school district in 28% higher than what is considered affordable rent for his family. Mr. Lewis’s ASD salary is slightly more than the cutoff to qualify for subsidized Section 8 housing. The 2023 median family income in Anchorage is calculated by HUD as $122,300. To qualify for Section 8 Housing his family income must be 50% or less of the medium family income or $55,050 for a family of three. Mr. Lewis is caught in the middle between not qualifying for federally subsidized housing and meeting the affordability target of 30% of their after-tax income. Increasing the supply of affordable housing by redsigning zoning and construction stndards is the paramount driver of the “Upzoning” movement sweeping across US cities. Upzoning has stimulated housing construction in some US cities. However, a 2023 literature review published by Yonah Freeman in the Journal of Planning Literature found that Upzoning efforts offer mixed success in terms of housing production, reduced costs, and social integration in impacted neighborhoods. Is it feasible that passing 87(S) will be sufficient to solve the significant affordability gap experienced by Mr. Smith and allow his family, and the thousands of other households with after-tax incomes under $60,000 to realize their American Dream of affordable housing? Can market forces drive Anchorage market prices for high quality, energy efficient housing down to an affordable level for families like Mr. Lewis while retaining acceptable returns for developers? 87(S) in its current form does not appear to provide a clear mechanism to achieve our definition of housing affordability. I suggest that before Anchorage proceeds with major changes to our current zoning and land use plans, we should collect detailed data and analyze our current housing capacity by price, type, location and how it matches to affordability standards for the current and projected population of Anchorage. Once that data is established, we need clear metrics to measure success. | |
| Sharon Stockard | 3/18/2024 2:21:33 PM |
| I oppose AO 2023-087(S). AO 2023-087(S) reduces Anchorage’s 15 residential zones to five, which constitutes a radical change to the city’s zoning districts. Assembly sponsors developed AO 2023-087(S) in a rushed process that lacked adequate public notice; adequate public participation; adequate information as to the consequences of the changes; and adequate opportunities for public input. AO 2023-087(S) is speculative and incomplete, which denies the public the opportunity to understand its effects. It does not provide any data, for instance, that demonstrates that current zoning constrains housing, nor does it provide any data on how it affects property values and land costs, and future infrastructure costs. Assembly sponsors have tried to blame current zoning for the high cost of housing and a housing shortage, but there is no evidence to support those claims. High mortgage rates, steep costs of materials, supply shortages, a declining workforce, and a pandemic-related shortage of construction workers are the big contributors to a tight housing market. AO 2023-087(S) makes sweeping, undefined changes in terms of height, access to sunlight, and design standards, such as landscaping and entrances, and street-facing windows. AO 2023-087(S) removes limits on commercial uses in apartment districts, in direct contradiction to its stated purpose of building more residential units. AO 2023-087(S) reduces predictability and the cost-efficiency of infrastructure and services, both in existing and new developments. Infill should be targeted, not scattered throughout the Anchorage Bowl, so that new homes have bus access and safe pathways for walking to work. Assembly sponsors developed AO 2023-087(S) in a piecemeal fashion – separate from the city’s professional planning staff – without providing an analysis of its long-term costs, its effect on housing supply and demand, and without providing a vision and quality-of-life framework generated by public participation. AO 2023-087(S) is filled with uncertainty, confusion, and a stunning lack of data. It should be suspended, and a new Comprehensive Plan should be funded with full public outreach and data-driven planning staff analysis. At the very least, it should be shelved until all its pieces (design, dimensional, and development standards; allowable uses; etc.) are identified and supported by data; is compliant with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan; and includes broad public participation. | |
| Mike Kenny | 3/18/2024 1:05:51 PM |
| I oppose 87(S). I understand that ridding cities of single family zoning has been implemented in cities in the lower 48. Anti segregationist forces believing that exclusionary zoning creates segregation along with libertarian believers holding that private property owners should have no zoning restrictions have made moves towards that end. One size does not cover all. The SE hillside was created under an ice field flowing through what is now Turnagain Arm not from the ice flowing out from the Chugach Mountains. While the political boundaries are set by political decision the geological and biological boundaries are set by nature. We put years of effort in creating the Comprehensive Plan and the Hillside District Plan element to take into account these elemental differences. There is much data and information to be gathered and reviewed by P&Z staff. The Spring of 2024 hardly seems enough time. The Title 21 rewrite was nearly a year long study. A Zero Lot Line fiasco looms if the real estate industry faction of the Assembly compresses the time available to study the efforts to eliminate zoning in the lower 48. | |
| Marty Margeson | 3/18/2024 12:45:56 PM |
| With a Harvard diploma in Real Estate Development, and 35+ years in the industry, I fail to see how HOME zoning simplification benefits homeowners or our city. It allows commercial buildings to be reclassified as residential so that a developer may now build 5 townhouses on 7000 sq ft lot with up to 40 ft. heights, without any mandatory design standards, weatherization, drainage studies or onsite parking and promoting 60% lot coverage without landscaping or yards. This creates a hodgepodge of commercial-residential neighborhoods which does not attract families to maintain school enrollments, parking nightmares, energy guzzling cheaply constructed block-style buildings to profit builders and investors. Residential zoning historically is less restrictive because of the ”pride of ownership” factor which controls development standards. With commercial for-profit property zoning standards need to be stricter to control the “greed” factor. HOME does not benefit housing for the homeless or affordable housing, and this hodge podge rushed planning will create a Portland non-tourist destination. We could learn from successful Arctic cities or from Dublin, Ireland – a tourist destination city prized for it planned low-rise historical development. Long-range our unique Arctic city will suffer losing more families and our tourist industry. I am amazed that our Assembly ignores the complexity of city planning and seems to think such planning is a do-it-yourself-kit. Ignoring constituents, rushing to meet builder deadlines is naïve and will to destroy the appeal of our cherished city. | |
| Eric | 3/18/2024 11:49:27 AM |
| I’m writing in support case 2024-0006. The Anchorage Assembly’s HOME initiative ordinance underscores a pressing need for comprehensive zoning reform to address the challenges of housing affordability and development. Anchorage, like many urban areas, faces a critical shortage of affordable housing options, exacerbated by restrictive zoning laws that limit the construction of diverse housing types. By reforming zoning regulations, the municipality can unlock opportunities for increased housing density, mixed-income developments, and more efficient land use. Such reforms would not only encourage the construction of affordable housing units but also foster inclusive communities, promote economic growth, and mitigate urban sprawl. Embracing zoning reform through initiatives like HOME is essential for Anchorage to create a more equitable and sustainable housing landscape that meets the diverse needs of its residents. | |
| Nancy Pease | 3/18/2024 12:33:35 AM |
| I Oppose 87(S). I support the recommendations of Rabbit Creek Community Council, which include suspending the 87(S) rezoning effort and funding a 2050 Comprehensive Plan with broad public outreach and data-driven staff analysis in order to guide future zoning. I also support the Planning Staff’s recommendations, especially Staff Recommendation 3, which includes these points: focus the scope of the zoning revisions on targeted infill and redevelopment areas with urban infrastructure and public services; maintain low density in hazardous, inaccessible and critical environmental areas; and address impacts of more intensive uses on surrounding properties and infrastructure as required by policies of the 2020 Comp Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan. I support affordable housing. AO 87(S) won’t deliver that. Why? Because current Anchorage zoning isn’t a significant areawide constraint to affordable housing or even market-rate housing. The diagnosis is wrong. And the rezoning “cure” is unproven: other cities have done broad rezoning and shown only very slow changes in housing stocks and affordability, if any. Both these cautionary points are mentioned in the Municipal staff’s analysis of 87(S). Areawide rezoning is a radical treatment based on an incorrect diagnosis. The primary causes of unaffordable housing are mortgage rates, building costs, and Alaska’s economic uncertainties: not zoning. The 2040 Land Use Plan explicitly “does not recommend areawide rezoning”, which is what 87(S) is attempting. The 2040 Land Use Plan calls for targeted rezoning to promote infill and redevelopment, as clearly shown on the LUP Actions Map 3.1. There are acres of multi-family lots empty in prime downtown locations where infill is needed to rescue downtown from its economic doldrums and dereliction. Can the Assembly arbitrarily rezone the entire Anchorage Bowl for muddled or undisclosed reasons? Not legally. Under Alaska Statutes and Municipal Charter, zoning must comply with adopted comprehensive land use plans. Zoning is intended to be a tool of planning, not to override it. The Municipal Planning staff’s analysis is clear on this. Zoning should not be dramatically reconfigured without cause-and-effect data and analysis. The Assembly's legislative process is not adequate for such complex and consequential land use decisions. The Assembly’s process has thus far been a churn of draft legislation and lobbying. Municipal staff and the public are relegated to analyzing piecemeal drafts that become obsolete before they are subject to public hearings. 87(S) lacks full disclosure or analysis of changes to design standards, dimensional standards, allowed uses, and eventual densities. Only a small percentage of Anchorage residents know that their residential zoning and development standards are about to change. Even that small attuned percentage still have no way to fully understand the effect on their neighborhoods, their property appraisals, or the future pattern of Anchorage. 87(S) is lurching forward without any analysis of design standards, future densities, traffic patterns, etc. In fact, the proposed areawide residential rezoning poses economic burdens and urban sprawl, not a miracle drop in housing prices. The areawide rezoning will promote infill anywhere, and outward expansion at higher densities up into the subalpine areas of the Hillside, regardless of the environmental conditions or existing infrastructure. Traffic will unnecessarily increase because of the willy-nilly scattering of new density and commercial uses. There will be inefficient pockets of densities that do not match up with infrastructure. Taxpayers will be called on to extend roads, build new schools, fund additional police and fire protection. There will be public impacts from higher densities on steep slopes and wetlands and natural hazard areas. All this is inefficient and expensive. 87(S) promotes urban sprawl across the Anchorage Bowl, which is the opposite of the land use pattern adopted through our Comprehensive Plan. Our Comprehensive Plan promotes targeted infill and redevelopment in commercial centers, neighborhood centers, and transit corridors. In summary, I oppose 87(S) because it violates the planning process and subverts the adopted land use plans in many ways | |
| Deborah L Hansen | 3/17/2024 11:17:59 PM |
| I oppose the HOME initiative. It - 87(S) - does not meet rezoning approval criteria under Title 21.03.160.E E.1. Public health, safety, and general welfare E.2. Conform to Comprehensive Plan and Map E.4. Compatible with surrounding development (specifically what is proposed for the South Addition.) The proposal is incomplete and based on faulty data. I have attended both public meetings available to me- the March 4 zoom webinar where the three assembly members-presenters were not planning to take questions/comments and discuss. On the special zoom SACC meeting on March 14, the two assembly people proposing these changes clearly did not prepare to take questions and only took a couple of questions from a few people for a total of 2 hours.I have many questions and am outraged that the assembly is rushing a major zoning process that affects close to 1000 lots in the South Addition alone. There needs to be a clear public process and the planning staff input resulting in presentation to the assembly for approval. The current process is backwards. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| Martin Hansen | 3/17/2024 11:03:21 PM |
| I object to the rezone proposed by the Anchorage Assembly in case 2024-0006. There has been limited opportunity for public comment in this hasty, rushed process. I live in the South Addition because it is an attractive neighborhood. The rezoning proposed would turn our neighborhood inside out and violate the northern design standards specified in Title 21. The Anchorage Assembly has bypassed the Planning and Zoning Department and and no data has been presented to demonstrate that Anchorage's zoning limits housing stocks or result in unaffordability. The proof of that are the 70 some lots in the South Addition that have been vacant for years - in some cases, more than 40 years. Zoning standards are being cited as causing housing unaffordability here and that is ridiculous. Zoning standards make this neighborhood a good place to raise kids, walk to downtown and have a good neighborhood. That's why it is desirable. Please reject the initiative and send it back to the drawing board, have a decent public process and take the time needed. Thank you. | |
| Alexa Dobson | 3/17/2024 6:54:10 PM |
| Hello! Just adding my note of support for this zoning reform. I’m a born and raised anchorage resident and a homeowner here, and I support efforts to make it easier to build the affordable housing our community needs. | |
| Cindy Kinard | 3/17/2024 3:56:30 PM |
| I previously sent comments to the Assembly, after the proposal first was proffered. But, since the proposal was sent back to PNZ, etc., for review and PNZ wishes public comment… Here goes: 1. ADUs—the "perfect" solution--This kind of proposal was previously used with the same sort of intent—when ADUs were made legal in many parts of the Muni. This proposal would have made more and more affordable units available with “minor” infill on existing residential lots with existing utility service…easy money, right? Well, no. The results have been much less than hoped. And no wonder! The economics of the situation just don’t work…It simply doesn’t pencil out for most homeowners, who, of course, already own, or at least have at their disposal, the land on which ADUs could be built. 2. Massive rezoning—Next up-- This current proposal is likely really no different in its probable outcome. Where infrastructure exists that could most readily serve multi-unit abodes, the costs would generally include buying land and removing existing buildings, in addition to construction. With construction costs having soared in past years and construction workers being in such short supply, I believe any addition of units would be few and far between as well as priced way above the hoped “affordable stock” desired. 3. Concluding—Rethink! This idea of throwing the problem back at the private market and calling things all good, is not productive…It is very likely that desired results can be achieved only with funding from outside/government/large foundation grants/gifts and with careful planning as to locations and configurations to best serve the target populations and retain the fabric of the well considered long-term plans already in place for the whole of the municipality. Let’s go back to the drawing board with clear-eyed logic as our guide, not “kick this can out of our court” and-move-on-blinders. | |
| Mara Carnahan | 3/17/2024 10:13:40 AM |
| I want to respectfully share my opposition to AO 2023-087 (HOME initiative) because it unravels decades of community planning, is unclear and incomplete (as pointed out by planning staff review), and does not embrace thoughtful and professionally guided planning for our beloved city. I believe the sponsors have good intentions, and want to address the real housing shortage in Anchorage, however, this initiative is not the correct path forward. We need to develop intentionally and proactively to design and build an Anchorage that continues to thrive for generations. I remember Anchorage of the past, where commercial developments sprung up in residential neighborhoods without planning and where site condos resulted in streets too narrow to accommodate emergency vehicles in winter,. I support carefully planned higher density developments that respect height, set back, and building dimensions of existing neighborhoods. In particular, we need to insist on standards that allow for healthy living in a winter community including access to sunlight and snow storage. Let's incentivize high density residential development in the downtown business core, let's encourage developers to inspire us with thoughtful development, let's be an example to other cities of how a community can come together to find creative solutions to housing needs instead of stripping away decades of intentional community planning. | |
| Sarah Kleedehn | 3/16/2024 1:09:00 PM |
| I live in the South Addition. i favor more density to keep our downtown and city vibrant. However what you are proposing is too much. Being able to put a 4 plex plus an ADU on a 6,000 sq. foot lot is not going to fit into the charm and design standards of our historic neighborhood. Also parking requirements need to be in place. There is already a shortage of parking. When it snows there is little room for snow removal and parking. Height standards should not be increased. We have solar panels and your proposed height increases could block our sun access. There are many vacant lots that could be used for density housing downtown. Please keep the current zoning standards. Thank you. | |
| Sandra Graham | 3/16/2024 3:43:54 AM |
| I oppose the new zoning laws. It changes the character of historic neighborhoods in Anchorage, doesn’t address parking or snow removal/storage, and doesn’t create ‘affordable’ housing. Once again, the assembly is mandating changes that emulate social engineering rather than a reflection of true neighborhood concerns and conversations. I oppose the HOME initiative. | |
| Patrice Parker | 3/16/2024 1:09:55 AM |
| I oppose 2023-087(S). The Planning Department’s scathing analysis reflects my concerns. Scattershot density, allowing unfettered commercial buildings within residential neighborhoods, no consideration of winter city concepts of sunlight penetration and snow storage are but a few of my concerns. Further, the Assembly began planning for both A0 2023-103 and -087 in September 2022, sitting down with developers and real estate professionals but not with their constituents. They continued to meet with these self-described “housing enthusiasts” for over a year before unveiling AO 2023-103 to us. Our community council minutes for that period of time show no mention of this legislation. As we tried to understand the proposed ordinance, they brushed away our questions and requests for postponement. The same thing is happening with AO 2023-087. Their behavior is appalling and no consequential legislation should be mishandled like this. Please vote no on this shabby excuse for rezoning. | |
| David Jadhon | 3/15/2024 3:43:25 PM |
| I disagree with the Assembly's plans to rezone South Addition. It appears to me they are appeasing developers who don’t live here, just to increase their profits or maybe the tax base, with no consideration for safety or investments made by people who live here. Please allow the process to commence as it should, and not be ramrodded by this Assembly. My community council has expressed concern for months only for the Assembly to continue with these changes. Thank you taking time to read this. I have written ADN and KTUU asking if they would consider the current Assembly push to change our neighborhood as a news story. As I understand it, a 6-plex could potentially be constructed on a 6,000 square foot lot. Where will 6-plus vehicles park? Affordable housing? These will be income property, likely managed by some outside property management company. And will the MOA set rental rates to make them affordable? The excuse for this new zoning is people want to walk or bike to work and want to live near the town center. And yet Bootleggers Cove, where condos abound (otherwise known as 3- 4- 5- and 6-plexes), sees very little pedestrian or bicycle traffic heading downtown to work. Develop empty downtown lots. Several developments have already been built overlooking the railroad, or along 9th Avenue at the end of the Park Strip. Another apartment building is going in near Fire Island Bakery. They look nice and are dense, but don’t provide AFFORDABLE housing. There’s a double standard enforcement. Fences need to be 4 feet so we can see pulling out of our driveway, yet over the years, after developers no longer were required to provide off-street parking, new residents use the street to park trailers that fit 4 snow machines, plus 4 wheel drive vans, plus extended cab pickups. They take up half a block (15 and P). You have to pull into the street to safely turn. Inlet Place to N Street along 15 Ave are perfect examples. We can’t accommodate the current population in our neighborhood, and more 4-6 plexes with more on-street parking does what exactly??? Photos of parking is South side of 15th Ave approaching N Street. Pretty soon the cars move into the center of the road. City can’t plow if cars are constantly parked and they don’t put up the signs when clearing snow like on the East side of I street. And 15th and P. Residents claim they don’t have room for all their toys, I’ll use the street…. The MOA cites and the owner moves around the corner, then back again. Come by the lagoon during the MOA skating events. South side of 15th isn’t plowed and North side has cars along the rolled curb; half in the street and half on the sidewalk. No place to walk. And if there’s a race, you can’t use the trail. | |
| Eric Glatt | 3/15/2024 1:02:34 PM |
| A city of Anchorage’s modest size shouldn’t make growth and change burdensome, and it shouldn’t try to micro-legislate specific “character” outcomes for particular neighborhoods. Instead, it should allow the people who live here more freedom to shape the city they want to live in. Simplicity and flexibility should be the guiding principles. I hope, therefore, that the Commission recommends that the Assembly pass a version of HOME. I’d also suggest that the Commission consider recommending: * Allow up to 4 dwelling units & structures on what are now R-1, R-1A, R-2A, and R-2D lots (HOME’s proposed STFR), provided all other requirements are met. Economic viability for new construction sounds like it extends to 4-plexes and isn’t listed to duplexes. * Eliminate restrictions on the number of dwelling *structures* per lot. Limiting the number of dwelling units on a lot should be enough. Let developers and buyers, or people who already own, decide how they’d like multiple-unit properties configured. (This could allow for “small cottages” or similar alternatives.) * Eliminate Special Limitation zoning that essentially creates a less-transparent, more individualized second zoning regime. * Don’t fear limited commercial use in residential zones (highlighted in the PZC report on pp.4,6). Small businesses serving the neighborhood are a good thing! * Finally, consider the observation made at a recent Assembly meeting, among other places: More multi-unit construction is being done on B-3 lots than on “residential” lots, because developers find B-3 more flexible. One could conclude that either (1) the restrictions that exist in residential zones are important—and being evaded by building on B-3 lots—so the restrictions should be extended to B-3 lots, too; or (2) the restrictions in residential zones are too burdensome and costly to make development there worthwhile. Again: Simplicity and flexibility should be the watchwords, not burdens and restrictions. Thanks! | |
| Diane Harps | 3/14/2024 10:50:30 PM |
| I am opposed the HOME initiative for many reasons. Chief among them is the speed at which this initiative has been brought forward. There is no evidence that breaking up neighborhood communities will produce more housing. Many voices in our community worked together to create a comprehensive plan and revisited it when to produce the 2040 land use plan. | |
| Craig Updegrove | 3/14/2024 7:59:57 PM |
| If Anchorage wants to maintain and attract a viable workforce of young adults and starting families, our current zoning laws must adapt to be flexible enough to address the housing challenges that have forced many to move away. I support HOME! | |
| Adam Baldwin | 3/14/2024 7:44:45 PM |
| I support the general effort of the HOME efforts to create new affordable housing in Anchorage and widen economic opportunity for the citizens. | |
| Marc June | 3/14/2024 6:07:56 PM |
| The Planning Department Staff Report regarding the HOME Initiative Proposal underscores the problem underlying the Proposal, i.e., it is a half-baked series of radical changes to Anchorage’s Land Use System that jettisons decades of planning. Examples of the resulting chaos include Zoning Maps inconsistent with Title 21 (Staff Report at p. 12), the potential of 3 different versions of Title 21 controlling zoning, (Staff Report at p. 12) and the elimination of Special Limitations associated with existing Zoning (Staff Report at p. 20). Whether the greater densities envisioned by HOME Proposal result in a greater supply of affordable housing is questionable. Housing costs are more a function of construction costs and interest rates than densities. To date, the current experiment relaxing restrictions on Auxiliary Dweling Units, Duplexes and Triplexes has not made any significant difference. As a more specific example, the HOME Proposal’s combination of all large lot districts, consideration of the challenges of developing on steep slopes should be given more support. While the Proposal shows the intent to limit the number of units and lot coverage as slopes get steeper, the list of other considerations is proposed to be deleted, something done at great peril: there are many examples of exuberant developments trying to maximize lots on the Hillside with low regard for the natural constraints and the expected problems. The strength of the current R-10 zoning is the required consideration of natural constraints. Should the HOME proposal move forward, it should retain the list of considerations in 21.04.020.P.1 a-h . BACKGROUND: P. R-10: Low-density residential, alpine/slope district. 1. Purpose. The R-10 district is intended for use in those areas where natural physical features and environmental factors such as slopes, alpine and forest vegetation, soils, slope stability, and geologic hazards require unique and creative design for development. Creative site design and site engineering are essential to ensure that the development of these lands will: a. Protect natural features such as ponds, streams, wetlands, and springs, and incorporate such features into the development of the site design; b. Ensure the use of site design techniques that take into consideration topographic constraints and other physical features; c. Avoid natural hazards including snow avalanche and mass wasting areas; d. Retain the natural flow and storage capacity of any watercourse and wetland, to minimize the possibility of flooding or alteration of water boundaries; e. Assure that soil and subsoil conditions are suitable for excavations, site preparation, and on-site waste water disposal; f. Provide adequate site drainage to avoid erosion and to control the surface runoff in compliance with the federal clean water act; g. Assure an adequate supply of potable water for the site development; and h. Minimize the grading operations, including cut and fill, consistent with the retention of the natural character of the site. | |
| John Weddleton | 3/14/2024 3:11:49 PM |
| It is good to focus on housing. I have worked towards more housing over decades and feel some discomfort opposing a bold plan to create more housing. As HOME has stumbled about over the past year, I have come to feel more strongly that this complete rezone for the Bowl needs to follow, not lead, a community conversation to modify our Comprehensive Plans. HOME is skewed too much towards housing as the only goal at the expense of other important community goals. The list of documents that make up our Comprehensive Plan consistently support the character of neighborhoods and the existence of a variety of neighborhoods. We show our celebration of this by naming and putting signs up welcoming people to our neighborhoods. To the typical person, the notion embodies yard sizes, building heights, separation from other housing, the number of families living on a property, the amount of sunlight filtering through in the winter. In code, these features are coldly called ‘dimensional standards.’ HOME combines districts with scant justification and then, generally, applies the tallest heights, the greatest lot coverage and the narrowest setbacks to all of the combined districts. While one of the sponsors has said the dimensional standards are ‘nothing you haven’t seen before,’ it is more fully, a dramatic change to the majority of the rezoned Anchorage. It is not just that single family home districts are done away with, allowing 2 structures plus an ADU on any lot, but the dimensional standards will allow much taller buildings covering more of every lot. HOME seeks to homogenize neighborhoods with the most intense use prevailing. This is a big deal. We need the community to lead this discussion. HOME’s homogenation leads in the opposite direction of our Comp Plan’s focus on efficient use of existing public infrastructure. Our Plan’s focus on growth around Town Centers is a ‘strong town’ strategy before there was a Strong Towns movement. Tripling density in single family districts, allowing over 3 dua in the highest reaches of the Hillside and allowing unfettered commercial in multi-family districts is not a Strong Towns strategy. If we are to go this way, we need a comprehensive community discussion to prepare for the repercussions. One of the sponsors told me our current strategies aren’t working so we have to go a different direction. More correctly, our current strategies have barely been implemented. The 2040 Land Use Plan strategies for reinvestment focus areas and strategic rezones provide significant opportunity to spur more housing in ways consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. Those should be given a fair shot at success before we take the U-turn HOME leads us toward. I appreciate the important information and guidance in the Staff report, especially those that point out the good features of the HOME proposal. If making Anchorage just a cheap place to sleep is what we need to do, the journey there needs a broad community conversation that an update of our comp plans would provide. Thanks for your work on this, | |
| David A Ustick | 3/14/2024 11:32:47 AM |
| I believe that this bill is too nondescript as to "major and unknown" factors regarding the rezoning of our current residential zones. Reducing them to 5 zones would only benefit multi story buildings and loss of our daylight ..especially during our winter and spring months this could become a mental and medical problem city wide. Please vote NO on this ordinance | |
| Anna Bosin | 3/8/2024 11:24:07 PM |
| I support the HOME initiative! More housing is good for Anchorage and good for the state. This is arguably the least partisan action a government can take that because it is both a way to address the housing crunch happening locally (and generally nationally!) as well as help the City's bottom line to limit expansion of already over-extended infrastructure city-wide. Sprawl is not fiscally conservative and is robbing everyone of a high-quality city experience. Please address the over built transportation network along with the planning process as soon as possible. HOME can reinforce the importance of land use planning that is future focused. | |
| Jonathan Cason | 3/7/2024 12:36:51 PM |
| I support the HOME initiative, strongly. I live in Airport Heights, and know that some of my neighbors dislike the fact that there are duplexes in the neighborhood because duplexes "are where people who don't clean up after their dogs live". I also know, however, that many of my neighbors live in duplexes and fourplexes and even a row of denser units alongside Bragaw; and that ours is still a delightful and vibrant neighborhood, even with (and in my opinion, at least in part because of) our variety of housing densities. When you lock of zones of the city to denser housing, you lock out potential residents based on socioeconomic status. When you concentrate folks from the low end of the socioeconomic food chain in those areas from which they haven't been effectively banned from living; you do see increases in a variety of problematic behaviors. I blame single family zoning far more than higher density zoning for these problems. If denser units were more intermingled with wealthy ones throughout Anchorage, I think we'd almost certainly see a substantial decrease in net property crime. For these reasons and others, I strongly support the current components of the HOME initiative, and also strongly support allowing 4plexes (at least) in every and all neighborhoods in Anchorage. If some Anchorage residents want to exclude the people who live in multi-unit housing from an area, I think they can buy that area fee simple and make their own rules. I don't think the Muni should be helping them exclude folks. Boo exclusionary zoning (and its deeply racist roots). Yay mixed income and mixed density housing. | |
| Emily Weiser | 3/7/2024 12:00:32 PM |
| I support 2024-0006, the HOME Initiative. This is an incremental but essential step to allow Anchorage's growth to match the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Land Use Plan. Our zoning currently prevents the plan goals and the land use map from being realized, and must be updated if we're serious about achieving those goals. I would also like to see HOME go further in allowing more housing density, specifically by allowing small multifamily by right in the proposed STFR zone. Anchorage's housing needs have shifted since the 2020 and 2040 plans were developed, and it is clear now that we need even more housing units than we previously thought. It's also clear that nothing close to the necessary number of units is being built. Allowing 3- and 4-plexes by right in STFR would be a gentle but helpful step toward providing more housing and more housing choice. I would welcome more 4plexes and more neighbors in Airport Heights, where we have 3-4plexes predating current zoning but would not be allowed to build more today, nor even under HOME as written. I also suggest calculating whether the changes proposed by HOME are enough to achieve the density targets in the 2040 plan. If not, please consider eliminating minimum lot sizes and easing height restrictions to help achieve those community goals. Thank you for your work and your attention to this case. I look forward to seeing Anchorage take this step toward realizing its dreams! Best regards, Emily | |
| Alexa Dobson | 3/7/2024 12:00:27 PM |
| I'm writing in support of the HOME initiative. I'm a homeowner and lifelong Anchorage resident and I support actions to simplify zoning, encourage building more residences of various kinds, and increase housing density. These are much-needed actions for sustainability both in economic terms (tax revenue and the costs of maintaining public infrastructure to serve residents) and environmental terms. Thank you for your consideration! | |
| Graham Downey | 3/7/2024 11:50:42 AM |
| I support HOME because we need to build more housing, and our overly complex zoning code is in the way. To make HOME more effective, and to align with the recently passed 3-4-plex reforms, I recommend amending HOME and the 2040 plan to allow 4-plexes in the STFR zone. Single family zones are exclusionary. Forcing some neighborhoods to bear the burden of change is unfair. Duplexes alone aren't enough to encourage the investment and housing diversity we need. Sister cities that have legalized this kind of & "middle housing" like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Spokane, and Edmonton have seen success where they allowed 4-plexes (and did so without restrictive building envelope requirements); legalizing duplexes alone has been less effective. Additionally, HOME should align minimum lot sizes with the targets of the 2040 plan. Or go further, and get rid of minimum lot sizes, since the subdivision rules already set a redundant minimum. | |