CityView Portal
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Jim Richardson | 9/5/2025 3:47:12 PM |
| Planning and zoning: My name is Jim Richardson. I have been a homeowner and resident of Rogers Park for 35 years. I attended the Rogers Park Community Council special meeting on August 25th and support the resolution that was approved overwhelmingly at that meeting. I believe that this proposed zoning change has been an inappropriately fast moving and changing concept. The public has not had the level of awareness and information about the proposed zoning changes (that appear to be constantly changing, even on a daily basis), without public information disclosures that should be mandatory for such a huge change to the existing zoning rules for such a large proportion of the city. As an economist who spent many years researching the state and federal economies and also evaluating regulatory impact reviews for hundreds of proposed government actions, I believe that Planning and Zoning and the Anchorage Assembly would benefit from information that would provide perspectives on the trends in the Anchorage population, population projections, the Anchorage economy and future demographic trends. Many factors, including those mentioned above, have a pervasive effect on the demand and affordability of Anchorage housing. Setting up meetings and work sessions with Dan Robinson, the Research Chief for the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development would be a good place to start. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | |
| Bob Butera | 9/3/2025 2:23:23 AM |
| The Transit Supportive Development Overlay Ordinance (TSDO) is a major rezone of a large swath of residential neighborhoods. It does not follow adopted plans, is flawed, divisive, and is being moved forward with a shoddy public process. Does not follow adopted plans - Both Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan (2040 LUP) suggested Transit Supportive-Development, but succinctly stated: “The exact boundaries will be determined through corridor studies and coordination with residents, businesses and property owners”. The 2040 LUP also stated: “Future development is encouraged to be generally in the range of 8 to 20 housing units per acre over the entire corridor. However, individual parts of the corridor, such as existing single-family and two-family neighborhoods may have less density”. The 2040 LUP further stated: “Transit Supported Development is consistent with the density ranges of the underlying land use Designations shown on the Land Use Plan Map. It does not raise density ranges above the Designations.” TSDO does not follow any of this guidance. Guidance that was developed through robust public discussion. Flawed - The goal is housing. The 2040 LUP stated: "Achieving compact infill and development requires that the Municipality identify the most appropriate areas that can absorb more intensive use and compact housing and ensure that infrastructure can serve identified sites and support projects that catalyze other developments.” TSDO does none of this. It identifies appropriate areas using a map that was developed for a different purpose, it has not examined infrastructure, and piecemeal projects do not catalyze other developments. This ordinance needs to thoughtfully address questions like the following: A collector street typically does not have on street parking, if a 5 story multifamily and commercial building is allowed on that street, where will the tenants/customers park? There are separation distances between utilities and buildings, where will this create unforeseen problems? Without design standards, what will prevent the building of poor quality housing that degrades the very neighborhoods we are trying to make more livable? Why do the presentations show only the choicest examples from other places? And conversely, if these choice examples are constructed, how will this create affordable housing? Without strong limitations on commercial, why should we expect bakeries instead of 7-elevens? Walk-up businesses instead of businesses that generate high vehical traffic? We have already done much in the R1 zones; we have removed on-site parking requirements, allowed duplexes, and triplexes, (when you include an ADU). When those changes unfold are we already at the limit of roadway parking capacity and ability to clear snow? Divisive - Many of the provisions of TSDO, such as lot coverage, building height and lack of design standards are damaging to residential neighborhoods where these changes are proposed. We need both multi-family housing and solid, thriving, single-family neighborhoods. TSDO in its present form compromises both. By encompassing all of Midtown, Downtown, and East Anchorage, TSDO is too sprawling to produce compact, efficient infill. It would be far better to focus on the neighborhood centers envisioned in our 2020 Comp Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan, and not damaging the places that are already thriving. The TSDO boundary matches the recently approved Multifamily Tax Incentive’s boundary. The multifamily tax incentive boundary was developed with little public process and should not be used for TSDO. The TSDO boundary should be tailored to its needs and to follow adopted plans. If the desire is to match map boundaries, the multifamily tax incentive map can be revised later. Shoddy Public Process - For such a significant rezone, the public process for this ordinance is the worst I have seen in Anchorage. The public is just beginning to know about this and from what I have seen is angry. Proponents have stated that because they said that they were going to work to create housing, that was sufficient public notice. Proponents have misrepresented the comments of community councils. When proponents are flippant with the public they quickly lose credibility. This ordinance is still undergoing revisions, the public has only just seen it, and there are many unanswered questions. It may be possible to create something that unifies our community instead of divides but only if there is open and robust public discussion. I urge you to postpone this ordinance until this occurs. A rezone this significant should never have gotten as far as the PZC without public discussion. Neither the PZC nor the Assembly are the place for this discussion because their processes are not setup for discussion, but only for comments. Please do not waste our community's time and energy on an assembly battle. | |
| Ryan W | 7/8/2025 3:37:04 PM |
| I am writing with ambivalence but overall in opposition to this case. I reside in South Addition. I support greater housing density across Anchorage and in my neighborhood in particular, but I believe this case goes too far. Transit Supportive Development has been used along corridors in other cities to increase housing development and density, but the majority of my neighborhood (and much of Anchorage) is now designated as one such corridor, which seems overly broad and unwise. If the goal is to reduce conflicting regulations, setbacks and requirements, couching it as "Transit Supportive Development" seems disingenuous to me. Just admit that what you're doing is trying to reduce barriers to new development, which is laudable in and of itself. In the presentation prepared by Anchorage 2040, aerial photos of Atlanta and Arlington show clear corridors along major roads which resultant development on either side. In contrast, the proposed TSDO in Anchorage looks to be a huge chunk of the city. Allowing for 75 feet of height and 0 foot setbacks in established, leafy neighborhoods consisting primarily of single-family homes is excessive and jarring. Imaging a 6 story development being constructed 4 feet from my bedroom window is not something I relish, nor something which will improve my neighborhood. | |
| Alaina Plauche | 7/7/2025 2:13:50 PM |
| I urge the PZC to recommend the approval of this case to the Anchorage Assembly. Greater freedom in our options of good transportation relies on greater density and a Transit-Supportive Development policy. Most of Anchorage is built for the ease and efficiency of cars as a response to sprawling development. This mode of transportation (car-centrism) is overly isolating! As a young person, I would much rather take the bus, ride my bike, or walk to where I'm going. I might stop in somewhere unexpected to buy a book that grabs my eye, try a new lunch spot that smells lovely, grab a drink as I hear a song I like passing by, or simply stop and talk with an acquaintance I run into. When I'm in a car speeding by all these possibilities, it's much more likely I'll just go from point A to point B. The PZC should support this case because it's good for small businesses, having a diversity of transportation options, climate smart city planning, and building a stronger, more connected Anchorage community. | |
| Sean McDowell | 6/26/2025 8:19:19 PM |
| As a resident of East Anchorage, I am fully in support of the Transit-Supportive Development Overlay. I would love to see more transportation options in my neighborhood, as well as design changes to future developments that encourage housing density, small business opportunities, and more walkable areas. I believe that more dense housing and greater access to a wider variety of transit options feed off of and encourage one another in a postive feedback loop as seen in other areas of the country. This AO would help the city meet it's goals as laid out in the 2040 land use plan and I think that is a major step towards making Anchorage an even better place to live. | |
| Alexa Dobson | 5/25/2025 9:52:35 AM |
| Hello! I'm writing in support of this case for the purpose of facilitating the TSDO ordinance, project #2025-0030. I wrote a pretty long comment in favor of that one that I won't repeat here, but suffice to say the TSDO is excellent and very much needed and I support this Comp Plan amendment so that we can get the TSDO passed. Thank you! | |