CityView Portal

try again!

Submit Case Comments

We value your input as it will help us improve citizen participation in the planning process. This form is to give you the opportunity to provide us your comments regarding a specific variance, zoning or platting case.

** Your comments will become part of the public record for the case **

Questions? If you have questions regarding a case, please contact Zoning at 907-343-7943
or Platting & Variances at 907-343-7942.


Case Number:
*Name:	First name is required
Mailing Address:
City:	State:
Zip Code:
e-Mail:
Phone:
*Comments:	Comment is required

Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval.
Jason Norris	10/30/2025 1:25:46 PM
I write in support of up-zoning the subject parcel. I respectfully do not concur with the Planning Department's recommendation of a rezone to R-3. I feel this does not fully implement the Comprehensive/Land Use Plans and would be an inefficient use of our land base. While I concur with the Planning Department's observation that the subject parcel is located in a "Compact Mixed Residential - Medium" (CMR-M) and "Transit-Supportive Development" (TSD) zones from the 2040 Land Use Plan (LUP), I disagree that R-3 is the correct zone for this combination of features. Per the LUP, R-3 is the primary zoning type for CMR-M. However, it does not consider the additional features desired and/or allowed by CMR-M being co-located with a TSD zone. Referencing page 60 of the LUP, TSD areas identify “corridors where expanded public transit service will support a compact, walkable pattern of commercial, residential, and/or mixed-use development. Over time, compact development can create ridership demand to support more frequent bus service. It will give Anchorage’s households more choices in how to get to work and other destinations. It also provides more opportunities to live in a walkable, accessible, and affordable neighborhood environment.” The LUP goes on to state that key to achieving these benefits are more residences, including workforce and affordable housing, and commercial building space to support attending transit service with buses running consistently every 10 to 15 minutes and connecting to local and regional destinations. The subject site is in proximity to DeBarr Road, which is served by People Mover’s #30 route, which runs with 15-minute frequency between Downtown and the Muldoon Transit Hub. Because of this, the subject parcel should be allowed a higher rate of density than a parcel in a standalone CMR-M zone would be. Petitioner’s suggestion of R-4 would be the bare minimum that meets the CMR-M/TSD combination of desired features but R-4A would be more efficient still. Given petitioner’s desire to build workforce and affordable housing as part of their mission, the ongoing housing crisis, the Mayor’s 10,000 homes in 10 years strategy, and the Assembly’s focus on housing, we should be seeking to enhance the amount of housing that can be built and when we shall err, err on the side of more housing, particularly in locations such as the subject parcel where a dense development pattern with mixed-use and access to transit is clearly contemplated and encourage by the LUP. I encourage the Commission to honor petitioner’s request for R-4 zoning, and contemplate whether R-4A would be even more beneficial, should petitioner be amenable. Thank you for your time.

Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval.

Jason Norris

10/30/2025 1:25:46 PM

I write in support of up-zoning the subject parcel. I respectfully do not concur with the Planning Department's recommendation of a rezone to R-3. I feel this does not fully implement the Comprehensive/Land Use Plans and would be an inefficient use of our land base. While I concur with the Planning Department's observation that the subject parcel is located in a "Compact Mixed Residential - Medium" (CMR-M) and "Transit-Supportive Development" (TSD) zones from the 2040 Land Use Plan (LUP), I disagree that R-3 is the correct zone for this combination of features. Per the LUP, R-3 is the primary zoning type for CMR-M. However, it does not consider the additional features desired and/or allowed by CMR-M being co-located with a TSD zone. Referencing page 60 of the LUP, TSD areas identify “corridors where expanded public transit service will support a compact, walkable pattern of commercial, residential, and/or mixed-use development. Over time, compact development can create ridership demand to support more frequent bus service. It will give Anchorage’s households more choices in how to get to work and other destinations. It also provides more opportunities to live in a walkable, accessible, and affordable neighborhood environment.” The LUP goes on to state that key to achieving these benefits are more residences, including workforce and affordable housing, and commercial building space to support attending transit service with buses running consistently every 10 to 15 minutes and connecting to local and regional destinations. The subject site is in proximity to DeBarr Road, which is served by People Mover’s #30 route, which runs with 15-minute frequency between Downtown and the Muldoon Transit Hub. Because of this, the subject parcel should be allowed a higher rate of density than a parcel in a standalone CMR-M zone would be. Petitioner’s suggestion of R-4 would be the bare minimum that meets the CMR-M/TSD combination of desired features but R-4A would be more efficient still. Given petitioner’s desire to build workforce and affordable housing as part of their mission, the ongoing housing crisis, the Mayor’s 10,000 homes in 10 years strategy, and the Assembly’s focus on housing, we should be seeking to enhance the amount of housing that can be built and when we shall err, err on the side of more housing, particularly in locations such as the subject parcel where a dense development pattern with mixed-use and access to transit is clearly contemplated and encourage by the LUP. I encourage the Commission to honor petitioner’s request for R-4 zoning, and contemplate whether R-4A would be even more beneficial, should petitioner be amenable. Thank you for your time.

CityView Portal

Municipality of Anchorage Official Web Site