TITLE 21 ZONING LAWS UPDATE

---

From September 2005 MHCC and HECC Newsletter:

THE ZONING LAWS ARE CHANGING! Anchorage has been working on a rewrite of our zoning laws, called Title 21, for a couple years. The existing code has its roots in 1969. Since then, Anchorage's population has more than doubled, we've got more cars than people, and instead of growing by spreading out, we're growing by filling in.

The draft of the new Title 21 is designed to reflect this new reality and to promote the goals of our Comprehensive Plan. Where the Comp Plan speaks broadly about things like building and subdivision design and open space and trails, Title 21 puts it in concrete terms. It's really hard to read.

A glaring aspect of the Title 21 Draft is the diminished role of Community Councils. There's some irony in this as the city is celebrating the 30th anniversary of unification with the borough and the birth of Community Councils.

If you really want to read the whole thing for yourself, go to www.muni.org/planning/prj_T21_PublicReviewDraft_1.cfm.

---

The following cover letter and comments were prepared by the Mid-Hillside Community Council. For a .pdf version suitable for framing, click here.

September 16, 2005

Planning Department
4700 Bragaw Street
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519

Submitted via E-mail: title21@muni.org

At its regular meeting on September 15, the Mid-Hillside Community Council formed a committee to review the proposed changes to Title 21. We focused primarily on topics related to our Council area and particularly R-6 zoning that is predominant here. We also considered the public process requirements and their relation to Community Councils.

Our comments follow. We generally strove for consensus on points raised. The presentation notes where we had differing opinions that could not be reconciled.

We hope that our efforts make a positive contribution to this project.

Sincerely,
John Wedddleton - President

TABLE 21.01-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS

MHCC COMMENT: The Hillside Wastewater Management Plan should be listed

CHAPTER 21.02 Boards, Commissions and Municipal Administration

21.02.020 Boards and Commissions Generally p16

MHCC COMMENT: Add: Community Councils may review and comment on Title 21 issues.

Table 21.02-1 Summary of Major Title 21 Decision Making and Review Responsibilities
p.17

MHCC COMMENT: Add a column for Community Councils and add "R" for review and comment where appropriate. i.e. Variances, School Sites, Public Facility Site Selection, Conditional Uses, Plats, Rezonings, Amendments to Title 21 and Comp Plan.

CHAPTER 21.03 Review and Approval Procedures p34

21.03.020 F Community Meetings

MHCC COMMENT: Add "Where an affected Community Council is able to add the development and application to its agenda and to properly announce the meeting, the Community Council should be the forum for the required community meeting. A resolution from an affected Community Council and the minutes of its meeting in regard to the proposed development shall be part of the Planning Department staff report."

Footnote 11 p 123 adds support to this change: "..This draft is intended to take advantage of the existing set of community councils."

F2B Waiver "Director may waive the community meeting ... if he or she determines that the proposed .. will not have significant community impacts .."

MHCC COMMENT: We were split on this point. Some felt the Director is best able to sort through projects and put forward those that warrant public review so the public is not over burdened. Others felt that the Director would not be aware of neighborhood issues that can be important even on small projects.

F3b p39 L1-4 Regarding notification if more than one CC has boundaries within or adjacent to the project.

MHCC COMMENT: Change wording to be consistent with the requirements on p42 L14-16 where roughly any CC within 1,000 feet is notified.

F5c p39 L26-27 "All community meetings shall be convened at a place in the vicinity of the proposed development."

MHCC COMMENT: Add "If adequate meeting space is available, the meeting shall be in the boundaries of an affected Community Council."

F6 Summary of Community Meeting p39 l 28-30

"The applicant shall prepare a written summary of the community meeting(s) ... "

We recommend that a Community Council resolution or meeting minutes be part of the Planning Department report. The applicant should be encouraged to also prepare a written report on the meeting particularly the response to comments.

C6i p65 L4-5 "provides opportunities for recreation, light and air ..."

The reference to recreation is puzzling. Are there requirements for developments to provide for recreation anywhere else in Title 21?

MHCC COMMENT: What does the "light and air" mean? This phrase is used elsewhere in this Draft and its meaning is not clear.

21.03.080 Site Plan Review

B1b p71 L1-2 "site plans for public facilities costing up to $500,000 shall require administrative site plan review."

C1b p71 L28-29 ".. a public facility project costing more than $500,000 shall require a major site plan review."

The trigger for a P&ZC review of site selection is 21.-3.090 B2a, b, c, d p74-75 includes

"a. Any newly constructed building or buildings in which government operations or activities occupy more than a total of 4,000 square feet and any existing building acquired by purchase or lease in which government operation or activities occupy more than 15,000 square feet.

b. Any use of land over 5 acres in area

c. Any trail alignment not part of a road construction project; and

d. Any snow disposal site."

MHCC COMMENT: Make the cut off for the site plan review consistent with the cut off for site selection. Using a dollar amount for a cut off for site plans will become obsolete after a few decades. It is better to use building size.

"9.b The Board of Adjustment shall hear no argument nor take additional testimony or evidence.." p99 L24-25

MHCC COMMENT: Allow oral argument.

21.030.240 MASTER PLANNING

"A. Area Master Planning
1. Purpose

Under procedures 3b. Community meeting "A community meeting may be required." p108 l37-38

MHCC COMMENT: Make a community meeting a requirement early in the process. Change "may" to "shall." This is the most important time to have a community meeting! Face the issues as early as possible.

"B Development Master Planning
1. Purpose

Under procedures 3b "A community meeting may be required." p113 L38

MHCC COMMENT: Change "may" to "shall."

"C. Institutional Master Plan Review ...." p116 L13

similar issues to other master plans 4.b "A community meeting may be required" p120 L27

MHCC COMMENT: Change "may" to "shall."

21.04.010 General Provisions

21.04.020 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
"A. General Purpose /Intent

6. Provide light, air, privacy and open space for each residential dwelling ..." p130 l8-9
MHCC COMMENT: Define "light, air?"

G. R-6 Low Density Residential (1 acre) District

1. Purpose

MHCC COMMENT: Note that the discussion of R-9 says "where public sewers are unlikely to be provided for a considerable period of time.." p132 L32-33 Add that to the description of R-6.

MHCC COMMENT: There are 8 points made in the description of R-10 that should apply to R-6, R-7, R-9 as well. See p133 L3-21. Leaving them out of the descriptions of these other zonings suggests these 8 points are not important.

21.04.060 OTHER DISTRICTS

C. OL: Open Lands District

1. Purpose

"The OL district is applied to lands intended for future development, including municipally owned lands, Large-lot single family residential development is allowed by right , though rezoning and/or master planning shall occur prior to other types of development.: p152 L9-14

MHCC COMMENT: What is a "large lot?" Make this more specific like "1 acre or larger."

MHCC COMMENT: The title for this zoning is misleading! Use a more clear title like "Future Development."
There is a need to be clear on what land is waiting to be developed and to distinguish it from parks land. There is a lot of confusion on this. The South Anchorage High School land and the PLI land south of Tudor looked like parkland to most people and the PLI title does not suggest different. It would be natural to assume the Open Land means it will stay that way. It also sounds a lot like "Open Space," a very different notion.

D. NCO: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District

.... 2cii ...shall direct the Director to notify ..." p157 L 20-21

MHCC COMMENT: Add " and the affected Community Councils.."

TABLE 21.05-1 of Allowed Uses - Residential Districts p179-182

Police substations are in public safety facility category not allowed in R-6-10 . Are allowed in PLI and R-3, R-4.

MHCC COMMENT: Add "Firestations and police substations are considered a use compatible with R-6 zoning." There is a police substation at the firestation on O'Malley. Are these uses allowed in R-6 thru R-10 as long as the lot is rezoned to PLI?

Table 21.05-2 Table of Allowed Uses - Commercial etc.

Use category "Entertainment/Recreation, Outdoor" includes "Skiing, alpine

MHCC COMMENT: Add Nordic skiing. There has been talk of X-C skiing at O'Malley golf course that may be a commercial effort. X-C skiing may be part of projects in Girdwood, too.

21.05.050 COMMERCIAL USES: DEFINITIONS AND USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS

E Recreation Outdoor
6 Skiing Facility, Alpine p238 L27-31

MHCC COMMENT: Add Nordic skiing.

TABLE 21.05-3 TABLE OF ACCESSORY USES - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS p272

E. Prohibited Accessory Uses and Structures

1. Use of ... Connex

The use of a connex or similar structure for storage of goods, performing services or conducting other business is only allowed in industrial districts...' p294 L28-32

MHCC COMMENT: Unclear if storage of personal stuff in a connex on R-6 is okay if it's not for "business." Is a personal use Connex permitted on R-6?

MHCC COMMENT: Add requirement that they be screened from sight in residential.

MHCC COMMENT: Schools use these frequently. Large construction sights use them as allowed in section B3 p296 L13-16. Often needed in B3 zones, too.

C. Prohibited Temporary Uses and Structures

1. Cloth Garages

"Frame supported or arch supported tension fabric or membrane structures fabricated off-site and assembled on-site, and typically used for garages, sheds, warehouses or temporary or permanent shelters for automobiles, boats, or other items, shall be prohibited in all residential districts .." p296 L24-29

MHCC COMMENT: Permit them but limit size? This looks really good except that it means blue tarps strapped on everything instead. Will the thousands sold at Costco be grandfathered in?

CHAPTER 21.06 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS

Table 21.06-1 Table of Dimensional Standards p309 for R-6

MHCC COMMENT: RE: Lots sizes changed to 1 acre. We were ambivalent on this even with the change in the way the acreage is counted. There is a worry about increased density. There may be issues of on-site systems placed on lots too small.

CHAPTER 21.07 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS p 333

21.070.020 Natural Resource Protection

"B 4a ii In the R-5, R-6, R-7, R-9 .. all buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least 50 feet horizontally from the ordinary high-water mark of stream or river corridors ... no disturbance is permitted in the 50 foot setback area." p 336 L26-32

MHCC COMMENT: Define "disturbance."

MHCC COMMENT: We were ambivalent on this. Some were in strong support of a 50 foot setback to protect our streams. Others felt it limited the use of land without clear benefit.

D. Wildlife Conflict Areas p 344 l 12-19

MHCC COMMENT: Is this adequate given Anchorage's broadly expressed interest in wildlife among us? This is a minimum. We expect there are other drainages that require similar attention, though perhaps something less than 200'.

21.07.060 TRANSPORTATION AND CONNECTIVITY

D3.e Connections to Vacant Land p356 L 39-41

MHCC COMMENT: This section refers to "bicycle paths" but not explicitly to trails in general. How about changing that to "bicycle and pedestrian connections" or "multi-use trail."

E. Standards for Pedestrian Facilities p357 L 31- p357 L6

"... 1.b Sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of all arterials, collector streets, and local streets ... and within the frontage of all new development or redevelopment, This requirement shall not apply to local streets in districts where the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet or greater ... " p357 L 36-41

MHCC COMMENT: This appears reasonable.

Width of Trail

D3b iv p356 L 3-4 requires eight-foot wide "pedestrian access easement"

E 2c p 358 L27-28 "... trails no less than five feet in width.."

MHCC COMMENT: Make the phrasing and width consistent.

2c Through Block Connections p 358 L 31

MHCC COMMENT: Change to "efficient" or "convenient" .

3. Trails

"While not encouraged to substitute for a good system of on-street facilities, multi-use trails may be used to enhance pedestrian and bicycle travel... " p358 L 40-42

MHCC COMMENT: A trail that gets you where you are going that is not next to a street is more pleasant for walkers, bikers and others. Where there is a place to put a trail that does not parallel a street and its multiple intersections, that should be encouraged.

3 c. "All trails shall be built in locations that are visible and easily accessible for the personal safety of users.: p 359 L 5-6

MHCC COMMENT: Some trails connecting cul de sacs and others might not meet the 'visible" depending on who is defining it. Lots of trails are initially opposed out of fear that they'll attract rif raff. This opens that door to that incorrect stance. This section could be deleted with no harm.

4. Use and Maintenance of Sidewalks, Walkways, Trails p 359 L 9

b. Maintenance and Snow Removal

MHCC COMMENT: Specify who is responsible for this maintenance.

7. Trees
f. Tree Tracts

"For residential subdivisions consisting of more than 50 residential lots, at least 75% of the required minimum tree density shall be located within separate tree tracts held in common ownership by the homeowners association ..." p 371 L 41-46

MHCC COMMENT: If ¼ acre lots, 50 lots = 12.5 acres is approx. 198 trees 8-10' tall. 75% of that is 140 trees. The Private Open Space requirement is 800 sq. feet per unit (p 345) so 50 units requires 40,000 sq. ft, about an acre.

So out of 12.5 acres, about an acre should have 140 trees. That's not dense, but probably okay. The other 11.5 acres would have 47 trees or about 1 per lot. Seems thin.

CHAPTER 21.08 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS p451

21.08.040 Dedication p457

A. Streets

2. " widths shall conform to the OSHP, provided that the maximum dedication width .. is 70 feet.... These standards are considered to be minimum standards .." p 457 L30-35.

MHCC COMMENT: Okay, we're starting to get the hang of this now! The maximum is the minimum.

C. Walkways p 458 L5

" ... the minimum width of a walkway dedication shall be 10 feet. If the walkway is paved, the paving should be a minimum of four feet and a maximum of six feet wide."

MHCC COMMENT: Are these widths consistent with these other sections?

D. Trails p458 L15

See footnote regarding Chugach state park access p 479 #27

MHCC COMMENT: Emphasize importance of protecting future access to Chugach State Park.

________________________________________________________

OPEN SPACE

The Open Space in the modules has been replaced by Private Open Space (POS). That is presented as space for the exclusive use of the owners of the development. There are inconsistencies with that, though. Discussion of private open space drifts into using the space to protect trails and wildlife corridors and to connect with open space of adjacent developments. That doesn't sound like land for "exclusive" use (p345 L 17-22) by some people.

But the open space might not really amount to anything anyway. Half of a home's yard, if it's 2,000 sq feet or more (p347 L18-20), can count towards the POS (p 346 L25-27). And half of the open space can be used as snow storage (p 407 L 1-20). The open space used for snow storage is not allowed to have trees or shrubs.

For example, if a development has 10 units. They'd be required to have 8,000 sq feet of POS (p345 L23-29). If each home were on a 3,500 sq foot lot with max 40% coverage, that makes a 2,000 sq foot yard. 1/2 of that yard can count as POS. So the 10 homes would add up to 10,000 sq feet of POS. More than the requirement.

The only thing that requires a natural open space appears to be the tree tracts on residential subdivisions consisting of more than 50 residential lots. Space will have to be made to put the required trees.

21.070.030 OPEN SPACE p345 L8

4 a. Locational Criteria

iv Wildlife Migration Corrdors

MHCC COMMENT: Since use is exclusive to the residents, it islikely these areas would be fenced, (see section ciii "fencing") How does that work with wildlife migration corridors?

 

---

The following information is in reference to the Draft "Modules" released in 2004. The Draft released in 2005 calls those modules the "2004 Draft" but the Planning department is calling the 2005 Draft, "Draft #1." Try not to get confused!

The 2005 Draft has substantial changes from the 2004 Draft.

TITLE 21 ZONING LAWS UPDATE
GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS
(From Feb 2004 Newsletter, by John Weddleton)

To help people get along, we have extensive zoning rules in Anchorage. These cover lot sizes, how big you can build on them and loads of limits on what you can do on your property. It's all a libertarian's nightmare, but as problems have arisen, rules have been made. The MOA is currently rewriting these rules.

A draft of Module 2 - Districts and Uses was released in January 2004. It's over 150 pages and covers lots of details that most people will become aware of only after they break the rules and someone squawks. This draft is primarily a rewrite of the current code with a smattering of changes to get everything in synch with the new Comprehensive Plan.

Here's a sample of current or proposed rules: no temporary cloth garages, no more than 7 garage sales per year per home; no parking vehicles with business logos at your home; only one "inoperative" vehicle on your lot at at time (and you have one year to get it running); no more than 5 animals over 4 months old except fish, small birds and rodents; you can have a satelite dish anywhere you need to get a good reception. The list goes on.

There is little land left to be developed in our area and there's a preference to keep that development consistent with the relatively large lots and low population density we now enjoy. The current revisions work somewhat against this. The R-1 Single-Family Residential zone changed. Valli Vue is a pocket of R1 zoning in our area and we are unlikely to see more.

The R-6 zoning predominant in our area is now 1.25 acre minimum and is proposed to drop to one acre. Right-Of-Way will no longer be used in calculation of lot size, so the change is less than it looks. Many lots zoned R-6 in our area are currently less than an acre. The proposed changes also drops square footage for a duplex to 1.5 acres rather than current 2.5, so 5-acre tracts could now have 3 duplexes instead of 2.

Higher up the hill, zoning is mostly R-9 Rural Residential (low-density areas where sewer and water are unlikely to be provided for a considerable period of time if ever). Currently the minimum lot size for Single-family is 2.5 acres and for duplexes 3.75 acres. The proposal is to increase allowable lot coverage and decrease the duplex requirement to 2.5 acres.

The people rewriting this code are actively looking for feedback from you. For a copy of the Draft and other info from the Muni see http://www.muni.org/planning/prj_Title21.cfm .

(About those fences, the chapter on Use Regulations has over 30 mentions of fences to shield the world from ugly things we might do on our property.)

---

FOLLOWING IS INFO AND COMMENTS SENT FROM AREA RESIDENTS

A lot of this is a series of email strings. They appear in reverse chronological order. There is occasional editing to minimize redundancy.

---

emailed by Joe Riordon 2/9/04

I typed up my hand written notes regarding Title 21 Module 2. I must emphasize that I was focused on R-6 changes and the biggest issue that I see is the gradual increased density allowed. This is particularly evident with group living homes with their 6 person allowance plus Accessory Dwelling Unit that could also allow 6 persons if I read it correctly. Also the minimum lot size is shrinking. Anyway here you go......

Title 21 Module 2 Comments

General comment:

As a resident of the Rabbit Creek Community Council district the following comments are focused on primarily on R-6 zone effects.

Overall: The intent appears to increase the density of housing in R-6 by reducing the lot size from 1 ¼ acre to 1-acre minimum lot size. Additionally, the definition omits the rural lifestyle character and single-family residential phrasing. The allowed uses also leave much room to convert residential housing to group housing in R-6.

21.04.020 Residential Districts

G.1 Recommend to insert language that includes the desire to maintain large lot sizes that allow a rural lifestyle and single-family residential housing.

E.12.e.iv.B Recommend against granting variances in situations based on the potential for a hardship to the applicant.

21.05.010 Table of Allowed Uses

Overall the table permits outright up to 6 clients in group housing in all zones. Recommend the permitted number be reduced from 6 to 3 or possibly 4 to keep the intent of single family and low density in R-6.

E. Residential care is missing a row in the table that identifies allowed uses for 1-6 capacity. Recommend the same permitting that applies to Adult care.

Adult Care allows too many people without a permit. Recommend to reduce the outright permitted number to 3 and conditional use up to 5 and not permitted beyond that amount. The number could increase with an increase in the average density of a neighborhood.

21.05.030 Residential Uses

B Group Living

3.a Add the same clause found in 3.b.B regarding limiting house residents convicted of a felony as set forth in AS 11.41. I am not clear why this is applied differently according to the date the quasi-institutional house was established.

4.vi.A Change from six clients to three

4.vi.B Change from seven clients to four

21.050.040 Public / Institutional Uses

Separate Child Care from the other uses since it doesn't result in 24-hr care as the other allowed uses would.

A.2.a Change from six clients to three

A.2.b Change from seven clients to four

A.C.vi On-site Systems - Change from seven clients to four

21.050.070 Accessory Uses and Structures

Table 2 Change the Adult Care and Residential Care permitted use from six to three

D. Definitions- Add a statement that the occupancy limits are not in addition to those permitted outright but rather inclusive. Otherwise the code as currently written, in R-6 homes could have six clients outright in the home and as many as six more in the ADU for twelve overall. This is clearly not the intent of R-6.

2. Change from six to three clients

16. Change from six to three clients

21.060-1 Minimum lot dimensions reduce R-6 from 1 ¼ to 1 acre and two family allowed use to 2 acres. Recommend to use the existing minimum lot dimensions.

I plan to attend the next Coalition Meeting on Thursday. Maybe I can get some traction with the others at that meeting.

Joe Riordan 346-1360 (h) 787-8982 (w)

---

2/7/04
See Ryan Stencel's extensive comments emailed today.

****************

2/7/04
Meet at Mike & Jar Hendee's home.
General discussion of Title 21 Mod 2 rewrite issues. Coordination of Hillside area Community Councils.
Attended by:
>Wayne Skidmore & Megan Poulson
>Scott Pexton
>Mike Flister
>John Weddleton
>Mike & Jarlath Hendee
>June Constantine
>Dianne Holmes

>Thanks to Jarlath and Mike for the use of your lovely home,

---

The new zoning completely eliminates dog kennels (Alaska's official sport is dog mushing) and complete frustration at all the noncomplying lots that will be created and the years of nightmares all this is going to cause.

Plus size of lots, setbacks, uses.....the list goes on and on and on........

Here's the question I'm stuck on...why are we redoing the zoning from Rs to the new designations at all? Why can't we strike a balance with some of the existing things we have.......otherwise, for the next 40 or so years, everyone is going to have to be comparing two maps to get all the information on a property. Why do we have to tweak it so badly in this area? Why can't we just add what they want to within the R-6 designation?

All in all, I'm feeling very nervous about the motives behind some of the changes and am left wondering if we're better off not rewriting Title 21 at all, although I know there are serious problems with it. What are we going to give up in the process?

The only good thing so far is the overlay districts, which should have been implemented already. They're a wonderful way to illustrate on a map the location you are talking about and what restrictions obtain to that highlighted area. For example, MOA could do an overlay district of all the wetlands, creeks, and watersheds of Anchorage with their appropriate setbacks....this would show better ALL of the areas we need to protect and give the property buyer/developer clearer guidelines.

Ryan

---

email Dianne Holmes Jan 31

All,
Don't know if you have read Module 2 yet, but there are some pretty important issues/changes we should try to understand and change if needed. While I haven't read the whole thing, nor even understand all I read, here are a few observations from me and other more savvy folks.

Ideas? Want to arrange a quick meeting when we've all read the module?
Dianne

Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts (NCO): the consultants got positive feedback on this at the ACC meeting Thurs.. It would not require a full neighborhood plan because generally these overlays wouldn't address the full range of planning issues; rather they would focus on distinguishing characteristics. More examples are needed, but some given from other cities were neighborhoods wishing to retain the two-story, flat-roof housing style. Consultants mentioned that an NCO couldn't be used to override something like the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance, so it isn't clear when or why NCO could be used to further restrict any part of Title 21: frontyard setbacks, fence heights, etc. Probably 51 percent of property owners would have to approve
them, before going to the Assembly. More info is needed on NCO.

Regarding R6 and R9, the yard setbacks also shrunk. Frontyards went from 50 to 25', sideyards from 25 to 15' and backyards from 50 to 25'. R10 has only a 10' front and rear sideyard which means cars will be parked bumper to the roadway. Why would the staff recommend these changes?

For the hillside, we should focus on the residential zones, the mixed use residential/commercial zones, and the NCO. The easiest place to start is the Dimensional Standards Table, and the list of Allowed Uses.

One main concern is how different densities will be buffered from one another. That won't be addressed until Module 3 Subdivision and Design Standards

---

email Jan 29 from Dianne Holmes
I'm sending this to the RCCC board and presidents of other CCs where density may be of concern. Note some of the subtle proposed Title 21 changes in Module 2 below.

By the way, don't forget the public meeting tonight at city hall at 7 pm for Title 21, module 2.
Dianne

The new proposal for Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts is a possible tool for neighborhoods to create some enforceable standards, possibly even neighborhood plans.

There is an "intent statement" that may be an obstacle to merging lots, creating open space, or to re-zoning for a lower density. 21.04.020 A 3 (Residential Districts, General Purpose/Intent) is broader than the Comp Plan in conserving residential land. It says to limit conversion of residential to non-residential, and "ensure that residential development does not occur at less than zoned densities". This might be a concern where zoning was poorly applied decades ago to wetlands or steep slopes or as part of failed Master Plans.

Cumulative densification. There is a combined effect of smaller lot dimensions, zoning consolidation, accessory units, and group housing allowed in "large lot" areas.

Dormitory uses are allowed in R-6, R-9, and R-10 by site plan review and quasi-institutional uses (rehabilitative residential) are a conditional use. There is no size limit proposed. A sample of a quasi-institutional use: a Salvation Army family shelter for 18 families that just received a site approval in mid-town. Seems unlikely to have a large facility on the Hillside, but it would be a possibility. A sample of dormitory use could be a church dormitory or a dormitory at Hilltop.

R-6 minimum lot size has been shrunk from 1.25 acres to less than 1 acre (from 54,000 to 43,000 sq feet). That means a 25 percent increase in density (5 acre tract can have 5 houses instead of 4). There is no justification given. The ROW may now longer be counted as part of the lot but that doesn't account for all the shrinkage. On a lot with 200' of road frontage and an ROW of 30 feet to center line, that was only 6,000 sq feet of ROW. MOA staff should explain the need to shrink the lot size.

R-6 minimum lot size for a 2-family house will shrink from 1.5 acres instead of 2.5 acres (from 109,000 to 87,000 sq ft). This is is 50 percent increase in density (5 acre tract can have 3 duplexes instead of

2). Several previous R categories have been combined, and the minimum lot size will prevail. R-8 lots that were minimum 5 acres will become R-9 with a minimum of 2.5 acres. Same thing in R-1 and R-2.

Accessory uses may greatly increase density.Table 21.05-3

Accessory Dwelling Units (nanny or mother-in-law quarters) are a permitted use in all Residential zones except R1. Maximum effect, if everyone built a rental unit, would be 100 percent greater density.

Residential care for up to six individuals is a permitted use in all R zones, and it doesn't have to be secondary to the family residential purpose, as a B&B would.

Allowed uses may greatly increase density. Table 21-05-1

---

email Jan 16, 2004
TO: Community Councils
SUBJECT: Clarion Associates' Meeting Schedule and Module #2 Review Draft

The consulting firm hired by the Municipality to conduct a diagnostic review and rewrite of Title 21 will be in Anchorage to present and discuss the review draft of module #2 (chapters 4 – 6) of the proposed new code. The following meetings have been scheduled for Clarion Associates.

Tuesday, January 27, 2004
7 p.m. – 9 p.m.
Title 21 Citizens Advisory Committee
Training Room, Planning and Development Center
4700 Bragaw Street

Thursday, January 29, 2004
12 Noon – 2 p.m.
Joint Work Session
Planning & Zoning Commission
Platting Board
Urban Design Commission
Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals
Assembly Conference Room
First Floor, City Hall, 632 W. 6th Avenue

Thursday, January 29, 2004
7 p.m. – 9 p.m.
Title 21 Citizen Participation Working Groups
Anchorage Citizens Coalition
Assembly Conference Room
First Floor, City Hall, 632 W. 6th Avenue

 

Friday, January 30, 2004
10:00 a.m. – 12 Noon
Assembly Work Session
Assembly Conference Room
First Floor, City Hall, 632 W. 6th Avenue

The public review draft of module #2 (chapters 4 - 6) is available for review on-line at the project website

Printed copies of module #2 are available at two places:

1. Planning and Development Center, Planning Department Public Counter, 4700 Bragaw Street
2. City Hall, Clerks Office on the second floor

If you have questions about this project, please contact the Planning Department at 343-7921 or e-mail to . For additional project information, refer to the project website.

This site was last updated on April 24, 2006

john@weddleton.com
907-349-8370