Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning, described AO 2025-94 as a complex but foundational chapter of Title 21 governing nonconforming structures and uses. He said the draft aims to make it easier for property owners to perform small interior and exterior repairs without triggering large-scale requirements to bring an entire property into full conformance with modern zoning rules.

The proposal would raise the financial threshold at which a project requires full conformity review — described in the work session as moving from the existing ~10% of structure value threshold to a proposed 50% threshold — so smaller repairs would not force owners to undertake broad, costly upgrades to drive conformity. McKenna Foster said the change targets the deterrent effect where property owners avoid permits because meeting full-conformity requirements for small projects is onerous.

Member Bradley framed several amendments she circulated to address encroachments and setbacks, including language to allow pre-2014 foundations to remain and to allow staff to waive as-built requirements for small encroachments if pre-1968 aerial imagery confirmed the placement. Planning staff cautioned that adding a blanket “minimum setback” legalization for all structures built before 2014 could legalize many preexisting encroachments across Anchorage — potentially allowing rebuilding in the same nonconforming locations if a building later burned or was replaced — and that such an outcome would be a sizeable policy change.

Planning staff and members debated scope and limits: staff noted that zoning authority has limits where encroachments involve public rights of way or property-line violations, which can involve other legal processes; staff also warned that aerial imagery is imperfect for precise setback measurements and that plot plans or as-built surveys provide greater legal certainty. Staff recommended caution on waiving as-built or survey requirements because the survey work, while costly, provides certainty about exact placements.

Members raised concerns about how nonconformities intersect with life-safety issues, public rights of way, and potential incentives for bad actors to exploit relaxed rules. One member cited an example in Bootleggers Cove (Mariners View) where a developer placed foundation work in a right-of-way and later resolved it, saying blanket legalization could reward similar behavior. Other members asked whether “previously lawful” structures should be treated differently from structures that were unlawful when built; staff said distinguishing between previously conforming (lawful) and unlawful historic construction would require a distinct, more complex policy approach that the current amendment language does not accomplish.

Staff noted an internal Planning Department policy to flag zoning deficiencies as informational rather than immediately requiring corrective action in many cases; the director’s policy would not issue formal notices in certain classes of encroachments (for example, stream protection setbacks, drainage easements, encroachments that impact snow removal or sight lines) and would reserve formal enforcement for matters that threaten public safety or neighboring property rights.

What was not decided: no Assembly action occurred at the work session. Members and staff agreed the nonconformities chapter raises many technical and legal questions that require more detailed follow-up, including a Building Services memo (already available and referenced by staff), clarification of the difference between structures that were lawful under older codes versus unlawful, and a careful framing of any changes that could create perpetual rebuilding rights in nonconforming locations. Staff said they would continue to coordinate with Member Bradley on amendment language and return with revisions.

Ending: The work session left AO 2025-94 in the drafting stage with staff directed to provide additional legal and implementation details; commissioners emphasized the need to avoid unintended legalization of harmful encroachments while reducing barriers for routine property repairs.