Anchorage Assembly Work Session on Missing Middle Housing Ordinance (AO 2026-85) - September 11, 2026

On Friday, September 11, 2026, from 1:00–2:00 PM, the Anchorage Assembly held a work session to discuss AO 2026‑85, the Missing Middle Housing Opportunities (MHOP) ordinance. Chair Anna Brawley called the meeting to order, noting that this was the second work session on the item, that the public hearing had not yet been opened, and that debate was not permitted during work sessions. The session focused on the overlay map and a suite of resident‑proposed amendments.

Discussion Items

Sponsor Presentation – Problem and Overlay Details Sponsor Assemblymember Baldwin‑Day presented the ordinance as a tool to increase housing supply, supporting both the Assembly’s housing work plan and the mayor’s “10,000 homes in 10 years” goal. The MHOP overlay would apply to parcels within a quarter‑mile of existing or near‑term transit corridors, within the multifamily property tax abatement area, in town centers, and in areas where the 2040 Comprehensive Plan suggests upzoning. Key dimensional changes include: flexible minimum lot size (governed by subdivision standards), 70% lot coverage, no specified front setback, flexible side/rear setbacks (zero if adjacent units), 40‑foot height (30 ft in R1 zones), and any number of structures per lot.

Resident‑Proposed Amendment 1 – Exclude Seismic Hazard Zones 4 and 5 The sponsor noted that seismic safety is already managed through building code (Title 23), not zoning (Title 21), and that seismic maps are being updated (current data dates to the 1960s). Member Boland asked whether any analysis showed that taller or more dense buildings would be significantly more dangerous in those zones; none was known. Member Silvers observed that engineering standards are used to address seismic risk. The sponsor declined to support the amendment, stating that building in such zones is feasible (citing Inlet View Elementary built in zone 5).

Resident‑Proposed Amendment 2 – Require Multi‑Unit Development with Expanded Dimensions The sponsor expressed strong support for this concept and stated he intends to bring an amendment that prevents “McMansions” (large single‑family homes on large lots from using the flexible standards) but still allows small single‑family homes on small lots. Member Park raised concerns about short‑term rentals taking advantage of the overlay; the sponsor confirmed that the multifamily tax abatement already excludes short‑term rentals. Member Park later indicated she would like to be a co‑sponsor of this amendment.

Resident‑Proposed Amendment 3 – Remove R1 and R2 Zones from the Overlay The sponsor argued this would dilute the overlay’s effectiveness and noted that R3 and R4 zones have been underutilized (e.g., no building permits issued for R4A). Member Handlin asked about demand for missing‑middle housing; the sponsor cited 21 rezoning applications since May 2025, of which 29% would likely have been unnecessary if the overlay were in effect (based on analysis by S4 group). Member Johnson requested that planning produce a map showing which parcels are R1, R2, R3, and R4 within the overlay by the next meeting.

Resident‑Proposed Amendment 4 – Maintain Height‑to‑Setback Proportions The sponsor considered this technically complex and counter to the goal of simplifying Title 21. Planning Manager Daniel McKenna‑Foster added that current height rules are outdated (e.g., assume 10–12 ft ceilings, but modern construction requires more space for HVAC and fire suppression).

Resident‑Proposed Amendment 5 – Define Multiple Uses and Structures McKenna‑Foster explained that allowing multiple uses on a lot (e.g., a church and a house) and multiple primary structures (e.g., cottage clusters) is already permitted in many zones and that the ordinance mirrors existing code. He noted that the definition of “mixed use” is being clarified in a separate upcoming ordinance.

Resident‑Proposed Amendment 6 – Remove Dwelling Mixed Use as a Permitted Use The sponsor noted this is a broader question being addressed separately and not specific to MHOP.

Resident‑Proposed Amendment 7 – Require Conditional Use Permits for Multifamily in R1 and R2 Conditional use permits add uncertainty and discourage development, making the intended housing types less likely to be built. Member Boland pointed out that in R2 zones, duplexes are currently permitted outright; this amendment would make them conditional, which is more restrictive than existing law.

Additional Discussion

• Infrastructure costs: McKenna‑Foster stated that AWWU generally requires new development to pay for its own connection costs and that the system has capacity for additional growth.
• Member Park asked about the origin of the proposed amendments; they came from the Housing Work Group and were presented to community councils.
• Member Martinez argued that the MHOP ordinance is not the starting point for growth planning—the 2017 Transit Supportive Development Corridor map and the 2020 Comprehensive Plan already identified these areas for density. He framed the ordinance as “keeping promises” made in earlier planning processes.
• Correction noted: the second regular assembly meeting for this item is October 6, not October 7.

Key Outcomes

• The public hearing on AO 2026‑85 is scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, 2026, and will be continued to a future meeting (no debate until the public hearing is closed).
• Sponsor Baldwin‑Day committed to introduce an amendment requiring multi‑unit development (or small single‑family) under the expanded dimensional standards to prevent “McMansions”. Member Park expressed intent to co‑sponsor that amendment.
• Planning department was asked to produce a map highlighting R1, R2, R3, and R4 zones within the overlay for the next meeting.
• No votes were taken; the work session was informational only.