Right? My post was simply the caption for the ADN graphic, not fact checked, and I don't know much other than is currently being discussed by the assembly. They took comment on it last Thurs night but I believe the 1000' is being reconsidered in ANC as per (note
bolded):
Amendment to Marijuana Land Use Ordinance AO 2016-3(S) :
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL CODE (NEW CODE) SECTION 21.03.105, MARIJUANA—SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT; ADDING A NEW SECTION 21.05.055, MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS; AMENDING VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS OF NEW CODE TO ACCOMMODATE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS; ADDING A NEW ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL CODE (OLD CODE) SECTION 21.50.420, CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS—MARIJUANA; AMENDING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, DEFINITIONS, AND THE B-2A, B-2B, AND B-2C DISTRICTS TO ALLOW RETAIL MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; AND AMENDING ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL CODE OF REGULATIONS CHAPTER 21.05. Submitted by: Assembly Member Flynn PROPOSED AMENDMENT Purpose/Summary of amendments: Use-specific standards for all marijuana establishments under AMC 21.05.055A.2 (new title 21) and use-specific conditional use standards for marijuana retail sales establishments under AMC 21.50.420C (old title 21) include separation distances from protected land uses. These separation distance measurements are not intended to be the shortest distance point-to-point, “as the crow flies”, disregarding the vagaries of intervening terrain.
The purpose of this set of amendments is two-fold: 1) to reduce the separation distance for protected land uses in AMC 21.05.055A.2.a (new code) and AMC 21.50.420C.1.a (old code) from 1,000 feet to 500 feet; and 2) to clarify that the “pedestrian route” separation distance in AMC 21.05.055A.2.d. and AMC 21.50.420C.1.d is the measurement of a realistic pedestrian route, considering topography and highway barriers to pedestrian traffic, and not “as the crow flies”.
http://muni.org/PublicNotice/Documents/4 PF Floor Amendment 2016-3(S) (MJ Land Use) Distance Measurement 500 feet.pdf
