CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| LisaAnne Gionet | 6/18/2018 1:35:01 PM |
| I am in favor of R10 zoning. The developers have been working on this plan long before bringing it to the attention of the Municipality. Anchorage is running out of land for single family homes with a good amount of acreage and this type of zoning will be a perfect fit for many Anchorage families. I've read every letter opposing and the one that said "what's next, high rises and apartment buildings?". I can assure you this is not what the developers have planned. They want single family homes for those of us who want beautiful forever homes. I recognize a lot of the names opposing from working a customer service job and I am surprised at the hatred towards this proposal. I am one of those people who wants to build my dream home on that land and would be honored to be semi-neighbors with some of these wonderful people who I had grown to know through my job. Please consider allowing us to build on this beautiful piece of property. Thank you. | |
| Christine Monette | 6/11/2018 4:36:08 PM |
| As a community member, who is very active in both Community Council and HALO, I find this petitioners many varied attempts to rezone this parcel of land both questionable and troubling. I am always equally surprised and flabbergasted at the temerity of any builder/developer that has purchased Hillside property and then immediately tries to get the zoning changed to fit their needs. My question is "why did you purchase the property in the first place if you can't develop financially at the current zoning?" I realize this is a very simplistic question, that has a wide variety of reasonable responses, but it remains the legitimate underling issue. This property underwent an extensive process both by the Municipality and the Public through the Hillside District Plan to arrive at its current zoning for development. If this developer could not develop this parcel with the current zoning, then the ethical thing would have been to pass on the purchase of this land. Instead they immediately went to work trying to change the zoning to fit their purposes at the expense of the existing surrounding neighborhoods and landowners. I am more than troubled by the continuing process of these developers to change the zoning, if you don't succeed try, try again. What exactly is the final desire of these developers? As this is their 4th, 5th or maybe even their 6th attempt at a rezone on this same parcel. Do they think their continued assault on the opposition with this game of "whack a mole" will eventually wear down those opposed to their multiple rezone requests and they will eventually achieve their desired outcome? It is past time that Planning and Zoning puts this matter to rest once and for all, and deny this petitioners latest rezone request and tell them to develop at current zoning or not at all. | |
| Buster Bryant | 6/11/2018 11:18:41 AM |
| I realize that this is late for the meeting tonight, but wanted to get my comments on record. I have written comments for previous iterations of this proposed subdivision, and I agree with most of my neighbors' views. What I have not been able to find (I admit that I have not done an exhaustive search) is data on perc tests and well flow rates. How many, if any, perc tests have been done; in what areas of the plot - on a grid, at random, or high-graded in "sweet spots"? The same questions apply to test wells. With the soil types, wetlands, and probable lensoid/discontinuous aquifers, some lot owners will possibly get caught in a "Perfect Storm" of environmental problems: poor surface drainage, failing perc tests, a high water table, and low-productivity wells. I have personally experienced both failed septics and low-productivity wells in similar soils (in Bear Valley, and at our current house). In Bear Valley, a holding tank was the only option at that time; fortunately, our current lot had enough space for a second system, but it was expensive. Neither of those options is appealing for anyone, but especially not for large houses in a new subdivision. Finally, I believe that several practical issues, including those mentioned above, that affect the quality of life of everyone in the upper Rabbit Creek Valley, have not been sufficiently addressed by the applicants (in addition to the currently unresolved earlier application) and therefore I request that this application be denied. | |
| Merijeanne Hollingsworth | 6/8/2018 4:22:49 PM |
| I am opposed to the R-10 rezone, for many of the same reasons as my neighbors. I have lived in the neighborhood since 1991, and have seen quite a bit of development (and not opposed it). To add a massive number of expensive homes would destroy the character of the neighborhood, to say nothing about the environmental impact and the density of traffic | |
| Home and LandOwners Organization | 6/8/2018 2:25:28 PM |
| The Home and LandOwners Organization, Inc., has for several years discussed the continuing series of rezone applications on the Lewis & Clark subdivision, including this one, and has continually opposed any attempt to increase density through rezones. Rezoning to lesser densities completely ignores the demands of the Hillside District Plan. The Hillside District Plan, as a Comprehensive Plan, must be followed as per Title 21. | |
| Merideane Kennison | 6/8/2018 12:28:49 PM |
| Dear Commisssioners, I am opposed to the proposed R-10 rezone on many levels. Firstly, several re-zone requests have been made, one still in the works is unresolved while this new proposal is being put forward. The owners of the property bought the land knowing it was zoned R-8, all of the surrounding homeowners bought their homes knowing that the land would be developed that way... why won't the new owners be satisfied with what they bought? To change the zoning now is unfair to all. The drainage from the surrounding slopes onto this parcel also concerns me. Much of the property is wetlands, and needs to be properly studied and mapped - at various times of year (not just the driest time!). The road servicing this proposed development is in horrible shape - and likely always will be due to the harsh conditions, run-off, and geology of the area. Dense development will increase traffic on Canyon & Upper DeArmoun Roads, further degrading the roads, and adding to traffic in our neighborhood. The small lot sizes of most of our properties allows us to know that it is NOT a good idea to zone more R-10 sized lots. Wells & septic systems often have but one place to be, and can't be moved should problems arise. Run-off from roof pitches can cause flooding on adjacent properties - where no problems existed previously (our property case in point). I think all of the neighbors see the error in the zoning of our very own properties and do not want to see it repeated. If the new developers really want to be part of this neighborhood they would be wise to talk to us about the issues involved with living in this area, the problems we've encountered living up here, and how to create a neighborhood that would conform with the Hillside Plan. I feel like we were coming close to a consensus when this new R-10 rezone was proposed. It is confusing to counter this proposal, while trying to consider the previous Conservation Subdivision Plat. I urge denial of this proposal. Many Thanks, Merideane Kennison | |
| Carl | 6/8/2018 10:16:56 AM |
| June 8, 2018 Planning Department Municipality of Anchorage Attn: Francis McLaughlin 4700 Elmore Road Anchorage, AK 99507 Re: Lewis & Clark R-10 Rezone, Case No. 2018-0052 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: I am writing in opposition to the proposed R-10 re-zone requested by Big Country Enterprises for the proposed Lewis & Clark subdivision on Upper DeArmoun Road. I have lived adjacent to the 70-acre parcel for 40 years. I voiced my opposition during the earlier R-6 re-zone process and for the same reason, I remain opposed to the newest R-10 re-zone proposal. Please understand, I am not opposed to the development of this parcel under current R-8 zoning. In fact, I did not appeal the R-8 conservation subdivision proposal approved by the Platting Board because I felt it was a significant step in the right direction. I believe the conservation subdivision can work with some adjustments to further minimize the impact on the immediate neighborhood, movement of wildlife, and the re-charging of neighboring wells, many of which have poor flow rates resulting in rationing of water for household and outdoor use. These adjustments could also help mitigate surface drainage issues on the property. I have told Big Country Enterprises about my belief that a private meeting could lead to resolution of issues with the conservation subdivision. They have said they are unwilling to meet until after the Commission’s decision on the R-10 rezone. I am opposed to the R-10 re-zone for many of the reasons outlined in Marc June’s May 14, 2018 comments, as well as Pat Dougherty’s comments, dated June 5, 2018. Title 21 prohibits new rezoning applications for two years since their last denial and it has only been a year. With virtually no details and including questions, twelve minutes of time allotted by one of the applicants (in his role as President of the Hillside Community Council) does not satisfy Title 21’s requirement of a community meeting before a rezone application. With the history of denials of 32, 30, and 26 lot subdivisions, not specifically addressing the number and size of lots, is inexcusable and may be intended to prevent negative comments from the various planning departments. As Mr. Dougherty pointed out, approval of the R-10 rezoning application could potentially triple the number of homes from the maximum allowed under R-8, fundamentally changing the wild character of our neighborhood as the greatest density of new houses would be clustered along Upper DeArmoun Road – directly adjacent to our homes. Ironically, I understand Big Country Enterprises will be saving the largest lots in the parcel adjacent to wetlands, greenbelt, and municipal park for their families. The Lewis and Clark parcel was intentionally zoned R-8 to provide the lowest density in houses, retain open space, and reduce surface drainage issues. As I have stated in earlier comments on previous re-zone efforts, many of the existing R-6 lots in the neighborhood are too small and should have been zoned R-8, too. A number of lots have drainage issues with springs that run all-year, resulting in glaciation. Malfunctioning septic systems are not uncommon. In conclusion, the Lewis & Clark parcel was purchased by the developer knowing it was zoned R-8. The Rezone applications for 32, 30, and 26 lots have been previously denied. Meanwhile, an application for a 16-lot plat has been approved by the Platting Board, subject to appeal. The newest rezone application is for as many as 45 lots. Because Title 21 requires a two-year waiting period after a rejected rezone application, the Planning Department should have not accepted this rezone application. Regards, Carl Portman 8831 Upper DeArmoun Road Anchorage, AK 99516 carlportman@gci.net | |
| Gail Morrison | 6/8/2018 9:51:05 AM |
| 1) The rezone does not address the city's housing needs. At the HALO meeting (6/7/2018) Assemblyman Weddleton stated that Alaska's population is growing older and is looking to downsize their housing needs. Anchorage needs smaller homes, not larger. 2) Most of the soils in the applicant's tract are of poor to marginal building material. The Muni has done a study and has created a map that shows that most of this area is undevelopable. A retired Muni Soil Scientist lives on Upper DeArmoun and has stated that there is a lot of clay in this lot. When discussed with the applicant, their soils person said - after much evidence on our part - that "yes, there is clay, but it's not the bad clay". Clay is clay. Also, the applicant's first engineering company showed 3 lots that were undevelopable. So the applicant hired a different engineering company that would state otherwise. 3) This plan is not consistent with the HDP. Francis McLaughlin has stated that "the Hillside aspires to have 1 acre lots". This is not true. Not one of the 100 people I have spoke with wants 1 acre lots up here. 4) These lots will be sold at fair market value. Building a new home + septic + well + land = a home valued at approx. $550K or higher. This is not affordable housing to people under 40 years old. Recent high school and college graduates want to be closer to downtown and where the action is. 5) Additional housing is an absolute risk to the groundwater, well volumes and pressure, and flow into Rabbit Creek. When the applicant allowed over 250,000 gallons of water to seep from an unsecured (capped) well, many in the Upper DeArmoun complained of low water pressure and lack of water. 6) This application does not come close to satisfying the legal requirements. To be approved, this rezoning application must meet ALL NINE criteria under 21.03.160E. So on criterion E1, this application fails and should be denied. The planning department claims higher density is encouraged by the HDP. In fact, the HDP says density should not be decreased by rezoning. And on criterion E2, this application fails and should be denied. 7) In saying “the rezoning won’t have significant adverse impacts to the environment greater than surrounding residential developments,” the planning department apparently misreads criterion E6, which does not include the qualifier “greater than surrounding residential developments.” On criterion E6, this application fails and should be denied. This rezone would extend a land use pattern inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 8) The current planning department is not objective. Mr. McLaughlin clearly favors the applicant. We have provided critical evidence (pictures, maps, and official reports) showing poor drainage, poor soils, a Muni map showing areas within this parcel that are undevelopable, pooled water, pictures of a poorly capped wellhead that leaked hundreds of thousands gallons of water, unprotected streams that were driven over, we have caught errors in slope calculations, proof that these lots are NOT affordable to most, a lack of need for large, expensive homes. All this evidence is ignored by Mr. McLaughlin. | |
| Hillside Community Council | 6/7/2018 8:50:38 PM |
| At the meeting of the Hillside Community Council on May 23, 2017, the council members voted 14 to 0 with two abstentions to oppose the application in Case 2018-0052, Lewis and Clark Subdivision, rezone application from R-8 to R-10. | |
| Lois Harper-Lewis | 6/7/2018 11:08:57 AM |
| I have lived 24 years in this neighborhood. Needless to say the proposed rezone in the Lewis and Clark Development area, which would bring in 50 new 1.25 acre plots, would change the whole character of our peaceful community. It would bring adverse changes to the view, water tables, drainage and traffic patterns. I am opposed to the magnitude of this kind of construction in our quiet neighborhood. | |
| Thomas Mobley | 6/7/2018 8:36:55 AM |
| I'm against any building in this area as a great portion has the declaration of Class C wet lands. The water table for existing homes will be jeopardized as well as Rabbit Creek. The sewage alone will be quite adequate and will pose a threat to the surrounding wet lands and Rabbit Creek proper, not to mention the run off from construction and once complete lawn fertilizers. DeArmon Road is currently in need of extensive repair with just the current residency and definitely is inadequate to handle the additional traffic that would be created by this subdivision. To say the least I am opposed to any further construction in this area. | |
| lance powell | 5/27/2018 1:51:07 PM |
| The local residents need more info on this case......the Hillside Community Council needs to have adequate info in which to evaluate this case...thanks.....Lance Powell | |