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. | |
|---|---|
| Beth Welty | 11/22/2016 6:20:50 PM |
| I am opposed to the part of this zoning request that requires W. 43rd Court be made into a through-way street from a dead-end. I live on W. 43 Court and I do not want to see it changed from a dead-end for safety reasons. Many of my neighbors do not want it changed either but the zoning request by the Maple Ridge Corporation does not state its intent to change the dead-end. Many residents do not know this is part of the zoning plan. | |
| Beth Welty | 11/22/2016 6:20:50 PM |
| I am against this re-zoning if they plan to make West 32 Court a through-way street. It is currently a dead-end and the dead-end provides much needed security for this neighborhood. Also, there is limited parking on this street and it is way too small to handle additional traffic. I have a petition signed by all the homeowners on the 4200 Block of Iowa and on W. 43rd Court that shows they are all against this part of the re-zoning. Sincerely, Beth Welty. | |
| Beth Welty | 11/22/2016 6:20:50 PM |
| I am against this re-zoning if they plan to make West 32 Court a through-way street. It is currently a dead-end and the dead-end provides much needed security for this neighborhood. Also, there is limited parking on this street and it is way too small to handle additional traffic. I have a petition signed by all the homeowners on the 4200 Block of Iowa and on W. 43rd Court that shows they are all against this part of the re-zoning. Sincerely, Beth Welty. | |
| Tracy Matthews | 11/22/2016 6:20:50 PM |
| If I understand correctly the zoning change will allow more for more homes on the property and no restriction on heigth. I don't believe it is in the best interest of the neighborhood to allow that to happen and therefore I urge you to deny this request. | |
| Robert Auth | 11/22/2016 6:20:50 PM |
| I am the vice-chair of the Spenard Community Council and a nearby resident of the subject property and I am opposed to the rezone requested in 2003-012. The petitioner was invited to speak at our community council meeting on September 3 but did not show up. The council voted unanimously to oppose the rezone. The rezone request is speculative in nature and there is no reason to eliminate the special limitations currently in place. Those special limitations include setbacks from Fish Creek, usable space requirements, landscaping and traffic patterns. Additionally, a rezone from R3 to R4 would dramatically increase the residential density and would also allow certain commercial developments, such as hotels and gas stations. The same rezone request was previously rejected by the Spenard Community Council on January 8, 2003. A detailed letter from then chair Tom McGrath setting forth the Council's position should be in your files. | |
| debi cole | 3/7/2004 3:53:01 PM |
| This development is not a good idea at all.. here are a few reasons why: 1st of all ..the size of Northwood Drive is very small..and do access a 10 acre developmnet of multiple family dwellings will degrade the property values, cause a lot of stress on this small road.. and further downcast the older apartments that already have problems with security. I believe an airport support style large dwellings with large garages and less homes p/lots would cause an uplif in the neighborhood. this area is currently old slum like apartments to very expensive nice homes. this description sounds like it will mimc some not so nicely developing neighborhoods with low income families, posing lower real estate values and lower home style appearance.. what spenard needs is a nicer upscale area to bring up the tax base. please consider not ruining spenard with lower income dwellings. we want some nice more expensive homes and neighbors. this is a nice piece of property that could half the homes described with twice the value..less security, less potential.. and more support..for the aiport..pilots would buy these nicer homes..and put their visitng family in nearby expeensive hotels.. verses low budget, hotel workers.. not a great are either for multiple family due to kids in streets nearby spenard, A VERY BUSY STREET.. AND WHAT SCHOOL? THE SCHOOL BUS JAM? think it through.. this is not a good location for mutiple family buildings.. please deny request for this type of development.. personally..this development is running me out of the area completely.. i will sell the minute this is approved before you bring down my value.. | |
| Al and Kay Olson | 3/4/2004 2:25:17 PM |
| We are opposed to this proposed rezoning. We live on Aspen Drive near the property. Aspen Drive is a residential street with a 25 mph posted speed limit. Aspen Drive is used extensively by more motorists than live in the immediate neighborhood. Aspen Drive is a cut-through, and not requiring access for the Maple Ridge property from both Spenard Road and Northwood Drive will add congestion and speed to Aspen Drive. Human nature is that most drivers will take the shortest route. | |
| Bridget Bushue | 2/15/2004 6:00:57 PM |
| I am adamantly opposed to this re-zoning request. This subdivision needs two points of access. There should be a minimum 2 ways in and out. Future codes require this for emergency access. Northwood is already a drag strip "cut through" access between Spenard and International. There are two elementary schools on Northwood. This rezoning would require ALL traffic to egress/ingress onto Northwood only. This is not acceptable and will create hazards. Traffic is already difficult. Does this mean a traffic light will be required at Tudor and Northwood? How does this relate to the proposed upgrades scheduled for summer of 2004 for Northwood? Spenard access will lessen the demand already in effect on Northwood Drive. Unfortunatley I will be out of state training for the MOA and will not be able to attend the hearing....Please advise me if you rec'd these comments. Thank you. | |
| Robert Auth | 12/21/2003 5:02:01 PM |
| I am the vice-chair of the Spenard Community Council and I live near the subject property. The petitioner's representative did show up for the Council's December 3, 2003 meeting and he told the Council that the petitioner will only be applying for the removal of an existing special limitation that requires direct access to both Spenard Roard and Nothwood Drive. The Council voted unanimously not to remove this special limitation (the Council has twice passed resloutions opposing the rezone from R-3 ro R-4). Access to Spenard road is essential because Nothwood Drive could not handle the extra traffic that would be generated by the development of this property, even if the zoning remained R-3. | |
| Dan Young | 12/13/2003 4:39:12 PM |
| I am a hydrogeologist and I live less than one block from the parcel. I am familiar with this property, the local flood plain, and I witnessed past flooding on this property. I was able to meet with the developer's representative earlier this month (December 2003) at a Spenard Community Council meeting. So far, the developer has not been forthcoming with development plans for this property. I have some very specific concerns about this property. One is the active flood plain and how a development on this property will mitigate the hazard of flooding. Another concern is traffic. The developer has not provided a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), as is usually required of other land developments. I urge the City to oppose re-zoning of this property until the developer makes a commitment on the type of development planed for the re-zone, shows how the planned development will merge with existing surrounding land use, provides a TIA and shows how the development will mitigate the effects of flooding. | |