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. | |
|---|---|
| Tom Murtiashaw | 1/3/2006 2:41:19 PM |
| The neighborhoods of Eagle River are suffering a death by a thousand cuts as land owners and developers slice and dice existing tracts of land into small residential parcels for purposes of maximizing short term profits. The unfortunate consequences of these actions are irreversable damage to the overall character of our community and health of our neighborhoods. The goal of unbridled clearing or clear-cutting of remaining undeveloped property is to enable a developer to place the most "cookie cutter" style structures on the smallest footprint of land at the cheapest cost. The results can be unattractive homes with little or no yards, the absence of mature vegetation and a future of traffic congestion, drainage and erosion problems, noise pollution and diminishing property values. This amendment is needed, but it is only the first small step towards addressing the larger issue of how do we protect the integrity of our neighborhoods and their character. Most of the established neighborhoods in Eagle River consist of comfortable homes built on large lots surrounded by mature vegetation. Planning for parcels of undeveloped property which are scattered around and adjacent to these mature neighborhoods should fit in with that "theme" and not result in a sore thumb stuck in the middle of what first attracted most of us to Eagle River. | |
| Bev Kirk | 12/30/2005 2:57:33 PM |
| I can't find the details to understand whether this is a specific location, whether it is in an area zoned for single-family dwellings on a specific-sized lot, or whether it is a generic area-wide question. We live on a chip-and-seal dead-end wooded road on a half-acre lot on a road of half-acre lots, and would not like to see dozens of high-density small homes on tiny lots go up all around us. If we wanted that, we'd have bought in town! | |
| Chugiak Community Council Linda Kovac | 12/21/2005 5:35:04 AM |
| Correction: My previous comment should have referenced Case No. 2006-006. | |
| Chugiak Community Council Linda Kovac | 12/21/2005 5:32:31 AM |
| The Chugiak Community Council supports the adoption of this land-clearing ordinance (Case No. 2006-003). However, like the Eagle River Community Council, we share the same concerns as those identified in Lance Duncan’s commentary. The Chugiak Community Council hopes the proposed ordinance will be modified to address these concerns. Thank you, Linda Kovac, Secretary, Chugiak Community Council | |
| Charlie Horsman | 12/10/2005 8:18:31 AM |
| Eagle River Community Council has disscussed this issue of unscupulous developers using the existing ordinance that allows clearing parcels of land under 2 acres to clear a large development of several and more individual 2 acre lots at one time. As a result of our discussions, ERCC strongly supports an ammendment to the ordinance that would close this loophole in the existing ordinance. The 12/03 public comment by Lance Duncan is well stated and makes some very good points that I believe Platting and Zoning should consider and pass on as recommendations to the Assemby to be included in the ammendment. Respectfully Submitted, Charlie Horsman ERCC President | |
| Lance Duncan | 12/3/2005 11:35:08 AM |
| Ordinance should be phrased based on a proximity basis, rather than just to adjacent lots, to prevent developers from "working the system" by first developing alternating lots, then coming back later and filling in by developing the remaining alternating lots (this has been done before). Recommend using a criteria of lots that are owned by the same owner, by entities owned or controlled by any of the same person or persons, or developed by the same developer; and are within sight of each other AFTER CLEARING or have property lines within 500 feet of each other, whichever is less. The factor of considering all development by the same individuals, entitities controlled by the same person(s), or developed by the same developer is important - I have heard about California and Arizona developers have set up several shell corporations or partnerships, held individual lots individually but developed as a group, or sold the lots to individual homebuyers prior to development but then developed at one time as one large subdivision; all to develop multiple properties together and get around subdivision laws. Remember - for the ordinance to have any effect, you have to write it tight enough to achieve the desired effect of stopping the unscrupulous and speculative developers who are going to try to end-ruyn the intent of the ordinance, not the run of the mill developer who is not usually the problem in the first place. Also - what does Mechanical Clearing have to do with it ? This is primarily a visual effect ordinance, not a noise ordinance - a set of nearby lots cleared by hand would cost more to clear, but the end result is the same. | |
| Vicki Race | 11/29/2005 6:27:54 PM |
| The case alert was not very detailed, so I may not know all the issues, but I do want to express concern with a generic ordinance about clearing undeveloped lots in any manner, but especially in mechanized fashion. Not that my concerns will stop the progress, but I think Alaska is more valuable as a unique "Last Frontier" than as a copy of the lower 48. Please recognize the unique value of our state. Thank you. | |