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. | |
|---|---|
| Fraya Krukar | 3/13/2007 1:30:41 PM |
| The introduction of this resolution just came to my attention, thus the lateness of these comments for which I apologize. The delay did give me the opportunity to read both Mr. Stout’s Resolution and the Staff Comments submitted by the Planning Department. AR No. 2007-48 has merit and certainly reflects not only the wishes of most single family home owners but also those of limited density, multi-family home owners. Not unlike single family home owners, we also object to high density housing being approved for development in our neighborhoods. However, even as a private citizen, I can recognize problems which would result from this Resolution being adopted as stated. Of particular interest to me were the staff Comments from the Planning Department and the recommendation this Resolution be tabled or withdrawn. Contained within the eight pages of comments are many references to the review and adoption of the Anchorage Bowl Land Use Plan Map, individual neighborhood and district plans as they come forward for review, Title 21 rewrite project, etc. All of these “controls” are in review, rewrite and other forms of transition stages. What happens in neighborhoods throughout Anchorage “in the meantime”? As a home owner at the Castles of Bryn Mawr adjacent to the proposed Bryn Mawr Apartments, Planning and Zoning Case #2007-31 (pending), reality happens. A project proceeds that isn’t the preference of the neighborhood, doesn’t fit the character of the neighborhood nor the density. A high density development the surrounding community is opposed to keeps moving forward despite public outcry with regard to traffic and safety issues for the adults and children in the surrounding neighborhood. A developer with record of poor performance and substandard developments is being allowed to swallow up a neighborhood. The recommendation to table or withdraw AR No. 2007-48 by the Planning and Zoning Commission is supported by many statements that regulations and reviews are already in place to accomplish the intent of this AR. It has not been my personal experience these checks and balances are very effective. | |
| Katie Nolan | 2/20/2007 3:51:45 PM |
| Housing density choice is an important part of home ownership. Protection of current residential densities is vital to maintain this choice of home and lifestyles. Thank you, Mr. Stout, for introducing this AR. My only suggestion is to change the designations in the wording from "rural" to "suburban/rural". R-6 zoning requires 54,450 sf lots, while R-5 and R-7 are much smaller. Current Title 21 designates R-6 as "suburban", R-5 and R-7, R-8 and R-9 as "rural". With this small change, both existing "suburban" and existing "rural" designations are protected, as are current "urban" designations. I also appreciate the statement in item 3) that not only is such low density supported, but higher densities should not be forced onto neighborhoods. This statement of intent clearly protects our highly valued choice in housing. Thank you. | |