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. | |
|---|---|
| David D'Amato | 7/6/2009 10:44:48 PM |
| I am a member of the CAC for the HDP and have the following points to make: 1. The Hillside public should be allowed to vote on the whole plan as the plan changes the propety owners relationship with the Muni, their property, and their money. 2. The Transportation portion that requires paving of small country lanes should be stripped from the plan and dirt roads should still be allowed, there was universal condemnation for this portion of the HDP at public meetings and the CAC has spoken out against this provision as well. 3. Now that the HDP is finished, an economic impact statement should be conducted so that people know what they will be paying for. 4. The HDP continues the MOA's practise of having no time limits on its reviews while imposing strict penalties on individuals that do not abide by timelines set by the MOA. There should be timelines placed upon MUNI review of permitted activity. 5. The HDP should demand that individual landowners are compensated for property taken from them for a public purposes enumerated by the HDP. 6. Section 6-35 requires 2 plats, this portion should be removed. This duplication of work is unneccessary, arbitrary and onerous without a showing of need or relevance on behalf of the HDP. 7. The wetlands mapping continues to show innacuracies (2-39). The wetlands plan should incorporate all actual mapped wetlands and should allow people to present evidence that they do not posess wetland which are expcted to exist based on earlier mapping. 8. A distiction should be acknowledged / incorporated concerning recreational trails and transporation trails. 9. Trails and open space should be in seperate section. These two items represent a prefernce on behalf of the Planners which result in changes in land ownership by the residents. 10. The HDP should be an overlay district that supercedes title 21 and the DCM, or there is no reason to have it. 11. The provision to incorporate the land use area into the permit area should be either stripped from this plan or should be put to a vote in the area where the change will take place. | |
| Karla Ranta | 7/6/2009 11:16:17 AM |
| Our family is requesting the removal of the proposed trail head in Grandview/Stolle subdivision. Our subdivision currently has a trail head into Chugach. Extra vehicles and extra people are too much for our small neighborhood. With the existing trail head we already have multiple problems. Just since January of this year (2009) I have pulled 3 vehicles out of the ditches and two vehicles out of my driveway. None of those cars were properly equipped with 4x4, studded tires and chains, most of which are needed in our area in the winter. It is not an option to leave cars to "fend for themselves" when they are blocking the access into or out of my home or road. On two occasions people have come to my door wanting to come in and warm up or use my shovels to dig their vehicle out. This is especially not acceptable at 2 a.m. Again this year, the summer traffic has escalated and the speeds have increased. I have had three occasions of people I do not know at my door or on my deck. (1 request of bathroom use, 1 request for band aids and water and 1 person taking pictures from my deck) I am not OK with that, I don't know these people. As of last week, a woman was raped at the top of Snow Bear Dr. I can not let my younger child walk the dog with these chronic issues; people using illicit drugs, having sex, leaving condoms, alcohol bottles and other sorts of dangerous trash. The fact that there are so many alcohol bottles left behind worries me about the drivers driving back down the road, most likely they are intoxicated and have a significant chance of hitting one of the residents walking/bike riding/doing yard work. The added traffic has degraded our roads which the homeowners maintain (no muni/state or LRSA road assistance). We as a neighborhood have already "gotten stuck" with these issues when the existing trail head was recently put in, please don't make it worse. Unfortunately APD is stretched too far to get adequate patrol or response up here. Brewster's or Section 36 are much better options for a large trail head with parking. | |
| Daniel Toomey | 7/3/2009 6:07:34 PM |
| I fully support the resolution that the Bear Valley community council passed unanimously concerning the proposed trailhead off of Honeybear Circle. FYI, the Stolle subdision is 25 years old. I find it unusual to change the nature of a sub-division so late in its lifecycycle. The proposed trail head does not connect to any existing trails. It is with in 1500 feet of an exisiting trail head. the proposed location violates published design goals in numerous ways....location (it is on a ridge top), size Stated CSP goals are for many amall access points. Given the winter condition it will be problematic 6 months of the year with addiitonal people who venture up without the correct tires/chains/tow straps, winter preparations, similar to the few who need resues each year. The Stolle and Grandview roads are not part of a LRSA but are self maintained by the owners. Please don't force LRSA membership, and raise our taxes to destroy our quality of life. | |
| Sean McLaughlin | 7/2/2009 9:15:09 PM |
| Kindly remove the proposed Alpine Access Priority Trailhead (PT) adjacent to the Grandview/Stolle subdivision identified on Map 4.4, page 4-23 from the HDP. The Grandview/Stolle subdivision is a small, family-oriented neighborhood – one with over 30 children in ten families, one where the local residents still plow their own streets (and like it), where children ride their bikes down the street, and where children sled down the street all winter. It is decidedly not the type of neighborhood which could support the added burden of increased traffic from another trailhead. Inhabitants endure 100 mph winds and an extra month of winter here in exchange for a quiet, family-conducive neighborhood. Already, just the inkling of a PT in the neighborhood has stalled property transactions and impacted property values. The Grandview/Stolle subdivision already supports a Chugach trailhead. Another trailhead in the Grandview/Stolle neighborhood would be redundant. There are already three trailheads which access the alpine ranges behind the subdivision: the Rabbit Lake Trail, the Honey Bear Lane trail, and the McHugh Peak Trail from New Seward Highway. There have to be other places to put a priority trailhead which would be less of a burden on the local neighborhood and which would create a new “hiking experience” for the people of Anchorage. Trailheads come as an expensive burden to the small neighborhoods which support them: Between the law-abiding users of any given trailhead also come less than polite or lawful users, people who park in or drive down private driveways (ignoring innumerable signs), graffiti, trash, dog mess, lost dogs, fires, would-be campers, ATVs, three-wheelers, motorbikes, ski mobiles etc. All of these and more, the Grandview/Stolle subdivision inhabitants already experience with the current trailhead. In exchange for these injustices, these same inhabitants plow the roads, pull out stuck cars, find lost dogs, hand out band-aids, provide directions, and have to yank kids out of the way of less than courteous drivers. | |
| Denise Hall | 6/23/2009 12:19:02 PM |
| I am writing this letter to inform you that I am strongly opposed to the plan to extend Huffman road from the Huffman / Birch intersection to Upper Huffman. I strongly oppose the plan for the following reasons. 1: This section of Huffman road has not been extended in the past because it would cut through a federal wetland area. I believe this wetland is classified as 3A (the most difficult to develop). Additionally this wetland with free standing water is used by a wide range of wildlife. Bears, Moose, Geese and Waterfowl regularly use this area. Further more the community well for the Greenbrook home owners association is located right at the edge of this wetland. If the road were to go through and the wetland were drained this would no doubt impact the Greenbrook well which provides water for over 70 homes. 2: There is currently sufficient access off of the upper hillside area via Hillside Drive either north or south. From Hillside Drive you can take Abbott, O'Malley, De Armound or Rabbit Creek to head west. 3:While there has been growth on the hillside, it has been very light in the upper Huffman area due to many factors. The difficulty in getting a good well, a functional septic system and a lot with a build able slope have been factors in the reduced growth rate of the upper Huffman area. I don't see these factors going away in the future. 4: Extending Huffman road through from the Huffman / Birch intersection to the upper Huffman extension would have devastating quality of life impact to the residents along this corridor. This would dramatically change the character of the area from that of a rural subdivision to that of a major paved corridor. I can think of at least 20 homes that would be impacted. I believe that the benefits from this proposed extension would be minimal compared to the cost in dollars, habitat and quality of life for those along the corridor. I strongly oppose further consideration of this option, and would like it removed from the Hillside Development Plan. | |
| David Hart | 6/23/2009 10:30:11 AM |
| I support the development of additional trailhead access into Chugach State park. All future subdivisions should ensure access through thier land to the Park. We've lost too many traditional access points over the last 20 years. We need to stop this, even including re-opening currently closed or limited access points. I do not support high density housing on the Hillside. Those who live on the hillside do so because of the open space feel. There are no water and sewer infrastructure in place, and it would be prohibitively costly to upgrade the area. I do NOT support the expansion of sewer and water to existing neighborhoods. My home has a perfectly functioning well and septic system. Muni water and sewer assessments for the upgrade would be in the range of $100,000+ for a typical 1 acre lot, based on studies performed by Northern Economics. I do not support small commercial development on the hillside. It should maintain its rural nature. thank you, dave hart | |
| Sharon Boyette | 6/23/2009 7:29:01 AM |
| I object to the further development of 104th Avenue in the small quiet neighborhood around Pacer Drive. Improvements and expansion of this road will destroy the neighborhood and will create an unsafe situation for the horseback riders from Dimond H stable who use 104th to access nearby trails. | |
| David Evans | 6/22/2009 10:06:07 PM |
| I'm in support of Goal 7, regarding control of construction that would impact views. I suggest the 'rules' be more restrictive than they are. I'd also like to see some good bike trails up here. Example: Goldenview drive is horrrible to ride on and there seems to be ample space for a bike path. | |
| Harlow Robinson | 6/18/2009 4:30:45 PM |
| Fellow Park Users, I know many people enjoy using the Canyon Rd Park access. And I know that some people weren't happy about the gate that went up on Canyon Road last summer. Just wanted to let everyone know that the gate is back (after getting ripped out by somebody last fall) and why that is a good thing. The gate went up after several years of frustration in our neighborhood. By last year, there were teenage parties several times a week at the end of the road during the summer. Not mellow tailgating stuff. Some of them were more like festivals. We had major issues with the place getting trashed - broken glass everywhere, pallets, pallet nails, cans, not to mention smashed mailboxes, high speed late night traffic, etc.. By far the biggest issue was the bonfires. There were some ragers. Ragers that on multiple occasions were still raging in the morning long after everyone had headed home. All it takes is a little wind and some dry conditions to spark the beatlekill forest on Anchorage Hillside. The risk is high. Our neighborhood has been frustrated with how unresponsive APD has been to this stuff. Almost always there was no response to calls about a rager at the end of the road. They were either understaffed or thought it was too low of a priority. The neighborhood met with APD about the problem, city officials, park officials. Repeatedly. Nothing changed. Our neighborhood finally went vigilante and took turns hanging out at the end of the road late at night turning people around. The Park did finally agree that a gate was a good idea. The gate was a huge success last summer. It totally eliminated the problems we were having. It does require that park users before 8am and after 10pm to park below the gate, which is another 100 yards or so below the traditional parking spot. But please know that the gate has made our neighborhood safer at a very low cost to taxpayers. And just because your car iis a little further down the road does not mean that you can't access the Park 24-7. Please know that this is probably the least NIMBY neighborhood in all of Anchorage. Most everyone up here is an park user themself and I don't know anyone in the hood that is opposed to people having access to the park. I'm usually not a big fan of gates, signs, locks, fences, etc, myself - especially when they're in front of my park land so I can understand some of the "hate the gate" sentiment. Please share this information with anyone that might be interested in hopes that everyone can "tolerate the gate" and help keep it from getting ripped out of the ground again. Thanks and sorry about the long comment! See you out there! | |
| Scott Merriner | 6/16/2009 10:53:17 AM |
| The proposed Alpine Access Priority Trailhead (PT) adjacent to the Grandview/Stolle subdivision identified on Map 4.4, page 4-23 from the HDP must be removed from the plan. It is impractical, in conflict with multiple other plan priorities, and completely incompatible with the exisiting neighborhood. The sad fact is that the traffic and related problems generated by the existing 5 car parking area and the adjacent "scar road" already present significant health and safety concerns. to those of us who live here. I moved my family from the city to Bear Valley so my four young children could safely interact with the outdoors. Unfortunately, it turns out there is more danger from speeding vehicals, vandals, gun-toting teenager, drunken parties, etc. in Bear Valley than down in the bowl. A Priority Trailhead in this neighborhood would literally make it unlivable. Nobody lives near the FlatTop parking lot. | |
| Joan Diamond | 6/16/2009 8:40:56 AM |
| I attended the public hearing for the HDP last night, June 15, but was unable to stay after 9:30 pm for testimony. I hope that my comments will be considered here. Property rights and zoning cannot supersede public safety in the city's effort to increase density on the hillside. We would have to look like midtown to make it happen. HDP has tried to find a way to do it but too many risks still exist. I live at Rabbit Creek and Goldenview where the HDP proposes new roads that will bleed traffic away from a near failed intersection. After years of study by DOT/MOA traffic and engineering depts, the slope of the intersection makes it very difficult to upgrade to a safe level for increased traffic. Instead, HDP proposes a new road at Mt. Air Drive at the Fire Station to the east of the intersection but this will only empty more traffic onto RC Road and the RC/GV intersection. They propose a connection on Elmore between RC and DeArmoun where the RC/Elmore intersection is already dangerous to get up or down in the winter. They propose Legacy road on South Goldenview but it is a steep area that is to be built by the developer in the future. There is no safe transportatoan plan out of Rabbit Creek. Anchorage has a habit of developing without regard to public safety. We wait until a child dies as on Lake Otis (Henshew Middle School) or West Nt. Lights before we admit our mistakes. Zoning and land use planning were originally developed because of a need for public health and safety. We are violating that relationship if we continue to allow private property rights and city revenue to dictate our future development. | |
| Cathryn Simon | 6/14/2009 10:28:43 PM |
| Please vote no on the proposition to change the zoning of the lower hillside. The residents of the lower hillside have clearly stated that they do not want this change and the Community Advisory Counsel recommended that no change be made. The lower hillside residents are being discriminated against and sold down the river. Areas east of Elmore are not being changed. We deserve to have our rights and preferences respected just as much as those east of Elmore. When I attended the planning meeting two years ago, the city representative assured those present that the city had no agenda and that the city wanted the input from the residents. It appears that was all talk and no substance. Do the right thing and vote no on the proposal to rezone the lower hillside. Cathryn Simon | |
| Sean Farley | 6/14/2009 10:10:48 PM |
| I recommend the commission reject the proposed rezoning of the area west of Elmore road. The Hillside development plan CAC recommended the "base case" alternative be chosen, however as clearly stated on page 2-16 of the Public Hearing Draft Hillside District plan, municipal staff recommended zoning for higher densities. Higher densities do not reflect the vision of residents and land owners of the lower hillside, and as the HDP website notes, the vision of those residents is to be the guide for planning, not the desires of the municipality and its planners. Sean Farley | |
| Michael Goodwin | 6/14/2009 6:30:16 PM |
| I'm a current resident of the Rabbit Creek Community since 1983, and a retired employee of the State of Alaska whose worked in the Anchorage Hillside for 12 years I submit my comments regarding the HDP and process to achieve the plan. As a general summary statement the HDP has some valuable information, concepts and ideas but lacks specifics. I believe it serves as a "first step" in addressing important issue effecting the Hillside community. I believe the comments from me and others after numerous efforts through written comments, attending meetings, phone calls and personal contacts with the producers of the plan having netted little results. Specifically, the "Built Green Infrastructure" comment throughout the Plan must get more detailed in how it will be used in the Plans community development ideas. Many of the maps are of very poor quality. Mapping of wetlands needs to have a better survey done to identify sensitive areas especially on undeveloped but yet approved subdivisions. Then more consideration needs to be given to conserving Class A,B, and C wetlands. Ridge top development of homes is briefly mentioned but the Plan does not address the future development of communication and/or energy towers both on private and public lands. More development limitations, co-sharing and demobilization needs to be addressed in this plan. The recreational needs of the Hillside community are poorly addressed in this plan. There needs to be better collaboration between public recreation and land managers for the creation of more green space, recreational access and developed facilities. | |
| Maureen McCrea | 6/12/2009 2:48:22 PM |
| The following comment also was submitted in hard copy. June 12, 2009 6906 Big Mountain Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Anchorage Planning Department Municipality of Anchorage P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Concerning: Hillside District Plan Dear Members of the Anchorage Planning and Zoning Commission: I am providing comments on the Public Hearing Draft Hillside District Plan (HDP) of May 7, 2009. The reorganization is helpful. However, several substantive issues were not modified in the public hearing draft. Therefore, most of the substantive comments I’m submitting are similar to those I submitted on November 10, 2008 on the October 2008 draft. The overall comments in the following paragraphs are augmented by page-specific comments that are attached. As noted previously, I commend the emphasis on Built/Green Infrastructure and drainage concerns and remedies. The proposals are an enlightened change. The goals and policies in Chapter 3, Drainage, provide an excellent base for decision making. Proposals for implementing watershed-wide drainage are creative and appropriate – and fundamental for successful implantation of the plan. The plan continues to envision authorizing greater housing density if additional open space, trails, and special land and water constraints are provided and/or protected. However, authorizing up to four dwelling units per acre (DUA) in the Furrow Creek area for tracts of 7.5 and 10 acres and up to 15% additional density in the new Hillside Conservation Subdivision area is exceptionally generous. These densities normally are associated with sewer and water service, which is limited to specific geographic areas. Often installation of utilities is a major cause of negative impacts to wetlands and waterways. Therefore, even more restrictive constraints than those envisioned in the plan should apply before an increase in density is authorized. Larger tract sizes in the lower hillside should be required for the increased density and greater constraints should be applied. The highest offset should be allowed only when extraordinary measures are included for the common good. The maps continue to be a weak link. They are difficult to read and provide outdated information. For example: • Map 2.2 depicts a residential/access reserve for an area previously considered for a road to the proposed Legacy Pointe development. This route was determined to be unsuitable in 2007 during pre-application meetings and site visits. The errata sheet indicates that this older map was inadvertently placed in the text. • Map 4.4 does not include trails that the Municipality mapped east of Golden View Drive north of Potter Creek. • Although the legend no longer contains the information related to the box symbol, Map 5.3 still depicts the box for a water reservoir that is no longer proposed and fails to include the current sites under consideration. It may be what is in the current printed plan, but does not represent current decisions. The Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility should be tasked with preparing a graphic specifically for this document and label it as the most current proposal. • Map 5.6 depicts subdivisions in which at least one residence has challenges to the wastewater system, based on anecdotal observations. Bear Valley is known for its high water table; however, the broad brush taken to the mapping misrepresents the limited extent of the problem in most of the other areas. • Map 6.1 depicts the South Goldenview Area as a Limited Road Service Area. It now is a Rural Road Service Area. A new concern in the May Public Hearing Draft is in Chapter 2. The sidebar and last sentence on page 2-16 and the fourth paragraph on page 2-20 note that decisions made in the current plan will be reconsidered at a later date. This language subjects to reconsideration two decisions that the Municipality wants to be less restrictive. It is more likely that future growth will necessitate additional park land and trails and more stringent drainage restrictions; however, these decisions do not carry similar caveats. Just as this plan reconsiders G-5 decisions, I assume the future plans will reconsider current decisions. The reference to reconsideration on the noted pages should be dropped. Implementation is an essential element in realizing the goals of the plan. Both options for managing drainage would satisfy the need for a much-needed coordinated watershed approach and both allow local control of winter maintenance. Such a caveat is essential for ensuring acceptance of either of the two plans that are needed for adequate drainage management. During the discussions at the Open House on October 27, 2008, I heard some discuss placing trails adjacent to creeks. No trails should be authorized within the creek setbacks; trails that parallel the creeks outside the 65-foot setback (or 50-foot setback in other instances) would be less problematic. Trails adjacent to a creek can lead to problems with erosion, impacts to riparian habitat, interference with animal movements, and reduced water quality. Access to the creeks is more appropriate via access points that are perpendicular to the creek. The draft plan provides important funding information. The summary of HDP Implementation Actions, Table 6.8, is helpful in identifying specific steps necessary for implementation. Enforcement is critical if the plan is to be implemented effectively. The plan lays out the information necessary to proceed through the process for platting, but is not assertive in what is required to ensure implementation. Enforcement also should be emphasized. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to the final proposal. Sincerely, Maureen McCrea Page-specific comments: P. 2-21. The statement that Friends of Potter Marsh support neighborhood commercial uses on existing commercially-zoned properties, with a focus on commercial activities associated with recreational uses at Potter marsh is slightly disingenuous. They support very specific activities associated with the Bird Treatment Center and Potter Marsh recreational opportunities associated with the Center and Alaska Department of Fish and Game recreational developments. P. 2-25, definition for a Hillside Open Space subdivision, and P. 2-26, bullet 2, provide the opportunity for developers to increase the number of lots by 15% under certain circumstances. A 15% increase in housing units is exceptionally generous and could require sewer and water service, which is limited to specific geographic areas. It should be noted that installation of utilities often causes negative effects on wetlands and streams; therefore, even greater constraint should be applied when increased density is authorized. Policy 1-D, Lower Hillside Residential also authorizes more DUA for tracts of specific sizes. As noted in the cover letter, tract sizes should be larger before this policy can be applied. Additional comments on this topic are made later with respect to Policy 14-L – Conservation Subdivisions, on page 6-33. The concerns noted in those areas also would apply to the goal and policy summary on pages 2-4 and 2-5. P. 2-30, last bullet: Parking: The MOA recently reviewed parking requirements and found they were excessive in the zoning code. The lower standard needs to be reflected. An additional technique to minimize paved surfaces would be to allow even fewer parking spaces initially; increased parking would occur when demand increases. Hopefully with enough forward thinking the additional cost of the two-step approach would not be excessive. P. 2-34 to 2-42. The emphasis on integrated development with built/green infrastructure is well reasoned and a welcome component of developing on the hillside. P. 3-1. Thank you for noting that “water runs downhill.” Too often, folks don’t realize that we ALL live downhill! P. 3-12. The emphasis on drainage issues is appropriate and well considered (see previous support for the built/green infrastructure and integrated development concepts and policies). However, several factors should be incorporated into the discussion: Storm Pipes: Many road-side “ditches” actually carry stream water. As such, road side work often needs authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and would be subjected to the Anchorage Debit/Credit Methodology. Placing streams into culverts can be very costly. Detention Ponds: If detention ponds created from uplands enhance waters of the United States, the work may be eligible for credit under the Anchorage Debit/Credit Methodology. Stream Protection Zones: It is a positive step to identify areas in advance, such as stipulated in the first sentence. The second sentence, however, relates to on-site controls rather than avoiding such areas altogether. Requiring avoidance must be built in before going to the next step that would impose controls. P. 3-14. Sidebar. The sidebar describes the difference between easements and setbacks. This section relies on easements. Setbacks also play an important role in ensuring water quality. The Hillside Plan should also incorporate minimum 65’ setbacks from all natural or naturalized watercourses. Using this refinement ensures that road-side ditches do not require setbacks. P. 4-4. Policy 9-A would be implemented by approving Map 4-1 with the adoption of the HDP. Although the hypothetical nature of the road depictions is acknowledged on page 4-7, a quick review indicates a few discrepancies between reality and the map. If the map is to be incorporated into the plan, the legend should make this clear. Currently the legend indicates that roads depicted in a solid red line are existing primary roadways. Romania Drive at the south end of Golden View Drive, Streamboat Drive east of Moen Park, and all the roads south on Clark’s Road are depicted with solid red lines. At some time in their future they may become primary roads, but currently they are pretty sorry excuses for a primary road. Moreover, the dotted lines between Golden View Drive and Bear Valley are conceptual and should be noted as such. It is unclear how the roads that are depicted relate to the large land parcels that are being connected. At a minimum, avoidance of wetlands and creeks/drainages applies to: the roads connecting Sahali East and Views at Prominence; the road between Sahali East and Rabbit Creek Road; the connections between Bear Valley and Sahali East and Views at Prominence; and, the road on the north and south sides of Potter Creek. P. 4-4, Policy 10-A would be implemented by approving Map 4.4 with the adoption of the HDP. As noted in the cover letter, additional trails have been identified in Potter Valley that are north of the red trail north of Potter Creek. There are insufficient landmarks to identify the locations of other trails depicted in bold red. P. 5-7. As noted in the overall comments, Map 5.3 needs to be updated with an AWWU plan that depicts current reservoir sites. P. 6-3. The second bullet would allow for additional lots in exchange for designating open space areas. As noted in the cover letter, proper planning of a subdivision will be more costly. However, it should be what is required and not an exception that garners rewards. Going well beyond the minimum should gain some credits for the developer, but it should be subject to documented gains. P. 6-7. Goal and Policy Summary, Part 1. The six policies identified are essential components of the proposed hillside plan. Although all are important, I would like to emphasize the need to include Policy 14-C, expansion of the Park Service Area boundary. The extension of a cooperative arrangement with the State for a portion of Chugach State Park in order to coordinate planning and oversight also should be implemented. Map 6.4 depicts the current boundary; the proposed new boundary also should be depicted on the map. P. 6-20. Part 2: Of the three options for formalizing the standards contained in the plan, I would encourage the creation of a separate overlay district. If it were a separate overlay, any changes made to the plan would be obvious. P. 6-29. Policy 14-I. Protection of watercourses includes 50-foot setbacks from the ordinary high-water mark on each side of a stream. The Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan, Policy 8, and AO84-21, Attachment A 1.c. Storm Water Drainage, have 65’ setbacks as the minimum. The Hillside District Plan also should use a minimum 65’ creek setback. P. 6-31. Policy 14J. Second and third bullets acknowledge modifying the standard to reduce fire risk. The new draft acknowledges the need to reduce fire risk without overemphasizing it. As noted in my previous comment, Wildfire abatement can have secondary impacts, such as erosion and siltation/destruction of riparian and aquatic habitat (aquatic habitat includes streams, natural drainages, and wetlands). Even with the more moderated approach, it still would be appropriate for Wildfire abatement plans to have sign-off by Watershed Management. P. 6-33, Policy 14-L – Conservation Subdivisions: Overall concerns related to the proposed conservation subdivisions are covered in my overall comments and in comments made for P. 2-25. Policy 14-L elaborates on the standards that must be met to obtain the benefits associated with a significant increase in DUA. The criteria include the critical elements and often provide adequate guidance – such as the section on size and uses of open space; however, the standards need to be set higher if such benefits are to accrue to the developer. I would not consider an increase of up to 15% to be “modest” as noted in both Chapters 2 and 6. P. 6-38. Cut and Fill Development Standards: Thank you for recognizing cut and fill for building foundations for roads and trails is an appropriate criterion for good development. The standard also should apply to building foundations for home, businesses, etc. | |
| Marlene Britton | 6/11/2009 9:38:13 PM |
| The thought of a trail head up by Goldenview is not a good idea. The traffic in the area with just joy riding teens is too much as it is. I pick up trash along the roadside every day when I walk my dogs. Broken bottles and used condoms is too much to bear now much less if there is a 150 car parking lot for Chugach State Park. The road to the proposed trailhead is an already deteriated road that makes huge amounts of dust and that constantly creep into my home and lungs. The vehicles zooming by now is too much and I'm scared to even walk my dogs on the street for fear of being run over. Having the traffic go thru our neighborhood would just invite vandalism and littering to a once quiet neighborhood. I think the alternative would be to provide a trailhead in Section 36 where it would have less impact on a neighborhood. Please reconsider the priority trailhead and save our neighborhood. | |
| Thomas Adams | 6/8/2009 8:59:59 AM |
| I don't see any symbols on the map (Map 3.1 - drainage Issues on the Hillside Page 3.3)to indicate future improvement in the vicinity of the ditch easement where my problem is. The subdivision that I live in, was designed to direct all the spring run-off into a ditch easment in my yard. There are two problems with this: - Appearantly, because we have no road service, the muni has no funding available for digging the ditch to contain the water, so it threatens to flood my house, It does flood my out buildings, and my leach field. Also the ditch easement ends at the back of my lot. I have submitted my comments to HDP, but have not been able to find them in the "Comments" section. And the map has no symbol in the vecinity of my property to indicate that anyone is aware of my issue. | |
| Leslie & Raymond Hysom | 6/5/2009 10:29:41 PM |
| The Rabbit Creek Trail listed in Chapter 4 map 4.5 shows a proposed trail using the private land of homeowners down the creek. Per the 1986 Draft Rabbit Creek Greenbelt Plan it was stated that "From Buffalo St. to Potter Marsh, there would be no formal trail development; bike trail provisions should be made along DeArmoun Road". Built in the summer of 2004 there is now a beautiful paved bike path on the north side of DeArmoun that hasn't been shown on the trail map 4.5 and we feel this is sufficient for a trail from the Rabbit Creek Greenbelt to the Coastal trail. This oversite on the map leads the people to believe that there is no public access to connect the Rabbit Creek Greenbelt to Potter Marsh other than to go through the backyards of the homeowners which is not the case. We as homeowners highly object to this! We have read news accounts and have talked to others that have had paths built in their backyards. The crime rate and vandalism has increased significantly and has forced many people to move because of it. There is no reason to spend additional monies on land acquition and construciton to parallel another path that has already been constructed to accomplish the same thing. | |
| Vivian Mendenhall | 6/5/2009 5:13:13 PM |
| TO Planning and Zoning Commission, Municipality of Anchorage FROM Vivian Mendenhall, Ph.D. SUBJECT Comments on Hillside District Plan (primarily about wildlife habitats) DATE June 5, 2009 GOOD POINTS IN GENERAL: • The format of the HDP is improved (“bullets” instead of narratives). • The photos of contrasting development patterns are great. • I like the innovations that would allow development but maintain neighborhood quality—e.g., stream corridors, Built/Green Infrastructure, Conservation Subdivisions, and restrictions on ridgeline buildings. Most of my specific comments concern wildlife habitats. GOOD POINTS REGARDING WILDLIFE: • The HDP recognizes that Hillside residents value wildlife in the area (“Introduction,” p. 1-2) • The HDP states that the Hillside has important wildlife habitats (“Introduction,” pp. 1-11, 1-12; “Land Use—Background,” p. 2-34). • Goal 5, “Environmental Quality,” includes protection of stream and wildlife corridors (p. 2-34) • The Objectives for Development (page 6-25) say that disruption of natural systems, including habitats, should be avoided. • Policy 14-G, “Submittal Requirements” (p. 6-26, 6-27), says applications for development must include identification of streams, other waterbodies, wetlands, and vegetation cover. • Policy 14-I, “Development Standards for Subdivisions,” includes habitat protection—it says that disruption of natural vegetation will be minimized; disturbed areas will be replanted naturally; natural watercourses will be protected with setbacks; and connectivity of natural corridors will be preserved (pp. 6-28, 6-29). • Policy 14-J, “Development Standards for Individual Parcels,” specifies that substantial areas of natural vegetation and undisturbed earth will be retained in each parcel (p. 6-31). IMPORTANT WILDLIFE INFORMATION THAT IS MISSING: • Potter Marsh is mentioned as an important habitat and recreation site (p. 1-11, 1-12). But please add that the marsh is part of the state Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. • Please add that Potter Marsh depends for its water on Hillside creeks—primarily Potter and Little Survival Creeks, secondarily Rabbit and Little Rabbit Creeks. (Reference: “Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan,” ADF&G, Anchorage, 1991.) The HDP needs to protect natural flow and water quality of these creeks. The HDP mentions fish in three of the creeks (p. 1-11), but not the fact the marsh depends on them. • Please mention what “wildlife habitat” means, perhaps in the Introduction (p. 1-11, 1-12). Habitat is natural vegetation—woods, brush, and/or low growth, plus stream courses, marshes, and lakes. It can include natural vegetation on private property (as conserved in Policies 14-I and 14-J), as well as special corridors. • Please clarify the ways in which wildlife use Hillside habitats: (1) year-round residence, (2) moving between the Hillside up to Chugach State Park or down to the coast, and (3) passing through the Hillside to connect the Park and the coast. The HDP (p. 1-12) is correct that the Hillside has rich habitats, but then it seems to say that animals mainly occupy Chugach State Park. And many animals would become scarce without Hillside habitats—our residents of course, but also many in the Park and the Coastal Refuge. SUGGESTIONS FOR ADEQUATE HABITAT PROTECTION: Conservation of habitat is improved over previous versions, but standards are omitted from some sections. (I recognize that the HDP can’t specify everything, but it should contain basic guidelines for planners and developers.) • Wetlands (i.e., marshes and lakes) with high wildlife value should be protected. The HDP says that streams and other wildlife corridors should be identified and protected by developers, including in Policy G, “Submittal Requirements” (p. 6-26, 6-27). And stream setbacks are specified in the actual guidelines (Policy 14-I, “Subdivision Development Standards,” p. 6-29). However, these guidelines omit wetland habitats. The HDP does mention wetland protection as one means of managing drainage (p. 6-30 and 6-34). But wetlands should be conserved for habitat benefits, even where drainage problems are not identified. • Wildlife habitat is not mentioned among the values to be considered in Conservation Subdivisions (Policy 14-L, p. 34). Paragraph 2 mentions “buffer areas around a wetland” in the context of drainage; paragraph 5 mentions “open space of particular value for recreation use”; paragraph 8 says that “open space” should be connected, but omits connectivity of natural areas (including wildlife habitat). COMMENTS ON OTHER TOPICS: • Downward-directed lighting is required in Policy 14-N, “Lighting Standards” (p. 6-38); this is great. (I really miss the stars that I used to enjoy from my yard in the mid-80s.) But downward lighting should be required for street lights, too (same page), and on school grounds. Public and hazardous areas must be lighted, of course. But a couple of downward lights already exist at an intersection on Rabbit Creek Road. And Goldenview Middle School’s athletic field can probably be seen from outer space, which surely is overkill. • Vegetated buffers would be required between some neighborhoods (e.g., Policy 2-D, p. 2-26, and Policy 2-E, p. 2-30). A minimum width of 15 feet is specified for the latter. However, 15-foot buffers usually are skimpy and provide no screening. (I could show examples to anyone who’s interested.) Useful vegetative buffers need to be 30 feet or wider, or else specially planted. A FEW TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS: I am reviewing the printed HDP, so maybe these have already been corrected. • P. 6-29, paragraph 1: “Map 2_” • P. 6-35, paragraph 3: “. . . as narrow as 50 30 feet” • P. 6-38, last line: “Get help with this from Planning – Dave Tremont” Thank you for this opportunity to comment, and to everyone who has worked hard on this plan. --Vivian Vivian Mendenhall, Ph.D. 4600 Rabbit Creek Road Anchorage, Alaska 99516-4177 Telephone: (907) 345-7124 Fax: (907) 345-0686 fasgadair@attalascom.net | |
| Gregory R Monette | 6/5/2009 3:02:39 PM |
| June 5, 2009 Hillside District Plan Citizen comments To whom it may concern: Page 1-1, first paragraph states: The purpose of the Hillside District Plan is to establish sound Public Policy that reflects the vision of Hillside residents and landowners and interests of the full community (insert) while protecting existing residents and land uses. The HDP PHD calls for the entirety of the Hillside below Elmore Road to be considered “Lower Hillside”. In actuality, the majority of this area is appropriately zoned R-6 low density suburban residential. The only areas where high density is appropriate is along the area of the existing AWWU services, also called the “Lake Otis Corridor”. Lumping that small area together with the far larger area where onsite services exist is not appropriate. Offering photo and word examples that show high density neighborhoods is not an accurate representation of the majority of this area, and should be corrected. If the area designated “Lower Hillside” is kept intact, it should reflect the actual reality of this area: low density except along the northwestern portions. Solution: move the designation “Lower Hillside” to the existing AWWU service area. Page 1-1, first paragraph states: Under existing zoning, if all buildable vacant land in the Hillside District were developed ,the area would grow from 8500 to nearly 14,000 homes. Yet HDP is advocating zoning change in the area outlined as Furrow Creek. This area, generally bordered by Huffman and O’Malley, below Elmore Road, is appropriately zoned R-6, and can easily be developed at that density. The residents of Furrow Creek strongly desire this zoning left intact. Higher densities are appropriate in areas with public services currently defined in the existing Hillside Water and Wastewater Management Plan (HWWMP). This portion of Hillside is already overbuilt according to standards set in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, therefore it is totally unnecessary to add density. Higher densities destroy natural open space and the unique character of Hillside. Hillside residents as a whole and the residents of the area defined as Furrow Creek are overwhelming in their desire to keep large lot zoning. Furrow Creek is a lovely, low-density, established neighborhood area that Planners are zealously committed to rezone to higher densities. This includes misrepresentation of the actual area conditions and ignoring overwhelming and massive community protests since this idea was first purposed. Rezoning this area is nothing more than a backdoor attempt at taking of private property. On page 1-13, two photo representations labeled “Lower Hillside” show small lot neighborhoods on city sewer and water services. This is visible evidence of the planners mindset in refusing to admit that the greatest majority of the area above Lake Otis is already well established at low densities, and landowners and residents do not want this to change. The residents of the Furrow Creek area are working class who's land supports home-based business and agricultural uses. This area is home to a diverse wildlife population such as moose, with several historic calving areas, bears,(black and brown) fox,lynx,coyotes,wolves,wolverines,ermine, porcupine,rabbits and squirrels. It also supports a large population of birds, some rarely seen in some other areas of the bowl, such as Great Horned Owls, Peregrine Falcons, Goshawks, Swanson Hawks, Sparrow Hawks and Bald Eagles. The habitat boundary of this wildlife has already been pushed to it's breaking point. Further density in this area will have devastating effect on the wildlife and it's limited habitat. Solution: incorporate Furrow Creek into Central Hillside to accurately reflect current and well established lot size and land use zoning Page 2-14, Policy 1E, first paragraph states: "Shift the current boundary of the Maximum Perimeter of Public Sewerage eastward to Elmore Road." This would be necessary to achieve the goals of rezoning for higher density put forward in the HDP draft. The urban/rural boundary is already decided and in place. The HWWMP is the boundary for public sewer and water services. Any amendment to this boundary has required extensive public process and it is an accurate depiction of needed public sewer/water. In fact many of the residents of Furrow Creek bought their properties on this side of the HWWMP boundary on purpose and do not want public utilities, or the burden of cost and density that would follow those utilities. The mapping on page 2-15 is a clear illustration of the in place urban/rural boundary the we in the Furrow Creek area expect to continue. Page 2-15 second paragraph states: Furrow Creek area is appropriate for increases in residental intensity due to following attributes: Includes a number of lots with history of poorly performing on site wastewater systems. Per statements from Onsite Water and Wasterwater Chief, Dan Roth, there have been NO wastewater system problems in this area in the last few years. Any problems we may have in the Furrow Creek area are due to old and, or, poorly maintained septic systems that should be replaced with newer modern technology. The newer technologies were studied during the HDP process, however facts learned in that process seem to have been ignored when drafting this final plan. Instead on-site septic in these areas is referred to in a negative light. Ignoring the availability of modern technology ignores the fact that those few problematic areas are easily developed utilizing high tech methods. Page 5-20 Map 5.6 states: "Locations Where Some Individual Parcels Have a History of Waste-water System Challenges”. According to this map, absolutely none of the Hillside is “challenge-free”, therefore the statement is inaccurate to the point of ridiculous. The best option given on the color code is “soils somewhat limited for on-site wastewater systems”. If this had any basis in reality, it would show that the largest majority of the residents are extremely happy with their trouble-free on-site wastewater systems. In addition, the existing HWWMP and its boundary allows large lots to provide natural treatment of runoff instead of adding further waste effluent to the issues facing Cook Inlet. The “strategic and limited revision to zoning and public water and sewer extensions” called for in 2020 have already occurred, with over a dozen revisions since 2020’s implementation. The Composite Land Use Plan Map (2006-035, June 28, 2006) shows the existing “limited intensity” designation of the majority of the land now called “Furrow Creek”. Yet the PH Draft shows everything below Elmore Road, an established neighborhood currently subdivided as R-6, to be rezoned from Limited Intensity to Low Intensity. As HDP Land Use Plan Map is “the official guide for future development decisions”, it should reflect limited density residential zoning, in agreement with the Composite Land Use Plan Map of 2006. Solution: The Furrow Creek Drainage area needs to remain R-6 large lot suburban residential zoning. No downsized zoning anywhere. The Hillside District Plan has always been desired as a secure document to guide this area into the future, protecting existing development and uses while establishing sensible guidelines for new development and protecting the rights of private property ownership. The Draft HDP, however, continually urges “revisions”, “updates” and “future changes”, and seems to suggest this is a living document, not the stable, secure footing desired. As such, it offers no guarantees for the future. This needs to be corrected. Thank you for your considerations of the community wishes in this endeavor. Gregory R. and Christine A. Monette Residents and Landowners Furrow Creek | |
| Huffman O'Malley Community Council Monette | 6/5/2009 2:53:06 PM |
| Huffman/O’Malley Community Council PMB 420 – 1120 Huffman Road, Suite 24 Anchorage, AK 99515 June 1, 2009 Planning Department Municipality of Anchorage Via: Electronic To Whom It May Concern: The Huffman/O’Malley Community Council (HOCC) wishes to hereby submit the following comments on the draft the Hillside District Plan (HDP). We apologize for the length, but the issues involved are complex and broad-reaching subjects that go to the heart of why we live where we do. The HOCC represents the majority of the area referred to in the HDP as “Furrow Creek area”, our council boundaries being O’Malley to DeArmoun, New Seward Highway to Birch Road. Over time we have become very familiar with the values of our constituents. The following comments are based in this familiarity, the HOCC’s responsibility to accurately reflect the majority of the community’s wishes, our extensive experience and knowledge of these issues, and our widespread comprehension of day-to-day land use on the hillside within the Furrow Creek area which is, and always has been, an integral part of the hillside. The residents of the hillside purchased their properties for a variety of reasons: space, vegetation, land use options, neighborhood character, property’s ability to sustain a homebased business, wildlife, lack of street lights, and rural roads. The HDP proposes to deny Furrow Creek the continued enjoyment of these attributes and to go against all promises we had regarding the continued use of our properties. Municipal Plans such as the Trails Plan, Hillside Waste Water Management Plan, and others promised us a future on the hillside that was different than other areas of the Bowl. We expect these attributes of the hillside to continue. The public has overwhelmingly and clearly stated this. The current design of the hillside supports many businesses, agriculture, greenhouses and nurseries, open space, and wildlife. The existing zoning should not be changed in any area of the hillside. Utilities and Density Baseline Data Wrong, Correction. The baseline data regarding the 2020’s mandated number of units to be built on the hillside are false, leading to a flawed product throughout. The draft HDP quotes the 2020 Plan as requiring 4-6000 new units on the hillside. This ignores Assembly Ordinance 2002-235, the adoption and implementation the “Land Use Allocation Documentation Report, Anchorage 2020 Land Use Assumptions,” prepared in October 2002 by HDP Alaska, Inc., resulting in a 9% decrease in the figures behind the 2020 Plan. This 9% decrease was necessitated by the discovery that the ISER software used in the creation of the original figures was flawed in that the software, and technology at the time, could not take into account population fluctuations and other variations that positively affected the implementation of the 2020 Plan. In fact, it was said at the time of Assembly adoption, that the 9% was seen as a very minimal reduction, the reality was expected to be closer to 14% too high. The results of this reduction is a decrease to 3640-5460 units to be constructed – based on 1998 data. Given current data, the hillside, with no change to existing zoning, will meet or exceed 2020’s mandates. We are exceeding 2020’s Goal. We are now surpassing 1.5 units per acre, approaching 2 or more units per acre on average – double 2020’s goal. HDP does not accurately reflect the desires of the community. The HDP was to reflect the desires of the community; instead, the consultants’ understanding of the HDP, approach and actions clearly said to us that their mission was to explore planning alternatives, that in no way were consultants responsible to write the HDP to reflect the community’s wishes. There are several examples of this: The majority of the community has clearly said that they want to see the remainder of the hillside developed at R-6 and other rural zoning designations. The community does not support an end to their rural and suburban lifestyles. However, the HDP mandates that the “Furrow Creek”, an area that is presently developed to rural standards, minimum of one-acre lots and supports several hundred homebased businesses, agricultural properties, etc. This area does not wish to be served by public sewer/water. To implement the consultant’s recommendation as presented would be nothing short of a taking of the properties in that area. Less than 10% of respondents to the Household Survey supported commercial development on the hillside; however, the HDP recommends displacement of existing residential in favor of neighborhood commercial centers. Majority of respondents to the Household Survey responded they have little to no issues with their septic systems or wells, yet the HDP recommends forcing a large number to accept public sewer/water. Any increased density in this area of the hillside would require those residents to access from Huffman or O’Malley Roads. The residents have clearly said they do not want more traffic on these roads as they are now near capacity and have created some incredibly dangerous areas causing several deaths and injuries over the past few years. The HDP erroneously favors rezoning and dense development within the “Furrow Creek area”. This is based on the following rationale and we hereby respond to each point individually: Proximity to Town Center. This area is within proximity to a town center as described by the 2020 Plan – The Carrs/Huffman area; however, this concept does not work on the hillside as in other areas of town. “Proximity” as the only basis works only in areas that are pedestrian-friendly and are not transected by a limited-access, divided, major highway. The area that IS within proximity to the town center is zoned at higher density, includes vacant land, and allows for redevelopment to accomplish the intent of the South Anchorage Town Center, an evolving community asset, accomplished by the private sector in response to market needs. Additionally, the majority of respondents to the Household Survey responded that they expect to travel to services, as with those services comes issues we do not want to see on the hillside. Proximity to Existing Public Sewer and Water. While it is true that public sewer and water are within reasonable distance, that can be said of many areas of the hillside. Just because it CAN be done, DOES NOT mean that it SHOULD be done. Extension of public sewer/water does not help most people, only pushes higher density and a significant change to land use. Further, public sewer/water is cost prohibitive. Septic systems are far more cost effective for residents: A new technology system costs approximately $30,000 plus approximately $350 per year for constant monitoring by company and maintenance. The cost of sewer is upwards of $160,000 plus approximately $800 per year in monthly bills. In addition, AWWU cannot reliably sustain the system it has now on lower hillside. Many of these areas experience inadequate water supply. As of today, the hillside is self-sustaining. “Need” for Sewer Due to Existing Conditions. This is a false assumption on the part of the consultants. In fact, although Anchorage ranks second within North America for well/septic density, we have had negligible problems through the past 50+ years, a fact long known, but recently proven by qualified members of the CAC. Any problems we might have in the Furrow Creek area are because of old and/or unmaintained systems that should be replaced with newer technology. The newer technologies were studied during the HDP process; however, facts learned in that process seem to have been ignored when drafting the final plan. Proximity to transit corridor. The town center will be bus-friendly. Lake Otis has nowhere near the ridership to support a route. Many attempts have been made through the years, all have failed. Other considerations. The urban/rural boundary is already decided and in place. The Hillside Waste Water Management Plan (HWWMP) is the boundary for public sewer/water services. Any amendment to this boundary has required extensive public process and it is an accurate depiction of needed public sewer/water service. In fact, many have bought their properties on this side of the HWWMP boundary on purpose and do not want public utilities. The mapping on page 2-15 is a clear illustration of the in-place urban/rural boundary that we expect to continue. Protection and support of housing options. The 2020 Plan and majority community support has been to protect the existence of different types of housing options available in the Bowl. The 2020 Plan advocates strongly for this, even saying that eliminating options in the Bowl will drive residents to the Mat-Su Valley. The 2020 Plan also mandates protection of the hillside. The hillside is not meant to be the same as downtown, just as downtown is not meant to be the same as Turnagain. Roads and Drainage The HOCC is supportive of the concept of a community operated road board similar to CBERRSA. This should be the entity responsible for the re-write of standards and going forward with any implementation of a plan, after they and the community write and map a plan. Another flaw in the draft HDP is an attempt to impose urban and suburban construction standards. In many areas of the hillside, implementation of these standards would mean a total destruction of the character of the neighborhood. Economics. Most residents within the Furrow Creek area area are working class, retired, and/or on fixed incomes. Most of these people have little excess funds over what they are already expending to support their property. Any increase in costs will force people from their properties and/or significantly impact our financial situations. If public water/sewer is extended into this area, all of the property taxes will increase due to the availability of that water/sewer and potential development value of the property, i.e. 10 acres of R-6 property now can sustain 8 homes; after availability of sewer, this same 10 acre property can be rezoned to accommodate approximately 40 homes. Safety. The hillside is a hazard area for wildfire. Evacuation is already a significant issue for us, an impossibility for many residents of the hillside because of congestion on rural roads and other considerations. Implementation of HDP as drafted will result in reduction of overall open space. The HDP, other MOA Plans and the community put great weight on the retention of the natural characteristics of the hillside, including our vegetation. As currently zoned, most hillside properties are limited to 30% lot coverage, leaving 70% open space. If the HDP is implemented as drafted, the hillside’s character will suffer dramatically and overall open space will be significantly decreased. While conservation subdivisions may be a viable option, and a definite improvement over some of the engineering now in place, given the hillside’s exceeding of the 2020 density goals, the value that the 70% open space these properties now give to the community, and the economic damage done to the community in the extension of public sewer/water, existing zoning should stay in place. Draft HDP goes against 2020 Policies. The draft HDP is against several 2020 Policies, including 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 57, 65, 68, 70, 71, 72, 76, 80, 91, and 92. Wildlife. The hillside is home to a diverse wildlife population (regularly seen as far west as Lake Otis): bears (black and brown), moose, fox, lynx, coyote, rabbits, squirrels, wolves, porcupines, ermine, wolverines, and we support a huge population of birds, some rarely seen in other parts of the Bowl such as Great Horned Owls, Peregrin Falcons, Bald Eagles, Goshawks, and Sparrow Hawks. The habitat boundary of this wildlife is already been pushed to an area east of Lake Otis. Protection of watershed. Higher density within the Furrow Creek watershed will only further deteriorate the conditions of this watershed, already seriously hampered. Having said that, a proposed 50’ setback from Furrow Creek is unattainable and unnecessary. The underlying issue in this area is flood plain areas that should not be developed within, and the disturbance over many, many years, of the natural drainage system. With technical assistance to the community and a solid drainage improvement plan, best management practices and basic engineering concepts can be implemented to address these issues – with existing zoning in place, little cost to the property owners, and nonobtrusively. Issues CAC disagreed with, as referenced in the HDP. Page 2-16, “Furrow Creek watershed rezoning” – Of course there is no agreement on this issue. To increase the density in this area would be wrong for all of the reasons stated herein. Page 2-20, “Potter Marsh/Old Seward Highway commercial” – Of course there is no agreement on this issue. It would be going against over 90% of the residents’ wishes to NOT have commercial. Page 2-14, “Recommended Changes in the “Maximum Perimeter of Public Sewerage” – Again, this recommendation goes against the residents’ wishes, common sense, economical feasibility, and all the other reasons we have discussed herein. Transportation Overview. Generally, the HDP accurately depicts the status of the transportation system in the Hillside area. Many recommendations are made in the HDP to upgrade/redesign/reengineer/construct selected roads; however, the HDP fails to recognize the importance of incorporating the MOA Executive Order for Context Sensitive Design and Solutions. This new Executive Order directs the MOA to implement context sensitive tools on all department projects as per the principles endorsed by the Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the International Association of Transportation Engineers. Its essence is that a proposed transportation project must be planned not only for its physical aspects as a facility serving specific transportation objectives, but also for its affects on the aesthetic, social, economic, and environmental values, needs, constraints, and opportunities in a larger community setting. The Huffman/O’Malley Community Council (HOCC) endorsed the Executive Order via resolution dated March 18, 2004. In addition, the HDP should incorporate by reference the MOA’s policy on changing out existing streetlights with more energy-saving and community-friendly LCD lighting. The HDP Public Review Draft recommends the formation of an “integrated roads, trails, and management entity.” HOCC agrees that such an authority ought to be formed and should conform to the existing Chugiak-Birchwood-Eagle River Rural Road Service Area. Specific Comments re: Transportation. Page 4-1: Provide the definitions of “connectivity” and “built/green infrastructure” somewhere on the page and/or reference, after using the term(s), where the definitions are in the body of the main report. Page 4-4: Modify the first bulleted Road System goal to read: Improve the system of the Hillside roads to respond to current use and expected growth while implementing the MOA’s Executive Order for Context Sensitive Design and Solutions. Modify the first bulleted Transit goal to read: Promote transit service throughout the Hillside where feasible, especially west of Elmore Road. Page 4-9 Map 4.1 Proposed Roadway Connections: The HOCC, other Community Councils, and the community have consistently opposed punching Elmore Road through to O’Malley Road; Huffman Road through to Hillside Drive; and Elmore Road to Rabbit Creek, as to do so would destroy the rural setting of the neighboring communities. Page 4-7, Paragraph 4, last sentence: Modify sentence to read: However, design and permitting requirements, and input from the neighboring/affected communities and community council are likely to change some of the routes. Page 4-12, Figure 4.2 is not referenced in the text. Page 4-14, first paragraph. The text accurately states that selected roads are State owned and the design standards applied to these streets are determined by the State. However, no mention is made as to how to coordinate the transportation goals of the HDP with those of the State. This disconnect with the State is a fatal flaw and the HDP should identify alternatives as to how to coordinate with the State to avoid potential design conflicts. Pages 4-16, referencing map 4.5 should be corrected to map 4.4. Commercial Development The community has clearly said ‘no commercial’. We believe commercial as it exists currently should be continued as is with no corner store or retail business as the draft HDP is promoting. Less than 10% of surveyed households wanted any type of commercial properties on the hillside. The majority of the households surveyed expect to travel to go get milk Christine Monette Chair, Huffman/O’Malley Community Council Huffman/O’Malley Community Council PMB 420 – 1120 Huffman Road, Suite 24 Anchorage, AK 99515 June 1, 2009 Planning Department Municipality of Anchorage Via: Electronic To Whom It May Concern: The Huffman/O’Malley Community Council (HOCC) wishes to hereby submit the following comments on the draft the Hillside District Plan (HDP). We apologize for the length, but the issues involved are complex and broad-reaching subjects that go to the heart of why we live where we do. The HOCC represents the majority of the area referred to in the HDP as “Furrow Creek area”, our council boundaries being O’Malley to DeArmoun, New Seward Highway to Birch Road. Over time we have become very familiar with the values of our constituents. The following comments are based in this familiarity, the HOCC’s responsibility to accurately reflect the majority of the community’s wishes, our extensive experience and knowledge of these issues, and our widespread comprehension of day-to-day land use on the hillside within the Furrow Creek area which is, and always has been, an integral part of the hillside. The residents of the hillside purchased their properties for a variety of reasons: space, vegetation, land use options, neighborhood character, property’s ability to sustain a homebased business, wildlife, lack of street lights, and rural roads. The HDP proposes to deny Furrow Creek the continued enjoyment of these attributes and to go against all promises we had regarding the continued use of our properties. Municipal Plans such as the Trails Plan, Hillside Waste Water Management Plan, and others promised us a future on the hillside that was different than other areas of the Bowl. We expect these attributes of the hillside to continue. The public has overwhelmingly and clearly stated this. The current design of the hillside supports many businesses, agriculture, greenhouses and nurseries, open space, and wildlife. The existing zoning should not be changed in any area of the hillside. Utilities and Density Baseline Data Wrong, Correction. The baseline data regarding the 2020’s mandated number of units to be built on the hillside are false, leading to a flawed product throughout. The draft HDP quotes the 2020 Plan as requiring 4-6000 new units on the hillside. This ignores Assembly Ordinance 2002-235, the adoption and implementation the “Land Use Allocation Documentation Report, Anchorage 2020 Land Use Assumptions,” prepared in October 2002 by HDP Alaska, Inc., resulting in a 9% decrease in the figures behind the 2020 Plan. This 9% decrease was necessitated by the discovery that the ISER software used in the creation of the original figures was flawed in that the software, and technology at the time, could not take into account population fluctuations and other variations that positively affected the implementation of the 2020 Plan. In fact, it was said at the time of Assembly adoption, that the 9% was seen as a very minimal reduction, the reality was expected to be closer to 14% too high. The results of this reduction is a decrease to 3640-5460 units to be constructed – based on 1998 data. Given current data, the hillside, with no change to existing zoning, will meet or exceed 2020’s mandates. We are exceeding 2020’s Goal. We are now surpassing 1.5 units per acre, approaching 2 or more units per acre on average – double 2020’s goal. HDP does not accurately reflect the desires of the community. The HDP was to reflect the desires of the community; instead, the consultants’ understanding of the HDP, approach and actions clearly said to us that their mission was to explore planning alternatives, that in no way were consultants responsible to write the HDP to reflect the community’s wishes. There are several examples of this: The majority of the community has clearly said that they want to see the remainder of the hillside developed at R-6 and other rural zoning designations. The community does not support an end to their rural and suburban lifestyles. However, the HDP mandates that the “Furrow Creek”, an area that is presently developed to rural standards, minimum of one-acre lots and supports several hundred homebased businesses, agricultural properties, etc. This area does not wish to be served by public sewer/water. To implement the consultant’s recommendation as presented would be nothing short of a taking of the properties in that area. Less than 10% of respondents to the Household Survey supported commercial development on the hillside; however, the HDP recommends displacement of existing residential in favor of neighborhood commercial centers. Majority of respondents to the Household Survey responded they have little to no issues with their septic systems or wells, yet the HDP recommends forcing a large number to accept public sewer/water. Any increased density in this area of the hillside would require those residents to access from Huffman or O’Malley Roads. The residents have clearly said they do not want more traffic on these roads as they are now near capacity and have created some incredibly dangerous areas causing several deaths and injuries over the past few years. The HDP erroneously favors rezoning and dense development within the “Furrow Creek area”. This is based on the following rationale and we hereby respond to each point individually: Proximity to Town Center. This area is within proximity to a town center as described by the 2020 Plan – The Carrs/Huffman area; however, this concept does not work on the hillside as in other areas of town. “Proximity” as the only basis works only in areas that are pedestrian-friendly and are not transected by a limited-access, divided, major highway. The area that IS within proximity to the town center is zoned at higher density, includes vacant land, and allows for redevelopment to accomplish the intent of the South Anchorage Town Center, an evolving community asset, accomplished by the private sector in response to market needs. Additionally, the majority of respondents to the Household Survey responded that they expect to travel to services, as with those services comes issues we do not want to see on the hillside. Proximity to Existing Public Sewer and Water. While it is true that public sewer and water are within reasonable distance, that can be said of many areas of the hillside. Just because it CAN be done, DOES NOT mean that it SHOULD be done. Extension of public sewer/water does not help most people, only pushes higher density and a significant change to land use. Further, public sewer/water is cost prohibitive. Septic systems are far more cost effective for residents: A new technology system costs approximately $30,000 plus approximately $350 per year for constant monitoring by company and maintenance. The cost of sewer is upwards of $160,000 plus approximately $800 per year in monthly bills. In addition, AWWU cannot reliably sustain the system it has now on lower hillside. Many of these areas experience inadequate water supply. As of today, the hillside is self-sustaining. “Need” for Sewer Due to Existing Conditions. This is a false assumption on the part of the consultants. In fact, although Anchorage ranks second within North America for well/septic density, we have had negligible problems through the past 50+ years, a fact long known, but recently proven by qualified members of the CAC. Any problems we might have in the Furrow Creek area are because of old and/or unmaintained systems that should be replaced with newer technology. The newer technologies were studied during the HDP process; however, facts learned in that process seem to have been ignored when drafting the final plan. Proximity to transit corridor. The town center will be bus-friendly. Lake Otis has nowhere near the ridership to support a route. Many attempts have been made through the years, all have failed. Other considerations. The urban/rural boundary is already decided and in place. The Hillside Waste Water Management Plan (HWWMP) is the boundary for public sewer/water services. Any amendment to this boundary has required extensive public process and it is an accurate depiction of needed public sewer/water service. In fact, many have bought their properties on this side of the HWWMP boundary on purpose and do not want public utilities. The mapping on page 2-15 is a clear illustration of the in-place urban/rural boundary that we expect to continue. Protection and support of housing options. The 2020 Plan and majority community support has been to protect the existence of different types of housing options available in the Bowl. The 2020 Plan advocates strongly for this, even saying that eliminating options in the Bowl will drive residents to the Mat-Su Valley. The 2020 Plan also mandates protection of the hillside. The hillside is not meant to be the same as downtown, just as downtown is not meant to be the same as Turnagain. Roads and Drainage The HOCC is supportive of the concept of a community operated road board similar to CBERRSA. This should be the entity responsible for the re-write of standards and going forward with any implementation of a plan, after they and the community write and map a plan. Another flaw in the draft HDP is an attempt to impose urban and suburban construction standards. In many areas of the hillside, implementation of these standards would mean a total destruction of the character of the neighborhood. Economics. Most residents within the Furrow Creek area area are working class, retired, and/or on fixed incomes. Most of these people have little excess funds over what they are already expending to support their property. Any increase in costs will force people from their properties and/or significantly impact our financial situations. If public water/sewer is extended into this area, all of the property taxes will increase due to the availability of that water/sewer and potential development value of the property, i.e. 10 acres of R-6 property now can sustain 8 homes; after availability of sewer, this same 10 acre property can be rezoned to accommodate approximately 40 homes. Safety. The hillside is a hazard area for wildfire. Evacuation is already a significant issue for us, an impossibility for many residents of the hillside because of congestion on rural roads and other considerations. Implementation of HDP as drafted will result in reduction of overall open space. The HDP, other MOA Plans and the community put great weight on the retention of the natural characteristics of the hillside, including our vegetation. As currently zoned, most hillside properties are limited to 30% lot coverage, leaving 70% open space. If the HDP is implemented as drafted, the hillside’s character will suffer dramatically and overall open space will be significantly decreased. While conservation subdivisions may be a viable option, and a definite improvement over some of the engineering now in place, given the hillside’s exceeding of the 2020 density goals, the value that the 70% open space these properties now give to the community, and the economic damage done to the community in the extension of public sewer/water, existing zoning should stay in place. Draft HDP goes against 2020 Policies. The draft HDP is against several 2020 Policies, including 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 57, 65, 68, 70, 71, 72, 76, 80, 91, and 92. Wildlife. The hillside is home to a diverse wildlife population (regularly seen as far west as Lake Otis): bears (black and brown), moose, fox, lynx, coyote, rabbits, squirrels, wolves, porcupines, ermine, wolverines, and we support a huge population of birds, some rarely seen in other parts of the Bowl such as Great Horned Owls, Peregrin Falcons, Bald Eagles, Goshawks, and Sparrow Hawks. The habitat boundary of this wildlife is already been pushed to an area east of Lake Otis. Protection of watershed. Higher density within the Furrow Creek watershed will only further deteriorate the conditions of this watershed, already seriously hampered. Having said that, a proposed 50’ setback from Furrow Creek is unattainable and unnecessary. The underlying issue in this area is flood plain areas that should not be developed within, and the disturbance over many, many years, of the natural drainage system. With technical assistance to the community and a solid drainage improvement plan, best management practices and basic engineering concepts can be implemented to address these issues – with existing zoning in place, little cost to the property owners, and nonobtrusively. Issues CAC disagreed with, as referenced in the HDP. Page 2-16, “Furrow Creek watershed rezoning” – Of course there is no agreement on this issue. To increase the density in this area would be wrong for all of the reasons stated herein. Page 2-20, “Potter Marsh/Old Seward Highway commercial” – Of course there is no agreement on this issue. It would be going against over 90% of the residents’ wishes to NOT have commercial. Page 2-14, “Recommended Changes in the “Maximum Perimeter of Public Sewerage” – Again, this recommendation goes against the residents’ wishes, common sense, economical feasibility, and all the other reasons we have discussed herein. Transportation Overview. Generally, the HDP accurately depicts the status of the transportation system in the Hillside area. Many recommendations are made in the HDP to upgrade/redesign/reengineer/construct selected roads; however, the HDP fails to recognize the importance of incorporating the MOA Executive Order for Context Sensitive Design and Solutions. This new Executive Order directs the MOA to implement context sensitive tools on all department projects as per the principles endorsed by the Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the International Association of Transportation Engineers. Its essence is that a proposed transportation project must be planned not only for its physical aspects as a facility serving specific transportation objectives, but also for its affects on the aesthetic, social, economic, and environmental values, needs, constraints, and opportunities in a larger community setting. The Huffman/O’Malley Community Council (HOCC) endorsed the Executive Order via resolution dated March 18, 2004. In addition, the HDP should incorporate by reference the MOA’s policy on changing out existing streetlights with more energy-saving and community-friendly LCD lighting. The HDP Public Review Draft recommends the formation of an “integrated roads, trails, and management entity.” HOCC agrees that such an authority ought to be formed and should conform to the existing Chugiak-Birchwood-Eagle River Rural Road Service Area. Specific Comments re: Transportation. Page 4-1: Provide the definitions of “connectivity” and “built/green infrastructure” somewhere on the page and/or reference, after using the term(s), where the definitions are in the body of the main report. Page 4-4: Modify the first bulleted Road System goal to read: Improve the system of the Hillside roads to respond to current use and expected growth while implementing the MOA’s Executive Order for Context Sensitive Design and Solutions. Modify the first bulleted Transit goal to read: Promote transit service throughout the Hillside where feasible, especially west of Elmore Road. Page 4-9 Map 4.1 Proposed Roadway Connections: The HOCC, other Community Councils, and the community have consistently opposed punching Elmore Road through to O’Malley Road; Huffman Road through to Hillside Drive; and Elmore Road to Rabbit Creek, as to do so would destroy the rural setting of the neighboring communities. Page 4-7, Paragraph 4, last sentence: Modify sentence to read: However, design and permitting requirements, and input from the neighboring/affected communities and community council are likely to change some of the routes. Page 4-12, Figure 4.2 is not referenced in the text. Page 4-14, first paragraph. The text accurately states that selected roads are State owned and the design standards applied to these streets are determined by the State. However, no mention is made as to how to coordinate the transportation goals of the HDP with those of the State. This disconnect with the State is a fatal flaw and the HDP should identify alternatives as to how to coordinate with the State to avoid potential design conflicts. Pages 4-16, referencing map 4.5 should be corrected to map 4.4. Commercial Development The community has clearly said ‘no commercial’. We believe commercial as it exists currently should be continued as is with no corner store or retail business as the draft HDP is promoting. Less than 10% of surveyed households wanted any type of commercial properties on the hillside. The majority of the households surveyed expect to travel to go get milk Christine Monette Chair, Huffman/O’Malley Community Council | |
| Katie Nolan | 6/4/2009 11:27:19 PM |
| To: Agnew::Beck From: Katie Nolan Re: Public Comments for Muni Response Hillside District Plan Case 2009-090 Date: June 4, 2009 I eagerly await an actual response from the Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department and HDP contractors Agnew::Beck regarding the history of the HDP, the elimination of the community from the process, and the bastardization of this product. . The Hillside residents have long wanted a document that would protect existing uses and residents while guiding responsible large-lot future development. In Fall 2002, the community began official conversations and discussion regarding the creation of this process. Official HDP meetings began in Spring 2003, when representatives from the Hillside community councils gathered to outline a process, determined eight general areas of greatest concern, and set a timeline, expected progress and eventual goal. I was asked to represent the Huffman/O’Malley Community Council at these initial meetings. . It must be noted that the Basher Community Council specifically requested inclusion into the Hillside District Plan as their area and concerns are those of Hillside. Despite the fact that there is no road connection between the two areas, they are indeed a part of Hillside, their issues identical, and their area abutting ours. Basher provided representatives that greatly assisted in the origins of the HDP. . In addition to small work sessions and regular input from the involved community councils, several large, well-attended public meetings were held during the next two years. In these meetings, hundreds of residents and property owners selected targeted issues and gave their input. These meetings were held with the understanding of a “urban/rural” boundary as mandated in the HWWMP, the rights of a district or area to create a district plan as allowed in Title 21, and the guidance of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the ability of individual communities to create district plans and directs the Municipality to provide professional assistance to that community. . Results of these meetings included an outline of a future HDP, an issues and goals statement, and a bullet point list of individual comments and concerns grouped into categories. With the exception of area studies, the HDP was, at this point, virtually complete. Estimates are that almost 1500 individuals contributed to this effort. . The only thing lacking in the furtherance of the goal of creating an HDP was funding for the professional assistance the community needed, including an “administrative assistant“ position to produce the product and coordinate events and correspondence, and funding for the various studies needed. This obstacle was overcome through a successful lobbying effort. Unfortunately, this was also the point at which the public was completely shut out of the process. What was to have been a community-led process turned into a Municipality-led process. All work and effort done to that point by the community was set aside and has never been mentioned again. . Community representatives, myself included, had created a draft Household Survey and made it available to the Municipality. That draft was ignored, and the Muni and its representatives refused any public guidance. They also refused to allow a focus group test of the survey prior to publication, an item the community specifically requested to reduce misunderstandings and to ensure that language was fair and easily understood. A focus group test would have pointed out the numerous underlying problems with the survey, including an important language barrier and a real and obvious bias. . On June 7, 2007, I called Ivan Moore to express dissatisfaction with the initial HDP Household Survey. During that phone call I discovered that the Household Survey had been created by “various Municipal Departments, Northern Economics, and me (Ivan Moore).” When I asked about the community created version, he had no idea one existed. He went on to say “At this beginning point we wanted to remove the community from the process to make it easier. We are taking our direction from the Municipality. It’s their decision.” . When I asked Moore about the numerous underlying problems with the Household Survey, his response was “It is ultimately whatever we wish to interpret it as. The results will be whatever we wish. We are working for the Municipality, and follow their direction.” . These statements have served to represent the attitude of all those involved in this process, from the Planning Department on. The HDP had officially become a Municipality-led document. . Despite the obvious bias of the Household Survey and its deliberately misleading suggestions and questions, the intent of the community remained. The community desires that the entirety of Hillside remain large lot, single family residential zoning, protecting on site services and a wide variety of existing and valuable uses. Despite repeated requests to utilize the work that had been completed by the community, that work was ignored. Phone calls to individuals requesting the inclusion of that data led to the discovery that no Municipal representatives knew of the existence of that information. Follow up phone calls led to the revelation that the Muni had officially decided to work “from a different direction” or “with a fresh start“. Later phone conversations revealed specific directions to exclude the community had been extended. . Throughout drafts and revisions, public meetings, and consultant and department visits to individual councils, no true community input was ever allowed. Even the Citizens Advisory Committee was held on a tight leash. This was no surprise, as not even the councils were allowed input into the selection of this group that was to represent us. . As a result of this obviously flawed process, the current Public Hearing Draft of the Hillside District Plan contains substantial areas of grave concern to the residents and the community, including: . Taking of private property; Rezoning of the Furrow Creek area to high density; Failure to properly delineate the actual urban/rural boundary as per the community’s desire; Ignoring the guidance of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan throughout the process and in the current PH Draft; Including items in direct conflict with 2020; Ignoring the existing Hillside Water and Waste Water Management Plan; Ignoring the fact that modern technology has successfully solved the issues of marginal soils; Ignoring the fact that Hillside demands to maintain their onsite services, low densities, and “country” atmosphere; Ignoring the fact that the Anchorage Bowl needs a Hillside with large lots, onsite services and low densities for its health and wellbeing; Ignoring the fact that the Cook Inlet needs a Hillside with large lots, onsite services and low densities for its health and wellbeing; Attempts to deny that the majority of Hillside is already built out and the area included in the “Lower Hillside” designation already over capacity as per 2020; Mandating higher densities absolutely opposed by the community; Deliberate misrepresentation of established density of entire swaths of Hillside; Deliberate misrepresentation of the entirety of Hillside as unsuitable for onsite services; And using the document “Hillside District Plan Alternatives: A Framework for Public Discussion” as a reference, a faulty document that has yet to undergo the public process; . Again, I look forward to your reply to this submission in your Issues Response document. Each and every other comment I have ever made has been ignored, as have those thousands of comments from the various community councils and area residents received throughout this process. Municipality representatives attending the annual Hillside Area Landowners Organization, Inc. meeting admitted that none of our the public comments to the Hillside District Plan Alternatives, the HDP Public Review Draft or the current HDP Public Hearing Draft were considered, and that the only changes to the document were those requested by the Planning Department. . As this fact is an unassailable truth, the greatest real hope of the community is that these major problems will be addressed by the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The hearing of June 15 will be the only true opportunity for the community to overcome the overwhelming roadblock set firmly in place by the Municipality and the Planning Department hierarchy. I trust that the community will finally be heard and successfully represented by that body. | |
| Shirley Alexander | 6/4/2009 2:37:51 PM |
| I have lived on this property since the 1950s. My neighbor brought the Hillside District Plan. One of the map shows that 104th Avenue be built to go from Elmore to Birch Road. Please reconsider your plans and preserve the integrity of the neighborhood including the large park (section 16) and the horse trails. I had talked to neighbors and they agree that 104th should end in a cul de sac before Elmore. I don't agree that Elmore should be a major road, since it would go right next to section 16 (a secluded wild area) and cars would drive alongside the golf course. Have you considered the golfballs hitting cars...not to mention moose, bear, wolves, lynx...that frequent this area. | |
| Susanne Comellas | 6/4/2009 12:18:32 PM |
| References to BLM lots - Lower Hillside. Zoning for BLM lots should remain unchanged as recommended. References to revisiting this issue at the next HDP revision should be deleted. The BLM lots south of Rabbit Creek (waterbody) access Rabbit Creek Rd. at blind turn, and/or a steep hill with a history of accidents, a high percentage of fatalities considering the density. For that reason alone this area should not be considered for higher density now or in the future. Note access issues. This area is a vital part of the Rabbit Creek and Elmore Creek watersheds and provides wildlife access corridor to Potter Marsh. This should be left as low density to reduce human - wild life conflict. Revise Maps to reflect that BLM is not designated for high density. Delete the BLM from Map 2.8. Remove the connection of DeARmoun Rd. to Rabbit Creek Rd. via Elmore Rd. Rabbit Creek Rd is incredibly dangerous at this intersection. Better would be a pedestrian bridge across Rabbit Creek to provide access to DeArmoun pedestrian facilities and South High School promoting walking to school. With increased population there are no pedestrian facilities, shoulders to walk on etc in the BLM area. South High is over crowded with vehicles. A pedestrian bridge would move this entire neighborhood towards walking to DeArmoun Rd and bus stops. There is no “Parks” chapter in the HDP. Policy 55 of the Comprehensive plan should be built in to the HDP. There is no way to predict where appropriate trails should go until subdivisions are platted. The area wide trails plan has no crystal ball and does not provide for future needs. The SE strategic park plan was not part of the HDP process and should remain in Parks. The SE plan also opens up stating that It was never heard during a HDP forum so it is inappropriate to incorporate it into the HDP. The trails map, 4.6 on page 4-14 is difficult to read. The existing trail in to Snowshoe park is not represented. Potter Marsh area. This area is not a Neighborhood Commercial Center and should be noted as such. Potter Marsh would be well served by keeping the commercial areas aligned with the Natural history of the area. There is a strong community rejection of any fuel stations, Quik Stop like stores, grocery stores, liquor stores and strip mall type development. Considering the nature of the area and the purpose of the Bird Treatment and Learning Center it would be an ill suited area for most commercial development. The road system and topography will not attract folks coming down Rabbit Creek Rd, (average speed 50 mph steep hill and left turn) nor is it energy efficient to attempt to entice folks off the Seward Highway to purchase a bottle of water. Keep the commercial area to the areas already zoned commercial with access via the Old Seward Hwy only. Naming or branding the Potter Marsh area “Potter Marsh Commercial District” will only justify future calls for higher density because now there is a “commercial district” in “close proximity” to this part of the Lower Hillside. The idea that having a small grocery store there will reduce trips to Huffman Rd. is not realistic. Please note on page 2-30, Friends of Potter Marsh have expressed support of commercial use on the EXISTING commercial properties....associated with recreational uses at Potter Marsh. Call it Potter Marsh Wildlife District, Potter Marsh District, Potter Marsh Recreational District, anything but commercial district. The intent of the residents is to maintain the marsh, surrounding wildlife corridors and allow the Bird Treatment center to flourish NOT to create a “Commercial District”. Please note there is a Russian Orthodox Church on one of the lots shown as vacant on map 2.12, page 2-30 (next to the PLI-SL lot). Map 5.6 page 5-20. The Elmore Creek area, south of Rabbit Creek (water body) between Elmore Rd and N.Goldenview drive is a wetland and should be noted as such. The difficulty of building there is the standing water. After having attended all of the HDP public meetings, some CAC meetings and several community council and HALO meetings, I endorse the comments submitted by the Rabbit Creek Council and HALO, and thank them for their tireless work on providing a forum with which the area residents can funnel comments to this commission. | |
| Jacquelyn Morrissey | 6/4/2009 12:02:48 PM |
| I urge you to remove the proposed priority trailhead adjacent to the Grandview/Stolle subdivision from the Hillside District Plan Public Hearing Draft, and to revise the plan to include a trail from the Section 36 priority trailhead to public lands on the north side of Grandview/Stolle subdivision. The proposed Grandview/Stolle priority trailhead is in direct violation of the goals and policies of the Hillside District Plan (HDP). First, the proposed 30-150 car parking lot would be built on the top of a prominent ridgeline violating HDP Policy 7-B to “Establish new standards to reduce the visual impact of development on select, identified prominent ridgelines” (See map, HDP page 6-40), and HDP Policy 8-A to “reduce runoff from individual parcels and subdivisions,” compounding the Little Rabbit Creek drainage issues. The proposed Grandview/Stolle priority trailhead has never been identified on another trail plan or CSP access inventory, violating HDP Policy 10-A “The possible trail and trailhead network was developed by analyzing previously adopted plans, natural land features, legal access issues, and by gaining input from the public, agencies and landowners. The network seeks to balance the public desire for connectivity with private property owners,” and would not serve an existing trail or traditional access point without requiring hikers to walk on the road through the neighborhood to access the current access point in the area. Policy 10-B, “Provide a range of trailheads and parking areas to Chugach State Park, including neighborhood and auto-access trailheads” includes the “package approach.” Elements of this package approach are: to “…diffuse and spread use, and reduce crowding at any one location, “to “provide one or more, larger capacity trailheads at points that can handle crowds and more traffic without adverse effects on adjoining neighborhoods.” I recognize the need for increased access to Chugach State Park and the desire for trail connectivity as stated many times throughout the HDP and supporting documents, however, constructing a 30-150 car parking lot off of Honey Bear Lane would create an extreme impact on the Grandview/Stolle Subdivision, effectively sandwiching it between trailhead parking lots. Putting another trailhead parking lot a mere 1500’ from an existing area does not serve to “diffuse and spread use, and reduce crowding at any one location.” (HDP page 4-19) This neighborhood was platted in 1981; homes were built here over 20 years ago. This Priority Trailhead was not “planned prior to residential development so that all parties are aware of the proposed trailheads,” (HDP page 4-18) nor is it “intended to accommodate the significant auto-based demand in a way compatible with existing and future Hillside neighborhoods,” (HDP page 4-19) or to “direct traffic toward the main road network and away from local and private roads (HDP page 4-19). The current 5-car parking area has brought a huge increase in traffic on roads maintained year round only by the residents of Grandview Subdivision, roads heavily used by walkers and bikers. It has brought reckless drivers, extreme dust, constant trash including condoms, broken glass, and beer cans, noise, loose dogs, dog poop, overparking, vandalism, trespassers, partiers, guns, and fires to a small, established neighborhood. The HDP White Paper, Parks and Open Space – 9/27/07 offers as a solution that “the Traffic Department will very likely need to place “no parking” signs to discourage this activity, and the police department will need to monitor and ticket the street.” The addition of No Parking signs has only served to relocate the overparking further down the road and there has been no apparent APD monitoring or ticketing. The proposed HRDTSA offering “potentially available” state funding to help with maintenance” is just another hollow promise. “The right response to the problems at places like the Grandview Trailhead is to push ahead and rapidly add additional access points in other parts of the Hillside and Anchorage. By giving Chugach State Park users multiple options, access is dispersed across more destinations and the impact on any one road or neighborhood is reduced.” (HDP page 4-26) Per the current plan, a new road would be constructed from Honey Bear Lane to the parking lot. The grade is steep enough to require construction of switchbacks, which violates HDP Policy 14-M which states that “the general objective for all roads and trails is to minimize the extent of roads and the extent of cut-and-fill, particularly in steeply sloping areas. In addition, Honey Bear Lane, the one and only access road to Grandview Subdivision, runs through the single largest area of severe fire danger on the hillside, according to the HDP, Transportation, page 15. The current 5-car parking area has attracted partiers day and night, year round, since its creation. There have been several fires intentionally set in this neighborhood where the only escape is through the largest area of severe fire danger on the hillside. Another trailhead in the Grandview/Stolle neighborhood directly contradicts the goals and policies of the HDP and must be removed from the plan. I do strongly support CSP acquisition of the Brewster Homestead property as long as it is made into a manned facility similar to Eagle River Nature Center. The Brewster Homestead is located in a secluded area with multiple access routes and can handle a large parking area. However, opening that remote area without adult supervision would guarantee a hillside fire. I also strongly support a Clarks Road trailhead with a large parking area and connectivity between Section 36 and CSP along the ridgeline. The Clarks Road trailhead would be in a secluded area and access to the trailhead is via a state maintained, paved road. I strongly support the planned secondary access route between Clarks Road and Rabbit Creek Road as well. Finally, I support the proposed Rabbit Creek trailhead on publicly maintained roads, not adjacent to an established neighborhood , with a safe pedestrian situation, multiple access routes, and connectivity to CSP. Bear Valley is adequately represented with the addition of the Brewster’s, Rabbit Creek Road and Clarks Road trailheads. | |
| Bill Morrissey | 6/4/2009 11:41:03 AM |
| Remove the proposed Alpine Access Priority Trail head(PT)adjacent to the Grandview/Stolle subdivision identified on Map 4.4, Page 4-23 from the HDP. All of the negative events that we feared would happen with the 5 car parking area in our neighborhood have been realized and then some. Vandalism to our home, daily dumping of trash on the roads, large drunken parties, gunfire, fires during fire season, trucks tearing up the roads doing doughnuts, ill prepared teenagers stuck in the drifts blocking the roads and a less than appropriate response form the APD both in terms of a nonexistent patrol presence and ability to deal with the bad element when called. The addition of another large parking lot 1500 feet from the current one, accessed through our neighborhood, will destroy the reason for living there. Follow your own plan and spread the misery equally. | |
| Angela Pinsonneault | 6/4/2009 11:08:56 AM |
| Request to Remove the Proposed Alpine Access Priority Trailhead (PT) Adjacent to the Grandview/Stolle Subdivision Identified on Map 4.4 on Page 4-23 in the HDP I am an avid Chugach State Park user, and for just under ten years I lived in a part of town that does not have direct access to the park. In that light, I very much appreciate the need to establish Park access points for the benefit of Anchorage, the state of Alaska, and visitors. However, I am also familiar with the abuse of these access points, including a lack of care for the serenity of the surroundings, trash problems, vandalism, etc. Because of this, I feel it is important to both spread the access points across the park, place them in locations that have minimal impact on existing neighborhoods, and adequately supervise their use. As both a resident of Anchorage and a resident of Bear Valley, I feel that the priority trailhead proposed for the Grandview/Stolle Subdivision is highly inappropriate and violates several of the Hillside District Plan (HDP) stated goals, some of which include: General HDP Observations: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use, Policy 7-B and Chapter 6 Implementation, Policy 14-O: reduce visual impact of development on select, identified prominent ridgelines. The Grandview/Stolle Subdivision exists on a prominent ridgeline, visible both from the hillside as well as from many locations in Anchorage. A medium to large scale parking lot in this area, by the nature of the topography, would have a definite visual impact. 2. Chapter 4 Transportation, Policy 10-B: The “package approach” includes a) diffusing and spreading use, and reducing crowding at any one location, and b) develop larger capacity trailheads at points that can handle crowds and more traffic without adverse effects on adjoining neighborhoods. Regarding the Grandview Subdivision, the addition of yet another parking area will not diffuse and spread use, or reduce crowding at the location (there is already a parking area/access point there). It is also not an area that can handle crowds or traffic without a direct adverse effect on the neighborhood, including both the Grandview Subdivision itself as well as all neighborhoods along King’s Way, Snow Bear Drive, Black Bear Drive, and the west end of Honey Bear Drive. The Grandview Subdivision already hosts a public access point to the park, and the homeowners (myself included) have already been victimized by careless traffic (at ALL hours of the night), noisy and thoughtless visitors (again, at all hours of the night), vandalism to property, and theft. In addition, an PT at this location would not, in any way, direct traffic away from private and local roads – Honey Bear Drive, with the exception of a short distance at the west end, is a privately maintained road subject to erosion problems, heavy drifting, and expensive maintenance. 3. Chapter 4 Transportation, Policy 10-C: Under the natural setting trails discussion, “The right response to the problems at places like the Grandview Trailhead is to push ahead and rapidly add additional access points in other parts of the Hillside and Anchorage.” The addition of a second trailhead at Grandview, even larger than the first, will certainly not achieve the goal of spreading access points along the Hillside and Anchorage and seems to be in direct violation of the statement quoted from the HDP as noted above. 4. Chapter 6 Implementation, Policy 14-M: The general objective for all roads and trails is to minimize the extent of roads and the extent of cut-and-fill, particularly in steeply sloping areas. A simple review of Google Maps will show the casual reviewer that the topography of the Grandview Subdivision is not conducive to building a parking lot that would minimize the extent of cut-and-fill. Additionally, the area exists on an extremely steep slope, as well as being subject to 60-plus mile an hour winds on a frequent basis that would necessitate extra attention being paid to both dirt and snow drifting. General Neighborhood Observations: If one reviews the existing large and well used trailheads of Prospect Heights and Glen Alps, one will see that neither area is directly adjacent to any home. It’s also easy to see how many well defined trails already exist. Easy access and multiple choices await the family sightseer, the day hiker and the over-night camper. This is due simply to the natural topography of the area. The design of the Grandview Subdivision has already placed a park access point just a few hundred feet from a residence. The proposed new trailhead would not only bookend the neighborhood between trailheads, it would also be within just a few hundred feet of an existing home. Additionally, unless a costly landscaping endeavor is undergone, the natural structure of the Grandview Subdivision simply does not afford the myriad choices of trails that locations like Glen Alps and Prospect Heights provide. Most notable is the fact that there is really only one established trail leading up the mountain that already has a five car designated parking area. Imagine that this proposed new parking lot is built and becomes popular. Unlike Glen Alps, when there are 100 cars in the parking lot, it is easy to get on one of the many trails and lose yourself and everyone else in 20 minutes (unless you are climbing Flat Top, of course). Our "one trail mountain" will be akin to standing in line at the Post Office on December 24th. Unless a number of trails that don’t’ currently exist are physically established and maintained, this parking lot would funnel a large number of people onto one narrow, steep ridgeline. Another issue is the wear and tear on narrow, dirt, privately maintained roads. The Grandview Homeowners’ Association maintains all of the neighborhood roads including the main access road, Honey Bear Drive, with the exception of a few hundred feet of its west end. During the winter months homeowners are frequently up late at night and in the wee morning hours to plow accumulating and drifting snow. The addition of this park access would beg the assumption that the City would become responsible for road maintenance, however, in the winter months, when trailhead usage is at a minimum, is the City going to adequately and consistently maintain access (i.e. snowplow roadways and the parking lots and remove snow, including snowdrifts which frequently accumulate even when the snow is not falling so that roadway and possible homeowner damage is abated)? During the summer months, it is likely that the neighborhood will end up having hundreds of cars driving through winding, dusty, neighborhood roads. With the exception of Rabbit Creek and Clarks Road, the remaining roads are narrow dirt roads where kids play, people walk their dogs, and cars are just barely able to pass each other. These are NOT roads conducive to heavy traffic loads – even with the relatively small traffic load currently driving these roads, there are problems with washouts, potholes, washboard, etc. Additionally, in the two and a half years I've lived in Bear Valley, I have never seen a police officer patrolling our streets. I expect and would require frequent patrolling to commence should a large-scale parking lot be built. It is naïve to expect that every car visiting the parking lot to be filled with families showing relatives the sights or outdoors enthusiasts looking to get back to nature. I have personal experience as to the unsavory element such a facility attracts. Building a parking area in the heart of our neighborhood substantially increases the likelihood of property loss or damage to homeowners – we have already experienced an increase in these things as a result of the existing five-car trailhead and the dead-end road known as “Scar Road.” The Bear Valley Community Council has adopted a resolution in opposition of the proposed trailhead at Grandview Subdivision, and has offered several viable alternatives, all of which more closely comply with the stated goals in the HDP. I live in Anchorage for the economic and cultural benefits and the convenience it affords. It is the largest metropolitan city in the whole of Alaska. Yet, I chose to make my home in Bear Valley a little over two years ago for exactly the inverse reason. I've made my home there because of the solace and tranquility the area provides. The homeowners have worked hard to realize their dream of being able to live in a part of the city that affords them handy access to the amenities of urban life and the unspoiled outdoors. Our neighborhood is a special place to live and raise a family. Putting in a parking lot will reduce it from an unspoiled Alaskan sanctuary to just another part of the city where traffic constantly flows and noisy inconsiderate people do not respect the tranquility of the surrounding neighborhood. I know that there have been numerous public comments submitted on this topic both in the past and currently, and I hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission will approach the issue with an open mind and take into serious consideration the reasonable arguments and the alternatives being provided. | |
| Sharon McEntee | 6/4/2009 10:30:12 AM |
| As a non-resident user of the hillside access to Chugach State Park I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Hillside District Plan for the second time. The HDP plan of connectivity via a Chugach Rim Trail system (Map 4.4) is a great concept and could be a destination point for locals as well as tourists. However, the interruption of the proposed single track trail to use the subdivision road in upper Bear Valley from the existing Grandview access to a proposed large trailhead is inconsistent with this type of trail. The proposed primary trail from the proposed parking lot to the Rabbit Creek area (part of the Rim Trail) dives steeply down the backside of the hill to Rabbit Creek. Very few, to none, of the people who would be driving up to the proposed parking lot would use this trail. If people drive all the way up to the top of a ridge they aren’t going to hike down a steep hill to get to another area they could have driven to! A multi day hiking trail route such as the Chugach Rim Trail should be a first class trail that is talked about in hiking web sites and magazines around the country and should not go through an unwelcome neighborhood and be serviced by an unsightly ridgetop trailhead. The Rim Trail could bypass this area altogether by building a switchback trail down from the Grandview trail area to cross Rabbit Creek to the valley. Yes, it too may be steep, but experienced hikers with a Rim Trail destination in mind would be the users. The placing of what the plan calls a priority trailhead at the Grandview location is not necessary for the proposed Chugach Rim Trail and would actually detract from the trail due to it’s location on a ridgetop in an otherwise spectacular setting. I am surprised that a trailhead/parking lot would even be proposed for a ridgetop location. The only thing I can believe this trailhead would be used for is additional parking for day hikers to access the one and only trail available at Grandview through the neighborhood to the existing trailhead on the other side. I have hiked this trail several times as a pickup point from longer through hikes and it is already showing signs of overuse and degradation from the recent increased exposure. The second trailhead proposed at Grandview is not necessary and doesn’t make sense from the perspective of getting the most bang for the very limited buck. Sharon McEntee | |
| Scott Ingrim | 6/4/2009 9:48:02 AM |
| There are many Policies to address so I'm going to highlight just a couple. However there may be overlap into some of the unlisted policies. Policy 7-B: Establish new standards to reduce the visual impact of development on select, identified prominent ridgelines. Exactly how and at what cost do you propose to "hide" a large-scale parking lot in our neighborhood? I suggest you take a look at Google maps of the areas surrounding Prospect Heights and Glen Alps trailheads. Neither area is directly adjacent to any house and it's easy to see how many well defined trails already exist. Hence, their popularity. Easy access and multiple choices await the family sightseer, day hiker and over-night camper. This is due simply to the natural topography of the area. Unless you are proposing a costly landscaping endeavor, the natural structure of Bear Valley simply does not afford the myriad choices of trails these other two trailheads provide. Also, off Canyon Road there is already a well known, well used and direct trail to Rabbit Lake. This trail is suitable for all outdoor enthusiasts and ends far enough away from any house as to not disturb the existing neighborhood. Regarding our neighborhood, any structure or facility built that substantially increases traffic in this area will not be an improvement but will, in fact, diminish every aspect that makes the neighborhood special. The neighborhood in which we live, in which the State is proposing a new, massive parking area is very beautiful. That is why we chose to live there. It is not however, conducive to any more massive a public use parking area than is already there, for two simple reasons. The existing trail that is there a) only goes to one location and b) is not undemanding for the casual sightseer. I'm sure that many, if not most Anchorage residents have been to Flat Top. It is a relatively easy mountain to find, it is reasonably easy to climb and provides a nice view of the whole of our wonderful city. That is why people climb it in the numbers that they do. Many people I know climb it after work because it is accessible and easy enough to complete in a short time. It is essentially an outdoor stair climber. Our area though beautiful, offers nothing similar for the masses. Most notable is the fact that there is really only one established trail leading up the mountain that already has a five car designated parking area. Imagine that this new parking area is built and becomes popular. Unlike Glen Alps, when there are 100 cars in the parking lot, it is easy to get on one of the many trails and lose yourself and everyone else in 20 minutes, unless you are doing Flat Top, of course. Our "one trail mountain" will be akin to standing in line at the Post Office on December 24th. Unless you propose to physically establish and maintain a number of trails that don't currently exist, you are essentially building a parking lot to nowhere. Policy 10-B states exactly what will be accomplished by implementing this project; trash problems, disruption of neighborhood character, and wear and tear on roads. As I understand it, our community maintains or pays to maintain all of the neighborhood roads including the main access road, Honey Bear, with the exception of a few hundred feet of it's west end. During the winter months, when trailhead usage is at a minimum, is the State going to adequately and consistently maintain access, i.e. snowplow roadways and the parking lot and remove snow so that additional snow drifts don't accumulate and possible homeowner damage is abated? Essentially, with the construction of a new large-scale trailhead, is the State now going to completely maintain and improve the road leading to the trailhead, absolving the homeowners of the cost and responsibility? During the summer months, you'll end up having dozens, perhaps hundreds of cars driving through winding, dusty, neighborhood roads. With the exception of Rabbit Creek and perhaps Clarks Road, the remaining roads are narrow dirt roads where kids play. These are NOT roads conducive to heavy traffic loads. Unless you intend to widen, pave and fervently police these roads, you are looking at a maintenance nightmare. Additionally, in the two and a half years I've lived in this neighborhood, I have never seen a police officer patrolling our streets. I expect and would require frequent patrolling to commence should a large-scale parking lot be built. It is naïve to expect that every car visiting the parking lot to be filled with families showing relatives the sights or outdoors enthusiasts looking to get back to nature. I have personal experience as to the unsavory element such a facility attracts. Building a parking area in the heart of our neighborhood substantially increases the likelihood of property loss or damage to homeowners and will diminish not only the character of the area, but the home values as well. Would you want to buy a house next to a Wal-mart parking lot? Neither would I. I live in Anchorage for the economic, culture and convenience it affords. It is the largest metropolitan city in the whole of Alaska. Yet, I've made my home in Bear Valley for exactly the inverse reason. I've made my home there because of the solace and tranquility the area provides. The homeowners have worked hard to realize their dream of being able to live in a part of the city that affords them handy access to the amenities of urban life and the unspoiled outdoors. They have made wise choices and watched the value of their homes appreciate. Our neighborhood is a special place to live and raise a family. Putting in a parking lot will reduce it from an unspoiled Alaskan sanctuary to just another part of the city where traffic constantly flows, crime rates increase and home values plummet. Thank you. Scott D. Ingrim | |
| Dennis Miller | 6/4/2009 12:30:07 AM |
| The Miller family established a homestead above Potter marsh in the summer of 1958. We have continuouisly maintained a home there to the present, and have seen most all the changes on the hillside both good and bad. On about Dec. 8th, 2008, Dennis and Alyssa Miller met with Agnew::Beck LLC, Chris Beck to adress trails issues above Potter Creek and across Miller family land holdings. Referencing maps within the Hillside District proposed Plan, We deilvered a letter to Chris Beck, explaining the position of the Millers, which was/is public acess to any trails or across the Miller homestead has been denied since 1958, that no traditonal use trail exist for that reason. These trails, shown on the maps in the transportation section, were supposed to be removed from all maps, but are now included. The Miller family wishes to make clear that while we are receptive to possible land trades for trail easements in the future, The Southpointe subdivision,an approved platt, developed by the Millers and the Potter Creek Land Company, will not be involved in any trails, trail heads, or public acess. A copy of our corespondance with Agnew::Beck will be included in a follow up to these comments. | |
| Beth Terry | 6/4/2009 12:14:42 AM |
| If I were a potential home buyer and to look at map 5.6 on page 5-20, I'd come to the conclusion that I'd better stay the heck away from the entire Hillside because it's got a bunch of bad septic systems built in bad soil. The map shows only three categories; Somewhat Limited Soils, Limited Soils, and Very Limited Soils. And yet from having lived in Anchorage for 45 years and much of that on the Hillside, I know that we literally have thousands of onsite systems on the Hillside, the vast majority of which are working wonderfully. My own septic system is older than I am and is working very well thank you! And yet your map shows me to be in the second worst soil on the Hillside. Please dump this map, it is misleading, inaccurate, and will surely lead to lawsuits. | |
| John Trawicki | 6/3/2009 11:51:12 PM |
| Case Number 2009-090 June 1, 2009 Respond to: John and Cindy Trawicki, 9111 North Snow Bear Dr., Anchorage, AK 99516 The following comments relate to the potential development of a Trailhead in the Grandview/Stolle neighborhood. My comments address 3 topics of concern: appropriate terrain for expanded use within Chugach State Park for an access point of this size, degradation to the quality of life in the existing neighborhood, and appropriation of State and municipal funds to address all concerns. Park Terrain • The terrain within Chugach State park in the vicinity of the proposed expanded access is inappropriate for the size (30-150 parking spaces) of the access being proposed. • The topography is steep, with no simple connection to more user friendly terrain generally associated with larger park access points. • The trail “system” associated with this entrance currently does not exist. • Due to the topography and snow conditions, winter use is inappropriate except for those with knowledge and skills necessary to safely recreate in area of moderate to high avalanche potential. Other park access points allow user options of steep or flat terrain. • Road conditions to the access point are variable from season to season and without considerable improvement create a hazard to both residents and Park users. Degradation to the Quality of Life in the Existing Neighborhood • Roads in this neighborhood do not meet code, but under the current low traffic patterns residents in this neighborhood are amenable to the existing road conditions. If traffic patterns increase residential uses such as walking, running, walking dogs, biking, …. would be significantly degraded. Current road conditions would be un acceptable and significant road improvements would be required. • The grades of portions of this road are too steep resulting in vehicle speeds that exceed residential speed limits. • Drainage problems exist at several locations, creating winter driving hazards and summer potholes. • Neighborhood safety related to both road conditions and pedestrian use is a concern. • Increased vandalism and trash is a concern of local residents. • This trailhead appears to contradict the policies and provisions of the Hillside District Plan. Appropriation of Funds • A successful Park entrance at this location will require significant funding from both the State and the municipality. • At a minimum funding is necessary to acquire property and easements, construct entrance facilities, human waste facilities, construct trails, provide security, widen roads, improve road corners, improve drainage, install speed bumps or control speed devices, mitigate dust and traffic noise, add guard rails where needed. • Annual funding is necessary for trail maintenance, entrance maintenance, waste and trash removal, police patrols, search and rescue, road maintenance…… Please provide response to the following questions 1. What is the planned size of the park entrance? 2. Will entrance be maintained year round? 3. What is the summer and winter use expectations form this access point? 4. Has the avalanche hazard been evaluated for the expected use in this area? 5. Identify the hiking trails that will be constructed from this access point. 6. Have alternative road access been considered? 7. Have alternative access points been considered? 8. Will necessary road improvements be completed prior to initiating activities associated with the park entrance? (road widening, steep corners, grade, drainage, speed, dust, alternative access roads, ….) 9. Will increased police patrols be provided? And how will this be funded? 10. Will the municipality or State provide additional roadside litter clean-up? 11. Explain to the residents of this neighborhood how this trailhead is in compliance with the policies and provisions of the Hillside District Plan? 12. Please address where funding for the following activities will come from: • Winter Safety evaluation • Land/easement acquisition • Trailhead facility construction • Trailhead facility maintenance • Trail construction • Trail maintenance • Road improvements: widening, dust, speed, drainage, guardrails, potholes, steep corners… • Road Maintenance: plowing, potholes, drainage, speed bumps…. • Police patrols/ Park Law Enforcement patrols 13. Please explain why a park entrance with limited quality of use and is a high priority? Maintaining the existing small park entrance is appropriate for the terrain and road access conditions at this time. John and Cindy Trawicki 9111 North Snow Bear Drive, Anchorage, Ak 99516 | |
| Beth Terry | 6/3/2009 11:31:03 PM |
| I live in the BLM Lot neighborhood accessed off O'Malley Rd. by Pacer Pl. (just West of the zoo and Dimond H horse stables). Upon reviewing the HDP, my neighbors and I have noticed that map 4.1 (page 4-9) incorrectly shows 104th Ave. connecting between Our Rd. and Abbott Loop/Elmore Rd.. Map 3.1 (page 3-3) and map 5.3 (page 5-7) show the correct existing construction of 104th Ave. I am requesting that the HDP map be corrected and that ultimately 104th Ave. be left as it is. Our neighborhood does not want 104th extended, as it would have a very detrimental effect on our quiet, rural quality of life. 1) The link to Our Rd. is not needed by the neighborhood directly East of us as that area is essentially built out and already has exits to Birch, Abbott and O'Malley. The topography there (directly behind the zoo) is very steep and if constructed would create a winter driving hazard and would in my opinion, as a long time season pass holder, greatly diminish the peaceful, wooded ambiance of the zoo. If built, that section of 104th Ave. would save people only a few hundred feet of driving, and would take cars that now use O'Malley Rd. and put them through our neighborhood, with huge negative impact to us. 2) If the Muni should ever construct the mult-million dollar bridge to extend Abbott Loop/Elmore Rd. between Abbott and O'Malley, there will be a steep hill going from the bridge up to O'Malley Rd. If 104th Ave. is constructed at that end of our neighborhood, then I am afraid traffic will simply use 104th to avoid the hill in winter, and basically turn our neighborhood into an extension of Elmore Rd. Also, there is a home built in the 104th Ave. road easement near Abbott/Elmore. 3) This road link is not needed nor desired by the residents of our neighborhood. The roads in this neighborhood have been built by the residents as we have constructed our homes. In the last ~60 years, there has been no need for those connections. The neighborhood has ~30 homes with only five or six "extra" lots that could be built on in the future. The current road system is adequate and could easily handle six more households. The current narrow horse/bike/pedestrian trail on the Abbott/Elmore end of 104th could be improved slightly and used as a one lane emergency exit in case of wildfire, (let's face it, if they can't stop a wildfire at O'Malley Rd., there's no sense trying to battle it in our heavily wooded neighborhood, the only option would be for us to GET OUT!). I invite the P & Z Commissioners to drive up O'Malley Rd. and turn left on Pacer Pl. (just before Dimond H Stables). Observe how Pacer Pl. and 104th Ave. are used as a route for the sixty some horses at Dimond H to access the Ruth Arcand Equestrian Trails. See that five or six of the 30 neighbors own horses themselves, and that many of the other neighbors use our quiet rural roads for walking and biking (they also come from surrounding neighborhoods as they access Ruth Arcand Park and the HLB wetlands). It would be a shame to sacrifice this wonderful little rural jewel for the very limited benefit that an extension of 104th Ave. would bring. Every time someone new comes to my house, they say "I LOVE your neighborhood!" Why would you destroy that? Thank you for your time and consideration. Beth Terry | |
| Sean Holland | 6/3/2009 11:06:12 PM |
| Chapter 4 Policy 10A, 10B Map 4.4 Page 4-23 Remove the proposed priority trailhead located adjacent to the Grandview neighborhood from the map. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this next iteration of the Hillside District Plan. As I commented on the last, I support the plan in principle and hope that it will promote both responsible and somewhat predictable development of the Hillside. My major rub with the plan however has not changed and was commented on by over 25 others in the last iteration and is consistent with the Bear Valley Community Council's resolution regarding the same issue. I am adamantly opposed to the proposed Grandview “priority” 30 – 150 car parking lot. The parking lot is a major negative impact to the neighborhood and those residents on the proposed route to it. The planners and those that support the parking lot need to visit the site and put themselves in the position of the neighbors there. It will be clear to them that this parking lot will have a negative impact on an existing neighborhood that is unprecedented in the city of Anchorage . • The proposed location is in a treeless alpine environment on a ridgeline, there is no existing buffer between this priority parking lot and the neighborhood. • There is already one CSP trail easement with a parking lot that is approximately 1,500 ft away from this proposed lot. That trailhead, along with the unofficial trail access parking on “scar road”, is visible to all of the houses in the neighborhood. This 30 to 150 car lot would mean that each one of the neighbors could see two recognized trailhead parking lots from their homes; I cannot find this case to exist anywhere else in the city. • There is no other 30-150 car trail head parking lot in Anchorage that is as visible to a neighborhood, proposes access through a neighborhood or was constructed after the neighborhood was established as this proposed priority trailhead that I can find. • This plan includes an intrusion on an established neighborhood that none of the planners, nor members of the advisory committee, would propose, nor allow, in their own neighborhoods. The parking lot will end up in a neighbors back yard and be in view and earshot of every one of the lots and houses in the subdivision without exception. The parking lot is contrary with the stated goals of the plan and every other available planning document referenced in the HDP: • the Anchorage 2020 comprehensive plan states under Policy 46 – “the unique appeal of individual residential neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with applicable goals, policies, and strategies” • the Chugach State Park Trail Plan states “ future trailheads which are accessed through neighborhoods shall be of small and medium size to disperse use and limit traffic impacts on any one neighborhood” • the Chugach State Park Trail Plan (as footnoted in the Hillside District Plan) states “large trailheads serve very popular trails and access points…..planned prior to residential development so that all parties are aware of the proposed trailhead” • the Hillside District Plan contains language in Chapter 4 Transportation, Trail Network, that states trail and trailhead development “…. seeks to balance the public desire for connectivity with private property concerns”, and “….. avoid undesirable impacts to traffic and neighborhoods”. And under the heading Chugach Access states “Unwanted side effects of this increasing demand are also growing, including trash problems, disruption of neighborhood character, and wear and tear on roads”, and “….parking access points to diffuse and spread use…”, and “Alpine Access Priority Trailhead Improvements: Provide one or more larger capacity trailheads at points that can handle crowds and more traffic without adverse effects on adjoining neighborhoods,..” It is unclear what the proposed parking lot would access as there are no existing trails in the vicinity. If the intent is for users to access the one existing trail through the neighborhood, than that trail would sustain irreparable damage if accessed by the number of people accommodated by the proposed parking lot according to one trail expert. The terrain is too steep to hike down to Rabbit Creek for most users and the creek would be too difficult to cross for most as well. Construction of the parking lot would create a scar that would be visible from Flat Top Mountain , the Canyon Road Access as well as the peak of the trail that it intends to access. The Snow Bear extension, or "scar road" is an example of how visible the access road will be from the City. The road to the proposed access road, as well as the future access road itself, is relatively steep and gravel. These roads are difficult to maintain particularly with the traffic that a 30-150 car parking lot should invite. The CSP needs to stop putting these access points at the end of roads that are serviced by under funded LRSA's. I was very surpised to see the Flat Top parking lot paved this summer while the access continues to be band aided together by the LRSA. Is there reason to believe that this precedent will not be continued in Bear Valley? Residents of Grandview/Stolle should have reasonable expectations of residential development in their neighborhood through the years. They should not have been reasonably expected to foresee the development of a priority trailhead because it is inconsistent with the trailhead development that has occurred throughout the City and is contrary to every plan available. We have seen the recent development of the neighborhood access parking lot which did not exist before the neighborhood, it is certainly not reasonable to expect a second large parking lot to be built giving open views of two CSP access parking lots that will bookend the neighborhood. The planned "priority" parking lot will definitely impact both property values and quality of life. The Grandview/Stolle subdivision provides more than it's fair share of access through the posted parking sold as a 5 car lot but built to accommodate 20 as well as the unofficial “ Scar Road ” access point and parking area. This "priority" parking lot must be stricken from the plan. | |
| carol Nordeen | 6/3/2009 8:30:10 PM |
| My family has lived at this address since 1984, we have enjoyed the lovely quiet neighborhood for 25 years and believe that there would be no reasonable need to extend Pacer Place west toward Elmore. We presently spend many evenings walking through the section of Pacer Place that appears to be part of plan to upgrade the road to Elmore , when and if, it is actually extended to O'malley. Such a change would be very detrimental to our present quiet road. We like the lack of traffic, lack of noise, seeing the horses and bike riders and taking the children safely through this magical little trail. Please consider leaving things as they are. | |
| Steve Cloud | 6/3/2009 7:37:00 PM |
| I have lived here on Finley Cir. for 25 years. One of the things I have enjoyed the most is how quite our naborhood is. Right now 104th goes from Elmore about half a block, more like a drive way than a road, and the other half is a small trail used by people and horses. If 104th is made into a road we would loose the quite we have come to enjoy so much. All I can say is please don't widen 104th. Leave it the way it is. | |
| alan jeffries | 6/3/2009 1:21:04 PM |
| To the Municipality of Anchorage, My comments on the Hillside District Plan are as follows: 1. Policies 10-A, 10-B, and 14-C. The planned development of new trailheads for access to Chugach State Park will have adverse impacts to established neighborhoods on the hillside, specifically in the Bear Valley area. Existing roads are not adequate to accomodate increased traffic. The Municipality and CSP will also have to address the following: increased maintenence requirements on neighborhood roads (currently funded by LRS funds), dust, noise, crime, vandalism, winter traffic hazards, visual impacts, and impact to property values. Policy 10-B Section 2 is contradictory. Providing larger capacity trailhead development near/in established neighborhoods is not possible without adverse effects. 2. Increased CSP access via the Brewster homesite and/or the Grandview/Stolle area is not pratical due to steep topography, inadequate drainage, and treacherous winter road conditions. Priority should be given to improvements to existing trailheads such as Prospect Heights and Glen Alps. Also, there should be discussion of the Stuckagain Heights area for CSP access in the report even though it may be outside the study limits. Thanks you | |
| Robert Doucette | 6/2/2009 7:42:11 PM |
| My family has been at this address sence 1977, it is the part of 104th Ave that is west of Pacer Place and east of Elmore. One of the main reasons we built our house here was to get away from traffic, the noise it causes, speeding cars, etc. This section of 104th has a lot of use by people with horses, joggers, children on bikes and people walking to the multi use trail system off Elmore. Any changes made to 104th to facilitate traffic from Elmore would drasticly change our neighborhood, our lifestyle and the safty of pedestrian traffic on 104th. The map for this section of 104th shows a dark blue line (secondary-existing) and starts at Elmore and runs east to Birch Rd. This is an existing right-of-way but is not an existing street. 104th dead-ends about three lots east of Elmore, then starts at Carlson Rd and continues east to two lots east of Pacer Place. Myself, my family and all the neighbors I have talked to want it to stay this way or construct a cul-de sac before Elmore but do not connect to Elmore. Another consideration is that Pacer Place could not handle the increase in traffic generated by connecting 104th to Elmore. Pacer Place has only a right-of-way on the west side of the road at the intersection with Omally (and north for about 500 ft). Why would you even consider changing our neighborhood? Nobody who lives here wants any changes to 104th. Please don't do it. | |
| Gordon Kuykendall | 5/27/2009 6:20:08 PM |
| I have several concerns about the "primary trail" (red) designation still shown along Rabbit Creek, in the area from Buffalo down to the inlet. Per the 1986 Draft Rabbit Creek Greenbelt plan, it was stated: "From Buffalo St. to Potter Marsh, there would be no formal trail development; bike trail provisions should be made along DeArmoun Road ". That has already happened, yet the map in this year's proposal has not been updated to reflect this. I lived with a bike path abutting my back yard when I owned a home on Karen Street. The trash, beer bottles, yelling and kids partying at all hours finally drove me to move. (I also had an outboard motor stolen right off the boat in my yard.) The proposal to put a path in such remote areas as Rabbit Creek runs through is very short sighted and shows no consideration for the homeowners who live along the creek. The creek is about 35' from the corner of my house. The seclusion would encourage noisy partying, vandalism, litter, trespassing and burglary and the homeowners will be the ones to have to live with it. I do not envision the APD chasing deliquents down the creek trail, on foot in the middle of the night. In an area like this, the will have carte blanche to do as they will. Four consecutive homeowners/neighbors of mine all feel the same way about this. The only reason it's not more than four is because those are all I have talked to about this. | |
| Peter Johnson | 5/14/2009 2:08:20 PM |
| My comment concerns Map 5.6: Locations where some individual parcels have a history of wastewater system challenges. I live in Loma Estates. Much of my subdivision is blanketed by a grey box indicating that "some onsite systems there have proven to be an expensive challenge to construct". This catagorization is far to broad for our subdivision. While there may be specific lots that have had difficulties, these difficulties are related to the specific geology of those lots. There is a great deal of terrane in Loma Estates and this impacts where groundwater is near the surface and where it is far below the surface. On our lot for example, our well did not reach groundwater water until about 100 feet below the surface. A lot down the hill from us, hit water in the top 30 feet and that water was under pressure, flowing out the well bore as an artesian well. While that lot required a mound septic system, our lot passed perk tests wherever attempted. The map therefore does not accurately depict the onsite conditions of our neighborhood. The implication of the grey box is that every septic system under that box is suspect.In the future,This may impact how our lot is perceived as adequate for onsite septics. My recommendation is to more specifically define the potential problem areas and draw the map to reflect the reality of the situation. Alternatively, writing a note to the map stating that under each of the soils catagories individual lots may have specific constraints due to the geology and will need to be evaluated for suitability for on site systems. | |
| Thomas Adams | 5/7/2009 11:33:44 AM |
| The subdivision that I live in, was designed to direct all the spring run-off into a ditch easment in my yard. The problem is - the easement ends at the back of my lot. It has flooded my yard and leach field, and would have come into my house if I had not worked on it daily through spring breakup each year. I don't see any symbols on the maps to indicate future improvement in the vicinity of this ditch easement. Do you have a schedule of when north boundary of HDP (my area) will be addressed? When HDP addresses watershed/drainage issues near the north boundary of the plan, I don't want to be over looked. Thanks, Tom Adams | |