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. | |
|---|---|
| daniel hofmann | 3/20/2013 9:41:48 AM |
| I am for ALL the changes to Title 21 put in by the Sullivan administration and their consultant Dan Coffey. Many Title 21 regs that were "hammered" out over a ten year period were put in by activist enviornmentalists and NIMBY's. Normal working people who are raising children do not have the time for this public activism. That is why we are a Republic. We elect the people we want to make this decisions. We do not want the "mob" that fills the room to decide things. They say the Sullivan Title 21 changes are not what the people want. Untrue. The changes are for more economical land use. The development of our city is for US - the renters, the home buyers, the shoppers and the business owners. These changes will foster capitalism and help us citizens who are very busy by giving us good values in our land use. | |
| Gary Hickling | 5/21/2012 2:25:39 PM |
| Little Rabbit Creek is in my back yard. I do not support increasing the creek set back to 50'. That is a lot of land that will become non-usable. Anchorage has a very limited amount of land and this will only make the problem worse. | |
| claudia bieber | 3/19/2012 11:00:41 AM |
| As a 33 year resident of the Rabbit Creek Community I want to oppose the addition of a school facility to the Rabbit Creek Community Church. The church initially was orginally "sold" to PNZ, Rabbit Creek Community, and neighbors adjacent to the church as a small neighborhood church. Title 21 needs to provide for non-residential uses in large lot neighborhoods. As of this date church well tests and useage have caused neigboring homes to have well failures. This information was provided to PNZ. There is no municipal water or sewer to the property. Traffic and life safety issues for Rabbit Creek residents have not been addressed. Church leaders are the only ones professing a need for a school facility. Church neighbors have opposed expansion plans for several years, but plans continue to get passed by PNZ without regard for future outcome for residents of Rabbit Creek. | |
| michael kenny | 3/18/2012 7:59:59 PM |
| March 18, 2012 Re; PZC Case 2011-104 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members, Engineering and building require standards and principles assuring structural integrity; whether a fishing shanty or skyscraper. In a functioning democracy, integrity is also crucial to a lasting structure. For instance if our voting process lacks integrity our governing structure will soon lack legitimacy. This Community has followed a democratic public process in hammering out the Title 21 rewrite over the past ten years. It has not been easy. Sausages were encased. Compromises were hard fought and won. But the process followed the agreed upon ground rules, had integrity and produced the Provisionally Adopted Title 21 rewrite (PZC Case 2011-104). In a backroom, Consultant Dan Coffey accomplished much of what Assemblyman Dan Coffey could not in the publically produced Provisionally Adopted Title 21.This lacks integrity. Many if not all of these proposed mayoral amendments are the result of Mr. Coffey’s consultation. From my vantage point, it appears that these amendments are intended to benefit narrow special interests over the community’s quality of life. I support the specific recommendations contained in the Anchorage Citizens Coalition comments as concerns these proposed amendments. Procedurally, the commission can propose new amendments after public testimony closes. It is my understanding that the commission could then disregard the public on new amendments to the entire code. Such actions will drain integrity completely from this ten year public effort. That is simply unacceptable. Sincerely, Michael Kenny 17016 Aries Ct. Anchorage, AK. 99516 | |
| HALO, Inc Home And Landowners Organization | 12/2/2011 5:03:06 PM |
| The HALO public meeting of Dec 1, ’11 devoted considerable time discussing proposed changes to the provisionally adopted Title 21 Rewrite. Only four changes that would directly impact land in the HALO area were discussed. HALO, Inc is a non-profit organization formed in 1968 as an advocate for land issues effecting Southeast Anchorage. HALO’s boundaries encompass eight community councils. HALO’S recommendations follow. A. 21.03.020C Meetings HALO recommends changing the proposed wording to the following: c. The applicant is encouraged to shall use as its first choice the community council(s) meeting of the project area as the community meeting when the community council(s) meeting is available. If the community council(s) meeting for the project area is not scheduled in a timely manner, the applicant shall organize a community meeting. If the project area spans more than one community council and the applicant chooses to attend community council meetings, the applicant shall attend the community council meetings of all applicable community councils. B. 21.03.210 Code Amendments HALO does not support the proposed change and urges the inclusion of Planning and Zoning Commission review of all changes to Title 21, including, especially, within the first two years after passage of Title 21. C. 21.07.020 Stream Setbacks HALO stresses adherence to the Hillside District Plan. Maintain 50 ft setbacks per the intent of the Hillside District Plan (HDP). In its goals and implementation steps, the HDP frequently cites the importance of streams and specifically states that 50’ setbacks are required. Concerning Development Standards, the HDP states: Watercourse protection: Natural watercourses are the backbone of the Hillside drainage system. Actions are needed to maximize the protection of this important function, for drainage as well as other environmental goals. Wherever possible and practicable, stream corridors shall be further protected to ensure their natural function and contribution to the Hillside drainage and recharge system. Methods of protection are outlined below, in order of most protected to least. ... Setbacks: Minimum setbacks for watercourses identified on contemporary Municipality of Anchorage mapping shall be fifty feet horizontally from the ordinary high-water mark on each side of streams, and ten feet horizontally from the edge of each side of drainageways. Protection and maintenance easements can also be applied in this situation. ... Per the Wetlands Management Plan, the requirement for a 65-foot creek setback comes from the wetlands designation and is still required if the stream runs through a wetland. If it does not run through wetlands, then the 50-foot setback would be applicable. (HDP pages 6-30 and 31) Also, • Watercourse Setback ... Streams shown on Map 2.11 are current as of December 2007, with 50-foot setbacks, described on page 6-30. (p. 2-47) The HDP anticipated that these requirements would be implemented through Title 21: Setback standards adopted through this plan will be established in Title 21 of the municipal code. When that is done, any legally existing structures, disturbances, or uses that would be in violation of the new setback would be considered legally nonconforming (i.e., grandfathered) as of the date of the setback ordinance and would have rights to exist into the future in their existing condition. (p. 3-15) The HDP mentions setback requirements in Title 21 with the clear indication that the Provisionally Adopted 50’ setbacks were expected to remain. Other improvements (in Title 21, Chapter 8) include new requirements for developer performance guarantees and requirements for the identification of stream channels prior to the submittal of preliminary plats. (p2-31) The HDP recognizes the extensive public support for protecting the natural environment: The natural and recreational qualities of the Hillside, its wildlife, large areas of undeveloped lands, close contact with nature, dark night skies, parks, and wilderness trails are treasured by both Hillside residents and visitors. The public expressed strong support for protecting these qualities, maintaining the integrity of the area’s natural environment and rural character, and improving recreational opportunities. Maintaining water quality is a priority, particularly protecting well water and Potter Marsh.(p2-38) The HDP has an entire chapter on drainage issues and solutions and specifically calls out existing regulations (i.e. a 25’ setback) as inadequate: Causes of Drainage Problems Development affects runoff by disrupting natural drainage systems. Some natural drainage ways and wetlands have been damaged or diverted by land development. Remaining wetland, streams, and natural drainage ways provide vital storm water management functions but currently are not managed to serve this function on a sustainable basis. (p. 3-2) Existing regulations and drainage design criteria do not adequately address these and other unique conditions of the Hillside and are not always adequately enforced. Existing development built to old standards in conjunction with newer, denser development has a cumulative effect on downstream drainage and the potential to create or exacerbate drainage problems. (p.3-4) D. 21.07.110.E Standards for All Single-Family Residential Structures HALO urges the adoption of the provisionally adopted text for design standards for single family homes. | |