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. | |
|---|---|
| Suellyn Wright Novak | 6/2/2012 8:23:54 AM |
| I am Suellyn Wright Novak the property owner of 10558 Old Eagle River Rd ( Lot 5 Block 1, Eagle River Heights). This great country and state was founded on landowner rights but that fact is being overrun by the municipality, in what appears to be a huge boondoggle, and waste of our taxpayer money. We who are impacted have attended two meetings and voiced our concerns and stated almost, if not, to a person, that Option 2 was what we could deal with. But lo and behold since the muni wanted Option 3 all along we now have to live with it? This certainly makes the meetings look like eyewash and only for placating owners into thinking we actually had input and rights? Seems to confirm the old military saying "when you're up to your fanny in alligators, you tend to forget your original objective was to drain the swamp!" The original objective on Old Eagle River Rd was only to remedy the drainage engineering mistake made when the Hidden Hills Subdivision was created. How did it then become a re-engineer our road project? It has created delay and consternation to have to work with the state to fix the ditches but we've lived with that for years, why did that have to morph into this huge boondoogle to get the muni to take over maintenance? Who wins? The bike/walking path on the east side of Old Eagle River was placed there to handle "human traffic" from the subdivision off Meadow Creek and then Hidden Hills and is heavily used. The School pays a crossing guard to safely get the students across a busy feeder at the school Having children walking on both sides of the road is ridiculous and certainly imperils them at sites without guards. Your tearing up our yards to relocate utilities and all that associated mess destroys our rural look and takes away the very trees for which I bought the property. We do not need lights and sidewalks on the west side of the road, tearing up property and adding more trash (I personally pick up along the current path between Firehouse Lane and the MTA Building several times every spring & summer). We are a rural area that wishes to remain so. We are in the first subdivision in Eagle River, allow us to maintain our rural look, act on option 2 we selected in your public meetings, and stop this waste of our taxpayer monies! Suellyn Wright Novak 10558 Old Eagle River Rd Eagle River AK 99577 | |
| Jennifer West | 5/21/2012 10:39:11 PM |
| Previous unanswered email sent to "Stakeholders" on 12/1/11: I am a resident of Old Eagle River Rd. Our basement has sustained substantial damage due to the drainage issues in the area. Since we are supposedly still in the data gathering stage and just entering the planning stage of the OERR project, I wanted to voice a few concerns and ask a few questions. I hope to receive a more informative answer than, “that is a problem to be solved.” There are numerous problems with this entire deal, but since I have been instructed that my concerns need to be compelling and need strong justification such as public safety, I will concentrate my efforts there. First, I completely understand that having pedestrian facilities on both sides of the street is a “collector road standard,” but what is the actual benefit of having a sidewalk on the west side of OERR? I have yet to hear/read any reason that a sidewalk is needed, only that OERR has been deemed a collector road and what the collector road standards are. The draft report mentions several times that there are only a few old homes and few residents on the west side. Why do these few residents, none of which attend the elementary school, nor want a sidewalk in front of their homes, need a sidewalk? As I mentioned, none of the residents on the west side attend Eagle River Elementary. (If my children did attend the school, I would have them go through the gate in our backyard directly onto school property as previous residents on the street have done.) That means that 100% of the students walking to and from school on the west side will cross over OERR to get home. Children are now directed to safely cross OERR in front of the school and with a crossing guard onto the east side. The east-side path is the “safe route to school,” not the street, and not the west side. Pedestrian facilities on the west side of OERR would create hazardous conditions for the children walking to and from school as it would force them to unsafely cross OERR past the school zone and without a crossing guard. Several pedestrian driveways on the west side create additional safety problems for anyone using a sidewalk on the west side. As the report has mentioned, there is a significant amount of traffic on OERR. Although the speed limit is 25mph, the average speed is at least 32mph. Many of the driveways are sloped downward and due to the amount of traffic and traffic speeds, it is necessary to enter the road rather quickly when backing out of driveways. With snow berms and limited visibility, it would be perilous for anyone trying to cross a driveway if there was a sidewalk on the west side. CRW’s draft report and brochure make it sound like the west side residents are only concerned about losing trees and littering, this is not the case. True, no one wants a sidewalk next to their front door, even if it is in the public ROW, but the real issue is whether a sidewalk on the west side would be a benefit or a danger to the community it serves. Upgrades to OERR will increase the amount of traffic and vehicle speeds, consequently increasing risk of accident and injury. Adding pedestrian facilities to the west side will additionally increase that risk. The real stakeholders, the residents and the school, are not in favor of this. So again, my question is: What is the benefit to having a side walk on the west side? I am asking all individuals involved in the planning/design process to come out to OERR during peak hours; morning and evening rush, before and after school. I invite you to pull in and out of my driveway (10726, 4th house, half way down the road) and see for yourself the safety concerns. You have my permission to forward this email to anyone that has interest in this matter. Thank you in advance for your concern. | |
| Chris West | 5/21/2012 10:29:07 PM |
| We are residents on Old Eagle River Road, and our basement has sustained substantial damage due to the drainage failure of Hidden Hills subdivision on more than one occasion. We are greatly concerned about numerous aspects of this "improvement" project. The most important, and overarching issue is that the residents who have been, and will continue to be, most impacted by this project are being ignored. The reports to date have been completely biased and very misleading. Open Houses and comment forums have been set up to try to appease the residents, but our voices are not being heard. Alternative #3 is being submitted as the preferred plan, however that is not at all the preferred choice of the stakeholders with the most "at stake." Although Alternative #2 appears least damaging, it also is not the preferred choice. The safest, least invasive, most economical, eco-friendly, most logical, and therefore preferred alternative is to only "improve" (correct) the drainage issues on the east side of the street and to leave the west side alone. Alternative #3 includes a pathway on the east side of the street and a sidewalk on the west side. Currently, the drainage ditches on the east side, although unsafe, do provide storage for snow in the winter. Once the ditches are removed, snow will accumulate on the west side. Assuming a sidewalk on the west side will actually be maintained, the cleared snow would encroach on private property on the west side. There are also major safety concerns with including a sidewalk on the west side of the street. At this time, 100% of the students attending Eagle River Elementary live east of the school. Having a sidewalk on the west side would leave pedestrians (children) using the sidewalk without a safe place to cross over OERR and would put them in harm’s way crossing the driveways on the west side. The path on the east is adequate and sufficient for pedestrian traffic and a Westside sidewalk is unnecessary, financially irresponsible, and hazardous. (Please see additional comment with previous email regarding safety concerns.) Furthermore, it is unclear how any of the alternatives will solve, or even improve, the runoff problems by installing the drainage system on the west side. If drainage is installed on the west side, water will cross over Old Eagle River Road creating constant wet and icy conditions on the surface of the road. There will also be no barrier to prevent water from gushing down sloped driveways and into residents' homes. The bottom line: Runoff from the east side needs to be contained on the east side. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. I trust that the reports and drafts will carefully be considered with all comments in mind. | |
| MERRY ADAMS | 5/4/2012 10:03:18 PM |
| I have been an Eagle River resident since before Statehood. There have been many changes over the years and not always for the better. It seems like more and more residents' rights and concerns are being ignored. It is not right that persons who don't live in an area where their decision is going to affect others do so without hearing the residents' concerns first. I don't believe the concerns of residents who live on the West Side of Old Eagle River Road are being addressed. 1) All we have ever requested was the drainage system be fixed as it should have been from the beginning when Hidden Hills Subdivision was built. 2)Recent years' flooding was preventable. 3)School children's safety is being ignored. I lost a child myself and I hate the thought of another parent having to go through what I did and still do because the children's safety disregarded. 4)All we have received to date is lip service. 5)With so many projects needing attention there is NO REASON to spend an exorbinant amount of money on unneeded things. Thank you. | |
| Joe Anne Vanover | 5/4/2012 9:55:34 PM |
| With all due respect to everyone working to improve old Eagle River Road, you are not putting the safety of children first. Almost all children live on the east side of Old Eagle River Road. The sidewalks should be kept on the East Side of the Old E.R. Road as there are no driveways that have to be backed out of on that side. It is essential that the drainage system be fixed so that homes on the West Side are not flooded at any time. | |
| Dana Adamsp | 5/3/2012 9:41:49 PM |
| As a resident of 10820 Old Eagle River Road, I am opposed to the proposed construction plans to our street. I feel that the work should be done ONLY on the East side of the street, and the West side should be left as is. There are a number of reasons, the safety of the children walking to school, the drastic shortening of driveways other problems that will no doubtedly arise. thank you for your consideration in leaving our pleasant neighborhood as is, as we have all requested. | |
| Paul Wilkins | 5/3/2012 6:59:54 PM |
| Note: We did not see our comments posted in this on-line comments section, but had emailed them in earlier. To maintain consistency, I've included our comments here also. March 28, 2012 Chairwoman Connie Yoshimura and Ms. Ferguson, Planning and Zoning Board 4700 Elmore Road Anchorage AK 99507 My family has resided on the West side of Old Eagle River Road, for over 20 years, and has been negatively impacted by the introduction of the Hidden Hills subdivision, predominately in the form of periodic uncontrollable runoff water. Ultimately, that subdivision’s runoff eroded portions of our home’s driveway, and resulted in an over $8,000 cost to replace our driveway and add barriers to divert water. Now, a new road project is heading towards a likely result of again negatively impacting my family, now in the form of channeling vandalism, trash, animal waste, and noise from across the road, into my family’s front yard. It also is poised to create life and safety problems along with spending an additional $200,000 to install a sidewalk on the west side of Old Eagle River Road. To compound matters, if you read the Old Eagle River road web site, given the lack of active voice in the comment ( at http://www.oldeagleriverroad.com/ ) you would be inclined to believe the majority of stakeholders want a sidewalk in my front yard, and the front yards of the 7 homes on this side of the road. However, that could not be further from the truth. Their statement, “Based on stakeholder comments received to date, recommendations from CBERRRSA, and the requirements of current MOA Design Criteria, a preliminary preferred alternative for the OERR Upgrades has been identified: Alternative 3, Typical road section with separated pathway on the east and attached sidewalk on the west. This Preferred Alternative will be included in the Draft Design Study (DSR) Report for additional stakeholder comment and presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission.” is misleading, in the case of “who” prefers that alternative. The reality is – from what we are able to learn - the municipality project managers are the driving force behind that determination; none of whom have been negatively impacted by the Hidden Hills problems, will have to deal with all inconveniences during the construction, will lose parts of their yards to an unnecessary sidewalk (we have all lived without one for as long as we have been here), will have a snow storage area in their front yards, will have vandals within feet of their front doors (yes – we don’t have a large wooden fence protecting us from sidewalk travelers, as does the East side of the road), will have children or family member’s safety negatively impacted by that decision, and create the opportunity for man against vehicle accidents as West side residents are backing and driving out of their driveways. To be clear, my family is not in favor of option 3 at all, but we do agree with option 2 (which includes a West side walkway only from the grade school to Monte Road), for the following important reasons. First, there is real a life and safety issue, in more than two specific areas, associated with installing a sidewalk on the West side of Old Eagle River Road, from the grade school towards Firehouse Lane. Currently, children leaving the grade school have a crossing guard at the school and reduced speed limits, which allow them to cross the road and safely walk towards Hidden Hills and Meadow Creek areas. However, if this project adds a sidewalk on the West side, it would encourage small children to simply “take a right” out of the grade school, and then end-up stranded on the corner of Firehouse Lane and Old Eagle River Road. That is a busy unguarded intersection, without reduced speed limits or warning signs. That unguarded intersection poses an unnecessary hazard to children. In addition, while traveling on a West side sidewalk, towards Firehouse Lane, travelers would have to cross at least 7 driveways. However, on the East side sidewalk\pathway, there are none – there are only marked streets with stop signs. This places West sidewalk travelers (more times than not who would be children) in jeopardy, and also introduces a new hazard to West side home owners, as they drive into and out of driveways. For the one, or possibly two children that might at some point live in one of the few homes on the West side of Old Eagle River Road; once the huge, eyesore of the East side ditch is removed – part of this project – they would be able to cross the road, within the straight road area that is vacant of obstructions, to reach the sidewalk\pathway. Also, any current data relating to counts of individuals walking on the West side of Old Eagle River road, should be considered unusable and skewed by the facts that there is a huge, three foot deep, ditch separating the East side walkway and the road. That ditch prevents even my family from crossing the road to access the current walkway. However, with that ditch removed, it will be simple to walk across the road to a sidewalk on the East side. Unfortunately, no current West side residents want to take the existing East side pathway, only to be stranded on the other side of that ditch. Additionally, the proposal suggests using a West side sidewalk as a snow storage area. If done, what use is a sidewalk at all on the West, since in the most extreme weather, it would be clogged with snow and unusable. Secondly, we do not support spending more near or more than $200,000 (reference the three options within the draft design alternatives, and a visible Roads and Sidewalks difference of $200K between the option 1 or 3 in comparison to option 2) to install a West side walkway, from the school towards Firehouse Lane, or being responsible for recurring maintenance costs in the form of increased property taxes. Table 7 – Summary of Estimated Construction Costs Improvement Category Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Road & Sidewalk Improvements $2,614,983 $2,416,595 $2,581,387 A new sidewalk will introduce new and continuing maintenance costs when snow removal is already a challenge, if not already neglected. A West sidewalk would also move vandals, trash, dog waste, and noise into my family’s front yard, and the yards of my neighbors. To understand that concern, all you have to do is take a look at the boards that are routinely kicked-out of the privacy fence that runs between the homes on the East side of the road and the current sidewalk\pathway, the trash thrown on the sides of that East side walkway, and all the dog waste. Thirdly, it is unnecessarily harsh to visibly take land from homeowners on the West side of Old Eagle River Road, to install a sidewalk. Considering homeowners are already impacted by the road easement, it’s generally punitive to use a project that has its origins under the idea of correcting the Hidden Hills drainage issue, which is already negatively impacting homeowners on the West side of Old Eagle River Road, and use that project to further negatively impact those same homeowners, via a decision of municipality groups that are not impacted by these problems. Also, understanding one of the six stated project goals is to “Minimize impacts to private property” and creating a sidewalk and snow storage areas in home front yards does not meet that goal. Finally, there is an issue with my home’s well being in the “right of way”, and also some trees we value also being in the path of this project. However, we are told we will be able to negotiate a resolution concerning the removal of that well and connection of our home to “city water” to overcome that obstacle. Also, we realize we’ll lose a few trees in the process. Overall, as Alaskans and residents of Eagle River, and living on the West side of Old Eagle River Road for over 20 years, we expect a human side to government. A human side that does not cause us, and our children, continued and future harm. Ultimately, we ask for your assistance to help us gain a move away from the Alternative 3 option, and adoption of Alternative 2, which does not add a pathway or sidewalk on the West side of Old Eagle River Road, between the school and Firehouse Lane. Respectfully, Paul and Yvette Wilkins 10806 Old Eagle River Rd Eagle River, AK 99577 wilkins@gci.net 696-1990 | |
| Dana Adams | 5/3/2012 4:28:26 PM |
| As a resident of Old Eagle River Road and being directly affected by the road improvement project this case # refers to, I strongly oppose the plan as is. I feel the proposed updates should be ONLY done on the East side of the road as there are too many negatives to any west side improvements. The safety of the children that walk to Eagle River Elementary is foremost in my mind along with a host of other concerns. Thank you for your consideration | |
| Helen Sharratt | 4/27/2012 5:37:20 PM |
| Below find an email I sent to the representatives on April 14, 2012. I have been told in response that that it is too early in the process to request a variance or appeal the unnecessary, ill advised, unsafe, wasteful and destructive expense of taking all the right of way on the west side, and putting in a sidewalk and lighting. We asked for under pavement storm drainage to be constructed and pathway improvement on top on the East side. As pointed out by another resident, the response to our complaint about the flooding (caused by the MOA's failure to require the Hidden Hills developer to upgrade drainage systems during the development) is apparently to damage us further, by giving us something we do not want or need, and which will create safety hazards, noise and light pollution, and decrease property values. In these times of financial shortages with all projects that should take precedence, this is an embarassment. $5.6 million on this small stretch of road for an MOA/SOA handshake? Surely some serious questions should be being asked! We do not need any more development than the drainage being fixed and a better pathway put over it on the east side. That could all be done, without ANY development at all on the west side. In other words, even Alternative 2 goes too far and is unnecessary. Good Evening, Please provide me with the process for requesting a variance to the proposed design (Alternative 3) Please also let me know the format, and deadline for submitting the variance request, now that an alternative has been proposed – I believe this request is now timely. There are compelling public safety reasons as well as significant private property impacts in support of a variance request. I understand this design to be exactly what the MOA preferred from the beginning, before spending what must be a significant amount of public money on a “concept sensitive” solution in which input was solicited from taxpaying residents and which was at best deemphasized and at worst ignored. Chugiak-Eagle River Long Range Plans identify this as a residential collector street, not an urban collector. The Plans emphasize land access and residential use of the street over mobility. It is also noted in the Guiding Documents that collectors are not expected to change substantially in character. If you look at the street now, and then look at what is proposed, I fail to see how this is not a dramatic change in character, affecting school children’s safety, increased noise and light pollution, a reduction in property values through the loss of mature trees, and buffer/privacy. A key policy in the Chugiak-Eagle River Plan for transportation is to “minimize impacts of transportation projects such as noise and air and water pollution” and “to give full consideration to preserving the existing rural lifestyle”, to “minimize light pollution …” including not having light shining onto neighboring properties – which having street lights on both sides of the street, despite the fact that it is a small, narrow street will exacerbate. Much has also been made of this street as a safe route to schools, but the report fails to mention that it is the east side of the street, with the pathway from Meadow Creek and Hidden Hills to the crossing area/guard at the elementary school that is so designated. It is not the west side. Further, in this process the “ASD expressed concern that, if pedestrian facilities are installed on the west side of the road, students may cross at intersections to the south of the school where there is no crossing guard. Potential crossings at Fire House Lane are a concern because it experiences relatively high traffic volumes”. As I understand it, Alternative 3 is going to be forwarded as the preferred plan to the Commission. I respectfully disagree and wish to request a variance be put forward to the Commission May 7. Please tell me what I need to do. I understand that the process requires that a variance request must go to the project engineer through the project manager. I believe Dean is the project manager, but I do not know who the project engineer is, or if there is a particular required format and time line/deadline for the variance submission. Therefore, I am requesting this information be provided to me early next week. Please note that the only part of the Final Concept Report that is virtually illegible due to its size and positioning are the Comment Summary pages – the comments submitted by those affected in the area, and not government officials. I would hope that the Commission will be given these comments - as well as this and all subsequent emails on the variance subject – in a size and format that actually means that they can be read and taken into account before a final decision is made on the fate of our little residential street. I know that Senator Dyson has also questioned whether it is a good use of funding and prudent to spend this amount of money on this relatively small part of a much larger problem with traffic flow at this end of Eagle River. Has that been addressed? I would also like to know, with reference to the Site Walk with Assembly Representatives memorandum (October 7, 2011) what is meant by: “there is sufficient right of way to construct a typical collector without impacting private property”? There may be a new requirement to create a “street lighting district” - to be investigated further? “Consider purchasing properties to accommodate drainage and minimizing impacts to the neighborhood”? What properties? What was this conversation, and if the MOA really believes 1. above is the case, why was there discussion about buying property and impact to the neighborhood? I believe the details of any conversation with our elected officials on this or any other date should be made public. Debbie has written to me about that site walk, but she is the only one. Thank you. Helen Sharratt | |
| Barbara Hendricksen | 4/24/2012 10:26:42 AM |
| Barbara Hendricksen 10520 Old Eagle River Road Eagle River, AK 99577 (907) 694-3505 hendrick@pobox.alaska.net April 24, 2012 Municipality of Anchorage Planning Division Community Development Department P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Attn: Planning & Zoning Commission Comments for Matter 2012-049 Draft Design Study Report Old Eagle River Road Upgrade Dear Commission Members: My name is Barbara Hendricksen and I am writing today on behalf of myself and my husband Bob Martin. I sit at my computer , in our home at 10520 Old Eagle River Road, where we have lived for 30 years. I am lucky enough to have moved from a log house in Anchorage to a log house on a creek in Eagle River; I am aware of my good fortune. In the introduction to the above-referenced report, there is a photograph taken from the May 2011 neighbor walk-through, the first chance for many of us to hear first-hand what “improvements” to Old Eagle River Road (“OERR”) were going to mean to our lives. Ours is the home directly across from where we are standing in that photograph, so if you look down OERR, you will see trees of similar type, age and stature to the ones who stand vigil in our front yard, and have done for decades. My impressions from that walk-through last May are these: that there is pressure to upgrade OERR to “collector” status as that term is defined in city code, and that such upgrade is an essential part of a deal between the city and the state, who is anxious to turn over maintenance and control of OERR to the Municipality. The timing for this improvement seems to correlate with two foreseeable, and I suspect, completely avoidable events: the developer of the Hidden Hills subdivision was allowed to “develop” its formerly heavily treed lots, many of which slope downward toward OERR, and without sufficient run-off mitigation practices in place, i. e. trees left standing to absorb the water, the result was that basements in homes on the west side of OERR began to flood. These residents complained to their community council, wanting solutions from their city, and as our tour guides on that first walk explained to us, the beginnings of the “improvement plan” were born. I understand my neighbors’ frustrations. I certainly would hate it if my basement flooded every spring (those big trees in our front yard really help with that) and I want a solution that helps my neighbors solve their drainage issues. But after reading the report, the irony is not lost on me that the very people who dared to ask their city to help them with their flooding problem (recognizing that the city played a considerable role in facilitating their flooding problems) are now going to be the very people who will lose the most if either alternative #1 or #3, as currently drafted, is adopted by this body. Make no mistake about it, even a 5 foot attached sidewalk on the west side of OERR (which by the report’s own admission will be used substantially for snow storage during the winter/school year) will forever change the properties on the west side, while providing very little benefit to the pedestrians of the neighborhood. The west side already holds a lot of snow each winter and in my observation, the school children, most of whom access the current bike path from dense neighborhoods on the east side, do what any sensible person would, they walk on the cleared, east side path until they get to the cross walk in front of the school. I am informed that “collector” status requires sidewalks on both sides of the street, as well as street lights. As I understand it, the Road Service Board has voted in favor of Alternative #3, which is described as a “hybrid option to balance between the first two alternatives. ” Under Section F “Lighting”, the report states : “Roadway lighting is required on all roadways in urban-zoned areas and is optional in rural-zoned areas. “ Lighting systems are intended as “enhancing traffic and pedestrian safety.” Two points here: 1) it sounds like if we are required to have the west side sidewalk, the existence of that sidewalk will trigger a street lighting requirement on the west side; and 2) there is general agreement in the report that the further north that you travel on OERR, the more urban the road becomes in its business aspects, and as you near the intersection at which OERR is truly a “connector” to Monte. This suggests that the closer to the urban end of the road one travels, the more that pedestrian accommodation and roadway lighting are required. Conversely, the further south that you travel, the more rural in description and feel the road becomes, reducing the requirement for pedestrian facilities and lighting . Based on the goals that the planners seek to accomplish and the data about current road and path usage described in the report, our preferences in descending order of support are as follows: First choice Sidewalk : We wholeheartedly support Alternative #2, which would provide for a west sidewalk where it is most needed, particularly if the plans are for it to continue around Monte and onto Eagle River Road. That is truly a dangerous place to be a pedestrian. Improvements planned for the east side sidewalk look attractive and will make for a nicer, safer walkway. First choice Lighting: Make whatever lighting improvements are necessary for the new sidewalk from the new Eagle River Elementary cross walk to Monte, as appropriate in an urban setting, where business and other buildings are usually vacant at night. Leave the west side alone south of the new cross walk- there are new lights across the street that are sufficient. In addition, this will help to retain the rural feel of the street and contribute to the quiet, wildlife viewing area that is planned for the path across Meadow Creek. At 25 miles/hour and with existing lighting, OERR is not a danger to drive at night. Second choice Sidewalk: We propose a further hybrid of Alternative #3 that would terminate the west side sidewalk on the north side of Fire Station Lane. A new crosswalk is already proposed for that intersection. The current alternative #3 proposes to extend the sidewalk to Baranof, in front of the four houses that exist on that side of the street, extending in front of the completely vacant lot between Meadow Creek Drive and Baranof. Possible future development of the vacant acreage is one of the reasons for extending the sidewalk on this very sparsely populated side of the street; We argue that substantial changes will come to OERR if and when a significant development to the south end is imminent, and sidewalk can be added at that time. It is just as possible that the improved sidewalk on the east side will be determined more than sufficient to handle increases in pedestrian users from an as yet to be imagined development. Second choice Lighting: We propose that additional street lighting on the west side south of Fire station Lane to Baranof is unnecessary. If some street lighting on the west side is required, we request that all available dimming technology be employed to reduce the intrusion of light into people’s private spaces. Lastly, if unable to prevail on the either of the above two options, we prefer alternative #3 to alternative #1. We are grateful to learn that this alternative includes plans for the road to be re-engineered specifically to minimize impacts on people’s front yards and mature vegetation. That effort is very appreciated. We are thankful to Enstar for being willing to abandon its existing gas line and relocate it further east. All of these things are worth noting. Can our trees survive the excavation and construction involved with alternative #3? I don’t know. That they will be put at risk, there is no doubt. How alternative #3 solves my neighbors’ flooding problem is also not entirely clear to me but I look forward to learning more about it. I promise my continuing interest and attention to this project. I think important issues are stake about a neighborhood’s relationship with its city government and about what road improvements really mean to those most affected by them. For us personally, these proposals are enough to send our hearts to our throats. Not only do we want to celebrate that public trees reduce energy demand, offset carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality, and mitigate storm water run-off, but we also want to give voice to the fact that our front yard trees have become friends. We water and feed them. We have watched birds nest in them. We have heard squirrels scold from their dark branches. When the wind storms come howling in from the east, as they almost always do, those trees, with their magnificent height and strength bear the brunt of those winds and direct them away from doing harm to us. It is a win-win. We owe them no less than to be their fiercest advocates and we will be. With all due respect for the difficult job that your Commission does, please keep their continued good health in mind at every stage of this planning process. Please find ways to improve the road and drainage while minimizing sidewalk/street lighting disruption for residents on the west side. The proposed modification to the east side sidewalk are more than sufficient for a modified OERR to move its traffic north to Monte. Thank you for listening. Kind regards, Barbara Hendricksen Robert Martin | |
| Debbie Ossiander | 4/20/2012 10:17:27 AM |
| I believe the city needs to respect long time residents when streets are upgraded and improved. The impetus for this project was to fix a drainage problem...not to add another sidewalk in what is now people's front yards. I do not support the chosen alternative. I believe alternative 2, a walkway on one side, is the best approach. My view is based on attendence at virtually every community meeting on the project and many discussions with impacted neighbors. | |
| Jose Vicente | 3/14/2012 5:27:04 PM |
| I find it unbelievable that anyone would project the cost of the project to be as shown on the March 14 report. Please, assume that this was a street in a single family zoned parcel of land zoned R1. Add the exhorbitant costs that consultants/MOA estimate for water and sewer and add all the other utility costs. Assume that there are 2 lots per each 75 feet of street and determine the improvement costs per lot. It is tragic! And it is extremely disapointing! Somewhere there is a lot of ignorance or incompetence. With these costs nobody would be able to afford a single family lot in this community. | |